Best Point Gamma Source in MCNP simulation?

In summary, the article discusses the selection of the best point gamma source for Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) simulations. It emphasizes the importance of choosing an appropriate gamma source for accurate modeling and effective radiation transport analysis. The discussion includes various factors such as energy spectrum, intensity, and geometry that influence the performance of the gamma source in simulations, ultimately guiding users in optimizing their MCNP setups for specific applications.
  • #1
Salman Khan
33
2
TL;DR Summary
Point gamma source in mcnp
When I simulate a point isotropic gamma source in mcnp usually number of particle histories to the tally region (let say a detector placed at 30 cm from point source) is much low (few hundreds only) as compared to actually particle histories (1.0E7), Will it be correct if convert isotropic point source to a cone source so that I can increase number of particle histories towards tally region?.
Thanks every one in advance
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is 1/r^2 for radiation, and you will get a flux of around 885 per square cm per 1e7 source particles. (Think surface of a sphere).

A cone shaped beam can work, a parallel beam could also work, set a VEC and DIR=1. The Compton scattering would still be modeled well but it might be worth checking if the background from the rest of the flux affects your result. Can you change what you are modeling to be more efficient or are you replicating a real experiment that has already been done?
 
  • #3
Alex A said:
This is 1/r^2 for radiation, and you will get a flux of around 885 per square cm per 1e7 source particles. (Think surface of a sphere).

A cone shaped beam can work, a parallel beam could also work, set a VEC and DIR=1. The Compton scattering would still be modeled well but it might be worth checking if the background from the rest of the flux affects your result. Can you change what you are modeling to be more efficient or are you replicating a real experiment that has already been done?
I just want to model my problem more efficiently by entering more possible particles to the tally region to reduce statistical error. As we know mcnp gives answer per particle that is why I want to enter more particle to the region of interest so that I can get more accurate result. M I right ?.if not please suggest thanks
 
  • #4
Yes, you are right.

But why 30cm? Why not closer?
 
  • Like
Likes Salman Khan
  • #5
Alex A said:
Yes, you are right.

But why 30cm? Why not closer?
Yes you are right I can decrease distance to further improve results. But what will I do if distance of source and detector is 30 cm in an experimental setup, here the only choice seem to me is to convert point isotropic source to a conical source.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top