Agreed. I would go a step further and say it's common even. Having both on
the same system offers many advantages in flexibility and functionality.
On Jan 12, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2017, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, Ben Brockert wrote:
Taking all of the DAQ off the control system also means you can only
control open loop...
Separating control and data acquisition doesn't mean that the control system
has no sensors, only that it doesn't rely on the DAQ system to provide it
with sensor data. Not having to evaluate every change to the DAQ software
for possible controls impact makes the controls more reliable and the DAQ
much easier to change.
The thing the control system does with sensors is data acquisition. I don't
disagree that you can have two DAQ systems if you have secondary DAQ
requirements like high rate accelerometers. But the first system is still DAQ
and control, and it's perfectly safe and possible to get an engine through
development with such a system.
Ben
