Recap of Stability

[@JeremyDismukes225]

your videos have been really helpful review for me for taking the FE exam

[@don_inga]

I think there was a mistake with number 2. Shouldn't it be the determinant divided by 'd' instead of 'b'?

[@nvirevolution2235]

No. It is the det/b. For finding b1, you divide by the square above it. same with C1

[@pnachtwey]

You are wasting the students time. Why teach obsolete stuff that I have never seen used in reality. You have a good video about pole placement. That is the way to design controllers. The root locus and other methods are not that good especially when there are 3 or more controller gains to calculate. Also, I have never seen a customer satisfied with 5% over shoot. No over shoot and fastest rise time is what the customers want. A stable system is not good enough.

[@theryderproject5053]

There is no point looking at any other characteristic unless you can guarantee stability...

[@lucydelgado969]

Those things might be valid when you already working but as a college student this type of subject is part of the program so it will come in the exam and we cant really run away from it so this video is indeed helpful.

[@pnachtwey]

@@theryderproject5053 Yes, the poles must be stable, but Routh-Horowitz doesn't allow you simply place the closed loop poles where you want! Forget Routh-Horowitz and go directly to pole placement so you get the response you want. I have written a few "auto-tuning" programs. They never used Routh-Horowitz. Routh-Horowitz is a superfluous waste of time. I KNOW what is important. Number 1 is system identification. Then pole placement.

[@pnachtwey]

@@lucydelgado969 Teacher teach what they have been taught. Most don't have a clue about reality and how relevant what they are teaching is.