Re: [TML] Weather Control
robocon@xxxxxx
(25 May 2018 03:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Tim
(25 May 2018 04:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control Rob O'Connor (26 May 2018 00:51 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Tim
(26 May 2018 03:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Rob O'Connor
(27 May 2018 01:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Timothy Collinson
(29 May 2018 10:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Tim
(29 May 2018 16:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control
Timothy Collinson
(29 May 2018 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Weather Control Rob O'Connor 26 May 2018 00:51 UTC
Tim Little wrote: > The better one understands the internal behaviour of a chaotic system, > theless external influence is required to guide it toward a desired > statepath. Yes, you're right and I was wrong. When it comes to maintaining a small set of parameters in 'weather space' in a region without causing unwanted effects elsewhere, I'm not sure sufficient understanding is possible, even with typical Traveller technology. > Completely the opposite. > > The more measurements you take and the more frequent they are, the > better your model can be and the better your potential for control. I screwed up again. I thought that you would accumulate more errors and push the system further and further away from the desired state, on the assumption that you couldn't reduce the magnitude of measurement/intervention errors by making them more frequently. On reflection, this is a bad assumption if we use the examples of navigation and industrial control systems. For the case of local weather, I don't know that 'frequently enough measurements and adjustments' are possible without "Always Sunny in Sunnydale" means "catastrophic flooding in Watertown". Rob O'Connor