Engineers at MIT have designed an atomic force microscope that scans images 2,000 times faster than existing commercial models. With this new high-speed instrument, the team produced images of chemical processes taking place at the nano-scale at the rate close to real-time video.
Author Archives: Mike
Users Could Find New CES ‘Wearables’ Painfully Restrictive
The early reports from CES indicate wearable devices continue to be the hot item. Among the early headliners:
- Samsung’s WELT wellness belt, which is really a backpack that charges phones via solar panels, among other things;
- Samsung’s Smart Suit, which to my view does fairly mundane tasks like like unlocking your phone when you take it out of your pocket;
- Samsung’s lab also made a golf shirt that can sense the weather and UV ratings;
Samsung’s Smart Suit - Under Armour’s Healthbox, which features an activity tracker, chest strap and smart scale; and Samsung’s Body Compass 2.0, a sensor-laden workout suit that performs similar tasks;
- MadRat’s Supersuit, which is designed to play laser tag and other such games in a closed space;
-
MadRat’s SuperSuit
Also coming from UA, a smart running shoe that tracks movement and lets users know when the shoe should be replaced.
What these devices have in common is the ability for users to track their activity — and by extension, their wellness — in real-time and on multiple platforms including their smartphones. What they can also do is amass a terrific amount of data that may or may not be used for their original intended purposes. In short, if you can collect and review the data, so can someone else.
Consider: What if health insurers were to require policyholders to wear devices that tracked such details? And what if your insurance rates were to climb simply on the basis of a weekend ice-cream binge? What if auto insurers could tell that you had activated your cellphone while in a driving, and could cancel your policy on the basis of that information? What if it was learned that you habitually played 18 holes during high ozone days?
While the ability to monitor one’s health using actual real-time data is eye-opening, are we opening a door to such data being misused, or at least, applied in a fashion that could have very real and life-changing implications for the user?
The Top 10 in PCD&F
Yesterday, we reported the top 10 best-read articles published by CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY in 2015. Today we list the best-read articles from PCD&F.
The list includes features that were published for the first time in calendar 2015. Rankings are based on web site hits, and do not include — for obvious reasons — the number of reads in the print version of the magazine.
1. “Embedded Passive Technology Materials, Design and Process,” by Hikmat Chammas
2. “Beyond the Vault: The Evolution of PCB Design Archiving,” by John McMillan.
3. “01005: Size Does Matter,” by Arbel Nissan.
4. “Trace Current/Temperature Relationships,” by Douglas G. Brooks, Ph.D. and Johannes Adam, Ph.D.
5. “Microsectioning of Laminates,” by Karin Rudman Prieto, Ph.D., Peg Conn, Lizabeth Lagos and Charles Lehmann.
6. “The Changing Face of the Hardware Design Engineer,” by Steve Hughes.
7. “Refining Lean NPI at Optimum Design Associates,” by Randy Holt.
8. “The 3 Challenges Facing the Future of PCB Design,” by David Wiens.
9. “How Hot Is My Via? (Cooler Than You Think!),” by Douglas G. Brooks, Ph.D. and Johannes Adam, Ph.D.
10. “In Search of Greater Tolerance,” by Peter Bigelow.
There was a definite advantage for articles that were published near the beginning of the year. If we adjust for timing, a feature on field solvers authored by Dr. Eric Bogatin and published just last month more than likely would have made the top 10. And although not reflected here, there was tremendous and perhaps disproportionate interest in flex circuits, given the smaller audience involved to-date in flex, with pieces by Mark Finstad (“Designing Flex Circuits For Wearable Electronics“) and Ben Jordan (“Designing a Successful High-Speed Rigid-Flex PCB“) just missing the top 10.
As always, we are grateful for our loyal readers and the many authors who contribute their expertise each month.
The Top 10 in CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY
For the past several years, we have taken a few moments at year-end to look back at the best-read articles of 2015.
The list includes features that were published for the first time in calendar 2015. Rankings are based on web site hits, and do not include — for obvious reasons — the number of reads in the print version of the magazine.
We’ll start today with the top 10 from CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY. Tomorrow we will list the best-read articles from PCD&F.
1. “How Clean is Clean Enough?” by Terry Munson, Paco Solis, Nick Munson, Steve Ring and Evan Briscoe
2. “01005: Size Does Matter,” by Arbel Nissan.
3. “Designing Flex Circuits For Wearable Electronics,” by Mark Finstad.
4. “Depaneling of Circuit Boards,” by Ahne Oosterhof and Thomas Nether.
