Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor user manual #1363

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Aug 13, 2024
Merged

Conversation

sethrj
Copy link
Member

@sethrj sethrj commented Aug 12, 2024

This breaks apart several of the long Sphinx RST files into smaller ones (so that instead of being organized according to the code directories, it's broken apart by subject matter). It flattens the structure to make it easier to jump to and read certain parts of the documentation. Finally it improves usability of the within-document sidebar.

Latest manual: https://sethrj.github.io/celeritas/user/index.html

@sethrj sethrj added the documentation Documentation, examples, tests, and CI label Aug 12, 2024
@sethrj sethrj requested review from drbenmorgan, amandalund and hhollenb and removed request for hhollenb August 12, 2024 17:00
Copy link
Contributor

@amandalund amandalund left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

src/celeritas/em/interactor/BetheHeitlerInteractor.hh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +165 to +166
* TODO this should be precomputed and used as part of the "applicability" per
* particle type, not included in the interactor. See celeritas#907 .
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How do we do that if it depends on the incident particle energy?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The "applicability" for interactions should have a lower bound for the incident particle energy based on conservation rules etc. So, given a particle type and the electron cutoff for a material, we should be able to solve for the lowest incident muon energy that creates an electron higher than the secondary cutoff. Right? The reason we can't do this now is because we don't have per-material applicability (#907).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yes, that's right. Actually, looking again I think the max secondary energy might already be used to limit the cross section/energy loss calculation in Geant4, in which case we shouldn't need to do anything except remove the (unnecessary) check in the interactor.

@sethrj sethrj enabled auto-merge (squash) August 13, 2024 13:41
@sethrj sethrj merged commit 91a250d into celeritas-project:develop Aug 13, 2024
29 checks passed
@sethrj sethrj deleted the refactor-user-manual branch August 13, 2024 18:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Documentation, examples, tests, and CI
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants