Skip to main content

plotting - How can I easily visualize density plots with singularities with the least loss of detail?


I'm trying to visualize electric fields. StreamPlot is helpful:


ef[q_, source_, at_] = (k q)/Norm[source - at]^3 (at - source)
myfield[x_, y_] =
   (ef[-1, {-1, 0}, {x, y}] + ef[+1, {+1, 0}, {x, y}]) /. k -> 8.99 10^9;
StreamPlot[myfield[x, y], {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}]


Output from <code>StreamPlot</code>, correctly showing the field lines


But when I want to see the strength of the field as well, StreamDensityPlot understandably chokes because $\lim_{(x,y) \to (\pm 1,0)} \lVert \texttt{myfield}[x,y] \rVert = \infty$. This is what I get:


StreamDensityPlot[myfield[x, y], {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}, 
 ColorFunction -> "TemperatureMap"]

Output from <code>StreamDensityPlot</code>: blue everywhere with a couple of bright dots at the poles


Now, I can adjust the scalar field by Mining the actual Norm with some fixed value:


StreamDensityPlot[{myfield[x, y], 
  Min[Norm[myfield[x, y]], 10^11]}, {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}, 

 ColorFunction -> "TemperatureMap"]

Output from <code>StreamDensityPlot</code> with a <code>Min</code> clamp; a bit nicer


But this requires some trial and error to find a good value, and it still doesn't look particularly great (there's noticeable clipping). More importantly, there's really only two regions: the poles (red) and the farfield (blue); I don't really gain much insight into the field strength, at, say, $(0, \frac{1}{2})$.


Throwing a Log in there gives you more contrast, but you still have to fiddle with the clamp:


StreamDensityPlot[{myfield[x, y], 
  Min[Log[Norm[myfield[x, y]]], 28]}, {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}, 
 ColorFunction -> "TemperatureMap"]

Output of <code>StreamDensityPlot</code> with a <code>Min</code> clamp of the <code>Log</code> transform



Hence my question. How can I get StreamDensityPlot to



  • yield nice output even when the domain contains singularities,

  • such that I can clearly see both the singularities and the farfield, and the regions in between,

  • while still retaining a reasonable degree of physical accuracy,

  • and as automatically as possible? (e.g., I don't very much like having to manually specify the scalar field)


I read the main StreamDensityPlot documentation and skimmed the "Options" section (that's how I found that you can manually specify the scalar field) but didn't see anything pertinent.



Answer



vals = Table[Norm[myfield[x, y]], {x, -3, 3, 6/100}, {y, -3, 3, 6/100}];

m = Mean@Log@Flatten@vals;
st = StandardDeviation@Log@Flatten@vals;

(* For some cases you may use these instead
   m = NIntegrate[Log@Norm[myfield[x, y]], {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}]/36;
   st = NIntegrate[(m - Log@Norm[myfield[x, y]])^2, {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}]/36 // Sqrt;
*)
Manipulate[
 sta = a st; 
 StreamDensityPlot[{

       myfield[x, y],  
       Rescale[Log@Norm[myfield[x, y]], {m - sta, m + sta}]}, 
       {x, -3, 3}, {y, -3, 3}, ColorFunction -> "TemperatureMap", 
       ColorFunctionScaling -> False], 
{a, 1, 5}]

Mathematica graphics


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more