i was going to post a brief thought on glass, but in checking back at what i've posted here so far, i realize that it would be out of context. so, here's the low down.
on thursday, we received and tested the glass from showcase shower door company with no luck. it simply doesn't exhibit the same TIR properties as acrylic.
we also went to classic glass with my laptop, the hacked ps3eye, and the ir emisison circuit to test a variety of glass thicknesses, all of which completely and utterly failed at reflecting IR back to the webcam. the eye was unfiltered -- we ordered an 850nm and a 940nm filter on thursday as well.
ultimately, we expect that this will mean we'll have two surfaces. glass for the structural support, and acrylic for the touch sensing. acrylic's succeptibility to scratching remains a problem.
yesterday was the IEEE Region 6 Central Area meeting. i spent friday picking up the micromouse maze from santa clara university with craig. the meeting was an exciting experience, and far less taxing than i had expected. i wound up winning second prize in the student paper competition for a paper on my convolution verilog module from 125.
anyways, for the brief thought that prompted me to pull up the blog posting engine, it occurred to me that perhaps we should investigate whether or not FTIR works for visible light in glass and acrylic, and how many different display angles we can find on LEDs from suppliers.
it wouldn't benefit our final product for masc because the cost and time efficiency of the ribbons from environmentallights.com. but since we're here doing the research, i feel like we might as well run these tests so we can say with certainty whether or not glass really is as physically unfeasible as we currently think it is.
10 years ago