Gesture control although a very useful and efficient solution to many engineering problems, might not fit here. Because in emergency situation to have a direct mechanical control is most reliable. There might be alot of safety precautions with gesture control as well, but it is always safer to have a direct emergency control that requires some mechanical action, it is almost always trustworthy.
I can see that an industrial robot that would run the program based on a gesture for a start command could be safer, and possibly even better. BUT as an engineer responsible for safe operations I would NEVER consider leaving out the big red EMERGENCY STOP button. Adding a gesture input in addition would be OK, but to put something as important as an emergency stop function on the wrong end of a lot of software would be very irresponsible. JUst remember those cars with thatbSTUPID start/Stop button that does not work in an emergency situation. There is a very valid reason that E-Stop is not done in software.
OK, mrdon. Some MCU manufacturers offer wizards to help programmers configure the bits and bytes through a graphical interface. The Texas Instruments "GRACE" software, for example, provides this capability for some of the MSP430 processors. A programmer selects the necessary peripheral devices and then selects the desired settings. GRACE creates C-language source code to do the job.
Hi, mrdon. I bet bit-bashing code in assembly language provides only a small time advantage over code written in C and compiled. Current compilers provide optimizations and can get very "close" to an MCU's hardware for control. I would much rather read control code in C than try to figure out bit configurations and settings in another programmer's assembly-language code. (Been there, done that!)
Hi, William. People would train robots to respond only to specific gestures. Thus, someone couldn't use an industrial robot to follow his or her every move and start tearing apart an assembly line. Gesture control would require security to prevent unauthorized use or "training."
Hi, Naperlou, et al. LabVIEW creates compiled code. It does not create some sort of intermediate code that requires an interpreter. Instead, you get native code that runs on your target processor. And as far as I know, you can mix in C-language code, too, if you need to do something at that level. Also, LabVIEW will compile and run applications in FPGAs.
Nancy Golden, Using assembly language with gesture controls may improve response time because of the software being one level above machine code. Therefore, bit processing is closer to the target microcontroller than a high level language like "C" code. Just thinking out loud folks!
Switched-capacitor filters have a few disadvantages. They exhibit greater sensitivity to noise than their op-amp-based filter siblings, and they have low-amplitude clock-signal artifacts -- clock feedthrough -- on their outputs.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.