i'm trying to solve a boundary value problem of an system q' = f(q(t), a(t)) with an input a using bvp4c in Matlab. Where q = [q1, q2, q1_dot, q2_dot]'
My Matlab Code does not work properly. Does anyone know how to solve this?
img: System Equation of the One Pendulum
a is a input function.
the initial state: q1(0) = pi, q2(0) = 0, q1_dot(0) = 0, q2_dot(0) = 0.
the end state: q1(te) = 0, q2(te) = 0, q1_dot(te) = 0, q2_dot(te) = 0.
input initial state: a(0) = 0, and the end state: a(te) = 0.
i've in total 10 boundaries. one_pendulum_bc can take only 5 and not more and fewer.
function one_pendulum
options = []; % place holder
solinit = bvpinit(linspace(0,1,1000),[pi, 0, 0, 0],0);
sol = bvp4c(#one_pendulum_ode,#one_pendulum_bc,solinit,options);
t = sol.x;
plot(t, sol.y(1,:))
figure(2)
plot(t, sol.y(2,:))
figure(3)
plot(t, sol.y(3,:))
figure(4)
plot(t, sol.y(4,:))
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
function dydx = one_pendulum_ode(x,y,a)
% Parameter of the One-Pendulum
m1 = 0.3583; % weight of the pendulum [kg]
J1 = 0.03799; % moment of inertia [Nms^2]
a1 = 0.43; % center of gravity [m]
d1 = 0.006588; % coefficient of friction [Nms]
g = 9.81; % gravity [m/s^2]
dydx = [ y(3)
y(4)
(a*a1*m1*cos(y(1)) + a1*g*m1*sin(y(1)) - d1*y(3))/(J1 + a1^2 *m1)
a ];
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
function res = one_pendulum_bc(ya,yb,a)
res = [ya(1) - pi
ya(2)
ya(4)
yb(1)
yb(3)];
img: The result should look like this
i just solved it with a model function.
function one_pendulum
options = bvpset('stats', 'on', 'NMax', 3000);
T = 2.5;
sol0 = [
-5.3649
119.5379
-187.3080
91.6670];
solinit = bvpinit(linspace(0, T, T/0.002),[pi, 0, 0, 0], sol0);
sol = bvp4c(#one_pendulum_ode,#one_pendulum_bc,solinit,options, T);
t = sol.x;
ax1 = subplot(2,2,1);
ax2 = subplot(2,2,2);
ax3 = subplot(2,2,3);
ax4 = subplot(2,2,4);
plot(ax1, t, sol.y(1,:))
title(ax1, 'phi');
plot(ax2, t, sol.y(2,:))
title(ax2, 'x');
plot(ax3, t, sol.y(3,:))
title(ax3, 'phi_d');
plot(ax4, t, sol.y(4,:))
title(ax4, 'x_d');
length = size(t)
k = sol.parameters
for i=1:length(2)
k5 = -(k(1) * sin(pi) + k(2) * sin(2*pi) + k(3) * sin(3*pi) + k(4) * sin(4*pi))/sin(5*pi);
x = t(i);
acc(i)=k(1) * sin(pi*x/T) + k(2) * sin(2*pi*x/T) + k(3) * sin(3*pi*x/T) + k(4) * sin(4*pi*x/T) + k5* sin(5*pi*x/T);
end
figure(2)
plot(t,acc)
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
function dydx = one_pendulum_ode(x,y,k,T)
% Parameter of the One-Pendulum
m1 = 0.3583; % weight of the pendulum [kg]
J1 = 0.03799; % moment of inertia [Nms^2]
a1 = 0.43; % center of gravity [m]
d1 = 0.006588; % coefficient of friction [Nms]
g = 9.81; % gravity [m/s^2]
% Ansatzfunktion
k5 = -(k(1) * sin(pi) + k(2) * sin(2*pi) + k(3) * sin(3*pi) + k(4) * sin(4*pi))/sin(5*pi);
a = k(1) * sin(pi*x/T) + k(2) * sin(2*pi*x/T) + k(3) * sin(3*pi*x/T) + k(4) * sin(4*pi*x/T) + k5* sin(5*pi*x/T);
dydx = [ y(3)
y(4)
(a*a1*m1*cos(y(1)) + a1*g*m1*sin(y(1)) - d1*y(3))/(J1 + a1^2 *m1)
a ];
% --------------------------------------------------------------------------
function res = one_pendulum_bc(ya,yb,k,T)
res = [ya(1) - pi
ya(2)
ya(3)
ya(4)
yb(1)
yb(2)
yb(3)
yb(4)];
Related
I have a problem with the following code. In the evidence part, the value is very small so, in the end, the probabilities are not calculated. I need to normalize it, but in which part should it be?
The code in MATLAB is:
clear all; close all; clc;
randn('seed', 1234);
resistivities = [50 200 2000 1500];
thicknesses = [500 100 200];
Par_real = [resistivities, thicknesses];
dataFreq = logspace(log10(0.001), log10(1000), 100);
[Ydata, phase] = modelMT2(Par_real, dataFreq);
sigma = 0.1;
Yexp = Ydata + sigma*randn(size(Ydata));
plot(dataFreq, Yexp, '.'); hold on; plot(dataFreq, Ydata, '-')
nsamples = 20000;
R1 = 5;
R2 = 2050;
P1 = 25;
P2 = 500;
Resis = R1 + (R2-R1)*rand(nsamples, 7);
Profs = P1 + (P2-P1)*rand(nsamples, 6);
for ii=1:nsamples
par3C = [Resis(ii, 1:3), Profs(ii, 1:2)];
par4C = [Resis(ii, 1:4), Profs(ii, 1:3)];
par5C = [Resis(ii, 1:5), Profs(ii, 1:4)];
par7C = [Resis(ii, 1:7), Profs(ii, 1:6)];
Like_M3C(ii) = log_likelihood(#modelMT2, dataFreq, Yexp, sigma, par3C);
Like_M4C(ii) = log_likelihood(#modelMT2, dataFreq, Yexp, sigma, par4C);
Like_M5C(ii) = log_likelihood(#modelMT2, dataFreq, Yexp, sigma, par5C);
Like_M7C(ii) = log_likelihood(#modelMT2, dataFreq, Yexp, sigma, par7C);
end
figure()
subplot(1, 2, 1)
plot(exp(Like_M5C))
subplot(1, 2, 2)
hist(exp(Like_M5C))
Evidencia(1) = mean(exp(Like_M3C));
Evidencia(2) = mean(exp(Like_M4C));
Evidencia(3) = mean(exp(Like_M5C));
Evidencia(4) = mean(exp(Like_M7C));
Denominador = sum(Evidencia);
PPMM = Evidencia/Denominador;
fprintf('La probabilidad de los modelos : \n');
fprintf('--------------------------------\n');
fprintf('Modelo M3C: %.4f \n', PPMM(1));
fprintf('Modelo M4C: %.4f \n', PPMM(2));
fprintf('Modelo M5C: %.4f \n', PPMM(3));
fprintf('Modelo M7C: %.4f \n', PPMM(4));
figure()
model = [1, 2, 3, 4];
bar(model, PPMM), grid on
ylim([0, 1])
xlabel('Modelo')
ylabel('Probabilidad del modelo')
function [LogPDF_post] = log_likelihood(Mod, xx, data, sigma, oldpar)
erro = (Mod(oldpar, xx) - data)';
LogPDF_post = -0.5 * erro' * 1/sigma^2 * erro;
end
I have tried to normalize the likelihood as follows, but it doesn't work. It gives equal probability in all cases.
function [LogPDF_norma] = log_likelihood(Mod, xx, data, sigma, oldpar)
erro = (Mod(oldpar, xx) - data)';
LogPDF_post = -0.5 * erro' * 1/sigma^2 * erro;
LogPDF_norma = (1/max(LogPDF_post))*LogPDF_post;
end
I wrote a finite difference algorithm to solve the wave equation which is derived here.
