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.