None.
None.
None.
None.
There are many situations during a typical skiing or snowboarding day in which skiers and snowboarders would appreciate having eyes in the back of their heads. Whether cruising down a wide open slope, merging with an adjacent trail, or transiting a slope or trail on a catwalk, being able to “see” sideways or backwards provides a new level of safety to skiers and snowboarders of all abilities. Not all skiers and snowboarders are cautious or make a concerted effort to obey the rules of skiing or snowboarding etiquette. It is not uncommon to observe skiers and snowboarders of limited ability barreling down a slope out of control colliding with or nearly missing unsuspecting, controlled skiers and snowboarders on the same slope. Other skiers and snowboarders can be seen projecting themselves out of the trees at the side or bottom of a trail without concern for passing skiers or snowboarders. The same situation occurs at trail merges where the out of control skier or snowboarder on one trail could be just above an unsuspecting skier or snowboarder on the other trail as they merge. Catwalks across slopes provide multiple situations for concern. Skiers or snowboarders traversing the slope on the catwalk are vulnerable to uphill skiers or snowboarders and the uphill skiers' or snowboarders' ability to avoid them. Also in play are the skiers and snowboarders below the catwalk should the uphill skier or snowboarder decide to jump off the edge of the catwalk without seeing the skier or snowboarder below the catwalk. The uphill skier or snowboarder will be airborne when seeing the skier or snowboarder below the catwalk making it very difficult to avoid a collision.
The danger in all of the above examples can be reduced or avoided if the vulnerable skiers and snowboarders had the ability to “see” to the side or behind themselves as they proceed downhill. The ability to “see” can take many forms. Skiers or snowboarders could constantly turn their heads from side to side in search of encroaching skiers or snowboarders turning themselves into partially blind, dangerous projectiles. Skiers and snowboarders could wear rear view mirrors on their helmets to reduce the amount of time required to scan behind them. But they still need to focus on the rear view mirror; time spent not looking for other skiers or snowboarders in their own downhill path. Rear view mirrors are also susceptible to frost, fog, and snow, all of which reduce visibility and lead to periodic cleaning, an irritant taking away from the free skiing or snowboarding experience. Skiers and snowboarders could mount video cameras to the rear of their helmets and use a heads up display in their goggles to view the rearward video scene. This approach suffers the same disadvantages as the rear view mirror in addition to being very expensive.
The approach proposed in this patent allowing skiers and snowboarders to “see” beside or behind themselves avoids the problems described above. In general the proposed approach uses a rear looking radar with audio alerts. The small size, power, and weight of the radar allow it to be mounted in the helmet. The audio alert warning of an encroaching skier or snowboarder allows the skier or snowboarder to continue to look downhill while performing an evading maneuver. Evading maneuvers could be quick turns to the right or left or stops to the right or left depending on the audio alert and the situation.
There are radar warning systems for automobiles that look forward1, sideways2, and to the rear3,4,5 for example, but none fit the skiing and snowboarding applications. The skiing and snowboarding applications require small, lightweight, low dissipated power, low transmit power (to maximize user safety), limited field of view, low delay, quick reaction time, and rear looking radar detecting a forward moving target. While the inventors have not found a suitable, off-the-shelf device in the open literature, there are capable systems1 that could be modified to meet the specific skiing and snowboarding requirements. In addition, the inventors claim that a system similar to that described herein could be built with different system parameters while meeting similar requirements and objectives for the skiing/snowboarding application and for a pedestrian application. 1R. Stevenson, “A Driver's Sixth Sense,” IEEE Spectrum, October 2011, pp 50-55.2Delphi Automotive Systems, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/delphis-collosion-avoidance-systems-take-accident-prevention-to-the-next-level Feb. 23, 1998.3M. Rao, “Accident Avoidance During Vehicle Backup,” U.S. Pat. No. 7,772,991 B2, Aug. 10, 2010.4B. Osborne, http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/audiovox-offers-easy-wireless-collision-avoidance-solution, Jun. 17, 2008.5P. Seiler, et al, “Development of a Collision Avoidance System,” Society of Automotive Engineers, 98PC-417, 1998.
A technique for alerting a skier/snowboarder of approaching skiers/snowboarders from the side and rear includes a rear looking radar with audio alerts to the user. Feasibility of the Rear Looking Snow Helmet (RLSH) will be shown. The electronics driving the system are mounted in the skier's/snowboarder's helmet while two antenna elements are mounted within or on the rear of the helmet. A large, ski glove friendly ON/OFF switch is mounted on the outer shell of the helmet for easy access when the skier/snowboarder reaches the bottom of the run, for example, where false alarms could be generated by the motion of skiers/snowboarders approaching ski lifts or walking to the cafeteria. Stationary objects like trees, ski lift towers, or resting skiers/snowboarders are eliminated using standard radar clutter rejection techniques. The system uses ±30° rear looking beams and provides an audio alert to the left earphone if a skier/snowboarder is detected in the +30° beam and an audio alert to the right earphone if a skier/snowboarder is detected in the −30° beam. A higher audio frequency indicates a closer range and a lower audio frequency indicates a longer range to the approaching skier/snowboarder. The RLSH is transparent to the user until an approaching skier/snowboarder triggers an alert that may require the user to make a protective maneuver.
Sophisticated radar systems are available today that are more than capable of fulfilling the needs of the RLSH. We suggest that current technology could be modified and simplified to implement our proposed system. Future technology could be used to further simplify and reduce size, power, weight, and cost. We maintain that the RLSH is technology independent. Our main goal here is to show that the system is feasible today and deserving of patent coverage. We provide Key Performance Parameters for the skiing and snowboarding applications that yield an operational system design coupled with performance analysis to demonstrate functionality and precision. Conclusions from our performance analysis show that the RLSH will detect approaching skiers/snowboarders in the 10 m, ±30° beam observation window with a probability of detection >99.9%, a probability of false alarm <10−6, and with a range accuracy of 1.5 m. In addition, a Sequencing and Alerting Algorithm will have access to data from multiple pings and provide range proportional audible alerts so the user can evade or prepare for the encroaching skier/snowboarder.
The above and further features and advantages of the invention will become apparent after considering the following descriptions and figures. While these descriptions and figures go into specific details of the invention for a specific skiing and snowboarding application, it should be understood that variations may and do exist and would be apparent to those skilled in the art. For example, many of the system parameters could be varied and another system could be designed to meet similar performance requirements and objectives for skiers/snowboarders or pedestrians.
Introduction
The invention overcomes the aforementioned dangers of downhill skiing and snowboarding. Using a rear looking radar with audio alerts mounted in the skier's/snowboarder's helmet allows the skier/snowboarder to focus attention on the fall line below knowing an audio alert will warn of encroaching skiers/snowboarders from the side or behind. This enables the skier/snowboarder to ski more confidently, enjoying a safer free skiing and snowboarding experience while improving the safety of fellow skiers/snowboarders as well.
As shown in the non-scale concept sketch in
A key component in the RLSH is the radar system. Sophisticated radar systems are available today1 that are more than capable of fulfilling the needs of the RLSH. We suggest that current technology could be modified (simplified) to implement the RLSH. Future technology could be used to further simplify and reduce size, weight, power, and cost, i.e. the RLSH is not technology dependant. Key performance parameters for the generic rear looking radar for the skiing and snowboarding applications are shown in
System Description
Referring to the transmitter side of
Referring to the receive side of
Performance
Performance—SNR Related Parameters
SNR determination begins with transmit power and a link budget. A low value of transmit power (2 mW) was selected to eliminate harmful RF radiation to the user. The link budget is used to predict the received SNR back at the RLSH after a radar signal is transmitted, propagates to the approaching skier/snowboarder, reflects off the approaching skier/snowboarder then propagates back to the RLSH.
Referring to
EIRP=PT−LC+GA (1)
where:
PT=10 LOG(2 mW)=3 dBm,
LC=cable losses=0.5 dB (assumed), and
GA=antenna gain (or loss)=−5.5 dB (assumed), yielding
EIRP=3−0.5−5.5=−3 dBm.
As shown in
Referring again to
PL=20 LOG(H1)−40 LOG(R)−40 LOG(R)+20 LOG(H2) (2)
where,
H1=H2=helmet mounted antenna height from ground=5′9″=1.75 m (assumed)
R=10 m (maximum range)
therefore,
PL=20 LOG(1.75)−40 LOG(10)+20 LOG(1.75)−40 LOG(10)
PL=5−40+5−40=−70 dB.
7T. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles and Practice, IEEE Press, NY, N.Y., and Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996, page 89.
Given the propagation loss, a link budget can be derived for the received signal strength, S, at the input to the user receiver:
S=EIRP+PL+RCS+GA−LC (3)
where,
RCS of the approaching skier/snowboarder=−3 dB8
S=−3-70-3-5.5−0.5=−82 dBm.
8T. Doraru and C. Le, “Validation of Xpatch Computer Models for Human Body Radar Signatures,” Army Research Laboratory, ARL-TR-4403, March 2008.
Knowing that a typical off-the-shelf, 3rd ISM band receiver9 has a noise floor, N=−92 dBm, the SNR at the receiver input, SNRi, can be determined:
SNRi=S−N(dB)
SNRi=−82−(−92)=10 dB. (4)
9Altan ALT5801, 5.8 GHz Transceiver Module, Altan Technologies, June 2009.
The SNR at the output of the correlator, SNRo, is then determined as:
SNRo=SNRi+PG (5)
where,
PG=Processing Gain=10 LOG(correlator length)=10 LOG(1024)=30 dB.
Substituting into (4) yields,
SNRo=10+30=40 dB.
From Whalen10, an output SNRo=16 dB supports Pd=99.9% and Pfa=10−8 leaving a 24 dB margin. The entire SNRo=40 dB is needed to achieve reasonable location accuracy for the example system being proposed. Other and future systems could tradeoff increased bandwidth (BW) versus SNRo to reduce transmit power or antenna efficiency, for example, to reduce the margin and associated costs. As shown below, bandwidth is directly proportional to location accuracy in time, σt, which is estimated using the Cramer-Rao Bound (CRB)11:
CRB=1/(BW×SNRo1/2)=σt
σt=1/[2×106×(10,000)1/2]=5×10−9=5 ns, (6)
where the range error in meters is,
σr=speed of light×time=3×108(m/s)×5×10−9(s)=1.5 m.
10A. Whalen, Detection of Signals in Noise, Academic Press, New York, 1971, p 248.11H. Poor and G. Wornell, Wireless Communications Signal Processing Prospectives, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998, p 383.
A range error of σr=1.5m is sufficient to allow several warnings of an encroaching skier/snowboarder first detected at a range of 10m.
Performance—Time Related Parameters
Moving on to the time related parameters, we begin with differential velocity, Av, between the skier using the RLSH (shown in
Δv=v2−v1 m/s. (7)
The speed of average downhill skiers/snowboarders is on the order of 20 mph.12 Assuming that the encroaching skier/snowboarder is approaching at 25-35 mph,
Δvmin=5 mph(=7.33 feet/sec),
Δvmax=15 mph(=22 feet/sec,=6.67 meters/sec).
12http://www.trails.com/facts-9654-how-fast-do-downhill-skiers.html.
In order to reduce false alarms, the field of view is limited by the range gate to 10 m. The maximum and minimum total reaction times, TRmax and TRmin, for the RLSH assuming a maximum range of 10m (33 feet) and the above differential velocity assumptions are:
TRmax=33/Δvmin=33/7.33=4.5 sec, (8)
TRmin=33/Δvmax=33/22=1.5 sec. (9)
A simple Sequencing and Alerting Algorithm is used to support the short reaction and alerting times and evade approaching skiers/snowboarders.
As shown in
Coherence time, Tc, the final time related parameter, is the time over which a signal can be coherently integrated. Tc is related to wavelength, λ, of the transmitted signal and the maximum differential velocity, Δvmax, between the user and the encroaching skier/snowboarder13:
Tc≈0.423λ/Δvmax,
Tc≈0.423×0.52/6.67≈3.3 ms. (10)
13T. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles and Practice, IEEE Press, NY, N.Y., and Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996, page 166.
From
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6097315 | Minter | Aug 2000 | A |
6594614 | Studt et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6861970 | Garland | Mar 2005 | B1 |
7095315 | Lemke | Aug 2006 | B2 |
8060149 | Louis et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8269619 | Lee | Sep 2012 | B2 |