"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
...
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
The radiation from the unshielded wires, with many of them sucking
noise from inside the shielded pair because you must hook one side
(NMEA B) to many grounds creating a giant HF antenna out of your
carefully shielded cabling, is the problem on the HF receivers......

Agreed. It is therefore very important to have RF filtering in a device on
the terminals, to prevent any RF from leaking out over wires.

Let's just dump all this NMEA crap from 1970 and build Bluetooth
compatibility into every new marine electronic gadget. No need for
multiplexers for ancient technology mistakes, wires radiating crap to
all the radios, wires picking up the 150 watt SSB transmitter and
trashing all the NMEA crap it's hooked to.

Yes and no. I will have a Bluetooth mulitplexer soon, but the problem with
Bluetooth is that it allows either data over a 'serial profile', which is
a
point to point connection between two devices only (which my BT
multiplexer
will be: mux - PDA or computer) or you can have a piconet, which creates
an RF network with a limit of 8 devices. I wonder though what an average
BT
device does when 150 W of RF is emitted in the near vincinity....
One think is for su BT or any RF datalink is far away from any approval
needed for commercial vessels.

Meindert


I would much prefer fiberoptic in a commercial or military vessel. It's much
more secure and robust in the presence of a hostile RF environment. And in a
commercial vessel, it shouldn't be a hardship to route sufficient fiberoptic
cabling.

True, I can see certain advantages in having a roving port with an RF link
to the ship's systems, and if you really feel you need this in a personal
watercraft environment, then Bluetooth looks like the way to go. But RF data
links are a "complicating" option, and you should always try to make systems
as "simple" as possible.

Ed