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

None 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)
Re: Disagree Re: highly un reasonable positron penetration depth in Fe. (LowEnergy, Penelope and default) (Or Chen)
Date: 30 Jul, 2008
From: michel maire <michel maire>

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.
> 

 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 ]