Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
wind_sensor:meeting_minutes_apr_14_2017 [2017/04/13 03:08] mwu |
wind_sensor:meeting_minutes_apr_14_2017 [2021/09/19 21:59] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| =====Acoustic Wind Sensor===== | =====Acoustic Wind Sensor===== | ||
| * Updates: | * Updates: | ||
| + | * Met with Dr. Kuh to discuss current status of project | ||
| + | * Working real time processing algorithm to obtain wind speed of a single microphone | ||
| + | * Algorithm to determine direction | ||
| + | * Works for only 90 degrees | ||
| + | * Conducted tests between 0 and 90 degrees to determine wind speed and direction in indoor conditions | ||
| + | * Used an anemometer to calibrate wind speed | ||
| + | * Used a lazy susan marked with angles 0 to 360 degrees to calibrate direction | ||
| + | * Placed anemometer facing in the direction of the 0 degree mark and turned lazy susan to desired testing angle | ||
| * To Do: | * To Do: | ||
| + | * Conduct tests of algorithm beyond just 90 degrees | ||
| + | * May require modifying algorithm. | ||
| =====Ultrasonic Wind Sensor===== | =====Ultrasonic Wind Sensor===== | ||
| * Updates: | * Updates: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 22: | ||
| * We then decided to test it with our voltage comparator set at 0V, and it gave us much better results (see below). | * We then decided to test it with our voltage comparator set at 0V, and it gave us much better results (see below). | ||
| * {{ :wind_sensor:zcd-comparator.jpg?direct&600 |}} | * {{ :wind_sensor:zcd-comparator.jpg?direct&600 |}} | ||
| - | * Delay 12.5us using nops: | ||
| - | * Not very reliable, a better approach would be to try and modify the timer's prescaler and initial value to achieve a 12.5us trigger. | ||
| * Receiver response when sending just 1 pulse: | * Receiver response when sending just 1 pulse: | ||
| * I had initially thought that sending just 1 pulse might be a good idea if there was a small recovery period (for the receiver to settle down), but since below shows a relatively long recovery period, it seems like the original plan of sending 10 pulses is better. | * I had initially thought that sending just 1 pulse might be a good idea if there was a small recovery period (for the receiver to settle down), but since below shows a relatively long recovery period, it seems like the original plan of sending 10 pulses is better. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 32: | ||
| * Delay vs. Timer: | * Delay vs. Timer: | ||
| * The Timer was more precise and accurate whereas the delay had some relatively large fluctuations ~8%. | * The Timer was more precise and accurate whereas the delay had some relatively large fluctuations ~8%. | ||
| - | * TO Do: | + | * Delay 12.5us using nops: |
| + | * Not very reliable, a better approach would be to try and modify the timer's prescaler and initial value to achieve a 12.5us trigger. | ||
| + | * Modified program to utilize a Timer to send the pulses rather than a for loop and delays. Makes the frequency more stable. See pulse generation below: | ||
| + | * {{ :wind_sensor:timer_pulse_generation.jpg?direct&600 |}} | ||
| + | * Added an array to keep track of emitter times. Tested the times and they are pretty consistent. Moved circuit elements onto one board. Working on integrating transducers with receiver code. | ||
| + | * {{ :wind_sensor:circuit1.jpg?direct&600 |}} | ||
| + | * To Do: | ||
| + | * Continue working on integrating zero crossing detector with program. | ||