Niowave 9-2015 - Revision history

Foretony at 14:39, 13 April 2016

2016-04-13T14:39:21Z

Foretony at 14:37, 13 April 2016

2016-04-13T14:37:55Z

Foretony at 14:34, 13 April 2016

2016-04-13T14:34:07Z

Foretony at 14:32, 13 April 2016

2016-04-13T14:32:09Z

Foretony at 21:47, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:47:01Z

Foretony at 21:24, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:24:03Z

Foretony at 21:20, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:20:00Z

Foretony at 21:09, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:09:07Z

Foretony at 21:08, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:08:30Z

Foretony at 21:07, 12 April 2016

2016-04-12T21:07:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 13 April 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Progress ~~Report,~~ September 2015	+	Niowave Positron Project Progress for September 2015

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 13 April 2016
Line 31:		Line 31:


−	Below are the momentum distributions observed for both electrons and electrons using MCNPX.	+	Below are the momentum distributions observed for both electrons and electrons using MCNPX. The 10 MeV electrons loose a mean energy of about 3 MeV traversing the 2mm thick PbBi target. The incident 10 MeV electrons produce Brehsstrahlung photons as traverse the PbBi target. These photon will produce electron-positron pairs within the PbBi target material. The positrons below escape the PbBi target and have a momentum between one and two MeV.
		+
		+
	Electrons:		Electrons:

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 13 April 2016
Line 31:		Line 31:


−	~~The spatial~~ distributions observed ~~appear below~~	+	Below are the momentum distributions observed for both electrons and electrons using MCNPX.
−
−	~~Electrons~~ and ~~Positrons after 2mm of LBE:~~
−
	Electrons:		Electrons:

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 13 April 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:


−	Simulations were performed to predict the efficiency of producing positrons using a Lead-Bismuth target and a 10 MeV incident electron. MCNPX and GEANT4 were used to predict this efficiency in an effort to benchmark the results. Niowave performed a simulation using MCNPX and ISU used GEANT4. A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4) is shown in the table below. The two simulation packages appear to be consistent with each other.	+	Simulations were performed to predict the efficiency of producing positrons using a Lead-Bismuth target and a 10 MeV incident electron. MCNPX and GEANT4 were used to predict this efficiency in an effort to benchmark the results. Niowave performed a simulation using MCNPX and ISU used GEANT4. A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4) is shown in the table below. The two simulation packages appear to be consistent with each other for some thicknesses.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 12 April 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:


−	Simulations were performed to predict the efficiency of producing positrons using a Lead-Bismuth target and a 10 MeV incident electron. MCNPX and GEANT4 were used to predict this efficiency in an effort to benchmark the results. Niowave performed a simulation using MCNPX and ISU used GEANT4. A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4) ~~indicates that they were~~ consistent.	+	Simulations were performed to predict the efficiency of producing positrons using a Lead-Bismuth target and a 10 MeV incident electron. MCNPX and GEANT4 were used to predict this efficiency in an effort to benchmark the results. Niowave performed a simulation using MCNPX and ISU used GEANT4. A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4) is shown in the table below. The two simulation packages appear to be consistent with each other.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 12 April 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:


−	A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4)~~. in both simulations, a beam of 10 MeV electrons impinged a target of PbBi~~.	+	Simulations were performed to predict the efficiency of producing positrons using a Lead-Bismuth target and a 10 MeV incident electron. MCNPX and GEANT4 were used to predict this efficiency in an effort to benchmark the results. Niowave performed a simulation using MCNPX and ISU used GEANT4. A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4) indicates that they were consistent.

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Electrons:
-[[File:e01.png| 200 px]][[File:e02.png| 200 px]]
+[[File:e01.png| 400 px]][[File:e02.png| 400 px]]
 Positrons:
-[[File:p01.png| 200 px]][[File:p02.png| 200 px]]
+[[File:p01.png| 400 px]][[File:p02.png| 400 px]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 12 April 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Progress Report, September ~~2016~~	+	Progress Report, September 2015

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 12 April 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Progress Report, September 2016
		+
		+
	A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4). in both simulations, a beam of 10 MeV electrons impinged a target of PbBi.		A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4). in both simulations, a beam of 10 MeV electrons impinged a target of PbBi.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-mm thick PbBi, 10 MeV,  point source
+A comparison of the positron production efficiency predictions made by MCNPX and G4beamline (GEANT4).  in both simulations, a beam of 10 MeV electrons impinged a target of PbBi.
@@ Line 11: / Line 5: @@
 | PbBi Thickness (mm) || #positrons/million electrons (G4Beamline)|| #positrons/million electrons (MCNPX)
 |-
-| 1    ||1138,1154,1097,1159,1125 =1135<math>\pm</math>25 ||
+| 1    ||1138,1154,1097,1159,1125 =1135<math>\pm</math>25 || 1091
 |-
-| 1.5    || 1668,1701,1639, 1644, 1628=1656<math>\pm</math>29 ||
+| 1.5    || 1668,1701,1639, 1644, 1628=1656<math>\pm</math>29 ||1728
 |-
-| 2    || 1937,1930,1851,1874,1945=1907<math>\pm</math>42  ||
+| 2    || 1937,1930,1851,1874,1945=1907<math>\pm</math>42  || 1984
 |-
-| 3|| 1889,1821,1852,1809,1859=1846<math>\pm</math>32 ||
+| 3|| 1889,1821,1852,1809,1859=1846<math>\pm</math>32 || 1986
 |-
-| 4||1726,1696,1673,1693,1681=1694<math>\pm</math> 20 ||
+| 4||1726,1696,1673,1693,1681=1694<math>\pm</math> 20 ||  1858
 |-
-| 5|| 1566,1543,1546,1625,1566=1569<math>\pm</math>33 ||
+| 5|| 1566,1543,1546,1625,1566=1569<math>\pm</math>33 || 1646
 |-
-| 6|| 1549, 1486,1564,1545,1452=1520<math>\pm</math> 50 ||
+| 6|| 1549, 1486,1564,1545,1452=1520<math>\pm</math> 50 ||1541
 |-
-| 7|| 1462,1327, 1407,1489 ,1477=1432<math>\pm</math> 67  ||
+| 7|| 1462,1327, 1407,1489 ,1477=1432<math>\pm</math> 67  || 1541
 |-
 |8|| 1289, 1335,1280, 1271, 1280 = 1291<math>\pm</math> 25 ||
 |-
-| 10|| 1141,1241, 1199, 1202, 1148 =1186<math>\pm</math>42 ||
+| 10|| 1141,1241, 1199, 1202, 1148 =1186<math>\pm</math>42 || 1216
 |-
 |}
 Electrons and Positrons after 2mm of LBE: