BoeR

45 Reputation

6 Badges

8 years, 111 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by BoeR

@Carl Love 

This sure looks cool to me.
I will try to find me a way to implement this on a moving oscillating force, which I solve by the Laplace-method.
I will get back to you when I have some other questions (or problems) :)

But this definitely looks interesting, thanks!

Carl,

Some codes you use, I haven't seen before in Maple so apologize me for asking, but if I understand correct you now have a dampingfactor which is dependent of the velocity where the dampingfactor is 0.75 for values of velocity BIGGER than 0.2, and the dampingfactor is 0.25 when the velocity is SMALLER than 0.2.
And you have them inserted in the first graph, 'mixed' together.
So in this way, the line remains continuous! Not all the sudden there will be a 'jump' in the response of the system.

I hope I am correct.
But anyway: the way I describe here above is the way I want to formulate my problem. But it looks like you've done that.

Frank

@Preben Alsholm 

Hi again,

It took me some time to fully understand everything, but I think now I do!

I agree with your method to use 'unapply' and 'piecewise', but in my opinion the way I wrote it is more convenient for the reader to understand what happens. In 'my' case I wrote the worksheet more elaborate, because when people look into it another time (later), they can better understand how everything works. 'Unappply' and 'piecewise' cuts off a lot of things.

Thank you for your time.

Fyi: this is the result
Proc_-_Thanks.mw

@Preben Alsholm 

Hi again,

It took me some time to fully understand everything, but I think now I do!

I agree with your method to use 'unapply' and 'piecewise', but in my opinion the way I wrote it is more convenient for the reader to understand what happens. In 'my' case I wrote the worksheet more elaborate, because when people look into it another time (later), they can better understand how everything works. 'Unappply' and 'piecewise' cuts off a lot of things.

Thank you for your time.

Fyi: this is the result
Proc_-_Thanks.mw

Is the next example related to the problem I now encounter?

Let's say mass is a procedure, where the mass depends on the height.

Method1: What I did to plot the acceleration, including this procedure, was:
plotacceleration:=load/('mass(height)'*2*damping);
plots[display](plotacceleration);
Method 2: But what is better, more neat, to use:
acceleration:=load/('mass(height)'*2*damping);plotacceleration:=plot(acceleration,height=0..1);
plots[display](plotacceleration);

But my problem is that Method 2 gives me an error! ("Error, cannot determine if this expression is true or false:..."
So do I make the same mistake as I do with the procedure in the questions I asked above?

Goodnight.

Is the next example related to the problem I now encounter?

Let's say mass is a procedure, where the mass depends on the height.

Method1: What I did to plot the acceleration, including this procedure, was:
plotacceleration:=load/('mass(height)'*2*damping);
plots[display](plotacceleration);
Method 2: But what is better, more neat, to use:
acceleration:=load/('mass(height)'*2*damping);plotacceleration:=plot(acceleration,height=0..1);
plots[display](plotacceleration);

But my problem is that Method 2 gives me an error! ("Error, cannot determine if this expression is true or false:..."
So do I make the same mistake as I do with the procedure in the questions I asked above?

Goodnight.

@Preben Alsholm 

Okay, so I changed it a little bit: I made another procedure for eigenfrequentieigvvoetgangers.
So now I have a procedure to calculate/plot the line plotmodalemassaigvvoetgagers, and also I created a procedure to calculate/plot the line ploteigenfrequentieigvvoetgangers.

So far, so good. BUT....I still cannot create the line/plot for plotreductiefactorvoetgangershoogte.

You wrote your answer in terms of 'unapply' (which is relatively easy I see), but can I draw the plot of plotreductiefactorvoetgangershoogte when using 'my' procedures?

Please see my new made file:

Proc_-_Getting_ther.mw

@Preben Alsholm 

Okay, so I changed it a little bit: I made another procedure for eigenfrequentieigvvoetgangers.
So now I have a procedure to calculate/plot the line plotmodalemassaigvvoetgagers, and also I created a procedure to calculate/plot the line ploteigenfrequentieigvvoetgangers.

So far, so good. BUT....I still cannot create the line/plot for plotreductiefactorvoetgangershoogte.

You wrote your answer in terms of 'unapply' (which is relatively easy I see), but can I draw the plot of plotreductiefactorvoetgangershoogte when using 'my' procedures?

Please see my new made file:

Proc_-_Getting_ther.mw

Hi Preben

I looked at it better and it isn't that hard to understand what you wrote. Although I still like to know whether there 'alternative'.

Let me write it down differently: how come my way of writing it down doesn't work?

Thank you for your solution by the way.

Hi Preben

I looked at it better and it isn't that hard to understand what you wrote. Although I still like to know whether there 'alternative'.

Let me write it down differently: how come my way of writing it down doesn't work?

Thank you for your solution by the way.

Hello Preben,

When I adjust my sheet and use your input, it indeeds works fine. But this is not what I want...
Besides I don't fully understand what's going on (why using piecewise and local?!), I rather like my input to be as it was formulated: using subs. In this way the reader can still see what happens (and me!). In this way I understand it better.

So my question: is it possible to use the same sort of notation (using subs and the 'long' notation I use), and then let reductiefactorvoetgangershoogte work?
I do like your 'alternative' (although, maybe this is the only way to make it work), cause in this way I will only learn more and more, but I rather want it written differently, like in all other notations I used.

Frank

 

Hello Preben,

When I adjust my sheet and use your input, it indeeds works fine. But this is not what I want...
Besides I don't fully understand what's going on (why using piecewise and local?!), I rather like my input to be as it was formulated: using subs. In this way the reader can still see what happens (and me!). In this way I understand it better.

So my question: is it possible to use the same sort of notation (using subs and the 'long' notation I use), and then let reductiefactorvoetgangershoogte work?
I do like your 'alternative' (although, maybe this is the only way to make it work), cause in this way I will only learn more and more, but I rather want it written differently, like in all other notations I used.

Frank

 

@Carl Love 

To give you an example I uploaded the worksheet I use. I rather wrote another sheet, but that's kinda hard for me to still emphasize the problem I now encounter.

Procedure_-_Maplepri.mw

I only showed the commands which matter to the problem, the rest I ended with ':'. I also added text in red where I explained my problem.

To explain shortly:
The first procedure (is the first plot) depends on a '5%-rule', I can plot that one. No problem.
The second procedure (is the second plot) depends also on the (same) '5%-rule', I can also plot this one. No problem.
The third plot calculates a line containing the first procedure.
The third procedure (is the fourth plot) are two lines, which I want to convert with the fourth procedure, and inside this fourth procedure I refer to the second procedure. And this is where I mess up.

Hope it's better explained now. Thank you.

Frank

 

But how do I know why I should use this?!
How come the first plot can do it without the ".0" and give me an answer, and the second plot I need to use the ".0"?
I mean: when I use eigenfrequentiesysteem:=2 in combination with the first plot, then the answer I get is 1 from reductiefactorvoetgangerseigenfrequentie(eigenfrequentiesysteem)

I works fine indeed, but I'm looking for a way to remember this sort of stuff.
Why should I use ".0" and not ".00?"

How does Maple interpret these sort of things?

Thanks for your reply.

But how do I know why I should use this?!
How come the first plot can do it without the ".0" and give me an answer, and the second plot I need to use the ".0"?
I mean: when I use eigenfrequentiesysteem:=2 in combination with the first plot, then the answer I get is 1 from reductiefactorvoetgangerseigenfrequentie(eigenfrequentiesysteem)

I works fine indeed, but I'm looking for a way to remember this sort of stuff.
Why should I use ".0" and not ".00?"

How does Maple interpret these sort of things?

Thanks for your reply.

1 2 3 4 5 Page 1 of 5