At Issue

"At a time when nanotechnology is starting to trickle down into both consumer products and industrial applications, I don’t want to feel like I have to choose between progress and certain death."

by Luke Simpson, Associate Editor, Chem.Info

Yesterday marked 20 years since IBM researcher Don Eigler became the first person to move an individual atom, using the tip of his custom-built scanning tunneling microscope. Needing to show that he could do it with a high level of precision, Eigler later arranged 35 xenon atoms in the shape of his company’s logo.

Besides the great publicity for IBM, this demonstrated the atomic-level manipulation necessary to build molecular nanomachines first proposed by Richard Feymann in the 1950s.

Eigler’s accomplishment was seen by most as the dawn of an exciting new science with almost limitless applications, but others saw it as the beginning of the end. Three years earlier, engineer Eric Drexler coined the term “grey goo” in his 1986 book Engines of Creation — a doomsday scenario where out of control self-replicating robots consume the earth’s ecosystem before moving into space to attack other unsuspecting victims.

One grey goo scenario involves artificial nanoplants with “leaves” made of solar cells that out-compete real plants and fill the planet with inedible foliage.

Talk about a buzz kill.

At a time when nanotechnology is starting to trickle down into both consumer products and industrial applications, I don’t want to feel like I have to choose between progress and certain death.

I’m already a bit freaked out by the mouse eating coffee table that uses its prey to power a microbial fuel cell.

Maybe the doomsday squad members are revolutionary thinkers who will someday shake their heads and say “I told you so,” but I’m too much of an optimist to entertain the thought of microscopic machines taking over the earth.

The real threat to us humans is the possible toxicity of nanoparticles and the effects that they could have on the environment. Traditional chemicals-assessment and management approaches may not be adequate when applied to nanomaterials, paving the way for “green nanotechnology,” or the development of clean technologies that minimize potential environmental and human health risks associated with the manufacture and use of nanotechnology products.

I’m usually skeptical when someone slaps two buzzwords together like this, but I’m all for a system that ensures this technology is developed in a responsible fashion. The editor in me is impatient for new industrial applications to write about, but the environmentalist in me is happy to wait another 20 years while we get it right.

Do you think self-replicating nano-robots will take over the earth? Drop me a line at luke.simpson@advantagemedia.com.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below.

We’re a long way from the caveman and woman era. Women shouldn’t have to roar to get respect.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

Last week I had the pleasure to join some of my PD&D comrades at the Design & Manufacturing show in Rosemont, IL. I had the chance to see what’s new in the industry, scout out potential column ideas for PD&D, and work on my pitching skills to help promote our publication.

I learned a lot about the industry and the ins and outs of the business, but I was quite disappointed on how the experience ended.

During the show I was able to walk around on my own and strengthen the skills that my Editor, David Mantey, taught me on my first outing at the Rapid Prototyping show: making eye contact, firm handshake; asking questions on what’s new, how’s the show going, what can be expected – the works.

My confidence was building with each booth that I visited, and I felt more secure with what I discussed as I shook each hand. I was proud of my improvements and felt respected as I walked the showroom floor – that is until a reality-check moment, when I was referred to as “great eye candy” for the PD&D booth.

My initial reaction was to laugh, thinking to myself, “Wow, that’s suppose to be a compliment?” Then I realized it was my way to cover up the extreme urge I felt to reach across and strangle the individual who so bluntly blurted out the comment in an attempt to gain attention.

I was warned several times, about how things would be during some of these shows – but thanks to growing up with a brother who constantly banged on drums – I learned how to tune certain noise out, and direct my concentration towards other things. I never paid attention to the gawking stares or mumbled comments, until my guard was down and one simple comment made me realize the barriers that women still face in this male dominated industry.

The experience got me thinking. At first I was mad and extremely irritated, but then I just became disappointed. The lack of respect women receive in certain areas still boggles my mind.

Now I am not trying to preach for women’s rights or trying to make anyone feel guilty. I am just trying to point out how we’ve come a long way from the caveman era, but some individuals still find it the best way to get a woman’s head to turn, and completely ignore the underlying fact that it’s just plain insulting.

The intelligence that is brought to the industry by some women is sometimes overlooked, which I think can be deadly for certain companies, because the stereotypes that still exist, intimidate certain women from standing out, hindering the company’s potential.

I understand how natural instincts work and the urge to make certain comments – I’m just as guilty – but in a professional environment that deals with the promotion of the “cutting edge,” those old school instincts need to be put in check.

Some women may ignore the comments and smile through their teeth to prevent their rage, others take them with a grain of salt and use the negativity from them to push themselves harder towards success (if I’m told I can’t do something, I work twice as hard just to prove I can). But why? Why do some women still need to roar to demonstrate their knowledge and intelligence in certain areas? Have we not grown out of “males have larger brains than females” theories of our past? 

Some will shout “Yes,” while others will pretend not to hear or just flat out ignore the issue. Me, I’ll just take the comments with a grain of salt, keep pushing forward and never be intimidated to express my ideas.

What are your thoughts? Post comments below or send them to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com.

Innovation’s Wasteland

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director

While it’s not the first time a trip to Starbucks has helped propel my work, it usually has more to do with the caffeine kick then any topical inspiration. However, a visit last week offered some insight on both the innovation and challenges that lie ahead for a primary driver of many product development initiatives.

In particular, it wasn’t what I bought, but what was being given away at this particular location that got me thinking. On the counter, as I was picking up my order, sat a couple bags of used coffee grounds that were being offered free of charge for anyone who might want to use them as fertilizer in their gardens or flower beds. Although minimal, I’m sure this byproduct of Starbuck’s production process does encompass some disposal costs. So from their perspective, if they can lower their exposure and help someone else’s production efforts in the process, it’s a win-win.

For some in the energy development field, this dynamic might sound familiar.

It got me thinking about materials like sawdust, food scraps and other waste products that research and ingenuity have identified as either key components for, or the actual feedstock in developing new energy sources. While they were initially offered up at little or no charge by companies happy to get rid of these materials, they soon became a viable commodity with a new customer base. Competition for these waste products offered an opportunity for paper mills and food processors, for example, to establish a new, albeit small, profit center from what was just garbage not so long ago.

While the company creating these waste byproducts reaps a benefit, this dynamic also increases the operating costs of those trying to advance new energy sources. For example, in spending time with the folks at Schmack Bioenergy outside of Cleveland last fall, I learned that they recently began to get charged for the sawdust they had been getting for free. This is a key ingredient of their formula to process biowaste in creating energy that is sold back to the grid.

While I’d never fault anyone in their efforts to improve the bottom line, I just wonder if this type of market change could produce long-term hardships for a country that needs to overhaul its energy production and consumption strategies? I think this dynamic has the potential to test not only the viability of many approaches to new energy sources, but also limit the amount of work being done to push past what is currently in place and develop even more powerful and more efficient energy production methods.

Food scraps that were hauled to landfills not long ago are now being sold for use in oil creation. Cow manure seen as nothing more than field fertilizer is now powering digesters that feed local electrical grids. These are great developments, but as these initiatives progress, the challenge will lye in keeping the cost of these “wasteful” byproducts in line with the solution, and not become part of the problem.

Alex Davern, National Instruments, succinctly sums up our nation’s propensity to overspend

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

“Americans had a champagne taste while on a beer budget.”

It wasn’t a particularly life-shattering statement, but as a fan of idioms I was immediately drawn to attention. With it, Alex Davern, National Instruments’ (NI) CFO and senior vice president of manufacturing and IT operations, had succinctly summed up our nation’s propensity to overspend.

As a Wisconsinite, by location and stereotype, you can understand why my ears perked and I scribbled the sentence down to Google at a later date.

A few minutes into the NI expert panel On The Economy at NIWeek 2009 — which also featured president, CEO and cofounder Dr. James Truchard; vice president of marketing John Graff and senior vice president of sales and marketing Pete Zogas — and I thought Davern had concisely answered how we fell into this economic mess.

The recession was a moral issue; it was the morality of Wall Street, according to Truchard. The morality, or immoralities, of people who borrow money with no way of paying it back are at the root of this recession. This is the point when I began enjoying my glasses of wine with less moderation.

As I began to sweat with shame, I realized that I was closer to part of the problem than I was to the solution, from a personal perspective anyway. It’s not as though I had a multi-billion dollar corporation that tanked and ruined thousands of lives, or a Ponzi scheme that I was working beyond this thing I have going with motivational scratch-and-sniff stickers.

However, I sat there as a former student swimming in student loans, a former teen who thought it could be fun to fill out every credit card application and the not-so-proud owner of a condo that was purchased just in time for the housing market to crash – watching the value fall on your home and the community around you is similar to watching it go up in flames (speaking from experience), only it’s a much longer process. Think the last scene in Braveheart with fewer kilts. I have no one to blame but myself. Thankfully, I was quick to realize the black magic behind easy credit and I performed the ritualistic card cutting.

In the past, and at great length, I have discussed the power and importance of innovation in a down economy – I even have a coworker who refuses to speak, reference, write or elude to the term because it seems to be the economical talking heads’ new plaything.  

“Innovation is the one variable you can use to drive the [economic] healing,” says Davern, “but that’s not happening.”

According to Pete Zogas, innovation and supply and demand are going to be quite upset for some time because many companies are in a footrace to secure stimulus money. Truchard mentions that we all need to “keep common sense in the equation.” We cannot blindly follow a model and expect positive results.

