-
Hello everyone, wish you have a nice day! Thank you for your attention! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
In practice it is difficult to establish a direct correspondence between MC and experiment, because in Monte Carlo ultimately the only "time" metric you have is the number of primary particles (number of histories), but experimentally you don't know this value precisely. If you model the incident electrons that strike the target to generate the x-rays then in principle you can relate that directly to the tube current, however in practice I don't recall ever matching this to better than about 20% in x-ray tubes and linacs. Therefore, in order to calibrate the "Monte Carlo time", you ought to perform a calibration simulation, which typically involves modelling a detector and comparing with an experimental measurement (for example model the monitor chamber which provides monitor units). But even that is not trivial. The next best thing is to rely on result ratios in simulations, to normalize out quantities that are not known or not know precisely enough. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
In practice it is difficult to establish a direct correspondence between MC and experiment, because in Monte Carlo ultimately the only "time" metric you have is the number of primary particles (number of histories), but experimentally you don't know this value precisely.
If you model the incident electrons that strike the target to generate the x-rays then in principle you can relate that directly to the tube current, however in practice I don't recall ever matching this to better than about 20% in x-ray tubes and linacs.
Therefore, in order to calibrate the "Monte Carlo time", you ought to perform a calibration simulation, which typically involves modelling a detector and comparing with …