Describing cosmic particles in mcnp6

  • Thread starter Thread starter zhj2024
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mcnp6
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on an error encountered while using MCNP6 to describe cosmic particles, specifically related to energy limits in the simulation. The error message indicates that the specified energy exceeds the maximum allowed for certain particles, prompting questions about how to adjust energy settings and whether advanced physics options are enabled. Participants discuss the need to limit energy for accurate calculations and inquire about the existence of an energy limit table in the manual. There is also a suggestion that simulating cosmic rays may be more suited to FLUKA rather than MCNP. Sharing output files for further analysis is recommended for troubleshooting.
zhj2024
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
When I used PAR=-CR of mcnp6 to describe cosmic particles
When I used PAR=-CR of mcnp6 to describe cosmic particles, there was an error:"Expire parameter is too many cases of erg > emax,bad trouble in subroutine startp of mcrun,"Any idea on how to resolve this problem?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
So CR is a lot of different particles, the error suggests the energy set is too high for many of them. What energy are you specifying and can you reduce it?

Also is the advanced physics on or off?
 
Alex A said:
So CR is a lot of different particles, the error suggests the energy set is too high for many of them. What energy are you specifying and can you reduce it?

Also is the advanced physics on or off?
Thanks for your reply! I want to calculate μ, but it's not clear how much to limit the energy to by phys cards, or to limit the energy of other particles. I know that the particles in mcnp have the highest energy limit. Is it possible that the energy of cosmic rays exceeds the limit? Does the manual have the energy limit table for various particles? Also, how do I know if advanced physics is on or off?
 
I don't know much about simulating cosmic rays. I think it's normally thought of as a fluka problem rather than an mcnp one. Some answers should be in the output file, if you can share that adding .txt to the filename and attaching it to a post would be helpful.

Oh and welcome to physicsforums!
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
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