9 thoughts on “Centimeter-Precision GPS”

1. I’d like one to check if the chair is there before I sit down.

   1. …the newest innovation… just plug this in yer ass.

2. Centimeter-precision GPS-enabled hockey pucks might be a better application than an inflated ball (do you suspend the electronics in the center?), but that’s a good start.

   Imagine a SETI@home type of network on cellphones monitoring the GPS and accelerometer on phones that are not in use – a small background app running on millions of phone watching for seismic activity.

   IIRC getting this kind of accuracy from GPS was a huge problem for Armadillo Aerospace and Unreasonable. Now it’s off-the-shelf.

   1. GPS is somewhat unreliable indoors, so I’m not sure that hockey pucks would benefit (or football, with the vast increase in domed stadiums). Aside from that, hockey has one of the more robust and reliable goal review processes in professional sports, and has been one of the leaders in instant replay/review procedures, so I’m not sure there’s any benefit. There are very, very few instances where the cameras used for goal review have fallen short in their intended use. And now that we have HDTV, the on-screen tracking/trails that were used back in the 90s for a short time are really unnecessary.

      Footballs would be a much harder issue to tackle (no pun intended), inasmuch as the rule book states that any part of the football, touching or crossing the plane of any part of the goal line, constitutes a touchdown. If you put receivers in the middle of the ball, you also need to know where the rest of the ball is in relation to the sensors to be able to determine if the nose, laces, or any other part of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. Adding accelerometers would help with this (and most receivers will include this), but you’d still need to know which direction the ball was facing at all times (N-S, E-W, etc). And then, of course, all of the potential impacts on the movement of the ball when passed or kicked or dropped, the effects of a deflated ball, etc.

      In all honesty, if I wanted a precise, controlled, 100%-accurate sporting experience, I’d play a video game or other simulation. Notions of stike zones and foul balls and goal-line crossings and other such things have always been affected by human referees/umpires, and while they are notoriously imprecise, they’re a fundamental part of the game. Camera replays are a perfectly fine way to help with sorting out in-the-moment actions that may have been too fast to notice or too close to call as they happen (a long run down the sidelines that may or may not include stepping out, a 100+ MPH serve in tennis that barely grazes the line for an ace, etc.), but I wouldn’t want EVERY call made that way. A robotic, computer-controlled strike zone is a great tool for television viewers to understand how near or far a ball was from the plate, but I would never want that to replace the human factor of the umpire’s eyes.

      1. For a football stadium, you wouldn’t need actual GPS. Just a lot of fixed transponders within the stadium.

3. Very cool solution. However, looking at the more technical article that is referenced in the linked article, it looks like the convergence time is in the several seconds range, probably too slow for sports, but good enough for cars.

4. If you think the GPS is something, get a load of this. They’re only $1,300. Amazing.

5. Hmm, I thought this level of precision was illegal for civilian use?

   1. No, I don’t think it’s ever been illegal, just not technically possible.

Comments are closed.