... If so drop me a line by clicking on the comment or feedback links at this site.

As an electrical engineer and former engineering physics guy (back when fibre optics was "full of promise"), I have been following the whole business of Broadband Over Power Lines (BPL) for years now. Or should I say the "lack of business".

BPL has always just been around the corner. I've figuratively fallen asleep waiting for the technology to be ready for market. Well this caught my eye today..."Texas to get broadband over its power lines". While this announcement is typically premature in its joy; the article does reference an actual working service in Ohio. The model seems to be that the power companies lease the lines and let somebody manage the network for them. Cinergy is offering the service through Current Communications residentially to parts of Cincinnati. (Is Peter Frampton still living there?)

What I am interested in are customer comments on quality of service and relative speed. Information on the network operator's web site indicates that the speed is "up to 75 times faster than dial-up". Why use dial-up as a relative measure? Are there issues with speed? One positive aspect of the service is that the speed is the same both downloading and uploading -- no artificial speed traps to stop you from effectively peering on the network. I wonder how long that will last.

Comment, email or feedback is welcome.

Robert Cringely has made an impact with his latest piece from the PBS bully-tech pulpit. (catch it here http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20051020.html and also the tech.memeorandum coverage here)

I design reliable power systems and data centers for a living.

In general terms, you don't need 3 to 4 times more electricity for cooling a data center than you need to power the electronic loads. The rough rule of thumb is 1 to 1. That means 1 watt of connected data center load will need 1 watt of electricity for connected mechanical loads. A watt of electricity does not automatically become a watt of heat; some of that electricity is converted to light and motion. Cringely overstates the actual (as opposed to the name-plate rated value) power consumption of the drive arrays by at least double. He also gets muddled up when he discusses data center floor space; mixing up total square footage with the square footage of the connected load space. He uses an incorrect approach to calculating "necessary" space to support "equipment" space. He makes some incorrect assumptions about the types of drives used in many of the arrays. The Cringely argument also completely overlooks load diversity in a data center. Even if 6,500 square feet required 330 Watts per square foot, the total equipment foot print over the remainder of the space would have a much lower density on average. We refer to stacked racks of blade servers and drive arrays as "spot" loads. You don't need to provision the entire facility at the load density of its densest loads; what you do have to do is provide the flexibility to power those loads in a range of locations and to provide appropriate cooling for installation conditions. It is true that load densities are starting to increase over the norms of the last few years, however.

It's worth noting that Cringely is treading down a path we've been on before and the evidence regarding actual data center electricity utilization demonstrates different usage patterns than what was predicted.

If you're interested in discussing data center electricity usage and design with me Robert, then call me at my Calgary office at (403) 541-6475 (Updated: 2006/12/10)

This week I'm in Montreal.


At the hotel I was welcomed by a nice touch, a small plate of chocolates with a message written in chocolate icing: "Welcome Brat Gibson". I guess I need to buy another domain name...


I'll be here doing work for a communications customer this week and have a few spare hours if you want to discuss engineering, technology or business marketing. Give me a call at (888) 206-8012. My hours will be rather unusual, so I may not be able to respond right away.


Don't forget I'm going to be in Chicago the week of November 18th; so if you're in town for the Power Quality or Power Electronics show, I would really like to meet you.

Steve Thomas from the University of Greenwich presented his report to the
Society of Energy Professionals today. Its contents are discussed in the Globe and Mail -- "Flaws seen in Ontario plan to reorganize hydro". Mr. Thomas was also interviewed by CBC's "As it Happens". The response to the paper? He can be safely quoted as saying, "they were defensive". 
No surprise there. The Society is composed of people who run the generation, transmission and distribution system. Many of them never
wanted what has befallen the system. Many of them are not responsible for the structural changes that have occurred.

Where are we with electricity and where are we going? The average consumer wants on-demand, cheap, reliable electrical energy. We are
heading towards something that will be subject to inavailability, cost considerably more and suffer from systemically poor power quality.

I drank my morning coffee and said a silent thank you to William
Thorsell, former publisher of the Globe and Mail, for his op-ed piece
entitled Burn, baby, burn: Why we're back to nuclear power. Loaded with money
quotes, Thorsell suveys the energy field in short order and arrives at
the conclusion held by many in the electrical and energy business. If
you want massive, scalable energy self-sufficiency you have to think
nuclear. Or newqyoular if you prefer.

The essay is short, to the point and full of honest to goodness truths,
rather than half-baked, highschool science class hopes. Thorsell is
unequivocal in voicing not just contempt; but also, complete
bewilderment regarding the public process behind the issue of nuclear
waste:

Regarding a continued reliance on fossil fuels for electricity
generation, he points out:

Some point out that increasing our nuclear reliance increases the possibility
for terrorism and the proliferation of destructive nuke technologies;
but that genie is already out of the bottle and as Thorsell states:

What is the emergency
plan for 30 days without any home heating or water in Toronto in January if the power goes down because of a distribution failure? Maybe there just can't be one, given the certainty of chaos, so a dependable supply of electricity is the closest equation there is these days to peace, order and good government. Lose electricity and we lose the social
order."

Thorsell saves the best for last. No
politician would dare say it but his statement rings truer than any of
the rhetorical crap that has been spouted by any party in any election
of note lately:

"Medicare
gets all the political attention, while the much more
fundamental question of our energy supplies and systems percolates
off-stage. The first duty of the state is the security of the citizen,
not the care of the ill. We got a glimpse of that last August."