Christopher wrote:
Hi guys, ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. however, physics decided this idea wouldnt work, since all electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, apparently, DAMN, back to the drawing board. I'm here to see if anyone has any way they can determine the distance from transmitter to receiver, this isnt a great distance either and it needs to be fairly, accurate, if it's not possible, it's not possible, I just wanted to ask people far cleverer than i. signal strength perhaps? literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. like I said, if it's not possible, well then hey, thanks anyway, but perhaps it is and therefore perhaps my idea will still be workable. thanks guys! I'll be waiting for your answers or solutions You might want to look at how GPS works. -- I think it likely that when the successor to IPV6 is just about to be deployed througout the Solar System there will still be null routes and deny table entries for 205.199.212.0/24 in an uncountable number of places. -- Michael Rathbun |
Christopher wrote:
Hi guys, ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. Yes, but as you've deduced, the problem is keeping the clocks synchronize. On the other hand, there's no reason you can't have one unit send out a pulse and begin timing. The second unit receives it, immediate sends a 'reply' pulse, and you stop your clock when the first unit receives that. Now the accuracy is determined by the accuracy of just one clock, the amount of uncertainty in the 'turnaround' time of the second unit... and the variation in the speed of light as a function of athmospheric conditions. (The last one being more of a concern if you're trying to listen to satellites -- GPS receivers run into this problem.) You can also use multiple transmitters with high-quality clocks and one receiver -- this is what GPS goes. The transmitters send out a message saying, 'I sent this at exactly this time... really I did!' You record on your local clock when you receive those messages and hence can perform triangulation to determine your position. Better yet, if you have yet another transmitter, you can solve for your position as well as the _relative error in your timebase_ and thereby synchronize one (or more) receivers to the high-quality clock in the transmitter. In GPS receivers, this additional satellite is what gets you a 2D fix vs. a 3D fix. signal strength perhaps? literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. Ah, OK, if it's enclosed field strength would be a reasonably reliable indicator. There was an article in Circuit Cellar Ink just a year or so back where a guy did this (and cited references -- the idea has been around for awhile), but it's sort of the oppposite of what you suggest: You stick large (transmitting) coils at the edges of your box and then detect the signal strength on a small receiver. 1cm in 10m is 1 part in 1000, which I would gander is right about in the middle of 'trivial' and 'pushing impossible.' There are also '3D' computer mice (mouses?) out there that use a couple of ultrasonic receivers on the 'mouse pad' and perform triangulation after listening for the mouse's transmission. Same idea as with RF, but easier because sound waves are so much slower than electromagnetic waves -- times are measured in microseconds or milliseconds rather than picosecond and nanoseconds! ---Joel Kolstad |
That's basically how GPS works, except that you need more than one
transmitter, or veddy expensive clocks in the receiver. Basically with GPS you receive accurate time signals from four satallites. Since your receiver doesn't know the time or it's position you have four equations (from four satellites) in four unknowns and voila! you have an answer. You can do differential GPS down to millimeter accuracy if you sense the phase of the carrier. Loran uses the same basic concepts (synchronized transmitters, speed of light, yadda yadda), but it asks you to sense the phase difference between a master and a slave TX, and it isn't nearly so accurate. "Christopher" wrote in message ... Hi guys, ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. however, physics decided this idea wouldnt work, since all electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, apparently, DAMN, back to the drawing board. I'm here to see if anyone has any way they can determine the distance from transmitter to receiver, this isnt a great distance either and it needs to be fairly, accurate, if it's not possible, it's not possible, I just wanted to ask people far cleverer than i. signal strength perhaps? literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. like I said, if it's not possible, well then hey, thanks anyway, but perhaps it is and therefore perhaps my idea will still be workable. thanks guys! I'll be waiting for your answers or solutions kosh |
distance of radio transmitter from receiver
Hi guys,
ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. however, physics decided this idea wouldnt work, since all electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, apparently, DAMN, back to the drawing board. I'm here to see if anyone has any way they can determine the distance from transmitter to receiver, this isnt a great distance either and it needs to be fairly, accurate, if it's not possible, it's not possible, I just wanted to ask people far cleverer than i. signal strength perhaps? literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. like I said, if it's not possible, well then hey, thanks anyway, but perhaps it is and therefore perhaps my idea will still be workable. thanks guys! I'll be waiting for your answers or solutions kosh |
literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped
enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. This is a typical application of an acoustic positioning system. With a speed of sound of about 340 m/s, this is feasible. I have made such a system with acoustic tags on 40 kHz using 8 receiver nodes in the room. That's more than required, but it gives enough redundancy to be robust against shadowing as things move around in the room. Accuracy is in the 1-2 cm range. -- Sverre Holm, LA3ZA --------------------------------- www.qsl.net/la3za |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:55:44 -0800, "Tim Wescott"
wrote: That's basically how GPS works, except that you need more than one transmitter, or veddy expensive clocks in the receiver. Basically with GPS you receive accurate time signals from four satallites. Since your receiver doesn't know the time or it's position you have four equations (from four satellites) in four unknowns and voila! you have an answer. You can do differential GPS down to millimeter accuracy if you sense the phase of the carrier. Since the measurement should be done in a confined space, why not switch the roles and use one transmitter on the moving object and four receivers on known fixed locations around the perimeter of that space? With the receivers connected by cables receiving a common clock signal, the accuracy of the clock is not important, contrary to the situation in GPS, in which the four satellites must have atomic clocks to have a common time base. Loran uses the same basic concepts (synchronized transmitters, speed of light, yadda yadda), but it asks you to sense the phase difference between a master and a slave TX, and it isn't nearly so accurate. Space probe ranging is done by sending a high data rate pseudo noise sequence from earth to the probe, in which a simple frequency translation is done with a high accuracy local oscillator to a different frequency and sent back to earth. From this, the total earth-probe-earth phase difference of the PRN sequence (and possibly also the total RF phase difference) can be determined and hence also the distance. However, in this case the accuracy requirement was 1 cm, so I guess that at least 10 GHz (3 cm) radiation should be used. Paul |
You don't necessesarily need to have a carrier wavelength smaller than the
distance you want to measure, as long as you can accurately measure phase. Assuming that you could measure phase to 10 degrees, for instance, a 1cm accuracy would only require 900MHz (33cm). Surveyor-quality differential GPS uses the 2.4GHz GPS carrier and measures the differences in the carrier phase (not the phase of the pseudo-random sequence) to get sub-cm accuracies. "Paul Keinanen" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:55:44 -0800, "Tim Wescott" wrote: -- snip -- However, in this case the accuracy requirement was 1 cm, so I guess that at least 10 GHz (3 cm) radiation should be used. Paul |
Yep! acoustic is one. another is infrared
Over this short distance RF travel time is in the 30 nano second range. This requires some pretty good timing measurements. Sound, on the other hand, has a speed of around 30 mili seconds for 10M (30 ft). Something I wanted to do for a long time is a model rocket altitude system. Rocket has a one transistor 10M Rx ( have the circuit around here from some 1960's Pop Electronics for a 1 tranny FM broadcast Rx) and a one or two transistor 2M Tx (FM) -- rocket antenna easier.. Ground station on 10M (lots of power available for the wooden rocket Rx) transmits a TONE (not a pulse). Rocket transponds (retransmits it on 2M). Measure the zero crossing time delay and subtract the overhead time. With proper (and simple) digital design, you can have a digital readout in feet, inches, whatever. With a tone, common ham radios are just fine. With audio, pulses are easy except how do you keep the target from hearing it's own echo and "oscillating by itself...? or use subcarriers - this is a little harder. Transmit an FM modulated tone (carrier, say 10KHz, tone 1KHz) and transponding it back on another carrier, say 15 KHz. Who was it that used to sell the sonar modules from the cameras for experimentation acoustic "Sverre Holm" wrote in message ... literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. This is a typical application of an acoustic positioning system. With a speed of sound of about 340 m/s, this is feasible. I have made such a system with acoustic tags on 40 kHz using 8 receiver nodes in the room. That's more than required, but it gives enough redundancy to be robust against shadowing as things move around in the room. Accuracy is in the 1-2 cm range. -- Sverre Holm, LA3ZA --------------------------------- www.qsl.net/la3za |
Steve Nosko wrote:
Something I wanted to do for a long time is a model rocket altitude system. Rocket has a one transistor 10M Rx ( have the circuit around here from some 1960's Pop Electronics for a 1 tranny FM broadcast Rx) and a one or two transistor 2M Tx (FM) -- rocket antenna easier.. Ground station on 10M (lots of power available for the wooden rocket Rx) transmits a TONE (not a pulse). Rocket transponds (retransmits it on 2M). Measure the zero crossing time delay and subtract the overhead time. With proper (and simple) digital design, you can have a digital readout in feet, inches, whatever. With a tone, common ham radios are just fine. With audio, pulses are easy except how do you keep the target from hearing it's own echo and "oscillating by itself...? Block the RX input for a few ohnoseconds[1] longer or use subcarriers - this is a little harder. Transmit an FM modulated tone (carrier, say 10KHz, tone 1KHz) and transponding it back on another carrier, say 15 KHz. Might be a useful alternative. Have to have sharp filters. Who was it that used to sell the sonar modules from the cameras for experimentation Polaroid, IIRC. [1] The shortest possible unit of time: the interval between hitting the "do it" key and the realization that you shouldn't have. -- I swear to god, if people treated their cars they way they treat their computers, half the cars on the road would be covered in bumper stickers advertising porno, and their trunks would be filled with rotting garbage. -- Christian Wagner |
Hi Joel,
Joel Kolstad wrote: Christopher wrote: Hi guys, ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. Yes, but as you've deduced, the problem is keeping the clocks synchronize. On the other hand, there's no reason you can't have one unit send out a pulse and begin timing. The second unit receives it, immediate sends a 'reply' pulse, and you stop your clock when the first unit receives that. Now the accuracy is determined by the accuracy of just one clock, the amount of uncertainty in the 'turnaround' time of the second unit... and the variation in the speed of light as a function of athmospheric conditions. (The last one being more of a concern if you're trying to listen to satellites -- GPS receivers run into this problem.) my problem with this is that radio waves are electromagnetic radiation which travels at the speed of light, therefore can travel 1 meter in 3.3 nanoseconds, if my range is around 10 meters (I was a bit conservative before, lets say 30meter width/depth and 10 meters high, that'd be big enough I think for any situation I'd use this system within. Is there a clock out there that can measure accuracy on this scale, it seems impossible. That's of course, if radio waves travel through our atmosphere at almost the speed of light, I'm going to look now as to how fast they travel through our atmosphere. You can also use multiple transmitters with high-quality clocks and one receiver -- this is what GPS goes. The transmitters send out a message saying, 'I sent this at exactly this time... really I did!' You record on your local clock when you receive those messages and hence can perform triangulation to determine your position. Better yet, if you have yet another transmitter, you can solve for your position as well as the _relative error in your timebase_ and thereby synchronize one (or more) receivers to the high-quality clock in the transmitter. In GPS receivers, this additional satellite is what gets you a 2D fix vs. a 3D fix. well if you have one transmitter attached to say the top of your head, you'd need multiple receivers to be able to triangulate that transmitters position wouldnt you, you'd record the time it was sent and diff it against the time you have in your local clock, that difference would give you a rough distance to the transmitter, from each receiver you'd have a distance/transmitter value, which would denote the RADIUS of a circle from which the transmitter could be, of course, the location of the transmitter is where all three circles overlap. More receiver units could be used to increase the accuracy of those measurements. the problem again is clock sync. I did originally think that you could have one master receiver unit, whose clock all others are determined by, this clock could send out it's time with a "reset" code that all the other clocks would reset their time to, this would happen fairly accurately would it? I think it would. Then you're clocks are fairly sync'd. You'd probably not want to run them for long without resync'ing again though signal strength perhaps? literally I am talking about a transmitter within a cuboid shaped enclosure around 10m maximum and being able to pinpoint that transmitter within that enclosure accurately, to around 1cm, perhaps 2cm. Ah, OK, if it's enclosed field strength would be a reasonably reliable indicator. There was an article in Circuit Cellar Ink just a year or so back where a guy did this (and cited references -- the idea has been around for awhile), but it's sort of the oppposite of what you suggest: You stick large (transmitting) coils at the edges of your box and then detect the signal strength on a small receiver. 1cm in 10m is 1 part in 1000, which I would gander is right about in the middle of 'trivial' and 'pushing impossible.' hmmm, thats interesting idea. although I can't find much about it, could you remember the article name? There are also '3D' computer mice (mouses?) out there that use a couple of ultrasonic receivers on the 'mouse pad' and perform triangulation after listening for the mouse's transmission. Same idea as with RF, but easier because sound waves are so much slower than electromagnetic waves -- times are measured in microseconds or milliseconds rather than picosecond and nanoseconds! ---Joel Kolstad |
Yea. Easy.Steve N.
"Mike Andrews" wrote in message ... Steve Nosko wrote: ...With audio, pulses are easy except how do you keep the target from hearing it's own echo and "oscillating by itself...? Block the RX input for a few ohnoseconds[1] longer or use subcarriers - this is a little harder. Transmit an FM modulated tone (carrier, say 10KHz, tone 1KHz) and transponding it back on another carrier, say 15 KHz. Might be a useful alternative. Have to have sharp filters. Who was it that used to sell the sonar modules from the cameras for experimentation Polaroid, IIRC. [1] The shortest possible unit of time: the interval between hitting the "do it" key and the realization that you shouldn't have. -- I swear to god, if people treated their cars they way they treat their computers, half the cars on the road would be covered in bumper stickers advertising porno, and their trunks would be filled with rotting garbage. -- Christian Wagner |
Steve Nosko wrote:
. . . Who was it that used to sell the sonar modules from the cameras for experimentation It was Polaroid. You can get sonar measuring devices at home handyman stores for a few bucks. They might be useful with a little hacking. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
In article , Christopher
writes: Joel Kolstad wrote: Christopher wrote: Hi guys, ok, I've got an idea but it's based on determining the distance of a transmitter from a receiver, I originally thought about a synchronised clock in both units, the transmitter sends the time it has out, by the time the receiver unit gets this time a period has passed (probably a few millionth's of a second) and a diff time is detemined, combined with the speed those waves travel, will reveal the distance. Yes, but as you've deduced, the problem is keeping the clocks synchronize. On the other hand, there's no reason you can't have one unit send out a pulse and begin timing. The second unit receives it, immediate sends a 'reply' pulse, and you stop your clock when the first unit receives that. Now the accuracy is determined by the accuracy of just one clock, the amount of uncertainty in the 'turnaround' time of the second unit... and the variation in the speed of light as a function of athmospheric conditions. (The last one being more of a concern if you're trying to listen to satellites -- GPS receivers run into this problem.) my problem with this is that radio waves are electromagnetic radiation which travels at the speed of light, therefore can travel 1 meter in 3.3 nanoseconds, if my range is around 10 meters (I was a bit conservative before, lets say 30meter width/depth and 10 meters high, that'd be big enough I think for any situation I'd use this system within. Is there a clock out there that can measure accuracy on this scale, it seems impossible. That's of course, if radio waves travel through our atmosphere at almost the speed of light, I'm going to look now as to how fast they travel through our atmosphere. For some background on an established system, research aviation navigational aids DME (Distance Measuring Equipment, civilian use) and TACAN (TACtical Area Navigation, military use) for an aircraft to get their slant range to a ground station. DME, compatible with TACAN for range, has an aircraft interrogator- receiver that sends a pulse pair at low L Band. A ground station within range will receive that pair, wait 50 microseconds, then respond with another pulse pair. The aircraft determines range from the round-trip to get a response minus the fixed 50 uSec delay using the common radar round-trip time (which is approximately 500 uSec per mile for coarse estimation). The reason for the pulse pairs is to avoid false responses and returns from noise spikes or stray single pulses or whatever. That is easy to implement by a delay line and the equivalent of an AND gate action. Single pulses won't get passed but a pair with the right spacing will. To further cut down on false replies in a crowded airspace, the aircraft interrogator repetition rate is "dithered" slightly. Since the aircraft uses that interrogation as the start of its timing to a return, the dithered rep rate doesn't matter to it...but to the rest of the air- space, those interrogations and replies seem like so much noise from others ("fruit" in the civil avionics jargon). TACAN has been in the U.S. military since the early 1950s (a USN development) and DME came shortly thereafter. Used daily by aircraft on civil airways. Accuracy depends on the calibration of the aircraft interrogator-receiver. Old ground stations used a supersonic delay line filled with mercury to achieve the fixed 50 uSec delay of replies to an interrogation from aircraft. Maximum duty cycle is rather higher than radar for ground stations but not a real problem. That fixed delay includes the turn-around time of receiving a pulse pair, determining that it is a pair, etc. A fixed delay allows checking out the system prior to takeoff, using a local VORTAC station at close range. =========== Trying to use one-way signal strength for range isn't going to be good. If within 5 to 10 wavelengths for the path, the path is fraught with all kinds of variations just as a parasitic antenna works with field phasing. Unlike parasitic antennas, the path would not be straight line (such as a Yagi-Uda). Beyond the "near field" effects, one would get Multipath reflections, some of which would be in-phase, some out-phase, all resulting in many decibels of strength variation at short relative positions. Signal strength as a coarse distance indication is only good at very long ranges relative to wavelength. Even then it is uncertain. It's very difficult to get a true isotropic source with a spherical radiation pattern in a practical antenna, any RF wavelength. Round-trip time is the only practical way to achieve ranging whether by RF or by acoustic means. Len Anderson retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
Signal strength as a coarse distance indication is only good at very
long ranges relative to wavelength. Even then it is uncertain. New location systems based on WLAN (2.4 GHz) use field strength combined with what seems to be some sort of adaptive algorithm that learns the field strength vs environment through repeated tests. See www.ekahau.com and www.radionor.com. These companies promise location for 'free', as they can locate laptops by using the existing hardware infrastructure of the wireless network. This is a very hot topic these days, and large business opportunities are expected. But accuracies are in the 1 m range, to get to 1 cm accuracy there does not seem to be any alternative to ultrasound systems, see demo on www.sonitor.com. -- Sverre Holm, LA3ZA --------------------------------- www.qsl.net/la3za |
We did a unit at my last job called 'velocity of light'. It was pretty simple and you cud accurately measure distance down to 1cm. Infrared led emitter switched at 50MHz, focused using a lens to a 2 inch beam, reflected back by a mirror to an infrared detector (5 inches away from the emitter). The tx 50MHz was generated using a 50MHz xtal which drove the tx led. Their was a 50.025MHz second xtal osc which was used to mix down both the tx signal and the rx signal to 25KHz IF (we now have 2 25KHz waveforms), these two 25KHz carriers were then phase compared - so easy to see the smallest of movements in the mirror on a basic scope. So all the hard work is done at 25KHz (phase measuring) - one of todays little mcpu's will do this easily (ATmega16 for example). You could just as easily use laser or maybe rf in place of the IR led's, though directing RF at such low freq's would be somewhat difficult. Obviously at 50MHz, the phase difference would cycle every 6 meters (total reflected path), but if your a bit cleverer (though not hard to do) you could get the freq to sweep from a low freq (say 5MHz) upto wot ever you like - using a pair of single xtal referenced PLL's to generate the two oscillator freq's (whilst maintaining the 25KHz difference) and then calculate an exact distance in the cpu. This method is simple and relatively cheap to judge distances very accurately with no need for very short pulses (high bandwidths) and very fast logic. Clive |
Forgot to say. A 90deg phase change in the reflected beam (at 50MHz) also results in a 90deg phase change in the rx'ed 25KHz IF) - this is why no fast logic is required. |
I these kind of system it is the field strength that is the most important
not the distance. A radio system needs signal strength and that is the primary reason to measure it. There is a desire to get distance from it, but this is more of a dream rather tham reality. In cellular systems, it can be used and give pretty goos location in SOME cases. I say, for the described situation, RF is NOT the way due to the timing requirements. Steve N. "Sverre Holm" wrote in message ... Signal strength as a coarse distance indication is only good at very long ranges relative to wavelength. Even then it is uncertain. New location systems based on WLAN (2.4 GHz) use field strength combined with what seems to be some sort of adaptive algorithm that learns the field strength vs environment through repeated tests. See www.ekahau.com and www.radionor.com. These companies promise location for 'free', as they can locate laptops by using the existing hardware infrastructure of the wireless network. This is a very hot topic these days, and large business opportunities are expected. But accuracies are in the 1 m range, to get to 1 cm accuracy there does not seem to be any alternative to ultrasound systems, see demo on www.sonitor.com. -- Sverre Holm, LA3ZA --------------------------------- www.qsl.net/la3za |
I think this will be easier than using RF. However, even though the IF is
25 kHz, you are still measuring small time differences. I just think this hardware will be easier than RF. Mostly because you can control where it goes better. This, of course, assumes you can do that in the target system The OP has to decide. That being said.... oneof those 10 GHz door opener or motion detector units (does the GunnPlexer have a DC output from its detector?) would be another interesting method. You can easily see small motions in the reflected signal phase difference and this is at the 10GHz freq. so the resolution is high. You do need to insure that the desired reflection is the only one...similar to the LED type of system. An aiming problem. Steve N. wrote in message ... We did a unit at my last job called 'velocity of light'. It was pretty simple and you cud accurately measure distance down to 1cm. Infrared led emitter switched at 50MHz, focused using a lens to a 2 inch beam, reflected back by a mirror to an infrared detector (5 inches away from the emitter). The tx 50MHz was generated using a 50MHz xtal which drove the tx led. Their was a 50.025MHz second xtal osc which was used to mix down both the tx signal and the rx signal to 25KHz IF (we now have 2 25KHz waveforms), these two 25KHz carriers were then phase compared - so easy to see the smallest of movements in the mirror on a basic scope. So all the hard work is done at 25KHz (phase measuring) - one of todays little mcpu's will do this easily (ATmega16 for example). You could just as easily use laser or maybe rf in place of the IR led's, though directing RF at such low freq's would be somewhat difficult. Obviously at 50MHz, the phase difference would cycle every 6 meters (total reflected path), but if your a bit cleverer (though not hard to do) you could get the freq to sweep from a low freq (say 5MHz) upto wot ever you like - using a pair of single xtal referenced PLL's to generate the two oscillator freq's (whilst maintaining the 25KHz difference) and then calculate an exact distance in the cpu. This method is simple and relatively cheap to judge distances very accurately with no need for very short pulses (high bandwidths) and very fast logic. Clive Forgot to say. A 90deg phase change in the reflected beam (at 50MHz) also results in a 90deg phase change in the rx'ed 25KHz IF) - this is why no fast logic is required. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com