Anyway, with the fix the impulse response method now returns basically the same FIR filter coefficients as using data. I also realized that the results from the adaptive loop I posted yesterday were crap. Somehow I was using the wrong model for the closed loop plant, chalk that up to shitty variable names. Here are the proper PSD's and modal outputs

My advisor thinks these results are stellar. Amazingly the PSD with the optimal FIR filter is pretty similar to the AO PSD, hopefully showing that my idea of dividing out the part of the disturbance cancelled by the classical loop is correct. In this case both the adaptive and fixed gain FIR filter are using 4 taps, so you might ask why the AO loop does better than the "optimal" filter at certain frequencies. The reason is that the adaptive loop can compensate somewhat for modeling error.
Right now I'm trying to run things without the shitty DM pause, which speeds things up to around 20Hz. I suspect the results won't be so peachy, but the time savings would be huge (8 minutes vs 40 for 10000 frames), and I wouldn't have to spend so much time quality time with youtube waiting for my experiments to run.
Also, I'd like to look at how the number of filter coefficients changes the steady-state performance, although I don't think adding many more taps will make much difference. Also I'd be cute to have the Strehl ratio performance to look at too.
Peace out.

No comments:
Post a Comment