"Todd" wrote in message Meindart,

Indeed, the soekris is a great unit and embedded linux was a natural
choice.

And a good one too! Glad you didn't opt for a M$ product ;-)

Our thinking regarding no real NMEA inputs/outputs was that we want to
support seatalk networks, seatalk/nmea networks, and straight nmea so
going with an external multiplexer (e.g. Noland, Brookhouse, Raymarine
NMEA bride, etc...) makes a lot more sense and quite frankly is a lot
easier at this early stage.

I would eventually like to integrate something like the Brookhouse
unit which does both NMEA and Seatalk and ultimately get the cost down
more but that only happens when you can start buying in some
significant volume.

Mmm, might want to discuss this with you directly.

I think you're oversimplifying regarding $200 for the soekris since
that's only a part of the equation. There's also 200mW senoa wireless
card, external antenna, internal storage, 12 volt connection wiring,
virtual serial port software, nmea navigation embedded server
software, a web based administration interface, etc... We're making
nowhere near the 4 times profit you suggest on this unit so it's not
as nice a piece of marketing as you give me credit for, although I
wish it were ;-)

Ok, I was a bit overreacting :-) Indeed it takes a lot of effort to make it
a complete product. I remember when I had the first prototype of my
multiplexers ready and how long it took before it was a sellable product.
that took longer than to develop the first proto.

Thanks for your feedback, it really is a big help to see which areas
folks are critical of so I can work on sorting those out for when we
begin actually selling the product to end users!

You're welcome :-)

Cheer,
Meindert

Why do I keep dreaming of an 802.11g network interface on every piece
of electronics NMEA connects by wires, now? Hell, with broadband, I
could overlay the color radar display from the Raymarine right all the
computer screens aboard!

AND NO WIRES TO PULL THROUGH THE DAMNED BOAT!!.....(9C

TCP/IP all around.....


Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

How true. It has taken so long for NEMA2000 to get settled and will be
even longer before it gets implemented by a significant number of
vendors that wires are going to be superfluous before it finds a market.

Network instruments will be the last thing installed on Rutu before I
add water.

Larry W4CSC wrote:
Why do I keep dreaming of an 802.11g network interface on every piece
of electronics NMEA connects by wires, now? Hell, with broadband, I
could overlay the color radar display from the Raymarine right all the
computer screens aboard!

AND NO WIRES TO PULL THROUGH THE DAMNED BOAT!!.....(9C

TCP/IP all around.....


Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"


--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Why do I keep dreaming of an 802.11g network interface on every piece
of electronics NMEA connects by wires, now? Hell, with broadband, I
could overlay the color radar display from the Raymarine right all the
computer screens aboard!

Well, do "steel hull" or "aluminum hull" ring a bell? Apart from that, you
have to bring power to the electronics anyway, so whats wrong with an extra
pair for data?

Meindert

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:36:32 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Why do I keep dreaming of an 802.11g network interface on every piece
of electronics NMEA connects by wires, now? Hell, with broadband, I
could overlay the color radar display from the Raymarine right all the
computer screens aboard!

Well, do "steel hull" or "aluminum hull" ring a bell? Apart from that, you
have to bring power to the electronics anyway, so whats wrong with an extra
pair for data?

Meindert

The DC power is already in every space I ever install an instrument.
I don't have to pull a wire through the bilge or engine room or
overhead to get it. It's already there, plenty of it.

As for your comment about wireless in metal hulls, try running a 2400
Mhz WiFi in a steel hull. 2400 Mhz flows right through hatches and
other openings over 3" wide. But most people, here, don't have, or
more accurately, wouldn't have a metal hull. Your argument to defend
your turf is moot. Networking on metal boats could simply be added to
the DC circuitry, like the powerline routers are doing now....though
they'd have to operate above 24 Mhz to keep interference with the HF
radios down. We've fooled around with a powerline router system with
wall brick terminals that have Ethernet jacks on them, from Netgear.
Every AC jack on the dock becomes a wideband internet connection
across the marina. Works great! That could be added to the existing
AC or DC power lines in metal boats.....USING TCP/IP NETWORKING, not
some idiotic, proprietary protocol designed to prevent you from
hooking A company's equipment to B company's equipment....you
know....like we have now.




Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

As a metal boat owner, I don't have a choice. The boat looks like a series
of Faraday cages, with metal watertight doors pulled down against very thin
gaskets and all the thru bulkhead fittings of minimum size. There will be no
3" gaps; one of the advantages of metal is that you have a good chance of
keeping fire and flood in one compartment if you're careful.

Even if I had a choice, however, I'd probably stick with wire. A boat is
not a house or office. Aside from alternators, we have a variety of sources
of potential interference -- radios (150 watt sideband and 25 watt VHFs),
radar, and so forth. 802.11 "should" ignore all of that. But "should" is a
big word at sea. Although the 10baseT pairs could also act as antennas and
could pick up RFI, my instinct is that it's a safer choice.

As for using either the AC or DC lines, I have the same objection. And even
in relatively small boats, the AC system is usually split bus (so you can
plug in two 120V 30A lines to a dock), so you have to do some capacitive
coupling.

