Re: Reflected Signal Problem

[Cindy Wong <wongci@ecf.utoronto.ca>]

Okay, perhaps I'm missing something, so please correct me if I'm getting
this wrong (which I know you guys will anyway!)

	----------------------------
		/|\
	       / | \
	      /  |  \
	     /   |   \
	    /    |    \
           0           \
		       []

let 0 be our robot with sensors
let [] be the enemy robot with our beacon emitting signal

So, if the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflectance, can we
not devise some algorithm to use this to our advantage?

We go towards signal (which is reflected), when we bump into something, we
bounce off at the same angle in the other direction?  It is obvious
that when we head towards the signal and ram into something that is NOT
the enemy robot that we are being tricked by some reflected signal right?

Am I totally off or what?

Cindy





On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Joyce Poon wrote:

> Wait... I think there is a very obvious & simpler solution to the
> reflected signal problem.  I should have showered before writing those
> emails then maybe I wouldn't be so stupid... :) 
> 
> I guess we could just have an algorithm that goes something like: 
> 
> 	if looking directly at beacon signal & keep hitting obstacle
> 		we are at a reflective surface! 
> 
> I guess since the game ends when the robot makes the tag, we can just have
> the robot bounce off the obstacle maybe 3 times and if it's not turned off
> after that, then we will say that it is at a reflective surface and it
> will go in a new direction. 
> 
> But there is a disadvantage to this -- we might be misled from the very
> beginning by the reflection (ie we won't find out that we are looking at a
> reflection until we hit the mirror).  So our poor robot will try so
> hard to reach the illusive signal thinking all its efforts will
> ultimately result in success, only to be crushed by defeat when it does
> reach the signal (sort of like the ODE midterm...)! 
> 
> I guess the real question is whether we want to look-ahead sensors for
> reflective surfaces, which means the bumper-level sensors idea should be
> on the wish list for now. 
> 
> Joyce :) 
> 
>