Source author record

Miles S. Wagner

Miles S. Wagner appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

On the nuclear halo of a proton pencil beam stopping in water

The dose distribution of a pencil beam in water consists of a core, a halo, an aura and (possibly) spray. The core is due to primary protons which suffer multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) and slow down by multiple collisions with atomic electrons (Bethe-Bloch theory). The halo is due to charged secondaries, many of them protons, from elastic interactions with H, elastic and inelastic interactions with O, and nonelastic interactions with O. We show that the halo radius is roughly one third of the beam range. The aura is due to neutral secondaries (neutrons and gamma rays). Spray denotes dose, avoidable in principle, coming in from the beam line. We have measured the absolute dose at 177 MeV using a test beam in a water tank. The beam monitor was a PPIC 'proton counter' and the field IC a dose calibrated Exradin T1. We took depth-dose scans at ten displacements from the beam axis ranging from 0 to 10 cm. The dose spans five orders of magnitude, and the transition from halo to aura is obvious. We present model-dependent (MD) and model-independent (MI) fits to these data. The MD fit has 25 parameters, and the goodness of fit (rms (measurement/fit) - 1) is 15%. The MI fit uses cubic spline fits in depth and radius. The goodness of fit is 9%. This fit is more portable and conceptually simpler. We discuss the prevalent parameterization of the core/halo originated by the PSI group. We argue that its use of T(w), a mass stopping power which includes energy deposited by nuclear secondaries, is incorrect. The electromagnetic (Bethe-Bloch) mass stopping power should be used instead. In consequence, 'Bragg peak chamber' measurements and associated corrections are, in our view, irrelevant. Furthermore, using T(w) leads to spurious excess dose on the axis of the core around midrange, which may be significant in fields involving relatively few pencil beams.

preprint2014arXiv

Nuclear halo of a 177 MeV proton beam in water: theory, measurement and parameterization

The dose distribution of a monoenergetic pencil beam in water consists of an electromagnetic "core", a "halo" from charged nuclear secondaries, and a much larger "aura" from neutral secondaries. These regions overlap, but each has distinct spatial characteristics. We have measured the core/halo using a 177MeV test beam offset in a water tank. The beam monitor was a fluence calibrated plane parallel ionization chamber (IC) and the field chamber, a dose calibrated Exradin T1, so the dose measurements are absolute (MeV/g/p). We performed depth-dose scans at ten displacements from the beam axis ranging from 0 to 10cm. The dose spans five orders of magnitude, and the transition from halo to aura is clearly visible. We have performed model-dependent (MD) and model-independent (MI) fits to the data. The MD fit separates the dose into core, elastic/inelastic nuclear, nonelastic nuclear and aura terms, and achieves a global rms measurement/fit ratio of 15%. The MI fit uses cubic splines and the same ratio is 9%. We review the literature, in particular the use of Pedroni's parametrization of the core/halo. Several papers improve on his Gaussian transverse distribution of the halo, but all retain his T(w), the radial integral of the depth-dose multiplying both the core and halo terms and motivating measurements with large "Bragg peak chambers" (BPCs). We argue that this use of T(w), which by its definition includes energy deposition by nuclear secondaries, is incorrect. T(w) should be replaced in the core term, and in at least part of the halo, by a purely electromagnetic mass stopping power. BPC measurements are unnecessary, and irrelevant to parameterizing the pencil beam.