I have set of data which includes position of a car and unknown emitter signal level. I have to estimate the distance based on this. Basically signal levels varies inversely to the square of distance. But when we include stuff like multipath,reflections etc we need to use a diff equation. Here come the Hata Okumura Model which can give us the path loss based on distance. However , the distance is unknown as I dont know where the emitter is. I only have access to different lat/long sets and the received signal level.
What I am asking is could you guys please guide me to techniques which would help me estimate the distance based on current pos and signal strength.All I am asking for is guidance towards a technique which might be useful.
I have looked into How to calculate distance from Wifi router using Signal Strength? but he has 3 fixed wifi signals and can use the FSPL. However in an urban environment it doesnot work.
Since the car is moving, using any diffraction model would be very difficult. The multipath environment is constantly changing due to moving car, and any reflection/diffraction model requires well-known object geometry around the car. In your problem you have moving car position time series [x(t),y(t)] which is known. You also have a time series of rough measurement of the distance between the car and the emitter [r(t)] of unknown position. You need to solve the stationary unknown emitter position (X,Y). So you have many noisy measurement with two unknown parameters to estimate. This is a classic Least Square Estimation problem. You can formulate r(ti) = sqrt((x(ti)-X)^2 + (y(ti)-Y)^2) and feed your data into this equation and do least square estimation. The data obviously is noisy due to multipath but the emitter is stationary and with overtime and during estimation process, the noise can be more or less smooth out.
Least Square Estimation
Related
I was trying to find a way to calibrate a magnetometer attached to a vehicle as Figure 8 method of calibration is not really posible on vehicle.
Also removing magnetomer calibrating and fixing won't give exact results as fixing it back to vehicle introduces more hard iron distortion as it was calibrated without the vehicle environment.
My device also has a accelerometer and gps. Can I use accelerometer or gps data (this are calibrated) to automatically calibrate the magnetometer
Given that you are not happy with the results of off-vehicle calibration, I doubt that accelerometer and GPS data will help you a lot unless measured many times to average the noise (although technically it really depends on the precision of the sensors, so if you have 0.001% accelerometer you might get a very good data out of it and compensate inaccuracy of the GPS data).
From the question, I assume you want just a 2D data and you'll be using the Earth's magnetic field as a source (as otherwise, GPS wouldn't help). You might be better off renting a vehicle rotation stand for a day - it will have a steady well known angular velocity and you can record the magnetometer data for a long period of time (say for an hour, over 500 rotations or so) and then process it by averaging out any noise. Your vehicle will produce a different magnetic field while the engine is off, idle and running, so you might want to do three different experiments (or more, to deduce the engine RPM effect to the magnetic field it produces). Also, if the magnetometer is located close to the passengers, you will have additional influences from them and their devices. If rotation stand is not available (or not affordable), you can make a calibration experiment with the GPS (to use the accelerometers or not, will depend on their precision) as following:
find a large flat empty paved surface with no underground magnetic sources (walk around with your magnetometer to check) then put the
vehicle into a turn on this surface and fix the steering wheel use the cruise control to fix the speed
wait for couple of circles to ensure they are equal make a recording of 100 circles (or 500 to get better precision)
and then average the GPS noise out
You can do this on a different speed to get the engine magnetic field influence from it's RPM
I had performed a similar procedure to calibrate the optical sensor on the steering wheel to build the model of vehicle angular rotation from the steering wheel angle and current speed and that does not produce very accurate results due to the tire slipping differently on a different surface, but it should work okay for your problem.
I'm trying to figure out how to correct drift errors introduced by a SLAM method using GPS measurements, I have two point sets in euclidian 3d space taken at fixed moments in time:
The red dataset is introduced by GPS and contains no drift errors, while blue dataset is based on SLAM algorithm, it drifts over time.
The idea is that SLAM is accurate on short distances but eventually drifts, while GPS is accurate on long distances and inaccurate on short ones. So I would like to figure out how to fuse SLAM data with GPS in such way that will take best accuracy of both measurements. At least how to approach this problem?
Since your GPS looks like it is very locally biased, I'm assuming it is low-cost and doesn't use any correction techniques, e.g. that it is not differential. As you probably are aware, GPS errors are not Gaussian. The guys in this paper show that a good way to model GPS noise is as v+eps where v is a locally constant "bias" vector (it is usually constant for a few metters, and then changes more or less smoothly or abruptly) and eps is Gaussian noise.
Given this information, one option would be to use Kalman-based fusion, e.g. you add the GPS noise and bias to the state vector, and define your transition equations appropriately and proceed as you would with an ordinary EKF. Note that if we ignore the prediction step of the Kalman, this is roughly equivalent to minimizing an error function of the form
measurement_constraints + some_weight * GPS_constraints
and that gives you a more straigh-forward, second option. For example, if your SLAM is visual, you can just use the sum of squared reprojection errors (i.e. the bundle adjustment error) as the measurment constraints, and define your GPS constraints as ||x- x_{gps}|| where the x are 2d or 3d GPS positions (you might want to ignore the altitude with low-cost GPS).
If your SLAM is visual and feature-point based (you didn't really say what type of SLAM you were using so I assume the most widespread type), then fusion with any of the methods above can lead to "inlier loss". You make a sudden, violent correction, and augment the reprojection errors. This means that you lose inliers in SLAM's tracking. So you have to re-triangulate points, and so on. Plus, note that even though the paper I linked to above presents a model of the GPS errors, it is not a very accurate model, and assuming that the distribution of GPS errors is unimodal (necessary for the EKF) seems a bit adventurous to me.
So, I think a good option is to use barrier-term optimization. Basically, the idea is this: since you don't really know how to model GPS errors, assume that you have more confidance in SLAM locally, and minimize a function S(x) that captures the quality of your SLAM reconstruction. Note x_opt the minimizer of S. Then, fuse with GPS data as long as it does not deteriorate S(x_opt) more than a given threshold. Mathematically, you'd want to minimize
some_coef/(thresh - S(X)) + ||x-x_{gps}||
and you'd initialize the minimization with x_opt. A good choice for S is the bundle adjustment error, since by not degrading it, you prevent inlier loss. There are other choices of S in the litterature, but they are usually meant to reduce computational time and add little in terms of accuracy.
This, unlike the EKF, does not have a nice probabilistic interpretation, but produces very nice results in practice (I have used it for fusion with other things than GPS too, and it works well). You can for example see this excellent paper that explains how to implement this thoroughly, how to set the threshold, etc.
Hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to tell me if you find inaccuracies/errors in my answer.
I am trying to control a Industrial AC Servo motor using my XE166 device.
The controller interfaces with the servo controller using the PULSE and DIRECTION control.
To achieve a jerk-free motion I have been trying to create a S Curve motion profile (motor speed v/s time).
Calculating instantaneous speed is no problem as I know the distance moved by the motor per pulse, and the pulse duration.
I need to understand how to arrive at a mathematical equation that I could use, that would tell me what should be the nth pulses duration to have the speed profile as an S-Curve.
Since these must be a common requirement in any domain requiring motion control (Robotics, CNC, industrial) there must be some standard reference to do it
Step period is the time difference between two positions one step apart on the motion curve. If the position is defined by X(T), then the step time requires the inverse function T(X), and any given step period is P = T(X+1) - T(X). On a microcontroller with limited processing power, this is usually solved with an approximation - for 2nd order constant acceleration motion, Atmel has a fantastic example using a Taylor series approximation for inter-step time (Application note AVR446).
Another solution which works for higher order curves involves root solving. To solve T(x0), let U(T) = X(T) - x0 and solve for U(T) = 0.
For a constant acceleration curve, the quadratic formula woks great (but requires a square root operation - usually expensive on microcontrollers). For jerk-limited motion (a 3rd degree polynomial minimum) the roots can be found with an iterative root solving algorithm.
I'm trying to make an embedded thingy that detects the presence of a 19kHz tone from an electret microphone. I have a multistage bandpass filter/preamp hooked into the ADC of a microcontroller, and am trying to figure out the best way to digitally condition the signal in order to detect the presence of the tone.
I have implemented a Goertzel filter to look for the frequency of interest. My ADC takes 400 samples at a frequency of 4000KHz, then the micro processes the block and adds the result to a 100 point moving average. Looking at terminal output after each block, I can definitely see an overall jump in the numbers when the transmitter is turned on. However, there's a lot of noise in the power readings when the thing is turned on, and the the noise floor in the room I'm in keeps changing, too. I am not sure how to tune the thresholding level/filter out all of this noise.
I've tried a few things, but they all seem to be pretty noisy as the baseline of my signal drifts all over the place:
Preprocessing the block with Hamming/Blackman windows
Ratio of total received block power to band power in filter output
Ratio of power of band in interest (19kHz) to a band outside of,
but near band of interest (18.5kHz)
EDIT: I've done some more reading since posting this. Is calculating (2*Ew)/(N*Et) where Ew is the output from my filter and Et is the sum of the squares in my block the best way to do this test?
Any advice on how to deal with this and/or do a better method of signal extraction?
Thanks!
Most GPS systems report "accuracy" in units of meters, with the figure varying over orders of magnitude. What does this figure mean? How can it be translated to an error function for estimation, i.e. the probability of an actual position given the GPS reading and its reported accuracy?
According to the Wikipedia article on GPS accuracy, a reading down to 3 meters can be achieved by precisely timing the radio signals arriving at the receiver. This seems to correspond with the tightest error margin reported by e.g. an iPhone. But that wouldn't account for external signal distortion.
It sounds like an error function should have two domains, with a gentle linear slope out to the reported accuracy and then a polynomial or exponential increase further out.
Is there a better approach than to tinker with it? Do different GPS chipset vendors conform to any kind of standard meaning, or do they all provide only some kind of number for the sake of feature parity?
The number reported is usually called HEPE, Horizontal Estimated Position Error. In theory, 67% of the time the measurement should be within HEPE of the true position, and 33% of the time the measurement should be in horizontal error by more than the HEPE.
In practice, no one checks HEPE's very carefully, and in my experience, HEPE's reported for 3 or 4 satellite fixes are much larger than they need to be. That is, in my experience 3 satellite fixes are accurate to within a HEPE distance much more than 67% of the time.
The "assumed" error distribution is circular gaussian. So in principle you could find the right ratios for a circular gaussian and derive the 95% probability radius and so on. But to have these numbers be meaningful, you would need to do extensive statistical testing to verify that indeed you are getting around 95%.
The above are my impressions from working in the less accuracy sensitive parts of GPS over the years. Concievably, people who work on using GPS for aircraft landing may have a better sense of how to predict errors and error rates, but the techniques and methods they use are likely not available in consumer GPS devices.