Page: 0 ... 5 ... 10 ... 15 ... 20 ... 25 ... 30 ... 35 ... 40 ... 45 ... 50 52 53 54
Electric Vehicle Update
Date: 20/2/2006
(see update at the bottom.

After my first post about electric vehicles for city commuting I sent a letter to the Minister of Transport, John Watkins MP. After many months I finally received a response today, which I will quote in full (I don't have a scanner handy):

Joseph Tripodi
Minister For Roads

The Hon John Watkins MP
Deputy Premier
Minister for Transport
Minister for State Development
Member for Ryde
PO Box 736

Dear Minister

Thank you for your representations to the former Minister for Roads on behalf of Mr Matthew Allen of xx xxxxxx Street, North Ryde concerning the user of motorised foot scooters in NSW.

I am advised that all motorised 'stand-on-to-ride' scooters are banned from use on roads or in road-related areas in NSW, including footpaths.

I am also advised that with their small wheels and steep steering head angle, motorised foot scooters are less stable and controllable that bicycles and, in particular, are more susceptible to road irregularities. Sudden falls sideways into the path of passing cars are more likely than with bicycles. They cannot, therefor, be categorised like bicycles for use on roads.

Motorised foot scooters create significant dangers to their riders, pedestrians, and other road users. The only place that can be legally user in NSW is on private property.

The Australian Road Rules and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998 provides that an auxiliary propulsion motor fitted to a motor assisted pedal cycle can only have a maximum output of 200 watts (200w). The power was deliberately restricted, because the motor was never intended to be the principal source of power, but only to provide assistance to the cyclist when pedalling up a hill.

If Mr Allen requires any more information he may wish to contact Ms Sui, Manager Customer Management, Roads and Traffic Authority on (02) 9218 3583.

Yours Sincerely.
Joe Tripodi

As disappointed as I am I'm not surprised. I disagree with the statement that they are less safe than a bicycle, or that they present more of a risk to pedestrians and other road users than a bicycle does. But that's classic close minded bureaucracy for you. Notice how the issue of pollution and traffic is conveniently swept under the carpet. What politicians don't realize is that the cost of not letting people ride around on scooters may be higher than a few scooter accidents, in the extra smog caused illnesses, depletion of fossil fuels, increased traffic and so on. It's just a small minded "That doesn't fit our model, lets ban it".

It even seems that motorized scooters with less than 200w are banned with some of the language they use in the letter. However there are several avenues that I think have promise.
  1. Building transmissions for 200w scooters that can gear down for hills, and then back up for flats. The power output of a human riding a bicycle is about 150-200 watts on average (which is quite similar to our current limit) and by using extensive gearing they achieve hill climbing ability and high speed. I see no reason why this concept can't be applied to electric scooters. I expect with a little effort and design one could reach 40km/h on the flat.
  2. With petrol motors there are 2 different metrics used to quantify output, power and torque. One can often by increased when the other is fixed. As in WRC rally cars the power output is limited to about 240kw, so the engineers work on maximizing the torque. So maybe this concept can be applied to electric motors, maybe not. I don't know, but it's worth investigating.
  3. If small wheels are the only reason that electric scooters can be discriminated against then lets find out what the minimum wheel size is to overcome that "excuse" and build scooters with that wheel size. If that reason is eliminated we could argue for a higher power rating.
  4. Forget super lightweight electric vehicles and jump up a class, to mopeds that meet ADR's. That way you can put any size motor you like in it. So you can't use bike tracks but your still avoiding the unleaded tax and saving the environment. But I expect this is going to have a much higher cost of entry than electric scooters.
The quest for cheap, non-polluting transport continues...

Update (20/2/2006): It turns out I misunderstood the rules, and the 200w limit applies to powered cycles, and motorized foot scooters of any type are banned. So it's worse than I thought.