5. “What You Cannot See Can Be Hand Soldered,” by Paul Wood and Bob Wettermann.
6. “A New SPI Tool for Defect Prevention,” by Chrys Shea.
7. “Zooming in on Digital Microscopes,” by Chrys Shea and Kristoffer Tømmergaard.
8. “China in Charge, by Dr. Hayao Nakahara.
9. “US or Mexico: Which Option Makes Most Sense for Your Project?” by Joe Villanueva.
10. “Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs of Capacitor Part Size vs. Manufacturing Efficiency,” by Chris Reynolds.
As you can see, a mix of technical and business-related pieces made up the top 10 this year. Interest was high in cutting-edge technology (multiple pieces on 01005s, wearable flex circuitry), but tutorial-type pieces on conventional technology held its own as well (cleaning, circuit board depaneling).
As always, we are grateful for our loyal readers and the many authors who contribute their expertise each month.
Happy Holidays!
With 2015 almost over, UP Media Group would like to take this opportunity to thank our advertisers, exhibitors, colleagues and loyal readers for another successful year. It was a good year for us, topped by another terrific PCB West.
We wish everyone the best for the holiday season and for a buoyant 2016!
Made in the USA
This is a pet peeve, so forgive me in advance.
Manufacturing in the US is by no means dead.
We don’t have nearly the number of unskilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs as once before, thanks in part to hands-free automation and a higher level of engineering knowledge / skilled labor needed for the non-automated work. Overall employment in the sector dropped about 12% between 2003 and 2013, and more than 20% from 1993 to 2013.
We are no longer the global leader in either manufactured goods — a title lost in 2010 — or valued added manufacturing — which we ceded in 2013 — although the data are skewed of late in China’s favor because of currency valuation changes.
And here’s no question manufacturing as a percent of GDP has certainly slipped in the US (and not to our advantage, but that’s a different discussion).
But even given that, in terms of how much the US produces, we still produce north of $2 trillion worth of manufactured goods every year.
That’s a really big number.
Now, how to get some of that back in the US printed circuit industry?
Automakers ‘Dashing’ for 3d Party Platforms
The fight for the dashboard is heating up as reports surfaced this week that two major automakers will ditch their current embedded software systems in favor of alternatives from Google and Apple.
Ford, which has dabbled with Apple’s CarPlay for two years even while using Microsoft Windows Embedded for its infotainment systems, drop Microsoft and migrate to an Apple-compatible platform, reports indicate.
Likewise, Hyundai is going all in on CarPlay and a competing system from Google called Android Auto.
There’s big money at stake. Automakers generate substantial profits on infotainment and related on-board gear: Ford bundles Sync with Sirius radio and other options in a package, priced at $1,250, which is purportedly nearly $1,000 higher than the OEM’s costs.
While the tools not only control today’s dashboard displays, they could be even more significant down the road as self-driving cars start to populate the roads, freeing vehicle occupants to do tasks once considered unthinkable in moving cars, such as shopping online.
So while the prospect of moving toward more interactive onboard systems holds promise and profits for the automakers themselves, major OEMs like Apple and Google stand to benefit from a captive audience inside the vehicle.
In the future, “keep your eyes on the road” may be replaced with “keep your eyes on the dash.”
Talking About the AirAsia Crash Report
A great discussion of the final report of last year’s AirAsia crash is taking place on the IPC TechNet listserv this week. Investigators say solder fatigue on the plane’s rudder control warning system precipitated the disaster.
To register, send an email using the following format:
SUBJECT:
MESSAGE: subscribe TechNet Your Name
Or click here for more details.
The Rule of 3/N for Estimating Field Failure Rates
Folks,
It looks like Patty is a bit troubled….
When she was younger, Patty was always annoyed by cranky old people, and now she was worrying that she might become one. The trigger making her cranky was what students know and don’t know. It all started when a colleague showed her the “Texas Tech Politically Challenged Video.”
“How could so many students not know who won the American Civil War, who the Vice President is, or who the United States won its freedom from?” she thought.
Some of her colleagues felt the video was staged, but the producers came up with a response video that strongly suggested that it was not. What was even more unsettling was the fact that all the students knew who Snooki was and who Brad Pitt’s wife was.
Some of Patty’s statistics students got wind of this video and decided to make a similar video at Ivy University. The results were mostly comforting: 49 out of 50 students knew who won the Civil War, and the one student who didn’t was from India. They also did well with some other questions, 85% knowing that Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union in World War II, and a high number knew that Joe Biden was the VP.
But Patty was most troubled that almost 50% did not know who wrote A Christmas Carol. She had discussed the topic with Rob and was further annoyed that he didn’t seem as troubled as she was. Rob pointed out that some international students might not have had English literature in their studies, and being a story about Christmas, it could be a cultural thing. Patty was unconvinced by his arguments. It still seemed troubling to her.
Charles Dickens in 1867, 24 years after he authored “A Christmas Carol”As she was mulling over these thoughts, the phone rang. It was Mike Madigan, CEO of her former employer, ACME.
“Hey, Patty, it’s Mike,” Madigan said cheerfully. “I need your help with a statistic problem. It might be good if Rob and Pete were involved, so could we do a teleconference?”
Patty scheduled the teleconference for later in the day. When the time came, Pete and Rob were in Patty’s office and she called Madigan. After exchanging pleasantries, Madigan got to the point.
“We have a demanding customer from the military,” Mike started. “They have a Zero Defects program and want to know how we can guarantee it after field exposure.”
“To clarify, you mean guarantee zero defects for units in the field?” Pete asked.
“Yeah,” Mike replied.
“The way I figure it, if we have 20 units in the field and none fail, we can say with 95% confidence that we have zero defects, because one unit is 5% of 20, and if none fail, that means we can be 100%-5% or 95% confident,” Mike said.
Patty instinctively reached for the mute button, as Rob and Pete went into hysterics. She glared at both of them.
“Hello, hello, are you there?” Mike asked as he heard no response.
Finally, with Patty continuing to glare, Pete and Rob had stopped laughing. So she unmuted the phone.
“Sorry Mike, the failure rate in the situation you described is that you can be 95% confident that is it less than or equal to 15%” Patty replied.
The other end of the conference call was quiet for a while and finally Mike answered,
“Yikes! OK, can you explain?”
“Patty and I have developed the math to explain how to calculate confidence limits on field failure rates,” Rob responded. “For 95% confidence we have developed what we call The Rule of 3/N.”
“How does it work?” Mike asked.
“If you have N samples in the field, and none have failed, you can say with 95% confidence that your failure rate is 3/N or less. As an example, let’s say you have 300 units in the field and none fail. You can then say with 95% confidence that the failure rate is less than or equal to 3/300 = 1/100 = 0.01 = 1%.”
“If we have 300 units with no fails, we can only have confidence in a 1% failure rate?” Mike groaned.
“One percent or less, with 95% confidence,” Patty chimed in.
Is demonstrating a 0% failure rate possible? Will Patty and the team find a way to help Mike? Stay tuned for more details.
Cheers,
Dr. Ron
IPC’s New PAC
Although it has maintained a presence in Washington for two decades, IPC long has resisted calls to join the ranks of other trade groups (and some of its own members) by forming a political action committee.
Apparently lobbying works. IPC announced this week the launch of its own PAC, which will raise money to educate policy makers on issues that affect the electronics manufacturing industry.
The eponymously named PAC will support pro-manufacturing candidates based on their positions on key policy issues, including environment; science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education; R&D investment; regulatory reform; and tax, IPC said. The trade group plans to raise money to impact the 2016 elections.
We’ve suggested in this space that the time might be right for IPC to do so. Having experienced (endured?) numerous IPC Capitol Hill Days, the name for the mostly annual trips to Washington to plead the industry’s case for various causes, we’ve seen firsthand how ineffectual a piecemeal program is. Like it or not, the US Congress responds better to cash than complaints.
Over the years, IPC has been effective in getting its members’ needs met in areas such as environmental and chemical reporting, but has been stymied getting traction on the financial side.
It did get the DoD to appoint a representative to address counterfeit parts, advanced technological capabilities, and manufacturing capacity. Given that the military is sourcing more and more parts from companies either primarily based offshore or directly from offshore suppliers, the jury is out as to whether this has helped. Likewise, it’s too early to get excited over last year’s introduction of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation (RAMI) Act, a one-time, $600 million investment in a network of regional institutes across the country, each focused on a unique technology, material, or process relevant to advanced manufacturing. While it passed the House, the bill remains bottled up in the Senate.
Outside of that, one highlight of success in Washington was the late 1990s resolution that the printed circuit industry represented a critical industry. We all know how that story ended.
We welcome this new approach to Washington by IPC. While it’s a bit sad that this is what it takes to move the needle these days, putting money in the Members of Congress’ pockets is a not only more realistic stance, but will likely prove a more effective one too.