Is hybrid control already applied to the industry?

What is that?  Post a link.  Inquiring minds want to know but I am a
skeptic.  I have done well with the traditional method.

I haven't seen it.  I don't even know what you are talking about.
You must realize that most academics come up with very stupid methods
of control.

Again, what is it?  Post a link to something that describes it.
 Have it applied to

Schedule what?
I am always skeptical about the latest fads.

Peter Nachtwey

pnachtwey wrote:


Close to the top of the list was when I googled the term was:

 <http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol2/hwc1/article2.html>

However, I agree the OP could have posted a link to the topic to enable us
to get on the same wavelength.

--
********************************************************************
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

If the IEEE online library is available, you can download a survey
paper about hybrid control on Control System Magazine, April 2009

for discrete event systems,
http://www.control.utoronto.ca/DES/

So it seems that both theories are useless in your specialized field.

According the the link that Paul E Bennett posted Hybrid technology
sounds like a new name for the same old stuff.  So what is new?  Only
the name has changed.

Peter Nachtwey

Interesting thread, I spent quite a while pondering the disconnects that
surfaced. For starters, as a practising control engineer, I'd rarely do any
scheme of any significance these days that doesn't encompass a significant
amount of both regulatory and discrete functionality. So the short answer to
the OPs question is 'yes it is applied, so that's it'. However, browsing
some of the URLs referred to in the post, it's clear that some smart people
have put a lot of effort into coming up with clever approaches, some of
which no doubt could be useful for people like me, but which may regrettably
languish in academic publications, hidden beneath a forest of intractable
maths.

Maybe the problem is in attempting to ringfence and label the entire field -
even suggesting it's a discipline in itself. Control problems generally
involve applying carefully chosen snippets of a variety of techniques,
that's one reason why control is such a fun field to be in. For me, a
cookbook of techniques for dealing with specific situations would be much
more useful. If you want an example, look at Greg Shinskeys classic text on
regulatory control, "Process Control Systems".

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:39:30 +0800, Bruce Varley wrote:


ee53a702b7bf@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

The key word in the description of the field "Control Systems" isn't so
much "control" as "systems", in my humble opinion.

Yes, applying control theory is a very important part of what I do.  But
to successfully apply control theory I have to understand what I'm
applying it _to_.  I succeed not just because I can do the math, but
because I know enough mechanical engineering to ask the right questions
(and to ask _for_ the right things), I know enough circuit design to
design drive & acquisition circuits (or to ask for the right things), and
I know enough software design to write the algorithms that make them all
work, without requiring a processor that comes with it's own
hydroelectric dam for power.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Thanks, I spent some time on reading that interesting books, which
does not involve too much maths but include some practical rules. I do
not know if there is a similar book in mechanical system control.