offset error
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

87
(FIVE YEARS 16)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörn Ungermann ◽  
Anne Kleinert ◽  
Guido Maucher ◽  
Irene Bartolomé ◽  
Felix Friedl-Vallon ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Gimballed Limb Observer for Radiance Imaging of the Atmosphere (GLORIA) is an infrared imaging FTS spectrometer with a 2-D infrared detector operated on two high flying research aircrafts. It has flown on eight campaigns and measured along more than 300 000 km of flight track. This paper details our instrument calibration and characterization efforts, which in particular leverage almost exclusively in-flight data. First, we present the framework of our new calibration scheme, which uses information from all three available calibration measurements (two blackbodies and upward pointing deep space measurements). Part of this scheme is a new correction algorithm correcting the erratically changing non-linearity of a subset of detector pixels and the identification of remaining bad pixels. Using this new calibration, we derive a 1-σ bound of 1 % on the instrumental gain error and a bound of 30 nW cm−2 sr−1 cm on the instrumental offset error. We show how we can examine the noise and spectral accuracy for all measured atmospheric spectra and derive a spectral accuracy of 5 ppm, on average. All these errors are compliant with the initial instrument requirements. We also discuss, for the first time, the pointing system of the GLORIA instrument. Combining laboratory calibration efforts with the measurement of astronomical bodies during the flight, we can derive a pointing accuracy of 0.032°, which corresponds to one detector pixel. The paper concludes with a brief study on how these newly characterised instrumental parameters affect temperature and ozone retrievals. We find that, first, the pointing uncertainty and, second, the instrumental gain uncertainty introduce the largest error in the result.


Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 1699
Author(s):  
Young Seop Son ◽  
Wonhee Kim

In this paper, a nonlinear differential braking control method is developed to avoid collision during lane change under driver torque. The lateral dynamics consist of lateral offset error and yaw error dynamics and can be interpreted as a semi-strict feedback form. In the differential braking control problem under the driver torque, a matching condition does not satisfy, and the system is not in the form of, the strict feedback form. Thus, a general backstepping control method cannot be applied. To overcome this problem, the proposed method is designed via the combination of the sliding mode control and backstepping. Two sliding surfaces are designed for differential braking control. One of the surfaces is designed considering the lateral offset error, and the other sliding surface is designed using the combination of the yaw and yaw rate errors as the virtual input of the lateral offset error dynamics. A brake steer force input is developed to regulate the two sliding surfaces using a backstepping procedure under the driver torque. Integral action and a super twisting algorithm are used in the lateral controller to ensure the robustness of the system. The proposed method, which is designed via the combination of the sliding mode control and backstepping, can improve the lateral control performance using differential braking. The proposed method is validated through simulations.


Author(s):  
Sean M McGinn ◽  
Jean-Franҫois Coulombe ◽  
Karen A Beauchemin

Abstract There are knowledge gaps in animal agriculture on how to best mitigate greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining animal productivity. One reason for these gaps is the uncertainties associated with methods used to derive emission rates. This study compared emission rates of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) measured by a commercially available GreenFeed (GF) system to those from 1) a mass flow controller (MFC) that released known quantities of gas over time (i.e., emission rate), and 2) a respiration chamber (RC). The GF and MFC differed by only 1% for CH4 (P = 0.726) and 3% for CO2 (P = 0.013). The difference between the GF and RC was 1% (P = 0.019) for CH4 and 1% for CO2 (P = 0.007). Further investigation revealed that the difference in emission rate for CO2 was due to a small systematic offset error indicating a correction factor could be applied. We conclude that the GF system accurately estimated enteric CH4 and CO2 emission rates of cattle over a short measurement period, but additional factors would need to be considered in determining the 24-h emission rate of an animal.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 11119-11128
Author(s):  
Mingjin Hu ◽  
Wei Hua ◽  
Zheng Wu ◽  
Ningyi Dai ◽  
Huafeng Xiao ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1911-1918
Author(s):  
Chuanqiang Lian ◽  
Fei Xiao ◽  
Jilong Liu ◽  
Shan Gao

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
AN Ling-ping ◽  
◽  
WANG Shuang ◽  
ZHANG Geng ◽  
LI Juan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document