i implement a network simulation in Simulink/SimEvents (2018b) containing a Ethernet bus, which consists of three different subsystems like shown in the figure.
The blocks send entities to each other. This results to a quite complex scene, i'd like to improve by changing the position of the ports (like input port and output port on the same side of the subsystem). I haven't found a way how to do it.
I hope someone can help me.
It's not possible. Inports and Outports are always positioned on opposite sides of the block, and cannot be changed.
The exceptions are trigger and/or enable ports, which appear on a side which doesn't have inports or outports - but they can't be changed either.
In early versions of SimEvents you could position inports and outports on the same side, however I believe that functionality was removed in about R2017a or thereabouts.
In your case you could rotate your Node block to tidy up those connections, but there's nothing you can really do with the other signals crossing each other. (You could use GoTo and From blocks, although I'm not a fan of doing that.)
Related
Specifically, my group is working on thermal modeling of EVs i.e cabin cooling and battery cooling. We have used most elements from the two-phase-fluid sub-library of simscape. But at two connections we want a controlled separation of the refrigerant flow. For that, there is an element called flow divider but it's in the hydraulics sub-library. So how do I use these libraries simultaneously? I'm trying since yesterday but nothings seem to work. Thank you.
I'm making a simple electric circuit simulator. It will (at least initially) only feature batteries, wires and resistors in series and parallel. However, I'm at a loss how best to simulate said circuit in a good way.
Specifically, I will have batteries and resistors with two contact points each, and wires that go between two contact points. I assume that each component will have a field for its resistance, the current through it and the voltage across it (current and voltage will, of course, be signed). Each component is given a resistance, and the batteries are given a voltage. The goal of the simulation is to assign correct values to all the other fields in real time as the player connects and disconnects components and wires.
These are the requirements:
It must be correct, including Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws (I'm modeling real world circuits, and there is little point if the model does something completely different)
It must be numerically stable (we can't have uncontrolled oscillations or something just because two neighbouring resistors can't make up their minds together)
It should stabilize relatively quickly for, let's say, fewer than 30 components (having to wait a few seconds before the values are correct doesn't really satisfy "real time", but I really don't plan on using it for more than 10 or maybe 20 components)
The optimal formulation for me (how I envision this in my head) would be if I could assign a script to each component that took care of that component only, possibly by communicating field values with neighbouring components, and each component script works in parallel and adjusts as is needed
I only see problems here and no solutions. The biggest problem, I think, is Kirchhoff's voltage law (going around any sub-circuit, the voltage across all components, including signs, add up to 0), because that's a global law (it says somehting about a whole circuit and not just a single component / connection point). There is a mathematical reformulation saying that there exists a potential function on the points in the circuit (for instance, the voltage measured against the + pole of the battery), which is a bit more local, but I still don't see how to let a component know how much the voltage / potential drops across it.
Kirchhoff's current law (the net current flow into an intersection is 0) might also be trouble. It seems to force me to make intersections into separate objects to enforce it. I originally thought that I could just let each component have two lists (a left list and a right list) containing every other component that is connected to it at that point, but that might not make KCL easily enforcable.
I know there are circuit simulators out there, and they must have solved this exact problem somehow. I just can't find an explanation because if I try googling it, I only find the already made simulators and no explanations anywhere.
i am trying to give numbers to ports according to a wrapper i built in simulink. but when i give a number and move on to next and port and give it another number then the previous port number sometimes gets changed/adjusted automatically in simulink. Is there a way to disable this property in simulink ?
I need to control a conveyor (driven by Micromaster 440) from a PC program using SFC14/15.
The scheme will be: Supervisors PC ->(ethernet)-> S7-1200 ->(profibus)-> Micromaster 440.
At the moment, Micromaster's output frequency is controlled via a potentiometer (analog inputs) by the "field" operator. The problem is that sometimes the operator increases the conveyor speed in order to do his job faster and this affects the production negatively. The "supervisor" wants to be able to limit output frequency using the PC program.
Of course I've seen the list of MM440 parameters and I know about P1082, but I've discovered that, unfortunately, MM440 should be stopped before the new value of P1082 takes effect. In my case it's preferable to be able to change the value on the run.
Fortunately, it seems that P0757 - P0760 - (input scaling) can be changed on the run, but this parameter has sign "first confirm", which means that
the “P” button on the operator panel (BOP or AOP) must be pressed before the
changes take effect.
But the MM440 has only one slot for the Profibus/BOP/AOP panel and I'll be using Profibus. So, in this case, what will be the behavior of mm440 like? I want to believe that, perhaps, this condition is not obligatory when using profibus panel...
I would opt for a solution where the operator no longer operates the belt speed directly but tells the S7-1200 PLC a what speed he would like the belt to run (either by using 2 +/- buttons or a pot-meter). The PLC can then control the speed of the belt (either by analog output or 2 digital (+/-) outputs).
As an added bonus you can stop the belt when it is accidentally left on and things like that...
I am implementing some head tracking and I get 2 matrices of horizontal velocities. (A vector field decomposed into vertical and horizontal velocities). For each of these matrices I do some math to calculate the actual head tracking.
My question is, is there a way to do that math (which is a set of blocks) on both matrices without copying the math blocks onto each signal?
It's hard to explain so here's a screen shot of my model:
You can see that the "complex to real-imag" block has 2 outputs (this is the little one in the middle). The mean block and the integrator circuit then calculate the head velocity and position for the real matrix (horizontal position). I want to do exactly the same routine on the imaginary matrix (vertical direction). Obviously I can just copy the blocks, but surely there must be a better way of doing it? In a way I'm looking for an analogue of a loop in "normal programming" like C or something, where a block of code is executed several times on different inputs.
You can create a Library in Simulink that contains code you can reference multiple times.
Go to File -> New -> Library. In the model window that opens, you can create any number of subsystems with whatever code you want. Then, just drag a subsystem from the library into your model. The subsystem will now appear in your model with a little arrow icon in the lower left. This indicates that the subsystem in the model is a link. You can drag as many instances of the library subsystem into your model as you wish, just as you can call a function as many times as you wish in any other programming language.
If you right-click on the subsystem in your model, you can select "Link Options -> Go To Library Block" to get back to the library. You can make changes in your model and propogate them back to the library as well.
One way to easily reuse a set of blocks is to create a subsystem out of them. In your case, you can create a subsystem by grouping existing blocks, then simply copy and paste your subsystem to use it for your imaginary output.
Although potentially more complicated, you could also look into using mux signals to avoid having to copy parts of your model.