KorczynskiMcCall - Revision history

imported>Projects221: /* Code */

2013-04-17T06:07:40Z

Code

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 17 April 2013
Line 184:		Line 184:

	==Code==		==Code==
	Transmitter: [[File:transmitter.zip\| Transmitter ~~code~~ for Arduino]]		Transmitter: [[File:transmitter.zip\|Transmitter Code for Arduino]]

	Receiver: [[File:receiver.zip \| Receiver ~~code~~ for Arduino]]		Receiver: [[File:receiver.zip\|Receiver Code for Arduino]]

	Camera_Emulator: [[File:camera_sim.zip \| Camera Emulator]]		Camera_Emulator: [[File:camera_sim.zip\|Camera Emulator Code for Arduino]]

	= Appendix II - Work partition =		= Appendix II - Work partition =

imported>Projects221: /* Appendix II - Work partition */

2013-03-21T17:27:04Z

Appendix II - Work partition

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 21 March 2013
Line 191:		Line 191:

	= Appendix II - Work partition =		= Appendix II - Work partition =
			The following list describes our individual efforts and focus for the different parts of the project.
			Even though we sometimes had focused roles, we were always very collaborative with each other for the whole duration of this project.

	*Design Planning/Schematics: Allison and Corey		*Design Planning/Schematics: Allison and Corey

imported>Projects221: /* Conclusions */

2013-03-21T17:17:46Z

Conclusions

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 21 March 2013
Line 172:		Line 172:
	= Conclusions =		= Conclusions =

	~~Here is where you say what your results mean~~.		We were very excited to take on this project and get to understand the technology that goes into a camera interface. Although our project was more geared towards wireless communication, we gained a lot of perspective about the details of light synchronization and its importance when trying to capture a light balanced image from a high speed camera. One significant accomplishment for us was finding a low cost solution to accomplish the 500fps shutter speed. When we started researching for this project and looking for design ideas, we noticed that typical camera wireless transmitters and receivers for LED strobes were well over $100 or even $350. It was exciting to build a prototype and I look forward to seeing all the hardware group projects combine and turn into something that can be useful for experiments.

	= References - Resources and related work =		= References - Resources and related work =

imported>Projects221: /* Tradeoffs */

2013-03-21T16:56:20Z

Tradeoffs

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 21 March 2013
Line 168:		Line 168:

	==Tradeoffs==		==Tradeoffs==
	As mentioned earlier, the Xbee transceivers we originally		As mentioned earlier, the Xbee transceivers we originally used ended up significantly limiting our frames per second capability. However, the Xbee wireless interface was really easy to configure, learn, and required no extra error detection/correction. When we switched to the Parallax LinxLT, the delay speeds significantly improved and we were able to run at a shutter speed of 500 fps and achieve our design goal, but the errors were more likely to occur. Our methods to detect these errors is fairly simplistic in concept, but it has worked really well.
	~~Speed vs Error: Ex~~. ~~with Xbees~~

	= Conclusions =		= Conclusions =

imported>Projects221: /* Testing and Camera Emulator */

2013-03-21T16:46:00Z

Testing and Camera Emulator

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 21 March 2013
Line 147:		Line 147:

	[[File: DistanceTest.png\|thumb\|border\| 200x400px\|center\|Figure 11: Oscilloscope with very long probes]]		[[File: DistanceTest.png\|thumb\|border\| 200x400px\|center\|Figure 11: Oscilloscope with very long probes]]


			As part of our testing, we ended up using an Arduino Fio to help emulate the hardware of the camera. With this set up, we could actually test our transmitter and receiver circuits as a whole. For this camera emulator, we generated a square wave to resemble the LED strobe/trigger. We also started writing/sending fake data packets to verify that the transmitter and receiver understand what to do into next.

	=Results=		=Results=

imported>Projects221: /* Achieved Specifications */

2013-03-21T16:36:50Z

Achieved Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 21 March 2013
Line 155:		Line 155:

	We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:		We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:
			*Distance: Able to measure 250ft of distance without a disturbance or additional delay in the received signal. This specification was derived from the testing mentioned in the previous section.

	*~~Distance~~: ~~Able~~ to measure ~~250ft~~ of ~~distance without a disturbance or additional~~ delay in the ~~received signal~~.		*Delay (synchronization timing): We were able to measure ~40µs of delay between the Transmitter and Receiver Trigger signals. This delay is most likely based on propagation delays going through the multiplexer on the transmitter and then the propagation delays through the decoder in the receiver.
	*Delay (synchronization timing)
			Overall, we were able to prove that this system can handle the data transmission and synchronization timing that we originally designed for. In particular, the above oscilloscope picture shows that this design can handle speeds up to 22,000-25000Hz. The picture below shows a 250Hz, which could emulate a camera running at 250 fps. There is a 100x oversampling margin between those two frequencies and a 50x oversampling margin for a 500 fps environment.


			[[File: 250fps_Emulate.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure 13: Delay Time from Transmitted Trigger to Received Trigger Signal]]

	==Tradeoffs==		==Tradeoffs==

imported>Projects221: /* Achieved Specifications */

2013-03-21T16:19:11Z

Achieved Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 21 March 2013
Line 152:		Line 152:

	==Achieved Specifications==		==Achieved Specifications==
	[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure 12: Delay Time from Transmitted Trigger ~~Signal~~ to Received Trigger Signal]]		[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure 12: Delay Time from Transmitted Trigger to Received Trigger Signal]]

	We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:		We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:

imported>Projects221: /* Achieved Specifications */

2013-03-21T16:18:12Z

Achieved Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 21 March 2013
Line 152:		Line 152:

	==Achieved Specifications==		==Achieved Specifications==
	[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure ~~blah~~: ~~hdkjahk~~]]		[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure 12: Delay Time from Transmitted Trigger Signal to Received Trigger Signal]]

	We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:		We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:

imported>Projects221: /* Testing and Camera Emulator */

2013-03-21T16:17:32Z

Testing and Camera Emulator

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 21 March 2013
Line 146:		Line 146:
	In the beginning of our functionality testing, we started by sending trigger signals from the Transmitter Arduino to the Receiver Arduino and measured the delay between the two signals. With the Xbees, we measured at best a 4ms delay, but when we hooked up this new board and chip Parallax and LinxLT. It was really fascinating to measure a delay almost a 1/100x reduction just from choosing a different receiver. In addition to delay, we also cared about the distance between transmitter and receiver and tried to test and understand if there would be any extra delay from the longer distance in between. The picture below shows our setup of this particular test.		In the beginning of our functionality testing, we started by sending trigger signals from the Transmitter Arduino to the Receiver Arduino and measured the delay between the two signals. With the Xbees, we measured at best a 4ms delay, but when we hooked up this new board and chip Parallax and LinxLT. It was really fascinating to measure a delay almost a 1/100x reduction just from choosing a different receiver. In addition to delay, we also cared about the distance between transmitter and receiver and tried to test and understand if there would be any extra delay from the longer distance in between. The picture below shows our setup of this particular test.

	[[File: DistanceTest.png\|thumb\|border\| 200x400px\|center\|Figure ~~blah~~: Oscilloscope with very long probes]]		[[File: DistanceTest.png\|thumb\|border\| 200x400px\|center\|Figure 11: Oscilloscope with very long probes]]

	=Results=		=Results=

imported>Projects221: /* Achieved Specifications */

2013-03-21T16:16:06Z

Achieved Specifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 21 March 2013
Line 154:		Line 154:
	[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure blah: hdkjahk]]		[[File: SyncDelay.jpg\| thumb \| border\| 400px\|center\| Figure blah: hdkjahk]]

	We were able to confirm: distance ~~and~~ delay (synchronization timing)		We were able to confirm a few specifics related to our design goals in terms of:

			*Distance: Able to measure 250ft of distance without a disturbance or additional delay in the received signal.
			*Delay (synchronization timing)

	==Tradeoffs==		==Tradeoffs==