retrofitting an auto-mute volume control?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Triac controller IC
Next: RTD linearization
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Dec 2009 18:30 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:10:50 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >An automatic volume-reducer can be relatively easy. > >If TV and stereo are relatively modern, they will have remote >controls >for volume, so it's just a matter of periodically sending the >incremental-down signal (different signals for all the devices, >of course) at a prescribed rate, so that after X minutes, the >volume is down by N steps... This is an answer towards a different part of the piecemeal problem. And yes, if I could lock down a remote control device I build so that it points at the TV set supporting it, that could work. However, I do still have some of the old vacuum tube TVs and it is a Bell and Howell that she uses, right now. No remote control, IR or otherwise. But it does use up/down buttons and not a rotating knob. (Yes, I have yet another one that does use the old rotating tuner and volume control! Some of these old babies just keep on going!) >LIRC open-source project has emitter plans and software; it >can't be too hard to implement. Agreed. >Not sure about iPod and computer sound, but Mac remote >controls exist (Bluetooth, I suspect) that could be reverse-engineered >with some confidence. No Mac here (mostly because I just have a hard time paying that much -- I worked on the original Lisa computer [monochrome and $10k each] and loved it and do like Macs for what they offer... just price, you know?) No bluetooth here in the home, anywhere. And I use a basic cell phone that doesn't support it. (I don't think I ever will start using bluetooth unless it gets rammed down my throat and when I buy gps systems I get ones that don't use bluetooth, just so you know.) The speaker system on her computer can be modified. Or I could simply design and build one from scratch. The amplifiers are only a few watts and I know how to design something cheesy but workable by myself! So I've been thinking I might do that in this case. >In any case, the normal knobs or the remote unit will turn the >sound back up without fuss. I'm trying to reduce maintenence issues (battery replacement that is too frequent, for example), additional burdens upon our own need to remain aware and conscious that may hinder our other work, and mounting and fixtures which themselves may complicate our lives or further endanger her because they simply exist (unless carefully designed, a mounted controller, for example, could actually present something she lands on during a seizure.) The focus on placing whatever the solution may be _inside_ the unit avoids the introduction of something new to the ambient environment equation. Which is why I'm looking that direction, right now. Lots of good thoughts from everyone and I appreciate it. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Dec 2009 18:31 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:30:07 -0800, I wrote: >This is an answer towards a different part of the piecemeal problem. >And yes, if I could lock down a remote control device I build so that >it points at the TV set supporting it, that could work. Well, kind of. I spoke too soon. She doesn't _use_ a remote control. She will go to the TV, itself. So assuming all the rest, the IR controller (for example) would need to have some way of knowing she did that. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Dec 2009 18:41 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:39:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><snip> >Now I am just thinking aloud... could be some direction to look, >the vibration sensor or 'angle' (vertical versus horizontal, and speed of position >change) could be one of those 3 axis acceleration sensors, some people here (not me) >have extensive experience with those. So many possible sources of data (sound, vibration, video pixels, and now accelerometer data), so much needed research to analyze a usable way to process all that for my circumstances. I love it. I suppose I could bury myself in this for years and years. Accelerometers require power and in this case to be usable would need to be attached to her (non-trivial) and powered continuously. I couldn't sample them, periodically, because I'd need to know "right away" and sampling couldn't occur once a minute or once every 10 seconds. It would have to be relatively continuous and this places a burden on the power source. Besides the difficulty of keeping it on her, somehow, without her clawing it off. And did I mention RF? More power, though that could be used only upon "detection." False positives are okay. Up to a point. She is very active, skips and dances a lot and loves to jump up and down while clapping her hands together, laughing and giggling loudly. She is very happy, by and large. I'm not sure how to hew very close to zero false negatives while keeping false positives to a "dull roar" here. Something may come to mind, so I'll keep this in view. But right now I'm not sure how to deal with continuous sampling, power, keeping such a thing attached to her, together with usable detection negative/positive rates -- algorithms. Good ideas there may help push me along that line, though. Jon
From: linnix on 12 Dec 2009 19:38 On Dec 12, 3:41 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:39:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje > > <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ><snip> > >Now I am just thinking aloud... could be some direction to look, > >the vibration sensor or 'angle' (vertical versus horizontal, and speed of position > >change) could be one of those 3 axis acceleration sensors, some people here (not me) > >have extensive experience with those. > > So many possible sources of data (sound, vibration, video pixels, and > now accelerometer data), so much needed research to analyze a usable > way to process all that for my circumstances. I love it. I suppose I > could bury myself in this for years and years. > > Accelerometers require power and in this case to be usable would need > to be attached to her (non-trivial) and powered continuously. I > couldn't sample them, periodically, because I'd need to know "right > away" and sampling couldn't occur once a minute or once every 10 > seconds. It would have to be relatively continuous and this places a > burden on the power source. Besides the difficulty of keeping it on > her, somehow, without her clawing it off. And did I mention RF? More > power, though that could be used only upon "detection." Accelerometers takes 1 to 2mA continuously, plus another 1mA for a microcontroller. Yes, RF would push it up to 50mA area in burst, upon detection. So, 200mAHr CR2032 coin cell should last 100+ hours. However, you have to build something fun for her to wear it. Musical watch?
From: Tim Williams on 12 Dec 2009 20:41
"Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:ne48i5d7bffiq5c1cvt7nbbnrq3ljtlj53(a)4ax.com... > Detection remains a problem here. Often, she lies down and doesn't > move -- either awake or asleep. Too many false positives and we'd > learn to ignore it. Would it do to have a camera mounted fairly low, so that continuous motion only in the lower half of the image corresponds to a siezure? This also assumes she isn't constantly moving around when lying down, of course the magnitude of motion could be controlled too. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |