|Subject:||Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Question on control-loop block design|
|Date:||Mon, 11 May 2015 12:35:15 -0400|
From what I remember, there shouldn't be a functional difference. The difference is the amount of feedback delay in the loop. You always need to make sure one delay exists in any feedback path you can take, to avoid race conditions. After that, you want to minimize the loop delay. The one accumulator with delay in the feedback path ensures stability. The other accumulator keeps the delay out of the feedback path because it minimizes the loop latency.Hope that helps.Rich
Sent from my iPhone
On May 11, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Tom Rondeau <address@hidden> wrote:On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:Hello,
I've been looking into the design details of the control-loop block. I stumbled upon the blog post of Tom (http://www.trondeau.com/blog/2011/8/13/control-loop-gain-values.html with the derivation https://static.squarespace.com/static/543ae9afe4b0c3b808d72acd/543aee1fe4b09162d0863397/543aee1fe4b09162d08633ac/1313345573084/control_loop_derivation.pdf) and also this article from TI: http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt169/slyt169.pdf.
Now looking at the schematics of the control loop in Tom's post and the TI article (figure 5), you notice a slight difference after the loop filter. In the TI article, there is delay (z^-1) followed by an accumulator. In the schematics of Tom's post, the delay block is directly integrated in the loop. Can somebody comment on these differences?
RubenHi Ruben,This is a good question, and I don't want to let it drop. I just don't have a good answer for your right now. If I can find the time, I'll try to go through things more carefully to understand why there is the added delay. Just keeping the thread alive in case someone else can jump in and answer it.Tom_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|