When I ran my code, the plotted graphs of the numerical and analytical solution deviated, which is the problem I am trying to solve. The finite difference algorithm is given in the snippet.
t_min = 0;
t_max = 10;
rps = 400; % Resolution per second
nt = t_max * rps;
t = linspace(t_min, t_max, nt);
dt = t(2) - t(1);
x_min = 0;
x_max = 8;
rpm = 100; % Resolution per menter
nx = x_max * rpm;
x = linspace(x_min, x_max, nx);
dx = x(2) - x(1);
c = 3; % Wave speed
A = pi; % Amplitude
L = x_max; % Rod lenght
w_o = 1; % Circular frequency
Cn = c * (dt / dx); % Courrant number
if Cn > 1 % Stability criteria
error('The stability condition is not satisfied.');
end
U = zeros(nx, nt);
U(:, 1) = zeros(nx, 1);
U(:, 2) = zeros(nx, 1);
U(1, :) = A * sin(w_o * t);
U(end, :) = zeros(1, nt);
for j = 2 : (nt - 1)
for i = 2 : (nx - 1)
U(i, j + 1) = Cn^2 * ( U(i + 1, j) - 2 * U(i, j) + U(i - 1, j) ) + 2 * U(i, j) - U(i, j - 1);
end
end
figure('Name', 'Numeric solution');
surface(t, x, U, 'edgecolor', 'none');
grid on
colormap(jet(256));
colorbar;
xlabel('t ({\its})');
ylabel('x ({\itm})');
title('U(t, x) ({\itm})');
To find the bug, I tryed to change the boundary conditions and see if my graph would look better. It turned out that it did, which means that the code in my double for loop is ok. The boundary conditions are the problem. However, I do not know why the code works with the new boundary conditions and does not with the old ones. I am hoping that somebody will point this out to me. The code I ran is given in the snippet.
t_min = 0;
t_max = 1;
rps = 400; % Resolution per second
nt = t_max * rps;
t = linspace(t_min, t_max, nt);
dt = t(2) - t(1);
x_min = 0;
x_max = 1;
rpm = 100; % Resolution per menter
nx = x_max * rpm;
x = linspace(x_min, x_max, nx);
dx = x(2) - x(1);
c = 3; % Wave speed
A = pi; % Amplitude
L = x_max; % Rod lenght
w_o = 1; % Circular frequency
Cn = c * (dt / dx); % Courrant number
if Cn > 1 % Stability criteria
error('The stability condition is not satisfied.');
end
U = zeros(nx, nt);
U(:, 1) = sin(pi*x);
U(:, 2) = sin(pi*x) * (1 + dt);
U(1, :) = zeros(1, nt);
U(end, :) = zeros(1, nt);
for j = 2 : (nt - 1)
for i = 2 : (nx - 1)
U(i, j + 1) = Cn^2 * ( U(i + 1, j) - 2 * U(i, j) + U(i - 1, j) ) + 2 * U(i, j) - U(i, j - 1);
end
end
figure('Name', 'Numeric solution');
surface(t, x, U, 'edgecolor', 'none');
grid on
colormap(jet(256));
colorbar;
xlabel('t ({\its})');
ylabel('x ({\itm})');
title('U(t, x) ({\itm})');
I am in the process of writing a 2D non-linear Poisson's solver. One intermediate test I performed is using my non-linear solver to solve for a "linear" Poisson equation. Unfortunately, my non-linear solver is giving me incorrect results, unlike if I try to solve it directly in MATLAB using the backslash ""
non-linear solver iteratively code: "incorrect results"
