Re: Difficult geometry problem

From: Joseph Comfort <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:08:07 -0700

Hi Sebastien,

Thank you for your kind thoughts and suggestions.
I thought I had used ARBs before, but do find such files at the moment.
Even so, I do not think they are the issue. The manual recommends
against them, mainly because they can be replaced by infinite planes.
But having 6 planes with perpendicular vectors for each ARB will be a
challenge to generate and a nightmare for anyone to comprehend the input
file and deal with the logic. I do not see them as being an issue where
they have been used (unless there is an error in my coding or in the
code itself).

A more likely issue for precision, it seems to me, is where the beam
pipes are making holes in the flanges. That is why I made the pipes a
little longer than needed and then cut them with infinite planes. I
examined these regions carefully, and have not yet found errors from the
GEOEND checks.

In my way of thinking, it seems most peculiar to require high-accuracy
precision on geometrical input data when it can't even be known
physically to that degree, and in many cases is not relevant even with
less accuracy. It's a program design issue. I tried to design around
it, but apparently not well enough.

Incidentally, I found the problem with reading the RAYs. I needed a
-m32 flag on the compilation. The file is read perfectly but, because
no geometry errors are encountered (even at 50,000 rays), the
information is not helpful.

I have some ideas on how to proceed, and will give them a try.

Joe Comfort
Received on Sat Jun 12 2010 - 11:41:19 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jun 12 2010 - 11:41:25 CEST