python scipy.signal.peak_widths --> absolute heigth? (fft -3dB damping) - python

https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.signal.peak_widths.html
I think the linked function can only calculate the peak widths at a relative height. Does anyone know if there is a function that calculates the width at a fixed value (peak_amplitude - x) for all peaks?
Currently I am trying to change the original inner function "_peak_widths". Fail already with the cimport. Understand the source code here only partially. I added in the code where I would make a modification.
with nogil:
for p in range(peaks.shape[0]):
i_min = left_bases[p]
i_max = right_bases[p]
peak = peaks[p]
# Validate bounds and order
if not 0 <= i_min <= peak <= i_max < x.shape[0]:
with gil:
raise ValueError("prominence data is invalid for peak {}"
.format(peak))
height = width_heights[p] = x[peak] - prominences[p] * rel_height
CHANGE HERE TO x[peak] - 3
# Find intersection point on left side
i = peak
while i_min < i and height < x[i]:
i -= 1
left_ip = <np.float64_t>i
if x[i] < height:
# Interpolate if true intersection height is between samples
left_ip += (height - x[i]) / (x[i + 1] - x[i])
# Find intersection point on right side
i = peak
while i < i_max and height < x[i]:
i += 1
right_ip = <np.float64_t>i
if x[i] < height:
# Interpolate if true intersection height is between samples
right_ip -= (height - x[i]) / (x[i - 1] - x[i])
widths[p] = right_ip - left_ip
if widths[p] == 0:
show_warning = True
left_ips[p] = left_ip
right_ips[p] = right_ip

In case this is still relevant to you, you can use scipy.signal.peak_widths "as is" to achieve what you want by passing in modified prominence_data. Based on your own answer:
import numpy as np
from scipy.signal import find_peaks, peak_prominences, peak_widths
# Create sample data
x = np.linspace(0, 6 * np.pi, 1000)
x = np.sin(x) + 0.6 * np.sin(2.6 * x)
# Find peaks
peaks, _ = find_peaks(x)
prominences, left_bases, right_bases = peak_prominences(x, peaks)
As stated in peak_widths's documentation the height at which the width is measured is calculated as
h_eval = h_peak - prominence * relative_height
We can control the latter two variables through the parameters prominence_data and rel_height. So instead of passing in the calculated prominence which differs for each peak we can create an array where all values are the same and use that to create an absolute height:
# Create constant offset as a replacement for prominences
offset = np.ones_like(prominences)
# Calculate widths at x[peaks] - offset * rel_height
widths, h_eval, left_ips, right_ips = peak_widths(
x, peaks,
rel_height=1,
prominence_data=(offset, left_bases, right_bases)
)
# Check that h_eval is 1 everywhere
np.testing.assert_equal(x[peaks] - h_eval, 1)
# Visualize result
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.plot(x)
plt.plot(peaks, x[peaks], "x")
plt.hlines(h_eval, left_ips, right_ips, color="C2")
plt.show()
As you can see the width is evaluated for each peak at the same constant offset of 1. By using the original left_bases and right_bases as provided by peak_prominences we are limiting the maximal measured width (e.g. see peaks at 299 and 533). If you want to remove that limitation you must create these arrays yourself.

