Community Tip - New to the community? Learn how to post a question and get help from PTC and industry experts! X
Hello all, whenever I try to solve this mathematical equation, it always gives me an error.
I am pretty sure I am doing osmething wrong or not writing the equationj ina proper way, but until now havnt found out any solution to fix this problem.
It will be very kind of your experts to kindly help me out in this small issue.
The file is attached, in this file you will see "b_limit", which always shows an error for bing_bent, can anyone help me out to solve this please?
Best
Ashutosh Mukherjee
Solved! Go to Solution.
@Ashutosh1 wrote:
b.ent^2 is an area I agree so is b.limit^2 right?
so both can be added isn't it?
Yes, this would be a possible unit consistent formula and the result would be a length, too.
The attached sheet in P5 format should help
b.ent is scalar, its unitless and you try to add a length (b.limit). This can't work as you can only add quantities of the same dimension.
Furthermore b.ent is just a range, not a vector as you might think.
What exactly do you expect as result (and which unit do you think it should have?
Hello Werner,
It is really kind of you to help me out, I expect a range of b.img as a function of b.ent.
b.limit being constant value calculated above. I would expect the units of b.ent in micrometers.
Further the results on second page with del omega i expect those reuslts as a function of b.ent and the units in reciprocal cms.
I would expect the units of b.ent in micrometers.
So b.ent^2 would be an area but b.limit is a length!
You can't add an area and a length!
b.ent^2 is an area I agree so is b.limit^2 right?
so both can be added isn't it?
@Ashutosh1 wrote:
b.ent^2 is an area I agree so is b.limit^2 right?
so both can be added isn't it?
Yes, this would be a possible unit consistent formula and the result would be a length, too.
The attached sheet in P5 format should help
This is absolutely cool, thank you so much.
It is really nice for your kind time and help.
The results are now very close the the experimental values exactly as I wanted.
Thanks again.