EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Mark Fergerson]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

<snip>

Once again, there is no bottom. You just think there is because of
the limited perspective from your POV. Why else would you try to
linearize such a concept?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Somehow the spacing got upfucked. It was s'posed to
underscore "try to linearize".

No, no, no, no, no. It's not linear at all. The reason I say that
there is a bottom is because you can't get any denser than a proton
without dropping out of space entirely. For Will, this means eternal
death.

That way the following makes slightly more sense:

Poor choice of words; perhaps "think there's a singularity of that
kind relevant to"?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Tim Wescott]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

If you mean the controller, here's a start:
http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/pidwophd.html. It's much more for
writing software more than for building circuits but there's some
generally useful information in there -- and I think you'll be able to
figure out how to do integrators & differentiators with op-amps.

--

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

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

<snip Steve's incomprehension of his doublespeak infatuation
with renaming dogma as "Truth">

<interspersed unmarked brevity snips>

Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.


Yet another unsubstantiable claim.

It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
always
intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.

"Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
reality. You will not define "common human experience"
because there is no such thing.

Your experience is not
mine, and vice versa. Be extremely careful trying to refute
that statement; you'll be reduced to using "spurious
factoids".

I need no such thing.

Then attempt to do so without them. Explicate precisely
what your and my experiences have in common.

In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold
anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure
without any
assertion of spurious factoids.

That's nice. That kind of "reasoning" must rest on
untestable assumptions. That kind of structuredstructure an
"opinion".

At some point all rests on assumptions. I consider mine
as necessary
and part of the fabric of existence. You have been warped
by your
upbringing so as to deny them.

Your assumptions are fantasies not based on reality.

Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be
disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so,
and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious
deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting
where Evil
is simply denied a voice.

Since you accept no evidence at all contradictory to your
position, I must assume that since there is also none valid
to support your position, that it is exactly equal to any
other such position; namely, it's an "opinion".

Opinion is what you have. Certainty is what I have.

"Certainty" based on fantasy. You have nothing else to
base it on.

It's like knowing how to count and do the arithmetic. You
won't learn, and so you speak in inequalities
and haven't the vaguest idea why those are unacceptable.

I refuse to "learn" to lie and call it truth.

The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.

Yep, since you can't out-argue anyone, stifle or kill
them.

I simply say that it is futile to argue with an
oppressor, since he isn't really listening.

You most certainly are not.

Say, I was wrong; you're not a fan of Lenin at all.
Actually, you're a fan of Stalin.

Nonsense. He has nothing in common with me except a means
that you
wouldn't want me to use, but which all humans finally
have to.

You've already said you prefer to watch it on TV rather
than dirty your own precious hands. How typically elitist.

Examine what is said and why, not who says what.

Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.

Disingenous. As I have said, that is disreputable and
invalid.

Then your opinion has exactly no greater weight than
anyone else's, by your own criteria.

By my criteria, mine does.

Your criteria have no weight other than what you give
them; since you've provided no objective basis for
determining their valiidity, why should anyone bother to
take you seriously?

You misdefine "doublespeak" to suit your ends. Nothing I
say is
confusing or confounding to anyone. YOU simply don't LIKE
it, and
are LYING because you don't like me besting you so easily
with my
words!!

Your words have only the meaning you assign to them.
Hence you see them as unassailable. The rest of us take the
trouble to agree on what "true" and "false" mean first.

Of course, for this to work, you must continue to
characterize anyone who disagrees with you as "evil". You
sound more and more like a preacher.

If preachers speak against obvious evil, sure, you'd
probably think
that. Your chosen sin is inequality and oppression of
others, you
really know you are supporting Evil, and you even know
WHY it's
Evil, you just wish to continue to DO it ANYWAY! If you
dislike
people pointing up your crimes, you sure won't like me!

You are so very pompously full of shit. You completely
fail to see your substitution of rational discussion with
the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.

This is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.

Any Peer-Review forum that permits your intentionally
creative
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science
and Truth.

Yet your preferred "intentionally creative
mischaracterizations" such as Rather's,

He didn't use any such thing. Liar.

He most certainly did, specifically when he characterized
his sources as "unimpeachable".

and your insistence
that anyone not agreeing with you is evil, are OK. Right. So
much for Science and Truth under your watch.

You who wish to twist perspective and deceive will
receive the Truth,
and you will NOT like it!

Yet more baseless threats.

Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down
doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.

Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the
evidence.

He lied. There is ample evidence of it, and exactly none
to support the contents of the faked documents he presented.

What he said was True, he simply didn't have evidence of
it yet.
He didn't know that at the time.

To repeat, when he most certainly knew the documents were
fakes because it had been independently proved so, he did
not say so.

You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.

I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're
WAY TOO
RIGHTIST!!!

Don't try to change the subject; we're talking about
Rather's lies.

He never lied. That you say he did is YOUR lie.

Oh, right. Your definitions of "Truth" and "lie" again.

The way we are changed from external influences is
from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will",
change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other
things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our
"will".

This is either your opinion or a lie.

You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in
that regard.

You already did.

You don't GET to.

I see. I am not allowed to participate. I am merely to be
killed.

Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.

You are not capable of such discernment, so it isn't
appropriate.

Oh, right; I'm too stupid. That's a popular fallback in
formal debating; oh, wait, no it isn't.

This isn't a debate. That you're too stupid is merely True.

I see. You have no evidence.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and
you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any
believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.

Goedel's Theorem, look it up.

I am aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it
simply does not apply to the real world as universally as
you'd like it to.

Nope, wrong. Take us through it, why don't you, and I'll
point out how!!

You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
mistake(s).

Betcha won't, or that you'll try to gloss over it
disingenuously!

Give it your best shot.

Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

Yeah, except in the opposite direction.

Uh, no. Same identical points.

So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to
see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!

Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members
of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in
mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent
policies as
past examples, which is to say none.

Up to a point you're correct, but then you neglect
their differences.

There are no significant differences between _them_. The
only significant differences in their political lives is the
agendas of their handlers.

Insipid nonsense.
I wish Kerry HAD handlers, he needed some.

The only time we likely heard from Kerry was his
concession speech; it was the sole self-consistent statement
he made during the entire election cycle. Oh, wait;
self-consistency has no place in your "Truth".

And where the hell do _you_ get off whining about
toss-off slurs, you Evil, posturing, deceitful,
disingenuous, lying, dogshitting, incapable of discernment,
nonsense-prating idiot?

I use them against Evil, you against Good and Truth.
That's the ultimate difference!

According to your own, unrelatable-to-reality definitions.

As for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?

I have one well beyond it that I do, of which the
American version
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT
the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!

Sigh. Care to be a little less vague?

Your perception is vague, I was clear.

Your first sentence is vague. To what do you refer, your
"ideal Democratic vote"? That has nothing to do with the
dog-and-pony shows I referred to. Try to stay on point.

Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working
the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the
same old
zero-sum bullshit?

Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.

Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly
after Leibniz
and Newton.

Yup. And they're all wrong.

Rightists are.

So are Leftists, for the same exact reasons.

You make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact
that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.

Labor is the only cost, value is that labor. Any other
assertion
is merely connivance to steal.

In your fantasy world only.

In the real world that will destroy yours.

If, as you constantly indicate, you take no action to
realize it, it'll remain a fantasy. Which channel will you
watch your fantasy on?

FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.

Nope.

You said exactly that. Want me to Google it up?

Whatever *I* said, YOU misinterpreted it.
Typical.

I see. No point in showing you your own words. What
will you do, claim I edited them?

Even though pragmatically most items decay/depreciate.

A house built last week would have
less value than one built today, even if they're otherwise
indistinguishable.

Ever hear of dry rot? But nevermind, you're prating
nonsense.

Don't be disingenuous. I said _indistinguishable_. Dry
rot does not occur in a week.

Drive it off the lor, and...

Try completing the sentence; for that matter words. What
is a "lor"?

Still, irrelevant.

Ah, you also redefine "balloon-busting" as "irrelevant".

How do you redefine "indistinguishable"?

This makes no sense at all. If you wish
your system to be accepted, you'll have to resolve
this kind
of inconsistency.

Nothing you maintain here is remotely my position.

Want me to Google it up?

Misinterpret to your heart's content, you will anyway.

I see. No point in showing you your own words. What will
you do, claim I edited them?

Labor is equal, no matter the tools, and it must be paid
equally per hour. THAT is the moral right! WHAT and HOW MUCH

they produce

is irrelevant, they worked the same hours!

Speaking of Godel...

Did you forget that we were talking about whether or not
your ideal economy was "finite"? We now have two sets of
otherwise identical objects, to be paid for in
hour-equivalents. Yet the "cost" of making them is different.

Wage *IS* labor-hours. That's NOT irrelevant.

So is price, according to you. Yet you have an
irresolvable situation above.

So, why do Dems lie?

Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called
opposites are NOT,
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose
the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.

Doublespeak bullshit.

Nope, advancee Boolean algebra.

Right. I lie, I'm Evil. You lie, you're not, _by your
definition_. Boole never said anything like that.

You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.

No, that's merely you posturing disingenuously.

Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.

Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.

She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.

She happened to be right.

The worst thing about your arrogance is that you can't
even see it.

Equality cannot BE arrogance. When we are all equal we
can discuss
your fantasy of our "arrogance" in wanting what is OURS!

You now claim to know what I want. What arrogance.

What will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to
carrying
nightsoil?

Doesn't happen, ain't no "committee", just Majority
Democracy, and
everyone gets the same work and the same chances.

What, you've revised your precious People's Committees
out of existence? How will your State know what the
People
need to do?

By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are
merely advisory
executive/research organs.

Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.

Gee, now you're pretending that you're rewriting the
future with
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then
accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.

No, I didn't. You claimed that your precious committees
will make all decisions "according to democratic vote",
includoing who does what for how long. I simply got the name
wrong. Don't be disingenuous.

The Majority Democracy decides, the committees work FOR them
and do their bidding!

Yeah, we've been over that, except you left out the bit
about local/whatever committees having to apply policy.

And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil
carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me
when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?

Everyone gets to do SOME of their preferred job if
qualified.
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.

And who decides how much "some" is? Not the individual
involved; sounds like slavery to the
committee-of-the-moment.

Everyone gets their share, they sign up, it is divided
equally.
No committee is required, it is a principle.

You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What happens?

If you are specifically skilled you will be required to
train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use
it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.

Ah, right. Nobody will be permitted to get an education
on their own hook obviously, else they can't be enslaved to
your system.

You can go to the library if you please, but you will be
paid only
if you take the tests, and then you are subject to the
will of the
society that tests and certifies you if your skills are
critically
needed. Even this society has laws that say that if you
have been
notified that you'rea criticalworker, that you can be
forced to report to work in all emergencies. Back when I was

an EMT I was so

notified.

No. At some point you had to volunteer for this duty.
Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?

How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.

You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.

Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.

All you're doing now is attempting to confuse issues.

The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but
since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.

You might simply have corrected my misnaming of your
precious committees. But no, you have to feel superior.

They are not "precious", and you misnamed them
intentionally to be an ass.

Yet again, I must be Evil since I do not slavishly agree
with you.

Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Preety well sums you up.

Actually, it pretty much sums up your Ideal Socialism.
Who you are and what you do has no bearing on whether or not
California could subsist, much less prosper, on what
resources exist within its borders.

BTW, have you reconsidered your claims about the
"natural" weather conditions in the Imperial Valley, and the
source of the Colorado River, and who has what rights to its
water?

Which reminds me; what will you do for electricity? You
_do_ realize that across-national-border tariffs for power
transmission are somewhat different from interstate case?
The nearest Nuke plant to you is, I think, Palo Verde here
in AZ. If you hypocrities had built it in your backyard
instead of juggling regulations so it got built here, you
could keep it. However, I s'pose AZ can find uses for its
total output.

Oh, and had you no reply to this part:

But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.

A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!

Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
improvements? NOWHERE!

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

keith wrote:

<snip>

Walz is pissed at the world. If it were $.29 he'd be
pissed at anythign
he didn't have. Commies are like that. ;-)
Keith

Actually, IN EFFECT I want LESS than I already have.

So give it away and torture yourself to death, since
that's your oft-prescribed punishment for excessive
accumulation of material wealth.

What are you waiting for?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:43:59 +1300, the renowned Terry Given
<my_name@ieee.org> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:


Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!



I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID" the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative

Many, many systems can be suitably controlled by using a feedback
controller combining the three terms. Either with an opamp or a DSP (or
for that matter hydraulic or mechanical controllers)

Oh, and Astrom and Wittnemark's "Computer Controlled Systems" has a
pretty good treatment on PID. I have seen a better book, but alas forget
its title - its a chemical process control book.

Cheers
Terry

I've got one by Astrom, also the ISA book "Tuning and Control Loop
Performance", and Liptak's Process Control Handbook.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
<rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID" the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.

 

[Chuck Harris]

Best book? It all comes down to some nasty math.

"Servo Mechanism Analysis", by Thaler and Brown, is probably
as good a book as any... It's probably even on your bookshelf,
as it is a good 50 years old.

There is no easy way out of these problems, either you
characterize the open loop system, and design a proper
PID equation to control it, or you fudge things and
hope for the best. Computer based servo loops have made
fudging things much easier than it used to be... but I am
pretty sure, based on your relationship with computers,
that you aren't planning to do a computer based PID.

-Chuck Harris

Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID" the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.

There are two aspects of this: the most obvious is the linear loop
dynamics, the classic Laplace-transform closed-loop response. Then
there's the far trickier nonlinear stuff: auto/manual control,
bumpless transfer, overshoot, integrator windup, process slew limits
(just ask a boiler to go from 0 to 100% steam flow in 30 seconds! Or
100 to zero, even worse!), autotuning, noise, feedforward, and
protection from runaway under various conditions. It's the latter
messy stuff that most of the textbooks tend to ignore.

John

 

[Tim Wescott]

Chuck Harris wrote:

Best book? It all comes down to some nasty math.

"Servo Mechanism Analysis", by Thaler and Brown, is probably
as good a book as any... It's probably even on your bookshelf,
as it is a good 50 years old.

There is no easy way out of these problems, either you
characterize the open loop system, and design a proper
PID equation to control it, or you fudge things and
hope for the best. Computer based servo loops have made
fudging things much easier than it used to be... but I am
pretty sure, based on your relationship with computers,
that you aren't planning to do a computer based PID.

-Chuck Harris

Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

Computers also make it easy to characterize the open loop and design a
pretty good controller, so all is not lost.

You can often make things work well enough by fudging, though. It
sometimes amazes me how quickly I can get within 20% of the optimal
solution just by rule of thumb. Of course, if you need to be within 5%
then you have a lot of work ahead of you...

--

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

 

[Martin Riddle]

Sorry Tim ;D

PID with out a PHD is a very good beginning spot. Its where I had started, and wound up later with Astrom.

I never made the connection.


Cheers

"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message news:10q7khves3dun25@corp.supernews.com...

Martin Riddle wrote:

There is PID without tears on Embedded.com (I think), which a simplistic view.

"PID Without a PhD", and that's a "simplified" view, please. Inspired
by the directions given to union millwrights by control engineers who
aren't allowed to touch the equipment in many, if not most, mills.
Written by some schmo named "Wescott". Available through
http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/pidwophd.html.

It certainly doesn't teach control theory, but it will let you twiddle
the knobs to get a working system most of the time (predicting how well
you'll like the result before you start requires control theory, however).

Then there is the text (Astrom) I have which goes from the basics to adaptive controllers etc.
PID controllers Theory ,design tuning. Lotsa good stuff.

I have Astrom's adaptive control book, and I love it. Part of my
admiration is inspired by the fact that he devotes a whole chapter to
alternatives to adaptive control -- anyone who's writes a book about a
pretty new theory then tells you when you don't really need it has
integrity, in my view.

--

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:44:55 -0000, "john jardine"
<john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:hod7q01m735p9spgkvtmau7mg3v9uv8eqq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID"
the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.

There are two aspects of this: the most obvious is the linear loop
dynamics, the classic Laplace-transform closed-loop response. Then
there's the far trickier nonlinear stuff: auto/manual control,
bumpless transfer, overshoot, integrator windup, process slew limits
(just ask a boiler to go from 0 to 100% steam flow in 30 seconds! Or
100 to zero, even worse!), autotuning, noise, feedforward, and
protection from runaway under various conditions. It's the latter
messy stuff that most of the textbooks tend to ignore.

John

True.
Spent early years on petrochemical plant control&instrumentation. Safe
pneumatics, 3-15psi range (Foxboro, Honeywell, Taylor etc). Air driven
analogues of all the elecronic stuff that's about now, such as square root
extractors, multipliers, mass flow computers etc. All process control by
pneumatic PID controllers/recorders. The control courses all offered
numerous pat equations for optimising the plant dynamics. We learnt to our
dismay the equations looked neat in a textbook but useless on real plant.
Most of the control systems ended up proportionally slugged down to near
stupidity, with only the occasional bit of integral to wind down sticky
setups. 'Reset' never had chance to get a look in.
I never did identify one of those mooted ideal systems that could be
classically tuned. The real world stuff had many processes at work in // and
they -all- interacted. Lowest common denominator was the tuning rule.
regards
john

Right. I've rarely seen derivative do much to a real-world process but
make it go nuts, the main exception being fast motion control servos.
I read that derivative feedback was discovered accidentally because of
a manufacturing defect in a pneumatic p+i controller, circa 1930 or
something. There's a story somewhere.

I did manage to fry a few hundred k$ worth of NMR probes a while back.
The main system control software (a c++ horror) would occasionally ask
my box to go to +3000 centigrade, so I dutifully turned the heater
power to max and waited for null. We had to add a battery-backed
serial-protocol blackbox recorder to our uP code to catch them in the
act. Then added a max_temp variable that can *only* be manually set
from the front panel of our controller. This controller includes a
setpoint slew limiter that creeps even slower when we're within 5
degrees of the setpoint, to guarantee no overshoot; a few degrees over
and we can poach an enzyme that a thousand rabbits died to make.

John

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:38:19 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

snip

Once again, there is no bottom. You just think there is because of
the limited perspective from your POV. Why else would you try to
linearize such a concept?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Somehow the spacing got upfucked. It was s'posed to
underscore "try to linearize".

No, no, no, no, no. It's not linear at all. The reason I say that
there is a bottom is because you can't get any denser than a proton
without dropping out of space entirely. For Will, this means eternal
death.

That way the following makes slightly more sense:

Poor choice of words; perhaps "think there's a singularity of that
kind relevant to"?

I refuse to blame alcohol or herbs, but I have absolutely no idea what
you're trying to say here.

But by the time this goes around and comes around, I'll probably be on yet
another level again. %-> I think I've topped out at seven dimensions, but
after all, how many do you need?

Thanks!
Rich

 

[john jardine]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:k3o7q05k4m78cu574cnjkfnmucqqjap3m1@4ax.com...

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:44:55 -0000, "john jardine"
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:hod7q01m735p9spgkvtmau7mg3v9uv8eqq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


[clip]

I did manage to fry a few hundred k$ worth of NMR probes a while back.
The main system control software (a c++ horror) would occasionally ask
my box to go to +3000 centigrade, so I dutifully turned the heater
power to max and waited for null. We had to add a battery-backed
serial-protocol blackbox recorder to our uP code to catch them in the
act. Then added a max_temp variable that can *only* be manually set
from the front panel of our controller. This controller includes a
setpoint slew limiter that creeps even slower when we're within 5
degrees of the setpoint, to guarantee no overshoot; a few degrees over
and we can poach an enzyme that a thousand rabbits died to make.

John

Well done. What's a few hundred k$ here and there. Would hope the C++
programmers were terminated with maximum predjuduce.
Best I've done is poisoning (ISTR) 10 tons of Platinum oxide catalyst. Was
told the stuff is biblically expensive but they never brought up its value.
At the time there was an explosion and fire and I'd been called out to
overide some auto ESD trips allowing isolation of a plant segment.
regards
john

 

[John Popelish]

John Larkin wrote:

Right. I've rarely seen derivative do much to a real-world process but
make it go nuts, the main exception being fast motion control servos.
(snip)
This controller includes a
setpoint slew limiter that creeps even slower when we're within 5
degrees of the setpoint, to guarantee no overshoot; a few degrees over
and we can poach an enzyme that a thousand rabbits died to make.

Eliminating that overshoot is one of the uses of properly applied
derivative.

--
John Popelish

 

[BFoelsch]

Honeywell used to (and may still) have in some of their controllers a PID
algorithm that handled setpoint changes via integral action only. I think
that was called PID B, as distinguished from PID A which was the standard
ISA PID with independent gains.

Not exactly what you describe, but a step in the right direction.

"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:41A3EFD8.D6659638@rica.net...

Terry Given wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:


Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID"
the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.


There are two aspects of this: the most obvious is the linear loop
dynamics, the classic Laplace-transform closed-loop response. Then
there's the far trickier nonlinear stuff: auto/manual control,
bumpless transfer, overshoot, integrator windup, process slew limits
(just ask a boiler to go from 0 to 100% steam flow in 30 seconds! Or
100 to zero, even worse!), autotuning, noise, feedforward, and
protection from runaway under various conditions. It's the latter
messy stuff that most of the textbooks tend to ignore.

