Talk:PI controller

Created

I created this page with this comment: "Initial stub- a PI controller is not a PID controller but we might as well start our stub referring to it since it is a more complete article." In addition, a person looking for "PI controller" should not be inundated by the extra complexity of PID controls- PI is complex enough. PI controller deserves its own article is wikipedia is to be accessible. Sadly, I don't know enough to write a proper article, but I know enough to know one is needed and to give the ball a little push. --Treekids (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and avoid the Chilling effect (term), but I think the article here really needs to be merged with PID controller.

Pro a new article:

The existing one is quite technical beyond the 'basics' section, but I don't think the ramp is unreasonable
People specifically looking for PI have to skip a couple of sections / graphs in the PID article, but they may learn something in the process

Con a new article:

A PI controller is a PID controller, one of the gains is zero. Are you going to start seperate PD controller and P controller pages?
An immense amount of work has already gone into PID from at least four major contributors
PID is rated "High importance", this is rated "Low importance" so improving that article is much better time spent than improving this one
Spreading our efforts between two (or four) separate articles damages all of them
Your article does not meet its stated aim of being accessible: Laplace transforms and phase lag are not particularly accessible
You introduce new content here that is not available in the PID article and as far as I can see none of it is specific to PI. That means that PID has already lost out by you bringing your content here.

To me, the Cons carry it. Sorry to be one of those negative boring old farts, but this article (and more specifically the content in it) should be merged into PID controller. Please. While I have seen excellent articles effectively written by one person, if you don't know how to write the entire article yourself, you must rely on others to help and that means at the PID article. We are ready to help you over there at any time - some editors are very exacting in terms of accuracy, but we are a mercifully hostility-free zone. Dhatfield (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that this article repeats a mistake which was found in previous versions of PID controller ("One rule of thumb for G is between 4 and 8"; no, one size doesn't fit all). These are fixed quicker if there is only one article. Engelec (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A PI controller really is a PID with the D term set to zero. Everything needed to use a PI controller is needed to use a PID controller. How the PI portion of a PID controller works is exactly the same. This is duplication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmemory (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Support a merge. The PID controller is now fairly accessible and the D piece of it does not get in the way of understanding PI. On the other hand, this article has poor accessibility. I've put up merge banners. --Kvng (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Support a merge. The derivative term doesn't change the character of the PID so much. Spiel496 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Support a merge. When learning these subjects in Engeneering, one always learns both PI and PID. Its like having an article about the right hand, separatetly from the right hand... And this subject kept my both hands full at University. Cheers. Leonel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.142.219 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]