Accuracy of radio/GPS-like system?

Thanks for that info. Unfortunately, ground height will be changing, so I guess a fourth tower will be necessary.

The readings will be in clumps -- 80 to 100 possible readings within a foot or two of each other, then another 80-100 a few yards away, then another . . . and they all hae to relate to one another.

Basically, the entire interior of the triangle (now a square?) will be covered.

Sigh! The angle is the really important part -- position is meaningless unless the exact direction is included.

Thanks!

it needs to knows how far off the ground it is, or it needs a fourth transmitter.

that depends how close they are to each other.

differential GPS will give you centimetre precision (or better) with just one tower. - should be uner $1000 for the tower.

angle is harder to do, I know there are inertial angle sensors I have no idea of their cost, precision or operating requirements.

Bye. Jasen

If you know the position (lat/lon) of the fixed location and of the point you are located, you can compute the angle.

1. Determine delta lat and delta lon between the two points (it helps to read latitude and longitude as decimals, or convert them to decimals)
2. Find atan(delta lat/delta lon) to get the angle from the fixed point. If using Excel, this will be the angle in radians, so convert to degrees by multiplying by 180/pi.

Making a triangle, delta lat is the y-axis distance from the fixed point to the new location; delta lon is the y-axis difference. Thus, you can see that Pythagoras comes to aid once again.

I hope this helps (and that my trig is still accurate).

Richard

I need to compute the angle of the device relative to a line, not what angle it is from its position to another point.

This device (#1) would be attached to a device (#2) which is acquiring other data. #1's readings would be used to orient #2's data when constructing a 3-D map. Since it is perfectly possible for what #2 is measuring to have great discontinuities, and even be rotated at strange angles from sampling position to sampling position, it would fall to the readings from #1 to provide an accurate reference not only of position within a triangle but also of the data's angle relative to a baseline.

From what I understand, you wnat to know the direction your device is pointing.

How about a 2- or 3-axis compass co-located with your roving positioning unit (GPS)? The GPS would provide your position and the compass would provide the direction you are pointing your device.

See

I have used their TCM series units. Great for pitch and roll info (which you probably don't need), as well as direction.

Richard

The problem with those is resolution.

iirc, the affordable ones only provide about 2 degrees of accuracy. For this app, I need an order of magnitude better than that.

I think you misunderstand the angle that he wants.

He has a line drawn on the handheld device (or perhaps a laser beam projecting from it), and wants to know the angle between that line (or the laser beam) and your A/B line.

To get the orientation of the device, he will need a compass or something of similar function in the device.

--
Peter Bennett VE7CEI 
email: peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca        
GPS and NMEA info and programs: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter/index.html 
Newsgroup new user info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq

This has to be accurate to about 1/4 degree, and the reading has to be taken within about the second that the unit can be held steady.

The handheld unit isn't a mathematical point, it's an eight inch square. As such, it has a front edge which is the 'second line'.

Thanks for responding!

I hope not. I was thinking about two receivers in the device, their antennae at opposite corners of the unit. The difference in their location should (I hope) provide the angle in relation to a baseline.

Orientation to something outside the triangle (or square) is unnecessary (for the mapping process, it doesn't matter which way is north).

Thanks for responding!

How about determining the angle optically instead of with the GPS? A laser pointer and protractor can give you the relative angle from the handheld unit to each of the antennas. But your description of the angle needed is incomplete. A point can't have an angle with respect to a line. For example:

HandHeld_Unit

A-------------------------------------------------B

What is the angle of the hand held to the line defined by points A and B?

You need to define a second line in order to find an angle.

Ed

After several days, we have determined that you really want angular measurament accuracy, but $700 is too expensive (TCM2.5 compass) to achieve

0.1 degree accuracy because it busts the budget for the entire system.

You state you want to determine the angle to the straight line that connects two towers. You do, of course, realize that every point on that line is at a different horizontal angle from your roving unit. Are you asking to determine the angle that a beam will intersect the line? If so, a compass tied to each unit still may be your best bet.

Other alternatives (some may border on the ridiculous): - Make the "pointers" long enough so there is a definite position difference between the from and back; mount a GPS unit on each end and compute the angle between their positions (expensive). - Mount one or more accelerometers in the units (at the end closest to the beam output) then, starting with the units pointing in a known direction (you need to know what that direction is), the data from the accelerometer(s) could be used to determine speed and direction of movement. Compute angular difference from the starting point. Using one accelerometer for horizontal movement and one for vertical movement, you will be able to determine both the geographical point of intersection and the altitude of intersection.

