Category Archives: Energy

Linux Power Management

Jupiter is a power management utility avaialble on SourceForge.net with a GUI for many advanced power features in Linux

Simple, easy to use hardware and power management applet for all i386 and x86_64 Linux laptops, and netbooks. A key component of the Aurora Linux distribution, also compatible with Fedora 12/13. Not supported on other distributions.

This saves you the trouble of managing power manually with sched_mc_power_savings, hdparm, laptop_mode and powertop.

$200 to fly, $400 more to bring your bag

Airline after airline is approaching bankruptcy only to be rescued by another airline. At the announcement of most of these mergers the airline proudly proclaims that they will be taking the best of both airlines and making one new better airline. In reality most of these mergers were done for two reasons. The airline wanted to buy more gates and reduce competition in its more profitable markets.

The major airlines do everything they can to manipulate the supply of seats from one city to another. Another way they accomplish this is by treating a seat on a flight differently for those flying direct than for those flying a connection. Same plane, same seat different cost. In many cases it’s pay more get less.

An example: To fly direct from LGA (New York) to DTW (Detroit) on a flight tomorrow the lowest fare on a major airline is $585. However, for flights on the same day you can fly to MCO (Orlando) for $215. What is incredibly interesting is that the $215 to MCO is a connecting flight which stops in DTW. By spending an extra $370 you get a seat on the same plane from LGA to DTW but you give up the seat from DTW to MCO and gain the right to check bags. You thought $30 to check a bag was a steep price. Keep in mind you could already be paying over $300 for that ability.

I’m a huge proponent of analytic based pricing; it’s what I do for a living. But, somewhere along the way airlines allowed computer pricing to take over and common sense went out the window. Then again if consumers want to complain they need to use the power of the purse. Next time you fly see if you can’t get less for more.

How to Make Quality Technology

An excellent lecture with common sense. RSA Animate illustrates why profit is not the best motivator for quality.

First, I disagree with the start of the presentation. The science is not freaky or surprising. People are still as manipulatable and predictable as ever. I explain this in my social engineering presentation where I demonstrate common fraud methods. Profit may be less important than American economists thought, but it reminds me that economists study…profit. Only an economist would say it is “irrational” to play an instrument. Social engineering experts, or even anthropologists and political scientists, are obviously going to be less likely to focus on profit when researching motivational factors. They see people manipulated by things like pride, prejudice and authority and realize that in many cases none of it is profit. With economists it really should be no surprise that profit is not always the prime motivator. This lecture concludes that mastery, purpose and contribution are motivators but there are others as well.

Second, I have to question why economists were ever under this impression (the lecturer says he believed only in profit three years ago). Why did they see profit as the sole and only motivator? I bet a huge clue is right at the start of the lecture when he says “mechanical skill” is very successfully manipulated by profit motive in business. Immediately it comes to mind that Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and other industrialists were proponents of mechanical skill.

Perhaps it is from this era that a perception of a beautiful assembly-line with profit as motive became some kind of ideal. An American could create massive wealth as owner of a highly mechanized system of production. Inventor of the car was not Ford, Inventor of the light bulb was not Edison. I have seen scant evidence they believed in incentives for innovation, just output that allowed high margins. The Ford company showed this in spades over the past ten years when they pumped out SUVs for profit at a time when they could have innovated in hybrid cars with a purpose. That decision almost killed them, even though they had a few good years before the crash.

Ford and Edison, who actually were good friends, believed growth through profit incentives was the ideal path for everyone else because they saw it as their own path of success. Those who could produce more product, garner more profit, wrote the story of motivation. Ford not only did not innovate but he struggled with the basic concept of changing paint colors in cars to let consumers innovate and differentiate from each other. Edison meanwhile never actually invented anything (am I getting too excited here?) — he actually setup a warehouse full of mostly immigrants, poorly paid, who were hired to invent for him and then put his name on whatever they came up with. The inferior lightbulb he produced (inefficient use of energy and short life) was highly successful because it was produced faster than anything else and more consistently. His profit motive led to more profit than his competition, which enabled him to win in a race for profitability and NOT good product. Easy to see how mechanical skills were the focus of the empire he built. Americans came to believe in him as an inventor because he had great marketing and cash in the bank.

Regardless of whether you buy into my hypothesis (rant?) about Ford and Edison it stands to reason that other incentives, such as purpose, existed all along; they have been just poorly represented as goals against those who were profit driven and used their profit to market a particular vision of success. Nonetheless the mechanical skill view had many more years of success examples before losing much of its appeal. It carried the country all the way through the difficult 1940s. The Sherman tank, for example, was not superior or innovative but it was produced at a much faster pace than the enemy’s. A German Tiger tank would often face three or more Sherman (there were roughly 50 times as many Shermans on the ground to fight the Tigers). The Americans knew, in other words, that they were at high risk when put head-to-head against a tank better-suited for its purpose (longer range with better armor). However the US did not choose to improve quality, despite risk, when they found mechanical skill and assembly-lines (produced faster than anything else and more consistently) also achieved results.

Return for a moment to the question of why economists are surprised. The 1950s saw the vision of profit as motive begin to unravel in America as disillusionment was expressed by the likes of Kerouac; he said why work so hard in highly mechanical tasks if profit (margin and/or quantity) may never come but also was never truly fulfilling. This divergence from profit as a prime motive really came undone by the late 1960s during economically innovative years of “goodwill” and “free” stores that “recycled” without profit. This seems like yet another example of why economists have no reason to be surprised, but I’ll leave that thread for another day because it also touches on interesting points about compliance and regulation.

Back to the lecture it says the economists noticed their new test actually works outside the US. They position this as proof that purpose as motive is not an anomaly. I say this actually proves that the US is the anomaly. It works elsewhere because it should not have been a surprise in America; a period of rapid and dynamic mechanical skill growth with money as a motivator in the US does not mean the other motives never existed or would not come back. The industrial revolution through fabrication and mechanization generated a fascination so intense it even bled into sports — baseball, football and basketball — that are highly mechanical in nature and reward. Compare their program, run, stop, review, repeat and incentive system to a game of soccer.

With all that being said it also is notable that innovation in America has typically come from those not working with profit as their prime motivator. Post-it notes are a fun example. The proof is right under our noses. Those who say Apple is highly innovative have to prove it to me; as a life-long Apple consumer I don’t buy it. Show me an iPhone and I will give you a list of all the ideas it incorporates from others. All the way back to the first mouse debate it was clear to me that Jobs and Woz are the best at refining others’ ideas, not creating new ones. This is not to say they are driven only by profit, but it sure fits their motivation profile a lot better than Einstein’s.

If you still don’t believe me. I will go into much more depth on this when I present on the “Top Ten Breaches” next Wednesday at the RSA Conference in London. How does this fit security, you might ask?

The best defense prepares for attacks other than the ones motivated by profit alone — the most dangerous attacker may not be profit motivated at all. Likewise, the best defense is developed through incentives other than profit. As the lecturer points out, bugs will be fixed for free and much sooner if you can accept and promote motivations outside of profit. It is through these two views of security management that we really are looking at ways to find quality. I hope to see you there.

Porsche Diesel Lays Waste to Competitors

Wow, I love the Porsche Cayenne Diesel review on Edmunds: 2010 Porsche Cayenne Diesel 3.0 TDI First Drive on Inside Line

Farmers and horse owners and truckers already get this, but someday it will be possible to say the word “torque” and not hear crickets chirp in a crowded room of everyday people. Regarding the vast majority of passenger vehicles, torque is the king in how you accelerate, haul, or even lay waste to competitors.

That paragraph is buried down below several other excellent comments.

Here is the meat of the argument for diesel:

…it emits 21 percent less CO2 than the Cayenne’s 3.6-liter gasoline V6 and improves mpg by 39 percent. The Cayenne diesel jumps to 100 km/h (62 mph) from a standstill in just 8.3 seconds, only 0.2 second slower than the gas V6, and this is mainly due to the diesel’s added 154 pounds at the curb (4,939 pounds in total).

You just can’t argue with those numbers. Same performance yet far cleaner output as well as 40% better efficiency! How can this be true? And this is not sold in America because…?

Here is the three-part explanation and analysis for why the engine, although already a match for gasoline performance, is actually in a “tuned-down” configuration:

We asked Klaus-Gerhard Wolpert, Porsche’s man in charge of SUVs, why exactly didn’t Porsche at least goose the output of this engine above its rating of 236 hp and 405 pound-feet of torque just to set it apart from the same engine in the Audi Q7 and VW Toureg. After all, it’s a Porsche.

“You know,” Wolpert said, grinning, “that’s the sort of question my boss [CEO Wendelin Wiedeking] sometimes asks me as well. The challenge is that to add that little burst of power or torque would have first threatened our CO2 rating of 244 grams per kilometer, taking us over the magic 250 level.” (Below 250 grams apparently results in a marked tax and insurance advantage in several countries.)

“Then there’s the sheer cost of the investment to make such changes to existing powertrains,” he adds. “That would have seriously damaged the business case.”

Besides these practical matters, we also got a few Porsche leaders to admit that there could have been certain political risks should Porsche assert its growing powers within the VW Group by demanding the same powertrain as in the VW and Audi but with more of everything.

This is all about risk management. Better efficiency for compliance is nice to see. A better answer would be that they could get more torque without threatening the 250 barrier, but alas they could not and so chose to keep things clean. More standardized parts makes repair and maintenance more likely and less risky, with a lowered cost of ownership. Also nice to see, although it threatens the exclusivity that some might say defines an exotic. The decision to keep it close to a VW and Audi actually probably led to much disappointment among buyers. My bet is Porsche will up the ante this year and next to differentiate, especially after Cargraphic Porsche announced a tuner kit with 215KW(292PS) and 644Nm of torque, giving 0 to 100 km/h in 7.74 seconds (1.27 seconds faster than gasoline). Lumma Design have a similar offering, with exterior modifications to match.

Alas, the Edmunds’ article was written in 2009 and like most at that time it wondered when (not if) this vehicle would arrive in the US. Even the Wall Street Journal has predicted since 2008 that a dozen new high-efficiency diesel vehicles would be introduced to America by now; including the “superclean” Honda four-cylinder 2.2 i-CTDi engine that set world records.

Unfortunately, however, most of the advanced diesel technology is yet to be incorporated into passenger cars here or imported. Auto manufacturers still operate under the mistaken notion that there is no market. Without Dave Hermance, the late Executive Engineer for Environmental Engineering at Toyota, there would never have been a hybrid in today’s market. Who will be the Dave Hermance of diesel?