Here's an anchored volume-weighted average price that's anchored simply to this significant low over here. I would not anchor a volume-weighted average price on that day because I'll be looking at going, this stock's in a downtrend. This day looks just like this day or this day. I don't know that's a low, but when it starts to rally even way over here, then I'll say, you know what? That looks like a significant low. I'm going to put my anchor to that low right there, and I'm going to keep an eye on it and see how that stock progresses. You can see there's two touches where almost precisely it hits, and I can show you this stuff on it. Before that time, I'll show you some stocks of the DAX, the NASDAQ, where they've just done this.  This green dot, where do you see the, people always ask me, where do I set the anchor? Should I set it to the high, to the low, to the close? The only answer is you set it to, how many people use TradingView? That's a lot. TradingView has, even if you have the free TradingView, there's a great anchored volume-weighted average price, the one they built. When you go on the left-hand side under Tools, I think it's the second little icon down, open that drop-down, and at the bottom is the anchored VWAP, and it's a point-and-click anchor. They'll give you the opportunity to set standard deviation bands around it, if you want. I don't use those. They'll also say, do you want to use high-low, close divided by three, high-low divided by two, or just the high? Some people say, I want to just know from the highs. What you're saying is the only thing that mattered on this day to you was the volume that traded at the exact high of that day. That doesn't represent the consensus of what happened. The only one that you should ... I've told TradingView this, why do you even offer these other options? They shouldn't be available. It's open high-low divided by four. That's the only one you should use, because you want all the volume from the open. You want all the volume that happened in the middle of the day, and you want all the volume at the close. That gives you the true average price. That's good to see that so many people use that software, if you find those settings and make it OHLC divided by four. Where you see a dot on that first candle, it just looks like a dot. That's the actual VWAP for that day, or if this was a one-minute chart, it would say from 930.00 to 931.00. The average price of traded in that minute is that dot. That's where your anchor begins. This is just taking this and expanding this area right here, so we can take a closer look at it. Again, I wouldn't have set the anchor probably until about that third white candle, and he might say, well, you're late. I would look at it and say, that's good, something's going on here, but I'm not going to chase it. It just went from 30 to 33 or whatever it might be. Later on, as the stock progresses, I'm going to remind myself of that and see when it gets touched, if it's defended, and is there an opportunity in there. The reason that it's often an opportunity is because a guy like this guy. This is Ken Griffin. Ken Griffin last year, through his hedge fund and through Citadel Trading, which is the leading market maker in the world, in the US, they do 35% of all listed trades. All the volume in the US markets, listed stocks, goes through this gentleman's firm. When he talks, you have to listen, especially when he's under oath in front of Congress. As he was two years ago, he was brought into Congress by Maxine Waters, and they were grilling them about the GameStop fiasco. How could this happen? How could all these people lose this money or are markets broken? What's going on? Ken Griffin said to them, and this is an exact quote, today virtually all trades executed by institutional investors are in the form of program trades such as VWAP. Here's the guy who's made more money out of the market ever than anyone in the history of the world made in one year is telling you this is what we're doing, guys. It's a good idea to pay attention. He said that the VWAP trades are executed over the course of a day, a week, or a month. These institutions are using VWAP borders every day. I'll give you the real quick version of why. I gave a real detailed version in the book. Basically, an institution might need to buy, let's say a company just reported earnings, and they say, I'm going to buy this stock over the next three months until the next earnings report. We have a $2 billion fund, so in order to take a meaningful position, we've got to get at least $100 million of this stock in the next three months. We can't just obviously go in the next day with a $100 million order because it's not going to go from $30 to $87 that day, and then it's just going to fall apart. They want to participate. The volume-weighted average price when it was invented in 1988, rather, was meant to say, here's how well you're executing your order versus the volume that's done throughout the day. It's known as the price a naive trader could expect to get. As long as you're not doing more than 5% to 10% of the daily volume, you have a pretty good chance of getting that order executed. Let's say we have $100 million worth, or let's just call it 100 million shares just to keep the math easy, and we have 100 days to do it. It's obviously less than that for the next quarter at 63, but let's say we have 100 days to do it, and we're going to buy $1 million worth each day. Well, what we would typically do is we would actually say we want to buy $5 million this week. Well, typically, 20% of the weekly or 40% of the weekly volume occurs on Monday, so we're going to buy 2 million shares on Monday because that's 40% of what we have to do for the week. Then we'll look at that Monday trade, and they'll say the first 10 minutes of the day typically does 10% of the volume. So they'll design their algorithms to buy 200,000 shares in that first time 10-minute block, and they'll spread it throughout the day. So when it's half of a percent of the volume is done at 12.32 p.m., they're going to do a half of 1% of their order. They're going to buy 500,000 dollars worth. So they do this so that they don't tip their hand to the market. The market doesn't know that there's this big buyer. They're just trying to sneak in there and participate with all the rest of the volume. They don't want to tip their hand and they don't want to give away to the market that there's this big buyer here. So he also said, which is not here, but these orders are all, they're not big blocks. Of course, you have your dark pool and that sort of thing, but they're going to be two, three, 500 shares. They're just sitting there on the bid, taking a couple pennies here, taking a couple hundred shares at a time until they fill that 12.32 a.m., where they have to buy 23,600 shares because it typically does 236,000 shares. And that's the way they participate. They're not trying to be competitive necessarily. Sometimes they will have a better trader who says, give me the order. I'm going to beat the VWAP. And that's where the human element comes in. The human trader will say, I can do this order today. I can beat the VWAP by 10 cents. If I beat the VWAP by 10 cents, we give the client half of those savings. And five cents of that 100,000 shares goes into our bonus pool. And that's the way then you have the firm who's doing the buy order to help be on the same team as the customer they're working for. So the main way that we're going to use anchored volume weighted average price, I'm not going to go into all the details, but it's support and resistance. That is not all the details in the book. And I think I have to speed this up a little bit. But we want to look at it, and here's a chart with, again, one day. And this stock gaps up, you can see it on the left. And one's higher, and it just looks like it's an uptrend throughout the day. But there's actually a couple of pretty good pullbacks. So this is one of a strategy that I wrote about in 2008 and got more in detail in the book as well, which is chase the gap or wait for VWAP. So when a stock gaps up, I never get involved in the first five minutes or so. I'm sitting and watching. And then to see if it starts pulling back. I love it when they start pulling back like this, because you can see for the first 15 minutes or so, maybe 30 minutes of the day, the sellers had control of the stock. And it was just natural profit-taking. And there were some shorts in there saying, hey, it's up too much. Let's see if it closes the gap and that sort of thing. But that moment at number three, where it gets back above the volume-weighted average price for the day, 32 minutes into the day, tells us with 100% certainty, now the buyers are back in control. The average price that this is traded at is above the volume-weighted average price. It's the buyers who have control. So I like to buy at number three and set my stop at number two, just under number two. So if it's $68 even or $61.92 was that low, I usually put my stop two pennies below it is my initial stop. Once I know the buyers are getting control, as it breaks out for that high of the day and it runs that first dollar really quickly, I'll often sell my first third. So we're still in that early morning period where things can reverse on us. So I like to reduce my risk. This is for a day trade. And then see if I can hold it longer. I would, on this one, I would have been out just above that, you see that first lower high and then it breaks a lower low and comes down to the VWAP. I would have been out underneath that higher low. So that's what I mean by raising it up underneath the higher low. For the timeframe you're engaged. As it pulled back to the number four, I'd be looking at saying, hey, it's back to VWAP. I'm not gonna buy here, but I'm gonna start to look at this very carefully. I'm gonna look at my level two now.  But as it starts to rally away from that number four, I'm gonna buy it again and set my stop underneath number four. And same thing in the afternoon. I'm not gonna buy the pullback to it, but if it rallies back away from it, then I'm gonna get involved. Nowhere in that chart would I be interested in shorting the stock. There's two good pullbacks, but again, the sum of the rallies is greater than the sum of the declines were above the VWAP. So you're fighting the trend. There's just no point that I ever have found that it makes sense to do that. This is Roku, which is I think having trouble right now. This was about a week or so ago, but Roku from the year to date anchored VWAP, the buyers have been in control over and over again. The sellers took control, they reported earnings and now this stock I think is likely to disappoint a lot of people. When it gets back below its significant anchored VWAP, like this one, you gotta pay attention and say now the average short seller during that entire time is now making money. So what are they gonna do? They're gonna start to press. They're gonna put offers out to try to scare you into selling. They're gonna try to take back control. And what about the longs? Well, how does the average long participant feeling in here? The average long at $56.56 is down about $2 because the average price from that low is $2 holler. So it's about trying to get into the psychology of the average participant. So when we see a stock in a downtrend like this, we wanna look at those rallies up to the VWAP and you can look here and see, the little couple of times it hit it precisely and then just, so you look at it and say, wow, it hit perfect, I knew I should have shorted there. I'm always more interested in shorting as it breaks down and proves that that was, in fact, an important high. So I'm gonna short on those green circles and set my stock up above the prior red arrow because if I short there, there's no way of knowing that it's not going to be that time that it reverses and you're out a bunch of money. I always wanna be on the winning side. So again, we anchor to important lows in uptrends and we see that often it acts as support, but not always. So if you're buying that pullback there, or let's look at this one, if you bought it at $39, is it hit that? Well, then for $339, well, two days later you were down five points. That's not a winning strategy. Where does your stop go? It becomes a question. So where we set the anchor is really the most subjective part. The analysis of it is easy. Where we wanna set the anchor is big volume of that. Something that really rattles the market against perception change rapidly. We wanna anchor there because it might have been an earnings report where these gaps are occurring in the big volume. Who knows what the reason is? The reason really doesn't matter so much. It's how does the stock respond after that event? Are the buyers able to maintain control? And this is very typical that you'll see a gap up and it holds the VWAP and then see a little bit of shake out and then it begins to get going. So it's had a big one. It just needs time to catch its breath. It's like running around the track. You can't run at full speed.  It's the same thing for stocks. Gaps, year-to-date is a good one. A lot of institutions use the year-to-date anchored VWAP. By the way, you can follow me on Twitter. It's at Alpha Trends. I'm going to tweet a link to a study a friend of mine did about the year-to-date anchored VWAP. I've always known it worked, but I've never done like a back test, you know, proper study of it. He did that. So I'm gonna tweet that. Probably tomorrow, the volume-weighted average price from the Federal Reserve, the ECB. Like if you look at today's action on the FTSE, from where, you know, from the moment, I don't know what time they do it here because I don't trade that market, but you know, from the very moment that the Federal Reserve at 2 p.m. Eastern time announces any change to monetary policy, the first thing I do is click my VWAP and it's there. And I started on a one-minute chart. And as I get about 20 minutes of data, I'll change it to a two-minute chart. As I get about an hour worth of data, I'll change it to a five-minute chart and watch how it develops. We just bounced, the S&P 500 just bounced yesterday from the VWAP, from the Fed last week. And it does that really often. This is not unusual for it to be useful for up to about two weeks. But for that two-week period, a lot of times, it didn't happen so much here, but a lot of times you'll see on day three it hits it bounces. Day five, it hits it and bounces. Day six, it turns sideways and then breaks below it and then it bounces back up and finds supply there on day seven and then it falls apart. That's really, you know, that type of action is very typical. Earning reports are one of the biggest catalysts for most people in the market. It's that, you know, every three months they get the opportunity to get the report card and say, how well is this company doing? Do is this something I want to buy or sell? So that first earnings report, obviously people weren't enthusiastic about it. The second one, there was, you know, maybe a little bit of a problem because it was, you know, pulled back to the VWAP from the higher earnings report, but then it got stuck below that one and it looks like they had two bad quarters and look at how the VWAPs from the beginning of the earnings report, you know, acted as resistance and more support on the first one. And as resistance on the second ones.  I've been using the anchor VWAP, you know, since 2003 and it still blows my mind when I look at it and say, it just hit it perfect. And then just a beautiful rally occurred or, you know, fell apart from. So again, here, you know, on this one, on the white, there was a little bit of noise around that area. Let it, you know, pull back down hard to the anchor from that low. And that low was six months prior. That's May to November. It settled down, but then the buyers regained control. So at that green arrow, I would, you know, anchor another VWAP and say, now I want to measure this rally off of the major rally. Anyone know what we call that when we set a new anchor to the touch of the buyer anchor touch? Handoff, yes. You read the book already. So same thing in a downtrend, you know, rallies up to it are often active resistance, but it's not always perfect. So we want to use that as the place to observe our analysis on a shorter term timeframe and find evidence that it's time. So I look at the daily timeframe and say, here's the big trend. I'm not going to short it right here, but if it starts to back away from it on the shorter term timeframe, as it's just breaking below a key level, I'm going to short there with my stop above the most recent relevant lower high. So this is kind of my favorite part. And I should probably change this because I'd make it earlier because, you know, all last year and, you know, late 2021 and all of 2020, well, first half of 2021, the mantra for modern was by the dip, by the dip, by the dip. And I would just shake my head and map just these people are going to get murdered because these stocks are in downtrend. These are not dipped. These are stocks in downtrends. These are patterns of lower highs and lower lows. It's not a dip. A pullback in an uptrend, if it starts to bounce away from it, then you can say that was a dip. But, you know, don't buy the dip, buy strength after the dip. So we don't want to buy the dip and I don't think you want to buy breakouts. Not most of them. You don't want to short the lip. So if you buy the dip, like in these red highlighted areas, the question is what if you bought on, you know, the third day of this pullback. Well, then you had to wait for, so these are weeks, actually. So on the third week, you had to wait three months for it to get any momentum. And if they didn't scare you out with your stop, I'd be looking and go, man, I've been in the stock for three months. It's doing nothing. Meanwhile, all these other stocks are going, I'm going to sell that dog and get into something that's working. So we don't want to buy the dip is the way I do. Because then where do you say your stop? And if you buy the breakout, to the new high, you're often getting in after the stock has made, oftentimes there are about an eight to 10% rally in the three to four days prior to a breakout. And then when I own the stock at these points, I always sell some on the breakout because I look at it and say, well, it's uneducated money buying the breakout. They didn't consider this stock was up 8% in the last three days. And how often do we hear people complain, the breakouts don't work anymore? Well, it's because you're buying extended breakouts. If you've got a real nice tight range and it breaks out of that range, I'm off for buying those, but not buying this breakout up here, right? So as it hits that high, and I don't want to buy in here where I've got all this risk, maybe it's just going to fall apart and keep going down. So I want to buy when it gets above the volume weighted average price from that prior peak. Because at that point, when we anchor a VWAP there, we would have maybe done it on day three. We look at this and say, okay, the sellers are in control right now. So if you look at the FTSE and look at the most recent high about three or four weeks ago, we're still below that VWAP, but we're also hitting the year to date volume weighted average price, the volume weighted average price from the recent low and from a lower year ago. So as it gets back above that volume weighted average price, I know that the average buyer in here, I know with certainty is now in a winning position. I know the average short seller who shorted this big candle down in here, the average participant is now losing money on the short side. The buyers are in control. That's where I want to buy. I don't want to buy over here on the breakout. I want to, and I don't want to buy the pullback. So I don't want to buy the pullback and I don't want to buy the breakout. On the short side, the same exact is opposite. You know, people here all the time, oh, just we're going to sell the rip market. Well, they don't sell the rip. What if it keeps ripping? I mean, you know, there's no worse feeling than shorting a stock at 25 and a half and then two days later, the stock's at 29. If you're in a short, you know what your risk is. It's unlimited, theoretically. There's no guarantee that it's going to continue down. The trend once established is more likely to continue than reverse. But if it does reverse and you're short at 25 and a half and it's at 29, it's at 30 and it keeps going, you know, the fear is real. The losses are real. And we've similar don't want to short those breakdowns because they've already had big drops. Look at this one, the drop from 36 to 30 and then broke down. So it dropped 20% and then shorting it right here. Sure, it wouldn't work, but not as well as if you shorted there with your stop above that most recent high. So we want to sell short weakness after the rally. So once the sellers have regained control and set our stop above that most recent relevant high. These are a couple of trades just from the last couple of weeks. This was Mondales and DLZ. They make Oreos, I think, or something like that. They're food people. Anyways, the stock went on to become a monster. I sold it ahead of earnings, but on the daily chart on the left, so what we're doing is combining multiple timeframes to find this is my favorite type of buy. We've got a stock and established uptrend. So if you look at the stock in that box, well, in this area where it's below that, it was set the anchor to that gap, they kind of signaled the end of that big rally from 63 to 70 and it began a pullback. So probably on this day right here, I would have set an anchor to that gap and said, okay, the sellers are in control from there. And this is exactly what I did. And we were stuck below that VWAP for five or six days below that anchor VWAP. And then we saw a little bit of a battleground right there. And that was the process of the buyers regaining control. The short sellers might've been trying to short it to hold it back. They couldn't hold it back. That green dot, that's what I like to buy. It did break out past that. I think it was $71.70. I don't know why I remember that. No, you know what? I bought it at $70. Yeah, I think it was $71.70. I sold my first third on the breakout and then it kept going. I thought, I don't care. But then the next day it pulled back a little bit. And then it made those higher highs and higher lows. I didn't sell on that gap lower because I never sell in the first five minutes. I wait for that first five minute low to be established. Then if it breaks below that five minute low on minute six, then I'm out. But I always give it five minutes. So I, and that saved me countless times from just throwing my stock away the first thing in the morning. But that's what I want to buy. And I sold it on that low there at 72 because they were reporting earnings the next day. Well, I thought they were, but they actually reported it a day after. Then I went to 75, then they reported earnings. I think it's like 83 or 84. And that doesn't bother me. I knew what I was in that trade for. I knew I wanted to be out before the earnings report because it might have just fallen apart. And this was almost the same time. This was, you know, on the short side. I set a couple of anchors to the recent low the blue year to date. And then the anchor from this gap lower, which is in that box. That's that first big red candle. So the buyers took control for a little while. The sellers defended it the year to date blue anchor VWAP. And then as it broke down over here, I shorted it.  