MCNP PTRAC filters

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on modeling an HPGe detector to analyze downscatter contributions to a Ba-133 spectrum, specifically using a PTRAC card to filter scattering events in a Ta4C3 shield. The user seeks clarification on whether the energy parameters E1, E2, and ERG in the manual refer to particle energy at the time of scattering or tally. There is a mention of not receiving any events in the PTRAC file during simulations. Another participant suggests using F8/F6 tallies and PHL for similar analyses, emphasizing the potential for coincidence and anticoincidence to create a Compton suppressed spectrum. The conversation highlights challenges in understanding the tools and methods for accurate spectral analysis.
MadGander
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

I'm modeling an HPGe detector and want to determine the amount of downscatter that contributes to a Ba-133 spectra. I'm using a PTRAC card to filter scattering events that occur in my Ta4C3 shield that contribute to tally 1 (surface fluence across the front face of the detector). I want to further narrow down the events down so that only particles within a certain energy range in tally 1 are considered. In my case, the manual isn't clear whether the E1, E2, ERG entry would correspond to the particle energy at the time of scattering or at the time of tally. Input deck is linked below.
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
I get no events in the ptrac file when I run that. Is that successful for you?

I don't know ptrac. I would try to do this sort of thing using F8/F6 tallies and PHL. I don't fully understand that either, but you get coincidence and anticoincidence when done right and this can be used to plot, for example a Compton suppressed spectrum.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
831
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top