Category Archives: LEDs

Click here to enlarge image

ALBANY, N.Y., May 13, 2004 — Come this fall semester, Albany Nanotech and the University at Albany will open one of the world’s first full-fledged College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE).

On April 20, the State University of New York’s board of trustees approved a plan proposed by Gov. George Pataki in January to upgrade Albany’s current academic program, a school awarding doctorates and master’s in six areas of study, to an official college.

Located in the same fast-growing facilities that house Albany’s nanoelectronics center and the International SEMATECH North consortium, CNSE, which Albany Nanotech Executive Director Alain Kaloyeros pronounces “sense,” will be an unconventional institution bridging the academic and business worlds.

Click here to enlarge image

Ph.D.s and M.S. degrees won’t be awarded in traditional fields such as physics or chemistry, but will revolve around novel multidisciplinary “clusters” such as Nanosystems Sciences and Technologies or Molecular Materials and Architectures.

Similarly, faculty won’t be hired into narrow academic silos or work within a typical departmental structure, said Kaloyeros. Nor will professor “own” their own labs in the way some at other universities inhabit tenured fiefdoms.

But professors will have the opportunity to work across disciplines, teach both students and visiting researchers from the corporate world, and keep feet in both academia research and industrial commercialization.

Professor Eric Lifshin, who came to Albany from General Electric’s nearby global research center and heads CNSE curricula committee, noted that while Albany Nanotech has a close relationship with the semiconductor industry, the scope of the college will be broader than nanoelectronics. “We’ll be working with MEMS, optoelectronics, thin films and many other aspects of nanotechnology.”

The real test, of course, is whether such a way new school can attract top faculty and students, and shape both into a new generation of nanotechnologists.

Currently, the college has about 25 faculty members and 75 students, but Kaloyeros expects the faculty to grow to 75 by 2006, and student enrollment to reach 500 in five years. Already, more than 250 researchers from companies including IBM, Infineon Technologies AG, Advanced Micro Devices and others are on site, gearing up to work in the mammoth 425,000-square-foot Albany Nanotech

complex that will be the college’s home. Albany officials expect to host more than 1,000 industry researchers by the end of 2006.

Kaloyeros said CNSE will do things that colleges haven’t traditionally done, such as work with community colleges to train technicians, tool operators and software specialists for a nanotech workforce. He also sees the college growing beyond the physical nanosciences to include nanobiotechnology and even nanoeconomics, the business of small tech.

“This is the biggest experiment I’ve ever been involved with,” said associate professor Robert Greer, who came to Albany from the Naval Research Laboratory in 1996. Greer conceded that the college’s novel strategy is unproven, and that Albany doesn’t yet have the academic brand power of a Stanford, MIT or Harvard. But for the grad students already working with him on projects such as building devices stacked on top of each other, he noted that most of them get to dive immediately into research and work in teams.

Greer, other faculty and students all said that one of the CNSE’s greatest attraction is the access it offers to some of the most advanced tools and technologies in the world which are being tested and developed through Albany Nanotech and SEMATECH in the consortium’s R&D fab. Rubbing elbows with researchers from Intel, Veeco and Motorola is another obvious appeal.

With respect to tools, a tour of the burgeoning complex included a look at the latest in atomic layer deposition tools, the Genus Strategem 300, being used to develop an advanced infrared sensor system for Raytheon. A visit to the metrology group led by Lifshin, showed a $900,000 instrument that Carl Zeiss NTS GmbH was calibrating. Michael Fancher, Albany Nanotech’s director of economic outreach, said the device was a kind of Swiss Army Knife of tools, able to take a range of images, chemically analyze a sample and even etch or carve into a surface.

For Kathleen Dunn, an associate professor with expertise in leading-edge measuring tools, the appeal of joining CNSE was a matter of “being involved in something from the start and having a role in how it takes shape.”

On the subject of measurement, James Yardley, director of Columbia University’s NSF-funded nanocenter, said that Albany Nanotech has built an impressive operation in a short period of time, but the most important question about this first college of nanotechnology is how its success will be measured.

Indeed, Pataki has put his political weight behind the college’s creation and Albany Nanotech as part of a statewide initiative to renew upstate New York’s economy by turning the capital district into “Tech Valley” to rival its silicon counterpart in California.

On that score, observers agree that CNSE will make sense if it can help solve some of the significant challenges in commercializing nanotechnology. As part of Albany Nanotech’s grand plan, it must also mint scientists and engineers who will build companies that will put down roots in the region and serve as a talent pool to attract existing firms.

May 6, 2004 – Technology exports from South Korea were up more than 42% in April to $5.88 billion, the ninth consecutive month of year-on-year growth, according to the Ministry of Information and Communication. Major contributors to the increase were a 57% boost in semiconductors to $2.19 billion due to stable DRAM prices, and a 64% rise in mobile phones. The trade surplus for overall IT products reached $2.46 billion for the month, and $9.7 billion for the first four months of the year.

Despite the positive numbers, South Korea’s electronics industry could be facing “huge challenges” over the next couple of years due to a lack of protection in intellectual property, according to an analyst quoted by local newswires.

Speaking at the Seoul Digital Forum, iSuppli president and CEO Dan Lidow said that although the country is a recognized leader in DRAM, TFT-LCD panels, and mobile phones, manufacturers are particularly vulnerable to IP rights including core technologies and patents.

He cited that at the end of 2003, South Korean companies accounted for 2.25% of all patents relating to OLEDs. Also, the top buyers of electronic parts account for 53% of all purchases worldwide, which will “significantly affect South Korean companies’ prices and profitability,” Lidow said.

May 6, 2004 – According to the latest data from the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), chip sales in 1Q04 — typically a slow post-holiday period — blew the doors off of historical norms.

Worldwide chip sales (a three-month moving average) rose 4.4% to $16.28 billion in March, up from $15.58 billion in February and a 32.3% increase from March 2003. Year-on-year, sales growth achieved a 3.5-year high, besting February’s 30.7% mark. For the first quarter, global sales were $48.8 billion, up 34% from 1Q03 — and also up 1.4% from the seasonally strong 4Q03, indicating the current strength of the chip industry.

Continued growth in corporate IT spending helped boost the numbers, with an 11.5% rise in IT software and hardware investments, the third consecutive quarter of double-digit growth. Sales of microprocessors and DRAMs were up 5.3% and 5.9% respectively in March; programmable logic devices rose 12.9% and application-specific standard products (ASSPs) rose 8.4%.

All geographic regions showed strong month-on-month gains, after small increases and declines in February. The three-month moving average, however, showed single-digit increases for the Americas and Europe, and a 3% dip in Japan. So far this year, all regions are enjoying growth rates above 24%, led by Asia-Pacific at 45.8%, for an overall 32.3% year-to-year growth clip.

“The fundamentals are in place for continued robust growth through the end of the year,” said SIA president George Scalise, adding that “it now appears likely that growth for 2004 will exceed 20%.”

May 4, 2004 — NTera Ltd., a Dublin, Ireland-developer of displays using nanostructured materials, announced it has secured $9.5 million in funding.

Doughty Hanson Technology Ventures led the round. Existing shareholders also participated. The company, which has raised a total of $30 million to date, will use the funding to move from a research and development phase into production mode at manufacturing sites in Ireland and Taiwan. It will also increase its sales and marketing efforts.

Along with the funding, NTera appointed George Powlick of Doughty Hanson and Don Caldwell of Cross Atlantic Technology Partners to its board of directors.

Click here to enlarge image

HANOVER, Germany, April 28, 2004 — Microfluidics, or the manipulation of minuscule amounts of fluids, got a good deal of attention at Germany’s Hanover Trade Fair last week. The technology has matured and its wide range of potential uses has become more apparent.

Click here to enlarge image

“More people are recognizing the possibilities of microfluidics,” said Remco A. de Vos, marketing manager at Micronit Microfluidics B.V. in the Netherlands. “There is lot of future expansion room here.”

Click here to enlarge image

“There is a real increase in demand for microfluidic systems,” said Holger Krenz of Steag microParts, whose company produces several microfluidic devices, including a chip the length of a matchstick and half as wide used for medical diagnostics. Tiny capillaries join the 96 wells on it and each well can hold 1.8 microliters of liquid. “People want fast results, but quality and quantity are important as well.”

Click here to enlarge image

While the biomedical applications are most evident, there are also possibilities in the microsystems technology, aviation, manufacturing and metalworking industries. Microdrop GmbH, a microfluidics company founded in 1990 when the field was still newborn, sells systems that can dose very precise quantities of liquid down to the picoliter range (one-trillionth of a liter).

Such systems can glue microlenses that are smaller than 1 millimeter. The technology can also be used on megasize objects, such as airplanes. Microdrop’s NanoJet System can dose tiny quantities of oil onto drill bits during aircraft assembly, using less than 1 percent of expensive special oils that are consumed during a spraying procedure.

“The potential market is big, especially if we get more active in polymer-based electronics,” said Andreas Arp, Microdrop’s R&D manager. “Then you could see microfluidics coming into play in the electronic marking of all kinds of products, even the milk cartons at your local grocery store.”

As with any new family of technology, there have been growing pains as microfluidics makes its way into the marketplace. According to Ulrike Michelsen of Bartels Mikrotechnik, more microfluidics companies went under last year than started up.

“We’re in a kind of sorting process right now,” she said. “But the indicators are good; markets are slowly picking back up.”

A decade of commercial experience, as well as the current funding environment, has led technology providers toward a more realistic niche-market approach. Gone is the mass production vision of the 90s. The field is now characterized by the development of microfluidic modules that add value to overall systems.

“There was a lot of big hype at one time, and people talking about big demand. The truth lies somewhere in the middle,” said Krenz of Steag microParts.

The microtechnology sector at the trade fair felt the same. It, along with the Liquid Handling Competence Center, one of Europe‘s largest research and development groups working in microfluidics, held an all-day symposium on the topic to talk about current trends and ways in which microfluidic systems can improve existing products.

Microfluidics is a relatively new science that picked up speed in the 1990s. This kind of tiny-scale plumbing makes it possible to manipulate individual cells, sort proteins or monitor chemical reactions in minuscule amounts of fluid. Enthusiastic researchers say that the miniaturization and integration of chemistry and biology will fuel a revolution. What electronics did for computation, microfluidics can do for biology, they say.

The technology is the underlying principle of lab-on-a-chip devices, which carry out complex analyses, while reducing sample and chemical consumption, decreasing waste and improving precision and efficiency. The idea is to be able to squirt a very small sample into the chip, push a button and the chip will do all the work, delivering a report at the end. This application is especially attractive to pharmaceutical firms and others in the biomedical field.

Despite the hard look at reality, there is still a lot of talk about microfluidics’ bright, profitable future. A report by consultants Frost & Sullivan said new public- and private-sector funding, along with advances in technology, manufacturing and medicine, could drive revenues from $127.8 million in 2002 to $709.9 million in 2008. The report points out that new therapies are likely to stimulate demand and could catalyze the microfluidics sector. However, in the near term, the relatively high cost of the technology could hinder growth.

“There’s been a lot of talk about a boom, but we’re not sure, of course, if it’s going to come or be very long lasting,” said Microdrop’s Andreas Arp. “But even though the economy is bad right now, our products are still selling. That’s a good sign.”

April 27, 2004 — Several veterans of the micro- and nanotechnology industries have launched a new company that bills itself as a full-service nanotechnology device provider.

NanoVance Inc., based in Austin, Texas, will use the fabrication capacity and technical expertise of its partners to design, develop, manufacture, package and test devices. The company seeks to minimize the time and costs involved in getting to market, according to a news release.

NanoVance will focus on devices for life sciences, information technology, data storage and wireless communication.

Ellery Buchanan, chairman, chief executive and co-founder, was executive vice president of the New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium. Larry Thompson, NanoVance’s chief technology officer, was the consortium’s chief executive officer. Daniel Nelson, NanoVance’s president and chief operating officer, led MEMS technological development and fabrication at Rosemount Inc.

Quantum Dot hires CEO


April 12, 2004

April 12, 2004 – Quantum Dot Corp. (News, Profile, Web) has hired a veteran life science executive and manager to be its chief executive.

George Dunbar Jr., who has more than 30 years experience in leadership roles at Amersham Biosciences, Molecular Probes, Motorola and Epic Therapeutics, most recently served as CEO of Targesome, an early-stage targeted drug-delivery firm. He also is on the business advisory board of Ultreia Capital in Zurich, and an outside director with Competitive Technologies, Sonus Pharmaceuticals and the Valley Medical Center Foundation.

Dunbar said his goals for Hayward, Calif.-based Quantum Dot include achieving profitability, branching out beyond the clinical and academic research markets, and exploring corporate partnerships with leading clinical diagnostic and imaging companies. He has worked with the company’s investors, and said he was attracted to the commercial potential of Quantum Dot’s fluorescent nanocrystals in biomedicine.

“It’s a real breakthrough in labeling (technology) … that I don’t think the industry has seen in many years,” said Dunbar, who also serves as board director. “If the rollout is done appropriately, it will really be not only a huge value driver for shareholders and investors in Quantum Dot, but we’ll begin to see in industry huge changes in size, cost and power of the instrumentation.”

Worldwide public fabless revenue rose 16.2% to $24.2 billion in 2003, keeping pace with overall industry growth of 18% and representing 16.6% of total semiconductor industry sales, according to a recent report from the Fabless Semiconductor Association (FSA).

Qualcomm’s CDMA technologies (QCT) division led public fabless companies in sales for 4Q03 and for the year, followed by Broadcom and NVidia. Total net income for fabless companies in 2003 was $567 million, more than half of which came from three companies: MediaTek ($143.5 million), SanDisk ($87.8 million), and Xilinx ($69.5 million).

US companies accounted for 78% of total fabless revenue in 2003, followed by Taiwan (18%), Europe and Japan (2% each), and China and Canada (0.4% each). Out of 131 public fabless companies worldwide, five Taiwanese companies placed in the top 20: MediaTek (#6, $1.1 billion), VIA Technologies (#11, $598 million), Sunplus Technology (#16, $325 million), NovaTek (#18, $320 million), and Realtek Semiconductor (#20, $272 million). The strong push from Taiwan (and Asia in general) is due largely to the region’s significance on the semiconductor supply chain, according to FSA executive director Jodi Shelton.

Another statistic of interest: Worldwide fabless market capitalization reached $133.8 billion, with 21% of all companies having market caps exceeding $1.0 billion.

Click here to enlarge image

April 9, 2004 — As I write this on a laptop computer while on a plane at 30,000 feet, I’m thinking about my first “portable” Smith-Corona and the IBM memory typewriter we had at the Virginia Journal of International Law office — which held a whole page of text in memory! Then I begin to wonder how long it will be before the brain activity creating these words can be transcribed without a keyboard or a laptop as intermediaries.

Wouldn’t it be cool if the neurons firing in my brain could be captured electronically? But then … what about the guy in the next seat? Will his laptop, cell phone or Blackberry be able to record my thoughts?

My father and grandfather were engineers, and if women had been allowed to take drafting classes at my high school, I probably would have been one, too. Personally, I love technology for the sake of technology. As a policy-maker, though, I focus on advances in technology because they can improve people’s lives.

Click here to enlarge image

Our ability to use DNA has transformed our criminal justice system by making it more likely that the right person will be convicted. We can check the standing of a contractor’s license after the state agency closes at 5 p.m. You can e-mail me instantly if you hate this column. And that’s only the beginning!

California has been home to countless technological innovations, and nanotechnology is one of the most interesting. What role should government play in the creation and deployment of new technologies like nanotech? The immediate reaction many researchers would have is government shouldn’t have any role. Over and over, though, we’ve seen the need for a legal framework to address the social and ethical consequences of advances in technology.

The debate rages on about cloning. We still confront public safety issues stemming from the development of nuclear weapons. As the volume of spam in our e-mail boxes has risen from a trickle to a flood, many netizens have demanded that government “do something” about the problem. And you don’t have to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU to want some constraints on how government can use technology to watch what were private activities before the creation of affordable thermal imaging, cell phone cameras and remote listening devices.

Government plays a significant role in how technology is deployed, and most people believe it’s appropriate for government to set some rules to reflect the consensus of society about how certain technology applications should be limited.

Typically, government’s involvement has come at the back end of the deployment, often triggered by an unintended consequence or the specific use of a technology. I’ve come to believe we should address the social and ethical implications of emerging technologies in a systematic way much earlier — so government isn’t constantly running to catch up by passing laws, for example, dealing with identity theft and fraud on the Internet.

There’s no question we have to be thoughtful about well-intentioned efforts that stifle technological innovation. Let me offer a few examples of technology that would have benefited from such a process.

When the federal government’s “Internetting” project began to expand from a military communications network to what is now the Internet, there was an opportunity to spot some drawbacks in its open structure. If privacy and security features could have been built into the structure of the Internet at the outset, would the Internet be more secure today?

