Possible Charged Particle Field

Page 23 of 24 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24  Next

Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:51 am

No, it would be this one https://git-fork.com/.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:03 pm

.

Fork is installed. I 'dropped' my local repository into it and it looks up to date. It's not as polished as sourcetree, but I don't need polish. It tried to Fetch, no joy, I believe the next step would be for me to load the bitbucket source file https://bitbucket.org/Nevyn2k/chargedparticleinteractionmodel, but I haven't found where to load the address yet. Maybe I should try to find some instructions or readme files.  

Any suggestions? Like starting over by cloning? You indicated your interest in Fork, have you installed or tried it?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:21 pm

I just installed it and it took a bit of effort, but got it hooked up to BitBucket.

Fork does not come with a built-in GIT system, so it assumes you have that installed on your system. I think you already did anyway.

I don't think it saves your credentials, so it is always asking you to enter in your password. A bit of a pain. There is an option in the preferences to turn off automatic fetches, I recommend you turn that off as it brings up a password dialog for every single repository you have open. That may not be so bad for you, but I can have quite a few open at any given time.

Did it give you an error message when you tried to fetch?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:50 pm

.

Yes, it errors while fetching. In exlorer, I took the chargedparticle.. folder which was inside my GIT folder,  C:\Users\Robert\Documents\GitFolder\ChargedParticleInteractionModel and dropped it where Fork said to 'drop here'. I didn't load the bitbucket address anywhere. The Fork 'process' seems a little different, https://blog.scottlowe.org/2015/01/27/using-fork-branch-git-workflow/ more interesting process than I realized. I haven't looked at it yet since we're entertaining the kids today. affraid  I gotta share the machine now.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:30 pm

Well, that is an incredibly unhelpful error message! That could be anything. I suggest you just clone the repo again and see if that helps. Maybe move your existing one in case something goes wrong.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:05 pm

.
I suggest you just clone the repo again and see if that helps. Maybe move your existing one in case something goes wrong.
What you're saying is way scarier than the kids, I'm going to have to go to bed early now. I haven't cloned anything yet. I think that's my problem.

I realize I left something out - important, probably. Fork asked where I wanted to place a repository, so I created a new folder; C:\Users\Robert\Documents\New Fork. I didn't see anything in the folder, then or now - I thought it was a bust. Now I'm thinking that when Fork asked me to 'drop here', I should have given it the bitbucket repository address. When I gave it my chargerparticle... folder, I identified my own folder as the origin/remote repository. Maybe Fork is trying to get in touch with the GitFolder and failing to create a Fork clone in the New Fork folder? I haven't had to enter any userID or password during any of the Fetch requests. Again, I don't see how or where to enter the bitbuket html address, so I probably did it wrong.

Does that sound reasonable? I would really prefer we maybe run through the proper Fork settings without worrying about backing up my GitFolder before I do what exactly? Writing this, I've convinced myself Fork hasn't cloned anything, that image I showed you just shows the Git commit history from the GitFolder repository. Should I backup my GitFolder? It includes the duplicate folders with altered chargedparticlenames alongside chargedparticle..., still available to Git if they were properly addressed. I suppose I should have thrown them out.

Anyway, if all I need to do is relocate my origin and local repositories so that I may do a proper clone. Switch New Fork with chargedparticle, or a copy of chargedparticle... . Then How would I link to the Git application? Could we do that from the app itself?

Forgive my desperation. I appreciate your expertise. Direct, simple instructions, are most welcome.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:25 pm

You can just keep Fork pointed to that new folder and work from there. Clone the repo from BitBucket, you will need to enter in the Bitbucket URL (https://Nevyn2k@bitbucket.org/Nevyn2k/chargedparticleinteractionmodel.git) for the project at this step and your credentials.

Or you can point Fork to your previous GIT folder (File -> Preferences -> Default GIT folder) and it will pickup the existing projects. This is probably easier and you keep working in the same folders that you were before.

If you take the second option, then you will need to enter your credentials when you Fetch.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:11 am

.
I used sourcetree to Fetch and Pull your latest checkbox addition. No problem.


Fork status. I went with your first paragraph first and requested that a clone of chargedparticles... be placed in New Fork. I specified the bitbucket address and received the error output shown. I added the clone details on top to show I used the correct bitbucket address. I did not see any log-in or password request from Fork or bitbucket so I think I may need to enter my credentials into Fork before making any other bitbucket requests - just guessing.

There's no rush. I'll work on the program before going back to Fork. When I do I'll try your next suggestion.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:04 pm

Do you have a Firewall that is stopping Fork from accessing the internet?

It is such a low-level and generic error that it is very hard to have any idea of what the problem could be.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:30 pm

.
Do you have a Firewall that is stopping Fork from accessing the internet?
Good question, that's a real possibility that would never have occurred to me. I pay for Webroot Security(?). I'll check with my support team - my son and his wife will stop by for Thanksgiving on Thursday. There's a lot happening real world here - family mainly. A lot of unplanned changes. Software changes are also a negative stresser.  

With respect to the program, I enjoy it and like showing it to family and friends. So what they think I'm a bit crazy, it's not political. Don't worry about my slow motion, Two Body UI allows the opportunity to learn and understand the difference between spin and orientation and axisangle; before I can code with confidence. It's not difficult, again, once you get it. I expect to be moving onto Three Body UI tomorrow or so.

Would it be too difficult to add the ability to change the UI values to the last values selected (during that session)? One wouldn't need to re-enter all the changed particle parameters every time - you could just change the one you want.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:50 pm

I'm not worried about pace. I haven't done much on it lately either.

Now that you are getting familiar with the UI changes, have you given any thought to any new scenarios that could be created because we can ask the user for input? Has it changed the way you think about scenarios at all?

I know exactly what you mean about the UI values being saved. It would be nice, however, most things reload the page which loses all changes made by the user. I don't want to encode those values into the URL, as that would be a pain, but we could maybe create a new button along-side Reset and Reload that will Reconfigure by showing the dialog again and resetting the model. Any values changed in the dialog controls will remain as-is until the page is reloaded.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:32 pm

.
I missed your post, and have just now read it.

I definitely believe that it's possible for the user to generate new scenarios using a UI. For example, The Two Body UI could (with a little more control over the 0,0,0 particle) allow the user to recreate any of the Two Body scenarios. But while those scenarios are limited to x and y alignments and a few orientations and spins, the UI allows particles to be placed anywhere the user wants with any spin or orientation desired. Why not allow them to substitute neutrons or electrons instead of the protons? And construction rules. That sounds like a new atom builder. Though I would suppose we would need neutrons with pole to pole charge currents first. I'll give the idea of User generate scenarios more thought. 

A new Reconfigure button sounds interesting.

Two Body UI is still giving me problems:

1. Currently, var q = new THREE.Quaternion().setFromAxisAngle( axisA,  Math.PI/2 );//
Obviously it must always rotate 90 degrees around axisA. I’ve tried various ways to try and get the proper user entered axisAngle angle into q[3]; nothing worked so I substituted Math.PI/2 for the time being.

2. Use the checkbox. It is checked; the message reads - Uncheck to remove the 0,0,0 particle spin. I created var centerSpin = new Boolean(null); but no matter whether the console showed centerSpin to be true or false, I haven’t come up with a means of using it to apply the factory spin.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:48 pm

var centerSpin = new Boolean(null);

That doesn't look right. If you just want to set it to something, then just set it to true or false

var centerSpin = true;

The values you get back from the UI are already sanitized, so it will be either true or false, depending on the state of the control. Assuming you created a checkbox control with an id of myCB, then you just use it in the success function like this:

var centerSpin = values.myCB;

or just use values.myCB directly.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:38 pm

.
I usually make it a point to make the effort and suffer before asking for help. I was close to burning myself out a few days ago.  

Your solution, var centerSpin = values.myCB;

worked perfectly. That is, of course, after I changed the checkbox id from centerSpin to myCB.

I was under the impression that the control .id(‘whatEvah‘) must also be a declared variable, var whatEvah; else there would be no way to transfer the user values across the success, createForm and the twoBodyUI functions. I see I was incorrect.

Thank you. With that new understanding, I’ll give the axisAngle another whirl. I believe I might even get so far as to include that degree to radian calculation I'd been waiting to try.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:32 pm

The id of the control is used as the name of a variable in the values object passed in to the success function.

So if you have 3 controls with ids: ctrl1, ctrl2 and ctrl3, then the object passed in to success will look like this:
Code:
{ ctrl1: <some value>, ctrl2: <some value>, ctrl3: <come value> }

Code:

var success = function( values )
{
   // if ctrl1 is a checkbox
  if( values.ctrl1 )
  {
    // ctrl2 is a number control
   for( var i=0; i<values.ctrl2; i++ )
   {
      // ctrl3 is a vector
      var v = new THREE.Vector3(
         values.ctrl3[0] * ( Math.random() - 0.5 ),
         values.ctrl3[1] * ( Math.random() - 0.5 ),
         values.ctrl3[2] * ( Math.random() - 0.5 )
      );
   }
  }
};
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:39 pm

.
Thanks, your 'control values' explanation did the trick, both the Two and Three Body UI scenarios are initially complete. I’m sure I’ll want to add additional (0,0,0) particle controls, probably with additional checkboxes on the Overview tab in order to minimize the tab space needed. And then on to Four Body UI. I didn't see a need to eliminate any Two or Three Body scenarios; if you feel we should pare the scenario list down a bit, please say so, and I will.

Git Status. I Pushed the latest changes with Sourcetree without any terminal problems - to be honest I still have no desire to use the interface beyond Commits. I realize I've put a crimp in working this project by sticking to the Main, thanks for your patience and cooperation. Fork. Fork is waiting for me to Commit my latest changes that I already Pushed in Sourcetree. My latest clone requests were unsuccessful, with errors - not labeled fatal this time, while watching my security app, which doesn't seem to be interfering with Fork. There is now a 19 KB .git folder in the New Fork\chargedparticleinteraction folder.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:03 am

.

