Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA26390; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 11:42:52 -0700 Return-Path: <jackg@cache.crc.ricoh.com-DeleteThis> Received: from cache.crc.ricoh.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA26110; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 11:43:30 -0700 Received: by cache.crc.ricoh.com (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA09427; Thu, 29 Sep 94 11:40:48 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 11:40:48 -0700 From: jackg@cache.crc.ricoh.com-DeleteThis (Jack Greenbaum) Message-Id: <9409291840.AA09427@cache.crc.ricoh.com-DeleteThis> Received: by downhaul.crc.ricoh.com.crc.ricoh.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01871; Thu, 29 Sep 94 11:40:06 PDT To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis In-Reply-To: <9409291711.AA01007@usc.com-DeleteThis> (message from Will Estes on Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:33:02 -0700) Subject: Re: Re: 3rd ave sensor design Reply-To: jackg@cache.crc.ricoh.com-DeleteThis
Uh, folks, what's with the laser? The spinning white-and-black thingy
seems to be to be a *much* easier deal with much lower "environmental
impact". Lasers are sexy but focusing a telescope onto a 6"x4" target
from a 1/2 mile (how far is the channel marker from shore at 3rd?) seems
to me to be just as hard as hitting the same target with a laser. Even
if you could hit it with the laser what about detecting it? How much
power are you going to have to emit to get it out and back?
With a purely passive system you need a telescope that can image the
spinner in some significant part of it's field of view, and some type of
detector. This could range from a phototransistor to a CCD array
depending on how good/bad your optics are. Isn't this just as "hard" if
not easier than a laser/detector hookup?
I know! Let's get a gigahertz band transmitter and detect doppler shift
from the spinner!
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:33:02 -0700
Errors-To: listserv_err@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Reply-To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Originator: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Sender: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Precedence: bulk
From: Will Estes <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Windsurfing Discussion Mailing List
'Ken Poulton says:'
> > wireless program I'm working on..... is that the power LEAVING (exiting
> > for you tech types) the box has to be safe enough for a kid to walk up
> > and poke his head in to take a look. VERY TOUGH limits for this....
> > Ken is right, defocus it a bit and it will be safe for people out in the
> > bay, but you have to be careful with the power leaving the box.
>
> Yeah, it would have to be mounted up high enough that no one on shore
> could stick his head in the beam. You really need that anyway to avoid
> losing the instrument when someone parks their car in the way.
This is all well and good. But it's going to be fun watching you fill out
about 20 environmental impact statements, and paying for an environmental
impact study, in order to cruise this thing past the Coast Guard. I don't
think that they are going to accept the "a child can look at this thing,
trust us" line. It may be true, but that's not the way a bureaucrat
approaches science.
Jack Greenbaum | Ricoh California Research Center
jackg@crc.ricoh.com-DeleteThis | 2882 Sand Hill Rd. Suite 115
(415) 496-5711 voice | Menlo Park, CA 94025-7002
(415) 854-8740 fax |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:13 PST