MEMS-enabled PUMA: Look at the possibilities

I feel like it is 1909, rather than 2009, as I hear a derisive chorus of "get a horse" from much of the media mocking the MEMS-enabled PUMA prototype electric vehicle from General Motors and Segway.

An automotive correspondent from Newsweek wrote on Twitter that he "thinks the GM Segway vehicle is a farce." And even the editor of Wired.com, who should know how to spot possibilities better than other journalists, Tweeted: "NOte to GM: car with no door = FAIL."

It is likely the PUMA uses the same MEMS gyro/accelerometer cluster as the Segway, which last I heard was supplied by the UK MEMS company Silicon Sensing Systems.

The mockery doesn't say much for the vision of many in my profession ... again. It seems like members of the news media -- the survivors who are left employed, anyway -- would have learned from the recent past to recognize the early stages of something that could potentially change everything. But, even now as newspapers close and bleed jobs, many continue to lovingly clutch onto their dinosaurs, failing to look up to see the meteor looming in the sky.

A century ago, those funny, noisy, slow horseless carriages seemed as much a ridiculous joke as perhaps the rickety-looking GM/Segway electric carriage might seem now. But, as most Small Times readers know, the thing to look for is not always right in front of you. We cover, for the most part, enabling technologies -- the invisible "stuff" on the inside that enhances existing products or enables new ones.

Like the Segway, itself -- also a subject of tech-writer derision when first unveiled -- entrepreneurs look at the capabilities of a prototype like the PUMA and see how the enabling technologies can be used to fit their own visions of how a "smart" vehicle should run.

Writers based in New York, or Detroit, at times fail to realize that the world does not necessarily look like their own familiar surroundings. Newly prosperous residents of jam-packed cities in Asia, for example, are all looking to become "American-style" consumers. But the level of traffic congestion that would suggest is not possible if we are truly going to reduce greenhouse gases.

Let 'em walk, ride bikes or take buses? Easy for the current "haves" to say.

No, I look at the PUMA, and see possibilities. And, I suspect, so do the engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs who read these pages.

Nanobusiness is about business, yes; but it's also about possibilities

Beware of nanotech "news stories" that declare that the scientific breakthrough of the day "may someday lead to ... " or "will be on the market in the next 5-10 years ..." Odds are, it's great science, but its business application is miles away from port.

And that's fine. I love to follow science news from the world's top universities and labs. I read tons of it every day. Not much of it, however, makes it onto the pages of Small Times or is posted online here.

There are lots of other online nanotech portals for that.

Back in 2001, when I was among the founding editors of Small Times, the mantra we began as one of the first to cover nanotech from a business perspective was "Is it us?" I would ask my group of scattered of freelance correspondents -- sometimes to their annoyance -- what about the story they were pitching to me makes it rise above the level of lab breakthrough and into the realm of a business story.

About eight years later now, it's a lot easier to tell the difference as more of the science experiments we covered in the beginning are being commercialized.

It has gotten to the point now where Scott E. Rickert, chief executive of Nanofilm Ltd., has gone as far as to declare that "the era of endless exploration is over -- at least as long as the economy stumbles." Writing in IndustryWeek, Rickert expresses his impatience now with nanotech information that is not directly related to business.

"Nanobusiness is business. Period. First, last, always," Rickert declares.

And, of course, he names Small Times as one of the few publications he turns to when he wants to read about trends in nanobusiness as opposed to nanoscience.

I thank Scott for the "shout-out." We've been trying for years to make Small Times different than your average sci/tech publication. And, of course, your contribution helps, too. If you are commercializing nanotech, or are about to, please contact me and let's generate some coverage.

But, as those who know me from some of my other projects have seen, I do not always believe in hard-and-fast rules. Sometimes, it is just plain cool to read about the future possibilities of where today's nanobusiness might take us.

Reporting live from the NanoTwitterVerse

Yesterday's headline in The UK's Guardian blared "Nanotechnology goes to war."

The story is about how the Pentagon is using small tech for improved sensors, robotics and other applications. The only trouble is that very little of the information there is new and, aside from the headline, the article contains no examples of actual nanotechnology. Much of it was about labs-on-a-chip, MEMS and other technologies you read about on this site every day.

But, in an age where print journalism is dying and online journalism is still trying to define itself, the Guardian article is not the last word. It is, in fact, only the beginning of the conversation about the news.

Ideas today are circulating in 140-word, self-contained blocks -- mostly via social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Yesterday's Guardian piece was just a few hour old, when the NanoTwitterVerse chimed in -- the opening shot coming from British nanopundit Tim Harper, who Tweeted that the "nano" piece was not about nano.

Harper was answered by prolific Twitterer Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington. On Twitter, he is known by the name of his blog: 2020science. His response to Harper: "Hate to say it, but nano-promoters have been piggybacking on MEMS for some time - not surprising that journalists mix'n'match!"

Harper: Thought it was the other way around -MEMS have been trying to get their claws into sexy nano funding 4 years

2020science: think you're probably right - from a distance, thinks get a little blurry!

The exchange was important for a few reasons. First, despite the appearance of a cozy two-way conversation, it was read by their thousands of Twitter "followers," or other people on Twitter who are interested in their updates. Any one of them can "retweet" the conversation and the word can spread virally. It also was a necessary counterpoint from two nanotech "insiders" to the viral spread of the story outside the world of nanotech experts.

The Guardian story was also posted on the news networking site Digg.com, with readers' comments indicating that they couldn't care less about the accuracy of the headline, but used it as a launching point for their own personal fears or hopes for however they define "nanotechnology."

Through Twitter and Digg, what we're still talking about here is not even the "blogosphere," but a new layer that has emerged -- quick, opinionated, emotional, probably unfair, but increasingly responsible for what becomes widely circulated and commented upon by the public at large.

Comparitively, blogs are practically "the establishment" now. And they're so damn wordy. (Looking back at my first month of blogging back in 2003, it looked like I was going for "War and Peace" with each long-winded post).

For the Guardian story, Harper saw something deeper in the misuse of "nanotechnology" in the headline and needed the longer blog format to express them.

"There's no space for more considered opinions on Twitter so you need to combine it with other media," Harper told me in a brief interview I conducted with him yesterday on Twitter ("Twitterview"?)

What resulted was a post on his blog called "politicizing nanotechnology," in which he discussed how nanotech is viewed through the prism of political agendas.

In comparison to his "Tweets," Harper's blog posts require an attention span and the ability to follow more than one simultaneous theme. That's not to knock Twitter at all, though. Sifting through dozens of Tweets every day -- or even hundreds, depending on how much time you have during the day -- on a nanotech theme, you can get differering views on the same topic.

Harper's Tweets are enjoyable because, aside from his usual rants against the "nanobot crowd" he'll slip in a few personal tidbits -- like how he sat near Jacques Chirac at a Paris restaurant. I can picture him sitting there, noticing Chirac and the first thing he thinks of is Twittering the news.

The largest criticism I have of the NanoTwitterVerse is that it at times can be a feedback loop -- the usual suspects talking inside baseball to one another, or "retweeting" one another to the point where only one point of view bounces around an echo chamber. That will change as more nanotech voices join the conversation.

Another notable nano voice on Twitter is Kristen Kulinowski, executive director for policy at Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology. She recently Tweeted the Rice Alliance Nanotechnology and Sustainability Venture Forum, giving live, as-it-happens updates.

The live events are enjoyable, although sometimes a bit cryptic, since 140 words a pop seems limiting for an on-the-spot reporter. Maynard does it, too, and knows when to Tweet (Congressional hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act) and when not to Tweet (NNI exposure assessment workshop).

Like blogging about five years ago, Twitter is something that you either "get," or you do not. A great many believe that, in the words of Houston Chronicle Science Writer (and prolific Twitterer) Eric Berger, "it was mostly people posting pics of their breakfast."

Well, yes, there's that, too.

But amid some of the silliness, there's substance in Twitter when taken as a whole. Does it stand alone as a source of news? Of course not. Does it give more people a chance to participate in the discussion about the news? Maybe it will, someday, but for now it is another way to interact with the world by telling it to others from your own perspective -- a kind of Seussian, "we are here" for journalists, too, who sometimes forget about all those Whos down in Whoville.

Oh, and speaking of kids' stuff, have you heard about that "nanosong" video that explains nanotech with music and puppets? It was first spread virally via the Twitterverse.

New nano rules may leave Canada out in the cold

If you ask Canadian entrepreneur Neil Gordon about new rules coming next month requiring companies to detail their use of engineered nanomaterials, he'll tell you it's just another example of his government placing artificial constraints on nanotech commercialization.

That's why Gordon is now the ex-president of the now-defunct Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance.

"If Canada is becoming the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of 'potentially' harmful nanomaterials in products, then there is another reason for entrepreneurs to avoid commercializing nanotechnology products in Canada," said Gordon, who is now president and CEO of Early Warning Inc., which is commercializing a nanotech-based biosensor.

But ask science adviser Andrew Maynard about Canada's first-in-the-world nanotech regulations, and he'll tell you how they are exactly what is needed now -- before too many companies use nanotechnology in their products. Maynard advises the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) in Washington, which focuses on the environmental, health and ethical implications of nanotechnology.

The rules are needed, he said, even though available toxicity information on some engineered nanomaterials is "patchy."

"But even patchy information is going to be more helpful to developing informed future regulations, than no information," Maynard said.

The rules, instituted by Environment Canada, are expected to come out in February, according to a news release issued by PEN earlier this week.

Canadian companies that manufactured or imported 1 kg or more of engineered nanoparticles in 2008 will be required to provide information about how the substance is used or managed and any existing data on their physical or chemical properties. It is a one-time requirement. The Canadian government will then use the information to evaluate possible risks to the public and the environment.

The regulations would be in line with a proposed regulatory framework released by Environment Canada and Health Canada in September 2007.

One problem with the rule, Gordon said, is that there are not too many Canadian nanotech companies around to regulate. And these rules could be the nail in the coffin.

"I have observed first-hand how the Canadian government had ignored the massive economic development opportunity from nanotechnology," he said.

"The Canadian government’s informal nanotechnology policy of allocating its limited nanotechnology funding almost exclusivity to government labs and government-owned universities has created a void of Canadian nanotechnology companies which for the most part are struggling to survive or have left Canada."

It is important to remember, too, Gordon said, that the question is not simply which substances are toxic, but also whether they are toxic in the small amounts used inside nanotech products.

Many of the current research on nanoparticle toxicity expose test animals to artificially high amounts of nanomaterials.

"A fish can die from eating too much fish food," Gordon said. "If the amount of nanoparticles in a product are at some miniscule level, as is typical for nano products, then the risk must account for what is really being used -- not some artificially high amount."

But it is just this shortage of information on nanoparticles that makes these rules needed, Maynard indicated.

"This decision by Canada -- to establish the world's first national mandatory nanoscale materials reporting program for companies -- is an important step toward ensuring that nanotechnology regulation is driven by accurate information and high-quality science," he said in a news release.

U.S., at last, begins assault on batteries

If you could just tune your ears above the recent clatter and racket that passed for debate over a bridge loan for the Big Three, you might have been able to just make out the tiny baby cries of a newborn U.S. auto industry.

I live in Detroit, so I heard the slap on that baby's ass, followed by the opening shrieks of a brat already born into a disadvantaged, dysfunctional family.

You see, in the literal power struggle over the next age of the automotive industry -- the electric age -- the U.S. battery industry is arriving late.

It's not that innovation is lacking. Some of the leading research into nanotech-enabled lithium-ion batteries is being done right in my hometown. But only now has it dawned on the federal and state governments to push that innovation forward through financial aid and tax breaks. And only now have U.S. battery companies realized that they can combine some of their efforts to bring those innovations from the lab to the marketplace.

Late and late.

But hopefully not too late.

Two years and an economic lifetime ago, I covered the Detroit auto show when a proud Bob Lutz unveiled the Chevrolet Volt (PDF 219k) hybrid electric concept vehicle to a great many ooohs and aahhhs even from the jaded press.

But a few months later, at the Society of Automotive Engineers' 2007 World Congress, I peaked under the hood of all that shiny new plastic and found disparate and desparate U.S. and European engineers sweating it out for what they assumed would be second place in the race to create safe, long-lasting batteries for vehicles like the Volt.

Today, the race is still for second place, behind Asia. And, as I covered the North American International Auto Show again this year, it looks like nanotechnology has come in second, too. GM chose Compact Power, a subsidiary of the Asian LG Chem, to provide the lithium-ion batteries for the Volt. A close second was A123 Systems, whose nanophosphate formula is an important ingredient in its li-ion batteries. The reason, according to GM, was the the formula seemed too experimental, the company too inexperienced and, most importantly, the battery manufacturing infrastructure just does not yet exist in the United States.

To its credit, GM is working on building its own battery infrastructure from the ground up. Another lesson learned from Toyota. So, there is still hope for nano-enhanced li-ion batteries, as there will be room for many players, eventually.

It's about time.

Of course, not in time to save my Motown hometown from further pain. But perhaps enough to implant an embryo that will, in time, give birth to a brand spanking new auto industry.

Now Is The Time to Invest Says Penn

A press release popped into my e-mail this morning from Malcolm Penn of Future Horizons. Here's what he's saying: "Amidst all the doom and gloom, now is the time to make investments and come out of the recession strong," Penn said. By investing now companies can secure their long-term future and come out of the recession in a great position. "R&D is always one of the first things to get cut in times of economic crisis," says Penn. "But by doing this companies are harming their long term future. If they don’t continue to look forward now, they will be behind the competition in 12 months time – and find themselves in even greater trouble. While the short term gains of cost cutting are obvious, in the long run it will come back to bite. By taking the lead now companies can seize the initiative, and come out of these difficult times in a strong position." Penn was speaking ahead of the 2009 Forecast Seminar that is taking place in London.