clearvars; clc; close all;
Nx = 20;
Ny = 20;
Lx = 2*pi;
x = (0:Nx-1)/Nx*2*pi; % x coordinate in Fourier, equally spaced grid
kx = fftshift(-Nx/2:Nx/2-1); % wave number vector
kx(kx==0) = 1; %helps with error: matrix ill scaled because of 0s
ygl = -cos(pi*(0:Ny)/Ny)'; %Gauss-Lobatto chebyshev points
%make mesh
[X,Y] = meshgrid(x,ygl);
%Chebyshev matrix:
VGL = cos(acos(ygl(:))*(0:Ny));
dVGL = diag(1./sqrt(1-ygl.^2))*sin(acos(ygl)*(0:Ny))*diag(0:Ny);
dVGL(1,:) = (-1).^(1:Ny+1).*(0:Ny).^2;
dVGL(Ny+1,:) = (0:Ny).^2;
%Diferentiation matrix for Gauss-Lobatto points
Dgl = dVGL/VGL;
D = Dgl; %first-order derivative matrix
D2 = Dgl*Dgl;
%linear Poisson solved iteratively
Igl = speye(Ny+1);
Ig = speye(Ny);
ZNy = diag([0 ones(1,Ny-1) 0]);
div_x_act_on_grad_x = -Igl; % must be multiplied with kx(m)^2 for each Fourier mode
div_y_act_on_grad_y = D * ZNy *D;
u = Y.^2 .* sin( (2*pi / Lx) * X);
uh = fft(u,[],2);
uold = ones(size(u));
uoldk = fft(uold,[],2);
max_iter = 500;
err_max = 1e-5; %change to 1e-8;
for iterations = 1:max_iter
for m = 1:length(kx)
L = div_x_act_on_grad_x * (kx(m)^2) + div_y_act_on_grad_y;
d2xk = div_x_act_on_grad_x * (kx(m)^2) * uoldk;
d2x = real(ifft(d2xk,[],2));
d2yk = div_y_act_on_grad_y *uoldk;
d2y = real(ifft(d2yk,[],2));
ffh = d2xk + d2yk;
phikmax_old = max(max(abs(uoldk)));
unewh(:,m) = L\(ffh(:,m));
end
phikmax = max(max(abs(unewh)));
if phikmax == 0 %norm(unewh,inf) == 0
it_error = err_max /2;
else
it_error = abs( phikmax - phikmax_old) / phikmax;
end
if it_error < err_max
break;
end
end
unew = real(ifft(unewh,[],2));
DEsol = unew - u;
figure
surf(X, Y, unew);
colorbar;
title('Numerical solution of \nabla^2 u = f');
figure
surf(X, Y, u);
colorbar;
title('Exact solution of \nabla^2 u = f');
Direct solver
ubar = Y.^2 .* sin( (2*pi / Lx) * X);
uh = fft(ubar,[],2);
for m = 1:length(kx)
L = div_x_act_on_grad_x * (kx(m)^2) + div_y_act_on_grad_y;
d2xk = div_x_act_on_grad_x * (kx(m)^2) * uh;
d2x = real(ifft(d2xk,[],2));
d2yk = div_y_act_on_grad_y *uh;
d2y = real(ifft(d2yk,[],2));
ffh = d2xk + d2yk;
%----------------
unewh(:,m) = L\(ffh(:,m));
end
How can I fix code 1 to get the same results as code 2?
I am trying to plot a geodesic on a 3D surface (tractrix) with Matlab. This worked for me in the past when I didn't need to parametrize the surface (see here). However, the tractrix called for parameterization, chain rule differentiation, and collection of u,v,x,y and f(x,y) values.
After many mistakes I think that I'm getting the right values for x = f1(u,v) and y = f2(u,v) describing a spiral right at the base of the surface:
What I can't understand is why the z value or height of the 3D plot of the curve is consistently zero, when I'm applying the same mathematical formula that allowed me to plot the surface in the first place, ie. f = #(x,y) a.* (y - tanh(y)) .
Here is the code, which runs without any errors on Octave. I'm typing a special note in upper case on the crucial calls. Also note that I have restricted the number of geodesic lines to 1 to decrease the execution time.
a = 0.3;
u = 0:0.1:(2 * pi);
v = 0:0.1:5;
[X,Y] = meshgrid(u,v);
% NOTE THAT THESE FORMULAS RESULT IN A SUCCESSFUL PLOT OF THE SURFACE:
x = a.* cos(X) ./ cosh(Y);
y = a.* sin(X) ./ cosh(Y);
z = a.* (Y - tanh(Y));
h = surf(x,y,z);
zlim([0, 1.2]);
set(h,'edgecolor','none')
colormap summer
hold on
% THESE ARE THE GENERIC FUNCTIONS (f) WHICH DON'T SEEM TO WORK AT THE END:
f = #(x,y) a.* (y - tanh(y));
f1 = #(u,v) a.* cos(u) ./ cosh(v);
f2 = #(u,v) a.* sin(u) ./ cosh(v);
dfdu = #(u,v) ((f(f1(u,v)+eps, f2(u,v)) - f(f1(u,v) - eps, f2(u,v)))/(2 * eps) .*
(f1(u+eps,v)-f1(u-eps,v))/(2*eps) +
(f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)+eps) - f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)-eps))/(2 * eps) .*
(f2(u+eps,v)-f2(u-eps,v))/(2*eps));
dfdv = #(u,v) ((f(f1(u,v)+eps, f2(u,v)) - f(f1(u,v) - eps, f2(u,v)))/(2 * eps) .*
(f1(u,v+eps)-f1(u,v-eps))/(2*eps) +
(f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)+eps) - f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)-eps))/(2 * eps) .*
(f2(u,v+eps)-f2(u,v-eps))/(2*eps));
% Normal vector to the surface:
N = #(u,v) [- dfdu(u,v), - dfdv(u,v), 1]; % Normal vec to surface # any pt.
% Some colors to draw the lines:
C = {'k','r','g','y','m','c'};
for s = 1:1 % No. of lines to be plotted.
% Starting points:
u0 = [0, u(length(u))];
v0 = [0, v(length(v))];
du0 = 0.001;
dv0 = 0.001;
step_size = 0.00005; % Will determine the progression rate from pt to pt.
eta = step_size / sqrt(du0^2 + dv0^2); % Normalization.
eps = 0.0001; % Epsilon
max_num_iter = 100000; % Number of dots in each line.
% Semi-empty vectors to collect results:
U = [[u0(s), u0(s) + eta*du0], zeros(1,max_num_iter - 2)];
V = [[v0(s), v0(s) + eta*dv0], zeros(1,max_num_iter - 2)];
for i = 2:(max_num_iter - 1) % Creating the geodesic:
ut = U(i);
vt = V(i);
xt = f1(ut,vt);
yt = f2(ut,vt);
ft = f(xt,yt);
utm1 = U(i - 1);
vtm1 = V(i - 1);
xtm1 = f1(utm1,vtm1);
ytm1 = f2(utm1,vtm1);
ftm1 = f(xtm1,ytm1);
usymp = ut + (ut - utm1);
vsymp = vt + (vt - vtm1);
xsymp = f1(usymp,vsymp);
ysymp = f2(usymp,vsymp);
fsymp = ft + (ft - ftm1);
df = fsymp - f(xsymp,ysymp); % Is the surface changing? How much?
n = N(ut,vt); % Normal vector at point t
gamma = df * n(3); % Scalar x change f x z value of N
xtp1 = xsymp - gamma * n(1); % Gamma to modulate incre. x & y.
ytp1 = ysymp - gamma * n(2);
U(i + 1) = usymp - gamma * n(1);;
V(i + 1) = vsymp - gamma * n(2);;
end
% THE PROBLEM! f(f1(U,V),f2(U,V)) below YIELDS ALL ZEROS!!! The expected values are between 0 and 1.2.
P = [f1(U,V); f2(U,V); f(f1(U,V),f2(U,V))]; % Compiling results into a matrix.
units = 35; % Determines speed (smaller, faster)
packet = floor(size(P,2)/units);
P = P(:,1: packet * units);
for k = 1:packet:(packet * units)
hold on
plot3(P(1, k:(k+packet-1)), P(2,(k:(k+packet-1))), P(3,(k:(k+packet-1))),
'.', 'MarkerSize', 5,'color',C{s})
drawnow
end
end
The answer is to Cris Luengo's credit, who noticed that the upper-case assigned to the variable Y, used for the calculation of the height of the curve z, was indeed in the parametrization space u,v as intended, and not in the manifold x,y! I don't use Matlab/Octave other than for occasional simulations, and I was trying every other syntactical permutation I could think of without realizing that f fed directly from v (as intended). I changed now the names of the different variables to make it cleaner.
Here is the revised code:
a = 0.3;
u = 0:0.1:(3 * pi);
v = 0:0.1:5;
[U,V] = meshgrid(u,v);
x = a.* cos(U) ./ cosh(V);
y = a.* sin(U) ./ cosh(V);
z = a.* (V - tanh(V));
h = surf(x,y,z);
zlim([0, 1.2]);
set(h,'edgecolor','none')
colormap summer
hold on
f = #(x,y) a.* (y - tanh(y));
f1 = #(u,v) a.* cos(u) ./ cosh(v);
f2 = #(u,v) a.* sin(u) ./ cosh(v);
dfdu = #(u,v) ((f(f1(u,v)+eps, f2(u,v)) - f(f1(u,v) - eps, f2(u,v)))/(2 * eps) .*
(f1(u+eps,v)-f1(u-eps,v))/(2*eps) +
(f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)+eps) - f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)-eps))/(2 * eps) .*
(f2(u+eps,v)-f2(u-eps,v))/(2*eps));
dfdv = #(u,v) ((f(f1(u,v)+eps, f2(u,v)) - f(f1(u,v) - eps, f2(u,v)))/(2 * eps) .*
(f1(u,v+eps)-f1(u,v-eps))/(2*eps) +
(f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)+eps) - f(f1(u,v), f2(u,v)-eps))/(2 * eps) .*
(f2(u,v+eps)-f2(u,v-eps))/(2*eps));
% Normal vector to the surface:
N = #(u,v) [- dfdu(u,v), - dfdv(u,v), 1]; % Normal vec to surface # any pt.
% Some colors to draw the lines:
C = {'y','r','k','m','w',[0.8 0.8 1]}; % Color scheme
for s = 1:6 % No. of lines to be plotted.
% Starting points:
u0 = [0, -pi/2, 2*pi, 4*pi/3, pi/4, pi];
v0 = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0];
du0 = [0, -0.0001, 0.001, - 0.001, 0.001, -0.01];
dv0 = [0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.01];
step_size = 0.00005; % Will determine the progression rate from pt to pt.
eta = step_size / sqrt(du0(s)^2 + dv0(s)^2); % Normalization.
eps = 0.0001; % Epsilon
max_num_iter = 180000; % Number of dots in each line.
% Semi-empty vectors to collect results:
Uc = [[u0(s), u0(s) + eta*du0(s)], zeros(1,max_num_iter - 2)];
Vc = [[v0(s), v0(s) + eta*dv0(s)], zeros(1,max_num_iter - 2)];
for i = 2:(max_num_iter - 1) % Creating the geodesic:
ut = Uc(i);
vt = Vc(i);
xt = f1(ut,vt);
yt = f2(ut,vt);
ft = f(xt,yt);
utm1 = Uc(i - 1);
vtm1 = Vc(i - 1);
xtm1 = f1(utm1,vtm1);
ytm1 = f2(utm1,vtm1);
ftm1 = f(xtm1,ytm1);
usymp = ut + (ut - utm1);
vsymp = vt + (vt - vtm1);
xsymp = f1(usymp,vsymp);
ysymp = f2(usymp,vsymp);
fsymp = ft + (ft - ftm1);
df = fsymp - f(xsymp,ysymp); % Is the surface changing? How much?
n = N(ut,vt); % Normal vector at point t
gamma = df * n(3); % Scalar x change f x z value of N
xtp1 = xsymp - gamma * n(1); % Gamma to modulate incre. x & y.
ytp1 = ysymp - gamma * n(2);
Uc(i + 1) = usymp - gamma * n(1);;
Vc(i + 1) = vsymp - gamma * n(2);;
end
x = f1(Uc,Vc);
y = f2(Uc,Vc);
P = [x; y; f(Uc,Vc)]; % Compiling results into a matrix.
units = 35; % Determines speed (smaller, faster)
packet = floor(size(P,2)/units);
P = P(:,1: packet * units);
for k = 1:packet:(packet * units)
hold on
plot3(P(1, k:(k+packet-1)), P(2,(k:(k+packet-1))), P(3,(k:(k+packet-1))),
'.', 'MarkerSize', 5,'color',C{s})
drawnow
end
end
I want to move a red star marker along the spiral trajectory with an equal distance of 5 units between the red star points on its circumference like in the below image.
vertspacing = 10;
horzspacing = 10;
thetamax = 10*pi;
% Calculation of (x,y) - underlying archimedean spiral.
b = vertspacing/2/pi;
theta = 0:0.01:thetamax;
x = b*theta.*cos(theta)+50;
y = b*theta.*sin(theta)+50;
% Calculation of equidistant (xi,yi) points on spiral.
smax = 0.5*b*thetamax.*thetamax;
s = 0:horzspacing:smax;
thetai = sqrt(2*s/b);
xi = b*thetai.*cos(thetai);
yi = b*thetai.*sin(thetai);
plot(x,y,'b-');
hold on
I want to get a figure that looks like the following:
This is my code for the circle trajectory:
% Initialization steps.
format long g;
format compact;
fontSize = 20;
r1 = 50;
r2 = 35;
r3= 20;
xc = 50;
yc = 50;
% Since arclength = radius * (angle in radians),
% (angle in radians) = arclength / radius = 5 / radius.
deltaAngle1 = 5 / r1;
deltaAngle2 = 5 / r2;
deltaAngle3 = 5 / r3;
theta1 = 0 : deltaAngle1 : (2 * pi);
theta2 = 0 : deltaAngle2 : (2 * pi);
theta3 = 0 : deltaAngle3 : (2 * pi);
x1 = r1*cos(theta1) + xc;
y1 = r1*sin(theta1) + yc;
x2 = r2*cos(theta2) + xc;
y2 = r2*sin(theta2) + yc;
x3 = r3*cos(theta3) + xc;
y3 = r3*sin(theta3) + yc;
plot(x1,y1,'color',[1 0.5 0])
hold on
plot(x2,y2,'color',[1 0.5 0])
hold on
plot(x3,y3,'color',[1 0.5 0])
hold on
% Connecting Line:
plot([70 100], [50 50],'color',[1 0.5 0])
% Set up figure properties:
% Enlarge figure to full screen.
set(gcf, 'Units', 'Normalized', 'OuterPosition', [0, 0, 1, 1]);
drawnow;
axis square;
for i = 1 : length(theta1)
plot(x1(i),y1(i),'r*')
pause(0.1)
end
for i = 1 : length(theta2)
plot(x2(i),y2(i),'r*')
pause(0.1)
end
for i = 1 : length(theta3)
plot(x3(i),y3(i),'r*')
pause(0.1)
end
I can't think of a way to compute distance along a spiral, so I'm approximating it with circles, in hopes that it will still be useful.
My solution relies on the InterX function from FEX, to find the intersection of circles with the spiral. I am providing an animation so it is easier to understand.
The code (tested on R2017a):
function [x,y,xi,yi] = q44916610(doPlot)
%% Input handling:
if nargin < 1 || isempty(doPlot)
doPlot = false;
end
%% Initialization:
origin = [50,50];
vertspacing = 10;
thetamax = 5*(2*pi);
%% Calculation of (x,y) - underlying archimedean spiral.
b = vertspacing/(2*pi);
theta = 0:0.01:thetamax;
x = b*theta.*cos(theta) + origin(1);
y = b*theta.*sin(theta) + origin(2);
%% Calculation of equidistant (xi,yi) points on spiral.
DST = 5; cRes = 360;
numPts = ceil(vertspacing*thetamax); % Preallocation
[xi,yi] = deal(NaN(numPts,1));
if doPlot && isHG2() % Plots are only enabled if the MATLAB version is new enough.
figure(); plot(x,y,'b-'); hold on; axis equal; grid on; grid minor;
hAx = gca; hAx.XLim = [-5 105]; hAx.YLim = [-5 105];
hP = plot(xi,yi,'r*');
else
hP = struct('XData',xi,'YData',yi);
end
hP.XData(1) = origin(1); hP.YData(1) = origin(2);
for ind = 2:numPts
P = InterX([x;y], makeCircle([hP.XData(ind-1),hP.YData(ind-1)],DST/2,cRes));
[~,I] = max(abs(P(1,:)-origin(1)+1i*(P(2,:)-origin(2))));
if doPlot, pause(0.1); end
hP.XData(ind) = P(1,I); hP.YData(ind) = P(2,I);
if doPlot, pause(0.1); delete(hAx.Children(1)); end
end
xi = hP.XData(~isnan(hP.XData)); yi = hP.YData(~isnan(hP.YData));
%% Nested function(s):
function [XY] = makeCircle(cnt, R, nPts)
P = (cnt(1)+1i*cnt(2))+R*exp(linspace(0,1,nPts)*pi*2i);
if doPlot, plot(P,'Color',lines(1)); end
XY = [real(P); imag(P)];
end
end
%% Local function(s):
function tf = isHG2()
try
tf = ~verLessThan('MATLAB', '8.4');
catch
tf = false;
end
end
function P = InterX(L1,varargin)
% DOCUMENTATION REMOVED. For a full version go to:
% https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/22441-curve-intersections
narginchk(1,2);
if nargin == 1
L2 = L1; hF = #lt; %...Avoid the inclusion of common points
else
L2 = varargin{1}; hF = #le;
end
%...Preliminary stuff
x1 = L1(1,:)'; x2 = L2(1,:);
y1 = L1(2,:)'; y2 = L2(2,:);
dx1 = diff(x1); dy1 = diff(y1);
dx2 = diff(x2); dy2 = diff(y2);
%...Determine 'signed distances'
S1 = dx1.*y1(1:end-1) - dy1.*x1(1:end-1);
S2 = dx2.*y2(1:end-1) - dy2.*x2(1:end-1);
C1 = feval(hF,D(bsxfun(#times,dx1,y2)-bsxfun(#times,dy1,x2),S1),0);
C2 = feval(hF,D((bsxfun(#times,y1,dx2)-bsxfun(#times,x1,dy2))',S2'),0)';
%...Obtain the segments where an intersection is expected
[i,j] = find(C1 & C2);
if isempty(i), P = zeros(2,0); return; end
%...Transpose and prepare for output
i=i'; dx2=dx2'; dy2=dy2'; S2 = S2';
L = dy2(j).*dx1(i) - dy1(i).*dx2(j);
i = i(L~=0); j=j(L~=0); L=L(L~=0); %...Avoid divisions by 0
%...Solve system of eqs to get the common points
P = unique([dx2(j).*S1(i) - dx1(i).*S2(j), ...
dy2(j).*S1(i) - dy1(i).*S2(j)]./[L L],'rows')';
function u = D(x,y)
u = bsxfun(#minus,x(:,1:end-1),y).*bsxfun(#minus,x(:,2:end),y);
end
end
Result:
Note that in the animation above, the diameter of the circle (and hence the distance between the red points) is 10 and not 5.