I just removed the c content. Thats my solution:
def gauss(x, p): # p[0]==mean, p[1]==stdev
return 1.0/(p[1]*np.sqrt(2*np.pi))*np.exp(-(x-p[0])**2/(2*p[1]**2))
def _peak_widths(x,peaks,prop,val=3):
i_min = prop['left_bases']
i_max = prop['right_bases']
peak = peaks[0]
# Validate bounds and order
height = x[peak] - val
# Find intersection point on left side
i = peak
while i_min < i and height < x[i]:
i -= 1
left_ip = i
if x[i] < height:
# Interpolate if true intersection height is between samples
left_ip += (height - x[i]) / (x[i + 1] - x[i])
# Find intersection point on right side
i = peak
while i < i_max and height < x[i]:
i += 1
right_ip = i
if x[i] < height:
# Interpolate if true intersection height is between samples
right_ip -= (height - x[i]) / (x[i - 1] - x[i])
widths = right_ip - left_ip
left_ips = left_ip
right_ips = right_ip
return [height, widths, int(left_ips), int(right_ips)]
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Create some sample data
known_param = np.array([2.0, 0.07])
xmin,xmax = -1.0, 5.0
N = 1000
X = np.linspace(xmin,xmax,N)
Y = gauss(X, known_param)
fig, ax= plt.subplots()
ax.plot(X,Y)
#find peaks
peaks, prop = signal.find_peaks(Y, prominence = 3.1)
ax.scatter(X[peaks],Y[peaks], color='r')
#calculate peak width
y, widths, x1, x2 = _peak_widths(Y,peaks, prop)
print(f'width = { X[x1] - X[x2]}')
l = mlines.Line2D([X[x1],X[x2]], [y,y], color='r')
ax.add_line(l)
plt.show()

Related

Need help writing the cursor function to implement the peano algorithm within arcpy

I am using the arcpy module for arcGIS to implement a peano curve algorithm and provide each object in the GIS Project with a spatial order value.
I have currently defined the Peano curve but need to write cursor functions that will compute and add the outputs to the new field after calling the Peano.
This is the code that I have so far. Areas related to the question are in bold. Thank you!
#return the fractional part from a double number
def GetFractionalPart(dbl):
return dbl - math.floor(dbl)
#Return the peano curve coordinate for a given x, y value
def Peano(x,y,k):
if (k==0 or (x==1 and y==1):
return 0.5
if x <= 0.5:
if y <= 0.5:
quad = 0
elif y <= 0.5:
quad = 3
else:
quad = 2
subpos = Peano(2 * abs(x - 0.5), 2 * abs(y - 0.5), k-1)
if (quad == 1 or quad == 3):
subpos = 1 - subpos
return GetFractionalPart((quad + subpos - 0.5)/4.0)
#Import modules and create geoprocessor
import arcpy
arcpy.env.OverwriteOutput = True
#Prepare two inputs as parameters
inp_fc = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(0)
PeanoOrder_fld = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(1)
#Add the double field
arcpy.AddField_management(inp_fc, PeanoOrder_fld, "DOUBLE")
#Get the extent for the feature class
desc = arcpy.Describe(inp_fc)
extent = desc.Extent
xmin = extent.XMin
ymin = extent.YMin
xmax = extent.XMax
ymax = extent.YMax
#Compute constants to scale the coordinates
dx = xmax - xmin
dy = ymax - ymin
if dx >= dy:
offsetx = 0.0
offsety = (1.0-dy/dx)/2.0
scale = dx
else:
offsetx = (1.0 - dx/dy)/2.0
offsety = 0.0
scale = dy
**#Get each object and compute its Peano curve spatial order
#Create an update cursor
rows = arcpy.UpdateCursor(inp_fc)
rows.___?___
row = rows.next( )**
#get the X,Y coordinate for each feature
#If a polygon use centroid, If a point use point itself
while row:
if desc.ShapeType.lower() in ["polyline", "polygon"]:
pnt = row.shape.centroid
else:
pnt = row.shape.getPart(0)
#Normalization
unitx = (pnt.X - xmin) / scale + offsetx
unity = (pnt.Y - ymin) / scale + offset
**#Call the Peano Function and add to attribute field
peanoPos = Peano(unitx, unity, 32)
row.__?__
rows.__?__
row =__?___
del row, rows**

Quiver plot arrows in Matplotlib are ridiculously too large

I was working on creating a python script that could model electric field lines, but the quiver plot comes out with arrows that are way too large. I've tried changing the units and the scale, but the documentation on matplotlib makes no sense too me... This seems to only be a major issue when there is only one charge in the system, but the arrows are still slightly oversized with any number of charges. The arrows tend to be oversized in all situations, but it is most evident with only one particle.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import sympy as sym
import astropy as astro
k = 9 * 10 ** 9
def get_inputs():
inputs_loop = False
while inputs_loop is False:
""""
get inputs
"""
inputs_loop = True
particles_loop = False
while particles_loop is False:
try:
particles_loop = True
"""
get n particles with n charges.
"""
num_particles = int(raw_input('How many particles are in the system? '))
parts = []
for i in range(num_particles):
parts.append([float(raw_input("What is the charge of particle %s in Coulombs? " % (str(i + 1)))),
[float(raw_input("What is the x position of particle %s? " % (str(i + 1)))),
float(raw_input('What is the y position of particle %s? ' % (str(i + 1))))]])
except ValueError:
print 'Could not convert input to proper data type. Please try again.'
particles_loop = False
return parts
def vec_addition(vectors):
x_sum = 0
y_sum = 0
for b in range(len(vectors)):
x_sum += vectors[b][0]
y_sum += vectors[b][1]
return [x_sum,y_sum]
def electric_field(particle, point):
if particle[0] > 0:
"""
Electric field exitation is outwards
If the x position of the particle is > the point, then a different calculation must be made than in not.
"""
field_vector_x = k * (
particle[0] / np.sqrt((particle[1][0] - point[0]) ** 2 + (particle[1][1] - point[1]) ** 2) ** 2) * \
(np.cos(np.arctan2((point[1] - particle[1][1]), (point[0] - particle[1][0]))))
field_vector_y = k * (
particle[0] / np.sqrt((particle[1][0] - point[0]) ** 2 + (particle[1][1] - point[1]) ** 2) ** 2) * \
(np.sin(np.arctan2((point[1] - particle[1][1]), (point[0] - particle[1][0]))))
"""
Defining the direction of the components
"""
if point[1] < particle[1][1] and field_vector_y > 0:
print field_vector_y
field_vector_y *= -1
elif point[1] > particle[1][1] and field_vector_y < 0:
print field_vector_y
field_vector_y *= -1
else:
pass
if point[0] < particle[1][0] and field_vector_x > 0:
print field_vector_x
field_vector_x *= -1
elif point[0] > particle[1][0] and field_vector_x < 0:
print field_vector_x
field_vector_x *= -1
else:
pass
"""
If the charge is negative
"""
elif particle[0] < 0:
field_vector_x = k * (
particle[0] / np.sqrt((particle[1][0] - point[0]) ** 2 + (particle[1][1] - point[1]) ** 2) ** 2) * (
np.cos(np.arctan2((point[1] - particle[1][1]), (point[0] - particle[1][0]))))
field_vector_y = k * (
particle[0] / np.sqrt((particle[1][0] - point[0]) ** 2 + (particle[1][1] - point[1]) ** 2) ** 2) * (
np.sin(np.arctan2((point[1] - particle[1][1]), (point[0] - particle[1][0]))))
"""
Defining the direction of the components
"""
if point[1] > particle[1][1] and field_vector_y > 0:
print field_vector_y
field_vector_y *= -1
elif point[1] < particle[1][1] and field_vector_y < 0:
print field_vector_y
field_vector_y *= -1
else:
pass
if point[0] > particle[1][0] and field_vector_x > 0:
print field_vector_x
field_vector_x *= -1
elif point[0] < particle[1][0] and field_vector_x < 0:
print field_vector_x
field_vector_x *= -1
else:
pass
return [field_vector_x, field_vector_y]
def main(particles):
"""
Graphs the electrical field lines.
:param particles:
:return:
"""
"""
plot particle positions
"""
particle_x = 0
particle_y = 0
for i in range(len(particles)):
if particles[i][0]<0:
particle_x = particles[i][1][0]
particle_y = particles[i][1][1]
plt.plot(particle_x,particle_y,'r+',linewidth=1.5)
else:
particle_x = particles[i][1][0]
particle_y = particles[i][1][1]
plt.plot(particle_x,particle_y,'r_',linewidth=1.5)
"""
Plotting out the quiver plot.
"""
parts_x = [particles[i][1][0] for i in range(len(particles))]
graph_x_min = min(parts_x)
graph_x_max = max(parts_x)
x,y = np.meshgrid(np.arange(graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min),graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min)),
