Any details on the power supply driving the hub? My recollection is that you should
plan on a minimum of 1A @5V for each BiFury when running at it's normal low clock
speed. I think it can go as high as 1.8A.

A few other debugging thoughts:

- How long will it run with just 1 BiFury plugged in?

- How long with two?

- How long with three?

If shrinking the number of BiFurie's makes things better, think power for the hub.

Would it be too flippant to say.....

"Two weeks now"

The screen-shot above suggest that cgminer just "recognized" this device as an "AMU".
I would swear that was the identifier used for the original Asic Miner USB sticks. Is this
cgminer software any "special" for support of this, or did it "just work".

The screen-shot would suggest that it looks to the software like a "100x speed"
USB stick. Is that more or less correct?

I wonder if perhaps "Real Soon Now" is the "Two more Weeks". "Real Soon Now" doesn't have the same
specificity that "Two More Weeks" does.

Think about it for a minute. Let's assume "somebody" does amass a huge pile of
Bitcoins. What do they do with them? They can't eat them, and to some extent
they can't sell a bunch of them for fear of driving the price down. I personally
don't want to own a million bBitcoins in 3 years. They only have value to the
extent other think they do, and that could approach zero sometime. Then what
do you have?

My question is: Do you think hookers take Bitcoin?

You might also find that your "free electricity" stops being "free" when the
actual usage become visible.

Be prepared though for when the landlord comes into your apartment and
sees your "electricity sucking" mining operation. Here in the USA you might
get a visit by the Police to see if you are running a marijuana grow operation.

While you pay for "some" electricity, if your use quadruples, somebody will
notice eventually. Multiple S1's running 24/7 will get you there right quick.

At $1/Bitcoin, mining would nearly cease. You can't pay the electric bill
when Bitcoin is a miniscule value. The ASIC vendors would see their orders
dry up very rapidly. The whole landscape would change dramatically.

While I think this looks very interesting, there is one thing I can't reconcile. I've see the two-chip
NanoFury units, and as I recall, the expected power draw is about 1 Amp. This design has 3x the
number of ASIC's and only a 20% increase in power draw? How can that be?

Assuming your miners are associated with a Mining Pool (e.g. Slush, BTC Guild), then an almost
zero cost way is to assign each one a different worker Id. You then log into the web page for
the Mining Pool, and you'll see hash rates for each worker. You'll know if somebody went down.

Not clever or detailed, but it's a start.

You know, this guys almost certainly has to sell an ever increasing amount of the Bitcoins
he mines each month. He obviously has a huge power bill, and I'll just bet the electric
company wants dollars, NOT Bitcoins. Besides mining fewer Bitcoins each month due to
the increasing difficulty, his mining operation depreciates at a furious rate compared
to almost any other "industrial" operations since his mining hardware becomes less and
less valuable each month. While the scale is impressive, the economics aren't really any
different for him compared to a guys with a single Antminer. He just has more to lose.

One thing I am curious about is the "anti pool hopping" part of Slush's
Pool. Is it based by the individual worker within my account, or is it
for my account as a whole?

In my case, at different times I have 2-3 different platforms, and I
have assigned them each a separate worker. I am wondering now if
it might not make more sense for them all to share the same worker_id.
If I have to take one down to work on the platform, then I don't "lose"
the effort already done by thet platform, just what it doesn't do while
it's down. I can see benefits to having multiple worker_id's, but I want
to know it's drawbacks as well.

Any wisdom out there on this?

One small item of note. The original "expectation" was that it would take 14 days (aka a fortnight) before 2016 blocks would be solved, and then difficulty would adjust. The difficulty adjust every 2016 blocks. If that is less than 14 days, difficulty goes up. This has been the case for months. If it were to take longer than 14 days to solve 2016 blocks, then difficulty would decrease. Difficulty decreases are RARE!

An alternative is to "split the difference"  for the two. In other words, run both at 1.9 GH/s.

You can get 1.9 by using a frequency value of 0901. While I only have about a dozen of these
I have yet to see one that doesn't run smoothly and error free at 1.9 GH/s.

Most folks seem to focus in on 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0, without knowing that the "in between"
speeds exist and work fine. It's all in the "8" value within 0981 (or 0781). Changing out
the "8" for a "0" let's you get the "odd" speeds.

Thanks for your quick shipping. I received my tracking info tonight. I think I can expect them on Monday or Tuesday. I guess I could hope them sooner, but that's just greedy..... 

PM sent with signed info as requested. I hope I got the formatting right and such to make it correct. Let me know if I need
to correct something. 5 units as mentioned earlier.

Just sent PM with initial info. Working on the signed info message. Thanks for holding 5 if available.

Is this possible Group Buy essentially dead? While I think it's a great deal, I obviously won't wait for a month
for it to be executed. If the interest, or availability has disipated, it might be good to say so here.

I think you can trace much of this technology back to the 1980's when Cray Research used "Flourinert" from 3M in it's Cray-2 supercomputer. The stuff was pretty pricey at the time, but it did cool the system very effectively. It was by no means simple to regulate and make work.

One small item that I recall. There was a very real hazard that involved an electrical burn in contact with the Flourinert. The byproduct of such an event was Phosgene gas as I recall. I don't know if Novec has similar properties or not. I do know that an electrical burn inside the Cray-2 tank was BIG deal to the people in the machine room with the system.

Just Google "Cray-2" for some very pretty pictures of an immersed computer.