Timeline for Magnetometer ∞ shaped calibration
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 17 at 0:05 | history | suggested | U. Windl |
Add compass tag
|
|
| Nov 16 at 23:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 17 at 0:05 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 14:42 | comment | added | Rick2047 |
@geometrika: Hmm k .. half part seems missing .. I'll correct it, try it and post it back again. Seems thats the fluke it was. :) :P . I think if (ProcessStarted==1 || ProcessStarted==2) { Read_magnato(1); structMagnetometerOffsetDataToEEPROM.Off_X += g_structMegnetometerData.magx_RAW; structMagnetometerOffsetDataToEEPROM.Off_Y += g_structMegnetometerData.magy_RAW; structMagnetometerOffsetDataToEEPROM.Off_Z += g_structMegnetometerData.magz_RAW; cnt++; } Should work?
|
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 14:01 | comment | added | geometrikal | @Rahul2047 The code is a good attempt at finding the offsets, but it seems it only records values in the upside down position. Also instead of all the 'if' statements in your code, you might want to look into using the 'switch' statement to implement a state machine. Trust me you will be glad. If we assume the 'sphere' is not deformed, then I think you will be able to get the offsets quite easily using the values from the 8/S method. I'm not quite sure how to do the maths yet but I'm trying to work it out. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 7:27 | comment | added | Rick2047 | @geometrikal : I have given the code I was allowed to put. :) | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 7:21 | history | edited | Rick2047 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Putting code.
|
| Nov 15, 2011 at 13:16 | comment | added | geometrikal | that would be great. i have to implement magnetometer calibration soom myself so this question is quite good. have added a simple calibration method i found. | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 11:24 | comment | added | Rick2047 | I can put some part of the code here. Which can explain how the infinity shape based algorithm is working or can be enhanced. Will that do? | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 10:50 | comment | added | geometrikal | @Rahul2047 Can you post the code you are currently using? | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 7:40 | comment | added | Kortuk | @ChrisStratton, the Magnetometers I have looked at before did not need me to implement the calibration myself, it was internal. That is from memory of a long time ago. I have a feeling that users found the question a bit too broad in scope for what would go into doing a calibration. Do remember, 2 upvotes on a question cancels 5 downvotes, so the user is not really in danger of losing rep easily. | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 7:33 | comment | added | Rick2047 | For those who just down vote : learn from: stackoverflow.com/users/248123/andand | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 7:16 | history | edited | Rick2047 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed grammar, made more specific to hopefully avoid more down votes
|
| S Nov 15, 2011 at 7:16 | history | suggested | geometrikal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed grammar, made more specific to hopefully avoid more down votes
|
| Nov 15, 2011 at 5:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 15, 2011 at 7:16 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2011 at 5:22 | comment | added | geometrikal | @ChrisStratton You are probably right. My experience with stackexchange sites is that the more specific the question the less likely to be down voted. At first glance the scope of this question seems too big. Perhaps before a down vote is recorded, the voter should be asked if an edit would improve the question. | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 4:56 | comment | added | Chris Stratton | The problem was not with the question, but with the number of people on this site who will downvote questions simply because they aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to understand what has been asked. If you don't know, just leave it alone! | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 3:25 | answer | added | geometrikal | timeline score: 26 | |
| Nov 15, 2011 at 2:45 | comment | added | geometrikal | @Rahul2047 Ok I think I know how it works. Will post answer shortly. Did you read the datasheet I put on your previous answer? I think with the down votes if you question was a little more detailed, eg. description of the S/8 shape and how it is often used in phones, description of what is in those linked videos so people dont have to click through if they dont want etc. makes for a better question. | |
| Nov 14, 2011 at 14:15 | comment | added | Kellenjb | @Rahul2047 Go ahead and edit your question with all of the details you gave. This will help bump your question up some and will make it easier for people to find in the future if they have the same question. I don't know the answer to your question, just trying to help you find someone who does. | |
| Nov 14, 2011 at 7:27 | comment | added | Rick2047 | @geometrikal: No the shape making in air is the process for the calibration. Thats the video says. | |
| Nov 14, 2011 at 7:19 | comment | added | Rick2047 | ... I think the ... calibration works out this way. The idea is to find out does that works out this way. | |
| Nov 14, 2011 at 7:17 | comment | added | Rick2047 | @Kellenjb : I am working on an IMU using a simple 8-bit atmega32. I tried working on it and concluding that a 32bit uC is like using a sword in place of a needle. (Sorry for my riddle : )) I tried adding up all the RAW values of the Magnetometer making the shape. Then divide by the no of inputs. Thinking might help in calculating offset. I think some how the two identical parts/sides of the shape is some how cancelling the earth's magnetic field and giving out the offset values. I might be wrong. But particularly for the shape based calibration this is where I am currently. I think the ... | |
| Nov 14, 2011 at 7:05 | comment | added | Rick2047 | I don't know why ppl behave as if they are robot. I've given a link for the same work. I worked a lot on that and ppl just without knowing, just vote it down. I hate it when My question is down voted because of my unclear question. Please ask what needed just before voting it down. I really am dying to get outputs and ppl don't even think before voting it down. It feels bad and tries to divert me from working in the right direction. Please, I need help not either side of vote. | |
| Nov 12, 2011 at 2:41 | comment | added | geometrikal | isnt the figure 8 simply a gesture to initiate calibration? | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 15:58 | comment | added | Kellenjb | This question needs a lot of help. Do you need help with programming? Theory about magnetometers? What platform? What have you tried or looked up? | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 14:04 | history | edited | Rick2047 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2011 at 13:59 | history | asked | Rick2047 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |