Bruce Jenkins is President of Ora Research, an engineering research and advisory service. Maplesoft commissioned him to examine how systems-driven engineering practices are being integrated into the early stages of product development, the results of which are available in a free whitepaper entitled System-Level Physical Modeling and Simulation. In the coming weeks, Mr. Jenkins will discuss the results of his research in a series of blog posts.

This is the first entry in the series.

Discussions of how to bring simulation to bear starting in the early stages of product development have become commonplace today. Driving these discussions, I believe, is growing recognition that engineering design in general, and conceptual and preliminary engineering in particular, face unprecedented pressures to move beyond the intuition-based, guess-and-correct methods that have long dominated product development practices in discrete manufacturing. To continue meeting their enterprises’ strategic business imperatives, engineering organizations must move more deeply into applying all the capabilities for systematic, rational, rapid design development, exploration and optimization available from today’s simulation software technologies.

Unfortunately, discussions of how to simulate early still fixate all too often on 3D CAE methods such as finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics. This reveals a widespread dearth of awareness and understanding—compounded by some fear, intimidation and avoidance—of system-level physical modeling and simulation software. This technology empowers engineers and engineering teams to begin studying, exploring and optimizing designs in the beginning stages of projects—when product geometry is seldom available for 3D CAE, but when informed engineering decision-making can have its strongest impact and leverage on product development outcomes. Then, properly applied, systems modeling tools can help engineering teams maintain visibility and control at the subsystems, systems and whole-product levels as the design evolves through development, integration, optimization and validation.

As part of my ongoing research and reporting intended to help remedy the low awareness and substantial under-utilization of system-level physical modeling software in too many manufacturing industries today, earlier this year I produced a white paper, “System-Level Physical Modeling and Simulation: Strategies for Accelerating the Move to Simulation-Led, Systems-Driven Engineering in Off-Highway Equipment and Mining Machinery.” The project that resulted in this white paper originated during a technology briefing I received in late 2015 from Maplesoft. The company had noticed my commentary in industry and trade publications expressing the views set out above, and approached me to explore what they saw as shared perspectives.

From these discussions, I proposed that Maplesoft commission me to further investigate these issues through primary research among expert practitioners and engineering management, with emphasis on the off-highway equipment and mining machinery industries. In this research, focused not on software-brand-specific factors but instead on industry-wide issues, I interviewed users of a broad range of systems modeling software products including Dassault Systèmes’ Dymola, Maplesoft’s MapleSim, The MathWorks’ Simulink, Siemens PLM’s LMS Imagine.Lab Amesim, and the Modelica tools and libraries from various providers. Interviewees were drawn from manufacturers of off-highway equipment and mining machinery as well as some makers of materials handling machinery.

At the outset, I worked with Maplesoft to define the project methodology. My firm, Ora Research, then executed the interviews, analyzed the findings and developed the white paper independently of input from Maplesoft. That said, I believe the findings of this project strongly support and validate Maplesoft’s vision and strategy for what it calls model-driven innovation. You can download the white paper here.

Bruce Jenkins, Ora Research
oraresearch.com

Bruce Jenkins is President of Ora Research, an engineering research and advisory service. Maplesoft commissioned him to examine how systems-driven engineering practices are being integrated into the early stages of product development, the results of which are available in a free whitepaper entitled System-Level Physical Modeling and Simulation. In the coming weeks, Mr. Jenkins will discuss the results of his research in a series of blog posts.

This is the first entry in the series.

Discussions of how to bring simulation to bear starting in the early stages of product development have become commonplace today. Driving these discussions, I believe, is growing recognition that engineering design in general, and conceptual and preliminary engineering in particular, face unprecedented pressures to move beyond the intuition-based, guess-and-correct methods that have long dominated product development practices in discrete manufacturing. To continue meeting their enterprises’ strategic business imperatives, engineering organizations must move more deeply into applying all the capabilities for systematic, rational, rapid design development, exploration and optimization available from today’s simulation software technologies.

