Cs-137 radioisotope source

Continuing the discussion from Discrepancy with Cs-137 radioisotope source:

Versions

Please provide the used software versions.

FLUKA:4-5.1
Flair:3.3-0.3

Cs_issue_17_tab.lis (45.1 KB)

Cs_issue.flair (898 Bytes)

Cs_issue.inp (1.1 KB)

I have scored the energy spectrum in a region (target filled with Be) for Cs-137 decay. Due to some reason it extends beyond the Q-value. Kindly explain.

Hi @akardeepak

Could you please include in your.flair file the scoring that you are using to produce the plot?

Cheers,

Jerzy

i have already included it.

For convenience I am again including it (unit of X-scale is 1/keV). The similar behaviour was observed with flair 3.4-3 also.

Cs_issue.flair (1.8 KB)

Okay, so there are two things:

  • You give a kinetic energy of 3 MeV to your primary Cs137 beam.

  • I think that what you see with theDETECTcard can actually be betas + gammas, everything that is deposited within one primary history.

    However, I tried to change the primary energy to 0 and look at the DETECT scoring again and the tail is still there, so at the moment I am not sure why would it reach up to 3 MeV and potentially more, to be investigated.

When using a USRTRK with a DCYSCOREassigned in semi-analoge mode, the spectra look like this.


with a clear cut-off at the Q-value.

Cheers,

Jerzy

The primary energy is in fact ignored when ISOTOPEis requested, sorry for the confusion! Yet I still have to find out what is happening there with the DETECTcard.

I cannot understand the peaks around 500-600 for electrons using USRTRK with DCYSCORE. I have simulated for 662 keV photons in identical condition. The electron spectra are attached for it (they don’t have these peaks). I have attached the flair and lis files also.

Meanwhile is there an alternative way to generate energy spectra as DETECT output doesn’t seem to be satisfactory?

Cs_issue.flair (2.7 KB)

662_21_tab.lis (61.1 KB)

662_22_tab.lis (61.1 KB)

662_23_tab.lis (61.1 KB)

662_24_tab.lis (61.1 KB)

Hi @akardeepak

Sorry for the late reply! I will have a look again at your question next week.

Best,

Jerzy