Justin Verde had trouble sending to the mailing list (his email server being flagged as a spam host by sorbs) and asked me to forward.

Forwarded email text follows:

Hello everyone,

I was able to successfully run the TOV collapse and have attached some build notes and the par file I used to do so, for anyone interested.

I've begun using the simulation as a basis for building a scalar field collapse simulation, and am perhaps getting lost in some of the competencies/communications between the different thorns in the job. I've attached a .pdf that shows my understanding of the dependencies and inheritances across thorns in the TOV collapse.

My current way forward involves:

1. Remove EOS_OMNI dependencies 2. Rewrite TOVSolver as a new thorn (ScalarSolver) 3. Replace GRHydro with similar thorn of reduced capabilities (GRScalar)

I'm wondering if anyone has any best practices (previously documented, or otherwise) to take into account when doing so, or if there are any warnings to heed before playing around with duplicating a thorn. My worry is that I'll spend weeks making a mistake that I could have avoided by asking for help beforehand.

My specific questions are as follows:

1. Is removing all EOS_OMNI-related comments from the par file adequate? 2. In the TOVSolver documentation there is a reference to a "scalar field code" that uses the CalcTmunu interface, which seems to refer to a code doing similar things to what I'm trying to do. Is there somewhere I could get this code, or a simulation that may help see what hydro elements I can remove? 3. If I were to completely remove GRHydro, what functionalities would I lose? I plan to use it to handle the evolution equation for my scalar field by simply removing any strictly hydro (or shock) parts that don't seem necessary. Is this (in)advisable?

Thanks again for all the community help I've received so far!