NJOY2016
NJOY2016 copied to clipboard
njoy
Read THERMR::Card2::natom parameter from file instead of from user input
The natom parameter in Card2 of THERMR is present on the evaluation file. It should be read from the evaluation file instead of taken from the user. This should be an easy thing to fix.
@kahlerac Has the natom always been in ENDF? That is, do evaluations before ENDF/B-VI have that parameter in it? If so, we should check the format number to determine if we can ignore the user input or not.
natom is not defined in legacy (ENDF/B-III) files but B(1) which is sig(el)*natom is present which is why natom is a user input
So if we just check the ENDF version and if it is greater than 3 then we can ignore the natom value, right?
e3 was carried forward to e4, e5 and first couple of e6 releases. natom definition appeared when MacFarlane updated the thermal files in e63 (although his report says e62 since that was the release he hoped to have things done by). Skip
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, 5:09 PM Jeremy Lloyd Conlin <[email protected] wrote:
So if we just check the ENDF version and if it is greater than 3 then we can ignore the natom value, right?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/njoy/NJOY2016/issues/110#issuecomment-436054113, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQ6UScyihWP4GnMewf_SV26dHByrHqPEks5usLcQgaJpZM4YPQ0o .
And now we begin to see why this hasn't been taken out previously—it isn't backwards compatible.
What was B(6) before it was defined to be natom? If it was always 0, then we can check against that.
I believe B(6) is unused ( and therefore set to zero) in e3. That's what's in the e3 h-h2o file but I'd have to check an old manual to be sure. Skip
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, 6:04 PM Jeremy Lloyd Conlin <[email protected] wrote:
And now we begin to see why this hasn't been taken out previously—it isn't backwards compatible.
What was B(6) before it was defined to be natom? If it was always 0, then we can check against that.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/njoy/NJOY2016/issues/110#issuecomment-436069000, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQ6USYDSGt3Gmk-XPPSHJl7EG5KtUFmgks5usMPggaJpZM4YPQ0o .