jrive

195 Reputation

6 Badges

4 years, 0 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by jrive

@acer No, your efforts were not looked down upon at all --in fact, they are very much appreciated!  It is nothing against what you did; just that there should be an easier way from Maple to do this seemingly (for a human) simple, common thing.

Thank you

@nm  I agreee with you, there has to be an easier way....this is too complex a solution for me as an intermediate Maple user.... 

@acer 30710, you make a fair point, so perhaps simplify is the wrong word, but i I were doing this by hand (well, I did do it all of the math leading up this this result by hand then tried to arrive at it with Maple), it becomes obvious to make the answer more meaningful to cancel the common terms in the numerator and denominator.  I tried a combination of expand and collect, but could not figure out how to make it work and decided to ask for help at that point. 

Your other response with a solution works --but it is rather complicated for something that intuitively i would think would be much simpler to accomplish!.  Thank you.

@nm 9834 ....yes,, of course....therefore it was pretty obvious the Rac was not meant to be there....just a remnant of bad editing on my part.  @acerunderstood what I mean, so I'm glad that didn't "halt" any help on this issue.    At any rate, I fixed it in the question to avoid further confusion. 

If this forum accepted Latex, it would be easier to catch those errors when posting.

found another post on here that ran into similar issues.  the correct installation file seems to be via MapleCloud...

Tools --> MapleCloud --> Packages --> Syrup. 

Version 8 seems to work.

it does seem like it installed, because when I remeove the colon after the "with(Syrup)" , it shows 

additional error when trying to execute "solve")

Im running Maple 2023.2, build ID 1762575

@C_R 

if you're interested in using the circuit analysis package Syrup, you can download the package here:

https://www.maplesoft.com/Applications/Detail.aspx?id=127001

 

I think I found that defining the variables as >0 was not sufficient to defiining them as "real".  I changed the definitions to:

assumptions := `&omega;0p`::real, `&omega;0s`::real, Lp::real, Ls::real, k::real, Rp::real, Rs::real, omega::real, L::real, Idc::real, Vbat::real, vin::real, 0 < omega0, 0 < `&omega;0s`, 0 < Lp, 0 < Ls, 0 < k, 0 <= Rp, 0 <= Rs, 0 < omega, 0 < L, 0 < Idc, 0 < Vbat, 0 < vin

 

and that seem to do the trick.

 

 

@Thomas Richard   thanks for the solution.  This was driving me crazy! ;-)

@acer can you give me an example of when they're not equal? 

I always thought you could bring a product of numbers into the radical by squaring them ---that is what  I wanted to do with the result; put it in that form:

-v/(2 a w L) + sqrt((-4 a^2 R^2 + v^2)/(4 a^2 w^2 L^2))

@nm that's at a different skill level!  I'm surprised there isn't a Maple command to do this --sometimes it can be more meaningful to have the radical unsimplified. 

Can your solution be modified to  bring the 2 into the radical?

@mmcdara yeah...I'm talking resistances in the question and not impedances, so the values should all be real (and positive).  And, if Rhi > RLo, then

R2 = sqrt((Rhi - Rlo)*Rhi)

is valid....so I don't get it....why is the answer in (5) for R2 different than this answer?

@mmcdara R2 in the first solution of (3)  is a valid physical solution,

R2 = sqrt((Rhi - Rlo)*Rhi)

So, I'm thinking R2 in (5) should simplify to R2 in (3).   Can Maple do that simplification?  I proved out R1 by hand...but am too lazy to simplify R2 in (5) by hand....

and, if it doesn't simplify to the R2 in (3), then something is wrong (I think)...

@acer thank you.  Yes, that is what I would have expected  to get as an answer.  I was not aware of evala, so I need to read up on how/why it works.  

To @ Scot Gould 672 point, why doesn't simplify work given the "right" assumptions?

@acer thanks...do you know where I can find a list of which commands would return unevaluated.?

@Scot Gould thanks for the suggestion...I agree...looks like 150% is the way to go...

thanks!

1 2 3 4 5 Page 1 of 5