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: Robert T. Quasius who wrote (13419)	3/25/1998 9:18:00 PM
From: Stuart Schreiber	Respond to of 31646

Robert, Don't be a stranger. We would like to hear more of your input. stu

To: Robert T. Quasius who wrote (13419)	3/25/1998 9:19:00 PM
From: zChristopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

More Leads for TAVA!.......... In the February, 1998 issue of "Pulp and Paper Magazine," there is an article entitled "Y2K Computer Compliance Crisis Builds on Pulp and Paper Mill Operating Floors." Here is an example they cited: "As an example, Cubine and Bruhn point to a case involving a turbine generator. The system used a pulse train temperature sensor reporting back to a programmable controller. The controller was counting pulses between two time stamps and assigning a temperature value. In doing a Y2K rollover test on the system, <a vendor> found that the assigned temperature value went to infinity at the year 2000, which immediately started the shutdown procedure." (p. 80, col. 3) Hope that helps - Chris Casey Year 2000 Consultant, Keynote Speaker and Author Co-Author, "Turning Oh-Oh into OK! The Silver Lining on the Millennium Cloud" Bytewise Consulting, Inc., 120 Oxford West Drive, Oxford, Georgia 30054 Tel: 770.385.8302 Fax: 770.787.8225 Email: casey@bytewise.com URL: bytewise.com

To: Robert T. Quasius who wrote (13419)	3/25/1998 9:27:00 PM
From: zChristopher	Respond to of 31646

HOT Lead for TAVA>?ellow 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. ><unsnip> > >Jocelyn: >BP has been looking at the issues on engineering process control since late >1996. The Y2K industry calls this whole area "embedded chips" when the >concern is really the way in which an application - any software running on >any hardware - controls physical operations such as the smelter you mention. >The concern is to find any such application which is date-sensitive and >might not function normally. > >We do have a very small number of examples of failures of PLCs - the devices >which exercise local control of physical devices such as compressors and >pumps. Everyone in the oil industry has seen the Shell video of failures of >3 or 4 devices which control some simple operations. Why haven't other >instances been publicised? Partly because the most direct way to find them >is to ask the suppliers, who won't necessarily co-operate if we are likely >to then denounce them to the world. > >One of our examples was a plastics extruder which would cause one of our >plants to shutdown - no safety implications but a significant cost >implication. Finding that one example and avoiding the shutdown probably >paid for the Y2K work on the plant. > >You discount the smelter because it's a normal software issue - that fits my >understanding too, but the concern is the overall relationship between >control software (running on boxes which don't always look like computers) >and physical control processes. The real issue is that it's extraordinarily >difficult to test this kind of equipment (hardware and software) and to >understand the impact of any failures; and that the impacts are totally >different from one plant to another. This means that the few minor examples >we've found have no statistical relevance to the wider world, and that you >have to examine each plant configuration in order to understand your >exposure. I wish that I could find a way to save money by getting off this >particular treadmill, but so far, I can't. The burden of proof (or of >adequate levels of confidence) is quite high when you're running plant which >boils hydrocarbons (or say, melts aluminium) as a matter of daily routine, >and - once you've got comfort on the safety concerns - still costs millions >if you have an unplanned shutdown. If you're just making plastic toys or >filling food cans you can maybe live with the process control issues: low >risk, low impact? In the same way, we are spending much less on building >management systems and similar over-worked examples.