HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Comments
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 2/3  >  >>
Nancy Golden
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Natural considerations, and exceptions
Nancy Golden   10/7/2013 9:31:47 PM
NO RATINGS
Great point, William - error handling can make a huge difference in system operation. Sometimes it takes awhile for a specific error to show up and then error handling code is introduced after the fact...it can be hard to anticipate all of the failure modes that are possible and to have code written up front to handle all possible scenarios. Windows OSs are classic examples of this concept!

Nancy Golden
User Rank
Platinum
Re: And nobody noticed...
Nancy Golden   10/7/2013 9:26:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for elaborating, Jim. As a test engineer, I have often ran into what some people would call obvious failures only to find that the issues were much more subtle - the obvious failure was merely a symptom of a much more complex issue that could be related to either hardware OR software. That is the challenge of electronics - the obvious answer is not always the correct one.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Natural considerations, and exceptions
William K.   10/7/2013 9:09:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Most systems that fail to allow for an exception will perform adequately, or even quite well, until that exception occurrs. Then there is a failure. If the system is robust enough there may be an automnatic recovery, otherwise a wander-off, or a crash. The crashnis what your system did, although it sounds like it was a "wander off then crash" mode. The challenge is, and has been, to handle the exceptions correctly. 

jgundie
User Rank
Iron
Re: Natural considerations
jgundie   10/7/2013 8:37:53 PM
NO RATINGS
 

The system design spec was good and in this respect if it had been met there would not have been a problem.  The spec specified the digital data receiver inhibit the data input during the interrupt interval.  The hardware implimentation somehow missed doing what was specified although I believe the designer thought he/she? had met the reguirement.

jgundie
User Rank
Iron
Re: And nobody noticed...
jgundie   10/7/2013 8:21:40 PM
NO RATINGS
It was a hardware function that was not implimented correctly.  I suspected the person who designed the circuit did the test verification that showed it worked correctly (:|) repeating a conceptual error.  The system had been well tested in CA without many problems.

jgundie
User Rank
Iron
Re: And nobody noticed...
jgundie   10/7/2013 8:16:04 PM
NO RATINGS

Nancy you made me think more about the problem. What's not said is that the data transmission often had errors caused by the lightning and CRC testing would catch them. Also I would guesstimate there could be over thousand hits a day ( a "single" bolt of lightning probably created multiple data hits). At 1ms per data packet there were almost 100 million packets/day so a 1000 packets a day being thrown out was not a flag of concern but an indication the system was working correctly.

With a 100 nS window of opportunity in a 1 ms time window that suggest probably only 1 out of 10000 hits could corrupt the CRC protection (note the lightning had to hit only the last 100 ns not before; if it hit before it would be detected and thrown out by the CRC detection).  That in turn suggests that only once every 10 to 100 days there would be a crash. As I recall a three week interval between crashes was an interval was once spoken too.  Also Florida was considered the lightning capital of the world (Congo beats them out) with Tampa recording 21,000 cloud-to-ground (Ju 93); cloud-to-cloud probably affected our system too.  For a perspective a bolt of lightning can exceed 50 KA and have rates of change of 40 KA/s.  The source voltage behind this gets very high.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: And nobody noticed...
William K.   10/7/2013 5:59:12 PM
NO RATINGS
"Just one liitle error". That sort of problem can bring huge systems to s crashing stop, with far worse results than in this posting.

But what I didn't get was if the ignoring the receiver input was a hardware function not included, or a software function not switched on.

btlbcc
User Rank
Gold
Florida Lightning
btlbcc   10/7/2013 2:19:19 PM
NO RATINGS
I read somewhere that Florida is the most lightning-active area in the USA.  I suppose one can get used to anything...  And apparently the computer crash didn't happen with every thunder crash, so it's understandable why the software guys didn't catch it as being a hardware problem.

Brooks Lyman

Mydesign
User Rank
Platinum
Natural considerations
Mydesign   10/7/2013 5:44:46 AM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
Jim, interesting experience. I think normally we won't account such natural things during the system design phase. This explains the necessity for considering such natural things.

Nancy Golden
User Rank
Platinum
Re: And nobody noticed...
Nancy Golden   10/6/2013 4:41:58 PM
NO RATINGS
As amazing as it sounds that they couldn't see the connection between a thunderstorm and a system crash...those software guys simply could not think outside of the box. They were so busy defending the performance of the system that they couldn't see the obvious. Sometimes people get tunnel vision and need someone from the outside to point things out. 

<<  <  Page 2/3  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Take a look at the top 20 US undergraduate engineering programs. Then tell us -- did your school make the cut?
Producing high-quality end-production metal parts with additive manufacturing for applications like aerospace and medical requires very tightly controlled processes and materials. New standards and guidelines for machines and processes, materials, and printed parts are underway from bodies such as ASTM International.
Engineers at the University of San Diego’s Jacobs School of Engineering have designed biobatteries on commercial tattoo paper, with an anode and cathode screen-printed on and modified to harvest energy from lactate in a person’s sweat.
A Silicon Valley company has made the biggest splash yet in the high-performance end of the electric car market, announcing an EV that zips from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds and costs $529,000.
The biggest robot swarm to date is made of 1,000 Kilobots, which can follow simple rules to autonomously assemble into predetermined shapes. Hardware and software are open-source.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Sep 8 - 12, Get Ready for the New Internet: IPv6
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: September 30 - October 2
Sponsored by Altera
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service