theeconomisttechnologyquarterlymedia.economist.com/sites/default/files/sponsorships/bmc99/... · l...
TRANSCRIPT
Monitor
1 Nextgeneration gamesconsoles, an oral sensor in atooth, preventing fueltankexplosions, decision aids forfootball referees, improvinghospital hygiene and themerits of quiet products
Di�erence engine
6 The rebirth of the diesel engineNew diesels are giving electriccars a run for their money
3D printing
7 Scaling upHow 3D printing is beingintegrated into manufacturing
Hightech fabrics
10 Material bene�tsThe textile technologies makingthe world a safer place
Biofuels
12 What happened to biofuels?Making fuel from organic matteris proving harder than expected
Working with robots
14 Our friends electricCollaborative robots don’t stealjobs�they make them easier
Brain scan
17 Microsoft’s other mogulA pro�le of Paul Allen, the othercofounder of Microsoft
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Monitor 1
ON MAY 21st, on a stage �ooded withgreen light, Microsoft unveiled its
third videogames console, the confusingly named Xbox One. This followed Sony’sannouncement of the PlayStation 4 inFebruary. Together with Nintendo’s Wii U,launched last November, these machinesmake up the eighth generation of gamesconsoles. They have been a long timecoming. Their predecessors werelaunched in 2005 and 2006, aeons ago bythe standards of the computer industry,and were beginning to show their age.
Both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4will go on sale in time for Christmas, andMicrosoft and Sony are already competingvigorously to convince potential buyers ofthe merits of their respective machines.But veterans of such battles will notice acurious absence. At previous consolelaunches, executives have boasted abouttheir boxes’ whizzy technological innards.Sony in particular was a dab hand at thissort of thing, coming up with names like�Emotion Engine� and �Reality Synthesiser� for the chips that powered its previous consoles. But this time neither Microsoft nor Sony seems very keen to talk upthe technical prowess of their new boxes.
To be sure, compared with the currentgeneration of machines, graphics will takea leap. But the truth is that the new consoles will be merely catching up with thecurrent state of the art, rather than de�ning it. Both consoles have about as muchraw computing power as a reasonably fastdesktop PC and are, for all intents andpurposes, ordinary PCs in fancy boxes.
Indeed, their technological guts are strikingly similar. That is because of the waythe gaming industry is changing.
The chips that power both the XboxOne and the PlayStation 4 are modi�ed,beefedup versions of a chip produced byAdvanced Micro Devices (AMD), whichhas long been Intel’s only competitorwhen it comes to the processors thatpower desktop PCs. For Microsoft, thismarks something of a return to its roots.The original Xbox, released in 2001, wasbased on a standard Intel Pentium chip.But all of Sony’s previous consoles havefeatured custom chips built for gaming.
Power underwhelmingGoing with a generalpurpose PC chip willlimit the new machines’ performance. Butthere are good reasons to make that tradeo�. One is simply that the cost of designing chips has risen dramatically as theyhave become more complicated, saysJordan Selburn of IHS iSuppli, a marketresearch �rm that specialises in computerhardware. At the same time, the bene�tsof customisation have shrunk. These days,most of the innovation in graphics processing is con�ned to two big companies,AMD and Nvidia. It makes sense to leavethe job to these specialists.
The business reasons for switching tomore standardised components are compelling, too. The traditional businessmodel for a games console is to sell themachines themselves at a loss (at least inthe years after their launch, before technological advances bring manufacturing
The race is not to the swift
Video games: The newest games consoles look surprisingly underpoweredand are very similar to PCs. That’s because the business is changing
On the coverAcross the developed world,people worry that robots willtake their jobs. A new breed of�collaborative� robots isintended not to replacehumans but to work alongsidethem, making them moreproductive. They could alsohelp out in homes, schoolsand o�ces, page 18
Contents
1
2 Monitor The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
2
1
costs down) and to make up for it by taking a cut from the sale of each game. Thesedays, however, consoles face sti� competition from games played on mobile devicesor running inside web browsers. In thisnewly competitive environment, Microsoft and Sony may prefer a less riskystrategy. Using standard parts cuts costs.
It also makes life easier for the �rmsthat create games. Mastering the intricacies of a custommade chip can take programmers many years, a problem that wasparticularly acute with the unusual chipthat powered the PlayStation 3. The newconsoles’ PClike architecture will makedeveloping games much more straightforward. It will also make it easier to creategames that run on both new consoles andon PCs too, and to release them simultaneously. Game prices have not risen formany years, even in nominal terms, butthe cost of creating them has ballooned.Simultaneous release on multiple platforms maximises the potential market.
Besides, eversnazzier graphics are onlyone area in which gaming �rms can innovate, and one in which returns arediminishing. The �rst games with elaborate, threedimensional game worlds,such as �Quake� and �Tomb Raider�, wererevolutionary when they appeared in themid1990s. These days, extra graphicalpower is used for more subtle featuressuch as more accurate lighting or morerealisticlooking hair. With each newgeneration of consoles, the improvementin graphics is less dramatic. This meansconsolemakers must �nd other ways toconvince gamers to upgrade.
Given that the two new consoles are sosimilar internally, the obvious means ofdi�erentiation is in novel control mechanisms. Nintendo led the way in 2006 withthe launch of its Wii console, which didnot try to compete with the Xbox 360 orPlayStation 3 in graphical power, butinstead used innovative motionsensitivecontrollers to appeal to people whowould not normally consider playingvideo games. Microsoft responded withthe Kinect, a camerabased system thatallows players to control the onscreenaction through their body movements,and Sony launched the Move, a wandlikecontroller. The Xbox One incorporates animproved version of the Kinect, and Sonywill o�er an optional camera attachmentfor the PlayStation 4.