But had it not, I would have been out with a small loss. So these are the types of trades that I spend my days looking for during the day when I'm not, you know, when I'm just have a position on I've set my stop. I'm scouring through stocks, looking for these types of setups. That's what I do every day. So here's our kind of wrap up. And I think I'm actually doing pretty good for time. Oh, I'm a little over. Apologies, Ricardo. So to me, it's the most powerful tool I've ever come across. And it really wasn't until 2015 where I really was able to appreciate it as much because that's the first time I convinced the trading platform, TC 2000 to add the point and click anchor to their chart. Now it's on trading view like most of you use and I encourage you, even if you're not convinced by what I'm saying here or what I've written in my book, just play around with it. Add it is another tool to your analysis. I'm not here to tell anyone how to trade. If you've got something, your sunspots work for you and you're making consistent money, it doesn't matter what everyone else is doing. Keep doing what works for you. But if you add this, I think, and in fact, I promise it's going to add another level of confidence to each of your trades because you're going to know with 100% certainty who has control since that gap or the earnings of the Federal Reserve announcement or the breakout or a breakdown, swing highs and swing lows. If you follow me on Twitter, I put a lot of these things out there. I put one on Tesla today. Tesla's rallied up to a prior level of support that has the potential to become resistance. And it's the anchored B-Weft from the year to date. It's the anchored B-Weft from the most recent high. We're still above the anchor from the earnings eight days ago. But if that breaks, I think lights out for Tesla for a little while. So it's in a really critical level. I'm not short it. I don't want to be short it until it breaks down with conviction. And then if it breaks down with conviction, I'm going to set my stop. So if it reverses, I'll take a small loss. But it's setting up as though maybe it's a short sale. So those are the things that I look at. These are my two books. If you've seen them or haven't, there's, I don't know if they're giving them away, but there's a stack of them outside of the anchor D-Weft one. And that one is also available on Amazon UK. And there we go.


I want to do it for a really long time, which is to build radio transceivers for Amateur Radio. So the generally Amateur Radio is done with commercially built equipment, which is great, but that's sort of a bit divorced from the hardware itself. So that's an off-the-shelf radio. It does some absurd range of frequencies and modes, not a lot of power, but extremely flexible device, but it's also not very practical to muck around inside it. So I've wanted for a very, very long time to build my own radios from scratch, and so I've cheated a little bit. I've started with a kit, but this is the first one I built, which is this guy here. It's a single-band receiver, and it's only the front half of a receiver, so it backs on to a sound card, and then you do most of the work in software and the computer. So this is no longer a particularly popular designer, it was popular about a decade ago. Jeremiah Swong bought a bunch of these things and never had time to build them, so he gifted them to me on the condition that I do actually eventually build them. It's taken me two or three years to get to that point, but I've finally started. So the context was the reason to make a fair or make an extra vaganza, as we now call it. Because it was held at the Science Centre, I felt the need to build another ridiculous antenna. So it did, although the speaker is in the way, the top of the antenna is just barely in frame, but that's only because we didn't raise it to its full height. This is only 20 of the 26 metres, so the deal is that you lay out 20 metres that are on the ground, like this, you're supposed to get a fishing pole, you stand it up, and then you push the remaining 6 metres up. I think I have a shot with someone on the ladder, which will make clear how that works. Well, it gives you that idea. So, yes, okay, not so obvious. The segments, oh for God's sake, stop that. Why is it? No, I think I've pressed F5, which is interpreted as slideshare rather than full screen, so let's not press F5. We'll solve that problem. So it packs, the whole thing packs into a box about this long, somewhat impractical, it means you need to bread a van to move it around, which is the reason for the ladder. So the segments are here, and so in this configuration, the bottom about five segments are all collapsed. So we've pulled out the top 20 metres, and there are basically hose clamps with a bit of lining rubber, and then covered in heat shrink. When you have one piece going into another, like this, you put a hose clamp around the top and tighten it to stop it from falling, because the usual way of doing it fails is to fall into itself. So the top 11 were tightened, the bottom four are all loose about here somewhere, and the pieces are all collapsed. And it was just too hot and too unpleasant. Not much is obvious in the photos, but we were drenched. There was not even the slightest breeze, which is great for bringing up the mast, but very, very inconvenient for the people who were putting it up. You were with us on the previous Saturday or the... I was before the event itself. Yeah, so that's this day. So you are somewhere in these photos. Sorry, the photos are really out of order. I'll show you what I've got in some sort of rational order. So the way the receiver works is a little bit unusual. The way most contemporary receivers work is what is called a super heterodyne. So you've got a front section, which is the antenna and ground, maybe a preamp, I think called a frequency mixer with a variable oscillator. And so the tuning of the radio is achieved by changing the frequency at that point. And the mixer creates some indifference. So you end up typically, you have a... If you've got a FM radio receiver, you're tuning your 98 MHz. Typical what's going on is that the VFO is at 87 MHz. And so the mixer, what then goes out into the intermediate frequency stage is 11 MHz. At about a center of 11 MHz. And so what you do is you have a fixed frequency intermediate section after the first mixer. So you're varying the VFO when you're turning the tuning dial, but the variable frequency oscillator's output is 11 MHz below or above the frequency that appears on the dial, meaning that the thing that is in the intermediate section is an 11 MHz signal. And then you do all of your filtering and demodulating and other processing on a signal that's always at the same frequency. You then have another mixer and an 11 MHz oscillator to bring it down to baseband to get the audio out. So this is a typical superheterodyne arrangement for a radio. Superheterodyne meaning multiple energies or frequencies. This one works a bit differently. So most importantly, it uses a fixed frequency oscillator. It's a crystal. And there's no bending, the crystal is simply running at its resonant frequency, which is approximately four times the frequency of interest. So for the one that I've built, I'm interested in approximately 7 MHz or what amateurs call 40 MHz, which is because the wavelength is about 40 MHz long. Therefore the crystal is at about 28 MHz.  It's not exactly the one I photographed, but it's a similar idea that in this radio there are two hand wound inductors that are something like that.  This is part of the low pass filter. So that's this one here, which has a single winding. There's another that has three windings. And all this one, this splits the power in half. And the reason for that is that this is a front end to a digital signal processing system where it's in general DSP is done with in-phase and quadrature measurements. So instead of just digitizing the way a sound card digitizes for sound or MIDI setup does to put out a stream of samples to a speaker where if you're at 44.1 GHz then it's every 44,100th of a second you're taking a sample. In DSP you take one at that rate and then one offset by a quarter of a cycle. That's why the crystal has to be at four times. So in essence you're taking two 7 MHz samples, one offset by a quarter cycle from the other. And then that passes through an analog switch and into the left and right audio of a high-definition sound card. And so then the radio itself is a piece of software. So it's really a very simple bit of electronics. And also later the dividers are just a pair of flip flops to get a two-bit number that goes into an analog switch. As described you've got nothing more than a low-pass filter, a coil to split it into two loading resistors and then some biasing for the two op amps that feed the sound card. There's literally nothing else on the board. So it's sort of a while to work it out and various things like learning how to solder surface mount. That was exciting. These are fiddly things and I've started working on the transceiver which is a bit more complicated and has even more fiddly chips on it, including chips that are smaller. So there are three and five-link chips that are smaller than this and others which have links that are embedded inside the case and all sorts of complicated stuff. But that was cool. It all worked. No components damaged, not one joint failed, but it took me a number of nights to get it together. The winding of the coils was I think the most interesting piece but actually it's pretty simple. It really is just winding wire and inductors and at this level it turns out not to be very precise. You can't have a partial winding. If you're putting 11 windings, I think the left one's 11 windings, on a coil you can't have 11.1 windings or 10.9 windings. It's exactly 11 windings. So whatever your circuit needs the inductance to be, there's got to be somewhere else in the circuit to deal with the error. And so there's two things going on. One is we don't care all that much. So the fact that this thing is plus or minus 10%, simply because you can only have an integer number of turns, the capacitor is chosen to cope with that. In fact I measured it with an LCR bridge. It's almost 15% higher than what the design of the circuit calls for. I don't know why, but I'm reasonably convinced that the meter is correct. So yeah, this is an interesting piece that's avoided because there's no meaningful counterpart in solid state. In solid state you can have resistors, you can have diodes, you can have transistors, you can even have small capacitors. Granted you often need additional capacitors to compensate, but there's just no good way to do an inductor. And so in general you sort of, where are possible, say well if I need a series inductor I'll just make a bigger parallel capacitor. The reason that doesn't work very well for the front-ender of a radio is that these two form what is called a tank circuit. And so there's actually energy being transferred back and forth between the capacitor and the inductor. And so if you, which is part of the circuit running at resonance, if you replace the inductor with just a bigger capacitor that doesn't occur. And so you end up transferring less of the energy that's coming in from the antenna. So there are reasons for the use of inductors at the sort of very low power parts or low signal parts of a circuit. In addition to the use of power supplies for smoothing noise, you'll also find them right at the front of RF systems because you can't do the same things with capacitors. But yeah, once you get past this very front-ender of the radio there are no more inductors that they're fiddly to work with. I just wanted to show you. So this was, so the program that I use is a thing called Qisk. The one that's normally used for this is I think called Rocky, which is a Windows app. But as I don't use Windows, that's not very practical. So I'm using Qisk instead. This is a conventional way for amateurs to look at, not just amateurs, to look at signals in a digital domain. The axes are frequency this way, power this way, and then negative decibels relative to whatever full power would be. If you've got a 24-bit ADC, which this does, then 2 to 24 minus 1 would be the top. At minus 100, say minus 90 dB, you're at about a billionth of that. Which is, I should be able to lift my head, but I can't. I think you're down to about two bits. No, I can't be right. A bit more. But you get the idea that with a 24-bit ADC, your dynamic range is substantial so long as the device can really do it. Allegedly, this, which is an ASUS zone art, can. The other thing you need, and this is because of the strange design of the, or the unusual design of the radio, that because words conventional ideas have a variable frequency oscillator up front to bring the input signal into a fixed frequency IF, and that then mentioned all your filtering and demodulation at a fixed frequency. In this case, the oscillator, it's not quite a mixer, but it behaves a bit like one. The oscillator is fixed frequency. If you wanted to tune, what you actually have to do is operations in software. And I haven't got it working, but the, you can tell at the time, I'm probably a bit other. But if you, in order to receive a signal, which is more or less what's happening here without much success, is you tune the radio program to say, operate at 10 kHz above carrier or above center. And you also specify a width, how much spectrum to convert. The thing below is a time series. So in this case, the right now is the top, this is 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, perhaps it's, it might be 45 seconds, top to bottom. And then color is used to indicate intensity. So what you can see is off the edges here, there's basically nothing. There's something here, even though you can't, and this is again a normal part of a spectrum display, and it's why am I just use waterfalls, because the waterfall will allow you to see a signal that you can't see just by looking at the instantaneous intensity graph. But this yellow here tells you there's something happening around here. And so if you sort of tune your radio to the middle and set the width to about that width, you'll get, you'll demodulate whatever it is. It doesn't look like voice, and it doesn't look like a clean digital signal. I would hazard a guess. It's a piece of industrial machinery making noise. But that's the sort of thing that allows you to do. The other big thing that this allows you to determine is how wide the response of the sound card is. The fact that the thing is rolling off quite sharply, it's not quite vertical, but it's certainly almost 45 degrees, means that there's something going on the sound card whereby at approximately 24 kHz either side of the centre, there's nothing, meaning that the passband is about 48 kHz wide. It is supposed to be 192 kHz. In this configuration, I don't know if you can see it. Nope, doesn't show it. In theory, it's supposed to be something at 192 kHz and it's supposed to have sufficient passband in the analog front end to do that, and the radio certainly has it. This is interesting because, with one exception, all of the amateur bands in HF fit in 200 kHz. So if you've got a 200 kHz wide ADC, then you need one crystal per amateur band of which they're about height. So you sort of build, as this is designed, actually build a separate radio per band. So that's the guts of it. This is various construction things. Ah, this is the power splitter. There's a problem with loading, which is why they're unbalanced. I haven't yet got a very good explanation of what happened there. But this is measured, basically these two red dots. So I put in a carrier, just had my radio transmitting with no modulation, and a line of attenuators, so it's not to damage anything. And then measured here and here, and what you're seeing is what you expect to see, which is two signals that are sine waves, give or take the quantization noise in the instrument, and that are exactly out of phase with each other, which is important for the design of the rest of the circuit. The reason why the amplitudes are not the same, I am not sure. But I swapped them over, and the curves stayed the same shape. If there was a problem in the device, the yellow curve would be small, the blue curve would be bigger, but that didn't happen when I swapped them, they stayed exactly in this relationship. So there's some sort of instrumentation problem, I don't know what. And the other, yeah, if you look at the centers, I was transmitting about 7 MHz. I haven't got the screenshot, but it comes out correctly. So very pleasing to have, and the oscilloscope showed very simply that the thing was doing what it was supposed to do. The other thing was the... This is a bit less clear, but I wanted to get a sense of what the filtering at the front end was doing. And it actually has a bit of a band pass rather than purely a low pass character. But I realized the other reason that the precision of the inductors doesn't matter is that all the filter has to do is prevent a leasing at half or double. And so it doesn't have to be within 10%, it only has to be within 100%. So it can be very, very rough. And so although I don't trust the calibration of the spectrum analyzer, what I did here was put a... I have a wideband noise source, cheap things, I suppose I could diode with some amplifiers in front of it, connected it to the input of the radio front end, and then once again tapped... I think that I tapped here or here, but we were looking at the frequency response across the band, and it's doing more or less what you would expect, which is to cut off... That's 4 MHz of spectrum and the center... I can't read the center in this photo. Is that any clearer? The center is 7.1, OK. So this is more or less the plan. The crystal is about 28 MHz. The middle diameter band is 7.1 MHz, which is about there. The whole thing is about 4 MHz wide, and as you can see, there's quite a clean roll-off, or quite a clear roll-off, to call it 2.5-3 MHz either side of the carrier, meaning that ALSs don't get in. What this does not solve is if you have a nearby powerful transmitter, so up until fairly recently, BBC ran its shortwave transmissions from here in Singapore, and so if I was listening to an ammeter, it would pop across the world, and at a frequency very close to the BBC's transmissions, then there would be harmonics and modulation distortion and other spores that risk swamping the signal and after, despite that they're actually separate, because this filter is very broad. But enough for the purposes of running the radio. That's... Ah, yes. So the antenna analyzer is a tool for analyzing antennas. This is what the antenna looked like up on top of the mast. So it was just wire, this yellow wire you can see, cut... No, it wasn't, it was two other guys who were there with me, one from the Science Centre and the son of one of my friends. I said, yeah, cut up these 10 metres long and two bit 20 metres long, and you've got the 10 metre vertical and then the two 20 metre bits coming from the middle, and that's the two halves of the antenna, and there's nothing else. There are no loading coils, there's no magic, there's just a bit of coax, and you can see the centre of its resonance is at 7.11 MHz. The amateur band centre is at 7.1. This is within a quarter of a percent of the, or eighth of a percent of the middle of the band, which was pretty awesome. At its standing wave ratio was 1.13, which is getting pretty close to practical optimum.  