All about ideas…

Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

Electric Forecast Calls for Increasing Blackouts

leave a comment »

Energy BlackoutPacific Standard’s Lisa Margonelli reports the US power grid is failing:

Since the early 1990s, according to data gathered by Massoud Amin, an electrical engineering professor at the University of Minnesota, the number of power outages affecting more than 50,000 people a year has more than doubled, and blackouts now drain between $80 billion and $188 billion from the U.S. economy every year. The power grid is slipping backwards to a time when infrastructure was unreliable, and more and more people are talking about going “off the grid” with solar, batteries, and generators as a result. Will this doom the greater grid, and by extension the greater good?

It’s not easy to keep 450,000 miles of high voltage lines up and humming. But the situation has gotten worse over the years because the U.S. has increased the load on its lines while investing less in the system. By Amin’s reckoning, since 1995 the power industry has taken more from its infrastructure than it’s invested; research-and-development spending in the power sector has fallen to just 0.17 percent of revenue. In effect, the power industry has behaved like a low-tech industry—and so it’s becoming one.

Across the power and wonkish sectors, though, there’s a fair amount of agreement that the U.S. needs to make massive investments in the backbone of the grid, as well as in a self-healing grid that can better handle outages (and hackers), and in information technology to make the grid “smart.” Amin estimates this will cost $17 billion to $24 billion over the next 20 years, but will save perhaps $49 billion in outage costs per year and increase energy efficiency to save another $20 billion a year. In other words, as a nation the U.S. would almost make money on the spending.

But in the political climate of the last decade, Americans have not gotten their act together. “We have wasted 10 years arguing about the role of the public and private sectors,” says Amin, “and our competitors have moved ahead of us.” He believes we need a leader who, like Kennedy, can pitch a big investment as a “moonshot,” but laments that “we’ve got gridlock on policy and uncertainty with investment.”

Here’s the takeaway:

Two scary things stand out about America’s failure to shore up its grid over the last 15 years. The first is that the grid’s frailties are getting worse as our weather is getting weirder. The second is that the U.S.’s inability to sort out the right mix of public and private investment and get on with the process of building the grid we need reflects that we no longer quite believe in the common good. It’s not just a power failure, it’s also an optimism failure.

The US used to pride itself as being the first in technology. The first to imagine, solve and create the seemingly impossible. The country that led in research and design and expanding the nation’s capabilities. A country where rich, poor and everyone in between believed they had a stake in the nation’s success: building it; creating new businesses as opportunities arose; expanding opportunities – with federal and state assistance – for everyone who had vision and determination; and in pulling their equitable (affordable) share of the load via taxes.

The current debate over taxes reflects, as Lisa Margonelli writes, that we no longer quite believe in the common good. For the last 20 years or so, the argument has been what am I getting and why should I have to pay for the common good. Perhaps those of us who still take pride in the US need to be asking, if not me…and you, then who?

She Really Was Unique

with one comment

Hedy Lamarr, an Inventor well ahead of her time...and too little known or appreciated for her stunning contribution to technology and science“Any girl can be glamorous,” Hedy Lamarr once said. “All she has to do is stand still and look stupid.”

The film star belied her own apothegm by hiding a brilliant, inventive mind beneath her photogenic exterior. In 1942, at the height of her Hollywood career, she patented a frequency-switching system for torpedo guidance that was two decades ahead of its time.

Hedy Lamarr was one of the most glamorous women in Hollywood during the 1940s. An Austrian, trained in music and math, who immigrated to the US to work for MGM in 1937 where Louis B. Mayer gave her a new name and starred this beautiful women in numerous films. But she has never received the wide-spread acclaim – and historic notoriety – for her technology changing, inventive, patented design during WWII that caused the technology we use today even possible.

During the height of WWII, Lamarr and her partner, George Antheil, both develop a torpedo guidance system that was decades ahead of its time.

They began talking about radio control for torpedoes. The idea itself was not new, but her concept of “frequency hopping” was. Lamarr brought up the idea of radio control. Antheil’s contribution was to suggest the device by which synchronization could be achieved. He proposed that rapid changes in radio frequencies could be coordinated the way he had coordinated the sixteen synchronized player pianos in his Ballet Méanique. The analogy was complete in his mind: By the time the two applied for a patent on a “Secret Communication System,” on June 10, 1941, the invention used slotted paper rolls similar to player-piano rolls to synchronize the frequency changes in transmitter and receiver, and it even called for exactly eighty-eight frequencies, the number of keys on a piano.

Lamarr and Antheil worked on the idea for several months and then, in December 1940, sent a description of it to the National Inventors Council, which had been launched with much fanfare earlier in the year as a gatherer of novel ideas and inventions from the general public. Its chairman was Charles F. Kettering, the research director of General Motors. Over its lifetime, which lasted until 1974, the council collected more than 625,000 suggestions, few of which ever reached the patent stage. But according to Antheil, Kettering himself suggested that he and Lamarr develop their idea to the point of being patentable. With the help of an electrical engineering professor from the California Institute of Technology they ironed out its bugs, and the patent was granted on August 11, 1942. It specified that a high-altitude observation plane could steer the torpedo from above.

In the United States Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil, shunned by the Navy, no longer pursued theirHedy Lemarr on looking towards the future, rather than the past, leads to new, creative innovation and a brighter future invention. But in 1957, the concept was taken up by engineers at the Sylvania Electronic Systems Division, in Buffalo, New York. Their arrangement, using, of course, electronics rather than piano rolls, ultimately became a basic tool for secure military communications. It was installed on ships sent to blockade Cuba in 1962, about three years after the Lamarr-Antheil patent had expired. Subsequent patents in frequency changing, which are generally unrelated to torpedo control, have referred to the Lamarr-Antheil patent as the basis of the field, and the concept lies behind the principal anti-jamming device used today, for example, in the U.S. government’s Milstar defense communication satellite system.

    “Hope and curiosity about the future seemed better than guarantees. That’s the way I was. The unknown was always so attractive to me… and still is.”

    “All creative people want to do the unexpected.”

In addition, the science presented in this duos’ patent serves as the basis for the technology we use today in cell phones, pagers, wireless Internet, defense satellites, and a plethora of other spread-spectrum devices.

Following the outbreak of World War II, Lamarr, a passionate opponent of the Nazis, wanted to contribute more to the allied effort. As Mrs. Fritz Mandl, she had closely observed the planning and discussions that went into attempting to design remote-controlled torpedoes. These never went into production, because the radio-controlled guidance system was too susceptible to disruption. She got the idea of distributing the torpedo guidance signal over several frequencies, thus protecting it from enemy jamming. The only weak point was how to employ the synchronization of the signal’s transmitter and receiver.

In 1940, Lamarr met the American avant-garde composer George Antheil of “ballet mécanique” fame. She described her idea to him, and asked him to help her construct a device that would enable this signal to be synchronized. Antheil laid out a system based on 88 frequencies, corresponding to the number of keys on a piano, using perforated paper rolls which would turn in sync with one another, transmitting and receiving ever-changing frequencies, preventing interceptance and jamming.

In December of 1940, the “frequency hopping” device developed by Lamarr and Antheil was submitted to the national inventors council, a semi-military inventors’ association. Lamarr and Antheil went on to file for a patent application for the “Secret Communication System,” June 10, 1941. The patent was granted by the United States patent office on august 11, 1942.

Lamarr and Antheil immediately placed their patent at the disposal of the US military. Though the us government did not deploy the “secret communication system” during World War II, the US Navy commissioned a project to acoustically detect submarines using sonar buoys remote-controlled from airplanes employing “frequency hopping” in the 1950s.

Twenty years after its conceptualization, during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the first instance of large-scale military deployment of Lamarr and Antheil’s frequency hopping technology was implemented– not for the remote-controlled guidance of torpedoes, but to provide secure communications among the ships involved in the naval blockade. The early ’60s saw the development of reconnaissance drones based on frequency hopping, which were later deployed in Vietnam. With the emergence of digital technology and the military’s release of frequency hopping for public use in the 1980s, Lamarr and Antheil’s invention took on new significance. Instead of “frequency hopping,” today’s term is “spread spectrum” but the basic idea is the same. The FCC recently allotted a special section of the radio spectrum for an experiment using the spread spectrum idea in a test designed to make cell phone calls more secure. A lot of corporate dollars have been invested in this process which has allowed more cell phone users to use the existing frequency spectrum.

Soon, Hedy finds out a way how to hide radio signals sent from a ship to its torpedo. She notices that when a ship flips quickly from one radio channel to another, it is impossible for another ship to detect the signals it is sending. On the other hand, she has an alternative solution to the problem regarding the already sent signals reaching the torpedo’s radio – the radios of the ship and the torpedo have to change channels simultaneously. Together with her neighbor, George Antheil, a composer who has experimented with automated control of musical instruments, she submits her idea of a secret communication system in June 1941. As a result, in 1942 Hedy and George receive a U.S. Patent 2,292,387 for their invention. They name it the Secret Communication System.

The patent itself is little-known until 1997, when The Electronic Frontier Foundation acknowledges Lamarr’s contribution to the invention of frequency (channel) hopping and gave her an honorary award – the Pioneer Award.

The tech world really deserves to honor Hedy Lamarr for her ground-breaking invention. But even more, all women, and girls, should recognize that gender is not a limitation on creative technological innovation or intelligence. Hedy Lamarr proved gender – and beauty – do not control creative intelligence.

Steve Jobs: Think Different

with one comment

I just saw this Apple ad today. Actually, I think I saw it once years ago, but I’m not entirely sure. It was never aired. Steve Jobs narrates.

Think about it.

Written by Valerie Curl

October 6, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Ted Talks: Game Changing Ghandian Engineering

leave a comment »

Disruptive innovation: doing more for less for more and more people.

The United States needs these kinds of Game Changers as we move further into the 21st Century. We can’t live in the past. 1950 will never return. We will not and cannot lock our borders to goods and people and hope to thrive. We’ll just get left behind.

Instead, we have to innovate our way out of structural unemployment. Take existing problems and challenges and think about them a new way with new low cost requirements. Then let the imaginations of the best and brightest go to work.

Watch the video:

Written by Valerie Curl

October 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Politicians Could Take A Lesson From These Two Opposing Camps

leave a comment »

Post Partisan PowerIn a rare but fruitful collaboration, the American Enterprise Institute and Brooking Institute joined together with Breakthrough Institute to develop a new energy policy recommendation that could lead the country towards a sound, efficient and effective energy policy that could satisfy both Republicans and Democrats.

The Breakthrough Institute was founded in 2003 by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus to modernize liberal-progressive-green politics. Pulling together the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal leaning think-tank, The Brookings Institute, the three organizations worked collaboratively to create a white paper, “Post-Partisan Power” – Summary of Recommendations, that lays out an energy policy for a 21st Century United States.

It is time to hit the reset button on energy policy, according to scholars with American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution and the Breakthrough Institute, who are today releasing a new report, “Post-Partisan Power,” which calls for revamping America’s energy innovation system with the aim of making clean energy cheap.
Writes David Leonhardt in today’s New York Times, “the death of cap and trade doesn’t have to mean the death of climate policy. The alternative revolves around much more, and much better organized, financing for clean energy research. It’s an idea with a growing list of supporters, a list that even includes conservatives — most of whom opposed cap and trade.”

Mark Muro of Brookings tells Politico the proposal’s four parts “are broadly popular, provide a very broad and appealing American vision of economic transformation and are certainly far more doable than a global pricing system at this point.” Added Steve Hayward of American Enterprise Institute, “The entire climate and energy agenda that we’ve been talking about for several years now has hit a dead end, so it’s time to hit the reset button.”

The energy policy these three think tanks propose focuses on research and development to encourage and create cost effective innovation that the private market can manufacture and deploy here in the U.S. as well as sell abroad.

Taking a market based approach, such as was used by DARPA in the 1960s and ’70s, the recommendations do not rely upon taxes or “cap and trade” to force innovation. Instead the authors recommend using the capacity of the federal government in collaboration with scientists, universities and private industry to spur innovation and develop highly cost effective and efficient market oriented products that can be manufactured in the US and sold worldwide.

As the Politico article states:

The authors blame lawmakers on the left and right for getting wrapped up in the “climate wars” of the last decade while doing little to advance clean energy.

“The choice is not, as liberals often maintain, between global warming apocalypse or mandating the widespread adoption of today’s solar, wind, and electric car technologies,” they write. “Nor is the choice, as conservatives have argued, between an economy wrecked by liberal global warming policies or expanding drilling and nuclear power.”

Instead, they’re proposing a middle ground. And they think the country might have a bigger appetite for compromise after the demise of energy and climate legislation this year.

To read the entire report, download the white paper here.

Written by Valerie Curl

October 13, 2010 at 4:07 PM

%d bloggers like this: