Rat's nest of wires that typify photographic set-ups should beancient history

Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will start to do away with some of this?

RichA wrote:
Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or
bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and
it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will
start to do away with some of this?


Do you have a photo of this?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:28:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will start to do away with some of this?

There are a lot of disadvantages to wireless setups. If you have to
provide power, you need a cable, and the power is likely to require
the heaviest gauge wire. I think a better general solution is to use
something like Ethernet interfaces, with each device acting as a
two-port hub. That allows instrument clusters (e.g. camera, filter
wheel, rotator) to connect back with a single, thin, flexible cable
carrying power and all signals.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:23:58 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:28:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will start to do away with some of this?

There are a lot of disadvantages to wireless setups. If you have to
provide power, you need a cable, and the power is likely to require
the heaviest gauge wire. I think a better general solution is to use
something like Ethernet interfaces, with each device acting as a
two-port hub. That allows instrument clusters (e.g. camera, filter
wheel, rotator) to connect back with a single, thin, flexible cable
carrying power and all signals.

Anything that reduces the number of wires and cables is a good idea, though I don't know how well ethernet tolerates an outdoor climate. "Heavy gauge" cable really isn't much of an issue with telescopes, we aren't talking about a lot of power really.

On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:05:57 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or
bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and
it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will
start to do away with some of this?


Do you have a photo of this?

No, sorry.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:54:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 26 September 2016 18:23:58 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:28:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and it was a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will start to do away with some of this?

There are a lot of disadvantages to wireless setups. If you have to
provide power, you need a cable, and the power is likely to require
the heaviest gauge wire. I think a better general solution is to use
something like Ethernet interfaces, with each device acting as a
two-port hub. That allows instrument clusters (e.g. camera, filter
wheel, rotator) to connect back with a single, thin, flexible cable
carrying power and all signals.

Anything that reduces the number of wires and cables is a good idea, though I don't know how well ethernet tolerates an outdoor climate. "Heavy gauge" cable really isn't much of an issue with telescopes, we aren't talking about a lot of power really.

Not "heavy gauge", just the heaviest. You can send the power and the
signals over an Ethernet cable which is basically the same size as
just a power cable alone. Ethernet is mechanically robust (unlike,
say, USB), and tolerates any sort of environmental conditions that the
scope and instruments can. It works better than any wireless standard,
and the communications can be accomplished with any hardware, any
software, no special drivers, no worry about changing standards.

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 5:28:41 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Most of the stuff (except power) should be able to be conveyed by wifi or
bluetooth today, but I saw a photographic video set-up the other week and it was
a haystack of cables and wires. I'm wondering when mfg's will start to do away
with some of this?

Six of one, half dozen of another.

1) Field repairs are easier with a rat's nest configuration.
2) There is greater flexibility with a tangle of wires.
3) A tangle of wires is, ironically, easier to explain to newbies and more educational.
4) There is undeniably a certain "kewl" factor associated with wires running all over.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:04:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Not "heavy gauge", just the heaviest.

The "heaviest" gauge is not a "heavy gauge?" Playing word games again, aren't you, peterson?

peterson's usual unsupported opinions deleted

(Cue peterson's inevitable empty insult.....)

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:42:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:04:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Not "heavy gauge", just the heaviest.

The "heaviest" gauge is not a "heavy gauge?" Playing word games again, aren't you, peterson?

Idiot.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:42:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:04:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Not "heavy gauge", just the heaviest.

The "heaviest" gauge is not a "heavy gauge?" Playing word games again, aren't you, peterson?

Idiot.

If the "heaviest gauge" is not heavy, then what, exactly, is it?