The length of the line in the MCNP cell card MCNP

AI Thread Summary
The user encountered an error while finishing a line in the MCNP cell card. Suggestions include using the command line to check for warnings and errors, reading the output file, and ensuring there are no strange characters in the input file. The cell definitions appear problematic, as cell 1 is defined in terms of cells that haven't been defined yet, leading to potential overlaps. It's crucial to ensure that no zones are assigned to more than one cell and that all volumes are accounted for. A clearer approach to cell construction is recommended to resolve the issue.
Asmae SAADI
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement:: I go back to the line to finish the previous line in MCNP cell card but I had the error message shown in the photo.
Please make a solution to my problem
Relevant Equations:: c ********************* BLOCK 1: cartes des cellules ****************
1 2 -1.184 -40 #3 #19 #18 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30
#31 #32 #33 #34

is there a suggestion for my problem
 

Attachments

  • #30.PNG
    #30.PNG
    2.3 KB · Views: 192
  • erreur#.PNG
    erreur#.PNG
    2.8 KB · Views: 155
Engineering news on Phys.org
try to put "&" at the end
 
  • Like
Likes Asmae SAADI
A few suggestions,

Try running from the command line and read warnings as well as errors. Try reading the output file. Check you don't have any strange characters in the input file.

Your cell construction is strange. Cell 1 is defined in terms of the cells it isn't before defining *them*. Then cell 2 is 'above or outside 40' AND 'is not cell 1'. But cell 1 already includes 'below or inside 40'.

Due to the way MCNP works (It's a raytracer with dice), a ray passing through a surface must never match more than one cell definition. So there should be no zones that are assigned to more than one cell, ie cell definitions must not overlap. I don't know this is the the case here, but I think it might be. (There must also be no volume that isn't assigned to any cell.)

Try redoing your cells with a clear idea in your mind, and avoid # where possible.
 
  • Like
Likes Asmae SAADI
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