Slashdot Mirror


Life-Saving Baseballs

DeAshcroft writes "Researchers at the Penn State Acoustics Lab have developed life-saving baseballs. As described in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, the team put microphones and wireless transmitters into baseballs, which they toss into piles of rubble to find the (noise-making) survivors. The advantage with baseballs is that they apparently don't have to stop work on the pile to listen for survivors. So, remember, if you're ever trapped in a collapsed building, the basball is your friend. The college paper has a story."

40 comments

  1. strike one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    you're out

  2. Excellent 'cluster' interface. by torpor · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Such an elegant solution, using the 'cluster' configuration.

    I suppose things like this could be used for ship-wreck/plane-wreck situations too, where some sort of mass of floating balls is released during structural damage or hull-breach to be grabbed by survivors for tracking purposes.

    Maybe in Space this would be useful? Hull-breach in the dome, sections of which when destroyed by structural breaks, release thousands of tiny 'life-balls' which, when activated by a human, send out "SOS"...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  3. Inquiring minds want to know! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does MLB get a cut of the profits from the devices?

    Would these baseballs, when tossed into debris, distract the search dogs?

    Do these baseballs work in conjunction with MLB's spy satellite? If so, would a tinfoil hat prevent them from finding me?

    Do these baseballs have RFID tags, and if so, shouldn't we protest their use?

    Can they help me find my car keys?

    If I whistle in the rubble, will the baseball beep so I can find it if _it_ gets lost?

    What would happen if terrorists got ahold of these baseballs? Think of the children!

    Can a swallow carry such a baseball by gripping it's "husk"? Perhaps by two swallows flying in tandem? African or European?

    Can these baseballs be used with bats? If so, wooden or aluminium?

    If they're networked together within a field of debris, would that mean you'd have a Beowulf cluster of them? Would that find people faster?

    Do these run on BSD? If so, they're dead (along with Apple).

    Do these use any GPL code? If so, GNU/Baseball!

    Has the design of these been put out under any particular Open Sores License yet? If so, which one, if not, why not? If not now, when? If not me, who? What? Why? Where? When? Whatever.

    Duuude, yer gettin' a baseball! (Sweeeeet.)

    Go get it, Lycos! (arf! arf!) ((Good boy, Ubu.))

    Can you tell how much soda I've already had today?

    1. Re:Inquiring minds want to know! by VikingBerserker · · Score: 1

      Does MLB get a cut of the profits from the devices?

      "Do you want me to tell you the awful truth, or do you want me to hit some dingers?"

      "DINGERS!, DINGERS!"

  4. You forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    1. Are these baseballs filled with hot grits to nourish and warm trapped survivors?
    2. If this were Soviet Russia, would we use people to find trapped baseballs?
    3. ???
    4. PROFIT.
  5. Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by Randym · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If they're networked together within a field of debris, would that mean you'd have a Beowulf cluster of them? Would that find people faster?

    Good point. It should be easy enough to triangulate (well, since it's a three dimensional pile, I suppose you'd need *4* baseballs, so 'quadrangulate') the location of victims by simultaneously analyzing the relative volume of sounds picked up by the baseballs.

    May I also suggest enclosing some of these baseballs in a tetrahedron framework (probably made of some non-conductive wire, i.e. not copper). This will mean that baseballs enclosed in this sort of framework that are tossed in at the top of a heap of rubble do not go all the way down, but stop on any relatively level surface that they encounter. Then you would have round baseballs near the bottom of the pile, and tetrahedral baseballs further up, thus enabling a better "3-D" acoustic view.

    Also, why not use golf balls too? They are even smaller (so that they could go through smaller cracks) and are also resistant to damage from smashing into things.

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
    1. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by Eivind · · Score: 2, Informative
      You're wrong.

      To find a spot in a 3D-environment the direction from 3 distinct baseballs is enough. In a 2D field, *2* baseballs would be enough.

    2. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by addaon · · Score: 1

      Um, to find a spot in >= 2 dimensions, two baseballs is enough to triangulate. (The tri- in triangulate refers to the three points involved, two sensors and the object being located.) This is why your eyes work in three dimensions. Think about it... using your index fingers, you can point to any location in three dimensions, you don't need to use your nose.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    3. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by OldMiner · · Score: 1

      News for nerds and we don't even have geometry skills. Ok, quick recap.

      That's start in 2D. What we have is a single point (our baseball) which hears a noise. We use this noise to determine a distance at which the source of the noise is likely located. Since all we know is where the ball is (hopefully) and the strength of the noise, we can now a draw a circle around the ball somewhere along which our target lies. Dropping another ball results in a another circle with a different center. Provided our balls dropped in different places, these two circles overlap at either one or two places. As such, we still need a THIRD ball in 2D to find out person. And this is assuming we can make a definite translation from signal level to distance as well as pinpoint the location of the baseballs.

      Now 3D. Instead of circles we have spheres. The intersection of two spheres is a circle or a point if we're really lucky. The intersection of a circle and a sphere is two points or a single point. This means we need four baseballs (each creating its own spehere) to find someone in the rubble heap.

      High school flashbacks. Scary.

      --
      You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
    4. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by crossconnects · · Score: 1
      In general to find an object using triangulation in n space, we need n+1 objects that can tell us the distance between itself and the object we are looking for. And we need to know the precise location of the n+1 objects.

      Penn State Math grad

      --
      no big sig
    5. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (-1, misinformative)

    6. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Your explanation assumes the balls only know the distance.

      I'd think it would be easier to find the _direction_ of an unknown sound than the distance. This is not a GPS situation.

      If the balls knew the direction the sound was coming from, then can't you find a point in 3D space from lines drawn from the two balls (points)? Relative to the two balls of course.

      Now if you knew both the distance and the direction only one ball/point would be enough (3D polar coordinates).

      --
    7. Re:Triangulation, tetrahedrons, golf balls by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, forgot to mention, in practice I think they don't bother triangulating. All you need to know is if a ball heard something in the area, then you dig there.

      --
  6. Not Baseballs by rcs2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    they are wireless microphones, theres nothing about the baseball that means anything. The article says they put one of the mics in a baseball and hit it with a bat to test shock resiliency.

    --
    This is not a signature.
    1. Re:Not Baseballs by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Insightful
      they put one of the mics in a baseball and hit it with a bat to test shock resiliency.

      Being in a baseball (well, spherical) case does have some possible uses -- depending on where you wanted it to go. A round, bouncy, shape could allow it to bounce closer to the bottom of a hole. An uneven non-bouncy shape would likely stay near the top. You could use whichever shape was most likely to get themake it microphone where you wanted it.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  7. How about making them standard in buildings? by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

    Kinda like an airplanes black box?

    Record structural stresses at key points, info that could be invaluable in analyzing the situation afterward.

    You'd know exactly where they were placed in the constuction or retrofitting of the building, and perhaps could be even more useful than loose devices, providing they weren't damaged during the destruction of the building.

  8. ..the advantage... by j-turkey · · Score: 1
    The advantage with baseballs is that they apparently don't have to stop work on the pile to listen for survivors.

    Are baseballs more advantageous than say, cricket balls, tennis balls, racket balls, or golf balls?

    How so?

    --Turkey
    --

    -Turkey

  9. Why baseballs? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder why they picked baseballs, as opposed to something smaller. If there's something een more indestructible than a baseball, it's a golfball. One of these would also be able to be put into a smaller space, and with a suitable plastic shell, could be made to glow in the dark so that somebody in a deep hole could actually find one!

    Hell, why not both, depending on the situation?

    1. Re:Why baseballs? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Informative
      It seems like you never bothered to read the article.. putting it into a baseball was just to test the resilience of the unit--- Hit a home run, then check to see if the microphone is still transmitting when it lands. The reason why they didn't play golf with it may simply be that (including the transmitter and battery) it was simply too big to fit.

      "Far be it for me to criticize, sir, but that golf ball aooears to be almost the size of a baseball...

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    2. Re:Why baseballs? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      I did read the article, and gathered that fact. But think about it...something like a baseball is actually quite a logical thing to stick a wireless mike into for the purpose of dropping down a hole...it's compact, durable, and ROUND, so it can roll down a pipe or a trench. But a golfball is more so in all these respects, so with the exception of any complications concerning battery power, it's probably a better go than the baseball. As for durability, I don't think it's going to suffer anything like the shock of a baseball hit, but even so, think about the typical force exerted on a golfball at tee-off, and that isn't anything to sneeze at.

