Jump to content

Talk:ARINC 429

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bus vs. protocol

[edit]

There's some confusion between the two here. Talking about twisted-pair wires and Tx and Rx channels implies a bus. Talking about the meaning of bits in a word implies a protocol. If ARINC 429 specifies both (like, say RS232) this might warrant a mention. A bus spec would require at least a statement about voltages and such. A protocol might benefit from a statement how timing is enforced (on a bus that supports two different bit-rates and remains in a constant NULL state between words? Or is "NULL" a particular data word that can be synchronized against?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.78.180.229 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protocol vs bus: ARINC 429 specified both the physical layer and higher layers.

Two bit rates: yes, but not on the same bus.

NULL: null voltage state (0V). 67.170.9.92 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Info

[edit]

Controversial? I don't think so.

[edit]

The section stating that there is a controversy over the prohibition of certain devices at certain times during flight cites no references to support the existance of a controversy. I'm unaware of one but believe I'd hear about it, as an FAA Safety Team Representative. Without an authoritative reference that can support this assertion, this statement should be removed. For the sake of full disclosure, if a reference is provided I will question its authenticity, validity and basis.

Proving that anything is "incapable" of interfering with safe operation and reliability of aircraft systems is a logical impossibility. So, the likelihood of their being a controversy isn't likely. I haven't participated in RTCA Working groups lately but the likelihood that any such controversy is within either RTCA or the FAA is not worth the time to write about it -- unless one also believes that my elephant repellant is not effective. I mean, there is no elephant in the room with you, is there? This is evidance of how good the repellant is.

This section should be removed if a credible basis for it cannot be cited. --Kernel.package (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was added by this edit. Later, this edit removed the source. That said, there certainly has been public discussion on the subject. See [1], [2], [3] and [4]. More formally, this IEEE Spectrum article examined the hazards.LeadSongDog come howl 06:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the arinc system uses a 16-bits processor, not a 32-bits processor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.13.13 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither actually; ARINC 429 is specified independent of microcontroller architecture. We have 8-bit processors here driving ARINC 429. ARINC 429 transceivers IC’s were based on 32-bit shift registers; and IIRC the standard predates widespread use of 16-bit processors. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SSM bits

[edit]

The paragraph text says that bits 29 - 31 are used for SSM. The table/diagram immediately following refers only to bits 30 and 31. Don't know which is correct - but they aren't consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I intended to cover in my 18 October 2013 edit, the encoding of the 2 bits in the SSM depends on the data type represented in the data field (BNR, BCD, or other [Boolean or other discrete encodings, or a compound structure]). Sometimes the SSM is a sign matrix, sometimes it is a status matrix, and sometimes it is both. In the case of BNR, it is a status only encoding. If the BNR is sign-less, Bit 29 is simply the encoding of the msb. If the BNR is signed, the msb happens to also indicate sign – this is completely a consequence of the 2s complement representation. Thus the standard describes Bit 29 as a (serendipitously) conditional part of the SSM (p. 3). In contrast, Bit 11 has literal variable functionality – depending on the system, Bit 11 may indicate nominal or degraded accuracy for a BNR and no numerical value. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Respect to What

[edit]

“the bits representing the label are reversed” in respect to what? CAN Arbitration Fields? SPI? I2C? Considering the Label field in the picture, the bit order looks to be in the same order as the octal number it is representing -- if anything, it is the numbers in the data field that look backward in this perspective. It would probably be fairest to delete the sentence, or at least state what the bits are in reverse to, e.g., the BCD/BNR data field? -- IveGoneAway (talk) 18 October 2013 (UTC)

199.63.142.252 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC) “the bits representing the label are reversed”- What it means in terms of protocol is "At the time of data transmission, LABEL is sent first followed by the SDI, DATA, SSM and Parity on the bus. LABEL with MSB bit first to LSB bit is sent on the bus but the rest of the bits in the WORD is sent with LSB bit first to MSB bit. Hope this clears the confusion. This statement do need some more clarification though. -- Udai.[reply]

ARINC 575 - Parity optional in BCD words

[edit]

There is no Wikipedia page for ARINC 575. The only difference between ARINC 429 and 575 is the fact that some ARINC 575 implementations don't use parity in BCD words, and instead use bits 31-32 as SSM (instead of bits 30-31 in ARINC 429)

Is it ok to add this piece of information into the ARINC 429 page? Or is it necessary to copy the ARINC 429 page into an ARINC 575 page and make the change there (the change is minor).

Alternatively, is it maybe preferable to change the page's title to ARINC 429/575 instead?

Regards
Aviad

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARINC 429. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ARINC 429. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:ARINC_429&oldid=1216890780"