Searching \ for '[EE] Design for a Rifle Range target and scoring s' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/sensors.htm?key=rang
Search entire site for: 'Design for a Rifle Range target and scoring s'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Design for a Rifle Range target and scoring s'
2008\04\14@213449 by Vic Fraenckel

picon face
Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?

Any enlightenment will be appreciated.

Vic

--
______________________________________________________________

Victor Fraenckel
KC2GUI
windswaytoo ATSIGN gmail DOT com

2008\04\14@215712 by John Gardner

picon face
Radar bomb scoring systems have been around for 60+ years -
Might be worth a look...

best regards, Jack

On 4/14/08, Vic Fraenckel <spam_OUTwindswaytooTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\14@220029 by andrew kelley

picon face
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Vic Fraenckel <.....windswaytooKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
>  system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
>  that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
>  assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
>  position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
>  using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
>  have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
>  this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?

You would need some form of sensor for the X Y axis, direct light
filtering, and a line laser or two.  Sensors would need to have fast
response times, but sensitive.  Maybe a few sensors scavenged from a
scanner (don't know if they are fast enough or sensitive enough
though)


>  Any enlightenment will be appreciated.
>
>  Vic

Andrew

2008\04\14@220209 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about
> designing a target
> system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets.
> Sort of a target
> that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine
> it's location. We
> assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to
> determine the precise
> position of the round as it passes through the square. If
> the shooter was
> using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each
> round fired would
> have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be
> fairly precise. Is
> this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?

Capacitive sensing should allow this.

Optical beam-break sensing with enough resolution (beams
etc) also.
With skill you can get more resolution than channels.

If say bullet is detectable over 1/4" along path then time
in sensor at 1000 fps is 1/(1000 x 12 x 1/(0.25)) ~= 20 uS.

You will want a visual target - perhaps a "real image system
that allows you to fire through a visually existent image
but physically not present object.



       Russell





2008\04\14@221506 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Speeds are faster, but golf simulators use radar to determine
velocity, and position of a golf ball.

Newer simulators use two cameras and strobe lights, with a specially
marked ball, and capture spin in addition to velocity and position.

In a single camera frame flick the strobe once if you merely need
position (you'll need a trigger for the strobe, but knowing the
approximate velocity of the bullet you can use sound, otherwise there
are a variety of light curtains and other methods to trigger the
strobes)

If you want velocity (though at a target range you shouldn't need it)
then you flick the strobe twice and compare the movement in the single
captured frame.

You can use IR strobes and cameras if you don't want to blind the
participants, though a good directed strobe and a black target
shouldn't cause issues.

-Adam

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Vic Fraenckel <windswaytoospamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\14@222113 by Jim Korman

flavicon
face
Vic Fraenckel wrote:
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
> system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
> that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
> assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
> position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
> using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
> have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
> this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?
>
> Any enlightenment will be appreciated.
>
> Vic
>
>  
Not wanting to be negative, but.......

Paper targets are cheap. And they give you something
to aim at! I was in the service and recall how I got
a score of 25 out of 20 shots fired. Our targets were
placed several meters apart. The guy next to me was
all over the place. One miss-placed hit on your nice
sensor will buy a lot of paper targets!

However, consider a paper target system with a camera
registered against the target should be able to recognize
the position of the round and record that. Use a light
source to project the target image on the paper and you
wouldn't need printed targets, just a roll of paper that
can be advanced when needed.

Jim



2008\04\14@222702 by Brent Brown

picon face
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
> system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
> that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
> assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
> position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
> using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
> have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
> this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?

A way out there idea... if there is a solid target (steel, concrete) have 3 or more
microphones, piezo's, or other vibration sensors connected to it. Monitor received
analog signals with a fast micro, from time difference between signals triangulate
position on the target that was struck. Probably not as easy as it sounds, but might
be doable.

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, St Andrews,
Hamilton 3200, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell: +64 27 433 4069
eMail:  .....brent.brownKILLspamspam.....clear.net.nz


2008\04\14@223312 by Shawn Tan

flavicon
face
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 03:01:41 Apptech wrote:
> You will want a visual target - perhaps a "real image system
> that allows you to fire through a visually existent image
> but physically not present object.

A random thought.

Without 'holodeck' technology, I would think that this is more difficult than
actually sensing the bullet.

I wonder if it would be against the rules of shooting if shooters were given
some sort of attachment that they could put on their scopes, which will
project a fake target (generated from 3D rendering) for them. Then, it would
just be a matter of working out if their bullets hit the target virtually.

We'll have the XYZ position and angle of their rifles. Wind speed could be
gotten from an external sensor. Same for humidity.

But then, that would take away all the fun, wouldn't it?

--
with metta,
Shawn Tan

Aeste Works (M) Sdn Bhd - Engineering Elegance
http://www.aeste.net

2008\04\14@224120 by Jinx

face picon face
> have 3 or more microphones, piezo's, or other vibration sensors
> connected to it. Monitor received analog signals with a fast micro

The US military have a microphone system called Boomerang for
triangulating snipers. I saw it on 60 Minutes not so long ago

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4497/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYgsGoAlb1s

I don't know if it's precise enough for targets though. Two IR
curtains (one vertical, one horizontal) may be better

2008\04\14@230803 by Brent Brown

picon face
On 15 Apr 2008 at 14:40, Jinx wrote:

> > have 3 or more microphones, piezo's, or other vibration sensors
> > connected to it. Monitor received analog signals with a fast micro
>
> The US military have a microphone system called Boomerang for
> triangulating snipers. I saw it on 60 Minutes not so long ago
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/go/4497/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYgsGoAlb1s
>
> I don't know if it's precise enough for targets though. Two IR
> curtains (one vertical, one horizontal) may be better

Very cool, but not so useful if the first shot hits you or your Boomerang.

Speed of sound in steel is approx 5100m/s, so with a 1m target greatest time
differential would be around 200us. Probbaly use a little analog electronics to shape
the pulses and trigger timing. For a given target, similar type of rifle and ammunition
each time, I think it should be feasible to build something that works repeatably,
resolution probably around a cm or two.

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, St Andrews,
Hamilton 3200, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell: +64 27 433 4069
eMail:  EraseMEbrent.brownspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz


2008\04\14@231209 by Don Lewis

picon face
accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/electronic-target-scoring-systems/

2008\04\14@233100 by David VanHorn

picon face
It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
(has happened to me, when it mattered)

2008\04\14@233717 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Or a say 3 point suspension system that senses the relative
forces on each point.

PERHAPS an aircurtain would allow an increased acoustic
effect.


       Russell


2008\04\14@234340 by Jinx

face picon face
> It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
> bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
> (has happened to me, when it mattered)

Paper targets have that weakness, but are cheap and simple
Electronic/virtual targets don't have that weakness, but are
neither cheap nor simple (comparitively)

Same old story isn't it - cheap, good, now - pick any two

2008\04\14@234402 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Brent Brown wrote:
{Quote hidden}

similar perhaps easier system would be to mount your steel sheet on 4
strain guages
the difference in their recorded forces will tell you where on the sheet
you had an impact.

2008\04\14@234652 by John Gardner

picon face
Me too. One reason I like the radar approach  :/

Jack

On 4/14/08, David VanHorn <microbrixspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
> bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
> (has happened to me, when it mattered)
> -

2008\04\14@235358 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 15:42 +1200, Jinx wrote:
> > It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
> > bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
> > (has happened to me, when it mattered)
>
> Paper targets have that weakness, but are cheap and simple
> Electronic/virtual targets don't have that weakness, but are
> neither cheap nor simple (comparitively)
>
> Same old story isn't it - cheap, good, now - pick any two

The "take home your target" seems to me at least to be a pretty big
advantage over another type of system. But maybe it's just me... (who
recently shot a gun for the first time ever, in out of all places a gun
range in Honolulu! :) ).

TTYL

2008\04\15@012622 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
Tannerite doesn't meet ANY of your requirements but its great stuff
nonetheless:

<www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite>
<http://splodetv.com/categories/tannerite>

<grin>

dwayne


At 07:34 PM 4/14/2008, Vic Fraenckel wrote:
>Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
>system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
>that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
>assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
>position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
>using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
>have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
>this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?


--
Dwayne Reid   <@spam@dwaynerKILLspamspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2008\04\15@053337 by Djula Djarmati

flavicon
face
Vic Fraenckel wrote:
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
> system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
> that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
> assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
> position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
> using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
> have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
> this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?
>
> Any enlightenment will be appreciated.

