The Random Mumblings of a Disgruntled Muscular Minarchist
Igitur qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum
Friday, July 10, 2020
A digital bubble floating on an analog ocean
Believe me... there is no-one more particular about the characteristics of their analog cabling, than a ham. We use it ... generally multishielded coax these days... for antenna feed lines. The strength of some of the signals we use it to receive, are measured in femotwatts, at frequencies in the multighz ranges. The higher the frequency, the higher the attenuation of the signal per foot of feedline, and the more subject to spurious interference... so low attenuation and spurious signal rejection are kinda important to us.
Whether you're transmitting radio frequency analog transmissions, or internet data, or high resolution high framerate high def video... it's all analog once it's on copper, because the real physical world is analog. It's all high and low voltage values in a sine wave (or at least you hope it's a sine wave), and is subject to all the vagaries of the analog world.
For example, HDMI... 1080p at 60hz SDR color (HDMI-1.1) is a two channel analog signal at about 165mhz, transmitted over 4 shielded twisted pair... 8 signal wires wide effectively, plus clock sync, control channel, power, and ground pins (including one ground pin for each shielded twisted pair), for a total of 19 pins. For 1080p@ 120hz it's about 340mhz, as is 4k@30hz. 4k@120hz HDR color is about 1.2ghz, however as transmitted over HDMI including audio, and various overheads, the actual maximum data rate ends up being appx. 1.485ghz... and 1.485gigabits per second per channel. Again, that's all over HDMI, which is a bonded multi channel serial digital interface (not actually a parallel interface, though the difference between the two is somewhat esoteric at this point)... the total aggregate data rate is between appx. 4gps for HDMI-1.0 (3.96gbps technically the same as DVI by the way), and appx. 48gbps for HDMI-2.1 (actually its 47.52gbps, effectively the same as 12x DVI channels, or 32x 1.485gbit serial data channels bonded together)
The higher the frequency of an analog signal, the higher the signal loss over distance, and the more subject to electromagnetic and radio frequency interference it is... which is why when we make digital interfaces out of analog wires, we tend to limit them to about 1.2-1.5ghz, and when we need more bandwidth, we aggregate or bond more 1.2-1.5ghz channels together.
...Which is why high bandwidth stuff like 4k video, is always transmitted as digital signals if it has to go long distances. It has extremely high signal attenuation, and sensitivity to interference, in analog form (about 6db per 100feet at 1000mhz, over conventional rg6 coax for example... the stuff your cable company uses to get signal to your cable box and cable modem. 30db signal attenuation is generally considered the maximum, so 500 feet would be the maximum at 1ghz. The actual data rate for a 1080p60hz signal as actually transmitted over coax as SDI [serial digital interface] is 1.485ghz x2 channels, for a maximum run of about 140 feet at 30db attenuation, though SDI interface boxes generally extend that out to between 200 and 300 feet through higher power, and some tricks with frequency modulation and error correction. As a purely analog signal, including audio and overhead, it's almost 3ghz if it's a single channel, which would attenuate out at about 90 feet on RG6, which is why we never do that). Breaking it up into high bandwidth IP data is much easier, with much lower losses and greater error tolerance and error correction.
In analog data transmission, using a waveform structure... as most electrical and optical data transmission and cabling standards, and most radio standards do... there's basically two factors which can be used to transmit information. Frequency, and amplitude. We can modulate the frequency at which we transmit... the number of times per second the wave hits a peak... and the amplitude... how strong the signal is, which translates into how high the peak gets.
...(note: theres actually a third, called "phase", and it IS used in many data transmission systems... most of them actually... but it's a much more difficult and complicated thing to decode with precision, or to explain without further background, so I'm MOSTLY ignoring it for most of this explanation)...
The most basic way of doing that is with binary amplitude modulation... off and on, dot and dash. That's the easiest thing to detect.... and consequently those were our earliest forms of optical and electrical communications... the heliograph and the telegraph... and our earliest form of radio communications as well, using spark gap transmitters and cat whisker coherer receivers. We then converted those "off" and "on" states into useful information with thing like Morse code or Baudot code (where we get the word "baud" from).
You'll find that for... ease of explanation let's call it... most examples and illustrations of most communication methods simplify it to this binary representation.
A binary amplitude modulation system, is limited by how fast you can turn the signal off and on... or really, how fast you can precisely and reliably detect it being turned off an on. It can only encode 1 bit of data per time division, because it is always on or off referenced to off.
However, even without frequency modulation, amplitude modulation can be more complicated... and cary more data... than just off and on. In fact, it's actually a lot easier to create more precise signals by NOT using a binary "off" and a binary "on", but instead to use a "high" value, where every signal above a certain "high" amplitude threshold is a 1 and everything below a "low" value is a 0... Every computer logic circuit on the planet does this, but we pretend that "high" and "low" are really "on" and "off" to simplify it for logical explanation purposes.
Further, because we are talking about waveform transitions between high and low states, we can actually have FOUR states represented with basic amplitude modulation... "high", "low", "rising", and "falling" (this is called Quad Amplitude Modulation or QAM, which itself can be detected either by precise time reference, or by phase shifting an amplitude modulated signal wave in reference to a baseline carrier wave... I said I would MOSTLY ignore phase, not entirely).
So, before we even get into frequency modulation, we have the ability to represent 4 states of data. In reference to itself, that can mean 2 or 3 bits (depending on how you encode and how you detect the state), or in reference to a precise clock or a known baseline state such as an unmodulated carrier wave, it can mean 4 bits of data.. a useful increment.
...An important note... 2 different states of data, only in reference to that state change itself... a binary 0 or 1...is only ONE bit of data. 2 different states in reference to something else, like a high or low state in reference to a neutral carrier, or a precise time clock, can be just one bit, OR it can be used to represent TWO bits of data with proper encoding. Four states in reference only to themselves can be 3 bits, but in reference to an outside value can be 4 bits etc... This is because some state must always be null or neutral, representing no data, while all other states can encode data in reference to null or neutral. One can even do this with purely binary data with bitwise time encoding or bytewise sequence encoding, across multiple bits or bytes... Each bit is in reference to a time, or sequence of previous bits, or sequence within a byte, and therefore 0 or 1 are both information states. Without bitwise or bytewise encoding, 0 is the null reference and 1 is the only state with data, with it both states contain or transmit data.... This logical structure is generally ignored when this subject is explained, because it hurts peoples heads.
Now... we have figured out that over most transmission media... be it copper wire, optical fiber, or radio frequency transmissions through a vacuum... we can transmit additional data through two other means.
The first, is by modulating the frequency of a signal wave slightly, compared to either a very precise time clock, or to a reference carrier wave. This again can give us four discernable states of information in any given time division for a wave... any given discrete small frequency band... a peak state, a trough state, a rising state, and a falling state.
The second, is by combining multiple signals in different frequency bands, over the same medium.... Of which there could potentially be infinite divisions in theory... though in practice its difficult to generate and detect a lot of different bands simultaneously with any precision.
However, even before we reach that point, you should be able to see that for any given time division, using a combination of both amplitude modulation, and frequency modulation, we can actually represent.. and transmit and receive... 4 discrete states per frequency, and as many frequency states per time division as we can detect, with 4 states for each as well... 16 total states per discrete division... 16 bits... using purely analog signaling.
In fact, for any given division of time and any given frequency banding, we can use frequency modulation (4 states), amplitude modulation (4 states), and in theory both frequency phase modulation (2, 3, or 4 states, but the 3rd and 4th state are hard to deal with, so really 2 states), and amplitude phase modulation (again theoretically 4 states but really 2) within each discrete frequency band, to represent 64 bits of data.... though using both amplitude phase modulation and frequency phase modulation, is extraordinarily difficult to do with precision, so up until recently generally only one or the other has been used. And of course, it is technically possible to detect and use all four phase states for both amplitude and modulation, meaning you could theoretically represent 256 discrete states, or bits, within one discrete frequency band, in one discrete time division (or you can do it on the rising and falling of a clock cycle.. but it's not practical to do both clock and phase at the same time, because one is detected in reference to the other).
Then, by modulating within a small discrete frequency band, we can multiply those states by the smallest divisions we can discern within that band, times the total number of divisions, or width of that band.
