Do pressure and flow agree?
Cross-check a telemetry handover against a declared hydraulic relationship. Keep missing signals and uncertain causes visible.
Agreement does not establish accuracy. Disagreement does not identify the faulty sensor. Review both measurement chains and the hydraulic context.
Check a capture
Examples are synthetic. Enter your justified relation and bounds in the settings. The authored app runs the Python check in your browser; it has no capture-upload endpoint. The offline kit needs only Python.
Loading local Python runtime…
Blue: measured pressure interval. Orange: pressure inferred from the declared flow relation. These are assumed engineering bounds, not probability intervals.
| Sequence | Pressure interval · bar | Flow relation interval · bar | Gap · bar | Result |
|---|
Edit profile, relation and capture
Reference IDs, independence, hydraulic validity and bounds are declarations. The check does not verify certificates or calibration. No automatic unit conversion is applied.
What the simulation found
Loading frozen comparison…
| Condition | Offset MPC · RMSE bar | With hold · RMSE bar | Held proposals |
|---|
True-pressure RMSE is available in the synthetic simulation. Holding supervisory proposals did not fix the pressure-bias tracking failure and worsened several other conditions. This advisory tool never selects a control sensor or writes setpoints.
Protocol, negative results and cloud replay ↗Use it at the data handover
Start with independent pressure and discharge-flow measurements from the same hydraulic section. Check acquisition quality, justify the coefficient and bounds, and investigate discrepancies before using the data in a model.
A valve change, an unreported branch or a flow-meter error can mimic pressure bias. Correlated error in both channels can remain consistent. The check does not establish a safe control action.