If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Cool. Maybe we should do entire airplanes around bluetooth. That way, any
geek with a PDA can hack our planes when we fly by. Yeah, **** all these EMI worries! Sorry, but that idea sounds like an awfully inviting drive-by target. "nafod40" wrote in message ... One useful technology that keeps getting more real are self-powered sensors that communicate via bluetooth or other wireless, so you could just stick them on various places and not have to worry about cabling and all those other points of failure. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Are you suggesting that a bad engine will give clues to it's demise enough
in advance that you could actually do something about it? Clues that a monitor could pick up on, but an experienced pilot wouldn't? My company makes ~200MM/yr on this premies. Adam N7966L Beech Super III |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
oops... I meant "premise".
"mindenpilot" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that a bad engine will give clues to it's demise enough in advance that you could actually do something about it? Clues that a monitor could pick up on, but an experienced pilot wouldn't? My company makes ~200MM/yr on this premies. Adam N7966L Beech Super III |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Schaefer wrote:
Cool. Maybe we should do entire airplanes around bluetooth. That way, any geek with a PDA can hack our planes when we fly by. Yeah, **** all these EMI worries! Sorry, but that idea sounds like an awfully inviting drive-by target. Bluetooth has a limited range -- about 10m absolute max. Do you often fly overhead geeks at 36ft AGL? Not only that, but Bluetooth also allows closed networks to be set up -- no access to anyone outside the selected group of devices. Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a technology that you clearly don't have a clue about. Frank |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"mindenpilot" wrote in message ... oops... I meant "premise". Was that a Freudian slip? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Schaefer wrote:
Cool. Maybe we should do entire airplanes around bluetooth. That way, any geek with a PDA can hack our planes when we fly by. Yeah, **** all these EMI worries! Sorry, but that idea sounds like an awfully inviting drive-by target. The idea that some sensors sending their signals via bluetooth to a data recorder instead of cabling could be "hacked", whether from a PDA standing outside the plane or from 5,000 feet AGL is silly. The EMI argument is an open one, but the FAA rule says... "a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S-registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-- (1) portable voice recorders; (2) hearing aids; (3) heart pacemakers; (4) electric shavers; or (5) any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. It's coming to aircraft. In fact, it's already there via people that don't turn off their cell phones and laptops etc., just uncontrolled. Good article. http://developer.intel.com/technolog...cles/art_4.htm |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
I've always wanted 100T ethernet thru the entire avionics stack.
Adding Bluetooth to the portable devices makes perfect sense! |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OK, if all you want is to record data, then yeah, whatever you want to use
is just fine as long as you can keep it from interfering with any critical functions on your plane. However, debugging all the potential EMI stuff could be hell just to get things to work. I was being sarcasting about the hacking comment....yeah, it was silly. There are already enough other decent options that will work just fine without the hassles of dealing with radio frequency stuff. Look at the aviation versions of CAN. Well supported, cheap, and really easy. There's also 1394, which is used a bunch in some new aviation systems. "nafod40" wrote in message ... It's coming to aircraft. In fact, it's already there via people that don't turn off their cell phones and laptops etc., just uncontrolled. Good article. http://developer.intel.com/technolog...cles/art_4.htm |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Frank:
I do have quite a clue about EMI, and clearly have a better clue than you about systems engineering in general. Here's a question for you: Why bother? If you're trying to cert bluetooth for aviation, maybe with the thought of selling some other bluetooth product that you think you can make a big chunk of cash with, then, yeah, maybe going off to play with bluetooth on your airplane makes sense. Personally, I can't see it. Maybe it makes sense for using it to reprogram boxes on your airplane, but to go to the extent of making it useful/safe in flight....nah. Way too much effort for too little return, given that the inclusion of an RS-232 port is so freakin' easy. If you have some other goal in mind, maybe some other sensing or data fusion tech (e.g. may you have a huge array of air data sensors for some advance stall detection method), then you have to look at whether or not the tech risk buys you something that you can't get otherwise. Why bluetooth rather than the 1/2 dozen other wired data communication protocols (e.g. 1392, . 422, 232, 485, CAN, etc.) that are out there? I get rather frustrated with people who get really !@#$ing enamored with technologies for implementation and loose sight of what their goals are. All too often, risk variables get introduced where none is warranted, resulting in zero or negative value added. I beat on my guys daily about issues like this. (Kelly Johnson (...yeah, I work at that place.....) had a lot to say about where it was acceptable to take project risks..too bad so much of it never got captured in "the rules"). So, back to Blue Tooth.... Why bother? For data collection, I've already got a half-dozen options in my hip pocket that I know will work just fine with very well understood EMI issues that I know how to mitigate. What's my goal? Blue tooth airplane or getting the data for some other purpose? I have very little room for Geek Factor on any airplane that I'll ever build. If it can't buy it's way on (I'd lump Blue Tooth in here), then !@#$ it. Pete P.S. I just got done with a 5 hour drive and am tired as all !@#$. I've got 4 beers in me to diffuse stress. Please forgive my abbrasiveness. I'm not really that bad of a guy. I just don't want people to pursue ideas that will get them killed. "Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message ... Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a technology that you clearly don't have a clue about. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Frank:
P.S. Your're right...I don't know **** about the specifics of Blue Tooth. I'm glad to admit it. "Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message ... Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a technology that you clearly don't have a clue about. Frank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vibration Monitor (Hyde, Wanttaja?) | RST Engineering | Home Built | 71 | April 4th 05 04:44 PM |
Pinging Ron Wanttaja - "Unporting?" | Bob Chilcoat | Home Built | 13 | November 24th 04 07:28 PM |
Vibration Testing | Jim Weir | Home Built | 20 | October 10th 04 07:22 AM |
Vibration Testing | Jim Weir | Owning | 21 | October 10th 04 07:22 AM |
Survey - 3 blade prop conversion- Cockpit vibration, happy or not | Fly | Owning | 20 | June 30th 04 05:32 PM |