[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: NDSolve, three 2-d order ODE, 6 initial conditions
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg115194] Re: NDSolve, three 2-d order ODE, 6 initial conditions
*From*: michael partensky <partensky at gmail.com>
*Date*: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:23:41 -0500 (EST)
*
*
*On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:16 PM, DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com> wrote:
*
>
> Perhaps a call to ndSol with some parameters (known only to you) will cause
> an error message... but the statement you posted, as it is, gives NO error
> message.
>
> *Sorry, Bob. The error message came with the evaluation (see below), but
it was not sensitive to the choice of parameters.
*
> That said, it seems to me that {t, t1} needs replacement with something
> like {t, t1, t2}, as NDSolve needs lower AND upper limits.
>
> *By default, {t,t1} = {t,0,t1} (I checked it in Help). However, the later
version includes*
*tmin, tmax, and the error message was the same.
*
> {x[t], y[t], z[t]} should be {x, y, z}, since NDSolve will return
> InterpolatingFunction results, not symbolic ones.
>
*Yes, I fixed it. The outcome did not change. *
>
> Though it's not necessary, I'd also replace D[x[t], {t, 2}] with x''[t],
> D[x[t], t] with x'[t], and (D[x[t], t] /. {t -> 0}) with x'[0].
>
*I used both. Just thought (apparently it was wrong) that D[ ] is
bullet-proof.*
*Thanks for the advise.*
>
> The result is
>
> ndSol[w_,w0_,w1_,x0_,y0_,z0_,v0x_,v0y_,v0z_,t1_,t2_]:=NDSolve[{-w Sin[t w]
> (x^\[Prime])[t]+w Cos[t w] (y^\[Prime])[t]+Cos[t w]
> (x^\[Prime]\[Prime])[t]+Sin[t w] (y^\[Prime]\[Prime])[t]==(w-w0) (Sin[t w]
> (x^\[Prime])[t]-Cos[t w] (y^\[Prime])[t]),-Sin[t w]
> (x^\[Prime]\[Prime])[t]+Cos[t w] (y^\[Prime]\[Prime])[t]==(w-w0) (Cos[t w]
> (x^\[Prime])[t]+Sin[t w] (y^\[Prime])[t])+w1 (z^\[Prime])[t],0==w1 (Sin[t w]
> (x^\[Prime])[t]-Cos[t w1]
> (y^\[Prime])[t]),(x^\[Prime])[0]==v0x,(y^\[Prime])[0]==v0y,(z^\[Prime])[0]==v0z,x[0]==x0,y[0]==y0,z[0]==z0},{x,
> y, z},{t,t1,t2}];
>
> That will fail if w1 == 0, since it causes one of the equations to be
> trivially True, and the equation is unnecessarily complicated when w1 is NOT
> zero.
>
> In case w1 == 0, z is also uncoupled from x and y, and it will be simply
>
> z[t_] = z0 + v0z t
>
*Absolutely. This is when the normal (oscillating) magnetic field is absent,
and the projection on the stationary field (along the z axis) is conserved.
I can not ignore w1. Effectively, this is the normal component of B1
(w1=B1/gamma, denominator being giro-magnetic ratio) rotating with the
angular frequency w, and it introduces the resonance (unless I screwed the
equations up- will check it later) *
>
> Hence, we could redefine ndSol as:
>
> Clear[ndSol]
>
> ndSol[w_,w0_,0,x0_,y0_,z0_,v0x_,v0y_,v0z_,t1_,t2_]:=
> Append[NDSolve[{-w Sin[t w] x'[t]+w Cos[t w] y'[t]+Cos[t w] x''[t]+Sin[t w]
> y''[t]==(w-w0) (Sin[t w] x'[t]-Cos[t w] y'[t]),-Sin[t w] x''[t]+Cos[t w]
> y''[t]==(w-w0) (Cos[t w] x'[t]+Sin[t w]
> y'[t]),x'[0]==v0x,y'[0]==v0y,x[0]==x0,y[0]==y0},{x, y},{t,t1,t2}],z->z0+#
> v0z&]
>
> ndSol[w_,w0_,w1_,x0_,y0_,z0_,v0x_,v0y_,v0z_,t1_,t2_]:=NDSolve[{-w Sin[t w]
> x'[t]+w Cos[t w] y'[t]+Cos[t w] x''[t]+Sin[t w] y''[t]==(w-w0) (Sin[t w]
> x'[t]-Cos[t w] y'[t]),-Sin[t w] x''[t]+Cos[t w] y''[t]==(w-w0) (Cos[t w]
> x'[t]+Sin[t w] y'[t])+w1 (z')[t],0==Sin[t w] x'[t]-Cos[t w1]
> y'[t],x'[0]==v0x,y'[0]==v0y,(z')[0]==v0z,x[0]==x0,y[0]==y0,z[0]==z0},{x, y,
> z},{t,t1,t2}];
>
> *Thanks. *
*My last version was *
*
*
*ndSol[w_, w0_, w1_, x0_, y0_, z0_, v0x_, v0y_, v0z_, t1_, t2_] :=*
* NDSolve[{Cos[w t ] D[x[t], {t, 2}] + Sin[ w t] D[y[t], {t, 2}] - w Sin[w
t] D[x[t], t] + w Cos[w t] D[y[t], t] == (w - w0) ( Sin[w t ] D[x[t], t] -
Cos[w t] D[y[t], t]),*
* -Sin[w t] D[x[t], {t, 2}] + Cos[w t] D[y[t], {t, 2}] == (w - w0) (Cos[w
t] D[x[t], t] + Sin[w t] D[y[t], t]) + w1 D[z[t], t],*
* D[z[t], {t, 2}] == w1 (Sin[w t] D[x[t], t] - Cos[w1 t] D[y[t], t]),
(D[x[t], t] /. {t -> 0} ) == v0x, (D[y[t], t] /. {t -> 0} ) == v0y, (D[z[t],
t] /. {t -> 0}) == v0z, x[0] == x0, y[0] == y0, z[0] == z0 }, {x, y, z},
{t, t1, t2}];*
*
*
*
*
*I evaluated it in Mathematica 7.0 with the following parameters
ndSol[10,10.1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,10]*
*
*
*The message was:*
NDSolve::ndnco: The number of constraints (6) (initial conditions) is not
equal to the total differential order of the system (5). >>
*
*
*I just heard from Daniel Lichtblau that the message from Mathematica 7.1
was different, and that Mathematica 8. did solve it without troubles. Hence,
Daniel suggested that this was a bug.*
*I am surprised by encountering a bug so effortlessly. Previously, the
errors have always been mine. :) Is it possible that I did introduce and
error, but Mathematica 8. is simply more flexible in its defaults (functions
are more "overloaded" bla-bla ?). *
*What do you think?
Btw, I have just installed M. 8 but did not give it a try yet.*
*
*
*Thanks*
*Michael*
Whether that is solvable for the parameters you'd like to pass, I can't
> venture to guess.
>
> Bobby
>
>
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:56:52 -0600, michael partensky <partensky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, group!
>>
>> An attempt to demonstrate a (restricted) analogy between the Bloch
>> (magnetic resonance) equation and the motion equation for a charged
>> particle
>> in the magnetic field leads to the following equation:
>>
>> ndSol[w_, w0_, w1_, x0_, y0_, z0_, v0x_, v0y_, v0z_, t1_] :=
>> NDSolve[{Cos[w t ] D[x[t], {t, 2}] + Sin[ w t] D[y[t], {t, 2}] - w Sin[w
>> t] D[x[t], t] + w Cos[w t] D[y[t], t] == (w - w0) ( Sin[w t ] D[x[t], t] -
>> Cos[w t] D[y[t], t]),
>> -Sin[w t] D[x[t], {t, 2}] + Cos[w t] D[y[t], {t, 2}] == (w - w0) (Cos[w
>> t] D[x[t], t] + Sin[w t] D[y[t], t]) + w1 D[z[t], t],
>> D[z, {t, 2}] == w1 (Sin[w t] D[x[t], t] - Cos[w1 t] D[y[t], t]),
>> (D[x[t], t] /. {t -> 0} ) == v0x, (D[y[t], t] /. {t -> 0} ) == v0y,
>> (D[z[t],
>> t] /. {t -> 0}) == v0z, x[0] == x0, y[0] == y0, z[0] == z0 }, {x[t],
>> y[t],
>> z[t]}, {t, t1}];
>>
>> Apparently there is an error - u will see the message. Could you please
>> help
>> catching it?
>> Thanks
>> Michael Partenskii
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: pattern bugs and comment on intuitive syntax for the New Year**
Next by Date:
**Re: pattern bugs and comment on intuitive syntax for the New Year**
Previous by thread:
**Re: NDSolve, three 2-d order ODE, 6 initial conditions**
Next by thread:
**Re: NDSolve, three 2-d order ODE, 6 initial conditions**
| |