From: Alberto Fasso' (fasso@SLAC.Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 20:22:29 CEST
Dear Katherine,
you are right. I have never been happy about that example.
It is not very representative of what a typical user would like to
do, and beginners are often confused by it. It contains commands
which are now more or less obsolete: START now takes only one value
(the number of particles to run), and OUTLEVEL is used only in
connection with Flugg (the interface to Geant4 geometry).
The data values are aligned on the left, which I consider a bad
example because it makes the file less readable and gives
problems when a value is expressed in exponential notation.
Now I discover, thanks to you, that one of the detectors defined
in input gives all zeros (I confirm it, at least for a 15 min job).
I think that it is urgent to prepare a better sample input to distribute
with the code. I will see if I can propose something more suitable.
Thanks for pointing it out (by the way, both the formatted and the
unformatted output give all zeros)
Alberto
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Katherine Harine wrote:
>
> In the mu.inp sample case distributed with FLUKA, I get all zeros in
> the file: mu00X_fort.48. I changed the input to the formatted output,
> i.e. changed -48 to +48 on the USRBDX card. I have looked at the
> output for several days and it seems that there should be non-zero
> entries. Has anyone else run this case and had the same problem. I
> worry that I am misunderstanding something about the geometry or the
> USRBDX card.
>
> - Katherine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 23:10:19 CEST