I have been emailed a bunch of times, and fussed at several more with the 'no power plant has announced compliance' bit. Here are SEVEN that are generating power right NOW, with their clocks set up into 2000 right NOW. So lets hear no more of the 'no compliant power plant' issue. As I stated several months ago - and was jeered at - the flood of compliancy statements will really start in January of 99 and build to a peak at or before June.

http://www.tva.gov/news/today/da111998.htm#2

It's Y2K at Gallatin & Chickamauga  and the Lights Are Still On

TVA's Gallatin Fossil Plant and Chickamauga Dam rang in New Year 2000 several months early to get an idea how things will go when the new millennium rolls around for real.

Both sites completed Year 2000 unit-startup tests last month, and both continue to run using 21st-century dates. The goal of the tests was to ensure that all equipment with date-related functions will operate properly when the date 01/01/00 arrives.

Startup conditions were chosen as the best test of plant equipment. The reason is that changes occur in all plant systems at startup, offering a good look at how equipment will operate during those changes. At Gallatin, the coal-handling system also was included in the test.

Before startup, all clocks at each site were set to let them naturally progress to Jan. 1, 2000. The leap-year date of Feb. 29, 2000, also was tested. The consensus of many in the utility industry, including the Electric Power Research Institute, is that testing these two dates yields an accurate indication of equipment's Y2K compliance.

All four power-generating units at Chickamauga and units 1-3 at Gallatin were successfully tested. (Due to a planned outage, Gallatin's unit 4 will be tested at a later date.) The clocks at both sites will be left to run in the year 2000 until early January 1999.

The Y2K team that conducted the test included representatives from Fossil & Hydro Engineering, F&H Operations, Information Services, Telecommunications and Transmission/Power Supply.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 08, 1999

Answers

Where ya been, dude? This has been the discussion of much commentary:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000GSZ

-- Dan Webster (cant@spamme.com), January 08, 1999.

Great news Paul! 7 down, 4,000-5,000 to go. I think I'll hang on to my solar battery charger for a few more months.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), January 08, 1999.

Paul, get real. You know darned well that you can't set the clocks forward on embedded chips, and this is where much of the risk is. Until the embedded chips issue is put to rest, no power plant can possibly claim to be Y2K compliant. (By the way, its too late to actually locate, query, and then replace if needed, all those chips. But shhhhhhhhhhhh, I think its supposed to be some kind of secret or something.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

Paul I think it's hopeless to have any meaningful discussions in this forum. No news = TEOTWAWKI; Bad news = TEOTWAWKI; and Good news = TEOTWAWKI. No matter what you say, TEOTWAWKI. By these responses, you can see that your post doesn't prove things will be fine. So we can conclude that TEOTWAWKI. If I remember my logic classes (p's and q's), these responses are totally illogical. But thanks for the post Paul and I'll continue to believe that we CAN survive 1/1/00 (dare I write it in non-compliant format!)

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

Well said Maria! I've noticed several times on this forum anytime anyone says anything about a company becoming compliant, several folks on here will tell you it's impossible. I'm not sure how they know, but they know. Just ask'em, they'll tell ya!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 08, 1999.

Now someone has posted the URL of this thread over at the Y2K & Electric Utilities open discussion forum (www.euy2k.com) website, and they are having a field day with it!!! Paul, this is getting embarrasing! (Fortunately, the folks over at euy2k are much more polite than on the GN forums!)

P.Davis Thread x-link @ euy2k open forum

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

Davis, You are an idiot. 7 power plants out of thousands and thousands and thousands is IRRELEVANT.

You want tp play the silly little semantic game of "Who said there were NO power plants ready."

The issue is that ENOUGH will not be done, in power or any other industry here or abroad.

Some day you will grow up. 7 power plants out of say....7000 is what? It is .1 percent. One tenth of one percent, if my calculator is working.

Are you really that stupid? Yes, you are. Suppose that number escalates a HUNDRED fold. So what. That is only ten percent.

You would have to have about three utilities PER working day become compliant just to get to ten percent. Not to mention the other 6300 utilities. And that is also calling the total number a couple thousand less than it is. Giving you every benefit, you are way way off base.

So wake me up when you stop being a child.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 08, 1999.

Ah Mr. Milne speaks again. The voice of reason. It is amusing to here someone that can not win an arguement through logic (that is reasonable) resort to name calling and other methods of vulgarity. If you can't make your point with the truth presented truthfully, who is stupid?

-- MAP (M@M.com), January 08, 1999.

Paul,

I really respect your ability to maintain optimism in the face of such odds. It's nice to get "some" good news although I wish it were more like ALL the plants were running their clocks in 2000 already and there were no problems.

I wonder why it is that no one ever talks about this end of the power problem...

You CAN lose power without the grid going down.

Issues with regard to the billing end of the y2k problem in Utilities can cause the records of consumers to fail in some way, thus cutting their power. What if there is a mass shut down due to "non payment" for a hundred years, etc? What if at this same moment there is a failure in communications and no affected consumer can call in to try to fix this issue? Oh, and this failure in telecommunications can be as simple as something due to weather...

The scenarios are endless and that is why NO ONE can say how this will play... it's all up in the air.

Mike ==========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

"Davis, You are an idiot. 7 power plants out of thousands and thousands and thousands is IRRELEVANT. "

And a bell curve has to start somewhere Milne

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), January 08, 1999.

Jack - you can reset the dates with the PC you program the system from. If the date doesn't show - then it is running way in the past at the factory default + whenever the last time you rebooted to now. Not a problem.

Seven is a start. More will follow. And its going to be impossible to post them all - a couple thousand new posts would make me an unpopular fellow for sure. Just a for instance - the local power plant for Memphis is supposed to be putting out their final Y2K report in a couple days. Let you know when that one happens for sure.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 08, 1999.

Paul, I am talking about a chip that may have an internal date awareness (thats why you have to look) that may possibly fail (thats why you have to check), independently of anything else. Merely re-setting dates where one can do so does nothing to address this issue.

I would not want your ever increasing popularity on so many forums to slide, but by all means feel free to at least provide some hints on where the upcoming thousands of "We are ready for Y2K!!!" proclamations can be found when they appear. I think that would be good news that everyone would be happy to receive.

Re Memphis: If we all are talkin' good ol' Shelby County, this I have got to see!!!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

Paul's position is very typical of the pollyannas. Because they can take each y2k related disaster concern and examine it BY ITSELF, they conclude No Big Problem. Their understanding of Systems and Complexity Theory is abysmal.

As this thing unfolds, its interesting to note that it is becoming a real psychological problem with people. Their minds will not allow them to study the big picture for very long, because if they do their beliefs are shattered. The denial is becoming total.

-- a (a@a.a), January 08, 1999.

a, I think that you may be onto something here regarding the pschology of Y2K optimism at this late date. A few days ago, I started a thread that invited folks to present an argument for the opposite of what they believe about Y2K. So, for instance, I came up with the best argument that I could that Y2K would not be a big deal, even though I really believe its going to be TEOTWAWKI. Other doomers did the same (though one wimped out with "divine intervention" as his optimistic argument), and middle-of-the-roaders argued both optimistic and pessimistic views. But, only one hardcore optimist -- JBD, who invoked Murphy's Law -- presented a pessimistic argument.

I am wondering if maybe people who are Y2K optimists at this late date have a "mental block" so that not only do they not believe that Y2K will be real bad, but in fact cannot even envision this, because it is just too horrible to think about.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

I recon if they haven't personally told Paul M then it must not be true.....right Paulie?? They'll tell you they're ready when they're ready to tell you Paul. Statistics about who's ready and who's not are pure crap right now and nothing more. Any perfect moron can see that....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 08, 1999.

Please tell me a, how do you examine the "big picture" and complex systems. You obviously become too overwhelmed. I first look at the basis of your arguements to TEOTWAWKI, utilities. You claim that if power goes (even local outages), you extrapolate that into the national grid goes, and so on and so on. Well let's examine if utilities fail. How can they fail? What's the probability that they will fail? What can we do to recover from a failure? And finally, what is the residual risk? As each of the power companies become compliant, the probability of failures become less and less. As they develop contingency plans, the residual risk becomes less and less. Even Rick says that the national power grid will not go down.

Your trump card is always the embedded chip. The chip will be our downfall. Now based on power failing everything else tumbles, the domino effect. I'll use that same logic and say that since the power doesn't fail, banks will not have major problems (they have become compliant) and telecomm will continue working (they have become compliant), and we will only have localized problems because of the uncertainties of the dreaded chip. My crystal ball is just as good as yours.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

Your trump card is always the embedded chip. The chip will be our
downfall. Now based on power failing everything else tumbles, the
domino effect. I'll use that same logic and say that since the power
doesn't fail, banks will not have major problems (they have become
compliant) and telecomm will continue working (they have become
compliant), and we will only have localized problems because of the
uncertainties of the dreaded chip. My crystal ball is just as good as
yours.

Troll Maria, please think through what you have just stated. Yes, banks do need electricity to function, so if the electricty does not work, banks will not work. That is a good example of the Domino Effect. However, just because the electricity is working, this does not mean that banks will be functioning, because -- independent of electricity -- banks have computer systems that have software that needs to work. Unless the software is Y2K compliant (and so far, no bank appears to be Y2K compliant), it will not work correctly. Or, to look at it another way, no matter how non-compliant the bank's software is, this will not affect the flow of electricity. (Well, not directly, anyway. If the banking system fails, and people can't get paid, that might indirectly affect the flow of electricity. And quite a few other things.) Hope this helps....

(This woman is going to drive me to drink.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

Paul,

Thanks for that good news. Are you feeling confident right now about railroad industry compliance?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

Jack thanks for explaining the flaws in my logic. However, you missed the point that I was using YOUR logic in that arguement. Go have another beer.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

AAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

"Ah Mr. Milne speaks again. The voice of reason. It is amusing to here someone that can not win an arguement through logic (that is reasonable) resort to name calling and other methods of vulgarity. If you can't make your point with the truth presented truthfully, who is stupid?"

You MAP because you can't understand Mr. Milne's logic.

Paul, I see you are busy on this thread, why did you not respond to my challenge to you (as you promised) earlier.

Still waiting.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

I must be in the twillight zone. Why is it so hard for them to understand that chips can't be set forward to 2000 even if they found them all? And that yes, they are the trump cards? The real crux of the problem?

If most of the poeple in charge of fixing Y2K think like Paul and Maria, we are doomed for certain.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Jack, lets have a Captain Morgan and coffee together. I need a stiff one just about now.

ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! too!

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

"Paul's position is very typical of the pollyannas. Because they can take each y2k related disaster concern and examine it BY ITSELF, they conclude No Big Problem. Their understanding of Systems and Complexity Theory is abysmal.

As this thing unfolds, its interesting to note that it is becoming a real psychological problem with people. Their minds will not allow them to study the big picture for very long, because if they do their beliefs are shattered. The denial is becoming total."

My point exactly.

This is why Paul Davis and John Howard wimped out big time on my challenge to them to discuss interdependencies.

My question was this:-

"I challenge you.

Give me the good news on the following countries.

Russia.

France.

Germany.

Then tell me how the the USA, even if it get's it's act together (!), will survive economically and digitally with the rest of our trading partners in meltdown."

Link at:-

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000M9O

The best John Howard could come up with, after much nagging was:-

"Okay Andy -- There isn't any good news about those countries, far as I can see.

But how can the U.S. survive if they have big problems?

Boy you guys ask such simple questions with such simple answers. And think they're such toughies.

Remember hearing about a thing called World War II? Which devastated much of the world's economy? Remember hearing about a thing called the Great Depression? Which did the same thing, but in a worse fashion?

Remember how the U.S. just couldn't pull though either event, and fell off the face of the earth as a result?

My only question is, where do we live now? Since America couldn't make it through those two past events which were both much worse than Y2K could ever hope to be?

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

As I said John, I rest my case. Your history lesson does not cut it at all.

"My only question is, where do we live now? Since America couldn't make it through those two past events which were both much worse than Y2K could ever hope to be?"

Oh really.....

You seem to be unable to grasp that y2k is unique, totally unprecedented, worldwide and systemic in nature. Sure, short of nuclear war or poisonfire, the USA *will* survive - but logic dictates that with the rest of the world belly-up, the USA we know now will not exist in 2001 - i.e. TEOTWAWKI - stressing "as we *know* it."

Still waiting for you Paul - can you do any better me old son, me old mucker???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

"I need a stiff one just about now."

Chris - behave yourself please... :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Ok, quick question folks.

If you cannot set a date on an embedded chip/system, but it has date awareness, how does it know what date it is? Read from an external source, on which you CAN set the date?

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), January 08, 1999.

*slaps Andy with a glove* Well! I never!

You stop quoting me out of context right now young man!!

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

C'mon guys, Troll Maria and Paul Davis certainly keep you on your toes!

-- margie mason (mar3mike@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

Chris, where did you get the idea that clocks can't be set ahead in embedded systems? This is almost universally false. In the first place, clock chips are battery powered, and batteries go dead. In the second place, most of these chips are pretty inaccurate, and typically gain or lose several seconds a day -- the worst can be off by up to 2 minutes a day.

For these reasons, any embedded system that relies on anything close to an accurate time and/or date must be capable of being reset. It's true that some systems only use these clock chips to measure time intervals. In most of these cases, the initial time and date were never set at all, and could hold any value. You can't set these ahead for the most part, but it wouldn't make any difference if you could.

For most embedded systems where time and date are critical, these values are maintained by software, rather than by hardware or firmware. An amazing number of such systems are basically just stripped down PC motherboards, running DOS. Changing time and date is trivial.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 1999.

[This one requires the Gary North treatment]

Davis, You are an idiot.

[Mr. Milne, do you really think insults are 'evidence'? Well, that's one insult]

7 power plants out of thousands and thousands and thousands is IRRELEVANT. You want to play the silly little semantic game of "Who said there were NO power plants ready."

[Uh, You said it, Mr. Milne. Why, now that there's documentation, has it become a 'silly semantic game'? It's your own game. And of course there aren't 'thousands and thousands' of power plants, but as Jack said, when you have the big picture, who needs details? Especially if you don't like the details]

The issue is that ENOUGH will not be done, in power or any other industry here or abroad.

[Almost true. The issue is whether ENOUGH will be done. Experts like Mills and Cowles say there will be power. What is your expertise, beyond posting insults?]

Some day you will grow up.

[Sounds like envy to me. That's two insults]

7 power plants out of say....7000 is what? It is .1 percent. One tenth of one percent, if my calculator is working.

[And the number of power generation plants who have admitted they *won't* be able to provide power is ... zero! That's an even smaller percent. Come on, Mr. Milne, you're always criticizing everyone for failure to produce evidence. Where's yours?]

Are you really that stupid? Yes, you are.

[Three insults. Milne's case is getting stronger, yes?]

Suppose that number escalates a HUNDRED fold. So what. That is only ten percent.

[And a hundred times zero is still ... zero! Still smaller]

You would have to have about three utilities PER working day become compliant just to get to ten percent. Not to mention the other 6300 utilities. And that is also calling the total number a couple thousand less than it is. Giving you every benefit, you are way way off base.

[Again, Mr. Milne doesn't know a generator from a distributor from a broker. He also assumes that any aspect of noncompliance renders any of these nonfunctional. False assumption, Milne's specialty. And based on this false assumption, he draws the 'way off base' conclusion.]

