"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:59:01 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Thanks Jim, but I wouldn't bet on the facts getting in the way of this
'project'.

Cheers.

Ken

Why do you say that?

Here's a "heads up" for you, Ken. There are over ten FedGov agencies,
several legal teams and the rail lines that are working with diligence on
this, and similar, projects with the full intent of attempting to pull
this
off.

While you sit on the sidelines and nay-say.

If I had a dime for cheap comments like yours, I could fund this project
out of petty cash. So goes the nature of those who do and those who
comment
about the doers.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

It may be a fine project which will produce the goods, but let's look at the
way you've brought it he
- you wanted help to get up a truck-mounted transmitted to over-ride all
AM/FM communications in an area. You wanted to drive the truck at up to
70mph through a disaster/emergency area, for no adequately explained reason
(the RF is going for a mile or two outside the area, so why drive the
truck?). You got told why it's impractical as described.
- you suddenly changed it to a loco mounted project. You struck gold on this
one as there are people here who clearly have industry experience. You're
not poo-poo'ing their skepticism, but certainly not fazed (may not be a bad
thing....). Why not pour the funds into controlling all these uncontrolled
level crossings instead of producing a 'box' to go on every loco that may
drive through the US?
- you are trying to get commercial advice in a Ham group - is this the right
venue?? I'd have thought not, though it's certainly cheap.
- having ten agencies etc etc on your side may get the project through, but
is it the right solution to whichever problem it's attacking?
- 'nay-sayers' are a pain-in-the-arse, agreed - no-one likes them! - but
sometimes you need to hear the other side.

Cheers.

Ken