Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA23839; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:31:35 -0700 Return-Path: <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Received: from uucp2-b.netcom.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA24780; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:32:12 -0700 Received: from localhost by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.4/SMI-4.1) id KAA09260; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:14:34 -0700 Received: by usc.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M) id AA01007; Thu, 29 Sep 94 10:11:56 -0700 From: Will Estes <westes@usc.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <9409291711.AA01007@usc.com-DeleteThis> Subject: Re: Re: 3rd ave sensor design To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:11:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9409291646.AA06194@zonker.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> from "Ken Poulton" at Sep 29, 94 09:46:46 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1507
'Ken Poulton says:'
> > wireless program I'm working on..... is that the power LEAVING (exiting
> > for you tech types) the box has to be safe enough for a kid to walk up
> > and poke his head in to take a look. VERY TOUGH limits for this....
> > Ken is right, defocus it a bit and it will be safe for people out in the
> > bay, but you have to be careful with the power leaving the box.
>
> Yeah, it would have to be mounted up high enough that no one on shore
> could stick his head in the beam. You really need that anyway to avoid
> losing the instrument when someone parks their car in the way.
This is all well and good. But it's going to be fun watching you fill out
about 20 environmental impact statements, and paying for an environmental
impact study, in order to cruise this thing past the Coast Guard. I don't
think that they are going to accept the "a child can look at this thing,
trust us" line. It may be true, but that's not the way a bureaucrat
approaches science.
It might be that the optical version would be just as much of a
bureaucratic hassle, but I have to believe that any device that is truly
passive is going to get much, much less scrutiny than one that relies on
active transmission of a beam, or even a radio signal. As long as you are
not transmitting anything, there is probably one (or even two or three)
fewer agency/agencies that you will have to clear.
-- Thanks, Will Estes Internet: westes@usc.com-DeleteThis U.S. Computer Saratoga, CA 95070
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:13 PST