I am new to modelica, and i don't have this much experience in it, but i got the basics of course. I am trying to model a micrfluidic network. The network consists of two sources of water and oil, controlled by two valves. The flow of the two mediums interact at a Tjunction and then into a tank or chamber. I don't care about the fluid properties of the mixture because its not my purpose. My question is how do redeclare two medium packages (water and oil) in one system component such as the Tjunction or a tank in order to simulate the system. In my real model, the two mediums doesn't meet, becuase every medium passes through the channels at a different time.
I attached the model with this message. Here's the link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yq6lg9la8z211uc/twomediumsv2.zip?dl=0
Thanks for the help .
I don't think you can redeclare a medium during simulation. In your case (where you don't need the mixing of the two fluids) you could create a new medium, for instance called OilWaterMixture, extending from Modelica.Media.Interfaces.PartialMedium.
If you look into the code of PartialMedium you'll see that it contains a lot of partial ("empty") functions that you should fill in in your new medium model. For example, in OilWaterMixture you should extend the function specificEnthalpy_pTX to return the specific enthalpy of your water/oil mixture, for a certain water/oil mixture (given by the mass fraction vector X). This could be done by adding the following model to the OilWaterMixture package:
redeclare function extends specificEnthalpy_pTX "Return specific enthalpy"
Oil = Modelica.Media.Incompressible.Examples.Essotherm650;
Water = Modelica.Media.Water.StandardWater;
algorithm
h_oil := Oil.h_pT(p,T);
h_water := Water.specificEnthalpy_pT(p,T);
h := X[0]*h_oil + X[1]*h_water;
end specificEnthalpy_pTX;
The mass fraction vector X is defined in PartialMedium and in OilWaterMixture you must define that it has two elements.
Again, since you are not going to actually use the mixing properties but only mass fraction vectors {0,1} or {1,0} the simple linear mixing equation should be adequate.
When you use OilWaterMixture in the various components, the error log will tell you which medium functions they need. So you probably don't need to extend all the partial functions in PartialMedium.
Related
Our use case could be described as a variant of 1D bin packing or sheet cutting.
Imagine a drywall with a beam framing.
We want to optimize the number and size of gypsum boards that would be needed to cover the wall.
Boards must start and end on a beam.
Boards must not overlap (hard constraint).
Less (i.e. bigger) boards, the better (soft constraint).
What we currently do:
Pre-generate all possible boards and pass them as problem facts.
Let the solver pick the best subset of those (nullable planning variable).
First Fit Decreasing + Simulated Annealing
Even relatively small walls (~6m, less than 20 possible boards to pick from) take sometimes minutes and while we mostly get a feasible solution, it's rarely optimal.
Is there a better way to model that?
EDIT
Our current domain model looks like the following. Please note that the planning entity only holds the selected/picked material but nothing else. I.e. currently our planning entities are all equal, which kind of prevents any optimization that depends on planning entity difficulty.
data class Assignment(
#PlanningId
private val id: Long? = null,
#PlanningVariable(
valueRangeProviderRefs = ["materials"],
strengthComparatorClass = MaterialStrengthComparator::class,
nullable = true
)
var material: Material? = null
)
data class Material(
val start: Double,
val stop: Double,
)
Active (sub)pillar change and swap move selectors. See optaplanner docs section about move selectors (move neighorhoods). The default moves (single swap and single change) are probably getting stuck in local optima (and even though SA helps them escape those, those escapes are probably not efficient enough).
That should help, but a custom move to swap two subpillars of the almost the same size, might improve efficiency further.
Also, as you're using SA (Simulated Annealing), know that SA is parameter sensitive. Use optaplanner-benchmark to try multiple SA starting temp parameters with different dataset set sizes. Also compare it to a plain LA (Late Acceptance) in benchmarks too. LA isn't fickle like SA can be. (With fickle I don't mean unstable. I mean potential dataset size sensitive parameter tweaking.)
I need some help in creating a VI that generates virtual or calculated channels based on several channels I measure.
e.g.
I measure voltage on several AI, lets say, ch A,B,C,D,E were B,C and E represent current on a shunt and would like to calculate a the power of the system
Q[A] = B+C
R[W] = A*Q
S[W] = D*E
T[W] = R+S
I would like to load the equations externally from a configuration file that may vary from one project to another equations would come in a format of a string Q=A+B , R= A*Q .....
*(during a run equation and channel count don't change - only when loading config).
The main issues that I am facing is that the inputs to each equation may have dependencies on virtual channels that do not have data yet
Was trying to use:
formula nodes/ Math scripts: https://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/371361R-01/lvconcepts/formula_nodes/
https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA03q000000x30HCAQ&l=en-IL
All data that should be chunked into a data stream (continues sampling) that can be presented on a Chart/Graph and saved to CSV/TDMS
do I need some additional packages?
I have tried the following based on the the example given - getting strange result
Answer
The elements you are looking for are not the Formula/Math Nodes but rather the:
Formula Parsing VIs
Using these VIs you are able to pass a calculation in the form of a string and an array of variable names and then evaluate the formula. This allows for run-time variable scripting, where most other nodes require compile time formula evaluation (With the exception of the python node).
