| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:29:17 GMT, "Doug" wrote: Have you checked for RF noise on an HF receiver? I would hate to see a bunch of these running in a marine if they are noisy as I suspect they be. 73 Doug K7ABX No, I sure haven't, Doug. Mine's reconditioning the 6-year-old diesel starting battery in my restored 1973 Mercedes 220D antique car, tonight. I'll check it, when I can. It can't be any noisier than that damned dual 10A Guest under the aft cabin bunk in Lionheart. It's 20 over S9 across the HF bands on the M802/AT140/backstay. Damned thing makes more noise than an electric drill and VERY wideband! Maybe you ought to rat them out to the FCC. Shouldn't it be Class B, or about as noisy as a PC? del cecchi |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:29:17 GMT, "Doug"
wrote: Have you checked for RF noise on an HF receiver? I would hate to see a bunch of these running in a marine if they are noisy as I suspect they be. 73 Doug K7ABX ========================================== Most of the marine inverters spray around enough HF noise that one more source will probably never be noticed. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
One problem with that charger, cool as the switching technology is, the
warning that you can't charge a dead battery with it, which means that you still need another charger to get it up to the minimum required level for this charger to start working. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:13:15 -0600, "del cecchi"
wrote: Maybe you ought to rat them out to the FCC. Shouldn't it be Class B, or about as noisy as a PC? del cecchi Not made for use in the home, where the FCC really cares, I doubt it comes under Class B. Larry W4CSC 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?!! |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:40:33 GMT, "Floyd in Tampa"
wrote: One problem with that charger, cool as the switching technology is, the warning that you can't charge a dead battery with it, which means that you still need another charger to get it up to the minimum required level for this charger to start working. You don't run them down until their voltage is less than 5 volts, do you?!! Normal discharge is 50% of capacity.....unless you can afford the monthly replacement costs, I suppose. Larry W4CSC 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?!! |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:13:15 -0600, "del cecchi" wrote: Maybe you ought to rat them out to the FCC. Shouldn't it be Class B, or about as noisy as a PC? del cecchi Not made for use in the home, where the FCC really cares, I doubt it comes under Class B. Larry W4CSC At the least it has to be class A. And I bet pleasure boats would be construed as class B. del cecchi |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
|
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"John H" wrote in message
... On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:02:07 GMT, (Larry W4CSC) wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:40:33 GMT, "Floyd in Tampa" wrote: One problem with that charger, cool as the switching technology is, the warning that you can't charge a dead battery with it, which means that you still need another charger to get it up to the minimum required level for this charger to start working. You don't run them down until their voltage is less than 5 volts, do you?!! Normal discharge is 50% of capacity.....unless you can afford the monthly replacement costs, I suppose. Larry W4CSC 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?!! It's not you. A whole potfull of liberals stated the only reason we went to Iraq was to get their oil. John H Well, we certainly didn't do it for humanitarian reasons, John. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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.... Larry W4CSC 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?!! |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
"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. |
Bought cool new digital charger....$89? WalMart?!!
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. -- Email sent to is never read. |
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?!!
"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....$89? WalMart?!!
"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:BzMSb.8390$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?!!
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?!!
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com