Most charts are for types, but if its really straight forward, in other words, provokes easy action, like how I think the first one is, then a type will use it, else he will just ask someone else or figure it out actively.
You would expect a type to take lots of notes and have all his rules and technicalities, where as the type would rely on memory, the feel of it or his active intuition to see what makes sense and not overdo the technical process, always try to keep the ability to jump into the main point or next step with, or without, his valuables.
I kinda like both of them. These very schematic charts like the 2nd one are often very easy to understand. I actually just made a chart like this, but much simpler (Why make it unnecessarily complicated?) and without any scientific or technical content.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
I made both of them for a final design project for a measurement and instrumentation class (an aerospace engineer class).
I used this website to host the images so I could write the word file up on the campus computer lab with my USB drive instead of transfer the files over haha. But yea both of them were made by me.
The first one is the "physical" concept, its only so practical as we weren't given a physical picture of the rocket or anything, so the bracket is just a block and its assumed that a bracket can be designed to fit it properly. Also in real life most "cantilever beams" aren't fixed to a wall, but clamped. There are always those little details that differ from textbook drawings but this was just to articulate the basic concept of how physically it would look.
The second one is a block diagram "schematic", it shows how everything functions as a system. The strain gages are connected to a filter to filter out any noise or cantilever beam vibrations, with a potentiometer to adjust the filters low pass frequency. After passing the filter the voltage is sent to a wheatstone bridge (typically used with strain gages) to determine the strain on the beam. This of course is sent to a board which connects to a computer with software that calibrates the wheatstone bridge circuit, and then takes voltage readings and computes them to determine the thrust profile of the rocket. The filter is also monitored in the computer, so that the user can adjust the filter if the data is picking up any noise or vibrations from the beam.
So this probably means that it is useless to type pictures.