MCNP - Tallies definition with "<"

  • Thread starter Thread starter 19matthew89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Mcnp
AI Thread 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 Summary
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!
 
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