Block Diagrams

• posted

I just posted another article to my site. It's very basic, comments are welcome.

Thanks.

• posted

Hi Tim.

I don't usually work with block diagrams, but I found the page very instructive.

There are two comments after a quick browse of the page:

Section 1.2: The integration sign in block (5) and the amplitude mapping in block (7) are graphically very similar. Is this due to convention, or is it possible to include a "proper" integration sign in block (5)? I know, block (5) contains a "*dt" term, but these are the types of subtle details I usually mess up. Or that mess me up...

Section 2.1: It's a very useful example. Being an interested newbie reader, I would appreciate some help in seeing where you start. Some labels, like terming blocks as A, B, C, etc and the connections as something else, would make it lot easier to see where in the block diagram the various equations belong. A comment on general strategy might also be useful. Do you start at the right and work your way left? Vice versa? Is there a system at all? That's the kind of clue that very well might make the difference for a newbie.

I really appreciate the effort spent on these types of pages. It is, of course, very valuable for whoever writes them. The pages also help other people, like students and non-specialist clients, to understand what one does for a living.

Rune

• posted

Thanks for the comments, they'll help me improve the paper.

The similarity between the integrator sign and the limiter is mostly due to the limitations of my graphics package, but I should be able to overcome that with work, eh?

Yes, I should name the blocks in that figure, and now that you point it out I can see that I need to add some more exposition to the system description and to the method for extracting the mathematical model.

• posted

I do but the paper seemed to have a lot of similarity to "Signal Flow Analysis". It was interesting.

• posted

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your graphics. I think the poster may need a math refresher since there's no dofference between symbols for proper and improper integrals. If he meant definite/indefinite, then the only thing missing would be the limits, and we know that's not the case.

• posted

Actually his confusion was between a block with a written out time-domain function (an integral) and a block with a graphic indicating an x-y relationship for a memoryless function -- in this case a limiter, which if you squint could be mistaken for an integrator. Due to my graphics package the integrator sign wasn't all it could be (but the limiter looked fine).

• posted

Yeah. I see the blocks. The graphics are fine even squinting. For some reason though, the math graphic to the right of the limiter block doesn't render. It downloads and views in a viewer, but Firefox msgs that it can't be displayed... the message overflows the space allowed for the image so I don't know wtf. No obvious prob with the html, either. weird.

• posted

Active8 wrote:

Hmm... Which viewer? ImageMagick Display doesn't display the image at all, while Internet Explorer and XnView show only the upper two thirds of it (the latter even using magenta as the background color), so I suspect the file might indeed be erroreous (due to a loose interpretation of the specs or whatever).

"The image ... cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." is the message shown by Mozilla in the "Properties" dialog when opening the image file alone. (Heaven knows why it's not there when viewing the whole page.) Chances are you'll find that information in the same place within Firefox as well.

Michael

• posted

Hm. That must have happened when I uploaded it - it was (he says plaintively) fine when I checked it on my machine. I'll have to fix that.

• posted

No. "View Image" in firefox displays the error message in the space that the graphic would supposedly occupy and thus, as I said, the message overflows the ... WTF I called it.

• posted