The accessory minimum problem and its importance for the numerical computation of closed-loop controls

Author(s):  
H.J. Pesch
1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Bell

SummaryThe necessary conditions of Clebsch and Weierstrass and of the multiplier rule in the calculus of variations, which arise from the study of the first variation of a function, are summarised. A further necessary condition associated with the second variation is stated. The latter condition is applied to two problems: (i) the determination of the thrust-time programme which maximises the altitude of a sounding rocket, (ii) the determination of the thrust direction programme for a rocket with a known propellant expenditure programme which yields a maximum range. In both problems it is found that the additional necessary condition is satisfied.


1961 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
George H. Bornside ◽  
Isidore Cohn
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 220 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Sülzenbrück

For the effective use of modern tools, the inherent visuo-motor transformation needs to be mastered. The successful adjustment to and learning of these transformations crucially depends on practice conditions, particularly on the type of visual feedback during practice. Here, a review about empirical research exploring the influence of continuous and terminal visual feedback during practice on the mastery of visuo-motor transformations is provided. Two studies investigating the impact of the type of visual feedback on either direction-dependent visuo-motor gains or the complex visuo-motor transformation of a virtual two-sided lever are presented in more detail. The findings of these studies indicate that the continuous availability of visual feedback supports performance when closed-loop control is possible, but impairs performance when visual input is no longer available. Different approaches to explain these performance differences due to the type of visual feedback during practice are considered. For example, these differences could reflect a process of re-optimization of motor planning in a novel environment or represent effects of the specificity of practice. Furthermore, differences in the allocation of attention during movements with terminal and continuous visual feedback could account for the observed differences.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 471-477
Author(s):  
Dejan M. Novakovic ◽  
Markku J. Juntti ◽  
Miroslav L. Dukic

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document