ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Accepted Solutions
There are two problems in function P.av
1) You have a multiplication dot between H.1 and the opening parenthesis. But H.1 is a function and should be used with F as its argument (as in the function P.ah right above it
2) After fixing the first problem, P.av return unit "gals" which makes function w.R throw an error because of incompatible units.
I guess you forgot to add the factor k.av when you defined function P.av and it should look like this:
At least using this function definition we get a plot result
Next problem you sheet shows is a unit mismatch.
One problem is the definition of function X2(F)
1) The F on the right hand side is bold blue which means it interpreted as unit Farad!!
2) Never follow a function definition by an evaluation (equal sign =). Doing so here is probably the cause for #1
It should simply look like this:
There still is a unit mismatch in function M.r!
I played around and tried to fix it and the new version is now unit consistent but I have no idea if my fix makes sense for your application. You'll have to check yourself.
Now the next unit mismatch in function p.toe, but I got tired poking around so you will have to fix all subsequent unit errors and typos (e.g.: P.heel instead of p.heel) yourself ...
Prime 10 sheet with some fixes attached
There are two problems in function P.av
1) You have a multiplication dot between H.1 and the opening parenthesis. But H.1 is a function and should be used with F as its argument (as in the function P.ah right above it
2) After fixing the first problem, P.av return unit "gals" which makes function w.R throw an error because of incompatible units.
I guess you forgot to add the factor k.av when you defined function P.av and it should look like this:
At least using this function definition we get a plot result
Next problem you sheet shows is a unit mismatch.
One problem is the definition of function X2(F)
1) The F on the right hand side is bold blue which means it interpreted as unit Farad!!
2) Never follow a function definition by an evaluation (equal sign =). Doing so here is probably the cause for #1
It should simply look like this:
There still is a unit mismatch in function M.r!
I played around and tried to fix it and the new version is now unit consistent but I have no idea if my fix makes sense for your application. You'll have to check yourself.
Now the next unit mismatch in function p.toe, but I got tired poking around so you will have to fix all subsequent unit errors and typos (e.g.: P.heel instead of p.heel) yourself ...
Prime 10 sheet with some fixes attached