If you have skimmed up to this point of the column, just say no to champagne and don’t be a lemming.

Drink beer when you’re on a beer budget. Build flexibility into a company, or your personal finance, with a cash reserve. “A recession is only a threat if you’re not prepared for it,” says Zogas. I continued to listen to the panel (in August) and questioned whether it was too late. Had I been in the same chair four years ago, would things be different? Probably, but I was never really able to see hindsight in 20/20.

A final thought lingered after I exited into the hall of the Austin Convention Center. Truchard (or Dr. T) says that the one good thing about a recession is the ability to recruit talent that would be otherwise impossible to lure. Thinking of the stacks of resumes from overqualified applicants flooding HR departments around the country, I looked back at my notes to recall some of Zogas’ closing remarks.

“New recruits feel like they can shoot for the stars,” says Zogas, “be it getting rich or making the world a better place.”

How about we all shoot to make the world a better place? And if a deserving few come into a pot of gold along the way, the champagne is on them.

Clearly. After all, my headline is ‘I’m No Genius.’

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

Only $100k a year for being a genius? Excuse me a moment while I toss out my Mensa study book in the recycling bin.

Suddenly I understood my friends’ pursuit of sedentariness and Uncle Sam teat suckling. Sure, you can bust your ass to one day be declared a genius – even though you often did so while stumbling through collegiate glory – or you can earn a livable percentage with a daily dose of The Price Is Right and Little Caesars for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Now that 30 is turning out to be the new 20 (if those in their 40s can say it’s the new 30, we can work off the same sliding scale), we just bought another decade of personal deniability. Here’s to silencing internal dialoge.

The idea of ever receiving a grant dubbed ‘genius’ proves to be decent water cooler fodder after Fantasy Football Week 2 dismay is exhausted and before lamentations focused on hump day misery. If you received one, what would you do with it? It’s a better conversation starter than anything lottery-focused. As a MacArthur Fellow, there is a bit more on the line rather than planning to buy a bitchin’ ride after you won on a $5 crossword scratch-off.

Even though your 2009 fellow Fellows would include an infectious disease physician, an ornithologist, a realist painter, a photojournalist, a bridge engineer, a climate scientist, an economist and a papermaker — you would also be in the company of a mental health lawyer and a poet, so your “potential to make important contributions in the future” wouldn’t be entirely unfeasible.

What would you do with $500,000 in no-strings support over the next five years? How would you take that $500,000 and try to make the world a better place?

The flickering candle of the remaining English major dreamer in my soul is still convinced that I’d attempt to shower the world with contemporary classics, maybe just a lone opus that would spiral into 2,000 pages of maniacal free association that would then be used by a future mental health Fellow to discover the trendy new mental disorder of our generation.

The idea behind the MacArthur grant is deceptively simple.  Here’s a check, go.

It seems that many of us have been following the carrot for too long to be able to fathom a life without it. It’s similar to an old friend’s wisdom behind his inability to dance. The mountain of a man has always been a lineman. Since he was in ninth grade, a coach told him where to move his feet until the whistle blew. When he was on the dance floor, he was lost without a gap to cover. Now, he’s a teacher with a gig coaching a new herd of rhythmless jocks – as a former jock who remains without rhythm, I have a license to poke fun.

I suppose the fine people at The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation do their best to make sure people like John A. Rogers of Urbana, IL, an applied physicist who is a leader in developing flexible electronic devices, and Theodore Zoli of New York, a bridge engineer who has made major technological advances to protect transportation infrastructure when there is a disaster, are the beneficiaries.

Who knows? Maybe they survey the line at Little Caesars while you wait for your Hot and Ready, too.

Spend a sentence; What would you do as a Fellow? Post below or email me at david.mantey@advantagemedia.com.

Mistakes are unavoidable. Take the criticism, shrug your shoulders and come up with something better.

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

We’ve all had those moments where we could not find a hole deep and dark enough to crouch in shame from some embarrassing situation or mistake. When eyes that stared at you; making some type of judgment or critical comment towards the cluelessness that was distributed because for a moment, the brain decided to stop functioning and look past the obvious. One of my moments occurred last week.

I had viewed a video on a new innovational device from Apple - or so I thought I did. The video was made by The Onion, which turns out to be a news station that basically pokes fun at the industry and certain products that enter into the market. This episode: the Apple MacBook, Wheel – a revolutionary laptop that ditched the keyboard and replaced it with a touch sensitive wheel.

I thought the idea was ridiculous, thinking to myself ‘Why replace something that’s been around for decades, with something that has to be relearned?’ The Onion thought the idea was ridiculous as well – hence the video poking fun at it – but I missed the joke completely and composed an article criticizing companies that try to take traditional concepts and designs and add their own flavor to them and messing up a classic idea. I even incorporated hamburgers – trust me it all made sense.

