Re: TGeant3 geant321 version number

Hello Susan,

   this fix seems to me nonsensical, but I understand the interest of your mail. Ian, would you agree to do one more sync? Best,

Federico Carminati
CERN-PH
1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 76 74959
Fax: +41 22 76 79480
Mobile: +41 76 487 4843

On 5 Nov 2007, at 03:17, Susan Kasahara wrote:

> Hi Federico,
> Thanks for your response.
>
>> we have several improvements (at least we do hope so) that we
>> never ported back into the official 321 of the cern library. There
>> was a synchronisation some time (2 years) ago, but then we diverged
>> again. The file gversc.inc may not be meaningful any more, thanks for
>> pointing this out. We might resynchronise, however when you say that
>> there are differences, how can you be sure that these are due to the
>> transport and not to the geometry? This is indeed the most likely
>> cause.
>
> I think it's important to synchronize the two because otherwise
> it's hard to claim that we are using Geant3 for the physics
> simulation.
> I am still exploring the differences between CERNLIB's Geant3 and
> Geant3 as
> implemented in the geant3_vmc distribution. What I've noticed so
> far is that
> some (most) of the differences are in the direction of improvements
> applied to
> geant3_vmc but not yet imported to CERNLIB's Geant3, as expected
> and as you
> suggest. But there also appear to be some cases in
> which a change was made to CERNLIB's Geant3 but not geant3_vmc.
> For example, in the CERNLIB distribution of Geant3.21/14, the gphys/
> gdray.F routine
> has this:
> CC PEELS=SQRT(ABS((EELS+AMASS)*TELS))
> PEELS=SQRT( PELS(1)**2 + PELS(2)**2 + PELS(3)**2)
> whereas the geant3_vmc version of the same routine has this:
> PEELS=SQRT(ABS((EELS+AMASS)*TELS))
> The latter corresponds to what appeared in CERNLIB Geant3.21/11
> packaged with cernlib
> version 98, so it appears that an improvement that was added to
> CERNLIB Geant3.21
> has not been implemented in the geant3_vmc version.
> A formal resynchronization would take care of these differences.
> Thanks & best regards,
> -Sue
>
>
>
>> Hello,
>> we have several improvements (at least we do hope so) that we
>> never ported back into the official 321 of the cern library. There
>> was a synchronisation some time (2 years) ago, but then we diverged
>> again. The file gversc.inc may not be meaningful any more, thanks for
>> pointing this out. We might resynchronise, however when you say that
>> there are differences, how can you be sure that these are due to the
>> transport and not to the geometry? This is indeed the most likely
>> cause.
>>
>> Federico Carminati
>> CERN-PH
>> 1211 Geneva 23
>> Switzerland
>> Tel: +41 22 76 74959
>> Fax: +41 22 76 79480
>> Mobile: +41 76 487 4843
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2007, at 06:50, Susan Kasahara wrote:
>>
>>> Hi vmc team,
>>> We've noticed very minor differences between the use of TGeant3 and
>>> using
>>> geant3.21/14 from cernlib outside of the VMC framework. This has
>>> raised
>>> a question which is "what is the sub-version of geant3.21 used as
>>> part
>>> of TGeant3?" Or should we expect that the geant321 code used in
>>> TGeant3 has
>>> diverged from the original cernlib source, so that this question of
>>> which
>>> sub-version is not meaningful.
>>> I've noticed that the sub-version of geant321 in TGeant3 as
>>> determined from
>>> the package's geant321/gversc.inc is geant3.21/11. It appears
>>> however that
>>> this sub-version number hasn't changed in some time.
>>> More generally, can you please describe the policy regarding the
>>> updates
>>> to TGeant3's geant3.21?
>>> For example, are all changes to the most recent cernlib version of
>>> geant3.21
>>> included in TGeant3's version, but TGeant3's version may also
>>> include
>>> additional updates that go beyond cernlib's standard version?
>>> Thanks very much for your time.
>>> -Sue
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 14:14:09 CET