With time, money, and manpower there is no question engineers can make this novelty work. This is engineer fun. This puts a smile on peoples faces. Its not directly solving any world problems, but my Mom always tells me how important it is to have a little fun every day, and she is 96. As a business decision, is it worth the investment? I'm estimating that it isn't worth a big corporate effort, but more like one or more people exploring it on their own, more for the interest and science than getting rich.
As an engineering project, I would view the three primary functions as the "pop" command, the detection of desire to launch, definition of the specific location of the the target mouth, and finally the targeting function to send the popped kernel to a specific location. I would develop these threee functions somewhat independently, and then integrate the three working functions. The interfaces between the functions must be defined carefully as early as possible in the development process so that successful system integration will not require miracles to occur. In this application, I would focus on high volume sensors from other fields for design simplicity, high reliability, and low cost. I would not presuppose ultrasonic, vision, MEMS, or any other technology would be superior to any other without testing in this application. I would look forward to systems testing and am willing to bring my own diet root beer to wash down some popcorn.
Naperlou wrote: "Actually, the system to detect the sound and figure out where to put it should not be too difficult. On the other hand, variability in the popcorn itself could pose a problem, I would think."
Probably not, but you couldn't do it with "binaural microphones." A binary set (two) of microphones would be sufficient to get the speaker's azimuth but you would need another one (at least) to get elevation.
Then a classic set of artillery tables (such as were computed by the very first digital computers during the waning days of World War II) would define the aiming algorithm. As noted, compensation for popcorn variability would be necessary. Perhaps a MEMS scale to measure projectile mass would reduce this error. Correcting for air resistance variability would be more difficult of course.
I would make this thing use a digital camera face detect function for aiming the shooter and audio for the trigger. Perhaps you could combine the two to figure out which face if more than one. Even better, fire one at each face!
This would have really come in handy at last night's VP debate!
Two comments: First I notice that the film shows every kernel hitting the "bull's eye." I wonder how many hours of video they had to edit to catch that many perfect hits. The speaker raises a very important point that because popcorn has a low density, random aerodynamic effects can dominate over Newtonian mechanics.
My second comment is to second those who point out that this is a silly idea to begin with. Don't we engineers have enough real problems to solve?
In a previous life I designed toys and developed more than one prototype of a toy that responded to voice control. Some used algorithms running on nothing more than a PIC, others used more sophisticated devices. There was no mention of the budget for the thing. Nontheless, check out Sensory, Inc. for voice control IC's. We've used these for many (many) toys: http://www.sensoryinc.com/.
Though no one has asked I'll answer it anyway; I'm not interested in working on the thing.
Meh. We do it every day with hearing aids that have inter-ear coordination (via ear-to-ear RF communication), which among other things allows the directional microphones to "steer" towards the voice and away from the noise.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.