On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.

Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a user.
Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied to the
tracks. The electric generators used for powering gear other than the
train's vitals are not high power.

Ken

Ken Taylor wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:


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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.


Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a user.
Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied to the
tracks. The electric generators used for powering gear other than the
train's vitals are not high power.

Guys, don't ya know that this guy is trolling and caught way more than
the daily creel limit?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ken Taylor wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:


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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.


Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a
user. Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied
to the tracks. The electric generators used for powering gear other than
the train's vitals are not high power.

Guys, don't ya know that this guy is trolling and caught way more than the
daily creel limit?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout commences

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:03:57 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

I have a clear history for anyone to Google.

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout commences

Not too much wrong with that synopsis, Ken.

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

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.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

"Ari Silversteinn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:03:57 +1300, Ken Taylor wrote:

Well, he's not a troll in that he's making it up as he goes - it appears
he
really is hoping to do for his company what he says (source: Google).

I have a clear history for anyone to Google.

Sure do, I was pointing that out. Hence I don't think you're a troll.

However it's a job which really equates to:
Government fleeces tax-payers
Bureaucrat gets hold of budget allocation
Bureaucrat needs to succeed - ie. unload allocation
Ari and co. want to be under the hopper when the jackpot payout
commences

Not too much wrong with that synopsis, Ken.

A valid way of doing business, but still a crock.

Ken

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.
--
I'm really not criticizing you, per se, but I don't think the concept is
well thought out.

You refer elsewhere to this being an auxiliary warning system on a loco -
level crossing lights/bells/boom gates not enough? They usually are, so why
the worry now? (Okay, we know it's the moolah....).

You also refer to 1,000W being available - it's just not enough for what you
want to do. Period.

Good luck with them getting their act (I would have said something else!)
together, but don't bet the bank on it. I'm actually an ex-bureaucrat myself
and to call me cynical of governmental abilities would be an understatement.
But if you do come up with something useful (I bet it ends up being a
spin-off rather than the initial concept seen here), I hope you get
something out of it.

Cheers.

Ken

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.

You refer elsewhere to this being an auxiliary warning system on a loco -
level crossing lights/bells/boom gates not enough? They usually are, so why
the worry now? (Okay, we know it's the moolah....).

The number of unmarked or unworkable crossings is greater than the ones
quadrant marked and useable.

You also refer to 1,000W being available - it's just not enough for what you
want to do. Period.

3 watts per frequency?

Good luck with them getting their act (I would have said something else!)
together, but don't bet the bank on it. I'm actually an ex-bureaucrat myself
and to call me cynical of governmental abilities would be an understatement.

Well, if in the process we get paid, then wtf, you know?

But if you do come up with something useful (I bet it ends up being a
spin-off rather than the initial concept seen here), I hope you get
something out of it.

Cheers.

Ken

Thanks, Ken, it would be nice to do something that would save lives and
limbs and also make a few asspennies
--
Drop the alphabet for email

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:29:52 +1300, "Ken Taylor"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.

Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a user.
Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied to the
tracks.

Actually, it's not.

What made you bring up tracks anyway -- my reference to the
tracks on the lake falling in? My point was that the locomotive is
going nowhere there aren't usable tracks.

On a diesel-electric locomotive, the generator's output is
applied, not to the tracks as you seem to think, but rather through
control circuitry to the stator around the axle. It's rather amusing
to see a repair yard worker with a set of wheels-and-axle (they're all
one single piece, in case you didn't know) clamp a stator around the
axle, connect a battery with a pair of short jumper cables and walk
the whole arrangement across a concrete floor as though he were
walking the family dog.

BTW, at 4,000+ horsepower, you could plug in nearly anything a
user might want, given proper appliances and the right plug. :-)



The electric generators used for powering gear other than the
train's vitals are not high power.

Ken

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:51:46 GMT, wrote:

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.

Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a user.
Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied to the
tracks.

Actually, it's not.

What made you bring up tracks anyway -- my reference to the
tracks on the lake falling in? My point was that the locomotive is
going nowhere there aren't usable tracks.

On a diesel-electric locomotive, the generator's output is
applied, not to the tracks as you seem to think, but rather through
control circuitry to the stator around the axle. It's rather amusing
to see a repair yard worker with a set of wheels-and-axle (they're all
one single piece, in case you didn't know) clamp a stator around the
axle, connect a battery with a pair of short jumper cables and walk
the whole arrangement across a concrete floor as though he were
walking the family dog.

BTW, at 4,000+ horsepower, you could plug in nearly anything a
user might want, given proper appliances and the right plug. :-)

This is what we have been led to believe and the schematics are on their
way in. Jeez, if we can't find wattage on these beasts.........
--
Drop the alphabet for email

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:29:52 +1300, "Ken Taylor"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:19:42 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

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?

Tracks across Lake Ponchartrain fell in.

Granted they were put back in service faster than anything the
government had connection to.

Why a loco anyway? It would appear to be the mistaken assumption that
anything that big must have power to burn on anything plugged in by a
user.
Not the case - the power from a loco is, not surprisingly, applied to the
tracks.

Actually, it's not.

What made you bring up tracks anyway -- my reference to the
tracks on the lake falling in? My point was that the locomotive is
going nowhere there aren't usable tracks.

On a diesel-electric locomotive, the generator's output is
applied, not to the tracks as you seem to think, but rather through
control circuitry to the stator around the axle. It's rather amusing
to see a repair yard worker with a set of wheels-and-axle (they're all
one single piece, in case you didn't know) clamp a stator around the
axle, connect a battery with a pair of short jumper cables and walk
the whole arrangement across a concrete floor as though he were
walking the family dog.

BTW, at 4,000+ horsepower, you could plug in nearly anything a
user might want, given proper appliances and the right plug. :-)



The electric generators used for powering gear other than the
train's vitals are not high power.

Ken

4,000hp is a lot but not enough to swamp all the broadcast radios, which is
what the OP wants.

Incidentally my reference to tracks was just that the loco is made to move,
not power a boom-box. Like your anecdote though. :-)

Cheers.

Ken