My editor informed me of my misunderstanding, and I would have loved to hear what he was actually thinking as I looked at him for a brief moment with a feeling of stupidity and utter embarrassment. But, like all the other times I found a way to entertain people with my cluelessness, I shrugged it off (pretended it didn’t happen) and thought about what else I could write about.

I came up with this: Industries across the board have brought so many innovational, revolutionary and just plain cool products to the market, but they wouldn’t have been possible without those moments of running away with the tail between the legs bit.

Designing always has room for upgrades, editing and improvements. Sometimes the first draft is filled with embarrassing assumptions or kinks that are only obvious when an important presentation is scheduled. If a design fails to be perfect once it hits shelves, the company that distributed it, risks having its reputation slandered by the majority. Products that come after the mistake will suffer extreme criticism, and it usually takes time for a company to recover once they have found a hole to quietly cry in.

Mistakes are excellent tools for self-improvement. In fact, I think they are the best tools. They help give us the best products that have come into the market. The companies that can shrug their shoulders and pretend like nothing ever happened are the ones that come out with the best merchandise.

A lot of engineers and designers have flopped, but the ones who have admitted defeat and moved on, have produced thinner laptops, faster computer chips, sleek futuristic cars that don’t run on gas and touchless video games that only need body movement and sound to work.

I support mistakes – the bigger the better – and I welcome criticism that follows. It not only helps designers and engineers across the board come up with better devices, it helps technology advance and increases competition.

What are some of your embarrassing mistakes? Share your thoughts below, or e-mail the really embarrassing one to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com.

I’m not writing about Mr. Borlaug in an effort to bring accolades to an unsung hero – although there may never be a more viable candidate.

by Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Do you know the name Norman Borlaug? Me neither, but I think it’s worth a minute of your time to learn a little more about an individual who might have been one of the single greatest human beings to ever walk this planet.

His life and the way he approached his passion also offers a blueprint from which we can model our pursuits, and the framework we put around them.

Mr. Borlaug passed away this week at the age of 95. His work in developing revolutionary types of disease-resistant wheat, higher-yielding corn and many other history-altering agricultural practices is credited with preventing the possible starvation of up to one billion people – that’s with a b folks.

Yet he passed with relative anonymity.

Although I can’t confess any more knowledge of the man than what I read in an on-line post, based on what his colleagues had to say it seems that his relative anonymity bothered him very little.

His work was his passion, and despite being one of the fortunate few who can point directly to its Nobel Prize winning impact, the related notoriety, or lack of it, appears to have been a non-factor. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack described him as, “Simply one of the world's best. A determined, dedicated, but humble man.”

I’m not writing about Mr. Borlaug in an effort to bring accolades to an unsung hero – although there may never be a more viable candidate. Rather, he serves as a prime example of the best way to go about one’s work in this age of recognition-based financial incentives, ridiculous reality show quasi-celebrities and a mainstream media that shifts its focus based on the next hot button topic.

We all have performance metrics that our supervisors may use or hold us accountable to in determining the quality or impact of our work. This, in addition to a more demanding consumer populous has lead to shorter product lifespans, greater competition along more fronts and an intense focus on tracking results and understanding ROI.

Some of these procedures are necessary, productive and help identify the positive and negative factors that either contribute to or detract from our goals. However, I think there’s a problem when we start to rely upon these sources, and the accolades that may or may not accompany them, as our sole measuring stick or motivational theme.

It can be easy to get caught up in whatever data, spreadsheet or tracking mechanism we’re viewing and lose sight of the most important factors that will always contribute to individual or project success – the passion of a human being to innovate and win. I’m not saying that the above-mentioned guideposts are inappropriate or unnecessary.

I know they can be extremely helpful and often part of standard operating procedures, but I’m also confident in saying that Norman Borlaug was probably driven less by the Nobel Prize, its corresponding inner circle notoriety or any validation of his work as he was by the passion he had for feeding the world.

I think that when one chooses a path based more on the things that drive them to get out of bed in the morning, the corresponding recognition, financial well-being, remainder of items documented throughout Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and most importantly, the proper results, will fall in to place accordingly. I guess my point is that while few would know Norman Borlaug if they shared an elevator with him or if he occupied the corresponding seat on a cramped plane – he could not have cared less.

Similarly, whether you’re designing a new type of alternatively fueled engine or simply writing a column, the best results won’t be garnered solely by paying tribute to a set of procedure-based performance metrics or professional recognition. But continuing to fuel the passion that drove you to get involved in the first place will.

Not all of us have the ability to feed a billion people, but when we do these things we do every day driven by passion and priority, the result will be more fulfilling for all involved.