John


Oh yes. One of the best papers I have read lately is:
"An Electronic Throttle Control Strategy Including Compensation of
Friction and Limp-Home Effects" Deur, Pavkovic et al,
IEEE industry apps may/june 2004 vol 40 no.3 pp821-834

These guys take the whole shebang into account. Interestingly enough
they optimise the large-signal step response by omitting the setpoint
from the P & D terms (something Astrom et al talk about).

I am frustrated with industrial PID controllers that force me to
choose between having the P & D terms based entirely on error or
entirely on the process measurement only. What I often need is a
separate gain and derivative term for the process measurement and
setpoint inputs to the controller. This is almost always superior the
gain and/or derivative based entirely on error (setpoint - process
measurement) or base entirely just on the process measurement and lets
me optimize (after I define that word for the particular loop) the
process disturbance response and setpoint change response,
individually. For critical tuning, I have to use the feed forward
connection and external math to to get all the factors I need. Why
must I choose chocolate or vanilla when I really want a swirl.

--
John Popelish

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:07:44 -0000, "john jardine"
<john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:k3o7q05k4m78cu574cnjkfnmucqqjap3m1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:44:55 -0000, "john jardine"
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:hod7q01m735p9spgkvtmau7mg3v9uv8eqq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


[clip]

I did manage to fry a few hundred k$ worth of NMR probes a while back.
The main system control software (a c++ horror) would occasionally ask
my box to go to +3000 centigrade, so I dutifully turned the heater
power to max and waited for null. We had to add a battery-backed
serial-protocol blackbox recorder to our uP code to catch them in the
act. Then added a max_temp variable that can *only* be manually set
from the front panel of our controller. This controller includes a
setpoint slew limiter that creeps even slower when we're within 5
degrees of the setpoint, to guarantee no overshoot; a few degrees over
and we can poach an enzyme that a thousand rabbits died to make.

John


Well done. What's a few hundred k$ here and there. Would hope the C++
programmers were terminated with maximum predjuduce.
Best I've done is poisoning (ISTR) 10 tons of Platinum oxide catalyst.

Damn, topped again!

I did do some interesting things on a supertanker that earned me the
nickname "Lights-Out Larkin."

John

 

[John Popelish]

Terry Given wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:


Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID" the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.


There are two aspects of this: the most obvious is the linear loop
dynamics, the classic Laplace-transform closed-loop response. Then
there's the far trickier nonlinear stuff: auto/manual control,
bumpless transfer, overshoot, integrator windup, process slew limits
(just ask a boiler to go from 0 to 100% steam flow in 30 seconds! Or
100 to zero, even worse!), autotuning, noise, feedforward, and
protection from runaway under various conditions. It's the latter
messy stuff that most of the textbooks tend to ignore.

John


Oh yes. One of the best papers I have read lately is:
"An Electronic Throttle Control Strategy Including Compensation of
Friction and Limp-Home Effects" Deur, Pavkovic et al,
IEEE industry apps may/june 2004 vol 40 no.3 pp821-834

These guys take the whole shebang into account. Interestingly enough
they optimise the large-signal step response by omitting the setpoint
from the P & D terms (something Astrom et al talk about).

I am frustrated with industrial PID controllers that force me to
choose between having the P & D terms based entirely on error or
entirely on the process measurement only. What I often need is a
separate gain and derivative term for the process measurement and
setpoint inputs to the controller. This is almost always superior the
gain and/or derivative based entirely on error (setpoint - process
measurement) or base entirely just on the process measurement and lets
me optimize (after I define that word for the particular loop) the
process disturbance response and setpoint change response,
individually. For critical tuning, I have to use the feed forward
connection and external math to to get all the factors I need. Why
must I choose chocolate or vanilla when I really want a swirl.

--
John Popelish

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:20:08 -0500, the renowned John Popelish
<jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

I am frustrated with industrial PID controllers that force me to
choose between having the P & D terms based entirely on error or
entirely on the process measurement only. What I often need is a
separate gain and derivative term for the process measurement and
setpoint inputs to the controller.

Yes, especially if you're doing setpoint profile vs. time.

