I made a hovercraft

I made a RC hovercraft this morning. This is something I’ve been meaning to do for about 20 years.

It took about an hour.

RC Hovercraft

It’s a green foam tray (free on request from the produce department at the supermarket) with a hole in it, a cut-off plastic cup, a ducted fan/motor from eBay, battery, and RC receiver. And a lot of hot glue.

The bolt and washer are to balance the battery – they’re hot-glued down.

Here it is running. It’s way overpowered – it works best with the throttle at about 5%.

Later I made a skirt out of tape – no pics; it looks about the same, just flies higher by the width of the tape.

I’m glad I got that out of my system – now I can move on to something else.

OpenSCAD is great stuff! (Part 2)

[This is Part 2 of this post; click here for the first part.]

OpenSCAD is an open-source (completely free) 3D solid CAD program; it works on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

It calls itself “The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller”, and indeed that’s what makes it special.

Unlike any other CAD system I’ve seen, OpenSCAD is driven entirely by a program-like script. That sounds like it would be a lot harder to use than a GUI-based CAD system – but it’s not! It’s much easier to use, with a much shorter learning curve. The scripts use a C-like syntax that will be instantly familiar to anyone who’s worked even a little with C or a C-derived braces-and-semicolon language (C++, Java, C#, etc.).

In 15 minutes with OpenSCAD, I was able to do far more than I could with AutoCAD or SketchUp after several hours – with a lot less frustration. If you have any background in programming at all, you’ll find it ridiculously easy to learn and use.

OpenSCAD has a simple but effective IDE, so you can try things interactively at the keyboard – just type some commands, mash F5, and see the result instantly. Once your 3D model is rendered, you can use the IDE to zoom in and out and look at your model from any angle.

OpenSCAD showing my modeled speaker set

OpenSCAD showing my modeled speaker set

What makes OpenSCAD great for engineering drawings is it’s ability to position and size things numerically – if you want a part exactly 3.75 inches to the left of another part, just subtract 3.75 from the x-coordinate of the part, and that’s where it will be. If you want a part to be tall enough to cover 9 other parts, just get the dimensions of the other parts, add them up (in your script) and feed the result in as the height value.

That way, if you resize one part of your model, all the other parts that depend on it for their own size and position automatically get adjusted to compensate. If you want something centered with respect to some dimension, just take the dimension and divide it by 2 to get the proper position!

None of this is “magic” performed by OpenSCAD – this is stuff done by you, in your own script (program), so it’s 100% under your control.

For example:

cube([w, h, d]);

Gives you a rectangular prism with the given width, height and depth. “w”, “h”, and “d” can be literals – so cube([1,4,9]); gives you a 2001-type monolith. Or they can be program variables, which you can pass to a module and whose values you can compute.

There are commands to translate, mirror, and rotate objects (or groups of objects), and you can assign colors and transparency to them (but not textures, yet anyway). All the basic arithmetic and trigonometry functions are there to help you compute sizes, positions, and angles. And you can construct objects by any combination of adding or subtracting primitives (rectangular prisms, cylinders, spheres, and polyhedrons).

Conditionals and iteration are available with C-like “if” and “for” statements, so you can write a “real program”.

One unexpected thing is that the compiler is somewhat primitive – all variable values are computed at compile time (not “run time”); this has to be kept in mind when writing scripts, but I didn’t find it a serious problem.

The OpenSCAD website has an excellent manual (by freeware standards) that explains all this, as well as a handy “cheat sheet” for quick reference.

So far, I’ve used OpenSCAD only for this one project, and that took just a few hours – most of the time was spent tweaking the design of my speaker case. (Unlike all the other CAD programs I tried, hardly any time was spent figuring out how the program works.)

However, I quickly found a few tricks worth mentioning:

module part(name, w, h, d) {
cube ([w, h, d]);
echo (name, w, h, d);
}

This defines a module (something like a function) called “part”, which I use to define each separate part I’ll have to cut out of plywood to assemble the speaker set. Each part has a name, width, height and depth, and when the part is rendered, it prints out (via the “echo” statement) the name and dimensions, so I get a automatically-generated “cut list” of parts to make.

