![]() |
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |