Optical waveguides – With optical coupler – Particular coupling structure
Reexamination Certificate
1998-06-22
2001-03-20
Ullah, Akm E. (Department: 2874)
Optical waveguides
With optical coupler
Particular coupling structure
C362S554000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06205275
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to the use of fiber optics to transfer an image from one location to another a short distance away. More specifically it relates to the use of one or more fiber optic tapers coupled to a fiber optic guide to compress an image, transmit via a flexible medium and enlarge it for display. It also relates the to use of this mechanism to implement prototype or functional instrument or control panels.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In many areas of society, complex systems are controlled by human operators relying on information provided by instruments and gauges which monitor the system. These systems include power generation plants, nuclear reactors, commercial aircraft, heavy equipment and trucks, the space shuttle, and will expand to include such systems as the International Space Station. Mistakes in the operation or design of these systems can compromise the safety of the operator, crew, passengers, or the public at large. Representative design errors include gauges which can not be read from the operator's normal position, controls which can not be reached from the operator's normal position, and controls which can not be reached while simultaneously viewing the necessary gauges which are providing feedback. Because of the consequences of such errors, the design and layout of control panels is critical.
Instrument and control panel design is a complex and often lengthy process which must consider many factors including readability of gauges, viewing angles to gauges, access to controls, feel and range of movement of the controls, ergonomics, and resistance to environmental factors such as vibration, dust, water, etc. Typically, several iterations of a design will be tried before the final design is approved. Each iteration may be very expensive. This expense may limit the number of iterations allowed for during the design to less than that needed from a technical standpoint. However, re-design of a faulty control system which has already been fielded is far more expensive. For example, wiring looms, air ducts, and mechanical controls may have been custom designed for a specific layout and would have to be redesigned if an instrument needs to be relocated.
Design iterations are most expensive where the real instruments and gauges from the final system are used. This equipment is expensive and not adapted to ease of reconfiguration. Prototyping is often used to reduce the cost of design iterations. Prototypes can range from scale or full size drawings of the control panel to mock-ups with dynamic displays to fully interactive simulations of the complete system. Each of these approaches trades cost against the fidelity of the representation. The better the fidelity, the more accurate the information gathered from the use of the prototype. Static drawings are valuable for initial decisions but are inadequate for evaluating operational scenarios. Interactive simulations are capable of providing very accurate data on operator response times, decision making, and the ability to accurately control the system. Alternate panel layouts can then be compared to optimize the design. The greater the cost savings for each iteration the larger the number of alternatives that can be explored, and the greater the likelihood that a safe system will be developed. The need, therefor, is for inexpensive, easily reconfigured, yet high resolution prototyping capabilities.
High resolution simulations are also valuable for training purposes. The human operator(s) can be presented with a variety of both normal and emergency situations to which they must respond as they would with the real system. Sufficient training time can develop automatic, calm responses to “once in a lifetime” situations of a critical nature, resulting in significant savings of life and damage when the situation does arrive. For this type of training, the fidelity of the simulation is critical. Gauges and controls must be located where the operator expects them to be and controls must respond exactly as the real controls so that the operator does not have to look away from the instruments to locate a control. This is true both while training and so that the experience gained will directly transfer to the operational system when the trainee is on the job. While these concerns can be addressed for some non-emergency training by performing it on the operational systems, this is usually not cost effective.
A variety of approaches to prototypes and simulations have been used. The highest fidelity, and most expensive is to use the real instruments in a design mock-up.
FIG. 1
shows a representative aircraft instrument panel prototype as might be applicable to a regional airline. Gauges,
202
A, are mounted to an instrument panel,
200
A, in the same layout as in the actual aircraft.
FIG. 2
shows a top view of the panel illustrating the corresponding spacing of the instruments behind the panel. The instruments are often very expensive, having been designed and built for the final environment, such as an airline cockpit. The cost is further increased by the necessity to keep spares on hand. Implementation of the mock-up can also be expensive as the environmental needs of the instruments must be met. This approach may require high voltage power supplies, high capacity cooling, and complex data inputs and outputs which emulate the real-world systems. In some situations, simulated electromechanical instruments may be available, which reduce the cost. However, they may not be readily available and do not alleviate the other concerns. This approach is not feasible where a system is being designed that will be using new instruments or new instrument designs. In these situations the real instruments are not yet available.
One approach to avoid using real instruments is to use computer displays, such as CRT screens, to generate the instrument images. The images are then masked by a physical face plate to provide the appearance of an instrument panel.
FIG. 3
shows a simulated instrument panel corresponding to the mock-up of FIG.
1
.
FIG. 4
illustrates the placement of the CRT screens behind the panel.
FIG. 5
provides a cross-section through the CRT showing the detailed positioning as it would appear from a top view. The faces of the gauges,
202
B, are displayed on the CRT screens,
204
, positioned immediately behind the panel,
200
B.
Several problems exist with this approach which directly impact the fidelity of the simulation. Primary of these is the constraints imposed by the size and shape of the display screen,
206
and
208
. Gauges must be arranged so that they appear entirely within the bounds of the screen. In the example panel, it was possible to maintain the real layout of the gauges on the left-hand screen,
206
. However, screen
208
, required altering the position of certain gauges. Unit,
210
, is a radio device which must be represented by a real unit in order to provide the communications functionality of the unit. As such, it could not be modeled on the CRT and was placed outside the boundaries of the display. However, gauges,
212
, were to be modeled on the CRT screen and had to be placed within the screen boundaries. This combination resulted in the positions of instruments
210
and
212
being shifted relative to each other to allow their simulation. This layout no longer matches the real layout, reducing the fidelity. It was also necessary to reduce the size of gauges,
212
, to fit them onto the screen without also moving gauge,
214
. In some situations, this will have far reaching effects as other gauges are then reduced in size to maintain proper relative sizes between the gauges. Alternatively, the decision could be made to make a device non-functional to enable the simulation as a whole. Here, device,
216
, is represented on the screen, but is non-functional. This also impacts the fidelity of the simulation as this functionality is not available to the operator (pilot).
A second significant problem is the space at the edge of the CRT screen,
218
, whi
Hanson Thomas W.
Ullah Akm E.
LandOfFree
Fiber optic image transfer assembly and method of using does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Fiber optic image transfer assembly and method of using, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Fiber optic image transfer assembly and method of using will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2514678