From: Matthew Worcester (mworcest@hep.uchicago.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 15 2005 - 21:17:47 CDT
Hi Chris,
Thanks for updating us on your and Stan's work. Josh, Tim and I have
talked a little about our near and far term goals with BWsim and I've
attached a short list of goals and needs for the new BWsim. If there's
anything you'd add to the list that has come up in your work, please let
me know. The plan is to distribute this list to the collaboration very
soon to see where we need people to focus their efforts.
Cheers,
Matt
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Christopher D. Tunnell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I work under Josh Klein at UT and recently I have been working on trying
> to make a geant4-based braidwood simulation similar to ReactorFsim at
> first, but then advancing beyond ReactorFsim after being able to
> generate comparable results. So, pretty much, I have been working on
> the same sort of thing as bwsim. I have created a geometry that I am
> testing right now to see what works and what doesn't: scattering,
> reflections, absorption, etc.
>
> BWsim, in its current state, just appears to be glg4sim with some small
> changes. I would like to know what the direction of work on BWsim is.
> Who works or plans on working on it? What are the short term goals?
>
> Stan Seibert (UT grad. student) and myself have been working on getting
> to a point where we can compare our bwsim to fsim. I have been working
> on the actual simulation part, and my strategy has been to create a
> simple geometry like in fsim, and to see what data I get from this.
>
> If I understand what the short term goals are for bwsim, it will tell me
> whether or not I should start moving code I create and work on into CVS.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 00:01:01 CDT