Haptic interfaces
in [Embedded]
|
From: Robert Baer on 2 Mar 2010 05:44 D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi, > > What makes a haptic interface "good"? bad? *Exceptional*? > > What would you nominate as the "best" haptic interface? > > What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the > best haptic interface? > > And, of course, "why", in each case. > > Thanks! > --don for starters, i do NOT consider the PicKit-2 programming pod as "haptic"..but that is what i saw during installation.
From: Robert Baer on 2 Mar 2010 05:45 Tim Williams wrote: > Optimal throughput: direct connection to the motor cortex (sensor implanted > soon after birth, to maximize training time). ;-) > > Tim > ....you mean the brain? Far out!....
From: Robert Baer on 2 Mar 2010 05:57 D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Tim Wescott wrote: >> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >>> Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >>> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>>> What makes a haptic interface "good"? >>> >>> Dunno. >>> >>>> bad? >>> >>> When it is painful. ;) >> >> Actually, if it were on the primary controls of a plane, something >> that gets painful when there's a good chance of damaging your >> life-preserving airframe 10000 feet above the ground may not be a bad >> thing. Particularly if there's enough pain to make you think, but not >> enough to force you to fly into Mt. St. Helens on a particularly bad day. > > Wow! That's a great idea! I.e., not just "feedback" but > "particularly unpleasant feedback" that really works to > dissuade you from doing something that you shouldn't. ** Well, not TOO painful, because what if the plane is going to crash and there is no way to prevent it from "interfering" with a mountain. The pain sez "danger will robinson" and your best strategy is to run into as many treetops as possible to shed velocity and increase possibility of being captured by the trees (do they take prisoners?). All that scuffing along the skin of the aircraft being translated to scuffing on YOUR skin can be a bit distracting to the implementation of that procedure. > > I've designed "big knobs" with force feedback (to simulate > the "mechanisms" you are influencing with your "adjustments") > but those just gave you subtle reinforcement that you are > "doing what you expect to be doing" (e.g., if the knob > is supposed to cause something to be elevated, then it > is harder to turn in the "up" direction than the "down" > direction). > > But, that raises the issue of "what happens if you (the > device) screw up" and your "penalty pain" makes it > hard for a user to "do what is right"? (think of this > in the example you cite below; I've heard avionic > controls are far from "perfect" :> ) > >> (This is from a criticism of flight control systems, by the way -- at >> least at the time it was made several years ago, Boeing automatic >> flight controls were criticized for letting you bend the airplane, >> while Airbus flight controls were criticized for not letting you keep >> the plane from flying into terrain. I don't know if things have >> changed since then.)
From: Robert Baer on 2 Mar 2010 05:59 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: > Jack wrote: >> On 1 Mar, 11:23, "Tim Williams" <tmoran...(a)charter.net> wrote: >>> Optimal throughput: direct connection to the motor cortex (sensor implanted >>> soon after birth, to maximize training time). ;-) >> Like Borg implants :) > > I guess that makes 7 of 9 the 'best' haptic interface. > Yes! VERY curvy...
From: Précis d'electronique on 2 Mar 2010 10:35
Real Time Resolution of sensors Tau |