HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner)
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: Semiconductor Systems Design Technology, Motorola, Tempe AZ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:48:09 GMT

In article <25454@dog.ee.lbl.gov> wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown) writes:
>
>>Now, if you can find me a microprocessor with built-in EAROM that fits
>>in an 18-pin DIP or smaller, I can get this to fit in a Z-gauge tender.
>>I can do all of the software work and most of the hardware. Anyone want
>>to help?
>
>You bet!  It looks like you're located in Richmond. We should probably
>move this to e-mail or telephone.
>

Did you say software on the WONDERFULL Motorola microprocessors?  Count me
in as well.  

Word of warning: Author has much to gain by increasing the use of Motorola
microprocessors (microcontrollers).

Robert

-- 
Robert Turner (602) 897-5441 Semiconductor Systems Design Technology, Motorola
turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com   OR   ...!uunet!dover!turner
GOD is real, unless declared integer. --J. Allan Toogood
From: wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: More Command-Control ...
Date: 19 Aug 1992 14:22:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.192.17

In article <1992Aug18.201455.23248@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes:
>	...
>Which makes me ask: does each locomotive containing the Lenz 
>microprocessor have its FCC sticker? Or more to the point, (assuming that 
>I am accurate about the Kato rumor) what aspects/components of a command 
>control system, and under what circumstances, require it to meet FCC 
>regulations.

I've been concerned about the RFI issues also - Stan was trying to find
a spectrum analizer the last time we exchanged e-mail on the subject.

I doubt that the locomotives (receivers) would present a problem.  The
"power station" (power amplifier? driver?) would seem to be the real
issue.  As a guess, the signal on the track is gonna have to be quite
close to a sine wave to keep RFI down to reasonable levels, especially
given the great variety of "antennae" (layouts) that could be attached.

If it turns out that the devices need to be tested for FCC compliance,
it's going to drive the price up a bit.

Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own and have	    |
    nothing to do with the official policy or the   |  -bill
    management of L.B.L, who probably couldn't      |   wlbrown@lbl.gov
    care less about employees who play with trains. |
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: sdejour@mksol.dseg.ti.com (stewart l dejournett)
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.204144.8654@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes:
>Can you or anyone else comment on what the on-track signal looks like for 
>CTC16000?
>
>Did Keith say whether technical info is available from his company?
>
>Did he mention when Model Railroader is going to publish an article on his 
>system?
>
>Is he shipping receivers, command stations, etc?
Fred

    Keith believes in having technical info available so I'm sure he will
provide it.  An MR article usually takes about 9 months from beginning of
writing to publishing.  I know this since I proffed his sound article material.
I'm sure Keith will be shipping soon i.e. before the article.  In a previous
post I stated you can use existing CTC reciever's but I also know he has got
his new receivers ready.  Before Colombus Keith told me he would feed me
some info to post on the net since he does not have access.  I will try and
get all I can, technical info as well.

stewart de journett
Texas Instruments
From: ebe@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Command-control  14 speeds not enough
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:38:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: ebe@unix.cis.pitt.edu


Michael:

Is your concern over the number of available speeds primarily to enable
matching dissimilar units in multi-unit operation, or are there other
instances where you see this is important?

As far as the prototypes go, the Diesel Cyclopedia from Model Railroader
mentions just briefly that "a 4 solenoid throttle control ... provides
seven engine speeds above idle, is the most widely used M.U. connection."

Possibly some parameters could be added during the programming of the
decoder chip to allow different mappings between speed integer and
actual input to the motor.  This MAY allow you to tune the performance of
different  units for comparable performance.  There are currently
parameters to specify acceleration and deceleration and the voltage
sent to the motor for speed = 1.

On another note, I think the most significant problem with the proposed
coding is there is no uniform way for individual extension by multiple
vendors.  If you are at all familiar with MIDI (musical instrument
digital interface) which is actually not so far removed from this
issue (serial, 8-bit interface, ~32kbaud), one of the most important
reasons for it's success is the system exclusive feature.

Sysex allows each manufacturer to be assigned a unique id, which, when
recognized in the byte string basically says:  everything that follows
is reserved for MY exclusive use and everybody else should just ignore
this junk.  However, all the "important" parts of the MIDI spec, note
on, note off, etc. are the same for everyone and provide enough common
denominator that it is useful to connect instruments from different
vendors and expect reasonable behavior.

As technology advances, no one is going to be satisfied with one and two
byte commands, right?  Does it really make sense to try to squeeze
everything that you can think of today into a couple bytes?  No, but there
does have to be enough of a "standard" so you can buy decoders here and 
a computer interface somewhere else and expect to see the trains go.

Just me two cents,
Elmer  ebe@unix.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: sdejour@mksol.dseg.ti.com (stewart l dejournett)
Subject: Re: More Command-Control ...
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:14:00 GMT

In article <4791@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ebe@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley) writes:
>
>Second point.  Stan mentions the CTC-16000 which uses custom VLSI.  My
>questions are:  what does the decoder cost?  how big is it?  is it on
>the market and selling in volume or just introduced?  is it an "open"
>system?   (I apologize for asking this but I was only able to be in
>Columbus from Thursday-Saturday and missed this clinic.)

Keith believes in the open system concept.  As to the custom VLSI I believe
Keith will be selling kits which is are priced at basically parts prices
plus small profit.  In previous kits he has made certain chips available
but in my opinion I would buy the kit and custom mod it if needed.

No I'm not Keith's salesman I've just known him for 16 years.  But if the
group has some questions they want addressed I will get answers and post them.

stewart de journett
From: ebe+@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:25:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Bruce:

It is more like $500-$600 to get started with Marklin, somewhat dependent
on the type of decoder.  If you study the system, you really only need
two of their boxes, the 6027 and the 6050.  Of course, you have to
control your trains from a serial line (or buy software which I'm not
sure about the costs).  This is assuming purchase from U.S. Marklin
dealers at better than 30% discount, which, if you spend some time on the
phone, is not hard to do.

Elmer Beachley
From: 31ochs@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Looking for GP30; should have said FP30...
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:48:35 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <5503@transfer.stratus.com>, btarbox@sw.stratus.com (Brian Tarbox) writes:
> 
> I just got back of photo of the engine in question:
> #6455   with the following designation under the number:
> GPA-30c.
> 
> Is this a FP40?  If so, what does GPA-30c mean?
> 
> (it does 'look' like a FP40....)

Oh, I think I just remembered what the c stood for in the GPA-30c
(see last post)
GP- General Purpose
A-  cab unit(as opposed to booster unit)
30- 3000 HorsePower
c-  third order of engines received.
I just remembered that sometimes railroads will receive several shipments
and will classify each shipment, if the engines are the same type, they
will add a letter(a,b,c,etc.)
So the first shipment (or version) would be GPA-30a or GPA-30
then the next one would be GPA-30b, then GPA-30c, etc.

Fred
From: greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com (Michael Greene)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:15:31 GMT
Reply-To: greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com (Michael Greene)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


--In article <1992Aug18.191312.26020@Princeton.EDU>, jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) writes:
|>Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
|>Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!jsm
|>From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
|>Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
|>Message-ID: <1992Aug18.191312.26020@Princeton.EDU>
|>Originator: news@nimaster
|>Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
|>Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
|>Organization: Princeton University
|>References: <14mlurINNof0@sixgun.East.Sun.COM> <1992Aug17.215147.4538@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
|>Distribution: usa
|>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:13:12 GMT+5:00
|>Lines: 18
|>
|>[running trains in analog mode]
|>In article <1992Aug17.215147.4538@ryn.mro4.dec.com> greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com (Michael Greene) writes:
|>
|>>[ I found out that the lengthening 0 is there so that zeros sent can have a
|>>  substantial DC component which can be used to run non-C&C locos with open
|>>  frame motors.  However, there is some possibility of other types of motors
|>>  would burn out under these conditions, so I still think it a bad idea. ]
|>>
|>
|>I would also like to see more specifics on how 'analog' mode works -- e.g.
|>what the power spectrum looks like in the frequency domain. Is there a simple
|>low-pass filter that can be installed inside an 'analog' engine that
|>can protect can motors?  E.g. a filter with a 3db point of 1khz, R=20 ohm,
|>C=50 uF should be pretty easy to install. If you want the 3db point to
|>be 5hz, then things are too large.
|>
|>	Scott
|>
|>


To help clear up some confusion, the above comment attributed to me
was made by Jeff Barry, a fellow model railroader here at Digital. I merely
posted his comments (at his request), since he did not have
immediate news access, and was leaving on vacation. I will forward this to
him so that he can respond when he returns.

Sorry for any confusion.
Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer **

Michael Greene                  Phone:     +1 508.467.2149
Networking Consultant           FAX:       +1 508.467.3106
Public Sector Marketing         E'mail:    greene@edisto.mro4.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         
Marlboro, MA USA                Member, 470 Railroad Club
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schumann@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Looking for GP30; should have said FP30...
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:10:41 GMT
Organization: Minnesota State University System

In article <1992Aug12.184836.4934@gw.wmich.edu>,
31ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> In article <5503@transfer.stratus.com>,
> btarbox@sw.stratus.com (Brian Tarbox) writes:
>> 
>> I just got back of photo of the engine in question:
>> #6455   with the following designation under the number:
>> GPA-30c.
>> 
>> Is this a FP40?  If so, what does GPA-30c mean?
>> 
>> (it does 'look' like a FP40....)
> 
> Oh, I think I just remembered what the c stood for in the GPA-30c
> (see last post)
> GP- General Purpose
> A-  cab unit(as opposed to booster unit)
> 30- 3000 HorsePower
> c-  third order of engines received.
> I just remembered that sometimes railroads will receive several shipments
> and will classify each shipment, if the engines are the same type, they
> will add a letter(a,b,c,etc.)
> So the first shipment (or version) would be GPA-30a or GPA-30
> then the next one would be GPA-30b, then GPA-30c, etc.

The Electro-Motive Division of General Motors did make a GP-30 model. 
It was originally going to be called a GP-22 to keep the numerical
part of the designation close to the horsepower rating, but the
marketing people apparently decided that round numbers have more
appeal.  Furthermore, GE was then coming out with their U25 models
with 2500 horsepower and EMD didn't want a model number lower than
"25", hence their 2250 horsepower GP30.  However, it does not look
like the model that was described in the original posting. 

It sounds to me as if the "GPA-30c" designation is one that was made
up by the railroad and is not the model designation used by the
builder.  Some railroads use the builder's model designations while
other railroads make up their own.  The best way to identify the
builder's model designation is to check the builder's plate (if one is
present, if you can get close enough to read it safely without
trespassing, and if it has the builder's designation on it) or to
check the road number of the engine against a reliable source that
converts road numbers to model designations.  Unfortunately, I don't
have my copy of such a source here in my office. 
--
   Paul L. Schumann, Ph.D.           |  VAX:  IN%"schumann@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU"
   Professor of Management           |  Office Phone:       (507) 389-5349
   Mankato State University          |  Secretary's Phone:  (507) 389-2966
   Mankato, MN   56002-8400          |  Fax Number:         (507) 389-5497
From: sra@bistromath.mitre.org (Stan R. Ames)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:34:56 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <25454@dog.ee.lbl.gov> wbrown@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.183901.14259@pixar.com> Bruce@Pixar.com (Bruce Perens) writes:
>>In article <4649@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ebe+@pitt.edu (Elmer Beachley)  
>>writes:
>>
>>> with a open system, multiple sources and competition, will the demand
>>> for this type of stuff every drive the prices low enough to meet the
>>> goal of a $50 decoder?

Seeing as the thread of this discussion relates to cost of receivers I thought
that I would pass on some numbers for those who are interested.  Lenz
Electronics sells the C82 decoder to Marklin for about $28.  This includes
his profit and all cost of materials.  

Now before someone jumps the gun consider that Marklin contracts this in lots
of over 10,000.  Before the end user sees this it goes through many hands and
each hand adds cost.  In the US where the market is still small, the cost of
marketing and user support adds considerably to the cost.  These same units
cost much less in Europe where the support costs are shared amonst many more
users.

Now consider the costs of the small Arnold receiver.  This unit fits nicely
into "Z" scale but because of its 1 amp capacity it is also very useful in N
and HO scales.  It is basically the same receiver as its HO cousin but it
uses a different production method.  While the larger receiver uses surface
mount technology the smaller receiver uses chip on board technology where the
actual chips are mounted and then the entire package is encased in epoxy.

Now it turns out that Lenz does not manufacture this receiver.  Instead he
sends it to someone else for assembly, which adds more cost.

How do we get high quality receivers at low costs?

The solution is more volume and standard components that anyone can use.  
However more volume does not come until they cost less.......

One solution is to manufacture the receivers in the US, where most of the
chips come from anyway.  If someone wher to manufacture these receivers
here they could sell the smallest receiver for around $40 and still make a good
profit.  Now before someone writes that that cannot happen, Lenz while he was
here offerred exectly that.  To date no one has excepted his offer.  So
if anyone out there has the interest to manufacture the chip on board receivers
contact Lenz Electronics.  

Now this is completely outside the scope or interest of the NMRA committee that
I am on but I thought I would pass it on so as to put more reality into
the thread of this discussion.

Stan Ames
From: johnm@hpmcaa (John Mosbarger)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Re: McKean Open Beam Car Questions/Comments
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:34:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmcaa.1992Aug20.133417.1168
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Boyle (sboyle@mbunix.mitre.org) wrote:

> I'd like to replace the trucks that come with the kit (more on that
> later) but I don't know what the prototype wheel diameter is. 

     They're 36".  As far as I know, all of the centerbeams (open or opera
windows) are 100T cars.

> Second unknown:  There are a pair of what I assume are diagonal braces
> that the instructions say to cut and place in the center channel(s).
> The only picture of the assembled car packed with the kit is of a
> fully-loaded car, thereby hiding the correct placement of the diagonal
> braces. Any prototype reference/pictures would help here.

     If you can get a copy of the April '90 Railroad Model Craftsman, there
is an article on those very cars, and there are some good photos.

[.....]

> The trucks that come with the car are about the worst I've ever seen
> packed with a kit.

