Skip to main content

The Delilah Secure Speech System

Part of the new exhibit being unveiled at Bletchley Park is the Delilah Secure Speech system that Alan Turing developed during the Second World War. Details of the system are in Andrew Hodges' excellent biography of Turing and have recently been placed in the National Archives (references FO 850/256 and HW 25/36 for people who want to go an see them for themselves).

Delilah was intended to be fairly portable (unlike SIGSALY) and usable in the field (such as in a tank) and allow secure speech communication between people over radio or telephone.

A team at Bletchley Park has been working to rebuild Delilah from the report (with some assistance from GCHQ) and I was able to see and photograph the reconstructed machine. Here are some pictures:







And here are pictures of the original machine taken from recently declassified documents:

Briefly, Delilah worked as follows. The incoming speech was limited a channel of 2kHz which was then sampled at 4kHz to produce 4,000 samples per second of the incoming waveform. These samples were normalized to a range of 0 to 1 and added using modulo arithmetic to a key stream consisting of values in the range 0 to 1.

The resulting waveform was then transmitted and at the opposite end the original waveform could be constructed by adding back (again using modulo arithmetic) the same key stream. Both ends had to be synchronized for this scheme to work (and use the same key).

The key was set on wheels visible in the photograph above that generated a stream of pseudo-random numbers which when added to the incoming signal would result in something close to pure noise being transmitted.

Comments

MattyDub said…
I had no idea such a device actually existed! A fictionalized version is described in Neal Stephenon's Cryptonomicon (in which Turing is a minor character) - but this is the first I'd heard of it outside of fiction.

Popular posts from this blog

Your last name contains invalid characters

My last name is "Graham-Cumming". But here's a typical form response when I enter it:


Does the web site have any idea how rude it is to claim that my last name contains invalid characters? Clearly not. What they actually meant is: our web site will not accept that hyphen in your last name. But do they say that? No, of course not. They decide to shove in my face the claim that there's something wrong with my name.

There's nothing wrong with my name, just as there's nothing wrong with someone whose first name is Jean-Marie, or someone whose last name is O'Reilly.

What is wrong is that way this is being handled. If the system can't cope with non-letters and spaces it needs to say that. How about the following error message:

Our system is unable to process last names that contain non-letters, please replace them with spaces.

Don't blame me for having a last name that your system doesn't like, whose fault is that? Saying "Your last name …

All the symmetrical watch faces (and code to generate them)

If you ever look at pictures of clocks and watches in advertising they are set to roughly 10:10 which is meant to be the most attractive (smiling!) position for the hands. They are actually set to 10:09.14 if the hands are truly symmetrical. CC BY 2.0image by Shinji
I wanted to know what all the possible symmetrical watch faces are and so I wrote some code using Processing. Here's the output (there's one watch face missing, 00:00 or 12:00, because it's very boring):



The key to writing this is to figure out the relationship between the hour and minute hands when the watch face is symmetrical. In an hour the minute hand moves through 360° and the hour hand moves through 30° (12 hours are shown on the watch face and 360/12 = 30).
The core loop inside the program is this:   for (int h = 0; h <= 12; h++) {
    float m = (360-30*float(h))*2/13;
    int s = round(60*(m-floor(m)));
    int col = h%6;
    int row = floor(h/6);
    draw_clock((r+f)*(2*col+1), (r+f)*(row*2+1), r, h, floor(m…

The Elevator Button Problem

User interface design is hard. It's hard because people perceive apparently simple things very differently. For example, take a look at this interface to an elevator:


From flickr

Now imagine the following situation. You are on the third floor of this building and you wish to go to the tenth. The elevator is on the fifth floor and there's an indicator that tells you where it is. Which button do you press?

Most people probably say: "press up" since they want to go up. Not long ago I watched someone do the opposite and questioned them about their behavior. They said: "well the elevator is on the fifth floor and I am on the third, so I want it to come down to me".

Much can be learnt about the design of user interfaces by considering this, apparently, simple interface. If you think about the elevator button problem you'll find that something so simple has hidden depths. How do people learn about elevator calling? What's the right amount of informati…