Non-lithography Applications.

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.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]