vault backup: 2024-10-16 09:27:25

.obsidian/graph.json

@@ -67,6 +67,6 @@
   "repelStrength": 11.9791666666667,
   "linkStrength": 1,
   "linkDistance": 148,
-  "scale": 0.45050811767578125,
+  "scale": 0.13348388671875,
   "close": true
 }

1 Daily Notes/2024/10 October/2024-10-16.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+date: 2024-10-16
+tags:
+---
+# Yesterday | Tomorrow
+ << [[1 Daily Notes/2024/10 October/2024-10-15]] | [[1 Daily Notes/2024/10 October/2024-10-17 ]] >>
+# This Week's Weekly Note
+[[ Weekly Note 2024-10-09]]
+# Tasks for today
+## Due
+```dataview
+task
+where 
+	due <= date(this.date)
+	and due
+	and !completed
+	and status != "-"
+sort due asc
+group by file.folder
+```
+## Scheduled
+```dataview
+task
+where 
+	scheduled
+	and	scheduled <= date(this.date)
+	and !completed
+	and status != "-"
+sort due asc
+group by file.folder
+```
+## Tasks in Progress
+```dataview
+task
+where 
+status != "-"
+and status = "/"
+sort due asc
+group by file.folder
+```
+## Completed
+```dataview
+task
+where 
+	completed
+	and completion = date(this.date)
+sort due asc
+group by file.folder
+```
+# Calendar Tasks

1000s Templates/Literature Note.md

@@ -56,6 +56,10 @@ pages: {{ pages }}
 
 >[!note] Markdown Notes
 >{% if markdownNotes %}{{markdownNotes}}{% else %}{{ "None!" }}{% endif %}
+
+>[!seealso] Related Papers
+>{% for r in relations%}[{{r.title}}]({{r.citekey}}){%if not loop.last %}, {% endif %}{%endfor%}
+
 # Annotations
 {% for a in annotations -%}
 {%- if a.type == "highlight" -%}

200 Library Papers/doyleFeedbackControlTheory2009.md

@@ -35,6 +35,10 @@ citekey: "doyleFeedbackControlTheory2009"
 
 >[!note] Markdown Notes
 >None!
+
+>[!seealso] Related Papers
+>[Guaranteed margins for LQG regulators](doyleGuaranteedMarginsLQG1978)
+
 # Annotations
 
 >[!attention] Highlight
@@ -83,6 +87,30 @@ citekey: "doyleFeedbackControlTheory2009"
 > >[!note] Note
 > >Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.
 
-### Imported: 2024-10-12 1:22 pm
+>[!attention] Highlight
+> *Various performance specifications could be made using weighted versions of the transfer functions above. Note that a performance spec with weight W on P S is equivalent to the weight W P on S. Similarly, a weight W on CS = T /P is equivalent to the weight W/P on T . Thus performance specs that involve e result in weights on S and performance specs on u result in weights on T . Essentially all problems in this book boil down to weighting S or T or some combination, and the tradeoff between making S small and making T small is the main issue in design.*
+> 
+
+>[!attention] Highlight
+> *Thus one type of structured set is parametrized by a finite number of scalar parameters (one parameter, a, in this example). Another type of structured uncertainty is a discrete set of plants, not necessarily parametrized explicitly.*
+> 
+
+>[!attention] Highlight
+> *For us, unstructured sets are more important, for two reasons. First, we believe that all models used in feedback design should include some unstructured uncertainty to cover unmodeled dynamics, particularly at high frequency. Other types of uncertainty, though important, may or may not arise naturally in a given problem.*
+> 
+
+>[!attention] Highlight
+> *The multiplicative perturbation model is not suitable for every application because the disk covering the uncertainty set is sometimes too coarse an approximation. In this case a controller designed for the multiplicative uncertainty model would probably be too conservative for the original uncertainty model. The discussion above illustrates an important point. In modeling a plant we may arrive at a certain plant set. This set may be too awkward to cope with mathematically, so we may embed it in a larger set that is easier to handle. Conceivably, the achievable performance for the larger set may not be as good as the achievable performance for the smaller; that is, there may exist—even though we cannot find it—a controller that is better for the smaller set than the controller we design for the larger set. In this sense the latter controller is conservative for the smaller set.*
+> 
+
+>[!quote] Other Highlight
+> *A controller C is robust with respect to this characteristic if this characteristic holds for every plant in P.*
+> 
+
+>[!attention] Highlight
+> *Better stability margins are obtained by taking explicit frequency-dependent perturbation models: for example, the multiplicative perturbation model, P ̃ = (1 + ∆W2)P . Fix a positive number β and consider the family of plants  {P ̃ : ∆ is stable and ‖∆‖∞ ≤ β}.  Now a controller C that achieves internal stability for the nominal plant P will stabilize this entire family if β is small enough. Denote by βsup the least upper bound on β such that C achieves internal stability for the entire family. Then βsup is a stability margin (with respect to this uncertainty model).*
+> 
+
+### Imported: 2024-10-16 9:25 am
 
 

200 Library Papers/doyleGuaranteedMarginsLQG1978.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+readstatus: false
+dateread:
+title: "Guaranteed margins for LQG regulators"
+year: 1978
+authors:
+
+  
+  - "Doyle, J."
+  
+
+citekey: "doyleGuaranteedMarginsLQG1978"
+
+journal: "IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control"
+
+
+volume: 23
+
+
+issue: 4
+
+
+
+
+
+pages: 756-757
+
+---
+# Indexing Information
+## DOI
+[10.1109/TAC.1978.1101812](https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1978.1101812)
+## ISBN
+[](https://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/)
+## Tags:
+#Algorithm-design-and-analysis, #Filters, #Gain, #Guidelines, #Noise-measurement, #Open-loop-systems, #Regulators, #Robustness, #Three-term-control, #White-noise
+
+>[!Abstract]
+>There are none.
+
+>[!note] Markdown Notes
+>OG Doyle paper that started Robust Control
+
+>[!seealso] Related Papers
+>[Feedback Control Theory](doyleFeedbackControlTheory2009)
+
+# Annotations
+
+>[!question] Don't Understand
+> *Considerable attention has been given lately to the issue of robustness of linear-quadratic (LQ) regulators.*
+> 
+
+>[!question] Don't Understand
+> *The full systcm matrix then becomes*
+> 
+> >[!note] Note
+> >Look up LQR full system
+
+>[!question] Don't Understand
+> *Evaluation of the characteristic polynomial is rather tedious, but reveals that only the last two terms are functions of m*
+> 
+> >[!note] Note
+> >Where did 'm' come from?
+
+>[!done] Quote
+> *point of these examples is that LQG solutions, unlike LQ solu- tions, provide no global system-independent guaranteed robustness properties. Like their more classical colleagues, modern LQG designers are obliged to test their margins for each speafic design.*
+> 
+
+### Imported: 2024-10-16 9:25 am
+
+

200 Library Papers/doyleGuaranteedMarginsLQG1978a.md

@@ -1,46 +0,0 @@
----
-readstatus: false
-dateread:
-title: "Guaranteed margins for LQG regulators"
-year: 1978
-authors:
-
-  
-  - "Doyle, J."
-  
-
-citekey: "doyleGuaranteedMarginsLQG1978a"
-
-journal: "IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control"
-
-
-volume: 23
-
-
-issue: 4
-
-
-
-
-
-pages: 756-757
-
----
-# Indexing Information
-## DOI
-[10.1109/TAC.1978.1101812](https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1978.1101812)
-## ISBN
-[](https://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/)
-## Tags:
-#Robustness, #Algorithm-design-and-analysis, #Filters, #Gain, #Guidelines, #Noise-measurement, #Open-loop-systems, #Regulators, #Three-term-control, #White-noise
-
->[!Abstract]
->There are none.
-
->[!note] Markdown Notes
->None!
-# Annotations
-
-### Imported: 2024-10-09 11:56 am
-
-