|
Wayne, KC8UIO wrote:
"I still think your biggest hurdle will be a legal one. When life is at risk, there are no prohibitions on radio transmissions. Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate. Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are heard at great distances. Illuminated message boards are used for travel information along hiways. They are also used for advertising on the Goodyear blimp and other vehicles. They are towed behind airplanes.. They can be programmed by recorded media, wire lines, and radio, even satellite. Where I live, we have a traffic control central which monitors streets and hiways using video cameras. It gives travel conditions and approximate times required along various routes.. This is reported on the illuminated displays and by radio and TV stations. A display can`t do anything about hiways clogged when people are stampeded by officials telling them to get out of town, other than warn them away from the clogs. Some people don`t have the means to get out of town. Others rush into what becomes a huge parking jam. We don`t have room for all the vehicles on the hiway at once. It`s a free country and we cant enforce private access to roads and streets. We have marked evacuation routes. Everyone can`t use them at the same time. When they try, nobody moves anywhere fast. When officials order an evacuation, they must also advise rail times and places of departures. Bus schedules must be given too, to keep some of the automobile load off overcrowded hiways. Airline information needs to be broadcast too. The transit central`s website needs to be broadcast for internet access. We had an "emergency broadcast system" ehich tested OK. It could be activated for purposes besides an atom missile. We had air raid sirens that could be used to alert people to tune-in for vital information. We don`t need yet another untested system. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:24:25 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
they'd be better off with bells and lights at the crossing for the latter... Many crossings have none. I was thinking of putting the bells and lights on the train... More people have ears, than radios. Few of the ones without ears, use radios :) lol -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:08:49 GMT, Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote:
I think you will find that the FCC has the FINAL call on frequency band usage. I can't see them authorizing such intrusive use of the normal broadcast bands, especially after the broadcast industry gets wind of your proposal. They got wind. Intrusive? Matter of subjectivity. A 30 sec message that envelopes a 3500 sided square? From a technical standpoint, broadband transmission of a signal is not hard. A simple VFO sweep of all the normal broadcast bands is all that is required. Obviously, the appropriate modulation techniques would have to be used for each band. That's the way we see it, more or less. Another approach would be the use of a local (LOW power) sweeping UP/DOWN converter. In this method, you could transmit a specific (authorized) signal from the site. This signal would be received and detected by a local receiver. This information would be used to modulate and rebroadcast the signal within the vehicle. However, this would require onboard equipment. Which mat make this impractical in the short run but there has been discussion about mandating this type of installation. I have my doubts but then we have seat belts and airbags. I still think that your biggest hurdle will a legal one. Wayne- (KC8UIO) I agree. Thanks, Wayne. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
We had an "emergency broadcast system" ehich tested OK. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI And another one on the way. http://www.fcw.com/article88522-04-11-05-Print -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:08:49 GMT, Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote:
I can't see them authorizing such intrusive use of the normal broadcast bands, http://www.fcw.com/article88522-04-11-05-Print *This* is intrusive. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:40:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
The Republicans are going to take care of all those problems! Darned Democrats anyhow! - Mike KB3EIA - Now look who is the troll. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
This is beginning to remind me of a panel I was involved with about 15
or so years ago when I was on an ad hoc White House Advisory Committee which was discussing the broadcasting of television to Castro's Cuba. I was a DOD tech rep and a careerist (I am now retired). We met in the White House Situation Room, almost directly under the Oval Office. Virtually all the other folks on this committee were lawyers and all but me and two military (one was the Vice Chief of the Joint Staff) were political appointees. This project went forward and is known as TV Marti, despite warnings from the technical folks that it could be easily jammed should the Cubans decide that they did not wish their population to see it. (The Cuban Government did want their population to see it and they did jam it). Although I did not have a political role in this matter and I was not a decision maker, just an advisor, what we had was a bunch of politicos trying to legislate the Laws of Physics. The engineering folks put forth all the technical