What to interpret and how to process the data in general when the values (from gps sensor) for "altitude" field in ROS sensor_msgs/NavSatFix.msg is negative ?
Even at sea level, altitude may be negative: GPS uses a mathematic earth model to estimate the height in mean sea level. This model is usually a simplified EGM96 geoid.
The local sea level might be some meter higher or lower.
Just be aware that this is not unusual.
Depending what your app Should do, you can display any value < 0 as 0.
Related
At first blush this presumably means -
(1) looking only at lower IR frequencies,
(2) select a IR frequency cut-off for low frequency buckets of the u/v FFT grid
(3) Once we have that, derive the power distribution - squares of amplitudes - for that IR range of frequency buckets the camera supports.
(4) Fit that distribution against the Rayleigh-Jones classical Black Box radiation formula:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law#Other_forms_of_Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law)
(5) Assign a Temperature of 'best fit'.
The units for B(ν,T) are Power per unit frequency per unit surface area at equilibrium Temperature
Of course, this leaves many details out, such as (6) cancelling background, etc, but one could perhaps use the opposite facing camera to assist in that. Where buckets do not straddle the temperature of interest, (7) use a one-sided distribution to derive an inferred Gaussian curve to fit the Rayleigh-Jeans curve at that derived central frequency ν, for measured temperature T.
Finally (8) check if this procedure can consistently detect a high vs low surface temperature (9) check if it can consistently identify a 'fever' temperature (say, 101 Fahrenheit / 38 Celcius) pointing at a forehead.
If all that can be done, (10) Voila! a body fever detector
So those who are capable can fill us in on whether this is possible to do so for eventual posting at an app store as a free Covid19 safe body temperature app? I have a strong sense there's quite a few out there who can verify this in a week or two!
It appears that the analog signal assumed in (1) and (2) are not available in the Android digital Camera2 interface.
Android RAW image stream, that is uncompressed YUV, is already encoded Y green monochrome, and U,V are blue and red shifts from zero for converting green monochrome to color.
The original analog frequency / energy signal is not immediately accessible. So adaptation is not possible (yet).
I'm trying to use a VectorNav VN100 IMU to map a path through an underground tunnel (GPS denied environment) and am wondering what is the best approach to take to do this.
I get lots of data points from the VN100 these include: orientation/pose (Euler angles, quaternions), and acceleration and gyroscope values in three dimensions. The acceleration and gyro values are given in raw and filtered formats where filtered outputs have been filtered using an onboard Kalman filter.
In addition to IMU measurements I also measure GPS-RTK coordinates in three dimensions at the start and end-points of the tunnel.
How should I approach this mapping problem? I'm quite new to this area and do not know how to extract position from the acceleration and orientation data. I know acceleration can be integrated once to give velocity and that in turn can be integrated again to get position but how do I combine this data together with orientation data (quaternions) to get the path?
In robotics, Mapping means representing the environment using perception sensor (like 2D,3D laser or Cameras).
Once you got the map, it can be used by robot to know its location(Localization). Map is also used for find a path between locations to move from one place to another place(Path planning).
In your case you need a perception sensor to get the better location estimation. With only IMU you can track the position using Extended Kalman filter(EKF) but it drifts quickly.
Robot Operating System has EKF implementation you can refer it.
Ok so I came across a solution that gets me somewhat closer to my goal of finding the path travelled underground, although it is by no means the final solution I'm posting my algorithm here in the hopes that it helps someone else.
My method is as follows:
Rotate the Acceleration vector A = [Ax, Ay, Az] output by the VectorNav VN100 into the North, East, Down frame by multiplying by the quaternion VectorNav output Q = [q0, q1, q2, q3]. How to multiply a vector by a quaternion is outlined in this other post.
Basically you take the acceleration vector and add a fourth component on to the end of it to act as the scalar term, then multiply by the quaternion and it's conjugate (N.B. the scalar terms in both matrices should be in the same position, in this case the scalar quaternion term is the first term, so therefore a zero scalar term should be added on to the start of the acceleration vector) e.g. A = [0,Ax,Ay,Az]. Then perform the following multiplication:
A_ned = Q A Q*
where Q* is the complex conjugate of the quaternion (i, j, and k terms are negated).
Integrate the rotated acceleration vector to get the velocity vector: V_ned
Integrate the Velocity vector to get the position in north, east, down: R_ned
There is substantial drift in the velocity and position due to sensor bias which causes drift. This can be corrected for somewhat if we know the start and end velocity and start and end positions. In this case the start and end velocities were zero so I used this to correct the drift in the velocity vector.
Uncorrected Velocity
Corrected Velocity
My final comparison between IMU position vs GPS is shown here (read: there's still a long way to go).
GPS-RTK data vs VectorNav IMU data
Now I just need to come up with a sensor fusion algorithm to try to improve the position estimation...
I'm trying to track the distance a user has moved over time in my application using the GPS. I have the basic idea in place, so I store the previous location and when a new GPS location is sent I calculate the distance between them, and add that to the total distance. So far so good.
There are two big issues with this simple implementation:
Since the GPS is inacurate, when the user moves, the GPS points will not be a straight line but more of a "zig zag" pattern making it look like the user has moved longer than he actually have moved.
Also a accuracy problem. If the phone just lays on the table and polls GPS possitions, the answer is usually a couple of meters different every time, so you see the meters start accumulating even when the phone is laying still.
Both of these makes the tracking useless of coruse, since the number I'm providing is nowwhere near accurate enough.
But I guess that this problem is solvable since there are a lot of fitness trackers and similar out there that does track distance from GPS. I guess they do some kind of interpolation between the GPS values or something like that? I guess that won't be 100% accurate either, but probably good enough for my usage.
So what I'm after is basically a algorithm where I can put in my GPS positions, and get as good approximation of distance travelled as possible.
Note that I cannot presume that the user will follow roads, so I cannot use the Google Distance Matrix API or similar for this.
This is a common problem with the position data that is produced by GPS receivers. A typical consumer grade receiver that I have used has a position accuracy defined as a CEP of 2.5 metres. This means that for a stationary receiver in a "perfect" sky view environment over time 50% of the position fixes will lie within a circle with a radius of 2.5 metres. If you look at the position that the receiver reports it appears to wander at random around the true position sometimes moving a number of metres away from its true location. If you simply integrate the distance moved between samples then you will get a very large apparent distance travelled.for a stationary device.
A simple algorithm that I have used quite successfully for a vehicle odometer function is as follows
for(;;)
{
Stored_Position = Current_Position ;
do
{
Distance_Moved = Distance_Between( Current_Position, Stored_Position ) ;
} while ( Distance_Moved < MOVEMENT_THRESHOLD ) ;
Cumulative_Distance += Distance_Moved ;
}
The value of MOVEMENT_THRESHOLD will have an effect on the accuracy of the final result. If the value is too small then some of the random wandering performed by the stationary receiver will be included in the final result. If the value is too large then the path taken will be approximated to a series of straight lines each of which is as long as the threshold value. The extra distance travelled by the receiver as its path deviates from this straight line segment will be missed.
The accuracy of this approach, when compared with the vehicle odometer, was pretty good. How well it works with a pedestrian would have to be tested. The problem with people is that they can make much sharper turns than a vehicle resulting in larger errors from the straight line approximation. There is also the perennial problem with sky view obscuration and signal multipath caused by buildings, vehicles etc. that can induce positional errors of 10s of metres.
I have a set of GPS Coordinates and I want to find the speed required for a UAV to travel between them. Doing this by calculating distance in x y z and then dividing by time to travel - m/s.
I know the great circle distance but I assume this will be incorrect since they are all relatively close together(within 10m)?
Is there an accurate way to do this?
For small distances you can use the haversine formula without a relevant loss of accuracy in comparison to Vincenty's f.e. Plus, it's designed to be accurate for very small distances. This can be read up here if you are interested.
