ALERT-2 Protocols TWG Forum

A good, concise summary, Ilse.
I would just add that the 2-4% loss rate in UDFCD ALERT is at a base traffic level of only 400 messages per hour. The ALERT traffic losses go up rapidly as the traffic increases, while the ALERT2 losses stay pretty flat. We don't have any big events to go on, but by 2000 reports per hour, ALERT2 is delivering 15% more data than the ALERT channel.
I'm attaching the slides from a presentation I gave at the National Flood Workshop a few weeks ago on the Overland Park and UDFCD ALERT2 performance.
Don

Hi Brian,
Thanks for starting this thread!
The first phase of deployment is complete for the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and for the Overland Park, KS, and Kansas City, MO, system. In OP/KCMO, they have switched their repeaters to repeat received ALERT data as ALERT2(TM) transmissions (concentrator mode) and have removed their ALERT repeaters. UDFCD is running both ALERT repeaters and ALERT2(TM) concentrating repeaters in parallel and continues to analyze the streams.
 In both systems, data loss has been significantly reduced for that leg that is ALERT2(TM). For example, in Denver the losses are on the order of 1 in 10,000 ALERT2(TM) reports, compared with 2-4% losses of ALERT traffic.
The planned second phase is to deploy ALERT2(TM) gauge-to-base station transmissions. This will require the use of true ALERT2(TM) repeaters. The goal is to have this system available for deployment in the first half of 2011.
Ilse

Now that the ALERT2^TM protocol has been successfully tested and officially released by the NHWC (September 15, 2010) for public comment, I thought it might be good to seed a forum thread that could be used to help keep interested members up to date on the latest developments and discussion along with official announcements that may come out of the ALERT2 Technical Working Group.

I would epecially be interested to hear about new and planned deployments of ALERT-2 repeaters and systems.