-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Generic material properties #260
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I've edited your comment to close the related issue automatically:
|
dbb1a73
to
2ec0476
Compare
LXe_mpt->AddConstProperty("IONIZATIONENERGY", 21.9 * eV, 1); | ||
LXe_mpt->AddConstProperty("FANOFACTOR", 0.29, 1); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These values correspond to
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.46.1676
which are GXe measurements.
For LXe, Doke measured Wi=15.6 eV in https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.12.1771
The same paper gives fano factors of the order of 0.05, which seem too low, but in
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168900294012369
they also measure 0.033.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've changed the ionization energy. However, I'm puzzled about the Fano factor ( in NEXT papers we used the value 20 sometimes...) : maybe we should review also the value we use in xenon, then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See, for instance
PhysRevB.68.054201.pdf, where they talk about discrepancies between calculations and measurements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in NEXT papers we used the value 20 sometimes...
In gas? The discrepancy seems to be only in liquid. For gas I thought we always used 0.15, although the first paper above measured 0.29.
PhysRevB.68.054201.pdf, where they talk about discrepancies between calculations and measurements.
Not sure what to make of this... Should we use F=20 then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in NEXT papers we used the value 20 sometimes...
In gas? The discrepancy seems to be only in liquid. For gas I thought we always used 0.15, although the first paper above measured 0.29.
I was referring to liquid. Yes, we used 0.15, but it's probably time to review it, also.
PhysRevB.68.054201.pdf, where they talk about discrepancies between calculations and measurements.
Not sure what to make of this... Should we use F=20 then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe simulations in LXe need to go in a different direction because we need to introduce the anticorrelation between ionization and scintillation. This requires adapting nexus to this case, which may not be trivial. Also, we might want to use NEST (by the way, they use F=0.03 for LXe).
This PR drops the
optical
part of the name of the OpticalMaterialProperties files and relative namespace. Since we use more properties that are not just optical (such as scintillation and TPB emission spectra, yield, attachment...) this seems more logical.Two more non-optical properties, namely the Fano factor and the ionization energy for gaseous xenon, are added to the property table instead of being coded in the
IonizationClustering
class.This PR closes #12.