Yes that's the one. It does look a fantastic solution to a huge problem. I have been waiting for follow up information since stumbling across the previous , initial details about a year ago. The latest information just seems a bit light on detail.l
Everything I have read leads me to the perception that the invention is occurring 'on the fly' to deal with the obstacles as they are encountered. If it remains practical with all the obstacles overcome and still offering a simpler route than established 'in section current detection etc.' methods I'll be... Totally impractical in my opinion.
That's the easy bit - it complies. They are scattering small permanent magnets around a layout. There is no legislation covering that, so its fine. No different to using fixed magnets for uncouplers.I suppose the first question is: how does this magnetic implementation comply with radio/interference legislation ?
First para - don't know how they do it, but assume they are "tuning" things against every loco. Given they measure a loco during a calibration process, assigning a value to BEMF-pulses:distance ratio for each loco would be relatively simple, and thus distance travelled per-loco can be known. (Not fundamentally any different to the speed calibration used in Traincontroller and iTrain, so those software packages can calculate distance travelled beyond spot-detectors).Thanks for the clarification Nigel.
I guess it remains to be seen how accurate the magnetic proximity detection is and then the subsequent application of BEMF measurement to control motors and the actual positioning of a loco. Given that every motor is different, I would imagine that there must be some sort of tuning and synchronisation process.
Something that isn't clear to me: does this system use Railcom to send the positional information back to the logic box or does the logic box detect 'disturbances in the force' from the magnets ?
Personally, I think more effort should be put on resolving the network stack issues of DCC in order to significantly improve its longevity. It only needs a new feature to come along and everyone is up for hardware changes again, like they were for RailCom. A proper network stack would negate that necessity and facilitate numerous enhancements.
This is what they say in their setup document -Second para - no idea what method they're using for back-communication. Something RailCom-ish would seem logical.
Thanks, but doesn't tell us anything about how the return data gets from the on-train magnetic sensor to the central control unit. Just that their system "reserves" address 8191, but that's a decoder address, for information going from centre out to decoders (not the other way).This is what they say in their setup document -
"This system will use the address 8191 for special operations and this address must therefore not be used by any locomotive."