Headlights That See Through Rain and Snow 210
wisebabo writes "I think it was Newton who said if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future down to the effect the flutter of a sparrow's wing would have on the weather. Aside from quantum indeterminacy (which, of course, he knew nothing about) and questions of free will, it is clear we are a long long way from getting even close to the theoretical limits of prediction. Still, here's something that, to me, is very impressive. Some researchers manage to track raindrops (or snowflakes) in front of a light and, in real time, change the beam so that they are not illuminated! This drastically reduces glare. The obvious application is for driving cars in inclement weather. I'm hoping we're entering a new age where computers (and cheap sensors) have become so powerful as to make possible a whole host of 'magical' (like Arthur C. Clarke predicted) applications."
Magitech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is gonna be hacked, you can bet on it that the speed limit signs will be blocked first, and that they will be replaced by more ads. If the internet has taught me anything, it is that hackers increase advertisements, not decrease them.
And btw, if it can be hacked, I'm not gonna sit in that car.
Re:Magitech (Score:5, Informative)
If the internet has taught me anything, it is that hackers increase advertisements, ...
Lucky you. Internet taught me Rule 34.
Re: (Score:2)
If the internet has taught me anything, it is that hackers increase advertisements, ...
Lucky you. Internet taught me Rule 34.
Some of us knew that way before the internet.
Now get off my lawn, I'm going to read some bizarre Victorian erotica.
Re: (Score:2)
Now get off my lawn, I'm going to read some bizarre Victorian erotica.
Whew. I though for an instant you were going to say "Cosmo".
Re: (Score:2)
From context, it was pretty obvious what the OP meant was "modified from the original intentions by the user", not "remotely compromised from some sort of nefarious evil-doer". You might as well say that if the car's engine, or brakes, or steering can be modified, you're not gonna sit in the car - they're all far more dangerous, and have been modifiable (and breakable) by anyone who pops the hood or jacks up the car since the start of automotive history.
Re: (Score:2)
ObIrony: Not dying but suffering spinal injuries that prevent any erectile function no matter how many little blue pills you take
Re: (Score:3)
Here is another possible idea: LCD screen on windows. Track driver eye position. Create opaque circles exactly positioned on the lines between eyes and sun.
Until some crap in the buffer changes it to obscuring random cyclists, traffic lights, and/or police cars
This one needs a bit of perfecting before it goes between the driver's eyes and the road. It does hold great possibilites though for highlighting cyclists, traffic lights, road signs, and police cars. Your idea is excellent but I do get the feeling that we're missing some really fantastic possiblities - especially when combined with the idea in the article.
Re: (Score:3)
I've always wanted the tinted area at the top of the windshield replaced with a series of LCD panels -- not too many, nor too big, sorta square-ish (width similar to the height of the tinted area). Touch one and it goes dark to block the sun. Touch it again and it fades back to maximum transparency (which is still a couple stops of loss, but that's OK because this part of the window was ALWAYS tinted). You can run your finger across the whole thing to darken them all if driving in an area where doing it on-
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another idea: don't tell anyone your brilliant* idea.
*but don't worry, I'm sure someone will be along to pour scorn on it any minute. "It'll only be effective for about 5 hours a day!" for example.
Larry Niven had it on some of his spacecraft (Score:2)
I remember reading some of Larry Niven's earlier SF stories in which a variation of this was used on his spacecraft. They were made out of Puppeteer General Product hulls which were transparent in the wavelengths their customers "saw" in. Anyway, the spacecraft hulls had this sun screening trick.
There was one story ("Neutron Star"?) in which the protagonist worried if any of the other alien species saw in X-Rays.
Re: (Score:2)
Just looked it up. Story was "Grendel" by Larry Niven.
Don't remember it being used on the spaceship hull, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why a complicated solution with an LCD screen on the window? Just a mechanical gadget, that moves a coin sized item.
Because an LCD panel has no moving parts and will likely last the lifetime of the windshied and can react instantly, even if you sneeze. Plus it can dim your windshield during the day for overall sun protection. But the modified etch-a-sketch guts that move this little coin around the windshield will need regular lubrication and maintenance and the guys at the car wash are going to break it the first time they clean your windshield without deactivating it.
Re: (Score:2)
Does everyone have to go through field of vision tests first to ensure that you're not making them more at risk? How does this help when the sun is in my FoV? I can certainly see the visor when I drive, e.g. every time I look to the rear view mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an awesome idea. Until you have to replace your windshield.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop making windshields of glass, a good polymer windshield can take a hammering and still be tough enough to be unscratched by anything less than a crash serious enough to destroy the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another possible idea: LCD screen on windows. Track driver eye position. Create opaque circles exactly positioned on the lines between eyes and sun.
Nice thought, but ignores the major problem, i.e. glare. Even when the sun's in your line of sight, most of what messes up vision is the scatter (glare) off other objects such as dirt on the windshield.
Stick with polarized sunglasses for now.
Re:Magitech (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think ads are that evil? Even billboard ads?
Abso-fucking-lutely. It's either one of those: either they work or they don't.. If they work, it means that they attract your attention and disturb you from driving; hence they make driving unsafe and they should be banned. If they don't work, then why keep those ugly things ? In both cases, ban them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Passengers?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think ads are that evil? Even billboard ads? Sure, on a webpage ads consume some of your bandwidth, battery power, slow down browsing... but billboards are about as passive as you can get.
1. Yes, all advertising is evil. The money wasted on advertising could be used to do things like provide cheaper or better products instead. If advertising is essential to consumer-capitalism, that means there is something fundamentally wrong with consumer-capitalism.
2. Billboards are vile blots on the landscape and you should get a Good Taste award if you blow a few of them up..
3. I'll get my coat.
Re: (Score:2)
Billboards consume my view space and obscure the scenery.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why are you playing call of duty in the kitchen?
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah (Score:2, Funny)
Or you could just reduce speed according to road conditions. Get off my lawn! This and the back up cam will clearly make it easier to see the expressions on the faces of pedestrians as you run them down. And that's something I can get behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Get off my lawn! This and the back up cam will clearly make it easier to see the expressions on the faces of pedestrians as you run them down. And that's something I can get behind.
So you want to get behind backup cameras being used to reverse over people? I can only assume you have some kind of crush fetish!
Re: (Score:2)
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes."
Free will? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Free will' (read: your brain) is special and sits outside the sphere of the physical realm?
Besides the fact that according to recent advances in the cognitive sciences free will is increasingly overrated.
Re: (Score:3)
'Free will' (read: your brain) is special and sits outside the sphere of the physical realm?
Besides the fact that according to recent advances in the cognitive sciences free will is increasingly overrated.
Yup, the human brain is just a slightly complicated computer, and real soon now we'll be able to build an exact replica of one, upload our "software" into it and live forever.
And computers don't have free will, or else they wouldn't waste their time doing tedious calculations for human beings.
Re: (Score:3)
'Free will' (read: your brain) is special and sits outside the sphere of the physical realm?
Besides the fact that according to recent advances in the cognitive sciences free will is increasingly overrated.
Maybe when they wrote "questions of free will" they were referring to things like "why does anyone still believe in it".
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, a lot of times the answer is obvious. We have a natural genetic drive to have sex, to eat, to follow a crowd, try to fit in, not walk over cliffs, avoid death......
But here's the thing, ultimately we can choose to avoid any of those drives. We can choose not to rape someone, we can choose our own path and not follow the crowd, we can jump out of an airplane (if you've ever don
What "Newton said" : citation needed (Score:4, Interesting)
"I think it was Newton who said if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future down to the effect the flutter of a sparrow's wing would have on the weather."
Doesn't sound much like the kind of thing Newton wrote, have you got a citation for it?
-wb-
You're right! It was Lap Place (Score:5, Informative)
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
— Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace
Ok, I didn't get the quote exactly right but I think I captured the gist of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're right! It was Lap Place (Score:5, Insightful)
well he was wrong, this kind of idea doesnt allow for emergance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence [wikipedia.org]
Actually, Laplace's idea does allow for emergence (you just need to know enough about the laws of physics and how they combine). Where it runs into problems is when faced with non-linearity (i.e., mathematical chaos and extreme sensitivity to initial conditions) and quantum physics (you can't ever know the initial state and there's no hidden variable theory that you can deduce by observation). In other words, Laplace was wrong but for excellent and interesting reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstand the concept of emergent phenomena. The very idea is that complex behavior isn't magic, it's the result of usually a few simple rules interacting to produce something that looks very complex. If you know the rules and the starting conditions in sufficient detail, you can predict the emergent phenomena... surprisingly easily.
Physics supported Laplace too. Right up until quantum mechanics said that you couldn't actually make measurements that accurately. Still, IF you could... but then vo
Very impressive (Score:2)
I also wonder if it would be possible to create an "invisibility suit" with e-ink rain drops if you wanted to commit a crime near a busy road!
Not Magical (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't predict that at some arbitrary point in the future technology would have the appearance of being magical, he didn't make a prediction at all in this regard. His statement "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (presumably) means "Any sufficiently advanced technology relative to the observer's baseline is indistinguishable from magic.", but that isn't as catchy.
