Final

747 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
747
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Final

  1. 1. WIRELESS SUNSPOT SENSOR MOUSE Burhan Syed, Elizabeth Torres, Ashwini Mahajan
  2. 2. Objective Objective was to utilize SunSPOT Sensor  Technology to implement a conventional mouse or a similar I/O device. The only difference would be it does not  require to be intact with a surface.
  3. 3. Possible Approaches Three possible approaches according to our analysis:  #1. Wire the conventional mouse with SunSPOT sensor  The union of the two would be in such a way that the conventional mouse would be dismantled and the physical circuit pins of the mouse would be wired to the circuit pins of the SunSPOT.
  4. 4. Possible Approach # 1 (Cont.) The sensor would then be programmed to  gather and interpret the movement and actions of the conventional mouse.
  5. 5. Possible Approach # 2 The second of the possible approaches is to  use the SunSPOT sensor on its own  The sensor would be communicating without a base station  The sensor would then be acting in a more conventional way via its direct connection through the USB port
  6. 6. Possible Approach # 3 The third approach involves the use of the  SunSPOT base station as a communicator between the SunSPOT sensor mouse and the CPU.  The sensor mouse would communicate to the base station which would then relay the given information to the local machine.  The result would then be a mouse that would be held in the hand and communicate to the base station and CPU remotely.
  7. 7. Selected Approach Approach # 3 was more feasible to implement  Reason:   Resources were available for this approach  Consistent communication with Sun Certified for IDE  Research Assistant, Sensing Ubiquity Mobility Research Lab  University of Melbourne, Australia Main Idea:   GetSunSPOT tilt data from accelerometer, and send it back to host PC via the base station  Host PC translates these coming data to a Java Robot class which emulates mouse movement.
  8. 8. Selected Approach (Cont.) The use of the incorporated accelerometer enables the  sensor mouse to move along three axis (X, Y & Z), instead of the traditional two axis mouse The two momentary switches can be utilized as the left  and right click buttons of a traditional mouse.
  9. 9. Advantages The use of radio communication allows the  sensor mouse to be detached and able to operate at a greater distance than a traditional mouse. The ability to stand a greater range away from  the CPU and maintain accurate control over the on-screen pointer is a unique approach made possible by the SunSPOT sensor’s micro technology.
  10. 10. Obstacles Through out this project there were many  obstacles to overcome. The first of which was to understand how a  conventional mouse functioned.
  11. 11. Obstacles - Conventional Mouse A conventional mouse can use optical or laser  technology to orient it self and be hardwired to the CPU or use radio frequency to communicate wirelessly. The second necessity was to understand the  Sun SPOT sensor and its capabilities.  The SunSPOTs come equipped with a light sensor, temperature sensor and an accelerometer.  The sensors use radio frequency to communicate to the base station that is connected via USB port to the CPU.  Thus, the sensors are capable of having a free
  12. 12. The Coding The SunSPOT and base station needed to be  programmed in Java to function as a mouse. Most of the work is in the interpretation of the  coordinates that are gathered by the accelerometer already in the sensor. Again, there is an added element of the z-axis to  the mouse concept which can have unpredictable, but interesting consequences. The function of the two push buttons/switches on  the sensors were required to be functioned as the right and left click.
  13. 13. Testing The first attempts at troubleshooting the test  model were almost successful. The sensor mouse was found to be very  sensitive to the slightest motion and had a tendency to drift when not in use or being held. Overall, the mouse required the user to get  used to using a mouse in a more interactive capacity. The user could compensate for the Sun  SPOTs sensitivity by holding in the hand and using controlled movement during use.
  14. 14. Also… Because of the extreme sensitivity of the mouse is  so acute, there could be complications if there were any other operational SunSPOT sensors or devices on the same radio frequency within range of the base station. To avoid that, we forwarded the port and IP address  of the sensor to base station for accuracy.
  15. 15. Final Result The SunSPOT sensor mouse was found to be  fully functional in a conventional mouse capacity. The sensor mouse was held in the hand and  moved according to the direction of motion from the user’s hand. It was found to be easier and more accurate to  direct the pointer by holding the mouse in a way that put the sensor mouse in front of the screen and move the mouse exactly as the pointer was desired to be moved.
  16. 16. Final Result (Cont.) This set up was able to be carried out with the  user sitting a few feet away from the CPU and screen although close enough for the user to be able to read the screen. The two push buttons/switches on the sensors  were fully functional. They correlated as they should with the  buttons for left and right click options.
  17. 17. Conclusion The sensor mouse in this project met the  objective as a functioning mouse. The left and right click functions are  operational and the pointer is controlled via the mouse. The mouse exceeded expectations in the  added bonus of being able to function with out a need for a given space to work on. It is a true wireless mouse working in a free  range capacity.
  18. 18. Conclusion (Cont.) The added mobility of being able to function  without wires and within a greater working range is outstanding. The areas in which it falls short are in its need to  be held and lack of scrolling capability. The sensor mouse when used on a flat surface  has a tendency to be unresponsive and just drifts the pointer on screen. For a more optimum function, the user must hold  the unit in the air in such a way that the user’s hand must motion in the direction that the pointer is desired to move in.
  19. 19. Future Improvements The lack of the ability to scroll is a major drawback  for users viewing large documents or surfing the web. Another hindrance for this sensor mouse is the  crosstalk that can render this sensor mouse very unstable. Any other operating SunSPOTs in the vicinity of  the project during testing caused the mouse to act erratically.
  20. 20. Primary Resource Paul Deng  Research Assistant, Sensing Ubiquity Mobility Research Lab CSSE Dept. University of Melbourne, Australia Software Engineer, Daintree Networks
  21. 21. DEMO!

×