arguements why this project could not meet its goals (that the Cuban average Joe with a common TV set could see American propaganda at any time), but to satisfy an interest group (the Miami Cuban exiles) the project was done anyway. In my technical capacity I was asked how many weeks or month it would take to jam this signal and I said 30 seconds. I erred, the Cubans identified and jammed the signal in 29 seconds. This summer, I was back in my hometown, a small town in the midwest (I now live near Washington DC) and the ham club to which I belonged as a kid was making improvements to their club station, located in a public building, under the guise of Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism, and funded in large part by that program. Now there are many reasons why the public officials might want a back-up emergency comms systems in this sparsely settled area, but I seriously doubt that terrorism was one of them. More power to the club for having the initiative to try to get these funds, but multiply this by every hamlet in the 3000+ counties in the US and you have what my history books called "pork." This program in the hinterland is draining off funding for areas where a terrorist incident is a very real threat, like here in Washington DC where it did indeed happen, at a building in which I once worked for a time. W3JT |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:13:53 -0400, J. Teske wrote:
This is beginning to remind me of a panel I was involved with about 15 or so years ago when I was on an ad hoc White House Advisory Committee which was discussing the broadcasting of television to Castro's Cuba. I was a DOD tech rep and a careerist (I am now retired). We met in the White House Situation Room, almost directly under the Oval Office. Virtually all the other folks on this committee were lawyers and all but me and two military (one was the Vice Chief of the Joint Staff) were political appointees. This project went forward and is known as TV Marti, despite warnings from the technical folks that it could be easily jammed should the Cubans decide that they did not wish their population to see it. (The Cuban Government did want their population to see it and they did jam it). Although I did not have a political role in this matter and I was not a decision maker, just an advisor, what we had was a bunch of politicos trying to legislate the Laws of Physics. The engineering folks put forth all the technical arguements why this project could not meet its goals (that the Cuban average Joe with a common TV set could see American propaganda at any time), but to satisfy an interest group (the Miami Cuban exiles) the project was done anyway. In my technical capacity I was asked how many weeks or month it would take to jam this signal and I said 30 seconds. I erred, the Cubans identified and jammed the signal in 29 seconds. lol I feel your pain. This summer, I was back in my hometown, a small town in the midwest (I now live near Washington DC) and the ham club to which I belonged as a kid was making improvements to their club station, located in a public building, under the guise of Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism, and funded in large part by that program. Now there are many reasons why the public officials might want a back-up emergency comms systems in this sparsely settled area, but I seriously doubt that terrorism was one of them. More power to the club for having the initiative to try to get these funds, but multiply this by every hamlet in the 3000+ counties in the US and you have what my history books called "pork." This program in the hinterland is draining off funding for areas where a terrorist incident is a very real threat, like here in Washington DC where it did indeed happen, at a building in which I once worked for a time. W3JT Point made. The driving force behind this is doing so mostly unseen or at least that is our best guesstimate. Now, I would disagree as to the ability to pull this off, there is no really advanced technologies required however one in which we have a patent interest is absolutely necessary (confirmed by legal and technical). The FCC will have to comply to all kinds of waivers and spectrum rights issues so there must be a political and governmental mandate to champion this project. If not, it's not worth much more than a discussion. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
If ANY such is to be performed, for railroad equipment, it must be well
thought out, and, further, must face multiple Federal Agencies, and at least one private one (A.A.R., The American Association of Railroads) The additional federal agencies a Federal Railroad Administration, O.S.H.A., and others-- One must also be aware of the facts that MANY frequencies would have to be involved, because of safety concerns (much like airlines), against interference. (No, it is NOT just about Train to train/work crew, and Dispatcher communications that is involved. Other equipment that railroads use a 1) Track Carriers, for Crossing grade signals, dragging equipment, high-wide load, hot box detectors, Broken Rail detection, not to mention some telephony communications, 2) Remote controlled helper engines (unmanned engines on the end of trains to push-assist, and brake), 3) "FREDS" ("Friggin Rear End Devices"), some of which provide telemetry to the engineer of brake pressure, status of tail light, ect.- the new generation is conversant -2 way, also capable of dumping the brake pressure (emergency brake application, via remote control) and, other options (control of Railroad Central Traffic Control, or CTC. Also, on ALL track circuits, in signaled territory, the use of Insulated Joints is mandated, by the Federal Railroad Administration and can cause derailments, and other problems if NOT adheared to!and, 4) G.P.S. equipment As to the Engines, tho, they have considerable power, they supply unorthodox voltages (a typical engine uses 600 volt, circuits, and the electronics used on them is in the 68-72 volt range- further, the newer engines are A.C. , the older diesels were D.C. In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents! ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! Translation: DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific for over 30 years!! Ari Silversteinn wrote: Indeed it is both. Considering we gave away a central DB technology to DHS-NOLA, then they failed to use it, we are hoping to make money this time around *and* that they will get their acts together. On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:26:12 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote: I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is well thought out. By it's very nature, it cannot be, it is a dynamically moving target and will be for some time I would imagine. |
Thanks Jim, but I wouldn't bet on the facts getting in the way of this
'project'. Cheers. Ken "Jim - NN7K" wrote in message ... If ANY such is to be performed, for railroad equipment, it must be well thought out, and, further, must face multiple Federal Agencies, and at least one private one (A.A.R., The American Association of Railroads) The additional federal agencies a Federal Railroad Administration, O.S.H.A., and others-- One must also be aware of the facts that MANY frequencies would have to be involved, because of safety concerns (much like airlines), against interference. (No, it is NOT just about Train to train/work crew, and Dispatcher communications that is involved. Other equipment that railroads use a 1) Track Carriers, for Crossing grade signals, dragging equipment, high-wide load, hot box detectors, Broken Rail detection, not to mention some telephony communications, 2) Remote controlled helper engines (unmanned engines on the end of trains to push-assist, and brake), 3) "FREDS" ("Friggin Rear End Devices"), some of which provide telemetry to the engineer of brake pressure, status of tail light, ect.- the new generation is conversant -2 way, also capable of dumping the brake pressure (emergency brake application, via remote control) and, other options (control of Railroad Central Traffic Control, or CTC. Also, on ALL track circuits, in signaled territory, the use of Insulated Joints is mandated, by the Federal Railroad Administration and can cause derailments, and other problems if NOT adheared to!and, 4) G.P.S. equipment As to the Engines, tho, they have considerable power, they supply unorthodox voltages (a typical engine uses 600 volt, circuits, and the electronics used on them is in the 68-72 volt range- further, the newer engines are A.C. , the older diesels were D.C. In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents! ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! Translation: DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific for over 30 years!! Ari Silversteinn wrote: Indeed it is both. Considering we gave away a central DB technology to DHS-NOLA, then they failed to use it, we are hoping to make money this time around *and* that they will get their acts together. On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:26:12 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote: I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is well thought out. By it's very nature, it cannot be, it is a dynamically moving target and will be for some time I would imagine. |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:51:50 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote: If ANY such is to be performed, for railroad equipment, it must be well thought out, and, further, must face multiple Federal Agencies, and at least one private one (A.A.R., The American Association of Railroads) The additional federal agencies a Federal Railroad Administration, O.S.H.A., and others-- One must also be aware of the facts that MANY frequencies would have to be involved, because of safety concerns (much like airlines), against interference. (No, it is NOT just about Train to train/work crew, and Dispatcher communications that is involved. Other equipment that railroads use a 1) Track Carriers, for Crossing grade signals, dragging equipment, high-wide load, hot box detectors, Broken Rail detection, not to mention some telephony communications, 2) Remote controlled helper engines (unmanned engines on the end of trains to push-assist, and brake), 3) "FREDS" ("Friggin Rear End Devices"), some of which provide telemetry to the engineer of brake pressure, status of tail light, ect.- the new generation is conversant -2 way, also capable of dumping the brake pressure (emergency brake application, via remote control) and, other options (control of Railroad Central Traffic Control, or CTC. Also, on ALL track circuits, in signaled territory, the use of Insulated Joints is mandated, by the Federal Railroad Administration and can cause derailments, and other problems if NOT adheared to!and, 4) G.P.S. equipment As to the Engines, tho, they have considerable power, they supply unorthodox voltages (a typical engine uses 600 volt, circuits, and the electronics used on them is in the 68-72 volt range- further, the newer engines are A.C. , the older diesels were D.C. In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents! ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! Translation: DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific for over 30 years!! Jim, I don't recognize the name, but did you ever work out of the SF GOB? I spent 30 years there myself. FWIW, I also hear from Brijet occasionally. You probably know her (wherever you worked) as she was in charge of CDC for some years. I spent a decent amount of time down there troubleshooting problems on the remote lines to the zone offices. Ari Silversteinn wrote: Indeed it is both. Considering we gave away a central DB technology to DHS-NOLA, then they failed to use it, we are hoping to make money this time around *and* that they will get their acts together. On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:26:12 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote: I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is well thought out. By it's very nature, it cannot be, it is a dynamically moving target and will be for some time I would imagine. |
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:51:50 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:
If ANY such is to be performed, for railroad equipment, it must be well thought out, and, further, must face multiple Federal Agencies, and at least one private one (A.A.R., The American Association of Railroads) The additional federal agencies a Federal Railroad Administration, O.S.H.A., and others-- One must also be aware of the facts that MANY frequencies would have to be involved, because of safety concerns (much like airlines), against interference. (No, it is NOT just about Train to train/work crew, and Dispatcher communications that is involved. Other equipment that railroads use a 1) Track Carriers, for Crossing grade signals, dragging equipment, high-wide load, hot box detectors, Broken Rail detection, not to mention some telephony communications, 2) Remote controlled helper engines (unmanned engines on the end of trains to push-assist, and brake), 3) "FREDS" ("Friggin Rear End Devices"), some of which provide telemetry to the engineer of brake pressure, status of tail light, ect.- the new generation is conversant -2 way, also capable of dumping the brake pressure (emergency brake application, via remote control) and, other options (control of Railroad Central Traffic Control, or CTC. Also, on ALL track circuits, in signaled territory, the use of Insulated Joints is mandated, by the Federal Railroad Administration and can cause derailments, and other problems if NOT adheared to!and, 4) G.P.S. equipment Thanks, solid points. We have identified the FCC assigned to RR frequencies and they are outside of the AM/FM bandwidth. As to the Engines, tho, they have considerable power, they supply unorthodox voltages (a typical engine uses 600 volt, circuits, and the electronics used on them is in the 68-72 volt range- further, the newer engines are A.C. , the older diesels were D.C. All this is convertible though, correct? In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents! Nope, sure isn't. ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! What's the issue, this appears not to be a huge deal? Translation: DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific for over 30 years!! Thanks, Jim, not holding any breaths. This isn't an in-house project, it's a coordinated effort that has all the complications and need for input as you have pointed out. We are asked to be Tech Central of sorts. Ari Silversteinn wrote: Indeed it is both. Considering we gave away a central DB technology to DHS-NOLA, then they failed to use it, we are hoping to make money this time around *and* that they will get their acts together. On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:26:12 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote: I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is well thought out. By it's very nature, it cannot be, it is a dynamically moving target and will be for some time I would imagine. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
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 |
|
Ari- The power of a locomotive can be converted but, there are
certain problems, like going downhill, not only are brakes applied to the cars, but the diesels go into "Dynamic Breaking", a complicated way to say "Let the driver wheels run the motor (as a generator), and them dump their output to banks of RESISTORS!! Provides great breaking, but lousey voltage regulation! The radios on these units are powered by (as stated,) 72 Volts, tho the radios also work on 12 volts (which was the standard in Cabooses). The main point tho, remains that there are considerable electronics (the new G.E. A.C.engines , from what I have been told, are computer operated)! and that anything that interfers with other items causes considerable greif to the operation of a railroad- even turning a relay upside down can cause a derailment! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! What's the issue, this appears not to be a huge deal? Well, Ari-- the big deal is (Primarily in mountainous country- even a grade of .5 degree, is considered quite steep). Now, suppose a Maintainence of Way employees (push car, Motor Car, Hi-Railer (a pickup equipped for rail travel) accidentally get loose- these can be doing considerable speed- several MILES later-- worse, these dont trip the signals, and further, the work crews have the track from the dispatcher, so these can sneak up on workers with fatal consequences. A similar thing happened on the old Siskiyou line, when the powers that be were testing one of the old style of remote controlled helpers-, going down-hill, on 5 Mile /Hour track they called the remote to go to dynamic brakeing- but it went to 8-throttle instead (full throttle)! When they got it to control, that train was doing 20 MPH! Had a bunch of scared people on it! as you can see, it is not for the faint of heart! I sure wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that track-- would you ?? I know it looks simple, and most times it is, but it doesn't take much for things to get out of control! Have fun -- Jim |
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:31:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:
Ari- The power of a locomotive can be converted but, there are certain problems, like going downhill, not only are brakes applied to the cars, but the diesels go into "Dynamic Breaking", a complicated way to say "Let the driver wheels run the motor (as a generator), and them dump their output to banks of RESISTORS!! Provides great breaking, but lousey voltage regulation! The radios on these units are powered by (as stated,) 72 Volts, tho the radios also work on 12 volts (which was the standard in Cabooses). The main point tho, remains that there are considerable electronics (the new G.E. A.C.engines , from what I have been told, are computer operated)! Just saw one, yep, looks exactly that way. and that anything that interfers with other items causes considerable greif to the operation of a railroad- even turning a relay upside down can cause a derailment! Ah, I see what you mean, thanks again for the heads up. Are you then suggesting that we create our own, clean power removed from the loco elec grid? -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:31:17 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote:
They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device for run away train notification! What's the issue, this appears not to be a huge deal? Well, Ari-- the big deal is (Primarily in mountainous country- even a grade of .5 degree, is considered quite steep). Now, suppose a Maintainence of Way employees (push car, Motor Car, Hi-Railer (a pickup equipped for rail travel) accidentally get loose- these can be doing considerable speed- several MILES later-- worse, these dont trip the signals, and further, the work crews have the track from the dispatcher, so these can sneak up on workers with fatal consequences. A similar thing happened on the old Siskiyou line, when the powers that be were testing one of the old style of remote controlled helpers-, going down-hill, on 5 Mile /Hour track they called the remote to go to dynamic brakeing- but it went to 8-throttle instead (full throttle)! When they got it to control, that train was doing 20 MPH! Had a bunch of scared people on it! as you can see, it is not for the faint of heart! I sure wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that track-- would you ?? Not a chance. I know it looks simple, and most times it is, but it doesn't take much for things to get out of control! Have fun -- Jim I meant it seemed not to be, on first look, a difficult technology to implement. For example, why not a sped sensitive device that set off an alarm (vocal, radio, other) that could be preset "on" in situations where these runaways are not manned? I don't mean to downplay the potential complications but, technically, getting an appropriate alarm system on a runaway doesn't sound like high end technology. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:27:17 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote:
Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate. Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are heard at great distances. Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings? -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:51:49 GMT, Jim - NN7K
wrote: wrote: In sum total, then, this isn't a job for sidewalk superintendents! ONE item the railroads is STILL looking for is a concensus, for a Run-Away vehicle (by their work crews), that would alert a track gang of that runaway comming at them, causing considerable injury! They are STILL looking for such a foolproof device! Translation: DON'T hold your breath, or you will get awful blue!! Jim NN7K Retired Communication Tech, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific for over 30 years!! Jim, I don't recognize the name, but did you ever work out of the SF GOB? I spent 30 years there myself. FWIW, I also hear from Brijet occasionally. You probably know her (wherever you worked) as she was in charge of CDC for some years. I spent a decent amount of time down there troubleshooting problems on the remote lines to the zone offices. Never down in Oakland/the CITY, worked in K.Falls for years, started in Eugene, in '68. Finally moved here to Sparks, about 12 years ago. Yeh, remember Brigit- bet she doing better than most - had Dave Stubbles in Roseville, until they laid him off about 7 years ago then he went to makeing big $$$!!-- and the two Mikes-- Rosemond - he back in Eugene, and Barnecascle- he in Elko, NV- got a year until retirement! Guess Bob Hall still retired in K.Falls, and Jim Haas also there (he took my job when came to Sparks). All retired (except for the two mikes). Think you Kaiser D ?? have fun-- Jim (A.J. Foster) NN7K Oops, sorry, I meant to take this personal stuff offline. |
