Very many published papers exist on radiation shielding glasses, all with identical simulation techniques, performed with the MCNPX, FLUKA and GEANT4. I don't really realize if such extensive simulation practices are necessary to be published.
Hello Nima Ghal-Eh ,
Are you asking if researchers should trust simulations of the effectiveness of radiation protection glass, or should they only use the results of experimental studies? I am just trying to understand your question.
Regards,
Thomas Cuff
I think the simulation technique for modeling shielding glasses are always the same and generally standardized, so this allows individuals to utilize their own chemical compositions to determine the shielding efficiency, which eliminates the necessity of relying on newly published papers.
Hi Nima Ghal-Eh ,
I agree with your thinking as far as it goes. Simulations are certainly cheaper and faster than experimental measurements, but how do you know for sure that the changes in composition of the glass can be modelled the same way?
Regards,
Thomas Cuff
By reading many papers recently published on radiation shielding glasses.
Hi Nima Ghal-Eh ,
How do you know that the changes in composition and/or processing have actually been fully disclosed in these papers?
Regards,
Thomas Cuff
My question was about the simulation techniques which are repeated in these simulations. People only change the compositions and densities of compound glasses, and publish their work.
I prefer papers with different applications of these shielding glasses or different radio-mechanical characterization techniques. But they are very few.
- Badges
- Science method