Monthly Archives: August 2011

More Geigering

Posted on by

I didn’t get back to this at the same bat channel and same bat time. Sorry if anyone tuned in and found the Penguin instead. I think I’m ready now though. I did a bit more layout tweaking, moved the MCU bypass cap closer to the supply pins and added in a MAX3232 so that I won’t need an external driver / transceiver board if I want data on my PC.

I’m calling it done. I have my Gerbers in a .ZIP file, my centroid and the completed BoM. Next step is to get some PCBs fabbed up. I’m trying out the ValueProto service from our partner, Sunstone Circuits. As I said before, if, after assembly, this design actually works and counts Geigers, I’ll post all of the design files as needs to be done with Open Source hardware.

Here we are at ValueProto. The PCB is 4″ x 2.7″. I’m not going to do a quick build and my zip is 97013. $57.40 for one. $34.90 each in quantities of ten. That’s all the questions I need to answer. I upload my .ZIP file, check a few boxes and the order is now placed. Next, I’ll get some parts, kit it up and send it through Screaming Circuits. The NOS Soviet Geiger Mueller tube is one the way from the Ukraine.

I’m not sure what I’ll use as a radiation source to test it out with once it’s built. I hadn’t really thought that far ahead. I’ll have to come up with something.

If you’re going to be at the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston next month (Sept. 27-28), we’ll be there in booth 615, across the isle from Element14. Stop in and take a look at it. While you’re there, ask for fabulous prizes and gifts. We have a smattering of Screaming Circuits shirts and flashlights for the asking.

Duane Benson
No baked beans, please

http://blog.screamingcircuits.com/

EPA’s New GHG Reporting Program: e-GGRT

Posted on by

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a new tool to allow 28 industrial sectors to submit their 2010 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution data electronically.

Grabbing ahold of industry’s GHG data is a bit like grabbing a tiger by the tail.

Tiger by the tail. The electronic GHG Reporting Tool is known as e-GGRT for short, a gritty, growly and staccato moniker for a function that is precisely that. Reporting GHG data is a nuts and bolts effort, slightly predatory, that can only be done one data piece by one data piece.

A user can hope for speed and a usable interface, but one thing we’ve noticed in our years of environmental data consolidating — from relatively simple MSDS data fields to more complicated supplier material disclosure data — is that bulk uploads are great but one by one is inevitable. Meaning: data has to be culled. Do it at the start, do it later which is more difficult as time creates data dependencies, but evenutally data must be culled. (This is the type of project companies rightly outsource.)

EPA says that it put the e-GGRT through its paces before making yesterday’s announcement. More than 1,000 stakeholders, including industry associations, states and NGOs tested the electronic GHG Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) — testing for clarity and user-friendliness.   Apparently it passed.

It’s e-GGRRRREAT? The EPA expects to receive 2010 greenhouse gas data from approximately 7,000 large industrial greenhouse gas emitters, including power plants, petroleum refineries and landfills. The agency plans to publish non-confidential greenhouse gas data collected through the tool by the end of 2011.

If you missed the August 1, 2011, deadline, go ahead and register or have your agency register anyway; EPA is likely to be lenient.  They want a queue of data more than they want a queue of wrists to slap.

On August 19 (2011) EPA Head Lisa P. Jackson signed a final action related to certain data elements reported under EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPA says it needs to further examine the likely business impact from the disclosure of these data elements before they are reported and potentially subject to public availability. This action defers the deadline for reporting these data elements while EPA addresses issues related to reporting and public availability of these data elements. In fact, EPA is deferring the reporting deadline for some of these inputs until March 31, 2013, and for others until March 31, 2015. This action does not affect the reporting deadline for other data elements under the rule or for suppliers of greenhouse gases.

To compare EPA’s e-GGRT tool with a commercial Greenhouse Gas reporting tool, Google search for emissions regulator tools. Here’s one example of a commercial tool.

On the EPA Confidential Business Information (CBI) page. Also, EPA & Air policy is online.

HP PC Spinout Effects, by the Numbers

Posted on by

Here’s the first report I’ve seen that gets into the nitty-gritty behind the possible supply chain effects of HP’s PC spinoff/sale.

TrendForce was good enough to pull together the PC market share rankings and puts forth a cogent explanation of several possible outcomes, including — believe it or not — a potential hindrance to the Foxconn manufacturing tank.

Interestingly, while many pundits don’t believe the Taiwanese ODMs have the financial girth to absorb HP’s market-leading PC unit, one of the emerging possibilities would be Samsung, whose incentive to snatch it up would go (far) beyond box sales. Indeed, as TrendForce points out, Samsung could leverage the PC chain to create additional sales for its components and batteries. Samsung is flush with cash — more than $55 billion on its balance sheet, of which $20 billion is in cash or equivalents. (The head of HP’s PC unit says it is worth more than $10 billion.) It could handle the financial strain of taking on HP’s PC arm, even though revenue runs in the tens of billions per quarter and its operating profit has grown seven of the past eight quarters.

If an outside suitor doesn’t materialize, HP has a successful track record of spinning off businesses, with Agilent being the most prominent. If that happens, the supply chain status quo might be maintained.

Something to think about.

 

 

Just What is ‘Core Competency,’ Anyway?

Posted on by

I want to call attention to this long overdue piece by Forbes’ columnist Steve Denning.

Under the tantalizing headline, “Why Amazon Can’t Make a Kindle in the USA,” Denning makes the case that management, not manufacturing, is to blame, for its rather thoughtless, follow-the-herd mentality (my words, not his).

Case in point: Dell, which little by little gave more and more of its PC manufacturing and  design to Asustek, until the day came when Asustek had developed all the in-house expertise it needed to become an OEM. It no longer needed Dell. And while one could say Dell (whom I am using as a proxy here, as this scenario applies to scores of Western businesses) would have been eaten up by competition sooner or later anyway, the fact is one of its major suppliers — Foxconn — practically prints money, while Dell and fellow PC outsourcer HP look for ways to escape that low-margin business.

For nearly two decades, the EMS industry has sold the OEMs on the idea that they should outsource their lower-margin activities, while simultaneously refuting any suggestion that by doing so OEMs were setting themselves up to be replaced by their own suppliers. “We’re not in the business of ____,” was the EMS refrain. Well, they weren’t until they were. And then it was too late for OEMs to do anything about it.

Unlike populists like Lou Dobbs who shout that the loss of manufacturing must have a political solution, yet fail to consider the intricacies of what they propose, Denning takes a more nuanced approach. (I’ll add my two cents: If Wall Street could manage your business, why aren’t they?)

It’s worth your time to read.

ValueProto from Sunstone

Posted on by

I think I’m done with the Geiger counter layout. Now I just need to get the thing built up to see if it works. I’m pretty sure, but you never know. I have an idea … I’ll build a prototype. And … I’ll build it in as self-serving a way as I can. How might I build a prototype in a self-serving manner?

First, I’ll use my company (and our partner Sunstone Circuits) to build it. Second, I’ll write about it here. Technically, you’re not really supposed to review your own stuff, but I really don’t get to order things very often. I know all about Sunstones’s PCB fab services, but I haven’t used their ValueProto service so I’m using this as an opportunity to do so. This PCB looks like it should work for their “ValueProto” service as well as with Screaming Circuits’ “SimpleProto” service. Small quantity, no leadless parts. Perfect for the simple and value services.

DPAK in gieger I actually made a small change since I last wrote about this design. The particular high-speed, high-voltage transistor in the original design isn’t available in an SMT package. I could have still left that one part in through-hole, but I didn’t want to so I didn’t. This is one of the reasons I understand the difficulties of parts substitution. I found two similar parts. One in a SOT-23 and the other in a larger DPAK. I really wanted the smaller package, but the specs of the DPAK part were closer. The DPAK is quite a bit bigger than the SOT-23, but it fits.

When I pulled up the layout to take this screen capture, I notices that the “Q1” label was slightly on the big pad for the DPAK. That’s not good. When I find a last minute error like that, I usually take that as a sign to go back and give everything another once-over. I’m going to do that tomorrow, so stay tuned.

Duane Benson
Same bat-channel. Same bat-time. (Different real-time though)

blog.screamingcircuits.com

For $12B, Google Buys Motorola’s Insured Supply Chain

Posted on by

The Google-Motorola deal announced last week is about hardware manufacturing capability.  In other words, Google just paid $12.5 billion for a gadget supply chain with over 20,000 patents as the cherry on top.

As Chris Nowak put it in a recent article in Environmental Leader about quality management in a modern supply chain, “Today’s business problems include how to compete with a supply chain like Apple’s – a bristling hot pot of electronics suppliers and logistical hubs that delivers a customized, monogrammed electronic gadget in 3 days or a book you order today that’s delivered tomorrow, or the sneakers that you design to wear next week.

“Like it or not,” writes Nowak, “this is today’s competitive field.  All this speed still has to be cost-effective, innovative, compliant and risk-analyzed for whatever market it’s being made in and sold into.  Today’s global supply chain has blink-fast distribution demands.”

It couldn’t be more true.  What Motorola has is a hardware supply chain for gadgets comparable to Apple’s; now Google has one too.  That’s a large chunk of the $12 billion, and that chunk that was worth it.

The environmental compliance piece. What’s notable from our point of view is that Motorola has in recent years made significant efforts in its supply chain environmental compliance.  Their supply chain risk in terms of compliance vulnerabilities is low, low, low.

Motorola has for years been actively collecting supplier chemical information, fortifying compliance efforts with REACH, RoHS and other environmental regulations — imposed by both government and industry alike.

Did Google see that as part of the value?

Did Google acquisition executives see this material disclosure data as significant portfolio gold that may continue to return value?

As regulations tighten worldwide and the pressure mounts to know what’s happening at the chemical level in an electronics (or in any discrete manufacturing) supply chain, Google will know.  Their competitors?  Not so much..

Microsoft, Apple and Oracle have a new and sudden weak spot. While the term material disclosure has more than one meaning, some call it “supply chain insurance.”  Here’s how Motorola — in just a few years — has insured its supply chain.

“We require our suppliers to disclose an extensive list of Motorola Solutions’ banned, controlled and reportable substances as well as request recycled material content for each part supplied to Motorola Solutions,” says the company.  “We do this to fully understand and track the material content of our products, to comply with regulations, prepare for future regulations and control and improve the environmental profile of our products.”

This is not a partial approach.  It’s bold and thorough.

If you think about all the law suits that fire back and forth between the tech giants like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle — the giants without material disclosure insurance seem suddenly keenly vulnerable in the environmental, sourcing, and quality assurance heel.

Motorola’s material disclosure advantage. Motorola Solutions — in its corporate documentation — discusses how its taken a proactive approach and compiled a list of 63 substances (or substance groups) targeted for exclusion, reduction or reporting during the design and manufacture of products. The list is divided into three sections:

  1. Banned substances which are not allowed for use in any Motorola Solutions product at any level
  2. Controlled substances which are limited for use in manufacturing processes or certain product applications (use limitations are typically defined by national or international environmental regulations)
  3. Reportable substances which are are not currently banned or controlled for use, but are likely to be in the future or the company has identified the need to understand their use as part of a environmentally conscious design process and/or for end-of-life management

Motorola has for years now required its suppliers to fully disclose information on the materials composition of parts and components, including information on substances of concern and recycled material content.  The company collects, stores and published information about internal efforts in researching alternative materials and stewardship regarding batteries and other end-of-life concerns.

Regulatory specifics. Motorola has been a leader in recognizing that many countries around the world have implemented regulatory restrictions on hazardous substances.

  1. European Union’s directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS):  Motorola Solutions complies with the European Union’s directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) for electronic products sold in the EU. The company voluntarily extended compliance with the European Union’s restriction of the hazardous substances (RoHS) directive to cover all newly designed professional and public safety two-way radio products as well as mobile and wireless products for the enterprise, regardless of where they are sold worldwide.
  2. China Management Methods:  China’s Management Methods for Controlling Pollution from Electronic Information Products requires manufacturers to report and label usage of the same six hazardous substances listed in the EU RoHS Directive affective as of March 1, 2007. All Motorola, Inc. and Solutions products manufactured after March 1, 2007 and shipped into China comply with the labeling requirements of China Management Methods.  Motorola posts a direct phone line where you can call to get more information.
  3. REACH:  REACH, the European Union substances regulation that entered into the force of law on June 1, 2007, has notable phased deadlines to 2018. The broad regulation requires communication throughout the supply chain, and Motorola Solutions has been “actively sharing information to meet our obligations and help our customers meet theirs.”

The Wily Larry Page. Acquiring Motorola Mobility’s environmental compliance and collection of material disclosure information from suppliers may not be the final straw that flips the other turtles onto their backs.  But it may.  In the meantime, the value of the logistical aspects of Motorola Mobility’s logsitical supply chain is not to be overlooked.

Not everything Larry Page, Inc., also known as Google, has done in 2011 has been amazing, but this deal is a smart, wily, forward-thinking acquisition for a number of reasons — from risk management right down to the chemical level.

Is a Pb-Free Consensus Achievable?

Posted on by

Folks,

Recently I posted a note about a flurry of Technet posts in which I was misquoted regarding the status of lead-free electronics assembly.  Harvey Miller then weighed in.  I responded. And this in turn raised more comments.

All of this caused me to wonder, is it possible to achieve a consensus on the state of Pb-free assembly? I think it might be and am going to try. The main thing that I think is important in this quest is that any points for the consensus, or lack thereof, be supported by data and analysis, not emotion.

If you have a point to add, that is backed by data and analysis, please share it with me.  One of the things I hope to accomplish is to develop a list of references, that can be referred to to support the consensus.

Stay tuned for more info on this effort.

Cheers,

Dr. Ron

Carbon Disclosure, Meet Plastics Disclosure

Posted on by

Environmental Leader and the New York Times are reporting that hundreds of companies and institutions should expect to receive a questionnaire in early October about their use of plastic. The Plastic Disclosure Project, right ahead.

Why?

Industry estimates state that 300 million tons of virgin plastic are made every year. If just one percent can be saved through efficiencies, better design, or increased recycling, then 3 million tons could be saved, which is roughly what some conservative estimates say are floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. -Plastics Disclosure Project (PDP)

Some companies have already made progress in better managing plastics.  Electrolux, the Swedish appliance maker, for example, introduced a range of vacuum cleaners in February that are made from recycled plastic. Coca-Cola has devised a plastic bottle that contains some plant-based materials, a small step for which the soda company seems to be wringing significant PR traction.

Most interestingly perhaps, as the New York Times points out, Procter&Gamble has the long-term aim of using 100% recycled or renewable material in its products and packaging.

Better managed plastics appeals to some of us as a resource-saver if nothing else — for too long we’ve treated plastic as an almost-infinite supply of cheap material, both raw and article.

Remember the Carbon Disclosure Project — which is not gone but currently forgotten?  Well, this plastics program seeks to inspire organizations to approach plastic consumption in much the same way as we’ve begun to approach carbon consumption:  more awareness, some conservation.  Fair enough.

Targeted big users of plastic include:

  • companies
  • universities
  • hospitals
  • sports groups

This October, the plastics questionnaire will ask organizations to report how much plastic they use and how they recycle.  Further, organizations will be asked what policies they have to:

  • reduce consumption
  • increase recycling
  • increase the use of biodegradable plastic

Plastic Disclosure blog is here, if interested.