Scoring Mesh vs. Parallel World

Geometry, Fields and Transportation
1

Dear Community,

I’m taking my first steps with Geant-4.

I simulate 4 slabs, one after the other, in front of which I place a gamma volume source and I look for the dose profile on the central axis of the slabs, i.e. D (x). Both slabs and source have “infinite” dimensions in “y” and “z”, but finite ones in “x”.

My first thought was to use, in run.mac, a scoring mesh (/ score/mesh) or even (/score/probe) with the smallest possible boxSizes and accumulate them. This is done. Someone suggested me to code the ParallelWorld (i.e. 4.8.2 Defining a parallel world) in C ++ and the definition of parallel voxels on the central axis for this dose profile. This method is not at all easy for beginners. I would like to know:

  1. how this ParallelWorld method differs from the /score/mesh used. Is it more reliable and why?
  2. Is there a way to keep the simple method /score/mesh and get to the right result without having to go through ParallelWorld, please?

Thank you so much.

2

If you are interested in dose calculation in a box as you mention, use the mesh. It is a lot easier.

3

Thank you @guatelli. I agree. Tested and verified. Geant4-Serpent2 difference less than 0.2% everywhere.

1 Like
4

Please, close this thread

5

Thanks you, your answer help me to not use parallel world , to use mesh. recently, I have always think about which one is better