Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Best Book on PID ??

J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nicholas O. Lindan said:
It has been writ:


I am the man who designed ABB's Commander line of process controllers,
recorders and recording controllers.

If you are doing control of a real process - a heater, tank, pump,
catalytic cracking tower, your mother's baking oven - do not
follow the above advice.

If you are controlling a hamster exerciser, the above is fine, and
will save an awful lot of explanation ...


The whole of ABB instrumentation (when it was Combustion Engineering)
had one (count'em one) engineer with the above qualification (and it
wasn't me). When I worked at (another process control firm that shall
remain nameless) there were none. Figure if you are the above 'You',
you are among 10, 50, 100? engineers in the world.

Yep. That sounds a lot like you are talking about Jim Thompson.
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phil said:
John Popelish wrote:

I'd agree if we were talking about PI controllers, but PID are somewhat
different--the D term is there to compensate for slow transducers such as
motors and heaters.

The slow transducers put a few wrinkles in practical control systems that are
different from ordinary amplifers: windup in motors and asymmetrical slewing
in heaters. The D term will turn the 2-pole response of a motor into 1-pole
so that it can be stabilized, but the settling behaviour won't be anything
pretty unless some sort of (nonlinear) windup control is in there somewhere.

But follower amplifiers that drive big, slow, nonlinear devices have
all those same problems. Slow is just not as slow. When I first got
into process control, it seemed very strange, because I was unfamiliar
with the jargon. Then I realized that I have been using oscilloscopes
to study amplifiers doing all the things process control was doing,
except that now, I could have a cup of coffee while the dynamics
settled instead of it all happening in microseconds. but the
principles are just the same. Gain bandwidth product, phase shift,
slew rate limits, output nonlinearity, recovery from output overdrive,
etc. all there.

When I saw the Star Trek episode about the people who moved so fast
that they were invisible, I realized that they was how I felt while
tuning a control loop.
 
R

Rhett Oracle

Jan 1, 1970
0
But follower amplifiers that drive big, slow, nonlinear devices have
all those same problems. Slow is just not as slow. When I first got
into process control, it seemed very strange, because I was unfamiliar
with the jargon. Then I realized that I have been using oscilloscopes
to study amplifiers doing all the things process control was doing,
except that now, I could have a cup of coffee while the dynamics
settled instead of it all happening in microseconds. but the
principles are just the same. Gain bandwidth product, phase shift,
slew rate limits, output nonlinearity, recovery from output overdrive,
etc. all there.

When I saw the Star Trek episode about the people who moved so fast
that they were invisible, I realized that they was how I felt while
tuning a control loop.

By Golly, I think he's got it! That's why we can't see the Faeries! ;-)

Cheers!
R.
 
J

John Nagle

Jan 1, 1970
0
Control System Design Guide.

The first edition is better than the second one.
The book became a bit bloated in revision.

John Nagle
 
D

Doug Schultz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich Grise said:
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

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.

what did you think?

Doug
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
But follower amplifiers that drive big, slow, nonlinear devices have
all those same problems. Slow is just not as slow. When I first got
into process control, it seemed very strange, because I was unfamiliar
with the jargon. Then I realized that I have been using oscilloscopes
to study amplifiers doing all the things process control was doing,
except that now, I could have a cup of coffee while the dynamics
settled instead of it all happening in microseconds. but the
principles are just the same. Gain bandwidth product, phase shift,
slew rate limits, output nonlinearity, recovery from output overdrive,
etc. all there.

When I saw the Star Trek episode about the people who moved so fast
that they were invisible, I realized that they was how I felt while
tuning a control loop.
I don't disagree that there are lots of similarities, or that there's a lot
of jargon in control system design that seems intended to preserve job
security rather than make concepts clear. (There's a lot of that in some
optics disciplines too--it isn't just an EE problem. Not to mention all of
anthropology.) If I'm designing e.g. a laser temperature controller, I use
Bode plots: one for each of several representative choices of ambient
temperature and thermal forcing. PLL design with nonlinear tuning is
similar. Not everything is that simple, however.

Lots of control systems have to work in situations where an ugly settling
transient will cause destruction--from burned cookies and broken drive belts
to loss of life and property. There are very few purely electronic
situations (i.e. other than driving mechanical devices or large magnets)
where a poor transient response is that serious.

Ordinarily, with an amplifier driving a speaker, say, you can have a few pops
and bangs, but no great harm is done, and they can be tuned out during
debugging. The nonlinearity is of a simple and intuitive sort, and there is
no complex coupling. There is also usually no external forcing, unlike e.g.
a motor controller which may have very different loads at different times.
It isn't possible to test every situation, and it's the ones we haven't
thought about that will turn round and bite us in the backside. Systems that
are uncoupled during normal operation, but become coupled due to faults and
transients, are a common source of this.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
I don't disagree that there are lots of similarities, or that there's a lot
of jargon in control system design that seems intended to preserve job
security rather than make concepts clear. (There's a lot of that in some
optics disciplines too--it isn't just an EE problem. Not to mention all of
anthropology.) If I'm designing e.g. a laser temperature controller, I use
Bode plots: one for each of several representative choices of ambient
temperature and thermal forcing. PLL design with nonlinear tuning is
similar. Not everything is that simple, however.

Lots of control systems have to work in situations where an ugly settling
transient will cause destruction--from burned cookies and broken drive belts
to loss of life and property. There are very few purely electronic
situations (i.e. other than driving mechanical devices or large magnets)
where a poor transient response is that serious.

Ordinarily, with an amplifier driving a speaker, say, you can have a few pops
and bangs, but no great harm is done, and they can be tuned out during
debugging. The nonlinearity is of a simple and intuitive sort, and there is
no complex coupling. There is also usually no external forcing, unlike e.g.
a motor controller which may have very different loads at different times.
It isn't possible to test every situation, and it's the ones we haven't
thought about that will turn round and bite us in the backside. Systems that
are uncoupled during normal operation, but become coupled due to faults and
transients, are a common source of this.

It's interesting that a lot of real-world control loops leave theory
way behind, except for the fairly boring region of near-steady-state
operation around null. The hairy parts, the transient and exception
conditions, revert to art, instinct, and maybe simulation.

I like systems like that.

John
 
P

Pig Bladder

Jan 1, 1970
0
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease.

what did you think?

I think you need to quit having sex with people who have open running
sores.
 
R

Rhett Oracle

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's interesting that a lot of real-world control loops leave theory
way behind, except for the fairly boring region of near-steady-state
operation around null. The hairy parts, the transient and exception
conditions, revert to art, instinct, and maybe simulation.

Just like life! Imagine that!
I like systems like that.

Me, Too!

;^j
R.
 
D

Doug Schultz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Pig Bladder said:
I think you need to quit having sex with people who have open running
sores.

Too much.
Its a good thing I read this group for the entertainment more than the
technical.

Doug
 
L

Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
It's interesting that a lot of real-world control loops leave theory
way behind, except for the fairly boring region of near-steady-state
operation around null. The hairy parts, the transient and exception
conditions, revert to art, instinct, and maybe simulation.

I like systems like that.

John

see this? http://users.erols.com/jyavins/servo.html

-Lasse
 
R

Rhett Oracle

Jan 1, 1970
0
Too much.
Its a good thing I read this group for the entertainment more than the
technical.
So, did you laugh?
;^j
R.
 
Top