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:38:04 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: I don't know the details on how it works, but it seems to me that a broadening of something akin to the On-Star technology might be a solution work examining. I do not know if an On-Star operator can talk to an equipped vehicle at On-Stars initiative, but certainly we have the start of a system with a two-way radio with a satellite comms link. Admittedly, at the momeny On-Star is considered a luxury add-on option and is currently available only in GM cars (to the best of my knowledge.) But 23 years ago, I wrote a paper to my DOD bosses which said this system the Swedes were developing called cellular phone might have to be looked into. I was doing this as part of a survey on new technologies which could have an impact upon intelligence production. [I got a response from some Dilbert-type pinhead boss that said it would go nowhere BTW]. Given a few years and some competition, the On-Star paradigm could be as ubiquitous as cell-phones are today. Even 23 years ago, I never forsaw the possibility of virtually every teenager having a cell phone or that there would be ten of them in just my immediate family [Wife, myself, two adult children and their families. Son and his wife have two systems each plus a Nextel.] If an On-Star device, would be true two way, with GPS tracking, with either end of the link able to activate the system. One could broadcast a message to every active unit, either universally, or, based upon GPS tracking to every unit with prescribed geo coordinates. There already exists a somewhat similar system to broadcast weather alerts to a passive receiver, although not normally deployed in cars. Boaters already can have a Digital Selective Calling VHF radio in their boats by which a coast guard can issue warnings. Such a system is being mandated in the UK by a phase in process (e.g. new radios with the old paradigm cannot be marketed unless they have DSC.) And horror of horrors, one could alway investigate Broadband over Powerlines (BPL). Wouldn't that give us hams some gas. W3JT On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:27:17 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote: Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate. Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are heard at great distances. Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings? |
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:38:04 -0400,
Ari Silversteinn wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:27:17 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote: Disruption of all normal channels is unecessary and undesirable. Some won`t be tuned-in and won`t immediately get the message. Nearly everyone has eyes and ears. Sight and sound are useful to communicate. Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are heard at great distances. Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings? you expect to get a special dispensation to blast all bands in an emergency, but worry about noise ordinances? -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock When you boil it down to the essentials, it's because Linux is designed to be *used* and Windows is designed to be *sold*. |
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:39:11 -0400, J. Teske
wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:38:04 -0400, Ari Silversteinn wrote: I don't know the details on how it works, but it seems to me that a broadening of something akin to the On-Star technology might be a solution work examining. I do not know if an On-Star operator can talk to an equipped vehicle at On-Stars initiative, but certainly we have the start of a system with a two-way radio with a satellite comms link. Why not -- they can eavesdrop on a selected vehicle, as was proven once when the cops asked them to do so to a vehicle involved in a kidnap. And now thwt I think of it, they can iniiate a conversation when they detect an airbag deployment. |
J. Teske wrote:
"Ever hear of Quiet Zone rulings?" Is that why air raid sirens aren`t tested Fridays at noon anymore? When life is at risk, quiet zones, like radio rules, don`t apply. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 02:51:02 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
Air horns as used on locomotives are designed to get attention. They are heard at great distances. Ever hear of The Quiet Zone rulings? you expect to get a special dispensation to blast all bands in an emergency, but worry about noise ordinances? Quiet Zones are no horns allowed. The rest you have to figure out. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:39:11 -0400, J. Teske wrote:
