"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3e1f4339$1@news.povray.org...
> In article <web.3e1f3e34b49a0ea9b417814a0@news.povray.org> , "Tor Olav
> Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Do you want me to post a bug report to
> > povray.bugreports ?
>
> Nope, because that would let people find out about those functions in the
> first place. No need to worry anybody ;-)  You seem to be only the second
> person to even try them in almost half a year!
>
>     Thorsten
>

I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
of hydrogen. Before the Sum() and Prod() functions came available I had
worked out several combinations by hand. They didn't match when I replaced
them with Sum() and Prod() and I thought that I had done something wrong.
I've checked it over and over, but couldn't find anything wrong.
Checking the formula with Scientific Notebook told me that what I did was
right.
That's why I'm reacting about keeping it low profile.
This has cost me several weeks to implement and debug.
There may be more people using those functions then you think, but are too
timid to react or ask about it.
I shouldn't have said anything was it not for the post of  Tor Olav.
It got my eye because of my own problems.
I think it's better to make it public!

Regards

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message

Jaap Frank wrote:

> I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
> of hydrogen.

Could you share those functions here?
I was working in that and I'd like to see how you approached it.

-- 
Ignacio Fernández Galván
Linux User #289967 (counter.li.org)
PGP Pub Key ID: 0x01A95F99 (pgp.escomplinux.org)

Post a reply to this message

"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3e202272@news.povray.org...
> Jaap Frank wrote:
>
> > I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
> > of hydrogen.
>
> Could you share those functions here?
> I was working in that and I'd like to see how you approached it.
>
> --
> Ignacio Fernández Galván
> Linux User #289967 (counter.li.org)
> PGP Pub Key ID: 0x01A95F99 (pgp.escomplinux.org)

I can and I will, but how will I give it to you?

1.    ascii :  hardly readable  (.txt)

2.    MSword:    With the equation editor it's readable (.doc)

3.    Scientific Notebook:    the best way  (.tex)

4.    Mathematica4:    another good option (.nb)

I have to type it, but tomorrow I've time for it.
Let me know which format you prefer.

Regards,

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message

Jaap Frank <jjf### [at] xs4allnl> wrote:
> I can and I will, but how will I give it to you?

  How about a snapshot in a common image format?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Jaap Frank wrote:

>> > I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
>> > of hydrogen.
>>
>> Could you share those functions here?
>> I was working in that and I'd like to see how you approached it.
> 
> I can and I will, but how will I give it to you?
> 
> 1.    ascii :  hardly readable  (.txt)
> 2.    MSword:    With the equation editor it's readable (.doc)
> 3.    Scientific Notebook:    the best way  (.tex)
> 4.    Mathematica4:    another good option (.nb)
> 
> I have to type it, but tomorrow I've time for it.
> Let me know which format you prefer.

Hmm... I think there's some misunderstanding, what I'd like to see is how 
you did write the hydrogen wave functions in POV language (as macros or 
functions), and simple ascii text would the best format for that ;)

-- 

Linux User #289967 (counter.li.org)
PGP Pub Key ID: 0x01A95F99 (pgp.escomplinux.org)

Post a reply to this message

"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3e20665d@news.povray.org...
> Jaap Frank wrote:
>
> >> > I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
> >> > of hydrogen.
> >>
> >> Could you share those functions here?
> >> I was working in that and I'd like to see how you approached it.
> >
[..]
>
> Hmm... I think there's some misunderstanding, what I'd like to see is how
> you did write the hydrogen wave functions in POV language (as macros or
> functions), and simple ascii text would the best format for that ;)
>

I've posted the scene-files in p.b.s-f  together with a example under
Quantum Waves in Media..

I thought you were revering to the wave function itself.
You can find this at the top of the file, so you can see what
wave function I use.
The first part is the translation of this 'nice' function into
POV-language. In version 4_1 you can trace that I originally used
the sum() and prod() but because this was not working I've changed
that to self made functions.
The complicated part is the translation of the partial derivatives into
sum() and prod(). If you want clarification about that, then ask me.
In the macro Binom() I've kept sum(), because here it is correct.

