Rename densityResponse #165
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Added in the BEAVRS model with the D-bank partially inserted. Also fixed a flaw in the geometry where the outermost cell was defined such that there could be a rare particle lost between it and the geometry boundary.
Changed to invSpeed, i.e., what the response is, rather than what it allows one to tally. Partly done because 1/v is useful in kinetic calculations.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Maybe people will disagree with this...
I thought it might be appropriate to rename densityResponse to become invSpeedResponse. This is because, to me, it feels more natural to name the response what it is, rather than what it results in the tally being. Maybe we aren't fully consistent with this, e.g., fluxResponse.
I feel invSpeed is a bit more clear to someone reading rather than density, which is a bit more ambiguous in transport.
Finally, tallying 1/v weighted by flux is something one might do when computing kinetic parameters, so the response is a bit more general than producing a density.
If you disagree, let's fight!