I'm trying to generate a sine wave that matches my requirements for amplitude, number of phases and start and end values.
I can accurately control amplitude and number of phases, but I don't know how to set the start and end values accurately. I believe there is a mathematical approach to this, but I don't know where to start.
I also tried actually "cropping" the wave by cutting elements of y before start and after end, but beside being not very elegant, I encountered issues with accuracy.
Thanks for any help!
import numpy as np
import math
import matplotlib.pylab as plt
min=0
max=180
f = 2
start = 45
stop = 60
t = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 1000)
y = ((max+min)/2) + (((max-min)/2) * np.sin(f*t + 100)) # "100" set manually by experimenting
actual_min, actual_max = np.min(y), np.max(y)
actual_start, actual_stop = y[0], y[-1]
print(f"min: {actual_min}, max: {actual_max}")
print(f"start: {actual_start}, stop: {actual_stop}")
plt.plot(t, y)
min: 0.00019246157938823671, max: 179.99994783571566
start: 44.42709230012171, stop: 44.42709230012167
You need arcsin to get the t for a given y:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pylab as plt
min = 0
max = 180
f = 2
start = 45
stop = 60
a = (max + min) / 2
b = (max - min) / 2
t0 = np.arcsin((start - a) / b) / f
t1 = np.arcsin((stop - a) / b) / f + 2 * np.pi
t = np.linspace(t0, t1, 1000)
y = a + b * np.sin(f * t)
assert np.allclose([start, stop], [y[0], y[-1]])
Related
I have the following negative quadratic equation
-0.03402645959398278x^{2}+156.003469x-178794.025
I want to know if there is a straight way (using numpy/scipy libraries or any other) to get the value of x when the slope of the derivative is zero (the maxima). I'm aware I could:
change the sign of the equation and apply the scipy.optimize.minima method or
using the derivative of the equation so I can get the value when the slope is zero
For instance:
from scipy.optimize import minimize
quad_eq = np.poly1d([-0.03402645959398278, 156.003469, -178794.025])
############SCIPY####################
neg_quad_eq = np.poly1d(np.negative(quad_eq))
fit = minimize(neg_quad_eq, x0=15)
slope_zero_neg = fit.x[0]
maxima = np.polyval(quad_eq, slope_zero_neg)
print(maxima)
##################numpy######################
import numpy as np
first_dev = np.polyder(quad_eq)
slope_zero = first_dev.r
maxima = np.polyval(quad_eq, slope_zero)
print(maxima)
Is there any straight way to get the same result?
print(maxima)
You don't need all that code... The first derivative of a x^2 + b x + c is 2a x + b, so solving 2a x + b = 0 for x yields x = -b / (2a) that is actually the maximum you are searching for
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def func(x, a=-0.03402645959398278, b=156.003469, c=-178794.025):
result = a * x**2 + b * x + c
return result
def func_max(a=-0.03402645959398278, b=156.003469, c=-178794.025):
maximum_x = -b / (2 * a)
maximum_y = a * maximum_x**2 + b * maximum_x + c
return maximum_x, maximum_y
x = np.linspace(-50000, 50000, 100)
y = func(x)
mx, my = func_max()
print('maximum:', mx, my)
maximum: 2292.384674478263 15.955750522436574
and verify
plt.plot(x, y)
plt.axvline(mx, color='r')
plt.axhline(my, color='r')
Now I have two functions respectively are
rho(u) = np.exp( (-2.0 / 0.2) * (u**0.2-1.0) )
psi( w(x-u) ) = (1/(4.0 * math.sqrt(np.pi))) * np.exp(- ((w * (x-u))**2) / 4.0) * (2.0 - (w * (x-u))**2)
And then I want to integrate 'rho(u) * psi( w(x-u) )' with respect to 'u'. So that the integral result can be one function with respect to 'w' and 'x'.
Here's my Python code snippet as I try to solve this integral.
import numpy as np
import math
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import integrate
x = np.linspace(0,10,1000)
w = np.linspace(0,10,500)
u = np.linspace(0,10,1000)
rho = np.exp((-2.0/0.2)*(u**0.2-1.0))
value = np.zeros((500,1000),dtype="float32")
# Integrate the products of rho with
# (1/(4.0*math.sqrt(np.pi)))*np.exp(- ((w[i]*(x[j]-u))**2) / 4.0)*(2.0 - (w[i]*(x[j]-u))**2)
for i in range(len(w)):
for j in range(len(x)):
value[i,j] =value[i,j]+ integrate.simps(rho*(1/(4.0*math.sqrt(np.pi)))*np.exp(- ((w[i]*(x[j]-u))**2) / 4.0)*(2.0 - (w[i]*(x[j]-u))**2),u)
plt.imshow(value,origin='lower')
plt.colorbar()
As illustrated above, when I do the integration, I used nesting for loops. We all know that such a way is inefficient.
So I want to ask whether there are methods not using for loop.
Here is a possibility using scipy.integrate.quad_vec. It executes in 6 seconds on my machine, which I believe is acceptable. It is true, however, that I have used a step of 0.1 only for both x and w, but such a resolution seems to be a good compromise on a single core.
from functools import partial
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from numpy import empty, exp, linspace, pi, sqrt
from scipy.integrate import quad_vec
from time import perf_counter
def func(u, x):
rho = exp(-10 * (u ** 0.2 - 1))
var = w * (x - u)
psi = exp(-var ** 2 / 4) * (2 - var ** 2) / 4 / sqrt(pi)
return rho * psi
begin = perf_counter()
x = linspace(0, 10, 101)
w = linspace(0, 10, 101)
res = empty((x.size, w.size))
for i, xVal in enumerate(x):
res[i], err = quad_vec(partial(func, x=xVal), 0, 10)
print(f'{perf_counter() - begin} s')
plt.contourf(w, x, res)
plt.colorbar()
plt.xlabel('w')
plt.ylabel('x')
plt.show()
UPDATE
I had not realised, but one can also work with a multi-dimensional array in quad_vec. The updated approach below enables to increase the resolution by a factor of 2 for both x and w, and keep an execution time of around 7 seconds. Additionally, no more visible for loops.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from numpy import exp, mgrid, pi, sqrt
from scipy.integrate import quad_vec
from time import perf_counter
def func(u):
rho = exp(-10 * (u ** 0.2 - 1))
var = w * (x - u)
psi = exp(-var ** 2 / 4) * (2 - var ** 2) / 4 / sqrt(pi)
return rho * psi
begin = perf_counter()
x, w = mgrid[0:10:201j, 0:10:201j]
res, err = quad_vec(func, 0, 10)
print(f'{perf_counter() - begin} s')
plt.contourf(w, x, res)
plt.colorbar()
plt.xlabel('w')
plt.ylabel('x')
plt.show()
Addressing the comment
Just add the following lines before plt.show() to have both axes scale logarithmically.
plt.gca().set_xlim(0.05, 10)
plt.gca().set_ylim(0.05, 10)
plt.gca().set_xscale('log')
plt.gca().set_yscale('log')
I'm trying to make a program that shows together the plot of my data and the plot of the simulated data. My data are from an RC circuit with square wave in input, shark fin waveform in output. The problem is that the simulated one is a little bit messy. I can't figure where is the error, I guess some is wrong on the frequency, but I don't know. Thanks to anybody who will help me.
Link to the data https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d8p9sIsNoVuXTsjHga0bXmgrbmUIb-LX
My code
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pylab
x, y = pylab.loadtxt('dati06_04.txt', unpack=True) # $\mu s$; digits
off = (y.max() + y.min()) / 2 # digits, offset
Amp = y.max()-y.min() # digits, amplitude
f_T = 24 # Hz, cut frequency
w_T = 2 * np.pi * f_T # rad / s
def A_k(k, w):
global w_T
return 1 / (1 + k * w / w_T) ** 0.5
def Phi(k, w):
global w_T
return np.arctan(- w * k / w_T)
def c_k(k):
global Amp
c = 0
if k % 2 == 0:
c = 0
if k % 2 == 1:
c = 2 * Amp / (k * np.pi)
return c
def w_res(tt, f, k):
global off
w = 2 * np.pi * f
ww = 0
for i in range(k+1):
ww = ww + c_k(i) * A_k(i, w) * np.sin(w * i * tt + Phi(i, w))
return ww + off
plt.plot(x/1000, y, color='blue')
plt.plot(x/1000, w_res(x, 111, 1000), color='orange')
plt.show()
You probably confuse period and frequency somewhere, that causes your issue. I'm not sure where, because I'm not perfectly familiar with the theory, and I don't fully understand your logic there. The solution is changing the following line:
plt.plot(x/1000, w_res(x, 111, 1000), color='orange')
to
plt.plot(x/1000, w_res(x, 1/111, 1000), color='orange')
You got a straight line before, because the frequency was too low and you saw the lower edge of a square signal. Also, you can delete the global definitions, they are useless in this situation.
I have an iterative model in Python which generates at signal using a function which contains a derivative. As the model iterates the signal becomes noisy - I suspect it may be an issue with computing the numerical derivative. I've tried to smooth this by applying a low-pass filter, convolving the noisy signal with a Gaussian kernel. I use the code snippet:
nw = 256
std = 40
window = gaussian(nw, std, sym=True)
filtered = convolve(current, window, mode='same') / np.sum(window)
where current is my signal, and gaussian and convolve have been imported from scipy. This seems to give a slight improvement, and the first 2 or 3 iterations appear very smooth. However, after that the signal becomes extremely noisy again, despite the fact that the low-pass filter is positioned inside the iterative loop.
Can anyone suggest where I might be going wrong or how I could better tackle this problem? Thanks.
EDIT: As suggested I've included the code I'm using below. At 5 iterations the noise on the signal is clearly apparent.
import numpy as np
from scipy import special
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import odeint
from scipy.signal import convolve
from scipy.signal import gaussian
# Constants
B = 426400E-9 # tesla
R = 71723E3
Rkm = R / 1000.
Omega = 1.75e-4 #8.913E-4 # rads/s
period = (2. * np.pi / Omega) / 3600. # Gets period in hours
Bj = 2.0 * B
mdot = 1000.
sigmapstar = 0.05
# Create rhoe array
rho0 = 5.* R
rho1 = 100. * R
rhoe = np.linspace(rho0, rho1, 2.E5)
# Define flux function and z component of equatorial field strength
Fe = B * R**3 / rhoe
Bze = B * (R/rhoe)**3
def derivs(u, rhoe, p):
"""Computes the derivative"""
wOmegaJ = u
Bj, sigmapstar, mdot, B, R = p
# Compute the derivative of w/omegaJ wrt rhoe (**Fe and Bjz have been subbed)
dwOmegaJ = (((8.0*np.pi*sigmapstar*B**2 * (R**6)) / (mdot * rhoe**5)) \
*(1.0-wOmegaJ) - (2.*wOmegaJ/rhoe))
res = dwOmegaJ
return res
its = 5 # number of iterations to perform
i = 0
# Loop to iterate
while i < its:
# Define the initial condition of rigid corotation
wOmegaJ_0 = 1
params = [Bj, sigmapstar, mdot, B, R]
init = wOmegaJ_0
# Compute numerical solution to Hill eqn
u = odeint(derivs, init, rhoe, args=(params,))
wOmega = u[:,0]
# Calculate I_rho
i_rho = 8. * np.pi * sigmapstar * Omega * Fe * ( 1. - wOmega)
dx = rhoe[1] - rhoe[0]
differential = np.gradient(i_rho, dx)
jpara = 1. * differential / (4 * np.pi * rhoe * Bze )
jpari = 2. * B * para
# Remove infinity and NaN values)
jpari[~np.isfinite(jpari)] = 0.0
# Convolve to smooth curve
nw = 256
std = 40
window = gaussian(nw, std, sym=True)
filtered = convolve(jpari, window, mode='same') /np.sum(window)
jpari = filtered
# Pedersen conductivity as function of jpari
sigmapstar0 = 0.05
jstar = 0.01e-6
jstarstar = 0.25e-6
s1 = 0.1e6#0.1e6 # (Am^-2)^-1
s2 = 9.9e6 # (Am^-2)^-1
n = 8.
