Showing results for

Showing results for

** Community Tip** - New to the community? Learn how to post a question and get help from PTC and industry experts!
X

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

May 06, 2013
11:17 PM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 06, 2013
11:17 PM

MathCAD won't symbolically integrate

As the states, MathCAD isn't symbolically integrating my formula. Also, it is saying that dpdT isn't defined whe it is and I've used it in the previous integration.

Any and all help is appreciated.

Solved! Go to Solution.

ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

May 07, 2013
05:34 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 07, 2013
05:34 AM

4 REPLIES 4

May 07, 2013
05:34 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 07, 2013
05:34 AM

The attached might help.

Alan

Edited to attach corrected worksheet.

May 07, 2013
09:27 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 07, 2013
09:27 AM

Thank you so much. That is much more than I expected anyone to do. Whether or not it is the correct answer, I'm not sure. I've just got to figure out how to simplify it to 1 page width.

May 07, 2013
11:08 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 07, 2013
11:08 AM

Hi,

Hope this doesn't confuse the issue.

The problem that mathcad has with the equations as written is that all the variables a, B, R, v1, v2 etc (although you know they are real, positive (constants)) could take any value & Mathcad will assess the information it has & produce the most comprehensive answer possible - very complex & long winded.

Simply limiting all of them with an "assume, x>0" in the symbolic equation appears to drastically reduce this behaviour.

Attached shows this in the first equation.

The second equation gave further problems until I realized that you had defined a function p(...) earlier & I assume that this is what you men in the second equation.

It does resolve to quite simple results, but (it is left to the student to show that ...) whether they are correct or not is beyond my knowing.

Regards

Andy

May 07, 2013
11:41 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator

May 07, 2013
11:41 AM

Thanks, It does make it simpler, but I'm not sure I can assume my constants will always be greater than 0.