Talk:Impedance control

Impedance control is an inherently technical topic that even experts disagree on the meaning of. I have asked many controls experts about what impedance control is, and I've gotten very little agreement. It bothers me this article has that "too technical" label on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffleguy4 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Being a technical subject is no excuse for not giving a clear explanation. At the very least, the lead paragraph should make clear what the topic is.  After rereading several times, it is still not clear to me what the essential difference is between this scheme and and other approaches.  As an electrical engineer, I have a good understanding of what impedances and admittances are all about, but some of this seems like gobbledygook to me;
 * A manipulator is an active element, so cannot be just a passive impedance as the article seems to suggest.
 * Impedance and admittance are two sides of the same coin, they both represent the same phenomenon, yet the article seems to want to contrast them (manipulator = impedance, environment = admittance). Unless a completely different definition of impedance and admittance is being used to my understanding, in which case the wikilinks are inappropriate.
 * The quote that "no controller can make the manipulator appear to the environment as anything other than a physical system" is thrown in from nowhere and does not seem to lead to any relevant conclusion. It seems like it is just a pointless truism to me.
 * Hogan's rule is thrown in without saying what it is or how it is relevant, unless it is the previous unattributed quote. By the way, the paragraph is cited to a paper by Hogan.  I doubt very much that he named a rule after himself in it, it would be very bad form to do so. SpinningSpark 01:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)