[mcstas-users] intercomparison between McStas and SIMRES

[Peter Willendrup]

Hello again,


You are absolutely right Jan, attached is a version of the graph  
parametrized by \delta\theta instead. The overall shape agrees quite  
well - possibly there is a sign difference in \delta\theta, the slight  
asymmetry in the side peaks seems opposite in the two graphs.

Now for comparing intensity:

The maximum reflectivity of the monochromator has been set to 0.265 in  
Tom's instrumentfile, I would think this is a fairly low value?

And in regard to the sample parameters, we tend not to trust the  
listed F-squared in .laz input files too much. ( .lau ones can be  
generated in Crystallographica and are usually in better agreement  
with reality)

Consequently,  I think that given the circumstances the agreement is  
quite fair.

Regards,

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Scan2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14615 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman2.mcstas.org/pipermail/mcstas-users/attachments/20090819/e43a2f97/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------



On 19/08/2009, at 17.46, Jan Saroun wrote:

> Hello Tom and Peter,
>
> I think the problem is the theta-scale. I suppose DTT on the Peter's  
> result is the full scattering angle, while the data shown by Tom are  
> on Bragg angle (=DTT/2) scale. If you correct for this, the two  
> profiles are very close. Also the intensity scale is not MUCH  
> different, we should check first the input data for the  
> monochromator and sample in order to resolve this. I attach the  
> curves simulated by SIMRES with the two methods I have mentioned  
> earlier (theta-scan and resolution function).
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
>
> Peter Willendrup wrote:
>> Hello Tom, Jan,
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jan, you need to perform a scan in 2\theta. I have  
>> modified Tom's instrument slightly - optimizing it slightly - and  
>> performed the proposed scan. Please find attached both the  
>> instrumentfile and the resulting peak profile. It now looks much  
>> more like your result from SIMRES, but a bit more broad.
>>
>> A closer study of SIMRES parameters in comparison to the McStas  
>> component parms will very likely resolve this discrepancy. As Jan  
>> also mentions, intensity agreement is a bit more complicated. :)
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Peter Willendrup
>
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------
> Dr Jan Saroun Nuclear Physics Institute
> Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
> 25068 Rez near Prague
> phone: 420-2-66173140 phone/fax: 420-2-20940141
> mailto:saroun at ujf.cas.cz
>
>
> <tom_simres.png>

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Willendrup - Development engineer

RIS? DTU
Materials Research Division
Frederiksborgvej 399
DK-4000 Roskilde

Tlf.: (+45) 4677 5862
Mobil.: (+45) 2125 4612
Fax.: (+45) 4766 5758
Email: pkwi at risoe.dtu.dk
-------------------------------------------------------------------