Mirasol the Butterfly Wing Display

Mirasol Color eReader display

I had heard about this technology several times over the years and had not realized that Qualcomm had commercialized it and is actually selling some units though they have not yet had a big ‘insertion’ win as like Nook, Kindle or the like.  Unfortunately the first application the Kybo Reader is disappointing and if Qualcomm is not careful it could relegate the technology however good, to backwater.

Mirasol is like eInk a micro machine reflective display and not an emitter of light like an LCD, AMOLED even a plasma display is.  The early insight that lead to the Mirasol is that the ‘scales’ on the wings of a butterfly get their vivid colors from an optical ‘trick’ rather than from brute coloration. The scales are very thin and essentially colorless, made of that basic creep bug shell stuff, chitin. The scales are made up of layers of transparent chitin of varying thickness.  Light passes through the first layer and is selectively reflected because the thickness of the layers creates an optical cavity that selectively reflects light of a certain frequency while absorbing other frequencies. 

Official description Here:  Mirasol is made up of millions of pits with reflective bottoms with a multi layer thin-film ‘scale’ floating in the pit.  The pit is a form of capacitor that can be positively or negatively charged, in one state the ‘scale’ floats to a position where the pit is a light trap, so it looks black, in the other state the ‘scale’ floats to a position where it reflects Red, Green or Blue very strongly.  While changing charge state takes energy once changed there is all but no power demand.  The ‘floating’ up and down is over a very short distance and happens very quickly, so you can create a video image with the technology, even in video mode its much less energy intensive than an LCD.

Since it is reflective not emitting it is sunlight readable, in fact like a book the brighter the light the better.  It’s an efficient reflector so it’s actually quite readable in dim light and would need only a modest book light to make it readable in the dark.  This may make it marginally less compatible with capacitive touch screens, but its possible that other technologies will replace the capacitive screen (I hope) like this interesting concept that turns any surface into a multi-touch interface.

This technology seems ideal for an eReader like the Nook Color that is not intended as a full function tablet but wants to be more the an eReader (eInk really sucks at anything other than page rendition) though it’s quite possible the technology will come on gangbusters for all portables if the technology is really as good as it purports.

Who is Qualcomm and why does it seem strange for them to be in this business?  Qualcomm is the company that developed the CDMA (code division multi access)technology used in many phones today, as well as related technologies and has managed to leverage that into one of the significant if somewhat odd players of the mobile tech.  For many years they were pushing the PCA phones, the first digital microcell technology that disrupted the old analog cell phone monopolists.  THough they started on the digital side eventually they got into the business of designing the chip set for the radio in the phones. I believe it was Qualcomm that effectively proved that SiGe and even pure Si could compete with GaAs chips for the high performance radio frequency parts.  Especially when they showed that they could integrate the radio on a single chip and eventually on the chip with the digital parts. They were an early SOC (system on a chip) player.  Now they license the ARM technology used in most smart phones and they build one of the competitors in the tablet and smartphone processor offerings.  The work on Radio frequency devices gave them experience in MEMS (micro electro mechanical systems) which is the manufacturing technology behind Mirasol.  I would imagine that they see a long-term synergy between all these pieces, they essentially build the complete electronic kit set (including smart screen) that a OEM (original equipment manufacturer ) can put in a custom case with their choice of battery and interface thus providing the ability for and OEM to have highly distinctive product without having to have the expensive engineering resources required to design custom electronic ‘guts’ of their custom (semi custom really) product. 

Its a bit like Chrysler designing a car kit, the sub frame, engine, suspension, transmission, electric and electronic systems that some custom builder then can take and design a shell around, making it into a sedan, hatchback, coupé, minivan, pickup truck, delivery van, taxi etc….which come to think of it is how many car companies work these days with ‘platforms.’

Sorry used to play in these waters a bit, and still find the technology and business fascinating, Qualcomm is an interesting success story who flies under the radar most of the time.  I think the are like a company I work with today, they feel that constant PR flack barrage some companies put out are more about ego and stock price massaging than anything else, while being both a waste of money and potentially self-defeating by giving away too much information and setting the participants up for a fall.

This can be interpreted as negative, but is it? And are there other factors?

Plant Power alone sucks up $$$

From Technology Can We Build Tomorrow’s Breakthroughs? I think the answer is a resounding yes though I agree there is reason to be cautious.

Charts discussing manufacturing in the US
Does this represent net loss or just change?

As I have discussed before there is at least reasonable evidence that manufacturing in the US is on the upswing and while the charts paint a disappointing picture one has to be a bit careful about what is being measured. If mass production were giving way to boutique build +value add, might one miss it because we are importing what are essentially the bricks and mortar (which we by the way mostly designed or own a big part of) and the customization and final build (with their higher margins and more creative content) is done here?

