Related
I am tying to achieve sine wave gradually changing from 8Hz to 2Hz over 5 seconds:
This waveform was produced in Cool Edit. I gave it a start frequency of 8Hz, an end frequency of 2Hz and a duration of 5 seconds. The sine wave gradually changes from one frequency to the other over the given time.
My question is, how can I accurately find the start time of each cycle (highlighted with a red dot), using a FOR loop?
Pseudo code:
time = 5 //Duration
freq1 = 8 //Start frequency
freq2 = 2 //End frequency
cycles = ( (freq1 + freq2) / 2 ) * time //Total number of cycles
for(i = 0; i < cycles; i++) {
/* Formula to find start time of each cycle */
}
That is backward thinking for this problem which leads to madness in the program. Not to mention the individual waves will not be a sin wave because the frequency is changing (they will be slightly distorted) which you will not achieve with your generator and also there is very slight chance the ending signal will stop on zero after 5sec. Instead do a continuous sin wave with variable frequency:
First compute actual frequency
linear interpolation will suffice (unless you need different change)
f=f0+(f1-f0)*t/T
where:
f0=8 [Hz] start frequency
f1=2 [Hz] stop frequency
T =5 [s] change time
t =<0,T> is actual time in [s]
compute the sin wave data
for (t=0.0,angle=0.0;t<=T;t+=dt)
{
f=f0+((f1-f0)*t/T); // actual frequency
signal=Amplitude*sin(angle); // your signal put it in a array or output somewhere ...
angle+=6.283185307179586476925286766559*dt*f; // update phase
while (angle>6.283185307179586476925286766559) // cut just to avoid floating rounding problems
angle-=6.283185307179586476925286766559;
}
Where dt [s] is a time step you want to sample your signal with. If you are generating this in Real Time and outputting to real HW you can use a timer or measure the time directly (with performance counters on Windows or by RDTSC or whatever you have at disposal)
If you got predefined number of samples n for this then
dt=T/double(n-1);
Here sample output (n=image width):
If you also need the number of periods then add counter increment inside the angle cut while loop And also there is your zero point too (but if samplerate is too small or you need high precision you need to interpolate the real zero position).
I want to apply heat transfer ( heat conduction and convection) for a hemisphere. It is a transient homogeneous heat transfer in spherical coordinates. There is no heat generation. Boundary conditions of hemisphere is in the beginning at Tinitial= 20 degree room temperature. External-enviromental temperature is -22 degree. You can imagine that hemisphere is a solid material. Also, it is a non-linear model, because thermal conductivity is changing after material is frozen, and this is going to change the temperature profile.
I want to find the temperature profile of this solid during a certain time until center temperature reach to -22 degree.
In this case, Temperature depends on 3 parameters : T(r,theta,t). radius, angle, and time.
1/α(∂T(r,θ,t))/∂t =1/r^2*∂/∂r(r^2(∂T(r,θ,t))/∂r)+ 1/(r^2*sinθ )∂/∂θ(sinθ(∂T(r,θ,t))/∂θ)
I applied finite difference method using matlab, However, boundary conditions have issues. There are convection on surface of the hemisphere, and conduction in the inner nodes, bottom of the hemisphere has constant temperature which is air temperature (-22). You can see the scripts which i am using for BCs in the matlab file.
% Temperature at surface of hemisphere solid boundary node
for i=nodes
for j=1:1:(nodes-1)
Qcd_ot(i,j)= ((k(i,j)+ k(i-1,j))/2)*A(i-1,j)*(( Told(i,j)-Told(i-1,j))/dr); % heat conduction out of node
Qcv(i,j) = h*(Tair-Told(i,j))*A(i,j); % heat transfer through convectioin on surface
Tnew(i,j) = ((Qcv(i,j)-Qcd_ot(i,j))/(mass(i,j)*cp(i,j))/2)*dt + Told(i,j);
end % end of for loop
end
% Temperature at inner nodes
for i=2:1:(nodes-1)
for j=2:1:(nodes-1)
Qcd_in(i,j)= ((k(i,j)+ k(i+1,j))/2)*A(i,j) *((2/R)*(( Told(i+1,j)-Told(i,j))/(2*dr)) + ((Told(i+1,j)-2*Told(i,j)+Told(i-1,j))/(dr^2)) + ((cot(y)/(R^2))*((Told(i,j+1)-Told(i,j-1))/(2*dy))) + (1/(R^2))*(Told(i,j+1)-2*Told(i,j)+ Told(i,j-1))/(dy^2));
Qcd_out(i,j)= ((k(i,j)+ k(i-1,j))/2)*A(i-1,j)*((2/R)*(( Told(i,j)-Told(i-1,j))/(2*dr)) +((Told(i+1,j)-2*Told(i,j)+Told(i-1,j))/(dr^2)) + ((cot(y)/(R^2))*((Told(i,j+1)-Told(i,j-1))/(2*dy))) + (1/(R^2))*(Told(i,j+1)-2*Told(i,j)+ Told(i,j-1))/(dy^2));
Tnew(i,j) = ((Qcd_in(i,j)-Qcd_out(i,j))/(mass(i,j)*cp(i,j)))*dt + Told(i,j);
end %end for loop
end % end for loop
%Temperature for at center line nodes
for i=2:1:(nodes-1)
for j=1
Qcd_line(i,j)=((k(i,j)+ k(i+1,j))/2)*A(i,j)*(Told(i+1,j)-Told(i,j))/dr;
Qcd_lineout(i,j)=((k(i,j)+ k(i-1,j))/2)*A(i-1,j)*(Told(i,j)-Told(i-1,j))/dr;
Tnew(i,j)= ((Qcd_line(i,j)-Qcd_lineout(i,j))/(mass(i,j)*cp(i,j)))*dt + Told(i,j);
end
end
% Temperature at bottom point (center) of the hemisphere solid
for i=1
for j=1:1:(nodes-1)
Qcd_center(i,j)=(((k(i,j)+k(i+1,j))/2)*A(i,j)*(Told(i+1,j)-Tair)/dr);
Tnew(i,j)= ((Qcd_center(i,j))/(mass(i,j)*cp(i,j)))*dt + Told(i,j);
end
end
% Temperature at all bottom points of the hemisphere
Tnew(:,nodes)=-22;
Told=Tnew;
t=t+dt;
Tnew temperatures values are getting bigger exponentially after program is run, and then becoming NaN. It supposed to show me cooling and freezing temperature profile of solid until it reaches to Tair temperature. I could not figure out the reasons why it is changing like that.
I would like to hear your suggestions for BCs implementation to this program, or how should i change them according to this conditions. Thanks in advance !!
Your code is too long to read and understand completely, but it looks like you are using a simple forward Euler scheme, is that correct? If so, try to reduce the time-step dt, maybe by a lot, since this method can become numerically unstable if dt is too big. This might slow down the speed of the computation (again by a lot), but that is the price you pay for such a simple algorithm. There are alternatives methods that do not suffer from instability, but they are much harder to implement, since you need to solve a system of equations.
I did some thermal simulations using this simple scheme a long time ago. I found that the stability criteria was dt < (dx)^2 * c_p * rho / (6 * k), which should be valid for a simulation on a 3D cartesian grid, where dx is the spatial step, c_p is the specific heat, rho the density and k the thermal conductivity of the material. I don't know how to convert this to your case with spherical coordinates. The thing I learned then was to choose small time-steps, but more importantly as large dx as possible: when you reduce dx by a factor 2, you also need to reduce dt by a factor 4 to keep things stable. At the same time, for a 3D problem, the number of elements will increase by a factor 8. So the total simulation time scales with 1 / (dx)^5!!!
I am having readings of Yaw, pitch, Roll, Rotation matrix, Quaternion and Acceleration. These reading are taken with frequency of 20 (per second). They are collected from the mobile device which is moving in 3D space from one position to other position.
I am setting reference plane by multiplying inverse matrix to the start postion. The rest of the readings are taken by considering the first one as a reference one. Now I want to convert these readings to 3D cartesian system.
How to convert it? Can anyone please help?
Ok basically yaw, pitch and roll are the euler angles, with them you got your rotation matrix already.
Quaternions are aquivalent to that, with them you can also calculate the rotation matrix you need.
If you have rotation matrices R_i for every moment i in your l=20secs interval. Than these rotations are relative the the one applied at R_(i-1) you can calculate their rotation relative to the first position. So A_i = R_1*...*R_i but after all you could also just safe the new direction of travel (safes calculations).
So asuming that the direction of travel is d_0 = (1,0,0) at first. You can calculate the next by d_i = R_i*d_(i-1) (always norm d_(i-1) because it might get smaller or bigger due to error). The first position is p and your start speed is v_0 = (0,0,0) and finally the acceleration is a_i. You need to calculate the vectorial speed v_i for every moment:
v_i = v_(i-1) + l*a_i*A_i*d_0 = v_(i-1) + l*a_i*d_i
Now you basically know where you are moving, and what kind of speed you use, so your position p_i at the moment i is given by:
`p_i = p_0 + l * ( v_1 + v_2 + ... + v_i)`
For the units:
a_i = [m/s^2]^3
v_i = [m/s]^3
p_i = [m]^3
Precision
Now some points to the precision of your position calculation (just if you want to know how good it will work). Suppose you have an error e>= ||R_i*v-w|| (where w is the correct vector). in the data you calculate the rotation matrices with. Your error is multipling itself so your error in the i moment is e_i <= e^i.
Then because you apply l and a_i to it, it becomes:
f_i <= l*a_i*e^i
But you are also adding up the error when you add up the speed, so now its g_i <= f_1+...+f_i. And yeah you also add up for the position (both sums over i):
h_i <= g_1+...+g_i = ΣΣ (l*a_i*e^i) = l* ΣΣ (a_i*e^i)
So this is basically the maximum difference from your position p_i to the correct position w (||p_i - w|| <= h_i).
This is still not taking in account that you don't get the correct acceleration from your device (I don't know how they normally do this), because correct would be:
a_i = ||∫a_i(t) dt|| (where a_i(t) is vectorial now)
And you would need to calculate the difference in direction (your rotation matrix) as:
Δd_i = (∫a_i(t) dt)/a_i (again a_i(t) is vectorial)
So apart from the errors you get from the error in your rotations from your device (and from floating point arithmetic), you have an error in your acceleration, I won't calculate that now but you would substitute a_i = a_i + b_i.
So I'm pretty sure it will be far off from the real position. You even have to take in account that you're speed might be non zero when it should be!
But that beeing said, I would really like to know the precision you get after implementing it, that's what always keept me from trying it.
I have two sequences of length n and m. Each is a sequence of points of the form (x,y) and represent curves in an image. I need to find how different (or similar) these sequences are given that fact that
one sequence is likely longer than the other (i.e., one can be half or a quarter as long as the other, but if they trace approximately the same curve, they are the same)
these sequences could be in opposite directions (i.e., sequence 1 goes from left to right, while sequence 2 goes from right to left)
I looked into some difference estimates like Levenshtein as well as edit-distances in structural similarity matching for protein folding, but none of them seem to do the trick. I could write my own brute-force method but I want to know if there is a better way.
Thanks.
Do you mean that you are trying to match curves that have been translated in x,y coordinates? One technique from image processing is to use chain codes [I'm looking for a decent reference, but all I can find right now is this] to encode each sequence and then compare those chain codes. You could take the sum of the differences (modulo 8) and if the result is 0, the curves are identical. Since the sequences are of different lengths and don't necessarily start at the same relative location, you would have to shift one sequence and do this again and again, but you only have to create the chain codes once. The only way to detect if one of the sequences is reversed is to try both the forward and reverse of one of the sequences. If the curves aren't exactly alike, the sum will be greater than zero but it is not straightforward to tell how different the curves are simply from the sum.
This method will not be rotationally invariant. If you need a method that is rotationally invariant, you should look at Boundary-Centered Polar Encoding. I can't find a free reference for that, but if you need me to describe it, let me know.
A method along these lines might work:
For both sequences:
Fit a curve through the sequence. Make sure that you have a continuous one-to-one function from [0,1] to points on this curve. That is, for each (real) number between 0 and 1, this function returns a point on the curve belonging to it. By tracing the function for all numbers from 0 to 1, you get the entire curve.
One way to fit a curve would be to draw a straight line between each pair of consecutive points (it is not a nice curve, because it has sharp bends, but it might be fine for your purpose). In that case, the function can be obtained by calculating the total length of all the line segments (Pythagoras). The point on the curve corresponding to a number Y (between 0 and 1) corresponds to the point on the curve that has a distance Y * (total length of all line segments) from the first point on the sequence, measured by traveling over the line segments (!!).
Now, after we have obtained such a function F(double) for the first sequence, and G(double) for the second sequence, we can calculate the similarity as follows:
double epsilon = 0.01;
double curveDistanceSquared = 0.0;
for(double d=0.0;d<1.0;d=d+epsilon)
{
Point pointOnCurve1 = F(d);
Point pointOnCurve2 = G(d);
//alternatively, use G(1.0-d) to check whether the second sequence is reversed
double distanceOfPoints = pointOnCurve1.EuclideanDistance(pointOnCurve2);
curveDistanceSquared = curveDistanceSquared + distanceOfPoints * distanceOfPoints;
}
similarity = 1.0/ curveDistanceSquared;
Possible improvements:
-Find an improved way to fit the curves. Note that you still need the function that traces the curve for the above method to work.
-When calculating the distance, consider reparametrizing the function G in such a way that the distance is minimized. (This means you have an increasing function R, such that R(0) = 0 and R(1)=1,
but which is otherwise general. When calculating the distance you use
Point pointOnCurve1 = F(d);
Point pointOnCurve2 = G(R(d));
Subsequently, you try to choose R in such a way that the distance is minimized. (to see what happens, note that G(R(d)) also traces the curve)).
Why not do some sort of curve fitting procedure (least-squares whether it be ordinary or non-linear) and see if the coefficients on the shape parameters are the same. If you run it as a panel-data sort of model, there are explicit statistical tests whether sets of parameters are significantly different from one another. That would solve the problem of the the same curve but sampled at different resolutions.
Step 1: Canonicalize the orientation. For example, let's say that all curved start at the endpoint with lowest lexicographic order.
def inCanonicalOrientation(path):
return path if path[0]<path[-1] else reversed(path)
Step 2: You can either be roughly accurate, or very accurate. If you wish to be very accurate, calculate a spline, or fit both curves to a polynomial of appropriate degree, and compare coefficients. If you'd like just a rough estimate, do as follows:
def resample(path, numPoints)
pathLength = pathLength(path) #write this function
segments = generateSegments(path)
currentSegment = next(segments)
segmentsSoFar = [currentSegment]
for i in range(numPoints):
samplePosition = i/(numPoints-1)*pathLength
while samplePosition > pathLength(segmentsSoFar)+currentSegment.length:
currentSegment = next(segments)
segmentsSoFar.insert(currentSegment)
difference = samplePosition - pathLength(segmentsSoFar)
howFar = difference/currentSegment.length
yield Point((1-howFar)*currentSegment.start + (howFar)*currentSegment.end)
This can be modified from a linear resampling to something better.
def error(pathA, pathB):
pathA = inCanonicalOrientation(pathA)
pathB = inCanonicalOrientation(pathB)
higherResolution = max([len(pathA), len(pathB)])
resampledA = resample(pathA, higherResolution)
resampledB = resample(pathA, higherResolution)
error = sum(
abs(pointInA-pointInB)
for pointInA,pointInB in zip(pathA,pathB)
)
averageError = error / len(pathAorB)
normalizedError = error / Z(AorB)
return normalizedError
Where Z is something like the "diameter" of your path, perhaps the maximum Euclidean distance between any two points in a path.
I would use a curve-fitting procedure, but also throw in a constant term, i.e. 0 =B0 + B1*X + B2*Y + B3*X*Y + B4*X^2 etc. This would catch the translational variance and then you can do a statistical comparison of the estimated coefficients of the curves formed by the two sets of points as a way of classifying them. I'm assuming you'll have to do bi-variate interpolation if the data form arbitrary curves in the x-y plane.
I am writing a physics engine/simulator which incorporates 3D space flight, planetary/stellar gravitation, ship thrust and relativistic effects. So far, it is going very well, however, one thing that I need help with is the math of the collision detection algorithm.
The iterative simulation of movement that I am using is basically as follows:
(Note: 3D Vectors are ALL CAPS.)
For each obj
obj.ACC = Sum(all acceleration influences)
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT) + (obj.ACC * dT^2)/2 (*EQ.2*)
obj.VEL = obj.VEL + (obj.ACC * dT)
Next
Where:
obj.ACC is the acceleration vector of the object
obj.POS is the position or location vector of the object
obj.VEL is the velocity vector of the object
obj.Radius is the radius (scalar) of the object
dT is the time delta or increment
What I basically need to do is to find some efficient formula that derives from (EQ.2) above for two objects (obj1, obj2) and tell if they ever collide, and if so, at what time. I need the exact time both so that I can determine if it is in this particular time increment (because acceleration will be different at different time increments) and also so that I can locate the exact position (which I know how to do, given the time)
For this engine, I am modelling all objects as spheres, all this formula/algorithm needs to do is to figure out at what points:
(obj1.POS - obj2.POS).Distance = (obj1.Radius + obj2.Radius)
where .Distance is a positive scalar value. (You can also square both sides if this is easier, to avoid the square root function implicit in the .Distance calculation).
(yes, I am aware of many, many other collision detection questions, however, their solutions all seem to be very particular to their engine and assumptions, and none appear to match my conditions: 3D, spheres, and acceleration applied within the simulation increments. Let me know if I am wrong.)
Some Clarifications:
1) It is not sufficient for me to check for Intersection of the two spheres before and after the time increment. In many cases their velocities and position changes will far exceed their radii.
2) RE: efficiency, I do not need help (at this point anyway) with respect to determine likely candidates for collisions, I think that I have that covered.
Another clarification, which seems to be coming up a lot:
3) My equation (EQ.2) of incremental movement is a quadratic equation that applies both Velocity and Acceleration:
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT) + (obj.ACC * dT^2)/2
In the physics engines that I have seen, (and certainly every game engine that I ever heard of) only linear equations of incremental movement that apply only Velocity:
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT)
This is why I cannot use the commonly published solutions for collision detection found on StackOverflow, on Wikipedia and all over the Web, such as finding the intersection/closest approach of two line segments. My simulation deals with variable accelerations that are fundamental to the results, so what I need is the intersection/closest approach of two parabolic segments.
On the webpage AShelley referred to, the Closest Point of Approach method is developed for the case of two objects moving at constant velocity. However, I believe the same vector-calculus method can be used to derive a result in the case of two objects both moving with constant non-zero acceleration (quadratic time dependence).
In this case, the time derivative of the distance-squared function is 3rd order (cubic) instead of 1st order. Therefore there will be 3 solutions to the Time of Closest Approach, which is not surprising since the path of both objects is curved so multiple intersections are possible. For this application, you would probably want to use the earliest value of t which is within the interval defined by the current simulation step (if such a time exists).
I worked out the derivative equation which should give the times of closest approach:
0 = |D_ACC|^2 * t^3 + 3 * dot(D_ACC, D_VEL) * t^2 + 2 * [ |D_VEL|^2 + dot(D_POS, D_ACC) ] * t + 2 * dot(D_POS, D_VEL)
where:
D_ACC = ob1.ACC-obj2.ACC
D_VEL = ob1.VEL-obj2.VEL (before update)
D_POS = ob1.POS-obj2.POS (also before update)
and dot(A, B) = A.x*B.x + A.y*B.y + A.z*B.z
(Note that the square of the magnitude |A|^2 can be computed using dot(A, A))
To solve this for t, you'll probably need to use formulas like the ones found on Wikipedia.
Of course, this will only give you the moment of closest approach. You will need to test the distance at this moment (using something like Eq. 2). If it is greater than (obj1.Radius + obj2.Radius), it can be disregarded (i.e. no collision). However, if the distance is less, that means the spheres collide before this moment. You could then use an iterative search to test the distance at earlier times. It might also be possible to come up with another (even more complicated) derivation which takes the size into account, or possible to find some other analytic solution, without resorting to iterative solving.
Edit: because of the higher order, some of the solutions to the equation are actually moments of farthest separation. I believe in all cases either 1 of the 3 solutions or 2 of the 3 solutions will be a time of farthest separation. You can test analytically whether you're at a min or a max by evaluating the second derivative with respect to time (at the values of t which you found by setting the first derivative to zero):
D''(t) = 3 * |D_ACC|^2 * t^2 + 6 * dot(D_ACC, D_VEL) * t + 2 * [ |D_VEL|^2 + dot(D_POS, D_ACC) ]
If the second derivative evaluates to a positive number, then you know the distance is at a minimum, not a maximum, for the given time t.
Draw a line between the start location and end location of each sphere. If the resulting line segments intersect the spheres definitely collided at some point and some clever math can find at what time the collision occurred. Also make sure to check if the minimum distance between the segments (if they don't intersect) is ever less than 2*radius. This will also indicate a collision.
From there you can backstep your delta time to happen exactly at collision so you can correctly calculate the forces.
Have you considered using a physics library which already does this work? Many libraries use far more advanced and more stable (better integrators) systems for solving the systems of equations you're working with. Bullet Physics comes to mind.
op asked for time of collision. A slightly different approach will compute it exactly...
Remember that the position projection equation is:
NEW_POS=POS+VEL*t+(ACC*t^2)/2
If we replace POS with D_POS=POS_A-POS_B, VEL with D_VEL=VEL_A-VEL_B, and ACC=ACC_A-ACC_B for objects A and B we get:
$D_NEW_POS=D_POS+D_VEL*t+(D_ACC*t^2)/2
This is the formula for vectored distance between the objects. In order to get the squared scalar distance between them, we can take the square of this equation, which after expansion looks like:
distsq(t) = D_POS^2+2*dot(D_POS,D_VEL)*t + (dot(D_POS, D_ACC)+D_VEL^2)*t^2 + dot(D_VEL,D_ACC)*t^3 + D_ACC^2*t^4/4
In order to find the time where collision occurs, we can set the equation equal to the square of the sum of radii and solve for t:
0 = D_POS^2-(r_A+r_B)^2 + 2*dot(D_POS,D_VEL)*t + (dot(D_POS, D_ACC)+D_VEL^2)*t^2 + dot(D_VEL,D_ACC)*t^3 + D_ACC^2*t^4/4
Now, we can solve for the equation using the quartic formula.
The quartic formula will yield 4 roots, but we are only interested in real roots. If there is a double real root, then the two objects touch edges at exactly one point in time. If there are two real roots, then the objects continuously overlap between root 1 and root 2 (i.e. root 1 is the time when collision starts and root 2 is the time when collision stops). Four real roots means that the objects collide twice, continuously between root pairs 1,2 and 3,4.
In R, I used polyroot() to solve as follows:
# initial positions
POS_A=matrix(c(0,0),2,1)
POS_B=matrix(c(2,0),2,1)
# initial velocities
VEL_A=matrix(c(sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
VEL_B=matrix(c(-sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
# acceleration
ACC_A=matrix(c(sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
ACC_B=matrix(c(0,0),2,1)
# radii
r_A=.25
r_B=.25
# deltas
D_POS=POS_B-POS_A
D_VEL=VEL_B-VEL_A
D_ACC=ACC_B-ACC_A
# quartic coefficients
z=c(t(D_POS)%*%D_POS-r*r, 2*t(D_POS)%*%D_VEL, t(D_VEL)%*%D_VEL+t(D_POS)%*%D_ACC, t(D_ACC)%*%D_VEL, .25*(t(D_ACC)%*%D_ACC))
# get roots
roots=polyroot(z)
# In this case there are only two real roots...
root1=as.numeric(roots[1])
root2=as.numeric(roots[2])
# trajectory over time
pos=function(p,v,a,t){
T=t(matrix(t,length(t),2))
return(t(matrix(p,2,length(t))+matrix(v,2,length(t))*T+.5*matrix(a,2,length(t))*T*T))
}
# plot A in red and B in blue
t=seq(0,2,by=.1) # from 0 to 2 seconds.
a1=pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,t)
a2=pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,t)
plot(a1,type='o',col='red')
lines(a2,type='o',col='blue')
# points of a circle with center 'p' and radius 'r'
circle=function(p,r,s=36){
e=matrix(0,s+1,2)
for(i in 1:s){
e[i,1]=cos(2*pi*(1/s)*i)*r+p[1]
e[i,2]=sin(2*pi*(1/s)*i)*r+p[2]
}
e[s+1,]=e[1,]
return(e)
}
# plot circles with radius r_A and r_B at time of collision start in black
lines(circle(pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,root1),r_A))
lines(circle(pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,root1),r_B))
# plot circles with radius r_A and r_B at time of collision stop in gray
lines(circle(pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,root2),r_A),col='gray')
lines(circle(pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,root2),r_B),col='gray')
Object A follows the red trajectory from the lower left to the upper right. Object B follows the blue trajectory from the lower right to the upper left. The two objects collide continuously between time 0.9194381 and time 1.167549. The two black circles just touch, showing the beginning of overlap - and overlap continues in time until the objects reach the location of the gray circles.
Seems like you want the Closest Point of Approach (CPA). If it is less than the sum of the radiuses, you have a collision. There is example code in the link. You can calculate each frame with the current velocity, and check if the CPA time is less than your tick size. You could even cache the cpa time, and only update when acceleration was applied to either item.