[Gate-users] [ no subject ]

[Park MinJae]

Dear Jasmine,

1st...
CLHEP 1.9.3.1
ROOT 5.14
GEANT4 9.0.p01
GATE 3.1.2
are installed on my Kubuntu box...

However, you use the same version as me...Hm...

2nd...
I can not say anything unless I dig in your coincidence sorter...
There can be any version conflict of interfacing...but low
possibility...Hm...

3rd...
Ok...all are clear...

Gaspar got the same result as you...
I got normal result...
Therefore, the problem is not related with version of GATE and other
package...

Let's dig in more...
I am using [EMLOW 4.3, NDL 3.11, PhotonEvaporation 2.0, RadioactiveDecay
3.2] for geant4 data...
Gcc version is 4.0.3
Libc6-dev 2.3.6
Libstdc++6-dev 4.0.3

There must be any difference between you and me...and any common between you
and gasper...

MJ

-----Original Message-----
From: gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org
[mailto:gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org] On Behalf Of
i.torres at lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:53 PM
To: Park MinJae
Cc: gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org; 'Jasmine Schirmer'
Subject: RE: RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]

Dear MJ,

> First of all, I want to point out that my result run on 3.1.2 is same as
your result on 3.0.0.

Yes, you are right, but in our case we did not get the same results as you
got, and we cannot understand why: the benchmark is fine and the versions
of clhep and Geant are the correct ones. Which versions of clhep and geant
have you
used?

> 2nd. You said about low energy threshold of 400 KeV...
> But the result has 100~400 KeV, still.

The output of our simulation are singles and the low energy threshold of
the simulation is 100 keV. From this output, we obtain the energy spectra.
When we sort the coincidences, we use "homemade" programs (these programs
have been checked and used since beginning 2005 and they have given the
same results for different GATE versions). For the
coincidences that we have presented here, we have used a LET of 400 keV
(applied post-simulation). At 400 keV LET ,there should not be any
intercrystal true coincidences. This is one of the reasons why we
present this result. It is puzzling and it is related with the
deposited energy of the single. We have also
observed that Georgi got the same result; he is missing true coincidences
from
one version to the other.

> 3rd. You said...
> [In both the old and new versions of GATE, the benchmark PET was
successfully completed and no difference in the energy spectra was
observed.] at Nov. 29...
> but you say [the PET benchmark was successfully completed but the
results
> were not correct] now...
> Which one is correct?

Sorry, we did not mean what you understood: what we say now is:
1) the PET benchmark was succesfully completed and the results match with
the reference given in both versions.
2) the results from other simulations (ECAT, singlelayer) were not correct
in the last version of GATE (3.1.2)

> I recommend you re-installation of GATE 3.1.2 by the same one who
installed
> GATE 3.0.0

We can install GATE again, but, we do not believe it will be successful
without
knowing where the problem lies and without making any changes.

Thank you for your time.

Bye,

Irene and Jasmine

_______________________________________________
Gate-users mailing list
Gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users