NMEA2000 against NMEA0183
 

"Alexandre Heil Franca" wrote in
message ...
Hi there!

I know quite well NMEA-0183 and unfortunately have never had contact
to NMEA-2000. Can anyone point me to information about NMEA-2000?
Or maybe just list some of the most noticeable differences between
both specifications? I am interested on its architecture, telegrams
and electrical specs.

Thanks in advance,

Alexandre Heil França

Totally different animals. NMEA2000 is based upon the CAN (Controller Area
Network) protocol. Tons of info on CAN on the net. You can buy a copy of the
2000
spec from NMEA for something like $1500. Noticible dfferences are that they
have
nothing in common other than the meaning of the info transfered. I got a
prelim
copy of the spec just before it was released but I was sworn to not share it
under
penalty of having to keep suffering with 0183 :)

Doug

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
:


"Alexandre Heil Franca" wrote in
message ...
Hi there!

I know quite well NMEA-0183 and unfortunately have never had contact
to NMEA-2000. Can anyone point me to information about NMEA-2000?
Or maybe just list some of the most noticeable differences between
both specifications? I am interested on its architecture, telegrams
and electrical specs.

Thanks in advance,

Alexandre Heil França

Totally different animals. NMEA2000 is based upon the CAN (Controller
Area Network) protocol. Tons of info on CAN on the net. You can buy a
copy of the 2000
spec from NMEA for something like $1500. Noticible dfferences are that
they have
nothing in common other than the meaning of the info transfered. I got
a prelim
copy of the spec just before it was released but I was sworn to not
share it under
penalty of having to keep suffering with 0183 :)

Doug




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

Ethernet? Firewire? Bluetooth? Not on your LIFE!

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

"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

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....

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

Copyright is never a problem in such situations. You cannot copyright
facts...only form. So the actual information and structure is free of
copyright.

The standard itself is copyrighted and cannot be distributed. But the
content of the standard is fair game. In fact if one had a copy and simply
published the meat in plain text there is likely no recourse. I would of
course do it anonymously. The mere fact that it is legal will not keep you
from being sued.

Jim Donohue

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
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

Nice one Doug.
Steve B

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Right, plus you need to fork over a bunch of $$ to get your company
unique ID.

I can;t recall what the exact amount is, but it pretty much forces any
would-be
small scale developer out of the market. I seem to recall it is around $2500
but
I'm not sure. I gave up on it a long time ago.

Doug

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Nice one Doug.
Steve B

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Right, plus you need to fork over a bunch of $$ to get your company
unique ID.

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
I can;t recall what the exact amount is, but it pretty much forces any
would-be
small scale developer out of the market. I seem to recall it is around
$2500
but
I'm not sure. I gave up on it a long time ago.

To get your first product going, it costs $10,500. This includes
manufacturer ID, product ID, manual costs, approval costs, test suite etc.

Meindert

"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
...
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
I can;t recall what the exact amount is, but it pretty much forces any
would-be
small scale developer out of the market. I seem to recall it is around
$2500
but
I'm not sure. I gave up on it a long time ago.

To get your first product going, it costs $10,500. This includes
manufacturer ID, product ID, manual costs, approval costs, test suite etc.

Meindert

Kind of locks out the small-time developer. Perhaps that is the intent.

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Kind of locks out the small-time developer. Perhaps that is the intent.

It certainly keeps me from doing anything with NMEA2000.

Meindert

Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...

Kind of locks out the small-time developer. Perhaps that is the intent.


It certainly keeps me from doing anything with NMEA2000.

Meindert

Meindert,

Fortunately for you NMEA 2000 doesn't seem to catch on (yet) as it
doesn't require multiplexers: it allows multiple talkers on the bus.

I guess there would still be a market for a RS232/USB - CAN/NMEA2000
- NMEA0183 interface converter though...

-- Kees

Soooo, if a group of guys got together and formed a loose confederation of
propeller-headed geeks, couldn't they share the cost of the Manufacturer
ID, and other costs except for Product Cost: Each propeller-head could pick
up their own producid ID cost. This would certainly reduce the cost of
entry for the little guy. Anyone seen the contracts?


"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
...
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
I can;t recall what the exact amount is, but it pretty much forces any
would-be
small scale developer out of the market. I seem to recall it is around
$2500
but
I'm not sure. I gave up on it a long time ago.

To get your first product going, it costs $10,500. This includes
manufacturer ID, product ID, manual costs, approval costs, test suite etc.

Meindert

The Actisense NDC-2A is already NMEA2000 / USB / 0183/ rs232 compliant.

Geoff
-----------------------------
"Kees Verruijt" wrote in message
...
Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...

Kind of locks out the small-time developer. Perhaps that is the intent.


It certainly keeps me from doing anything with NMEA2000.

Meindert

Meindert,

Fortunately for you NMEA 2000 doesn't seem to catch on (yet) as it
doesn't require multiplexers: it allows multiple talkers on the bus.

I guess there would still be a market for a RS232/USB - CAN/NMEA2000
- NMEA0183 interface converter though...

-- Kees