If an On-Star device, would be true two way, with GPS tracking, with either end of the link able to activate the system. One could broadcast a message to every active unit, either universally, or, based upon GPS tracking to every unit with prescribed geo coordinates. There already exists a somewhat similar system to broadcast weather alerts to a passive receiver, although not normally deployed in cars. Boaters already can have a Digital Selective Calling VHF radio in their boats by which a coast guard can issue warnings. Such a system is being mandated in the UK by a phase in process (e.g. new radios with the old paradigm cannot be marketed unless they have DSC.) And horror of horrors, one could alway investigate Broadband over Powerlines (BPL). Wouldn't that give us hams some gas. W3JT The issue of installing a proprietary receiving device inside automobiles, mandated by federal action, is one that is being given serious conversation. The one problem that appears to be an issue is the liability one. It will be a matter of time that someone will sue saying that the system scared them or distracted them and caused this or tat accident. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
|
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:33:41 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote:
J. Teske wrote: "Ever hear of Quiet Zone rulings?" Is that why air raid sirens aren`t tested Fridays at noon anymore? When life is at risk, quiet zones, like radio rules, don`t apply. Yep, you've never heard or understand Quiet Zones. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
Ari Silversteinn wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:33:41 -0500, Richard Harrison wrote: J. Teske wrote: "Ever hear of Quiet Zone rulings?" Is that why air raid sirens aren`t tested Fridays at noon anymore? When life is at risk, quiet zones, like radio rules, don`t apply. Yep, you've never heard or understand Quiet Zones. Is a quiet zone a place like Placentia Ca. which had, for the railroad, become a manditory blow your full set of air horns long and loud right next to the bedroom windows every time you pass by no matter what time of day or night it is, and where the locals have passed an ordinance that says they're sick and tired of it? |
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:20:30 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote:
Yep, you've never heard or understand Quiet Zones. Is a quiet zone a place like Placentia Ca. which had, for the railroad, become a manditory blow your full set of air horns long and loud right next to the bedroom windows every time you pass by no matter what time of day or night it is, and where the locals have passed an ordinance that says they're sick and tired of it? Close. http://tinyurl.com/cb53f -- Drop the alphabet for email |
"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 |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:07:51 +1300, "Ken Taylor"
wrote: 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? It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 |
It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a
problem.. Hummmm...I haven't read any of this thread, and after seeing the initial page, decided it wasn't worth my time..."Not related to any certain post". I was just curious , as the thread title started to remind me of a old "Jethro Tull" song... Resume... MK |
Is this guy done, now?
"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message ... DHS has proposed a change in scenario. They want an on locomotive alerting system that could be commandeered and driven at, near or about a disaster site. Everything else stays more or less the same, overbroadcasting on local AM/FM, power off the locomotive, selective or full frequency broadcasting, train (s) to be in motion at all times. 20-30 second messages that would also combine a message to be aware that a locomotive (at speed) will be flying by the at grade crossings. Comments? -- Drop the alphabet for email |
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:10:28 GMT, Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote:
Is this guy done, now? We were until you reopened the thread, Wayne. duh. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote:
It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:45:05 -0400, w
wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote: It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. No, Ari, that was not a requisite to come to that understanding. |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:45:05 -0400, w
wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote: It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. I read every post. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:27:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:45:05 -0400, w wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:52:26 +0100, LRod wrote: It struck me from the very beginning as a solution looking for a problem. The you failed to read the thread. No, Ari, that was not a requisite to come to that understanding. Uh, this wasn't Ari, check your headers. -- Drop the alphabet for email |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:14:24 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote: Uh, this wasn't Ari, check your headers. Uh, and neither are you (as if headers proved anything) Hi Ossama, Hard to validate yourself when you approach us an anonymous poster (anyone can use anything as a signature). Problem there is I can pin any name to you, and you couldn't prove it otherwise - can you? ;-) still lookin' for ya' Uncle Sam |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com