Dear Sailfriends,

A customer of mine pointed out the following problem:

A Raymarine A70 plotter connected with port 1 to a MiniPlex multiplexer
input and port 2 connected to the same multiplexer's output produces
erroneous GPS data. Instead of outputting the correct data field in the RMC
sentence, a date of september 2009 is output.

A test where port 1 out of the A70 is directly connected to port 2 in
exhibits the same error. When the loop removed, the plotter outputs the
correct date in it's RMC sentence. Apparenly the plotter does not tolerate
it's own data.

I would like to know if this problem also shows up when an external GPS is
connected to the A70 plotter. Are there any A70 users "out there" who are
willing and able to try this out?

Regards,
Meindert
ShipModul/CustomWare

Meindert,
I'm sorry I cannot help, but I suggest you have definitely found a bug with the plotter's firmware and in that light, have every
right to address this directly with Raymarine. I would assume they would have no problem when confirming your findings to set up
the GPS test as well. They in turn will either provide a fix or a work around for you. Please keep us informed on Raymarine's
response. Consider this a test of their customer support.
Steve

"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message ...
Dear Sailfriends,

A customer of mine pointed out the following problem:

A Raymarine A70 plotter connected with port 1 to a MiniPlex multiplexer
input and port 2 connected to the same multiplexer's output produces
erroneous GPS data. Instead of outputting the correct data field in the RMC
sentence, a date of september 2009 is output.

A test where port 1 out of the A70 is directly connected to port 2 in
exhibits the same error. When the loop removed, the plotter outputs the
correct date in it's RMC sentence. Apparenly the plotter does not tolerate
it's own data.

I would like to know if this problem also shows up when an external GPS is
connected to the A70 plotter. Are there any A70 users "out there" who are
willing and able to try this out?

Regards,
Meindert
ShipModul/CustomWare

Hi Steve,

In the meantime, our local Raymarine distributor has performed this test and
confirmed what I have found. They're taking it up with Raymarine now and
promised to keep me informed.

Meindert

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message
...
Meindert,
I'm sorry I cannot help, but I suggest you have definitely found a bug
with the plotter's firmware and in that light, have every
right to address this directly with Raymarine. I would assume they would
have no problem when confirming your findings to set up
the GPS test as well. They in turn will either provide a fix or a work
around for you. Please keep us informed on Raymarine's
response. Consider this a test of their customer support.
Steve

"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
...
Dear Sailfriends,

A customer of mine pointed out the following problem:

A Raymarine A70 plotter connected with port 1 to a MiniPlex multiplexer
input and port 2 connected to the same multiplexer's output produces
erroneous GPS data. Instead of outputting the correct data field in the
RMC
sentence, a date of september 2009 is output.

A test where port 1 out of the A70 is directly connected to port 2 in
exhibits the same error. When the loop removed, the plotter outputs the
correct date in it's RMC sentence. Apparenly the plotter does not
tolerate
it's own data.

I would like to know if this problem also shows up when an external GPS
is
connected to the A70 plotter. Are there any A70 users "out there" who
are
willing and able to try this out?

Regards,
Meindert
ShipModul/CustomWare

"Meindert Sprang" wrote in
:

In the meantime, our local Raymarine distributor has performed this
test and confirmed what I have found. They're taking it up with
Raymarine now and promised to keep me informed.



Isn't it ironic we're still fighting RS-422 nonsense on one talker
serial buses in 2010 when the rest of the electronic world has forgotten
all this nonsense and moved on.

It's way past time when the boats should be totally wireless....not
proprietary wireless to keep your competitors' electronics off your
private little data system, but STANDARD wireless with every piece
aboard capable of communicating with every other piece aboard over as
many direct links as necessary at STANDARD 802.11b/g/n speeds.

We can lose this stupid TEXT sentence nonsense for some kind of
STANDARDIZED data set that doesn't take up so much bandwidth and doesn't
PLOD along like a snail all jammed up with buffered data that arrives
too late to make the autopilot tweak the course on time.

You simply connect the new GPS to DC power, its wireless chipset scans
the boat every time you turn it on and connects with every device that
uses GPS data and they all light up with the new GPS information pouring
out of them....like your laptop does when you turn it on in a new
restaurant with free wifi. NO WIRING, no poking one more cable between
the chart table and the helm console. No more having serial cables
hanging out of wherever you want your laptop to run the nav software.
You can lay in your V-berth with your laptop and see where we are and
what AIS targets are around.

