MCNP - Tallies definition with "<"

  • Thread starter Thread starter 19matthew89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Mcnp
Click For Summary
The "<" symbol in MCNP tallies indicates a logical operator used to define regions within repeated structures, specifically in lattice configurations. This operator helps specify elements in these structures, often accompanied by coordinates like [x y z]. The manual's reference to this usage can be found in multiple listings, including Listings 5.13, 5.51, and 6.2. However, the explanation in the manual, particularly in section 5.9.1.5, is noted to be unclear. Understanding this notation is crucial for effectively utilizing tallies in MCNP simulations.
19matthew89
Messages
46
Reaction score
12
TL;DR
Examples of tallies definition with logical operator "<" but I don't know what it means.
Hi everyone,

In MCNP manual there are often examples of Listing containing examples of tallies which have, in the definition of the cells/surfaces of the tally itself, the "<" symbol. I could not find in the document any reference to the use of logical expression in the definition of tallies (assuming "<" is actually used as a logical operator).

Could you please tell me what it means?

Referring to the last version of the manual (MCNP® Code Version 6.3.0 Theory & User Manual) the first example of use in a Listing is for Listing 5.13 but it appears in several other listing (e.g. Listing 5.51 or Listing 6.2).

Thanks a lot in advance.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I actually stared at the example for about 10 mins completely clueless, before realising I'd used these myself. That is a such an unhelpful fragment. < means within and [x y z], which you'd commonly see with it, means part of a lattice. They are for specifying elements in repeated structures built with universe/fill.

See "5.9.1.5 Repeated Structures Tallies" for not a great explanation.
 
  • Like
Likes Grelbr42 and 19matthew89
Thanks a lot!
 
What type of energy is actually stored inside an atom? When an atom is split—such as in a nuclear explosion—it releases enormous energy, much of it in the form of gamma-ray electromagnetic radiation. Given this, is it correct to say that the energy stored in the atom is fundamentally electromagnetic (EM) energy? If not, how should we properly understand the nature of the energy that binds the nucleus and is released during fission?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
675
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K