Category: Opacity

Ideas related to squeezing out information from seemingly closed sources.

Ultra-low-tech lightning detection: business aspects

 

Part 2 of write-up on ultra-low-cost lightning detection network. See Part 1 for background.

[By Jakke Mäkelä and Niko Porjo]

This part summarizes the cost and business case estimates made for the project. The analysis suggests that an extremely low cost might be possible, making the solution suitable for use even in developing countries like Sri Lanka. However, we could not find a way to motivate anyone to fund the R&D part. Thus, we are not pursuing this further for the time being.

BUSINESS ASPECTS

Business case: both hardware cost and data transmission costs are kept so low that building and maintaining network is realistic to perform as a public service. Data transfer can be made over mobile phone network (SMS, GPRS, 3G…) or landline if available. Multiple operators are made to compete to keep data costs down. Hazard indication to end users will need to be wireless to achieve real-time warning.

Benefits

•An exact business case is difficult to determine, as it is for any lightning warning system.

•Situation in Sri Lanka: Tens of deaths reported annually, real number of deaths and injuries unknown. Commercial detection systems too expensive to maintain.

Costs

•Absolute worst-case scenario: If SMS sent less than once per min, reliability of network becomes poor. Thus cannot transfer much less than this. During storms, whole network would need to be transmitting 60*60=3600 SMS/hour. In Finland,  cost of SMS on one operator is ~5 cent, so cost would be 180 EUR/hr for whole network. Assuming 6 hours/ day of storms in active seasons, would mean 30 kEUR/month, which is of course completely unacceptable. But in practice, there are fixed-cost deals available from operators. Multiple operators are absolutely needed in order to maximize price competition and minimize risk of monopoly pricing. But there are SMS-based systems in existence which are affordable (for example Nokia Life Tools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Life_Tools) which means that costs could be kept reasonable if there is political push.

•Transfer rate over GPRS, if available, is even in extreme case ~160 B/min or 1kB/hour per station.  For total network, transfer is ~60 kB/hour. Per month, amounts to ~100 MB. On one Finnish operator, GPRS cost can be ~1.5 EUR/MB, so cost would be <200 EUR/month. Clearly GPRS would be the preferable channel where available.

Costs

•Sensors need to be stockpiled to allow them to be replaced quickly if needed, so at least 100 need to be built. Smaller calibration networks can also be developed in parallel and run in a suitable country.

•Main components are radio receiver, GPS clock, GSM/GPRS, processing unit. Battery may be most expensive individual component. ideally will run on AC power, but need to have backup battery/UPS capable of multi-hour operation in case of power failure.  Unit cost of 400EUR should definitely be reachable (cost of full network 40kEUR), though profit margin to manufacturer is then low. This part may need to be subsidized.

•Setting up of network is low-cost since all sensors are autonomous and operate by wireless network. Slow deployment is possible.

•Central unit can be a tabletop PC. Redundancy and power supply needs will increase cost significantly, but main algorithm is simple.

•Operating costs can be minimal if GPRS can be used.

•Cost of transmitting hazard information to users via Cell Broadcast is largest open question.

Funding and implementation

•No funding has been found.

•The organization Geoscientists Without Borders has been funding projects which are similar to the proposal: http://www.seg.org/web/foundation/programs/geoscientists-without-borders

•The target of the pilot is to improve local R&D competence in Sri Lanka, but kicking off the project could require an investment that is difficult to find locally. National foreign aid organizations (Finland or Sweden) might be approached for projects of this type, especially if some of the testing can be done in Europe (enhancing local knowledge also).

Similar projects

•Lots of small semi-official warning systems are known to exist, but limited info in public domain. Data transfer is almost always by fixed-line Internet, which can be unreliable especially in developing countries. Mobile wireless networks have better reliability (though not perfect).

FINAL OUTCOME

We continue to think that the idea would work in principle, but there is no real way to make it successful commercially. We need to feed our families, and cannot do it.

If someone is interested in making this a non-profit open-source project, the crucial documentation is already in the public domain and just needs to be collated together. There are some major engineering issues to be solved, but if profitability is not a requirement, they are likely to be solvable.

 

 

Concept for ultra-low-tech lightning detection

 

As a team, we have a historical trend of failing at everything we try. Common sense dictates that we should try to hide that fact. However, we’ve adopted the opposite strategy. Publishing our failures shows others how they should not proceed, and might give them ideas about how they should proceed (see The SMOS project). What’s in it for us? Not much. But it’s not a big effort to spend a few hours documenting things for the benefit of others.

[By Jakke Mäkelä and Niko Porjo]

This particular concept was a low-tech lightning detection system. Our former employer let us put some effort into looking at a system that could have used a cell phone’s radio circuits for remote lightning detection. The idea was more or less ridiculed, and it never did become commercial in the original form.

However, we found that the idea is less stupid than it sounds. I eventually did my PhD thesis on the physics of such systems. In brief: the crackle that lightning produces in any radio channel can be used to identify and range lightning, giving some pre-warning time before the thunder can be heard.

This is fairly pointless in Scandinavia, but could be significant in tropical areas with more frequent and violent thunderstorms. Both the hardware and software can be extremely simple — basically, an AM radio costing a few dollars can be used. This is thus a technique that might be feasible in developing countries.

We considered Sri Lanka to be a possible place to test the system. It has high mortality from lightning, and a poor economy and infrastructure. Thus, more expensive lightning detection systems do not sound highly realistic there. We also had connections with Sri Lanka during the project and my PhD studies.

Some other researchers and I wrote a peer-reviewed paper on how such a device could be used to detect lightning (Gulyas et al, JoLR 2012). We also wrote a non-peer-reviewed conference paper on how multiple sensors could be used to create a detection network. It’s one of those things that theoretically works. Making it work commercially is a completely different question.

Having been let go from our previous employers, we looked seriously into making this a commercial project. But we came to the conclusion that we would just starve.

The text below is mostly in the form we left it after deciding to stop. It is in draft form, as we do not feel like wasting our time on prettifying it after making a no-go decision. Technically oriented people will understand what we are saying. For readability, we have split the document into two parts; the technical document here, and a commercial document to be published later.

The various entities mentioned here (University of Uppsala, University of Colombo, and Finnish Meteorological Institute) were approached unofficially, but have not formally commented on the idea.

OVERALL PROPOSAL

A loose consortium between for example the University of Colombo, University of Uppsala, Finnish Meteorological Institute, and the proposers could contain all the competence that is needed to implement the project. As of 2012, a new lightning detection chip AS3935 is available from Austriamicrosystems which could form the detector part in the first generation. Thus, the hardware design would be particularly simple now (http://www.ams.com/eng/Lightning-Sensor/AS3935)

POSSIBLE PARTICIPANTS 

  • The University of Colombo has experience of the local conditions. Since the target is to transfer all the knowledge to Sri Lanka, Colombo should be the overall lead for the project, with other parties consulting per need.
  • The University of Uppsala has in-depth knowledge of lightning physics and a close working collaboration with Colombo.
  • The Finnish Meteorological Institute has a unit which is experienced with setting up weather-observation systems in developing countries.
  • Mäkelä and Porjo have experience with low-end detector design as well as the network technology.

PURPOSE

•Create an ultra-low-cost lightning detection and warning system for developing countries.

•Pilot project could be run e.g. in Sri Lanka.Technology tests need to be done in a country with accurate lightning location reference data (USA or Europe)

•Technology exists (and multiple technologies possible), missing is a low-cost system to bring the data together and disseminate it to end users. Specifically, low-cost real-time systems are missing.

•Focus is on extreme simplicity, capability to withstand power cuts, quick response times.

•Modular and technology-agnostic (no technology lock-in). Only requirement is that each station be able to provide a distance estimate when a flash is detected.

•Open-source project, with possibility to incorporate better techniques as technology improves.

•Simplest detectors can be built based on public-domain information. Local Sri Lankan R&D can be used to design and build the sensors.

•In the somewhat harsh conditions, it is realistic to assume that some of the measuring sensors will be malfunctioning or offline at any given time. Network algorithm must be made flexible to account for this.

Proposal for demonstrator

•Build network that covers the western coastal region of Sri Lanka.

•Build detection network on principles described in Porjo & Mäkelä 2010. As of 2012, the AS3935 chip from Austriamicrosystems (about 4 USD) is available as a front-end. This information is in the public domain. Simple detectors are also well-known and in the public domain. Some original design work may be needed, but could be done at University of Colombo (academic work). Lowest-cost approach could include a stock Android phone with a Rasberry pi attached to a GPS clock source and a small custom board for the AS3935.

•Sensors by default transmit flash information via mobile phone link (SMS or GPRS). Landlines (Internet access) can be used if available, but they can be expected to be more vulnerable to errors than wireless especially when storms are nearby.

•Flash-by-flash locations are not attempted, only storm risk zones (Gulyas et al 2012). Intra-cloud flashes are difficult to range in any case, and from the viewpoint of security, the most important parameter are the boundaries of the active storm cells.

•Central computer identifies storm risk areas. Sri Lankan Met Institute? Must plan system with high redundancy from the very beginning (at least two computers running separately) because probability of failure is highest exactly when the storms are strongest. The duplicate(s) can also be used to beta test networks whenever stations change.

•Mobile base stations within the risk areas send warning SMS to participating cell phones. GSM standard  allows this since a cell broadcast recommendation exists. But this is potentially difficult issue as requires operator cooperation, as well existence of the GSM network which may be unreliable. Negotiation with operators is needed, and in particular operator lock-in must be avoided (in which an operator can define his own price at will). Note that in principle it is NOT necessary to alert 100% of the people in the area, as it can be expected that people will alert each other. However, 100% should be a target.

•Since ranging accuracy drops radically after 20 km, stations cannot be separated by much more than this. For redundancy reasons, stations every 10 km might be better. In case of Sri Lanka, region of main interest is the coastal strip, thus the network could consist of approx three rows of sensors separated by ~20 km, sensors every 10 km or so.  To protect 200 km strip of coast, need minimum 3×20=60 sensors.

Data transfer needs

•Data transfer needs to be divided among multiple operators to avoid collapse if one operator’s SMS center crashes. Ideally each sensor would have at least two SIM’s (dual-SIM technology already exists) in case one crashes.

•Data transfer from sensors is to be by SMS or GPRS. Since locations of stations is known, only need per flash time (to 1-sec GPS accuracy) and intensity (8 bits would be sufficient if calibration is OK). Since we want to allow possibility of direction-finding at least in the future,  8 bits allows 1.4% angular resolution. Time can highly compressed if for example nearest hour is assumed to be known, in which case 12 bits is enough to code nearest second. Some kind of reliability value of a few bits would also be useful. → Each flash could be coded in 32 bits.

•SMS spec has 1120 bits per message (160 7-bit characters as in SMS, equivalent to 140 8-bit characters as in Twitter).  Thus up to 35 flashes could be coded in a single SMS. Since flash rates are essentially never 30 flashes/minute (in extreme cases ground flashes up to 4-6 flashes/min, cloud flashes theoretically 10 times higher). Sending SMS once per minute would be sufficient even in case of an extreme storm.

Part 2 on business aspects: click here 

 

 

Are Patent Trolls the next China?

“Just like during the last 20 years it has been wise to move all the production to China, right now it is wise to sell IPs to NPEs. One day the threat will be reality and there are no other options available any more.”

Without any doubt there has been a lot of discussion related to NPEs or patent trolls. Their positive role in patenting has also been mentioned in some articles. After all they are one of the very few entities who are willing to buy patents that may be interesting in the future but only in the future.

But who are the organizations selling their patents and why are they doing so?

That is not hard to answer, there are several institutions who are willing to do so. And for a good reason. This may not be the case globally, but enough to be a fact over large geographical and cultural areas.

Take Finland as an example. It has been stated that granted patents are a good thing and an excellent measure among others how research institutions and universities are performing. Patents can also be listed in CVs and are merit to its inventor. It is especially very tempting when an individual does not have to pay the filing costs. In the long run very few patents actually generate any money for the institutions owning them. The overall costs for filing and holding a patent just in Finland for 20 years costs currently 8650 euros plus fees and patent drafting costs. Single patent easily costs 15 000 euros in minimum for its holder.

And a single patent is no merit for a respectable research institution who would like to enter licensing business in a significant manner. Some patent families may enable that but most not. Once we start talking about patent families in several countries, the costs are easily in the hundreds of thousands of euros or dollars per year. Which would indicate that the income should be higher, hopefully in the millions per year. Which usually is not the case.

In these examples I am leaving out the need and the burden to be able to defend one’s patents against infringement if under attack. Which adds to the costs – I’ve heard that lawyers usually get paid for their work. And that universities and research institutions are not in the litigation business. At least in Finland. They admit that openly as it is not part of research nor teaching that still (barely) is in their main focus.

We also have a lot of startups and small businesses who are trying to push their technologies and products forward. They especially need to have their work protected through patents. If for nothing else, to be investable for the investors. And if the business does not grow fast/big enough, there’s always the option to minimize the losses by selling the patents.

So when someone tries to sell a patent or a patent portfolio, NPEs are a good or perhaps the only option.

Sometimes they are used as  a strategic option as it is possible to build bigger patent portfolios and lessen the chance of an attack against a single, vulnerable company. We have seen a lot of evidence about such strategies when large corporations sell or out-license major parts of their patent portfolios to a newly formed or an existing company. Whose only task is to take care, license and defend those patents.
So it is good that there is someone out there willing to buy all these patents nobody finds valuable short term. Or is it?

Currently US patent office grants roughly 500 000 patents every year. I have not checked the latest numbers, but it is easy to guesstimate that in minimum NPEs acquire thousands to tens of thousands of patents per year. Even individual deals have included thousands of patents. NPEs also generate their own patents as we have shown in previous blogs.

After a (long) while they end up owning a lot of patents, more than today. I.e. there are entities out there who own patents that are just waiting to be able to cash their investments in a way or another. And they are not doing it just for fun, they are doing it for the business that other businesses fund directly or indirectly.

Some of such ways may be less worrying than making humanitarian help impossible, harder or just cost more, but it still begs to ask and answer if the whole patenting model overall is sustainable.

What comes out of the equation when everyone has the incentive to sell to patent trolls?

Is it like with China’s factories that everyone sees them as the best or the only option to do any production at all? After a while there is nobody else capable of producing anything or with limited capacity at best. Will it be the same for the patents that some NPEs end up owning most of the patents and actually control the markets through a common “nuclear threat”. Either you belong to one of the (future’s) major patent camps or pay dearly. If you belong to a group, you just pay a little less.

There are a lot of examples in the history that have resulted in such polarized systems. Soon to be ex music-mega-mogul-industry being one of them. The big ones control the rules and the prices.

Will it be the same for patents within the next 10-20+ years? I hope not, but I am afraid it will be the case. Unless the system is changed in a way or another when patents are once again more about inventions and building a better future. Producing exciting things than just plain business and maximizing profits.

Wishful thinking.

Before we stopped actively working on the Project Troglodyte, we found out there is not enough interest about the topic (or threat seen big enough) in Finland nor in Europe. It seems that in the US the view is changing and counter measures are planned. Very similar to what we have discussed in Troglodyte and Zygomatica during the last two years. Luckily some of the US projects and instances get the resourcing we never had.

In today’s Finland too many companies and institutions are focusing on cutting costs and turning (especially IT) experts with ideas into couch potatoes. Which seems to be a governmental goal, planned or unplanned.

If there is no interest, there are no resources. In the current economy everyone in Finland is just trying to cope and don’t need new ideas that cannot be built. Also in this scenario NPEs are a good thing and they are entering Finland that was seen improbable just a year or two ago.

Just like during the last 20 years it has been wise to move all the production to China, right now it is wise to sell IPs to NPEs.

One day the threat will be reality and there are no other options available any more.

Learn to live with the trolls or change the thinking where greed is not the only good. Perhaps it just needs a fancy name and big headlines?

Biochar 1: Background

 

“Biochar is not the miracle cure-for-all that some advocates claim. However, we still consider it a critical technology to be researched for poor countries.”

Authors: Jakke Mäkelä, Kalle Pietilä, and Viv Collins. [Originally published in www.project-troglodyte.org

The production of biochar is being advertised as one of the most important low-cost high-impact technologies. See, for example, Open Source Ecology. The premise is relatively simple: biomaterial such as wood (or, ideally, wood waste) is heated in a kiln which does not let in oxygen.

The wood then breaks down into three components, with ratios depending on the temperature: charcoal, oils, and volatile gases. The gases can be fed into the heater, meaning that the process can keep itself running once it has been started. The oils can be used as clean fuel sources. Overall, the process can thus enable far more energy production than is needed to run it.

Most of the carbon is thus sequestered into the charcoal, with little carbon dioxide emitted. The CO2 that was taken up by the plants is thus fixed in the charcoal, which can for example be buried, never releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. This can thus be a low-tech solution for carbon sequestration.

The “bio” part of the term comes from the possibility of combining the charcoal with nitrogen-based fertilizers, resulting in a very effective yet stable fertilizer. The theory is that the charcoal binds the fertilizer, preventing it from being leached too quickly by rain. This benefit has so far not been proven adequately, but at worst the charcoal should be a neutral element in the soil even if it does not give additional benefit.

We are doubtful of some of the most wide-eyed claims being made about it, and there are very strong skeptics of the process, especially at larger scales (see e.g. Climate Justice Now). The downsides are fairly obvious: the charcoal production will release particulate pollutants as well as possibly other toxins, unless it is done very efficiently. Also, at extremely large volumes the process would stop making ecological sense, as large plantations would have to be grown just for this purpose. At some size scale, the process would become ecologically completely counterproductive.

However, at smaller size scales the technology could have local health benefits, by providing a cleaner-burning fuel. The burning of unclean wood products in poorly designed kilns produces high indoor pollution levels and can be a health risk (FAO; this article however considers better stove design to be the key, and remains neutral about any relative health benefits given by charcoal).  Others (World Bank) consider that moving to cleaner and inexpensive charcoal would have clear health benefits.