So wake me up when you stop being a child.

[Four insults. This must be what Milne means by 'proof'! Mr Davis also predicted a burst of compliance statements by power companies within the next few months. If Davis is wrong, I'm sure he'll admit it. If he's right, Milne will acknowledge it with absolute silence (if the past is any indication). But who knows, Milne might respond with another four (or more) insults worth of 'evidence']

[So what do we have here? Specious calculations, based on false assumptions, supported by NO evidence. Par for the course, for Mr. Milne. Yet another example of forceful and intelligent analysis, I guess]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 1999.

[And the number of power generation plants who have admitted they *won't* be able to provide power is ... zero! That's an even smaller percent. Come on, Mr. Milne, you're always criticizing everyone for failure to produce evidence. Where's yours?]

Flint your wrong on this one - zero - all power company statements that I have read preface everything with the disclaimer "we never guarantee power" or words to that effect. This will apply to y2k compliance too - no???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

For everything that you always wanted to know about embedded systems/chips/devices but were afraid to ask, see the following white paper, which is extremely well documented and often cited on power company web sites:

Emb Sys Paper

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

>>TVA's Gallatin Fossil Plant and Chickamauga Dam...<<

>>Both sites completed Year 2000 unit-startup tests last month...<<

>>All four power-generating units at Chickamauga and units 1-3 at Gallatin were successfully tested.<<

>> (Due to a planned outage, Gallatin's unit 4 will be tested at a later date.) <<

>>The clocks at both sites will be left to run in the year 2000 until early January 1999. <<

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the above refers to *two* power *plants* with a combined total of *seven* generating *units* under test. If you don't understand the terms, people, ask a question.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 08, 1999.

Paul I think it's hopeless to have any meaningful discussions in this forum. No news = TEOTWAWKI; Bad news = TEOTWAWKI; and Good news = TEOTWAWKI. No matter what you say, TEOTWAWKI. By these responses, you can see that your post doesn't prove things will be fine. So we can conclude that TEOTWAWKI. If I remember my logic classes (p's and q's), these responses are totally illogical. But thanks for the post Paul and I'll continue to believe that we CAN survive 1/1/00 (dare I write it in non-compliant format!)

Troll Maria

Dearest Maria,

You are new here, and I have been here so long that I can remember days when there were NO NEW POSTINGS at all. I have been here so long that moss is growing on my north side. You haven't a clue, Trolly dearest. Let me buy you a vowel.

Nothing matters at all except personal preparations.

Nothing, child.

Nothing...

Nothing that comes out now is relavent to personal preparation.

Understand, little one?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Meaningful discussions? What does that mean? Hmmm? Does that mean that we all hold hands and sing "We are the world"? Or does it mean we who have been aware of this problem for a long, long time indulge the newbies by rehashing all the tired arguements?

Here's another clue. You haven't had a thought that hasn't been taken to it's fractal end long ago, either here or on csy2k.

There is massive motivation to lie if the news is bad, my little guppy. It is IMPOSSIBLE for us peasants to *know* if this company or that one is telling the truth. And as Milne and others have so aptly pointed out, individual compliance is MOOT! This really IS a systemic problem. Compex systems survive much abuse. BUT, when they fail, they fail SPECTACULARLY.

This event will affect all our lives. Therefore personal preparations must be carried out if you wish to live. Anyone that fails to prepare because of anything that comes out now is really too stupid to be allowed to reproduce. ( isn't Darwinism a beautiful thing?)

Logic? You haven't a clue about logic. If you are not preparing for food and water for you and your family then you are a fool. If you are prepared, then you are an ass for speaking against it.

[sigh] Attention class! Prepare for serious interuptions in essential products amd services. That is the only "logical" conclusion from all this shit.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Davis this applies to you as well.

Wearily,

Will Huett

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), January 08, 1999.

Andy, you are correct. This has always been the case for all power plants, and remains the case even for those who claim complete remediation and testing.

For a long time, there's been a disclaimer on all software that says basically, 'this software isn't guaranteed to do anything at all'. Yet software does indeed do things (we wouldn't be in this predicament if it didn't).

That zero applies to power generators who have come out and admitted that they won't be able to generate power, and to distributors who have admitted they won't be able to distribute it.

Informally, my own power utility contact assures me that (1) They will be providing power in the next century, guaranteed, and (2) There will STILL be unresolved y2k compliance problems at that time. But they have determined that those compliance problems won't interfere with generation or local distribution in any way. There *will* be some safety issues, and there *may* be some billing issues. He says keep all your records, and learn to read your own meter. Of course none of this is in writing, what do you expect?

I accept Rick Cowles' analysis that there will be local, periodic brownouts and blackouts for some time. I expect technical, legal and regulatory problems. Rick (and therefore I) don't know how widespread or how long-lasting, so again this is a 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst' situation. I'm ready today to go for a year without power. I hope you are too. But like Rick, I would be astounded (but not unprepared) if this should happen.

The entire y2k situation remains highly fluid and unpredictable. I'm encouraged by the lack of serious problems so far, and discouraged by all the slipping schedules and procrastination. I have no good feel for the impact remediation is actually having, or for the magnitude of the problems noncompliance will lead to.

To use a golfing analogy (I don't golf) the fairway is narrow and the surrounding woods are thick, but everything depends on where the ball lies (in great detail, from the location of the trees to individual blades of grass). We aren't going to land in the fairway, and we aren't going to make par. But nobody can predict how many shots it will take, no matter how many times Milne says it's a Zillion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 1999.

AG@BFI.com,

>If you cannot set a date on an embedded chip/system, but it has date awareness, how does it know what date it is?

The default date (such as January 4, 1980, a common one, I'm told) is used until set otherwise. So whenever the embedded chip/system "starts" (such as the time when a battery is connected to its internal clock), the date starts ticking from the default.

Note that in such cases, the internal date will not correspond to the external date, such as 1999. So the internal date could be, for instance, 19 years earlier than the external date. So that chip/system would encounter the 1999->2000 date rollover when the external date was 19 year later, about 2019.

Yes, this means that embedded chips/systems on which the internal date has not been explicitly could experience Y2k problems just about any time in the next twenty or ? years, depending on when their internal clocks were started and what default date they used.

No, I am not kidding. This is not a joke.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

No Spam, that isn't a joke but it isn't a significant worry either. What you're talking about is systems where (1) The date is used (with century, noncompliant) as part of a time calculation, AND (2) The date doesn't particularly matter so didn't need to be explicitly set (a time interval calculation) AND (3) Power is never removed from the chip, so that at some future time (should the chip and the battery last that long) there will be a miscalculation, AND (4) the programmer (s) didn't bear that in mind, AND (5) This miscalculation will cause problems difficult to recover from. Whew! That's a lot of conditions that have to happen.

That 1980 date, for starters, is a little misleading. On a PC, if the RTC returns an invalid date (<1980), it's DOS that creates the 1980 date. DOS then continues to maintain its own (compliant) date so long as the system is under power. If power is removed, DOS will revert right back to 1980. If DOS is not used, the RTC is usually initialized to all 00, so the problem won't occur for 100 years under continuous power. Batteries last 7-10 years under ordinary use. The silicon itself shouldn't last 100 years under continuous power.

So if any system lasts long enough so that all 5 conditions can be met and there's a failure, I'd like to shake the hand of whoever designed that system, good work, buddy! And of course, boo! hiss! to the software person who failed on step (4).

Meanwhile, removing and reapplying power to the RTC fixes the problem and you're good to go for another 100 years. This isn't trivial - you need to disconnect the battery (damn fine battery after this long, kudos to the battery designer) and there's usually a capacitor that needs to be shorted out as well.

