Is There an Issue with My MCNP Macro Definition Modeling?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the visibility of macro definitions in MCNP modeling when viewed in Vised. Users are encouraged to verify the placement of each cell and ensure that macro bodies do not overlap unexpectedly. It is important to check the origin settings in Vised to confirm that cells are positioned correctly. Additionally, users should review the manual for guidance on the intended configuration of macro bodies, especially when they are at angles. Proper debugging and understanding of the model setup are essential for accurate results.
chengmo
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I use macro definition to model the results can be viewed in vised but vised does not display all the big guy know? Is there something wrong with my modeling?
 

Attachments

  • A.txt
    A.txt
    290 bytes · Views: 148
Engineering news on Phys.org
To debug these things, ask yourself, where should each cell be? Do the macro bodies overlap the way you think they do? Where should cell 1 in your model be? If you set the origin in vised to that location, is there a cell there?

You have a bunch of macro bodies at angles. Are you sure that's what you want? Be sure to carefully read the manual to be sure that you are getting what you want.
 
  • Like
Likes Alex A and chengmo
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