Jump to content

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

My sentence was poorly written. The boat doesn't have to be close to shore, it was the location I was referring to. The information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be

English comprehension is now a dead art? No it doesn't have to do some ship/shore bounce thing. Sats pick up Class B AIS direct in this postcode, despite what you may have read here. You can see the pings of Comanche and BJ in history below. The straight line is WOXI with only two pings, pre start and post finish and did the last bit with wheels.

50 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

and via sat so a boat doesn't have to be close to shore

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In loving memory of Clark and Daw We welcome this evening Mr Richard the skipper of the winning power boat. Hello Brian. Mr Richard, may we call you Dick? Sure Brian, most

If Matt Allen as President of AS has any balls he should put Harburg/Bradford and Oatley/Richards in a room and read them the riot act. Harburg for not protesting but having a cry on national TV and O

Ok I am now caught up on this thread. Yes I went live - first actually - with the news direct from Shipwright Arms where WOXI were having lunch in one room, and BJ in the other. Was the best place to

Posted Images

5 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Ah no, MSEE. Your mood does not negate the physics.

A dipole antenna works (as noted above) by focusing energy toward a plane.

Signal energy vs (solid) angle is a matter of antenna design, whips are omnidirectional in plane, perpendicular to the axis of the antenna  with propagation lobes above and below the plane that have smaller angles at higher gains (longer, higher fractions of a wavelength) The higher gain in plane is due to out of plane energy being directed into the plane, much like a Fresnel lens.  The argument about effective range vs gain is classic if the antenna is on a moving pitching/heeling vessel  

Signal energy vs distance for a given angle is a function of the propagation surface area at the distance, for a zero gain theoretical point source (such as a handheld stub, it spherical) or 1/radius^3 , for high gain dipole whip it’s essentially cylindrical or 1/radius^2, 

the AIS satellites are in LEO, at 300 -2000 km and not Overhead GeoSynchronous at 22k miles. 

Any minor “axial leakage” energy would propagate as spherical, and an “overhead” satellite would be farther away with 1/1000 to 1/1000000 the energy. 

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics

Yes. Putting aside Franklin connecting to lightening with his key on a string in the mid 18th century both the optics work of Fresenel and Faraday's with electricity occured around the same time in the early 19th century. It took around  another 50 years however for the two to join up in a lighthouse using electricity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

English comprehension is now a dead art? No it doesn't have to do some ship/shore bounce thing. Sats pick up Class B AIS direct in this postcode, despite what you may have read here. You can see the pings of Comanche and BJ in history below. The straight line is WOXI with only two pings, pre start and post finish and did the last bit with wheels.

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

I'm not sure we are on the same page when it comes to AIS transceivers. But that's not important to the discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

I'm not sure we are on the same page when it comes to AIS transceivers. But that's not important to the discussion. 

Clearly not if you insist a offshore AIS TX "information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be" and not sat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Clearly not if you insist a offshore AIS TX "information packet has to bounce enough through the mesh to make it from ship to ship to a "base station" where ever that may be" and not sat.

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites, nor are they required to. If you don't know that, then we don't really need to have this discussion. There are several flavors of AIS transceivers. I suppose what matters is what was required for the race. IF the race required a Class B high power with satellite link, or a Class A with satellite link, then great you are correct. However, most AIS transceivers don't have the functionality. Sooo... we are not having the same discussion with the same assumptions. 

For my boats, the AIS transceiver doesn't know a damn thing about a satellite. Sooooo - that means that my signal has to make it to a location in the mesh where the signal could get to a base station. That's pretty much how it works. It sounds like you are assuming that the AIS systems on every boat talk to satellites. Is that what you are assuming? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Here's some interesting information from the Coast Guard related to LED lighting causing signal interference.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/Alerts/1318.pdf?ver=2018-08-16-091109-630

 

While only dated this year that advice is many years old and is a receive not transmit issue. Not one recognised Nav light maker produces gear anymore that generates such interference 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11.4 Changes to Special Regulations • Special Regulation 3.24.5 (c): The minimum amount of engine fuel that shall be carried at the start of the race shall be at least Litres = LWL(metres)/0.135. • Special Regulation 3.25.1(d): All boats shall carry on board a satellite phone. The satellite phone shall have coverage and be switched on for the duration of the race and be connected to main power or have a spare battery. • Special Regulation 4.09 (a): An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting.

The rule is mum as to the quality of the AIS transponder - only that it must be on and receiving and transmitting. 

A class B can be high power or low power. Obviously the high power AIS class b will send further distances. but the low power will not. 

This is the unit I use: https://www.em-trak-usa.com/product-page/b100-standard-ais-class-b-robust-plug-play-connectivity-uscg-certified

It only transmits at 2 watts.

Edited by JasonSeibert
Updated information.
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites

Every Class B AIS transciever ever built will communicate with a satellite if both are in range and there are no TX issues. I have no idea where you get this sat enabled/not enabled AIS shit from..I do know you are getting close to turnip territory though if you keep persisting with this drivel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

Every Class B AIS transciever ever built will communicate with a satelite if both are in range and there are no TX issues. I have no idea where you get this sat enabled AIS stuff from..

When you say "satellite" do you mean the thingy flying in the sky a few miles up in the air?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help explain the misconceptions for those on the fence. In particular I like this quote: 

Quote

However, around ten years ago various organisations discovered that, much to everyone’s surprise, these short range signals could in fact be picked up from above the Earth’s atmosphere. This was not expected as the maximum horizontal range at sea level is around 50 nautical miles (74 kms), yet these same signals could be received on the ISS, 400 kilometres up. 

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

Not all AIS transceivers communicate with satellites, nor are they required to. If you don't know that, then we don't really need to have this discussion. There are several flavors of AIS transceivers. I suppose what matters is what was required for the race. IF the race required a Class B high power with satellite link, or a Class A with satellite link, then great you are correct. However, most AIS transceivers don't have the functionality. Sooo... we are not having the same discussion with the same assumptions. 

For my boats, the AIS transceiver doesn't know a damn thing about a satellite. Sooooo - that means that my signal has to make it to a location in the mesh where the signal could get to a base station. That's pretty much how it works. It sounds like you are assuming that the AIS systems on every boat talk to satellites. Is that what you are assuming? 

Hmm.  I think you are wrong.  Your AIS transceiver does NOT have to have any additional capabilities to be picked up by a satellite receiver.  No "uplink", no special transmission hardware or software.  It just pumps out its VHF signal, and then if the satellite has a specialized receiver it will pick up that VHF signal.  The AIS transceivers that are higher power (e.g. 5 watt versus 2) have a better chance of being heard by the satellites, but its still possible for the lower power signal to be heard.

There is fairly simple explanation available on the site that Just a Skosh used to pull his screen shots from, Big Ocean Data.  Its a good service if anyone is in the market for AIS tracking.

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

 

(EDIT -  Ha, Jon beat me to it)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

This might help explain the misconceptions for those on the fence. In particular I like this quote: 

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

And with only a decoding program and antenna you can download NOAA weather sat pics direct from their satellites and be looking at them before they do and many hours later issue a forecast using them. Space is fence free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JasonSeibert said:

This is what people sometimes refer to as satellite AIS

What people? Mate give up. Be assured there is no such thing as satellite AIS that you keep banging on about other than subscription services who take normal AIS VHF band (Class a&b) transmissions received via satellite and then on sell that data. You are blinkered thinking AIS VHF regardless of class A or B power output is not picked by low orbiting satellites. It is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot, Jack, you speak for EVERYONE on the planet. Cool. How this devolved into a semantics discussion is interesting. I suppose that means the whole thing is beat to death. My apologies to the group for allowing that to happen.

Bringing it back to the relevant discussion for a moment: 

I used this splitter https://www2.vespermarine.com/antennas-splitters/antenna-splitter-sp160 on Gamble with a Vesper antennae to increase clarity and range on my AIS install on the recommendation of my riggers here in Texas. Prior to this, on my O30, I used a dedicated AIS antennae mounted on the pushpit that I also used as the backup VHF antennae in the event of main failure. 

I also used their specific antennae: https://www2.vespermarine.com/antennas-splitters/shared-ais-antenna

Cheers.

 

Edited by JasonSeibert
Updated information
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

It’s moments like these when I feel like a Luddite 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few misconceptions here. Let's review a few basics.

  1. AIS transponders receive GPS position information from satellites; the communicate with other vessels in range via VHF both sending and receiving position, course, speed, etc.
  2. AIS has no explicit mechanism for transmitting information to satellites
  3. There are satellites that include VHF receivers specifically to listen to terrestrial AIS broadcasts
  4. A vessel-based AIS Class-B 2W VHF transmitter equipped with a dipole antenna situated to broadcast to other vessels is unlikely to be received reliably by a satellite in low earth orbit. There's insufficient radiated energy to be received at that distance. Recent changes to the Class-B standard allow 5W transmission and greatly improve the reliability of satellite reception.
  5. No vessel retransmits the information produced by other vessels. If there are two vessels, A & B, that are not in AIS range of one another, the presence of a third vessel, C that is in range of both A & B does not magically cause A and B to see one another
  6. AIS does not provide real-time position, course and speed information. Class-B vessels moving faster than 2 knots transmit that information twice per minute. While substantially faster than a tracker, this is hardly real time
  7. Marine Traffic and other sites obtain vessel AIS information primarily through terrestrial receivers run by volunteers. You can get your own AIS receiver, connect it to a PC and become a contributor of such information. In addition, they also receive information from satellite receivers, however, this is primarily interesting only for Class-A equipped vessels that transmit at 12.5W and therefore more reliabily received by satellites
  8. The OSR requires the AIS and VHF antenna to be at the mast head and this means a splitter must be used on a sloop. Similarly, the rules require a maximum of 50% loss in the antenna cable. Therefore, all power levels need to be divided by about 2 when considering radiated power at the antenna. If a class B AIS transponder is not getting at least 1W out the antenna, the yacht is not compliant.
  9. The best way to determine transmitted power is via SWR. The SRT radio, used in all commercially available AIS transponders of which I'm aware, measure and report SWR via a free PC-based applications called ProAIS2 that is connected via USB to the AIS transponder.
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

A vessel-based AIS Class-B 2W VHF transmitter equipped with a dipole antenna situated to broadcast to other vessels is unlikely to be received reliably by a satellite in low earth orbit. There's insufficient radiated energy to be received at that distance. Recent changes to the Class-B standard allow 5W transmission and greatly improve the reliability of satellite reception.

Moon agree certainly not reliable by any measns, but there is a truck load of evidence of properly setup Class B 2w with masthead dipoles being picked up by low level sat on this race course. As you say Class B SOTDMA 5w units increase that prospect.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Moon agree certainly not reliable by any measns, but there is a truck load of evidence of properly setup Class B 2w with masthead dipoles being picked up by low level sat on this race course. As you say Class B SOTDMA 5w units increase that prospect.    

I agree with Jack's statement.  I have seen mid ocean transmissions show up on tracking sites from boats that I am 100% confident have a 2W AIS transmission.  Which is most pleasure boats at the moment since 5 W Class B units are new to the market in the last 18 months or so.

I can't speak to the reliability of those 2W transmissions being picked up by satellites, and I am sure 5 W is more reliable at being picked up.  But you can absolutely get a 2W signal off the birds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snowden said:

Right... that sounds like a great idea, bitcoin for AIS

Ha! Not quite, but sort of. The problem is dispute resolution between two parties when they don't trust each other, and/or when cargo arrival/delivery time is disputed. One party says X while the other says Y. Through a combination of sending messages through communications channels in the AIS transmission protocol, and verification of the data transmission through sat-com integrated devices, the information can be audited and stored in a blockchain distributed database. It's called the "internet of things" and blockchain solutions can provide the neutral third party evidence to resolve payment issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snowden said:

Right... that sounds like a great idea, bitcoin for AIS

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rail Meat said:

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

I hear this a lot, but it’s been around for near enough ten years now and I haven’t yet seen a truly decentralised and permissionless implementation where the blockchain tech adds real value over one party maintaining a database. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rail Meat said:

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

Blockchain is merely a database. the reliability of the database is its distribution across diverse parties on a global scale. Currently, the Bitcoin blockchain is the most diverse and widely distributed with billions of dollars in infrastructure. Without the distribution, the trust component of the database degrades. A blockchain with only one node is just a database. The real interesting prospects that I'm seeing are around side chains to larger backed existing chains. 

For the shipping solution, I looked at moving the client towards a side chain with audits to the bitcoin blockchain. essentially hashing the sidechain data into the bitcoin chain for preservation of data. But that's off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snowden said:

I hear this a lot, but it’s been around for near enough ten years now and I haven’t yet seen a truly decentralised and permissionless implementation where the blockchain tech adds real value over one party maintaining a database. 

Industries are slow to change. they fear change. Interestingly, the bitcoin protocol is based off of a 1980s encryption concept. So, it's really been around for nearly 40 years. Just slow to implement, slow to be adopted. But "internet of things" is a big deal, and having a reliable data source for that information, trusted enough to solve disputes, is a worthy thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be the nextgen AIS systems - full data mesh networks. Here, they use AIS to help route efficiently. 

https://www.cut.ac.cy/digitalAssets/106/106626_1mcecn-2011.pdf

One thing this proposal does not address, and is also a current weakness of AIS data, is corruption and security issues. But that can be addressed in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin graphs are like the weather ..you are hoping for a lift and you get headed or depending which side of the ledger you are on, expected it on the nose but find yourself going down hill doing 20kt+ and smiling. This one dated July this year indicated the bottom had been reached and is labeled as "despair" but would quickly return to "mean". However between July and now it went of another cliff so I'm not too sure what the current label is?? Suicidal for everyone? 

Bitcoin.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mad said:
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

You had to go and mention Fresnel lenses.  When I started in my field, computers were very slow and we processed our data (recorded on film) with optical computing.  Pretty fun to see real time Fourier transforms and we were able to process at about twice real time.  The limits were how much xylene we were willing to have stream out of the liquid gate we used for the film.  Even then xylene was a well known carcinogen.  Much better mood today and thanks for calling me out.  

For the rest, Fresnel lenses were commonly used in lighthouses and have some really cool characteristics.  

It’s moments like these when I feel like a Luddite 

Me too, after all that turkey. Where would we get one at this hour???

B)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Bitcoin graphs are like the weather ..you are hoping for a lift and you get headed or depending which side of the ledger you are on find yourself going down hill doing 20kt+. This one dated July this year indicated the bottom had been reached and is labeled as despair. Between July and now it went of another cliff so I'm not sure what the current label is?? Suicidal? 

Bitcoin.png

Don't be mad, Jack. It's okay. This is all off-topic. We can go back to you talking about sailing, but if you WANT to talk about bitcoin, you might want to rethink your process. People think of bitcoin as an investment, or that there should be some expectation of a return. That's where the entire process fails.

Bitcoin is two things: A brand, and a protocol. It is also what most people think of as an intergalactic credit.  It is a value transfer protocol that people store value in the network, and then transmit/transfer it from point to point. The current "price" of bitcoin is the reflected perceived value of the network and the effort put into it. That is in contrast to a "stable coin" where people expect the value in to be the value out as backed by some fixed price. If you put $100 into Bitcoin when it was $100, you would have converted $100 USD into 1 BTC. Today, the world values that BTC at about $4,000. Pretty good value. But what do you do with it? IF you don't know why it is used, how it is used, when, where, why, or IF it should be used, don't use it. That simple. If you are going to invest in Bitcoin, don't. You'll spend too much time looking at these graphs.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sydney Hobart required blockchain processing by racing boats to maintain and verify positional AIS data points....WOXI would have been disqualified.

But what if you could award time bonuses for blockchain block adds during processing...

So I could load up a Pearson shitbox with computers and win on time bonus (the first year)....it would be true technology race....screw maxi yachts....get a old container ship and load it up with 1,000,000 GPUs and never lose!

Sydney Hobart 2031 Edition a field of four mega container ships will race flat out....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

 Don’t forget that The Indian made WOXI look pretty stupid when she glided past around 0300 on Thursday in light winds to overtake them for the second time. 

Then by your methodology the Indian is crewed by brain dead morons by letting WOXI beat them to Hobart every time they have both finished. If you want to wave your tiny cock around you should do it where no one can see you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Then by your methodology the Indian is crewed by brain dead morons by letting WOXI beat them to Hobart every time they have both finished. If you want to wave your tiny cock around you should do it where no one can see you.

The Indian has finished each time, bonus points for that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Varan said:

Another statement by MR that doesn't quite gel:

"Richards did not attend the Hearing in person. "I hate protests." And in his stead former World Laser Champion, Glenn Bourke represented Wild Oats XI."

From the 2017 protest decision:

ROLEX SYDNEY HOBART YACHT RACE 
2017 
Protest No: 1 
Protest: Maxi 12358 "LVD Comanche" represented by James Spithill 
 vs. 
 Maxi 10001 "Wild Oats XI" represented by Mark Richards 

 
Protest is valid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had some time to ruminate on Richard's Sail-World interview and find his story less than convincing. To wit:

"We did an AIS check, there is video footage of Juan Vila [top Volvo Ocean Race navigator] doing the AIS check on the way out to the start", an indignant Richards told Sail-World from Sydney.  We do the right thing for the club and the spectators, and every year we carry a cameraman aboard the boat, says Richards. "We did the AIS check and that can be seen on the website."

According to NOC #2,  during the mandatory PreRace Radio Check "it is recommended" that  AIS system(s)  be turned on for verification. Surely a line honors contender would comply.  But, here's the stinker, the Radio Check is required to be completed by 2359 December 22nd,  3 days before the start.  Unlikely an onboard Channel 7 team actually videod  the PreRace Radio Check three days before, so he may mean "somebody" videod a test of AIS transmission working immediately prior to the start.   Cool if true, AIS verification on tape.  But I've looked high and low on the Interwebs and cannot find the referenced video. 

 "As soon as we went around Bradley's Head the Channel 7 TV guys started live streaming from the helicopter. The instant they started streaming, we lost all our instrumentation. We lost our wifi, and a lot of instrumentation went down on the boat.  The cameraman told us "sorry guys that is probably from the download.  It is a very high microwave frequency and it can interfere with other equipment at times," Richards explains.  Today, I totally believe that is what happened."

Now, this is an interesting claim.  An airborne video link is UHF and is unlikely to interfere or damage nearby VHF transceivers. For example concerning live video feeds from airborne  helicopters modern practice is "the microwave transmitter chosen was the Nucomm PT-6 digital radio. It is a compact, high-powered unit that provides a full 12W in analog mode, or approximately 8W in digital."  Hardly a "splitter frying" amount of RF power.  Curiously, hundreds of other boats at the start did not suffer damage from the rogue helicopter, and I've found no evidence that it has ever occurred in previous aerial heavily covered  media sailboat starts, or any venue FTIW.

Also, consider that helicopters are complex machines and depend heavily on constant voice & telemetry to stay aloft and safe.  That a microwave video UHF payload would interfere with VHF transmissions is impossible; helicopters would fall out of the sky.

"We got everything rebooted and got everything going afterwards. We were receiving AIS, when you are receiving, you also believe that you are transmitting OK as well.  When you are on board the boat you've no idea whether you are actually transmitting or not. If the device says you are transmitting then you assume that you are sending a signal.  The AIS had nothing to show that we weren't transmitting, and as far as we were concerned that was end of story. Our AIS was on for the whole of the race, " he reiterated. 

Bullocks!  Every AIS transceiver I've seen when connected to a splitter (common on masthead sloops with a single antenna aloft) the splitter has LED readouts that guarantees you are transmitting on VHF & AIS, and alerts if there's an antenna problem.  Witness:

spiktter.jpg.71dc33837eba7b8008797648c1b3e0ef.jpg

To say you didn't know your AIS splitter failed then it becomes magically fixed within 40 minutes of finishing implies your comms guys are blind.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Bullocks!  Every AIS transceiver I've seen when connected to a splitter (common on masthead sloops with a single antenna aloft) the splitter has LED readouts that guarantees you are transmitting on VHF & AIS, and alerts if there's an antenna problem.  Witness:

spiktter.jpg.71dc33837eba7b8008797648c1b3e0ef.jpg

Sure, but even on my modest 30’er that box lives behind the instrument panel and only sees the light of day every couple of months when something shits itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frant said:

Can someone clarify if the 2kw AIS signal transmitted via satellite captures all data. On Marine traffic my boat and many others show up as “ vessel via satellite”. Is this an issue of registering with Marine Traffic to have vessel data displayed or is it a function of low powered class B transponder?

You have to register and provide boat details and you can even send them a pretty picture if you like. This is the Australian application.

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/documents/amsa89-australian-maritime-mobile-service-identity-mmsi-application.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, EddyAllTime said:

 

Trial by media? Nah, it's more like trial by Saling Anarchy. 

 

MR provided a reasonable explanation, but you faggots cannot help but pile on.

Let it go. WOXI won. Move on. It's 2019 now.

 

Reasonable explanation ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mad said:

I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this one. 

The WO AIS system was turned on briefly at 11.08 am and again at 12.43 pm.  No track was left either time so we can assume that the transmission was short.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rail Meat said:

Hmm.  I think you are wrong.  Your AIS transceiver does NOT have to have any additional capabilities to be picked up by a satellite receiver.  No "uplink", no special transmission hardware or software.  It just pumps out its VHF signal, and then if the satellite has a specialized receiver it will pick up that VHF signal.  The AIS transceivers that are higher power (e.g. 5 watt versus 2) have a better chance of being heard by the satellites, but its still possible for the lower power signal to be heard.

There is fairly simple explanation available on the site that Just a Skosh used to pull his screen shots from, Big Ocean Data.  Its a good service if anyone is in the market for AIS tracking.

http://www.bigoceandata.com/news/satellite-ais-addressing-some-misconceptions/

 

(EDIT -  Ha, Jon beat me to it)

 

You are quite right. EVERY class A and B AIS can talk to satellites. You don't have to do anything to them because they work that way straight out of the box.

I have owned and used a Simrad 400 for 5 years. It is a 2w unit and can talk to satellites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

.....

This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

Well Sailed Woxi 

The valid explanation merely confirms that they did not comply with the AIS safety requirement.

Richards should show the humility and sportsmanship you accuse others of not having.

Other than the AIS contravention.... Well Sailed WOXI

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Please stop doing what your doing in the rule making department for offshore sailing and fuck off. My guess is you have never been outside the sight of the Committee boat, let alone land.

Jack fucking hates it when someone else has more info than the does,  gets real upset and chases them off like a broody hen.

Funni to see how predictable he is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

Hahahhaahaaaaa

Says the WOXI sock.  It's not just Jack who is predictable.

But this is precious, expecting everyone else the be sportsman except Richards.

posting on an intenet forum = "disgraceful"

failing to observe the RRS = "well sailed"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

To finish of the year I went looking for a post that would be most interesting to reply to. Your opening sentence caught my eye "Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer".

It was then I found out to my disappointment all you could offer was  simply a chronology of how AIS ended up in WS's Special Regs etc and  concluded with your penultimate statement saying "AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart". Now while maybe inferred to your SI's reference, you fail to mention that this year is in fact the first year that the S2H SI's mandate AIS's to be turned on, particularly the TX function that on any serious race boat can be turned off at the flick of an optional switch to RX only or "pirate mode" for most races unless mandated.

So I thought to myself, In your own words you say you have been biting your tongue for days, then post to clear the ignorant swamp, but are totally ignorant yourself?? WTF I thought. Then I read further and it got better under your own hand.

 

Now I haven't explored further down thread to see if @savoir responded but my guess it got a bit ugly on account of your erudite response, so I will step into his shoes.

First @MelbourneA31 thank you very much putting your time into improving the rules of racing in this sport. However I'm afraid that time invested is where my largese ceases.

I cannot believe someone at the pointy end of rule making at a State/National level chimes in to this thread with nothing to add other than ignorant crap and has no opinion on the foundation of this debacle being "self policing" of the rules.

Please stop doing what your doing in the rule making department for offshore sailing and fuck off. My guess is you have never been outside the sight of the Committee boat, let alone land.

I am offering an insight into how and why the regulations were changed. if it were up to me Satcom C would be offered as an alternative to the HF/MF radio as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frant said:

No, the MMSI no is programmed into transponder, same MMSI for DSC radio on vessel..All that done correctly and that information shows up on other vessels and Marine Traffic via shore repeaters. It is just via satellite that doesn’t identify vessel.

The companies offering AID tracking aps typically require a subscription fee to reveal certain value added data.  That includes all data received via Satellite reception. Pony up the fee to the site and you will get all the data. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

"A valid explanation surely we can accept "

Ummm.....I dont know if I should laugh or cry. The fact that you accept that shows a serious lack of critical reasoning skills. Even someone who wants to give Woxi the benefit of doubt should at least acknowledge the weakness of their statements. If only to be able to claim some level bbn of credibility. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JasonSeibert said:

Here's some interesting information from the Coast Guard related to LED lighting causing signal interference.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/Alerts/1318.pdf?ver=2018-08-16-091109-630

 

Jason,

I just wanted to say thanks, that was really interesting article. My AIS and VHF is average range, so I ran this test this morning, quick and easy to do. 

Happy it was a good result, though it means I still haven't found the issue :ph34r:.

Very enlightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JasonSeibert said:

This should be the nextgen AIS systems - full data mesh networks. Here, they use AIS to help route efficiently. 

https://www.cut.ac.cy/digitalAssets/106/106626_1mcecn-2011.pdf

One thing this proposal does not address, and is also a current weakness of AIS data, is corruption and security issues. But that can be addressed in time.

The concept has a good real world track record. Fiji's telecommunications backbone uses this principle and has worked surprisingly well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on.....

My bold italic edit

You forget that Richards’ explanation is only valid if it was included in his declaration and that CYCA had checked and accepted it.

Show me the official CYCA ruling on it.

And by not presenting his explanation of the AIS problem on the race declaration, he effectively lied. How sportsmanlike is that?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, frant said:

MR chose to give a media explanation. That explanation to many here is clearly flawed as opposed to “reasonable” hence the ongoing discussion. Some dispute that WOXI won fairly. Discussion will continue wether you denigrate the participants or not.

MR might not be the first guy that WOXI should have looked to for their PR spokesman.  I saw a guy that was pretty keyed up and distresses.  I think he overstated some things like, "the splitter got fried"  It makes you expect to find a melted plastic puddle on the end of the cable.  That they got it going so quickly in Hobart suggests that was not the case.  Maybe they flipped the (presumed here) after market transmit switch after the race in Hobart but I tend to favour the Cold Boot theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonduster said:

The best way to determine transmitted power is via SWR. The SRT radio, used in all commercially available AIS transponders of which I'm aware, measure and report SWR via a free PC-based applications called ProAIS2 that is connected via USB to the AIS transponder.

Nitpick. What you need is radiated power. SWR doesn't measure resistive losses, so losses in the coax and insertion losses due to the splitter and connectors won't be seen. What it will see is the mismatch of the antenna and feed line, and most importantly how well the antenna's installation is working in real life versus a theoretical perfection. Additionally you see evidence of damage: kinked coax, bad, loose, corroded, connections, missing or damaged antenna and so on - things that create a reactive change. This matters because when you want to know your radiated power you need to take into account the intrinsic losses. You can add up the losses as specified for each component, and the coax. But if some idiot decides to use a lower spec coax to save money or weight (or buys cheap Chinese fake brand), and doesn't tell you, you won't see that extra loss in the SWR figure.  In the extreme, a dummy load has a perfect SWR, but no radiated power at all.

Once you have an installation sorted, an ongoing SWR reading gives you pretty good indication of a fault, but not always. One thing a splitter needs to do is to divert the AIS transmitter if the VHF transceiver is transmitting. A properly designed splitter will have an internal dummy load that the AIS is diverted to when this is happening. Although the AIS is not radiating any power through the antenna at all in this circumstance, the SWR should remain good (in fact it might even improve.) 

Internal SWR monitoring is a really important thing for transceivers, and I get the impression is underappreciated. Many AIS units will continuously monitor the SWR and will report apparent faults via an indicator or message, not just make it available for interrogation via ProAIS2 . But this may require that you use the same brand display as AIS unit. You don't get such indication in the AIVMD messages. The need to use a connected PC is useful for setting up an installation, but monitoring the AIS unit like this as a permanent solution is probably not viable for most installations. But even then, an end to end check that your AIS transmission is being effectively received is the only foolproof answer. Despite all the moaning about how obvious using any of the free Internet services to check can be done, I wonder who here can put their hand on their heart and claim that they always perform such a check whenever setting out to sea. This is a problem. Radio checks are a no-brainer. But pull out a smart phone and check your AIS? That perhaps should be in the same category, but I'm going to bet the vast majority just don't think about it. And monitoring your AIS after you have left and out of phone range? Sure, can be done, but if it needs a sat data downlink, the vast majority will not be blowing their precious data allocation on it, even if they have sat data aboard, and most probably never think about it. But people don't expect their AIS to break, so why would you be spending any time at all checking?

I don't think there is an easy answer here. AIS for pleasure craft has crept up. Mandating AIS transmission for the S2H is a great idea on paper, but in doing so it made a jump in expectations about the technology that was probably not warranted. It isn't fault of the SI's, rather I think it is one of imagining your average class-B transceiver installation in a pleasure craft would intrinsically operate to the level of reliability expected of a class A system installed in a commercial vessel.  Install and forget black boxes, where none of the status lights are visible once installed, are not the right answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

I think some of the dialogue in this thread is disgraceful. Its like a feeding frenzy at the zoo and a real statement about some of the people on here. This was a fantastic race yet a lot of people enjoy picking a team apart even after a valid explanation surely we can accept it and move on. Show the humility and sportsmanship you are accusing others of not having.

 

Well Sailed Woxi 

If your interest is only the scorecard, not the process or its wider ramifications why do you bother stepping into this room? It is things like this that regrettable as it is actually educates people and over a lot of teritiry, both technical and on the RRS.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cap't Billy said:

Maybe they flipped the (presumed here) after market transmit switch after the race in Hobart but I tend to favour the Cold Boot theory.

You would though.

 I tend to favour the switch flip theory, backed up by the spinning and self-contradiction and incrimination they have been doing since.

Either way they should have observed the

"BASIC PRINCIPLES
 
SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."
 
This applies to BJ equally they are required to 'enforce' the rules and they did not.  I am increasingly thinking that BJ expected WO to retire after exposing the foul.  But they underestimated Richo's ego (if that is indeed possible), willingness and determination to make his own version of the rules.
 
The outcome of this thread is that is is very clear that the very worst result for the sport and the race itself has happened.  This is not one of those little used or understood sections of the RRS, this is the very foundations of the Racing Rules of Sailing.  The very root upon which all else relies and that root has been poisoned, pissed on and shown to be irrelevant to some people.
 
WOXI and BlackJack should apologise to the sailing community for failing us all.  The Hobart Protest Committee should apologise for failing to prosecute WOXI under Rule 69.  It seems to me that the only authority to act in the interest of the sport was the Race Committee who tried but failed to hold the worst of sportsman to account for their actions.  Even if they felt that they had no option than to protest, it would have taken some well meaning balls to do it.  Thank you gentlemen of the RC.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

If your interest is only the scorecard, not the process or its wider ramifications why do you bother stepping into this room? It is things like this that regrettable as it is actually educates people and over a lot of teritiry, both technical and on the RRS.

Because I think people are completely overreacting and it's turning to a lynch mob my opinion is as valid as yours. I think you should all chill out and enjoy the race yes the Ais was off but in my opinion it's not sinister and Oats sailed a better race 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Nitpick. What you need is radiated power. SWR doesn't measure resistive losses, so losses in the coax and 

Blah blah fucking blah ... WFT has this got to do with this thread?

Seriously, this issue is a strawman detracting from the real issue.  Start a technical thread on AIS FFS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

Because I think people are completely overreacting and it's turning to a lynch mob my opinion is as valid as yours. I think you should all chill out and enjoy the race yes the Ais was off but in my opinion it's not sinister and Oats sailed a better race 

NO it's not sinister but it is a breach of the rules of the race.  Why did the silver go to a boat that you concede broke the rules?

thumb_shill-warning-alert-warning-this-s

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

Because I think people are completely overreacting and it's turning to a lynch mob my opinion is as valid as yours. I think you should all chill out and enjoy the race yes the Ais was off but in my opinion it's not sinister and Oats sailed a better race 

Lynch mob??Well I'm going to need a lot of fuckin string because I'm of the view both BJ and WOXI along with the RC in varying degrees are responsible for this mess.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

NO it's not sinister but it is a breach of the rules of the race.  Why did the silver go to a boat that you concede broke the rules?

thumb_shill-warning-alert-warning-this-s

Still on the same bandwagon I'm just a sailor from Wellington buddy.

 

My opinion is the Ais was a technical issue not broken rule or cheating and It wasn't the difference between winning or not. So it's just one of those things not a grand conspiracy or anything like that.

You don't need to jump to the cynical conclusion here

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frant said:

Random could you please pull your head in for a moment. Yes all competitors are expected to observe and enforce the rules. Enforcing the rules on a global scale can involve more than just protesting, and it should be noted that the rules do not make protesting a mandatory act. Perhaps if you backed down a little and let reasoned debate as most of Francis postings appear to be then the “global” view of acceptable sporting conduct may change for the better.

Thank you for you prompt respone frant.  In answer to your first question the answer is ... no.

Francis's contribution is a staw man argument, that detracts attention from the main issue, rule breaking.  Like "oh look something shiny over there!"

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

My opinion is the Air was a technical issue not broken rule or cheating and It wasn't the difference between winning or not. 

Mate if this is not a rule compliance and enforcement issue, can you please explain the basis to the RC's protest then? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

My opinion is the Air was a technical issue not broken rule or cheating

You have no evidence of that.  But yes it is your opinion and carries no weight because you are an Oatley shill who continues to push the "It wasn't the difference between winning or not."

That is ignorant of the rule breaking, a whitewash.  In Sailing there is no room for your line of "yes we broke the rule but it made no difference to the outcome".  That's fucked and totally contrary to the fundamental rules of sailing.  Get a real job, you suck at this one.  Send me a Contact Us email account so I can talk to your hanldler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A word to those new around here. Quoting Random is generally frowned upon. There have even been penalties suggested. None of them nice.

Advice for make things much more pleasurable. Go to the top right hand corner where there is a pull down menu next to your login name. 

  1. Click on the triangle.
  2. Select "Ignored Users"
  3. Type "Random" into the "Add new user to ignore list" box
  4. Select all the tick boxes under the name when they appear.
  5. Click on Add User.

Lovely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, random said:

But yes it is your opinion and carries no weight because you are an Oatley shill who continues to push the "It wasn't the difference between winning or not."

Randumb you have a clear and valid viewpoint. Unfortunately no one is interested in it when you dress it up with partesan dribble.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frant said:

Leaving saide the current WOXI debate there is a very real need to discuss whether a Tx Rx at all times is technically acceptable given the fallability of the equipment.

Start a thead on the fallibility of AIS.  Maybe you could pass that on to the 'Global' authorities who use it for collision avoidance, I sure they will be so grateful for you contribution.  Please copy me in on any emails you send as I will find them fascinating.

There are many requirements in the NOR and SIs of the Hobart race.  Everyone is free to debate them and everyone who enters the race is required to comply.  In fact the very act of entering is a contract where the entrant agrees to comply.  WOXI did not.

Pretty fucking simple isn't it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites