Message: Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default) Not Logged In (login)
 Next-in-Thread Next-in-Thread
 Next-in-Forum Next-in-Forum

Disagree Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default) 

Forum: Physics List
Re: Question highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default) (Or Chen)
Re: None Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default) (michel maire)
Date: 29 Jul, 2008
From: Or Chen <Or Chen>

yes but when they calculate it they add 0.5*detector->GetAbsorSizeX(); which in this case is 50*um.

The way I see it, this brings us back to 20*un, Or am I missing something with the meaning (or importance) of this addition?

P.S.

I took the whole physics of that example and applied it to an Iron box geomety, took the z position of the end of the positron's track as the penetration depth and still got about 20*um.

Thanks' Or Chen.

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

1 None: Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default)   (Or Chen - 29 Jul, 2008)
2 None: Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default)   (michel maire - 30 Jul, 2008)
 Add Message Add Message
to: "Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default)"

 Subscribe Subscribe

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


[ Geant 4 Home | Geant 4 HyperNews | Search | Request New Forum | Feedback ]