Biochar is not the miracle cure-for-all that some advocates claim. However, we still consider it a critical technology to be researched for poor countries.  Whatever the actual value of the technology is, it would be pointless to allow spurious IPR to slow the progress.


Figure 1. Basics of biochar. Source: http://www.biochar-international.org/technology

Technology

The EFA article above describes a combination of a kiln that carbonizes agricultural waste into biochar, and an energy efficient briquetting machine that makes charcoal briquettes that can burn in ordinary stoves. Some of the biochar is used to make fertilizer and some to make briquettes.

For more on biochar, see International Biochar Initiative.  The current state of the art is described in the IBI production web page. The size scales can vary by a huge amount, from industrial-scale installations producing 1 ton per hour to small installations producing 500 kg a day or less.

The technology is described in the IBI technology web pages. The most critical general comment is this:  “But biochar technology is more than just the equipment needed to produce biochar. Biochar technology necessarily includes entire integrated systems that can contain various components that may or may not be part of any particular system.”

This is something to worry about. From the humanitarian IPR point of view, there is one crucial question: could spurious IPR be used to block development of large-scale biochar burning? In particular, could it block development of such technologies aimed at developing countries?

The IBI technology page mentions five specific goals for future R&D:

  1. Continuous feed pyrolyzers to improve energy efficiency and reduce pollution emissions associated with batch kilns.
  2. Exothermic operation without air infiltration to improve energy efficiency and biochar yields.
  3. Recovery of co-products to reduce pollution emissions and improve process economics.
  4. Control of operating conditions to improve biochar properties and allow changes in co-product yields.
  5. Feedstock flexibility allowing both woody and herbaceous biomass (like crop residues or grasses) to be converted to biochar.

It is #4 that we should be most worried about. There should be easy work-arounds and multiple technologies for the other areas (in which patents can be found just by searching for “biochar”). It is in practice not possible to block the development of new kiln types because alternative designs can always be used. A single troll patent for #4 could, however, stop the whole system. We will be analyzing this area in future postings.

 

Epilogue: Troglodyte is not dead even though it is buried

This is a comment related to Jakke’s post about ramping Troglodyte down as a project.

When I face a mirror, I see the person to blame. My personal input was never on the required level.

I have a lot of started ongoing studies, but it is really tedious work. I believe one shouldn’t report much before knowing the results. It is also a reason why one needs to be fully committed. In spirit I am, but seemingly not in flesh. Not enough.

I have an excuse. That excuse led me to a project with a monthly salary. Hopefully we can build something great there.

Money and salary is the dilemma we have faced several times with Jakke and Niko during the last two years. There is so much work to be done, helpless to help and projects to start. And still we are in a situation where we all have to decide what is important and what is not.

We do it everyday, each of us.

An old car salesman told me 29 years ago that money is such an old innovation that everyone must have it by now. Or by then, since it is almost 30 years later now. There must be even more money to go around.

But in the areas of Humanitarian IPR or Humanitarian Work we don’t see it. Perhaps we need more old car salesmen there.

We and many others are not asking for much or for something impossible. But even that is too much. Big part of it is due to institutional problems (not challenges) buried in the way how they behave. We have touched those in our previous posts.

The system(s) need to see the money coming back and multiplying on its way. Human life is not money, even if it multiplies over time. The systems do not encourage to focus on something that would be important and could be done. They focus on what can be done and what makes money.

Yes, I am whining and am selfish.

I am not desperate enough or driven enough to forget everything else and drive just this one thing. I am in too good a position that food and shelter are not my problems. I too am thinking how to accumulate wealth to get me over the next dry season.

My dry season is related to work with salary, not a physical draught with famine.

I am ashamed, it is only the image in the mirror and the ones near me that I value high enough.

It is not impossible to try and continue to change the status quo. To use effort and money to build something good and humanly valuable. Something that is not valuable only in monetary terms and measured in monetary terms.

Such work takes time.

We, together with APO and humanitarian IPR, are on a path to something we do not know where it leads us. It does not have a name.

We just know we can do more.
And we will.

I am sure we are not alone.

We will continue to change the thinking one sentence and a comment at a time. It just takes longer.

Once in a while we have regular jobs, but the face in the mirror reminds us that we have possibilities to do something good with the tools we have been given and have gathered.

For us it is evolution over revolution, affecting the system with its democratic rules. Respecting our societies and everyone around us.

I don’t think the world is ready yet, we have potential for so much more.
All of us.

Translate »