We obsess over faster CPUs, denser memory and ever-smaller transistors – and yet a simple relay-based circuit built around base‑3 arithmetic quietly reminds us that the foundations of computing are design choices, not inevitabilities.
Context
I recently came across an elegant maker project where a developer implemented a balanced‑ternary adder using SPDT relays and tri‑state switching elements. Instead of binary 0/1, the design uses trits (‑1, 0, +1) represented by voltages (e.g., ‑5V, 0V, +5V) and visibly clicks and flashes as it calculates. It’s a tangible demonstration that hardware and number systems can be reimagined outside the binary orthodoxy.
Analysis – what this means for architects and technology leaders
At first glance the project is a hobbyist’s curiosity. Look closer and it surfaces three strategic questions every CTO and system architect should care about.
1) Abstractions are not neutral. Binary is convenient because of decades of standardization – tooling, compilers, silicon, and education all assume 0/1. But that convenience is a sunk cost, not a technical law. Alternatives like balanced ternary change carry semantics (signed digits without separate sign bits), can reduce certain algorithmic complexities and, in specific problem domains, produce simpler logic. For architects, the lesson is to separate what is a physical constraint from what is a historical choice. When designing systems for novel constraints (ultra‑low power, extreme latency, bespoke sensors), revisit foundational abstractions rather than force-fit legacy models.
2) Hardware‑software co‑design matters again. The relay adder is a pure hardware expression of an arithmetic model. In enterprise engineering we often outsource complexity to software because silicon is “fixed.” But the edge is shifting attention back toward heterogenous stacks: custom accelerators, analog computing, quantized neural inferencers, or domain‑specific numeric encodings. A deliberate co‑design approach – defining numeric representation, hardware primitive, and compiler together – can reduce energy consumption, improve latency, and simplify verification when performance or power are the primary constraints.
3) Frugality and repairability are design virtues. Relays are slow and bulky compared with CMOS, yet they are human‑readable, repairable, and resilient to certain failure modes. For regions and sectors where maintenance resources are scarce or where longevity and traceability matter (industrial controllers, rural infrastructure, field diagnostics), simple, serviceable designs can outweigh raw performance. This is an important counterpoint to “throwaway” modern devices.
Practical guidance – what to do next
– For CTOs: run short, low‑cost pilots that explore alternative numeric encodings or quantization strategies for your most expensive inference workloads. Measure real energy and latency tradeoffs, not just theoretical gains.
– For founders: think beyond faster commodity parts – a vertical product differentiated by a frugal, robust hardware choice plus tailored software can win in underserved markets.
– For architects: insist on hardware‑software co‑design conversations early in RFPs and architecture reviews; define success metrics that include serviceability and lifecycle cost, not only throughput.
– For educators and labs: use projects like relay‑based ternary adders as teaching tools for systems thinking – they make abstraction boundaries visible and accessible.
A regional note (when it genuinely applies)
In geographies like Northeast India, where intermittent connectivity and constrained maintenance ecosystems are real constraints, leaning into repairable, energy‑efficient designs is not nostalgia – it’s practical resilience. Local maker spaces and university labs can use such projects to train engineers who understand trade‑offs beyond the benchmark.
Takeaways
– Binary dominance is historical, not inevitable. Revisit assumptions when constraints change.
– Co‑design reduces long‑term debt: start hardware/software conversations early.
– Frugal, readable hardware can be a competitive advantage in specific markets and critical infrastructure.
Closing thought
Innovation sometimes looks sideways – not because it offers blanket superiority, but because it forces us to re‑examine the defaults we accept. As architects, our job is to surface those assumptions and choose designs that match real constraints, not just convention.
About the Author
Sanjeev Sarma is the Founder Director of Webx Technologies Private Limited, a leading Technology Consulting firm with over two decades of experience. A seasoned technology strategist and Chief Software Architect, he specializes in Enterprise Software Architecture, Cloud-Native Applications, AI-Driven Platforms, and Mobile-First Solutions. Recognized as a “Technology Hero” by Microsoft for his pioneering work in e-Governance, Sanjeev actively advises state and central technology committees, including the Advisory Board for Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) across multiple Northeast Indian states. He is also the Managing Editor for Mahabahu.com, an international journal. Passionate about fostering innovation, he actively mentors aspiring entrepreneurs and leads transformative digital solutions for enterprises and government sectors from his base in Northeast India.
