cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Have a PTC product question you need answered fast? Chances are someone has asked it before. Learn about the community search. X

Filter out out NaN and Complex results?

dsochor
5-Regular Member

Filter out out NaN and Complex results?

In the attached worksheet there is a plot error (Plotting failed. Replace complex values and NaN by real numbers.) I've tried using failterNaN to remove the NaNs. Is there a way to remove the complex results?

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

I can't open your sheet, only see the jpg's.

In Filter 1 you define ORIGIN:=0 (that's default any way.)

In Filter 2 you have

so the first element of xv is not defined, 0 by default, but no units.

I don't see where you define x, but:

suggests that x has no units--you put in feet and Mathcad divided by meters to balance the units.

I think that's your basic problem.

View solution in original post

7 REPLIES 7

I can't open your sheet, only see the jpg's.

In Filter 1 you define ORIGIN:=0 (that's default any way.)

In Filter 2 you have

so the first element of xv is not defined, 0 by default, but no units.

I don't see where you define x, but:

suggests that x has no units--you put in feet and Mathcad divided by meters to balance the units.

I think that's your basic problem.

Fred,

Please find PDF document of this worksheet in attachment.

Thanks!  It's interesting to see the entire sheet..

filterNaN does not work the way you use it and would not help anyway.

A 2D plot will only fail with that error if ALL values are NaN or invalid and I suspect that the latter is the case.

I can't read P3.1 and I could not be bothered to switch between three JPGs to debug.

But I would suggest you try to evaluate your function V for a simple single value.

What happens if you type V(2 ft)= ? Where does the error trace to?

EDIT: Fred could possible be right (again). Try to define a range variable for x, like x:=1ft, 1ft+1in .. 10 ft or whatever seems appropriate.

Just remote connected to a machine with P31 and can confirm, that Fred is right.

-MFra-
21-Topaz II
(To:dsochor)

filternan.jpg

dsochor
5-Regular Member
(To:-MFra-)

Thank you all very much, the issue was that x was not defined.

Top Tags