Greetings,

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message

Jaap Frank wrote:
>"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoocom> wrote in message
>news:3e20665d[at]news.povray.org...
>> Jaap Frank wrote:
>>
>> >> > I use them in a very complex combination in the quantum wave functions
>> >> > of hydrogen.
>> >>
>> >> Could you share those functions here?
>> >> I was working in that and I'd like to see how you approached it.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm... I think there's some misunderstanding, what I'd like to see is how
>> you did write the hydrogen wave functions in POV language (as macros or
>> functions), and simple ascii text would the best format for that ;)
>>
>
>I've posted the scene-files in p.b.s-f  together with a example under
>Quantum Waves in Media..
>
>I thought you were revering to the wave function itself.
>You can find this at the top of the file, so you can see what
>wave function I use.
>The first part is the translation of this 'nice' function into
>POV-language. In version 4_1 you can trace that I originally used
>the sum() and prod() but because this was not working I've changed
>that to self made functions.
>The complicated part is the translation of the partial derivatives into
>sum() and prod(). If you want clarification about that, then ask me.
>In the macro Binom() I've kept sum(), because here it is correct.


I like this ! Thank you for sharing Jaap.

It is interesting to see what "other"
things can be done with POV-Ray.

I have several times wondered if it
would be much work to model such
electron probability "clouds" for atoms.

And now I see that it's a LOT of work.


Btw: Are you aware of the built-in f_r()
function in functions.inc ?

You could replace your sqrt(x*x+y*y+z*z)
expressions with f_r(x, y, z)

I have also found that f_th() and f_ph()
are two other useful functions from this
include file.

Maybe you could use f_th(y, 0, z) and
f_th(z, 0, y) instead of your
CosInverse() and SinInverse() functions
(?)


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3e210603b49a0ea9b417814a0@news.povray.org...
> Jaap Frank wrote:
> >In the macro Binom() I've kept sum(), because here it is correct.

Must be prod() of course.

> I like this ! Thank you for sharing Jaap.

Your welcom.
I've made it to demonstrate these wave functions
to my pupils, but if others can use it that's fine.

> Btw: Are you aware of the built-in f_r()
> function in functions.inc ?
>
> You could replace your sqrt(x*x+y*y+z*z)
> expressions with f_r(x, y, z)
>
> I have also found that f_th() and f_ph()
> are two other useful functions from this
> include file.
>
> Maybe you could use f_th(y, 0, z) and
> f_th(z, 0, y) instead of your
> CosInverse() and SinInverse() functions
> (?)
>
>
> Tor Olav
>

Thank you for the tip. I've scanned through
these functions once, but it didn't occur to me
that you can use it in that way.
If f_th() gives the correct negative angles AND
they are faster , then I certainly will use them.
I'm thinking about animations, but my computer
isn't so fast and it would take days rendering. So
the faster the better. If you see more
optimalisations then please let me know.
Thanks again!

BTW, isn't it a pity that sum() and prod() aren't
working. I think I could extend the functions for
all possible values of the quantum numbers then.
I would like to see a wave with n = 25!

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message

Jaap Frank wrote:
....
>I'm thinking about animations, but my computer
>isn't so fast and it would take days rendering. So
>the faster the better. If you see more
>optimalisations then please let me know.
>Thanks again!

There seems to be some cut-n-paste errors
in your Sigma_n_l() function. CS_5 and
CS_6 are repeated several times in place
of CS_7 -> CS_10.

And yes, I think that further optimi-
zations can be done. But I'll wait until
I can verify that the render speed
really increases before I post the
suggestions.


>BTW, isn't it a pity that sum() and prod() aren't
>working. I think I could extend the functions for
>all possible values of the quantum numbers then.
>I would like to see a wave with n = 25!

Yes, it's a pity, I think that they
could be really useful in several cases.

For me I think it would simplify some
macros for parametric surfaces and maybe
speed up some isosurface renderings.


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3e21bc03b49a0ea9b417814a0@news.povray.org...

> There seems to be some cut-n-paste errors
> in your Sigma_n_l() function. CS_5 and
> CS_6 are repeated several times in place
> of CS_7 -> CS_10.

Oops, shame on me. That I never saw that stupid error!!!
Thanks!! You found the bug that's was bothering me. This
explains the sudden increase in size. I've test it with the
correct values. See my post in p.b.s-f.

> And yes, I think that further optimi-
> zations can be done. But I'll wait until
> I can verify that the render speed
> really increases before I post the
> suggestions.

I highly appreciate that.

> >BTW, isn't it a pity that sum() and prod() aren't
> >working. I think I could extend the functions for
> >all possible values of the quantum numbers then.
> >I would like to see a wave with n = 25!
>
> Yes, it's a pity, I think that they
> could be really useful in several cases.
>
> For me I think it would simplify some
> macros for parametric surfaces and maybe
> speed up some isosurface renderings.
>
>
> Tor Olav

Let's hope that there comes an official update soon
and that this problem can be fixed easily.


Regards,

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message