VDC Research: Embedded Microprocessor, Board & Systems Market Blog

ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMS?

Almost fourteen years ago, in December of 1999, the Worcester (MA) Fire Department lost six brave men in a fire in an abandoned cold storage warehouse. Two of the men had gotten lost; the other four perished in a valiant effort to rescue them. This is particularly relevant to VDC and to me; the firm is located only 23 miles from the disaster site and, in a “former life,” I worked for a company that manufactured personal lighting equipment for mining and other hazardous occupations, including the Fire Service. The Worcester FD was one of our customers.

At the time, there was very little in the way of personal safety equipment available to firefighters. True location systems were large, clumsy, inaccurate and very expensive. “State of the Art” comprised Personal Alert Safety Systems, or PASS, devices. These units, which could be integrated into a firefighters’ breathing apparatus, personal lights, or attached to turnout gear as discrete devices, comprised a small battery back coupled with a loud piezoelectric alarm. Mercury switches were used to sense movement (or, more properly, a lack of movement) to activate the alarm, which could also be activated by hand. Worcester’s firefighters were equipped with these. However, they were not adequate to prevent the tragedy. The noise level inside the fire and the labyrinthine construction of the building made them ineffective (see http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-134.pdf, “Lessons Learned,” nos. 9 & 10). But even now, in 2013, no reliable, accurate and cost-effective system exists.

The Department of Homeland Security and WPI (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) have each developed systems that show some promise. DHS’s entry is called GLANSER (Geospatial Location Accountability and Navigation System for Emergency Responders). One WPI system is called the PPL (Precision Personnel Locator). Both utilize MEMS-based gyroscopes and accelerometers to sense both motion and position in component devices called IMUs (Inertial Measurement Units). Ranging and internal position estimates would be sent via VLF (Very Low Frequency) pulsed transmissions to external receivers mounted on fire apparatus or incorporated into ladders. VLF signals between 170 and 200 kHz are more easily able to penetrate steel and concrete structures than are higher frequencies. ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) signals, in the range of 20 Hz, offer even better penetration; these are used to locate miners trapped underground and for communication with submarines. However, frequencies this low require large, cumbersome antenna systems and thus are not practical for use on the fireground.

The ranging signals and IMU internal position estimates would be combined by the receiving system using a synthetic aperture imaging algorithm.

Although these systems do show promise, there is still a long way to go. The IMUs have a tendency to drift, making location somewhat problematic. Cost is also an issue. But at least progress is being made, and MEMS suppliers can help by working with both DHS and WPI to improve the accuracy of the IMUs. We believe that development of viable systems should be a national priority, especially in view of today’s threats of terrorism.

Moore’s Law – Where Do We Go From Here? (Part 3)

Of Carbon Nanotubes and Small Groups of Atoms

In the first two installments of this blog series (Part 1)(Part 2), we’ve touched on a variety of new developments that may allow continuing miniaturization, despite predictions of doom from some pundits. We’ve talked about some interesting things like single atom transistors, 3-D ICs and extreme ultra-violet lithography.  Although conventional wisdom places the limit of silicon transistors at about 11 nm, some folks at Intel have said that they have a solution for shrinking silicon down to 10 nm, and think that they may be able to go as far as 5 nm. But the science-fiction nut in me is most fascinated by new developments at IBM and Berkeley.

Terrestrial life as we know it is, of course, based on carbon. SF writers – and, indeed, some scientists – have proposed that, because carbon and silicon share many chemical properties (for example, the ability to form long-chain polymers), it might be possible to not only derive a silicon-based organic chemistry, but to actually have silicon-based life somewhere in this wondrous and infinite universe. Interesting, but as yet still science fiction.

However, what if we were to turn this around, and look at carbon and silicon from another angle? That’s essentially what’s going on at IBM, Berkeley and other research facilities.

As we all know, today’s semiconductor technology is based on silicon. But what if we were to substitute carbon for silicon? Would it be possible to create carbon-based semiconductors? Carbon atoms are far smaller than their silicon counterparts, so this might enable heretofore unimaginable miniaturization.

IBM’s people have successfully fabricated and evaluated a structure comprising an array of 10,000 carbon nanotube transistors on a single substrate. In essence, a carbon nanotube is a single-atom thick sheet of carbon, rolled into a tube. Normally, these appear as a mix of metallic and semiconducting types but, to create a computing device, the metallic types must be removed. And, as if that wasn’t tough enough, the placement and alignment of the tubes on a substrate must be precisely controlled. IBM has been able to accomplish this utilizing ion-exchange chemistry. Researchers at Berkeley have been able accomplish a similar feat, producing arrays both flexible and stretchable, which show great promise for developments such as foldable electronic pads, coatings that can monitor surfaces for cracks and other potential failures, “smart” clothing and even artificial electronic skin.

It is theorized that carbon nanotube transistor arrays, which can be produced with existing manufacturing processes, have the potential to yield CPU structures that are not only far smaller than their silicon counterparts, but are five to ten times faster than today’s silicon chips.

It’s not clear to me whether a single nanotube can only carry a single transistor, or whether it might be possible to produce many transistors at different locations on the surface of a single nanotube. While the latter may not be “do-able” today, who can say what will be possible tomorrow?

IBM scientists have also been able to determine that only twelve atoms are required to magnetically store a single bit of information. This is accomplished by precisely aligning their magnetic properties such that they do not interfere with other groups of atoms located nearby. It is projected that this technology could increase magnetic storage density on a hard disk drive by a factor of 100.

I suppose (though this is pure speculation) that it may also be possible to create ultra-dense storage through the use of carbon nanotubes. And, since nanotubes are inherently 3-D structures, they may lend themselves to the fabrication of 3-D chips as well.

Whatever happens, two things are clear to me. First, we are nowhere near the end of miniaturization and, second, the ability to produce computing devices with human, or even superhuman, computing ability may be fairly close. Can the development of truly intelligent machines with the ability to both replicate and evolve be that far away? I certainly hope I’m still around to see this.

Moore’s Law – Where Do We Go From Here? (Part 2)

A few days ago, I posed the above question in a blog on these pages – and answered it, at least to a degree, by talking about single-atom transistors.  Although one (count it – one) has actually been made, the technology is a long way from being ubiquitous.

However, like global warming and climate change, the single-atom “wall” is real. And we are rapidly approaching it. Use of GPUs for general-purpose computing is a hedge against the wall; these have far more transistors than conventional CPUs and facilitate parallel computing. Intel, NVIDIA and AMD are all pursuing this approach to supercomputing. But this isn’t a long-term solution; GPUs are faced with the same wall.

Intel is pushing toward the Moore’s law limit through cooperative efforts with several outside firms. Intel has invested a staggering US$ 4.1 billion in ASML, a Dutch semiconductor equipment manufacturer. The investment will ultimately yield Intel a 15% share of ASML, and provides US$ 3.3 billion for R&D to make “extreme ultra-violet lithography” or EUVL (using super-short wavelengths of UV light for the etching process) practical, and to develop 450-mm wafers (as opposed to today’s 300-mm wafers). The former will enable 10-nm processes, while the latter will reduce manufacturing costs. And Intel isn’t the only one; Samsung has followed suit with an investment in ASML, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC) has also made a significant investment. TSMC purports to be the world’s largest independent semiconductor factory, and, although they are currently building three 300-mm wafer fabs, their current production is limited to 200-mm.

Increasing transistor density by shrinking their size is only one way of battling the approaching wall. TSMC and one of its rivals, GlobalFoundries (GloFo), as well as Intel and the rest of the usual suspects, are actively pursuing 3-D chip technology. 3-D chips have been made; Intel’s Ivy Bridge architecture utilizes 3-D technology. 3-D transistors, called FinFETs, promise to both increase speed and reduce power consumption.

3-D ICs

3-D integrated circuits, which will allow far greater transistor density in a given planar footprint, are on their way. However, fabrication of these is not a trivial matter. Early versions comprised stacking dice atop one another with an insulating layer between, and interconnecting the dies using a rather laborious process. This was called “Chip Stack MCM,” and didn’t produce a “real” 3-D chip. But, by 2008, 3-D IC technology had progressed to the point that four types had been defined, as follows:

(1)          Monolithic, wherein components and their interconnections were built in layers on a single wafer which was then diced into 3-D chips. This technology has been the subject of a DARPA grant, with research conducted at Stanford University.

(2)          Wafer-on-Wafer, wherein components are built on separate wafers, which are then aligned, bonded and diced into 3-D ICs. Vertical connections comprise “through-silicon vias” (TSVs) which may either be built into the wafers before bonding or created in the stack after bonding. This process is fraught with technical difficulties, not the least of which is relatively low yield.

(3)          Die-on-Wafer, where components are built on two wafers. One is then diced, with the individual dice aligned and bonded onto sites on the second wafer. TSV creation may be done either before or after bonding. Additional layers may be added before the final dicing.

(4)          Die-on-Die, where components are built on multiple dice which are then aligned and bonded. TSVs may be created either before or after bonding.

There are obvious technical difficulties and pitfalls, no matter which approach is used. These include yield factors (a single defective dice may make an entire stack useless; thermal concerns (caused by the density of components; difficulty of automating manufacture; and a lack of standards.

In my layman’s opinion, a new approach to 3-D technology may be needed before it becomes truly viable. Currently components are built on wafers through the selective removal of material. Construction of 3-D chips could be simplified through selective deposition of material rather than its removal. However, that’s beyond today’s state-of-the-art.

As we look at biological equivalents, though, it’s very clear that brains are 3-D structures. I doubt that true artificial intelligence can be realized in a relatively small package without the development of true 3-D chips. Moore’s law will ultimately stymie continued development of planar chip technology.

Stay tuned for part 3 – there’s a really interesting development out there!

Related articles

The Incredible Shrinking Chip Industry

Moore’s Law – Where Do We Go From Here? (Part 1)

In case you’ve been living under a rock and don’t know this, in 1965, Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore predicted that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double approximately every two years. Empirically based on economic factors as well as technical ones, his observation and conclusion has been so accurate that it has been given the title “Moore’s Law.” Certain pundits continually predict that we are reaching the end of the trail, and that the trend cannot continue because miniaturization technology will reach its limit. (It should be noted that Moore’s Law doesn’t specify the size of the IC die; logically one should be able to fit more transistors on a larger die – but that’s another story.)

 The Ivy Bridge architecture, which utilizes a 22 nanometer fabrication process, comprises Intel’s product offerings for 2012. The firm’s next generation micro-architecture, code named Haswell, is expected to arrive in 2013 and will continue to use the 22 nm process. In 2014, the process will be shrunk to 14 nm with Roswell. Down the road, the process is expected to shrink even more, getting down to 10 nm by 2018.

 How long can this go on?

 Well, there is certainly at least one real limit, which is the size of the transistors themselves. A combined team of researchers from the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne and Purdue University has recently created a functional transistor comprising a single phosphorus atom. Furthermore, they have also developed a wire made from a combination of phosphorus and silicon, one atom tall and four atoms wide, that behaves like a copper wire. Granted, this technology is far from practicable at this point in that it has to be maintained at a temperature of minus 391 degrees F, but it does show what is possible.

As circuits get smaller and smaller, other laws of physics come into play, causing additional technical problems. Dr. Michio Kaku (surely you’ve seen him on TV - if not, you should!) of CCNY says that, once transistors shrink to 5 atoms wide (projected for 2020) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will come into play. This states that it is not possible to know both the position and velocity of any particle; that one can only know one or the other. Thus one cannot know precisely where an electron actually is, and therefore cannot confine it to a wire. Since free electrons can’t be allowed to go bouncing about in any logic circuit because they may cause shorts (or, at least, logical errors), this may prove to be a practical limit.

 Some pundits have theorized, though, that getting down to these sizes may allow the development of true quantum computing, wherein information is processed on a more-than-binary level. This remains to be seen.

 There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in this space. Some practical, some not so much. Stay tuned, as I plan to do a couple of additional blogs on this subject before I retire sometime next year.

Hurricane Sandy: A Wake-Up Call and (Perhaps) an Embedded Opportunity

As the Northeastern quarter of the United States undertakes the Herculean task of recovering from hurricane Sandy, perhaps the most devastating storm ever to hit the country, we expect to see renewed calls to make our cell phone networks more reliable in times of disasters, natural or otherwise.

Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, provided the first real-life demonstration the vulnerability of the cellular system, and the havoc that a failure can wreak. Over 1400 cell towers in the afflicted area were knocked out, leaving more than three million people without cell phone service. That was bad enough back then, before cell phones became so ubiquitous and most households still relied on land lines as their primary mode of communication. Cell phone dependency has increased rapidly in succeeding years. Since 2004, the rate of outright migration of land line or dual service households to cellular-only has increased by more than eight times.  By April of 2011, more than 25% of US households had entirely eschewed land line use; the rate of conversion had doubled in the three years since 2008.

While damage to the cell towers themselves was a large contributor to the outages during and post-Katrina, much of the problem was caused by power failures and a lack of backup power for the towers. A hue and cry arose from the populace, demanding that the Government call for mandatory backup power for these installations. The FCC proposed that each cell tower be required to have backup power sufficient for 8 hours of operation. However, as you can imagine, the cellular industry was adamantly opposed to such a regulation. Spearheaded by CTIA (f.k.a. the Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association) and major providers such as Sprint-Nextel, a suit was filed against the FCC, claiming that the Commission lacked the authority to institute such a regulation. In 2008 the Office of Budget and Management of the Bush Administration backed down, leaving the addressing of the need for backup power to the “free market.”

To be sure, putting backup power supplies in place for the host of cell towers in use (now estimated to be in excess of 220,000), would be extremely expensive, and both legal and environmental issues would have to be addressed in addition to the cost of equipment. Both backup generators and large battery packs require cell tower installations to have a larger footprint, and generators would have to be fueled as well. Leases would have to be renegotiated, zoning issues would arise, and there would be the potential for fuel spills in the case of high winds, floods or earthquakes. Thus the industry has largely been dragging its feet. The populace in general has a short memory; for the most part the industry has ignored the problem, hoping it would go away. And, as things returned to normal, the issue has largely been forgotten.

2011 saw another major storm in hurricane Irene. This time over 6500 towers were knocked out. However, much of the cellular blackout was in less densely populated areas, so there were fewer complaints. In addition, service was restored more quickly than it had been after Katrina. Verizon claims to have had 8-hour backup for all of its cell towers; this may also have mitigated the problem.

Then, on October 28-30, we were hit by hurricane Sandy. This was one of the largest storms ever recorded, and it is estimated that 25% of the cell towers in a ten-state area were knocked out. This included the northeastern coastal states, among the most densely populated areas in the nation. We would not at all be surprised to see a renewed call for regulations mandating backup power for all cell towers.

As mentioned above, Verizon claims to have 8-hour backup for its towers. However, at least until now, they have not used this as a marketing tool. Thus other major providers have been able to ignore the issue.

The fate of any proposed regulation is tied to the forthcoming election. Should the Democratic Party come out on top, we may have such a regulation. However, a Republican administration would probably stonewall any such effort.

In the absence of regulation, the situation is likely to become quite interesting. While outright collusion between industry providers to avoid implementing improvements may be illegal, de facto collusion will almost surely arise. Providers will be watching one another like hawks while also trying to keep their fingers on the pulse of the wireless market. As long as no provider breaks ranks through wholesale implementation of backup power and aggressive marketing of this capability to the populace, the issue may once again fade. But, should one provider aggressively market a backup capability (Verizon would be the logical leader since they have the hardware in place), the remaining providers may be forced to acknowledge the problem and rush to compete.

We believe that 8-hour backup capability, while far better than nothing, may still be insufficient in many cases. Just the logistics of refueling backup generators in afflicted areas would be a mammoth undertaking. But, in this blogger’s opinion, this is really a matter of national security. Given the fact that much of the populace has become totally reliant on cellular communication, lack of backup in the event of major natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods or earthquakes could seriously hamper rescue efforts and devastate the economies of large sections of the country. And, even worse, consider the effects of a potential nuclear or biological strike!

Either way, should a regulation be promulgated, or should the marketplace demand a more robust backup capability, there will be an exploding demand for generators, advanced battery technology, energy management systems and the like. This could present an opportunity for embedded providers of energy management systems and software. Thus, at the end of the day, even the storm clouds of hurricane Sandy may have a silver lining (at least for some).

Are Server Cooling Problems becoming “Things of the Past”?

As is well known in the industry, cooling comprises one of the biggest problems in embedded computing. Although use of multi-core and low power RISC processors has somewhat mitigated the issue for applications and systems that do not require massive computing power, other applications are still faced with the daunting task of keeping components cool without incurring major costs. Data centers, which may include hundreds or even thousands of rack mounted “pizza box” servers, are particularly impacted by this problem. Air cooling is often insufficient, particularly in larger installations in warmer climates, and liquid or spray cooling has, until now, been both cumbersome and expensive.

It now appears that a solution is not only on the horizon, but is on the verge of being readily available.

A small company called Green Revolution Cooling, based in Austin, Texas, has developed a novel approach to liquid cooling utilizing a bath of a specific, but non-proprietary,  formulation of dielectric mineral oils called GreenDEF. With GRC’s solution, the servers are mounted vertically and totally submerged in the coolant bath. The firm claims that their system can reduce cooling energy costs by ninety to ninety-five percent, and also reduce server power by ten to twenty percent! That sounds almost too good to be true.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Intel has, over the past year or so, conducted a fairly rigorous test of the GRC system at its Rio Rancho NM facility. The firm submerged seven servers in GreenDEF, rigged such that the oil would circulate through them (GRC’s CarnotJet system circulates the oil through a pump module and heat exchanger). Seven other identical servers utilizing air cooling were run as controls, and both batches were subjected to the same workloads.

Typically, when air cooling is employed, the cooling means consumes an overhead of approximately sixty percent of additional energy (above that required to run the servers). Intel found that the overhead required by the GRC solution was only two to three percent. In addition, because the servers were maintained at an almost constant temperature, their performance and reliability were enhanced. When the servers were disassembled after a year of use, they showed no detrimental effects from the oil bath submersion. In fact, servers remain cleaner than their air-cooled counterparts because the circulating oil carries away dust which might otherwise accumulate; dust can decrease operating efficiency by as much as two percent, and also cause premature failure.

GRC claims that the only modifications required to prepare a typical server for use with CarnotJet is removing the fan and the conductive grease between the processor and its heat sink, and sealing the hard drive. The facility in which they are to be used need not have chillers, raised floors or other special architectural features. Servers can continue to operate for several hours even in the case of a failure of air conditioning power.

Is there a down side? Well, yes – if a server requires maintenance it must be drained of the oil, which can be a bit messy. However, the GreenDEF itself is rated 0-1-0 by the NFPA (presents no health hazard, high (343° C) flash point, stable even under fire exposure conditions and not reactive with water).

I’ve saved the best for last. It costs less to build a facility utilizing CarnotJet than one that utilizes air cooling and, in many installations, there is a one-to-three year payback in energy savings alone.

I know that this blog sort of sounds like a commercial, but I’m quite impressed. If this is as good as is claimed, one of the industry’s biggest problems may be finally going away.

Word is that SuperMicro plans to offer “oil ready” servers in the fairly near future.

A New COM Standard and a New Organization to Oversee It

Recently, Kontron AG (München, Germany) announced the development of a new COM (Computer-on-Module) standard called ULP-COM. The “ULP” portion of the standard’s title is an acronym for Ultra Low Power. Historically, the COMs industry has been quite x86-centric, with only about 5% of modules shipped using another type of processor (usually RISC).

