Talk:Bragg peak

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

note

Is this definition of Bragg Peak strictly correct? The Bragg peak, as applied to clinical radiotherapy is the peak of maximum energy deposition in the depth-dose curve of ANY absorbed radiation (photons as well as electrons.) The Bragg peak does not describe the surface dose or the tail of the curve. The Bragg peaks, and the depth-dose profiles of different energy photons, electrons, protons, pi-mesons etc are all exploited in the clinical situation.Jellytussle 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photon maxima are caused by the build up effect - this is totally unrelated to the Bragg Peak. Electron maxima are caused principally by increased obliquity with depth (a Bragg Peak type effect does contribute, but is less significant). The Bragg Peak description of radiotherapy depth dose curves really only applies to light ions (Protons up to Neon). I believe the Bragg Peak description is correct (I just tweaked it a bit). Andybuckle 14:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this image illustrate a bragg peak of air ionization? --Deglr6328 23:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.Jellytussle 10:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't very convincing. care to elaborate?--Deglr6328 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current image (in the text of the article) represents the Bragg peak in a uniformly dense medium, though the length scale will change depending on what uniformly dense medium you choose due to associated cross-sections changing. For things like auroral physics, where ionisation is created by electrons and protons coming in and striking atmospheric particles, you start off with a low density material (which stretches the initial tail) and then get a very sudden peak as you hit higher energy stuff, which brings the Bragg peak closer to the Chapman function, which is the much different photon version. Although the image here does show something, it would need to be closer in to show the actual peak. At present it shows emission, but not in enough detail to show there's a lead up to the brightest bit and then a sudden cut-off. If it did, it would be good, its just its so far out at the moment, the bright bit could be due to the beam spreading. MilleauRekiir 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bragg peaks are evident in depth-ionization curves and depth-dose curves. The figure and discussion currently relate principally to Bragg peaks of dose in water. The article may benefit from being split into "pure physics" and a "medical applications". Andybuckle 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about widening the peak by "using variable thickness attenuators like spinning wedges". This is of course true but a better way is to use a synchrotron to produce particle beams with varying energy, this way you avoid the scattering of the particles by the attenuator. Perhans (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bragg peak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301184458/http://www.med.harvard.edu:80/jpnm/physics/nmltd/radprin/sect7/7.1/7_1.3.html to http://www.med.harvard.edu/jpnm/physics/nmltd/radprin/sect7/7.1/7_1.3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

confusion

It seems that this article confuses two things, each of which should probably have an article. One is, as Bragg found, the energy lost with depth from a proton, or other charged ion beam. That is worthy of an article. Second is the use of such beams, especially proton beams, for cancer treatment. They are better than photon (X-ray and gamma ray) beams because of the Bragg peak. One can fairly well localize the region where energy is deposited (and DNA damage occurs). This is worthy of its own article. Mixing them the way this one does, doesn't well explain either of them. Gah4 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]