Update. Four Body UI is initially complete. I added Checkboxes for protons (check) or neutrons (uncheck); and small random values to each particle position. I suppose I should let the max random value be user selectable. Not much room left. Should velocities be included? The Body 3 and Body 4 tabs are the same as Body 2’s tab. Feel free to critique.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:34 pm

"Check for Proton, Uncheck for Neutron"

Checkboxes are for enabling/disabling something, not selecting between 2. In the code it might be doing just that, but it should not appear that way to the user. If you have to explain the 2 options, then a checkbox is the wrong control to use. Radio buttons would be better, but I haven't implemented that yet, so use a dropdown list. A dropdown list will also make it easier to add new types, for example, electrons.

"0, 0, 0 Particle"

Give it a name. Central particle, maybe. And give it its own tab.

"Select the spin axis. X, Y or Z"

Don't specify the options in the title. They can drop the list down to see what they are.

"Particle spin speed, ..."

Don't put math in the titles.

"Axis"

Isn't very descriptive and it isn't an axis. It is an axis angle, but what is it being used for? The spin axis and speed have been set above that, so what it this doing? I guess it is the orientation, but I only know that because I know the underlying code.

In general, try to be descriptive, but concise. Not easy, I know, but it is a goal to aim for, if not actually reach.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:25 pm

.


Thank you very much. I believe I’ve ‘corrected’ all the problems you’ve identified. Converting the ‘central particle’ into the first of four particles resulted in cleaner code, making it easy to find and correct a couple of mistakes. Overall, Four Body is improved.

Any other comments or suggestions? Replacing four particle's worth of data for one small variable change from last time is a pain; is Reconfiguration - updating default tab data with previously entered data - still an option?  

Two, Three, and Four Body UIs lead me to the Nth Body UI function. I can either a. replace Two and Three Body UIs with slimmed down copies of the improved Four Body version, or b. create a new Nth Body UI function and replace the Two, Three, and Four Body UI functions with Nth Body UI function calls. Unless it makes a problem with the UIs. I suppose the question almost answers itself, the Nth Body UI function is the way to go; that is, unless you think it's unnecessary.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:58 pm

Remove the '.' at the end of each control title. If you want something, then use a colon ':' instead. I will make the titles bold soon, so they stand out a bit more and also allows them to be differentiated from the sub-titles such as 'Angle:'. I also want to see if I can provide a way to use short controls that will be in a single line. This will help with the dropdown lists, as in the above example, the whole line is taken up just for a dropdown that contains single letters. I'm not sure if it will look consistent or not yet, but I think it is worth a try.

Yes, reconfiguration is still on the table, I just haven't picked it up yet.

Creating an Nth body function is good and worth while, a UI to handle it is not quite so easy. To do that, we need a way to add any number of particles and to show them in the UI. I think I can create a control that is a list of particles and an add button. The add button will allow the user to specify everything for a new particle and add it to the list. I just need to figure out how to do that, because it is bad form to use more than 1 modal dialog at the same time.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:38 pm

.
Update. Given your clear instructions and the fact that the Nth body function is not an option at this time, I went ahead and reloaded the Two and Three Body UIs with slimmed down copies of Four Body UI. I also added Checkboxes for showing grid lines, target boxes, and post collision trajectories in most all the Collision group UI scenarios. I added offset and velocity controls for Two Body UI. If it seems I keep going over the same functions, it’s true. It's also true that every go round has improved things. I'll keep at it.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:41 pm

The iterative approach. Tried and true.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:27 pm

.

Back to the salt mine. The Proton Stack scenario group now has a user interface choice. The above image is a screen shot of 90% on my browser size scale.


This output agrees with the UI shown, unfortunately, the stacks don’t generally last very long. I don’t believe CPIM allows stable alphas or Proton stacks. Do you agree? Is there anyway to change that?

Oh, I recall unbraking the lattice 03 spins on 5 November. It seems I promptly rebroke it. Embarassed I think it's fixed now.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:12 pm

Most of the stacked spin scenarios don't work very well. It actually depends on how many protons are in it as odd and even stacks behave differently. The problem is that we have not balanced charge and gravity yet. Even just the charge calculations are not dropping off as they should at the moment.

By the way, I did have a look into the reconfiguration functionality, but it turns out that a lot of the code relies on the page being refreshed (which I usually try to avoid, but didn't this time). So I need to find all of those parts and rewrite them to be more reconfigurable.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Nevyn on Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:28 pm

I have implemented re-configuration. Is that even a word? It is now!

I am not convinced that everything is being disposed of correctly, but I think I have most, if not all, of it. If you notice crashes after re-configuring many times, let me know as it most likely means something is not being released.

My site has been updated with the latest code: https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/cpim/test.html
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1399
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible Charged Particle Field

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 23 of 24 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 22, 23, 24  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum