Larry W4CSC wrote:
Oh, boy! Another proprietary, improperly documented, non-standard data
protocol designed to keep the marine electronics assholes swimming in money
for another decade.......

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better than
what you metion.

The problem is more that the way the standard base layers are used by
applications is proprietay. But that has nothing to do with CAN and
everything with the companies using it.

Markus

On 2005-03-27 03:46:13 +1000, Markus Baertschi said:

Larry W4CSC wrote:
Oh, boy! Another proprietary, improperly documented, non-standard data
protocol designed to keep the marine electronics assholes swimming in
money for another decade.......

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better
than what you metion.

The problem is more that the way the standard base layers are used by
applications is proprietay. But that has nothing to do with CAN and
everything with the companies using it.

Markus

This has been discussed before. CAN is used in a wide variety of
application areas including most atomotive vehicles designed today.
However, you'll never convince Larry that ethernet isn't the ultimate
answer for marine instrumentation. He's never seen a boat that couldn't
bennefit from some Netgear hardware :-)

The real argument as has been pointed out many times is not the
underlying technology but the bonehead marketing efforts of the NMEA
and their very expensive boys club!

--
Regards,
John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789
S/V Chagall

"John Proctor" wrote in message
news:2005032704322875249%lost@nowhereorg...
On 2005-03-27 03:46:13 +1000, Markus Baertschi said:

Larry W4CSC wrote:
Oh, boy! Another proprietary, improperly documented, non-standard data
protocol designed to keep the marine electronics assholes swimming in
money for another decade.......

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better than
what you metion.

The problem is more that the way the standard base layers are used by
applications is proprietay. But that has nothing to do with CAN and
everything with the companies using it.

Markus

This has been discussed before. CAN is used in a wide variety of
application areas including most atomotive vehicles designed today.
However, you'll never convince Larry that ethernet isn't the ultimate
answer for marine instrumentation. He's never seen a boat that couldn't
bennefit from some Netgear hardware :-)

The real argument as has been pointed out many times is not the underlying
technology but the bonehead marketing efforts of the NMEA and their very
expensive boys club!

--
Regards,
John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789
S/V Chagall

That's it. There is nothing wrong with CAN. It is the way that NMEA is
handling the application specific part.

Doug

Markus Baertschi wrote in
:

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better than
what you metion.



Name 5 items prior to this announcement that uses CAN protocol.....

On 2005-03-27 15:36:14 +1000, Larry W4CSC said:

Markus Baertschi wrote in
:

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better
than what you metion.



Name 5 items prior to this announcement that uses CAN protocol.....

All Jaguar motor cars. All Volvo motor cars. Holden (Australian GM)
motor cars. All Bosch automotive electronic control modules. Many
different industrila control modules but look at Intel, National and
Philips semiconductors for fully integrated interface chip solutions.
Plus the software drivers for Linix, as well as VME bus interface cards
for CAN bus systems.

Better yet do a Google search on CAN Bus and get a real appreciation of
the technology. What is proprietary as I stated before is the bonehead
data sent over the CAN bus as defined by NMEA and only available by
paying them exhorbitant amounts of money for the complete data
defenitions.

The CAN Bus is the easy part it's the NMEA data that is the problem! It
would also be the same problem if the NMEA had used ethernet. The data
sent over the bus is where the real IP (Intelectual Property) lies.

--
Regards,
John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789
S/V Chagall

John Proctor wrote in
news:2005032716485316807%lost@nowhereorg:

The CAN Bus is the easy part it's the NMEA data that is the problem! It
would also be the same problem if the NMEA had used ethernet. The data
sent over the bus is where the real IP (Intelectual Property) lies.


Well, that was cars and industry apps....

I do agree with the NMEA problem....and the secrecy involved trying to
bleed $2500 out of a document....

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Markus Baertschi wrote in
:

CAN is a properly documented, standard, non-proprietary protocol. It is
well suited for control and data is harsh environments. Much better than
what you metion.



Name 5 items prior to this announcement that uses CAN protocol.....

Thousands of factory floor and industrial process control applications. CAN
isn't the problem, it the semantics of the NMEA data that is apparently a
closely guarded secret. You have to be willing to shell out some big
bucks just to play in the game.

Doug

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:14:42 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote:

Thousands of factory floor and industrial process control applications. CAN
isn't the problem, it the semantics of the NMEA data that is apparently a
closely guarded secret. You have to be willing to shell out some big
bucks just to play in the game.

================================

You'd think that we would have enough smart guys on this group to do a
little, ahem, reverse engineering.

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:

You'd think that we would have enough smart guys on this group to do a
little, ahem, reverse engineering.

The problen is CopyRight, not reverse engineering........

Me

Right, plus you need to fork over a bunch of $$ to get your company
unique ID.

"Me" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:

You'd think that we would have enough smart guys on this group to do a
little, ahem, reverse engineering.

The problen is CopyRight, not reverse engineering........

Me