It's WAY past time to make this happen.....leaving serial cables and
multiplexers and other overly complex pieces of 1985 behind.

As the boat approaches your slip, its wifi-connected marine electronics
connects to the marina wifi and announces to your select list of users
we have arrived, dumping all the pictures and the video from the mast-
mounted webcam so they can see us waving at them....like the big cruise
ships do now.

--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.

Larry

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Isn't it ironic we're still fighting RS-422 nonsense on one talker
serial buses in 2010 when the rest of the electronic world has forgotten
all this nonsense and moved on.

It's way past time when the boats should be totally wireless....not
proprietary wireless to keep your competitors' electronics off your
private little data system, but STANDARD wireless with every piece
aboard capable of communicating with every other piece aboard over as
many direct links as necessary at STANDARD 802.11b/g/n speeds.

Larry,

Your idea is great and I'm darn sure that 1000's of other people, in or
outside the industry, have thought of this. Have you ever wondered why
everything isn't wireless yet?

There are quite a few practical issues to be solved: first of all, having
wireless sensors scattered throughout your boat is a nice idea, but they
need power. Wired power! Then there is a cost factor. A wireless interface
costs at least 10 times more than a wired interface. Then there are
infrastructural problems: when you wire things, this is YOUR domain. Noone
can intrude, collide with your data or whatever. In a wireless system,
everyone can collide and intrude. You have to take measures against that.
These measures cost time and processing power; read: MONEY. Oh and then
there are metal boats. Faraday cages.

The problem could be solved from the start: when building a boat, install
power AND data wiring from the start. That will give you almost unlimited
and cheap ways to expand your system. Install a twisted pair bus. Cheap and
reliable. RS-485 or CAN buffers cost next to nothing. And when instrument
power and data are closely tied together, there isn't even a need for
galvanic isolation which makes CAN/NMEA2000 so expensive.

Meindert

On Jul 23, 5:14*am, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message

...

Isn't it ironic we're still fighting RS-422 nonsense on one talker
serial buses in 2010 when the rest of the electronic world has forgotten
all this nonsense and moved on.

Your idea is great and I'm darn sure that 1000's of other people, in or
outside the industry, have thought of this. Have you ever wondered why
everything isn't wireless yet?

I agree with Meindert. I'd add to his list of challenges interference,
both internal and external. Internally, there are lots of shared
consumers on the same frequencies as wifi. Can you imagine the
scenario in which the autopilot can't find the GPS for heading data
every time your cell phone rings and your bluetooth headset goes off?
Or how about boats jockeying at the start line in a race where someone
else's instruments may be closer to your readout than your own? Not so
good.

I'm not sure that any particular flavor of serial is the right answer,
but I do think wired is the way to go. I have never understood why
Ethernet isn't the obvious answer. Perhaps I'm missing something.

On Auspicious I do have a wireless remote autopilot control and a
bluetooth connection from laptop to printer. Everything else (sans
cell, VHF, and HF SSB) is wired. Except when I'm pulling wire through
conduit (*grin*) I prefer it that way.

sail fast, dave

"Auspicious" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure that any particular flavor of serial is the right answer,
but I do think wired is the way to go. I have never understood why
Ethernet isn't the obvious answer. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Because ethernet is also more expensive than a simple serial bus. Ethernet
requires an ethernet chip which is more expensive than a RS-485 or CAN
driver, a transformer and last but not least, a huge amount of code in a
processor just to be able to handle ethernet traffic, compared to what is
needed to do the sensors' job.

Meindert

Auspicious wrote in news:a4752c71-2ca1-4c14-92a5-
:

I agree with Meindert. I'd add to his list of challenges interference,
both internal and external. Internally, there are lots of shared
consumers on the same frequencies as wifi. Can you imagine the
scenario in which the autopilot can't find the GPS for heading data
every time your cell phone rings and your bluetooth headset goes off?
Or how about boats jockeying at the start line in a race where someone
else's instruments may be closer to your readout than your own? Not so
good.



All this MIGHT have been an issue, in 1985, but not today. I sit
watching TV at 1.2Mbps in a restaurant where wifi finds 12 open and 22
secured wifi hotspots in a 1 block area. The TV works fine, except my
Geelong Cats got beat (Aussie Rules Football). Noone intruded into my
system, noone sent false information to me, all that old radio nonsense
from.....well....1985.

