"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

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:17:16 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


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

Bluetooth is unaffected by a 1,500 watt HF ham radio station operating
with a vertical antenna virtually on top of the system. I have a
9-band Butternut vertical mounted right over the station on my sheet
metal roof (ground plane) I prefer to the beam. Amp is an old Drake
L4B with a pair of 3-500ZG graphite plate monsters that will run the
legal limit on RTTY and the digital modes. Doesn't bother Bluetooth a
bit as Bluetooth is just too high in freq and its antennas are way too
small to acquire any kind of RF from a transmitter under 30 Mhz.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:17:16 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


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

Bluetooth is unaffected by a 1,500 watt HF ham radio station operating
with a vertical antenna virtually on top of the system. I have a
9-band Butternut vertical mounted right over the station on my sheet
metal roof (ground plane) I prefer to the beam. Amp is an old Drake
L4B with a pair of 3-500ZG graphite plate monsters that will run the
legal limit on RTTY and the digital modes. Doesn't bother Bluetooth a
bit as Bluetooth is just too high in freq and its antennas are way too
small to acquire any kind of RF from a transmitter under 30 Mhz.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:47:00 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:


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.

Fiber sounds great until you have to install it. Fiber requires
amazingly expensive equipment to splice and connector to it and
specialized training to do it right, things pleasure boaters will
simply not pay for. It's not an option when a large corporation or
the government bureaucrats aren't paying the bills.

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.

I have a Netgear wireless router under its own LAN DHCP server
connecting to a serial to ethernet device that configures from the
DHCP the Netgear provides. The serial port is connected to the Noland
NMEA multiplexer's serial port. In the computer, a "virtual serial
port" driver fools The Cap'n into thinking it's talking to a real
serial port, when, in fact, the driver has it talking to the wireless
router and serial-to-ethernet box via the notebook's 802.11b wireless
card.

The Cap'n operates fine, even from the other end of E-dock where the
signal from the little antenna on the Netgear starts to peter out.
You can lay on a beanbag behind the anchor windlass and navigate the
boat....(c;

802.11b would be better than Bluetooth to replace the NMEA stupidity
we use now, but Bluetooth is SO easy to configure and operate and is
supported by all the computer manufacturers and PDA manufacturers,
already. It simply configures itself and everybody can talk to
everybody else.

Imagine a complex NMEA system with NO WIRES and NO SIGNAL INTRUSION
and NO CORRODED TERMINALS.

I'm just dreaming. We all know marine electronics is a hodge-podge of
proprietary crap to try to force us to buy one brand of equipment.
Seatalk, H-1000 bus, Garmin, etc. What a stupid mess it all is.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:47:00 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:


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.

Fiber sounds great until you have to install it. Fiber requires
amazingly expensive equipment to splice and connector to it and
specialized training to do it right, things pleasure boaters will
simply not pay for. It's not an option when a large corporation or
the government bureaucrats aren't paying the bills.

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.

I have a Netgear wireless router under its own LAN DHCP server
connecting to a serial to ethernet device that configures from the
DHCP the Netgear provides. The serial port is connected to the Noland
NMEA multiplexer's serial port. In the computer, a "virtual serial
port" driver fools The Cap'n into thinking it's talking to a real
serial port, when, in fact, the driver has it talking to the wireless
router and serial-to-ethernet box via the notebook's 802.11b wireless
card.

The Cap'n operates fine, even from the other end of E-dock where the
signal from the little antenna on the Netgear starts to peter out.
You can lay on a beanbag behind the anchor windlass and navigate the
boat....(c;

802.11b would be better than Bluetooth to replace the NMEA stupidity
we use now, but Bluetooth is SO easy to configure and operate and is
supported by all the computer manufacturers and PDA manufacturers,
already. It simply configures itself and everybody can talk to
everybody else.

Imagine a complex NMEA system with NO WIRES and NO SIGNAL INTRUSION
and NO CORRODED TERMINALS.

I'm just dreaming. We all know marine electronics is a hodge-podge of
proprietary crap to try to force us to buy one brand of equipment.
Seatalk, H-1000 bus, Garmin, etc. What a stupid mess it all is.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:BzMSb.8390$fD.338@fed1read02...

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.

Especially with the cheap plastic fibre optic. of less than $1/m.

Meindert

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:BzMSb.8390$fD.338@fed1read02...

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.

Especially with the cheap plastic fibre optic. of less than $1/m.

Meindert

Comments below:

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:47:00 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

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.

Fiber sounds great until you have to install it. Fiber requires
amazingly expensive equipment to splice and connector to it and
specialized training to do it right, things pleasure boaters will
simply not pay for. It's not an option when a large corporation or
the government bureaucrats aren't paying the bills.

I'm not an expert in fibre in any way, but have been around television
technicians when they are working with it. Ten or more years ago when I
first saw it being installed they were using $10,000.00/$20,000.00
cutting/polishing/splicing/testing gear on terminations. More recently I've
seen them using "cam terminations"?? which the technician used to install
connectors onto bare, freshly cut fibre using simple hand tools. They
didn't even seem to test the terminations except to confirm the head end was
receiving a good signal at the other end many miles away. So it seems to me
fibre is becoming much more user friendly. Perhaps we will see it in
pleasure boater marine use sooner than you think as prices come down due to
increased use in commercial computer network wiring. I can certainly see
advantages with no RF interferance or emmissions and no corrosion of
connections, etc.

snipped bit was here

Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

Comments below:

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:47:00 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

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.

Fiber sounds great until you have to install it. Fiber requires
amazingly expensive equipment to splice and connector to it and
specialized training to do it right, things pleasure boaters will
simply not pay for. It's not an option when a large corporation or
the government bureaucrats aren't paying the bills.

I'm not an expert in fibre in any way, but have been around television
technicians when they are working with it. Ten or more years ago when I
first saw it being installed they were using $10,000.00/$20,000.00
cutting/polishing/splicing/testing gear on terminations. More recently I've
seen them using "cam terminations"?? which the technician used to install
connectors onto bare, freshly cut fibre using simple hand tools. They
didn't even seem to test the terminations except to confirm the head end was
receiving a good signal at the other end many miles away. So it seems to me
fibre is becoming much more user friendly. Perhaps we will see it in
pleasure boater marine use sooner than you think as prices come down due to
increased use in commercial computer network wiring. I can certainly see
advantages with no RF interferance or emmissions and no corrosion of
connections, etc.

snipped bit was here

Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...

Fiber sounds great until you have to install it. Fiber requires
amazingly expensive equipment to splice and connector to it and
specialized training to do it right, things pleasure boaters will
simply not pay for. It's not an option when a large corporation or
the government bureaucrats aren't paying the bills.

There is also plastic fibre, the stuff that is also used for optical audio
links on high class CD players. This stuff needs no special tools. Just cut
it with a stanley knife, stuff it into the hole and tighten the plastic nut.
Ready.
Installed this way, it is good for 1Mbit/s over several 10's of meters. When
you polish the end with 8000 grit, you can go up to 15MHz over 50 meters or
so. Ideal stuff for some sort of NMEA-183Optical :-)

Meindert