## 3 Results and Discussions
The \(\Sigma_{R}\) values of LPb50 BEu glasses were 0.10106 cm\({}^{-1}\), 0.09999 cm\({}^{-1}\), 0.09478 cm\({}^{-1}\), and 0.09286 cm\({}^{-1}\), respectively, while, for LBi50 BEu glasses, they were found to be 0.11484 cm\({}^{-1}\), 0.11428 cm\({}^{-1}\), 0.09745 cm\({}^{-1}\), and 0.09921 cm\({}^{-1}\). It appears that the LBi50 BEu glass system is more effective at capturing neutrons than others. It is clear that selected glass systems are also successful at reducing neutrons when compared to water and paraffin (\(\Sigma_{R}\) = 0.101 cm\({}^{-1}\)), which are traditional neutron moderators. As the charged particle moves through the material, it interacts with the atomic electrons in the material and its energy decreases. However, during this time, the stopping power increases because the kinetic energy of the particle is inversely proportional to the stopping power. The change of the mass stopping power (AMSP and PMSP) of L(Pb/Bi)50 BEu glasses versus the photon energy for alpha and proton particles is given in Figure 10. While the charged particles move in the glass in the form of a Bragg curve, and the curve increases proportionally with 1/E, there is a sharp decrease in the curve at the end of the path where the particle travels through the matter. Since alpha particles are heavier than protons, they have reached the maximum MSP at higher energies. Since the stopping power of the material is proportional to the square of the atomic number, LBi50 BEu glasses with larger \(Z_{\mathit{eff}}\) values have higher MSP values. The furthest distance that the charged particles can travel through the material is expressed as the projected range (PR). Figure 11 presents the change of APR and PPR values of L(Pb/Bi)50 BEu glasses in response to kinetic energy. Since the addition of Eu\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) reduces the \(Z_{\mathit{eff}}\) values, PR is larger in glasses with 2 mol% Eu\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) added. Since protons are smaller in mass, they move faster and have a longer range inside the glass (PPR > APR). The PRs of alpha and proton particles are shorter in LBi50 BEu glasses. Figure 9: Effective removal cross-sections for fast neutrons (\(\Sigma_{R}\)) for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. Finally, it is worth noting that the linear attenuation coefficients determined using Phy-X/PSD and MCNPX (2.7.0) were very consistent. Figure 12 depicts a comparison of obtained linear attenuation coefficients from MCNPX Monte Carlo code and Phy-X/PSD for the LBi50B sample. A relative difference of 2% was reported at 0.02 MeV photon energy. Overall, our findings showed that relative differences were varied from 1.15% to 2.6% at all photon energies. Both outcomes were reported in comparable linear attenuation coefficient values, based on our results. However, minor variations in certain energy areas were discovered. This is closely linked to the tools employed, since MCNPX is a Monte-Carlo-based technique for radiation transport that needs user specification at different stages of the process described before. By contrast, Phy-X/PSD is a web-based tool that requires just the material composition, density, and energy quantities. As a result, some differences are almost certainly due to a variety of variables, including the number of dispersed gamma rays entering the detecting field, the narrow beam shape, the cross-section libraries and physics lists, the hardware performance, and the CPU characteristics of the computers used. Figure 10: Proton (PMSP) and alpha (AMSP) mass stopping as a function of kinetic energy for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. Figure 11: Proton (PPR) and alpha (APR) projected range as a function of kinetic energy for (**a**) LPb50 BEu and (**b**) LBi50 BEu glasses. Figure 12: Comparison of obtained linear attenuation coefficients from MCNPX Monte Carlo code and Phy-X/PSD.