Message: Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha Not Logged In (login)
 Next-in-Thread Next-in-Thread
 Next-in-Forum Next-in-Forum

Feedback Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha 

Forum: Processes Involving Optical Photons
Re: Question Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha (Wolfgang Lukas)
Re: Feedback Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha (Gumplinger Peter)
Re: Question Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha (Wolfgang Lukas)
Date: 02 Jul, 2009
From: Gumplinger Peter <Gumplinger Peter>

> a) is there a practical difference between "polishedbackpainted" and

> "groundbackpainted" with "prob_ss = 1.0"?

no, prob_ss = 1.0 turns 'ground' into 'polished'

> b) ... and "groundbackpainted" with "prob_sl = 1.0" + "sigma_alpha =

> 0.0"? (I just found out: this should be treated exactly as the case

> above)

again, no, sigma_alpha = 0 turns 'ground' into 'polished'

> c) is there a practical difference between "dielectric_metal" +

> "polished" and "polishedfrontpainted"?

no

> d) I am biasing my scintillation yield down from 9200 to 92 photons/MeV

> and weight my results to save CPU time. Is that too much? It looks good

> to me, though.

this question is for you to decide; it'll depend on the statistics you require to maybe see subtleties

> However, that will only make sense if I define a physical air gap and

> set the "specular lobe" & "sigma_alpha" for the back surface, right?

yes

> Because with a "painted" surface it would affect the front interface

> (scintillator-gap) ...

with the "painted" option the reflector is always Lambertian either as a backup to a gap or directly on the scintillator.

Inline Depth:
 1 1
 All All
Outline Depth:
 1 1
 2 2
 All All
Add message: (add)

1 Idea: Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha   (Wolfgang Lukas - 22 Sep, 2009)
 Add Message Add Message
to: "Re: Optical Surfaces and Sigma_Alpha"

 Subscribe Subscribe

This site runs SLAC HyperNews version 1.11-slac-98, derived from the original HyperNews