If you could show someone from the 1700's an iPhone it would be "indistinguishable from magic" to them. If an alien race were to zip into orbit tomorrow at faster than light speed it would be "indistinguishable from magic" to us as we don't have any idea how that can be achieved, or even if it is possible. The technology described in the article is impressive but clearly distinguishable from magic, the article describes how it works.
Cut out that "free will" crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
and questions of free will
Free will has NOTHING to do with determinism. Free will has no meaning except from the point of view of whoever exercises it, and he can not predict his own behavior without predicting deciding to predict his behavior ad infinitum, what makes no sense. For everyone else, the question is absolutely irrelevant, so ability or inability to predict anyone else's actions is completely meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is obvious to Computer Scientists, some Philosophers are slowly grasping it as well, but many still believe free will and determinism are related. In fact it is in Philosophy considered such a standard view that the opposite view is the one that has a special term: Compatibalism, that a deterministic world is compatible with free will.
Re: (Score:3)
Those "philosophers" are actually theologists, and should go back to their stupid cults.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've both missed the point. We were talking about smart headlights that can see through heavy rain...
You might have been...
Re: (Score:3)
but obviously there's a small and subtle implication that free will at least *hints* at a non-deterministic universe.
No. Stupid people want to be something special, operating outside of the laws of nature. They are not and they do not.
Re: (Score:2)
I only said "hints". Perhaps I should have said provides a "tiny bit of evidence in that direction" (i.e. no where enough to be even slightly conclusive). Would that have helped?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all religious and strongly doubt god exists, but to deny the existence of one's own self-awareness and soul I think requires a very special kind of blindness.
Free will and self-awareness are unrelated concepts.
The soul is a myth.
I only said "hints". Perhaps I should have said provides a "tiny bit of evidence in that direction" (i.e. no where enough to be even slightly conclusive). Would that have helped?
Back to free will, let's see... Head injuries can change your personality. A magnetic field can change your ethical judgement. Chemicals can do all kinds of things to your thought and experience, good or bad. fMRI can detect decisions before the decider becomes aware of them. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Many would disagree with the soul as being just a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cut out that "free will" crap. (Score:4, Informative)
or if determinism necessarily frees us all of ultimate responsibilty.
No, it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
When constructing a just legal system, it is also important for all parties to agree on whether or not the will is free of causality and reflects a person's intrinsic and unchangeable spirit, whether we should pretend that is the case even if we believe in determinism, or if determinism necessarily frees us all of ultimate responsibilty, at least to a degree that makes imprisonment and treatment the only ethical choices, and rules out capital and punitive measures.
Some commentators think recent advances in neuroscience are going to lead to a "my brain made me do it" legal defense.
Old news with IR (Score:4, Interesting)
Quantum indeterminacy ?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, the universe uses a PRNG rather than a true RNG.
God probably used srand(time*time) at the start. As time would have been 0, we just need to figure out the algorithm, and we're set!
That's not cool (Score:4, Funny)
Use the tracking of the individual snowflakes to steer a MW laser installed on the hood of the car, that blasts all the nearby snowflakes, reducing glare.
Now it's cool.
Re: (Score:2)
except the laser wont stop at the snowflake, burning anything in front of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. But it's still one wicked appliance
Re: (Score:2)
yes. yes it is.
Re: (Score:3)
It would have a knob on the side to tweak the power, in percentages of what's needed to vaporize the flake or drop, from 10% to 50000%.. The knob would be awkward ,too small, very sensitive and it wouldn't keep its setting so you'd have to correct it all the time as you drive. but you'd still be so happy with it.
But how does the headlight work? (Score:2)
FTA:
"Light rays from the headlight that would normally hit the raindrop are automatically switched off,"
Eh? A car headlight, even LED ones are not laser beams. The light spreads out immediately. There is no way to selectively prevent illumination from a given area using current car tech so how exactly are they doing it? You can't keep switching off the entire headlight every time there's a raindrop in front of it since there will be so many raindrops constantly in front that it will be off permanently.
Are t
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's important to remember that illumination is always relative. Rain Glare is caused by the relative difference in light reflected from the raindrops vs the light reflected from everything else.
Thus to reduce the glare you don't need to make no light hit the raindrops, you just need to make -less- light hit the raindrops. I suspect they're using the exact same technologies you see in your average video projector.
Re: (Score:2)
using actual water propagated in front of the projector
(Yes, they could've made it clearer... This is just a camera and a projector sitting together.)