np.arange(graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min),graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min)))
if len(particles)<2:
for x_pos in range(int(particles[0][1][0]-10),int(particles[0][1][0]+10)):
for y_pos in range(int(particles[0][1][0]-10),int(particles[0][1][0]+10)):
vecs = []
for particle_n in particles:
vecs.append(electric_field(particle_n, [x_pos, y_pos]))
final_vector = vec_addition(vecs)
distance = np.sqrt((final_vector[0] - x_pos) ** 2 + (final_vector[1] - y_pos) ** 2)
plt.quiver(x_pos, y_pos, final_vector[0], final_vector[1], distance, angles='xy', scale_units='xy',
scale=1, width=0.05)
plt.axis([particles[0][1][0]-10,particles[0][1][0]+10,
particles[0][1][0] - 10, particles[0][1][0] + 10])
else:
for x_pos in range(int(graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min)),int(graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min))):
for y_pos in range(int(graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min)),int(graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min))):
vecs = []
for particle_n in particles:
vecs.append(electric_field(particle_n,[x_pos,y_pos]))
final_vector = vec_addition(vecs)
distance = np.sqrt((final_vector[0]-x_pos)**2+(final_vector[1]-y_pos)**2)
plt.quiver(x_pos,y_pos,final_vector[0],final_vector[1],distance,angles='xy',units='xy')
plt.axis([graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min),graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min),graph_x_min-(graph_x_max-graph_x_min),graph_x_max+(graph_x_max-graph_x_min)])
plt.grid()
plt.show()
g = get_inputs()
main(g)}
You may set the scale such that it roughly corresponds to the u and v vectors.
plt.quiver(x_pos, y_pos, final_vector[0], final_vector[1], scale=1e9, units="xy")
This would result in something like this:
If I interprete it correctly, you want to draw the field vectors for point charges. Looking around at how other people have done that, one finds e.g. this blog entry by Christian Hill. He uses a streamplot instead of a quiver but we might take the code for calculating the field and replace the plot.
In any case, we do not want and do not need 100 different quiver plots, as in the code from the question, but only one single quiver plot that draws the entire field. We will of course run into a problem if we want to have the field vector's length denote the field strength, as the magnitude goes with the distance from the particles by the power of 3. A solution might be to scale the field logarithmically before plotting, such that the arrow lengths are still somehow visible, even at some distance from the particles. The quiver plot's scale parameter then can be used to adapt the lengths of the arrows such that they somehow fit to other plot parameters.
""" Original code by Christian Hill
http://scipython.com/blog/visualizing-a-vector-field-with-matplotlib/
Changes made to display the field as a quiver plot instead of streamlines
"""
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.patches import Circle
def E(q, r0, x, y):
"""Return the electric field vector E=(Ex,Ey) due to charge q at r0."""
den = ((x-r0[0])**2 + (y-r0[1])**2)**1.5
return q * (x - r0[0]) / den, q * (y - r0[1]) / den
# Grid of x, y points
nx, ny = 32, 32
x = np.linspace(-2, 2, nx)
y = np.linspace(-2, 2, ny)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
charges = [[5.,[-1,0]],[-5.,[+1,0]]]
# Electric field vector, E=(Ex, Ey), as separate components
Ex, Ey = np.zeros((ny, nx)), np.zeros((ny, nx))
for charge in charges:
ex, ey = E(*charge, x=X, y=Y)
Ex += ex
Ey += ey
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
f = lambda x:np.sign(x)*np.log10(1+np.abs(x))
ax.quiver(x, y, f(Ex), f(Ey), scale=33)
# Add filled circles for the charges themselves
charge_colors = {True: 'red', False: 'blue'}
for q, pos in charges:
ax.add_artist(Circle(pos, 0.05, color=charge_colors[q>0]))
ax.set_xlabel('$x$')
ax.set_ylabel('$y$')
ax.set_xlim(-2,2)
ax.set_ylim(-2,2)
ax.set_aspect('equal')
plt.show()
(Note that the field here is not normalized in any way, which should no matter for visualization at all.)
A different option is to look at e.g. this code which also draws field lines from point charges.

making poisson spheres distribution on python but cannot figure out where is the bug

I am new to programming, so I hope my stupid questions do not bug you.
I am now trying to calculate the poisson sphere distribution(a 3D version of the poisson disk) using python and then plug in the result to POV-RAY so that I can generate some random distributed packing rocks.
I am following these two links:
[https://github.com/CodingTrain/Rainbow-Code/blob/master/CodingChallenges/CC_33_poisson_disc/sketch.js#L13]
[https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~rbridson/docs/bridson-siggraph07-poissondisk.pdf]
tl;dr
0.Create an n-dimensional grid array and cell size = r/sqrt(n) where r is the minimum distance between each sphere. All arrays are set to be default -1 which stands for 'without point'
1.Create an initial sample. (it should be placed randomly but I choose to put it in the middle). Put it in the grid array. Also, intialize an active array. Put the initial sample in the active array.
2.While the active list is not empty, pick a random index. Generate points near it and make sure the points are not overlapping with nearby points(only test with the nearby arrays). If no sample can be created near the 'random index', kick the 'random index' out. Loop the process.
And here is my code:
import math
from random import uniform
import numpy
import random
radius = 1 #you can change the size of each sphere
mindis = 2 * radius
maxx = 10 #you can change the size of the container
maxy = 10
maxz = 10
k = 30
cellsize = mindis / math.sqrt(3)
nrofx = math.floor(maxx / cellsize)
nrofy = math.floor(maxy / cellsize)
nrofz = math.floor(maxz / cellsize)
grid = []
active = []
default = numpy.array((-1, -1, -1))
for fillindex in range(nrofx * nrofy * nrofz):
grid.append(default)
x = uniform(0, maxx)
y = uniform(0, maxy)
z = uniform(0, maxz)
firstpos = numpy.array((x, y, z))
firsti = maxx // 2
firstj = maxy // 2
firstk = maxz // 2
grid[firsti + nrofx * (firstj + nrofy * firstk)] = firstpos
active.append(firstpos)
while (len(active) > 0) :
randindex = math.floor(uniform(0,len(active)))
pos = active[randindex]
found = False
for attempt in range(k):
offsetx = uniform(mindis, 2 * mindis)
offsety = uniform(mindis, 2 * mindis)
offsetz = uniform(mindis, 2 * mindis)
samplex = offsetx * random.choice([1,-1])
sampley = offsety * random.choice([1,-1])
samplez = offsetz * random.choice([1,-1])
sample = numpy.array((samplex, sampley, samplez))
sample = numpy.add(sample, pos)
xcoor = math.floor(sample.item(0) / cellsize)
ycoor = math.floor(sample.item(1) / cellsize)
zcoor = math.floor(sample.item(2) / cellsize)
attemptindex = xcoor + nrofx * (ycoor + nrofy * zcoor)
if attemptindex >= 0 and attemptindex < nrofx * nrofy * nrofz and numpy.all([sample, default]) == True and xcoor > 0 and ycoor > 0 and zcoor > 0 :
test = True
for testx in range(-1,2):
for testy in range(-1, 2):
for testz in range(-1, 2):
testindex = (xcoor + testx) + nrofx * ((ycoor + testy) + nrofy * (zcoor + testz))
if testindex >=0 and testindex < nrofx * nrofy * nrofz :
neighbour = grid[testindex]
if numpy.all([neighbour, sample]) == False:
if numpy.all([neighbour, default]) == False:
distance = numpy.linalg.norm(sample - neighbour)
if distance > mindis:
test = False
if test == True and len(active)<len(grid):
found = True
grid[attemptindex] = sample
active.append(sample)
if found == False:
del active[randindex]
for printout in range(len(grid)):
print("<" + str(active[printout][0]) + "," + str(active[printout][1]) + "," + str(active[printout][2]) + ">")
print(len(grid))
My code seems to run forever.
Therefore I tried to add a print(len(active)) in the last of the while loop.
Surprisingly, I think I discovered the bug as the length of the active list just keep increasing! (It is supposed to be the same length as the grid) I think the problem is caused by the active.append(), but I can't figure out where is the problem as the code is literally the 90% the same as the one made by Mr.Shiffman.
I don't want to free ride this but I have already checked again and again while correcting again and again for this code :(. Still, I don't know where the bug is. (why do the active[] keep appending!?)
Thank you for the precious time.

Fast Voxel Traversal 2D

I'm trying traverse all the cells that a line goes through. I've found the Fast Voxel Traversal Algorithm that seems to fit my needs, but I'm currently finding to be inaccurate. Below is a graph with a red line and points as voxel coordinates that the algorithm gives. As you can see it is almost correct except for the (4, 7) point, as it should be (5,6). I'm not sure if i'm implementing the algorithm correctly either so I've included it in Python. So i guess my question is my implementation correct or is there a better algo to this?
Thanks
def getVoxelTraversalPts(strPt, endPt, geom):
Max_Delta = 1000000.0
#origin
x0 = geom[0]
y0 = geom[3]
(sX, sY) = (strPt[0], strPt[1])
(eX, eY) = (endPt[0], endPt[1])
dx = geom[1]
dy = geom[5]
sXIndex = ((sX - x0) / dx)
sYIndex = ((sY - y0) / dy)
eXIndex = ((eX - sXIndex) / dx) + sXIndex
eYIndex = ((eY - sYIndex) / dy) + sYIndex
deltaX = float(eXIndex - sXIndex)
deltaXSign = 1 if deltaX > 0 else -1 if deltaX < 0 else 0
stepX = deltaXSign
tDeltaX = min((deltaXSign / deltaX), Max_Delta) if deltaXSign != 0 else Max_Delta
maxX = tDeltaX * (1 - sXIndex + int(sXIndex)) if deltaXSign > 0 else tDeltaX * (sXIndex - int(sXIndex))
deltaY = float(eYIndex - sYIndex)
deltaYSign = 1 if deltaY > 0 else -1 if deltaY < 0 else 0
stepY = deltaYSign
tDeltaY = min(deltaYSign / deltaY, Max_Delta) if deltaYSign != 0 else Max_Delta
maxY = tDeltaY * (1 - sYIndex + int(sYIndex)) if deltaYSign > 0 else tDeltaY * (sYIndex - int(sYIndex))
x = sXIndex
y = sYIndex
ptsIndexes = []
pt = [round(x), round(y)]
ptsIndexes.append(pt)
prevPt = pt
while True:
if maxX < maxY:
maxX += tDeltaX
x += deltaXSign
else:
maxY += tDeltaY
y += deltaYSign
pt = [round(x), round(y)]
if pt != prevPt:
#print pt
ptsIndexes.append(pt)
prevPt = pt
if maxX > 1 and maxY > 1:
break
return (ptsIndexes)
The voxels that you are walking start at 0.0, i.e. the first voxel spans space from 0.0 to 1.0, a not from -0.5 to 0.5 as you seem to be assuming. In other words, they are the ones marked with dashed line, and not the solid one.
If you want voxels to be your way, you will have to fix initial maxX and maxY calculations.
Ain't nobody got time to read the paper you posted and figure out if you've implemented it correctly.
Here's a question, though. Is the algorithm you've used (a) actually meant to determine all the cells that a line passes through or (b) form a decent voxel approximation of a straight line between two points?
I'm more familiar with Bresenham's line algorithm which performs (b). Here's a picture of it in action:
Note that the choice of cells is "aesthetic", but omits certain cells the line passes through. Including these would make the line "uglier".
I suspect a similar thing is going on with your voxel line algorithm. However, looking at your data and the Bresenham image suggests a simple solution. Walk along the line of discovered cells, but, whenever you have to make a diagonal step, consider the two intermediate cells. You can then use a line-rectangle intersection algorithm (see here) to determine which of the candidate cells should have, but wasn't, included.
I guess just to be complete, I decided to use a different algo. the one referenced here dtb's answer on another question.
here's the implementation
def getIntersectPts(strPt, endPt, geom=[0,1,0,0,0,1]):
'''
Find intersections pts for every half cell size
** cell size has only been tested with 1
Returns cell coordinates that the line passes through
'''
x0 = geom[0]
y0 = geom[3]
(sX, sY) = (strPt[0], strPt[1])
(eX, eY) = (endPt[0], endPt[1])
xSpace = geom[1]
ySpace = geom[5]
sXIndex = ((sX - x0) / xSpace)
sYIndex = ((sY - y0) / ySpace)
eXIndex = ((eX - sXIndex) / xSpace) + sXIndex
eYIndex = ((eY - sYIndex) / ySpace) + sYIndex
dx = (eXIndex - sXIndex)
dy = (eYIndex - sYIndex)
xHeading = 1.0 if dx > 0 else -1.0 if dx < 0 else 0.0
yHeading = 1.0 if dy > 0 else -1.0 if dy < 0 else 0.0
xOffset = (1 - (math.modf(sXIndex)[0]))
yOffset = (1 - (math.modf(sYIndex)[0]))
ptsIndexes = []
x = sXIndex
y = sYIndex
pt = (x, y) #1st pt
if dx != 0:
m = (float(dy) / float(dx))
b = float(sY - sX * m )
dx = abs(int(dx))
dy = abs(int(dy))
if dx == 0:
for h in range(0, dy + 1):
pt = (x, y + (yHeading *h))
ptsIndexes.append(pt)
return ptsIndexes
#print("m {}, dx {}, dy {}, b {}, xdir {}, ydir {}".format(m, dx, dy, b, xHeading, yHeading))
#print("x {}, y {}, {} {}".format(sXIndex, sYIndex, eXIndex, eYIndex))
#snap to half a cell size so we can find intersections on cell boundaries
sXIdxSp = round(2.0 * sXIndex) / 2.0
sYIdxSp = round(2.0 * sYIndex) / 2.0
eXIdxSp = round(2.0 * eXIndex) / 2.0
eYIdxSp = round(2.0 * eYIndex) / 2.0
# ptsIndexes.append(pt)
prevPt = False
#advance half grid size
for w in range(0, dx * 4):
x = xHeading * (w / 2.0) + sXIdxSp
y = (x * m + b)
if xHeading < 0:
if x < eXIdxSp:
break
else:
if x > eXIdxSp:
break
pt = (round(x), round(y)) #snapToGrid
# print(w, x, y)
if prevPt != pt:
ptsIndexes.append(pt)
prevPt = pt
#advance half grid size
for h in range(0, dy * 4):
y = yHeading * (h / 2.0) + sYIdxSp
x = ((y - b) / m)
if yHeading < 0:
if y < eYIdxSp:
break
else:
if y > eYIdxSp:
break
pt = (round(x), round(y)) # snapToGrid
# print(h, x, y)
if prevPt != pt:
ptsIndexes.append(pt)
prevPt = pt
return set(ptsIndexes) #elminate duplicates

IndexError: index 10000 is out of bounds for axis 0 with size 10000

For my physics degree, I have to take some Python lessons. I'm an absolute beginner and as such, I can't understand other answers. The code is to plot an object's trajectory with air resistance. I would really appreciate a quick fix - I think it has something to do with the time variable being too small but increasing it doesn't help.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import math # need math module for trigonometric functions
g = 9.81 #gravitational constant
dt = 1e-3 #integration time step (delta t)
v0 = 40 # initial speed at t = 0
angle = math.pi/4 #math.pi = 3.14, launch angle in radians
time = np.arange(0, 10, dt) #time axis
vx0 = math.cos(angle)*v0 # starting velocity along x axis
vy0 = math.sin(angle)*v0 # starting velocity along y axis
xa = vx0*time # compute x coordinates
ya = -0.5*g*time**2 + vy0*time # compute y coordinates
def traj_fric(angle, v0): # function for trajectory
vx0 = math.cos(angle) * v0 # for some launch angle and starting velocity
vy0 = math.sin(angle) * v0 # compute x and y component of starting velocity
x = np.zeros(len(time)) #initialise x and y arrays
y = np.zeros(len(time))
x[0], y[0], 0 #projecitle starts at 0,0
x[1], y[1] = x[0] + vx0 * dt, y[0] + vy0 * dt # second elements of x and
# y are determined by initial
# velocity
i = 1
while y[i] >= 0: # conditional loop continuous until
# projectile hits ground
gamma = 0.005 # constant of friction
height = 100 # height at which air friction disappears
f = 0.5 * gamma * (height - y[i]) * dt
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
y[i + 1] = (2 * y[i] - y[i - 1] + f * y[i - 1] - g * dt ** 2)/ 1 + f # and y[i + 1]
i = i + 1 # increment i for next loop
x = x[0:i+1] # truncate x and y arrays
y = y[0:i+1]
return x, y, (dt*i), x[i] # return x, y, flight time, range of projectile
x, y, duration, distance = traj_fric(angle, v0)
fig1 = plt.figure()
plt.plot(xa, ya) # plot y versus x
plt.xlabel ("x")
plt.ylabel ("y")
plt.ylim(0, max(ya)+max(ya)*0.2)
plt.xlim(0, distance+distance*0.1)
plt.show()
print "Distance:" ,distance
print "Duration:" ,duration
n = 5
angles = np.linspace(0, math.pi/2, n)
maxrange = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
x,y, duration, maxrange [i] = traj_fric(angles[i], v0)
angles = angles/2/math.pi*360 #convert rad to degress
print "Optimum angle:", angles[np.where(maxrange==np.max(maxrange))]
The error is:
File "C:/Python27/Lib/site-packages/xy/projectile_fric.py", line 43, in traj_fric
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
IndexError: index 10000 is out of bounds for axis 0 with size 10000
This is pretty straightforward. When you have a size of 10000, element index 10000 is out of bounds because indexing begins with 0, not 1. Therefore, the 10,000th element is index 9999, and anything larger than that is out of bounds.
Mason Wheeler's answer told you what Python was telling you. The problem occurs in this loop:
while y[i] >= 0: # conditional loop continuous until
# projectile hits ground
gamma = 0.005 # constant of friction
height = 100 # height at which air friction disappears
f = 0.5 * gamma * (height - y[i]) * dt
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
y[i + 1] = (2 * y[i] - y[i - 1] + f * y[i - 1] - g * dt ** 2)/ 1 + f # and y[i + 1]
i = i + 1 # increment i for next loop
The simple fix is to change the loop to something like (I don't know Python syntax, so bear with me):
while (y[i] >= 0) and (i < len(time)):
That will stop the sim when you run out of array, but it will (potentially) also stop the sim with the projectile hanging in mid-air.
What you have here is a very simple ballistic projectile simulation, modeling atmospheric friction as a linear function of altitude. QUALITATIVELY, what is happening is that your projectile is not hitting the ground in the time you allowed, and you are attempting to overrun your tracking arrays. This is caused by failure to allow sufficient time-of-flight. Observe that the greatest possible time-of-flight occurs when atmospheric friction is zero, and it is then trivial to compute a closed-form upper bound for time-of-flight. You then use that upper bound as your time, and you will allocate sufficient array space to simulate the projectile all the way to impact.
enter code heredef data_to_array(total):
random.shuffle(total)
X = np.zeros((len(total_train), 224, 224, 3)).astype('float')
y = []
for i, img_path in enumerate(total):
img = cv2.imread('/content/gdrive/My Drive/PP/Training/COVID/COVID-19 (538).jpg')
img = cv2.resize(img, (224, 224))
X[i] = img - 1
if len(re.findall('covid', '/content/gdrive/My Drive/PP/Training/COVID/COVID-19 (538).jpg')) == 3:
y.append(0)
else:
y.append(1)
y = np.array(y)
return X, y
X_train, y_train = data_to_array(total_train)
X_test, y_test = data_to_array(total_val)

Categories