Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Networked Networks Are Prone to Epic Failure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:50 PM
Original message
Networked Networks Are Prone to Epic Failure
This is a really interesting result. Connecting robust subnetworks can reduce stability.

“When networks are interdependent, you might think they’re more stable. It might seem like we’re building in redundancy. But it can do the opposite,” said Eugene Stanley, a Boston University physicist and co-author of the study, published April 14 in Nature.

Most theoretical research on network properties has focused on single networks in isolation. In reality, many important networks are tied to each other. Anecdotal evidence — the crash of communications networks (.pdf) in lower Manhattan after 9/11, the plummeting of markets around the world after the Black Monday stock market collapse of 1987 — hints at their fragility, but the underlying mathematics are largely unexplored.

The Nature researchers modeled the behavior of two networks, each possessing what’s known as “broad degree distribution”: A few nodes have many connections, some have an intermediate amount of links and many have just a few. Think of the networks as having only a few branches, but many leaves. On their own, such networks are known to be stable. A random failure is likely to disable a leaf, leaving the rest of the network’s connections mostly intact.

In the new study, the researchers connected two of these networks. While many node failures were required to crash the networks when they were independent, a few failures crashed the networks when they were linked.

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/networked-networks/#ixzz0ll3dRTsM


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is precisely the condition of our current grid.
"“Networks with broad distributions are robust against random attacks. But we found that broad interconnected networks are very fragile,” said study co-author Gerald Paul, a Boston University physicist.
The interconnections fueled a cascading effect, with the failures coursing back and forth. A damaged node in the first network would pull down nodes in the second, which crashed nodes in the first, which brought down more in the second, and so on. And when they looked at data from a 2003 Italian power blackout, in which the electrical grid was linked to the computer network that controlled it, the patterns matched their models’ math."



It also duplicates the causes of the huge NE blackout in the late 90s.

This validates the reliability of distributed generation over the current system organized around large-scale, centralized generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. We've known about this for a long time
Not sure why this is considered news.
There's tons of research on this at all levels going back decades.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. This interesting thing about this is, it suggests distributed generation...
alone is not enough to guarantee robust-ness. Two or more robust grids can become unstable, if those grids are then connected as in the study. I assume that the particular way sub-networks get connected is very relevant. I would hope that this kind of work has something to say about ways to connect legacy sub-networks that do *not* introduce instability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. free pdf
at http://argento.bu.edu/hes/articles/
currently the first item (2 pdf's):
S. V. Buldyrev, R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley, and S. Havlin, "Catastrophic Cascade of Failures in Interdependent Networks," Nature 464, 1025-1028 (2010). PDF -- Accompanied by "News \& Views" article by A. Vespignani on pp. 984-985. PDF

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Raissa D'Souza interview and webpage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nuclear reactors make the grid even less stable
They have to disconnect and shut down when the grid is unstable.
They can't come back online until the grid is stabilized again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. So, networks with "broad degree distribution" don't scale well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That is a description of the current grid organized around centralized thermal.
The specific example is Italy's grid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Centralized networks have bottlenecks, by definition.
Bottlenecks create (are) single points of failure, i.e. weaknesses, and they are simultaneously points of traffic concentration, places where the load peaks under high demand. When you multiply weaknesses, and concentrate load at the weaknesses, you multiply the chances of failures. The general theory of these things is actually pretty old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That's why brains are impossible.
Too many interconnected neurons!
It can't work!
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Your analogy makes no sense.
The brain is not comparable to a grid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. "The general theory of these things is actually pretty old."
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 09:18 AM by bananas
In the OP, phantom power wrote "Networked Networks Are Prone to Epic Failure"
In post #6, bemildred wrote "The general theory of these things is actually pretty old."
In post #5, bananas wrote "There's tons of research on this at all levels going back decades."

Although wikipedia describes "network science" as a new discipline, the application of graph theory etc to both electric circuits and neural circuits (and other circuits) goes back a long way. The "general theory of these things" applies to both electric and neural networks, including issues of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_grid

An electrical grid is an interconnected network for delivering electricity from suppliers to consumers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_science

Network science is a new and emerging scientific discipline that examines the interconnections among diverse physical or engineered networks, information networks, biological networks, cognitive and semantic networks, and social networks. This field of science seeks to discover common principles, algorithms and tools that govern network behavior. The National Research Council defines Network Science as "the study of network representations of physical, biological, and social phenomena leading to predictive models of these phenomena."


The embedded link to "biological networks" goes directly to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neural_network

Biological neural network

In neuroscience, a neural network describes a population of physically interconnected neurons or a group of disparate neurons whose inputs or signalling targets define a recognizable circuit. Communication between neurons often involves an electrochemical process. The interface through which they interact with surrounding neurons usually consists of several dendrites (input connections), which are connected via synapses to other neurons, and one axon (output connection). If the sum of the input signals surpasses a certain threshold, the neuron sends an action potential (AP) at the axon hillock and transmits this electrical signal along the axon.

In contrast, a neuronal circuit is a functional entity of interconnected neurons that influence each other (similar to a control loop in cybernetics).


From "Texture of the Nervous System of Man and the Vertebrates" by Santiago Ramón y Cajal. The figure illustrates the diversity of neuronal morphologies in the auditory cortex.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron

The perceptron is a type of artificial neural network invented in 1957 at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory by Frank Rosenblatt.


Some more reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_%28disambiguation%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectedness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Like a bullet to the brain.
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 01:13 AM by joshcryer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. No, that's incorrect. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. Systemantics
It's a great read.

A few of my favorite "Laws":
  • The Generalized Uncertainty Principle: Systems display antics. (Complicated systems produce unexpected outcomes. The total behavior of large systems cannot be predicted.)
  • The Fundamental Failure-Mode Theorem (F.F.T.): Complex systems usually operate in failure mode.
  • The Fail-Safe Theorem: When a Fail-Safe system fails, it fails by failing to fail safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Good information for the nuclear fans to internalize.
Nuclear power plants and their control and safety systems are some of the most complex pieces of engineering on the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You seriously believe that?
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 04:31 PM by Confusious
skyscrapers, rockets, airplanes, submarines, ships.

All those are more complex.

I can name more.

Forgot about computers 10000x more complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. I've been philosophically opposed to high levels of interdependency for this reason.
From my point of view communities and cities and towns should be independent, self-sufficient entities. Global capitalism relies heavily on interdependency. That's one reason I feel global capitalism is destined to fail. But that's another discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. The OP is full of bizarre statements, that's the only way I can characterize them.
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 05:52 PM by bemildred
This for example:

Most theoretical research on network properties has focused on single networks in isolation. In reality, many important networks are tied to each other. Anecdotal evidence — the crash of communications networks (.pdf) in lower Manhattan after 9/11, the plummeting of markets around the world after the Black Monday stock market collapse of 1987 — hints at their fragility, but the underlying mathematics are largely unexplored.

I used to work in large military battle simulations, and they absolutely drove themselves nuts because they could not understand what you have to do to get a highly scalable network architecture. They were always wanting to join various simulations together to make bigger "joint" simulations, and they tended to favor broadcast communications models, and the result, single model or "joint" exercise, was always that the simulations would grind to a halt at some point as they scaled it up. The communications overhead would just kill them.

But the guys that designed IP back in the 70s understood the problem perfectly, and the Internet is just the way it has to be, and it is all over the world as a consequence of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. PS: I agree with your views, in case I did not make that clear. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC