Hello everyone.
I attempted to reproduce the results presented in the paper (
1-s2.0-S0168900214010924-main.pdf (871.9 KB)(1)
) for a drift tube filled with an Ar (50%) + CO₂ (50%) gas mixture. However, the values obtained in my simulation (
sahin.C (7.4 KB)
) are noticeably lower than those reported in the article.
Could anyone suggest possible reasons for this discrepancy?
Thank you.
(1)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900214010924
Dear @rostislav
I guess what you are seeing in the plots is the gain with penning transfer off. The gas tables are standardly calculated without penning effect. Instead when you call the function gas.EnablePenningTransfer() the townsend coefficient will be updated by reading the ionisation and excitation rates in the gas table.
Can you try to run your program again, but with the function call
gas.EnablePenningTransfer() placed after you have calculated the gas tables?
gain_vs_voltage_4pressures.pdf (16.7 KB)
Hmm, that’s interesting. The order of the operations indeed affects the result. Thank you for pointing that out.
I’ll now try the same procedure for my previous Ar/CO₂/isobutane mixture.(r = 0.42)