For example, I have this code:

module base(x,y,z) { translate([x,y,z]) { part(“Base”, BaseW, BaseH, BaseD); } }

This defines a module “base” that will create the base of the speaker case, using the dimensions in the variables BaseW, BaseH, and BaseD. The x, y, z inputs to the module give the position where the base should be.

Later in my script, I call:

base(0,0,0);

Which creates the base of the speaker set, positioned at the origin of my coordinate space. It also prints the output:

ECHO: “Base”, 14.375, 0.75, 4.75

Which gives me the dimensions I need to cut to make the base. (The print formatting abilities of the script language are minimal, but adequate for this purpose.)

Here is the first part of my final script – it gives you an idea of how I calculated the dimensions of parts:

// Case for HelderHiFi amplifier, power supply, and speakers. 2013-03-27, nerdfever.com

// GENERAL CONSTANTS

slop = (1/16); // inches
PartAlpha = 0.5;

// COMPONENT DIMENSIONS

AmpH = 1.75;
AmpW = 2;
AmpD = 5;

SpeakerW = 4.5;
SpeakerH = 7.25;
SpeakerD = 4.5;

BatteryW = 3.5;
BatteryH = 2.75;
BatteryD = 4;

PowerW = 3.35;
PowerH = 2;
PowerD = 3.5;

// PARTS DIMENSIONS – INPUTS

Thick = 3/4; // for load-bearing base, top, supports
ShelfThick = 1/4;
StripThick = 1/8;

StripLip = 1/4;

TopW = 8.5;

PlateThick = StripThick;

// PARTS DIMENSIONS – CALCULATED

BaseW = slop + SpeakerW + slop + Thick + slop + BatteryW + slop + Thick + slop + SpeakerW + slop;
BaseH = Thick;
BaseD = max(max(max(AmpD, SpeakerD), BatteryD), PowerD) – 2*StripThick;

The idea here is that I’m allowing a “slop” of 1/16th inch – this is extra space beyond what is strictly needed per the component dimensions, to allow something for clearance and imperfect cuts.

Then I have the dimensions of the parts that need to fit inside the speaker case, and then the thickness of the plywood stock (3/4, 1/4, 1/8″) I’m going to use for different parts. Finally, from those I calculate the dimensions of the base – the width of the base is the sum of all the parts it has to hold, plus two “Thick” dimensions (for the vertical pillars), and slop around each of the parts. The base depth is calculated as the maximum of all the parts it will have to support, less “2*StripThick”, subtracting for retaining strips on either side of the base, which will be used to prevent the speakers from sliding off the base while being carried.

You can download my whole script here if you want to see it – I’m certain others have made vastly more complex and impressive things with OpenSCAD, but this shows what can be done after just a few hours of work.

When I run the script with F5, I get the rendered model:

Speaker set model. Grey boxes are speakers (translucent), blue box is amplifier. (Note the top, plus 1/8" lip around the speakers, prevent speakers from falling out unless carefully lifted.)

Speaker set model. Grey boxes are speakers (translucent), blue box is amplifier. (Note the top, plus 1/8″ lip around the speakers, prevent speakers from falling out unless carefully lifted.)

And this output:

