HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

It's time for sensors in the pucks.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2010, 12:27 AM
  #51
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 156
the more i think about this, the dumber it seems that this isnt in place or being openly pursued. this game revolves around scoring goals. measuring that as accurately as possible should be the top priority of the league.

Edit: im stuck at work until 7am, so i figured i'd do a few minutes of research.

it looks like the system proposed by agrudez, or something that appears similar to it, is already patented and won't expire until 2017. It's US Patent 5748073 if you're interested.

i also found a second system, but only skimmed over it. it seems to involve using electromagnetic fields to do...something. all that really matters is that goalies would blame bad games on the EM fields, regardless of how strong they actually are.

"well, see, i couldnt stop those 6 shots because the goal detection system gave me a headache, and i might have cancer now, i don't really know for sure. oh, and in the second period i thought i heard some dead relatives talking to me" etc.

here's the other patent: http://www.freshpatents.com/Goal-det...0080252015.php


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 02-12-2010 at 12:55 AM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 12:50 AM
  #52
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
OH GAWD

You would... you would...
I was thinking of you when I posted that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
GPS is more accurate than that...and that's also because it's a satellite, not a system in the arena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
like jester said, this can just be localized inside the net, and unlike world-scale GPS, this isnt exactly operating from orbit. at the largest scale, this can be perhaps 70 feet off the ice, and on the smallest, inside a goal net, i imagine it would be pretty accurate


edit: ive been beaten!
I mean, if you take it out of the sky and localize it, the whole thing ceases to be a Global Positioning System. Even if you could shrink it down - which I suppose is possible - you're still talking about jamming some sort of power source and a transmitter that sends or receives multiple signals every second into a hockey puck. If you're talking about a GPS-like system, all the calculations for triangulation will have to be done inside the puck - a further chip will be necessary - and then beamed out to some computer to work with. Alternatively, you could locate the clock inside the puck - again, a computer chip of some sort - and have it beam the time signal out to the various receivers around the rink, but that's still no small feat.

So, in short, we're talking about putting a battery, a radio transmitter capable of transmitting ~100 feet, and a CPU inside a hockey puck without changing its size, shape, or weight. On top of that, these things have to be capable of withstanding the various forces exerted on a puck and yet be cheap enough that the NHL will have no problem losing a bunch of them into the stands every game. Let's hear your proposals.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 01:01 AM
  #53
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
I was thinking of you when I posted that





I mean, if you take it out of the sky and localize it, the whole thing ceases to be a Global Positioning System. Even if you could shrink it down - which I suppose is possible - you're still talking about jamming some sort of power source and a transmitter that sends or receives multiple signals every second into a hockey puck. If you're talking about a GPS-like system, all the calculations for triangulation will have to be done inside the puck - a further chip will be necessary - and then beamed out to some computer to work with. Alternatively, you could locate the clock inside the puck - again, a computer chip of some sort - and have it beam the time signal out to the various receivers around the rink, but that's still no small feat.

So, in short, we're talking about putting a battery, a radio transmitter capable of transmitting ~100 feet, and a CPU inside a hockey puck without changing its size, shape, or weight. On top of that, these things have to be capable of withstanding the various forces exerted on a puck and yet be cheap enough that the NHL will have no problem losing a bunch of them into the stands every game. Let's hear your proposals.

its quite simple, a 12" puck should suffice.

edit: seriously though, you wouldnt need that much stuff inside the puck. if you want to localize it inside the goal net, you wouldnt need a high powered transmitter, and the sensors in the net could feed the information to a computer elsewhere to make the calculations. the puck doesnt need to know where it is in the net...essentially, the net would find out where the puck is.

at least, according to the theory in my head. i have no idea if it can work like that.

double edit: RFID transmitters might fit the bill, but i don't know what kind of range they have


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 02-12-2010 at 01:11 AM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 08:30 AM
  #54
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
There is a major hurdle to overcome should some sort of accurate sensor system be implemented in the future:

The referee's "intent to blow the whistle" issue.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:27 AM
  #55
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
There is a major hurdle to overcome should some sort of accurate sensor system be implemented in the future:

The referee's "intent to blow the whistle" issue.
It should be eliminated. Accepting that rule means that we have to accept that refs are objective 100% of the time, and that they're always right. If you think you're going to be blowing the whistle anytime soon, get it into your mouth. There shouldn't be that much of a delay. If the goalie really has it, it won't be knocked free that quickly. If it is knocked in quickly, he didn't do enough to get the whistle.