I have seen an older "proffesional" system that worked pretty well - it
used a paper roll and microphones (AFAIK) to triangulate the spot where
the bullet hit the paper. You advanced the paper with the press of a button.

Djula

2008\04\15@073932 by Rolf

face picon face
Vic Fraenckel wrote:
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing a target
> system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort of a target
> that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine it's location. We
> assume a target that was 1 meter square and wish to determine the precise
> position of the round as it passes through the square. If the shooter was
> using an semi-automatic weapon, then the position of each round fired would
> have to be recorded. The positioning would have to be fairly precise. Is
> this sort of thing feasible? Ideas?
>
> Any enlightenment will be appreciated.
>
> Vic
>
>  
Hi Vic.

I watched a series on Canadian TV called Jetsream. It followed a 'class'
of aviators in Canada's flight school for the CF-18 Hornets.

In one of the last episodes the students were doing live-fire exercises
using their nose cannon at between 4000 and 6000 shots per second. Their
targets were ground-based orange 'things' which were squares about 10
feet on each side, suspended in a frame. Based on the documentary
narration, it appears that the ground crew uses the sonic
characteristics of the bullets passing through the frame to count the
number of 'hits', and also give an indication of the hit accuracy.

The section can be viewed online at
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/jetstream/jetstream-the-rookies/ -
episode 8 ("Bombs Away"), part 3

Apparently accessible through:
http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/jetstream/jetstream-bombs-away/#clip35446

There is an indication that it is only available to Canadian IP
addresses... YMMV

It was a really fascinating to see how it was done.

Rolf

2008\04\15@080637 by Forums

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

>It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
>bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
>(has happened to me, when it mattered)

I can see how irritating that could be, but if the sport is to imitate life,
when is it useful to shoot something twice in exactly the same place?... in
that respect, it's fair that the second shot doesn't count. I guess this is
one skill most of us need not bother with: if you have the capability of
hitting a bullet hole sized target from a distance then you should place
them next to each other rather than on top.

I'd investigate an optical sensing solution over acoustic, due to the rather
noisy environment that exists in an indoor shooting range, especially if
multiple people are using automatic weapons. And certainly the sensing grid
would need to be protected from stray bullets. In sports, if a scoring
system gives a false reading just once, it won't be trusted again.

If the sensor hardware were allowed to be bigger than the area being
monitored, a laser hitting a rotating mirror would provide one axis of
scanning, the sensor would simply need to identify when the laser beam was
broken, together with timing information referenced to separate sensors at
the top and bottom of the beam swing would provide a location. Two such
systems could provide x and y axis data. Bullets move fast, the mirrors
would have to move faster ;-)

The system I described doesn't appear expensive, so they could be stacked in
the 'Z' axis, say 3 or 4 scanners to provide a less noisy and more reliable
identification of a bullet passage if needed. Yes, it's a hack.

Andy.


2008\04\15@082440 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Forums <KILLspamforumKILLspamspaminzon.com> wrote:
>
> David VanHorn wrote:
>
>  >It would be nice to have something that can solve the problem when
>  >bullet B goes through bullet A's hole.
>  >(has happened to me, when it mattered)
>
>  I can see how irritating that could be, but if the sport is to imitate life,
>  when is it useful to shoot something twice in exactly the same place?... in
>  that respect, it's fair that the second shot doesn't count. I guess this is
>  one skill most of us need not bother with: if you have the capability of
>  hitting a bullet hole sized target from a distance then you should place
>  them next to each other rather than on top.

Sorry, you don't get THAT much control. This was simply shooting for
score.  Several rounds very close to each other will also open up a
larger hole than all three of them individually.  The question being
asked by the scoring is "how close to center did you hit", and when a
round goes through a hole and fails to create a new one or significant
damage, then you can't be sure that it didn't miss the target
completely.

2008\04\15@094250 by John Gardner

picon face
A good match rifle, with match-grade loads (a non-trivial exercise itself),
can shoot to the same point with 1/2 minute-of-arc accuracy, so putting
shots through the same hole, or nearly so, is not improbable at close
range.