This is almost always superior the
gain and/or derivative based entirely on error (setpoint - process
measurement) or base entirely just on the process measurement and lets
me optimize (after I define that word for the particular loop) the
process disturbance response and setpoint change response,
individually. For critical tuning, I have to use the feed forward
connection and external math to to get all the factors I need. Why
must I choose chocolate or vanilla when I really want a swirl.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:20:08 -0500, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:19:04 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:28:09 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
rich@example.net> wrote:


On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:45:14 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:


Recommendations for Best Book on PID ??

Thanks!


I hope I'm not em-bare-ass-ing myself here, but what exactly is "PID" the
acronym for? Somehow or another, I seem to have missed that one. ?:-/

Thanks,
Rich

Proportional-Integral-Derivative. It was invented more than 75 years
ago. It refers to feedback control with terms proportional to the
error, the integrated error and the derivative of the error wrt time.
(error being Process Variable (PV) - Setpoint (SP)).

Determining the three proportional terms is "tuning" the controller.
Over 90% of process control loops are PI or PID.


There are two aspects of this: the most obvious is the linear loop
dynamics, the classic Laplace-transform closed-loop response. Then
there's the far trickier nonlinear stuff: auto/manual control,
bumpless transfer, overshoot, integrator windup, process slew limits
(just ask a boiler to go from 0 to 100% steam flow in 30 seconds! Or
100 to zero, even worse!), autotuning, noise, feedforward, and
protection from runaway under various conditions. It's the latter
messy stuff that most of the textbooks tend to ignore.

John


Oh yes. One of the best papers I have read lately is:
"An Electronic Throttle Control Strategy Including Compensation of
Friction and Limp-Home Effects" Deur, Pavkovic et al,
IEEE industry apps may/june 2004 vol 40 no.3 pp821-834

These guys take the whole shebang into account. Interestingly enough
they optimise the large-signal step response by omitting the setpoint
from the P & D terms (something Astrom et al talk about).

I am frustrated with industrial PID controllers that force me to
choose between having the P & D terms based entirely on error or
entirely on the process measurement only. What I often need is a
separate gain and derivative term for the process measurement and
setpoint inputs to the controller. This is almost always superior the
gain and/or derivative based entirely on error (setpoint - process
measurement) or base entirely just on the process measurement and lets
me optimize (after I define that word for the particular loop) the
process disturbance response and setpoint change response,
individually. For critical tuning, I have to use the feed forward
connection and external math to to get all the factors I need. Why
must I choose chocolate or vanilla when I really want a swirl.

Hmmm, guys, very interesting point. In most of the loops I've done,
the setpoint change just shoots through the error amp and the pid
stuff and sort of comes out OK, but I can see how that ought to be
optimizable.

John

 

[John Popelish]

BFoelsch wrote:

"John Popelish" wrote:

I am frustrated with industrial PID controllers that force me to
choose between having the P & D terms based entirely on error or
entirely on the process measurement only. What I often need is a
separate gain and derivative term for the process measurement and
setpoint inputs to the controller. This is almost always superior the
gain and/or derivative based entirely on error (setpoint - process
measurement) or base entirely just on the process measurement and lets
me optimize (after I define that word for the particular loop) the
process disturbance response and setpoint change response,
individually. For critical tuning, I have to use the feed forward
connection and external math to to get all the factors I need. Why
must I choose chocolate or vanilla when I really want a swirl.

Honeywell used to (and may still) have in some of their controllers a PID
algorithm that handled setpoint changes via integral action only. I think
that was called PID B, as distinguished from PID A which was the standard
ISA PID with independent gains.

Not exactly what you describe, but a step in the right direction.

Their current incarnation of DCS system that I work with has forms
A,B,C and D.

A bases P&D on error (most aggressive response to setpoint changes).

B bases P on error and D on process. Slightly less aggressive
setpoint response, but practically the same since D is used so
seldom. This is my preferred choice for inner loops in cascade
systems (where one loop provides a live setpoint for another loop, so
the setpoint is smoothly moving all the time).

C bases both P&D on process only. Uses only integral action to
approach new setpoint. This is my default for loops set strictly by
operators. The smooth ramp response to a setpoint step change allows
an operator to type in a wrong value, see the output heading off and
do an Oh shit! and make a correction before things get seriously
wrong.

D is an integral only algorithm.

The system I want replaces A, B and C with s single choice that
includes all those extremes and everything in between with the choice
of two proportional and two derivative values.

--
John Popelish