Parsing design (AST generation)…
Compiling design (CSG Tree generation)…
ECHO: “Base”, 14.375, 0.75, 4.75
ECHO: “Long strip”, 14.625, 1, 0.125
ECHO: “Long strip”, 14.625, 1, 0.125
ECHO: “Short strip”, 0.125, 1, 4.75
ECHO: “Short strip”, 0.125, 1, 4.75
ECHO: “Pillar (less subtraction)”, 0.75, 7.625, 5
ECHO: “Pillar remove”, 0.25, 0.125
ECHO: “Pillar remove”, 5.875, 0.125
ECHO: “Pillar (less subtraction)”, 0.75, 7.625, 5
ECHO: “Pillar remove”, 0.25, 0.125
ECHO: “Pillar remove”, 5.875, 0.125
ECHO: “Shelf1”, 3.625, 0.25, 4.75
ECHO: “Shelf2”, 3.625, 0.25, 4.875
ECHO: “Power strip”, 3.625, 0.5, 0.125
ECHO: “Plate”, 5.125, 5.625, 0.125
ECHO: “Top”, 8.5, 0.75, 5
ECHO: “Clearance for speakers above lip”, 0.125
Compilation finished.
Compiling design (CSG Products generation)…
PolySets in cache: 15
Polygons in cache: 90
CGAL Polyhedrons in cache: 0
Vertices in cache: 0
Compiling design (CSG Products normalization)…
Normalized CSG tree has 21 elements
CSG generation finished.
Total rendering time: 0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds

As you can see from the last line, this simple project renders nearly instantly.

From the cut list, I was able to go to my wood shop and cut out all the parts, ready to assemble:

Speaker set parts, per the cut list

Speaker set parts, per the cut list

 

I quickly piled the pieces together to see if they really fit with the components…

Front view. (Amplifier will go on top shelf.)

Front view. (Amplifier will go on top shelf.)

Back view.

Back view.

 

…and they did! Perfect on the first try!

 

Here’s the case part way thru assembly:

Case partially assembled.

Case partially assembled.

 

And the finished product, painted and wired up:

 

Front view.

Front view.

Back view.

Back view.

It sounds good, too.

OpenSCAD is great stuff! (Part 1)

It all started with a pair of Radio Shack Optimus Pro 7 bookshelf loudspeakers I picked up on eBay for a song.

These little speakers sound fantastic for their size, and at one time you could get them new at Radio Shack really cheap – I’ve been using a pair of white Pro 7AVs (the magnetically-shielded version) since the mid-90s as my PC desktop speakers.

Pro 7AV speakers (photo courtesy of Wade's Audio and Tube)

Pro 7AV speakers (photo courtesy of Wade’s Audio and Tube)

One day I was procrastinating by surfing eBay, ran across a black pair that looked nice, put in a bid, and soon had them in my basement, waiting for a project to use them.

Then I noticed the existence of low-cost TriPath TA2020-based amplifiers like this very popular one from Lepai. These things get fantastic reviews – the TA2020 uses PWM amplification and its distortion sounds like tube (valve) amplifier distortion. And audiophiles have been paying outrageous prices for tube amplifiers ever since tubes went out of style. Yet these TA2020 amplifiers go for 20 bucks! (And, yes, I know putting “audiophile” and “outrageous prices” in the same sentence is a bit redundant, but I’m not getting into that now.)

You may have figured out by now that I just can’t resist cheap things that deliver ridiculous value – it’s a character flaw. So combine the cheap-but-great loudspeakers with the cheap-but-great amplifier, and I just had to do something with them.

I decided to make a set of portable Bluetooth speakers. I’ve bought a few different Bluetooth loudspeakers and they all sound terrible to my ears; even the way-overpriced Bose ones sound bad to me (and I’m too cheap to pay that much anyway). So I thought I’d make my own.

There’s a guy Arjen Helder in Shenzhen (arjenhelder_electronic on eBay) who makes very well-reviewed TA2020 amplifiers, and he has a model “TA2024 MKV Bluetooth” with the Bluetooth module already built in. So 20 pounds sterling later (“Approximately US $30.35”), I’ve got one of those and I’m ready to start.

Helder HiFi TA2024 MKV Bluetooth amplifier

Helder HiFi TA2024 MKV Bluetooth amplifier

I wanted my speaker set to be portable, so that means they need a battery, and I happened to have an old 12V 5AH AGM battery around. Since the amplifier runs on 12VDC, that seemed a good fit. And I had a spare Harbor Freight 12V charger too ($9.99; did I mention I’m cheap?), so I figured I’d use that to both charge the battery and power the amp while it’s plugged in.

