I want to generate n equidistant points on a circle. The Euclidean distance between any two adjacent points is a fixedx units. if I increase n, the Euclidean distance should still be x. That means the radius of the circle has to increase. However, the catch here is that the radius of the circle should be a multiple of 10 only.
So far I have come up with this code but I cannot figure out how to maintain the Euclidean distance to x and to keep the radius a multiple of 10 only when n is increased.
r = 50; % radius
NumCNs = 100; % number of points
dd = r*exp((0:1/(NumCNs-1):1)*pi*2*1i)'; % location of the points
XCor = real(dd);
YCor = imag(dd);
plot(XCor , YCor , '*');
If it is impossible to meet both criteria at the same time, then the Euclidean distance has to be maintained no matter what.
Can anyone help me?
Thank you in advance.
The points will form a regular convex polygon. The radius of the circumscribed circle is given by equation r=x/(2*sin(pi/n)), where n is the number of points, x the distance between points and r the radius of the circle.
You cannot always meet both criteria at the same time, thus you should use this equation to compute the radius of the circle.
I'm trying to estimate a position based on signal strength received from 4 Wi-Fi Access Points. I measure the signal strength from 4 access points located in each corner of a square room with 100 square meters (10x10). I recorded the signal strengths in a known position (x, y) = (9.5, 1.5) using an Android phone. Now I want to check how accurate can a multilateration method be under the circumstances.
Using MATLAB, I applied a formula to calculate distance using the signal strength. The following MATLAB function shows the application of the formula:
function [ d_vect ] = distance( RSS )
% Calculate distance from signal strength
result = (27.55 - (20 * log10(2400)) + abs(RSS)) / 20;
d_vect = power(10, result);
end
The input RSS is a vector with the four signal strengths measured in the test point (x,y) = (9.5, 1.5). The RSS vector looks like this:
RSS =
-57.6000
-60.4000
-44.7000
-54.4000
and the resultant vector with all the estimated distances to each access points looks like this:
d_vect =
7.5386
10.4061
1.7072
5.2154
Now I want to estimate my position based on these distances and the access points position in order to find the error between the estimated position and the known position (9.5, 1.5). I want to find the intersection area (In order to estimate a position) between four circles where each access point is the center of one of the circles and the distance is the radius of the circle.
I want to find the grey area as shown in this image :
http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/venn4.gif
If you want an alternative way of estimating the location without estimating the intersection of circles you can use trilateration. It is a common technique in navigation (e.g. GPS) to estimate a position given a set of distance measurements.
Also, if you wanted the area because you also need an estimate of the uncertainty of the position I would recommend solving the trilateration problem using least squares which will easily give you an estimate of the parameters involved and an error propagation to yield an uncertainty of the location.
I found an answear that solved perfectly the question. It is explained in detail in this link:
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/40660/trilateration-algorithm-for-n-amount-of-points
I also developed some MATLAB code for the problem. Here it goes:
Estimate distances from the Access Points:
function [ d_vect ] = distance( RSS )
result = (27.55 - (20 * log10(2400)) + abs(RSS)) / 20;
d_vect = power(10, result);
end
The trilateration function:
function [] = trilat( X, d, real1, real2 )
cla
circles(X(1), X(5), d(1), 'edgecolor', [0 0 0],'facecolor', 'none','linewidth',4); %AP1 - black
circles(X(2), X(6), d(2), 'edgecolor', [0 1 0],'facecolor', 'none','linewidth',4); %AP2 - green
circles(X(3), X(7), d(3), 'edgecolor', [0 1 1],'facecolor', 'none','linewidth',4); %AP3 - cyan
circles(X(4), X(8), d(4), 'edgecolor', [1 1 0],'facecolor', 'none','linewidth',4); %AP4 - yellow
axis([0 10 0 10])
hold on
tbl = table(X, d);
d = d.^2;
weights = d.^(-1);
weights = transpose(weights);
beta0 = [5, 5];
modelfun = #(b,X)(abs(b(1)-X(:,1)).^2+abs(b(2)-X(:,2)).^2).^(1/2);
mdl = fitnlm(tbl,modelfun,beta0, 'Weights', weights);
b = mdl.Coefficients{1:2,{'Estimate'}}
scatter(b(1), b(2), 70, [0 0 1], 'filled')
scatter(real1, real2, 70, [1 0 0], 'filled')
hold off
end
Where,
X: matrix with APs coordinates
d: distance estimation vector
real1: real position x
real2: real position y
If you have three sets of measurements with (x,y) coordinates of location and corresponding signal strength. such as:
m1 = (x1,y1,s1)
m2 = (x2,y2,s2)
m3 = (x3,y3,s3)
Then you can calculate distances between each of the point locations:
d12 = Sqrt((x1 - x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2)
d13 = Sqrt((x1 - x3)^2 + (y1 - y3)^2)
d23 = Sqrt((x2 - x3)^2 + (y2 - y3)^2)
Now consider that each signal strength measurement signifies an emitter for that signal, that comes from a location somewhere at a distance. That distance would be a radius from the location where the signal strength was measured, because one would not know at this point the direction from where the signal came from. Also, the weaker the signal... the larger the radius. In other words, the signal strength measurement would be inversely proportional to the radius. The smaller the signal strength the larger the radius, and vice versa. So, calculate the proportional, although not yet accurate, radius's of our three points:
r1 = 1/s1
r2 = 1/s2
r3 = 1/s3
So now, at each point pair, set apart by their distance we can calculate a constant (C) where the radius's from each location will just touch one another. For example, for the point pair 1 & 2:
Ca * r1 + Ca * r2 = d12
... solving for the constant Ca:
Ca = d12 / (r1 + r2)
... and we can do this for the other two pairs, as well.
Cb = d13 / (r1 + r3)
Cc = d23 / (r2 + r3)
All right... select the largest C constant, either Ca, Cb, or Cc. Then, use the parametric equation for a circle to find where the coordinates meet. I will explain.
The parametric equation for a circle is:
x = radius * Cos(theta)
y = radius * Sin(theta)
If Ca was the largest constant found, then you would compare points 1 & 2, such as:
Ca * r1 * Cos(theta1) == Ca * r2 * Cos(theta2) &&
Ca * r1 * Sin(theta1) == Ca * r2 * Sin(theta2)
... iterating theta1 and theta2 from 0 to 360 degrees, for both circles. You might write code like:
for theta1 in 0 ..< 360 {
for theta2 in 0 ..< 360 {
if( abs(Ca*r1*cos(theta1) - Ca*r2*cos(theta2)) < 0.01 && abs(Ca*r1*sin(theta1) - Ca*r2*sin(theta2)) < 0.01 ) {
print("point is: (", Ca*r1*cos(theta1), Ca*r1*sin(theta1),")")
}
}
}
Depending on what your tolerance was for a match, you wouldn't have to do too many iterations around the circumferences of each signal radius to determine an estimate for the location of the signal source.
So basically you need to intersect 4 circles. There can be many approaches to it, and there are two that will generate the exact intersection area.
First approach is to start with one circle, intersect it with the second circle, then intersect the resulting area with the third circle and so on. that is, on each step you know current intersection area, and you intersect it with a new circle. The intersection area will always be a region bounded by circle arcs, so to intersect it with a new circle you walk along the boundary of the area and check whether each bounding arc intersects with a new circle. If it does, then you leave only the part of the arc that lies inside a new circle, remember that you should continue with an arc from a new circle, and continue traversing the boundary until you find the next intersection.
Another approach that seems to result in a worse time complexity, but in your case of 4 circles this will not be important, is to find all the intersection points of two circles and choose only those points that are of interest for you, that is which lie inside all other circles. These points will be the corners of your area, and then it is rather easy to reconstruct the area. After googling a bit, I have even found a live demo of this approach.
I am in need of an idea! I want to model the vascular network on the eye in 3D. I have made statistics on the branching behaviour in relation to vessel diameter, length etc. What I am stuck at right now is the visualization:
The eye is approximated as a sphere E with center in origo C = [0, 0, 0] and a radius r.
What I want to achieve is that based on the following input parameters, it should be able to draw a segment on the surface/perimeter of E:
Input:
Cartesian position of previous segment ending: P_0 = [x_0, y_0, z_0]
Segment length: L
Segment diameter: d
Desired angle relative to the previous segment: a (1)
Output:
Cartesian position of resulting segment ending: P_1 = [x_1, y_1, z_1]
What I do now, is the following:
From P_0, generate a sphere with radius L, representing all the points we could possibly draw to with the correct length. This set is called pool.
Limit pool to only include points with a distance to C between r*0.95 and r, so only the points around the perimeter of the eye are included.
Select only the point that would generate a relative angle (2) closest to the desired angle a.
The problem is, that whatever angle a I desire, is actually not what is measured by the dot product. Say I want an angle at 0 (i.e. that the new segment is following the same direction as the previous`, what I actually get is an angle around 30 degrees because of the curvature of the sphere. I guess what I want is more the 2D angle when looking from an angle orthogonal from the sphere to the branching point. Please take a look at the screenshots below for a visualization.
Any ideas?
(1) The reason for this is, that the child node with the greatest diameter is usually follows the path of the previous segment, whereas smaller child nodes tend to angle differently.
(2) Calculated by acos(dot(v1/norm(v1), v2/norm(v2)))
Screenshots explaining the problem:
Yellow line: previous segment
Red line: "new" segment to one of the points (not neccesarily the correct one)
Blue x'es: Pool (text=angle in radians)
I will restate the problem with my own notation:
Given two points P and Q on the surface of a sphere centered at C with radius r, find a new point T such that the angle of the turn from PQ to QT is A and the length of QT is L.
Because the segments are small in relation to the sphere, we will use a locally-planar approximation of the sphere at the pivot point Q. (If this isn't an okay assumption, you need to be more explicit in your question.)
You can then compute T as follows.
// First compute an aligned orthonormal basis {U,V,W}.
// - {U,V} should be a basis for the plane tangent at Q.
// - W should be normal to the plane tangent at Q.
// - U should be in the direction PQ in the plane tangent at Q
W = normalize(Q - C)
U = normalize(Q - P)
U = normalize(U - W * dotprod(W, U))
V = normalize(crossprod(W, U))
// Next compute the next point S in the plane tangent at Q.
// In a regular plane, the parametric equation of a unit circle
// centered at the origin is:
// f(A) = (cos A, sin A) = (1,0) cos A + (0,1) sin A
// We just do the same thing, but with the {U,V} basis instead
// of the standard basis {(1,0),(0,1)}.
S = Q + L * (U cos A + V sin A)
// Finally project S onto the sphere, obtaining the segment QT.
T = C + r * normalize(S - C)
I found a bug in my code which affects the subsequent calculations. I have two state vectors, one for the actual robot's movement and the second one for the estimated state vector. For the robot
robot = [101.3203; % x
170.6334; % y
2.1103]; % theta in radian
From this position, the robot makes an observation to a beacon located at <200,0> (i.e. <x,y>). Now, the range and angle between the robot and beacon is computed as following
sigma_phi = (degtorad(1))/2; % noise of the angle
sigma_r = (0.001)/2; % noise of the range
% range with some noise from robot to beacon
qr = sqrt((200 - robot(1))^2 + (0 - robot(2))^2) + sigma_r*randn();
% angle with some noise in radian from the robot to beacon
phi = wrapToPi(atan2(0 - robot(2), 200 - robot(1)) - robot(3) + sigma_phi*randn());
the angle is now phi = 3.1285 in radian. For the estimated state vector, I have
Mu = [101.2143; % x
171.0308; % y
2.094]; % theta in radian
From this estimated position, the estimated state vector makes an observation to a beacon at <200,0> (i.e. <x,y>). Now, the range and angle between the estimated state vector and beacon is computed with no noise as following
q = sqrt((200 - Mu(1))^2 + (0 - Mu(2))^2);
theta = wrapToPi(atan2(0 - Mu(2), 200 - Mu(1)) - Mu(3));
the angle is now theta = -3.1410 in radian. My question is why phi is in the opposite direction of theta even though the robot and the estimated state vector have close values??
You say theta = -3.1410, measured in radians. That's very close to -pi radians. Add a little noise to your estimation, and you can easily obtain an angle that is slightly less
than (more negative than) -pi radians.
If you give wrapToPi an angle slightly less than -pi radians, it will return an angle
that is slightly less than pi radians instead.
That is, as far as wrapToPi is concerned, there is not much difference between
your angles phi and theta. If you compute wrapToPi(phi - theta), which is what
you should do if you really want to know how different two directional angles are,
the result will be a relatively small number (something less than 0.02, I think).
Imagine a dome with its centre in the +z direction. What I want to do is to move that dome's centre to a different axis (e.g. 20 degrees x axis, 20 degrees y axis, 20 degrees z axis). How can I do that ? Any hint/tip helps.
Add more info:
I've been dabbling with rotation matrices in wiki for a while. The problem is, it is not a commutative operation. RxRyRz is not same as RzRyRx. So based on the way I multiple it I get a different final results. For example, I want my final projection to have 20 degrees from the original X axis, 20 degrees from original Y axis and 20 degrees from original Z axis. Based on the matrix, giving alpha, beta, gamma values 20 (or its corresponding radian) does NOT result the intended rotation. Am I missing something? Is there a matrix that I can just put the intended angles and get it at the end ?
Using a rotation matrix is an easy way to rotate a collection of (x,y,z) points. You can calculate a rotation matrix for your case using the equations in the general rotation section. Note that figuring out the angle values to plug into those equations can be tricky. Think of it as rotating about one axis at a time and remember that the order of your rotations (order of multiplications) does matter.
An alternative to the general rotation equations is to calculate a rotation matrix from axis and angle. It may be easier for you to define correct parameters with this method.
Update: After perusing Wikipedia, I found a simple way to calculate rotation axis and angle between two vectors. Just fill in your starting and ending vectors for a and b here:
a = [0.0 0.0 1.0];
b = [0.5 0.5 0.0];
vectorMag = #(x) sqrt(sum(x.^2));
rotAngle = acos(dot(a,b) / (vectorMag(a) * vectorMag(b)))
rotAxis = cross(a,b)
rotAxis =
-0.5 0.5 0
rotAngle =
1.5708