The ULP-COM standard, which is similar to PICMG’s COM Express standard (COM.0) in some ways, targets the market for small form factor, low power mobile devices that are suitable for harsh industrial environments. The standard has been designed around ARM processors and SoCs that require 5 watts of power or less. These processors have less overhead and lower pin counts than their x86 counterparts. ULP-COM modules have different feature sets than their COM Express siblings as well. A fairly detailed overview of the new standard can be found here.  

Kontron’s involvement with the COM industry goes back many years. Perhaps the first COMs on the market were the DIMM-PC devices developed and marketed by JUMPtec AG, one of the earliest Kontron acquisitions. Other significant early entrants to this market included Ampro Computer (now part of ADLINK Technology) with their Encore series of modules, and Advantech Co., Ltd. with their SOM-144 modules. Kontron, along with several other industry participants, was also a member of the PICMG committee that developed the COM Express standard in 2005. The COM Express “basic” form factor was largely based on the ETX modules offered by Kontron and Advantech (among others).

Somewhat surprisingly, the ULP-COM specification has not been placed under the purview of PICMG, but under a new organization called SGET (Standardization Group for Embedded Technologies e.V.).  This group, which currently boasts 24 members, does not present itself as an industry trade association, but rather as a “registered association to drive standardization of embedded computing technologies.” Fourteen of the member companies are suppliers of computer boards and already have some involvement with COMs. Industry “heavyweights” Kontron, Advantech and ADLINK are members, as are a number of smaller (mostly German) suppliers. A few have announced product releases. The organization has a web site and a Facebook page.

Within the last few years COMs, as a product type, have reached maturity and become a significant market estimated as being over US$ 450 million in 2011. Their primary use has, to date, been in short run, limited production devices, often of the hand-held variety. The new ULP-COM family should fit into the ecosystem quite well. We applaud Kontron and the other consortium members for their vision.

 

Might Air Flow through Northrop Grumman’s Air-Flow-Through Technology Patent?

A couple of weeks ago, an interesting press release appeared in my Inbox, announcing that Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions (CWCDS) was introducing a new version of their VPX6-490 DSP board, which utilizes dual NVIDIA GPGPU MXM modules and NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture. Besides the fact that this board appears to have extraordinary capabilities, this new version also utilizes Northrop Grumman’s air-flow-through (AFT) cooling technology, which CWCDS was the first to license. This is also, in my opinion, a valid and exciting technological development, providing superior cooling while protecting sensitive components from potentially damaging contaminants in the ambient air. The board release announcement was dated June 28, 2012; the press release announcing the license arrangement was dated April 19, 2012.

Being curious, I decided to poke around a bit and learn more about this AFT technology. I downloaded Northrop Grumman’s patent no. 7,995,436 (click on “Images” to see the drawings), and stumbled on something that gave me pause.

Bear in mind that I am not a patent professional. However, in my career I have been sole or co-inventor on 17 US patents, and thus have been involved in the process and have seen some of its pitfalls.

A Hole in the Patent?

In the Disclosure of the Invention section of the patent, which appears in Column 2 of page 15, the patent reads “…at least one removable module…” (for example, board) “…electrically or electro-optically coupled with the base unit…” (for example, backplane). No problem here. However, in the Abstract, which appears on page 1, and in the claims which appear on pages 18 and 19, the “electrically coupled” option has been omitted. All of the independent claims (Claims 1, 8 and 16) stipulate that the boards (I’m using my own “layman’s” terms here to avoid getting bogged down in the legalese) are “electro-optically coupled” to the backplane. To my knowledge (and I checked into this to be sure) electro-optical coupling is accomplished through the use of light sources (today, LEDs) and photoreceptors or photocells of some sort. Fiber optics, as in VITA 66, could also provide the proper coupling. Any of these would necessitate use of a special backplane rather than the “conventional” VPX types.

Further perusal of the Disclosure of the Invention failed to find any additional mention of the coupling means, be they electrical or electro-optical. I can’t see any reason why AFT would not work with electrically coupled boards and backplanes as well as with those that are electro-optically coupled.

I can envision two scenarios which may explain the omission of the “electrically coupled” option in the patent claims. The first is that this was a mistake, that the electrically coupled option had been dropped inadvertently. The second is that it was deliberately omitted in a response to a PTO Office Action, probably a “103 rejection” (where the invention is deemed by the Examiner to be “obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art”). In a response to this type of Office Action (which is very common), patent attorneys often limit the claims in order to further differentiate the invention from the prior art.

Possible Impact on the Participants

Now the big question is just how this will impact Curtiss-Wright and Northrop Grumman. As I stated above, I’m not a patent professional; the following are my opinions only, and the situation should be sorted out by the attorneys of the parties involved.

I should state here that this issue has no negative impact whatsoever upon the technical merits of either CWCDS’ product or Northrop Grumman’s AFT technology. Any impact would be legal and, perhaps, financial.

In either of the scenarios that I outlined above, the use of AFT technology in CDCDS’ boards is not prohibited even if electrical, rather than electro-optical, coupling is used. However, electrically coupled boards are, in my opinion, not protected under the patent. Curtiss-Wright has gained technical support and relevant expertise from Northrop Grumman through the license, but has not gained any real degree of protection for the cooling technology except in the case of electro-optically coupled devices. I’m not certain whether a court would uphold royalty payments to Northrop Grumman under the license if AFT were to be used on electrically coupled board and backplane combinations. Again, that’s for the lawyers to sort out.

In the first instance mentioned above, wherein the omission was inadvertent, I do not believe that CWCDS would have any unexpected financial exposure. However, under the second instance, where the omission was deliberate, the story may be a bit more complicated.

I have not looked at any of the prior art at all. Forty patents are listed as cited references; twenty-three of these were cited by the Examiner (the cited patents have some relevance to the patentability of the invention; the others listed are for the purpose of providing background). It is possible that one of the cited patents dominates the Northrop Grumman patent, meaning that it discloses a cooling method substantially similar to AFT. In that case the electrically coupled option may have been intentionally dropped from the claims in order to provide differentiation, and thereby make the AFT invention patentable. It is then possible that CWCDS, if they use AFT on electrically coupled boards, may be bordering on infringing this earlier patent, and thus it is conceivable that they may have some financial liability. I would suspect that, in this case, CWCDS would be held harmless and the liability assumed by Northrop Grumman because of their failure to adequately disclose that their patent didn’t cover electrically coupled devices and that another did, but one never knows. In any case it appears to me that it’s time for the lawyers. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.

THE CLOUD: OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS FOR EICS SUPPLIERS

The computing world is undergoing another transformation, one that may well change the way many of us live and work with information. This transformation is the rapidly evolving migration to cloud-based applications and services.

As most of you are probably aware, the “cloud” refers to cyberspace, specifically the Internet. Cloud computing finally comprises the realization of Sun Microsystems’ long-term motto, “the network is the computer.” Applications and files can “live” in the cloud, and be accessed by users as needed through such devices as thin clients. Indeed, today, smart phones and tablets, which make extensive use of the cloud, are becoming ubiquitous in consumer space.

A majority of consumers don’t require a high-powered computing system, such as a conventional PC. This group uses computers for little more than email, web browsing, social networking and casual gaming; smart phones and tablets are ideal for this, are far more portable than their PC or laptop predecessors, and often are also less expensive. Because of this there is a great deal of speculation as to whether or not the traditional PC industry can survive in its present form.

It is very clear that smart phones and tablets, with their associated reliance on the cloud, are rapidly penetrating and eroding the traditional personal computing market. PCs and laptops, on the other hand, continue to advance in computing power and storage capability, and may become “overkill” for much home and small office/home office use. This may well have the effect of reducing sales volumes, forcing contraction and consolidation of The PC industry. This, in turn, may lead to an escalation of prices for these devices as volumes fall.

How is this likely to impact embedded space? In recent years, many applications for embedded integrated computer systems (EICSs) have been ported from passive backplane systems to consumer grade desktop PCs because the latter are lower cost. Should PC prices rise, transforming these devices into niche or “boutique” market items, equipment OEMs currently utilizing these may be forced into finding another approach. Those embedded applications which can be effectively migrated to the cloud will do so; these will primarily comprise non-critical applications. The communications vertical is likely to see an increase in demand for passive backplane EICSs as cloud computing becomes more prevalent. Many military applications are not likely to be ported to the “public” cloud for security reasons and because of their mission-critical nature. Some Industrial Automation and Medical applications will also remain with the current approach because of the highly specific nature of their hardware. For example, a CNC machine will often have computing elements distributed throughout it to control specific axis movement, tool selection and feeds and speeds. As another example, an ultrasound machine is basically an imaging computer with a display and sensor attached; it may be more efficient to perform the imaging computations locally. Other applications, however, will move to the cloud, as will a majority of applications in most other verticals.

Thus this evolution to the cloud is a double-edged sword for suppliers of EICSs. There will be opportunities associated with this migration, as the use of consumer grade PCs for embedded applications declines due to a reduction in their cost advantage, and as the need for additional communications infrastructure appears. On the other hand, those EICS applications which are migrated to the cloud will result in a reduction in demand. In this way the cloud is a threat to these suppliers.

In conclusion, it is evident that the cloud will have a profound impact on large segments of the embedded space. It may be that many EICS vendors can only hope to break even, and will only be able to accomplish this through re-targeting their product offerings and marketing efforts to focus on non-migrated applications.

Curtiss-Wright Controls Sharpens Focus

Curtiss-Wright Controls, parent company of Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing (CWCEC), announced on January 9 the formation of a new business unit, Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions (CWCDS). The new unit will incorporate both CWCEC and the firm’s former Electronic Systems unit. Ref. http://www.cwcdefense.com/media-center/press-release/50.htm

The ultimate parent company, Curtiss-Wright Corporation, was formed in 1929 through the union of fifteen companies affiliated with aviation pioneers Glenn Curtiss and Wilbur and Orville Wright. Today the firm, with annual sales exceeding US$ 2 billion, operates in three primary market segments: Flow Control, Motion Control and Metal Treatment. Defense-related products and services comprised approximately 40% of overall income, covered under the Motion Control segment.

Curtiss-Wright Controls, headquartered in Charlotte, NC, is the Motion Control segment of the overall company. Both the former Embedded Computing and Electronic Systems units were part of this group.

Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing (CWCEC) was formed in 2002 through the acquisition of certain assets of Lau Defense Systems. Over the next several years, CWCEC grew to be a powerhouse in the military/aerospace segment of embedded computing, particularly on the merchant boards side. Growth was both organic and via acquisition. Succeeding acquisitions included Collins Technologies, Peritek, Systran, Novatronics, Dy 4, Prima Graphics, Synergy Microsystems, Indal Technologies, Pentland and Vmetro asa.

Military, Aerospace and Defense has, historically, been not only a primary market for CWCEC but also one of the fastest growing and most stable segments for merchant computer boards, in particular. In 2010, this market segment accounted for US$ 694 Million in shipments; this is projected to increase to US$ 912 Million in 2013. CWCEC was the number one supplier of boards to this market segment, with a market share of substantially greater than 17%. GE Intelligent Platforms was number two, with a market share slightly above 14%.

However, the projected 131% 2010-2013 increase in Mil Aero board shipments is actually less than the projected shipment growth for boards in general – 153%. Even this may prove to be optimistic, if certain massive cuts proposed for the military budget are implemented. Therefore, suppliers to this segment should be pursuing aggressive marketing and customer service policies in order to grow not only market share but actual shipments as well.

The establishment of the new Defense Solutions business unit within Curtiss-Wright Controls will not only address these issues, but will also produce a larger, yet more nimble, operation. It will also provide a sharper focus to Curtiss-Wright’s embedded efforts, targeting bread-and-butter elements of the business and reducing distractions from less critical aspects of the business.