That's where the term bandwidth comes from by the way. It's a measure of the number of discrete bits of data we can discern within a single time division, in a single frequency band, or an aggregate of channelized bands.... and it applies whether were talking about copper hardline, fiber optics, or radio waves.
Right now our highest frequency, and highest bandwidth, commonly used wireless systems are using the 5ghz RF band, and modulating across 80mhz channels within the band. Our highest bandwidth commonly used hardline video systems (HDMI 2.1 or CoaXpress CXP-X standards) use 1.485ghz frequency (anything higher causes severe attenuation of signal over distance... the higher the frequency the higher the attenuation), with HDMI 2.1 using 4 different states per conductor, and 8 conductors, to get 32bits times 1.485ghz, or just under 48 gigabits per second.... a similar standard is also used for our fastest common data networking over copper wire (currently 40gig ethernet), achieving a similar data rate.
The fastest data transmission over copper wire commercially available for mainstream computing applications, is currently 100gigabit ethernet. It uses four pairs of conductors moving 25gigbit each pair, but the frequency is so high that the signal attenuated to un-usability within just a couple meters, so almost all 100gbe is over fiber optics.
When you combine that with heterodyning, or multiplexing of different frequency banded signals over the same media (or as noted near the top, in phase or out of phase signals... the last time I'll mention it in this piece), for channelization within the same larger band, it should be clear that analog data signaling can do a hell of a lot more than just off and on, one and zero.
The most basic means we have used these properties for... for well over a century now... are audio transmissions over the telephone, and audio transmission over the radio.
Audio inherently transmits both frequency and amplitude modulated signals, in 1hz and 1db increments, across about 20khz of frequency spectrum, and 120db of dynamic range... Or at least human audible audio does (ultrasound goes much higher of course). Though to simplify transmission, and to multiply the maximum number of transmissions over a single medium, we have often "narrowbanded" audio to as little as 3khz and as little as 30db dynamic range.
Taditional telephone signals for example, drop everything below 300-400hz or above 3300-3400hz (depending on the region and standards of the particular telephone system) and compand -compress and expand- dynamic range down to 42db or less (+- 18db). We can then take those limited bandwidth "narrowband" signals, and combine them over a single wire, by shifting their frequency up and down in discrete bands, and then shifting them back to their original frequency at the other end... even with basic analog equipment (this is called frequency shifting or tone shifting).
That's how some long distance phone calls and trunk line calls worked for decades, before we switched to digital telephony systems... a process which took decades (and if you still have a land line, your home phone may still be connected directly to the neighborhood switching node over a single analog channel, or even to a local central switching office, depending how overdue your local infrastructure upgrades are... But in the U.S. most landline service is now digital to the neighborhood node, or even digital to the home, and is only analog from that switching box to the analog handset)
It's also how radio stations work. FM stands for "frequency modulation" and AM stands for "amplitude modulation" but in reality both types of radio do both things, its just a question of how each creates and recreates the signal at either end of the transmission. An FM radio station can modulate frequency and amplitude across a small defined band, to transmit appx 15khz and 48db dynamic range worth of audio signal. An AM radio station can do the same but with only a 10khz and 30db range. Thus we can theoretically fit about 200 local FM and about 120 local AM radio stations into a given area, in the FM and AM broadcast bands... But to avoid interference and crosstalk, it's actually more like about 100 fm and 60 am stations.
When we first started sending digital transmissions over analog phone lines, we did it in the simplest way possible... Essentially back to the days of the telegraph, only a little bit faster... We eventually got to about 300 bits per second, before we had to switch from purely binary amplitude modulation, to add the rising and falling signal states, and the frequency banding and heterodyning or multiplexing of signals. Within the limited 3khz and 42db dynamic range allocated to each analog telephone line, we managed to go from pushing just 300 bits per second, up to about 56,000 bits per second.
Now, we're using wideband 5ghz band wireless with QAM, to get bandwidth exceeding a gigabit per second per channel, and bonding multiple channels to get multi gigabit wireless.
...But still... digital data, becomes an analog signal, the second it hits a wire or a radio, and is subject to the capabilities and limitations of its transmission medium. We may live in a digital bubble, but that digital bubble floats on an analog ocean, in an analog universe.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
These have some interesting potential
I have been waiting for the 8gb memory threshold to be crossed, for Pi platforms to become really seriously useful for certain important and/or fun applications. I was hoping they'd be a little closer to $50, but that will happen not too far out I'm sure.
Honestly... I cant afford this right now, but I think I need it, for personal and professional development stuff that I have been wanting to do for a good long while..
If anyone wants to help me get one of these... preferably the full developers kit... It would be much appreciated (paypal via chris@chrisbyrne.com or contact me directly for basically every other possible way of helping out). Or several of them really... at least two, but up to eight ideally (because they're modular building blocks that are most efficient in blocks of 8, which would be 32 cores and 64gb of memory for $600 at current pricing... and likely $400 or less for bulk pricing in six months).. because what I want to do involves some clustering, and scaling... It would potentially go a long way to helping me rebuild my professional life, and get some significant income again.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
The early 2016 gaming sweetspot?
But it got me thinking about the current state of desktop gaming, and what the current price performance optimums are...
And I was actually kind of surprised...
Because it looks right now, that the "sweet spot" is right where it was about 18 months ago... only it's cheaper...
Right now, the sweetspot in gaming GPU price/performance is still the GTX970... which has been out since the middle of 2014.
You can get a really good gtx970 for $300-350 right now... The lower performing Radeon r9 290x is still over $400, and as high as $500, and the even lower performaing r9-290 is just touching $350.
And GTX980s, are still $500.
On CPU's the price performance equation is certainly more complicated...
First question for CPU is actually not about CPU, it's about RAM... and then motherboards.
Do you want a DDR4 machine or not... 16gb ddr4 runs $85 to $100 right now for 2400mhz or 2700mhz, and more like $115 to $125 for 3000mhz. 16gb of good high performance DDR3 is more like $85 flat for 3000mhz.
More importantly though, the best ddr4 mobos are a bit more expensive, and the best performing DDR3 is actually faster in some ways than DDR4... and more overclocking stable, with more options of overclocking motherboards etc... though that won't be the case for long, and the very best mobos are now DDR4.
I'd probably go for DDR4 to futureproof... but really, the price performance right now isn't definitive. And if you want to overclock, DDR3 may still be a better choice.
For DDR4 gaming boards... basically you've got three price points... $170 $270, and $370.
So... you've got options for socket 1151, and socket 2011... the socket 2011 options obviously being the more expensive, and taking the more expensive CPUs.
Right now, I'd still go with an 1151... Though a lot of people are doing Xeon gaming right now, I still think your best option and best value is with an i7, and the skylake based Xeons are now on the 1151 anyway.
For DDR3, you can still go for LGA1150 boards, and basically pay whatever you want. $50 to $400, with really good boards in the $150 to $200 range.
And the best value for performance in an i7, is actually probably still an older i7 like a 4790 or 4790k from 2014... at $300-310ish and $330-340ish respectively.
If you want the new skylake, the i7-6700 will run about 50-60 more and a 6700k unlocked will run $420ish.
.. but guess what... clocked the same, on the same speed RAM... they benchmark out at about the same... with the 4790 actually slightly edging out the skylake in some things.
... and overclocked to their maximum, the 4790k will out perform the 6700k in a lot of benchmarks... though some of that is simply that the boards and ram are better worked out.
So, to my mind, the gaming sweetspot right now is:
cpu: i7 4790k $330
Board: any decent gaming 1150 board $150
RAM: any decent 3000mhz gaming ram $85
GPU: any decent gtx970 $300
That's $865 for the core components, that would be variable among gaming builds. The rest... case, psu, ssd... is all the same, and based on personal preference more than anything else.
Oh and before you ask, no, there is no AMD option worth bothering with at this point, unless you're trying to build a much cheaper system.
If you want to be more current and future proof
cpu: i7-6700k $420
Board: decent gaming 1151 board $170
RAM: decent 3000mhz gaming ram $125
GPU: any decent gtx970 $300
$1015... about $150 more than the DDR3 system.
Is it worth the difference... ehhhh.... Performance wise, probably not... But getting into a DDR4 platform with an 1151 socket... Especially if you're thinking about going higher end on the board, with an NVME-SSD... yeah, probably.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Moving Towards Post Scarcity
However, a world where poverty and hunger are rare is entirely possible. In fact, we could do it right now, today.
