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.