Bug #4894
Running g4numi throws energy non-conservation warning messages
Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Start date:
11/01/2013
Due date:
% Done:
0%
Estimated time:
Description
When running g4numi with Geant v4.9.6p01a there are numerous
Processing particles #: 0 to 24999
G4Fragment::CalculateExcitationEnergy(): WARNING
Fragment: A = 26, Z = 12, U = -7.594e-01 MeV IsStable= true
P = (-1.148e+01,9.023e+01,1.774e+02) MeV E = 2.420e+04 MeV
-------- WWWW ------- G4Exception-START -------- WWWW -------
*** G4Exception : had012
issued by : G4HadronicProcess:CheckResult()
Warning: Bad energy non-conservation detected, will re-sample the interaction
Process / Model: NeutronInelastic / FTFP
Primary: neutron (2112), E= 6171.9, target nucleus (6,12)
E(initial - final) = 6430.92 MeV.
*** This is just a warning message. ***
-------- WWWW -------- G4Exception-END --------- WWWW -------
-------- WWWW ------- G4Exception-START -------- WWWW -------
*** G4Exception : had012
issued by : G4HadronicProcess:CheckResult()
Warning: Bad energy non-conservation detected, will re-sample the interaction
Process / Model: NeutronInelastic / FTFP
Primary: neutron (2112), E= 39202.8, target nucleus (6,12)
E(initial - final) = 5470.45 MeV.
*** This is just a warning message. ***
-------- WWWW -------- G4Exception-END --------- WWWW -------
History
#1 Updated by Robert Hatcher about 6 years ago
Quoting from 2013-10-30 email(s) from Robert Hatcher to Prabhjot Singh:
Reading the message carefully seems to imply that indeed these are just warnings and that it caught itself trying to do something stupid and went back and re-worked the problem (e.g. "will re-sample the interaction").
I think for now you should just proceed with whatever you're doing w/ g4numi and treat these as noisy internal warnings to G4 itself.
One expert I asked, responded with:
As far as I can tell, it would fail if it took more than 100 attempts to re-sample. I do not see a way to suppress the warnings. There is a claim that it gets better with 9.6.p02
Where I think what he means by "fail" here is that it would throw a harder exception (ie. error rather than warning) if after 100 tries it continued to fail energy conservation.