Gavin Ridley

Alright I don't mean to be stubborn, but I feel my comments have been addressing exactly those questions. The question I am answering with nearly every comment I've made is...

OK Paul you make some good points. You've swayed my position with the MCNP point. To clarify my position on the first point in your reply I'm claiming that surface...

I was reflecting on this some more this morning, and still can't think of a situation in which this is a preferable or more correct approach over applying vacuum boundary...

@paulromano thank you very much for clarifying that. I suppose that either approach is imperfect: with what I've suggested some small eigenvalue error is incurred, and with the one suggested...

@paulromano in your example why wouldn't you just make the surface to collect particles at the outer one and not the inner one?

Ah! Well that makes perfect sense to me. On top of that, I thought of another case where this new approach certainly makes more sense than using a vacuum BC....

Nope, I'll go ahead and hit the button. Sorry to miss that last notification!

> Resampling with replacement as is done in the current implementation is always dangerous and adds no value. I do not agree with this. How is it dangerous? Maybe there's...

"Parameter related to the aperture" Lol what. That isn't the best! Is this the radius squared one unit along the cone's axis? I agree it'd be good to include a...