Subject:
|
Re: Barcodes & error detection
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:00:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
ROB.ANTONISHEN@GMAIL.stopspammersCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1076 times
|
| |
|
|
On 9/8/05, Brian Davis wrote:
> Using retroreflective white tape or reflective but slightly diffusive tape
> (an aluminum duct tape slightly crinkled and flattened again; I tried it as
> flat
> as possible as well) would seem to work, but actual tests show that it often
> can't be distinguished from white.
Are you lighting the area with a light brick, or relying on ambient
illumination? I find the Lego light sensor extremely finicky in "real
work" situation, and try to always shield the area from ambient and
provide my own illumination.
-Rob A>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Barcodes & error detection
|
| (...) Gus uses two ight sensors, one to follow the (left edge) of a black line on a white background, and a seperate light sensor on an "outrigger" to read the barcodes. There is no light brick, but instead both use the light sensor itself to supply (...) (19 years ago, 8-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Barcodes & error detection
|
| (...) Absolutely, but in any real world application there is almost always some error rate. (...) John Barnes also suggested that to me after I posted, and I'm embarassed to admit that the thought hadn't occured to me. I need to test (again), but (...) (19 years ago, 8-Sep-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