There is an interesting section in here dealing with the founder of A123 and then with a couple of solar cell manufacturers.  And the author makes some very telling points.  I think they should be emphasized:

  1. Unless there is a very fundamental change in a product, improving process technology to produce a that product will not start out producing a cheaper product and unless you can get over the hump of higher cost and lower sales the guy with the bog standard product and highly refined standard process will eat you alive.
  2. Controlling one (however important) process or input material does not mean you control the market, a sudden change in market dynamics, possibly one you created, can suddenly pull the prop out from under you and if you only have one prop you are finished.
  3. Getting from prototype to production is horribly expensive especially in a mass market (which are almost by definition price sensitive and commoditzed ones) A first article will cost you K, getting that product in front of customers is likely to cost you 2 time K and getting into production 5 times to 10 times as much again, sometimes many times more. 
    1. Why you Ask? Because you can do a lot of research for say $1M, that’s enough to support three or four researchers for a year.  But once you have to show it to a customer you have to be able to replicate the work and make either a full scale device and or prove you can do so repetitively or have a process that scales from desktop to garage at least and that usually takes 2 or 3 years or 2 or 3 times as much effort and expense.  The when you go to production you now have to build a factory staff it, train the staff, fill out all the paperwork, pay the lawyers to make sure you’re not doing anything illegal etc, etc.  And you then have to make enough of your product to put on the shelf and most of the time you have to price it at well below cost because the first batches and the smaller batches are much, much, MUCH more expensive than the run of the lot will be later and you cannot charge 10x the expected price.  Selling the first  ???  units at an average of 1/?? their actual cost can eat up a huge amount of money.

The first comment after the article makes the point that established companies have in my way of thinking ‘normalized and processed’ innovation out of their main line business because of the costs.  It is easy to project cost and risk with incremental improvements.   The costs and risks of really new products/processes (disruptive ones) are much more uncertain, and few managers are allowed the latitude to innovate in big, risky ways. 

But this circles back around, does this in fact facilitate the creative destruction that the US industrial base has depended on.  Once large corporations run by bull-headed industrialists did the risky stuff.  When that generation was replaced by the MBA brigade they froze up.  Then the innovations erupted in a series of mid rankers with mavericks at their head or in a series of entrepreneurial start-ups who then took down many of the old guard.  Are we seeing the wake of another change of phase…

Anyway a good article but don’t take it as gloom and doom, its pretty evenly pro as well as con.

The wheel first and still evolving

20111204-131556.jpg
The Bridgestone man at work looks cool and has some advantages, like no punctures.

The spokes are made of reusable thermoplastic resin. In design, interest is drawn toward the thermoplastic fins, staggered so that connections to the hub and the rim do not torque and there is no structural breakdown. The tires’ resin spokes radiate from rim to tread. They curve to the left and right to support vehicle loads.

But one wonders about delamination at speed, effects of dirt and grime etc. But eventually this looks likely to come, their looking at light weight low speed applications first. If we ever see them on r ace cars we’ll know the technology is almost ready for prime time. Michelin and Yokohama have been working on ‘airless’ tires for years as well.

Also in the world of the wheel, another Michelin tech lead:

20111204-132829.jpg

Each Michelin in-wheel motor weighs 42 kilogram (95 pound) and includes a 30 Kilowatt water-cooled drive motor of a similar size to a conventional starter motor. The motor has a spur gear that drives a rind gear on the hub. A second electric motor operates the active suspension via a gear rack and pinion that effectively replaces the normal hydraulic shock absorber (no news on if they are used as regenerative shocks). There is also a coil spring to hold the static load of the car and a small outer rotor disc brake. The wheel motor is attached to the vehicle chassis by a single lower control arm suspension arrangement.

The advantage here is that every wheel station on the car is identical, just programmed to be right front vs. left rear, no heavy suspension elements in the body so a simpler/rugged/lighter cargo tub for the fragile humans. This was the concept that GM touted when they were head over ass in love with fuel cells and the ‘skateboard’ that eventually faded away to make way for the Volt.

Ink Jet electronics progress

Ink-Jet Printed Graphene Electronics

Okay this brings back memories, as a young engineer I supported-oversaw ManTech R&D on ink jet printing of electronic circuits and the development of ink tech. Different time, place, technology but still cool and promising especially for the US I think the center of custom/additive manufacturing.

To get the geek juices flowing in any ManTech junkies here is the abstract:

We demonstrate ink-jet printing as a viable method for large area fabrication of graphene devices. We produce a graphene-based ink by liquid phase exfoliation of graphite in N-Methylpyrrolidone. We use it to print thin-film transistors, with mobilities up to~95cm^2V^(-1)s(-1), as well as transparent and conductive patterns, with~80 % transmittance and~30kOhm/sq sheet resistance. This paves the way to all-printed, flexible and transparent graphene devices on arbitrary substrates

HiTech & HiCost why the AirForce can’t afford itself

20111127-141612.jpg
A very good post on Strat Page regarding the F22 and the cost of upgrades, original program and maintenance. It concludes with these two paragraphs which I think clearly state the problem.

New technology gives a weapon, especially an aircraft, an edge in combat. But since World War II, most military technology has been developed in peacetime conditions. This means it is more than twice as expensive, as there is no wartime urgency to overcome bureaucratic inertia (and emphasis on covering your ass, which is very time consuming and expensive) and hesitation (because you don’t have a war going on to settle disputes over what will work best). Developing this new technology takes longer in peacetime, which also raises the cost, and fewer units of a new weapon are produced (driving up the amount of development cost each weapon will have to carry.) If several hundred B-2s were produced under wartime conditions, each aircraft would have probably cost $200 million, or less. In other words, a tenth of what it actually cost. Same deal with the mythical $35 million F-22, or any other high tech weapon.

Other nations have adapted more effectively to peacetime development conditions. But the United States has the largest amount of peacetime military research and development, and this has created a unique military/industry/media/political atmosphere that drives costs up to the point where voters, politicians and the media will no longer support them.