Fix/urr background #342
Merged
Fix/urr background #342
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi Wim,
Was just making a last minute check of email when I saw this. Sallie
and I are on a plane early tomorrow (visiting family in Vermont and
sight-seeing in Canada) and mostly out of touch until returning late
Friday, August 9 (didn't want to say "8/9" in case you thought it might
mean September 8!).
If you can wait until after my return I'll do this, but if you want it
sooner you'll need someone else.
Looks like this patch may impact kcalc for some of the Mo containing
benchmarks (some of HMF5, HMF84, maybe others?). Although I think 95Mo
capture is the big xs for this nuclide. What do you think? And maybe keep
Andrej in the loop also since he may want to make new ACE files.
Skip
…On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:50 PM Wim Haeck ***@***.***> wrote:
@whaeck <https://github.com/whaeck> requested your review on: #342
<#342> Fix/urr background.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#342 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEHJISPH22GP5WT5C2VZGMDZN2627AVCNFSM6AAAAABLLFSL6GVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV45UABCJFZXG5LFIV3GK3TUJZXXI2LGNFRWC5DJN5XDWMJTGYZDCNBQHAYTGNY>
.
You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Dr. A. C. (Skip) Kahler
Kahler Nuclear Data Services, LLC
***@***.***
+1 321 368 3645
|
|
We have time. The Mo95 evaluation that illustrates the issue is not in ENDF/B-VIII.1 and I don;t expect it to be adopted in time for the ENDF/B-VIII.1 release. If we can get this done by the end of September, I'm OK with it. The missing xs values were of the order of microbarn so not that important either. However, I do not know how much this new evaluation would change the capture cross section with respect to the current ENDF/B-VIII.1b4 version. |
kahlerac
approved these changes
Aug 12, 2024
|
Lucky for us indeed :-) Red pointed this issue out to me a few weeks ago. Took me a while to dig through the code to fix it, but it was an easy one. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Background cross section values for reactions other than total, elastic, fission and capture were not handled properly in the unresolved resonance region. The background for total, elastic, fission and capture is integrated into the unresolved resonance cross section values in the genunr subroutine. In the emerge subroutine, the background in the unresolved resonance region was therefore zeroed out for any resonance reaction. This has never been an issue but now we have LRF=7 evaluations that can define reactions other than total, elastic, fission and capture. Test 82 was added to detect this issue in the future.