Antonym of 'Executive Controller'


Most control systems that I know of involve some sort of executive
controller that's responsible for taking some user's desired result and
turning it into commands for other things, and the 'real' controllers
that actually make the loops work.
Some examples of this are:
A flush toilet, where the 'executive controller' is the flush handle,
and the ball valve and float valve are the two 'real' control systems
that handle sequencing the flush and making sure that the tank fills for
the next go round.
The IR imaging systems I used to work on, where the executive controller
is the system control box that's responsible for managing system modes,
and transmitting user commands like 'increment field of view' or 'slew
to this here position' to the appropriate subsystem. The 'real'
controllers in this case are the actual motion control loops that make
the lenses move, or causes the turret to slave to a different location.
So is there a recognized name for the 'real' controller? I always just
call it the 'controller', and if I need to talk about it at all I call
the other thing the 'executive controller'. But I'm giving a
presentation in a few weeks to a bunch of people who aren't control
systems folks, and if I use 'controller' and 'executive controller'
they'll be confused.
Of course I've seen the terms 'motion controller' and 'process
controller', but those are just 'real' or 'non-executive' controllers --
they don't give me a general term to use.
I'm thinking 'dynamic controller'.
Any opinions?
Thanks.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
Loading thread data ...
Perhaps the decentralized controller literature has what you are looking for? Just a pure guess.
fred
Reply to
Fred Stevens
Possible. I'll have to dig. That's a lot of material to dig through for just one nugget -- but if no one makes my life easier it's a suggestion I may take.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
That's an interesting question. Without ever having given it much thought, I've referred to them collectively as "local" controllers, and specifically along the lines of "claw controller", "left knee controller", and other task-specific identifiers. Will that approach do?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Avins
You wouldn't be referring to supervisory control and regulatory control, are you?
Michael
Reply to
Herman Family
Yes, but in a servo system it's not 'regulatory' control, it's, well, a servo. So I guess I need something that means 'servo and/or regulator' but sounds nicer...
Herman Family wrote:
Reply to
Tim Wescott
I've always found that the best approach with this is to come up with the most intuitively satisfying descriptions you can. That helps people remember, and there's always the chance that your 'invention' will capture the vernacular ('priceless' in the Mastercard ads).
Master/slave? Initiator / implementer? Don't think I've hit the spot. I'm sure to think about it over the next few days, I'll post again if something comes up.
Reply to
bruce varley
What's wrong with "supervisory control"?
Bruce
Reply to
Bruce Durdle
Nothing. Tim wants a good term for the controllers in the system.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Avins
I use that as a synonym of 'executive control', not the antonym.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
Gee, Tim, this one is a little tough. I suppose you could call the lower level stuff a "device", with the idea that a device performs an action, while a regulator or controller controlls the device, and a supervisor controls the regulator.
On the humorous side, the opposite of "executive control" could be "functional control". Hmm. That looks like it works on a couple levels...
Michael
Reply to
Herman Family
Lots of interesting responses from control theorists (with the field's terminology). I wonder what sort of an audience you are to confront? Maybe terms from *that* field of expertise would clarify matters, and be immediately recognized?
So, maybe, "auxiliary controller", "associated controller", "subservient controller", "effector", even "instantiating controller" (uggh!) if your audience comes from business, law, medicine, software etc.
Just a thought....
Geoff.
Reply to
Geoff
I second the question. This wouldn't be for a textbook on the subject, would it?
Michael
Reply to
Herman Family
Tim Wescott wrote in news:d6Wdnfd-hfKg8sfZRVn- snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com:
What about 'initiation controller' and 'action controller'?
Reply to
Anthony
What about the term I used above without noticing: task-specific controller?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Avins
No. It's for a talk that accompanies a book signing for a text on the subject. The audience will probably be mostly software engineers with no control systems training, with a sprinkling of the general public and a few friends-and-relations. Ideally it'll read like a Scientific American article -- I have to assume some prior knowledge, but I can't assume any prior _control systems_ knowledge.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
It's for a talk that accompanies a book signing for a text on the
How 'bout, "blue collar", directed goal, slave or follower controller.
Reply to
John Popelish
I like "blue collar" -- I think even if I name it 'dynamic controller' I will still explain that it's the carrying out the work.
Reply to
Tim Wescott
I like it, because not only does it imply it is not concerned with the "big picture", it doesn't care what the big picture is.
That is someone else's job.
It just gets its job done, and collects its pay.
Reply to
John Popelish

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.