In 1990, oil companies were required to add oxygenates to gasoline to cut tailpipe emissions and improve air quality. Refiners turned to methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to comply with the law, but no one looked at how MTBE interacted with water. MTBE is soluble in water, travels quickly through soil, contaminates drinking water, is tough to clean up and is a suspected carcinogen. The use of MTBE has shut down water supplies, contaminated drinking water wells and has led to hundreds of lawsuits across the country.

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags are expected to replace bar codes as a tagging tool within the next decade, saving businesses millions by automating shipping and inventory. However, privacy advocates fear RFID will become as omnipresent as video surveillance, giving marketers another way to track people’s movements and shopping behaviors.

Aggravating those concerns is the potential that nanotechnology will allow businesses — and government — to embed nanoscale RFID sensors in just about anything without people’s knowledge or consent.

I’m constantly awed by advances in technology, but I’m also mindful that one person’s valuable e-mail is another person’s spam. We can and have learned from our mistakes, and we need to continue to do so.

We have a responsibility to think about the consequences of our innovations. Legislators need to spend the time it takes to understand the technology. Scientists, policy-makers and technology users need a process for getting together earlier in the development of new technologies, so issues can be identified before it’s expensive and disruptive to make changes.

We will undoubtedly miss some issues, because foresight is never perfect — but we can and should collaborate to make the possible co-exist with the socially responsible. I invite you to join the discussion about the best way to meet that challenge.

Click here to enlarge image

April 6, 2004 – NOVELX wants to do to the optical microscope what computing did to the slide rule: make it obsolete. The two-man startup in the San Francisco Bay area plans to use MEMS technology to build a miniaturized modular scanning electron microscope for commercial and defense markets.

 

If they succeed, they will transform how small tech research and commercialization is done today. And science classrooms will get a whole lot cooler.

Click here to enlarge image

 

“We want to build an SEM at a cost similar to an optical microscope, with a footprint similar to an optical microscope, that gives the resolution they would get with a top-of-the-line SEM,” said James Spallas, chief technology officer and founder of NOVELX.

 

“And we want it to be as easy to use as an optical microscope,” he said.

 

The Department of Defense awarded Novelx two Small Business Innovation Research grants to try to develop a transportable and reliable microscopy device. The tool would allow military personnel to conduct imaging and analysis in the field – or battleground. SEMs can image materials in the nanoscale range.

 

Spallas and co-founder Lawrence Muray are using their years of experience as MEMS technologists to develop the device. Muray, who is the company president, developed silicon-based technologies at IBM, making microscopy parts called microcolumns. Spallas, whose resume includes award-winning research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has specialized for 20 years in microfabricating and micromachining MEMS devices. The two have worked together in a number of small tech companies.

 

Their goal at NOVELX is to replace the labor-intensive methods and expensive components found in conventional SEMs with micromachined, batch-fabricated silicon parts. The miniature SEMs won’t use MEMS per se, but will rely on MEMS processing and techniques. “Anything we make will be in an inexpensive way, in a high-volume production environment,” Muray said.

 

A conventional SEM costs six figures. Muray said a microcolumn alone might account for $100,000 of the price tag. Their batch-fabrication approach will allow companies to build small and integrated components that could fit into a tabletop SEM. To compete with the optical microscopes, they will need to get costs down to around $1,000.

 

But the market possibilities could burgeon. SEMs are essential tools for studying matter in the nanoscale and for some lithography applications, but their high costs keep them relegated to only well-funded laboratories. The electron microscopy market garnered $222 million in 1999, according to Global Information Inc., a Tokyo-based provider of market research. It claimed that the optical microscope market raked in $520 million in 2000.

 

Spallas and Muray collaborate with MEMS and packaging companies, an association they say has led to valuable feedback and validation. Their SBIRs require validation of the concept before another round of funding will be considered.

 

“We need to demonstrate the electron optics and demonstrate a design package that is realistic,” Muray said. “On a system level, we have all the pieces in place.”

 

They decided to establish the company in 2002 after securing the SBIR funding. They are close to wrapping up their Phase I portion under the Army’s Chemical and Biological Defense program. The Army then will determine if they merit a Phase II.

 

They also are in talks with NASA. Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., proposed building a miniature SEM for space exploration. They envisioned the SEM being used in robotic explorations of planets, asteroids and comets.

 

NOVELX ultimately is aiming for something more down-to-earth. “I want an SEM I can take in the classroom,” Spallas said.