Infinite loop control

The control path is defined as the decision logic of a processor. It is responsible for calculating the next instmction to be fetched and setting the internal flags, such as to command the ALU to sum or subtract, and a branch to be taken or not. The control path is mostly combinational, but since it has to cross the pipeline stages, also has sequential logic. The main difference between the control path and the data path is that an error in the control path will most likely lead to control flow errors, such as a branch being taken, when it should not have. Such control flow errors may cause an erroneous result in the end of the computation or even an infinite loop. 

Figure 8.45 indicates the decrease of the bearing gap h with the increase of the payload F. Further on, one can see how a constant bearing gap can be achieved for a payload, for example F = 25N, and a gap of h = 310 pm a certain value of the magnetic field B is necessary (marker A in Fig. 8.45). When the payload changes to 160 N, the bearing gap remains constant if the magnetic field is changed to another value (marker B). In closed-loop control, a nearly infinite stiffness can be achieved, limited only by the resolution of the system for measuring changes of the gap width.

So let us look at the multiplication operation. First, another type of loop is being used. The Infinite Loop is not always supported by sjoithesizers owing to the unpredictable nature of their operation - the loop could be unrolling forever if a condition that causes an exit is never met. Similarly, the While Loop is often not supported for synthesis. The s)mtax of bodi these alternative loop types is shown in Box 6.11. This loop is controlled by the counter I, which increments on each pass around the loop. When I reaches the n - the number of bits in A - the Exit statement quits the loop. This statement does not necessarily require the loop label in this example but one should be used when embedding loops to darify which loop is to be stopped. Next is another loop control statement that will immediately start the next iteration of the loop, assuming its condition is met. They are both discussed in Box 6.12. 

The execution of For. While and Infinite loops can be controlled with two particular sequential statements - Next and Exit. 

From Eq. (6-20), it is immediately clear that we cannot have an ideal servo response where C/R = 1, which would require an infinite controller gain. Now Eq. (6-21) indicates that C/R cannot be some constant either. To satisfy (6-21), the closed-loop response C/R must be some function of s, meaning that the system cannot respond instantaneously and must have some finite response time. 

To implement an ideal PD controller, we ll have an additional open-loop zero. Two (of infinite) possibilities are... 

What would you like a controller to do, forgetting for the moment what it is reasonable to expect The most severe demand would certainly be to follow a step change in set point perfectly. This could be demanded of the controller, but not of the process, because it requires infinite process gain. The speed at which a variable may change is limited by the maximum rate at which energy may be delivered to the process. A valve may only open fully, not infinitely. Therefore it can only be asked that the controller not interfere with the maximum speed of the process. To duplicate the remainder of the step input, the control loop must be stable to the point that no overshoot or oscillation is observable. Nor should there be any offset. Finally, the controller ought to be insensitive to input noise, which is usually present in some form. T0... 

If feed rate and composition are invariant, there seems to be no purpose for a forward loop. Although feed rate to a column may be on flow control, this does not mean that it is invariant-it means that the stream is only subject to intentional disturbances. Supply of feed stock must come from somewhere, and its source cannot, have infinite capacity. The smaller the supply capacity, the more often feed rate will have to be adjusted. And whether feed rate is subject to random variations or intentional set-point adjustments, it can change rapidly-far more rapidly than a feedback loop on product quality can respond. 

For the infinite dilution experiments, a commercially available iGC (Surface Measurement Systems, London, UK) was used. A quartz column was packed with the sample and placed into the oven compartment. Instrument was equipped with a 0.25-mL sample loop, and using a series of flow controllers, a measured amount of gas containing a 10% saturated vapor of butanol, hexanol, or octanol (Aldrich, Milwaukee, WI), in a helium carrier, was used to introduce the dilute organic vapor into the carrier gas stream and onto the sample. The net retention times were recorded and plotted as a function of the RH of the purge gas. An increase in the net retention time was indicative of increased binding of the organic compound to the sample. 

---