     I'm not sure what McKean is trying to accomplish.  I was looking forward
to his re-releasing the 3-bay hoppers, and when they came out, the brake gear
was pure junk, not at all the same that Front Range used.  Although, in his
defense, I understand that the Front Range dies were aluminum, and not in the
best of shape when McKean got them.  However, that still doesn't justify sub-
stituting the kind of shit that has appeared in his kits.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Boyle sboyle@mitre.org          |  "Actually, FORTRAN was the language
> The MITRE Corporation                 |   of choice for the same reason that
> Bedford, MA. 01730-1420               |   three-legged races are popular."
> (617) 271-2977                        |                       - Ken Thompson

--
John Mosbarger
HP McMinnville, OR
johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com
From: mizener@siemens.siemens.com (Jeff Mizener)
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
Subject: Command Control, more on the Lenz System
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:03:37 GMT
Reply-To: mizener@siemens.UUCP (Jeff Mizener)
Organization: Siemens Corp. Res. Inc., Princeton, NJ

I got a note with some questions about the Lenz Digital Plus system
and couldn't reply directly -- since it is of general interest, I'm
posting.  Hope y'all don't mind too much.

Cheers,

Jeff
jm@sead.siemens.com

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 dxmint.cern.ch!MATHEYS... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
To: dxmint.cern.ch!MATHEYS
Subject: Re:  Lenz N-scale Receivers


>>I have a question that you could probably answer: Are the Lenz N-scale
>>decoders compatible with the Marklin H0 3-rail AC system  or  are they
>>compatible with the Marklin H0 2-rail DC system ? I am after a decoder
>>for a Roco model of the SBB-CFF's Ee 3/3 which is too small for the H0
>>3-rail AC decoder made by Marklin.
>>
>>BTW, what is the complete reference number of the Lenz N-scale decoder
>>that you mentionned ?

Tough question.  I'll answer by quoting the Prospekt I have:

"Unsere Lokdekoder fuer H0 (Maerklin Digital=) und N (Arnold Digital),
fuer all Motoren (Gleichstrom-, Wechselstrom-, und Glockenankermotoren)
haben sich vieltausendfach bewaehrt."

I assume this to mean that if the system you call Maerklin is in fact
the Maerklin Digital= system, you're in luck as there are decoders for
AC motors.

The part number is, I think, LE100M.  The description says:
"Empfaenger fuer H0-Lokomotiven mot Motoren mit Feldspulen (Maerklin,
HAG) mit einer Stromaufnahme bit 1,5 Ampere Dauerstrom..... Lieferbar
ab Mai 1992."

The decoders look pretty small in the picture but I've only seen the
N decoder in person.  As they say, "Melden Sie sich bei Ihrem Fachhandler"
or something similar.

Das War's,

Jeff
========================================================
Jeff Mizener / Siemens Energy & Automation / Raleigh NC
jm@sead.siemens.com / Intelligent SwitchGear Systems
========================================================  
(reply to this address, not the one in the header!!)


----- End Included Message -----


Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: johnm@hpmcaa (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: McKean Open Beam Car Questions/Comments
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:21:07 GMT

Dennis H Lippert (macman+@pitt.edu) wrote:

> Please be careful in your wording...  Saying "his kits" implies that
> you're trashing the name of Bill McKean, who sold the company (and
> name :-(  a few years ago.  The current owner/operator is supposedly
> the same guy who made FRP [his name escapes me at the moment]. And 
> remember that FRP was cheapening up at the end also (cast-on ladders
> and such).

     Admittedly it was probably a poor choice of words.  However, when
I go into a hobby shop and buy a McKean/FRP kit and the name McKean is
on the box, I feel that he is ultimately responsible for what's inside
the box, whether he owns the company or not.  I didn't know he had sold
the company, so if the name had changed, more than likely I would have
ragged on him, also.  (It's Friday; I'll feel better this afternoon).

> ===============================================================================
> Dennis Lippert   -   macman+@pitt.edu or macman@vm2.cis.pitt.edu
> The "Mac Maniac" operator at the Hillman Research Lab - Univ. of Pittsburgh
> "All comments are mine, you'd look like a fool if *you* used them"

--
John Mosbarger
HP McMinnville, OR
johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.railroad
From: sdejour@mksol.dseg.ti.com (stewart l dejournett)
Subject: Re: Command Control Standard Status Update
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.120840.9424@newstand.syr.edu> cwebster@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Chris Webster) writes:
>Is it a commercial system, or is it going to be something you can build 
>yourself, as the original CTC-16 system was?
>
I believe Keith is planning on offering this as either a kit or a built system
as he did with the sound system.

From a custom chip point of view for the Lenz system Keith would be the best
point of contact within TI since he is in ASIC products but I believe there
would be a conflict there between his system and Lenz

stewart