Preface

We typically manage complex problems at surface level, following established procedures and managing detailed data. But surface complexity usually arises from the interaction of just a few core fundamentals—and when we ignore those fundamentals, our detailed management often fails.

This creates a fundamental tension in how we organize ourselves:

Societies depend on consensus and are aided by conformity with established convention. Yet individuals can only improve their situation by innovating—relying on curiosity—which, while it drives society forward, is also a disturbing influence that society must contain.

The Core Model

The articles on this site explore this tension through a simple model: human activity, when purposeful, is guided by wisdom—the ability to manage four, core and essential, interacting perspectives, since, not to do so would be ‘unwise’:

For individuals:

1. Belief – the ability to hold adequate confidence (positive or negative)
2. Curiosity – the ability to question and verify that appropriate beliefs are selected
3. Concentration – the ability to minimize redundant attention (not do the unnecessary)
4. Timeliness – the ability to maximize the relevance of action to prevailing circumstances

These four abilities operate interdependently. Neglect any one, and purposeful action collapses.

At societal levels, these same abilities manifest differently:

1. Belief is constrained by consensus, beyond which members must comply (often by coercion)
2. Curiosity is limited by individuals’ ability to question—societies may recognize problems but can often only state belief that a problem exists
3. Concentration is expressed through customs, traditions, conventions, and laws
4. Timeliness is both an imposition on individuals and an essential resource for their pursuit of wisdom

Both individuals and societies prioritize survival above all, which sharpens the tension between innovation and convention.

The Site’s Approach

The articles in this section, explore how surface complexity obscures simple fundamentals, typically through specific case studies. The cases serve as metaphors, not proofs—fundamentals cannot be proven by examples but only tested through continuous challenge.

Each article examines what happens when we shift from managing surface detail according to convention, to designing from fundamental objectives and perspectives.

Introduction

Please Note: What “Fundamental” Means Here

When I use the word “fundamental” in this article, I am not referring to an engineering constant (like Watts or degrees), but to a perspective—the deepest purpose of the system.

• Convention focuses on the machinery and managing the detail
• A fundamental perspective focuses on the objective the system exists to serve

In this heating case: the comfort of human occupants.

What follows is necessarily detailed. The pattern—that surface complexity obscures simple fundamentals—can only be observed when you watch it happen in sufficient detail. Please read for the shape of the argument rather than the specifics of heating controls.

The question throughout: Where did conventional thinking anchor itself? What was gained, and what was the cost of lost opportunity?

The quantitative aspects (supported by the appendices) illustrate the scale of lost opportunity and the effectiveness of social inertia—a common pattern arising from the necessary tension between convention and innovation.

A Heating Case Study (1980s)

It is necessarily detailed. The pattern I’m proposing—that surface complexity obscures simple fundamentals—can only be observed when you watch it happen in sufficient detail.   Please read for the shape of the argument rather than the specifics of heating controls. The question throughout is: where did conventional thinking anchor itself?   What the benefit and what the cost of lost opportunity – A metaphor, common in the (necessary) tension in societies, between convention and innovation.   The quantitative aspects (supported by the appendices) are only of relevance to illustrate the cost of a lost opportunity and the effectiveness of social inertia!

Some 45 years ago, when I was designing electronic circuits, we were asked to look at control schemes for central heating systems, and one application was for warden-managed retirement homes.

The project was reasonably successful. The district auditor found fuel savings of 37% in the first year across six homes (payback in under two years) and, more importantly, management reported fewer call-outs from user complaints – and further orders followed.

However, I do not wish you to read this as a critique of the technical details. The point is to critique the process for lack of awareness and/or respect for any fundamental.

The heating engineer’s concern was to guarantee a minimum space temperature at zero centigrade, and management had two concerns:

1. That clients tolerated the temperature offered.
2. That the fuel bill was minimized.

Their solution was to limit the space temperature to 19 °C. Customer satisfaction had room for improvement.

The heating systems were controlled by a time clock, internal thermostats, and an external thermostat for frost protection.

Early Observations: Fundamentals in Action

This was a new experience for me, and it became clear that there were underlying fundamentals which, if ignored, could “turn and bite”:

1. Existing conventions of my client and the heating engineer.
2. Commercial benefit (a personal, fundamental) in not crossing swords unnecessarily.
3. Most important: end-user satisfaction — the real client and a potential source of future business.

The existing convention focused on the building rather than its use.   I, on the other hand, was more interested in satisfying the user’s requirements than the specification (which is always easier to meet).

It seemed to me that the user wanted thermal comfort — we were not primarily “heating” them but providing an environment in which they could enjoy a fairly constant rate of cooling, dissipating around 100 Watts per person. A person in a room would be comfortable at a temperature where the total heat lost from the room matched their 100 Watts, assuming minimal thermal gradients.

A Different Control Perspective

The rooms were heated by radiators. Their required heat loss was that which supplemented the occupants’ heat loss less any other gains (solar, etc.).   For a given outside temperature, if the radiator received just enough energy, there would be a specific radiator exit temperature.

Thus, the solution was to control using the temperature returned to the boiler,in a weighted average with that of the external ‘skin’ of the building rather than from the boiler plant, as was conventional.   This allowed for assessment of the current heating load and some accommodation of variations such as solar and occupancy gains.

Now, as the external temperature falls, thermal gradients in the rooms increase, and users may require more warmth. Conversely, as it gets warmer outside, their requirement diminishes — to a point (around 15–16 °C) where occupants happily move between inside and outside, with minimal need for clothing adjustments.

So we modulated the response to give 21 °C at zero outside falling to 17 °C at 16 °C. We managed to “sell” the idea to management fairly easily: for, though extra fuel would be used on very cold days, there were many more days with opportunity for savings.   Management could,in anyway, adjust the initial settings.

Finally, we realized there would be days where as the day progressed and the temperature rose, heating would become unnecessary, so we provided an adjustable cut-off control.

System Adjustments

The system had three main adjustments:

1. Bias inside/outside temperature
2. Effective inside temperature
3. Maximum outside temperature

Most other schemes at the time used separate bi-metal thermostats — notoriously unstable and unreliable.   As a result, one county council client spent nearly as much on overnight as daytime fuel, still with enormous annual expenditure resulting from frost damage.

Our scheme used just two solid-state thermal sensors. Sensor failure would be evident in other daytime functions, so reliability was elevated.

The benefits resulted from approaching the problem from a different perspective, and attempting to comprehend the opportunities presented by the underlying fundamental factors.

There were other aspects which, if addressed, may have yielded further gains. At the time when the scheme was realized, by discrete circuit design, further elaborations were not commercially viable — save for one later retrofit of nightfall detection.

45 Years Later: Revisiting the Strategy

Now, one of my sons is buying an old house. It’s very leaky and requires thermal improvement. We are looking at improving insulation, glazing, and ventilation. This experience reminded me of the earlier project.

Implementing the old 1980s strategy with discrete circuit design is inappropriate today. Modern programmable logic controllers, at lower cost, enable options that were not then viable.

Areas of improvement today include:

• Interaction between the system & user, allowing self-learning optimization of:-
• Set-points and compensation ratios
• Individual user occupancy profiling in 2-hour segments
• Optimized start-up and shut-down times.

Despite improved technology, it seems that conventions from 45 years ago are still influential. Fundamentally, the fundamentals are still being ignored.

The Cost of Ignoring Fundamentals

I asked ChatGPT for an overview of current practice in France, which is offered as Appendix 1, and an assessment of the cost of lost opportunity as Appendix 2.

AI estimates show that the potential numbers are more significant than I had thought.

The objective in writing this piece is not to concentrate on the scale of benefit but to illustrate the tension between the need to respect convention and the benefit of adopting a fundamental perspective.

The AI commentary highlights the scale of lost opportunity, underlined by France’s enthusiasm for energy efficiency.   In the current project, the cost of controls (cobbled from standard components) is the lowest of any other strategy in terms of Euros per 1% saving. Moreover, a dedicated standard unit could easily be produced that could cope with >80% of applications in the last three categories, at <30% of current price.

Maybe, the cost of the lost opportunity would be lower, if the fundamental perspective of respecting convention had been less dominant  and other perspectives more welcomed?

Concluding Review

In this case:-

Fundamental perspectives; ALL essential and enabling commerce and social conventions provide a fundamental base for communication and commerce:-

• Heating engineer convention – almost universally, ‘standard’
• Management within CLEARLY prescribed limits
• A ‘NEW’ approach, MUST respect these AND offer ‘something extra’ if to be of value
• The ‘something extra’ is (by circular definition) likely ‘out of the box’ and from an ‘individual’ perspective.
• If the ‘something extra’ is an unsuccessful addition, convention is strengthened.
• If the ‘something extra’ is a successful addition, convention is challenged

This case is one where ‘naivety’, rather than ’expertise’ aided  the ‘something extra’ to be successful.

• Fundamental perspectives; ARE essential in enabling commerce:-
• The stronger the convention, the greater its influence and durability.
• The stronger the convention, the more effectively it resists change.

This case is one which illustrates robust convention

• Fundamental perspectives; ARE essential in enabling commerce:-
• Commerce is essential to a society.
• A fundamental for commerce is confidence.
• Robust conventions promote confidence.
• A fundamental for commerce is current relevance (‘timeliness’).
• A fundamental for commerce is ‘timeliness’.
• Robust conventions resist change and innovation and can hence inhibit ‘timeliness’.
• ‘Change’ is initiated by individuals’ actions.

This case is one which illustrates a fundamental perspective of tension dilemma at a level where society on the one hand has an expressed intent to progress and on the other is constrained by its (essential) conventionality.

This leading to a significant (c30%) opportunity cost, even after nearly half a century.

I suggest this case as consistently metaphorical with the core modelling?

 

Appendices

(These only have  relevance as a frame of reference!)

Appendix 1: Current (2025) State of the Art — France

Big Commercial France: Top-end (campus, hospitals, airports, large tertiary buildings) are slightly more mature than EU average. Return/delta-T adoption: 80–95%.

Medium Commercial France: Schools, nursing homes, administrative buildings, logistics — centralised controls common, but return-based loop trim not reliably implemented. Adoption: 35–60%.

Domestic France: Two populations:

1. Traditional chaudières (gas/fuel oil) in villages & small towns — return-based adoption 5–10%.
2. Modern heat pumps (PAC) — hardware supports load-based thinking, but installed controls often simplistic. Adoption: 15–30%.

Observation: The second tier is where meaningful improvement can be made: equipment is capable, but installer culture does not use it.

Appendix 2: Technical Potential – and cost of lost opportunity

These numbers represent a technical potential based on applying a load-sensitive, return/delta-T style control to systems currently using the older supply-centric convention. The calculation assumes each segment can realize the same percentage saving (25% / 35% / 40%) on the portion of its heat that is still run by the old convention.