I was just wandering through but now I'm here I think I'll stay around a bit. I may not be here as much as I was, though. Most of the electronics for me to build robots arrives on Monday and I'm going to be a busy little geek. :D
Well, it's mainly decided by the inputs and outputs I have coming. I have about ten including proximity, flex, temperature (as input sensors) and the usual outputs (mainly light and noise and power to servos). What I'm missing and I want to replicate are GPS, image recognition, compass, accelerometer and outputs to drive multiple wheels or rotors (I'd ideally like something that can fly).
Pet project given what I have is to build a 3D graph of the temperature in my living room and then watch it change when I turn on various devices (in particular my space heater). I'd like to get it as a video. The interesting bit isn't the graph but about building something that can navigate in 3D, be aware of where it is, and where it needs to be.
Probably a bit ambitious. If I end up with a home made remote-control media server which plugs into the TV and winks LEDs at me saucily to tell me certain things, I'll be happy with that too.
If it's navigating in 3D and you're working with temperature and time as well, wouldn't that need to be a 5 dimensional graph? Or am I misunderstanding?
Anyway, I would actually be really interested in that graph, but I figured it wasn't the primary objective, since I doubt that would be the easiest or most precise way to do it. Now I'm trying to think of how I would do it, though, and it's an interesting problem. I know very little about robotics (more than most people, but that's really not saying much), and most of my background is in astronomy and astrophysics, so my approach would be very different. My first instinct is thermal imaging using a series of cameras in different positions, because they could take images simultaneously. But that poses its own problems (like exposure time and getting images to calculate accurate cross sections without cameras obscuring each other, although there might be an obvious solution to that second one that my brain is just refusing to produce at the moment), and I'm not thinking clearly enough at 4 AM to figure out exactly how it would work.
Actually, even once you have the data you need, I'm not really sure how to represent it in a useful way. If we're looking at a single cross section, it's fairly easy, but it seems like it would be difficult to graph in a way that makes much of anything apparent that couldn't be achieved just as easily with a table. Again, though, it's past 4 AM and I haven't slept, so I might look at this later and realise that I'm being stupid.
Ahh, I'm ahead of you here. When I first learned to program computers it was precisely to create graphs like this. The third dimension (depth) can be represented by false 3D (like a transparent wireframe grid). The fourth dimension (temperature) will be colour. Blue cold, red warm. And the fifth dimension (time) will be represented by it being a video.
Chances are you've already seen something like this. I could do it a lot easier (and better) with a thermal imaging camera, but where's the fun in that? Plus, my way is true 3D as opposed to representation of 3D on a CCD. I'll be able to move around inside my model in a way you can't with traditional video.
Do you trust your girlfriend/boyfriend?
← View full post
Not attached so I'm not going to skew anything, but I've generally trusted the people I've been with.
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You're back! Gleeful hand flapping ensues.
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was just wandering through but now I'm here I think I'll stay around a bit. I may not be here as much as I was, though. Most of the electronics for me to build robots arrives on Monday and I'm going to be a busy little geek. :D
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Exciting! What kind of robots?
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, it's mainly decided by the inputs and outputs I have coming. I have about ten including proximity, flex, temperature (as input sensors) and the usual outputs (mainly light and noise and power to servos). What I'm missing and I want to replicate are GPS, image recognition, compass, accelerometer and outputs to drive multiple wheels or rotors (I'd ideally like something that can fly).
Pet project given what I have is to build a 3D graph of the temperature in my living room and then watch it change when I turn on various devices (in particular my space heater). I'd like to get it as a video. The interesting bit isn't the graph but about building something that can navigate in 3D, be aware of where it is, and where it needs to be.
Probably a bit ambitious. If I end up with a home made remote-control media server which plugs into the TV and winks LEDs at me saucily to tell me certain things, I'll be happy with that too.
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If it's navigating in 3D and you're working with temperature and time as well, wouldn't that need to be a 5 dimensional graph? Or am I misunderstanding?
Anyway, I would actually be really interested in that graph, but I figured it wasn't the primary objective, since I doubt that would be the easiest or most precise way to do it. Now I'm trying to think of how I would do it, though, and it's an interesting problem. I know very little about robotics (more than most people, but that's really not saying much), and most of my background is in astronomy and astrophysics, so my approach would be very different. My first instinct is thermal imaging using a series of cameras in different positions, because they could take images simultaneously. But that poses its own problems (like exposure time and getting images to calculate accurate cross sections without cameras obscuring each other, although there might be an obvious solution to that second one that my brain is just refusing to produce at the moment), and I'm not thinking clearly enough at 4 AM to figure out exactly how it would work.
Actually, even once you have the data you need, I'm not really sure how to represent it in a useful way. If we're looking at a single cross section, it's fairly easy, but it seems like it would be difficult to graph in a way that makes much of anything apparent that couldn't be achieved just as easily with a table. Again, though, it's past 4 AM and I haven't slept, so I might look at this later and realise that I'm being stupid.
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Ahh, I'm ahead of you here. When I first learned to program computers it was precisely to create graphs like this. The third dimension (depth) can be represented by false 3D (like a transparent wireframe grid). The fourth dimension (temperature) will be colour. Blue cold, red warm. And the fifth dimension (time) will be represented by it being a video.
Chances are you've already seen something like this. I could do it a lot easier (and better) with a thermal imaging camera, but where's the fun in that? Plus, my way is true 3D as opposed to representation of 3D on a CCD. I'll be able to move around inside my model in a way you can't with traditional video.