And that's worst case. Depending on the associated software, that glitch may well be a 1-time event (depends on sampling rates and window widths). So give me a call if you ever see this problem in real live, and I'll fix you right up.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 1999.

Jack, thank you for the link to Dr. Frautschi's paper. I've been frantically looking in my stack of printed material for (I think it was) Cowle's paper on embedded chips to answer Flint. That paper explained the problem in much the same way.

Flint please read this paper carefully if you haven't already done so, that would explain to you why I think what I do, in a much more detailed and eloquent fashion than I possibly could. I don't have the technical jargon to discuss it, but I do have the ability to understand it.

Here's the link again Embedded Systems and the Year 2000 Problem

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Ah yes, I've found one of my other sources on embedded systems which you could also call "all you ever wanted to know about embedded systems".

Here's an excerpt: "Secondly in embedded systems the concern is often with intervals rather than with specific dates: the need may be for an event to occur at 100-day intervals rather than on the 5th day of each month. This has the implication that Year 2000 problems may reveal themselves both before and for some time after 1 January 2000 and not at all on the date itself. The lifetime of embedded systems tends to be greater than that of commercial data processing systems: they remain in use for longer without alteration to their software. Because their software may therefore be older they are rendered more liable to Year 2000 problems. "

The Institution of Electrical Engineers

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Chris, I've read Frautschi's paper with great interest. All he says is true, what I've explained is the extreme unlikelihood of such an event happening. Not impossible in theory, just that I never expect to see it in practice.

I've been doing embedded systems for a couple of decades, and I understand both these dangers and their probability of happening. In theory, you might be hit by a meteor tomorrow. In practice, there are more important things to worry about.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 1999.

Then Flint, after what you said, considering your 2 decades of experience with embedded chips, and my own total of 0, to be consistant with the way I learn, I must now stop and read everything again on embedded chips more carefuly, then reconsider.

(Unless Dr. Frautschi or Hardliner says you're full of it ;-) )

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

Need more scope? Mark Frautschi's Y2K Bookmarks

-- Critt Jarvis (Wilmington, NC) (critt@critt.com), January 08, 1999.

I have a friend who is retired navy and also recently retired (about 3 years ago) from a hospital where he held the position of facilities director. He has been a building contractor, is a accomplished machinist, electrician, and a great shadetree engineer.

A couple of weeks ago, I was hanging out in his workshop. He was spinning something on his lathe and he commented that the power was doing funny things that morning. Off and on. Brownouts. I saw this as an opportunity so I commented that maybe they were doing Y2K tests. He stopped his work and turned the lathe off and stood there with a worried look. Finally he said, "There is a relay station about 2 miles from here." He asked me if I had ever been in one before. I haven't. He describe it too me as a fenced compound, relative small concrete structure with a scarce few operators who constantly monitor computers screens. He said, "Do you know what would happen if...and he went on to describe current coming from opposite directions into the relay station at X volts. He said, "It would create an explosion that would take out 2 city blocks."

Now I have no particular expertise in this field and have no idea what he was really talking about. But, since that day he has started preparing. I am greatful for whatever turned his switch on (pun intended), because he is a good friend and a great partner to have if TSHTF.

Maybe one of you in this thread will explain what his concern is.

MoVe Immediate

-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

Flint,

>(2) The date doesn't particularly matter so didn't need to be explicitly set (a time interval calculation)

Existence of a Y2k bug does not depend on whether the date needed to be explicitly set.

>(4) the programmer (s) didn't bear that in mind,

... which is why we have the suite of computer problems known as "Y2k"

(But see later note.)

>(5) This miscalculation will cause problems difficult to recover from.

... _or_ cause a problem that would be simple to recover from, if only it weren't occurring while 20 million other microprocessors were also causing problems and the Domino Effect was magnifying those.

>Whew! That's a lot of conditions that have to happen.

Only five. But #2 is irrelevant, and #4 is a given (that's why there's a Y2k problem). So that leaves us with only three significant conditions, actually.

>And of course, boo! hiss! to the software person who failed on step (4)

... or, more likely, the manager or vice-president who set the standard for two-digit years. When I pointed out a Y2k flaw to my supervisor in 1979, I knew very well that it was no use fixing just one program -- the whole library would have to be changed to a new common date format, and neither he nor I had the power to authorize that.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 09, 1999.

I think we need to be careful about the whole Bell Curve concept here, folks. 7 plants out of somewhere around 5000 = somewhere in the third or fourth standard deviation on the low end of the curve ...this is bad news, since it's taken this long to get even this far. Even with a strong negative skew there is as yet no evidence that we'll reach anything like the mean, much less the median...and WE in the US are AHEAD of most of the rest of the world.

Arlin [who really hated all those graduate statistics courses he had to take!]

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 09, 1999.

"7 plants out of somewhere around 5000"

believe it is between 7-8,000 utilities...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 09, 1999.

P.S.

Germany gets 40% of it's power from Russia...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 09, 1999.

Some folks are a little slow getting it. There are TWO power plants with a combined total of SEVEN generators. Which just makes the whole controversy less impressive.

MVI,

Something in your description of this "relay station" does not compute. Perhaps a monitoring/control station? At any rate, a small building containing monitoring equipment will not explode. It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that certain transmission line outages could cause an overloaded transformer which *might* explode. These transformers are, by themselves, the size of small buildings. And, although I cannot speak from a knowledge of the power of such an explosion, I doubt the assertion concerning "leveling two city blocks." An oil fire with toxic fumes (PCB's) is a possibility. And, this scenario would lead to further power outages.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 09, 1999.

No Spam, I think my failure to communiciate lies here:

>(2) The date doesn't particularly matter so didn't need to be explicitly set (a time interval calculation)

Existence of a Y2k bug does not depend on whether the date needed to be explicitly set.

If we define a y2k bug as a bug that will happen at century rollover, this implies that the year field in the clock chip was set (and has been maintained) correctly. If the time and date fields could hold almost any value (since they were never initialized and nobody cared what they were), this hidden rollover bug could happen at any time at all, and the probability of this happening at the same time as hordes of other similar problems is essentially zero.

On the other hand, if we define a y2k bug (for this purpose) as *any* time interval calculation that will be incorrect when the clock's year field rolls from 99 to 00, then of course some potential exists (at, again, some arbitrary and essentially random time) *provided* that the clock chip stays under continuous power AND is the source of the actual time (as opposed to some other source like the OS) AND the firmware uses the century as a component of the time used for interval calculations.

I can assure you that this combination of conditions is not only uncommon, but if it represented a real danger we'd know about it since it should have happened before now (since it can strike at any time in a period of up to 100 years).

However, if there is some good reason why the time inside the clock chip must be kept reasonably close to actual calendar time, there must be some way of setting it (since batteries do die, and clocks aren't accurate and wander substantially over time). These we can set ahead for testing, or set way back if the implementation permits.

I think the real danger lies in this flavor of system, where the hardware clock can be turned ahead, and if it were we'd find immediate problems on our hands (that's what testing is all about), but that nobody bothers to turn ahead to test. What I fear is a very large number of inadvertent live 'tests' of such embedded systems, on or very near the century rollover itself. Many surprises, almost all of them avoidable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 1999.

WHEW - Thanks for the defense Flint. I would have been on more - but my phone service has been barely functional since the 26th of December. I have stayed late at work a couple of times, and gone in early a couple more, and given up lunch hours and so on to try to keep up with mail and these threads and so forth - but I am behind in a major way. Could be they have finally gotten things going again - just a short ways east of me there were over half a million people without power and most without phones. Been a rough time for the public services. Worth noting there were no riots or such though - people just cooperated and tried to get through the problems they were facing.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 10, 1999.

Flint, I hope you are enough right and I am enough wrong so that the embedded systems will not experience significant problems.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 10, 1999.