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 11:08:50 PM
NO RATINGS
And anybody who thinks differently than them is in for things not working "right".


Or for the blue screen of death...

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Natural considerations, and exceptions
William K.   10/7/2013 10:14:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Nancy, even beyond actual errors, there are exceptions, which may be perfectly OK, but beyond the realm of what the system was prepared for. All windows OS's are perfect examples of not being prepared or able to handle anything except what the program writers thought it should handle. And anybody who thinks differently than them is in for things not working "right".

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

<<  <  Page 2/3  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The engineers and inventors of the post WWII period turned their attention to advancements in electronics, communication, and entertainment. Breakthrough inventions range from LEGOs and computer gaming to the integrated circuit and Ethernet -- a range of advancements that have little in common except they changed our lives.
The age of touch could soon come to an end. From smartphones and smartwatches, to home devices, to in-car infotainment systems, touch is no longer the primary user interface. Technology market leaders are driving a migration from touch to voice as a user interface.
Soft starter technology has become a way to mitigate startup stressors by moderating a motor’s voltage supply during the machine start-up phase, slowly ramping it up and effectively adjusting the machine’s load behavior to protect mechanical components.
A new report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) makes a start on developing control schemes, process measurements, and modeling and simulation methods for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
If you’re developing a product with lots of sensors and no access to the power grid, then you’ll want to take note of a Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Designing Low Power Systems Using Battery and Energy Harvesting Energy Sources."
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/31/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
2/25/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
5/7/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
May 4 - 8, Designing Low Power Systems using Battery and Energy Harvesting Energy Sources
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7


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.
Last Archived Class
Sponsored by Proto Labs
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2015 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service