Today's idea addresses a problem that only some people will have with some stations in some locations.
Certain smaller stations will have multiple frequencies depending on your exact location relative to your local urban center. The station is served on different frequencies in different areas. The North suburbs might have 102.1 while downtown might have the station on 95.5 for example.
These tend to be, in my experience, smaller less popular stations.
The result is that you can be driving along and have the station die out or become unclear. If you wish to continue listening to the station it requires you to switch over to the other station. This can be problematic if you stumbled across the station while surfing for something to listen to (and thus do not know that they have multiple frequencies), or if the station used more than two frequencies so that you need to figure out which one will end up being most clear.
Digital radio signals can let the radio know the station name and name of the song and artist currently playing. It would also be possible for the signal to have alternative frequency information embedded into it. If the signal detected noise from static (something your radio can already do, this is how it autotunes), it would quickly check the alternative frequencies to see if any of them were clearer.
This could also be used with syndicated radio shows that are being hosted on multiple stations. If the signal of the station you were listening on grew too weak, it could automatically check the signal of other stations hosting the show at that time.
This would increase the cost of the radio (just like digital radios cost more). It would need a bit more hardware to figure out how to flip frequencies, and it would likely need multiple tuners (to allow it to check the other frequencies without interrupting what you are listening to). However, these costs would not be too great. They would also lay some of the hardware groundwork for another one of my ideas, a radio Tivo.
Ultimately, as I said earlier, this would only be useful some of the time for some people. However, when dealing with these types of small stations, retuning into them is very annoying. I feel that the people who DO have to deal with this would greatly appreciate the functionality, and it would almost certainly help the listenership of these small stations.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Remote Entry Key Fob Meets Cell Phone
In reality remote entry key fobs for car do not save all that much time. However, people use cars enough that they seem like a great convinience and luxery. However, they are not perfect.
The first problem is the space they take. In a multi-car household their size can make it difficult to have the 'keys' to every car on your key chain. The other problem that I have observed stems with how people use them. If the driver is slow with taking out his keys and unlocking the door, passangers may need to wait for the door to be unlocked. While this is not a huge inconvinience it can be anoying.
There is a solution to both these problems.
If cars were designed to unlock their doors in the presscence of a coded bluetooth signal, your cellphone could be used to enter your car (bluetooth is the type of wireless signal that cellphones use to communicate with headsets). Infact if the car was equiped with a keyless ignition system (as many luxery cars are) the cellphone could also turn on the car. All of the sudden you don't need any keys for your car.
There would be nothing preventing a single cellphone from having the codes for multiple cars. In a multi-car household with multiple drivers, there would be no need to make multiple copies of multiple keys so that everyoen would have a set. It would be as simple as punching the codes into everyone's cellphone. Right here, money is being saved. There would be no cost to enter the code into multiple cellphones. The process could even be 'automated' just requiring the press of a 'pairing' button, just like with bluetooth headsets.
This also could solve the second issue I mentioned. Since the 'clicker' has been replaced with the cellphone which has a rechargable battery, it's ok if it is running all the time. The cellphone could automatically send a 'lock' signal as you walk away from the car and could automatically unlock the door when you got near. There would be no need to wait for the driver to take out and press the button. As long as the driver was within range (likely 10-15 feet based on bluetooth specifications). This continuous transmision method would cause the cellphone to eat through its battery faster; bluetooth consume power. But this feature could be made optional.
As far as security, there would be no reason why it would be any less safe. The methods used to prevent people from currently 'capturing' your key fobs security code work just as well with a cellphone (click here is you are interested in why your keyfob won't likely open up anyone elses car http://auto.howstuffworks.com/remote-entry2.htm).
This idea is also provides a perfect way to apply an earlier idea of mine. Some time ago I mentioned the posibility of 'Car Logins' (http://dailyinnovention.blogspot.com/2010/06/car-logins.html). Basically the idea was to allow the car to remeber the seat positions, radio presets, and mirror positions of individual drivers. These prefrences could easily be stored in the cellphone.
This would not require people to have cellphones with special hardware. All it would require would be a software download. Also, many cars allready have bluetooth hardware installed to facilitate handsfree phone calls. It should be obvious that this would be easy for car manufactures to impliment.
The only real problem I see with this idea is the eventuality of having a dead cellphone battery. If someone replaced all of their keys with their phone they could be locked out of their car. This could be mitigated by including a small secondary battery (like those used in key fobs currently) with the sole purpose of unlocking car doors when the main battery is dead. Of course if cellphones had preemptive low battery warnings as I discussed yesterday, this wouldn't be a problem.
All in all, I would love to not worry about keys. Being able to opperate multiple cellphones as long as I had my cellphone on my person is something that I would definetly be willing to pay for, and I suspect, is somethign that many others would pay for as well. Combined that with 'car logins' and people are looking at a great increase in convinience. Even at a modest price, being able to avoid copying keys could still save money. And as for the auto industry? It wouldn't cost them much more in the manufacturing process, and they could definaetly market it to cell new cars.
The first problem is the space they take. In a multi-car household their size can make it difficult to have the 'keys' to every car on your key chain. The other problem that I have observed stems with how people use them. If the driver is slow with taking out his keys and unlocking the door, passangers may need to wait for the door to be unlocked. While this is not a huge inconvinience it can be anoying.
There is a solution to both these problems.
If cars were designed to unlock their doors in the presscence of a coded bluetooth signal, your cellphone could be used to enter your car (bluetooth is the type of wireless signal that cellphones use to communicate with headsets). Infact if the car was equiped with a keyless ignition system (as many luxery cars are) the cellphone could also turn on the car. All of the sudden you don't need any keys for your car.
There would be nothing preventing a single cellphone from having the codes for multiple cars. In a multi-car household with multiple drivers, there would be no need to make multiple copies of multiple keys so that everyoen would have a set. It would be as simple as punching the codes into everyone's cellphone. Right here, money is being saved. There would be no cost to enter the code into multiple cellphones. The process could even be 'automated' just requiring the press of a 'pairing' button, just like with bluetooth headsets.
This also could solve the second issue I mentioned. Since the 'clicker' has been replaced with the cellphone which has a rechargable battery, it's ok if it is running all the time. The cellphone could automatically send a 'lock' signal as you walk away from the car and could automatically unlock the door when you got near. There would be no need to wait for the driver to take out and press the button. As long as the driver was within range (likely 10-15 feet based on bluetooth specifications). This continuous transmision method would cause the cellphone to eat through its battery faster; bluetooth consume power. But this feature could be made optional.
As far as security, there would be no reason why it would be any less safe. The methods used to prevent people from currently 'capturing' your key fobs security code work just as well with a cellphone (click here is you are interested in why your keyfob won't likely open up anyone elses car http://auto.howstuffworks.com/remote-entry2.htm).
This idea is also provides a perfect way to apply an earlier idea of mine. Some time ago I mentioned the posibility of 'Car Logins' (http://dailyinnovention.blogspot.com/2010/06/car-logins.html). Basically the idea was to allow the car to remeber the seat positions, radio presets, and mirror positions of individual drivers. These prefrences could easily be stored in the cellphone.
This would not require people to have cellphones with special hardware. All it would require would be a software download. Also, many cars allready have bluetooth hardware installed to facilitate handsfree phone calls. It should be obvious that this would be easy for car manufactures to impliment.
The only real problem I see with this idea is the eventuality of having a dead cellphone battery. If someone replaced all of their keys with their phone they could be locked out of their car. This could be mitigated by including a small secondary battery (like those used in key fobs currently) with the sole purpose of unlocking car doors when the main battery is dead. Of course if cellphones had preemptive low battery warnings as I discussed yesterday, this wouldn't be a problem.
All in all, I would love to not worry about keys. Being able to opperate multiple cellphones as long as I had my cellphone on my person is something that I would definetly be willing to pay for, and I suspect, is somethign that many others would pay for as well. Combined that with 'car logins' and people are looking at a great increase in convinience. Even at a modest price, being able to avoid copying keys could still save money. And as for the auto industry? It wouldn't cost them much more in the manufacturing process, and they could definaetly market it to cell new cars.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Preemptive Low Battery Alerts
Most cell phones will warn you when the battery is low. This can range from beeps and chirps to blinking lights. However, what happens if your battery does not reach the low state until you need it. These warnings are a lot less useful than they could be because they do not give you any warning until the battery is already low.
This ends up being a problem in numerous different ways. Perhaps when you head to bed your battery is 'charged,' and thus your phone does not provide any warning. But that charge may not be enough to last the eight hours until you wake up. By the time you get up, the battery may all ready be dead (thus your phone won't be able to give any low battery warnings). You then might not realize the state of your battery until you grab your phone to head to work. By that point it is too late to charge your phone before your commute.
What would be far more useful is a low battery alert that lets you know that your battery will be low before it is actually low. This way you have time to charge it.
For those on a regular schedule, there could be the options to enter in when they go to bed and when they wake up into the phone settings. If when you go to sleep the phone predicts that the battery will be low by the time you wake up, it could give you a warning so that you can let your phone charge overnight.
Phone software could allow users to enter in periods of time in which they would be unable to charge the phone. If it thinks its battery will run low during these time periods (based on idle power usage), it can preemptively warn you.
If people wanted to avoid their phone constantly beeping the early warning system could be based only on a warning light. The light could shift between yellow, orange, and red.
The really nice thing about this idea is the ease of implementation. In most modern cellphones all it would take is a simple software update to add in this feature.
As it is, low battery warnings are frequently of little use. If you are not at home, or soon will not be at home, such that there is no time to charge the phone, then all the warning does it let you know you will not have the use of your phone. The roll battery indicators should play is to allow you to preemptively charge your phone before its a problem. They don't yet do this, but they easily could.
This ends up being a problem in numerous different ways. Perhaps when you head to bed your battery is 'charged,' and thus your phone does not provide any warning. But that charge may not be enough to last the eight hours until you wake up. By the time you get up, the battery may all ready be dead (thus your phone won't be able to give any low battery warnings). You then might not realize the state of your battery until you grab your phone to head to work. By that point it is too late to charge your phone before your commute.
What would be far more useful is a low battery alert that lets you know that your battery will be low before it is actually low. This way you have time to charge it.
For those on a regular schedule, there could be the options to enter in when they go to bed and when they wake up into the phone settings. If when you go to sleep the phone predicts that the battery will be low by the time you wake up, it could give you a warning so that you can let your phone charge overnight.
Phone software could allow users to enter in periods of time in which they would be unable to charge the phone. If it thinks its battery will run low during these time periods (based on idle power usage), it can preemptively warn you.
If people wanted to avoid their phone constantly beeping the early warning system could be based only on a warning light. The light could shift between yellow, orange, and red.
The really nice thing about this idea is the ease of implementation. In most modern cellphones all it would take is a simple software update to add in this feature.
As it is, low battery warnings are frequently of little use. If you are not at home, or soon will not be at home, such that there is no time to charge the phone, then all the warning does it let you know you will not have the use of your phone. The roll battery indicators should play is to allow you to preemptively charge your phone before its a problem. They don't yet do this, but they easily could.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Customized News Traffic Reports
Most local morning news programs have a segment on the traffic. This makes sense. These programs often air before people begin their commute to work and can provide valuable information to make a commute easier.
However, it involves sitting through whatever traffic information they report even if it does not apply to your commute. There is also the chance they do not cover the route you take.
As I have mentioned before, digital television makes it possible to deliver customized content to viewers. Traffic reports are a perfect application for this.
When setting up your cable box, it would be possible to enter in the routes that you take on your commute. The traffic report on any news report that supports the feature could explicitly cover the roads pertinent to a viewers commute.
Once television providers and networks begin fully realizing the potential of digital television delivery we will begin seeing a whole spectrum of customized content on television. Customizing content is good for the viewer and thus good for the provider.
However, it involves sitting through whatever traffic information they report even if it does not apply to your commute. There is also the chance they do not cover the route you take.
As I have mentioned before, digital television makes it possible to deliver customized content to viewers. Traffic reports are a perfect application for this.
When setting up your cable box, it would be possible to enter in the routes that you take on your commute. The traffic report on any news report that supports the feature could explicitly cover the roads pertinent to a viewers commute.