I spoke to Ms Sui and she referred me to Chris Peckham (02 9218 6587) at the NSW RTA. We spoke at length about the issue and the reasons behind the rules. There seems to be a Scooter working group that was responsible for the current situation that I'm hoping to find out about over the next few days. Chris sited an unnamed report regarding the unstable nature of the motor foot scooters as being sufficient evidence that they should be illegal despite my protests that they have been legalized in (some parts of) Europe and the US. The core issue seems that the scooters don't have sufficient trailing stability, i.e. if you take your hand off the steering in a car, moped or bicycle the steering self centers and you go in a straight line. I'm not sure why this "hands off" stability is that important as anyone in their right mind keeps their hands firmly on the steering system while in motion anyway.

My personal experience with motor foot scooters is that while it looks unstable, once your up to speed it's self balancing just like a bike, as long as your holding the steering arm. But personal experience seems to hold little weight against "official reports".

When we spoke about the general availability of pure electric vehicles in Australia Chris pointed to the number of electric bicycles limited to 200w, which in my mind is not pure electric but instead hybrid human / electric powered. And also does not have the important benefit of being able to easily combine with public transport. You might get an e-bike on a train but definitely not a bus. And you'd be up for an extra fare on a train anyway. Not so with a electric foot scooter, which would leverage the existing public transport system nicely, while still maintaining the important benefits of full electric transport. Including not having to have a shower at your destination because of all the sweat you'd work up on an e-bike.

Currently I'm looking at getting a proper registered scooter, although it's painful to do so seeing as an electric foot scooter is far cheaper and more appropriate for the distance and terrain I need to commute over. I will continue to poke and prod the government for information about the situation, hopefully at least raising the awareness of how the current laws are not what everyone wants. Ideally I'd like to unearth the real decision makers in the government so that we can lobby effectively as a community for change.
(11) Comments | Add Comment

XP Has Left The Building
Date: 18/2/2006
My wintel box no longer boots XP. It gets past the "Starting XP" progress bar (in VGA on black) and then just before getting to the login screen all activity ceases with just a black screen. Nice.

Precipitating factor was that I had the machine spontaneously reboot while encoding with Auto Gordian Knot. I thought nothing of it, but when it tried to come back up, no dice. It boots in safe mode but I don't know what to frig with to fix the problem. I did boot once just after I turned off the firewire drive. But it's still off and booting fails.

Oh well, my trusty sidekick Mac mini will save the day. But I won't be getting any work done or read any email while the PC is dead. So don't expect anything much from me this week.

It's time to reinstall XP anyway. Thank you God that I have a hardware firewall :)
(0) Comments | Add Comment

Continuing Tales Of Optimization
Date: 9/2/2006
Once I had a working B+Tree I sought to intergrate this into Scribe to see how it worked with "real data". Well that was a dismal failure. You see being a disk based data structure rather than RAM based it sucked speed wise compared to the memory only system used by the v1.88 build of Scribe. So I looked at the code and there was a cache of sorts built in to keep B+Tree blocks in RAM for a while before flushing them to disk. I did a quick experiment to see how much the cached blocks were getting used and whoa, no caching was taking place. Well there yah go son, thats your problem.

So I started tinkering with the cache, first by fixing the bugs to get it working and then progressively changing it's parameters and implementation to improve speed. Initially by just fixing the bugs in the initial implementation I got a massive speed up. So instead of 50 keys/sec I got around 3600 keys/sec. Nice, but still slow compared to the old way. Then I realised that it wasn't a smart cache in that it cached the first n blocks and then that was it, so I implemented a system to remove older blocks when the cache was full. I bumped the cache size up to 256 blocks (from 128) and the speed went up to 3900 keys/sec. Ok, time to whip out the profiler and see where the time was being spent. Turns out that most of the time was going in linear searches through the cache which drastically limited the size of the cache and these get/put functions that converted data for serialization. So I reimplemented the get/put functions as macros, getting rid of the expensive function call and that made an immediate difference, speed was up to 4950 keys/sec.

The existing data structures were now holding cache size back, so I ripped out the array data structure and reimplemented with a binary tree for offset lookups and a doubly linked list for the least recently used que. That allowed the size of the cache to climb without hurting performance and speed increased again, with the cache size up to 1024 speed jumped up to 6400 keys/sec. The least recently used que was working a treat, with O(1) operation for all operations.