Of course in saying all of this, I do have the advantage that we're doing a
major refit, and it's very easy to lay in an extra conduit for the network
(actually it isn't even extra as we'll have a conduit for phone and
signaling anyway). Certainly if I were adding a network to an existing boat
that wasn't well set for easy access everywhere (that's another topic), I'd
certainly take a shot at using wireless and test the hell out of it at the
dock.


--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com


..
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:36:32 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Why do I keep dreaming of an 802.11g network interface on every piece
of electronics NMEA connects by wires, now? Hell, with broadband, I
could overlay the color radar display from the Raymarine right all the
computer screens aboard!

Well, do "steel hull" or "aluminum hull" ring a bell? Apart from that,
you
have to bring power to the electronics anyway, so whats wrong with an
extra
pair for data?

Meindert

The DC power is already in every space I ever install an instrument.
I don't have to pull a wire through the bilge or engine room or
overhead to get it. It's already there, plenty of it.

As for your comment about wireless in metal hulls, try running a 2400
Mhz WiFi in a steel hull. 2400 Mhz flows right through hatches and
other openings over 3" wide. But most people, here, don't have, or
more accurately, wouldn't have a metal hull. Your argument to defend
your turf is moot. Networking on metal boats could simply be added to
the DC circuitry, like the powerline routers are doing now....though
they'd have to operate above 24 Mhz to keep interference with the HF
radios down. We've fooled around with a powerline router system with
wall brick terminals that have Ethernet jacks on them, from Netgear.
Every AC jack on the dock becomes a wideband internet connection
across the marina. Works great! That could be added to the existing
AC or DC power lines in metal boats.....USING TCP/IP NETWORKING, not
some idiotic, proprietary protocol designed to prevent you from
hooking A company's equipment to B company's equipment....you
know....like we have now.




Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:09:57 -0500, "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at
attbi dot com wrote:

As a metal boat owner, I don't have a choice. The boat looks like a series
of Faraday cages, with metal watertight doors pulled down against very thin
gaskets and all the thru bulkhead fittings of minimum size. There will be no
3" gaps; one of the advantages of metal is that you have a good chance of
keeping fire and flood in one compartment if you're careful.

Sure wish I could get by your boat to test it out. Every wire going
from compartment to compartment is a great antenna for 2400
Mhz....right through those watertight bulkheads. It would be
interesting to see how far the usable signal got with the transmitter
that close.

Even if I had a choice, however, I'd probably stick with wire. A boat is
not a house or office. Aside from alternators, we have a variety of sources
of potential interference -- radios (150 watt sideband and 25 watt VHFs),
radar, and so forth. 802.11 "should" ignore all of that. But "should" is a
big word at sea. Although the 10baseT pairs could also act as antennas and
could pick up RFI, my instinct is that it's a safer choice.

The only 2400 Mhz RFI source on your boat is probably your microwave
oven at 2450 Mhz. There is no interference from 150W of HF through
the wireless.....LIKE THERE IS ON EVERY WIRE OF THE NMEA SYSTEM aboard
the boat. NMEA wiring cannot be effectively shielded as long as
manufacturers keep using hookup wire that's not shielded (Garmin) and
even stupid Icom, itself, who made the M802 HF-SSB forces you to
connect NMEA B (-) to the SHIELD OF A BNC CONNECTOR to hook NMEA input
to the HF SSB with DSC. How stupid! Of course, NONE of the plastic
boxes the damned cheap marine crap comes in is shielded in the first
place against the HF transmitter or your 5W walkie talkie on deck.
There's no FORCED standards, just NMEA suggestions from the NMEA the
manufacturers control....sorta like the fox guarding the henhouse.

As for using either the AC or DC lines, I have the same objection. And even
in relatively small boats, the AC system is usually split bus (so you can
plug in two 120V 30A lines to a dock), so you have to do some capacitive
coupling.

There's 2 primary transformers sitting on top of the floating dock at
Ashley Marina. The powerline router signal coupled through them, to
my amazement, good enough to get the WiFi through them.

Of course in saying all of this, I do have the advantage that we're doing a
major refit, and it's very easy to lay in an extra conduit for the network
(actually it isn't even extra as we'll have a conduit for phone and
signaling anyway). Certainly if I were adding a network to an existing boat
that wasn't well set for easy access everywhere (that's another topic), I'd
certainly take a shot at using wireless and test the hell out of it at the
dock.

On the larger boat, that's very nice. But, most boat manufacturers,
in their attempts to maximize profits, don't put in even the most
rudimentary conduit. The wires are just haphazardly laid in behind
some panel squished between the panel and the fiberglass shards
sticking out. The Endeavour was like that. The Amel Sharki is a
different class. The overhead has conduit leading from the outside of
the void between the cabin overhead and the deck into the void where
there are wires to go in. There's plenty of space, but, alas, no way
to fishtape from this little conduit nipple to the next. I finally
made up a ring slider I could tie the fishtape to and slide it along
the existing French wiring in the void to the other conduit nipple on
the other end. It serves quite well. The void acts about 1 to 1.5"
high over the main salon. Many wires go through there forward and
aft.

Do you have a strong high-channel-number UHF TV station in your area?
Might be fun to play with a portable TV to see how far inside the boat
its signal gets, but that's only 1/3 the network's frequency at 800
Mhz. Do cellular phones work inside?



Larry W4CSC

"Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
The only 2400 Mhz RFI source on your boat is probably your microwave
oven at 2450 Mhz. There is no interference from 150W of HF through
the wireless.....LIKE THERE IS ON EVERY WIRE OF THE NMEA SYSTEM aboard
the boat. NMEA wiring cannot be effectively shielded as long as.....

You just take every opportunity for a rant about NMEA, don't you?

Why would NMEA at 4800 baud produce more interference than a 100mbit network
on UTP (U=Unshielded)?

NONE of the plastic boxes the damned cheap marine crap comes in is
shielded in the first
place against the HF transmitter or your 5W walkie talkie on deck.

Another one: It is NOT necessary to put electronics in a shielded boax to be
EMC proof. It all depends on proper PCB layout. A lot of equipment in
plastic unshielded boxes carry FCC or CE approval. They don't get that
approval when the equipment is radiating like hell or going dead when keying
an SSB.

Meindert

"Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message ...
Certainly if I were adding a network to an existing boat
that wasn't well set for easy access everywhere (that's another topic), I'd
certainly take a shot at using wireless and test the hell out of it at the
dock.


--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com

Jim,

I think you make a good point that testing is definitely the key
before leaving the dock.

Metal boats do present a problem for wireless networks and my take on
doing wireless on a metal boat (assuming you want to and certainly not
everyone does) is to mount the external antenna in the salon area so
that any cabins (with non-metal or open doors) can access it and the
signal can get up the companionway stairs to the cockpit. Would that
give you a signal on the foredeck? As you say you'd just have to test
it since it will vary with each boat.

As an aside I would never recommend anyone use wireless as their sole
means of electronic navigation. When we designed our wireless
navigation server it was always as an addition to a set of fixed
mounted instruments and even more importantly as an addition to having
a paper chart and being able to navigate when you lose all form of
power aboard. We also require an external NMEA multiplexer to combine
the NMEA signals (or convert Seatalk) which allows you to unplug our
wireless navigation server and plug the serial connection directly
into a laptop were our hardware to fail.

Best,
Todd

--
Marine Wireless
http://www.marinewireless.us

Larry and Todd:

It's not quite so simple -- take a look at
http://www.mvfintry.com/pix/portland800.jpg.

There are two w/t compartments on the main deck and six below, all possibly
with data, as well as tanks. The wheelhouse can also be separated by a w/t
door. (Remember that in The Perfect Storm movie, Andrea Gail flooded from
the wheelhouse. What really happened, we'll never know.)

Maybe you guys are right -- that wireless would work fine -- certainly there
are a lot of openings in the bulkheads, although they're all small (2" tops)
and sealed with intumescent caulk to keep fire and flood in one place if
they happen -- AC, DC, H&C potable water, sal****er fire main, black and
gray water, compressed air, diesel, and all the information wires.

Question then, given that running wire is really easy, because we'll have
the conduit for phone, burglar, fire alarm, audio, etc. anyway (sure, maybe
all of these can be wireless also, but there are some security issues,
etc.), am I better off with wired or wireless? If Larry's right and 802.11
will really reject everything that it might meet, is it a more robust
installation to go wireless? This assumes that all of the primary stuff on
the bridge is wired -- we're talking about personal computers (in the
broader sense of the words) and a couple of non-critical remote readouts
here.

None of this will go in until we get her on this side of the pond next
summer (God willing). I'd be delighted to try it sometime after then....

--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com


..

..
"Todd" wrote in message
m...
"Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message
...
Certainly if I were adding a network to an existing boat
that wasn't well set for easy access everywhere (that's another topic),
I'd
certainly take a shot at using wireless and test the hell out of it at
the
dock.


--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com

Jim,

I think you make a good point that testing is definitely the key
before leaving the dock.

Metal boats do present a problem for wireless networks and my take on
doing wireless on a metal boat (assuming you want to and certainly not
everyone does) is to mount the external antenna in the salon area so
that any cabins (with non-metal or open doors) can access it and the
signal can get up the companionway stairs to the cockpit. Would that
give you a signal on the foredeck? As you say you'd just have to test
it since it will vary with each boat.

As an aside I would never recommend anyone use wireless as their sole
means of electronic navigation. When we designed our wireless
navigation server it was always as an addition to a set of fixed
mounted instruments and even more importantly as an addition to having
a paper chart and being able to navigate when you lose all form of
power aboard. We also require an external NMEA multiplexer to combine
the NMEA signals (or convert Seatalk) which allows you to unplug our
wireless navigation server and plug the serial connection directly
into a laptop were our hardware to fail.

Best,
Todd

--
Marine Wireless
http://www.marinewireless.us