Someone is fired up about her job, the meek and mild rally against her. I’m shocked. Gasp.

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

“Hey, Old Man River, zip it or I’ll break your hip.” – Sonny Koufax, Big Daddy

I realize that I lead a fairly unorthodox twentysomething life, but I never thought that I’d find myself in a heated debate with a fellow bar patron over how Serena Williams’ latest outburst translated to justified dedication in the workplace. And to quash premature speculation, the Packers were still in the first quarter of a 21-15 come-from-behind victory over Chicago. Bears fans, recognize.

Everyone was up in arms. How dare Serena? (As if amateur tennis fans around the world were suddenly on a first name basis with the star). Where does she get off? That’s not passion, that’s immaturity and has no place on the tennis court. After a line of serious questioning (one question), I found out that everyone in the argument didn’t even watch the match.

I found even more hilarity in the fact that they hadn’t a clue who was even on the other side of the court, or the circumstances surrounding the situation. Apparently, novice tennis aficionados only require a 10-second SportsCenter sound bite to condemn a career.

My fellow debaters’ childlike opinions aside, my point was this: I am passionate about my job. If you tell me I am wrong when I believe I’m right, we will engage in a gentlemanly disagreement. Now, it may not be an obscenity-laced, blood-curdling tirade (depending on the other parties involved and his/her ability to terminate me on the spot), but I’m going to support my decisions and/or stand up against those imposed upon me with which I disagree.

If you catch me on a bad day, I might even combat the decisions I agree with – thus an associate coining the expression, "playing the David’s Advocate." Poor company? Probably, but easier on the ears than ‘devil.’

What happened to the passion in the workplace? The state of the economy seems to have scared too many into tail-tucked passivity. And we’re tucking while paying 2009 prices on a 1997 income according to the U.S. Census Bureau – so I suppose that we’re tucking while collectively bending over. I imagine it winds up looking like something similar to the fetal position.

I understand the demand to work harder/longer, I just don’t know how so many are doing it without passion, without fire. We’re not even smoldering if we’re out to condemn the most public spectacle of workplace passion. I’ll choose to maneuver around other more political examples, because in my experience most people don’t even rely on the sound bite; their opinions are fear-based and older than their mothballed letterman’s jacket. When did people stop reading? I digress …

This was a part of Serena’s first statement, one that had to be amended when her handlers/agent/publicist probably feared that her fans would stop buying double-stuffed Oreos after they witnessed the tragic slaying of a high-priced tennis racquet and were forced to Mad Lib the words hidden behind that horrifying BLEEP. 

“Last night everyone could truly see the passion I have for my job. Now that I have had time to gain my composure, I can see that while I don't agree with the unfair line call, in the heat of battle I let my passion and emotion get the better of me and as a result handled the situation poorly.”

So it wasn’t a beacon of professionalism, but I’ll take passion over complacency in any job candidate.

Trust that I’m not stoking the fire under the resident company blowhard. We can all finger the one or many who jockey for air time on a conference call – this is typically the same group you find repeating daily affirmations in the bathroom after that first cup of coffee. Not only are they blocking you from the lone urinal, but they’re standing two feet from the mirror and working on the script to a Stuart Smalley update while you’re trying to reach the recycled paper towel. Excuse me sir, yes, you are good enough and smart enough, but the hot air is starting to make my hands clammy.

When did it become wrong to ask why? When did it become wrong to question? When did it become wrong to say, “With all do respect sir, I don’t believe that you could be further from the truth?”

“It’s nice to see headlines about testing phase mileage, and I know this is a necessary part of the research, but in order to gain public support, we need more.”

by Anna Wells, Editor, IMPO

I have to admit I was somewhat disappointed in the article I recently read on GM’s 1 million milestone in the company’s fuel cell test fleet vehicle experiment.

While this is an impressive feat, I didn’t find the facts as uplifting as I’d hoped.

Considering this technology has been tabled for ages based on infrastructure and cost issues, it was less than optimistic to see the latest hurdles… infrastructure and cost issues. Worse, the cost issues are completely indefinable, considering the auto companies won’t discuss what these current prototypes cost or what we can anticipate on a larger scale.

The article instead highlighted “user acceptance” type issues—as in, the driver’s level of comfortability in using the new technology. Perhaps I’m being cynical here, but doesn’t the user’s very involvement in this test program indicate a certain level of faith and interest in the success of hydrogen? I think it’s a foregone conclusion that these folks are onboard.

What I don’t think is a foregone conclusion is how we plan to make it cost effective and business savvy for existing fuel station owners to replace a few gas pumps with hydrogen. Or what happens when—as was relayed anecdotally in the article—a user of the 168-mile capacity unit stalls a few miles from the nearest refilling station.

