Friday, 11 December 2020

Just a thought: The covid crash

The corona virus had a massive impact on the markets as can be seen
in the chart below. That big dip was a direct result of COVID-19.


Source: finanzen.net

I remember talking about the market crash with another shareholder and as we are quite the optimists on this issue, we concluded the market was not rational at this point. 
After all, it was a fair conclusion to assume, that in the long term, the virus will remain nothing more of an anecdote one day in the near future.
I was not considering, I could be wrong but in hindsight I think I was.

The decision to sell your shares in fear of the pandemic was rational, altough a game most shareowners lost.
When looking at how the pandemic struck the world and how many people lost their jobs, it totally makes sense to sell shares, when one was expecting to loose their job and be unemployed for an unknown timespan.
Even if it means you loose money by selling your shares low.
After all, fulfilling urgent needs in the present is more important than earning a greater profit in the future.

In times where more and more banks charge negative interest rates for the money stored on ones account and retirement is only possible viá investing, it is a bad idea to leave too much money on the bank or in cash.
As a result a lot of people put too much of their savings into investments and too little as an emergency reserve (if possible, one should have savings that can support their lifestyle for 2-3 months at least).
Of course the crash was not only a result of illiquid private investors but also of automatic robo advisors and institutional investors. 
Even Buffett sold in the crash. 

Nevertheless, this event was the ideal point for big investments. Mainly because there is no real reason to think that the people would stop eating, drinking, using fossil fuels (despite the announced "green deal", sorry but everybody knows Ms. Von der Leyen's deal is nothing more than a paper tiger and you one can only react with cynicism when something of that order comes from her mouth).
The only scenario where we would not see a recovery for many areas would a worldwide mass dying (in which case one has other issues to deal  with than the stock market) or at least a change if the governments of this planet really focussed on a green revolution, which I would welcome but let us be honest to ourselves. Not many people I know of want to resign from their current lifestyle.

So in the near future their will propably not be a big change of things other, than that monopolies get stronger and some companies will not survive the halted cashflow but fundamentally the race goes on and on.

So the takeaway is:

-The current political and financial situation pushes a lot of people into the market
-Always keep an emergency reserve as a private person. 
-Decisions such as this can be rational
-For advanced traders with a longer time horizont and cash reserves, this could be a pattern easy to recognize. Worldwide pandemics suck but they will not be the end of the world and of they become the end of the world one would worry about that, rather than focusing on stocks...
-The Buy and Hold strategy with cost averaging effects should work very well in scenarios like this as well
-Stay optimistic in the long run!

Wednesday, 7 October 2020

Technical Stuff: General Thoughts on wall clocks and how to improve on current designs

Recently I bought two new clocks for my home with the intent to replace the analog ones with digital variants.

Mainly because the batteries were drained quite fast on the analog design plus I got annoyed by the constant clicking sounds.


When looking for cheap ones  to buy, I struggled with many aspects:

First off, I wanted the function to be more or less limited to time only. I don’t need a weather forecast or any of that fancy stuff.

But apparently simple designs with minimal displays are not that popular these days.

Another issue was that many digital designs worked with LEDs, causing a high energy consumption. So my preferred clock would use something like an LCD display only.

Of course price also played a role, as I don’t want to pay too much for something as simple as a clock.

As I searched for the perfect wall clock however, I thought about maybe developing my own clock specifically for my demand.


Immediately a lot of interesting ideas came to mind.

I first began to think about the energy efficiency: Not only do analog clocks need a power hungry stepping motor but also everytime you hear that clicking sound, this represents wasted energy of some sort, as it is the electronic energy converted to acoustic sound without any real usage. Things you don’t worry about, when using their digital counterparts. The only upside of this analog design lies in its low complexity, only consisting of one or two stepping motors, and a quartz and not much more.

Nonetheless, not a design I encourage.


Next up I thought about building a binary format clock with LED’s in which one row displays the hours and the next row displays the minutes in a binary format.

Something like this:


O O O O                 HOURS

1  2  4  8

O O O O O O         MINUTES

1  2  4  8 16 32


I could accomplish a prototype for such a design relatively quickly, with an Arduino™ or similar using low power LED’s.

However, this design is still rather energy expensive.

Maybe very cool as a general project, but not really efficient.

Even though low power LEDs came quite some way, physics turned out to be a hard wall to hit.

Current low power LED’s run at roughly 2V and 2mA, which makes up for 4mW (2V*0.002A = 0.004 W(att) -> 4mW) per LED.

This is simply too much for a battery driven device. In our design there are normally more than one LED running (depending on the time to display), so you end up at an even higher power consumption.

Given that a normal battery has a capacity of 2000mAh, we end up with a runtime of a few hundred hours. In all fairness however I have to mention two strategies to bring battery consumption down by a bit in this design:

Multiplexing the LED’s by using a Multiplexer and so turn only one LED on for every millisecond (although this can also be achieved easily by software when using an Arduino™ ) and then switch to the next one or even turning them all off for longer periods of time, to reduce the time, where the LED is lit (which also gives a dimming effect on the other hand).

This alone could save us some energy but combined with afterglowing materials there is maybe room for some improvement.


But this project is also easily realisable without coding, by using a NE555 or similar, giving signals every minute. This signal goes into a CD4040, which is a binary counter, which is exactly what drives the LEDs for the minutes.

Everytime the minutes reach the configuration of 60 (= 32 + 16 + 8 + 4), the CD4040 needs a reset. This can be achieved by using an AND-Logic gate. Furthermore you need to send this pulse by the AND-Logic Gate to the CD4040 responsible for handling the hours, which then counts one hour higher.