Cameras can detect just about any wavelength we want them to. So we just need wavelengths that go through any bodies and equipment in the way. Dip the pucks in radioactive waste!

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:47 AM
  #56
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
There is a major hurdle to overcome should some sort of accurate sensor system be implemented in the future:

The referee's "intent to blow the whistle" issue.
It's not an issue in the way at all.

We're proposing these things to be put into play in the case of a review, not as a means to determine live goal-calling. You wouldn't want this thing to set off the goal horns, you just want it to be there for when you have a questionable call.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:02 AM
  #57
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
its quite simple, a 12" puck should suffice.

edit: seriously though, you wouldnt need that much stuff inside the puck. if you want to localize it inside the goal net, you wouldnt need a high powered transmitter, and the sensors in the net could feed the information to a computer elsewhere to make the calculations. the puck doesnt need to know where it is in the net...essentially, the net would find out where the puck is.

at least, according to the theory in my head. i have no idea if it can work like that.

double edit: RFID transmitters might fit the bill, but i don't know what kind of range they have
Fine, take the stuff out of the puck. You still need the puck to be broadcasting a time signal several times per second and at least 4 (probably more like 6) receivers in various places picking it up. If those receivers are placed inside the net, then you have six pieces of technology (12, really, when you put them in both nets) in the line of fire that have to be power enough to broadcast their info to some base station somewhere else in the arena. Alternatively, if you take them out of the net, the puck needs to broadcast a long way. The whole setup could work, no doubt, but it's going to cost way too much for the NHL to be interested in doing it.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:13 AM
  #58
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
Fine, take the stuff out of the puck. You still need the puck to be broadcasting a time signal several times per second and at least 4 (probably more like 6) receivers in various places picking it up. If those receivers are placed inside the net, then you have six pieces of technology (12, really, when you put them in both nets) in the line of fire that have to be power enough to broadcast their info to some base station somewhere else in the arena. Alternatively, if you take them out of the net, the puck needs to broadcast a long way. The whole setup could work, no doubt, but it's going to cost way too much for the NHL to be interested in doing it.
I don't think GPS is the way to do it, I was just noting that it's significantly more accurate than you presented it as being.

I think RF tags in/on the puck are the way to go...which would be a passive system in the puck. Then put the reading system above, below, or in the goal.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:37 AM
  #59
six sigma
Seahawks/Flyers
 
six sigma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,888
vCash: 500
I used to make cad drawings based on gps points, and even the survey-grade stuff was only accurate to 2-3 feet. (not good enough for this application) but I hadn't thought of a gps rig set up within the actual building.

Seems like that could theoretically deliver the needed accuracy, although that would be even more expensive than the RF solution.

six sigma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:43 AM
  #60
six sigma
Seahawks/Flyers
 
six sigma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by might2mash View Post
Cameras can detect just about any wavelength we want them to. So we just need wavelengths that go through any bodies and equipment in the way. Dip the pucks in radioactive waste!
Good call, I like it! This could be done with trace amounts of the material too, so it's not like the puck would glow in the dark or zombify the players.

six sigma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 11:08 AM
  #61
shamski7
Registered User
 
shamski7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bucks County, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to shamski7
why dont we just bring back the skate in the crease rule?

dumbest rule in the history of sports.

shamski7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 11:51 AM
  #62
L-train*
 
L-train*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philly Suburbs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,037
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to L-train*
Dude, those of you advocating high speed HD cameras clearly don't understand the costs of those things... they're outrageous.

http://www.visionresearch.com/index....e=Phantom_v710

Those will run you $90k each. Pretty much top of the line. Even an average high-speed camera will run you about $10k. You'll need at least 60, more if you want multiple angles. So you figure two angles on each net, that's 120, 120 times $90,000 is nearly 11 million dollars. You figure purchasing 120 of them will get you at least a 15% discount, you're still at $9.2m.