Depends on what you're trying to do, I guess. Interesting problem.

regards, Jack

On 4/15/08, David VanHorn <RemoveMEmicrobrixTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\15@103513 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>A good match rifle, with match-grade loads (a non-trivial
>exercise itself),
> can shoot to the same point with 1/2 minute-of-arc
> accuracy, so putting
> shots through the same hole, or nearly so, is not
> improbable at close
> range.

The best US civil war snipers' rifles were about as good as
the best modern rifle wrt accuracy, I'm told.


           Russell

2008\04\15@112735 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
Dwayne Reid wrote:
> Tannerite doesn't meet ANY of your requirements but its great stuff
> nonetheless:
>
> <www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite>
> <http://splodetv.com/categories/tannerite>
>
> <grin>
>
> dwayne

And for a VERY BIG GRIN....

http://www.helpmegetag5.com/movie.htm

Some 'dudes' load an Apple G4 with tannerite and shoot it.  The shooting
 part is interesting but the 5 minute video of them preparing is hilarious.

Thanks for that link to tannerite!  I have absolutely no use for this
stuff but I sure want some!

2008\04\15@115808 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Thanks for that link to tannerite!  I have absolutely no
> use for this
> stuff but I sure want some!

If you are in the US the Ammonium Perchlorate content means
that nowadays you will need a LEUP. If you don't know what a
LEUP is you haven't got one and will not want to get one
just to play with Tannerite. Nowadays playing with stuff
like this may win you an all expenses paid international
vacation.

This should be on OT ...

       Russell


2008\04\15@115808 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
This should definitely be in OT.
If you guys all clog up EE with this stuff there will be no
space for my rubbish.


       Russell

>> Tannerite doesn't meet ANY of your requirements but its
>> great stuff
>> nonetheless:
...

2008\04\15@124520 by John Gardner

picon face
> The best US civil war snipers' rifles were about as good as
the best modern rifle wrt accuracy, I'm told.

As late as the turn of the last century match competition was dominated
by muzzle-loading rifles - Mostly because cartridge ammunition was not manufactured with the precision necessary for competition.

Serious shooters still use their own hand-loads, IME.

regards, Jack

2008\04\15@130555 by John Gardner

picon face
> Paper targets have that weakness, but are cheap and simple
Electronic/virtual targets don't have that weakness, but are
neither cheap nor simple (comparitively)

> Same old story isn't it - cheap, good, now - pick any two

Worse, you can't post it on the office BB when you screw
up & shoot a 1 MOA pattern offhand at 25 yds with a .44

:(

Jack

2008\04\15@144211 by Rich

picon face
Create a matrix of leds and detectors; 32 rows by 32 columns.  A cheap
plastic collimating lens can give decent collimating for lines.  In bulk you
may by the assemblies for a low cost. The interruption of a (row,column)
coordinate will determine the location of the projectile.  SW should be a
piece of cake.


{Original Message removed}

2008\04\15@165955 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Vic,

I'm wondering about using video cameras / linear arrays. Placed
above(or below) and to the side of the trajectory, you should be able
to resolve enough accuracy if you can scan fast enough to "see" the
bullet.

I can remember seeing pictures of aircraft (or something ?) using
polarised light that showed up the  pressure waves particularly well.
This pattern could be used to resolve the path of the bullet even if
it had already passed.
Alternatively if  the local humidity was increased, then maybe you'd
see a vapour trail?

Probably completely impractical but you asked for ideas!.

RP

On 16/04/2008, Rich <TakeThisOuTrgrazia1EraseMEspamspam_OUTrochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Create a matrix of leds and detectors; 32 rows by 32 columns.  A cheap
>  plastic collimating lens can give decent collimating for lines.  In bulk you
>  may by the assemblies for a low cost. The interruption of a (row,column)
>  coordinate will determine the location of the projectile.  SW should be a
>  piece of cake.
>
>
>
>  {Original Message removed}

2008\04\15@182515 by Jinx

face picon face
> Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing
> a target system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort
> of a target that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine its
> location

Just out of curiosity, what are you aiming at ?

2008\04\16@114441 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I have no idea what is OP aiming at, but you can imagine, that if that is a
semi automatic gun then that is not a sport one. We used pretty much a metal
sheet with different shapes in the military services, that when you hit went
down. You could not tell if you hit it on the shoulder, on the head or right
in the middle though. A system that would have been able to tell this would
have given us a better resolution, especially on competitions. On those
competitions you do not have time to walk down to the target that is 100-250
meters away from the line-up anyway.

If it was a sport system I agree that a paper based target circuit is the
best approach. With all my experience I had never ever had real problem with
bullets going through the same hole - you can always tell if it had done as
the bullet - at least that we used with both air and gun powder rifles -
based on lead, so it marked the edge of the hole pretty well. There were
once or twice when we had to spend some time to analyse the target to tell,
but that's ok. On competitions we used special targets by the way, that has
5 separated circles on it and you shoot once on each - and of course as we
entered to the competition we were not expected to as bad as hit the other
one :-)

Tamas


On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Jinx <RemoveMEjoecolquittspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:

> > Several of us have been speculating on how to go about designing
> > a target system for a rifle range that did not use paper targets. Sort
> > of a target that could sense the passing of a bullet and determine its
> > location
>
> Just out of curiosity, what are you aiming at ?
>
> -

2008\04\16@140643 by Vic Fraenckel

picon face
As the OP I apologize for making this such a complicated question. All I
wanted was some ideas as to how to make an 'intelligent' target that will be
able to say 'that shot was in the 9 ring at 2 O'clock or that shot was a
bullseye' and perhaps report the coordinates of where the bullet passed thru
the plane of the target. Of course the intelligent target must have a paper
target for the shooter to aim at. But the scoring would be done by the
'Intelligent Target' not an observer.

Vic

--
______________________________________________________________

Victor Fraenckel
KC2GUI
windswaytoo ATSIGN gmail DOT com

2008\04\16@145429 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
How much can you pay per target?

Get 64 conductor ribbon cable (3.2" wide) and lay two of them
vertically next to each other, and 2 of them horizontally next to each
other behind the paper.

Attach connectors to them, which plug into PCBs nearby.

Use a bunch of multiplexors to scan continuity through all 200 wires,
and compute exact bullet penetration to within 0.05".

It's a very low cost system with high cost replacables - each target
would use perhaps 4 feet of cable and 8 connectors that would be
reusable for a few targets, but in the end each target would still
cost $12 or more, and it would only cover a 6.4" x 6.4" square.

With relatively intelligent scan interpretaion you can use one array
for more than one target - even if the bullet goes through the same
hole, it's unlikely that it'll be exact to within 0.05" and miss all
four remaining wires bounding the hole.

Low cost start up, high cost consumables, or high cost start up, low
or no cost consumables?

If it works well, you could probably buy or have someone weave custom
wire cloth with stripped ends that clamps into a frame of contacts.
Even if several wires never make contact, or short out, you'll still
have more than enough information for reasonably good position
information.  This could cost less than a dollar per mesh.  You might
even be able to find such mesh available right now, and can strip the
ends after trimming chemically, or design the frame to pierce the
insulation.  Window screen comes to mind.

Lastely, in quantity PCBs are very cheap.  If you get a very thin PCB
(not standard FR4) then it won't shatter with a bullet.  Buy in
quantity, have one edge for all the contacts and use an edge
connector.  Should be $5 to $0.50 each depending on quantity and size.
Double sided, not plated through, no mask, no silkscreen.  Very, very
cheap in huge quantities.  Or print the target in white silkscreen on
top of a black soldermask on one side.  Lots of options there.  With
space/trace requirements of cheap PCBs approaching 8/8 mil, you could
get a resolution of 0.016" or 62 lines per inch.  With no testing  and
lower PCB quality control you can lower the cost because you don't
really care if a few dozen traces are bad or shorted.

Feel free to send my royalty checks when you hit it big.  Alternately,
encourage me to make one as a summer project so I can make it big.

;-)

-Adam

On 4/16/08, Vic Fraenckel <windswaytooEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\16@152612 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Continuing on the PCB idea - given that there's no need for plated
through holes, you can buy and etch it yourself.  A 48"x36" double
sided copper clad board is about $32, and if you cut it into 8"x9"
sheets you'll get 24 PCBs.  ( from
http://www.crownhill.co.uk/product.php?prod=1971  - I imagine you can
get it locally for similar cost)

Use a screen printer to put etch resist on each side, etch and viola!
Each target costs $1.33 and some amount of time.

-Adam

On 4/16/08, M. Adam Davis <EraseMEstienmanspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\04\16@152802 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Oops, my mistake - that's single sided board.  The cost is higher for
double sided, but not by a ton, and if you buy it in bulk you'll still
get it pretty cheaply.

-Adam

On 4/16/08, M. Adam Davis <RemoveMEstienmanspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2008\04\16@170309 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
Sorry if this has already been suggested but how about a (video-) camera and
some sort of image processing software. The camera takes images of the paper
target and presents the data accordingly.

You could actually also send the image to a screen close to the shooter so he
can see for himself. That would of course make him the intelliget part of the
target system. Could be fairly cheap with an ordinary video camera (safely
behind some sort of protection) and an rf unit that sends the video signal back
to a receiver for the screen near the shooter. There are rf units that also can
send back remote control ir signals that could be used to position and zoom the
camera.

/Ruben

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\16@172202 by Jinx

face picon face
> I have no idea what is OP aiming at, but you can imagine, that
> if that is a semi automatic gun then that is not a sport one. We
> used pretty much a metal sheet with different shapes

Ah. I was thinking a projected dot or something, keeping the
whole thing electronic

2008\04\16@202640 by Rich

picon face
The video camera is already in use by the military. Apparently it is
effective even in low light and IR.

{Original Message removed}

2008\04\16@204444 by Jinx

face picon face
> a (video-) camera and some sort of image processing software

It should be fairly straight-forward to either convert a video image
for examination by a PIC later or look at the video feed in real time,
if the contrast between target and hole was high enough. You could
try backlighting the target after a shot to make bright spots or front-
light it to make dark holes

2008\04\16@211054 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> a (video-) camera and some sort of image processing
>> software

> It should be fairly straight-forward to either convert a
> video image
> for examination by a PIC later or look at the video feed
> in real time,
> if the contrast between target and hole was high enough.
> You could
> try backlighting the target after a shot to make bright
> spots or front-
> light it to make dark holes

Note that the original request was for a paperless target.

Also, "residence time" in the plane of the target is around
50 uS.
The video "dot rate" would need to be "fairly high" [tm].


               Russell


2008\04\16@213241 by Jinx

face picon face

> Note that the original request was for a paperless target.

It was, but that was a miscommunication

Vic Fraenckel's latest post -

"the intelligent target must have a paper target for the shooter to
aim at. But the scoring would be done by the 'Intelligent Target'
not an observer"

2008\04\16@213300 by Jinx

face picon face

> Note that the original request was for a paperless target.

It was, but that was a miscommunication

Vic Fraenckel's latest post -

"the intelligent target must have a paper target for the shooter to
aim at. But the scoring would be done by the 'Intelligent Target'
not an observer"

2008\04\16@214329 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  "the intelligent target must have a paper target for the shooter to
>  aim at. But the scoring would be done by the 'Intelligent Target'
>  not an observer"

Then the paper target must also be somehow mechanically registered to
the intelligent target.
Otherwise, the "just in" becomes "just out".

Would be worth reading up on how shooting is scored, shots that hit
the edges of the rings are handled specially.

2008\04\24@184310 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
I have only fired guns on two occasions in my life. The second time, I
got to use a Bushmaster AR-15 (or M-16) clone. Because of being a rank
beginner, I kept the target fairly close. I was stunned that several
times I could not find a new hole after taking a shot. The target was
close enough (probably 10 yards away) that I think it is unlikely that
I missed it entirely. Instead, I think that the AR-15 was _so_ precise
that it was actually easy to put several rounds through the same hole
at such a short distance (especially since the AR-15 is semi-automatic
and I could fire several times without moving the rifle). Now, getting
that hole to be in the desired location was harder :) Alas the
weapon's precision could not make up for the shooter's inaccuracy.

I think the AR-15 rounds were something like USD$0.50 per cartrige so
perhaps they are very well made! (I hope!)

Sean


On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM, John Gardner <RemoveMEgoflo3KILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}


'[EE] Design for a Rifle Range target and scoring s'
2008\09\06@102237 by Rich
picon face
How about a laser diode matrix array.  Say 36 rows of beams and 36 coulmns
of beams, all beams to a detector.  For better resolution use a denser
matrix.
When the projectile breaks a row column pair the coordinates are the
response.  Software would be simple.  Small PIC with some decoders would do
it.

{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...