photovoltaic | a MongoDB/Solr search connector | Search Engine library

As I understand it you are trying to identify all possible matches for the jumbled string in your list. You could sort the letters in the jumbled word and match the resulting list against sorted lists of the words in your data file.

Your post does not have all of the variables defined in order to really troubleshoot this well. If the below doesn't answer your question, you should edit your post by removing unnecessary parts of the model and include variable definitions and a snippet of sample data to reproduce the error.

That said, I think you are getting bit by another manifestation of the same issue regarding the interaction of non-indexed pyomo variables with numpy data types. I think that both pyomo and numpy are trying to override some of the basic algebraic functions to produce consistent data types. pyomo is trying to create pyomo.expressions, while numpy is trying to maintain ndarrays. (There's probably a fuller description of this issue in the pyomo bug report on this issue, but that, I think, is biting you.)

My suggestion, especially when you have a singleton pyomo variable, is just to not use numpy arrays or variables in your model. Just force convert them to basic python types and you'll be fine. (As shown in linked post.)

If you want to persist with the way it is now, you should pull the equation out of your constraint and tinker with it after defining all the variables and ensure that it evaluates to a pyomo expression. When the variable is a singleton, order matters when interfacing with numpy arrays. Yes, this is ugly. So strongly recommend either indexing all variables or converting everything to basic types, which is easy.

Communication with these controllers (manual) is via RS485 (delivered through an RJ45 connector). This is only mentioned briefly in the manual ("RS485 interface" in the technical specifications section).

The cable you are using appears to be a router console cable which, I believe, uses the RS232 protocol (see document from Cisco as an example). RS232 and RS485 are different, and incompatible, so this cable will not work.

The manual for this controller does not go into much detail and I could not see a modbus manual on the EPEVER website. I use Tracer-BN series units and epever support emailed me a manual detailing the modbus setup; as your unit also supports the MT50 remote meter I'm assuming its registers are the same. You can probably find the manual by searching for "common software or MT50 LCD unit" (with the quotes) - I believe version 2.5 is the latest (note: I'm not posting the link because it does not seem to be available on the official website so click at your own risk!)

The RJ45 wiring (from the above manual) is:

In order to print the solution to a console, you can use a post-processing block. A post-processing block is implemented by putting an execute block after the constraint specification (after the subject to block).

A post-processing block to print variables could look like this (untested code):

How you approach this depends on your skill set with various tools. I, for example, am old in 'C' but green in SQL.

Now: Assuming that you have a database already, and want to create a new one with the extra field in it, this is broadly how I would approach it.

Create a new empty database with the fields you want in it.

Problem: I believe you have a name conflict for stopwords. There is probably a line somewhere in your notebook where you assign:

I added an optional argument to \citecolor that allows you to specify how many lines each bibitem has

\ref worked already out of the box with your code. To make \cite also compatible, you can add \soulregister\cite7

No responses, so I thought I'd post my hacky way around it. There are two solutions: First is as mentioned in the question, just stacking MEEP's Block object. The other approach I did was define my own class Pyramid, which works basically the same way as described here. Then, I convert a list of my class objects and MEEP's shape object to a function that takes a vector and returns a material, and this is fed as material_func in MEEP's Simulation object. So far, it seems to work, hence I'm posting it as an answer. However, It substantially slows down subpixel averaging (and maybe the rest of the simulation, though I haven't done an actual analysis), so I'm not very happy with it.

I'm not sure which is "better" but the second method does feel more precise, insofar that you have pyramids, not just a stack of Blocks.