Non-lithography Applications

Abstract

For the WTEC study, the mutually agreed-upon working definition of non-lithography machining included, (1) mechanical (traditional) machining and, (2) non-mechanical (non-traditional) machining. In addition to non-lithography-based micromachines, the study panelists were also interested in establishing the impact of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) on non-lithography-based machining. Examples include the use of MEMS to make a micromold for plastic micromolding, nanoimprint lithography (NIL) and the fabrication of fibers using MEMS spinnerettes.

The panel agreed that lithography-based MEMS and NEMS advances are highly oversold in the most public relations-hungry universities and government institutes in the U.S. Although less advertised, nonlithography micromachining, practiced mostly in highly competitive, private companies such as Sankyo Seiki, Samsung, and Olympus is most likely to continue to lead to more practical products faster. These products include lenses for telephone cameras, flat panel displays, automotive parts, microfuel cells, microbatteries, micromotors, and desktop factories (DTFs). Based on the state-of-the-art and current investment levels, both private and government, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Korea will gain the most from developments in non-lithography-based machining, given their long tradition with and heavy investment in this field. The U.S. over the last twenty years has emphasized lithography-based MEMS with outstanding research results and a dominant market position, but as many MEMS products have become commodity products, Asian countries stand to reap more benefits in the near future from it. Actually, even MEMS foundries, which are very hard to make profitable in the U.S., are moving more and more to Asia; Olympus in Japan has already the largest MEMS foundry in the world. During our Asia trip we gained, in general, more from our industrial visits than from the visits to academic institutions—this is understandable as micromanufacturing is very applied and product-driven, and academia is not. We believe that to succeed in nonlithography- based machining a stronger-than-usual link with industrial partners and academia is required. In this regard we are now behind in the U.S., although it was in the U.S. that the trend of academia/industry collaborations started. The links between industry and academia are now better in both Europe and in Asia. It was speculated that technology transfer offices in U.S. academia have become so unwieldy that they prevent smoother and better collaboration with industry.

In some showrooms of the Asian hosts, the panel came to realize that none of the products on display were manufactured in the U.S. anymore. As noted in Chapter 4, new product demands are stimulating the invention of new materials and processes. The loss of manufacturing goes well beyond the loss of one class of products. If a technical community is dissociated from the product needs of the day, say those involved in making larger flat-panel displays or the latest mobile phones, communities cannot invent and eventually cannot teach effectively anymore. Chapter 4 lists several such new manufacturing processes. A yet more sobering realization is that we might invent new technologies, say in nanofabrication, but not be able to manufacture the products that incorporate them. It is naïve to say that those new products will still be designed in the U.S. because the latest manufacturing processes and newest materials need to be understood and used in order for a good design to be developed.

To stem the hollowing out of the manufacturing bases within their countries, the governments of many developed countries have made huge investments in the miniaturization of new products, including MEMS and NEMS, and in the miniaturization of manufacturing tools such as DTFs. These efforts are intended to regain a manufacturing edge. To illustrate this point, Olympus’ Haruo Ogawa (the leader of their MEMS team) says that MEMS may help rebuild Japan’s power as a manufacturing nation. Sankyo Seiki believes that its DTFs might revive manufacturing in Japan. In Korea the government just started a new DTF project. Finally, in some quarters in the U.S., nanotechnology is seen as a means for the U.S. to remain a high-technology innovator. It is difficult to predict which of these strategies will enable developed countries to maintain a manufacturing base. But it is clear that if any country wants to remain independent—especially in times of war—and maintain a high standard of living, it must remain strong in manufacturing. This is especially true if that country is resource-poor. There are several differ ent scenarios one can think of to maintain a strong manufacturing edge. One approach is a strategy in which manufacturing of products is only transferred abroad if new manufacturing technologies or products of equal or higher value are in the pipeline. The latter would require a more guided economy than we are used to in the U.S., but it is a strategy that seems to be paying off very well for China now. In another scenario, DTFs will become very automated and require very few human operators, so that exporting these machines does not make sense anymore, since no labor costs are saved; this is a free-market approach. Yet another popular scenario sees DTFs becoming as popular as desktop publishing; this could be called a socially responsible approach. This has been promoted by, for example, MIT’s Neil Gershenfeld, but may be somewhat naïve given the current political climate. In this scenario manufacturing becomes much less centralized, and many more people get involved. In any of these cases, the impact on society would be dramatic.