 | | IR scanner
|
| All the talk recently about lasers, traversing mazes, infra-red transmission, and trying to accurately track your robot's position in a room or maze has gotten me thinking. What if you built a rotating laser or infrared transmitter on top of your (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| (...) I may be underestimating the capabilities of current Lego sensors, but I believe that the time difference of (light across 1 foot) and (light across 10 feet) would be too small to register without some seriously fast processing. [ BTOE (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| (...) Hi! I don't think that light-pulse based distance measurements will ever be an option for Lego robots. But your idea can be used in another context (that has been talked about around here). Namely, using a light beam as a directional beacon. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| (...) has (...) Duh. I spoke before I thought. Sorry about that. (...) [snip] (...) the (...) Taking Jim Thomas' suggestion of using ultrasonic sound instead of lasers, you could install two ultrasonic sound sources on your robot to solve the (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| Why don't you just get a Pentium III at 900MHz to run a sensor?! If it is not fast enough, then you could still have one brick that could beat the snot out of most of the computers that are running them!!! (+ extra RAM, not firmware - real programs (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| In reply to: (...) believe (...) A couple of quick points here: Your value of 96,720,000 ft/s, while accurate and sounds extreme should be considered in it's proper context. For the light to travel 1 foot, the object must be 6 inches away (6in there (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| Your numbers aren't quite correct. The speed of light is 982,080,000 fps or 0.000,000,001,018 seconds per foot. That yields a value of 0.002036 microseconds for a "radar foot"; 12 inches out, 12 inches back. You are NOT going to measure distance (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| =>From: "Matthias Jetleb" <jetleb@netcom.ca> =>... =>A couple of quick points here: Your value of 96,720,000 ft/s, while =>accurate and sounds extreme should be considered in it's proper context. [My summary: the timescale involved in measuring the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| That STILL is NOT the correct value for the speed of light! It is 186,000 * 5280 = 982,080,000,000 feet per second (approximately). To get 96,720,000 you must have multiplied 186,000 * 520. - Nick - (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| (...) Um. Your frequencies are out somewhere... There is a factor of ten 'slip' in the figures being used here. In fact your oscillator needs to be at ten times this frequency for a 1ft/Hz measurement. (the figure in the first line should be (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: IR scanner
|
| (...) That's my fault - I missed the button on the calculator, and so the fps value in my original post was off. (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
