MCNP cone source definition

AI Thread Summary
Defining an SDEF cone source in MCNP involves ensuring all particles are generated at equal probability within the cone's angles. The user is encountering difficulties with the SI, SP, and SB distributions, particularly in visualizing the cone section of an isotropic source, which appears flat on a log plot. The provided SDEF parameters include a half angle of 25.8 degrees, with cosine values sampled between 0.9 and 1 to create the cone effect. There is uncertainty regarding the necessity of the -1 0 pairing in the SI card. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in defining the cone source parameters for accurate particle generation.
MadGander
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Need help defining a cone collimated source in MCNP
Hi folks,

I'm attempting to define an SDEF cone source but am getting tripped up in the SI/SP/SB distributions. I need all particles to be generated at angles within the cone, with all angles in the cone having equal probability. I feel like this should be relatively simple to define since the probability is 1 inside the cone and 0 outside. Any help is appreciated.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
This document is helpful. The plot doesn't make it look like a cone section of an isotropic source, it looks flat, but that is because it is showing a log plot.
Code:
SDEF X=0 Y=0 Z=0 ERG=14.0 VEC= 1 0 0 DIR=D1
SI1 -1 0.90 1
SP1 0 0.0 1
That is with a half angle of 25.8 degrees (the cosine of which is 0.90, in the SI card). It's a clever use of the histogram up to a value feature, sampling the range of cosine values between 0.9 and 1 to make the cone. I don't know why there is a -1 0 pairing, this doesn't seem to be needed. It's probably worth sticking with the full example anyway.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...

Similar threads

Back
Top