All three consolemakers have alsobeen keen to emphasise nongaming usesof their consoles such as streaming livetelevision, browsing the web, makingvideo calls and accessing social networks.Indeed, at the launch of the Xbox One,Microsoft barely mentioned games at allfor the �rst halfhour. It was a clear signthat the days when consoles slugged it outsolely on the basis of graphicalprocessingpower are well and truly over. 7
AS COMPUTERS continually shrink, theera of wearable devices is nigh. Nike’s
FuelBand slips over your wrist to track theamount of exercise you do. Google Glassis a headmounted display similar to a pairof spectacles that can be sported by thealwaysonline. Apple is thought to beworking on a wristwatchsized sidekickfor its smartphones. And from Taiwancomes another example: a tooth thatmonitors what your mouth is up to.
This might seem an odd thing to wantto do, but Chu Haohua and his colleaguesat National Taiwan University believethere are uses for a device capable of �oralactivity recognition��in other words,monitoring such things as chewing, drinking, speaking and coughing. In particular,it could have medical applications: recording the amount of coughing caused byrespiratory problems, for instance, ortracking how much munching someonedoes when he is supposed to be on a diet.
To test the idea, Dr Chu and his colleagues built a set of tiny accelerometers,which measure movement. Eight volunteers had one of the devices �xed to atooth with dental cement. They were thenasked to do things like coughing continuously or drinking a bottle of water whilethe team took measurements.
The results, to be presented at theInternational Symposium on Wearable
Computers in Zurich on September 11th,show that people talk and chew in di�erent ways because their mouths and teethare di�erent. However, if the system istrained, it can recognise what that mouthis doing 94% of the time.
The next step is to make the deviceeasier to wear. One way, at least for thosewho do not have a full set of naturalgnashers, would be to incorporate it intoan arti�cial tooth that might be part of aset of dentures. At the moment, the sensoris attached to the outside world by a thinwire. This carries electricity in and dataout, but it is inconvenient to have to walkaround all day with a wire sticking out ofyour mouth. If it were part of a set ofdentures, though, the sensor might be�tted with a small battery that could becharged up overnight, when most wearersof false teeth remove them, and thus notneed the wire for power. Data might alsobe extracted from the tooth at this time.Alternatively, information could be relayed directly from the mouth by incorporating a wireless link into the sensor�using Bluetooth, of course. 7
If tooth be told
Wearable computing: An oral sensormounted in a tooth can work outwhether you are eating, drinking,talking or coughing
DAMAGE to aircraft fuel tanks doomedroughly half of the 5,000 or so Ameri
can warplanes and helicopters destroyedduring the Vietnam war. Some crashed orblew up after only a few bullet hitsdrained or ignited their fuel, says RobertBall, the author of a textbook on the combat survivability of aircraft. But such�cheap kills� are becoming increasinglyrare, says Dr Ball, a former engineeringprofessor at the Naval Postgraduate Schoolin Monterey, California. Thanks to cleverengineering, fuel tanks in aircraft, vehiclesand even storage facilities can now withstand direct hits from enemy �re or tremendous impacts without exploding.
Armies like to keep their fuel trucks farfrom the enemy. But that can be di�cult,as Western forces in Afghanistan and Iraqhave learned. Even lightly armed insurgents can torch a tanker truck. Bullets shotinto liquid fuel rarely ignite it. But a tankriddled with bullets spews fuel, and whenfuel and its vapours mix with oxygen, aspark can create a �restorm. Between 2003and 2007 attacks on fuel convoys in Iraqkilled or seriously wounded more than1,400 people, according to the US Army.
Bang but noboom
Fire suppression: Engineers are�nding ways to reduce the risk thatfuel tanks will explode under enemy�re or in an accident
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Monitor 3
2
1
Strong steel armour would be prohibitively heavy on tanker trucks. So in 2005High Impact Technology (HIT), a small�rm based in Oregon, proposed usinglightweight plastic instead. It developed apolyurethane material that is sprayed as afoam a few centimetres thick onto a fueltank and dries into a rigid plastic shell.When pierced with a bullet, fuel spurtingout of the hole reacts with a secret catalystin the polyurethane, causing it to absorbfuel and expand, plugging the leak withinseconds. The system, called BattleJacket,now protects more than 3,400 fuelhauling trucks in con�ict zones.
In 2008 more than 600 bullets wereremoved from the reservoir of one ofthem in Balad, Iraq. The truck was stillmoving fuel for the US Army but thebullets and shrapnel had begun to clog thereservoir’s drainage valve. HIT charges upto $22,000 to spray each tanker (or twicethat if the job is done in a war zone). Thematerial has also been applied to thefarsmaller tanks of more than 8,000 ofAmerica’s �ghting vehicles. There are nowBattleJacket plants in America, Canada,Germany and Kuwait, with others beingset up in Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey.
Bullet and shrapnel holes can also besealed by rubber bladders placed insidefuel tanks. In a similar fashion to HIT’spolyurethane shell, leaking fuel reactswith chemical additives in an inner layerof the rubber, causing it to absorb theliquid and expand. Such bladders havebeen used in warplane fuel tanks fordecades. The latest bladders, however, caneven seal the bigger holes made by bulletsthat pass right through the fuel tank.
Meggitt, a British company, manufactures selfsealing rubber bladders that canseal holes up to 7cm across in about twominutes. They are not cheap: bladders foraircraft cost more than $20,000 each, andaircraft generally have multiple fuel tanks.America’s V22 Osprey transporter, forexample, has a Meggitt bladder in each ofits dozen or more tanks. The company’sbladders are used on more than 10,000 ofAmerica’s military aircraft and more than1,700 ground vehicles.
An extra bene�t of the bladders is thatthey can withstand pretty much anyimpact that a �ight crew might survive.When a fuel tank’s rigid shell splits openon impact, the bladder inside stretches toabsorb the impact without bursting. Thisis good, because splattered fuel is likely tobe ignited by a spark: more than 40% ofAmerican soldiers who survived a helicoptercrash impact used to be burnedalive in an ensuing fuel �re. Today it is lessthan 1%, according to Dennis Shanahan, adoctor and retired colonel who studiedthe matter for the US Army AeromedicalResearch Laboratory.
Even humble aluminium alloys, cleverly used, can prevent fueltank �res and
explosions. Coils of nearly paperthinaluminium mesh can absorb lots of heatvery fast. Place enough of them inside afuel tank, and the heat created by a projectile or crumpling tank will generate fewersparks, or none at all. If sparks do ignitevapours, �ames may not spread becausethe mesh restricts air�ow. Jiangsu AmputeExplosion Prevention Technology, basednear Shanghai, reckons that aluminiummesh will become widely used in carpetrol tanks. It costs only $20 or so, saysYelian Ju, Ampute’s deputy manager.
Furthermore, by absorbing heat, aluminium mesh keeps fuel cool. This cuts inhalf the 5% or so of fuel that aboveground
storage tanks in hot countries lose eachyear to evaporation through cooling vents.Ampute expects its sales of aluminiummesh to exceed $9m this year.
Yet another approach is that taken byFiretrace, based in Arizona. It has designeda plastic fueltank shell that is packed with�resuppressant powder, which is released if the shell shatters. More than55,000 shells have been installed in policeand military vehicles, at a cost of around$4,500 each. Advances in �re safety, then,are spreading quickly. Fueltank explosions will doubtless continue in Hollywood movies, but they are becomingless frequent in real life. 7
IT’S July 13th 2014. England’s WayneRooney darts behind a German defend
er to score the only goal of the football(soccer) World Cup �nal, just secondsbefore the �nal whistle. But the jubilationof the team’s supporters at Maracanãstadium in Rio is cut short as the linesmanhoists his �ag. The goal is disallowedunder the o�side rule, despite video evidence to the contrary. The German teamgoes on to win the penalty shootout.
Although the notion of England reaching the World Cup �nal makes this scenario somewhat fanciful, erroneous o�sidecalls are rather more regular occurrences.A clear refereeing error at the last WorldCup persuaded the International FootballAssociation Board (IFAB), which determines the laws of the game, to sanctionthe introduction of goalline technology
this summer. This may be just the �rst steptowards the wider use of technology toassist errorprone match o�cials.
Not everyone approves. FIFA, football’s international governing body, whichhas half of the votes at IFAB meetings,argues that goalline decisions are a special case and opposes any other technological aids. But Franciso Rocca, chiefexecutive of La Liga, Spain’s top footballleague, revealed earlier this year that heand his colleagues have already startedlooking at o�side technologies.
There have long been calls for refereesto have access to instant video replays, asthey do in other sports including basketball, American football, baseball andrugby. Many share the view of Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, who is opposedon the grounds that it would break the
The referee’s a robot
Technology and sport: The deployment of goalline technology to assistfootball referees may open the way to further decision aids in future
4 Monitor The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
2
1
�ow of matches. But this criticism cannotbe levelled at new devices and systems, atvarying stages of development, whichcould mitigate refereeing errors.
GoalControl, the German provider ofthe goalline technology used duringJune’s FIFA Confederations Cup in Brazil,has already begun work on new decisionaids for referees. Its existing system usesseven highspeed cameras focused oneach goal, and software that transformstwodimensional images into threedimensional representations of the ball andits trajectory. With more cameras andextra software capable of identifyingindividual players, a soupedup versioncould make a variety of refereeing judgments. The company claims that by tracking players’ hands and arms, it could evencall handballs. �We are concentrating ongoalline technology, but the system isable to detect o�side and penalties,� saysDirk Broichhausen, GoalControl’s boss.
HawkEye, a British company ownedby Sony which has developed decisionaids for tennis and cricket, is behind thegoalline technology now being used inthe English Premier League. A videobasedsystem that works in a similar way toGoalControl, it could also be adapted todo other things, though Paul Hawkins, itsinventor, is unwilling to discuss whetherthe �rm is working on o�side decisions.
Researchers at Keio University in Japanhave devised a 16camera system that canspot o�side o�ences. It can also identifysituations in which players in o�sidepositions do not actually touch the ball. Ina recent test during a live match, therewere two incidents in which the systemgot o�side calls right�and the referee gotthem wrong.
These imageprocessing systems arenot the only games in town. Engineers atthe Fraunhofer Institute for IntegratedCircuits, in Erlangen, Germany, havedeveloped RedFIR, a radiobased sporttracking system. A small, impactresistantradio transmitter within the ball allows itsposition to be determined 2,000 times persecond to receivers around the pitch,while similar devices built into shin padsdo the same for the players.
Because the use of such devices inprofessional games would require rulechanges, RedFIR is currently being developed to provide performance data duringtraining. Its software allows managers tomonitor things like sprint frequency andpass completion. But it could do muchmore, including helping referees witho�side calls, corners and throwins, saysRené Dünkler of the RedFIR team.
Even more infuriating to supportersthan incorrect o�side decisions are playerswho dive to gain unwarranted penalties.The prototype antidive shin pads usedduring a demonstration match in Londonin 2011could put a stop to such antics.
These use an accelerometer and a magnetic proximity sensor to identify the impactof an opponent’s boot, so that dives canbe distinguished from legitimate tackles.They were designed as a decision aidrather than a fully automatic system, saysDaniel Bartram of Smallfry, the British�rm that designed the pads. But an automatic system could be built.
Though there is much disagreementover the merits of such technologies, fewdispute the fallibility of human referees.Research shows, for example, that hometeams are awarded more penalties, receivefewer punishments for o�ences and getmore extra time when losing. As automated systems that can make more accuratecalls than humans are re�ned and demonstrated, football’s custodians may �nd thatpressure for their adoption becomes toogreat to resist. 7
GIVING birth was a dangerous endeavour in the 1800s; many women died
soon after doing so. Ignaz Semmelweis, anobstetrician working at the time at ViennaGeneral Hospital observed that by washing his hands with bleach before hetouched his patients he could reduce theirmortality rate by 90%. This was beforeLouis Pasteur established the germ theoryof disease, and Semmelweis could notexplain the correlation. After he published
his �ndings, though, many of his colleagues were o�ended at the suggestionthat they did not have clean hands. Afterall, doctors were gentlemen and asCharles Meigs, another obstetrician, put it,�a gentleman’s hands are clean�. Discouraged, Semmelweis slipped into depression and was eventually committed toa lunatic asylum. He died 14 days later,after being brutally beaten by the guards.
Hygiene in hospitals has come a longway since Semmelweis’s time. But there isstill room for improvement. Every yearnearly 100,000 people die in Americaalone from preventable infections acquired in hospitals. An invention devisedby Paul Alper of Deb Group, a Britishskincare company, could help change this.
As in Semmelweis’s day, uncleanhands are a big cause of infection. Wardsabound with devices that dispense antiseptic handwash, but they are not alwaysused as frequently as they should be�thecompliance rate is below 40% in mosthospitals. The DebMed Group MonitoringSystem (GMS) is intended to encouragesta� to wash their hands.
The invention itself is simple. It consists merely of adding a chip to the dispenser to monitor usage. It is the psychology behind it that is clever, because insteadof being intrusive and allocating blame, ashappens when dispensers in (say) toiletsare monitored by cameras to make surepeople who have been to the lavatory doindeed wash and sterilise their hands, itrelies on peer pressure. Individuals are notsingled out; wards are. What could beoppressive thus becomes a competitionbetween groups, rather than a �ngerwagging exercise within them.
The chip in each dispenser sends information to a remote server, where it isrecorded, analysed and then made available either on the web or by email tohospital sta� in an entirely automated
First, wash yourhands
Biomedicine: Smart antisepticdispensers promise to save lives bysubtly encouraging medical sta� towash their hands more often
Surgically scrubbing up nicely
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Monitor 5
2 process. The GMS records the number oftimes dispensers are used in di�erentparts of a hospital and compares this withan estimated reasonable usage, customised to the circumstances of each hospital. This target is based on World HealthOrganisation’s �Five Moments for HandHygiene�, a guide to the best handwashing practices for di�erent types of contactwith patients. The ratio of actual to targetscore gives the compliance rate for a particular unit or ward. Because this provides
a rating for a group of people, nobody issingled out. And if compliance is low, theo�enders can correct their behaviourcollectively, behind closed doors, withoutthe need for confrontation.
If the system works as intended, it willsave many lives. It should also save money, for treating hospitalinduced infectionsis costly. According to Mr Alper, dozens ofhospitals have already signed up for trials.The ghost of Ignaz Semmelweis is nodoubt smiling. 7
EFFORTS to regulate the nuisance ofdistracting noise date back at least as
far as the 6th century BC, when the Greekcolony of Sybaris decreed that, along withroosters, tinsmiths and potters had to liveoutside the city because of the noise theymade. Some 25 centuries later CharlesBabbage, an English mathematician whois remembered as one of the forefathers ofcomputing, waged a series of campaignsagainst organ grinders and other forms ofstreet music. Both would surely approveof the way in which designers have latelystarted paying more attention to devisingproducts that make less noise.
Steve Jobs of Apple was a pioneer inthis regard. He insisted that the originalMacintosh computer, launched in 1984,should not have an internal cooling fan,but rely instead on convection cooling tokeep it quiet. (This made it silent but proneto overheating, and fans were added tolater models.) Yet with computers, as withanything else, quietness tends not to be aquality that buyers regard as terriblyimportant. Surveys show that only about25% of people consider how noisy a product will be when buying it, according toMike Goldsmith, a former head of acoustics at Britain’s National Physical Laboratory. But many of them come to regret this,and half of such disgruntled shoppers saythey would pay as much as 50% extra for aproduct that makes half as much noise.
Last year Quiet Mark, a British notforpro�t company, was launched to encourage manufacturers to make quieter products. It was founded by Poppy Elliott, thegranddaughter of John Connell, whofounded the Noise Abatement Society in1959. Ms Elliott believes that a quiet environment is necessary to enable people toful�l their intellectual and creative potential. She points to a report on the healthe�ects of noise published by the World
Health Organisation in 2011, which foundthat in western Europe, excessive noisewas second only to air pollution as a causeof environmental illhealth. Quiet Markcampaigns for quieter products andawards a stamp of approval to products orschemes that minimise noise, includingkettles, blenders, hairdryers and washingmachines�and even hotels and silentmusical instruments.