Don’t get me wrong: I fully support this technology, and would love to see it succeed. I guess my problem lies with these pat-on-the-back type sound bites that temporarily blur the larger picture. We have a long way to go here, and a million mile mark is only a small piece of a large, highly complex puzzle.

I think now is a good time for companies like GM to really step up their marketing efforts to address the FAQs that most folks have: Now that’s we’re a thousand miles in, what more do we know about the viability of this technology? How do we take this from the test phase to the roads, and will it be cost effective? It’s nice to see headlines about testing phase mileage, and I know this is a necessary part of the research, but in order to gain public support, we need more. Otherwise this idea gets shoved in the areas of people’s brains reserved to fuzzy, feel-good ideas that never gain shape outside of their theoretical concepts.

Someday I hope we’ll all be waving to one another from the lanes of a hydrogen highway, but envisioning it with my own tools is a poor recreation. I’d rather have GM paint me a picture.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below or send them to anna.wells@advantagemedia.com

Has Moore's Law outlived its usefulness?

by Nancy Maas, Editor-in-Chief, Wireless Design

There is an interesting topic being debated on various industry blogs right now. One that is very polarizing and may impact the semiconductor industry far beyond what we have seen thus far. The critical question seems to be: How long will Moore's Law be reliable?

Moore's Law, named after Intel Corporation co-founder Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. The starting point for this exponential growth curve is usually set at 1962, the period of time when the first silicon planar transistors were designed and tested. Purists will note that Moore defined the rule originally in relation to ICs alone, since the microprocessor was not even a possibility to a design engineer at the time.

For more than four decades chip geometries have gotten smaller and smaller, allowing Moore's Law to remain viable. But will we be able to make the same statement a decade from now?

By 2014, the high cost of semiconductor manufacturing equipment will threaten Moore's Law, "altering the fundamental economics of the industry," according to a report released in June by iSuppli.

"The usable limit for semiconductor process technology will be reached when chip process geometries shrink to be smaller than 20 nanometers (nm), to 18 nm nodes," said Len Jelinek, director and chief analyst, semiconductor manufacturing, for iSuppli. "At those nodes (levels), the industry will start getting to the point where semiconductor manufacturing tools are too expensive to depreciate with volume products, i.e., their costs will be so high, that the value of their lifetime productivity can never justify it."

Fortunately, there are companies that still continue to invest in developing chip geometries. Intel, for example, is currently in the process of moving to a 32-nanometer manufacturing process; and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has moved to 40-nanometer. However, there are other companies that have already found chip making prohibitively expensive and are unable to make the necessary investment in updated fabs and equipment.

I do believe we have at least another decade where this rule will be applicable. Manufacturers of advanced semiconductor products will continue to migrate to more advanced small-geometry processes in order to stay competitive. The landscape is what might change. We may not see as many peaks and valleys and a slowdown in process technology transitions will be inevitable for some. Semiconductor manufacturers will need to get the most revenue out of their current geometries before moving on to the next level.

Let me know what you think? Will we continue to see exponential growth in the semiconductor industry as we have for decades? Post your comments below.

"Energy efficiency, sustainability and cute Muppet characters are not the main reasons why I make certain purchases."

by Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

I found my daughter’s shirt at Target for $5.99. I didn’t purchase it for the simple message displayed on the front – Kermit the Frog’s face caught my eye, and I’ve always been a fan. I noticed the message while I was waiting in the checkout line, and smiled at the clever PR attempt that environmentalists seem to be taking to inform the younger generation about “Keeping it green.”

Energy harvesting, sustainability and efficiency are becoming the new “fads”– manufacturing, automotive and other industries worldwide seem to be jumping on the sustainable bandwagon.

When I was younger, environmentalists were considered hippies and tree huggers – lately, they seem to be the next Paris Hilton or Lexus of the time. Wind, solar and electric powered products are not only being promoted on television and news articles, but the message of energy efficiency is appearing on children’s toys, games and attire.

Disney has gathered 29 of its pop stars to appear on camera to perform a song and dance about its Project Green Friends for Change. Children are encouraged by Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers to reduce their footprint by taking power showers and unplugging their phone chargers – if they don’t they risk the chance of not being “hip”.

The automotive industry handed out checks for gas-guzzling cars – let’s bribe people to be more energy aware by persuading them to get rid of their inefficient clunkers and trade it for a more environmental friendly vehicle. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be a part of anything that clunked.

The infrastructures of certain buildings are adapting specific technology to help “keep it green” as well. Kettle Foods in Beloit, WI has incorporated wind, solar and biofuel products to increase its sustainability.

Central High School in Providence, RI is not only promoting how it will combine technical and academic rigor, but how it’s new facility will provide solar/thermal water heaters; waterless and low-flow fixtures; high-efficiency boilers; and mechanical and electrical systems designed to reduce energy consumption by 40 percent; truly making it a school of the future.

Companies emphasize green features in their products as part of their sales pitch to get people interested in purchasing them. But are they really concerned about global warming and reducing CO2 emissions as they are about a profitable PR campaign? Most likely not.

It seems like no one paid attention until pop and movie stars – and Kermit the Frog – started saying “Keep it green.” Now, it’s a saying that helps major industries increase their supply and profits.

I get it – green technology is important for reducing harmful emissions, overpopulated landfills and unnecessary energy consumption. I got it when I was a child answering the door to the local college kids that handed out the recyclable flyers preaching the same message as my daughter’s shirt.

But energy efficiency, sustainability and cute Muppet characters are not the main reasons why I make certain purchases. The lifespan, look, function, and most of all price, are my main concerns; and if they help save us from global warning, I consider it a bonus. 

Are you really aware of the green features industries are trying to promote in their products, and are they what you consider when purchasing your products? Tell me your thoughts by posting your comments below or sending them to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com.

Survival tips for rafting and bear attacks

by Johnny Quickparts, Acme Design

July was National Parks and Recreation Month, and in the spirit of connecting with nature, I went on a camping and rafting trip. Before I continue with the story, I feel that I should say that it has been a while since I connected with the outdoors. My last camping trip occurred in Elementary school with my Boy Scout troop. We all sat around the campfire and our parents lead us in songs while strumming on a guitar. We grilled hot dogs on sticks and made s’mores on the fire; all without a care in the world. This trip, I was going to get a full dose of the real wilderness. I can break the trip down into two main adventures with lessons to be learned from both.

First, I went whitewater rafting. After a very brief tutorial on how to navigate an inflated raft down “wicked cool rapids” as the guide called them, we put on some gear and started heading down to the river. The water was freezing and there were some major raft-gouging rocks in this stream! I was quickly reconsidering my rafting choice, but decided to stick it out. I am an intelligent and relatively athletic man; I can beat this river. In preparation for my trip, I researched all of the do’s and don’ts for rafting such as:

• Understanding rapids and the different levels of difficulty.
• Wearing the appropriate gear for the weather and water temperature.
• Choosing a reputable outfitter (company that offers rafting expeditions).
• Knowing what to expect if an emergency occurs.

One thing that I did not account for, however, was the fishing activity that I inadvertently interrupted during the trip. The fisherman that I am referring to was a colossal Grizzly bear who was fishing in the same spot that I was rafting! None of the preparation guides that I read discussed the scenario that I presently found myself in. Thankfully, the water was moving fast enough to evade the hungry predator, and although scared beyond words, I was ok.

My second adventure occurred on land, but was closely related to the first. Once we completed the rafting trip, we hiked into the woods and set up our campsite for the night.  I set up my tent and sleeping quarters and began to start a fire. While cooking hot dogs over the fire, I noticed some rustling in nearby bushes. I watched the bushes for a while, hoping to catch a glimpse of a cute bunny or deer eating the foliage. What I saw lead to what can only be described as the worst feeling I have ever had in my life. 

Out of the bushes came the huge Grizzly bear who’s lunch I had interrupted only hours ago! I panicked and ran, as fast as I could, while the bear chased me. As I zigzagged though the woods, I tried to plan my escape. The only option that seemed possible was climbing a tree to escape from the beast, so I quickly chose one that I thought I could climb. I scampered up the tree as fast as I could, and luckily my attacker was much too large to continue the pursuit. That was a close call. 

Since this encounter, I did some research on how to handle a bear attack. I would like to share my findings with you so that you will be prepared should the situation arise for you. 

• Scope out your area for signs of a bear
• If you are in a camp, put your food, trash, cooking gear, etc at least 12 ft up a bear pole or tree at a safe distance from your campsite
• If you see a bear from a distance, wave your hands and make lots of noise – bears are not interested in confrontation unless necessary
• Carry “bear spray” with you if you plan to be in an area inhabitant with bears
• If the bear comes for you, drop to the fetal position with your hands crossed over your neck until the bear leaves
• If the bear still attacks, fight back and make as much noise as possible.

I wish that I had known these survival techniques for my trip, but I will definitely know how to deal with bears for any future trips. Until next time, design with the world in mind. Johnny out!

Bio: Johnny Quickparts has earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and graduated with summa cum laude honors. While in college, Johnny was a member of Pi Tau Sigma and Tau Beta Pi. After he graduated college, Johnny’s first engineering job was with Boeing working on the Space Station Freedom. Seeking more of a challenge, Johnny left Boeing and went to work for Acme Design Corporation, where he is currently employed. At Acme, Johnny was part of the team that created Rosie, the Jetson’s robot maid and Batman & Robin’s utility belts.

Instead of prioritizing one topic, here are some thoughts on a couple of different topics that I hope you’ll have some time to comment on, rant about or debate

By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

This column is one of the coolest things about my job. I enjoy it because:

1. I get to put a lot of what’s rattling around in my head on paper, which for anyone who enjoys writing is a definite perk.
2. There’s a great sense of accomplishment that not only comes in creating a unique (and hopefully useful or at least semi-entertaining) written piece, but the immediate feedback that I receive, both good and bad. It’s that interaction with you and this sense of community that helps guide our actions about the quality of the product we’re providing.

One of my biggest challenges is usually deciding what to write about, and then organizing my thoughts in a clear, coherent manner – with caffeine usually playing a key role in that effort. Today, I’ve decided to venture down a new path and instead of prioritizing one topic, offer some thoughts on a couple of different ones that I hope you’ll have some time to comment on, rant about or debate with me:

• My oldest daughter started 1^st grade today. I’m not sure which scared me more; the fact that she’s now in “real” school or that she was sporting a Hannah Montana t-shirt and singing to one of her songs on the way. This somewhat dramatic event, along with a recent post discussing mentorship got me thinking about individual workplace interactions and the resulting struggles or benefits. You see, my daughter was a little anxious because 1^st grade is going to be harder than kindergarten, and there’s less play time. It’s tough to not appreciate her point. However, I decided to play off the great big heart contained in her thin 50-lb. frame and quelled some of her fears by letting her know that because it would be more difficult, there would be more chances to help her friends and that they would also help her. That seemed to both lift her spirits and offer some perspective on this type of interaction, which should surge beyond classrooms with bubble gum machine bulletin boards. She embraced the opportunities to both help and be helped. I think it’s a great attitude from which to gleam. It’s easy to get so focused on showcasing one’s own abilities that we fear what others will think if we ask for clarification or a helping hand. Other times we’re resistant to be that mentor which a less experienced cohort may require. The problem is that we all know how embracing both roles can save time, reduce mistakes and enhance the end result. Hopefully next time my daughter won’t need the same type of musical inspiration to show me the light.
• One of the more significant local stories here in Wisconsin, now that we have Brett Favre voodoo dolls at the ready, has been the loss of nearly 900 jobs at a Mercury Marine plant. Basically, the company wanted to re-structure a labor contract or they were going to move these positions to a non-union shop in Oklahoma. The union wouldn’t budge, so in a cost cutting measure, it looks like more boat motors will be coming from Sooner nation than America’s Dairyland. While I hate to see the jobs leave my native state it does make me wonder about the tactics the local union employed. The company stated that unless concessions were made, the jobs would leave. Workers voted against any changes and then seemed disappointed when Mercury made its decision. Granted, I don’t know the ins and outs of the situation and Mercury is going against a written agreement, but it made me wonder if unionized shops aren’t going the way of the Dodo? No one can argue their historical impact and relevance, but these jobs weren’t moved to Taiwan; they’re going to Stillwater, OK. Can U.S. manufacturing stay competitive with a unionized workforce? Is this really just one of a number of historical elements that are keeping American manufacturers from being competitive on a global scale? Innovation is what keeps all markets moving forward. Maybe it’s time to reassess more than just manufacturing inefficiencies in this country, but also focus on the underlying fabrics of our production ideologies?
• Finally, I had another interesting conversation with my oldest daughter about Labor Day. Although I’m biased about the source, I have to say I was pretty impressed. Most 6-year-olds don’t care why they don’t have to go to school on a particular day. They’re just happy for the extra time at the playground, riding their bike and watching Phineas & Ferb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_and_Ferb) cartoons. Describing to her why we all get a day off of work or school to celebrate one last dose of summer helped bring things into greater personal perspective. As soon as she learned that I didn’t have to go to work, she leapt off the couch and gave me a big hug. While the hug was great, it also brought home a pretty powerful point. I’ve stated in this space before how much I like what I do. That zeal and an embedded competitive drive often translates into longer hours, putting out fires over family dinners or possibly being interrupted during field trips to the zoo to answer work-related questions. Judging from your comments and the personal interactions we’ve had, I know you can appreciate my point. I’ll never vilify those things because it would be hypocritical. I also have zero guilt regarding the hours I work or explaining that dynamic to my daughters. However, maybe for one day we can all try to side-step those responsibilities and reflect on greater priorities. So I’d challenge you to take this upcoming Labor Day holiday to heart. While I initially figured I’d use part of it trying to catch up on e-mail and clear off some of those less pressing tasks, I’ll now try to resist that temptation. Penguins hate cell phone ringers anyway.

What's your take? Post comments below.