Haptic interfaces

ay.

k

And yet, pilots still fly perfectly good airplanes into the ground for no other reason than they pulled up too hard on that stick as it shook their hands off!

Rick

I guess that makes 7 of 9 the 'best' haptic interface.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
                               -- Etaoin Shrdlu

This might not be the best approach. The 'best' haptic interface would have some resemblance to the physical system's behavior. Stick shakers on airplanes are intended to resemble the control surfaces shaking when it approaches stall (which one can feel in small aircraft).

I was working on a remote manipulator system for high voltage transmission line maintenance. Perhaps a small shock to the operator when they grabbed the wrong wire might have been appropriate. But they would probably jump and drop a live 500 kV line on the ground. So not a good idea.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D
man quit ^C ^c  ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

I'd _love_ to interface with her face.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

In a nutshell, it is good to the extent that it maps to conventional=20 experience and sensation in a clear way. It is bad to the extent that=20 it is counterintuitive. Exceptional would have to mimic natural = sensation=20 in a major way while having a nearly trivial learning curve. Several examples of good seem to be embodied in the Nintendo Wii. But all this is just my opinion.

If you search hard you may be able to find research that manages to = quantify=20 this to some extent.

=20

=20

=20

=20

Most of the early Airbus avionics problems have been sorted out. The=20 Boeing issues did not appear in my news sources that i noticed, perhaps it happened when i had gaps in access to those sources.

On the other hand i have read several times of flight control=20 systems behaving exactly as designed leading to crashes. =20 Study early airbus 300 and 310 crashes for examples.

I think that is the first time i saw decent discussion of flaws=20 in the iPod interface. Thanks. It busted me out of several bad=20 ruts all at once. The haptics on my tiny Muvo player are (now=20 obviously) far superior to the iPod interface, i can control it=20 without having to look at it.

Well, for starters, the PicKit2 programming pod is NOT what i would consider a "haptic" interface - despite what our high quality totally bugfree (despite "security" fixes and fixes on fixes ad nauseum) OS states (first install called it that...).

for starters, i do NOT consider the PicKit-2 programming pod as "haptic"..but that is what i saw during installation.

...you mean the brain? Far out!....

** Well, not TOO painful, because what if the plane is going to crash and there is no way to prevent it from "interfering" with a mountain. The pain sez "danger will robinson" and your best strategy is to run into as many treetops as possible to shed velocity and increase possibility of being captured by the trees (do they take prisoners?). All that scuffing along the skin of the aircraft being translated to scuffing on YOUR skin can be a bit distracting to the implementation of that procedure.

Yes! VERY curvy...

Real Time Resolution of sensors Tau

"Characteristics" that can be quantified -- even if subjectively.

Understood. I was trying to force thinking in terms of "haptic" instead of the natural tendency (here?) to think more in terms of "devices" (electronic in this forum).

Due to a childhood injury, I can't achieve full pronation (or supination) with my left hand. As a result, any "handled" door "knobs" can only be operated with my right hand. When faced with such a door, I use my *hip* to actuate the handle and walk through the door backwards/sideways (turning as I go through it).

This only works for doors opening "out" :> That's pretty much the case for "foot power", too.

By contrast, a "knob" doesn't care about the angular orientation of the hand -- so long as you (I) can grasp the knob.

Yes. But it does so at the expense of being unfriendly to those by whom it is *intended* to be used. (I haven't thought about how you could provide this functionality in a "win-win" manner)

Oh, "dangerous fluids" would be the *least* of their worries! ;-)

I.e., the "touch wheel". Can you imagine an application where a "flat, featureless, immovable surface that detects the sequential activation of sensors in a circular motion" would be preferable to some *other* sort of haptic interface to implement the same functionality?

E.g., a mechanical *wheel* "feels" better (but would be vulnerable to liquid spills); raised "curbs" on the outer diameter would be a boon to guiding your fingertip without requiring vision (but would make the device some fraction of an inch "thicker"); etc.

I didn't mean *all* circumstances. Rather, I was aasking if there are circumstances (see above) where the iPod technique is *better* than alternative implementations. I.e., what application criteria would lead to *that* as the "ideal" solution?

I happen to be a Boeing fan, but nonetheless I would point out that the 727 had 3 major hull losses in the first 6 months of service. In each case, the accident was deemed pilot error or unknown. All of the accidents involved flying what appeared to be a perfectly good aircraft into the ground. The non-official semi-consensus (how's that for a weasel phrase) amongst pilots is that the high sink rate and long engine spoolup time contributed to the accidents. In any case, improved training and disciple to "fly by the numbers" seemed to resolve the problem.

I believe there is some parallel between the early 727 crashes and the early Airbus crashes and that they probably revolve around pilot training and procedures.

Just her face? There is a lot more to her.

Yes, there was an aspect of training and procedures to the=20 early A300 / A310 crashes as well.

Yeah, but most of those parts don't rhyme.

Most? Hmmm...

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms