Gaussian Energy Broadening tally

AI Thread Summary
Measurements of 137Cs, 60Co, and 133Barium were taken 5 cm from a detector and simulated using the MCBEND program, focusing on comparing dose rates and spectra. The user seeks guidance on applying Gaussian energy broadening in MCBEND and is unsure how to proceed despite reviewing similar studies. They have data in Excel with graphics but need help determining the necessary parameters. It is suggested that measuring the full width at half maximum (FWHM) for known peaks will provide essential data for analysis. The discussion emphasizes the importance of real source measurements to optimize the fitting process for the parameters.
gxa
Messages
24
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
FWHM-Gauss Energy Broadening
I took measurements by placing 137Cs, 60Co, and 133Barium 5 cm away from the detector and simulated this with the MCBEND program. First, I compared the dose rates. Now I want to compare the spectra. I examined similar studies. They explain the way to go, but I am not exactly sure how to do it. I have this on Excel. There are graphics. I would be happy if you could help me on what path to follow.I want to apply Gaussian energy brodening in the MCBEND code. What do I need to do to find the parameters here?
1695039036480.png
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
I'll give this my best shot. I think you need to have measured the real source for all those cases. I think you would measure the FWHM - that is the width of the peak half way up - for every known peak. That would give you the data you need.

From that it probably wouldn't be too difficult to solve for a, b and c such that the mean square difference is minimised.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top