| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Larry W4CSC wrote: Is it just me or did the US and UK just capture 1/3 of the world's sweetest oil supply? What idiot wants to GIVE IT BACK?!! An Ugly American personified...just the kind of low-brain output that enrages those in less developed nations and incites them to attack us. LOL. Larry's comment is definitely the funniest one I've read today. However, I didn't realize how funny it was until I saw that Harry took it seriously. Larry is serious. You don't know Larry very well. He's five beers short of a six pack. Larry doesn't strike me as someone who would be affected by 5 beers. He seems like a Stroh's 30-packer to me. Nevertheless, his comments were pretty funny. Can't say I disagree with him either. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:09:44 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: At the least it has to be class A. And I bet pleasure boats would be construed as class B. del cecchi If so, Adler-Barbour solid state fridge will never pass. Just listen to the pulses on Marine VHF Channel 16....dammit.... Not to mention your 'favorite' Noland multiplexer.... They even admitted to me once, that they did not have any kind of approval (FCC, CE) Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:07:43 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:09:44 -0600, "Del Cecchi" wrote: At the least it has to be class A. And I bet pleasure boats would be construed as class B. del cecchi If so, Adler-Barbour solid state fridge will never pass. Just listen to the pulses on Marine VHF Channel 16....dammit.... Not to mention your 'favorite' Noland multiplexer.... They even admitted to me once, that they did not have any kind of approval (FCC, CE) Meindert There's a source of information, guys. Meindert, what are the FCC radiation requirements for this boat electronics? Are these items required to pass FCC's consumer radiation requirements? Is Norland violating the law? My contention is marine electronics isn't covered, otherwise we'd have a data system that's shielded, not the stupid NMEA-0183 with unshielded connections screwed down helter-skelter balanced and unbalanced any old way you builders want to do it with wires hanging out, radiating like hell. Is this the TRUTH? Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... There's a source of information, guys. Meindert, what are the FCC radiation requirements for this boat electronics? Are these items required to pass FCC's consumer radiation requirements? Is Norland violating the law? My contention is marine electronics isn't covered, otherwise we'd have a data system that's shielded, not the stupid NMEA-0183 with unshielded connections screwed down helter-skelter balanced and unbalanced any old way you builders want to do it with wires hanging out, radiating like hell. Is this the TRUTH? According to FCC Part 15, a class B digital device is: ---QQQ--- A digital device that is marketed for use in a residential environment notwithstanding use in commercial, business and industrial environments. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general public. Note: The responsible party may also qualify a device intended to be marketed in a commercial, business or industrial environment as a Class B device, and in fact is encouraged to do so, provided the device complies with the technical specifications for a Class B digital device. In the event that a particular type of device has been found to repeatedly cause harmful interference to radio communications, the Commission may classify such a digital device as a Class B digital device, regardless of its intended use. ---UQUQ--- Navigation electronics fall in the category of "digital devices marketed for use by the general public". For professional use, there are even more stringent standards (IEC945). And it is my understanding that FCC approval or compliance is mandatory. When I export to the US and ship with Fedex, they ant me to fill out a form, stating that the my multiplexers comply with FCC Part 15 class B. Otherwise they (Fedex, being the importer) can be held liable. So you might think Noland is violating the law here. They are for sure with the units they export to Europe, because they have no CE marking. The limits for radiated emmission for class B devices a 30 - 88MHz: 100uV/m 88 - 216MHz: 150uV/m 216 - 960MHz: 200uV/m Above 960MHz: 500uV/m All measured at 3 meters distance. Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: The limits for radiated emmission for class B devices a 30 - 88MHz: 100uV/m 88 - 216MHz: 150uV/m 216 - 960MHz: 200uV/m Above 960MHz: 500uV/m All measured at 3 meters distance. Meindert Thanks, but the keywords I see are RESIDENTIAL. They are "encouraged", but not "required" to do so in an industrial environment, same as computers. Also of interest if the 30 Mhz lower limit in the above table. It doesn't say 0-88 Mhz. The most important 30 Mhz is missing....for the HF SSB radios. Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0100, "Meindert Sprang" wrote: Thanks, but the keywords I see are RESIDENTIAL. They are "encouraged", but not "required" to do so in an industrial environment, same as computers. What is meant here is that for industrial environment, Class A is sufficient, (which accepts a higher level of interference), bu they arecouraged to qualify for Class B. Also of interest if the 30 Mhz lower limit in the above table. It doesn't say 0-88 Mhz. The most important 30 Mhz is missing....for the HF SSB radios. The figures I qouted were for radiated emission, which is hardly present on lower frequencies. Below 30MHz, conducted emission is more the problem. This is emission through connected wires and is measured with a current probe setup. Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
... "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0100, "Meindert Sprang" wrote: Thanks, but the keywords I see are RESIDENTIAL. They are "encouraged", but not "required" to do so in an industrial environment, same as computers. In section 15.103 sub (a) it says that devices operating exclusively in any transportation vehicle (including motor vehicles and aircraft) are exempted. Now according to my dictionary, a vehicle usually has wheel and mover over land. What about boats? Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:20:05 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: The figures I qouted were for radiated emission, which is hardly present on lower frequencies. Below 30MHz, conducted emission is more the problem. This is emission through connected wires and is measured with a current probe setup. Meindert 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...... 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. I was for USB until I got looking at Bluetooth...... http://www.bluetooth.com/news/index....PID=1130&ARC=1 "NAVMAN GPS 4460 LEADS THE WAY FOR PALM OS 5 USERS Navigation Leader Unveils New palmOne Handheld Compatible Bluetooth GPS Device Foothill Ranch, Calif. – Navman, a leading designer and manufacturer of world-class global positioning systems (GPS), communication and marine products, announced today the latest addition to its innovative line of GPS products for the consumer electronics market. The Navman 4460 is a voice-enabled, Bluetooth™ GPS receiver designed for Palm®OS 5-based handhelds (e.g. select devices from PalmOne, Inc. and Sony). The device is powered by the latest version of Navman’s award winning SmartST™ Professional navigation software and offers consumers the most comprehensive self-contained guidance solution on the market. The GPS 4460 is being unveiled at the 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show. SmartST Version II provides detailed street-level mapping for all of North America, including Hawaii and Canada. The software is fully automatic and provides voice (male or female) guidance, in addition to visual driving instructions. Features include address-to-address routing, Back-on-track? rerouting when off-course and an extensive points-of-interest (POI) library. The POI database contains: retail shops, entertainment venues, local amenities, restaurants, bars, buildings and monuments, hotels, public transportation, gas stations, garages, sports facilities, institutions, medical services and natural attractions, allowing users to plan routes more easily and effectively. SmartST options provide the ability to find the shortest or quickest route to any destination, set locations as favorites, select from a list of recent address entries, and hear spoken instructions in one of seven languages. Large display icons and easy-to-read maps provide an operator-friendly interface for added safety while driving. SmartST is also optimized for palmOne’s new Tungsten™ T3 handheld, allowing users to take advantage of the device’s full 320x480 screen in both portrait and landscape modes. The 4460 device employs a high-performance GPS receiver combined with an embedded, Class 2 Bluetooth transceiver, which facilitates the wireless communication of accurate satellite navigation information to the handheld device. Once the SmartST software is installed onto the user’s computer, it can be downloaded to the PDA via synchronization, and map, voice and POI data is stored on an SD Card. A blinking LED displays connectivity status and low battery indication. The complete GPS 4460 solution includes a wireless GPS antenna, SmartST Professional navigation software, a vehicle power adapter, vehicle mounting brackets, and both an armband and lanyard for outdoor personal use. The unit operates for 30 hours on 3 AAA Alkaline batteries (included)." Isn't it time to DUMP NMEA-XXXX and move all boat instruments on to wireless technology? Yes, it is..... Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:29:48 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: "Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ... "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0100, "Meindert Sprang" wrote: Thanks, but the keywords I see are RESIDENTIAL. They are "encouraged", but not "required" to do so in an industrial environment, same as computers. In section 15.103 sub (a) it says that devices operating exclusively in any transportation vehicle (including motor vehicles and aircraft) are exempted. Now according to my dictionary, a vehicle usually has wheel and mover over land. What about boats? Meindert A boat is a transportation vehicle, so is exempt and manufacturers can go all to hell screwing up the Icom with radiating chargers, NMEA gadgets, computer displays and use cheap screw terminals on un-shielded, unbalanced feed lines to turn the whole damned boat into a giant broadband transmitter. (See my comment about Bluetooth.....last message) Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"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 |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
At the risk of stirring the pot some more....
In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country with active electronics must be C-Tick compliant. This requires at a minimum compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to export them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm requirement. As to bluetooth that may work but I would prefer to see standarization using the ethernet cabling standards. These are well developed, very inexpensive and well understood in the computing sector. There is industrialised E/N and now even power over E/N. This is mass produced technology with standard low priced connectors and a price tag to match. The marine environment is bad but I have no trouble seeing how to improve this connection technology in our 'beneign' world;-) John VK3JP S/V Chagall -- John VK3JP |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"John Proctor" wrote in message ... At the risk of stirring the pot some more.... In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country with active electronics must be C-Tick compliant. I thought that the C-Tick is just the mark of compliance; the system is called the Framework, and it is to that which you must be compliant. This requires at a minimum compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to export them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm requirement. I also find it amazing that an Australian may export freely into the USA market by simply technically complying with the FCC regulations, but an American has to hire an Aussie or Kiwi as a local agent to "handle" his paperwork. Amazing, isn't it? BTW, does China recognize the C-Tick? Ed |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ... "Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ... "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0100, "Meindert Sprang" wrote: Thanks, but the keywords I see are RESIDENTIAL. They are "encouraged", but not "required" to do so in an industrial environment, same as computers. In section 15.103 sub (a) it says that devices operating exclusively in any transportation vehicle (including motor vehicles and aircraft) are exempted. Now according to my dictionary, a vehicle usually has wheel and mover over land. What about boats? Meindert Meindert has beaten me to the quote, citing the correct subsection which exempts electronics used in ANY US vehicle. This is simply an exclusion granted by the FCC, other groups and agencies may have regulatory compliance requirements for vehicles under their control or authority. For instance, the FAA will not allow any random electronics installation in an aircraft. Auto manufacturers place stringent compliance requirements on their vendors, but after the sale, the manufacturer has no control over the vehicle (although theoretically, some electronic aftermarket additions might void the manufacturer's warranty). In Europe, the automakers have pulled a sneaky exclusion, for automotive products from the EMC Directive, that will last about 10 more years. They have a parallel, but not harmonized compliance structure, and thus an EN marking and a Declaration of Conformity for goods going into European autos is not required. (No Directive, so nothing to conform to, so no way to declare conformity!) I can't recall what they formally call the automotive system; maybe it is the Automotive Directive. Naah, too simple! Ed |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"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 |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:44:15 GMT, John Proctor
wrote: At the risk of stirring the pot some more.... In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country with active electronics must be C-Tick compliant. This requires at a minimum compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to export them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm requirement. Thanks for the information, John. I'll research C-Tick further. As to bluetooth that may work but I would prefer to see standarization using the ethernet cabling standards. These are well developed, very inexpensive and well understood in the computing sector. There is industrialised E/N and now even power over E/N. This is mass produced technology with standard low priced connectors and a price tag to match. Bluetooth would BE a standardization, which is why it will never happen. I'm for Ethernet, too, but many boats I work on just don't have the cable run room for a centralized LAN installation. The router would have to sit "someplace" and wherever it is installed would have to have room for an ethernet cable from each device. This would create quite a bundle of cables to that central point. Boaters, unlike hackers I know, are a funny lot and wouldn't want me to duct tape a bunch of cat5 cables to the bulkhead walls of the main salon, like the hackers I know do...(c; Look around your yacht and try to picture a hidden place, WITH AC POWER AT SEA, and room for 8 CAT-5 cables in the wireways to your various instruments. Remember, EACH instrument would have to have its own CAT-5 ethernet cable to that LAN router. You can't just hook the computer's ethernet to a printer, another computer, a plotter, a scanner....which is why computers don't use ethernet to hook up to external devices. Ethernet requires a router and ethernet hubs to connect devices. USB, on the other hand, WOULD let the GPS talk directly to the chart plotter. But, USB wouldn't work well in a broadcast situation because it only allows two devices to talk to each other. It's not a network protocol, which is what we need for the whole boat, with MULTIPLE TALKERS servicing multiple listeners (which is why Meindert must make multiplexers to make the idiotic NMEA0183 work). So, USB isn't much of an option, either. We need a LAN controlled by a router.....one wire to each instrument, not 8 USB ports and a cabling nightmare! Wireless, either 802.11-something ethernet or Bluetooth is the best answer. Wireless uses no wireway space. Instruments can be placed anywhere you can get DC to them. All the instruments at the helm (wind, depth, compass, radar, GPS, scanning sonar, autopilot controller, speed, log, etc.) could operate on a single DC cable to the helm breaker or fuse panel. The only cabling to corrode would be from the sensors to the instruments (which could also be wireless at some point). The sensors could be self-contained and talk to any number of display or reader devices. A Bluetooth display over the captain's berth could read and display any parameter on the boat from oil pressure to apparent wind to sonar depth if the sensors were also transmitting. There wouldn't be a wire to corrode between the wind sensor on the mast and the display at the helm. That brings up another great point about wireless......NO TINY SIGNAL WIRES TO CORRODE, no tiny connectors with 8 pins to not make contact, solving another big "boat problem"...... I still think wireless is the way to go on boats not made of metal..... The marine environment is bad but I have no trouble seeing how to improve this connection technology in our 'beneign' world;-) John VK3JP S/V Chagall -- John VK3JP Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... Ethernet requires a router and ethernet hubs to connect devices. No it does not. Ethernet over 10base-T (cat5 cable) requires a hub and a cable to every device. The now almost obsolete thin ether net (10base-2, or coax) would allow you to run a cable from device to device, using BNC T's at every device. USB, on the other hand, WOULD let the GPS talk directly to the chart plotter. No. USB works with one master and many slaves. Generally the computer is the master an all other devices are slave. To make a GPS master, it would require different USB hardware inside the GPS and quite some computing power to behave as a USB master. But, USB wouldn't work well in a broadcast situation because it only allows two devices to talk to each other. USB is master-slave. So only the master can initiate communications to a slave, by asking if the slave has something to say. Slave can NEVER talk to eachother. NMEA2000 (CAN based) isn't all that bad, the problem is that it is not an open protocol and you have to pay heavily to get your first NMEA2000 compliant device on the market. Buying the standard documents, test suite, manufacturet and product ID for the first product costs about $10,000! Like I have mentioned before, NMEA-0183 could well be upgraded to higher speeds and a bidirectional bus (RS-485). Something like combining NMEA (point to point, but RS-422) and Seatalk (broadcast but single wire) into high speed RS-485. Still cheap to implement. Wireless, either 802.11-something ethernet or Bluetooth is the best answer. Wireless uses no wireway space. Instruments can be placed anywhere you can get DC to them. If you can get DC to an instrument, you can also get a twisted wire to that instrument. Wireless is too unreliable. When I walk away from my Bluetooth multiplexer with my Palm in hand, I lose conact after one brick wall and 5 meters distance. Even my WLAN stops at two concrete floors. So imagine what happens in a metal hull..... Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:BzMSb.8390$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 |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"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 |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
In article BFLSb.8210$fD.4843@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote: "John Proctor" wrote in message ... At the risk of stirring the pot some more.... In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country with active electronics must be C-Tick compliant. I thought that the C-Tick is just the mark of compliance; the system is called the Framework, and it is to that which you must be compliant. This requires at a minimum compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to export them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm requirement. I also find it amazing that an Australian may export freely into the USA market by simply technically complying with the FCC regulations, but an American has to hire an Aussie or Kiwi as a local agent to "handle" his paperwork. Amazing, isn't it? BTW, does China recognize the C-Tick? Ed Ed, C-Tick is the mark or copyrighted symbol along with A-Tick (for telecommunications devices). They are however collectively applied to the standards required to get approval. Many labratories worldwide are capable of testing to CE or Australian standards Wiley in Huntsville Alabama comes to mind ;-) All that is needed by an importer is a copy of the test result to indicate testing and compliance to the accepted CE standards. The importer must be a company resident in Australia. After all who are they going to put in jail for non-compliance ;-) China certainly produces C-Tick and A-Tick compliant product. Low end Netgear stuff is made in the PRC. I wouldn't have a clue about their domestic requirements but whatever they are you can be sure they will be protecting/promoting their internal electronics industry! Compliance is a design issue not a manufacturing one. John VK3JP -- John VK3JP |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:34:52 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: "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 Again, we are talking about ONE talker connected to ONE listener, the same old NMEA crap problem that's making Meindert rich, now. Will we make each unit an optical repeater to daisy-chain them together, replacing the cabling monsters with fiber monsters? Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:27:07 +0100, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote: "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... Ethernet requires a router and ethernet hubs to connect devices. No it does not. Ethernet over 10base-T (cat5 cable) requires a hub and a cable to every device. The now almost obsolete thin ether net (10base-2, or coax) would allow you to run a cable from device to device, using BNC T's at every device. The keyword is "obsolete". SOMEONE in an ethernet system has to be in CONTROL, assigning IPs and controlling the movement of packets. It's not just a broadcast medium. Again, we have the old problem of ONE talker and a bunch of listeners, just like NMEA0183. Of course, it will keep Meindert in work if we have extra boxes to buy...(c; USB, on the other hand, WOULD let the GPS talk directly to the chart plotter. No. USB works with one master and many slaves. Generally the computer is the master an all other devices are slave. To make a GPS master, it would require different USB hardware inside the GPS and quite some computing power to behave as a USB master. Same problem I point out with the router or hub scenario. Tons of wiring to a central control point. Where will all the wires go in the overloaded boat wireways? Who will act as the controller? Will I have to buy a $2000 notebook to act as a "hub" for the USB? Not practical, either financially or physically. But, USB wouldn't work well in a broadcast situation because it only allows two devices to talk to each other. USB is master-slave. So only the master can initiate communications to a slave, by asking if the slave has something to say. Slave can NEVER talk to eachother. Same as NMEA.....one talker many listeners. Same old problems. NMEA2000 (CAN based) isn't all that bad, the problem is that it is not an open protocol and you have to pay heavily to get your first NMEA2000 compliant device on the market. Buying the standard documents, test suite, manufacturet and product ID for the first product costs about $10,000! Like I have mentioned before, NMEA-0183 could well be upgraded to higher speeds and a bidirectional bus (RS-485). Something like combining NMEA (point to point, but RS-422) and Seatalk (broadcast but single wire) into high speed RS-485. Still cheap to implement. Wireless, either 802.11-something ethernet or Bluetooth is the best answer. Wireless uses no wireway space. Instruments can be placed anywhere you can get DC to them. If you can get DC to an instrument, you can also get a twisted wire to that instrument. Wireless is too unreliable. When I walk away from my Bluetooth multiplexer with my Palm in hand, I lose conact after one brick wall and 5 meters distance. Even my WLAN stops at two concrete floors. I have no problems with my Bluetooth connections at 20 ft. I don't have any brick or concrete walls in the boat. They are conductive and absorptive, unlike fiberglass and plastics used in boats. Maybe we'll just use 802.11b? So imagine what happens in a metal hull..... Meindert Notice my note that this is for PLEASURE YACHTS made of PLASTIC AND FIBERGLASS. How many boaters in any marina have a steel hull? Here, I'd say it's around 1%? less? Larry W4CSC No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH! Kirk Out..... |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... The keyword is "obsolete". SOMEONE in an ethernet system has to be in CONTROL, assigning IPs and controlling the movement of packets. It's not just a broadcast medium. Again, we have the old problem of ONE talker and a bunch of listeners, just like NMEA0183. Again no. If all of the devices on an ethernet would only send out broadcast packets, every device could have the same IP address. And the collision mechanism present in every ethernet controller does the rest. So every device is able to send data in the form of a broadcast (IP adress ends on x.x.x.255) and every device receives that. All are equal peers. And for low-bandwidth NMEA data this would be a perfectly feasable solution. Of course, it will keep Meindert in work if we have extra boxes to buy...(c; Well, I could make a multiplexer with an ethernet connection, if you like. Notice my note that this is for PLEASURE YACHTS made of PLASTIC AND FIBERGLASS. How many boaters in any marina have a steel hull? Here, I'd say it's around 1%? less? Not every pleasure yacht is made from plastic. I have been in places where 95% of the boats were steel. Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
Too much silicon required for Bluetooth for cheap overall connections.
Firewire or 1401 is probably better for boats. Is a direct connect, run the wires, and no problem with the next guy transmitting, and your Bluetooth getting confused. Want Bluetooth wireless? Get a Firewire to Bluetooth adapter. And a lot less non-ionizing radiation running around. Bill "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 |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
|
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
... How many network engineers are boat owners at your marina? I know of 2, here. The rest of them will be glad to let the DHCP server on the router take care of their mundane networking details, allowing them to simply turn on the new device hooked to the LAN and the router autoconfigures it. Like mentioned earlier: let all nodes send only broadcasts. That way, no device on the net needs a unique IP address. Every device could be factory programmed with the same IP address. Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"John Proctor" wrote in message ... In article BFLSb.8210$fD.4843@fed1read02, "Ed Price" wrote: "John Proctor" wrote in message ... At the risk of stirring the pot some more.... In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country with active electronics must be C-Tick compliant. I thought that the C-Tick is just the mark of compliance; the system is called the Framework, and it is to that which you must be compliant. This requires at a minimum compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to export them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm requirement. I also find it amazing that an Australian may export freely into the USA market by simply technically complying with the FCC regulations, but an American has to hire an Aussie or Kiwi as a local agent to "handle" his paperwork. Amazing, isn't it? BTW, does China recognize the C-Tick? Ed Ed, C-Tick is the mark or copyrighted symbol along with A-Tick (for telecommunications devices). They are however collectively applied to the standards required to get approval. Many labratories worldwide are capable of testing to CE or Australian standards Wiley in Huntsville Alabama comes to mind ;-) All that is needed by an importer is a copy of the test result to indicate testing and compliance to the accepted CE standards. The importer must be a company resident in Australia. After all who are they going to put in jail for non-compliance ;-) China certainly produces C-Tick and A-Tick compliant product. Low end Netgear stuff is made in the PRC. I wouldn't have a clue about their domestic requirements but whatever they are you can be sure they will be protecting/promoting their internal electronics industry! Compliance is a design issue not a manufacturing one. John VK3JP John: I was tweaking you for saying that the FCC requirements are "too lenient" for Australia's needs. Of course, that is an Aussie's right, to define what is needed by his country. But the other side of that specification is an admission that Australia must be some especially delicate environment, needful of greater regulatory protection. My comment about local agents was that Australia erects a one-sided tariff barrier by requiring a local agent. The USA should reciprocate for Australian products. Surely somebody's brother-in-law needs a job. My comment about China was to remind him that, although the Australian market is not insignificant, there is a very big and nearby market where C-Ticks don't get no stinkin' respect. Actually, my favorite protective market is South Korea. Everything is filed by the local agent, in Hangul. Perhaps the USA might require Korean products to be filed in English and Cherokee? g Compliance is a design, manufacturing, and not the least, political issue. Ed wb6wsn |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
Furuno is using Ethernet (they call it NavNet) and I understand NorthStar is
introducing Ethernet devices. And I know of a company that makes a waterproof connector hub (of course it uses those impossible to find, so you have to buy the cable from Furuno, connectors). Doug K7ABX "Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ... "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... The keyword is "obsolete". SOMEONE in an ethernet system has to be in CONTROL, assigning IPs and controlling the movement of packets. It's not just a broadcast medium. Again, we have the old problem of ONE talker and a bunch of listeners, just like NMEA0183. Again no. If all of the devices on an ethernet would only send out broadcast packets, every device could have the same IP address. And the collision mechanism present in every ethernet controller does the rest. So every device is able to send data in the form of a broadcast (IP adress ends on x.x.x.255) and every device receives that. All are equal peers. And for low-bandwidth NMEA data this would be a perfectly feasable solution. Of course, it will keep Meindert in work if we have extra boxes to buy...(c; Well, I could make a multiplexer with an ethernet connection, if you like. Notice my note that this is for PLEASURE YACHTS made of PLASTIC AND FIBERGLASS. How many boaters in any marina have a steel hull? Here, I'd say it's around 1%? less? Not every pleasure yacht is made from plastic. I have been in places where 95% of the boats were steel. Meindert |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
Furuno uses TCP/IP according to their on-line FAQ, but the higher level
information is proprietary. They also don't use standard 10/100BaseT connectors which aren't waterproof. Question Will I be able to connect my computer to the Navnet hub and display NavNet information on the computer? Answer The Navnet system uses a TCP/IP computer protocol. This protocol is a open architecture that allows for multiple ways of connecting the NavNet system. The standard blue null cable(crossed input and output) or 10 Base hub are the normal configurations although other options have been used. This allows the NavNet components to communicate together using the existing, flexible and robust computer technology. However, the protocol is only the transport mechanism, the actual information is proprietary to Furuno. At this time Furuno has no software to translate the information into a computer based program. The actual benefit of such a program is suspect as it would prove difficult to map the computer keyboard to conform to the NavNet controls. An additional NavNet display is the optimal choice because it allows quick and complete control of all NavNet functions and is waterproof. See: http://www.pseaconcepts.com/ for a company which has a few items of interest. A better way would be to asign "well known" IP address in the multicast range to the diferent types of information. That way a listener could subscribe only to those broadcasts that are of interest to it. NMEA 0183 has one really good thing going for it. It is in human readable ASCII which makes it a cinch to debug. ASCII is inefficient of bandwidth at 4800 bps, however. Joe Wood Meindert Sprang wrote: "Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... How many network engineers are boat owners at your marina? I know of 2, here. The rest of them will be glad to let the DHCP server on the router take care of their mundane networking details, allowing them to simply turn on the new device hooked to the LAN and the router autoconfigures it. Like mentioned earlier: let all nodes send only broadcasts. That way, no device on the net needs a unique IP address. Every device could be factory programmed with the same IP address. Meindert |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com