Re: Justification for FLC


Subject: Re: Justification for FLC
pandeyashish@my-deja.com
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 07:53:22 MET


I must point out that lot of technologies are in use cause they are
there. We have become more technology driven than requirement \need
driven. There is no doubt that fuzzy is easy to understand and
implement than any model based control. However, any new technology may
be fully understood to gain most out of it and that is exactly what I
am trying to do.

I would also like to point out that I am researching in intelligent
controllers its unfortunate that my postings infer that I feel they are
worthless.

>From now on I will only discuss possibilities etc. and bury the
justification issue as it seems so senstive.

by the way if anybody has any application notes on FLC impletation I
will greatly appriciate if its send to me electronically.

Thanks

In article
<C6B947D552B064C8.31452D0AB469C869.8FCC2197EF681907@lp.airnews.net>,
  edohmann@ortech-engr.com (Edgar Dohmann) wrote:
> In article <85jilt$5ro$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, pandeyashish@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> > I would like to explain what I said in my previous post about
> > justification of FLC.
> >
> > Why should someone go for FLC if for example a mathematical model
> > exists and controller can be designed using BODE in frequency
domain?
> >
>
> And my point is that there could be many reasonable justifications for
> such a decision. For example, if you have an excellent GUI tool like
> TILShell available for doing your FLC design, development, and
testing, it
> may be much faster and easier to implement the solution with FLC than
for
> some other, possibly equally suitable, solution.
>
> > From what I understand from so maney replies is that FLC may not be
> > used in an application where instability could lead to loss of life
and
> > limb but because of its marketability FLC may be applied in all
other
> > application not because their stability is proven but because they
just
> > sound cute.
> >
>
> I doubt if many serious application engineers utilize any
solution "just
> because it sounds cute". I know of many practical industrial and
> commercial applications that have been implemented by a number of
> different engineers in various companies utilizing FLC. None of these
> chose FLC for their solution because it sounded "cute".
>
> It sounds to me like you have made up your mind that FLC is worthless
and
> are just attacking anyone who wants to use it as making a silly
decision.
> If that's the case, then you really don't have anything worthwhile to
> contribute to this list.
>
> > 90% potential improvement is claimed by some for FLC(I hope you
have
> > guessed what it means)Well my quastion is how difficult is it to
achive
> > that? I am sure that its a tedious hit and trial.
> >
>
> Not necessarily if you have good development tools like TILShell.
>
> > All I have been saying is that linear-->non-linear-->adaptive and
then
> > FLC may be considered.
> >
>
> Well, a good engineer should always consider various possible
solutions
> for a problem and select the one that best suits the situation at
hand.
> There are almost always many factors that lead one to the particular
best
> solution for any given problem and constraints. So, while I would
agree
> that all 4 approaches you list are valid considerations for a given
> control logic design, it is rather shortsighted and narrow-minded to
say
> that they must be considered in the order that you listed them with
the
> implication that FLC is only suitable if the other 3 solutions will
not
> work.
>
> >
> > I hope you have heard about a plane crash in 70s which sealed the
fate
> > of Adaptive Control. FLCs somehow might meet the same fate.
> >
> > In academics there is lot of debate going on about justification of
FLC
> > and all I am trying to do is to get involved.
> >
>
> My point exactly. A purely academic argument that does not consider
the
> realities of a practical commercial project and design implementation
> doesn't carry much weight in my opinion.
>
> Edgar Dohmann
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

############################################################################
This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
(1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
"SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
(2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
"UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL yoursubscription@email.address.com"
to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
(3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
fuzzy-owner@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
(4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/ftp/mlowner/fuzzy-mail.info
(5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 15:59:38 MET DST