A (simplistic) taxonomy of human communication

Recently I have been thinking about how codified and hierarchical communication between people truly is. I am sure this has been attempted before, but it seems to me that there are a number of distinct levels that can be commonly identified when people communicate with each other. The examples below are somewhat tongue in cheek, but I am sure the reader will recognise themselves in at least some of the exchanges quoted.

Silent
Strangers. Reliant on non verbal cues to decide if communication should start.

Lapalissian
A self evident form of communication acting as a conversation opener.

- Dreadful weather day today, isn't it ?
- It is indeed, not much of a summer this year.
- I know, it has been terrible has it not?
- Worst I can remember ….

No information is truly exchanged and it exist merely to acknowledge the presence of the other person and as a possible opener to more interesting levels of communication.

Symmetrical
Small talk. Starts with little or no shared context. The conversation is based around the mutual exchange of anagraphical data and public knowledge information associated with the public persona. Typically used in slightly formal environments to while away the time while attempting to locate common ground to move communication to a more satisfying tier.

- What do you do? (or Where are you from? Where do you live? Do you have children ? etc)
- I am a/I work at …, how about you ?

It consists of a number of standard search patterns aimed at homing in on common ground and starting to build shared context.

Anecdotal
Conversation with known acquaintances. Once sufficient time has been spent in the symmetrical state and enough information is known about the public persona of an interlocutor, a certain amount of shared context will have been built. Once this has been achieved the communication can transition to a more satisfying tier and allow for the exchange of stories/anecdotes/views, thus productive and enriching debate ensues and further shared context and mutual understanding is built.

Archetypal anecdotal
Friendship. A critical mass of common context will tip the relationship into friendship. Friendship seems to rely on a set of pre-ordained communication archetypes with the dual purpose of exchanging information and challenging/re-asserting the value of the friendship thus generating pleasure in the participants. This form of communication both assumes (and expects) the triggering of specific responses in the interlocutor(s) and is utilised in similar forms regardless of the number of listeners, as long as they all loosely share a similar amount of context. Common communication archetypes exploited in this phase are:

Gifting "rare" information Information known to one party that is deemed valuable to the other party is shared. Well meaning "gossip" between friends falls into this category

- You would not ever guess what happened to ...
- Pray tell ...
- Well,…

The interlocutor feels good as they are gifted valuable information. The speaker feels useful. The friendship is reinforced if the information is indeed found to be valuable or interesting. This is typically the case due to the existing shared context.

Overcoming difficulty Tales of "difficulty overcome" are shared. This presumably reinforces in the interlocutor(s) the feeling that the speaker is resourceful and worth knowing. Thus the friendship is reinforced. A component of this mode of communication is the gifting of the information pertaining to how the specific difficulty was overcome. This may be of use to the listener(s) and falls into the previous category.

Asserting uniqueness Anecdotes about how "unique" or "crazy" or "funny" one's behaviour is and how it is different from socially acceptable norms. Distancing oneself from social norms and obtaining consensus from the interlocutor(s) reinforces the friendship through the assertion of uniqueness. It is somewhat ironic, but not altogether unexpected, that this conversation archetype tends to revolve around stale stereotypes of distinctly ordinary and mild forms of anti-social behaviour (e.g. doing "funny" things when drunk, mild law infringement, slight awkwardness towards someone outside the social circle, mild risk-taking - often exaggerated ). This is because its aim is not to communicate true rejection of social norms but to challenge the boundaries of the known shared context in order to highlight the us versus them aspect of the friendship and reinforce its uniqueness and value. Can be followed by the "overcoming difficulty" pattern if the reported behaviour happens to have landed the speaker in a spot of mild trouble.

Seeking sympathy The sharing of hard luck stories, whether emotional or not, gives the listener(s) the chance to feel good about themselves on two levels: such a rotten thing is not happening to them and they can "help" by generously gifting their understanding and support. Seeking sympathy reinforces the friendship by underlining the need for the relationship to exist. Note that the aim of seeking sympathy is not to truly get an objective opinion of whether the hard luck is deserved or whether the interlocutor agrees with the speaker's views. For the friendship to be reinforced, hard luck needs to be acknowledged, not questioned, and understanding gifted back. This in turn makes the sharer feel good about the friendship and themselves by obtaining the expected response. It is a self-serving ritualised exchange typically void of objectivity.

Reinforcing Anecdotal

Close personal relationships. As people get closer (e.g. a significant other, close relation or a very close friend), information sharing becomes less codified, the simple archetypes of the friendship tier of communication are dropped and objectivity is again sought. The aim of communication at this level is to truly understand the other person, and reinforce trust granted to them. Anecdotes, views may be shared, and debate ensues but honesty and objectivity are valued and expected.

Reinforcing Symmetrical
Small talk between people who are close. Communication between people who are close and know each other well also utilises the simple modes of communication explored above, with similar purposes, but with the added aim of showing genuine interest in the life of the other person and as an opener to reinforcing anecdotal debate to seek advise, share views, generally help one another.

- How was work?
- Fine, difficult day …
- Tell me about it

Reinforcing Lapalissian
Self evident communication aimed not just at acknowledging the other person's presence but also to reassure them how we feel about them and reinforce the relationship.

- Honey I'm home...
- So you are, I am so glad !!!

Reinforcing Silent
People in close relationships, comfortable in each other's company and feeling no immediate need for communication. Again reliant on non verbal cues.

Energy "needs" versus "wants" (or ramblings on daily energy requirements)

Have you ever wondered what your daily energy diet looks like and how much of it is the energy equivalent of bad fat? I often wonder how much of the energy I use I really need and if there are alternative means of achieving the same goals utilising less energy.

In this post I analyse some basic daily energy requirements and their cost and draw some suprising conclusions. Note that these are ramblings only supported by back of an envelope calculations ... and there may well be erroneous assumptions in the mix ... but overall the figures seem to match experience.

Being a keen sailor I have looked closely at the impact of technology on energy consumption and the role it plays in consuming the scarce energy resources available to me before having to recharge my boat battery bank.

Aglaia (my boat) provides a good starting point for analysis of daily energy needs and wants because it is a simple self contained environment, detached from the electricity grid, but yet catering for all modern home comforts including "needs" (refrigeration, heating, hot water) and some "wants" (media/computing/internet/gaming). Thus I propose to analyse the context of daily energy utilisation using my boat as a starting point and develop a rough model to compare with my home consumption.

Energy Storage

Every environment detached from the electricity grid requires some form of energy storage. On my boat this comes in the form of a battery bank made up of three 100Ah batteries, one of them exclusively dedicated to the engine starter motor to be able to start the engine and recharge the other two deep cycle leisure batteries. The actual energy storage capacity is therefore about 200Ah. At risk of stating the obvious, a 1 Amp/hour battery will sustain a load of 1 Amp for 1 hour before needing to be charged again. For the purposes of this article we will assume the batteries to be in good condition and able to issue the full 200A stored.

Energy Production

We need to be able to produce energy to replenish the storage facility. Energy production facilities are minimal on Aglaia and batteries are only recharged by the alternator activated by the 40HP Lombardini marine diesel engine. The fuel tank has a capacity of approx 165lt. For simplicity we will assume that the alternator is capable of efficiently charging the batteries at idle engine rpms. Under cruising load (1800 rpm) the engine is able to run for approx 50 hours on a fuel tank. I will assume idle speed running (~500rpm) to utilise 50% of the cruising load fuel and thus allow for 100hours of idle speed running on a full tank of fuel. The alternator is capable of fully charging both leisure batteries in approx 1 hour of engine running, thus the total energy capacity is a charge of 200A over the course of 100 charges, so approx 20000A … a lot of energy, by any standard. If we consider that Amps = Watts / Volts and the battery voltage is 12 volts, this equates to a total capacity of 20,000*12=240,000 Watts or 240kW.

Needs and Wants

So I have 200Ah to play with. How far does that go?
Let's start with fundamentals needs.

Needs

The fridge can store the basic food and drinks that need refrigeration for 4-6 people for a week. My fully loaded (averagely insulated) fridge will chip away at the battery bank using a load of 2A for 5 mins every half an hour. The fridge therefore accounts for a consumption of 2A for 10 mins in every hour, yielding a consumption of 2/6 A each hour and a total daily load of 24*2/6A = 8A: an hourly requirement equal to .34Ah. If I were to only run the fridge I could happily live on the boat for 25 days without the need to recharge the batteries once.

Let's park hot water, heating and cooking at the moment for the following reasons: hot water is produced by a heat exchanger coupled with the engine. Thus hot water generation for, say, showering purposes, can usually be timed with battery recharge runs. In the home environment the hot water boiler is currently gas powered and so is the cooker, so like on Aglaia, they do not impact electricity utilisation. Heating is diesel fed on the boat versus a gas boiler at home. Let's assume it is summer for the initial discussion and factor in the remainder later.

Lighting comes into play in the evening. Each cabin is illuminated by a single 15W halogen bulb whereas the main salon has three and a fluorescent tube for the galley. If we assume two people staying on the boat (to make the home comparison easier) we do not expect more than two areas to be lit up concurrently. As a worst case scenario we will take the salon and master forward cabin, for a total of 60W and a load of 5A. We expect this load to be applied for approx three hours each evening over dinner and reading/game playing/conversation (unless the television is on, in which case the lights are usually off). This gives an hourly need of 15A/24h = 0.625Ah.

Activities that require taps (showering/washing, washing up) will activate the water pump over the course of the day. This seems to be on for approx 15% of the duration of water consumption in order to create sufficient pressure. If we expect the combined time spent using taps to be approx 1 hour per day (15mins per person for showering/washing activities plus 15 mins washing up + miscellaneous utilisation) we have a total draw of 10A over 24h, 10/24Ah= 0.41Ah.

The total for the moment is quite encouraging. To cater for all the basic needs we have a total hourly load of 1.374 Ah, which throughout the day yields a total 33A. Thus the battery bank can supply all daily electricity needs for just over 6 days.

Wants

Running a laptop with the correct power saving settings seems to draw approx 2.5A on average (5A peak, but in my installation the native laptop screen is permanently off ). The laptop is connected to an external 19inch LCD screen powered through an inverter. From memory, the screen is a 50W appliance, thus it consumes approx 4.1A. The combined screen and laptop draw is therefore 6.6A. In practice this seems to be much the same if we play PS2 games or watch a DVD. Let's assume that 5 hours a day are devoted to laptop/internet utilisation/television/DVD watching/game playing. The total consumption here is approx 33A. As all this appliances (except for the laptop) are powered through an inverter we need to add 8-10% due to AC->DC conversion inefficiency and dissipation of energy as heat. We'll call it 36.3A - an hourly load of 1.512Ah. Interesting that "wants" play the lion share of energy utilisation here and easily overwhelm the combined energy "needs".

Total so far

To do most things that we do in our home on a daily basis on Aglaia I would use approx 1.512Ah+1.374Ah * 24 =69.28A. Thus the battery bank will last just under 3 days (2.88) prior to needing recharging.

Thus it would seem that in a warm climate where hot water and heating are not major concerns, a full tank of diesel will happily cater for all daily energy needs for approx 288 days, at a total cost of approx GBP 204 pounds at current fuel prices. The total utilisation in kW is (69.28A * 288 days * 12v) = 239.432kW over a period of 6912 hours, giving an average draw of 0.03464 kWh at an average cost of 83p per kWh. The corresponding monthly electricity bill is therefore GBP 21.54.

This is surprising as I would have expected the cost per kW begin a couple of orders of magnitude higher than what I can purchase from the grid - but more on this later.

Some more Needs :Cooking

From experience of living on the boat for 6 months I can state cooking is a non issue - one gas bottle will last approx 2 months when cooking for 1-2 people at a cost of approx 18GBP.

The combined coking and electricity cost per month is therefore GBP 30.54.

Hot Water

If we wish to shower with nice hot water, we need to resort to running the engine on a daily basis for 15mins prior to showering and during the duration of showering. This implies we will be topping up the batteries as well, but use some diesel in the process. Let's assume we run the engine for 45 mins every morning. This should produce the required hot water, cover the water pump load and fully recharge the batteries … but the price of hot water is that the engine utilisation will reduce the longevity of the fuel tank to approx 216 days.

Heating

Assuming a normal utilisation pattern where the heating is only on when there is occupancy we expect the heating to be on controlled by a thermostat for approx 5 hours each day during the Oct--Mar months. Running the heating uses diesel and will, from experience, use about half a tank over a period of 3 months if run every day for the whole day with the thermostat set to 17deg. Scaling this to 5 hours per day gives a utilisation of approx 30% of the fuel tank over the period of utilisation. We can therefore assume that we will be able to run the engine for 30% less days … which seems about right from experience. The total amount we can run independently on a tank of fuel is therefore 151 days if we use heating, giving a total energy cost of GBP 1.65 per day including gas consumption.

A few surprise facts

The first surprise is that the cost per kWh is not as high as expected with respect to what is available from the electricity grid. The initial cost of a kWh from the grid, prior to tiered cheaper electricity kicking in is 25p … eventually heading down to approx 8p. The industry average figure for comparative purposes seems to be quoted at approx 18p/kWh. This is only about a quarter of the price of self generation utilising an inefficient diesel engine, which seems odd, considering how much more efficient an industrial gas turbine is and the cost added to the diesel used on the boat through retail distribution and taxation.

The second surprise is how much of our daily energy diet is actually entertainment. The core needs seem quite cheap.

Enter alternative energy

How can we lower the cost per kWh ? On a boat solar and wind power are good easy choices, although for a vessel in constant navigation towed generators are also good efficient options.

Wind energy

The mean annual wind speed for coastal areas of the south coast of the uk is 6-7 m/s and slightly less inland (5-6 m/s). An average efficiency small wind turbine will generate 38kWh per month at the lower mean UK coastal wind speed. This is good news because at the stated 69.28A per day the monthly electricity consumption is approx 25.2872 kWh. A single sub GBP 1000.00 wind turbine should happily cover the daily energy needs and also keep the batteries topped up. This implies we do not need to run the engine at all to recharge the batteries.

There is monthly surplus of 12kWh. Would this be sufficient to help with heating and hot water if they were to be converted to electrically operated appliances ?

We assume that an electric water heater would use 1000W for a period of 30mins to allow two people to shower. This implies that the wind turbine would also provide sufficient energy to heat water for 24 days … slightly short of a month.

The impact of solar

Can we cover the remaining energy required for hot water and heating through solar generation ? A large (800mm*645mm) panel, at least by boating standards, will generate 68 Watts peak output and an average of 0.27kWh per day. The monthly output of the panel is therefore 8.2 kWh … far inferior to the wind turbine. Let's see if it is sufficient though.

We need 3kW to cater for the remaining hot water requirement. Let's assume a heater will consume approx 1000W for a period of 5 hours per day. This is quite a high consumption at 5kW per day, giving a monthly requirement of 152kW. Looks like the panel will not cover the heating requirement.

Diesel-Electric solutions

The efficiency of electricity generation could be drastically improved through a diesel-electric architecture, where the engine-alternator combination is optimised for energy generation and disconnected from the propshaft. The propeller is driven, when needed, by an electric engine using energy stored in batteries or generated by the remote running engine. In such a "grid" environment each power generator contributes to the total energy storage capacity and the diesel generator is only activated when required. Although this setup may have its disadvantages for marine use (it is nice to know your engine is attached to the propeller when you really need it ...) it is an ideal setup for heterogeneous power production for home and automotive applications.

In summary

We have calculated that with the addition of a wind turbine and a solar panel we are able to cover all of the wants and needs (except for heating) and have some energy to spare (which may itself justify the addition of an additional battery to the bank).

How does this change the cost per kW ? If we assume that the cost of the generators (GBP 1500) is a one off and we remove it form the equation then the cost per kWh post installation of alternative generation facilities is actually 0. In this environment a full tank of fuel will provide heating for a year at a cost of 204 pounds - or GBP 17.00 per month. Including cooking requirements, the full energy cost is therefore GBP 26.00 per month.

How does this compare with home use ?

My fuel and electricity bills for a two bedroom flat are approx 150 per quarter each. GBP 300 per quarter achieves pretty much the same quality of life as described above. This is surprising considering I buy the energy from bulk producers that boast much higher efficiency and diversified production means. Even considering that larger and more power hungry appliances are run at home (e.g. the tv screen is larger) and the environment takes more energy to heat up because it is larger (although it is also better insulated and not immersed in water … which disperses heat quite quickly) it is difficult so see where the extra cost comes from.

A comparison of the home utilisation and the theoretical impact of alternative energy generation on it will be the subject of a future post.

Against Facebook (or the futility of one-dimensional social networks)

The irony of online social networking lies in the fact that it is quite poor at achieving its stated aims of providing modern means to socially interact with a complex network of people.

Very early in our lives, and certainly by school age, we start to differentiate between our different personas and start being selective about what aspects of our personality are appropriate for each social circle we interact with. We learn to associate behaviours, images, artefacts with different personas we wish to portray and only exhibit chosen traits of each persona within the appropriate social circle.

This aspect of human interaction, so intrinsic to the fabric of society, develops naturally in each individual and by the time we are of working age it is both required and desirable to be proficient at separating our personal and professional behaviours and differentiate the way we interact with significant others, friends, acquaintances, relations, colleagues and mixed groups.

Compare and contrast this reality with the world of today's so called social networking.
Let's ignore for the moment the obvious suitability of the current approach to the average teen-ager, who is, by definition, self centered and one dimensional and thus intensely focused on pleading allegiance to the tribe of choice, and let us instead concentrate on its relevance to the rest of the population.

The modern social networking site - its brand image thankfully void of the "friends reunited" stigma of suburban escapism and sordid curiosity to reconnect with old flames - promised to allow us to manage our whole social network, its value proposition both active: help us leverage our network to achieve what we wish to do, and passive: assist us to keep the network alive and well while we are busy doing other things.

Unfortunately, by failing to support the multi-dimensional aspect of people's personalities, the current state of the art in online social networking fails to provide a useful tool where to interact with our friends, relations, acquaintances, colleagues. Either we are forced to segregate the use of each site to a single social circle and thus have to replicate content across different one-dimensional social/professional networking sites, or we have to restrict ourselves to what is appropriate for cross social circle distribution - ultimately detracting from the quality of interaction and thus limiting the network's utility.

Without evolution towards a flexible and easily managed authorisation model allowing user defined personas to provide network participants with different views of a single user profile, social networking technology will not fulfil its original promise of being a single point of service for all our social contacts.

By limiting themselves to a single one size fits all approach, social networking sites will fail to provide truly useful applications and will be plagued by vampires and werewolves for a long time to come, ultimately failing to fullfil their potential and justify their market valuations.