I would like to preface that I am new to CAN, so I apologize if this is an obvious question.
I am using an STM32 microprocessor that has CAN communication, whose bit rate I have set to 500 kBit/s. I am trying to communicate with another node (whose source code I do not have access to) and their bit rates are the same (500 kBit/s). I am wondering if they're using the same bit rate but different bit time parameters (Prescaler, SyncJumpWidth, TimeSeg1, TimeSeg2), will they still be able to communicate with each other?
Possibly, but it isn't certain. Propagation delay caused by long wires for example, will make it more or less critical where the sample point is located. Stubs or poorly terminated buses may suffer from signal reflections that make the sample point location more or less critical. Higher baudrate leads to more bit length inaccuracies. As does a poor clock source. And so on. Also if you go with some strange and exotic settings, nothing tends to work but you get error frames.
I have good experience from following the requirements of the CANopen standard, which is to place the sample point as close to 87.5% as possible. The easiest way to achieve that is by a total of 16tq where phase seg2 is 2tq long. 16 tends to work well with most prescaler clocks as well. Note that there's a hard requirement by the CAN standard not to use more than 25tq.
Related
I'm trying to implement a flowgraph in gnuradio that is a basic OFDM transceiver to communicate between two USRP devices (Ettus N210). I'm using an Octoclock of National Instruments to have the same clock source for both devices. My problem is that I don´t want to use this octclock to synchronize the devices, instead of using this octoclock device I would like to use the Symbol Sync block to achieve synchronism between devices, but I'm not getting any good results from that. Can anyone help me with the parameters or does anyone have ever worked with this block?
There's no Symbol Sync Parameters that can solve this!
The largest part of your flow graph makes no sense:
Your USRP takes baseband signals and shifts them to the frequency you want. You shouldn't mix this yourself.
Your receive-side mixer (don't use that at all) is totally broken; you're missing the low-pass filter. Again, don't mix at all. That's your USRP's job.
If you want to only occupy an upper 1/4 of the bandwidth, simply select these carriers with the carrier map parameter. No need for resampling. Really no reason to use the arbitrary resampler for a rate of 4.
Your receive side first throws away half of your signal, don't do that, if you want an analytical signal.
These are digital complex signals, if you really wanted to do the mixing (don't!), you could simply multiply with a single complex sine, or use the "rotator" block. Again, don't mix.
Your low-pass filter is totally wrong; your signal of interest has more than 240 kHz of bandwidth.
Your sync block hurts you – your OFDM receiver has built-in synchronization.
You're completely missing channel coding, which won't turn out in your favor even at really good SNR. Which is strange - you even have the definition of a decoder in your flow graph, you just don't use it.
Essentially:
everything after the OFDM Transmitter should be removed.
everything before the OFDM Receiver should be removed.
Add channel coding.
I'm a bit confused: This really looks like you took the working ofdm_loopback.grc example that comes with GNU Radio and reworked it until it didn't work anymore. Also, GNU Radio 3.8 has been out for a year – might be worth to update your system.
Thanks for the answer.
The purpose of those blocks of sine and cosine, both on the transmitter and the receiver sides, is to put the signal to an intermediate frequency, before apply the carrier of USRP sink/source. Basically, I need the signal on intermediate frequency (on both Tx/Rx sides) to do some tasks. In the attached file I try to give you a better explanation of what I want to do. The variable O it's the oversampling factor (O=4).
Tx_Rx_scheme
Best Regards
I am a mathematician and not a programmer, I have a notion on the basics of programming and am a quite advanced power-user both in linux and windows.
I know some C and some python but nothing much.
I would like to make an overlay so that when I start a game it can get info about amd and nvidia GPUs like frame time and FPS because I am quite certain the current system benchmarks use to compare two GPUs is flawed because small instances and scenes that bump up the FPS momentarily (but are totally irrelevant in terms of user experience) result in a higher average FPS number and mislead the market either unintentionally or intentionally (for example, I cant remember the name of the game probably COD there was a highly tessellated entity on the map that wasnt even visible to the player which lead AMD GPUs to seemingly under perform when roaming though that area leading to lower average FPS count)
I have an idea on how to calculate GPU performance in theory but I dont know how to harvest the data from the GPU, Could you refer me to api manuals or references to help me making such an overlay possible?
I would like to study as little as possible (by that I mean I would like to learn what I absolutely have to learn in order to get the job done I dont intent to become a coder).
I thank you in advance.
It is generally what the Vulkan Layer system is for, which allows to intercept API commands and inject your own. But it is nontrivial to code it yourself. Here are some pre-existing open-source options for you:
To get to timing info and draw your custom overlay you can use (and modify) a tool like OCAT. It supports Direct3D 11, Direct3D 12, and Vulkan apps.
To just get the timing (and other interesting info) as CSV you can use a command-line tool like PresentMon. Should work in D3D, and I have been using it with Vulkan apps too and it seems to accept them.
I am searching for an algorithm to determine whether realtime audio input matches one of 144 given (and comfortably distinct) phoneme-pairs.
Preferably the lowest level that does the job.
I'm developing radical / experimental musical training software for iPhone / iPad.
My musical system comprises 12 consonant phonemes and 12 vowel phonemes, demonstrated here. That makes 144 possible phoneme pairs. The student has to sing the correct phoneme pair 'laa duu bee' etc in response to visual stimulus.
I have done a lot of research into this, it looks like my best bet may be to use one of the iOS Sphinx wrappers ( iPhone App › Add voice recognition? is the best source of information I have found ). However, I can't see how I would adapt such a package, can anyone with experience using one of these technologies give a basic rundown of the steps that would be required?
Would training be necessary by the user? I would have thought not, as it is such an elementary task, compared with full language models of thousands of words and far greater and more subtle phoneme base. However, it would be acceptable (not ideal) to have the user train 12 phoneme pairs: { consonant1+vowel1, consonant2+vowel2, ..., consonant12+vowel12 }. The full 144 would be too burdensome.
Is there a simpler approach? I feel like using a fully featured continuous speech recogniser is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would be far more elegant to use the minimum technology that would solve the problem.
So really I'm hunting for any open source software that recognises phonemes.
PS I need a solution which runs pretty much real-time. so even as they are singing the note, firstly it blinks on to illustrate that it picked up the phoneme pair that was sung, and then it glows to illustrate whether they are singing the correct note pitch
If you are looking for a phone-level open source recogniser, then I would recommend HTK. Very good documentation is available with this tool in the form of the HTK Book. It also contains an entire chapter dedicated to building a phone level real-time speech recogniser. From your problem statement above, it seems to me like you might be able to re-work that example into your own solution. Possible pitfalls:
Since you want to do a phone level recogniser, the data needed to train the phone models would be very high. Also, your training database should be balanced in terms of distribution of the phones.
Building a speaker-independent system would require data from more than one speaker. And lots of that too.
Since this is open-source, you should also check into the licensing info for any additional details about shipping the code. A good alternative would be to use the on-phone recorder and then have the recorded waveform sent over a data channel to a server for the recognition, pretty much something like what google does.
I have a little bit of experience with this type of signal processing, and I would say that this is probably not the type of finite question that can be answered definitively.
One thing worth noting is that although you may restrict the phonemes you are interested in, the possibility space remains the same (i.e. infinite-ish). User training might help the algorithms along a bit, but useful training takes quite a bit of time and it seems you are averse to too much of that.
Using Sphinx is probably a great start on this problem. I haven't gotten very far in the library myself, but my guess is that you'll be working with its source code yourself to get exactly what you want. (Hooray for open source!)
...using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I wouldn't label your problem a nut, I'd say it's more like a beast. It may be a different beast than natural language speech recognition, but it is still a beast.
All the best with your problem solving.
Not sure if this would help: check out OpenEars' LanguageModelGenerator. OpenEars uses Sphinx and other libraries.
http://www.hfink.eu/matchbox
This page links to both YouTube video demo and github source.
I'm guessing it would still be a lot of work to mould it into the shape I'm after, but is also definitely does do a lot of the work.
What sort of application can be considered to be the really business winner for automotive telematics applications related to image processing/computer vision ?
here are the criteria :
1. Innovative
2. Social
3. Fun.
Have you read the articles from the DARPA grand challenge winners?
DARPA site
Google Scholar
I believe the "DARPA Grand Challenge" style of automation meets your .1 requirement as there are plenty of innovation on that front.
But I still think that we are a good decade away from a fully autonomous vehicle, even though the technology is almost there. The main reason is that people are still very afraid of relenting control to the computer, even though it might be the safest choice.
The transition will be slow. More and more models will bring small chunks of automation, such as smarter cruise control systems (that's a big winner right now), autonomous parking (in the market for a while now) and anti collision systems.
Which brings us to your .2 and .3
The above mentioned systems are not fun, they are necessary [for increased safety]. Nowadays, Social Media and Fun don't really mix with driving because they distract the driver from its main task. In the future, when you're on the freeway in auto-pilot mode, you will be able to open your laptop and be free to do whatever you want, since computers will be always connected to the internet. So I don't believe the car itself needs to provide you that aspect of entertainment.
What I do believe it's a killer functionality for cars is the enhancement of intelligent comfort systems integrated with biometrics. Nowadays, cars already have things like personal keys that will make it adjust things like seat height and etc according to your preferences, but it would be much nicer if it could automatically identify who is the driver by some biometric feature (iris, etc) and adjust multiple parameters automatically. That's the end of the key. I'm not talking about seat and pedals adjustment, but transmission style (husband likes a more aggressive transmission), performance limiters (daughter cannot exceed 90% of posted limit... the car knows what the limit is according to where it is).
In my opinion, if you implement biometric recognition + autonomous navigation, the possibilities are endless.
Although none of the applications here use computer vision, they are probably the best once out there yet. They have received quite a bit of media hype.
Where would you recommend that I find a company to develop or buy a CD/DVD loading arm similar to: http://www.dextimus.com/
Preferably programmable via USB but if I only can get one with a serial interface that would be fine. Drivers dont matter - I can interface directly with the unit as my situation is very unique.
If you have some experience with electronics, you can give it a shot and build it yourself, like this or this.
I should add that the schematics and the source code are included, and in more details in the first project.
I suppose I might just shorten this by giving a list of resources first:
http://www.embedinc.com/ I trust this company to do good work. Expensive (actually, they are reasonably priced in the design community, but would be considered expensive by most hobbyists and individuals). Not great at people skills, but very very very good at what they do.
You should check out the various microcontroller communities and forums for hobbyists and professionals that can do this. Search for microchip, atmel, msp430, arm, powerpc, etc.
Sparkfun is a supplier to the electronics community - they have great forums where you can post your request, and you'll find people who might do it for fun with only the cost of materials. Might take longer, might not be as 'professional' or well packaged and delivered, but it might be your best low cost option.
There are many electronic design companies that could do this (for instance, I can do this sort of thing).
But there are many questions you haven't answered (and may not have researched) that could prevent success:
Is this patented?
What CD loading/unloading methods are not patented, are out of patent, or otherwise available?
What is your design goal - a one off just for you, or a device that can be built in the hundreds for industrial use, or a device meant for general office workers/consumers that is built in the millions?
Do you realize that this design qould surely cost mroe than simply buying one, if one is all you need?
As an example, assuming you don't need the nice enclosure and don't mind a 'prototype' look, just the mechanicals, electronics, and firmware design (no software on the PC) would likely be 100-250 billable hours for a design firm. At a cheap $90/hr, that's $9k to nearly $25k for one prototype. Add PC software and the nice enclosure, etc and you'll double that.
If you can find a local 'Make' group (techshop, GoTech, or similar) then you might be able to find a hobbyist that is willing to play with this idea for the cost of materials.
But if you define what your goal is, and give us an idea of your resources you may find a better answer.
-Adam
You can create a very nice simple solution using radio control servos. They come in many sizes, but even the small ones have enough torque to move a big arm to move a cd.
The real bonus with servos is that they normally have 180 degrees of rotation and internally have a variable resistor (rheostat) for positioning feedback. Positioning accuracy is normally within 1 degree of rotation which should be fine for a cd loader.
For picking up the CDs, nothing will beat a vacuum. I recommend a small battery powered vacuum cleaner. Funnel the suction into a 1/4 inch pipe. At the other end of the pipe a one inch diameter cup should provide more than enough lift from the small amount of suction.
As for the pile of blank CDs to be burnt, I would advise in moving the pile up rather than an arm down to it. probably having the top blank cd about 1/4 inch higher than the cd tray - By doing this, the arm only needs to rotate in one axis and the vacuum should be enough to suck the cd back out of the tray.
Now, for the electronics. For the servo control I suggest an rs232 serial servo controller. I've used the one from http://www.basicx.com/Products/servo/servo8t.htm as it also gives back torque information from the current draw.
For the low sample rate digital i/o, i suggest (for windows) inpout32.dll which is a dll to give you direct access to the bits of a parallel port. This will allow you to turn on the vacuum at the correct time and possibly sense when cd's have run out. Note that a parallel port can sink more current than it sources so for outputs you should connect to the 5v power line and set the output pin to 0 to turn on the output and 1 to turn it off.
The other nice option, which is very, very simple to interface and very cheap is to get hold of a picaxe from http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/. These use a very simple programming language (a BASIC spin off) allowing you to read serial data in and control the servos and digital I/O on one chip. Last time I used one, the language was a bit simple - if statements had to jumped labels, else didn't exist.
If you do use a microcontroller and servos, it is best to use a dual voltage power supply as servos are noisy and can cause the microcontrollers to reset.
As for switching loads such as the vacuum on, you'll need to use a mosfet or (if money is no object) the simpler option, a solid state relay.
All digital inputs you use on the microcontroller should be pulled either to +V or ground with say a 5k resistor so they never float.
I cannot stress how simple and cheap the picaxes are. They have a built in interpreter so although code space is minimal on the small 8 pin units, they are programmable via a simple serial lead.
Good luck. Once you get into automation control, you'll never be able to stop. I'm in the middle of building a 3 axis CNC router so I can cut parts for other projects (I tell my girlfriend it's so she can cut out xmas decorations!).
You might want to contact Aaron Shephard about his Florian project.
I've found that a really easy board to control stepper motors or sorvos are produced by phidgets - the API is incredibly easy, and available for a vast array of platforms.