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.....

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.....

"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

"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

"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

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.....

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.....

"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

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.....

"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