Size (blocks) Speed (keys/s)
1024 6386
2048 6960
3072 7238

But still I wasn't convinced. From cs101 any programmer knows that binary trees have O(logn) complexity for insertion, deletion and search. Now I know of another data structure with essentially O(1) complexity for all those operations. A hash table.

So in goes the hash table and then I ran the tests again. 1500 keys/sec. Huh? Ok, 2 things could be happening here, a) I could have chosen a sucky hashing algorithm and b) my code is probably buggy. To fix the bugs I wrote a data structure verify function that scanned the entire thing and check for conformance to the rules. This ran everytime I changed something in the structure, and it saved heaps of time. Then with the bugs out of the way I got down to checking the quality of the hash algorithm. I tested the number of hash table collisions for each hashing algorithm and eventually settled on a shift and a modulous.

Size (blocks) Speed (keys/s)
4096 7683

Now I felt I was wringing out the last of the performance from the data structure. Still when I plugged it into Scribe I was getting about 100-130 messages / sec when rebuilding the spam word database. This is compared to the 600 messages / sec with a straight memory only hash table. So it took about 5 times longer to build the word DB.

So currently I've given up with using the B+Tree directly during word DB rebuilds and I've gone back to the memory sucking hash tables. Then instead of writing the hash table to disk I dump it all to the B+Tree instead so that I can access the data without loading the entire thing into memory. This keeps the footprint of Scribe nice and low for normal day to day running, and there isn't that expensive word DB load that kills performance during the first mail receive of the session.

The only problem now is that during the word DB rebuild my debug build sucked down a cool 1gb of RAM, seriously paging out to disk (I've got 512mb installed). This is obviously unacceptable so I'll have to look at that before a release happens. But I'll probably remove the "rebuild word DB" function entirely and rely on incremental edits and mail is received and moved between folders. I'm still toying with the idea of adding mail bit by bit to the word DB's as the user moves around the folders, thus acheiving the indexing incrementally and thus the speed of the B+Tree's is not so much of a problem. Also the actual word counts are not accurate yet, there is an issue in the mail -> word list function that I've been working on for a couple of days now. Damn charsets and dodgy email clients make things so complicated.

Anyway, enough said, I'm still working hard on the software and a release will happen in the next few weeks.
(2) Comments | Add Comment

Date: 3/2/2006
Recently I've ported some B+Tree code to windows to use in Scribe for storing the spam database word indexes. The current system takes a lot of time to load into memory and uses too much memory. I spent some time optimizing the existing code, but fundamentally it's design is flawed. Really the data needs to stay on disk and be arranged for random access (by key) without loading much of the file into memory. These is an existing data structure for that called the B+Tree. It's now finding it's way into commonly file systems (like ReiserFS), and was the basis of the BeOS File System.

However my point is that Scribe is probably going to use B+Trees for it's spam word DB. To test the code I've been reading in my current spamwords.wdb file and exporting it to the new B+Tree format. The .wdb file is fairly optimal in it's size, mines 762kb, so thats our baseline. The B+Tree files are less optimal in storing raw data, because of the overhead of their structure, but they have other very desirable qualities.

Once I got the B+Tree code actually working, I began finding the best parameters for the B+Tree, my initial attempt created a 4+mb file, eek! B+Trees are parameterised by block size and order. The order (n) is an indicator of the desired number of keys per block. The B+Tree tries to keep the number of keys between n and 2*n. The block size and order are inter-related, if the order is too small for the block size the blocks have lots of wasted space, if the order is too large, the blocks get full and have to be split up into multiple blocks too soon. So I worked where the sweet spot was for my typical data (using 256 byte blocks):

Order Size
14 2088kb
16 1813kb
17 1706kb
18 1692kb
19 1589kb
20 1614kb
24 1721kb
28 1945kb

However on top of that, the order effects the speed of the data structure, because the larger the order, the more keys in the block and thus more linear searching of keys at the leaf level.

I found the sweet spot for 512 byte blocks was quiet a bit slower than the sweet spot for 256 byte blocks for this reason.

I'll be putting this into the bayesian implementation in Scribe v1.89 test1... it bring down the memory footprint and speed up the first mail receive a fair bit... esp if you have large word databases.
(1) Comment | Add Comment

XP Screen Madness
Date: 31/1/2006
I've found that when you hook an XP machine up to a KVM and boot it while the KVM is displaying the other machine, XP sees there is no monitor attached and ignores the refresh rate set in the display settings. In my case I want 1280x1024@32bpp and 75hz refresh. Which is fine if I boot the machine with the KVM switched to the XP box, otherwise the machine boots into 1280x1024@32bpp and 85hz refresh. When I do switch the KVM to the XP box the LCD says "Input Out Of Range". Now I wrote a command line program to tell me the current screen mode, ssh'd in from the Mac mini while XP was in this "Out Of Range" mode and ran the cmd line app. Thus I actually know what the out of range mode is.

The next step of course is to stop XP from setting the refresh to 85hz. Now I've googled around and some people seem to think that there might be an Nvidia registry setting that forces the refresh rate but so far no luck in getting that to work.

I added some functionality to my cmd line app to set the video mode (inc refresh) as well, and then called it from a remote ssh shell, but it complains about not being able to set the video mode. Which is not surprising I guess. (It does work fine from the local console.)

Now I'm thinking that maybe a Windows service needs to be installed that sits there polling the video mode and then if it sees an out of range mode it tries to reset the screen to some default. I havn't written a service before and I have my doubts as to whether a service can change the screen resolution/refresh. But it's worth a try.

The reason I would have to run it as a service is that when the machine boots, it goes to the select account screen that has no user actually logged in. At this point I only have services running, thus the need to run as a service. Otherwise I have to log in blind. Which is actually what I do to fix the problem at the moment. Log in as one user and then log in as another user, all blind, using the keyboard only. XP resets the screen mode when logging in to the 2nd account and the LCD shows the desktop.

I'm not even sure if it's the video card, XP or the KVM at fault but it's really really annoying.


Update: Last night I installed the resolution check cmd line app in the "All Users" startup folder such that it checks the resolution and refresh and changes it to something acceptable while logging in to each account. This way all I have to do is hit enter when the machine has finished booting and it'll switch to a valid screen mode. So while it's not "ideal" it's now a fairly benign problem.

I've packaged the res/refresh change program (with source) and made it available here.
(0) Comments | Add Comment

Quiet PC
Date: 29/1/2006
After years of tinkering with making my PC quiet I think I'm finally on the verge of actually acheiving an almost silent PC. Recently I installed a Zalman fanless northbridge chipset heatsink because the little 40mm chipset fan was making disturbing noises like the bearings were failing and the PC was still far too noisy. And over the last few days I've been getting a number of load related system freezes. So I thought I'll pull the cover off and trouble shoot.

Over the years I've been picking up super quiet fans like the Pabst 8412NGL (12db) which I'm using on the CPU and the SilenX 120mm (14db) on the case. And I never really saw the point and the system wasn't much quieter. So finally I figured that I could test the system components in isolation to see how noisy each was. So I pulled all the fans (bar the CPU) and HD power cables and powered up. Silence. System booted... wow! Ok... so I worked my way around the system pluging each device back in one at a time and lo and behold one of the hard disks was making 90% of the noise. So it's out and the system is finally almost silent. The fans I bought are actually very good.

My remaining issue is that under load the Pabst fan doesn't push enough air to cool the CPU and it overheats and hangs. So I'm schemeing up plans to beef up the CPU fan with either a temperature sensitive unit or maybe some ducting to adapt one of the 120mm SilenX fans to the 70mm copper heat sink. The SilenX fan pushs twice the air the Pabst fan does.

If only I'd been lateral minded enough to use my code optimisation skillz sooner *sigh*
(0) Comments | Add Comment