|Message: Re: charge exchange model for proton induced spallation||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
Hello again Vladimir,
Yes, they do that and it does make sense. However, they present different models results: Binary Cascade alone (BIC), PreCompound alone, Charge Exchange alone (CE), but also BIC + CE coupled together using SteppingAction to avoid double neutron counting.
For this BIC+CE results, they actually have two sets of results: one using standard Geant4 BIC + CE models, using the available cross-sections for the two models, namely the Gheisha cross-sections for the CE model, and a second set of results where for the same BIC+CE models selection they use the ENDF proton data.
What I have noticed was that for the BIC+CE standard models (without ENDF data), it is not possible to reproduce their results.
I quote below the only reply I have received from the authors giving additional informations not mentioned in their papers:
"In our work, by modifying two member functions (the "BuildPhysicsTable" and the "GetElementCrossSection") of the G4ChargeExchangeProcess class, we used the corrected Geisha elastic cross-sections. In other words, we modified the "G4HadronElasticDataSet". The choice was made after several benchmarks. We found that if we use the original Geisha elastic cross-sections, the neutron yield for En = (32 ~ 33) MeV would be ~6.3x 10^9 (1/MeV/sr/microC), which is about 10 times larger than our results."
The same thing I found, i.e. using the standard Geant4 models and (Gheisha) cross-sections one cannot reproduce their published results (the ones without ENDF data). And I really don't know what they mean by "corrected Gheisha cross-sections".
If anyone knows what they could mean by this, please let me know.