Boy does the economy stink!

The extent of the financial crisis is still unknown, of course, and most agree that it will get worse before it gets better, but at Small Times and Solid State Technology magazine we have been gathering reports from leading market forecasters and analysts and can share what they’re telling us. I think MEMS and nanotech will weather the storm well, but it looks like some rough sailing ahead for my semiconductor friends. The good news is that market fundamentals are quite different than they were in 2001. “Staring a global economic recession in the face, will 2009 be a re-run of 2001? We think no,” said Malcolm Penn, CEO of Future Horizons, Kent UK. Penn said that downturns in the semiconductor industry over the last 60 years were always caused by excess capacity, triggered either by demand or supply side issues e.g., by over investment (making capacity overshoot demand) or a demand slowdown (whether through an inventory burn or recession) making short-term capacity exceed near-term demand. “The 2001 slowdown was unique in that it was triggered by both demand and supply-side issues, namely; the collapse of dot-com inflated demand euphoria, a 9-11 driven economic slowdown, a resultant massive inventory burn, just as a huge amount of excess capacity was coming on stream,” Penn said. “Entering 2009, we have no serious overcapacity in place (pre-slowdown utilization rates were in the 90% region), a cap ex cut back that started 12-18 months before the slowdown hit, and IC ASPs in the middle of a cyclical upward trend. In addition, IC units had been running at or below the 10%/yr long-term trend line, with no serious excess inventory in the supply chain. For once, the industry is in structurally good shape to enter a recession. This will make the 2009 downturn statistically shorter than it would otherwise have been,” Penn added. Bill McClean, President of IC Insights, Scottsdale, Arizona, believes the effect of a global recession on the worldwide semiconductor market in 2009 depends greatly on the magnitude and duration of the recession. “A severe U.S. recession and steep global recession (i.e., worldwide GDP growth of <2.0%) would probably cause the worldwide semiconductor market to show a 10% decline,” McClean said. He further states that worldwide semiconductor industry capital spending is forecast to decline 15% in 2009 after falling 24% in 2008. “Even with these cutbacks in spending, IC ASPs are expected to fall another 6% in 2009, the same as the decline forecast for 2008. However, as a direct result of these steep capital spending declines, and a capital spending as a percent of sales ratio that is likely to reach an all-time low (15%) in 2009, IC ASPs are forecast to rebound (very strongly for DRAM and NAND flash memory) and spur double-digit semiconductor industry market growth in 2010, 2011, and 2012.” Aida Jebens, Sr. Economist, VLSI Research, Santa Clara, California, said that despite all the negative sentiments about the economy, she does not believe electronics sales will be in negative territory next year for several reasons: “With the exception of 2000-2001, there has never been a case in history when an economic slowdown or recession resulted in a drop in electronics sales. The 2000-2001 period is different because it was driven by the Y2K tech boom and was made worse by the terrorist attacks. We do not have the same situation today. We simply have a very nervous sentiment because of the economy. Electronics tend to do well in a slow economy. At the consumer level, people tend to cocoon in their homes when times are tough. Instead of going away on vacation, or going out for entertainment, they tend to buy electronics. At the business level, sure there will be a pullback in spending on high-end servers, but even in recessions, businesses tend to buy computers and peripherals, and networking hardware to improve efficiency and boost productivity,” Jebens said. VLSI expects both consumer and business spending to stagnate in 2009, resulting in a very slight 3.5% growth in electronics. At this rate, worldwide electronics shipments should amount to $1.7B. Klaus Rinnen, Managing VP, Gartner, Washougal, Washington, said that Gartner now expects 2008 semiconductor growth to be ~2%, and predicts that, in 2009, the market will experience anything between a decline of 2% and growth of 1%. “In addition, we currently expect a capital spending decline of ~17% in 2009, and capital equipment to drop roughly 18%. In excess condition for all of 2008, we believe inventories will rise in 4Q, overshadowing demand and reducing production needs for 1H 2009. This will lead to a reduction in factory utilization,” Rinnen said. “Continued weakness in memory sectors combined with reduced production due to increased inventory levels are causing many manufacturers to drop spending projections. Memory financials continue to worsen, causing suppliers with cash flow problems to delay or eliminate capacity expansions. Some vendors are even postponing investments for needed technology improvements because of profitability problems.”Next week will, of course, will provide us all with an interesting barometer in the form of consumer spending in the U.S. on the day after Thanksgiving, the so-called “Black Friday.” Traditionally, it is one of the busiest shopping days of the year, putting merchants into the “black.” I'm hoping everyone is out buying the latest electronic gizmos!