A memory chip the size of a white blood cell has profound implications for the future of computing.
This month Metropolis takes detailed looks at objects ranging in scale from the microscopic to the architectural. Links to the related stories can be found at the bottom of this article.
Earlier this year, two scientists announced that they had built a working memory chip about the size of a white blood cell. This was not only a computing breakthrough but something of a design accomplishment. Conventional memory chips are made exponentially smaller every year, à la Moore’s Law, but those are “just a smaller version of what Intel made five years ago,” explains James R. Heath, of the California Institute of Technology, who, along with UCLA’s J. Fraser Stoddart, created the device. Heath and Stoddart, by contrast, were designing on such a minute scale that they had to rethink completely what a memory chip could be. Indeed, the two men are chemists, not engineers, and they built their chips out of clusters of molecules instead of silicon.
The new chip is so small that they needed to devise molecules that would self-assemble in the required ways. Do terms like structure and architecture still apply at this scale? Heath says they do, noting that the chip’s circuitry, which is highly tolerant of defects, was based on some of the same principles as the Los Angeles freeway system’s. “When we first were exploring this, we actually made a computer [chip] that was designed along these levels—with streets, boulevards, and interstates.” Although the technology is about 15 years away from being integrated into your laptop, Heath is optimistic that the chip will ultimately have important applications. In the captions, he explains the details of his revolutionary design.
http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2624
Monday, May 28, 2007
An expert's look at RFID World 2007
The annual RFID World conference, held last week in Dallas, Texas, continues to draw a large crowd of vendors, developers and end-users interested in Radio Frequency Identification. The size of the show appeared to be marginally larger than last year, with more than 200 exhibitors and nine separate educational tracks focused on topics ranging from hardware advancements to real-time location tracking to security to mandate compliance.
Active RFID
While there were continued advancements in the EPC (Electronic Product Code passive RFID space (more on that later), the really interesting trend of the show was the increased presence of active RFID and sensor technologies. Gone are the days where people were impressed with being able read data from a simple tag and display it through an application. Today we are seeing some very innovative uses of sensors integrated into active tags that can wirelessly communicate the sensory data to backend systems.
For example, AXCESS Inc. was showing an active tag that incorporates a biometric fingerprint reader. This tag is used for high security environments where two-factor authentication is required for access control. When these tags are used, employees are no longer able to borrow a colleague's badge to enter a building as the tag is only "activated" by the fingerprint scanner.
Seeing this type of technology on a PDA impressed me several years ago. Seeing it on a tag not much larger than the size of a credit card truly shows how far sensor technologies have come.
Other interesting implementations of active RFID technologies included those combining temperature, light, and humidity sensors. The cost of active tags continues to decline as well, with tags projected to be as low as $5 to $25 -- depending on the capabilities -- making them a viable alternative to passive tags for certain applications.
Mobile and forklift RFID
Another trend is the continued focus on mobile and forklift devices. LXE announced two new certified software vendors for their RX2 vehicle-mounted terminal. The improved ability for these devices to work in disconnected mode, with on-device intelligence, is contributing to their increased usage in manufacturing, healthcare and related industries.
Going smaller was Wireless Dynamics' introduction of a low-frequency RFID Reader/Writer SD Card -- the SDiD 1210 -- that enables smartphones and PDAs to read and write low-frequency tags. Low-frequency tags are being used in several application types including animal identification, asset tagging and process compliance applications.
Passive RFID
On the passive RFID side there were several key announcements related to increased performance, lower costs and broader applicability of passive RFID technologies.
One of the announcements that caught my eye came from Alien Technology, which is making its LoadImage technology available for any UHF reader vendor. This technology will enable UHF readers to program and lock Alien's Gen2 tag in just 23 milliseconds -- up to ten times faster than the average time required to commission an RFID tag.
This may seem somewhat mundane, but being able to commission an RFID tag at production line speeds of up to 400 items per minute allows for item-level tagging of goods without impacting production levels.
Other items of interest related to passive RFID technology were its increased usage in asset location tracking. Vendors such as ThingMagic, Sybase iAnywhere (my company) and PDC all were demonstrating innovative technologies for asset tracking.
ThingMagic demonstrated the ability to use its Mercury line of RFID readers for asset tracking within a building, and incorporating this data into Google Maps. Sybase iAnywhere was showing how its software infrastructure, RFID Anywhere, can be used to incorporate multiple sensor technologies including passive RFID, active RFID, RTLS and environmental sensors to track mixed-value assets in a single system.
Finally, Precision Dynamics was demonstrating how its RFID wristbands can be used in amusement parks and other entertainment venues to provide a single solution for park admission, point-of-sale purchases (e.g., merchandise, arcade games, ride tickets, etc.), guest identification and even keyless entry into hotel rooms.
All three of these examples demonstrate how RFID solutions can provide real value to organizations outside of the mandates in the retail space.
More than just exhibitors
Outside of the exhibit hall, a number of keynotes, educational sessions, training opportunities, panel discussions and seminars provided the opportunity for attendees and vendors to learn about upcoming technology, real-world deployments, interesting RFID use-cases and other market trends and opinions.
Delivered by a variety of vendors, analysts, integrators, end users and other industry players, the educational component of RFID World 2007 jam-packed a lot of content into just a few days and had attendees of every type going away having learned a few new things.
It was truly impressive to learn about some of the innovative deployments of RFID technology such as the Spanish Postal Service's use of a system implemented by Sybase iAnywhere to audit and improve mail delivery and Kimberly-Clark Corporation's management of in-store product promotions by using mobile technology from ADASA.
The show was not without excitement outside of the technology spectrum. There were several marketing gimmicks that reminded me of the technology boom in the late 1990's, all meant to grab attention and draw people to the vendors' exhibit booths. These included promotions featuring Hooters girls (and chicken wings), Dallas Mavericks' cheerleaders and a chance to win tickets to the NCAA Basketball Final Four.
http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200704/00001966001.html
Active RFID
While there were continued advancements in the EPC (Electronic Product Code passive RFID space (more on that later), the really interesting trend of the show was the increased presence of active RFID and sensor technologies. Gone are the days where people were impressed with being able read data from a simple tag and display it through an application. Today we are seeing some very innovative uses of sensors integrated into active tags that can wirelessly communicate the sensory data to backend systems.
For example, AXCESS Inc. was showing an active tag that incorporates a biometric fingerprint reader. This tag is used for high security environments where two-factor authentication is required for access control. When these tags are used, employees are no longer able to borrow a colleague's badge to enter a building as the tag is only "activated" by the fingerprint scanner.
Seeing this type of technology on a PDA impressed me several years ago. Seeing it on a tag not much larger than the size of a credit card truly shows how far sensor technologies have come.
Other interesting implementations of active RFID technologies included those combining temperature, light, and humidity sensors. The cost of active tags continues to decline as well, with tags projected to be as low as $5 to $25 -- depending on the capabilities -- making them a viable alternative to passive tags for certain applications.
Mobile and forklift RFID
Another trend is the continued focus on mobile and forklift devices. LXE announced two new certified software vendors for their RX2 vehicle-mounted terminal. The improved ability for these devices to work in disconnected mode, with on-device intelligence, is contributing to their increased usage in manufacturing, healthcare and related industries.
Going smaller was Wireless Dynamics' introduction of a low-frequency RFID Reader/Writer SD Card -- the SDiD 1210 -- that enables smartphones and PDAs to read and write low-frequency tags. Low-frequency tags are being used in several application types including animal identification, asset tagging and process compliance applications.
Passive RFID
On the passive RFID side there were several key announcements related to increased performance, lower costs and broader applicability of passive RFID technologies.
One of the announcements that caught my eye came from Alien Technology, which is making its LoadImage technology available for any UHF reader vendor. This technology will enable UHF readers to program and lock Alien's Gen2 tag in just 23 milliseconds -- up to ten times faster than the average time required to commission an RFID tag.
This may seem somewhat mundane, but being able to commission an RFID tag at production line speeds of up to 400 items per minute allows for item-level tagging of goods without impacting production levels.
Other items of interest related to passive RFID technology were its increased usage in asset location tracking. Vendors such as ThingMagic, Sybase iAnywhere (my company) and PDC all were demonstrating innovative technologies for asset tracking.
ThingMagic demonstrated the ability to use its Mercury line of RFID readers for asset tracking within a building, and incorporating this data into Google Maps. Sybase iAnywhere was showing how its software infrastructure, RFID Anywhere, can be used to incorporate multiple sensor technologies including passive RFID, active RFID, RTLS and environmental sensors to track mixed-value assets in a single system.
Finally, Precision Dynamics was demonstrating how its RFID wristbands can be used in amusement parks and other entertainment venues to provide a single solution for park admission, point-of-sale purchases (e.g., merchandise, arcade games, ride tickets, etc.), guest identification and even keyless entry into hotel rooms.
All three of these examples demonstrate how RFID solutions can provide real value to organizations outside of the mandates in the retail space.
More than just exhibitors
Outside of the exhibit hall, a number of keynotes, educational sessions, training opportunities, panel discussions and seminars provided the opportunity for attendees and vendors to learn about upcoming technology, real-world deployments, interesting RFID use-cases and other market trends and opinions.
Delivered by a variety of vendors, analysts, integrators, end users and other industry players, the educational component of RFID World 2007 jam-packed a lot of content into just a few days and had attendees of every type going away having learned a few new things.
It was truly impressive to learn about some of the innovative deployments of RFID technology such as the Spanish Postal Service's use of a system implemented by Sybase iAnywhere to audit and improve mail delivery and Kimberly-Clark Corporation's management of in-store product promotions by using mobile technology from ADASA.
The show was not without excitement outside of the technology spectrum. There were several marketing gimmicks that reminded me of the technology boom in the late 1990's, all meant to grab attention and draw people to the vendors' exhibit booths. These included promotions featuring Hooters girls (and chicken wings), Dallas Mavericks' cheerleaders and a chance to win tickets to the NCAA Basketball Final Four.
http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200704/00001966001.html
TV Sales Show Mixed Picture
February brought bad news for plasma TV makers. Plasmas clocked their first year-over-year drop in sales with a 16 percent drop in dollar volume, according to the NPD Group. Pricing was down more than 35 percent with the average plasma selling for $1672. This is, of course, good news for consumers and we showed our appreciation by driving up unit sales 30 percent. Forty-two inch models are most popular though 50-inchers are gaining.
For LCD TV makers the outlook is more bullish, based on numbers from Quixel Research. LCD sales grew in both dollar volume, 125 percent, and unit volume, 134 percent, in 2006. (Note, however, that this timeframe is for fourth-quarter 2006 over the previous year, as opposed to first-quarter 2007 in the numbers above.) Again the growth was driven by dropping prices, with large-screen sizes selling for 17 to 20 percent less and small sizes for 15 to 17 percent less. LCD prices seem to be eroding (sorry, improving!) more slowly than plasma prices but the downward trend seems inexorable.
DLP-based microdisplays also did well in 2006, increasing 63 percent in unit sales over the previous year, says a press release from format licensor Texas Instruments. In the 50-inch size, DLPs shifted twice as many units as plasma, capturing a market share of 28.9 percent. DLP also has a majority market share in microdisplays (versus LCD-based rear-projectors). TI attributes the ruddy-cheeked robustness of DLP sales to reduced-depth models from Samsung and 1080p at a competitive price point. The proud parent's press release does not discuss the profitability of DLP.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/041207tvsales/
For LCD TV makers the outlook is more bullish, based on numbers from Quixel Research. LCD sales grew in both dollar volume, 125 percent, and unit volume, 134 percent, in 2006. (Note, however, that this timeframe is for fourth-quarter 2006 over the previous year, as opposed to first-quarter 2007 in the numbers above.) Again the growth was driven by dropping prices, with large-screen sizes selling for 17 to 20 percent less and small sizes for 15 to 17 percent less. LCD prices seem to be eroding (sorry, improving!) more slowly than plasma prices but the downward trend seems inexorable.
DLP-based microdisplays also did well in 2006, increasing 63 percent in unit sales over the previous year, says a press release from format licensor Texas Instruments. In the 50-inch size, DLPs shifted twice as many units as plasma, capturing a market share of 28.9 percent. DLP also has a majority market share in microdisplays (versus LCD-based rear-projectors). TI attributes the ruddy-cheeked robustness of DLP sales to reduced-depth models from Samsung and 1080p at a competitive price point. The proud parent's press release does not discuss the profitability of DLP.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/041207tvsales/
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Organic Electronics: Moving the Frontiers of Electronics
There is a close juxtaposition of biologically-active molecules, cells and tissues with convential electronic systems for advanced applications in analytical science, electronic materials, device fabrication and neuronal prosthesis
Bioelectronics—an offshoot of biotechnology and electronics—finds applications in at least three areas of research and development: bio-sensors, molecular electronics, and neuronal interfaces. Some scientists, who include biochips and biocomputer in the area of carbon-based information technology, suggest that biological molecules might be incorporated within a self-structuring bio-informatic system which displays novel information-processing and pattern-recognition capabilities. However, these applications are still in the speculative stage, but technically feasible nevertheless. Scientists working in this field of organic electronics are of the view that this carbon-based technology will replace inorganic electronics in use now, just as semiconductors replaced vacuum tubes.
Biosensors
Of the three disciplines—biosensors, molecular electronics and neuronal interfaces (which collectively constitute bioelectronics)—the most mature is the burgeoning area of biosensors.
The term ‘biosensor’ is used to describe two different classes of analytical devices—those that measure biological analytes and those that exploit biological recognition as a part of the sensing mechanism. It is the latter concept which truly captures the spirit of bioelectronics.
A biosensor is an analytical device that converts the concentration of an analyte in an appropriate sample into an electrical signal by means of a biological-sensing element intimately connected to or integrated into a transducer. Biosensors differ from existing analytical technologies in several important respects. First, there is an intimate contact between the biological component—be it enzyme, sequence of enzymes, organelle whole cell, tissue slice, antibody, or other receptors or binding protein and the transducer. Second, most new-generation biosensors are functionally small in size, thereby permitting small sampling volumes with minimum interruptions of bodily functions following implantation, or, if used with process streams, following insertion in-line. Third, the biological material may be tailored to suit medical or industrial needs.
Biosensors are simple to use, single-step, reagentless devices which are inexpensive, disposable and fully competitive with conventional data-processing technology. Fig. 1 illustrates the general principle of biosensors. Intimate contact between biological and electrochemical systems is usually achieved by immobilisation of the biosensing system on the transducer surface by physical restraint behind a polymer membrane, or within gel matrix, by chemical crossing with a bifunctional agent, or by direct covalent attachment.
The biological system is responsible for specific recognition of the analyte and will subsequently respond with a concomitant change in a physiochemical parameter associated with the interaction. For instance, if the biological interaction results in a change in H, uptake or release of gases, ions, heat or electrons on a perturbation of an optical parameter proximal to the transducer, the biological signal may be converted into electrical signal prior to amplification, digitisation and presentation of the output in the desired format.
Transducer
There are physiochemcial devices that respond to the products of the binding on biocatalytic process. The choke of the most appropriate transducer configuration will be conditioned largely by the nature of the biocatalyst system, the secondary products to be monitored and the potential application of the final device. The ideal transducer should display a moderately fast response time, be amendable to facile fabrication and miniaturisation, be reliable and be able to compensate for adverse environmental effects such as temperature dependency and drift.
The potential of an ion-sensitive electrode is a logarithmic function of the ionic activity, with a 59.2ml charge in the electrode potential per tenfold change in concentration of a monovalent ion.
Photoactive P-nitrophenylazides, photosensitive polyvinylalcohol with pendent stilbazolium groups as a photo-cross linkable enterphnent matrix and piezoelectric ink-jet devices have all been used successfully to generate active, small-area enzyme membranes. For instance, it has been demonstrated that it is feasible to generate monolytinic multi-enzyme modified FET biosensors by using photolithographically-patterned, enzyme-loaded polyvinylalcohol films, and a triple-function silicon-on-sapphire array with an on-chip pseudo reference electrode for the measurement of urea, glucose and potassium ion. Thus, despite some unresolved problems, biosensors, based on integrated solidstate devices, display considerable potential for miniaturisation of multifunction configuration.
Ampreometric devices—also known as current-measuring devices—offer a wider scope of applications than potentiometric techniques and are dependent on analyte concentration, thereby according a normal dynamic range and normal response to error in measurement of current. A solidstate hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sensor has been fabricated and used in a glucose sensor.
Fig. 2 displays a typical calibration curve for miniaturised amperometric glucose sensor. Thin-film microsensors of this type are promising devices for H2O2 detection since these are widely applicable and display good sensitivity.
Solution Conductance
An alternative measuring principle, which is also widely applicable to biological systems, is the exploitation of solution conductance. The development and operation of an accurate microelectronic conductance biosensor, which operates in a differential mode by monitoring the change in conductance occasioned by the catalytic action of enzymes, has also been described.
Other on-chip measurement principles are also exploited in the fabrication of biosensors. For instance, it has been demonstrated that two temperature-sensitive devices, each consisting of three Darlington-connected npn transistors and CMOS and constant current circuits, can be used for differential calourimetric determination of glucose concentrations.
The difference in steady-state output voltage of enzyme-modified sensor compared to unmodified (after addition of 2-100 millimoles glucose) was related to catalytically-induced temperature changes and, thus, glucose concentration.
Furthermore, miniature piezoelectric sensors like quartz crystal and surface acoustic wave devices can be used directly in aqueous solution as enzyme substrate of immunochemical sensor. Excellent reproducibilities, coating lifetimes, response time and sensitivity are obtained.
Potential for Technology
Clearly, biosensors have evolved into miniaturised disposable solidstate devices, having the theoretical capability to cointegrate the signal-processing and signal-conditioning circuitries directly on chip and, thereby, obviate the requirements for traditional external instrumentation. A multifunction chip, comprising an array of biologically-sensitised gases deposited on a monolithic silicon chip, could also incorporate sufficient signal-conditioning capability to integrate each sensor. This, in turn, assesses outputs, compares with calibration-channel and releases the information on concentration, date, batch code, expiration date and operations code. However, the obstacles that remain are formidable.
Molecular Electronics
‘Molecular electronics’ is the term coined to describe the exploitation of bio-molecules in the fabrication of electronic materials with novel electronic, optical or magnetic properties.In biology one finds many examples of organised structures on an intracellular, cellular or intercellular level, and at even the molecular level has an analogy with conventional electronic data-processing. Biological systems, in fact, perform all the functions of interest to modern electronic industry—sensing, input/output, memory, computations—as well as functions not yet achieved like rapid, complex pattern-recognition and learning. It is more likely that the self-assembly property of proteins will be exploited to form a template or matrix for proper assembly of complex architecture for conventional electronic components. In fact, the razor-sharp incisors of rodents, which make them one of the most destructive pests, have now played a dramatic role reversal. They may hold the key to incalculable benefits to humanity by speeding up computer revolution. A team of scientists, led by Dr Venkatesan Ranugopal Krishnan at Harvard University, claims to have demonstrated that protein derived from the enamel of a rodent’s tooth could be used to make computer chips a thousand times more powerful than those used today.
Though computer already functions at high speed, complex number-crunching tasks, such as detailed weather prediction, still take hours to complete. The human body, for instance, houses an amazing network of electronic circuitry that conducts information in a flash to various organs. Understanding the structure of microscopic protein material that resembles the task of semiconductors in a computer would help scientists solve the problem of miniaturisation. The stumbling block has been the inability to find a protein capable of sustaining the harsh atmosphere of a computer and correspond to a computer’s logical structure of commands. That is critical because computers operate in the binary system where paths through a microchip either open or shut when stimulated by an electrical impulse. The flip-flop action—at present taking a few billions of a second—determines the speed with which a computer will process information.
When Dr Krishnan’s team isolated a protein called amelogenin from rodents’ tooth enamel, they found that it could not only withstand the engineering required to make computer chips but also remained stable under working conditions.The team found that proteins could be used for reading and writing data using lasers and offered enormous amounts of memory. A chip made from amelogenin also increases processing speed. This is because of its capability to alternate between open and shut states in a few trillionths of a second—a 1000-fold improvement, offering tetrabytes instead of the currently-available gigabytes of memory. In short, amelogenin promises far more efficient and reliable protein-based chips than anything developed previously. Still, these biochips need more development before they are ready for commercial use. This can safely be estimated to take place at least two decades hence. However, a prototype of hybrid protein is planned to bring the bionic computer—a perennial fantasy of science fiction writers—a lot closer to reality.
In addition, biological analogies are likely to suggest the development of novel structures and algorithms to achieve functions not readily accomplished by computing devices of present-day design. In addition, the analysis- sensitive membranes of ion-sensitive electrodes have been integrated with monolithic solidstate FET technology to introduce a range of ion-selective and substrate-specific FETs. For instance, an FET sensitive to penicillin has been constructed which responded to penicillin concentration of up to 50-60 millimole in less than 30 seconds. It displayed a lifetime of approximately two months and permitted automatic compensation for temperature and ambient pH. However, the buffer capacity of the analyte was found to have a profound influence on the sensitivity and range and linear response.
Similar limitations are experienced with enzyme-modified FET devicessuch as those responsive to glucose, urea, acetylcholine, adenosinetri-phosphate (ATP) and lipid, with the complementary enzyme glucoseoxidase, uncase acetylcholinesterase, adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) and lipase respectively immobilised to pH-responsive Si3N4 or iridium oxide (I203) gate materials. A co-integrated, coulometric-feedback system may circumvent these limitations. The electrolysis of water at a noble-metal electrode, spatially positioned close to urea-sensitive FET, generates H+ which can be used to balance the uptake engendered by enzyme activity.
Neuronal Interfaces
Finally, bioelectronics incorporates the development of functional neuronal interfaces which permit contiguity among neuronal tissues and conventional solidstate and computing technology. This is done to achieve applications such as avral and visual prostheses, treatment of paralysis and even enhancement of memory and intelligence.
The term biochip is sometimes used to describe an implantable system that would enable the interconnection of nervous tissues with conventional computers. However, like the construction of bio-sensor, the fabrication of a functioning neuronal interface or artificial synapse will require the development of appropriate reversible chemical to electrical-transduction processes. The development at neuronal interface is likely to acquire greater knowledge about chemical mechanism which govern synaptic communication.
The subject of bioelectronics has moved from mere conjecture to an experimental stage but further research is necessary to bring a commercial class to this technology. However, this is a high-risk and a high-investment field. Nevertheless, it is one of the most fascinating and promising fields and, once developed to an extent, will make bioelectronic systems very cheap.
http://www.electronicsforu.com/electronicsforu/Articles/ad.asp?url=/efylinux/efyhome/cover/additions/organic.htm&title=Organic%20Electronics:%20Moving%20the%20Frontiers%20of%20Electronics
Bioelectronics—an offshoot of biotechnology and electronics—finds applications in at least three areas of research and development: bio-sensors, molecular electronics, and neuronal interfaces. Some scientists, who include biochips and biocomputer in the area of carbon-based information technology, suggest that biological molecules might be incorporated within a self-structuring bio-informatic system which displays novel information-processing and pattern-recognition capabilities. However, these applications are still in the speculative stage, but technically feasible nevertheless. Scientists working in this field of organic electronics are of the view that this carbon-based technology will replace inorganic electronics in use now, just as semiconductors replaced vacuum tubes.
Biosensors
Of the three disciplines—biosensors, molecular electronics and neuronal interfaces (which collectively constitute bioelectronics)—the most mature is the burgeoning area of biosensors.
The term ‘biosensor’ is used to describe two different classes of analytical devices—those that measure biological analytes and those that exploit biological recognition as a part of the sensing mechanism. It is the latter concept which truly captures the spirit of bioelectronics.
A biosensor is an analytical device that converts the concentration of an analyte in an appropriate sample into an electrical signal by means of a biological-sensing element intimately connected to or integrated into a transducer. Biosensors differ from existing analytical technologies in several important respects. First, there is an intimate contact between the biological component—be it enzyme, sequence of enzymes, organelle whole cell, tissue slice, antibody, or other receptors or binding protein and the transducer. Second, most new-generation biosensors are functionally small in size, thereby permitting small sampling volumes with minimum interruptions of bodily functions following implantation, or, if used with process streams, following insertion in-line. Third, the biological material may be tailored to suit medical or industrial needs.
Biosensors are simple to use, single-step, reagentless devices which are inexpensive, disposable and fully competitive with conventional data-processing technology. Fig. 1 illustrates the general principle of biosensors. Intimate contact between biological and electrochemical systems is usually achieved by immobilisation of the biosensing system on the transducer surface by physical restraint behind a polymer membrane, or within gel matrix, by chemical crossing with a bifunctional agent, or by direct covalent attachment.
The biological system is responsible for specific recognition of the analyte and will subsequently respond with a concomitant change in a physiochemical parameter associated with the interaction. For instance, if the biological interaction results in a change in H, uptake or release of gases, ions, heat or electrons on a perturbation of an optical parameter proximal to the transducer, the biological signal may be converted into electrical signal prior to amplification, digitisation and presentation of the output in the desired format.
Transducer
There are physiochemcial devices that respond to the products of the binding on biocatalytic process. The choke of the most appropriate transducer configuration will be conditioned largely by the nature of the biocatalyst system, the secondary products to be monitored and the potential application of the final device. The ideal transducer should display a moderately fast response time, be amendable to facile fabrication and miniaturisation, be reliable and be able to compensate for adverse environmental effects such as temperature dependency and drift.
The potential of an ion-sensitive electrode is a logarithmic function of the ionic activity, with a 59.2ml charge in the electrode potential per tenfold change in concentration of a monovalent ion.
Photoactive P-nitrophenylazides, photosensitive polyvinylalcohol with pendent stilbazolium groups as a photo-cross linkable enterphnent matrix and piezoelectric ink-jet devices have all been used successfully to generate active, small-area enzyme membranes. For instance, it has been demonstrated that it is feasible to generate monolytinic multi-enzyme modified FET biosensors by using photolithographically-patterned, enzyme-loaded polyvinylalcohol films, and a triple-function silicon-on-sapphire array with an on-chip pseudo reference electrode for the measurement of urea, glucose and potassium ion. Thus, despite some unresolved problems, biosensors, based on integrated solidstate devices, display considerable potential for miniaturisation of multifunction configuration.
Ampreometric devices—also known as current-measuring devices—offer a wider scope of applications than potentiometric techniques and are dependent on analyte concentration, thereby according a normal dynamic range and normal response to error in measurement of current. A solidstate hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sensor has been fabricated and used in a glucose sensor.
Fig. 2 displays a typical calibration curve for miniaturised amperometric glucose sensor. Thin-film microsensors of this type are promising devices for H2O2 detection since these are widely applicable and display good sensitivity.
Solution Conductance
An alternative measuring principle, which is also widely applicable to biological systems, is the exploitation of solution conductance. The development and operation of an accurate microelectronic conductance biosensor, which operates in a differential mode by monitoring the change in conductance occasioned by the catalytic action of enzymes, has also been described.
Other on-chip measurement principles are also exploited in the fabrication of biosensors. For instance, it has been demonstrated that two temperature-sensitive devices, each consisting of three Darlington-connected npn transistors and CMOS and constant current circuits, can be used for differential calourimetric determination of glucose concentrations.
The difference in steady-state output voltage of enzyme-modified sensor compared to unmodified (after addition of 2-100 millimoles glucose) was related to catalytically-induced temperature changes and, thus, glucose concentration.
Furthermore, miniature piezoelectric sensors like quartz crystal and surface acoustic wave devices can be used directly in aqueous solution as enzyme substrate of immunochemical sensor. Excellent reproducibilities, coating lifetimes, response time and sensitivity are obtained.
Potential for Technology
Clearly, biosensors have evolved into miniaturised disposable solidstate devices, having the theoretical capability to cointegrate the signal-processing and signal-conditioning circuitries directly on chip and, thereby, obviate the requirements for traditional external instrumentation. A multifunction chip, comprising an array of biologically-sensitised gases deposited on a monolithic silicon chip, could also incorporate sufficient signal-conditioning capability to integrate each sensor. This, in turn, assesses outputs, compares with calibration-channel and releases the information on concentration, date, batch code, expiration date and operations code. However, the obstacles that remain are formidable.
Molecular Electronics
‘Molecular electronics’ is the term coined to describe the exploitation of bio-molecules in the fabrication of electronic materials with novel electronic, optical or magnetic properties.In biology one finds many examples of organised structures on an intracellular, cellular or intercellular level, and at even the molecular level has an analogy with conventional electronic data-processing. Biological systems, in fact, perform all the functions of interest to modern electronic industry—sensing, input/output, memory, computations—as well as functions not yet achieved like rapid, complex pattern-recognition and learning. It is more likely that the self-assembly property of proteins will be exploited to form a template or matrix for proper assembly of complex architecture for conventional electronic components. In fact, the razor-sharp incisors of rodents, which make them one of the most destructive pests, have now played a dramatic role reversal. They may hold the key to incalculable benefits to humanity by speeding up computer revolution. A team of scientists, led by Dr Venkatesan Ranugopal Krishnan at Harvard University, claims to have demonstrated that protein derived from the enamel of a rodent’s tooth could be used to make computer chips a thousand times more powerful than those used today.
Though computer already functions at high speed, complex number-crunching tasks, such as detailed weather prediction, still take hours to complete. The human body, for instance, houses an amazing network of electronic circuitry that conducts information in a flash to various organs. Understanding the structure of microscopic protein material that resembles the task of semiconductors in a computer would help scientists solve the problem of miniaturisation. The stumbling block has been the inability to find a protein capable of sustaining the harsh atmosphere of a computer and correspond to a computer’s logical structure of commands. That is critical because computers operate in the binary system where paths through a microchip either open or shut when stimulated by an electrical impulse. The flip-flop action—at present taking a few billions of a second—determines the speed with which a computer will process information.
When Dr Krishnan’s team isolated a protein called amelogenin from rodents’ tooth enamel, they found that it could not only withstand the engineering required to make computer chips but also remained stable under working conditions.The team found that proteins could be used for reading and writing data using lasers and offered enormous amounts of memory. A chip made from amelogenin also increases processing speed. This is because of its capability to alternate between open and shut states in a few trillionths of a second—a 1000-fold improvement, offering tetrabytes instead of the currently-available gigabytes of memory. In short, amelogenin promises far more efficient and reliable protein-based chips than anything developed previously. Still, these biochips need more development before they are ready for commercial use. This can safely be estimated to take place at least two decades hence. However, a prototype of hybrid protein is planned to bring the bionic computer—a perennial fantasy of science fiction writers—a lot closer to reality.
In addition, biological analogies are likely to suggest the development of novel structures and algorithms to achieve functions not readily accomplished by computing devices of present-day design. In addition, the analysis- sensitive membranes of ion-sensitive electrodes have been integrated with monolithic solidstate FET technology to introduce a range of ion-selective and substrate-specific FETs. For instance, an FET sensitive to penicillin has been constructed which responded to penicillin concentration of up to 50-60 millimole in less than 30 seconds. It displayed a lifetime of approximately two months and permitted automatic compensation for temperature and ambient pH. However, the buffer capacity of the analyte was found to have a profound influence on the sensitivity and range and linear response.
Similar limitations are experienced with enzyme-modified FET devicessuch as those responsive to glucose, urea, acetylcholine, adenosinetri-phosphate (ATP) and lipid, with the complementary enzyme glucoseoxidase, uncase acetylcholinesterase, adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) and lipase respectively immobilised to pH-responsive Si3N4 or iridium oxide (I203) gate materials. A co-integrated, coulometric-feedback system may circumvent these limitations. The electrolysis of water at a noble-metal electrode, spatially positioned close to urea-sensitive FET, generates H+ which can be used to balance the uptake engendered by enzyme activity.
Neuronal Interfaces
Finally, bioelectronics incorporates the development of functional neuronal interfaces which permit contiguity among neuronal tissues and conventional solidstate and computing technology. This is done to achieve applications such as avral and visual prostheses, treatment of paralysis and even enhancement of memory and intelligence.
The term biochip is sometimes used to describe an implantable system that would enable the interconnection of nervous tissues with conventional computers. However, like the construction of bio-sensor, the fabrication of a functioning neuronal interface or artificial synapse will require the development of appropriate reversible chemical to electrical-transduction processes. The development at neuronal interface is likely to acquire greater knowledge about chemical mechanism which govern synaptic communication.
The subject of bioelectronics has moved from mere conjecture to an experimental stage but further research is necessary to bring a commercial class to this technology. However, this is a high-risk and a high-investment field. Nevertheless, it is one of the most fascinating and promising fields and, once developed to an extent, will make bioelectronic systems very cheap.
http://www.electronicsforu.com/electronicsforu/Articles/ad.asp?url=/efylinux/efyhome/cover/additions/organic.htm&title=Organic%20Electronics:%20Moving%20the%20Frontiers%20of%20Electronics
Friday, May 25, 2007
Green fever
The adverts for chip maker Intel’s latest multi-core processors are almost breathless with excitement, as they promise to open the gates to a Green IT Nirvana, where servers are “powerful, but not power hungry”.
Intel is not alone in pushing this eco-friendly vision: rival AMD, and server makers such as Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard are all keen advocates of powerful computers that do not consume vast quantities of energy.
Such messages may appeal to any manager examining spiralling energy costs in the data centre, but it would be naïve to assume that the vendors’ concern is born purely out of altruism.
The chip and server manufacturers are only too aware that if they can convince business leaders that their new products will reduce operating costs while delivering better performance, the notion of a large-scale upgrade of legacy infrastructure would look so much more appealing.
But market watcher IDC remains stubbornly unconvinced. It recently lowered its predictions for the number of processors it expects will be shipped between 2006 and 2010. The reason? Multi-core processors.
IDC initially predicted that the volume of processors shipping inside of servers would rise by 25% between 2006 and 2010. It has now amended that forecast: it has kept the numbers the same, but with the important caveat that it is counting individual cores as processors. That is set to knock $2.4 billion off the revenues it sees being generated.
And there is more bad news for the server makers: IDC predicts that virtualisation software – which will help push up the astonishingly poor utilisation rates of much of today’s server farms – is also going to depress server shipments. IDC has reduced its server shipment forecast by 4.5 million shipments for the years between 2006 to 2010.
Elsewhere, environmental pressure group Greenpeace is attempting to place the green efforts of the computer makers in context. It is following the environmental efforts of some of today’s leading PC and mobile handset makers, and ranking them accordingly. The rankings can be seen here.
http://www.information-age.com/article/2007/april_2007/green_fever
Intel is not alone in pushing this eco-friendly vision: rival AMD, and server makers such as Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard are all keen advocates of powerful computers that do not consume vast quantities of energy.
Such messages may appeal to any manager examining spiralling energy costs in the data centre, but it would be naïve to assume that the vendors’ concern is born purely out of altruism.
The chip and server manufacturers are only too aware that if they can convince business leaders that their new products will reduce operating costs while delivering better performance, the notion of a large-scale upgrade of legacy infrastructure would look so much more appealing.
But market watcher IDC remains stubbornly unconvinced. It recently lowered its predictions for the number of processors it expects will be shipped between 2006 and 2010. The reason? Multi-core processors.
IDC initially predicted that the volume of processors shipping inside of servers would rise by 25% between 2006 and 2010. It has now amended that forecast: it has kept the numbers the same, but with the important caveat that it is counting individual cores as processors. That is set to knock $2.4 billion off the revenues it sees being generated.
And there is more bad news for the server makers: IDC predicts that virtualisation software – which will help push up the astonishingly poor utilisation rates of much of today’s server farms – is also going to depress server shipments. IDC has reduced its server shipment forecast by 4.5 million shipments for the years between 2006 to 2010.
Elsewhere, environmental pressure group Greenpeace is attempting to place the green efforts of the computer makers in context. It is following the environmental efforts of some of today’s leading PC and mobile handset makers, and ranking them accordingly. The rankings can be seen here.
http://www.information-age.com/article/2007/april_2007/green_fever
Circuit City Struggles for Survival
Recent doings at Circuit City may be of interest in the wake of the mass firings reported here and elsewhere. The story became a Primedia trifecta—covered here, on the Stereophile site, and on the Ultimate AV site—in addition to wide coverage elsewhere including a stern editorial in the New York Times.
According to TWICE, the company is getting as hard-knuckled with business partners as it is with employees, renegotiating terms with vendors and service-plan providers. Marketing initiatives include a "basket of goods" that would add accessories, warranties, and installation to TV pricetags. And new store operating procedures will relieve surviving personnel of redundant tasks, leaving them more time to sell stuff, to the best of their abilities.
Perhaps the most notable news in Circuit's turnaround plans will be the opening of 65 new stores in 2007 and 100 more in 2008. And so the fight for survival continues in the increasingly Darwinian world of CE retailing.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/041807circuit/
According to TWICE, the company is getting as hard-knuckled with business partners as it is with employees, renegotiating terms with vendors and service-plan providers. Marketing initiatives include a "basket of goods" that would add accessories, warranties, and installation to TV pricetags. And new store operating procedures will relieve surviving personnel of redundant tasks, leaving them more time to sell stuff, to the best of their abilities.
Perhaps the most notable news in Circuit's turnaround plans will be the opening of 65 new stores in 2007 and 100 more in 2008. And so the fight for survival continues in the increasingly Darwinian world of CE retailing.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/041807circuit/
Trials and tribulations persist in Joint Tactical Radio
The military services are slashing by nearly two-thirds their expected buys of the Defense Department’s troubled joint tactical radio system.
As the program continues to lose support across the military services, Defense Department officials are engineering a last-ditch effort to save what is increasingly a shaky procurement plan. They also are backing away from earlier demands that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps stop buying their own service-unique radios in favor of a “joint” family of radios.
A decade after it was conceived — and $2 billion spent on research and development — the joint tactical radio system, or JTRS, is hanging on for dear life.
The original goal was to replace more than 500,000 military radios with a family of interoperable devices that carry voice and data communications. The most significant feature of JTRS radios would be their ability to be programmed, like PCs, with software applications called “waveforms.”
But the program got off to a slow start, and was beleaguered by bureaucratic infighting.
At the Pentagon, acquisition officials viewed JTRS as the poster child of joint programs, one that would finally allow the Defense Department to rein in the services’ disjointed hardware procurements. As JTRS development got under way between 1998 and 2000, government officials and contractors were predicting prototypes would be in the hands of soldiers by 2003. But as early as 2001, it became more apparent that JTRS was an appealing concept that would be harder to execute than anyone had foreseen.
By the time the Army marched into Iraq in 2003, no new radios were yet available, not even working prototypes. The service went to war with 1980s vintage radios, and supplemented those with commercial cell phones and satellite phones. After Army leaders realized they would be in Iraq for years to come, by late 2003 they began ordering thousands of tactical radios that vendors already were producing.
The highest demand was for handheld and vehicular radios. The Army before Iraq did not issue radios to each soldier nor did it install them on every humvee, because it was deemed too expensive. But that changed once commanders in Iraq began to demand thousands more radios to keep soldiers and Marines from buying off-the-shelf products to make up for shortages of military-issued equipment.
During the past four years, the services (mostly the Army) have spent nearly $4 billion on new radios. By comparison, between 1998 and 2001, their radio purchases amounted to less than $1 billion, according to Defense Department estimates. More than 60 percent of all radios procured are either individual handheld or squad-level manpack.
Before the war, the services were not allowed to purchase radios unless they obtained a “JTRS waiver” from the office of the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. The policy aimed to discourage purchases of non-JTRS radios.
But Army officials complained that the waiver was a bureaucratic burden that hindered their ability to rapidly deliver radios to troops in Iraq. The Pentagon subsequently agreed to suspend the waiver, although it recently approved a limited policy that only applies to single-channel handheld radios.
Radio manufacturers, who had envisaged a financial boon from JTRS contracts, gradually realized that they could make better profits by ramping up production of existing radios in response to the military’s surging demand. Some contractors privately admit they have soured on JTRS, especially once they saw that their customers in the armed services had begun to lose confidence in the program. Several industry representatives contacted by National Defense, who did not want to be quoted by name, voiced disappointment about disorganized management and scattershot decision making by those in charge.
As it is now structured, JTRS includes multiple radio variants for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Special Operations Command.
Just two years ago, the services had forecast they would buy nearly 458,000 JTRS radios — the majority of which were small form fit (184,000), four-channel ground vehicular (108,000) and two-channel manpack (104,000).
In February 2007, the services revised their expected buys down to 148,000 JTRS radios. The biggest drops are for the four-channel ground vehicular radio (from 108,000 to 5,700), the two-channel manpack (from 104,000 to 16,900) and the one-channel handheld (from 46,700 to none).
The 68 percent procurement cutbacks, while not entirely unanticipated, nevertheless sparked unease among JTRS program officers and contractors. Of most concern is that in smaller quantities, the new radios will be far more expensive and even less likely to survive future budget drills.
Despite the progressively bleak outlook for JTRS, Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., who chairs the four-star Joint Requirements Oversight Council, lauded the progress the Pentagon so far has achieved in moving the program forward. During a recent hearing of the House Budget Committee, he told lawmakers that JTRS development costs had shrunk from $6 billion to $3 billion after the Pentagon agreed to downscale the project’s technical scope. Rather than be able to operate 33 waveforms, the radios will only run eight waveforms. “We could meet 80 percent of our requirements with eight waveforms,” Giambastiani said. Even tough JTRS has been scaled back, he added, “It’s a very important program.”
Currently overseeing the joint tactical radio effort is John Grimes, the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. In charge of managing the procurement of radios is the joint program executive officer, Dennis Bauman, who is based at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego.
At a February meeting of top Pentagon acquisition leaders and JTRS officials, Bauman said one of his “strategic priorities” was to bolster confidence in the program, according to briefing charts obtained by National Defense.
Other goals include better explaining JTRS technical requirements, informing members of Congress and establishing a defense-wide “tactical networking center of excellence.”
Many insiders questioned the decision two years ago to locate the JTRS program office thousands of miles away from the nucleus of military power in Washington, D.C. But the current plan is to expand the program’s footprint in San Diego even further. Officials at the meeting warned Bauman that moving all JTRS operations to San Diego will be a “challenge” but also potentially a benefit as “new blood” could be injected into the program.
Among the priorities that Bauman listed on the briefing charts are to “promote continued co-location of JTRS program elements to San Diego; encourage industry, government, academic, and international investment; shape the Department of Defense radio environment; strengthen the industrial base; educate and train the JTRS team; build morale and ‘esprit de groupe.’”
Bauman’s deputy, Howard Pace, who also briefed senior management at the February meeting, cautioned that unless the Defense Department can find a way to curtail the services’ escalating procurements of non-JTRS radios, the program could eventually perish. He cited figures of $9 billion to $16 billion spent on non-JTRS radios since 1998 — the largest expenditures occurring in 2004 and 2005.
“Conclusions can be drawn that policy, absent compliance and enforcement mechanisms, is at most partially effective,” Pace wrote in his briefing charts. “Without acquisition discipline and adherence to policy, there is far less chance of achieving JTRS program objectives.”
Kenneth J. Krieg, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, was in attendance at the meeting, sources indicated. He endorsed Bauman’s strategy as a “step in the right direction, but not yet revolutionary.”
One major topic of discussion was the notion of endorsing company-developed radios as official JTRS products.
Radios that were selected to become official JTRS-approved products include the Falcon III AN/PRC-152(C) handheld made by Harris RF Communications, and the JEM AN/PRC-148 handheld made by Thales Communications. Both radios were designed and developed by their manufacturers, outside the JTRS program.
Krieg directed Bauman to come up with a “contract vehicle” that would allow all services to purchase both radios under a consolidated arrangement. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps currently are buying these radios but under separate contracts. Minutes of the February meeting note that Krieg disapproved of these disjointed procurements because they result in higher prices. Krieg suggested that the services probably are managing their own contracts independently because they do not trust the JTRS joint office to handle acquisitions in a timely manner.
Another concern is future JTRS costs. The downward projections in the quantities of radios that the services plan to buy could result in substantial per-unit cost increases. Most of the 148,000 radios identified by the services for future procurement are not funded in the Defense Department’s 2008-2013 budget, which includes $3 billion for JTRS research and development. Krieg asked for precise budgets that show procurement dollars allocated to JTRS and directed Bauman’s office to calculate the per-unit cost of future radios. A major concern is that if the unit price ends up being more than 15 percent higher than the original estimates, the program will be the target of a congressional review under the so-called Nunn-McCurdy legislation.
Apprehension about Nunn-McCurdy cost overruns, however, may be a moot point. So far, no JTRS radios are close to entering production. The Defense Department, critics argue, should be more alarmed by the fact that after billions of dollars in R&D, it has no combat-ready products to show for it.
A wavering commitment by the military services also could doom the program before it ever reaches full-rate production. The services by most accounts have yet to be convinced that they should forgo their acquisitions of existing radios in favor of yet-unproven technology.
“They are not willing to stop legacy procurements even though JTRS would be backwards compatible with legacy radios,” said one frustrated defense official.
It also has become apparent that within John Grimes’ office, JTRS is losing momentum. Ron Jost, who is deputy assistant secretary of defense for command, control and communications, is said to champion a shift away from government-developed software radios, in favor of products that companies already have designed and prototyped.
A spokesman for both Grimes and Jost at the Pentagon did not respond to several requests for comment.
At the February meeting at the Pentagon, Bauman acknowledged that there had been much confusion about the definitions of “JTRS compliant” and “JTRS approved.” He warned that many products claim to be JTRS compliant but are not.
To be certified as a JTRS product, a radio has to demonstrate that it can run version 2.2 of the Defense Department’s software communications architecture. The radio’s encryption technology also has to be certified by the National Security Agency. Radios, additionally, must get approval from the Joint Interoperability Testing Center.
Bauman’s briefing charts stated that both the JEM and the PRC-152 meet “some of the criteria” but were still given waivers so they could be considered “JTRS approved.” Both were certified by the NSA.
Manufacturers insist that the proprietary radios they have developed for military use are not to be confused with non-encrypted commercial radios. Many commercial products are being used by the Defense Department, such as Motorola handheld radios. Some radios developed for the Pentagon that are also sold in the open market are not necessarily considered commercial products, one industry executive said.
Some company-funded proprietary products may look and feel like JTRS radios but are not exactly the same. Supporters of JTRS fear that military customers ultimately may not care where the product came from, as long as it does the job.
The two-channel handheld, two-channel manpack and small form-fit JTRS radios, for example, add up to 21,000 requirements, according to General Dynamics, one of the JTRS contractors. The most demanding specs are in the area of encryption and network security.
Those who back the adoption of vendors’ proprietary radios as substitutes for government-developed systems contend that this approach saves the Pentagon R&D dollars in the near term. But JTRS advocates worry that the end result will be a mishmash of radios that may or may not be able to talk to users across all services, as JTRS was originally envisioned.
Observers who follow the program closely view the current woes as symptomatic of a wider issue — the absence of a staunch advocate within the Defense Department. The original architects of JTRS, who saw it as a linchpin of a “network-centric” military, have long departed. And it still remains unclear whether JTRS can regain momentum.
Meanwhile, JTRS supporters and contractors are making the case that “success stories” are being ignored. General Dynamics C4 Systems, responsible for the handheld/manpack/small form fit (HMS) radios, recently announced it had delivered working prototypes to the Army.
General Dynamics displayed a two-channel JTRS manpack at an industry trade show in February. But even as the contractor is publicizing the JTRS program’s first manpack prototype, officials from Bauman’s office are considering offering a stopgap radio — the so-called SINCGARS “sidehat.” The single-channel ground and airborne radio system, made by ITT Corporation, is used for single-band VHF voice communications. The sidehat, as the name implies, is an appendage radio that would operate the networking waveform so users can also send and receive video, maps and other data.
The problem with the sidehat, industry sources said, is that it is so far only a concept. Some factions within the Army would like to adopt the sidehat because it would allow the service to piggyback on its large investment in SINCGARS. The Army already owns 400,000, and requested an additional $2 billion for SINCGARS radios in the 2007 and 2008 war-emergency budgets.
A number of Army officials who oppose the sidehat concept believe the service should back the next-generation JTRS manpack, even though it may not be ready for another five years. But as more funds get poured into SINCGARS, the lesser the chances that there will be enough money to buy the new joint tactical radios.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/Trialsandtrib.htm
As the program continues to lose support across the military services, Defense Department officials are engineering a last-ditch effort to save what is increasingly a shaky procurement plan. They also are backing away from earlier demands that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps stop buying their own service-unique radios in favor of a “joint” family of radios.
A decade after it was conceived — and $2 billion spent on research and development — the joint tactical radio system, or JTRS, is hanging on for dear life.
The original goal was to replace more than 500,000 military radios with a family of interoperable devices that carry voice and data communications. The most significant feature of JTRS radios would be their ability to be programmed, like PCs, with software applications called “waveforms.”
But the program got off to a slow start, and was beleaguered by bureaucratic infighting.
At the Pentagon, acquisition officials viewed JTRS as the poster child of joint programs, one that would finally allow the Defense Department to rein in the services’ disjointed hardware procurements. As JTRS development got under way between 1998 and 2000, government officials and contractors were predicting prototypes would be in the hands of soldiers by 2003. But as early as 2001, it became more apparent that JTRS was an appealing concept that would be harder to execute than anyone had foreseen.
By the time the Army marched into Iraq in 2003, no new radios were yet available, not even working prototypes. The service went to war with 1980s vintage radios, and supplemented those with commercial cell phones and satellite phones. After Army leaders realized they would be in Iraq for years to come, by late 2003 they began ordering thousands of tactical radios that vendors already were producing.
The highest demand was for handheld and vehicular radios. The Army before Iraq did not issue radios to each soldier nor did it install them on every humvee, because it was deemed too expensive. But that changed once commanders in Iraq began to demand thousands more radios to keep soldiers and Marines from buying off-the-shelf products to make up for shortages of military-issued equipment.
During the past four years, the services (mostly the Army) have spent nearly $4 billion on new radios. By comparison, between 1998 and 2001, their radio purchases amounted to less than $1 billion, according to Defense Department estimates. More than 60 percent of all radios procured are either individual handheld or squad-level manpack.
Before the war, the services were not allowed to purchase radios unless they obtained a “JTRS waiver” from the office of the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. The policy aimed to discourage purchases of non-JTRS radios.
But Army officials complained that the waiver was a bureaucratic burden that hindered their ability to rapidly deliver radios to troops in Iraq. The Pentagon subsequently agreed to suspend the waiver, although it recently approved a limited policy that only applies to single-channel handheld radios.
Radio manufacturers, who had envisaged a financial boon from JTRS contracts, gradually realized that they could make better profits by ramping up production of existing radios in response to the military’s surging demand. Some contractors privately admit they have soured on JTRS, especially once they saw that their customers in the armed services had begun to lose confidence in the program. Several industry representatives contacted by National Defense, who did not want to be quoted by name, voiced disappointment about disorganized management and scattershot decision making by those in charge.
As it is now structured, JTRS includes multiple radio variants for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Special Operations Command.
Just two years ago, the services had forecast they would buy nearly 458,000 JTRS radios — the majority of which were small form fit (184,000), four-channel ground vehicular (108,000) and two-channel manpack (104,000).
In February 2007, the services revised their expected buys down to 148,000 JTRS radios. The biggest drops are for the four-channel ground vehicular radio (from 108,000 to 5,700), the two-channel manpack (from 104,000 to 16,900) and the one-channel handheld (from 46,700 to none).
The 68 percent procurement cutbacks, while not entirely unanticipated, nevertheless sparked unease among JTRS program officers and contractors. Of most concern is that in smaller quantities, the new radios will be far more expensive and even less likely to survive future budget drills.
Despite the progressively bleak outlook for JTRS, Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., who chairs the four-star Joint Requirements Oversight Council, lauded the progress the Pentagon so far has achieved in moving the program forward. During a recent hearing of the House Budget Committee, he told lawmakers that JTRS development costs had shrunk from $6 billion to $3 billion after the Pentagon agreed to downscale the project’s technical scope. Rather than be able to operate 33 waveforms, the radios will only run eight waveforms. “We could meet 80 percent of our requirements with eight waveforms,” Giambastiani said. Even tough JTRS has been scaled back, he added, “It’s a very important program.”
Currently overseeing the joint tactical radio effort is John Grimes, the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. In charge of managing the procurement of radios is the joint program executive officer, Dennis Bauman, who is based at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego.
At a February meeting of top Pentagon acquisition leaders and JTRS officials, Bauman said one of his “strategic priorities” was to bolster confidence in the program, according to briefing charts obtained by National Defense.
Other goals include better explaining JTRS technical requirements, informing members of Congress and establishing a defense-wide “tactical networking center of excellence.”
Many insiders questioned the decision two years ago to locate the JTRS program office thousands of miles away from the nucleus of military power in Washington, D.C. But the current plan is to expand the program’s footprint in San Diego even further. Officials at the meeting warned Bauman that moving all JTRS operations to San Diego will be a “challenge” but also potentially a benefit as “new blood” could be injected into the program.
Among the priorities that Bauman listed on the briefing charts are to “promote continued co-location of JTRS program elements to San Diego; encourage industry, government, academic, and international investment; shape the Department of Defense radio environment; strengthen the industrial base; educate and train the JTRS team; build morale and ‘esprit de groupe.’”
Bauman’s deputy, Howard Pace, who also briefed senior management at the February meeting, cautioned that unless the Defense Department can find a way to curtail the services’ escalating procurements of non-JTRS radios, the program could eventually perish. He cited figures of $9 billion to $16 billion spent on non-JTRS radios since 1998 — the largest expenditures occurring in 2004 and 2005.
“Conclusions can be drawn that policy, absent compliance and enforcement mechanisms, is at most partially effective,” Pace wrote in his briefing charts. “Without acquisition discipline and adherence to policy, there is far less chance of achieving JTRS program objectives.”
Kenneth J. Krieg, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, was in attendance at the meeting, sources indicated. He endorsed Bauman’s strategy as a “step in the right direction, but not yet revolutionary.”
One major topic of discussion was the notion of endorsing company-developed radios as official JTRS products.
Radios that were selected to become official JTRS-approved products include the Falcon III AN/PRC-152(C) handheld made by Harris RF Communications, and the JEM AN/PRC-148 handheld made by Thales Communications. Both radios were designed and developed by their manufacturers, outside the JTRS program.
Krieg directed Bauman to come up with a “contract vehicle” that would allow all services to purchase both radios under a consolidated arrangement. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps currently are buying these radios but under separate contracts. Minutes of the February meeting note that Krieg disapproved of these disjointed procurements because they result in higher prices. Krieg suggested that the services probably are managing their own contracts independently because they do not trust the JTRS joint office to handle acquisitions in a timely manner.
Another concern is future JTRS costs. The downward projections in the quantities of radios that the services plan to buy could result in substantial per-unit cost increases. Most of the 148,000 radios identified by the services for future procurement are not funded in the Defense Department’s 2008-2013 budget, which includes $3 billion for JTRS research and development. Krieg asked for precise budgets that show procurement dollars allocated to JTRS and directed Bauman’s office to calculate the per-unit cost of future radios. A major concern is that if the unit price ends up being more than 15 percent higher than the original estimates, the program will be the target of a congressional review under the so-called Nunn-McCurdy legislation.
Apprehension about Nunn-McCurdy cost overruns, however, may be a moot point. So far, no JTRS radios are close to entering production. The Defense Department, critics argue, should be more alarmed by the fact that after billions of dollars in R&D, it has no combat-ready products to show for it.
A wavering commitment by the military services also could doom the program before it ever reaches full-rate production. The services by most accounts have yet to be convinced that they should forgo their acquisitions of existing radios in favor of yet-unproven technology.
“They are not willing to stop legacy procurements even though JTRS would be backwards compatible with legacy radios,” said one frustrated defense official.
It also has become apparent that within John Grimes’ office, JTRS is losing momentum. Ron Jost, who is deputy assistant secretary of defense for command, control and communications, is said to champion a shift away from government-developed software radios, in favor of products that companies already have designed and prototyped.
A spokesman for both Grimes and Jost at the Pentagon did not respond to several requests for comment.
At the February meeting at the Pentagon, Bauman acknowledged that there had been much confusion about the definitions of “JTRS compliant” and “JTRS approved.” He warned that many products claim to be JTRS compliant but are not.
To be certified as a JTRS product, a radio has to demonstrate that it can run version 2.2 of the Defense Department’s software communications architecture. The radio’s encryption technology also has to be certified by the National Security Agency. Radios, additionally, must get approval from the Joint Interoperability Testing Center.
Bauman’s briefing charts stated that both the JEM and the PRC-152 meet “some of the criteria” but were still given waivers so they could be considered “JTRS approved.” Both were certified by the NSA.
Manufacturers insist that the proprietary radios they have developed for military use are not to be confused with non-encrypted commercial radios. Many commercial products are being used by the Defense Department, such as Motorola handheld radios. Some radios developed for the Pentagon that are also sold in the open market are not necessarily considered commercial products, one industry executive said.
Some company-funded proprietary products may look and feel like JTRS radios but are not exactly the same. Supporters of JTRS fear that military customers ultimately may not care where the product came from, as long as it does the job.
The two-channel handheld, two-channel manpack and small form-fit JTRS radios, for example, add up to 21,000 requirements, according to General Dynamics, one of the JTRS contractors. The most demanding specs are in the area of encryption and network security.
Those who back the adoption of vendors’ proprietary radios as substitutes for government-developed systems contend that this approach saves the Pentagon R&D dollars in the near term. But JTRS advocates worry that the end result will be a mishmash of radios that may or may not be able to talk to users across all services, as JTRS was originally envisioned.
Observers who follow the program closely view the current woes as symptomatic of a wider issue — the absence of a staunch advocate within the Defense Department. The original architects of JTRS, who saw it as a linchpin of a “network-centric” military, have long departed. And it still remains unclear whether JTRS can regain momentum.
Meanwhile, JTRS supporters and contractors are making the case that “success stories” are being ignored. General Dynamics C4 Systems, responsible for the handheld/manpack/small form fit (HMS) radios, recently announced it had delivered working prototypes to the Army.
General Dynamics displayed a two-channel JTRS manpack at an industry trade show in February. But even as the contractor is publicizing the JTRS program’s first manpack prototype, officials from Bauman’s office are considering offering a stopgap radio — the so-called SINCGARS “sidehat.” The single-channel ground and airborne radio system, made by ITT Corporation, is used for single-band VHF voice communications. The sidehat, as the name implies, is an appendage radio that would operate the networking waveform so users can also send and receive video, maps and other data.
The problem with the sidehat, industry sources said, is that it is so far only a concept. Some factions within the Army would like to adopt the sidehat because it would allow the service to piggyback on its large investment in SINCGARS. The Army already owns 400,000, and requested an additional $2 billion for SINCGARS radios in the 2007 and 2008 war-emergency budgets.
A number of Army officials who oppose the sidehat concept believe the service should back the next-generation JTRS manpack, even though it may not be ready for another five years. But as more funds get poured into SINCGARS, the lesser the chances that there will be enough money to buy the new joint tactical radios.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/Trialsandtrib.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)