| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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 |
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 |
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 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. |
"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 |
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive*
Ari Silversteinn wrote:
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 - I won't deny it! Now, if you want my honest assessment, I find the whole thing fraught with ethical questions. What if someone isn't listening to the radio when the message is broadcast? What about the people who don't live near railroad tracks? If this thing is to *actually* work, it would have to be space based. Work with a database of the frequencies in use in the affected areas. broadcast on them as the need arises. FM will be easy. AM will be some more work. Of course you'll still have to deal with the people who aren't listening at the moment! Of course if it just a research project to burn up some money, then *that* is a different subject altogether! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive*
I've got an idea.
How about installing flashing lights at rail road crossing, and maybe some bells. Ace - WH2T "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Ari Silversteinn wrote: 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 - I won't deny it! Now, if you want my honest assessment, I find the whole thing fraught with ethical questions. What if someone isn't listening to the radio when the message is broadcast? What about the people who don't live near railroad tracks? If this thing is to *actually* work, it would have to be space based. Work with a database of the frequencies in use in the affected areas. broadcast on them as the need arises. FM will be easy. AM will be some more work. Of course you'll still have to deal with the people who aren't listening at the moment! Of course if it just a research project to burn up some money, then *that* is a different subject altogether! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive*
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Ari Silversteinn wrote: 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 - I won't deny it! Now, if you want my honest assessment, I find the whole thing fraught with ethical questions. What if someone isn't listening to the radio when the message is broadcast? What about the people who don't live near railroad tracks? If this thing is to *actually* work, it would have to be space based. Work with a database of the frequencies in use in the affected areas. broadcast on them as the need arises. FM will be easy. AM will be some more work. Of course you'll still have to deal with the people who aren't listening at the moment! Of course if it just a research project to burn up some money, then *that* is a different subject altogether! - Mike KB3EIA - Space-based wouldn't work. You can't get a spot footprint small enough on the earth's surface to make this do-able. Iridium comes about the closest, but would you put up a constellation to provide the footprints and not use it 99.999999999% of the time? :-) Cheers. Ken |
Emergency Messaging, AM/FM *On Locomotive*
If you want to see an unpolite newsgroup, post a home owner message at
alt.hvac and watch it fly. Stretch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com