|Message: Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default)||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)|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:41:30 GMT, Or Chen wrote:
> yes but when they calculate it they add 0.5*detector->GetAbsorSizeX(); > which in this case is 50*um.
the origin of the track is not at x=0.0, but x=-0.5*AbsorSizeX (see PrimaryGeneratorAction)
Run TestEm11 and visualize few events. Or, at least, run one event with : /testem/phys/setCuts 1 km (to prevent d-rays production) /tracking/verbose 1
and analyse the output
> > 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. >