Rick,
If that “Basic PCT” is true, then internal conflicts should be impossible, shouldn’t they? Of course the disturbance of one single control unit must be independent from its output but usually one controlled variable is controlled by multiple units and then the output of one unit can cause a disturbance to another unit. For example you are controlling for quick and safe or quick and accurate elliptical movement. Then turning or steering unit can cause disturbance to safety unit which cancels it by lowering the reference of speed unit. Possible?
Eetu
| rsmarken
October 8 |
- | - |
|
bnhpct:
In 2017 I wrote about my perception of keeping a car in its lane. I repeat here a portion that applies to slowing on curves, as well as to why we hug the inside of curves.
bnhpct:If it’s found that cars do slow down through curves it has nothing to do with the apparent slowing through curves that is seen when people draw curved lines (the “power law” situation). In the car example the curve through which the driver is driving is independent of the actions that are producing the speed of he car. Therefore, the curvature of the road is possibly a disturbance to a controlled variable (possibly centrifugal force) that is being protected from the effects of that disturbance by variations in the speed of the car.
In the power law situation, the actions that produce the curvature of movement are NOT independent of the actions that are simultaneously producing the speed of that movement. So any relationship between curvature and speed that is observed when a person makes curved movements cannot possibly represent the actions (variations in speed) taken to protect a controlled variable from the disturbance of curvature; you can’t compensate for a disturbance with actions that are simultaneously producing that disturbance.
Basic PCT: A disturbance to a controlled variable must be a variable that is independent of the outputs that have an effect on the variable being controlled by a control system: the controlled variable.