In this case there's an amount of reflection, but ceramic is anything below 1.3 is generally considered near enough to perfect, and with help most radars can work with anything all the way down to about 3. So this was, but this is two and a half, so the amount of band is 100 kilohertz is here, so it's below 2 across the entire band, beautifully clean antenna. Part of that is it was far above the ground, so often you make an antenna by having a vertical wire and then you just lay radars on the ground, which they're then coupled to the ground and messy. In this case they were 10 meters above the ground and therefore behave the way the mathematics say they behave. Worked fairly well to receive with the commercial receiver, transmitting mixed. Unfortunately I had software problems on the day and so I was unable to use the receiver, so a lot of mucking about. This is how we got Wi-Fi out of the field. Basically I put a 100 meters of wire from our booth, the Hackerspace booth, in the make of extravaganza out to the loading bay and then that's, the coax goes to the booth and then that's just a Wi-Fi access point with a 10-fold gain antenna. It's basically pointing 100 meters out to the field where there's like a Raspberry Pi and the sound card a bit. So yeah, all of that worked. The antenna worked, the mast worked. There's no software running on the laptop. Such is life. I think that was all. Yeah. Oh yes, and because it was a science tender of course it was appropriately signposted. We put a big coordinate around it. Because it was unattended. I didn't want people wandering in there and complaining about that they'd tripped on the rope and had the thing fall on their head. But also it's Singapore, right? You get thunderstorms. If we'd got this up to 26 meters it would have been more than anything in the vicinity including lightning conductors. So it's basically a freestanding lightning conductor. As a result, this is the other reason for using Wi-Fi rather than running Cat5 all the way out to the antenna. Because if it's struck by lightning like this then okay, you vaporize the mast and equipment and I'd be very sad. If it's struck by lightning and there's a Cat5 cable going back in to make a fair, then we have a problem. Fires, deaths, all that sort of thing. So yeah, this comes up and the Science Center is now getting a bit more thorough about risk management. This year they actually required risk assessments like formal documented risk assessments which they've never done before. But yeah, I was concerned enough that I did something similar last year. This is the somewhat underpopulated booth and this was our testing access point inside the fair. There's like dozens of Wi-Fi networks being right next to the access point meant that it worked. I think that was all. Questions, comments? Didn't you have a whole adventure with the ADC side of things on the... Well, I haven't resolved it yet. Sorry, that was the point of the... The Facebook post about that. Right, so the difficulty here is that quite clearly this runs from about minus 23-ish kilohertz to about plus 23. So that's 46... 48 kilohertz wide. So this is a... It's called an audiophile gamer's sound card. I'm like, yes, okay, fine. Mostly it's about output. There's a super high-frequency, super high-resolution output and 7.1 so you can do all the effects and surround sound. So it claims 192 kilohertz on the input, but this is probably fake. In fact, Adnan spent some time looking at chipsets and it's not just at the card level, it's always down to the chips that it's likely to be untrue. And so I had configured it to 192 kilohertz and yet you can see from this that it's very clearly only processing a 48 kilohertz wide slice of spectrum if it was feeding... So in other words, although the software is handing over a hundred and two thousand seconds, that samples per second what's really going on is it's 48,000 samples, each of which is being handed over four times. Just the same sample again and again and again. And so that then means that there is no component of the signal that has a more than 24 kilohertz deviation from the center. And so you therefore, we're only decoding 48 kilohertz around the middle of the band. And the point I haven't got out and sort of bought this thing was that it should be capable of processing 192 kilohertz for the entire 7 to 7.2 megahertz that Amit has used. Give or take where the crystal is actually operating.  So I posted this on Facebook and quite a few people hopped on and commented and went looking around and it turns out that this thing really can do what it's supposed to do. There's a data acquisition community who uses basically sound cards for lab use and therefore they care a lot about the behavior of these devices which is the best and revised and someone found a review of six or seven such devices. This one topped the review. So it's credible. The software community, which is the community people who make these particular category of radio, several people claim that yes, they are able to get the full 200 kilohertz or 192 kilohertz width, which means this graph would be four times as wide. But yeah, I haven't run that one down yet.  There are multiple inputs. There's questions about how to configure it. And there's certainly the possibility that the performance that the software guys are seeing is only possible with the ASUS drivers on Windows. So I don't know. I just sort of fired it up. I said yes, do 100 kilohertz because obviously if I tell you that, you will do that, won't you? Pulse audio is definitely supposed to be capable of it although it behaved the same way but from looking at it, even though it's claiming 192 and providing 192, it's very clearly only providing 40 kilohertz width of samples, which means basically repeated samples. So yeah, I haven't put any time to it since Maker Faire. I hold all the gear back, put it all away, went to bed, then got sick. So it was unwell for most of the following week. Thankfully that didn't occur until the day after Maker Faire. That would have been appalling. So no, tonight's the first time I've played with it since. Yeah, no progress yet. But given, yes, that this was a post to Facebook and a whole level jumped up and found useful stuff, so I'm fairly optimistic that it will be possible to do the full 200 kilohertz wide slice and therefore to, using this super simple design, listen to the full 40 meter amount of demand. Don't know whether I'll build the rest. I've got enough of the kits to build about five so to do different bands. But what I really want to do is transmit. That's kind of the point of the exercise. And so I've started work on the transceiver. It was not ready for Maker Faire and still isn't, but I'm working towards. Which then points to the next part of this puzzle, which is regulatory. And IMGA either didn't understand what I said or didn't care. It's not yet entirely clear to me, but as it stands, they have been advised in writing of my intention to build an operator set of soft rock kits. No one's done it. I've seen people who have built their own radios before. In fact, Jeremiah's would have been the first had he done it. So there are two ways you can deal with this. One is not bothered to mention it to IMGA. Actually, so it's not quite true. You've built your own radius. Started to. So almost no one, but certainly no one had any idea how to get through IMGA's hoops because we are still settled with an obligation to have every radio that's part of our license or part of our station listed on our license right down to serial numbers. I believe Matt has spoken to IMGA and they say that as long as you can come up with test reports showing the performance of the radio, you can get it approved. But I guess for most people that may not be a fairly drill pass especially don't want to test. So yeah, there's a couple of things there. I had a careful look at the IMGA spec and there's not much. There's only four things you've got to verify that the frequencies are correct and that's now easy to do with a GPS discipline oscillator.  Now you just get an oscillator. It can be rubidium, it can be quartz and a GPS receiver and a feedback loop to discipline and you will get a frequency standard correct to around 10 to minus 11 or 10 parts per billion and this is like a hundred dollar item, maybe ten dollar item. So it's very easy to do frequency. So let's really just sit down and verify that the radio doesn't sort of only set to frequencies that the spec sheet says it sets to. Power levels similarly are not that challenging. You need a power meter, you need a dummy load. Strictly speaking I've got a dummy load. But they're easy enough to get and certainly I've got most of the, everything here except the power meter actually. I can prove by construction that I can't, I don't exceed the legal limit but of course they want to test it against the spec sheet. Emission modes, I've just made a written submission to IMD age to remove that, that doesn't make any sense at all. It made sense in the 1960s. The standards that are part of the regulation in the handbook appear to date from pre-independence and like I even found, coincidentally while trying to decode one of the phrases which says something very specific on the footnotes I'm like I don't understand what those words actually mean. I mean individually yes, but I don't know what point is being made. So I punched the phrase into Google and what I found was a 1965 Amital Radio Handbook from the UK. Like, and like even the weird things like the footnotes have both letters and numbers for no really apparent reason. Like seven footnotes with numbers and then forward letters like why? I repeat it. From, yeah, from this 50 year old document. So, yeah, at the moment I'm, it's just, you need to basically say yes I tested it and it can only use modes that are listed in the Amida grants within Singapore, but hopefully they'll just go away. The only difficult one is spurious emissions. It's not even clear from the way the standard is written whether you're obliged to have testing done for spurs. It's a very strangely worded sentence, but the best assumption is that you are obliged but the standard for HF gear is not difficult. It's minus 40 dBc. So all that means is if you've got a spectrum analyzer that's not completely broken what you are looking for is this is a broadband noise source that's close to flat but if you're testing, so you've got your radio plugged into a dummy load and you're tapping or attenuated and you're tapping to input to the spectrum analyzer you'll key down for the transmitter and so your carrier appears for the sake of argument here. So you've turned the power level down and maybe you've put some attenuators in line to prevent damaging the instrument. What the standard is is that the spurs must be 40 dB below the carrier. So what you then do is count down one, two, three, four and as long as any spurs, usually they start at double at the first harmonic, are below that line, then you've passed. And so that's all. And so, yeah, what I said to IMDA was yes, I will... I'll find it actually, shouldn't be too hard to find. These attenuators you talked about come in 10 dB steps. Various. Usually 3 dB and 10 dB steps, yeah. So you just string them up for 20-30 dB? Yep. I didn't think it was photographic but I had them set up for exactly that purpose when I did the power splitter test because I didn't want to damage the instrument. Now that's the old one. Right, so that's my equipment register that I have provided to IMDA and they said that's awesome, thank you. This is basically proposed to build because I haven't built them yet and all I did was add it a condition, no use for it until the IMDA technical standard amateur radio compliance with technical requirements is met and that test records be retained for inspection. So I didn't even enter into the argument about who tests. Historically IMDA wanted radios sort of taking away to a lab to be tested like because of the three tests I've just described all you've got to do, it seems ridiculous to involve a testing lab. So I've just said I'm going to, before I put the where, perform the tests and keep records. We've got to keep records anyway. We've got to keep logbooks and we've got to keep a copy of the license. So this is not particularly onerous. So that's how I tackled it. And so I also provided spec sheets. Like okay, you want a spec sheet? All right, I'll give you a spec sheet. No problem. Hooray! Voila! Right, so these are the modes and these are the piece that I had suggested that should just disappear. What would this stand for? Okay, so A1A, okay, basically a code that stands for for what kind of modulation it is. So A1A will represent amplitude modulation of what kind. Okay, so there's a... There's a... Built-in... There's a key somewhere that explains... So all of this stuff harks back to the ITU radio regulations which are updated after each World Radio Conference. There's one happening now, or last week. And so they'll be... So the last conference prior to what's just happened was in 2015 and therefore the last version of the rigs came out in 2016. So in essence all the actions that were taken during the conference get sort of editorially assembled over the following six months. So I'd expect that by about sort of April we'll have a new version of the rigs. And so frequency allocations, use limitations, and in some cases emission modes. But I went through... It's a monster. It's a 200,000 page document. But there are no constraints on amateur emission modes anywhere in the world.  