# Calculate news sigmapstar. Realistic conductivity
sigmapstarNew = sigmapstar0 + 0.5 * (s1 + s2/(1 + (jpari/jstarstar)**n)**(1./n)) * (np.sqrt(jpari**2 + jstar**2) + jpari)
sigmapstarNew = sigmapstarNew
diff = np.abs(sigmapstar - sigmapstarNew) / sigmapstar * 100
diff = max(diff)
sigmapstar = 0.5* sigmapstar + 0.5* sigmapstarNew # Weighted averaging
i += 1
print diff
# Plot jpari
ax = plt.subplot(111)
ax.plot(rhoe/R, jpari * 1e6)
ax.axhline(0, ls=':')
ax.set_xlabel(r'$\rho_e / R_{UCD}$')
ax.set_ylabel(r'$j_{\parallel i} $ / $ \mu$ A m$^{-2}$')
ax.set_xlim([0,80])
ax.set_ylim(-0.01,0.01)
plt.locator_params(nbins=5)
plt.draw()
plt.show()
I am trying to compute the fresnel integral over a grid of coordinates using dblquad. But its taking very long and finally it's not giving any result.
Below is my code. In this code I integrated only over a 10 x 10 grid but I need to integrate at least over a 500 x 500 grid.
import time
st = time.time()
import pylab
import scipy.integrate as inte
import numpy as np
print 'imhere 0'
def sinIntegrand(y,x, X , Y):
a = 0.0001
R = 2e-3
z = 10e-3
Lambda = 0.5e-6
alpha = 0.01
k = np.pi * 2 / Lambda
return np.cos(k * (((x-R)**2)*a + (R-(x**2 + y**2)) * np.tan(np.radians(alpha)) + ((x - X)**2 + (y - Y)**2) / (2 * z)))
print 'im here 1'
def cosIntegrand(y,x,X,Y):
a = 0.0001
R = 2e-3
z = 10e-3
Lambda = 0.5e-6
alpha = 0.01
k = np.pi * 2 / Lambda
return np.sin(k * (((x-R)**2)*a + (R-(x**2 + y**2)) * np.tan(np.radians(alpha)) + ((x - X)**2 + (y - Y)**2) / (2 * z)))
def y1(x,R = 2e-3):
return (R**2 - x**2)**0.5
def y2(x, R = 2e-3):
return -1*(R**2 - x**2)**0.5
points = np.linspace(-1e-3,1e-3,10)
points2 = np.linspace(1e-3,-1e-3,10)
yv,xv = np.meshgrid(points , points2)
#def integrate_on_grid(func, lo, hi,y1,y2):
# """Returns a callable that can be evaluated on a grid."""
# return np.vectorize(lambda n,m: dblquad(func, lo, hi,y1,y2,(n,m))[0])
#
#intensity = abs(integrate_on_grid(sinIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2)(yv,xv))**2 + abs(integrate_on_grid(cosIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2)(yv,xv))**2
Intensity = []
print 'im here2'
for i in points:
row = []
for j in points2:
print 'im here'
intensity = abs(inte.dblquad(sinIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2,(i,j))[0])**2 + abs(inte.dblquad(cosIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2,(i,j))[0])**2
row.append(intensity)
Intensity.append(row)
Intensity = np.asarray(Intensity)
pylab.imshow(Intensity,cmap = 'gray')
pylab.show()
print str(time.time() - st)
I would really appreciate if you could tell any better way of doing this.
Using a scipy.integrate.dblquad to calculate every pixel of your image is going to be slow in any case.
You should try rewriting your mathematical problem so you can use some classical function in scipy.special instead. For instance, scipy.special.fresnel might work, although it is 1D and your problem seems to be in 2D. Otherwise, that there is a relationship between the Fresnel integral and the incomplete Gamma function (scipy.special.gammainc), if that helps.
If none of this work, as a last resort you can spend time optimizing your code and adapting it to Cython. This it will probably give a speed up of a factor of 10 to 100 (see this answer). Though this wouldn't be sufficient to go from a grid 10x10 to a grid 500x500.