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

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:09:43 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"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?

What rant? The truth is an unshielded RS-232 serial connection with
ground hooked to one side of the damned balanced line is a big
transmitter! Unshielded plastic crap has no business around an HF
receiver with any kind of a switching IC inside it.
Well....duhhhh....

I don't give a **** about your maximized profits in that plastic box.

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

Well, duhhh.....Lemme see....we have a 4800Hz square wave...so
starting at the fundamental frequency of 4.8Khz, a square wave (just
pretend it's not data for a minute) has an odd harmonic every 4.8Khz
from 4.8Khz to....well....30 Mhz, easy?

Hmm...100mbit is 100 Mhz. So, there's a carrier buzz around the upper
end of the FM band....then there's that 3rd harmonic at 300 Mhz, way
above Channel 16, as it were....well? Duhh....

Of course, the wireless network equipment is all built to FCC
SPECIFICATIONS (i.e. Type Accepted, Class B Computing Device?) and is
SHIELDED to pass?.....well, duhhhh... 2400 Mhz isn't gonna tear up
anything on our boat. Will it yours?

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.

May we test your plastic box in the FCC Lab? I can make that
arrangement if you like..... Even if the damned thing had the most
rudimentary sprayed-on shielding like the monitor you're reading or
the computer sitting next to it, it would be an improvement. But,
then, of course, I'd want SHIELDED BALANCED WIRES in SHIELDED
CONNECTORS, next, wouldn't I.....not some damned fool screw terminals,
or worse yet spring terminals like B&G and Raymarine uses, as if we
were hooking up a student lab station in a grade school project.

You wanna SEE radiation, wait until those cheezy spring terminals
corrode against the copper wires making that great DIODE harmonic
generator! I've already found two!

Whatever happened to those nice metal, waterproof, shielded connectors
with all the wires INSIDE the shield, instead of hangin' out the end
of a cheap plastic cable with a little tab labeled NMEA (+)?


Larry W4CSC

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

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:09:43 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:
You just take every opportunity for a rant about NMEA, don't you?

What rant? The truth is an unshielded RS-232 serial connection with
ground hooked to one side of the damned balanced line is a big
transmitter! Unshielded plastic crap has no business around an HF
receiver with any kind of a switching IC inside it.
Well....duhhhh....

That is nonsense. It all depends on proper PCB design. I HAVE measured it,
for crying out loud!

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

Well, duhhh.....Lemme see....we have a 4800Hz square wave...so
starting at the fundamental frequency of 4.8Khz, a square wave (just
pretend it's not data for a minute) has an odd harmonic every 4.8Khz
from 4.8Khz to....well....30 Mhz, easy?

You were talking about interference on 2400MHz, right? Apart from that, have
you ever heard of slew rate? A properly filtered 4800 baud output has
filters on it, which just cuts off any higher harmonics that can be
dangerous. So even with a single wire hooked up to the NMEA output, it can
be silent on HF.

Hmm...100mbit is 100 Mhz. So, there's a carrier buzz around the upper
end of the FM band....then there's that 3rd harmonic at 300 Mhz, way
above Channel 16, as it were....well? Duhh....

Of course, the wireless network equipment is all built to FCC
SPECIFICATIONS (i.e. Type Accepted, Class B Computing Device?) and is
SHIELDED to pass?.....well, duhhhh... 2400 Mhz isn't gonna tear up
anything on our boat. Will it yours?

Nope.

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.

Yes. Tried it. 15Watts of VHF against the box didn't hurt it. We tested up
to 12V/m (that is above the required limits of IEC945) and it kept on
working.

May we test your plastic box in the FCC Lab? I can make that
arrangement if you like.....

Please be my guest.

Meindert

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:08:42 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


That is nonsense. It all depends on proper PCB design. I HAVE measured it,
for crying out loud!

Gee, the manufacturers that HAVE to pass FCC specs on radiation don't
know that. They spend lots of money coating cases, using metal
cabinets, and other shielding. You should go into consulting. Organ
manufacturers would love to put out digital organs and keyboards
without having to coat the whole thing in tin foil and expensive
shielded boxes with foil shielded data lines to pass the FCC tests.

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

Well, duhhh.....Lemme see....we have a 4800Hz square wave...so
starting at the fundamental frequency of 4.8Khz, a square wave (just
pretend it's not data for a minute) has an odd harmonic every 4.8Khz
from 4.8Khz to....well....30 Mhz, easy?

You were talking about interference on 2400MHz, right? Apart from that, have
you ever heard of slew rate? A properly filtered 4800 baud output has
filters on it, which just cuts off any higher harmonics that can be
dangerous. So even with a single wire hooked up to the NMEA output, it can
be silent on HF.

Whoa, sport! Your attack on me was about 4800 baud NMEA and it
RADIATES LIKE HELL into the HF on every boat I know of because of the
way you manufacturers treat the interconnects, dangling the 4800 baud
pulses out there in unshielded space. Quit sidestepping the issue.
Unshielded 4800 baud data has no place around a submicrovolt HF
receiver within a few feet of its receiving antenna....


AS with consumer electronics, until the regulators step in to force
the manufacturers to conform to some sort of radiation standard,
nothing will change. We'll all still receive expensive new equipment
with data wires dangling out open to hook to the cheap terminals on
the unshielded plastic boxes......



Larry W4CSC

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

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:08:42 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


That is nonsense. It all depends on proper PCB design. I HAVE measured
it,
for crying out loud!

Gee, the manufacturers that HAVE to pass FCC specs on radiation don't
know that. They spend lots of money coating cases, using metal
cabinets, and other shielding. You should go into consulting. Organ
manufacturers would love to put out digital organs and keyboards
without having to coat the whole thing in tin foil and expensive
shielded boxes with foil shielded data lines to pass the FCC tests.

Of course it all depends on the application. Certain areas just need
complete shielding where extremely low limits are required. All I am saying
is that to get something like NMEA equipment quiet and unsusceptible to HF
and VHF at reasonable levels like specified in IEC and FCC standards
applicable to that kind of equipment, it is not necessary to have everything
shielded. And I believe a lot of equipment present on the market prove this
statement.

And judging from your previous posts here in this group, the interference
problems you have had are caused by certain NMEA equipment that is
definately not FCC approved. Check the multiplexer and expander you so much
prefer: no FCC approval and well known to produce interference.

Whoa, sport! Your attack on me was about 4800 baud NMEA and it
RADIATES LIKE HELL into the HF on every boat I know of because of the
way you manufacturers treat the interconnects, dangling the 4800 baud
pulses out there in unshielded space. Quit sidestepping the issue.

I am not sidestepping the issue. I just happen to have good experience with
NMEA, without any interference on HF.

Unshielded 4800 baud data has no place around a submicrovolt HF
receiver within a few feet of its receiving antenna....

Like I said befo with properly filtered outputs, which is just mandatory
if you want to get something through the IEC of FCC tests, there will be no
problem. I mean, it is stupid to have NMEA drivers capable of running at
10Mbaud if you only have to drive 4800 baud. So with the properly
dimensioned drivers and RC networks, the slew-rate of the output datasignal
is brought back so such a low figure, that there are no significant
harmonics present over a few 100 kHz.

AS with consumer electronics, until the regulators step in to force
the manufacturers to conform to some sort of radiation standard,
nothing will change.

I don't understand what your implying here. Navigation electronics without
specific IEC945 approval falls in the same category as consumer electronics
and is therefore subject to the same EMC limits. So there ARE regulations
enforced.

But we seem to keep on disagreeing on this subject. So lets end this
discussion.

Best,
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

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:49:10 -0500, "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at
attbi dot com wrote:

Larry and Todd:

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

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.



Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled correctly.
Open the home page, and then look for links to the
information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.

HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Information Services



Technical Information (for support personnel)

More information:

Microsoft Support..... Here's the answer to that problem...(c;


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.)

But, through all those watertight bulkheads, there are wires going
through stuffing tubes, right? Are all the wires Navy style with
armored shields around them?

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.

Oh, the memories. We did an electrical hazard inspection from Shop 51
CNSYD on the USS Saratoga, the old CV in Jacksonville. My God, what a
mess she was. 64,000 electrical hits, 29,000 of them Class 1 (must be
fixed before restarting the inspection). After two of our tiger team
got hurt reaching up into wireways to trace cables they couldn't see,
the team leader forbad anyone reaching up into any space he couldn't
see his hand in. 440VAC, 400Hz bites HARD! Shake a wireway and
sparks shot out all over! Hot wires just layin' up in there!

The main electrical feeds go down through the voids on either side of
the ship. We traced these big 3phase wires to a bulkhead but they
just disappeared on the other side. We found a void noone ever cut a
hatch into! The shipfitters cut a hole in it big enough for an
inspection hatch and we found three cables, about #0000, DANGLING FROM
THE STUFFING TUBES for a length of over 35'! The ship motion had
swayed them back and forth, banging them against the bulkheads and
wrenching the cables where they went through the stuffing tubes until
the bare conductors were breaking apart! All this from the last yard
period about 2 years previous. Someone forgot to tie them up and
install an inspection hatch! NAVSEA was horrified....(c;

The whole inspection was because of that cruiser that caught fire off
Lebanon way back in the early 80's and the fire followed the wiring
through open, unpacked collars from compartment to compartment. On
Saratoga, alone, we ran Florida, Georgia and South Carolina suppliers
out of TempSeal to pack them with. Some collars on that carrier are
36" wide by 8-10" high with only a couple of cable running through
them!

Poor Sara....many she rest in peace.

Oh, another fun discovery before I quit.

I opened up the fan room that provides fresh air for Central Control,
the engineering space where they control all the propulsion from. The
huge fan in there puts a big vacuum on this compartment, which gets
its intake up a shaft alley under the flight deck. There was a
thermostat in there to measure incoming air temperature in the
compartment. The capillary tube for this thermostat went through the
deck through a FOUR INCH HOLE someone had cut out with a torch, then
they dropped the tube down into the compartment below.

I got the chief engineer and showed him this hole. "Commander, look
down through that hole and tell me what you see.", I requested. "I
see some big piece of equipment.", he replied. "We thought so, too.
IT'S THE TOP OF THE #2 BOILER! How many people in Central Control
will die if that boiler explodes or leaks combustion fumes sucked up
by that fan?", I asked, politely. He never answered, running out of
the compartment to find the idiot who torched that hole.....Boy he was
****ED!

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.

Naw, in your application, I'd make sure it was all wired. I agree
with the other posters hard wires should be the primary feed for
data.....however, wouldn't it be nice to be able to see that oil
pressure on the #1 engine that faltered and our current course and
speed from the notebook in your cabin?.....(c; Or the PDA in your
pocket?

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....

Good luck to you. Give us a better URL. I'd like to have a look.



Larry W4CSC

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