Create an Insight Maker account to start building models. Insight Maker is completely free.


Start Now

Insight Maker runs in your web-browser. No downloads or plugins are needed. Start converting your ideas into your rich pictures, simulation models and Insights now. Features

Simulate

Explore powerful simulation algorithms for System Dynamics and Agent Based Modeling. Use System Dynamics to gain insights into your system and Agent Based Modeling to dig into the details. Types of Modeling

Collaborate

Sharing models has never been this easy. Send a link, embed in a blog, or collaborate with others. It couldn't be simpler. More

Free & Open

Build your models for free. Share them with others for free. Harness the power of Insight Maker for free. Open code mean security and transparency. More


Explore What Others Are Building

Here is a sample of public Insights made by Insight Maker users. This list is auto-generated and updated daily.

Simulating Hyperinflation for 3650 days.  If private bond holdings are going down and the government is running a big deficit then the central bank has to monetize bonds equal to the deficit plus the decrease in private bond holdings.  We don't show the details of the central bank buying bonds here,
Simulating Hyperinflation for 3650 days.

If private bond holdings are going down and the government is running a big deficit then the central bank has to monetize bonds equal to the deficit plus the decrease in private bond holdings.  We don't show the details of the central bank buying bonds here, just the net results.

See blog at http://howfiatdies.blogspot.com for more on hyperinflation, including a hyperinflation FAQ.
    Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly int

Dynamic simulation modelers are particularly interested in understanding and being able to distinguish between the behavior of stocks and flows that result from internal interactions and those that result from external forces acting on a system.  For some time modelers have been particularly interested in internal interactions that result in stable oscillations in the absence of any external forces acting on a system.  The model in this last scenario was independently developed by Alfred Lotka (1924) and Vito Volterra (1926).  Lotka was interested in understanding internal dynamics that might explain oscillations in moth and butterfly populations and the parasitoids that attack them.  Volterra was interested in explaining an increase in coastal populations of predatory fish and a decrease in their prey that was observed during World War I when human fishing pressures on the predator species declined.  Both discovered that a relatively simple model is capable of producing the cyclical behaviors they observed.  Since that time, several researchers have been able to reproduce the modeling dynamics in simple experimental systems consisting of only predators and prey.  It is now generally recognized that the model world that Lotka and Volterra produced is too simple to explain the complexity of most and predator-prey dynamics in nature.  And yet, the model significantly advanced our understanding of the critical role of feedback in predator-prey interactions and in feeding relationships that result in community dynamics.The Lotka–Volterra model makes a number of assumptions about the environment and evolution of the predator and prey populations:

1. The prey population finds ample food at all times.
2. The food supply of the predator population depends entirely on the size of the prey population.
3. The rate of change of population is proportional to its size.
4. During the process, the environment does not change in favour of one species and genetic adaptation is inconsequential.
5. Predators have limitless appetite.
As differential equations are used, the solution is deterministic and continuous. This, in turn, implies that the generations of both the predator and prey are continually overlapping.[23]

Prey
When multiplied out, the prey equation becomes
dx/dtαx - βxy
 The prey are assumed to have an unlimited food supply, and to reproduce exponentially unless subject to predation; this exponential growth is represented in the equation above by the term αx. The rate of predation upon the prey is assumed to be proportional to the rate at which the predators and the prey meet; this is represented above by βxy. If either x or y is zero then there can be no predation.

With these two terms the equation above can be interpreted as: the change in the prey's numbers is given by its own growth minus the rate at which it is preyed upon.

Predators

The predator equation becomes

dy/dt =  - 

In this equation, {\displaystyle \displaystyle \delta xy} represents the growth of the predator population. (Note the similarity to the predation rate; however, a different constant is used as the rate at which the predator population grows is not necessarily equal to the rate at which it consumes the prey). {\displaystyle \displaystyle \gamma y} represents the loss rate of the predators due to either natural death or emigration; it leads to an exponential decay in the absence of prey.

Hence the equation expresses the change in the predator population as growth fueled by the food supply, minus natural death.


WIP Overview model structures of Khalid Saeed's 2014  WPI paper  Jay
Forrester’s Disruptive Models of Economic Behavior  See also General SD and Macroeconomics CLDs  IM-168865
WIP Overview model structures of Khalid Saeed's 2014 WPI paper Jay Forrester’s Disruptive Models of Economic Behavior  See also General SD and Macroeconomics CLDs IM-168865
Clone of Pesticide Use in Central America for Lab work        This model is an attempt to simulate what is commonly referred to as the “pesticide treadmill” in agriculture and how it played out in the cotton industry in Central America after the Second World War until around the 1990s.     The cotto
Clone of Pesticide Use in Central America for Lab work


This model is an attempt to simulate what is commonly referred to as the “pesticide treadmill” in agriculture and how it played out in the cotton industry in Central America after the Second World War until around the 1990s.

The cotton industry expanded dramatically in Central America after WW2, increasing from 20,000 hectares to 463,000 in the late 1970s. This expansion was accompanied by a huge increase in industrial pesticide application which would eventually become the downfall of the industry.

The primary pest for cotton production, bol weevil, became increasingly resistant to chemical pesticides as they were applied each year. The application of pesticides also caused new pests to appear, such as leafworms, cotton aphids and whitefly, which in turn further fuelled increased application of pesticides. 

The treadmill resulted in massive increases in pesticide applications: in the early years they were only applied a few times per season, but this application rose to up to 40 applications per season by the 1970s; accounting for over 50% of the costs of production in some regions. 

The skyrocketing costs associated with increasing pesticide use were one of the key factors that led to the dramatic decline of the cotton industry in Central America: decreasing from its peak in the 1970s to less than 100,000 hectares in the 1990s. “In its wake, economic ruin and environmental devastation were left” as once thriving towns became ghost towns, and once fertile soils were wasted, eroded and abandoned (Lappe, 1998). 

Sources: Douglas L. Murray (1994), Cultivating Crisis: The Human Cost of Pesticides in Latin America, pp35-41; Francis Moore Lappe et al (1998), World Hunger: 12 Myths, 2nd Edition, pp54-55.