Quietness makes economic sensebecause excessive noise is usually a sign of
waste and ine�ciency. Quieter productsmay cost more, but they generally consume less energy, which makes themcheaper to run. Boeing claims that itsfuele�cient 787 airliner, for example, isalso the quietest aircraft in its class. Lessnoisy aircraft are welcomed by peopleliving near airports and �ight paths, butthey also make �ying less stressful forpassengers travelling in them.
That is why NASA, America’s spaceagency, pays close attention to the noiselevels experienced by astronauts. It carefully measures and models the soundoutput of the equipment it sends intospace, on the basis that a quieter workingenvironment increases concentration andreduces fatigue. It applies the same attention to detail on Earth, with stringent noisestandards in its ground facilities, andintroduced a �buy quiet� procurementscheme in 2009. A report on the programme from 2012 points out that reducing noise in the workplace makes �nancial sense because as well as boostingproductivity, it avoids compensationclaims and medical costs. NASA says thisis best done by buying lownoise products, even though they typically cost510% more, because retro�tting noisereduction systems after purchase can cost1015 times as much.
Things can sometimes be too quiet,however. Electric cars can be di�cult tohear at low speeds, which makes themdangerous to pedestrians and blind people. In Chinese cities the danger comes notfrom electric or hybrid cars, but frompopular (and almost silent) electric bicycles, says Jan Chipchase of Frog Design, aninnovation consultancy. Earlier this yearAmerica’s Department of Transportationproposed new minimum sound requirements for electric and hybrid cars, whichmay require sound generators to be addedto some vehicles. (The proposed rulesprohibit users from using personalised,downloadable �vroomtones�, alas.) Already the Renault Zoe, an electric car, has asound generator for use at low speeds,and the Lexus IS 300h hybrid has an �active sound control� system designed togive its fourcylinder engine the sound ofa V6, even when cruising on electric power. A wellengineered �noise signature�improves the driving experience, saysTomas Keppens, a noise and vibrationspecialist at the Japanese carmaker.
The addition of sound generators tocars is a good example of how sound canprovide vital cues in some products (thearti�cial camerashutter sound made bydigital cameras) or may be carefully designed to convey quality (the sound madewhen closing the door of an expensivecar). The aim, then, should not be �nosound� but �the right sort of sound�. Byand large, though, that will usually meanmaking less rather than more noise. 7
The sound of silence
Technology and society: Designers are paying more attention to devisingproducts that make less noise, which can save energy and boost sales
TESLA MOTORS has had great successwith its Model S luxury electric car,
which has outsold its petrolpoweredequivalents since being launched in America last year. Even so, the prospects for batterypowered vehicles generally may never shine quite as bright again. Having hadtheir day in the sun, they may soon beeclipsed by, wait for it, the diesel engine.
American readers will �nd this ideaparticularly hard to swallow. Surely notthat dirty, noisy, smelly, lumbering lump ofa motor that was hard to start in winter?Certainly not. A whole new generation ofsprightly diesels�developed over the pastfew years�bear no resemblance to the clattering Oldsmobile 4.3litre diesel of the late1970s, which singlehandedly destroyeddiesel’s reputation in America for decades.
Later this year Americans will get their �rst chance to experience what a really advanced diesel is like�and why Europeansopt for diesels over hybrids, plugin electrics and even petrolpowered cars. The leader of the new pack is the Mazda 6, with thechoice of either a 2.5litre fourcylinder petrol engine or a 2.2litreturbocharged diesel. The diesel has more than 30% better fueleconomy and provides oodles more pulling power. Good as thepetrol version is, motorists who choose it over the diesel will missout on a lot. And Mazda is not the only carmaker with an advanced diesel in the works. Among others, Mitsubishi Motors hasbeen selling cars with a new generation of 1.8litre and 2.2litre diesel engines in Europe since 2010. Hedging its bets on hybrids,Toyota has also been testing several radically new diesel designs.
What marks this latest generation of diesel engines from eventheir �commonrail� predecessors of the late 1990s, let alone theirbelching ancestors from the 1970s, is the use of a surprisingly lowcompression ratio of around 14:1 rather than the more usual 16:1orhigher. The reduction in cylinder pressure may sound marginal,but it gives rise to a virtuous cycle of bene�cial e�ects that werepreviously unavailable.
For a start, the lower cylinder pressure reduces thermal andmechanical stresses in the engine. As a result, the heavy castironblock traditionally needed to stop a diesel ripping itself apart canbe replaced with a lighter aluminium casting. That trims 25kg(55lb) o� the weight of the block of the new Mazda diesel. Lowercylinder pressures mean that pistons, rings, valves, crankshaft andother engine parts can also be made 25% lighter. And because theyare weighed down less by the engine, the vehicle’s brakes, suspension and bodywork do not need to be quite so rugged either. Allthese weight savings translate into greater e�ciency. According toRicardo, an engineering consultancy, every 10% reduction in afamily car’s weight boosts its fuel economy by more than 4%.
Another bene�t of lower cylinder pressure is that the lightermoving parts in the engine generate less internal friction�improving e�ciency still further. And having less inertia, they allow theengine to spin faster and more freely, which also boosts e�ciency.Mazda’s new �SkyactivD� engine can reach 5,200 revolutions perminute, a �gure previously unheard of among roadgoing diesels.
All told, the improvement in engine e�ciency more than compensates for anyloss of power caused by reducing the diesel’s compression ratio. As it is, diesels starto� by being 3035% more e�cient than petrol engines. The new lowcompressiondiesels are likely to be even more so.
