modelica
Resolves the problems with zero system (#4654)
Implementing a Boolean parameter useZeroSystem to be able to suppress the calculation of the zero current (set to zero). Backwards compatible: Default = true. In 3 examples (Modelica.Electrical.Machines.Examples.InductionMachines.IMC_YD, Modelica.Magnetic.FundamentalWave.Examples.BasicMachines.InductionMachines.IMC_YD, Modelica.QuasiStatic.Magnetic.FundamentalWave.Examples.BasicMachines.InductionMachines.IMC_YD) used to resolve numerical issues as reported in #4654 and #4486. Setting the attribute nominal = 10 (#4486) has been removed again. Should we backport this to maintenance/4.1.0 ?
@christiankral I followed your suggestions, but the description of the Boolean parameter should rather be: parameter Boolean useZeroSystem=true "Suppresses zero current, if false";
@christiankral I followed your suggestions, but the description of the Boolean parameter should rather be: parameter Boolean useZeroSystem=true "Suppresses zero current, if false";
Good point.
quick comment: is there a good reason to call the new model ZeroImpedance when the previous (somewhat related) was called ZeroInductor? I do understand that there's a bit of difference between the two.
quick comment: is there a good reason to call the new model ZeroImpedance when the previous (somewhat related) was called ZeroInductor? I do understand that there's a bit of difference between the two.
First: everything is 100% backwards compatible. @HansOlsson to explain my intention: The new component is named ZeroImpedance because in reaility it is rather an impedance (with ohmic part) than a pure inductance. Thus - if necessary - it can be enhanced in future easily under the same name.
@AHaumer according to Modelica.UsersGuide.Conventions.ModelicaCode.Format, we should have something like
Boolean useZeroSystem=true "= true if zero current is explicitly computed";
Now I've corrected descriptions string of useZeroSystem according to Conventions. @casella should we backport this to maintenance/4.1.0 ? BTW the maintenance branch is still named 4.1.x, shouldn't it be named 4.1.0?