| 1 |
On Sunday 26 April 2015 15:49:19 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I disagree. emerge really needs to have it's output redesigned from |
| 4 |
> scratch. Right now it arrives at the conclusion (the top) and dumps it's |
| 5 |
> data tree bottom-up, apparently stopping halfway and never getting to |
| 6 |
> output what the top is. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This discussion reminds me of an AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor) power |
| 9 |
station being commissioned 40-odd years ago, in which a minor plant failure |
| 10 |
(e.g. a high oil temp in an auxiliary pump) could lead to cascades of other |
| 11 |
abnormal conditions, making it impossible for a reactor operator to discover |
| 12 |
the real problem he needed to fix, and ignore all the others. So we put up a |
| 13 |
second alarm screen alongside the first, showing major causes only; it was |
| 14 |
populated with the output of an analysis routine that was called whenever an |
| 15 |
alarm occurred. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
All those decision trees had to be designed and input by hand (on paper tape, |
| 18 |
like everything else). Not to mention testing, of course. And there were |
| 19 |
thousands of digital inputs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Maybe something like that would be useful here. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rgds |
| 25 |
Peter |
Archives