measuring 10 km with 1m accuracy
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: CfP: Workshop on Isolation and Integration for Dependable Systems (IIDS)
Next: %%% top 10 Lovely place for Lovers %%%%
From: Mark Borgerson on 15 Feb 2010 21:28 In article <G5ydnVDxFdZcN-TWnZ2dnUVZ_rb_fwAA(a)web-ster.com>, tim(a)seemywebsite.com says... > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:26:06 -0800, rickman wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2:07Â pm, Jim Stewart <jstew...(a)jkmicro.com> wrote: > >> Paul Keinanen wrote: > >> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > >> > <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> While ago I did a plot of a common GPS module readings taken at > >> >> every second. The distribution was clearly not Gaussian; it was > >> >> asymmetrical and skewed. I am not sure if it would be possible to > >> >> improve the accuracy by averaging and how much of averaging it would > >> >> take. > >> > >> > How did the displayed elevation behave ? > >> > >> > If it is violently jumping up and down, this may be a symptom of a > >> > ground reflection., i.e. the distance to one (or more) satellites > >> > would appear to bee too large, i.e. going through the ground > >> > reflection. > >> > >> Does this really happen or are you speculating? No disrespect intended, > >> I've just never heard of this issue. > > > -- snip -- > > A GPS works by measuring the time of flight from the visible satellites > > and triangulating. Clearly if one or more measurements are off because > > of reflections, it will mess up the results. I don't know how they > > compensate for this, or if they even do. > > I suspect that the cheap handheld units don't -- the cost of the logic > would go up as something like N^1 or N^2 as the size of the time window > increased, and to catch a reflection you need a time window big enough to > see it and the 'correct' signal, or you need a multiplicity of receive > channels. Many modern civilian GPS units have 16 to 32 recieve channels (correlators). I don't know if they are used to detect multipath or not. I'm sure that the extra channels are useful for locking in new satellites as they appear without having to drop old ones. > > > I would think they would toss > > out one or two outliers if they had more than half a dozen or so > > satellites in view. > > One hopes. But a $150 GPS receiver is a pretty amazing exercise in cost > reduction already -- I wouldn't count on it. > > > I think it takes a minimum of 4 to get a 3D fix and > > the more measurements included in the calculations, the better the > > result... as long as they are not reflections. > > Yes. The receiver has to solve for three spatial dimensions and time. > Solving those four equations demands four unknowns. Height is generally > known to a much lesser accuracy than horizontal position, because the > slant angle to the satellites is often quite shallow, which makes it > harder to resolve height. > > Mark Borgerson
From: rickman on 15 Feb 2010 22:27 On Feb 15, 3:12 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:26:06 -0800, rickman wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2:07 pm, Jim Stewart <jstew...(a)jkmicro.com> wrote: > >> Paul Keinanen wrote: > >> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > >> > <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >> While ago I did a plot of a common GPS module readings taken at > >> >> every second. The distribution was clearly not Gaussian; it was > >> >> asymmetrical and skewed. I am not sure if it would be possible to > >> >> improve the accuracy by averaging and how much of averaging it would > >> >> take. > > >> > How did the displayed elevation behave ? > > >> > If it is violently jumping up and down, this may be a symptom of a > >> > ground reflection., i.e. the distance to one (or more) satellites > >> > would appear to bee too large, i.e. going through the ground > >> > reflection. > > >> Does this really happen or are you speculating? No disrespect intended, > >> I've just never heard of this issue. > > -- snip -- > > A GPS works by measuring the time of flight from the visible satellites > > and triangulating. Clearly if one or more measurements are off because > > of reflections, it will mess up the results. I don't know how they > > compensate for this, or if they even do. > > I suspect that the cheap handheld units don't -- the cost of the logic > would go up as something like N^1 or N^2 as the size of the time window > increased, and to catch a reflection you need a time window big enough to > see it and the 'correct' signal, or you need a multiplicity of receive > channels. > > > I would think they would toss > > out one or two outliers if they had more than half a dozen or so > > satellites in view. > > One hopes. But a $150 GPS receiver is a pretty amazing exercise in cost > reduction already -- I wouldn't count on it. > > > I think it takes a minimum of 4 to get a 3D fix and > > the more measurements included in the calculations, the better the > > result... as long as they are not reflections. > > Yes. The receiver has to solve for three spatial dimensions and time. > Solving those four equations demands four unknowns. Height is generally > known to a much lesser accuracy than horizontal position, because the > slant angle to the satellites is often quite shallow, which makes it > harder to resolve height. > > --www.wescottdesign.com $150? I have $50 bluetooth GPS and I have seen $25 GPS modules that use nothing more than an ARM7 to do the actual calculations for a fix. I can't imagine that it would take a significantly more expensive CPU to do the culling of outliers. In fact, one of the vendors we considered supported the sharing of the CPU to run application code potentially saving an MCU in an application. That shows even in a little ol' ARM7 there are CPU cycles to spare. But then I don't know diddly about the actual calculations being done. So I can's say for sure. Rick
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 16 Feb 2010 07:52 Op Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:22:25 +0100 schreef Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi>: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:13:09 -0800 (PST), Surinder Singh > <gogreenmiles(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> What would be best technology (GPS,IR,Radio/freq,ultrasonic etc) for >> doing distance measurements upto 10km with accuracy of 1 meter? > > So the accuracy requirement is 100 ppm. > > Is this measurement in vacuum or in the atmosphere and if so, what is > the refractive index during the measurement. Any mirages ? > > Even when using lasers or some microwave measuring devices, the > propagation in typical atmospheric conditions will bend the beam > slightly downwards, thus forming an arc and thus the reading would > also be slightly too big. Unless you would compensate for this predictable effect. > The speed of light is about 300 ppm lower at sea level than in vacuum, > so also the elevation and hence air density will affect the speed of > light and this may also cause errors. Unless you would compensate for this predictable effect. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/ (remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail)
From: linnix on 16 Feb 2010 12:07 On Feb 15, 7:27 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 3:12 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:26:06 -0800, rickman wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2:07 pm, Jim Stewart <jstew...(a)jkmicro.com> wrote: > > >> Paul Keinanen wrote: > > >> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:29:10 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > > >> > <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> >> While ago I did a plot of a common GPS module readings taken at > > >> >> every second. The distribution was clearly not Gaussian; it was > > >> >> asymmetrical and skewed. I am not sure if it would be possible to > > >> >> improve the accuracy by averaging and how much of averaging it would > > >> >> take. > > > >> > How did the displayed elevation behave ? > > > >> > If it is violently jumping up and down, this may be a symptom of a > > >> > ground reflection., i.e. the distance to one (or more) satellites > > >> > would appear to bee too large, i.e. going through the ground > > >> > reflection. > > > >> Does this really happen or are you speculating? No disrespect intended, > > >> I've just never heard of this issue. > > > -- snip -- > > > A GPS works by measuring the time of flight from the visible satellites > > > and triangulating. Clearly if one or more measurements are off because > > > of reflections, it will mess up the results. I don't know how they > > > compensate for this, or if they even do. > > > I suspect that the cheap handheld units don't -- the cost of the logic > > would go up as something like N^1 or N^2 as the size of the time window > > increased, and to catch a reflection you need a time window big enough to > > see it and the 'correct' signal, or you need a multiplicity of receive > > channels. > > > > I would think they would toss > > > out one or two outliers if they had more than half a dozen or so > > > satellites in view. > > > One hopes. But a $150 GPS receiver is a pretty amazing exercise in cost > > reduction already -- I wouldn't count on it. > > > > I think it takes a minimum of 4 to get a 3D fix and > > > the more measurements included in the calculations, the better the > > > result... as long as they are not reflections. > > > Yes. The receiver has to solve for three spatial dimensions and time.. > > Solving those four equations demands four unknowns. Height is generally > > known to a much lesser accuracy than horizontal position, because the > > slant angle to the satellites is often quite shallow, which makes it > > harder to resolve height. > > > --www.wescottdesign.com > > $150? I have $50 bluetooth GPS and I have seen $25 GPS modules that > use nothing more than an ARM7 to do the actual calculations for a > fix. I can't imagine that it would take a significantly more > expensive CPU to do the culling of outliers. In fact, one of the > vendors we considered supported the sharing of the CPU to run > application code potentially saving an MCU in an application. That > shows even in a little ol' ARM7 there are CPU cycles to spare. > > But then I don't know diddly about the actual calculations being > done. So I can's say for sure. > > Rick Just convolutions and trigonometry. Nothing heavy. 10 to 20MIPS should work.
From: dbd on 16 Feb 2010 12:51
On Feb 15, 4:13 am, Surinder Singh <gogreenmi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > What would be best technology (GPS,IR,Radio/freq,ultrasonic etc) for > doing distance measurements upto 10km with accuracy of 1 meter? > ..> GPS could be good for greater distance but accuracy seems coarse. > > - Surinder Surveying grade GPS code based instruments can provide sufficient accuracy at the cost of more time (and money) than the shirt pocket GPS receivers take. If you are only interested in distance and not position you can use real time kinematic (RTK) GPS instruments that process relative positions based on GPS carrier phases instead of codes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Kinematic Dale B. Dalrymple |