Unfortunately, discussions of how to simulate early still fixate all too often on 3D CAE methods such as finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics. This reveals a widespread dearth of awareness and understanding—compounded by some fear, intimidation and avoidance—of system-level physical modeling and simulation software. This technology empowers engineers and engineering teams to begin studying, exploring and optimizing designs in the beginning stages of projects—when product geometry is seldom available for 3D CAE, but when informed engineering decision-making can have its strongest impact and leverage on product development outcomes. Then, properly applied, systems modeling tools can help engineering teams maintain visibility and control at the subsystems, systems and whole-product levels as the design evolves through development, integration, optimization and validation.

As part of my ongoing research and reporting intended to help remedy the low awareness and substantial under-utilization of system-level physical modeling software in too many manufacturing industries today, earlier this year I produced a white paper, “System-Level Physical Modeling and Simulation: Strategies for Accelerating the Move to Simulation-Led, Systems-Driven Engineering in Off-Highway Equipment and Mining Machinery.” The project that resulted in this white paper originated during a technology briefing I received in late 2015 from Maplesoft. The company had noticed my commentary in industry and trade publications expressing the views set out above, and approached me to explore what they saw as shared perspectives.

From these discussions, I proposed that Maplesoft commission me to further investigate these issues through primary research among expert practitioners and engineering management, with emphasis on the off-highway equipment and mining machinery industries. In this research, focused not on software-brand-specific factors but instead on industry-wide issues, I interviewed users of a broad range of systems modeling software products including Dassault Systèmes’ Dymola, Maplesoft’s MapleSim, The MathWorks’ Simulink, Siemens PLM’s LMS Imagine.Lab Amesim, and the Modelica tools and libraries from various providers. Interviewees were drawn from manufacturers of off-highway equipment and mining machinery as well as some makers of materials handling machinery.

At the outset, I worked with Maplesoft to define the project methodology. My firm, Ora Research, then executed the interviews, analyzed the findings and developed the white paper independently of input from Maplesoft. That said, I believe the findings of this project strongly support and validate Maplesoft’s vision and strategy for what it calls model-driven innovation. You can download the white paper here.

Bruce Jenkins, Ora Research
oraresearch.com

Download EXPONENTIAL_INTEGRAL_ODD_ZETA_SERIES_APPROXIMATION.mw

A more honest and specific version of lemma 3.

CONGRUENT_FUNCTIONS_OF_THE_FRACTIONAL_PART_OVER_Q_LEMMA_4.mw

Maple Worksheet - Error

Failed to load the worksheet /maplenet/convert/CONGRUENT_FUNCTIONS_OF_THE_FRACTIONAL_PART_OVER_Q_LEMMA_4.mw .

Download CONGRUENT_FUNCTIONS_OF_THE_FRACTIONAL_PART_OVER_Q_LEMMA_4.mw

hello i was just looking back on some stuff i did a few months back and although im aware there is a function for generating the prime subset up to a given number already featured in a package in mape im just curious to know how this one measures up in terms of computational efficiency etc.

anyway, this is code, if anyone has the time to give it a try and let me know what they think ie faster more logical way about it any feed back is appreciated cheers.

restart;
interface(showassumed = 0, rtablesize = infinity);
with(plots); with(numtheory); with(Statistics); with(LinearAlgebra); with(RandomTools); with(codegen, makeproc); with(combinat); with(Maplets[Elements]);
unprotect(real, rational, integer, complex);
alias(P[In] = CurveFitting[PolynomialInterpolation]); alias(L[In] = CurveFitting[LeastSquares]); alias(R[In] = CurveFitting[RationalInterpolation]); alias(S[In] = CurveFitting[Spline]); alias(B[In] = CurveFitting[BSplineCurve]); alias(L[In] = CurveFitting[ThieleInterpolation], rho = frac); alias(`𝒩` = Count); alias(`𝔻` = numtheory:-divisors); alias(sigma = numtheory:-sigma); alias(`ℱ` = ListTools['Flatten']); alias(`𝕊` = seq);
delta := proc (x, y) options operator, arrow; piecewise(x = y, 1, x <> y, 0) end proc;
`&Mopf;` := proc (X, Y) options operator, arrow; map(X, Y) end proc;
`&Cscr;`[S, L] := proc (X) options operator, arrow; convert(X, 'list') end proc;
`&Cscr;`[L, S] := proc (X) options operator, arrow; convert(X, 'set') end proc;
`&Popf;` := proc (N) options operator, arrow; `minus`({`&Sopf;`(k*delta(`&Nscr;`(`&Fscr;`(`&Cscr;`[S, L](`&Mopf;`(`&Cscr;`[S, L], `&Mopf;`(`&Dopf;`, `&Dopf;`(k)))))), 3), k = 1 .. N)}, {0}) end proc;
N -> `minus`({(k delta(&Nscr;(&Fscr;(&Cscr;[S, L]((&Cscr;[S, L])

  &Mopf; (&Dopf; &Mopf; (&Dopf;(k)))))), 3)) &Sopf; (k = 1 .. N)},

  {0})
n[P] := proc (N) options operator, arrow; `&Nscr;`(`&Cscr;`[S, L](`&Popf;`(N)))-1 end proc;

Maple Worksheet - Error

Failed to load the worksheet /maplenet/convert/prime_subset_up_to_N.mw .

Download prime_subset_up_to_N.mw

Points on the coordinate plane

(Guidance manual for the 6th class)

Changing the initial coordinates and going through the entire program first, we get a new picture-task

    Point_on_co-plane.mws

And Another     Coordinate_plane.mws

Points on the coordinate plane

(Guidance manual for the 6th class)

Changing the initial coordinates and going through the entire program first, we get a new picture-task

    Point_on_co-plane.mws

And Another     Coordinate_plane.mws

Coordinate axis

6th class (in Russia)

Guidance manual for use at lessons (at school)

Coordinate_line_lesson.mws

(It is possible bad English)

Coordinate axis

6th class (in Russia)

Guidance manual for use at lessons (at school)

Coordinate_line_lesson.mws

(It is possible bad English)

diff_first.mws

     I want to understand what the forum rules I break? And why do me constantly interferes Markiyan Hirnyk? A recent example: he removed my comments in the subject  http://www.mapleprimes.com/posts/203796-Equidistant-Surface-

At the beginning of the theme I have provided the text of the program, and then gave a description of the algorithm in words. In removed by Hirnyk examples I have quoted only the formula, because the text of the program has not changed.

I have long known Hirnyk for Russian-speaking forums and personal correspondence. Communication with him for a long time I stopped, because it is extremely unpleasant man, and it seems very angry and envious. In addition, the level of competence is very low and is away from the content of my subject. I am convinced of this. I will not say he is constantly trying to harm me on Russian forums.

     ( Хочу понять, какие правила форума я нарушаю? И почему мне постоянно мешает  Markiyan Hirnyk? Из последних примеров: он удалил мои комментарии в теме http://www.mapleprimes.com/posts/203796-Equidistant-Surface-
В начале темы я предоставил текст программы и потом дал описание алгоритма на словах. В удалённых Hirnyk примерах я привел только формулу, потому что текст программы не изменился.  
Я давно знаю  Hirnyk  по русскоязычным форумам и по личной переписке. Общение я с ним давно прекратил, потому что человек он крайне неприятный, и, похоже, очень злой и завистливый. К тому же уровень его  компетенции весьма невысок и находится в стороне от содержания моих тем. Я в этом убеждён. Не буду говорить, как он пытается постоянно вредить мне на русских форумах. ) 

Geometry Presentation

в_Простран.ppt

Images :      Вращения_picks.mws     Сечения.mws     Цилидр_поверхн_РИС.mws      Цилиндр_кругов_РИС.mws      Цилиндр_наклонн_РИС.mws

Programs :      Вращения_прогр.mws      Цилидр_поверхн_прогр.mws      Цилиндр_кругов+СЕч_прогр.mws      Цилиндр_наклонн_прогр.mws

Geometry Presentation

в_Простран.ppt

Images :      Вращения_picks.mws     Сечения.mws     Цилидр_поверхн_РИС.mws      Цилиндр_кругов_РИС.mws      Цилиндр_наклонн_РИС.mws

Programs :      Вращения_прогр.mws      Цилидр_поверхн_прогр.mws      Цилиндр_кругов+СЕч_прогр.mws      Цилиндр_наклонн_прогр.mws

Russian children work with Maple - view

http://geodromchik.blogspot.ru

//sites.google.com/site/geodromchic

Russian children work with Maple - view

http://geodromchik.blogspot.ru

//sites.google.com/site/geodromchic