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

In article ,
wrote:

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.

OnStar is a cellular based system with GPS Positioning builtin

Me

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