    3. Re:Why baseballs? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      I was going to add, also, that, if you think about the technology used for covert surveillance, a golfball sized mike and transmitter of reasonable range and longevity should be quite feasible, plus there's still all the other things I mentioned in my original post relating to the plastic outer shell being enhanced visually.

  10. in a related story, by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fox Sports has ordered a number of the mic'ed balls in order to promote its new "Sounds of the Game" portion of its MLB coverage. Hear the deafing sound of the bat cracking against a homerun ball, then listen to the fans fight over said ball.

    1. Re:in a related story, by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is a fantastic idea, point the camera at the crowds for added impact. Next; A golf ball with GPS so it can send its location to your motorola gps-enabled radio. (Or PDA with radio modem module.) If you had course geometry in your palmtop it could even keep score automatically, in the bargain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Two baseballs by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 1

    One to toss in the pile and the other one to play catch with till the muffled scratching stops.

    I gotcha.

    --
    Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
  12. Wow by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

    If you thought the 73rd Home Run ball was worth alot wait until one of these balls saves a life and see home much it goes for on e-bay!

  13. They don't bounce much. by ptaff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder why they used baseballs - yes they're more resistant than, let's say, tennis balls, and you don't want to crush the electronics inside.

    But if the ball is supposed to locate people who are stuck inside a pile of debris, I guess the deeper the ball gets, the better; and baseballs don't bounce much. Imagine throwing a SuperBall(TM) and a baseball inside an irregularly shaped tunnel 1 feet wide - which ball will get the deeper inside the tunnel?

    1. Re:They don't bounce much. by JohnG · · Score: 1

      That depends on if the bouncy ball bounces in, or back out.

  14. someone already did this? by sublime99 · · Score: 1

    This seems like this has been done before. The article mentions that this research was done after 9/11. I have seen a few shows on discovery channel about avalanches and using transmitters to find people. What is the difference between those devices and this one done by Penn State?

    1. Re:someone already did this? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have seen a few shows on discovery channel about avalanches and using transmitters to find people. What is the difference between those devices and this one done by Penn State?

      For avalanche rescue, the transmitters are usually being worn by the people who buried. If you're hunting for someone trapped in an avalanche, there's not much need for tranmitting microphones in the hands of the rescuers. At the most, you'd want a microphone on the end of a long stick that you'd poke into the snowpile while listening for an "ouch".

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    2. Re:someone already did this? by gene_tailor · · Score: 1

      I just called my friend who is part of the NASA Ames DART (Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team), which is part of California Task Force 3, one of 28 FEMA urban search and rescue teams, so I could I ask him about this idea. These are the guys that get called to go to Oklahoma City, WTC, earthquake sites etc. Anyway, he says in the past they have used long probes with wires which they snake down into the debris to listen for sounds that could be made by survivors in the viod spaces, but a sufficiently sturdy wireless transmitter would be new as far as he knows. I was surprised to hear that, but as the article says this was not a big priority area for research before 9/11. He said that not having to go close enough to run wires, and being able to deploy a bunch of these mics quickly all over a site, would be big advantages.

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
    3. Re:someone already did this? by sublime99 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the update and finding out all that information. Makes a lot more sense now.. Thank you again

  15. Did I get this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    From now on I have to carry a baseball as well as the towel with me?

  16. Balls thoroughly licked� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the problem of finding trapped survivors.

  17. Triangulation, man by archeopterix · · Score: 1
    One to toss in the pile and the other one to play catch with till the muffled scratching stops.
    Don't forget one to rule them all and in the darknes s bind them.
    1. Re:Triangulation, man by Jackazz · · Score: 1
      No, no, no, it's "One to rule them all and in the darkness FIND them"

      man, get it straight... :-)

  18. What about tennis balls? by Kanasta · · Score: 1

    They're softer, bounce further, and lighter!

  19. oh... by C21 · · Score: 1

    oh nanotechnology, when will you come and obsolete these crazy baseball type ideas!

    --
    this is not a sig.