B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Everything on Ebay seems to be more than $3.
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-12-22, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
> Everything on Ebay seems to be more than $3.
because they are resellers.
--
Jasen.
> Everything on Ebay seems to be more than $3.
because they are resellers.
--
Jasen.
D
default
Guest
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 09:49:34 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
>Everything on Ebay seems to be more than $3.
AM broadcast band? Chances are if you had to buy all new parts and
build it yourself you'd spend more than $3.
I built those in the 50's. The 3.5 mhy choke I used might be more
than 3 bucks today, and back then transistors were more expensive.
http://www.learningelectronics.net/circuits/simple-am-transmitter.html
http://www.bowdenshobbycircuits.info/page6.htm#amtrans.gif
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/rf/amtx.htm
http://www.circuitstoday.com/am-transmitter-circuit
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
>Everything on Ebay seems to be more than $3.
AM broadcast band? Chances are if you had to buy all new parts and
build it yourself you'd spend more than $3.
I built those in the 50's. The 3.5 mhy choke I used might be more
than 3 bucks today, and back then transistors were more expensive.
http://www.learningelectronics.net/circuits/simple-am-transmitter.html
http://www.bowdenshobbycircuits.info/page6.htm#amtrans.gif
http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circuits/rf/amtx.htm
http://www.circuitstoday.com/am-transmitter-circuit
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Thanks.
A mic isn't necessary -- just a tone to warn motorists that a cyclist is around the curve.
Guest
On Monday, 23 December 2019 17:00:03 UTC, Bret Cahill wrote:
Components are nearly free these days. I doubt it'd cost me a cent to hairball a small transmitter. Those with no stock or knowledge would need to pay retail though.
Components are nearly free these days. I doubt it'd cost me a cent to hairball a small transmitter. Those with no stock or knowledge would need to pay retail though.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
You might consider Shark Tank. There are no patents on this AFAIK.
I'm too lazy for it. I'm extraordinarily lazy. I'm so lazy I'm gonna develop a low [near zero] maintenance bicycle even if it works me to death.
An epic battle is raging within: The irreversible force lazy vs the immovable object lazy.
So, being lazy, other than batteries, any time I do anything that involves electronics I assume 0 cost and, if power is involved, 100% efficiency.
Batteries gonna make me drink a cup of coffee, start a spread sheet, ruin my _entire_ morning . . .
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-12-23, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
So why use AM, why not BLE?
--
Jasen.
So why use AM, why not BLE?
--
Jasen.
D
default
Guest
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:59:58 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
transmitters operating from batteries so they could have "hidden
transmitter hunts," with home-brew radio direction finding rigs.
The government still does the same things - on an industrial scale. I
suspect they are using angle of arrival and time of flight to achieve
the same thing fancy antennas alone used to do. (that's based on
their abandoning the large circular antenna arrays that used to do the
same thing, called a Wullenweber array)
https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&q=wullenweber&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuuN_khdHmAhWvct8KHecmDyQQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
https://tinyurl.com/tg46nua
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
Radio amateurs, back in the heyday of home-brew, would make little AM
transmitters operating from batteries so they could have "hidden
transmitter hunts," with home-brew radio direction finding rigs.
The government still does the same things - on an industrial scale. I
suspect they are using angle of arrival and time of flight to achieve
the same thing fancy antennas alone used to do. (that's based on
their abandoning the large circular antenna arrays that used to do the
same thing, called a Wullenweber array)
https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&q=wullenweber&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuuN_khdHmAhWvct8KHecmDyQQsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1024&bih=646
https://tinyurl.com/tg46nua
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-12-25, default <default@defaulter.neo> wrote:
they could just be using movable beam antennas like amateurs do,
--
Jasen.
they could just be using movable beam antennas like amateurs do,
--
Jasen.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
I thought high frequencies wouldn't go around buildings, rock cliffs on curves and through thickets of trees like lower frequencies. The engineer at the FCC seemed enthusiastic about AM.
As many motorists have smart phones as AM radios so, if it can be made to work, it might be just as easy to implement. Then you could listen to the radio and get cyclist alerts on the PDA at the same time.
My niece-in-law just got a bicycle for Christmas. She suggested something more sophisticated than binary, an indication of distance. Maybe several beacons or several different frequencies on the cyclist could provide location info to motorists.
It's really critical to know which lane the cyclist is in on "California Historical Highways" -- one mistake and yer history. All California is doing now is putting up "Share the Road" and cardboard "3' clearance is the law" signs which is almost insulting.
It may be easier to get some N. European country to do this first. I've got exactly zero pull in Sacramento.
Bret Cahill
D
default
Guest
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 19:43:00 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
Not the way they do it. They have a radar type display and used a
goniometer to "give rotating properties to stationary antennas" and
had excellent triangulation accuracy. Several operators could sit at
consoles and monitor different frequencies with the same system in
real time. The op would just position the curser on the signal and
read out the bearing. Speed and accuracy count when you are dealing
with search and rescue, etc..
Those amateur antenna were only suitable for a single, relatively high
frequency, and didn't have globe-spanning accuracy. A high tech game
of hide and seek. The transmitters were disguised and put in hard to
reach places, so you couldn't just drive right to them.
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
Not the way they do it. They have a radar type display and used a
goniometer to "give rotating properties to stationary antennas" and
had excellent triangulation accuracy. Several operators could sit at
consoles and monitor different frequencies with the same system in
real time. The op would just position the curser on the signal and
read out the bearing. Speed and accuracy count when you are dealing
with search and rescue, etc..
Those amateur antenna were only suitable for a single, relatively high
frequency, and didn't have globe-spanning accuracy. A high tech game
of hide and seek. The transmitters were disguised and put in hard to
reach places, so you couldn't just drive right to them.
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-12-26, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
that's a good point.
> As many motorists have smart phones as AM radios so, if it can be made to work, it might be just as easy to implement. Then you could listen to the radio and get cyclist alerts on the PDA at the same time.
I've not seen any smart phones that could receive AM.
and none that could receive FM without an external antenna.
they do something similar with aircraft.
Be aware that this will also be applied to pets and pedestrians,
because people are selfish.
Insulting to who? the aluminium smelters who voted for trump?
> It may be easier to get some N. European country to do this first. I've got exactly zero pull in Sacramento.
The simplest fix for invisible cyclists is to reduce speed
until the become sufficiently visible, next simplest is
separate roads for cyclists.
Traffic networking (which this seems a precursor to) is still a way in
the future.
--
Jasen.
that's a good point.
> As many motorists have smart phones as AM radios so, if it can be made to work, it might be just as easy to implement. Then you could listen to the radio and get cyclist alerts on the PDA at the same time.
I've not seen any smart phones that could receive AM.
and none that could receive FM without an external antenna.
they do something similar with aircraft.
Be aware that this will also be applied to pets and pedestrians,
because people are selfish.
Insulting to who? the aluminium smelters who voted for trump?
> It may be easier to get some N. European country to do this first. I've got exactly zero pull in Sacramento.
The simplest fix for invisible cyclists is to reduce speed
until the become sufficiently visible, next simplest is
separate roads for cyclists.
Traffic networking (which this seems a precursor to) is still a way in
the future.
--
Jasen.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
That would be for a Bluetooth version.
You get more fatalities cycling than flying. I've been sideswiped twice at freeway speeds and once in an intersection trying to stay out from under the tires.
Nothing like that has ever happened flying. Of course, I cycle more than I fly . . .
Motorcyclists could use it as well.
Cyclists.
Motorists won't reduce speed.
That's very very expensive, politically impossible.
They could do it almost overnight. The lowest of the low hanging fruit.
Bret Cahill
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2019-12-27, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:
Where is the insult?
Driving at unsafe speed is legal? it sounds like you have an
enforcement problem there.
So I'm driving along listening to spotify, and what happens?
--
Jasen.
Where is the insult?
Driving at unsafe speed is legal? it sounds like you have an
enforcement problem there.
So I'm driving along listening to spotify, and what happens?
--
Jasen.
R
Ralph Mowery
Guest
In article <qu4okj$k6o$2@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org>, jasen@xnet.co.nz
says...
The cycle riders should be able to make the speed limit on the highways.
Should have tags and insurance if over 18.
While at it, another pet peeve of mine is those slow mopeds.
says...
The cycle riders should be able to make the speed limit on the highways.
Should have tags and insurance if over 18.
While at it, another pet peeve of mine is those slow mopeds.
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:39:36 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Beacons/transponders would greatly alleviate the problem.
I didn't get this idea cycling. I got it driving Coast Hwy In Mendocino, San Pasquale and 76 South of Palomar Mtn.
"Staying Alive Is No Accident"
-- Sign on CA 76
Guest
On Saturday, 28 December 2019 04:34:18 UTC, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Beacons/transponders would greatly alleviate the problem.
I have a bright idea - make it instantly universally compatible by using light instead of radio waves
NT
> Beacons/transponders would greatly alleviate the problem.
I have a bright idea - make it instantly universally compatible by using light instead of radio waves
NT
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Beacons/transponders would greatly alleviate the problem.
I have a bright idea - make it instantly universally compatible by using light instead of radio waves
If Caltrans put up reflectors on curves, that would help at night, same as Bluetooth day or night.
But it would be easier to just use AM which can make it around the curve natcherally and be picked up day or night by tuning into the right channel.
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:01:00 AM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
Do you really expect people to drive around with an AM radio on, not tuned to a broadcast transmitter in these days of electrical noise from so many switching power supplies? Even those damned LED traffic signals radiate noise. In rural areas, I can pick it up before I see the lights. At times, over a mile.
With just a crap Part 15 transmitter, what good is it? You have no idea where it is coming from.
Did that 'excited guy at the FCC' explain the costs to approve a system like this to you? Around here, areas where people ride bikes there would be more than one signal. How long do you think that people would put up with the noise and false alarms? AM radios don't have a squelch, and newer car radios are often FM only.
Beacons/transponders would greatly alleviate the problem.
I have a bright idea - make it instantly universally compatible by using light instead of radio waves
If Caltrans put up reflectors on curves, that would help at night, same as Bluetooth day or night.
But it would be easier to just use AM which can make it around the curve natcherally and be picked up day or night by tuning into the right channel.
Do you really expect people to drive around with an AM radio on, not tuned to a broadcast transmitter in these days of electrical noise from so many switching power supplies? Even those damned LED traffic signals radiate noise. In rural areas, I can pick it up before I see the lights. At times, over a mile.
With just a crap Part 15 transmitter, what good is it? You have no idea where it is coming from.
Did that 'excited guy at the FCC' explain the costs to approve a system like this to you? Around here, areas where people ride bikes there would be more than one signal. How long do you think that people would put up with the noise and false alarms? AM radios don't have a squelch, and newer car radios are often FM only.