This application Billiard Ball dynamics at the application center might help
http://www.maplesoft.com/applications/view.aspx?SID=5650

and the physics of billiards

http://www.maplesoft.com/applications/view.aspx?SID=3811&view=html

All rods should exhibit a triple bounce.  I took the wooden handle of a broomstick and the behaviour was the same.  The angle it was dropped at was roughly 45 degrees, and yes of course I realize the angle will also affect the bounce behaviour. 

The Matlab model looks like it was at a 80 degree angle.  And it does match with experimentation.  Two long bounces followed by a third tap and then you will notice that bounces 4 5 and 6 happen in fast succession as expected. 

Here is the wav sound file, I have attached, of the cardboard tube falling at a little more than 45 degrees.  falling_rod2.zip You'll notice bounces 1,2,3 happen in quick succession then there is a 4th smaller tap in the sound file similar to the 3rd bounce shown in the Matlab model.  

The Maplesim model still needs something more to follow experimentation.  It exhibits a 1-2, 1-2, 1-2 type bounce.  The Matlab model is more like 1-2, 1, 1-2-3 ...

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate you looking into this model.  I don't think elastic and damping values will improve realism, there is perhaps a missing element in the model?

i recorded dropping an empty roll of wrapping paper.  the three ft long ones, then ran it through slow motion.  it bounced three times before taking a higher bounce rather than the two that the simulation shows.  is there something missing in the simulation

For some reason it seems to me the bounces seem just slightly off but maybe I'm wrong.  After the first bounce on the one side is okay and the second from the other side okay no problems but the third bounce happens I think much longer after it should. 

Should the 2nd (touch) bounce accelerate the 3rd bounce into the ground rather than accelerating it first back up?

Are you looking for old versions to update older files?

I was trying to find MapleVr5 at one point.  I found it but needed a downloader installation which I didn't want to do, however that was about a year ago.  The internet has vastly changed since then and I doubt Vr5 is available anywhere. 

What is the reason for needing MapleVr4?

I get in M12

> taylor(f(x), x = 1);     

                       1           1          2    1          3    5          4     7           5      /        6\
                  1 + - x - 1 - - (x - 1)  + -- (x - 1)  - --- (x - 1)  + --- (x - 1)  + O\(x - 1) /
                       2           8               16             128              256                       
 

using maple to read an mw file is difficult.  My idea would be to create a procedure that reads the mw file and then with string surgery pluck out your varaibles

Here's my pseudo-code

-read mw file into some variable say B
(something like this in Maple)

> B := table();
> i := 1;
print(??); # input placeholder
> do data := readline("f:/param.mw");
if data = 0 then break end if; B[i] := data; i := i+1 end do;
C:=convert(B,list):

-find locations of input-equation
        - about 21 characters later after each occurance of input-equation there contains one variable with it's value in the form of (variable, value)

-separate out variable and value
        - value would have to be untangled somehow I am not sure what form that is

-display variables and values

If someone could elaborate as well on my idea, that would be great as I am unsure how to implement.

I see it has been updated and renamed the Grid computing Toolbox

A hard drive crash is a bad nightmare..

Your best option is to contact Maplesoft support tomorrow.  They should be able to work something out for you.

There is a 9 link pendulum app in the app center which I found interesting.  **edit add** actually here in mapleprimeshttp://www.mapleprimes.com/maplesoftblog/6889-An-Animated-Discussion-About-Pendulums

The one in the app center is called Rope and just contains more individual sections.

I do not have MapleSim so maybe someone else could try this.  What I thought would be interesting is if you detached the 9 link swinging pendulum after some time t and watch it's motion through the air from some height h.

I don't know if a real solution exists to this but you could use ` ` just for aesthetic purposes and then assign it to a value afterwards if you want a numerical value.

`2`:=2:

Stirlingtest;

I don't know if that will work for you but maybe it will help.

For the klein surface we could create 2 sections.  I borrowed these equations for two surfaces but the point is that one surface crosses through the other.  I thought maybe a cutout option?  The point is I want a solid surface with which we can fly through in maple without coming up on any crossing walls.  I think the klein surface might be easier to deal with than boys surface so maybe we can take care of that first?

Anyways here is what this plot yields. 

Download klein_bottle_surfac.mw

Okay that partially works.  My idea was to get rid of the self crossing surfaces.  The grid is still slightly noticeable crossing the space with the transparency option.  Originally I had thought this klein bottle post http://www.mapleprimes.com/maplesoftblog/95570-Klein-Bottle-Plot   did not have self crossing surfaces but on closer inspection it does as well.

Would it be much trouble getting rid of those self crossing surfaces? 

A flythrough would also be quite neat.

Well this kind works for the plot in question but other plots like sqrt(30-x^2+y^2) show how implicitplot3d is inferior.

Or something like x^2-y^2 (two cones meeting at zero) implicitplot takes care of the inconsistancies along the xy plane but then as it approaches 0,0,0 we have a space.  adding grid=[50,50,50] option for implicitplot3d partially allows us to see what happens but ultimately plot3d shows us a better view except for the inconsistancies at the xy plane. 

Here is my partially successful proc

**edit add ** sorry sorry the above where I mention implicitplot inferior is only because I didn't realize the plot3d and implicitplot3d had chosen different scales until just recently.  plot3d automatically chooses a z scale. 

However the above procedure was just a quick way I thought of to get a better defined visual graphic on the equation in question. 

Download newplot3d4.mw

So essentially the procedure first chooses plot3d unless it contains undefined data in which case it reverts to using the implicitplot3d command.  The squared portions take care of any square roots that might exist that cause implicitplot3d pain.  I haven't gone into cubed roots etc etc... so of course there are many places it probably fails not to mention any inefficiencies that exist in the code.

Expanding on Dougs idea using `if` which by the way is a way I hadn't thought of using if (very cool).

I haven't worked out the particulars which is why I don't present my full idea here but thought I would get the idea out there. 

It seems that problems arise when undefined values occur in the MESH of plot3d as compared to the ISOSURFACE created with implicitplot3d.

Couldn't we use `if` to redirect maple to adjust the equation and automatically put it in an implicitplot to create it for us?  There are a lot of things to deal with, which I have not tried yet (ie converting the equation into an implicitplot3d readable equation etc. etc. ) 

So the basic idea was just to create a little routine to follow (perhaps I should make it a challenge question just for fun purposes) Make a new plot3d procedure eg - newplot3d that would automatically create an implicitplot instead when plot3d didn't work.

I had in mind -- if op(plot3d) contains undefined then create implicitplot3d. 

Input is welcome.