You can do this by converting lat/long/alt into XYZ format for both points. Then, figure out the rotation angles to move one of those points (usually, the oldest point) so that it would be at lat=0 long=0 alt=0. Rotate the second position report (the newest point) by the same rotation angles. If you do it all correctly, you will find X equals the east offset, Y equals the north offset, and Z equals the up offset. You can use Pythagorean theorm with X and Y (north and east) offsets to determine the horizontal distance traveled. Normally, you just ignore the altitude differences and work with horizontal data only.
All of this assumes you are using accurate formulas to convert lat/lon/alt into XYZ. It also assumes you have enough precision in the lat/lon/alt values to be accurate. Approximations are not good if you want good results. Normally, you need about 6 decimal digits of precision in lat/lon values to compute positions down to the meter level of accuracy.
Keep in mind that this method doesn't work very well if you haven't moved far (greater than about 10 or 20 meters, more is better). There is enough noise in the GPS position reports that you are going to get jumpy velocity values that you will need to further filter to get good accuracy. The math approach isn't the problem here, it's the inherent noise in the GPS position reports. When you have good reports, you will get good velocity.
A GPS receiver doesn't normally use this approach to know velocity. It looks at the way doppler values change for each satellite and factor in current position to know what the velocity is. This works reasonably well when the vehicle is moving. It is a much faster way to detect changes in velocity (for instance, to release a position clamp). The normal user doesn't have access to the internal doppler values and the math gets very complicated, so it's not something you can do.
Have done fft (see earlier posting if you are interested!) and got a result, which helps me. Would like to analyse the noisiness / spikiness of an array (actually a vb.nre collection of single). Um, how to explain ...
When signal is good, fft power results is 512 data points (frequency buckets) with low values in all but maybe 2 or 3 array entries, and a decent range (i.e. the peak is high, relative to the noise value in the nearly empty buckets. So when graphed, we have a nice big spike in the values in those few buckets.
When signal is poor/noisy, data values spread (max to min) is low, and there's proportionally higher noise in many more buckets.
What's a good, computationally non-intensive was of analysing the noisiness of this data set? Would some kind of statistical method, standard deviations or something help ?
The key is defining what is noise and what is signal, for which modelling assumptions must be made. Often an assumption is made of white noise (constant power per frequency band) or noise of some other power spectrum, and that model is fitted to the data. The signal to noise ratio can then be used to measure the amount of noise.
Fitting a noise model depends on the nature of your data: if you know that the real signal will have no power in the high frequency components, you can look there for an indication of the noise level, and use the model to predict what the noise will be at the lower frequency components where there is both signal and noise. Alternatively, if your signal is constant in time, taking multiple FFTs at different points in time and comparing them to get a standard deviation for each frequency band can give the level of noise present.
I hope I'm not patronising you to mention the issues inherent with windowing functions when performing FFTs: these can have the effect of introducing spurious "noise" into the frequency spectrum which is in fact an artifact of the periodic nature of the FFT. There's a tradeoff between getting sharp peaks and 'sideband' noise - more here www.ee.iitm.ac.in/~nitin/_media/ee462/fftwindows.pdf
Calculate a standard deviation and then you decide the threshold that will indicate noise. In practice this is usually easy and allows you to easily tweak the "noise level" as needed.
There is a nice single pass stddev algorithm in Knuth. Here is link that describes an implementation.
Standard Deviation
calculate the signal to noise ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
you could also check the stdev for each point and if it's under some level you choose then the signal is good else it's not.
wouldn't the spike be
treated as a noise glitch in SNR, an
outlier to be discarded, as it were?
If it's clear from the time-domain data that there are such spikes, then they will certainly create a lot of noise in the frequency spectrum. Chosing to ignore them is a good idea, but unfortunately the FFT can't accept data with 'holes' in it where the spikes have been removed. There are two techniques to get around this. The 'dirty trick' method is to set the outlier sample to be the average of the two samples on either site, and compute the FFT with a full set of data.
The harder but more-correct method is to use a Lomb Normalised Periodogram (see the book 'Numerical Recipes' by W.H.Press et al.), which does a similar job to the FFT but can cope with missing data properly.