There are bene�ts on the emissions sideas well. In a typical diesel engine, ignitionis caused not by a set of sparkplugs �ringsequentially, but by the heat of the air being squeezed in the cylinders. The timingof this autoignition is controlled by the injectors, which squirt precise amounts offuel under extremely high pressure intoeach cylinder exactly as needed. For maximum e�ciency, this is done just as the pistons arrive at the top of their stroke and thecylinder pressure is at its highest.
Unfortunately, the fuel and air at top deadcentre are rarelymixed as thoroughly as necessary for complete combustion. Thisincomplete combustion produces soot particles and smogforming nitrogen oxides�the curse of traditional diesel engines. Modern clean diesels trade some of their power for improved combustion. They do so by delaying the injection of the fuel until thepiston begins to move back down the cylinder. The delay and thefalling pressure give the fuel a chance to blend with the air better.
Even so, clean diesels still need an expensive catalyticreduction system that injects a solution of urea into the exhaust to mopup the nitrogen oxides. They also need particulate traps to capturethe soot. Going to a lower compression ratio avoids much of this.The fuel be burned without di�culty at the cylinder’s top deadcentre, and the ureainjection system is no longer required.
Not just a fairweather friendMeanwhile, the diesel’s old bugbear of poor starting in coldweather has been licked by the adoption of piezoelectric fuel injectors with multiple nozzles, which can spray fuel in whateverpattern best suits the operating conditions. And because thevalves on modern engines have variable lift and timing, the exhaust valves can be left slightly open as the engine is coughingand spluttering during a particularly cold start. Hot exhaust gassucked back into the cylinders then helps the engine warm up.
With its old 1.4litre diesel engine, the Volkswagen Polo currently holds the record for being the most frugal nonelectric car inEurope, with a fuel economy on the combined cycle of just 3.8 litres/100km (equivalent to 61.9 miles per American gallon). TheToyota Prius hybrid? A lowly 20th in the league table of the mosteconomical fuelsippers, with 4.2 litres/100km, along with higheremissions of carbon dioxide. The 19 cars having better fuel economy than the Prius hybrid are all clean diesels.
Your columnist fully expects the new generation of clean, lowcompression diesels to improve fueleconomy by a further 20% ormore. That will put diesels on much the same footing�given theway that equivalent milespergallon are calculated for electricvehicles�as many batterypowered vehicles, but without anyworries about range or recharging. Roll on the day. 7
The rebirth of the diesel engine
Automotive technology: Electric and hybrid cars are being given a run for their money by an unlikely competitor: arange of advanced diesel engines that set new standards in performance and fuel economy
6 Di�erence engine The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
PEEK through the inspection windowsof the nearly 100 threedimensional
(3D) printers quietly making things at RedEye, a company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and you can catch a glimpse ofhow factories will work in the future. It isnot simply that the machines, some as bigas delivery vans, run day and night attended by just a handful of technicians. Insteadit is what they are making that shows howthis revolutionary production process isentering the manufacturing mainstream.
3D printers make things by buildingthem up, a layer at a time, from a particularmaterial, rather than removing it by cutting, drilling or machining�which is why
the process is also called additive manufacturing. There are many ways in which thiscan be done (see box on next page), andwith only a tweak of software each itemcan be di�erent, without the need for costly retooling of machines. This has made 3D
printing a popular way to make oneo�items, especially prototype parts, mockups, gadgets and craft items.
And that is about all that 3D printers aregood for, reckon the doubters. Chiefamong them is Terry Gou, the boss of Foxconn, the world’s largest contract manufacturer of electronic goods, which makesmany of Apple’s products in China. Hethinks 3D printing is just �a gimmick� with
out any commercial value in the manufacture of real �nished goods, and he hasvowed to start spelling his name backwards if proved wrong.
Mr Gou (or should that be Uog?) is rightabout one thing: additive manufacturing isnot about to replace mass manufacturing.Even though the technology is improving,the �nish and durability of some printeditems can still fall short of what producersrequire. And nor can 3D printers crank outzillions of identical parts at low cost, asmassproduction lines can. Nevertheless,3D printers have their virtues, which iswhy they are starting to be used by someof the world’s biggest manufacturers, suchas Airbus, Boeing, GE, Ford and Siemens.
The market for 3D printers and servicesis small, but growing fast. Last year it wasworth $2.2 billion worldwide, up 29% from2011, according to Wohlers Associates, aconsultancy. As producers become morefamiliar with the technology, they aremoving from prototypes to �nal products.Last year Wohlers reckons more than 25%of the 3Dprinting market involved makingproductionready items.
Some of those parts are taking shape inRedEye’s printers. In many cases they arelowvolume items, such as componentsused to build specialist pharmaceutical orpapermaking equipment. Other components, such as 3Dprinted tools and jigs,will actually enhance massproduction:BMW’s assemblyline workers design andprint custom tools to make it easier to holdand position parts. 3Dprinted plasticmoulds and dies are also being printed tohelp set up and trial new production lines.Some of these printed parts are even usedas temporary standins for broken steeltools, which can take weeks to replace.
Hardto�nd spare parts are also being3D printed, in one case helping a largeAmerican airline to get some of its aircraftback into the air. The carrier was frequently having to ground its ageing McDonnellDouglas MD80 jets because of leaking toilets. Production of these aircraft ceasedlong ago, and the airline was struggling to�nd spare parts. Its new plumbing is nowbeing 3D printed in an aerospacegradeplastic (which does not ignite or producenoxious fumes if burned).
