WorldWide Drilling Resource

Too Many Cooks by Britt Storkson Owner, P2FlowLLC You’ve heard the saying “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” Well, this applies to computer controls as well. Too much of anything is often worse than too little. The right amount of lawn fertilizer and some water will make your lawn nice and green. So if a little is good, more is better, right? Wrong. Too much fertilizer can burn the lawn so severely it can take weeks or months to recover, and it doesn’t make sense to do it either because of the cost. As controls systems designers, we should be constantly ask ourselves: Is this really necessary? Would the customer ap- preciate this feature or piece of information, or despise it? Customers do not need to know every bit of information about a de- vice or process. It’s not because we want to conceal anything or be less than honest. It’s because, if what we include in the control system does not make it better and easier for the customer to use, then it is best to leave it out. Sometimes one needs to include adjustments the customer would not normally need, but should be available “just in case”. On my controls, I have devised a “configuration mode” which is not normally seen on the display, but can be accessed by pressing a button continuously for eight seconds. This way, if necessary, I can easily coach the customer over the phone to make the adjustments. These adjustments are not often needed, but customers are many times pleasantly surprised we have addressed the issue and provided a solution. One example of “too much automation” to the point it becomes a safety hazard was addressed in a New York Times article online entitled “Deadly Convenience: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll”. This article explores the proliferation of remote start or “keyless” cars and the problems they create when allowed to run in an enclosed area. This can happen if the key fob is accidently pressed or someone starts the car remotely and forgets to use it. The carbon monoxide levels build up over time and can asphyxiate those near the car. This is a case where one “fix” can create another problem or problems, requiring yet another level of automation to fix the fix. I know it sounds obtuse and it is, but let’s analyze what’s going on here. The first fix is the “problem” of remotely starting a car. I put the word “problem” in quotes because I don’t think it’s a problem. What’s so difficult about getting into a car, inserting a key into the ignition switch to start it, and then taking the key out of the ignition switch when you are done using it? While I seldom accept the status quo when it comes to automation technology, I would say we have done things this way for decades and it has worked reasonably well, so why change? However, nowadays the status quo is becoming the remote start key fob, not the reliable, tried-and-true ignition key. So I guess I am not accepting this status quo either. So one fix for remotely starting the car could be to have a timer that shuts off the car after 30 minutes of inactivity. Kind of like the software that puts a computer to sleep if doesn’t detect any mouse or keypad activity after an adjustable period of time. Another fix could be installing a carbon monoxide sensor to detect the presence of significant amounts of carbon monoxide gas, then shut off the car when the levels are too high. This would be tougher to implement because we wouldn’t want the car to shut off in the middle of a traffic jam or similar scenario which would temporarily result in high levels of carbon monoxide. Do you see the progression here? Often one fix requires another fix to fix the first fix that’s causing a problem. It’s kind of a domino effect. This seemingly endless parade of fixes also adds cost and complexity, and makes the car less reli- able in that it’s just one more thing to go wrong. In an effort to make the car “smarter”, other problems are created which are not easily addressed and could be potentially life-threatening as well. In spite of all a computer’s virtues - and there are many - computers cannot and never will be able to reason. Computers cannot make judgement calls. If the computer is not pro- grammed to deal with an event or combination of events, it will fail every time. While there have been great advances in artificial intelligence or machine, learning where the machine stores data as a reference while it runs, there must be some human input at some point. Computers have made our lives easier and more efficient, but they won’t be taking over the world. Britt Britt Storkson may be contacted via e-mail to michele@worldwidedrillingresource.com WorldWide Drilling Resource ® 7 AUGUST 2018