Skip to content
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

Ionization energy & Fano Factor of Xenon gas #12

Open
jmunozv opened this issue Sep 4, 2020 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #260
Open

Ionization energy & Fano Factor of Xenon gas #12

jmunozv opened this issue Sep 4, 2020 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #260
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@jmunozv
Copy link
Collaborator

jmunozv commented Sep 4, 2020

Currently these values are hard-coded into IonizationClustering.cc

These Xenon Gas properties should be set in OpticalMaterialProperties.cc, and IonizationClustering.cc get them from there. There is commented code ready to do this.

At the same time, we should check that the values set are the most updated ones.

@paolafer paolafer added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Feb 25, 2022
@paolafer
Copy link
Contributor

The problem I see is that these are not optical material properties, per se. However, we have no other places where we define material properties. If these are the only non-optical material properties throughout nexus, maybe we can leave them where they are now.

@gonzaponte
Copy link
Contributor

Actually, the name OpticalMaterialProperties is misleading. In G4 these are just generic material properties tables. It just happens that most of them are optical stuff. For example, the scintillation parameters are also stored in these tables, which one may say has to do with optical properties, but not really (it doesn't say anything about how the photons interact with the material). I believe the material properties tables are just a very generic way for the user to hold any data related to the material and use it elsewhere in the physics code.

@paolafer
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, so are you proposing to change the name to MaterialProperties, generically? I think it makes sense.

@gonzaponte
Copy link
Contributor

It would be technically more correct and probably good enough to not confuse users.

@paolafer paolafer linked a pull request Sep 13, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants