Talk:System equivalence

First problem

The following is offered in a colleaguial spirit. The article needs more context, more explanation, and better writing. Re. the writing, take for example the first sentence, "System equivalence is the notion that a parameter/component of a system behaves the same way as another of a different system." A parameter etc. behaves... is fine, but then we face A parameter etc. behaves the same way as another [parameter etc.?] of a different system. If you know what's meant, this sentence is ok, but if you aren't a subject expert you start to wonder... The sentence also begs questions such as: What's the definition of "the same way?" Right now, the article reads too much as a capsule of an undigested textbook. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update to come

Thanks for the feedback Iterator12n, I am working on some updates and additional material for this page right now. I realized when I posted that it would need more content but thought I would try to get it up as I got some of it done. Hopefully the next version will be better suited and provide more clarity and understanding.

Also thanks to Mdd for the formatting changes I am slowly learning how to do all of the formatting but there is just so much that can be done.

Hope to update it again later tonight. Thanks and more comments welcome. Smee44 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Capacitor analogy?

The articles Capacitor analogy and System equivalence seem to talk about the same subject. Merging these articles might give a clearer overview of this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a link. Maybe this can be used as an idea to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.82.44 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think this article is long overdue an makeover. No denying it could be written better. 5.151.82.42 (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table misleading?

I think it would make more sense if the table had 'x' and 'q' as the flow variables for the mechanical and electrical systems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.238.154 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal inductance

A new article has been introduced on the topic of thermal inductance. At first I was skeptical, but this is apparently a real thing, although not well studied. The concept refers to the phenomenon that a heated object surrounded by a fluid will induce convection currents in that fluid, thus increasing the kinetic energy of the fluid. Presumably, the increased convection current could induce heat (through friction) in any other object immersed in the same body of fluid, which is certainly a thermal equivalent of inductive current coupling. Thoughts on adding this phenomenon to this article? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible equivalences

I've just added a note on the article about this. I wrote mechanical-electrical analogies without knowing of the existence of this article. Consequently, I strayed quite a bit out of the mechanical and electrical fields in order to give the bigger picture. That article has a lot of better cited and more accurate material (even though I do say it myself) that could be used here. I don't have time to completely fix up this article right now so I'm going to leave it at that for now. SpinningSpark 13:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link with sim. subj

What's its relation with say, systems engineering? Ema--or (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]