Except (Score:2)
for when a lump of snow or mud sticks to the camera lense.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology is a poort substitute for experience (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you DON'T give this technology to an inexperienced driver, he may well drive too fast for conditions, etc. etc. It makes about as much sense to oppose windshield wipers or eyesglasses for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it could do the same thing that AWD has done in far too many cases, and end up leading to drivers who ignore the laws of physics. The technology itself is neither good nor bad; however the results of having it can be catastrophic in the hands of the wrong, inexperienced drivers.
Personally, I t
Re: (Score:2)
"Personally, I think everyone should learn how to drive in the snow and rain in a RWD car with no traction control and a lot of torque."
Personally, I think that's exactly the wrong approach. Here's why: if my experience driving in the snow is with the worst possible equipment, when I get better equipment, as I inevitably will, I'll be LESS afraid of the conditions because I think the technology will help me. People need to drive, under controlled conditions, in the snow with all the bells and whistles and
Apply XOR to output? (Score:2)
Some researchers manage to track raindrops (or snowflakes) in front of a light and, in real time, change the beam so that they are not illuminated! This drastically reduces glare.
Can we do the opposite, and change the beam to exclusively illuminate moving particles only? Bet it would look really cool.
Not Newton but Laplace (Score:2)
Some posters already pointed out that the quote attributed to Newton is really something Laplace would have said, but it hasn't been pointed out that there is actually an established term for this line of thinking. It is called the Laplace demon [wikipedia.org].
Fog lights (Score:2)
The system's operating range is three to four meters in front of the projectorâ"the "critical range" at which glare is most distracting,
That's the principle behind fog lights. A low, wide beam of light located below the driver's field of view.
Video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Very clever idea, yes, but I wouldn't call it impressive. It's all very simple technology we've had for a while now. Just one of those "Why hadn't anyone thought of that?" ideas.
Isn't that the very definition of a clever idea?
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. I like my statements the way I like my power supplies: Redundant; which is the way I like my statements.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
I like my statements like I like my statements: Tautological.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think it was Newton..."
...but checking up before posting would be too much trouble, right?
Did Isaac Newton even know the universe was made of particles?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the universe made of particles?
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." - Frank Zappa
--
BMO
Anyway, I think he's talking about Laplace. (Score:3, Informative)
Laplace's Demon [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anyway, I think he's talking about Laplace. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hopeless. They want everything we say to be instantly produced, meticulously researched, and entirely free from the slightest defect. Never let them see the PROCESS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course it's a good idea:
A little Cory Hart... (Score:2)
So I can, so I can
See the light that's right before my eyes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Impressive to spend years and $$$ to achieve an overly complex version of something that can be achieved by wearing your (polarised) sunglasses. Added bonus: you don't need to buy a new car.
How is this at all similar to wearing polarized sunglasses?
Polarized sunglasses reduce horizontally polarized glare, such as when sunlight reflects off the flat road. However, this doesn't help reduce the glare reflected back from a spherical raindrop. This technology prevents light from your headlamp from illuminating the rain drop in the first place. And it does this while reducing the overall headlamp light level by a few percent, as opposed to the much greater reduction you'd see with sunglasses.
Re: (Score:3)
There ya go, injecting facts into a perfectly distorted planted meme. You anti-trolls just suck the venom right out of stuff, ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
Predator did quite a good job...
Yeah, but if you covered yourself in mud, you became invisible to him. So that would be pretty dangerous tech if you drove in a lot of wet and dirty conditions, I'd have thought.
You really need to think these things through properly.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Absolutely. The problem with rain is not that the raindrops falling through the air impair vision. They do, but that is a minor effect compared to the wet road surface becoming entirely invisible at night. You can't see the lane markings, and you can't see the edge of the road.
Rain is invisible to Millimeter radar. (Score:2)
Rain is invisible to Millimeter radar. So a heads up display would let you see throw the rain.
Also good for when skynet is driving the cars for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you'd also have to be an outside observer of the universe to predict its future, as any computer inside the universe would also have to predict its own actions before they actually happened.
I think the whole idea depends on a purely clockwork/mechanistic view of the universe, with no free will or decision making involved.. That does not appear to be how the universe works though.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not there's a general solution to a problem only has bearing on how easy it is to solve, not whether or not it can be solved.
There's no general solution for the roots of a polynomial function either, but we somehow manage to solve them all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
We solve multi body problems all the time as well. In fact, you can see some of those solutions on pretty much any standard wall calendar.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I do not. The solution you find on a wall calendar is for the Earth-Moon-Sun system. If you download Celestia you will find solutions to problems involving nearby stars. Galactic cluster and collision studies often provide solutions (to a desired precision) to multi-galaxy systems.
There is no general solution to the N-body problem. That has no bearing on whether the problem is solvable, particularly given the assumptions Laplace (the actual person who said what the summary attributed to Newton) made