As 3D printers get better and printedmaterials improve, the quality and �nishof prototypes is becoming harder to distinguish from things made in traditional factories, says Tim Thellin, RedEye’s manager.Despite the hype around desktop 3D printers aimed at hobbyists and consumers, it isthe big, industrialgrade printers that are
3D printing scales up
Digital manufacturing: There is a lot of hype around 3D printing. But it is fastbecoming integrated with mainstream manufacturing
1
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 3D printing 7
8 3D printing The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
2
1
working the hardest as demand grows forprinting large items, which are tricky tomake with conventional methods such asplastic injectionmoulding, says Mr Thellin. One example is body panels for specialist cars. These can have complexshapes, consolidating individual components that previously had to be assembled.
The inspection windows of some ofRedEye’s 3D printers are covered, becausethese machines are making defencerelated items, or their work is commerciallysensitive. One that is on view is a machineprinting parts for the 3D printers producedby RedEye’s parent company, Stratasys. Itand another �rm, called 3D Systems, are
the market leaders in 3D printers.3D Systems, based in South Carolina,
also has plenty of examples of ways inwhich 3D printers are being used to produce �nished products. An early adopterof the technology has been the healthcareindustry�a �eld in which mass customisation is useful, because every patient is different. Millions of hearingaid shells havebeen 3Dprinted from scans of patients’ earcanals, says Cathy Lewis, 3D Systems’ marketing chief. Initially the shells were castfrom 3Dprinted moulds, but with the development of printable biocompatibleplastics that do not irritate the skin, theyare now printed directly.
In another example, 3D Systems hasworked with Align Technology of SanJose, California. Instead of using metalbraces for straightening teeth, Align produces sets of transparent plastic �aligners�.A scan of the patient’s mouth is used to devise a treatment plan, which in turn generates a digital �le which is used to 3Dprint aset of 20 or so moulds. Each mould is sightly di�erent, and from them a series of clearplastic braces is cast. When worn over several months, each brace steadily moves thepatient’s teeth into the desired position.Last year Align 3D printed 17m of them.
Flying highThe aerospace industry, with relativelylow volumes, is also embracing 3D printing. Production parts tend to be noncritical items, but that will change. Today, a typical F18 �ghter jet is likely to contain some90 3Dprinted parts, even though the F18has been in service for two decades�sincebefore 3D printing took o�. This is becausereplacement bits, like parts of the cockpitand cooling ducts, are now 3D printed. TheF35, a new strike aircraft entering servicein America, has around 900 parts thathave been identi�ed as suitable for additive manufacturing, says 3D Systems.
The world’s biggest manufacturer, GE,has no doubt about how important additive manufacturing will be in many of itsdivisions, from energy to health care. Andit intends to keep much of that technologyinhouse to maintain a competitive edge.In November 2012 GE bought Morris Technologies, a �rm based in Cincinnati whichhas been one of the leaders in providingadditive manufacturing services to industry. Among other things, Morris has madelightweight parts for unmanned aerial vehicles. What attracts GE to the technologyis its potential to make complex, lightweight components, which are not easilymanufactured by traditional means, out ofexotic materials. By 2020 GE is expected tobe printing tens of thousands of parts forits jet engines alone.
None of this is lost on the Chinese. O�cials in Beijing see additive manufacturingas a way to upgrade their own manufacturing base as the country’s labour costs increase and some o�shored productionmoves back to America and Europe. Although it is not yet as advanced as Americain 3D printing, China has big ambitions.
Plenty of 3D printing in China dovetailswith traditional factories. Beijing Longyuan Automated Fabrication System, forinstance, uses a form of 3D printing calledlasersintering to produce moulds out of
AT FIRST, 3D printing was known asstereolithography, a process invent
ed in 1986 by Chuck Hull of 3D Systems.Variations of this process are still used. Itbegins, like all 3D printing, with software that takes a series of digital slicesthrough a computer model of an object.The shape of each slice is used selectively to harden a layer of lightsensitiveliquid, usually with ultraviolet light, toform the required shape. After eachlayer has been made, the build traylowers by a fraction, another layer ofliquid is added and the process is repeated until the object is complete.
Many other approaches have sincebeen developed. Lasersintering involves zapping layers of powderedplastic or metal with a laser to hardenthe powder in some places, but notothers. Other machines use an electronbeam in a similar way. An alternativeprocess melts a metallic powder as it isdeposited. This can be used to repairworn parts, such as turbine blades.Some machines operate a bit like 2D
inkjet printers, jetting lightsensitiveliquid materials to form layers and thenhardening them. Some machines canprint a dozen di�erent materials in asingle pass of the print head.
One of the most popular techniquesis fused deposition modelling (FDM),which is akin to a computercontrolled
glue gun (pictured). A heated nozzleextrudes a �lament of thermoplastic,which sets as it cools. Multiple headscan extrude di�erent colours. FDM is themechanism used in many of the small3D printers used by hobbyists, some ofwhich now cost less than $1,000. Morecapable 3D printers cost tens of thousands of dollars, and big industrialsystems, like the lasersintering machines capable of printing aerospaceparts in titanium, cost as much as $1m.
How 3D printers work
Layer by layer
specially treated foundry sand. Themoulds are then sent to a traditionalfoundry to cast metal parts in the oldfashioned way. The use of 3D printing meansall the parts needed for a prototype car engine can be produced in a couple of weeksinstead of several months.
Some of the world’s biggest 3D printerscan be found in China. Its astronauts sit in3Dprinted seats which are shaped speci�cally to their bodies. Engineers working ona Chinese rival to the shorthaul jets madeby Boeing and Airbus are using giant 3Dprinting machines, one of them 12 metreslong, to print parts (including wing sparesand fuselage frames) in titanium.