But there isn't a single case where there's an amateur service limitation on emission modes anywhere. So there's a combination of validation schemes and... So it's three things. The first letter is the modulation. And so A is double-sided band, or AM essentially. The second is how many modulated signals there are and also what they are. So if you're doing continuous wave or Morse code, one way to do it is literally continuous wave where you just key your transmitter as a sine wave at a particular frequency. Another fairly popular way to do it is using a subcarrier. And this is perhaps more relevant for... It's a bit meaningless if you're doing a single-side band or... Oh, sorry, for AM, yes. So if you have an AM transmitter, then you put, say, a three kilohertz tone on top. So you then got your carrier plus sidebands three up and down that are one quarter power of the carrier. It's kind of a wasteful way of doing it. You'd rather have all the power in the carrier and then reconstructing the receiver. So that's what that one is. One channel analog is things like single-sideband and various digital multiples, et cetera. And then the third character is a letter describing what it is that's being transmitted, whether it's beacon... Application layer, kind of. Yeah, more or less. You're transmitting alien data. Yeah, hard to say. I can't think of... There might be some examples. More detail, so images can be grayscale, color, et cetera. When this stuff was adopted, there was no question of having 200 different frame formats for images. So, right, but not relevant. Multiplexing, so bear in mind these codes are used to describe everything, in particular to describe mobile phone systems where this matters.  And then finally, although not listed in the Wikipedia page, you often get a number which is the bandwidth in kilohertz of the signal. So broadcasters usually use A3E. So, AM, single channel analog, voice phone, by the way. F80 is the same thing, but it's FM instead of AM. There's TV things. Sorry, so these are the bandwidth that comes before rather than after. So 11k2 is 11.2 kilohertz. FM3E, I forget what that is. NON is basically beacons. So, nothing, no modulation, no modulation form and no information content. It's a beacon for direction finding. How do you think planes work out where they are? We depend upon the set nav, in case the satellites work. So, in Singapore... We have transmitters for these. You bet. We have a number of them. Three or four? What we call VORs and DBs. I'm sure King Wing can tell you all about them. With relation to ships. Aircraft. So that is a ring of antennas. This is bizarre. This is... Using AM and FM on the same thing at the same time, so that the receiver knows... For the plane to work out the bearing to a beacon, it doesn't have to depend on its own instrumentation. Instead, it measures the phase angle in the two parts. No. Yeah. So, with just one beacon, you can immediately put yourself on a line. You know, just by measuring the phase angle between the two parts of the signal, that you are 222 degrees, maybe it's 5 degrees, 235 degrees, from a particular beacon which is identified by a call sign being played occasionally. And so there's... They're all similar sizes. No, the Alaskan one is harp. That's a different thing. But there are about four of these in Singapore, and they're all set up more or less this way. In probably, the trees have just disappeared for one little bit, and you've got this circular antenna and next to it, basically, a trans-modestation. What are they called? Directional beacons, but they're also... We need a non-directional beacon or VHM one-way directional range of VOA. But these are likely NDVs. No, no, no. This is what I'm saying. They have a two-part modulation, meaning that merely by being able to hear it, you can work out what direction you are from it by doing a phase angle comparison between the two parts of the signal. This is a directional beacon, which the VHF one is typically out. I guess you still need altitude, right? So you need to... Yeah, but you can get that with a barometer. Or enough. But yeah, so that's... I understood why it makes a lot of sense, but yeah, I'd never heard of it before. So that's... Can we go on and treat that? I don't know what the deal is. I sort of assume it's got one of those signs with like the stencil like this. And you know, please... Don't step on the grass. But I just... I was curious that we're looking, and all four of them are... Because of course their locations are public information. The pilots have to know exactly where a beacon is located, so it's not hard to find them. And that all four of them are just like this. They're a circular antenna in a clearing surrounded by trees. That's all right, maybe we made the point. Right. Probably enough rambling. Anything else at this point? No? I think that's all right. Let's go. Is it safe?


Super metafragilistic expialidocious. What's in a name? In an homage to the inimitable Charles Fitzgerald, we've chosen this title for today's session because of all the buzz surrounding SuperCloud, a term that we introduced last year to signify a major architectural trend and shift that's occurring in the technology industry. Since that time, we've published numerous videos and articles on the topic and on August 9th kicked off SuperCloud 22, an open industry event designed to advance the SuperCloud conversation, gathering input from more than 30 experienced technologists and business leaders in theCUBE and broader technology community. We're talking about individuals like Benoit Dajaville, Kit Colbert, Ali Goetze, Mohit Aron, David McJanet and dozens of other experts. And today we're pleased to welcome David Lenthicum who's a Chief Strategy Officer at Cloud Services at Deloitte Consulting. David is a technology visionary, a technical CTO, he's an author and a frequently sought after keynote speaker at high profile conferences. Like VMware, explore next week. David Lenthicum, welcome back to theCUBE. Good to see you again. Oh, it's great to be here. Thanks for the invitation. Thanks for having me. Yeah, you're very welcome. Okay, so there's topic of SuperCloud, what you call MetaCloud has created a lot of interest. You know, VMware calls it cross cloud services, Snowflake calls it their data cloud and a lot of different names. But recently you published a piece in Info World where you said the following, I really don't care what we call it and I really don't care if I put my own buzzword into the mix. However, this does not change the fact that MetaCloud is perhaps the most important architectural evolution occurring right now and we need to get this right out of the gate. If we do that, who cares what it's named? So very cool. And you also mentioned in a recent article that you don't like to put out new terms in the wild without defining them. So what is a MetaCloud or what we call SuperCloud? What's your definition? Yeah, and again, I don't care what people call it. The reality is it's the ability to have a layer of cross cloud services that sits above existing public cloud providers. So the idea here is that instead of building different security systems, different governance systems, different operational systems and each specific cloud provider using whatever native features they provide, we're trying to do that in a cross cloud way. So in other words, we're pushing update integration security. You know, all these other things that we have to take care of as part of deploying a particular cloud provider and in a multi cloud scenario we're building those in and between the clouds. And so we've been tracking this for about five years. We kind of understood that multi cloud is not necessarily about particular public cloud providers. It's about things that you built in and between the clouds. Got it, okay. So I want to come back to that kind of definition but I want to tie us to the so-called multi cloud. You guys did a survey recently. We've said that multi cloud was mostly a symptom of multi vendor shadow cloud, you know, M&A and only recently has become a strategic imperative. Now Deloitte published a survey recently entitled Closing the Cloud Strategy Technology Innovation Gap and I'd like to explore that a little bit. So in that survey you showed data. What I liked about it is you went beyond what we all know, right? The old, our research shows that on average, you know, X number of clouds are used at an individual company.  You identified why companies are using multiple clouds and you developed different categories of practitioners across 500 survey respondents. But the reasons were very clear for why multi cloud as this becomes more strategic. Service choice scale, negotiating leverage, improve business resiliency, minimizing lock in, interoperability of data, et cetera. So my question to you, David, is what's the problem super cloud or meta cloud solves and what's different from multi cloud? It's a great question. The reality is that if we're super cloud or meta cloud, whatever is really something that exists above a multi cloud. I kind of view them as, you know, the same thing. It's an architectural pattern. We can name it anything. But the reality is that if we're moving to these multi cloud environments, we're doing so to leverage best of breed things. In other words, best of breed technology to provide the innovators within the company to kind of take the business to the next level and we determine that in the survey. And so if we're looking at what a multi cloud provides, it's the ability to provide different choices of different services or piece parts that allows us to build anything that we need to do. And so what we found in the survey and what we found in just practice in dealing with our clients is that ultimately the value of cloud computing is going to be the innovation aspects. In other words, the ability to kind of take the company to the next level from being more innovative and more disruptive in the marketplace that they're in. And the only way to do that instead of basically leveraging the services when that a particular walled garden of a single public cloud provider is to cast a wider net and get out and leverage all kinds of services to make these happen. So if you think about that, that's basically how multi cloud has evolved. In other words, it wasn't planned. They didn't say, we're gonna go do a multi cloud. It was different developers and innovators in the company that went off and leveraged these cloud services sometimes with the with the consent of IT leadership sometimes not. And now we have these multitudes of different services that we're leveraging. So many of these enterprises are going from a thousand to say 3,000 services under management. That creates a complexity problem. We have a problem of heterogeneity, different platforms, different tools, different services, different AI technology, database technology, things like that. So the metacloud or the super cloud or wherever you want to call it is the ability to kind of deal with that complexity and the complexities terms. And so instead of building all these various things that we have to do individually in each of the cloud providers, we're trying to do so within a cross cloud service layer. We're trying to create this layer of technology which removes us from dealing with the complexity of underlying multi-cloud services and makes it manageable. Because right now, I think we're getting to a point of complexity. We just can't operate it at the budgetary limits that we're at right now. We can't keep the number of skills around and the number of operators around to keep these things going. We're going to have to get creative in terms of how we manage these things, how we manage a multi-cloud. And that's kind of where the super cloud, metacloud, whatever they want to call it comes in. Yeah. And as John Furrier likes to say that in IT we tend to solve complexity with more complexity and that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about simplifying and you talked about the abstraction layer and then it sounds like I'm inferring more. There's value that's added on top of that. And then you also said the hyperscalers are going to walled gardens. So I've been asked why aren't the hyperscalers super clouds? And I've said essentially they want to put your data into their cloud and keep it there. Now that doesn't mean they won't eventually get into that. We've seen examples in a little bit outposts, Anthos, Azure Arc, but the hyperscalers really aren't building super clouds or metaclouds at least today, are they? No, they're not. And I always had the predictions for every kind of major cloud conference that this is the conference that the hyperscaler is going to figure out some sort of a multi-cloud across cloud strategy. In other words, building services that are able to operate across clouds. That really kind of has never happened. It has happened in dribs and drabs and you just mentioned a few examples of that. But the ability to kind of on the space understand that we're not going to be the center of the universe and how people are going to leverage it. It's going to be multiple things, including legacy systems and other cloud providers and even industry clouds that are starting emerging these days and SaaS providers and all these things. So we're going to assist you in dealing with complexity and we're going to provide the core services of being there. That hasn't happened yet. And they may be worried about conflicting their market and the messaging is a bit different. Even actively pushing back on the concept of multi-cloud. But the reality is the market's going to take them there. So in other words, if enough of their customers are asking for this and asking that they take the lead in building these cross-cloud technologies, even if they're participating in the stack and not being the stack, it's too compelling in the market that it's not going to drag a lot of the existing public cloud providers there. Well, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out, David, because I never say never when it comes to a company like AWS and we've seen how fast they move in the same time, they don't want to be commoditized. There's the layer underneath, all this infrastructure, and they get this ecosystem that's adding all this tremendous value. But I want to ask you, what are the essential elements of super cloud coming back to the definition, if you will, and what's different about meta cloud, as you call it, from plain old SaaS or past? What are the key elements there? Well, the key elements would be holistic management of all of the IT infrastructure. So even though it's sitting above a multi-cloud, I kind of view meta cloud, super cloud is the ability to also manage your existing legacy systems, your existing security stack, your existing network operations, basically everything that exists under the purview of IT. If you think about it, we're moving our infrastructure into the clouds and we're probably going to hit a saturation point of about 70%. And really, if the super cloud meta cloud, which is going to be expensive to build for most of the enterprises, it needs to support these things holistically. So it needs to have all the services that is going to be shareable across the different providers and also existing legacy systems and also edge computing and IoT and all these very diverse systems that we're building there right now. So if complexity is a core challenge to operate these things at scale and the ability to secure these things at scale, we have to have commonality in terms of security architecture and technology, commonality in terms of our directory services, commonality in terms of network operations, commonality in terms of cloud operations, commonality in terms of FinOps, all these things should exist in some holistic cross-call layer that sits above all this complexity. And you pointed out something very profound. In other words, that is going to mean that we're hiding a lot of the existing cloud providers in terms of their interfaces and dashboards and things like that that we're dealing with today, their APIs. But the reality is that if we're able to manage these things at scale, the public cloud providers are going to benefit greatly from that. They're going to sell more services because people are going to find they're able to leverage them easier. And so in other words, if we're moving the complexity wall, which is many in the industry are calling it right now, then suddenly we're moving from, say, the 25 to 30% migrated in the cloud, which most of the enterprises are today, to 50, 60, 70%. And we're able to do this at scale and we're doing it at scale because we're providing some architectural optimization to the super cloud meta cloud layer. Okay, thanks for that. David, I just want to tap your CTO brain for a minute at super cloud 22. We came up with these kind of three deployment models. Kit Colbert put forth the idea that one model would be your control planes running in one cloud, let's say AWS, but it interacts with and can manage and deploy on other clouds at Kubernetes cluster management system. The second one, Mohit Aaron from Cohesity kind of laid out where you instantiate the stack on different clouds and different cloud regions. And then you create a layer, a common interface across those. And then Snowflake was the third deployment model where it's a single global instance. It's a one instantiation basically building out their own cloud across these regions. Help us parse through that. Do those seem like reasonable deployment models to you? Do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, that's kind of a distributed computing trick we've been doing, which is in essence an agent of the super cloud that's carrying out some of the cloud native functions on that particular cloud, but is in essence a slave to the meta cloud or the super cloud, whatever, that's able to run across the various cloud providers. In other words, when it wants to access a service, it may not go directly to that service. It goes directly to the control plane and that control plane is responsible very much like Kubernetes and Docker works. That control plane is responsible for reaching out and leveraging those native services. I think that that's thinking that's a step in the right direction. I think these things into themselves, at least initially are going to be a very complex array of technology. Even though we're trying to remove complexity, the super cloud into itself in terms of the ability to build this thing is able to operate at scale across cloud is going to be a collection of many different technologies that are interfacing with the public cloud providers in different ways. And so we can start putting these meta architectures together and I certainly written and spoke about this for years, but initially this is going to be something that may kind of escape the detail or the holistic nature of these meta architectures that people are floating around right now.  So I know a lot of buzzwords and have absorbed a lot over the years. But so you take those, the second two models, the Mohit instantiate on each cloud and each cloud region versus the snowflake approach. I asked Ben Wilde, does that mean if I'm in an AWS East region and I want to do a query on Azure West, I can do that without moving data. He said, yes and no. And the answer was really no. We actually take a subset of that data and so there's the latency problem. From those deployment model standpoints, what are the trade-offs that you see in terms of instantiating the stack on each individual cloud versus that single instance? Is there a benefit of the single instance for governance and security and simplicity and but a trade-off on latency or am I overthinking this? Yeah, you hit it on the nose. The reality is that the trade-off is going to be latency and performance. If we get wiggy with the distributed nature like distributed data example you just provided, we have to basically separate the queries and communicate with the databases on each instance and then reassemble the result set that goes back to the people who are recording it. And so we can do caching systems and things like that. But the reality is if it's a distributed system, we're gonna have latency and bandwidth issues that are gonna be limiting us. And also security issues because if we're moving lots of information over the open internet or even private circuits, those are gonna be attack vectors that hackers can leverage. You kind of have to keep that in mind when we're trying to reduce those attack vectors. So it would be in many instances, and I think we have to think about this, that we're going to keep the data in the same visible region for just that. So in other words, it's gonna provide the best performance and also the most simplistic access to dealing with security. And so we're not in essence thinking about where the data is going, how it's moving across things like that. So the challenge is gonna be is when you're dealing with a super cloud or meta cloud is when do you make those decisions? And I think in many instances, even though we're leveraging multiple databases across multiple regions and multiple public cloud providers and kind of that's the idea of it, we're still gonna localize the data for performance reasons. I mean, I just wrote a blog in Info World a couple of months ago and talked about people who are trying to distribute data across different public cloud providers for different reasons, distributed application development system, things like that, you can do it with enough time and money, you can do anything. I think the challenge is gonna be operating that thing and also providing a viable business return based on the application. And so why it may look like a good science experiment and it's kind of cool into itself as an architect. The reality is the more pragmatic and approach is going to be elated in a single region, not a single cloud. Very interesting. The other reason I like to talk to companies like Deloitte and experienced people like you is because I can get, you're agnostic, right? I mean, your technology agnostic, vendor agnostic. So I want to come back with another question which is how do you deal with what I call the lowest common denominator problem? What I mean by that is if one cloud has let's say a superior service, let's take an example of, you know, Nitro and Graviton, you know, AWS seems to be ahead on that, but let's say some other cloud isn't quite there yet and you're building a super cloud or a meta cloud, how do you rationalize that? Does it have to be like a caravan in the army where you slow down? So all those, you know, the slowest trucks can keep up or are there ways to adjudicate that that are advantageous to hide that deficiency? Yeah, and that's a great thing about leveraging a super cloud or a meta cloud is we're putting that management in a single layer. So as far as a user or even a developer on those systems, they shouldn't worry about the performance that may come back because we're dealing with, you hit the nail on the head with that one. The slowest component is the one that dictates performance. And so we have to have some sort of a performance management layer. We're also making dynamic decisions to move data, to move processing in one server to the other to try to minimize the amount of latency that's coming from a single component. So the great thing about that is we're putting that volatility into a single domain and it's making architectural decisions in terms of where something will run and where it's getting its data from, things are stored, things like that, based on the performance feedback that's coming back from the various cloud services that are under management. And so if you're running across clouds, it becomes even more interesting because ultimately you're gonna make some architectural choices on the fly in terms of where that stuff runs based on the active dynamic performance that that public cloud provider is providing. So in other words, we may find that it automatically shut down a database service, say MySQL on one cloud instance and move it to a MySQL instance on another public cloud provider because there was some sort of performance issue that it couldn't work around. And by the way, it does so dynamically away from you making that decision, it's making that decision on your behalf. Again, this is a matter of abstraction removing complexity and dealing with complexity through abstraction and automation. This is an example, that would be an example of fixing something with automation, self healing. When you meet with some of the public cloud providers and they talk about on-prem, you know, private cloud, the general narrative from the hyperscalers is, well, that's not cloud. Should on-prem be inclusive of super cloud, meta cloud? Absolutely. I mean, and they're selling private cloud instances with the edge clouds that they're selling. So the reality is that we're gonna have to keep a certain amount of our infrastructure, including private clouds on-premise. It's something that's shrinking as a market share and it's gonna be tougher and tougher to justify as the public cloud providers become, you know, better and better at what they do. But we certainly have edge clouds now and there's the hyperscalers have examples of that where they run instance of their public cloud infrastructure on-premise on physical hardware and software. And the reality is too, we have data centers and we have systems that just won't go away for another 20 or 30 years or just too sticky. They're uneconomically viable to move into the cloud. That's the core thing. It's not that we can't do it.  So if we're going to create this meta layer of this infrastructure, which is gonna run across clouds and everybody agrees and that's what the super cloud is, we have to include the on-premise systems, including private clouds, including legacy systems. And by the way, include the rising number of IoT systems that are out there and edge-based systems out there. So we're managing it using the same infrastructure into cloud services. So they have metadata systems and they have specialized services at service finance and retail and things like doing risk analytics. So it gets them further down that path but not necessarily giving them a SaaS application where they're forced into all of the business processes. We're giving you peace parts. So we'll give you a thousand different parts that are related to the finance industry. You can assemble anything you need but the thing is it's not gonna be like building it from scratch. We're gonna give you risk analytics, we're gonna give you financial analytics, all these things that you can leverage within your applications, how you want to leverage them will maintain them. So in other words, you don't have to maintain them just like the cloud service. And suddenly we can build applications in a couple of weeks that used to take a couple of months in some cases a couple of years. So that seems to be a large take of it moving forward. So get it up in the super cloud. Those become just other services that are under managed, that are under management on the super cloud, they're at a cloud. So we're able to take those services, abstract them, assemble them, use them in different applications and the ability to manage where those services are originated versus where they're consumed is gonna be managed by the super cloud layer where it's dealing with the governance, the service governance, the security systems, the directory systems, identity access, management, things like that. They're gonna get you further along down the pike and that comes back as real value. If I'm able to build something in two weeks it used to take me two months and I'm able to give my creators in the organization the ability to move faster, that's a real advantage. And suddenly we are gonna be valued by our digital footprint, our ability to do things in a creative and innovative way. And so organizations are able to move that fast, leveraging cloud computing for what it should be leveraged as a true force multiplier for the business, they're gonna win the game. They're gonna get the most value. They're gonna be around in 20 years, the others won't. David Lentic, I've always loved talking to you. I have a dangerous combination of business and technology expertise. Let's tease VMware Explorer next week. You're given a keynote if you're gonna be there. Which day are you? Tuesday, Tuesday 11 o'clock. All right, the big day. Tuesday 11 o'clock and David please do stop by the Cube. We're in Moscone West. Love to get you on and continue this conversation. I got a hundred more questions for you. We really appreciate your time. I always love talking to people at theCUBE. Thank you very much. All right, and thanks for watching our ongoing coverage of SuperCloud 22 on theCUBE. You're leader in enterprise tech and emerging tech coverage.


Hey, how's it going doobies it's Logan and I hope that you're all having a great day today Now this is just gonna be a little weird channel update. I feel like I Kind of need to do one for the plans that I'm about to be doing for this channel So my goal is to make YouTube full-time by the end of next year, and if I can't do it I'm quitting YouTube.  I'm about to take a goddamn seriously Because it's my dream and I want to do it and if I can't do it By the end of next year, then I have to I have to find something else to do with my life. I know depressing, but that's me But anyways the channel update what I plan on doing for this channel is making so much goddamn good content for you like no for real like like I've been thinking and planning and got a lot of ideas and I'm gonna go and try and execute all of them I'm gonna do truck. Well try my best to do daily videos if not definitely every second day There'll be a video but I don't want it to just be reactions because reactions get Copyright claims and sometimes they've been getting strikes and I don't want to lose my channel and I want to it's gonna sound bad But I want to make money so I got a plan my daily videos are gonna be so goddamn great like they go Oh my god. Oh my oh, you're not ready for them. No really you're not ready for them I want to do my this is series which I've just begun and it's just so much fun making this I want to do this at least once one of these videos once a week and trust me They are legit so fun And then I want to do my other kpop videos like my kpop fred videos kpop funny moments You know, I want to just do stuff like that Like that more often because I want to make content where where we can do it as a community because reactions It's just like, you know, it's It's not that much community, you know, there's nothing really between you and me But if I do these other videos, we'll have out inside jokes. We'll have a lot of fun. It'll be great It'll be goddamn great. Now. What's happening with reactions? Well, I'm actually gonna react to everything that comes out But I'm gonna make it so it's like a YouTube Premium membership thingy. Of course not every reaction will be behind this But I kind of want to do that because if I can do every reaction video and then do the other videos that I want Then I feel like I'll be happy. I know some people are gonna be angry at me for this But I think I I think it's actually gonna be cool if you guys actually watch my other videos and enjoy them then You're not gonna care about the reactions as much because I mean you still want to see my reactions But the other videos will be so much more fun. Trust me. Just please have trust in me I feel like this is gonna be a lot of fun because if you become a member of the channel You could be in the in a chance to win an album every month, you know, I'm gonna do an album giveaway once a month If you become a member There will be exclusive content for that like the reactions There will also be some kpop game videos coming to you as well in that and then there also be live streams for the members And of course I'll do live streams As well because a couple weeks ago. I did a couple test live streams and it was fun It was fun, and I'm gonna try and push for that. So hopefully in the future It's gonna be we're gonna have a great community. I want the my doofies That's what my fandom name is called the doofies I know I don't even mention it But I I want us to have a connection because I actually care for you and love you and I hope you understand this That's the channel update. There's gonna be a lot of videos.  I'm really excited. So yeah, oh wait I'm also thinking should I make the reactions become public a week later? Let me know in the comments down below for this video. Okay, if you've watched this entire video, seriously, thank you So, yeah, thanks