... Though not through the means that most of those who loudly claim it as their goal, would think... or approve of.
The way to get there is by moving towards a post scarcity economy. Not to redistribute material wealth, but to make everyone so materially wealthy, that there would be no point.
And that IS possible.
We already live in a world where we can produce enough food, cheaply enough, for no-one to ever be hungry again.
... but most of it is wasted (seriously, most... between 60% and 80% of all food grown in advanced economies is wasted), because of government corruption, stupidity, or outright tyranny (most famines are not the result of nature, but of government).
That wasted food isn't given away for free, because high energy costs make transportation too expensive, and because government makes laws and regulations against doing so,mor that make doing so too risky and expensive.
What about other goods?
The three biggest components of the cost of most material goods, are labor, energy, and legal and regulatory costs (including taxes).
Material costs for most goods are a small fraction in comparison, rarely exceeding 20% of the total cost of an item, and often comprising less than 5%.
...And even then, much of the costs of the raw materials are themselves, labor, energy, and legal and regulatory costs (including taxes).
It's not greedy evil profit that makes and keeps things expensive... It's the cost of energy, the cost of labor, and the costs imposed by government and the legal system.
Right now, today, we could dramatically reduce the wasteful overheads imposed by government and the legal system, without hurting safety a single bit.
We could dramatically reduce taxes, and regulations, keeping only those that demonstrably improve safety to a reasonable degree for the costs they impose.
We could make industries far more competitive, by reducing barriers to entry created by governments.
We could dramatically increase employment at the same time, and wages, as businesses competed for workers, who had more money to pay those businesses.
We know all of these things work, because they always have, and always do. When we get out of the way.
But the single biggest thing we could do, to dramatically increase the material wealth of the world, and to dramatically improve the human condition...
Cheap energy.
If we could deliver energy so cheap that we didn't have to bother metering it, then we could achieve a near post scarcity economy, almost immediately.
With enough energy, cheap enough, we can achieve matter synthesis for many substances relatively easily.
With enough energy, cheap enough, aluminum, copper, gold, silver, silicon, and many other currently expensive materials, become dirt cheap.
With enough energy, cheap enough, plastics and anything derived from petrochemicals or other hyrdocarbons, become so cheap as to be effectively zero cost.
With enough energy, cheap enough, we have effectively unlimited clean fresh water, and can easily clean the air.
With enough energy, cheap enough, we can synthesize whatever fuels we want... Or mostly not bother, because the only thing we'd need chemical fuels for anymore was highly efficient long distance bulk cargo transportation, and air travel.
If you're really worried about carbon output from the human race... How about eliminating more than 80% of it, permanently?
With enough energy, cheap enough, we don't have to worry about efficiency of transport and storage technologies... though we will still develop them so that we can replace chemical fuels in air travel and bulk cargo transport, and to improve range and grid independence.
With enough energy, cheap enough, the cost of manufactured goods falls anywhere from 20% to more than 80%... and employment booms, and economies boom, and everyone gets much wealthier... rich and poor alike.
With enough energy, cheap enough, about 90% of the world's troublespots, stop being troublespots, and most of them we wouldn't have to care about.
If you want to "end war" it's impossible, but if you want to make it much rarer, smaller scale, and less destructive... cheap energy is the best way to do that.
Guess what?
We could do most of this, in less than 20 years, simply by deploying a widely distributed localized grid, of thorium reactors (technically, encapsulated pebble bed, low temperature and pressure gas coolant, thorium reactors... and/or natural convection, low pressure thorium salt reactors).
They have functionally negligible waste, their fuel cost per gigawatt is negligible, and they are many times safer than current coal and natural gas power. They are incredibly cheap to build and operate, they can't be weaponized, they can't have a meltdown or other destructive catastrophic failure... if you don't believe me, don't believe the propaganda, go an do the research yourself.
If we decided to get out of the way and get behind this entirely, we would have power at a cost of pennies per megawatt hour... a tiny fraction of a percent of the cost today (in the U.S. average is something like $0.13 kwh right now with taxes and fees adding about 20% on top of that. Some states run several times that, and much of Europe several times that again).
This isn't some pie in the sky dream, it doesn't require 50 years of engineering work or basic science. There are no breakthroughs required... Unlike EVERY OTHER FORM OF POWER that could possibly be an alternative to today's power infrastructure. Solar, wind, geothermal, none of them could ever be more than a fraction of our needs at ridiculously high cost. Fusion requires both basic science breakthroughs and much more engineering work to be viable (if it ever is). It's all decades away at best, if ever.
We could do this today.
Not 50 years from now... TODAY.
The 20 years isn't for more development, it's just how long it would take to complete the world wide economic transition to a cheap energy economy and infrastructure.
So, if what you really want, is to make a world where no-one goes hungry, and no-one is homeless... Then work for cheap and safe energy, and a huge reduction in government induced overhead. And it will happen.
Otherwise, what you really want, is a world where everyone is poorer, but where "evil profit" is eliminated, and "the rich" are punished, and everyone is economically "equal"; where the "right people are in charge", and will arrange the world the way you think is right, and punish the people you think are wrong.
Because that's all you're ever going to get, with more expensive energy, higher taxes, more government, and more redistribution.
Monday, October 13, 2014
HP is dead... now stop molesting the corpse...
I've also worked with them extensively for many years as a subcontractor, as a strategic partner, and as a vendor that I had a very close relationship with. I've had a lot of great friends and colleagues in HP, and we've done some very interesting and innovative things together.
Over the past week or so, I've been thinking about what to say about HP's... really Meg Whitmans... plan to split the company in two.
I finally figured out what I have to say... and it's really simple.
The company that Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard built is finally and definitively dead... It's been mostly dead but vainly struggling for breath for several years, and with this final stroke, it's truly gone.
Now that there is no more hope, and the plug is being pulled, the faster we can bury the corpse, and reallocate the assets to something useful and productive, the better.
I'm sorry, I wish I could say something better... I wish the HP I loved working with for many years was still with us, or had any chance at all.
It doesn't, it isn't, and I can't.
Meg Whitman has continued to do what Carly Fiorina started... gut the company one quarter at a time, doing anything to temporarily prop up stock prices (and the executive managements bonuses) at the expense of the company as a whole, it's future business, and its customers.
This was the final cut. There is no more. It's over...
Some Advice to Salespeople (and Managers).... Selling vs. Making Money
- Fire your customers. If a customer is costing you more than they are making you, stop serving them. Don't stop selling to them... If they want to keep giving you money anyway, fine... but DO NOT put more time or effort into them.
Most importantly, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TEAMS TIME on them.
- See that guy? The one who knows everything about the product, and the customers, and the competitors, and all the strategic plans, and the market space comparisons, and the advantages and disadvantages and competitive analyses off the top of his head?
Oh and he actually knows how to write and present?
That guy whose involvement can close a sale all by itself? Or who can move you past the decisioning phase and into the negotiation phase?
Yeah, he's an awesome resource... In fact, there's a strong temptation to just LET HIM DO YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
Yeah...DON'T DO THAT.
That guy is your chief architect or your product manager, he is not your junior sales engineer. DO NOT WASTE HIS TIME.
Every dollar earned, has a dollar cost associated with it; meaning the direct and indirect cost inputs into gaining that dollar.
STOP SABOTAGING IT
Stop working against yourselves, by process and metric capture, and suboptimal incentive structures.
People will respond to their perceived incentives. We generally create incentives to sell unit volume, or gross revenue; and sales people respond to that, by maximizing the elements by which they are measured and incentivized.
Yes, we should encourage more sales, and greater revenue, but not at the expense of profit.
The mission isn't to sell more... it's to make more money.
If we want to make more money, we need to create metrics and incentives that will drive profit not revenue.
That doesn't mean don't measure sales, or revenue... It just means that it shouldn't be our key metric, nor should it be the key component to anyones compensation.
We need to start creating metrics and compensation plans that measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the sales process.
My suggestion?
Create a primary metric and incentive structure based on total cost accounting of each realized dollar.
Totalize the amortized fixed costs, the marginal cost inputs, and the sales process inputs, and compute that as a ratio against realized dollars.
With that, you end up with a somewhat different set of metrics to work and manage against:
- Total sales closed
- Total unit volume
- Average unit volume per sale
- - Total realized revenue
- Realized revenue per sale
- Realized revenue per unit
- - Totalized cost per sale
- Totalized cost per unit
- Totalized dollar cost per realized dollar
- - Total profit per sale
- Total profit per unit
- Total realized profit
- - Ratio of totalized cost to revenue per sale
- Ratio of totalized cost to revenue per unit
- Ratio of totalized cost to total realized revenue
These metric sets allow you to tune your process better, to define your requirements better to product management and marketing, to train your people better, to truly evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and help them improve and refocus as needed...
Fundamentally, they help you understand who is really making you money, how, and why; so you can compensate them appropriately, and both replicate and improve on their results.
Remember though, you cannot focus any single one of those metrics to the exclusion of all the others. Each metric tells you one single thing, one single area that is exceptional or could use improvement.
Oh and by the by... It's not just for managers... You should collect these metrics on yourself, and strive to improve them.
... and here's the really BIG secret...
Even if you're not a salesperson, or a sales or account manager; you should understand, and if possible, collect these metrics on yourself (and your team if you are a manager or leader) as well...
You simply change the word "sales" to "tasks" or "goal" or "product" or "accomplishment"; the word revenue to "benefit" or "achievement"; and the word "profit" to "value".
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Mr. Watson... Go the hell away, I don't need you now
I really hate talking on the phone... Always have really, but more and more so as I get older.
I have to talk on the phone for hours and hours as part of my job; it's the absolute last thing I want to do when I'm not working
Even if I love you and you're a great friend and we haven't talked in a while... I still hate talking on the phone, and unless there's something specific to talk about, if you call me, I'm likely to say ten words (four of which are likely to be SSDD) and then beg off.
I make an exception for my less technical relatives, with whom I generally can't communicate via email, IM, or Facebook; and with whom I will have long phone conversations a few times a year... But that's pretty much it.
There are times when I simply cannot stand to talk with ANYONE on the phone, or even via instant message... sometimes for a few days at a time. My head just feels like exploding even thinking about picking up the phone.
When I am feeling like that, I will simply not answer the phone or IM for anything other than emergencies or critical work calls. I cancel my con calls, I don't even listen to voicemail never mind respond (oh and DON'T leave me voicemail unless its an emergency and its the only way you know how to contact me. IM, email, or TXT me... I LOATHE voicemail no matter what mood I'm in).
If I am in one of those moods... I am not avoiding you, I just REALLY DO NOT WANT TO TALK ON THE PHONE... Just EMAIL me. I can respond to you properly when I have time and when my head feels better.
Believe me... Its not you I hate.... Its the gods be damned telephone.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
YES... THIS... WE WANT THIS... LOTS AND LOTS OF THIS...
Bring Reading Rainbow Back for Every Child, Everywhere.
First thing... THIS is how you do a kickstarter.
This is the kind of thing that kickstarter can be great at, and do great things with; being done by people who understand their medium and their audience, and who design their campaign properly around it.
If this doesn't become one of the most overfunded kickstarters in history, I would be amazed.
I've been watching it for about 2 hours, and it's gone from $100k to over $500k in that time.
... And this is something I'm backing... even as little as I can afford right now. It's a good idea, and it's something I'd like to see done. I can't do much, but I pledged... It's the price of a cup of coffee or a little more than a gallon of gas. You should too if you can.
Anything we can do to increase the net level of education, intelligence, and reading in this country... on this planet... we should be doing. If it's a smart, well designed, well implemented way of doing so, even better.
Long term, I'd like to see what their fee schedule and sustainability model is, are they organizing long term as for profit, not for profit etc... but let's get this off the ground at the very least.
Now... for my more skeptical, and more conservative friends and readers... yes, liberals, education blah blah blah.
THIS IS A GOOD THING - IGNORE THE POLITICS
This is an essentially libertarian thing, using the power of private enterprise and initiative, and the power of market preference, to fund education.
WE WANT MORE OF THIS. LOTS MORE OF THIS.
There is one specific issue that I personally have a problem with... but I can get over it, because I understand the issue, and why it's presented as it is.
So for my fellow skeptics, and numbers geeks...
Ignore the claim that 25% of children don't learn to read in this country...
That is not an outright lie... it's also not the absolute truth. It's a matter of how we define literacy, and to what degree we count someone literate based on that definition.
That's a concept that takes more than 30 seconds, and more than one paragraph to explain... so it gets simplified here as "1 in 4 children don't learn to read".
It a political number, not a real number. A classic example of using definitions to make things scarier, to emphasize the problem.
Don't let that stop you from the core message here, or from supporting what looks to be an excellent idea.
Oh and, be sure to watch the video to the very end... priceless...
Friday, June 14, 2013
Our plan for new electronic leashes/tethers/lifelines
So I mentioned in a few previous posts, Mel and I run our lives with our smartphones; both of which now need replacing:
"I need new phone, as does Mel. We like buying the same phones so we can share accessories, cradles etc...
I like the S4, but I don't like the feel in the hand, and how plastic it is. I like the Nexus 4, but want external storage.
My requirements are 4g, fast quad or more core CPU, big ram, external storage, fits in a reasonable pocket and pouch, TOUGH AS HELL and cradles available.
Unlock/jailbreak/root availability is important as well, but secondary.
I've had my Droid Bionic since the day it was released, literally. We preordered them and they shipped them overnight the day before so we would have them on release day, about 2 years now. They've been great, but they're dying.
My charging port is loosening up, and it's very iffy on cables and chargers. The battery is dying, and can only hold a couple hours charge. Worse, Mel shattered her screen a few weeks ago and her battery is dying, as well.
Basically I want all these specs or better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droid_Bionic "
The funny thing is, I often get better than 10Mbit/sec speed, faster than the microwave was.
I'm actually mostly running off off a wifi hotspot hack to my Droid Bionic handset.
Unfortunately, the phone is two years old, and is starting to die. Charging port is loose, and it's picky about position and cables; and it's spontaneously rebooting every once in a while.
Mel is also doing the same on hers, and she recently shattered the screen. It's still usable (I put an adhesive screen protector over it... it's readable and the touch screen works, but it's less than ideal... and eventually it WILL stop working).
My actual 4g mifi is limited to 10gig a month... which is about how much bandwidth I use in about five days (I use something like 60gig to 100gig a month in a normal month).
The GOOD news, is that I'm one of those folks who have permanent true unlimited data on my Verizon plan, but it's locked to this specific device.
If I upgrade the phone, I lose the unlimited data. However, I can keep the unlimited data if I buy an unsubsidized phone at full price and activate it on the line."
Well, looks like I'm going to find out about getting unlimited data on a new phone.
We've been putting it off for months, but now, we need new phones. Mels screen is dead, and my battery only lasts a couple hours; and I'm traveling for a contract all next week.
Since I'm going to be traveling, I need to use my phone, off the charger, 24/7.
What it comes down to is that I run my life off my smartphone and laptop. Particularly I run my work off of it. I get all my internet through my phone, both at home, and while on the road and working.
So, as I said above, I need a phone with a lot of memory and fast processor, on Verizon 4g.
The phone runs 24/7 and is my internet connection, so I need a phone that can handle the background load of being a hotspot AND talking and doing all the things a smartphone does.
Mel of course needs a phone too...
However, there isn't any new phone that she likes... In fact, she loves her bionic, and she'd gladly keep it if it weren't for the screen. My Bionic is still working fine, it's just the battery is losing capacity, and the charging port is loose.
...and we need to keep our unlimited data, since the phones are our only internet connection.
We don't really WANT to spend this money right now, but we don't really have a choice. This is how I make my money... Without the phone I have no internet and can't work.
So, we have a cunning plan...
Right now, my Bionic DOES charge. It charges just fine in the charging cradles we have for them, it just doesn't like most USB cables, and is sensitive to position, orientation, vibration etc... So it's no good for traveling.
So, I'm going to buy a new higher end phone, and we're going to replace Mels broken Bionic with mine.
To deal with the loose charging port and battery issue, we're buying a new battery, and a wireless charging setup for the Bionic. That's about $40 combined for the parts for the phone, plus the cost of the charging pads.
The chargers run from $30 to $75. The good news is, the Droid Bionic has a QI compatible wireless charging setup available. Most of the new higher end phones either have QI built in, or as an option. There's also little adapters that plug into your devices charging ports, so you can use the inductive charging pads for other devices as well. That way we're getting good value, being able to use them with our other devices (including whatever phone I get), as well as extending the life of the Bionic.
I'm not thrilled with paying for an unsubsidized phone right now. On the other hand, being able to keep the unlimited data more than makes up the difference, since I won't have the $50 to $150 a month ($50 in major urban area, $150 where I live right now) internet bill (and of course, it's tax deductible).
What it comes down to though is that I can't work without a phone and internet... One of those situations where I have to spend money to make money; so I don't really have a choice.
I get on an airplane for a week at a clients site, 0615 Monday. The phone I end up with is largely down to what is in stock between here, Coeur D'Alene, and Spokane between Friday and Sunday; or possibly what I can have overnighted to the client site for pickup Monday or Tuesday.
My options are pretty much as follows (baseline configs. Some have options for more storage):
Droid Razr MAXX HD: 1.5ghz dual core, 2gb ram, 4.7" 1280x720 (720p) screen, 3300mAh battery, 32gb, sdhc (32gb)
HTC Droid DNA: 1.5ghz quad core, 2gb ram, 5" 1920x1080 screen (1080p), 2020mAh battery, 16gb, NO external storage
Samsung Galaxy SIII: 1.5ghz dual core, 2gb ram, 4.7" 1280x720 screen (720p), 2100mah battery, 16gb, sdhc (32gb)
Samsung Galaxy S4: 1.9ghz quad core, 2gb ram, 5" 1920x1080 screen (1080p), 2600mAh battery, 16gb, sdxc (64gb)Unfortunately, I don't really like any of those options. What I'd REALLY like is the HTC One, which won't be available on Verizon until "sometimes this summer".
HTC One: 1.7ghz quad core, 2gb ram, 4.7" 1920x1080 (1080p), 2300mAh battery, 32gb, NO external storage
Hell, get a bluetooth keyboard and an HDMI output dongle, hook it up to a TV or monitor and it's as powerful as a low end laptop... Or what would have been a HIGH end laptop 5 years ago.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Computing and supercomputing, 1974 and 2011
And here's another video, from 15 years later, where he's talking about the Cray-3:
The Cray 3 was technically successful, but had so many production difficulties the company almost went bankrupt in 1989 and decided to shelf the entire Cray-3 project, and release an incremental upgrade to the Cray XM/P (which was itself an incremental upgrade to the Cray-2) with the faster memory Cray had designed for the Cray-3 (using COTS parts).
Cray hated incremental designs, and was very confident in the Cray-3; so he split and formed a new company... again... which also went bankrupt in 1995 after only 1 machine had been delivered.
Now there's a man I wish I could have been friends with. I've known a few of the guys who worked with him, still in the field today, and man they have some stories.
So, just for giggles, heres a quick and dirty history and comparison between the supercomputers of 1974 and the desktop computers of today.
In 1976, when they fixed the parity memory and worked the bugs out of the Cray-1, it achieved a sustained performance of about 250 megaflops (million floating point operations per second), at a clock speed of 80mhz; making it the fastest computer in the world at the time (its direct predecessors the CDC 7600 and CDC star 100 were both capable of about 35mflops on standard workloads . The Star 100 could hit 100mflops, but only on specially optimized workloads).
They sold about 80 of them, at $8 million or so a piece (no two Crays were ever exactly alike, nor did any two ever cost the same) and they remained the fastest computer in the world for about 5 years.
The first machine capable of a sustained performance of 1 gigaflop was also a Cray, a specially modified XM-P/48, in late 1984 or early 1985 (the standard model was capable of either 800mflops, or 940mflops depending on when it was manufactured). The XM-P/48 stayed the fastest for about 12 months (until the Cray-2 had the bugs ironed out and ran 4gflops; though the Russians had a machine that could run 2gflops, it wasn't a general purpose computer, being constructed specially to run some aerodynamic calculations). It ran at 105mhz, and cost about 15 million, depending on the configuration.
In 1985, the fastest PCs were running at about 8mhz (80286 with an 80287 floating point coprocessor), and could in theory run about .1 megaflops (100 kiloflops)
A note: Supercomputer numbers before 1993 are not necessarily consistent or directly comparable.
It wasn't until 1993 that a variant of linpack benchmark became the international standard for supercomputer comparison; although it was commonly used from the mid 80s forward.
PC numbers are not linpack here either, as there are too many variables in PC construction and performance (particularly I/O performance); so they are not directly comparable with supercomputers linpack numbers. Also, it wasn't really until the late 90s that linpack benchmarks were commonly run on PCs.
A huge component of a supercomputers speed, is the truly massive I/O and node interconnect capacity they have; but even todays supercomputers cannot feed their CPUs fast enough to use their entire theoretical capacity. PC's, even today, only have a very small fraction of that I/O capacity; and can typically only use a small percentage of their CPUs theoretical maximum processing power on general workloads because of it.
Geekbench is the current standard for PC benchmarks, and it's numbers are anywhere from roughly comparable, to 3-5 times the numbers a machine will get on linpack; but either are much lower than the fastest the CPU can perform on workloads that don't have I/O bottlenecks (like running the same piece of data that fits in main memory through the same instructions that fit in cache, over and over again... a common calculation in scientific computing, graphics etc...).Early PC cpus were focused strongly on integer processing, and had very little floating point horsepower. It wasn't until 1989s 80486dx that mainstream CPUs even had dedicated floating point units (the lower end sx models didn't); and not coincidentally, the 486dx/33 was the first mainstream CPU that could push 1mflop.
Apples didn't get a machine with a dedicated FPU until the Quadra 630 of 1994 (68040 cpu at about 3mflop); and mainstream Macs didn't get an FPU until the switch to the PPC601 and 603 powermacs of '94 and '95 (which could push about 5mflops).
The first supercomputer to make a sustained 100gflops was the Quadrics APE100 in 1991 (yes, there was a 100fold increase in speed in 5 years) but it was eclipsed just a few months later; as in the 90s supercomputers leapfrogged each other every year (until the market completely collapsed and most of the supercomputer companies folded around the middle to late 90s).
It wasn't until 1994s Pentium 100 that a desktop CPU would push 10mflops. At the same clock speed as a standard pentium though, Pentium MMXs could do about double on MMX optimized workloads (a 133mmx could push 25mflops on MMX optimized workloads).
In 1996 the Pentium pro 200 could push 50mflops on optimized workloads.
The first teraflop machine was the Intel ASCI/Red built for Sandia labs by Intel in 1996; capable of 1.4 teraflops in its original configuration (using 4510 pentium pro processors at 200mhz). It was later rebuilt in 1999 using 9280 specially modified Pentium IIs at 300mhz, and achieved 2.4 tflops. It cost something like 25 million, and was the fastest supercomputer in the world for over 3 years
Fast forward to today.
Note: these numbers are for highly optimized workloads, using special GPU drivers for high performance computing; and special high speed interconnects also designed for high performance computing etc...
For normal PC's configured with disk drives, normal networking, and a normal operating system; you will only see something like 10% of this performance even under the best conditions, and more like 5% on general workloads.
Realistically, for all but relatively small datasets which fit in main memory (so 4-24 gigs lets say), running instruction sets that fit in cache; PC I/O bottlenecks prevent them from achieving sustained high performance.
For example, the fastest core i7 cpus can pump out about 120gflops; but only for a couple of seconds at most... maybe only a few hundred milliseconds... before it has to go out to disk for more data to process. If you ran linpack on that PC with that CPU, 8 gigs of ram, a fast SSD, and a normal OS; you would only see sustained performance in the 2-5gflops range (excluding the GPU performance. Conventional OS's don't let linpack use the GPU).
In order to see the real maximum performance of the CPU and GPU, you need to run the systems diskless, with high speed interconnects as part of a high performance computing cluster; and even then you'll probably only see 20% or so of the max number in linpack because of the way the benchmark is structured, and maybe 60% under highly optimized workloads.In 2011, the typical single processor quad core Intel based desktop machine, selling for around $800, can theoretically push about 100gflops from the processor, and another 250 from its relatively weak GPU (because GPUs in high end video cards are highly optimized floating point processors), for about 350gflops aggregate (presuming I/O is taken out of the picture, and the system was running as a node in a high performance computing cluster).
Although the benchmarks are not directly comparable, that's still more than 1000 times the performance of the original Cray-1, at 1/10,000th the price.
I think we beat Moores law on that one, though not by much (10 million, vs. 8.4 million); at least in pure compute capacity (vs. I/O, which hasn't nearly kept up with Moores law).
A $2,500 high end gaming rig can theoretically push something like 120gflops from is processor and, 2.4 TERA flops (2.4 trillion flops) from 3 dual gpu cards, for an aggregate of over 2.5tflops (as part of an HPC cluster).
That's theoretically about the same performance of the 1999 ASCI red rebuild, for about 1/1000th the price (beat Moores law again, this time by 1000 to 256; mostly accounted for by the huge jump in floating point performance on PC's in the early to mid 2000s, combined with the late 2000s multicore revolution)
A high end dual processor quad core system (8 cores total), with three high end video cards (a high end graphics workstation, running something like $10,000), can push about 240gflops from the cpus, and over 3 tflops from the GPUs; for an aggregate of over 3.25 teraflops (again, if it were part of an HPC cluster).
That's theoretically faster than any supercomputer built before 2000 (IBM ASCI white, at 7.2tflops linpack - 12.3 on optimized workloads - for $110m).
Oh and todays fastest supercomputers?
Well, that depends on who you believe; because the Chinese are claiming a machine that runs at 2.57 petaflops, but from reviewing the architecture, a lot of folks don't believe that number. Otherwise, it's Cray again (though Cray isn't really Cray anymore), with their Jaguar system, at 1.76 petaflops (about 20 million).
Petaflops.... in 1976 it was 250 million flops, now its 2.5 quadrillion flops.
Funny enough though... Now, almost all of the top 500 supercomputers are now built using commodity cpus and memory, and run a variant of Linux.... and it's not particularly hard to get on the top500 list (the difference between the top and the bottom of the list is pretty huge.. about 3 orders of magnitude).
In fact, a fair number of the clusters and high performance systems my company runs today would come close to hitting the list if we bothered running linpack on them (we don't. We put 24,000 servers on the floor in 2010, and the smallest of them was a dual quad core box, with the biggest of them being a cluster with 256x 8 core CPUs); and there have been colleges that built top 500 clusters for well under a million dollars.
Supercomputing entered this world about the same time I did, and in that time we've gone from one guy in the world being able to do this, with hand built boards and custom chips, taking five years to do it, and having to run 100% custom developed code from the assembler up; to now being literally ten million times faster, with commodity hardware, an open source OS that anyone can run, and a standard set of open source tools.
Amazing how the world changes.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Mac users beware
Apparently this has happened to at least a few hundred folks... probably a lot more... given how many people are popping up in forums.
What's happening, is your catalog is being corrupted somehow, during the install and reboot process; and it can't be recovered.
So far, no particular common elements have been identified to isolate what's causing it in the relatively small number of users who have had the problem; except that it seems primarily to be happening to people who have vmware, virtualbox, or parallels installed... but that's at least 1/2 of all of Mac users these days, and there's no clear indication if it's causative or not.
Also it seems to be happening more to people with SSD's but not exclusively.
If you've installed the patch already, don't reboot. Make a carbon copy of your drive, just in case; THEN reboot. If your drive is hosed, you can fix it.
And yes, of course, you should have done a backup before you updated... Yeah... how many actually do that for their laptops?
If it's already too late for you, there is a solution. Grab an external drive, and a boot disk (they can be one and the same if you've got two partitions on the drive and dont mind killing one of them), and you should be able to mount the trashed drive read only, and then carbon copy it to a partition on the external drive.
Best of luck.
Friday, August 06, 2010
It's Amazing How Good Phone Cameras Are Now...
Taken with a Droid X and not futzed with in any way. Remember to switch it to 720p.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Happy Birthday to Information Technology
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Hmmm... Interesting...
As it is, it's a bit small; though it seems a much better solution for a small multi-turbine array than most other small systems. Certainly much more efficient.
The list price for the "system" is $6k, but that includes interconnect, panel, inverter, wiring etc... which I wouldn't be using in my installation. All that would be handled at the central powerhouse, to match the solar, and backup generators into the battery bank, and grid tie.
According to Popular Mechanics, the turbine and mounting hardware only price, is $4500. That's something less than half what I was looking at for considerably larger conventional turbines of a similar capacity; and I'm guessing from the construction that they'll handle overspeed wind a lot better (no gear train to damage). Also, most conventional turbines have a startup speed of 6-9mph, and a cut off around 20-25mph of wind, this one has a 2mph startup, and cuts off at 42mph.
That's a hell of a lot more useful capacity on the average day. I just wish it was a bit higher capacity overall. In a class four wind region, more than 60% of the average day is spent at between 6 and 14mph windspeed; at which these turbines generate between 40 and 250 watts.
Even at 250 watts, that's only about 5% of our peak hour load (and a lot less than peak instantaneous, which may reach as high as 14kw when multiple AC units and refrigerators are kicking on). Of course we DO live in Arizona, in a poorly insulated house.
Long term, we're looking at living in a class 4 wind region (possibly a class 5 depending on the exact home site), and building towers above the treeline. Under those conditions, a turbine like that one would only realistically generate something like 2000-3000kwh per year; or an average of 160-240kwh per month (Honeywell says that in a class 3 zone it can do 2000kwh per year mounted on a house roof - about 75% less output than a class 4 above the treeline installation - so I figure my estimate is pretty realistic).
Although, we are looking at living in a net metering sellback region with a 100% tax credit after the federal 30% credit (capped at $20,000 total after federal). With that incentive program we could buy seven of them and the things could pay for themselves immediately; but it really would take something like seven of them, or more, to meet our power needs.
The average household in the U.S. currently consumes something like 12,000kwh per year; but about half that is the utilization of air conditioning in the sun belt states, or electric heat in the cold states. Outside the hot zone, and for households with gas or oil heat, the national average is more like 6000kwh.
Right now, living in Arizona, we use about three times the national average (or about six times the average someone in say, New Hampshire would use). We run from around 1500kwh in January to 5500kwh in August; and total around 35,000kwh per year, for which we pay almost $4000.
We once used 6500kwh in a single month (for which we were charged over $800), but that was with our pre-replacement 30 year old primary AC unit, plus a messed up air handler and heat exchanger, and running two large supplemental AC units 24x7 that entire month (not coincidentally, the month before the old unit died horribly).
We have what they call a "smart meter", which lets us see our spot utilization day by day, and hour by hour. Just for fun, we looked up how much power the house was using when we weren't even in it, for our vacation this past few weeks.
With us out of the house, the AC and all the lights and computers off, we used about 30kwh per day, just keeping the fridges and freezers cold etc...
Uhhh... that's almost the national average for people who are actually, you know, using their houses and AC and heat and computers and TVs etc... WTF?
For a little more masochistic fun with the smart meter, we averaged 50kwh per day in January, one of only two months this year when we didn't run the AC at all.
So... even on our best day, we're using about 1.5 times the national average juice, and about 3 times the average for a cold state; however, we are only using 20kwh more per day to run all our stuff than the house is using all by itself...
Ok that's screwed up right there.
Anyway, back to the cool stuff.
When we move, since we're planning on moving to a colder state, and not using electric heat; we expect to cut that excessive "3 times average" utilization down a lot, because of the dramatically reduced AC requirement. That still gives us a baseline of something like 12,000kwh per year however.
Any savings we make using hyperinsulation, and efficient lighting and appliances, we expect to more than offset with greater use of tools and power equipment (welders alone... oy).
Ideally, I'd like something that could generate more like 3 times that 2000-3000kwh per year, per turbine; and build an array of say, four of them, for total spot capacity, and for redundancy.
...But even as it is, with seven of them paid for entirely by tax credits (not including installation, and the towers of course) we could likely generate 14,000-21,000kwh per year...
That's pretty decent. Even when you account for losses in the storage battery system and inverters, that's probably most of the household power requirements at any given time (not include surge power when the welders are running, or the AC and fridges start up at the same time of course).
That would of course be in addition to solar, and micro-hydro if the property is capable of it; and back up diesel or propane generation for full capacity. Then of course there's all the storage batteries.... ooooh boy those are gonna cost.
Anyway, at that cost per turbine, if you've got enough land to set up six or seven of them (and we will) it's viable. Importantly, it's a LOT cheaper than an equivalent solar setup.
A solar system in the same region, with the same capacity, would cost about $120k. Of course you'd still get the 30% federal credit plus $20k from the state, for a $64k total cost to us, vs. a near zero cost to us (again, not including installation costs, just to keep it apples to apples).
Of course, as I said, we plan on having wind, solar, and generators (and would really love a property with micro-hydro capability) anyway. Ideally, we want to have a diversity of power sources, AND enough power even on cloudy days, or wind free days, to run whatever we need (again, short of the welders at full duty cycle etc...).
The great thing about combining wind and solar, is that when solar tends to be performing poorly, wind tends to be performing well; and vice verse.
Now if they would just get those cheap, relatively efficient, printable solar panels to market, we could do BOTH relatively cheaply.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What getting it wrong means

Today was the 23rd anniversary of the Challenger disaster; January 28th 1986.
I was one of the schoolchildren that NASA had arranged to watch the challenger launch via closed circuit TV. I remember sitting there in science class, gray haired and floral printed Mrs. Burke and the kids I'd been with since kindergarten all around me.
It seemed like it took forever for the countdown, and then the engines, and the steam and smoke and it took FOOOOREVER for it to lift off; but there it went.
73 seconds...
When you're a kid, 73 seconds seems like an awful long time.
Most of the kids were already starting to turn away, bored; but I was still watching, and so was Mrs. Burke.
73 seconds...
I don't remember seeing the explosion honestly. I know I was watching, I know I saw it, I remember the emotions.. confusion, anger, fear, sorrow, more confusion... but I don't remember seeing the explosion.
What I remember most is Mrs. Burke gasping, and crying. I'd never seen a grownup outside of my own family cry in public before. and in the halls you could hear the sound of more crying. More grownups crying.
We were all sent home that day. Everyones faces looked wrong. Everyone knew that those people had died; but bigger than that, something great had been wounded badly that day.
That's what happens when engineers get it wrong.
Occasionally in my work I have been asked why I make such an effort to make sure I get everything right.
Everyone who knows me, knows that I am absolutely driven to get things right. There are a lot of reasons for that, involving my family, my ego, and just my general character; but there's also something that was absolutely ingrained in me during my education.
This question always shocks me; in that I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't try to do things right whenever possible; after all, it's your job, and any job worth doing is worth taking pride in; but I have a very specific example, and a very specific reason to explain it.
My degrees are in aerospace engineering and computer science. My aerospace engineering degree taught me to get it right no matter what it takes; because aerospace engineers can't afford to be wrong.
My degree advisor (a famous safety expert actually, who was involved in the Challenger investigation) said something to all of us that has stuck with me ever since. "When a programmer screws up, maybe a few hundred people lose some data. when an aerospace engineer screws up, a few hundred people die".
Remember Challenger? That's what happens when Aerospace Engineers get it wrong.
Challenger blew up, because some O-Rings were not quite as resilient as they should have been, because it was a little colder than planned on launch day.
It's an awfully small mistake, to cause such an awfully big problem; but that is the nature of the beast.
The engineers in charge of the o-rings were convinced by their bosses that it could be OK to go ahead with the launch, because they had designed enough safety factor in, that things wouldn't go wrong. They were told to "take off their engineer hats, and put on their manager hats"; and in their manager hats, decided that the risks were low enough, and having the launch on schedule was important enough, that they should continue.
They were obviously, tragically, wrong.
Richard Feynman (a personal hero of mine) was a part of the committee investigating the accident, and he famously said:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
No, it cannot. The laws of physics do not forgive error.
There's another example that struck me from when I first read of it as a child; and has had a profound impact on me ever since; informing on everything that I do.
Do you remember what the first jetliner was?
Most people remember it as the Boeing 707, and indeed it was the first commercially successful jet airliner; but the first jetliner to enter service was in fact the Dehaviland Comet, in 1952.
The reason people don't remember the Comet as the first jetliner, is because it was withdrawn from service in 1954, after suffering five crashes in two years, killing 109 people; and wasn't returned to service until late 1958, after the Boeing 707 had already started to become the dominant airliner.
It turns out, that there were two very small errors in the design; that had very large consequences.
The first problem, was that leading edge of the engine inlets was curved a little bit too sharply, causing the engines to lose power at certain angles. This caused the first two crashes, both within a few months of entering service.
The second mistake was even smaller, but was far more serious.
The comet was not only the first jetliner; but also the first aircraft in airline service that flew as high, or in as great temperature extremes. This of course has an impact on the aircraft, which is after all made of aluminum only as thick as heavy paper.
When an aircraft is pressurized, it turns into an aluminum baloon; stretching very slightly. It contracts slightly when depressurized. While pressurized (well... at all times really, but the impact is greater while pressurized), turning, climbing, and descending; stretch, compress, and stress the aircraft in many ways.
This is reasonably well understood, and was even then; but this was a whole new category of aircraft. The only similar aircraft in existence at the time were military bombers (in fact the Comet was itself a variant of a military bomber design, the "Nimrod" which served in the RAF for over 20 years); and military bombers don't have amenities like cabin windows.
A cabin window is of course a hole in the aluminum skin of the aircraft; which as I said is being stretched tight like a baloon.
You might have noticed when flying in a modern jetliner that the windows are kind of a flattened oval shape at the top and bottom; with very gently rounded corners.
The Dehaviland Comet is the reason why... or rather physics is the reason why, but the Comet is what taught us the lesson.
The windows of the Comet had roughly square corners. In physics, square corners are often called something else: Stress Risers; because stress tends to concentrate at those points.
Over the course of a few hundred flights, pressurizing and depressurizing, small cracks would form at the square corners of the windows. Eventually these small cracks would travel along the skin, becoming large cracks; and causing the entire fuselage to fail in mid flight.
It's a very small error, caused because the designer liked the look of square windows (which previous unpressurized airliners had); and didn't take stress risers into account.
It was a very small error, that cost 109 people their lives.
That's what happens when you don't do everything humanly possible to get it right.
In my current job of course, peoples lives don't depend on me getting things right. I'm not a doctor, or an aerospace engineer, or a fighter pilot; but it's still important that I get things right, and not just for my own satisfaction.
In my position, if I get something important wrong, my company could lose millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Peoples jobs are lost over such things; their lives changed greatly for the worse.
And the thing is, you never know what's going to be important. Get the corners of windows wrong, or the flexibility of a little piece of rubber at 32 degrees; and people die. The law of unintended consequences is always in play.
Remember, you can never do just one thing. No matter what you do, or try, or say; no matter what precautions you take; you cannot know all the consequences, effects and impact of your actions.
So you better get it right.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Force Multipliers and The Impossible Singularity
See when a non-engineer says something is "impossible", what they generally really mean is either "I really don't want to do that", or "it's really really hard and we don't know how to figure it out yet but we probably will in the future".
When an engineer says something is impossible what he means is "There is no known way of doing this, nor under current scientific understanding CAN there be any way of doing this".
That's a pretty significant difference.
Oh and in case you're interested, when scientists say the word impossible, what they really mean is "It may theoretically be possible if we're wrong about the science... and we may be wrong about the science but I don't think so".
Actually, most of the time engineers and scientists will qualify the word impossible by saying "that's impossible based on current understanding" or something like that, because indeed, anything is possible... just highly improbable (parents, talk to your children about quantum physics, before they get it from the street).
There is a somewhat popular futurist notion going around right now, that basically says that because of the vast increases in human knowledge and available computing power, we will reach a technological "singularity", which will push us into a post scarcity economy, because once computers are smart enough to reproduce, and improve themselves into even smarter computers, all material problems will somehow be solved.
These utopians (and some dystopians) believe this singularity will solve all of our current material and economic problems... but it will create a whole new set of problems because today economies are based on scarcity, and we have no idea how to operate a post scarcity economy.
Which is true, we don't, but there's a much bigger problem with the idea of the singularity in and of itself.
The fundamental conceit of the unconstrained intellect, is that intellect can solve any problems. Of course, intellect is NOT unconstrained, no matter how we may wish it to be so... but it often looks like it to a lot of people.
Simply put, the singularity, as envisioned is impossible, by engineers terms.
A few days ago, Eric Raymond wrote about the Vanishing Consumption Gap, and some of the details and implications surrounding that.
Some of his commenters suggested that this was yet more indication of the singularity, and the transition to a post scarcity economy (unsurprisingly Eric disagreed).
One in particular used a common example of the argumentum continuum logical fallacy; presuming progress which had been made before, would continue at the same, or faster pace:
"My sister is a PhD bio researcher. In the 80s, using stone knives and bear skins, she perfected techniques for extracting and coding fish and insect DNA. 20 years later, those ground breaking techniques that she invented are not even considered. Computerized analyzers can do more work in 10 minutes than she could in a year. Once the software and hardware was developed, anyone with a high school bio education (or very smart) can run them and interpret the results. The equipment is not cheap (5K - 50K depending on various factors), but one machine and one technician costs less than her college education did.To an extent, Dan is correct; though the implications are not nearly as far reaching as one would hope.
The smart people, or the determined, dedicated, driven people, will invent new things and get paid (in coin or praise) for it, because they must. The rest of us will use it without thinking about it or even having a clue about it.
There will always be things that are expensive, that only the wealthy can afford, but what those items are will change - and the rate of change is accelerating."
What Dan has described here is called a “force multiplier” a.k.a. productivity enhancement, which is part of what Eric was addressing in the first post (linked above).
The force multiplier effect is extremely well understood; it’s also well understood where it breaks down.
A (slightly dramatic) example:
Currently, given anything better than 6 to 1 odds against a third generation or earlier opponent (American forces are currently fourth generation warfighters; aka post industrial or information warfighters. Iraqis are third generation, industrial warfighters. Afghanis are second generation pre-industrial warfighters - not this is not related to the "4th generation warfare" concept); an American combat units advantages in morale, training, equipment, combat support, logistics, and what used to be called C2 (command and control), and is now often referred to as C4i (command, control, communications, computing and intelligence); allow commanders to remain confident in overall mission success.
Those are all force multipliers; i.e. factors that increase the effective productivity of an individual worker; or in this case warfighter.
Force multipliers have always existed, and always will. The English experienced an effective 5 to 1 force multiplier at Crecy, with the muddy terrain and the Longbow. The Spartans had an effective 25 to 1 force multiplier at thermopylae (3300 men including all the allied forces of Greece - not just 300 spartans - held off at least 80,000 Persians) with the terrain.
The problem lies in where those factors don’t work properly, are countered by the enemy (either by possessing similar factors themselves, or by using countermeasures), or are simply ineffective; as happened in Somalia, or as might happen in human wave attacks in bad weather (the north Korean scenario)… or as happened at Thermopylae when the Persians found a way around the hot gates.
Without force multipliers, the standard Clauswitzian maxim of needing a 2:1 advantage to have justified confidence in victory, and a 3:1 advantage to be assured of victory, still applies (3:1/6:1 if facing well trained troops in prepared defensive positions).
Also note, that force multipliers are far less effective on an individual warfighter basis as opposed to a full unit basis; because not all of them apply to the challenge of one man fighting another, and because size is an effective multiplier on it’s own (presuming a units C4i and logistics are adequate).
So, while a brigade of American troops in the open field, and with the initiative, may be as effective as six brigades of Iraqis; you still wouldn’t want to enter a standup fight on those odds unless you absolutely had to; and any individual American warfighter may only be as effective as any three, two, or even one Iraqi… or under certain circumstances less than one.
Now, as I said, this is a very dramatic example, with life and death stakes; but the principle of force multipliers also applies to industrial efforts.
Dans sister had the multiplier of being extremely intelligent and innovative, and did work that 50 less educated, intelligent, and innovative people could not do at the time. Today, a single one of those less educated, intelligent, and innovative people can do 50 times what she was able to do then…
…When those multipliers are in effect...
The reciprocal is also true however. Dans sister cannot now do 50 times what the intern can do; unless she can innovate again to give herself a new force multiplier. Therefore her labor efforts have been equalized with those of a lower value worker, in this instance.
Her force multiplier is still her intelligent, educated, and innovative brain however. When she can apply that, she will be many times more effective than someone without that advantage.
...When she can apply it...
The least constrained field of engineering is probably software development; because other than the availability of raw computing resources, software is essentially unconstrained. Whatever one can imagine, one can program (getting it to run fast enough to be useful... or to have useful input to produce useful output, is a different story of course).
Now, when it comes to a software development project, we all know that some engineers are 50 to 1 force multipliers, and some actually negate others (I've never heard the term force divisor, but it would apply to some engineers I've known); but that over time, as more effective techniques are developed and disseminated, the lowest performers still become more productive, along with the highest performers.
In fact the gap in performance tends to narrow, because the lower performers are able to take advantage of techniques that higher performers were using previously; while the higher performers are less likely to be able to find further optimizations without major paradigm shifts (in this case the phrase is actually appropriate).
We can surmise that so long as no physical limitation is put on intellectual output these same conditions will continue to apply. Everyone becomes more productive over time, but the less productive become more productive, faster than those who are most productive, because optimization of the most productive is more difficult; except when breakthroughs are made, when the cycle begins all over again.
The world of physical production is far more constrained.
Another example:
Although design and construction techniques have made housebuilding far faster than it was 20 years ago (force multipliers like the nailgun, construction adhesives, panelized construction, etc…), efficiencies in production technology will never allow a house to be constructed of 40% less wooden 2×4s.
We would need to shift to a new material, AND new designs to see that kind of efficiency; and even then the cost of adoption would be far higher until the replacement technologies became the dominant format within the distribution channel.
Quite simply, innovation without physical constraint proceeds geometrically (or faster), while innovation with physical constraint proceeds linearly or slower, with occasional leaps forward.
What you are speaking of when you say you think that we are unconstrained, or less constrained than Eric has stated, is that unconstrained intellectual development will trivialize constrained physical development.
In some areas, this has been the case… as Moores law has so dramatically proven for example; but in others it has not, and will not, without a massive paradigm shift.
The field of CPU manufacturing has been able to apply the force multiplier of unconstrained intellectual development; to compensate for the constrained physical development of fabrication processes, to the point of minimizing those constraints. Housebuilding on the other hand has not been able to make such compensations.
This is why CPUs are 1000 times faster and 90% cheaper than they were 25 years ago; but houses only cost 20% less per square foot to build (after accounting for inflation and normalizing for external factors on both sides).
The singularity will never happen, because the physical world is not amenable to being "solved" by infinite computing capacity.
Every major science and engineering problem in the world falls under these same parameters and constraints.
Now, if we can change fundamental science, to the point of matter reorganization (synthesis of arbitrary matter, from arbitrary matter, with reasonable energy inputs) then I’ll say the physical constraints won’t matter…
…but we don’t have any idea of how to do that, or if it is even possible.
…It’s a fundamental science problem, not an engineering problem. Every genius in the world could work on it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and get no result, until and unless that fundamental breakthrough is made.
That is a physical constraint that cannot be overcome by intellectual effort; and there are many of them out there.
It’s why we don’t have fusion power, or direct conversion solar, or 1000mpg cars, or cars that run on water etc… etc… etc…
Once a fundamental science breakthrough IS made though, that’s when the unconstrained intellectual development of the engineers takes over, and the cycle begins again.
Oh and I should note before somebody gets stroppy that we’re not really sure if fusion power is a science problem or an engineering problem right now. As of right now we face three major problems with fusion:(On a side note... wouldn't this post title be a great name for a rock band?)
1. We can’t figure out how to produce a stable, self sustaining reaction at a useful scale for industrial power production, and still control the reaction properly.
2. We can’t figure out how to get more energy out than we put in and still control the reaction properly (we know how to do it uncontrolled. It’s called a bomb).
3. We can’t figure out how to extract and use a useful percentage of the energy we would produce, if we could resolve the other two problems
Right now, we’re not really sure whether there is a fundamental problem we haven’t solved yet… or even discovered yet… or whether all of these issues can be resolved with engineering.





