China, The TPP, And A Dash Of Irony.

This week we watched China's stock markets tumble over worry that the Chinese government is curbing its support, estimated in the hundreds of billions of yuan thus far, and that it may now be "testing whether the market can support itself" (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shanghai-plunges-8-on-worries-beijing-is-ratcheting-down-inflows-2015-07-27).

Meanwhile, after eight years of effort leading up to a hopeful conclusion, talks failed and no general agreement was reached in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the US (http://news.yahoo.com/no-final-deal-pacific-trade-talks-negotiators-033653500.html).

China is not included among the would-be TPP partners.
Sticking points in the troubled TPP talks involved agricultural markets, auto manufacturing and trade, protection for drug-makers, copyright protection, workers rights and environmental protections.

Also written into the Trade Pact agreement is a mechanism to provide temporary credit for companies in member countries to make major purchases, such as capital equipment for manufacturing. The intent is to provide credit and funding for transactions more quickly than can often be accomplished in certain member countries, and then be reimbursed when normal credit is acquired.

Some opponents of the agreement explain that this can put a government entity into the position of picking winners and losers -- which should not be the case.
So there we have it. China picking stocks (winners and losers) in a large-scale effort to prop up its stock market while the U.S. and its TPP partners get bogged down in ideologies while seeking to expedite transactions for free trade.
What's wrong with this picture?

Engineering Talent Supply and Demand -- What's your opinion?

Is there and engineering shortage -- or not? Should U.S. companies try to hire domestically, or just "go global?" Is there a moral stand to take, or should we allow the matter to become laissez faire?

So many complexities; so point-of-view dependent!

(I'm a U.S. parent) "Throughout their school years we've emphasized the importance of STEM-related (science, technology, engineering and math) courses to our children. We wanted them to have technical minds and aptitudes, and degrees that would prove a certain mental acuity that would improve their chances for a great career -- even better than their parents. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to this end!

(I'm a non-U.S. parent) "We've done the same, and spent even more -- much more -- sending our children to U.S. universities.

(I'm a corporate hiring officer) "We can't find good engineering talent, and have a hard time keeping it when we do. U.S. candidates have such high expectations: security, flexibility, and excellent wages, too."

(I'm a U.S. engineering graduate, recent) "I need to build my project portfolio (and not maroon myself into a long-term project or position early on) in order to increase my value in a volatile job market where I can either float to the top or sink as a replaceable commodity."

NOW SOME INFORMATION:

1) At the 2014 Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA) 16th Annual Outlook Conference, Carl Camden, CEO of Kelly Services, pointed out that 600,000 manufacturing jobs went unfilled last year because managers said they couldn’t find qualified talent (OESA’s own research shows that three out of four North American automotive suppliers are having trouble finding engineering candidates). He went on to recommend analysis techniques to forecast and manage a company's "talent supply chain" and to embrace the concept of just-in-time talent acquisition for skill-specific positions.
Of course, his point of view comes as CEO of Kelly Services...temporary employment services.
(http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1365&doc_id=278096&cid=nl.dn14.20150714&dfpPParams=ind_182,kw_8,aid_278096&dfpLayout=blog)

2) The National Center for Education Statistics reported that in 2009 only 54% of recently graduating engineers found employment in their field, and only 61.3% found employment in their field or a closely-related one. The rest? Among math and computer science recent grads, 61.9% found employment in their field or a closely related one.
(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_505.50.asp?current=yes)

3) For FY2015, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it received about 172,500 H-1B petitions (for temporary visas to fill engineering and/or technical positions in for-profit non-university positions) during the filing period which began April 1, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption. On 2015 April 13, the USCIS reported receipt of almost 233,000 H1B petitions, well in excess of the limits of 65,000 for the regular cap and 20,000 advanced-degree exemption. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa)

QUESTION AND ONGOING DEBATE: Should the H1-B cap be raised in view of reported shortages? Is there a shortage at all? Should recent U.S. STEM-related college grads be "protected" in the U.S. job market? Should we just go to a "global" talent supply chain?

Like so many issues, it depends on your point of view. Let's hear yours.

Wireless Charging -- Wave of the future?

In 1893 Nikola Tesla used wireless power to illuminate light bulbs at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. But compared to direct wiring through various connection types, relatively few applications have utilized electromagnetic or radio frequency energy for the purpose of power supply or transfer since that time.

As we all know, efficiency is the issue. Placed together closely and positioned correctly, two coils can transfer power via magnetic induction quite efficiently. Increase the distance or jiggle a coil and efficiency drops significantly. This was recognized early on (certainly by 1893), has not changed, and won't.

But what has changed is the decreased power levels that our everyday (electronic) devices operate at, and our ability to modulate with tuned resonant-frequency circuits that can optimize power-transfer efficiency with changes in distance and position. Also changing is our much improved battery technology and our increased dependence on battery-powered devices.
 

In effect, we need less power, can store more power better, and can inductively transfer it from source to battery better than ever.

Thinking big, one can envision electric trains without 12,000 volt overhead catenary wires, electric cars with drive-up non-contact charging stations, drones that can charge up during flight. Thinking small, any handheld power device becomes a candidate for wireless charging (LED lighting, phones, cameras, tablets, etc.), simply out of greater convenience. Thinking safety, anyplace an electrical device is used in a wet area (countertops), or where a cord gets in the way (power saws and other tools in a cluttered garage -- my favorite) comes to mind.

Of course, much of this is happening or in development right now. Three sets of standards, Qi, PMA, and A4wP, are competing to provide compatibility through uniformity of design and implementation.

Three ETI companies manufacture transformers, inductors and other magnetics-related products. They include Raycom Electronics, Hytronics, and Winatic. Naturally, we like to keep our eyes on "all things magnetic," and the future of our industry.
For years, the electronics industry has wrestled with connectivity issues as circuits have miniaturized. Wireless data transfer is solving much of the problem. But power charging through USB, mini USB, and micro USB has become bulky and even "iffy" as circuits and devices shrink. The connectors aren't made for hundreds and thousands of couplings and decouplings. They just break.

So bring on the type of charging that's kept our electric toothbrushes running for 15 years or more! Let's add some design preventions against vampire (always "on") power usage, and just go for it. To borrow (most of) Dupont's a old advertising slogan, it's time to leap ahead with "better living through magnetics."

The Declaration of Independence; And a Demonstration of Excellence. Big events on this July 4 weekend!

On Independence Day, with its parades, picnics, and fireworks, we celebrated one of the nation’s most important historic events 239 years ago. The Fourth of July has become such a relied-upon and regular event that most of us have our own ritual for celebrating it. 

In Canada, whose royalty calls our freedom day “Revolution Day,” the U.S. women’s soccer team had little time to reflect on the historical event. Three days earlier they had shut out the powerhouse Team Germany 2-0 in the World Cup semifinal. Still in Vancouver, British Columbia, the team would play Japan on Sunday, July 5 -- and this was no time for a letdown.

 

The Continental Army took a couple years to become effective, and a few more to turn a revolt into a national victory. It took the U.S. women just three minutes to score, and just 12 minutes more for Carli Lloyd to tally the first-ever hat trick in a World Cup women’s final. The game ended U.S. -- 5; Japan -- 2. 
 

And so, late on July 5, the U.S. Women’s soccer team gave us a second great reason to celebrate the weekend -- maybe not quite so consequential as the first reason -- but absolutely a very big win! 
 

By the way, the team members are also deeply involved in their own fundraising, so you might say they did it “on time and within budget.” 
Now that’s good business!

Combining High Power and High Frequency in rf and Microwave.

Combining high power and high frequency in rf and microwave.

The following paragraphs are excerpts of an interview with Alen Fejzuli, president of Res-Net Microwave, Inc. His plain-speak comments are intentionally "teched down" for the listener and writer, a non-engineer. 

On the design approach:

Designing for rf and microwave requires solid understanding of transmission line theory, and application of  "high frequency rules," if you will, to the design of our components. The Smith Chart, wavelength, VSWR -- these items are all foreign to the world of digital design. 

On the products and basic challenge:

Res-Net Microwave has been known for more than 25 years as a manufacturer of high power components -- resistors, attenuators, and terminations. Typically, when you're designing high power components there are physical limitations. The world of physics is against you. You're trying to make high frequency components that also need to dissipate a lot of power. In order for a resistor or terminator to dissipate a lot of power, it tends to require considerable size. However, as frequency increases, wavelength decreases, and once wavelength becomes smaller than the component, a number of effects take place that change the properties and performance of the component. For example, at low-frequency resistor looks like a resistor.  On the other hand, at high frequency a resistor will have parasitic capacitance and inductance, which limits the high frequency performance. 

On size and power:

How well a component dissipates power is driven by the type of material that is used, for example, we use Alumina, Aluminum Nitride (AlN), Beryllium Oxide (BeO), and, now, synthetic diamond (CVD diamond). Each of these materials dissipate power at a specific rate, AlN, BeO, and CVD in increasing order (lowest to highest, Figure 1).  With the introduction of CVD diamond material into our manufacturing processes, the differences have become dramatic. For example, we have little (CVD) resistors that are 40 by 20 mils that can dissipate 20 watts, even in that small size. A BeO component of the same size might dissipate 5 or 6 Watts, an ALN maybe 3 Watts.  

On size and LOTS of power:

If you look at a 1000-watt resistor on BeO material, it is 1 square inch in size, pretty big!  We can reduce the size of that component down to roughly __0.2 square inch___ by using a CVD diamond substrate to create a component of the same power rating. Furthermore, due to its size, the larger high power resistor also acts like a big parallel plate capacitor.  The combined effects of the resistor and capacitor create a low pass filter which limits the high frequency performance of these high power components.

More generally, capacitance is always present in our world, and that's why there's always a tradeoff between power and frequency.

On size and frequency:

This benefit of reducing component size without sacrificing power dissipation brings us back around to the wavelength factor -- once the wavelength becomes smaller than the component, reflected power and VSWR increase with power (presuming frequency remains the same), parasitic capacitance increases with frequency (presuming power remains the same), and general performance diminishes quickly with increases in both power and frequency.

And that's how Res-Net has made the world of physics work for us, instead of against us. By minimizing the size required to dissipate the power called for, we're not only maximizing power -- we're also maximizing the high frequency range of the component and circuit.

Examples:

That 40 by 20 mil CVD diamond resistor I mentioned previously operates well up to 35 GHz at 20 watts. We have miniature terminations spec'd at 26.5 GHz, 50 watts. 

Wrap-up: Small is good. Very very good.

In the digital world, the push to smaller and smaller components is driven mostly by space and weight limitations and the general push for miniaturization. In the rf and microwave world, there's a 4-way relationship between size, power, frequency/wavelength, and performance. We like to think we're pushing the limits on all fronts.

Figure 1.   

Hats off to a winner, and remembering heroes.

This past Saturday, June 6, 2015, horse racing fans around the world (plus many million curious onlookers) watched American Pharoah win the Belmont Stakes and become the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years.

Some were saying that it couldn't be done, that breeding for sprinters and distance horses had become so specialized that there may not be another Triple Crown, ever. But the jockey, Victor Espinoza, explained that he knew he could win early on, coming out of the first turn, just by the way the horse was running. It really appeared that the horse was reaching out farther than all other contenders in the field. Hats off.

It also marked the 71st anniversary of American and other Allied soldiers struggling to achieve a foothold at the beaches of Normandy. For the fortunate ones, D-Day would become a very long day. Hats off and thank you -- all of you -- on that June 6, in 1944.

Space. What now?

Remember the race to put a man into space and, then, to put a man on the moon? OK, we lost the first heat, but ran away in the final.

Those were the incredible days early days of NASA, when U.S. citizens looked on with chest-pounding pride at rocket liftoffs and eventually, a televised moonwalk. So much seemed to be happening as U.S. scientists pieced together progressive missions and experiments that made sense to the public, who shared in success celebrations and major lessons learned. Later, SkyLab, Space Shuttle, Space Station, Explorer, Mariner, Hubble........all inspirational.

Meanwhile, the public also learned about "spinoff" commercial products and technologies that developed with the help of NASA's needs for new solutions -- and dollars spent to meet these needs. Spinoffs helped justify to some extent the huge spending that was taking place.

Beginning in 1976, NASA created a publication entitled "Spinoff" to document such products and technologies, and to maintain a database. As of 2015, there are over 1,800 spinoff products in the database dating back to 1976. Spinoff examples include:

Infrared ear thermometers; heart pump for patients awaiting heart transplants; development of artificial muscle systems with robotic sensing and actuation capabilities; temper foam technology (memory foam); scratch-resistant eyeglass lenses; lightweight super effective space blankets often used in first aid kits; small aircraft anti-icing systems; highway safety surface grooving; much improved radial tires; moisture and chemical detection sensors; video enhancing and analysis systems and image stabilization; intumescent epoxy material, which expands in volume when exposed to heat or flames, acting as an insulating barrier and dissipating heat through burn-off; baby food, commonly enriched with microalgae food supplement; freeze drying; water purification systems; solar cells; microencapsulating technology enabling the creation of a "Petroleum Remediation Product" for oil spills on water; structural analysis software; powdered lubricants; "OpenStack" cloud computing technology, and about 1,770 more....

At its peak in 1965, NASA employed 411,000 in-house and contractor-dedicated people. In 1966, NASA spending made up 4.41% of the federal budget! In 2012 NASA employed 79,000 in-house and contractor-dedicated people and made up roughly 
0.5% of the federal budget.

Relatively speaking, the aeronautical frontiers back then were much closer to home and easier to understand than the vast gallactic and astronomical frontiers we're exploring now. The spinoffs were more tangible in many instances -- memory foam mattresses vs. cloud software. And, frankly, it's tough to attach a direct personal benefit to a discovery such as this:

"MACS0647-JD is a candidate, based on a photometric redshift estimate,[1][2] for the farthest known galaxy from Earth at a redshift of about z = 10.7,[3] equivalent to a light travel distance of 13.3 billion light-years (4 billion parsecs). If the distance estimate is correct, it formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.[4] It is less than 600 light-years wide."

But there's no disputing the decline in NASA spending, and a disconnect with the American public that wonders "What now? What next?"

Lastly, for those of us involved in design and manufacturing who have benefitted from the many discoveries from NASA efforts over the years, the question arises -- how much of those millions and billions was spending, and how much was actually investment in the nation's future?

Note: Many thanks to Wikipedia and it's contributors and editors for much of the above-noted information.