Re: New meeting and action list

Hallo everyone,

Just a comment to the first point:

> 1. Try to figure out the timeline/responsible for re-writing EUSTEP and
> possibly come-up with more development requirements (Mohammad).
> - status ?

I rewrote the eustep completely in c++ (TGeant3gu), I also had to interface some common blocks, modify the Makefile and so on. Any way it is working now for me and I can send the changes at anytime to Rene. The only point which we may discuss here is that if we should implement in the TVirtualMCApplication a new method GeaneStepping and call this from the eustep instead of the stepping which is used usually by G3/G4/Fluka, me personally I prefer to do this new method! The question is, would it be ok to everybody should we discuss this in the meeting or there is no need for discussion?

Regards

Mohammad

On 14.01.2009 8:43 Uhr, "Andrei Gheata" <Andrei.Gheata_at_cern.ch> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> We promised another meeting last year but due to several reasons we did
> not do it. For the next ones I will follow Federico's suggestion and
> book them in advance for the whole year so that we will be forced to
> keep up.
>
> OK, now a reminder for the action list from the last meeting:
> http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=minutes&materialId=minutes&confI
> d=41169
>
> 1. Try to figure out the timeline/responsible for re-writing EUSTEP and
> possibly come-up with more development requirements (Mohammad).
> - status ?
>
> 2. Notify M.Maire about the issue (un-physical peaks in GEANE low
> momentum spectra) so that it can be replaced in the GEANE release.
> (Rene) Apply patch from Alessandra to ERTRCH
> - I know there was a discussion with M.Maire who agreed with the results
> of Alessandra and basically said that the ball is on our side. Any news
> if the patch was applied ?
>
> 3. The idea was to remove assembly volumes from the tree path (Ivana had
> to supply an example to Mohammad.
> - status ?
> Another issue here was the report of Mohammad that assemblies do appear
> sometime as current volume in tracking (which should never happen).
> - I did a recent development that fixed a related issue for divided
> volumes (using the same method to propagate). I suggest to Mohammad to
> try again and report back. Anyway I cannot test without a simple example.
>
> 4. Implement the possibility to configure not having G3 defaults so the
> user can use DefineParticle()/SetDecayMode() for defining his own.
> - I admit I did not look yet into this. Ivana, is it better on your side
> ? It is something simple to do but we should actually do it.
>
> 5. Report from Mohammad that reflections are not handled correctly via
> G4root interface.
> - I checked with the example provided with G4root in test directory
> (propagation of optical photons in a water tank with bubbles - N06).
> Reflections *are* taken into account. No example provided yet by Mohammad...
>
> 6. A particle may end-up outside the setup giving the error message: "No
> physical volume found at track vertex: (107635,-190901,-638802)"
> - I have fixed this and to my knowledge does not happen again.
>
> 7. "Proposed step is 0" issue in FLUKA-VMC.
> - I have fixed this in TFluka thanks to the fact that I have got the
> FLUKA source from Alfredo Ferrari.
>
> To do's:
> Responsibles for the items not yet solved, please let me know the
> status. For everybody: I will try to book the next meeting at the very
> beginning of February and after every 2 months after - let me know if
> you are happy with this. Any new items to add to the agenda are welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrei
>
Received on Mon Jan 19 2009 - 14:27:27 CET