Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A Simple Bug in NJOY2016 and NJOY2012 #105

Closed
jlconlin opened this issue Sep 21, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #113
Closed

A Simple Bug in NJOY2016 and NJOY2012 #105

jlconlin opened this issue Sep 21, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #113
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@jlconlin
Copy link
Member

This was reported via email by Dr. Chikara Konno:

I found a bug in acefc.f90 of NJOY2012 and NJOY2016 (NJOY99 has no problem).

line 9683 in acefc.f90 of NJOY2012.50
line 9790 in acefc.f90 of NJOY2016.40

                       xss(next+1+nx+ix)=&
                         sigfig(renorm*xss(next+1+2*nx+ix),7,0)

is not correct. The correct one is the following.

                       xss(next+1+nx+ix)=&
                         sigfig(renorm*xss(next+1+nx+ix),7,0)

This bug is very simple, but it took one week to find this bug.

@jlconlin
Copy link
Member Author

I have asked Dr. Konno to provide some documentation why the "correct" version is, correct.

@jlconlin jlconlin added the bug label Sep 21, 2018
@kahlerac
Copy link
Contributor

kahlerac commented Sep 21, 2018 via email

jlconlin added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2018
@jlconlin jlconlin self-assigned this Sep 21, 2018
@jlconlin
Copy link
Member Author

So this is an easy change to make, but how do we know it is doing the correct thing? It doesn't change any of the answers—at least not to a precision fo 1E-9.

@jlconlin
Copy link
Member Author

@kahlerac pointed out that this only occurs for MF=6, LAW=7, laboratory angle-energy distribution. I went looking for this, but found no evaluations in ENDF/B-VIII.0 with these parameters. Two evaluations,

  • H-2
  • Be-9
    from JENDL 4.0 had these parameters.

I generated an ACE file from both of these files. I compared the ACE files produced before and after the fix and found no difference.

I would like to add a test demonstrating this, but haven't found something that can reproduce this error.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants