I don’t think these bond graphs could fully replace more detailed breakdowns but I think they’re main strength is when you’re working with a system that crosses domains such as robotics and such where you’re transferring power from here to there and being able to represent it in a compatible fashion all at once I think can be very useful. I love seeing these listed as “Effort” or “Force”. I personally always found hydraulic graphs to be the most intuitive. If I can learn this well enough, I _should_ get to a point where I could look at an of the comparible systems and visualize it as hydraulic. But that’d be a long way off I think. This could be a bridge though.

I don’t think these bond graphs could fully replace more detailed breakdowns but I think they’re main strength is when you’re working with a system that crosses domains such as robotics and such where you’re transferring power from here to there and being able to represent it in a compatible fashion all at once I think can be very useful.

I love seeing these listed as “Effort” or “Force”.

I personally always found hydraulic graphs to be the most intuitive. If I can learn this well enough, I _should_ get to a point where I could look at an of the comparible systems and visualize it as hydraulic. But that’d be a long way off I think. This could be a bridge though.

I know there’s some that utilize off-shelf standard symbols but I like ones that show a human recognizable shapes — a filter that looks sort of like a filter you might see, a tank that looks like a tank , pumps that looks like pumps. What’s nice about hydraulic over the other systems is that the parts are very distinctive looking, like things you might see in real life while looking at a system.

I can’t read the style that you showed. I’ve tried on and off through the years, particular with dataflow diagrams, network diagrams, Brain just goes PFFT at the symbols. Too flat or too abstract or something.

Well, I think a lot depends on need. I started in the opposite direction. I was into quantum physics as a teenager. All the way down at the nitty gritty stuff. Loved it. Ate it up.

But consequently when it came to newtonian things, I was annoyed. Too simplistic. Misses the nuance. “But what about…?” — I irritated high school teachers.

So I find the simpler analogizing refreshing and helpful. If I can explain it to a 5 year old, I’m using the right system. That’s what I’m shooting for.

—-

I agree. As much as I enjoyed my physics stuff, I feel ripped off in a lot of ways. Things like diffusion across membranes are far more useful than balancing a fork on the edge of a glass with a cork and a toothpick.

-0–

ah yes! Source and sink. That was useful when trying to understand microchips. Yes, I’m a big believer in this use of analogies.

I know analogy can be limiting — in fact it can be dangerous beyond a certain level of detail / need.

What happens is I’ll understand something then years will go by and then I want to understand it again and I’m mystified again. Past understanding only stuck around enough to mock me :P [you used to understand this!! dummy] So I learn it again, just from a different angle, each time.

===

Inventor of the bond graph is interesting. Very pragmatic idea – and it’s gotten a lot of solid use through the decades and to today.

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 × nine =

Leave a Reply