Sensors are the way to go.

L-train* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 11:55 AM
  #63
JXC
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
JXC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 500
Cameras on the inside of the post would accomplish the same.

JXC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 11:58 AM
  #64
six sigma
Seahawks/Flyers
 
six sigma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXC View Post
Cameras on the inside of the post would accomplish the same.
Except when the goalies' glove is covering the puck and part of the line.

six sigma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 12:14 PM
  #65
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-train View Post
Dude, those of you advocating high speed HD cameras clearly don't understand the costs of those things... they're outrageous.

http://www.visionresearch.com/index....e=Phantom_v710

Those will run you $90k each. Pretty much top of the line. Even an average high-speed camera will run you about $10k. You'll need at least 60, more if you want multiple angles. So you figure two angles on each net, that's 120, 120 times $90,000 is nearly 11 million dollars. You figure purchasing 120 of them will get you at least a 15% discount, you're still at $9.2m.

Sensors are the way to go.
For a league with $2 billion in annual revenue...a one-time investment of ~$10M isn't outrageous at all.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 12:14 PM
  #66
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by six sigma View Post
Except when the goalies' glove is covering the puck and part of the line.
This is often the issue. You can't see the puck because it's under something, but on the ice. We've been discussing all kinds of options for cameras in the goal and sensors in the posts, but we don't really need to position the puck in 3D for those cases. We really just need to know where it is in 3D.

The technology exists to put a high-resolution grid underneath the ice surface to could detect the puck. Of course, this would be very expensive, so limiting it to the goal area would be optimal. The broadcast technology for the puck would still be an issue, since anything optical, even my previously suggested radiation () would have problems with diffraction when the ice is scratched up. But if the issue is often where is the puck under stuff, this would provide the extra information needed to make the decision.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 12:24 PM
  #67
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
For a league with $2 billion in annual revenue...a one-time investment of ~$10M isn't outrageous at all.
Precisely.

Also, even if they only put one overhead of each net, it's an upgrade.

Hell, didn't the new Jumbotron at the Wachovia Center cost something in the neighborhood of $4.5m?

Outfitting every building in the league with 2-4 high-speed cameras wouldn't be that bad. I guarantee you most of the in-house studio cameras that they run for the little fan activity segments during TV timeouts are a good $2k-4k already.

It wouldn't be that big of a stretch.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 01:00 PM
  #68
flountown
Registered User
 
flountown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
My idea would be to use sound. I was recently watching a military program on the Discovery or History channel and they highlighted a system that used the sound of the gunshot to triangulate the position of an enemy sniper or target. It used 3 or 4 different microphones that would be mounted on the shoulder of the soldier, and upon hearing the shot, would triangulate the location from the time difference in sound reception.

The puck would contain, say 6 sonic emitters that would broadcast at different frequencies and a small microphone system located in the net would be used to receive these signals and be able to triangulate different points on the puck, there by creating a 3d model of it from these points. It then compares it to known location of the goal line and figures it out from there. It's the same principle as using motion capture video, but with sound waves.

flountown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 01:04 PM
  #69
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flountown View Post
My idea would be to use sound. I was recently watching a military program on the Discovery or History channel and they highlighted a system that used the sound of the gunshot to triangulate the position of an enemy sniper or target. It used 3 or 4 different microphones that would be mounted on the shoulder of the soldier, and upon hearing the shot, would triangulate the location from the time difference in sound reception.

The puck would contain, say 6 sonic emitters that would broadcast at different frequencies and a small microphone system located in the net would be used to receive these signals and be able to triangulate different points on the puck, there by creating a 3d model of it from these points. It then compares it to known location of the goal line and figures it out from there. It's the same principle as using motion capture video, but with sound waves.
Cool in theory, but would have to figure out cost and how much ambient noise would affect the readings.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 01:28 PM
  #70
L-train*
 
L-train*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philly Suburbs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,037
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to L-train*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
For a league with $2 billion in annual revenue...a one-time investment of ~$10M isn't outrageous at all.
$90,000 per camera. If one of those things breaks, you need a replacement. I wonder how many cameras they'd go through in a year? Maybe about 20%?

Plus, bigger hard drives, probably want them to be SSD's in those bad boys, the other infrastructure to support the tremendous amounts of data that high-speed cameras produce, etc. I could easily see the league approaching 25m in startup costs to get them all installed and set up, plus another 5-10m a year in maintenance. What did the NHL make last year?


Last edited by L-train*: 02-12-2010 at 01:35 PM.
L-train* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 01:42 PM
  #71
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by flountown View Post
My idea would be to use sound. I was recently watching a military program on the Discovery or History channel and they highlighted a system that used the sound of the gunshot to triangulate the position of an enemy sniper or target. It used 3 or 4 different microphones that would be mounted on the shoulder of the soldier, and upon hearing the shot, would triangulate the location from the time difference in sound reception.

The puck would contain, say 6 sonic emitters that would broadcast at different frequencies and a small microphone system located in the net would be used to receive these signals and be able to triangulate different points on the puck, there by creating a 3d model of it from these points. It then compares it to known location of the goal line and figures it out from there. It's the same principle as using motion capture video, but with sound waves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Cool in theory, but would have to figure out cost and how much ambient noise would affect the readings.
We had a Boomerang in Iraq. They are fairly common these days. They do a pretty good job of giving a distance, direction, and caliber but they have a fairly large antenna array and the acoustics of supersonic projectiles are likely what allows a device to function so well.



Edit: Also, that is just some random, ****** humvee. Just an GIS image, not my picture.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 02:18 PM
  #72
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I don't think GPS is the way to do it, I was just noting that it's significantly more accurate than you presented it as being.

I think RF tags in/on the puck are the way to go...which would be a passive system in the puck. Then put the reading system above, below, or in the goal.
I'm not sure what you mean by passive, but the system at least would need the capability to timestamp each of its transmissions so the receptors won't confuse one for the other.

On top of that, I'm not sure if a system within the rink provides enough distance to get significant enough transmission times to each receptor to be able to actually calculate the position of the puck. At the speed light travels, you're talking about such minute differences in the time it takes the puck to transmit to each receptor that it would be extremely difficult to get a real reading. The thing would have to be calibrated incredibly precisely.

The idea flountoun presented with sound is intriguing though. Putting sonic emitters in a puck seems like it could be problematic, but the speed of sound is much more manageable on this scale than the speed of light. Problem with that is you'd need a way to distinguish one pulse from the next. The device could emit different sounds, of course, but that just adds to the complexity of what you're sticking into the puck.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 02:28 PM
  #73
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 156
the sound idea is intriguing, and you can eliminate the problem of ambient noise by having the puck transmit on a high frequency, like a dog whistle.

i have no idea how this would work though.

haha, maybe something like this:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tkc-nerf-vortex-howler.jpg‎ (21.0 KB, 1 views)

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 02:35 PM
  #74
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
An interesting RFID implementation.

http://www.rfid-radar.com/howworks.html

This isn't perfect for hockey, but it could be modified to work. Detectors in the goal structure would be a pain, it would be better below the ice or hanging somewhere above. The accuracy isn't good enough as-is, but for a smaller area like a goal it might be workable. Apparently can detect a transmitter entering at speeds of 300 kmh (186 mph, faster than Chara but those goals usually aren't the issue anyway).

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 04:50 PM
  #75
flountown
Registered User
 
flountown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
We had a Boomerang in Iraq. They are fairly common these days. They do a pretty good job of giving a distance, direction, and caliber but they have a fairly large antenna array and the acoustics of supersonic projectiles are likely what allows a device to function so well.



Edit: Also, that is just some random, ****** humvee. Just an GIS image, not my picture.
I am under the opinion that it has been scaled down to a wearable unit, much less bulky, and the using of ultrasonic and specificnon-audible frequencies would take care of ambient noises.

flountown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.