MCNP6 Error: "Geometry error: no cell found"

AI Thread Summary
The user is experiencing a "Geometry error: no cell found" issue in MCNP6. The solution involves adjusting the bounding sphere to ensure that no objects extend beyond it, as anything outside is considered void. By using the command "mcnp ip inp=filename" and checking specific coordinates, it was discovered that some objects were protruding. Increasing the size of the bounding sphere resolved the issue. The user confirmed that the problem has been solved.
ameermukhtar
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
respected all
i am using MCNP6 and i am facing this problem from days and i can not found solution if anyone help me than i am ever grateful to you
files are attached
Thanks
 

Attachments

  • 屏幕截图 2024-12-27 025957.png
    屏幕截图 2024-12-27 025957.png
    32.6 KB · Views: 41
  • neutron16.txt
    neutron16.txt
    7.1 KB · Views: 37
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hello @ameermukhtar,

Welcome to PhysicsForums. Your bounding sphere defines the experiment area, and anything outside it is part of the void. That works so long as no objects poke through. If you run "mcnp ip inp=filename", the default view seems fine. But click on the input box and type "pz 149", to check close to corners of 9 and 10, you can see the corners of 9 (rpp) sticking through it. Just try making the sphere bigger and see if that fixes the problem.
 
can you correct it brother
 
Alex A said:
Hello @ameermukhtar,

Welcome to PhysicsForums. Your bounding sphere defines the experiment area, and anything outside it is part of the void. That works so long as no objects poke through. If you run "mcnp ip inp=filename", the default view seems fine. But click on the input box and type "pz 149", to check close to corners of 9 and 10, you can see the corners of 9 (rpp) sticking through it. Just try making the sphere bigger and see if that fixes the problem.
thank you dear the problem has been solved
 
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...
Back
Top