12V 5AH SLA battery and $9.99 Harbor Freight charger. (Not quite to the same scale...)

12V 5AH SLA battery and $9.99 Harbor Freight charger. (Not quite to the same scale…)

(Yes, I’m going to get to OpenSCAD. Be patient!)

So now I had most of the bits and pieces, and needed to come up with a design for the speaker set. I wanted a handle (to make it more portable; the speakers and lead-acid battery are heavy) and a place to wind some extra speaker cable, so I could separate the speakers for better stereo. That meant the speakers had to be held in a way that allows removing them, yet at the same time I didn’t want them to fall out by accident while carrying the set by the handle.

So I started sketching on paper. Here’s one of the earlier sketches:

Sketch1OK, so I’m not a good artist.

But the important thing was to get the dimensions right. I wanted it to be compact, but have room for all the pieces. (BTW, I hate using inches and fractions as much as anyone, but I’m in the US and lumber here only comes in those dimensions, so I’m stuck with them.)

As I made each sketch, I realized there were opportunities for improvement (perfectionism is another of my character flaws), so first I’d scratch things out, then at some point I’d start a whole new sketch:

Sketch2

and another:

Sketch3

and another:

Sketch4

Etc.

This was frustrating. Any little change cascaded all across the design, and it was easy to make a mistake in calculating dimensions.

So I decided to see if I could find some simple CAD program to help. I spent some time communing with Google, and decided that SketchUp (ex-Google SketchUp, now owned by Trimble) was the way to go.

I spent a few hours learning to use it, and made moderate progress getting my design into the program:

How far I got with SketchUp

How far I got with SketchUp

However, I found it very difficult to transfer the dimensions from my paper sketches into SketchUp; there didn’t seem to be any direct way to force SketchUp to size things exactly, or to position parts at particular offsets with respect to other parts. SketchUp, although it’s far simpler than most “serious” CAD programs, still has a long learning curve, and it didn’t seem very well suited to the kind of engineering drawings I was trying to do. I could easily get things close, but couldn’t get them exact (I suppose there must be a way to do it, but I didn’t figure it out).

After trying and getting stuck for a few hours, I went looking for a better solution.

And that’s when I found OpenSCAD.

[To be continued in Part 2…]

Motorola’s USB charging scheme

As I mentioned in the previous post, I have a Motorola Xyboard 8.2 Android tablet [1].

Motorola Xyboard 8.2 (Xoom 2 ME) Android tablet

Motorola Xyboard 8.2 (Xoom 2 ME) Android tablet

Among other things, I use it as a GPS (with live Google Maps) in the car – it’s a WiFi-only tablet, but I tether it to my phone via WiFi or Bluetooth, so the tablet can talk to Google in the car. This works great.

But after a day of driving, the tablet always runs out of power, even though I had it plugged into a car charger the whole time.

I tried a bunch of different car chargers, including ones rated for tablets and iPads, claiming to source anywhere up to 3.1 amps, but they all did the same thing.

Finally, I hooked up the USB charging port to some meters and an oscilloscope to see what is going on.

About USB charging

USB charging is an unreasonably complex subject. You can read lots about the details here and here and here (and of course here), but I’ll summarize:

  • Per the USB 2.0 spec, all USB devices can draw 100 mA (at 5v) without negotiation.
  • Also per the spec, USB devices can draw up to 500 mA (again at 5v) after negotiating with the USB host

In practice, lots of devices draw 500 mA without negotiating. They get away with it because most PC USB ports just supply 500 mA to all the ports, regardless of whether or not the device negotiates.

Smartphones usually want more, and tablets, much more. My Nexus 4 draws up to about 750 mA when charging. And the Xyboard tablet can draw up to 1.5 A. Most phones and tablets are smart enough to reduce the amount of current they draw if the USB port can’t supply what they want – the result is they charge slower. In the case of my Xyboard tablet, 500 mA isn’t enough to keep it from discharging – it just drains the battery slower. That’s why I run out of power after a day of driving.

It would be expensive for vendors to make a dumb charger that’s smart enough to do the USB power negotiation, and even if they did, 500 mA isn’t really enough. So they came up with their own schemes:

  • Apple has a complicated and slightly-secret scheme where on their dumb chargers they put resistors on the D+ and D- USB data lines. The effect of the resistors is to put different voltages on these lines, which indicate to the device how much current the charger can supply.
  • In 2007, the Chinese set a standard that if the D+ and D- lines are shorted together, that indicates that the charger can supply more than 500 mA (at least 1000 mA; often more).
  • In 2009, the EU set a standard almost identical to the Chinese one, except they say to put 200 ohms between D+ and D-. Happily, this is close enough to the Chinese standard that they work with each other.

So as of 2013 (as I write this), virtually all non-Apple high-current chargers do the Chinese thing and short D+ to D- to indicate their capability.

But the result of this mess is that Apple chargers can’t charge Android devices (very fast), and vice-versa.

What Motorola does

But that still doesn’t explain why I couldn’t charge the Xyboard (well enough to keep it from draining), even with a high-current Android-type car charger.

It turns out that, at least on the Xyboard 8.2/Xoom 2 ME (and possibly on other Motorola devices), they don’t follow either standard.

I started by looking at the various car chargers I’d been trying. Some were Apple type, some were Android type. I even put power resistors on the output and measured how much current they could supply without the voltage dropping – lots (2.6 to 3.1 amps, depending on which charger).

But none would charge the Xyboard at faster than 640 mA.

Motorola uses their own scheme. When you plug in the USB charging cable, it gradually loads the charger over a period of about 2 seconds. If you watch the voltage on an oscilloscope, you can see it gradually dropping as the tablet pulls more current.

If at the full current draw of about 1.5 amps the voltage drops below about 5.3 volts, then the tablet decides the charger can’t supply that much, and drops the charge rate to about 640 mA. (The threshold was somewhere between 5.28 and 5.33 volts when I tested.)

Since USB ports are supposed to supply 5 volts DC, +/- 5%, 5.3 volts is slightly more than the maximum 5.25 volts allowed. So any conformant USB charger will be interpreted by the tablet as “low current”, even if D+ is shorted to D-, and no matter how much current it can actually supply.

I’m guessing only Motorola’s own chargers supply 5.3+ volts.

It’s a shame that Motorola’s devices can’t charge from standard Android-type USB chargers. I have one of the Motorola car chargers on order; I hope that works.

And I hope this info is useful to somebody.


[1] I’ve tried 7″ and 10.1″ tablets, and I really think the 8.2″ size is the sweet spot, at least for me.

I like the Xyboard 8.2 – Motorola priced it way too high so it didn’t sell.

As it ought to be for the price they asked, it’s very well built (they claim it’s waterproof), and the ICS implementation is good (except for the minor Bluetooth problem I mentioned in my last post). It’s getting old now – if you can find one at a cheap price, it’s a nice unit.

But be aware that it’s orphaned – ICS is the last version of Android you can put on it; it sold so few units that there aren’t any custom ROMs available (although you can root it). It’s called the “Xoom 2 ME” outside of North America.

Pairing a Bluetooth keyboard with a Motorola Xyboard (Xoom 2) tablet

I bought this rather nice Bluetooth keyboard for use with my Motorola Xyboard (Xoom 2) tablet.

BT_keyboard_IMG_6561

It was about $18, shipped, on eBay. It’s small, designed for Android (it has Android-specific keys instead of iPad keys), and runs on two AAA batteries, so I don’t have to worry about keeping it charged. (It uses about 2 mA – I measured – so should be good for about 500 hours of run time on a fresh set of alkaline AAAs.)

Unfortunately, I had trouble pairing it. I don’t think it’s the keyboard’s fault, since it paired perfectly with my Nexus 4.

After much fiddling, I got it to pair – here’s the trick:

  1. Before pairing, make sure the tablet does not already know about the keyboard. (That will happen if you had a previous unsuccessful attempt at pairing.) To clear the keyboard from the tablet, do a “scan for devices” on the tablet, with the keyboard powered off.
  2. In Settings>Input, select “SwiftKey Tablet X”.
  3. Then pair.

Then it works. At least it did for me, on Motorola’s stock Android 4.0.4 build for the Xyboard 8.2 (Xoom 2 ME).  I’d guess this might apply to other Motorola tablets, too.

I think this is Motorola’s fault, but given that this is an “orphan” tablet at this point, I don’t think they’re going to fix it.

My God, it’s full of… disk drives!

What’s going on with the X-37B?

X-37B (USAF photo)

read today that the USAF has launched one again, on, I think, the 3rd flight.

What is unique about this vehicle compared to most other space systems is:

  • It’s reusable and returns to Earth (lands on a runway, ala the Space Shuttle)
  • It has a long on-orbit dwell time (270 days was supposedly the spec, with the second flight lasting 469 days)
  • Some significant amount of on-orbit delta-v for orbital maneuvering
  • Payload capacity “similar to a pick-up truck”

What is this thing for? The government has been strangely silent about its purpose, leading to a lot of random speculation, none of which makes any sense to me. The only thing they’ve said is:

“The X-37B is a risk reduction vehicle for space experimentation and to explore concepts of operation for a long duration, reusable space vehicle.”

I’m sure that’s true to some extent, but I’m sure that’s not all that is going on; otherwise why all the hush-hush?

Some of the theories I’ve seen claim that it’s:

  1. For spying on the Chinese manned space program
  2. For spying on random spacecraft in orbit
  3. Some sort of on-orbit anti-satellite weapon
  4. For repairing satellites in orbit
  5. A ground-attack (or ICBM interception) weapon (rods-from-god or similar)
  6. An orbital bomber
  7. For stealing satellites, like in You Only Live Twice
  8. Some professor at the Naval War College said “the Air Force has always wanted a crewed space plane, and this was the closest they could get”.

None of those make sense. One at a time:

1 and 2 – Spying on other spacecraft

The DoD is already pretty good at pointing ground telescopes at spacecraft in orbit. Remember they offered to check out Space Shuttle Columbia’s missing tiles back in 2003? Matching orbits and a close approach to an opponent’s spacecraft would be tremendously provocative (it’s not as if you can do it secretly), and how much more can you really learn by looking at a spacecraft up-close vs. from a distance anyway? Not enough to justify this doubtless hugely expensive program, I’m sure. If despite that, you really want to do this, you don’t need a vehicle that can land. As for spying on the Chinese manned space program, why would that be of any interest at all? (Besides, it’s been in the wrong orbit for that.)

So I don’t buy those explanations.

3 – It’s an ASAT weapon

So why does an ASAT weapon need to land? No matter how much the thing costs, it’s got to be cheaper to just build and launch a new one every so often than land it, refurbish it, and re-fly it.

4 – Repairing satellites in orbit

That’s crazy. Maybe if it were manned; if that’s what you want to do it’d be way cheaper to fly repair techs on a SpaceX Dragon. And what possible purpose would there be in having the repair-bot sit on orbit for a year, or have the capability to land?

5 – Rods from God

Again, no need for such a thing to land. If you really want to build that, sure build it, but why complicate things by having it land? Makes no sense.

6 – Orbital bomber

First, that would violate the Outer Space Treaty. I can see people wanting to get out of that treaty, but I think the US would do so explicitly rather than in this not-very-sneaky way. But, again, why does it need to land? Maybe you can make a case that the USAF doesn’t want to leave nukes on orbit forever – they want a way to get them back eventually. But there are many simpler ways to accomplish that – it can de-orbit the warhead with a parachute (ala Corona, as well as the whole Apollo program), they could plan on a future OTV or manned spacecraft to collect warheads in 15 years, etc. Plus, who needs another way to deliver nukes anyway? The Soviets are not coming back, and the Chinese only want to sell us stuff.

7 – Pac-Man (waka waka)

Snatching someone else’s satellite out of orbit would be an act of war. And difficult, because you don’t know where it’s CG is or how much damage it’ll take by being bounced around on re-entry. And why do you need your snatch machine to sit on orbit for a year? You can always just launch it when you need it.

8 – Manned spacecraft wannabe

Except they already built the full-size version (that flying pink elephant, the Space Shuttle), and this one doesn’t carry anybody. And a Dragon will be way cheaper, and NASA is already funding that. Not to mention Orion (oops… too late, I mentioned it. It’ll probably never fly anyway.) And, of course, they’ll have trouble getting even one brave soul to sit in a space the size of a pickup truck bed for a year (let alone finding room for oxygen, water, and food for that duration).

So what’s it for, then?

OK, here’s my theory. It’s a spy satellite full of disk drives.

The payload bay has some sensors, probably high-resolution cameras; maybe other things too. The rest of the payload is disk drives.

The X-37B collects data (pictures, maybe sigint, maybe other things), and stores it on the disk drives. Every so often it changes orbits in order to be able to look at some particular thing at particular times (or just to keep the other guy guessing). Once the disk drives are full (a year or so), or sooner if the data is needed on the ground sooner, it lands.

It lands so that the data on the disk drives can be read off.

Why not just radio the data down? Because there is way, way, too much of it.

Suppose the payload bay is 4 x 8 x 3 meters (roughly a full-size pickup truck bed). That’s 96 cubic meters (96 million cc). A 3.5″ hard drive is 101.6 x 25.4 x 146 millimeters, that’s 377 cc. So there’s enough room for about 250,000 drives. Figure a tenth of that after allowing room for the sensors, power supplies, and cooling (cooling is a big deal in space). 25,000 drives at 3 TBytes each is 73 petabytes. (BTW, that’s about $2.5M worth of disk drives; peanuts for the DoD.)

73 petabytes over a year is 25 gigabits/second. That’s 24×7, including when not over a convenient ground station.

How does that compare with the bandwidth available for a satellite downlink? I don’t know exactly, but the whole X-band is only 500 MHz, as is the Ku band. The Ka band is 2.5 GHz. That’s the whole band. You do the numbers.

[Edit, March 2013: There’s a mistake in the numbers above – a pickup bed is about 4 x 8 x 3 feet, not meters. But on further thought the X-37B is almost certainly using SSDs instead of rotating media, and the density of that is a lot higher. So I think the two mistakes roughly cancel out, without changing the conclusion.]

What can you do with that?

The Earth’s surface area is 510 million square kilometers (about a third of that is land). Let’s assume 24 bits/pixel (you can divide that up into bands as you like). Unless I made a mistake in the math, 73 petabytes is enough for pixels 40 centimeters on a side, of the whole planet.

Or, somewhat bigger pixels, but multiple copies in the disk drives, so hardware on-board the spacecraft can compare old images against new ones, and identify differences. You get the idea.

Makes Google Earth look kinda…lame.

[Disclaimer: This is just a guess; I have no inside info. Just imagination and a calculator.]

How to add the “sent” label to GMail messages

…or, how to “move” GMail messages to the “sent” folder. (GMail uses labels, not folders, but if you use 1 label/message you can emulate folders.)

This is my last posting about GMail for a while (I hope!). 5 posts down, you can see that I completely revised my July 20 posting about migration to GMail – it’s finally done.

GMail’s web interface won’t let you move messages into the “sent” folder, but you can do it if you sync your account with Outlook, then do it in Outlook:

  1. Install Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook®.
  2. Install Outlook (I used Outlook 2003).
  3. Synchronize Outlook with the GMail account (this may take a long time – days – if you have a lot of mail)
  4. Move the messages in Outlook.
  5. Let it sync again.

That’s it. Now you can get rid of Outlook if you want.

How to remove un-labelled mail from GMail

I had over 80,000 un-labelled messages (6.8 GBytes) in GMail. I wanted to delete them.

Guess what – there’s no way to select messages without any labels. Google’s own help files say “There isn’t a search operator for unlabeled messages“.

It seems I’m not the only one with this problem. After a Google search on the problem, I discovered that the only known method is to search using the “-label: ” operator that finds messages that don’t have a given label. If you have 4 labels you can search on messages that don’t have any of the 4 like this:

-label:Label1 -label:Label2 -label:Label3 -label:Label4

or

-label:{Inbox Outbox label1 Label2 …} // only for single-word labels

Which is fine if you only have four labels. I had hundreds of labels.

Google support said there was no way to delete just the unlabeled ones, except by hand.

But there is.

  1. Install Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook®.
  2. Install Outlook (I used Outlook 2003).
  3. Synchronize Outlook with the GMail account (this may take a long time – days – if you have a lot of mail)
  4. Exit Outlook (important!)
  5. Go into GMail, select “All Mail”, click on “Select all messages that match this search”.
  6. Delete all the mail in the GMail account.
  7. Run Google Apps Migration for Microsoft Outlook® (this gets installed automatically when you install Apps Sync)
  8. Migrate your Outlook .PST file (the account you synced in step 3) to your GMail account.
  9. Restart Outlook. Let it sync with GMail (may take a long time – it’ll transfer the entire account).

You’re done. You can un-install Outlook now if you don’t want to use it (you don’t have to; it’ll stay synced with GMail).

I did this. It works. Now I have only the 792 messages that actually have labels.

Dropbox is still better than Google Drive

[Update 2014: This is obsolete. Google Keep solves the problem better now.]

In July I switched from an iPhone to a Galaxy Nexus running Android Jellybean.

I was fed up with Apple’s sue-happy arrogance and with being locked to AT&T (I travel; AT&T’s international roaming rates are highway robbery).

Plus Jellybean just looked like a more advanced platform. Google’s price of $350 unlocked and usable anywhere in the world was a great deal. When Apple got an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, I pulled the trigger and snapped one up before it got yanked off the market.

Back in 2009 I went thru a painful transition from the Palm Treo to the iPhone. One of the big issues then was getting my memos onto the iPhone in a form that was:

  • Synchronized with the PC (so I can edit on either device)
  • Reasonably secure (encrypted sync)
  • Editable offline (on either the PC or the phone)

My solution was to store memos in the “notes” field of address book entries. This synced securely with Google Contacts and I could edit my memos offline. It worked great.

Unfortunately the Android version of Google Contacts has a limitation on the size of the “notes” field. Neither the iPhone or the web version of Google Contacts have this problem, but I had plenty of memos that were too long to read on Android.

So I decided to move the memos into Google Drive (ex-Google Docs) files, thinking I could edit those on the phone or PC.

It turns out you can’t edit Google Drive documents when you’re offline. Also, the Google editor is complex enough to take an annoyingly long time to start on the phone (when I just want to check my shopping list).

But Dropbox works great:

  • Store the memos in Dropbox as plain text.
  • Put a shortcut to the memos folder on your “links” toolbar in Windows
  • Put the Dropbox widget (direct link to the memos folder) in the Android dock
  • Mark the memo files with a star (“favorite” them), so Dropbox will cache them locally in the phone for offline access.

That’s it. You can edit either on the PC or phone, and it syncs securely. It’s even smart enough to create a “conflict” copy if you make conflicting changes on the PC and phone.

I’m disappointed with Google Drive – this should be easy. And I don’t see why they put the size limit on Android address book notes (when there isn’t one on the PC or iPhone).

I’ll say this – the transition to Android was easy; nothing like the nightmare moving to the iPhone.

I think Apple has started a long, slow descent into irrelevance. They must think so too – winners compete, losers sue.