Intro

[gidden]

Ok, I left these changes for the end, because they might find opposition. Two changes are presented, both dealing with other simulator capabilities/origins.

The first is with respect to DANESS. It is now used in a commercial setting and is no longer developed by the labs. I noted as such.

The second is the CAFCA example. I opted to remove it, but would be happy if we would instead prefer another example (I couldn't come up with a great one off the top of my head...). To my knowledge, CAFCA does not have "excellent" economic capabilities. The only FCS you could say that of (to the best of my knowledge) is DANESS, post Argonne. I think the paragraph stands on its own without an example.

I'd be happy to discuss both suggestions.

[gidden]

Oh, also, I don't think ORION is an acronym..

[gidden]

and if it is, we should update the glossary.

[katyhuff]

• Regarding CAFCA: I wasn't trying to say it has economics at all. I just gave the economics example (thinking, actually, of NECOST, which isn't enough of a simulator to include here). I meant to express only that CAFCA disregards isotopics in favor of integral effects. My statement is just that it "is problem-oriented" in this way rather than "is great at economics in this way." Those sentences were meant to read more distinctly than it seems you've read them. I'd rather return the CAFCA example to its place and change the preceding sentence to be more clear. If you return the example to its place, I can try to make that preceding sentence more clear.
• Regarding ORION - it is not an acronym.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Katy Huff katyhuff@gmail.com Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:19 PM Subject: Re: Is ORION an acronym? To: "Worrall, Andrew" worralla@ornl.gov

Fantastic. Cyclus also stands for nothing. Acronyms are overrated. Thanks!!

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Worrall, Andrew worralla@ornl.gov wrote: You can't find one, because it isn't one :)

It is such a name.

Andy

From: Katy Huff katyhuff@gmail.com<mailto:katyhuff@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:15 PM To: "Worrall, Andrew" worralla@ornl.gov<mailto:worralla@ornl.gov> Subject: Is ORION an acronym?

Hi Andrew, Sorry for the random email. I'm just writing up a list of simulators and upon including ORION, I've been struggling to find an acronym that ORION stands for. Can you confirm whether or not there's an acronym behind the name?

Thank you! Katy Huff

[katyhuff]

ORION Is, however, usually referred to as "ORION". With only a few exceptions, most of their presentations are titled "ORION: and stuff" rather than "Orion: and stuff:.

[katyhuff]

(which is to say, nothing has to change about how we're treating ORION. I thought about it already)

[gidden]

Thanks for the replies @katyhuff.

Regarding ORION, that makes sense. However, using it with the glossary package resulting in things like ORION (ORION). Maybe we could make it an \Orion or similar if you don't like this change?

Regarding CAFCA and economics, I simply point this out because, as a reader, this section seems to imply that certain FCS' have good economics and bad isotopics, and that CAFCA is one such simulator. My claim here is that it should be changed. I'm happy to have that section otherwise revised; I just suggested one approach. What do you think is best?

[katyhuff]

I'll check again, but I think I removed all instances of \gls{ORION} after the email I quoted?

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Gidden notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for the replies @katyhuff https://github.com/katyhuff.

Regarding ORION, that makes sense. However, using it with the glossary package resulting in things like ORION (ORION). Maybe we could make it an \Orion or similar if you don't like this change?

Regarding CAFCA and economics, I simply point this out because, as a reader, this section seems to imply that certain FCS' have good economics and bad isotopics, and that CAFCA is one such simulator. My claim here is that it should be changed. I'm happy to have that section otherwise revised; I just suggested one approach. What do you think is best?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/cyclus/fundamentals-paper/pull/96#issuecomment-75479494 .

http://katyhuff.github.com

[katyhuff]

Regarding cafca : I'd rather return the CAFCA example to its place and change the preceding sentence to be more clear. If you return the example to its place, I can try to make that preceding sentence more clear.

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Katy Huff katyhuff@gmail.com wrote:

I'll check again, but I think I removed all instances of \gls{ORION} after the email I quoted?

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Gidden notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for the replies @katyhuff https://github.com/katyhuff.

Regarding ORION, that makes sense. However, using it with the glossary package resulting in things like ORION (ORION). Maybe we could make it an \Orion or similar if you don't like this change?

Regarding CAFCA and economics, I simply point this out because, as a reader, this section seems to imply that certain FCS' have good economics and bad isotopics, and that CAFCA is one such simulator. My claim here is that it should be changed. I'm happy to have that section otherwise revised; I just suggested one approach. What do you think is best?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/cyclus/fundamentals-paper/pull/96#issuecomment-75479494 .

http://katyhuff.github.com

http://katyhuff.github.com

[katyhuff]

I see, I guess I missed one ORION. Thanks for catching it.

[gidden]

reverted cafca commit

[katyhuff]

Thanks for the PR! It looks great! I'll fix that intro bit asap.