Hi, I am trying to measure the distance between a stationary point and a moving point up to at most 1200ft. I think RF is the best(or only way) to do it. Wondering if anybody knows an effective, cost efficient, method of doing this. The distance is not always line of sight either. Thanks.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
using RF to measure distance 1
- Thread starter shamone
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #5
- Thread starter
- #7
It is going to be used in a flat feilds with tree surroundings. Going to used on normal outside temps no less than 0 degrees C. There are going to be more than one used within a close proximity(lets say around a 50 to 200 feet from eachother). Not sure what NRE is. Sorry, i am new at this. Thanks for you patience.
- Thread starter
- #9
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
You could send out a radio burst and an audio burst at the same time, measure the time between receipt of each, and use the speed of sound to infer the distance. Better to measure the temperature also, and compensate for that. The audio could be ultrasonic, but it will need some power, and you'll have to characterize the response time of the receiver, e.g. how many cycles it needs to reliably distinguish a burst from random noise.
If the moble unit can measure the distance traveled and its compass heading, it could infer its position by dead reckoning.
If you could arrange two stationary sources of bright light or continuous RF, the mobile unit could use a rotating directional receiver to measure the bearing to each source and infer its position.
Absent interfering trees, bushes, people, etc., you could just keep a string taut between the units, and measure the extension of the string.
Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
If the moble unit can measure the distance traveled and its compass heading, it could infer its position by dead reckoning.
If you could arrange two stationary sources of bright light or continuous RF, the mobile unit could use a rotating directional receiver to measure the bearing to each source and infer its position.
Absent interfering trees, bushes, people, etc., you could just keep a string taut between the units, and measure the extension of the string.
Mike Halloran
NOT speaking for
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Radar on a non-Doppler basis could be difficult.
A 35-GHz radar with a 6-inch antenna will have a beam width of about 8 degrees. At 1200 ft, the beam footprint would be about 165 ft across. Without Doppler, there would be no target discrimination.
Bushnell has a number of laser rangefinders that sell for less than $200:
and without beam size issues.
TTFN
A 35-GHz radar with a 6-inch antenna will have a beam width of about 8 degrees. At 1200 ft, the beam footprint would be about 165 ft across. Without Doppler, there would be no target discrimination.
Bushnell has a number of laser rangefinders that sell for less than $200:
and without beam size issues.
TTFN
We bought a range finder off the shelf from a hunting supply shop the other year. Binocular look-alike.
It uses a IR laser diode and works well at ranges beyond your needs. (has been tested at 1500 feet or so)
As this is Europe, the range comes in meters, though
It uses a IR laser diode and works well at ranges beyond your needs. (has been tested at 1500 feet or so)
As this is Europe, the range comes in meters, though
Add to your list of options secondary radar (interrogator/receiver at one end and transponder at the other).
Strongly suspect that you'll find the laser rangefinder is a better solution, but if you're expected to do a feasibility study, it would be nice to offer alternatives that work.
A.
Strongly suspect that you'll find the laser rangefinder is a better solution, but if you're expected to do a feasibility study, it would be nice to offer alternatives that work.
A.
- Thread starter
- #14
Thanks for all the input guys. I am a recent grad so it is nice to hear some advice from some pros. I am trying to keep the price as minimal as possible. I am also interating it with a microprocessor and an LCD display for my own specialty functions. I think the Rf seems to be the best way to go. Keep the feedback coming as it is very helpful.
Cheers,
mark
Cheers,
mark
Use two transceivers (probably UHF) that ping back and forth with as little latency as possible. By measuring the overall cycle time you should be able to get a relationship between cycle period and distance. There will likely be an offset due to the zero-distance minimum cycle time, and this offset might vary with environmental factors.
The cycle time is obviously going to be in the RF range, so you're going to have to use very fast hardware to count it. The system will have a minimum distance increment probably in the several meter (or tens of meters) range.
Or just use DGPS.
The cycle time is obviously going to be in the RF range, so you're going to have to use very fast hardware to count it. The system will have a minimum distance increment probably in the several meter (or tens of meters) range.
Or just use DGPS.
- Thread starter
- #17
-
1
- #18
With any radio system there is always going to be the possibility of multi path reception. The receiver may possibly detect several signals all slightly displaced in time. The most direct and shortest signal may not always be the strongest either. Spurious reflections from buildings and vehicles may be a problem with any simple radio system.
GPS combined with some sort of data link may still be the most reliable way to do it.
GPS combined with some sort of data link may still be the most reliable way to do it.
- Thread starter
- #20
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question