Timeline for What sensor (or sensor strategy) would detect the presence of a human within a defined radius of a fixed point in a room?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2020 at 14:11 | vote | accept | Josh Hibschman | ||
| Oct 25, 2020 at 11:02 | comment | added | Andy aka | Then use a weighing platform or strain gauges in the area that is meant to be "sensed". Alternatively use a pressure mat. Fairly simple tech. Light beams is another low tech solution and proven. If there is a reason that you cannot use these low-tech solutions then it's because you haven't actually properly defined the problem yet (as I hinted in the last line of my considerably down-voted answer). | |
| Oct 25, 2020 at 1:55 | comment | added | Josh Hibschman |
@ElliotAlderson basically while { if human(s) in circle send 1 else send 0} No other objects
|
|
| Oct 24, 2020 at 19:38 | comment | added | Elliot Alderson | Do you really want to know if a person is currently in the circle or is it enough to know that they entered the circle? Are there other objects, such as furniture, that must be avoided? | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 17:26 | answer | added | Marcus Müller | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 13:56 | answer | added | user2840470 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 13:29 | history | edited | Transistor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed grammar and missing capitalisation. Both matter!
|
| Oct 24, 2020 at 13:02 | comment | added | Josh Hibschman | Yeah, and we can assume adults as well if that helps | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 13:00 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @y3sh thanks! is the type of object actually "people"? | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 12:59 | comment | added | Josh Hibschman | Revised, can you take another look? @MarcusMüller | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 12:55 | history | edited | Josh Hibschman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
constraining problem
|
| Oct 24, 2020 at 12:34 | comment | added | Elliot Alderson | Without much, much more information this can not be answered. In particular, put bounds on the size, shape, surface material, and velocity of the "object". | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 12:15 | comment | added | Jack Wade | I think you’re getting pushback because there’s not an obvious elegant solution better than the one you have without knowing more constraints. Could do an array of sonar but there would be gaps. Could do IR but a circular pattern would be tricky. Might be able to do this with lidar but range is an issue. | |
| Oct 24, 2020 at 12:05 | history | edited | Josh Hibschman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 118 characters in body; edited title
|
| Oct 23, 2020 at 20:11 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 1, 2020 at 3:06 | |||||
| Oct 23, 2020 at 19:53 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | "better approach": better is a term relative to your metric of goodness. What's good about a solution? What's bad about the webcam solution? Also, what kind of objects are you detecting, and is the radius actually 5 ft (um, that's 1.5 m, right?)? | |
| Oct 23, 2020 at 19:33 | history | asked | Josh Hibschman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |