Andrew, On 12/24/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Steve Richfield wrote: > >> Of course you could simply subtract successive samples from one another - >> at some considerable risk, since you are now sampling at only half the >> Nyquist-required speed to make your AGI/NN run at its intended speed. In >> short, if inputs are not being electronically differentiated, then sampling >> must proceed at least twice as fast as the NN/AGI cycles. >> > > > Or... you could be using something like compressive sampling, which safely > ignores silly things like the Nyquist limit.
While compressive sampling needn't be performed so frequently, neither does it (directly) produce the dp/dt values that are needed. Further, while the samples are less frequent, they must be carefully timed, which may be more difficult then frequent sampling. As I understand it, compressive sampling is really great to reduce storage at the cost of greatly increasing the "demodulation" effort. However, here we don't have any need for storage, just the dp/dt values. In most cases, I suspect that simple electronic differentiation will work best, eliminating the need for ANY computational logic to compute dp/dt. Thanks for the comment. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
