Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (12955)	3/20/1998 5:18:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

John, Thanks for the Unilever updates. Newbies may not be aware that after TAVA completed an assessment of manufacturing facilities for Unilever Food N.A. in November - Unilvever worldwide TRIPLED their Y2K budget from about $185 million to about $1/2 billion. Attributed much of increase to embedded systems problems. Cheryl

To: John Mansfield who wrote (12955)	3/21/1998 2:54:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 31646

'...trying to get examples of embedded systems failure Fellow newsgroup readers: I have been trying to get examples of embedded systems failure so that I can explain to manufacturing companies the implications of what can go wrong. I'm finding examples are very few which is possibly understandable as we haven't got to the critical dates as yet. But, I would have thought we would have examples by now due to: a) The current testing effort that is apparently underway by a large number of companies b) Failures caused by dates incorrectly set by chip manufacturers and subsequently used in systems where dates are not used and therefore the chip date not reset. c) Manufacturers of chips with known problems coming forward with this information. The ONLY examples I have found after a thorough search of the Internet & newsgroups, are these three: (1) The failure of the aluminum smelter at Tiwai Point, New Zealand due to the non-recognition of 1996 as a leap year - as far as I've managed to determine this is just your usual common-garden programmer software error - NOT an embedded chip failure. (2) The following example is posted at techstocks.com and reads: <START> During a routine shutdown of a 500 MW power plant in England, a date roll-over test was conducted on the control system. 20 seconds after the date was changed, the plant shut down. The shutdown cause was traced to a "smart" flue stack temperature sensor. The sensor was programmed to integrate and average temperature over a specific time period to minimize fluctuation of the output temperature. The program in the firmware on the chip utilized a real-time clock that depended on the actual date to calculate the time differential. Conclusion, there are no programming standards in place that dictate how a programmer obtains time intervals. The result is a great deal of uncertainty as to how each program is written and how time related calculations have been implemented.<END> Note that the power plant is not named and the date of the incident not recorded. Why the secrecy? Doesn't it inspire customer confidence in the power plant if they know that such a thorough test was done and that this problem has been found? Did this incident really happen or is it being used as an example to fire up others into action? (3) An example which gives DOES give the name of the person finding the problem is available at: auto2000.ndirect.co.uk and is possibly the only useful example I've found so far. This relates to the process control chip checking what the latest version of the software should be before loading it. The chip had been set to three years previous (either at the time of manufacture or it had subsequently become corrupted). Problems occurred when the chip decided that the earlier program changes were current rather than the latest. I am not doubting that we may have an embedded chip problem but I am curious as to why we need so much secrecy regarding any known problems - if they exist!. Can anyone offer any suggestions why this should be so? Or better still, are you able to give examples WITH persons, companies, places and/or date information included? Can anyone give me the manufacturer/model of ANY equipment that has this problem? As I am a software programmer with no experience of chip software I am in the dark regarding this subject. I would like to increase my customers awareness re embedded chips, not to get more work - I have enough Y2K work available, but to get them to look at this aspect of the Y2K problem. I can do this if I have tangible examples available. -Jocelyn _____ From: Financial Solutions Ltd To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com Subject: Embedded Chips: Why the secrecy? Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:12:19 +-1200

To: John Mansfield who wrote (12955)	3/21/1998 2:56:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 31646

'...all suppliers to sign a "letter of acknowledgement" > > As an industry update, the automotives will be requiring in June 1999 for > all suppliers to sign a "letter of acknowledgement" that the supplier's > products and services, plus the systems and resources to deliver same, will > be Y2k ready. > > The attorneys involved ran away from the word "warranty" like a bad cold. > Warranty could potentially imply liability, something that is handled in the > product and service agreements betweent each OEM and supplier. Ergo, the > automotives have somewhat eliminated the threat of flow-down litigation on > an industry level. > > May we live in interesting times. Regards, Bill. _____________ > From: "Bill Newman" > To: <year2000-discuss@year2000.com> > Subject: Re: NEW warranty thread - Automotive Supplier Update > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:43:28 -0500