## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Efficative Atomic Number (\(Z_{\text{eff}}\))**} \\ \cline{2-11} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Samples**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**59.54 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**122 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**383 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**511 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**662 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1274 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1332 keV**} \\ \cline{2-11} \cline{3-11} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**ESG4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} \\ \hline Bi\({}_{14}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) & 54.12 & 53.91 & 62.15 & 63.98 & 33.44 & 35.52 & 30.33 & 31.18 & 26.91 & 28.69 & 26.69 & 25.77 & 24.50 & 25.70 \\ Bi\({}_{16}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Ag\({}_{0.20}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) & 53.70 & 53.55 & 62.04 & 63.52 & 35.57 & 34.98 & 31.08 & 30.71 & 28.42 & 28.26 & 28.89 & 25.40 & 25.36 & 25.34 \\ Bi\({}_{15}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Ag\({}_{0.20}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) & 53.08 & 53.52 & 62.34 & 63.19 & 33.39 & 34.74 & 32.08 & 30.52 & 28.66 & 28.11 & 27.42 & 25.30 & 25.74 & 25.23 \\ Bi\({}_{15}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Ag\({}_{0.21}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) & 52.70 & 52.90 & 62.39 & 62.86 & 34.01 & 34.50 & 30.95 & 30.34 & 27.33 & 27.96 & 25.95 & 25.19 & 24.72 & 25.13 \\ Bi\({}_{14}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Ag\({}_{0.16}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) & 52.41 & 52.57 & 61.72 & 62.52 & 32.91 & 34.26 & 27.96 & 30.15 & 27.88 & 27.81 & 26.77 & 25.08 & 24.63 & 25.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Values of the theoretical (XCOM) and calculated (EGS4) radiation protection efficiency (%) for superconductors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Efficative Atomic Number (\(Z_{\text{eff}}\))**} \\ \cline{2-11} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Samples**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**59.54 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**122 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**383 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**511 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**662 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1274 keV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1332 keV**} \\ \cline{2-11} \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**EG54**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**XCOM**} \\ \hline Bi\({}_{14.6}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}  
differ in their Zeff values depending on their chemical composition. Figure 5 shows the changes in RPE with photon energy for the investigated superconductors samples. In Figure 5, it is seen that the RPE values decrease as the photon energy increases. In addition, the effective removal cross-sections (\(\Sigma\)R) for the different alloys were calculated and are plotted in Figure 6. It can be seen from Figure 6 that the highest \(\Sigma\)R (cm\({}^{-1}\)) value was recorded for Bi\({}_{1.48}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Ag\({}_{0.16}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\) and the lowest one was noticed for Bi\({}_{1.64}\)Pb\({}_{0.36}\)Sr\({}_{2}\)Ca\({}_{2}\)Cu\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{10}\). Figure 3: The variation in the mean free path (MFP) with the energy for Ag-dopant BiPbSrCaCuO ceramic superconducting samples. Figure 2: The variation in the half value layer (HVL) with the energy for Ag-dopant BiPbSrCaCuO ceramic superconducting samples.