These old arguments simply are no longer true. You sit playing on your
laptop in a marina full of laptops running off the marina wifi and
rarely ever see a problem.

What you all see as interference stopped when we went from dialup modems
into FM radios to 802.11a, the first edition of tiny pulsed transmitters
on broadband. Who apartment houses full of hundreds of wifi routers
feeding thousands of laptop computers works just fine....now at ever
increasing data rates over ever widening bandwidths to increase, even
further, the availability of more and more data to all.

Bluetooth isn't much better than an old serial port now. I wouldn't
even want to go near Bluetooth devices. The licensing fees, alone, are
a great reason to stay away. Bluetooth jams too easily as anyone in a
Best Buy can attest.

It's well past time to lay all these old wives tales from 1985 aside and
go wireless on all the boats NOT made of steel, which is most of them.
They'll still have NMEA's archaic ports for a long time or some
proprietary bus nonsense to prevent other manufacturers from talking to
Seatalk....but boaters should have that choice. NMEA will resist at all
costs. So won't the manufacturers all going in divergent ways with this
bus or that bus like Seatalk, for instance. Every boater suffers from
the consequences of this proprietary nonsense.....


--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.

Larry

Larry,
You normally have your act together, but not this time. Meindert is correct about his stated risks, but he is overstating the cost
of Ethernet solutions. Today they are canned in firmware and reasonably priced. The savings in installation complexity,
drastically increased speed and system flexibility far exceeds any increase in component cost. Please don't get me wrong. 802.11
has its place, but not in systems where data integrity are safety issues. CAN solutions work well and meet equipment
manufacturer's requirements, but as an end user I must counter with a standardization argument. The only thing that is standard is
the CAN pipe, everything else is proprietary and manufacturer unique. The ability to mix and match instruments and devices from
different manufacturers would virtually disappear. Furthermore, the CAN bus is slow in relation to Ethernet, reducing the amount
of net users and traffic the pipe could ultimately handle. Then there is the question of physical pipe length and noise
susceptibility. Ethernet has it all covered, but Meidert and I have had this discussion a while back and I didn't convince him
then. Maybe today, he's older now.
Steve

"Larry" wrote in message ...
Auspicious wrote in news:a4752c71-2ca1-4c14-92a5-
:

I agree with Meindert. I'd add to his list of challenges interference,
both internal and external. Internally, there are lots of shared
consumers on the same frequencies as wifi. Can you imagine the
scenario in which the autopilot can't find the GPS for heading data
every time your cell phone rings and your bluetooth headset goes off?
Or how about boats jockeying at the start line in a race where someone
else's instruments may be closer to your readout than your own? Not so
good.



All this MIGHT have been an issue, in 1985, but not today. I sit
watching TV at 1.2Mbps in a restaurant where wifi finds 12 open and 22
secured wifi hotspots in a 1 block area. The TV works fine, except my
Geelong Cats got beat (Aussie Rules Football). Noone intruded into my
system, noone sent false information to me, all that old radio nonsense
from.....well....1985.

These old arguments simply are no longer true. You sit playing on your
laptop in a marina full of laptops running off the marina wifi and
rarely ever see a problem.

What you all see as interference stopped when we went from dialup modems
into FM radios to 802.11a, the first edition of tiny pulsed transmitters
on broadband. Who apartment houses full of hundreds of wifi routers
feeding thousands of laptop computers works just fine....now at ever
increasing data rates over ever widening bandwidths to increase, even
further, the availability of more and more data to all.

Bluetooth isn't much better than an old serial port now. I wouldn't
even want to go near Bluetooth devices. The licensing fees, alone, are
a great reason to stay away. Bluetooth jams too easily as anyone in a
Best Buy can attest.

It's well past time to lay all these old wives tales from 1985 aside and
go wireless on all the boats NOT made of steel, which is most of them.
They'll still have NMEA's archaic ports for a long time or some
proprietary bus nonsense to prevent other manufacturers from talking to
Seatalk....but boaters should have that choice. NMEA will resist at all
costs. So won't the manufacturers all going in divergent ways with this
bus or that bus like Seatalk, for instance. Every boater suffers from
the consequences of this proprietary nonsense.....


--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.

Larry

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in
:

Ethernet has it all covered, but Meidert and I have had this
discussion a while back and I didn't convince him then. Maybe today,
he's older now. Steve


Meindert, no offense, but he makes NMEA multiplexers. Ethernet would be
the end of that business.



--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.

Larry