'Re: FuzzyTech MP'
>You missed my point. The crux of almost all of the bandwidth everyone
>has wasted was that models are just that...MODELS...and I
>would fully expect that as technology changes, we might do
>things more effectively?
Point taken. No offense was intended.
>As far as the other comments are concerned, the readership is broad, and
>it's hard to judge what the expertise is in any given area.
>I understood your words but I thought is was a point worth
>Also, we should all be so lucky (in the op amp
>design community) to get nice straight lines on open loop
>response--particularly when we're pushing the bandwidths of
>any given process. Most give the respone you describe, and
>a lot of high-performance op amps don't.
I understand this to be true, but my original mention of pole
splitting was to indicate that designer's like yourself take
the time to mathematically model your control system and provide,
essentially, solid compensation which improves the system behavior.
A lot of the high-performance op amps you mention target specific
needs in the customers application, and you guys often provide
sufficient documentation, spice models etc. to use them effectively.
I agree with you that this thread has strayed too far from
the list's subject matter. You guys have piqued my interest to
investigate the uses of fuzzy logic.
Mike Riendeau wrote:
> I agree with you that this thread has strayed too far from
> the list's subject matter. You guys have piqued my interest to
> investigate the uses of fuzzy logic.
Oh, geeze, we did it now. Mike's going to find out what a pain it is
even to think properly about this fuzzy stuff, and he's going to blame
us. Or me, anyway.
I should have shut up. Oh, well.
Good luck -- Tom Rogers Time Tech, Inc.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1996
, 1997 only
- New search...