Of course this CD4040 needs to be reset after reaching 13 (= 8 + 4 + 1).

Also add a possibility to manually trigger the CD4040, to set your time.

The display could be powered by the CD4040 directly, as they only require a resistor before them and the output pins of the CD4040 should be able to provide enough current for some low current LEDs.


My next thought experiment went into using actual Displays. As I only need two colours, most OLED’s are simply overkill and regular LCD’s are better suited for this job.

To my surprise monochrome LCDs are far more efficient than I thought. Old Nokia™ displays and similar only use currents in the range of uA, while taking 3.3 V (e.g. 250uA*3.3 V = 0.000825W -> 825uW).

Unfortunately, there is not much room for improvement with this solution, since they have to run all the time and can not be turned off in between the minutes, when there is no need to display any change.

So here I am bound to the model's power consumption, even though it’s better than the LED solution.


Taking things to the next level, I came across e-papers, the same sort of display used in kindles™ and various electronic (price) tags.

The strength of those epapers is their bistable nature, as they only require energy in the moment, when the display needs a refresh. Once the content of the display is set, it doesn’t require any power to maintain its content. This is the main reason they are favoured for solutions, where hardly any page refreshing is needed and power consumption is a concern.

When using an e paper we therefore have to limit the amounts of refreshes in order to cut down on energy consumption.

For a normal wall clock, the favoured option is, to get rid of displaying the seconds.

Taking this a step further, we could also just update the display every 2 minutes or even only display the hours and nothing else, which dramatically reduces the amount of refreshes.

Some e papers also allow for partial refreshing, only updating the affected area, leaving the hours unchanged for example, when only the minutes part changes. This holds potential for even more power savings.


e paper based reader


Assuming our e paper has the following stats:

Power needed for page refresh: 26.4 mW

Refresh time: 1440 * 1s = 1440s (per day)

We end up with: 1440s * 26.4 mW = 38016mWs / 38.016 Ws per day

A normal AA battery is about 3 Wh

So: (3 Wh*3600s)/38.016Ws = 284 days of runtime, with just one battery. Not too bad for just one battery! 


In general bistable solutions seem to be a great option for building a clock of this kind.


But we can even go further: Sharp™ developed “Memory-LCD”’s, which allow for a drastically reduced power consumption, as they also make a difference in energy consumption, when not changing the content of the display. Plus the energy consumption in the “active” and the “passive” mode are extremely low.


This design: https://www.sharpsma.com/products?sharpCategory=Memory%20LCD&p_p_parallel=0&sharpProductRecordId=1504542 

only takes about 100uW to run in its “static” state and 600uW in its “Dynamic” state.

As we only need to update every minute, the combined power consumption would be in the range of 108uW.

This makes up for:

P:108 uW

Battery power: 3 Wh

Runtime: 3 Wh/0.000108 W = 27777.78 h -> 1157.40 days -> 3.17 years.

Now, this is quite a number, considering we are only using one battery so far!


With those two designs however, we are also able to use low energy harvesters such as long lived efficient solar panels, which could provide our clock with power viá charging supercapacitors.

This could allow for wall clocks without batteries in general, reducing the maintenance costs and general energy consumption by a large margin.


For this discussion I left out the microcontroller part, because first, they only need very very small amounts of power if handled correctly and second is it a topic on its own.


Oh, and I forgot to mention what wall clock I bought. I have chosen to just buy two Pearl™ clocks (https://amzn.to/3jDdeAs *) for about 12 bucks each as they also last a very long time and saved me a lot of time by not having to develop my own ones.

Maybe they aren’t that energy efficient, as the shown examples but they do a fairly decent job as well.


However I wanted to provide you with some honorable mentions:



Pocket sun clock*:

https://amzn.to/2SuuEDk

A “digital” sun clock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrsje5It_UU&feature=emb_title

Really Large sand timers:

https://www.hourglasses.com/largeglasses.html

Water flow clock:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Gitton

DIY Wristwatch:

https://www.amazon.com/KKmoon-Awesome-Transparent-Wristwatch-Electronic/dp/B07FMLSWDG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=35MMFLS45VVR0&dchild=1&keywords=diy+wrist+watch&qid=1601938658&sprefix=diy+wrist%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-1


*Amazon Affiliate Link


Monday, 29 June 2020

Just a thought: Vacuum balloons

Just a thought: Vacuum balloons.


Vacuum balloons are a somewhat old idea and basically embodies the perfect lifting balloon.

The principle is simple: A hollow body containing a vacuum , is always lighter than what little atmosphere surrounds it and therefore floats.

The intrinsic problem is , that there are no materials lightweight and strong enough the same time to withstand the outside pressure of our atmosphere while covering the needed volume.

As we might never find such a material, capable of this, there are maybe some workarounds:

  1. Active support: This means we use energy to stabilize the material. In its easiest form this could be a magnetic field to keep the structure in its form. The contradiction is of course, that a power supply means more weight and therefore we would have to have an even bigger hollow body to lift it up. We can however circumvent this issue, by applying the power from outside.

  2. The next possibility to have something like a modular/staged design. While known materials aren’t able to withstand earth’s pressure, it is maybe possible to make use of this concept very high up in the atmosphere, when pressure is a small part of what it is on the ground. So those vacuum balloons only get used at certain altitudes/air pressure which would still be very useful for research on many planets with low pressure atmospheres such as mars. Usage in the upper atmosphere of earth could also be an option.

  3. A combination of both concepts could be working as well.


Maybe somebody with a little more brain than I can do something with it...