Example
Example of using a very simple program to evaluate two different calculations using the same values and variables.
I am using the Envelope_3 package of CGAL-4.9.1 and I need to compute an upper envelope where the resulting envelope diagram (Envelope_diagram_2<EnvTraits>) could have edges of three different types:
segments
rays
parabolic arcs (conic arcs)
The three provided models of Envelope_Traits_3 are not enough for this.
I therefore need to create my own EnvTraits (which have to be a model of the concept Envelope_Traits_3).
For now, I made a something like the already provided Env_sphere_traits_3<ConicTraits> model, with which I have at my disposal both parabolic arcs and segments (I just use straight arcs).
The problem arises because I also need to be able to use Rays. How could I do this? Is there a Traits class that I can extend (just like I'm doing right now with Arr_conic_traits_2) that provides X_monotone_curve_2s that can be of the three types that I need?
I found the Arr_polycurve_traits_2 class, hoping that it would allow curves of different type to be stored as subcurves, but it actually just allows to store polycurves that are all of the same kind (linear, bezier, conic, circular...).
What you need is a model of the EnvelopeTraits_3 concept and of the ArrangementOpenBoundaryTraits_2 concept. Among all traits classes provided by the "2D Arrangements" package only instances of the templates Arr_linear_traits_2, Arr_rational_function_traits_2, and Arr_algebraic_segment_traits_2 are models of the later concept.
I suggest that you develop something like Env_your_object_traits_3<AlgebraicTraits_2>, where the template parameter AlgebraicTraits_2 can be substituted with an instance of Arr_algebraic_segment_traits_2.
Efi
Is there a method of using the exponent properties of LabView units for carrying custom units? For example I would find it convenient to use milli-Amperes instead of Amperes in my data wires.
My first attempt at doing so looks like this, but trying to get the value out at the end gives me nothing.
I would find it convenient to use milli-Amperes instead of Amperes in my data wires
For a wire, it's not possible, and it's not a problem, here's why:
I'm afraid what you want make little sense, since you're milli-Amperes instead of Amperes refers to representing your data, while a wire is just raw data. Adding the milli- to a floating point changes the exponent, not the mantissa, so there's no loss or gain of precision in the value that your number carries.
Now if we talk about an indicator which is technically a display of the wire value, you change the unit from "A" to "mA" to have the display you want.
Finally, in your attempt with "set numeric info", the -3 factor added next to Amperes means the unit is A^-3, not mA.
You can use data that don't use units, however than you will loose your automatic check of the units.
For display properties you can tweak the display format to show different outputs:
This format string is constructed as following:
% numeric
^ engineering notation, exponents in multiples of three
# no trailing zeros
_6 six significat digits
e scientific notation (1e1 for instance)
The prefix is the best way to affect the presentation of the value on a specific front panel.
When passing data from VI to VI, the prefix is not passed, and the data uses the base ( Amps, Volts, etc...)
In my example below, the unitless value 3 is assigned units of Amp in mA.vi. The front panel indicator is set to show units of mA.
In Watts.vi I multiply the Amps OUT of mA.vi by a constant of 9V and the result is wired to the indicator x*y.
x*y has units of W and I changed the prefix to k for presentation.
The NI forums have several threads that report certain functions (square and square root specifically) can cause unit errors or broken wires. Most folks don't even know the units capability exists, and most that do have tried and abandoned them. :)
The only effect AudioUnit on iOS is the "iTunes EQ", which only lets you use EQ pre-sets. I would like to use a customized eq in my audio graph
I came across this question on the subject and saw an answer suggesting using this DSP code in the render callback. This looks promising and people seem to be using this effectively on various platforms. However, my implementation has a ton of noise even with a flat eq.
Here's my 20 line integration into the "MixerHostAudio" class of Apple's "MixerHost" example application (all in one commit):
https://github.com/tassock/mixerhost/commit/4b8b87028bfffe352ed67609f747858059a3e89b
Any ideas on how I could get this working? Any other strategies for integrating an EQ?
Edit: Here's an example of the distortion I'm experiencing (with the eq flat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_6JaNUvUjA
In the code in EQ3Band.c, the filter coefficients are used without being initialized. The init_3band_state method initialize just the gains and frequencies, but the coefficients themselves - es->f1p0 etc. are not initialized, and therefore contain some garbage values. That might be the reason for the bad output.
This code seems wrong in more then one way.
A digital filter is normally represented by the filter coefficients, which are constant, the filter inner state history (since in most cases the output depends on history) and the filter topology, which is the arithmetic used to calculate the output given the input and the filter (coeffs + state history). In most cases, and of course when filtering audio data, you expect to get 0's at the output if you feed 0's to the input.
The problems in the code you linked to:
The filter coefficients are changed in each call to the processing method:
es->f1p0 += (es->lf * (sample - es->f1p0)) + vsa;
The input sample is usually multiplied by the filter coefficients, not added to them. It doesn't make any physical sense - the sample and the filter coeffs don't even have the same physical units.
If you feed in 0's, you do not get 0's at the output, just some values which do not make any sense.
I suggest you look for another code - the other option is debugging it, and it would be harder.
In addition, you'd benefit from reading about digital filters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_filter
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/