Why am I seeing a discrepancy in photon energy when doping ZnS:Ag in MCNP 6.1?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the discrepancies observed in photon energy generation when simulating ZnS:Ag in MCNP 6.1, particularly focusing on the expected photon energy of around 3.1 eV versus an observed spike at 4.8 eV. Participants explore the modeling of scintillation processes and the limitations of MCNP in accurately simulating low-energy photon production.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the simulation generates photons but questions the accuracy of the energy levels, specifically mentioning a discrepancy with the expected 3.1 eV.
  • Another participant suggests that the default cutoff in MCNP is set to 1 keV and questions whether the user has adjusted it to 1 eV, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the material input.
  • There is a discussion about MCNP's limitations in modeling visible light and scintillation, with one participant explaining that MCNP lacks the necessary routines to accurately simulate these phenomena.
  • One participant mentions using a specific command to produce 1 eV photons and adjusting the resolution of tally bins, but still encounters issues with photon energy generation.
  • Another participant references a report suggesting a minimum cutoff around 12 eV, proposing that the observed peak at 4.8 eV may result from a lack of energy loss mechanisms in the simulation.
  • There is a shared sentiment regarding the inadequacy of MCNP for low-energy photon simulations, with one participant expressing disappointment over the inability to observe photon production in different scintillator materials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the capabilities of MCNP regarding low-energy photon simulation. While some agree on the limitations of the software, there is no consensus on the exact reasons for the observed discrepancies in photon energy.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the modeling of scintillation and low-energy photons may not be well supported in MCNP, and there are unresolved questions regarding the appropriate cutoff energies and material input configurations.

nrat320
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
How to create material to produce photons
I am a new user of MCNP and I am trying to generate photons in ZnS:Ag through electrons as my source particle. My simulation as it is now creates photons however they are not right. For example ZnS:Ag should create a lot of photons with energy of around 3.1eV. However I see a spike around 4.8eV which is not right. Because of this discrepancy, I think I am not doping ZnS with Ag right. My material input can be seen below. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

m1 30000 .45 47000 .05 1600 .45
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to physicsforums!

Default cut off is 1kev, so I'm guessing you are using a card to set that to 1ev? Btw I assume 1600 is a typo.

Thing is, MCNP has no real understanding of visible light. It has no way of telling it if the lattice is in the cubic or wurzite form, and no routines to work out scintillation if you could specify it.

The usual way to model a scintillator is to have a tally tell you how much energy a particle deposited into the cell of that composition and work out the pulse size from that. So it typically might be an F8 p,e with a large number of energy bins. You can tell it to blur the result a bit or you can do that in the interpretation step yourself, the FWHM resolution depends on how the light is collected of course.
 
nrat320 said:
TL;DR Summary: How to create material to produce photons

m1 30000 .45 47000 .05 1600 .45
So one has Zn, Ag, S, and the fractions add to 0.95?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alex A
Alex A said:
Welcome to physicsforums!

Default cut off is 1kev, so I'm guessing you are using a card to set that to 1ev? Btw I assume 1600 is a typo.

Thing is, MCNP has no real understanding of visible light. It has no way of telling it if the lattice is in the cubic or wurzite form, and no routines to work out scintillation if you could specify it.

The usual way to model a scintillator is to have a tally tell you how much energy a particle deposited into the cell of that composition and work out the pulse size from that. So it typically might be an F8 p,e with a large number of energy bins. You can tell it to blur the result a bit or you can do that in the interpretation step yourself, the FWHM resolution depends on how the light is collected of course.
thanks for the the reply!

I have used the commands below to indicated to MCNP I want to produce 1eV photons as well.
cut:P j 1.0e-6 $1eV

I have also narrow down my resolution of the tally bins the the range below.
e26 0 198i .000010

In have read in the report "LA-UR-12-21068" that is possible to create photons in the eV range through the use of plib. But from what I understand form your message, MCNP just does not have the right physics to create low energy photons.
 
Astronuc said:
So one has Zn, Ag, S, and the fractions add to 0.95?
At some point, I was just playing around with the weight fraction to see it it had effect. But it did not. I did try fractions that added up to 1. but same result.
 
LA-UR-12-21068 recommends a minimum cut off around 12ev because the energy loss mechanisms stop working under this. That might be what your peak is, a build up of photons at 4.8ev due to no loss mechanism. MCNP wasn't designed to do this stuff, so the physics models are missing.
 
I thought the 12eV cutoff was for electrons. But I think you are right that the physics for low energy wavelength is not well structured in MCNP. Which is disappointing since I wanted to observe photon production in different scintillator/phosphorous materials.

thanks for your insight!
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Alex A

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
876
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K