Block Diagrams

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

http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html

Thanks.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10oarfcismidd18@corp.supernews.com>...
> I just posted another article to my site.  It's very basic, comments are 
> welcome.
> 
> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html
> 
> Thanks.

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

Rune Allnor wrote:

> Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:<10oarfcismidd18@corp.supernews.com>...
> 
>>I just posted another article to my site.  It's very basic, comments are 
>>welcome.
>>
>>http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html
>>
>>Thanks.
> 
> 
> 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

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.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Rune Allnor wrote:

> Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message
> news:<10oarfcismidd18@corp.supernews.com>...
>> I just posted another article to my site.  It's very basic, comments are
>> welcome.
>> 
>> http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html
>> 
>> Thanks.
> 
> Hi Tim.
> 
> I don't usually work with block diagrams, but I found the page very
> instructive.

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

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@a...>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 .........NOW AVAILABLE:- HIDECS COURSE......
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 .... see http://www.feabhas.com for details.
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:24:29 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

<snip>
> 
> 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?

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.
> 
> 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.


-- 
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:24:29 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>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?
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> 
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).

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:27:45 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

> Active8 wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:24:29 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>>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?
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>>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.
>> 
> 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).

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.
-- 
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 wrote:
[http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams_html_m3f7dd27a.gif
in http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html]

> 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,

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).

> but
> Firefox msgs that it can't be displayed... the message overflows the
> space allowed for the image so I don't know wtf.

"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

Michael Hemmer wrote:

> Active8 wrote:
> [http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams_html_m3f7dd27a.gif 
> 
> in http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html]
> 
>> 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,
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
>> but
>> Firefox msgs that it can't be displayed... the message overflows the
>> space allowed for the image so I don't know wtf.
> 
> 
> "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

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.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:15:23 +0100, Michael Hemmer wrote:

> Active8 wrote:
> [http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams_html_m3f7dd27a.gif
> in http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/BlockDiagrams/BlockDiagrams.html]
> 
>> 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,
> 
> 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).
> 
>> but
>> Firefox msgs that it can't be displayed... the message overflows the
>> space allowed for the image so I don't know wtf.
> 
> "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
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.

-- 
Best Regards,
Mike