The above would require some way to obtain and process the data. The units could be hardwired to a controller unit or, that being impractical, you could use a wireless system (Bluetooth, etc.).

Assuming the line runs east-west, if your two units are inside the triangle (south of the line) and the beams bisect the line at any angle between 0.1 and 89.9 degrees for the left-most unit and 359.9 and 269.9 degrees for the right-most unit, you can be sure the beams will intersect at some point if the units are at the same height and vertically pointing at the same angle. The intersection point will be determined by the positions of the two roving units and the angle they are pointing. Distance between the units and distance to the line both come into play. Trig will, once again, be useful in determining where they will intersect.

If I still don't understand what you are trying to do, maybe you could be a bit more specific about what you are trying to accomplish and seeing if the folks in this group can give you other ideas of how to do it.

Accuracy can be expensive. Don't get discouraged, just research as many alternatives as possible.

Good luck, no matter how you end up approaching this.

Richard Old guy; perpetual student

Put two loop antennas on the handheld, set the transmitters at the towers to three different frequencies, and have three receivers in the box, which can resolve the relative phase of the two loop antennas' signals (quadrature detector?); this will give you relative angles to the three towers, then just trig it out.

With just radio, there's no way to determine distance, unless you're using some kind of radar. But angles are simple, with two loops. (at

90 degrees to each other of course.)

Good Luck! Rich

The problem now looks like neither radio nor sound would be accurate enough -- neither one can go much below 3cm at any cost, which is far too coarse for positioning, let alone determining the angle.

Maybe that's why no one else is trying it? :)

Thanks for the input!

Throw in the towel. You need accuracy of +/- 15 minutes and the unit will be held by a human, not mounted on a pivot and locked in place, even if momentarily? Seems like a non-starter. I think you need to re-define the problem, or the approach. Heck, GPS won't give you that kind of accuracy, forgetting the other issues. Ed

Yup. And you can't solve that problem until "handheld unit" is given some detail. For example, which way is the handheld unit shown below pointing with respect to the baseline below it?

------ | Hand | | Held | | Unit | ------

-------------------------------------------- baseline

As it turns out, the closer you question him, the more detail comes out. Originally, the handheld unit was "about eight inches square". Now he says it is a square which removes some ambiguity, and the second line is the front edge of the square, removing the remqaining ambiguity. And he adds that he needs accuracy to about 1/4 degree.

Really? They look perpendicular to me. Let me draw and extend the edge line for you: ------------- |HandHeld_Unit| |------------- | | A-------------------------------------------------B

The details are important! His original description was mathematically equivalent to a point and a line. We can assume anything we want - and be completely wrong - until he specifies the ambiguity out of the question. Hell, his reference line on the handheld unit could have been either diagonal of (what turned out to be) a square.

Ed

Just because something is handheld does not prevent it from being held solidly up against something when readings are taken.

Um, what part of "square" is missing from "eight inches square"?

What difference could that possibly make? Pick a straight line -- front edge, side, diagonal, whatever -- as long as you don't change what is defining the orientation of the unit between readings, how the 'angle of the unit' changes relative to the baseline at consecutive readings is being acquired.

I was asking what accuracy is possible. Adding that I need 1/4 degree expresses my disappointment at there not being anything readily available.

You added four different lines, completely changing the situation!

The orientation of the text, which is how you originally represented the unit, is parallel to the A-B line.

But if you want to consider that the orientation of the unit is determined by the side, fine -- it can't possibly matter since such information is only used when determining how the angle has changed between readings.

Um, no, it wasn't. I described a three dimensional object -- width and length (eight inches square) and height.

Thanks, I'll investigate that (my original idea of two position readings from different ends of the device apparently won't work, so I'm open to new ideas).

The difference in time that it takes signals from different points to reach the device, the same way GPS works.

Thanks!

It will be attached to a device that has 8 probes sticking out of it. A reading is taken only when the probes have been stabbed about 5 inches into the ground.

I termed it 'handheld' because it can't be wheeled around or backpacked in. The person using it will be crawling around on their knees most of the time, so it has to be small and light.