MCNP geometry error

AI Thread Summary
A geometry error in the MCNP input deck is affecting cell #14, which is crucial for the detector model. The user is struggling to define the union of surfaces correctly, seeking quick assistance for a resolution. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using surfaces accurately, noting that a half-hearted approach can lead to errors. Properly defining the boundaries is essential to avoid issues with the model. Clear guidance on surface definitions is needed to rectify the geometry error effectively.
MadGander
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
I've got a small geometry related error in my MCNP input deck, corresponding to cell #14 (the outer edge of my detector model). This should be a quick fix, but I'm running into issues defining that particular union of surfaces. Any assistance is appreciated.
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
This is a quick trick for the experiment cell,
Code:
14 0 -99 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 imp:p 1     $ surroundings
# negates a cell. So everything inside the surface that defines the boundary to the void (graveyard in your input file), but not any of the volumes defined by cells 1 through 12.

Using surfaces properly is probably better, but you can't half do it. It's perfect or it's broken.
 
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

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
833
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top