Re: Quantifying losses of Process Variation

Posted by Jim Gunderman on July 15, 1999 at 23:55:16:

In Reply to: Re: Quantifying losses of Process Variation posted by Don Snowden on July 12, 1999 at 14:38:58:

Tod,

I'd be interested in what you have. I am always seeking better ways to document the economic benefits of advanced control. As an aside, in the real world people will NOT run to the opposite side of the impurity to blend out the original disturbance. They will do their darndest to keep always on one side of the product spec.

Jim Gunderman
: Tod,
: As always, I would be interested in the technique that mention. As we can discuss at our company meeting, please don't go to an inordinate amount of work to prove your point.
: Thanks
: Don Snowden

: : A few years back, I found myself trying to defend some of the economic benefits of advanced control. My protagonists use an argument something like this:

: : "If we experience a disturbance that brings the product either side of the operational target, we just compensate by operating on the opposite side of the disturbance for awhile. If the impurity spikes high, then we just operate with less impurity for some time and it all balances out. Anyway, the product we sell is blended to target, so there is not really any product loss."

: : I developed a formula and technique to prove (and quantify) that there is, in fact, an irreversible loss that cannot recovered by compensation or blending. Once I figure out how to convert and post a PDF file, I'll be able to give a more thorough description of the technique. In the meantime, let me know if there is any interest in this type of information.

: : Tod

Follow Ups:

• Re: Quantifying losses of Process Variation Krishnan Viswanath 23:28:03 7/19/99 (1)
  • Re: Quantifying losses of Process Variation Tod Peterson 02:02:52 8/25/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Tod,

: I'd be interested in what you have.  I am always seeking better ways to document the economic benefits of advanced control.  As an aside, in the real world people will NOT run to the opposite side of the impurity to blend out the original disturbance.  They will do their darndest to keep always on one side of the product spec.

: Jim Gunderman
: : Tod,
: : As always, I would be interested in the technique that mention.  As we can discuss at our company meeting, please don't go to an inordinate amount of work to prove your point.
: : Thanks
: : Don Snowden

: : : A few years back, I found myself trying to defend some of the economic benefits of advanced control.  My protagonists use an argument something like this:

: : : "If we experience a disturbance that brings the product either side of the operational target, we just compensate by operating on the opposite side of the disturbance for awhile.   If the impurity spikes high, then we just operate with less impurity for some time and it all balances out.  Anyway, the product we sell is blended to target, so there is not really any product loss."

: : : I developed a formula and technique to prove (and quantify) that there is, in fact, an irreversible loss that cannot recovered by compensation or blending.  Once I figure out how to convert and post a PDF file, I'll be able to give a more thorough description of the technique.   In the meantime, let me know if there is any interest in this type of information.

: : : Tod


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: