FANUC: Robot Sex Shop

February 15th, 2010

I’ve talked a bit about manufacturing on this blog, mostly from my personal experiences working for chumby building the eponymous devices. I was browsing around on the internet and came across another world of manufacturing that I don’t get to see — the world of highly automated manufacturing. Seems like the big fish in the pond there is FANUC, a Japanese company that spun out from Fujitsu (the acronym stands for Fuji Automatic Numerical Control). Their Japanese corporate site is a bit dry, so for people wanting something more digestible, check out their US subsidiary home page. Also, their corporate profile flyer is a bit amusing…it reads a bit like a backgrounder for some anime, complete with photos of fantasy art scenes and tea gardens cheek to jowl with big yellow robots.

FANUC may have the biggest robot sex operation in the world. Get your geek-voyeurism on and watch unabashed robot-on-robot-making-other-robot action in the video below.

And below is a bit longer, but still interesting video that goes through more of FANUC’s offerings (you will want to skip 3:00, where the narrator proclaims, “Now let’s look at the FANUC robots!”):

There’s a ton of YouTube videos for FANUC. Now this feels like we’re in 2010!

Name that Ware January 2010

January 25th, 2010

The Ware for January 2010 is shown below.

Is it really already 2010? Yikes. Almost 5 years running now with Name That Ware. Maybe I should make a nice color pin-up calendar of select wares for next year.

This is, of course, just a selected corner of the whole ware. I’ll give a hint: unlike last month’s ware, this is a very common ware.

[Added 1/27/10]

Looks like maybe I didn’t give enough hints. Here’s a couple more:

Above is a shot of the die marking on the top chip (S3C49VDX-02S). The bond pads at the bottom give you a sense of scale (click on the photo for a much larger version).

Some other thoughts and observations:

  • How thick or thin is the top die? There’s probably a reason for that…
  • There’s no bond pads on at least one edge of each chip shown…
  • There are probably about a billion transistors in the region of the original (top) image.
  • Winner, Name That Ware December 2009

    January 25th, 2010

    The Ware for December 2009 is the active element of a Tektronix P7350 5GHz Differential probe, photos courtesy of tmbinc. It’s a $7,000 oscilloscope probe, and the technology inside of it is exquisite. From the high frequency ceramic substrate to the wirebonded decoupling capacitors, no expense was spared in making the probe. I can only speculate what kind of technology is used for the IC in the center of the photo; it looks like it has gold metallization, which is unusual to see on any silicon process since gold contamination causes a deep-level trap defect in silicon. That leads me to think maybe it’s a III-V (i.e., GaAs or InP) process where gold is more common. On the other hand, Brian points out that the backside is biased, which isn’t something you’d require if the devices were fabbed using the common semi-insulating substrate technique employed on many III-V designs.

    Above: an image of almost the entire probe circuit. There’s another fragment that would be to the left that is also missing. I feel compelled to note that tmbinc (the photographer for this ware) didn’t break the probe; he bought it broken for cheap.

    I’ve been a long time fan of Tek products; their engineers are hard-core and I typically learn something new every time I take the hood off of one of their devices. Back when digital scopes came into being, Tek made the only respectable digital scope (in my opinion) because they understood that the integrating behavior of phosphors in analog scopes was actually a desirable effect, a feature so important that they gave it a name: Digital Phosphor Technology. The other thing Tek did really Right was to keep all the old analog-ish knobs on their panels. Back in the analog days you had all sorts of trim, sweep, scale, trigger, etc. knobs that were a direct part of the oscilloscope’s analog circuitry. Of course, when we transitioned into the digital world, there was no more essential requirement for all these knobs. Agilent went so far as to create digital oscilloscopes (like the 54120) with a single jog dial that was modal. Everytime you wanted to switch from adjusting the timebase or amplitude scales, you had to reprogram the knob’s mode by hitting a couple buttons. It was a terrible UI that really killed productivity, but I imagine some product manager at Agilent must have thought he or she was really clever for optimizing the complex and expensive analog oscilloscope UI down to a single knob. The Tek digital scopes, on the other hand, had a bank of buttons almost exactly like they had on their analog scopes, so the tool had a great hand feel to it.

    Anyways, back to the competition. The winner is Brian! Very impressive deduction skills, I was thinking this might have been a real stumper (I know I wouldn’t have guessed it), but again I was proven wrong. Email me to claim your prize!

    One Mutation per 15 Cigarettes Smoked

    January 22nd, 2010

    Now that’s a memorable factoid. Nature recently published a paper titled “A small-cell lung cancer genome with complex signatures of tobacco exposure” (Nature 463, 184-190 (14 January 2010), Pleasance et al), which as its title implies, contains the summary of the sequence of a cancer genome derived from a lung cancer tumor. It’s an interesting read; I can’t claim to understand it all. At a high level, they found 22,910 somatic substitutions, 65 insertions and deletions, 58 genomic rearrangements, and 334 copy number segment variations were identified; as I understand it, these are uncorrectable errors, i.e. the ones that got past the cell’s natural error-correction mechanisms. That’s out of about 3 gigabases in the entire genome, or an accumulated error rate of about 1 in 5 million.

    I’m not an expert on cancer, but the way it was explained to me is that basically every cell has the capacity to become a cancer, but there are several dozen regulatory pathways that keep a cell in check. In a layman sort of way, every cell having the capacity to become a cancer makes sense because we come from an embryonic stem cell, and tumorigenic cancer cells are differentiated cells that have lost their programming due to mutations, thereby returning to being a (rogue) stem cell. So, a cancer happens when a cell accumulates enough non-fatal mutations such that all the regulation mechanisms are defeated. Of course, this is basically a game of Russian roulette; some cells simply gather fatal mutations and undergo apoptosis. In order to become a cancer cell, it has to survive a lot of random mutations, but then again there are plenty of cells in a lung to participate in the process.

    Above: a map of the mutations found in the cancer cell. The 23 chromosomes are laid end to end around the edge of the circle. There’s a ton of data in the graph; for example, the light orange bars represent the heterozygous substitution density per 10 megabases. A higher resolution diagram along with a more detailed explanation can be found in the paper.

    The tag line for this post is lifted from the discussion section of the paper, where they assume that lung cancer develops after about 50 pack-years of smoking, which roughly translates to the ultimate cancer cell acquiring on average one mutation every 15 cigarettes smoked. Even though this is an over-simplification of the situation, the tag line is memorable because it makes the impact of smoking seem much more immediate and concrete: it’s one thing to say on average, in fifty years, you will get cancer from smoking a pack a day; it’s another to say on average, when you finish that pack of cigarettes, you are one mutation closer to getting cancer.

    The Enlightening Bridge Between Art And Work

    January 12th, 2010

    As I was driving home today, I enjoyed a delightful morsel on NPR’s All Things Considered about the The Enlightening Bridge Between Art and Work by Alain De Botton (it’s better listened to than read, imo).



    Here’s an excerpt of the spot that I found particularly poignant:

    Two centuries ago, our forebears would have known the precise history and source of almost every one of the limited number of things they ate and owned. They would have been familiar with the pig, the carpenter, the weaver, the loom and the dairymaid. The range of items available for purchase may have grown exponentially since then, but our understanding of their genesis has grown ever more obscure. We are now as imaginatively disconnected from the production and distribution of our goods as we are practically in reach of them, a process of alienation which has stripped us of opportunities for wonder, gratitude and guilt.

    That last sentence, I think, resonates strongly with my personal motivation as a Maker. I dive deeply into the supply chain, learning the processes and understanding the people behind our Things, because it enables me to once again feel the wonder, gratitude, and guilt for the Things we otherwise take for granted. Wonder at the skill of craftsmen and the cleverness of designers; gratitude for the passion and hard work of my peers; and guilt for the sacrifice, waste, and unsustainable practices motivated by an obscure system of perverse economic incentives.