Once television providers and networks begin fully realizing the potential of digital television delivery we will begin seeing a whole spectrum of customized content on television. Customizing content is good for the viewer and thus good for the provider.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Automated Snow Removal
I have recently acquired a Roomba. It is a robot that can automatically vacuum the floor. I have to say it works fairly well. But it got me thinking, what other tasks could similar technology be applied to.
There already exists similar products for the purpose of washing floors, cleaning pools, and mowing lawns. However, the coming winter made me think, what if there was a robot that could remove the snow from your driveway for you.
Snowblowers greatly ease the task of removing snow from the driveway, but they still require you to work in the cold elements.
Creating something that could accomplish this task would require overcoming a number of issues. Because of how daunting these problems may seem at first, I am going to take some time to address the major problems as I see them one by one.
The first problem is that outside there are no walls to provide guidance for the device. A method of keeping the snow removal on track would be needed.
The best way to accomplish this, as far as I am concerned, is by installing a guidance system along side your driveway. Imagine a system similar to that of an invisible dog fence. Systems like this are already used to guide snow plows along dangerous mountain roads where visibility can not be relied upon.
As far as how the snow removal robot would actually remove the snow, it could function just like any actual snow blower. However, if this method was used, it introduces a new problem. Without a person pushing it, the robot would need a powerful drive system. Instead a lower power scaled down system would likely be better. Rather than trying to get the snow all in one pass, it would be easier to do it in multiple passes. This would not require as strong as a drive system.
However, once again that introduces a different problem, the robot would have to be light enough not to crush the snow into ice during an early pass.
With this in mind, it seems that the robot would need to be designed to remove the snow as it is falling before it has had a chance to pile up. This would allow it to be have wider weight limitations, have a lower power drive train, and have a lower powered snow removal system.
The last final problem that I foresee is safety. You would not want a snowblower to be driving around by itself with no concept of where any nearby humans were located. I also feel that this is the largest problem. Even if a product could be made that solved the other issues, it would be meaningless if it was horribly unsafe.
Any method of visual detection would be unreliable in adverse weather conditions (such as when it is snowing) and thus must be discounted. The system can also not rely on any sort of transmission device attached to people (because people may not be wearing them).
A workable answer would be a bumper system (similar to that of the Roomba). A bumper would be in front of snowblower robot and would detect collisions. The system would then be programed to stop the snowblowers actuator upon collision with an object.
The bumper would need to be a foot off the ground to avoid being triggered by snow on the ground. It would also need to be much wider than the snowblower itself. If it was not, it could be possible for someones foot to get under the robot without their leg triggering the safety bumper.
This would not be a perfect system by any means. My proposed safety system would not protect a person lying down in front of the robot. However, snowblowers as they currently exist are not perfectly safe either.
As much as I would appreciate such a product, I am also realistic. Each of my proposed solutions include any number of engineering challenges. Even if these challenges were solved, it could be highly probable that it would not be fiscally profitable to produce and sell.
There already exists similar products for the purpose of washing floors, cleaning pools, and mowing lawns. However, the coming winter made me think, what if there was a robot that could remove the snow from your driveway for you.
Snowblowers greatly ease the task of removing snow from the driveway, but they still require you to work in the cold elements.
Creating something that could accomplish this task would require overcoming a number of issues. Because of how daunting these problems may seem at first, I am going to take some time to address the major problems as I see them one by one.
The first problem is that outside there are no walls to provide guidance for the device. A method of keeping the snow removal on track would be needed.
The best way to accomplish this, as far as I am concerned, is by installing a guidance system along side your driveway. Imagine a system similar to that of an invisible dog fence. Systems like this are already used to guide snow plows along dangerous mountain roads where visibility can not be relied upon.
As far as how the snow removal robot would actually remove the snow, it could function just like any actual snow blower. However, if this method was used, it introduces a new problem. Without a person pushing it, the robot would need a powerful drive system. Instead a lower power scaled down system would likely be better. Rather than trying to get the snow all in one pass, it would be easier to do it in multiple passes. This would not require as strong as a drive system.
However, once again that introduces a different problem, the robot would have to be light enough not to crush the snow into ice during an early pass.
With this in mind, it seems that the robot would need to be designed to remove the snow as it is falling before it has had a chance to pile up. This would allow it to be have wider weight limitations, have a lower power drive train, and have a lower powered snow removal system.
The last final problem that I foresee is safety. You would not want a snowblower to be driving around by itself with no concept of where any nearby humans were located. I also feel that this is the largest problem. Even if a product could be made that solved the other issues, it would be meaningless if it was horribly unsafe.
Any method of visual detection would be unreliable in adverse weather conditions (such as when it is snowing) and thus must be discounted. The system can also not rely on any sort of transmission device attached to people (because people may not be wearing them).
A workable answer would be a bumper system (similar to that of the Roomba). A bumper would be in front of snowblower robot and would detect collisions. The system would then be programed to stop the snowblowers actuator upon collision with an object.
The bumper would need to be a foot off the ground to avoid being triggered by snow on the ground. It would also need to be much wider than the snowblower itself. If it was not, it could be possible for someones foot to get under the robot without their leg triggering the safety bumper.
This would not be a perfect system by any means. My proposed safety system would not protect a person lying down in front of the robot. However, snowblowers as they currently exist are not perfectly safe either.
As much as I would appreciate such a product, I am also realistic. Each of my proposed solutions include any number of engineering challenges. Even if these challenges were solved, it could be highly probable that it would not be fiscally profitable to produce and sell.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ditch the Caps Lock Key
Some people will likely disagree with me on todays post. However, it does not change the fact that I do not like the caps lock key.
Rarely have I ever needed to use the caps lock key. However, if it was simply a matter of not using the key I would not be posting about it. The caps lock key is a 'relatively' large one and finds itself next to the 'A' key. If I had to guess I would say that less than ten percent of the time that I press the caps lock key is intentional. The other ninety percent is they key being accidentally pressed.
Having caps lock accidentally turned on causes all sorts of problems. The simplest problems involve needing to delete a few lines and retype them in the proper case. The more annoying form these problems take is trying to determine why a password is not working (when the answer is that caps lock has inverted the case).
For me the caps lock is a nuisance and a hindrance. This is especially true on laptops with smaller keyboards than standard desktop keyboards. I would be more than happy if the caps lock key was removed or replaced with something else.
But what about the benefits of the caps lock key? Well the only time I have ever needed to type something in all caps I have been using a word processor. Most word processors make the task of changing the case of typed text a trivial matter even without the caps lock key. Functionality is not really lost there. I can think, off the top of my head, of at least three keyboard shortcuts that I use far more frequently than caps lock (discounting accidental uses): ctrl+i (italics), ctrl+b (bold), and alt+tab (switch window). If the caps lock key was changed to perform any of these functions it would be more useful in my opinion.
The people who would really loose out without the presence of a caps lock key are those who use the caps lock more than they should. If you have spend enough time on the internet you have likely encountered someone who has made a forum post in all capital letters. It's incredibly annoying and it's the caps lock key that makes it so easy for them to do this. Removing the caps lock key would discourage at least this form of annoying behavior.
All other things being equal I would choose to purchase a keyboard without a caps lock key over one with such a key. To some this may seem like a trivial matter. However, after accidentally hitting the key today while entering a password, I stopped and asked myself, "Why is this key even here?"
Rarely have I ever needed to use the caps lock key. However, if it was simply a matter of not using the key I would not be posting about it. The caps lock key is a 'relatively' large one and finds itself next to the 'A' key. If I had to guess I would say that less than ten percent of the time that I press the caps lock key is intentional. The other ninety percent is they key being accidentally pressed.
Having caps lock accidentally turned on causes all sorts of problems. The simplest problems involve needing to delete a few lines and retype them in the proper case. The more annoying form these problems take is trying to determine why a password is not working (when the answer is that caps lock has inverted the case).
For me the caps lock is a nuisance and a hindrance. This is especially true on laptops with smaller keyboards than standard desktop keyboards. I would be more than happy if the caps lock key was removed or replaced with something else.
But what about the benefits of the caps lock key? Well the only time I have ever needed to type something in all caps I have been using a word processor. Most word processors make the task of changing the case of typed text a trivial matter even without the caps lock key. Functionality is not really lost there. I can think, off the top of my head, of at least three keyboard shortcuts that I use far more frequently than caps lock (discounting accidental uses): ctrl+i (italics), ctrl+b (bold), and alt+tab (switch window). If the caps lock key was changed to perform any of these functions it would be more useful in my opinion.
The people who would really loose out without the presence of a caps lock key are those who use the caps lock more than they should. If you have spend enough time on the internet you have likely encountered someone who has made a forum post in all capital letters. It's incredibly annoying and it's the caps lock key that makes it so easy for them to do this. Removing the caps lock key would discourage at least this form of annoying behavior.
All other things being equal I would choose to purchase a keyboard without a caps lock key over one with such a key. To some this may seem like a trivial matter. However, after accidentally hitting the key today while entering a password, I stopped and asked myself, "Why is this key even here?"
Monday, September 6, 2010
Gestured Based Lighting Control
We are entering an area where it is possible to control electronic devices through hand gestures alone. A example of this in use can be found in an upcoming version of the Android phone OS (http://www.pcworld.com/article/198552/touchless_gesture_control_coming_to_android_devices.html). The Xbox Kinect is another example of this technology being put into practice. The company that developed the hardware for the Xbox Kinect is planning on eventually releasing a version for interacting with a PC.
Once this technology becomes more mainstream there will likely be a flood of ideas for potential uses. However, I would like to take this moment to discuss an idea that I don't think is an immediately obvious application, gesture controlled lighting.
It is important to keep in mind that most new input technology is 'buggy.' Voice control is still iffy at best. Anyone who has called a customer support line that utilizes speech recognition likely knows that there is plenty of room for improvement. It is important to keep this in mind. The best use cases for this technology would involve simple gestures and few commands. To control a light you only need one command, a command that switches the light between on and off.
Ultimately, I would want to be able to turn a light on and off with just a flick of the wrist. Using gesture recognition technology, I should be able to a light on across the room by snapping my fingers at it (using sound recognition and listening for a snap could actually improve the accuracy).
To make such a system a reality all that would be required would be a camera somewhere in the room (possibly attached to a lamp) and a computer system to process the video feed captured by the camera. The price (initially) would likely be high for individual lights. It would likely be more economical if it was installed into a room as part of a home automation system.
Now some people might say that wanting something like this is lazy. I say its wanting convenience. Being able to turn a light on and off (instead of needing to unplug it) is another similar convenience. For that matter, wall mounted light switches so that you do not need to use the lamps switch is similar as well. This is simply an extension of that idea.
People still buy 'clap ons' and touch activated lights. Its obvious that people wish to pursue convenience where it is available, and I think that in the near future that this should be one way in which our lives can be more convenient, even if it's only by a small amount.
Once this technology becomes more mainstream there will likely be a flood of ideas for potential uses. However, I would like to take this moment to discuss an idea that I don't think is an immediately obvious application, gesture controlled lighting.
It is important to keep in mind that most new input technology is 'buggy.' Voice control is still iffy at best. Anyone who has called a customer support line that utilizes speech recognition likely knows that there is plenty of room for improvement. It is important to keep this in mind. The best use cases for this technology would involve simple gestures and few commands. To control a light you only need one command, a command that switches the light between on and off.
Ultimately, I would want to be able to turn a light on and off with just a flick of the wrist. Using gesture recognition technology, I should be able to a light on across the room by snapping my fingers at it (using sound recognition and listening for a snap could actually improve the accuracy).
To make such a system a reality all that would be required would be a camera somewhere in the room (possibly attached to a lamp) and a computer system to process the video feed captured by the camera. The price (initially) would likely be high for individual lights. It would likely be more economical if it was installed into a room as part of a home automation system.
Now some people might say that wanting something like this is lazy. I say its wanting convenience. Being able to turn a light on and off (instead of needing to unplug it) is another similar convenience. For that matter, wall mounted light switches so that you do not need to use the lamps switch is similar as well. This is simply an extension of that idea.
People still buy 'clap ons' and touch activated lights. Its obvious that people wish to pursue convenience where it is available, and I think that in the near future that this should be one way in which our lives can be more convenient, even if it's only by a small amount.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)