Fatal Error The Surface Appears More Than Once in A Chain

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a fatal error encountered in a computational output related to surface definitions in a modeling context. Participants explore the nature of the error messages, potential causes, and seek clarification on the specifics of the output.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a higher resolution image of the error output to better understand the issue.
  • Another participant summarizes the error messages, noting that multiple surfaces appear to be duplicated in a chain.
  • There is a discussion about the typical causes of such errors, with one participant suggesting that it may relate to the use of fills where surfaces are defined at multiple levels.
  • A participant mentions that the output file should provide more detailed information about which cells are causing the issue and their positions in the chain.
  • It is noted that the offending surface is composite, which could explain the presence of decimal points in the surface identifiers.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about why this situation results in a fatal error, suggesting it is usually just a warning.
  • There is a call for more information from the original poster (OP) to assist in resolving the issue, and a hope that the OP will provide updates if they find a solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants have not reached a consensus on the cause of the fatal error, and multiple potential explanations are presented. The discussion remains unresolved as further information is needed from the OP.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the output file may lack detailed explanations regarding the offending surfaces and their configurations, which could be critical for diagnosing the issue.

Ryan89
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Hi, can anyone help me? I am running the code for the container for the radioactive waste. I run on Vised, but suddenly it can't run due to a fatal error. I also have attached the error. Kindly hit me up if you can help to solve this issue. Thank you!
1657613963656.png
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

Your image is not high enough resolution to read the error. Can you upload a zoomed-in picture of the output lines in the upper left?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ryan89
It says:
Warning without Bremsstrahlung flux estimates will be low
Warning 39 surfaces were deleted as being the same as others
Fatal Error surface 2.1 appears more than once in a chain
Fatal Error surface 2.2 appears more than once in a chain
Fatal Error surface 2.3 appears more than once in a chain


I suppose repeated 39 times
 
How the heck were you able to read that?
 
berkeman said:
How the heck were you able to read that?
Could say lucky.
First time of many that with zoom that I could see what was there.
OP should come back and verify.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alex A and berkeman
The error looks like it's normally caused by the use of fills where a surface appears at more than one level, say defining a fill and also in the cell description of the fill universe.

The VisEd errors will match the output file, but the output file should have more of an explanation; which offending cells that surface is in and where they are in the chain. The offending surface 2 is composite which is why we have decimals. Fills are normally done into a bigger volume and the filled cell acts as a cookie cutter, filling with the same size would produce this because edges would be coincident. It's normally a warning. I have no idea why this is a fatal error.

Just as an aside, VisEd X_ 22S corresponds to X 2.6 - circa 2008.

If we get more info, maybe we can help solve this. If the OP has solved this, I would hope we're told.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 19matthew89 and 256bits

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
7K