Powering upThe value of 3D printing as a productiontool will increase further with systems thatare capable of printing electrical circuits directly onto or into components. Disneyand Xerox are experimenting with suchprocesses, as is GKN Aerospace, a British�rm. In a joint project with the Universityof Warwick, GKN has developed a printingmaterial called �carbomorph�. This haspiezoresistive properties, which means itselectrical resistance changes when it issqueezed. It can be used to print functioning switches, buttons and sensors.
Optomec, based in Albuquerque, hascome up with a way to print electronicswhich it calls Aerosol Jet. This works by
atomising liquid electronic materials into adense aerosol, which is then focused by asheath of gas into a beam and deposited inlayers. It can produce electrical circuits andcomponents, including wires, resistors, capacitors and semiconductors, with features as small as 10 microns across (a micron is one millionth of a metre). Optomechas been working on printing LED lightingonto wallpaper and control circuits ontothe wings of a small drone (which itselfwas 3D printed by Stratasys).
The company is also working with anumber of mobilephone manufacturersto print circuits directly into handsets. Thelatest smartphones have multiple aerialsfor cellular radios, WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS
and so forth. They are usually made with achemicalplating process which is environmentally unfriendly. Optomec can printthem directly into the case using a conductive silver ink. A trial system was recentlyinstalled on a production line in China.
Eventually it will be possible to printmost electrical components directly into aproduct, predicts Michael Renn, the director of Optomec’s development laboratory.But although the system can print transistors, and could thus produce logic circuits,it cannot print the billions of tiny transistors found in microprocessors and otherchips. Those chips would still need to bemanufactured in the usual way and incorporated into a 3Dprinted product�thoughDr Renn is quick to point out that he canuse his Aerosol Jet to wire them up.
Additive manufacturing has other limitations. It can be slow�taking severalhours to print, say, a body panel for a car.But speed is relative. What may be tooslow for a large production run might be�ne for a oneo� item which would takeweeks to make in a machineshop.
Material costs are also high. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, better known asABS, is the most common 3Dprinting material. A mass manufacturer using plasticinjection moulding might buy ABS in bulkfor about $2 a kilo, but as a bespoke powder or �lament for 3D printing it can cost asmuch as $80 a kilo, says Anthony Vicari ofLux Research, a Boston company thattracks emerging technologies.
In part the price di�erence is due tohigher standards of purity and composition required for 3D printing. But mostly itis because 3Dprinter manufacturers require users to buy materials from themand mark up the price, as with the inks for2D inkjet printers. Mr Vicari thinks thisstrategy is not sustainable long term asthirdparty suppliers enter the business.
Moreover, some big manufacturers, likeGE, are developing bespoke 3Dprintingsystems which are not dependent on a single supplier of equipment or material.
One spur to the development of the 3Dprinting industry has been falling pricesand increased competition, after some ofthe early patents on fuseddepositionmodelling expired in 2009, notes a recentreport by the McKinsey Global Institute.This is what has brought the price of someprinters down to below $1,000.
The industry is also consolidating as itscales up. Last year Stratasys merged withObjet of Israel, and in June the companybought MakerBot, based in Brooklyn. InJuly 3D Systems bought an 81% stake inPhenix Systems, a French provider of lasersintering in metal, which is something of aEuropean speciality (the leader in lasersintering is EOS of Germany). Anotherphase of innovation and increased competition may begin in 2014 when some of thepatents on lasersintering expire. Becauselasersintering is capable of printing thingsin plastic, metal and ceramics to high levelsof detail, it is often used to make �nishedproducts rather than mere prototypes.
At your serviceMeanwhile, 3D printing is becoming morereadily available to people with no equipment of their own through service providers that print objects on demand from digitised plans, such as Shapeways, based inNew York, Sculpteo, based in France, andMaterialise, based in Belgium. It printsmedical implants for surgeons, models ofbuildings for architects, lampshades for interior designers, custommade knobs forcabinetmakers and lightweight parts forindustrial robots.
If Mr Gou of Foxconn ever has a spot ofbother with his own production lines,these �rms might be able to help. ClémentMoreau, Sculpteo’s boss, tells of a largeChinese manufacturer which was settingup a new production line, but found it wasmissing some small plastic parts whichshould have been ordered from an injectionmoulding company. Faced withweeks of delay it looked at 3D printing thebits instead. Sculpteo had the �rst batch of5,000 parts on their way to China withindays. It is yet another example of how 3D
printing is not competing with conventional manufacturing techniques, but is instead complementing and hybridisingwith them to make new things possible.When 3D printing can come to the rescueof mass manufacturing, its place in the factory of the future is assured. 7Here’s one I made earlier
�3D printing is not competing with conventionalmanufacturing, but is hybridising with it.�
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 3D printing 9
2
10 Hightech fabrics The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
ON APRIL 29th a Boeing 747 cargo jetcrashed just after takeo� at Bagram
airbase in Afghanistan, killing all sevencrew members. During the ascent, itseems, some heavy cargo broke free fromits constraints and slid backwards, liftingthe nose of the aircraft and making it stall.Such accidents have happened before. In1997 a cargo plane leaving Miami crashedafter pallets of denim shifted; all four ofthe crew and a motorist on the groundwere killed. Accordingly, there is much interest in brawnier nets that can ensure aircargo stays put. Japan’s Nippon Cargo Airlines, TAP Portugal, and, as of this summer,Air FranceKLM are using netting fabricthat is much stronger than the polyesternetting in wide use today.
The fabric in question is woven from �bres of ultrahighmolecularweight polyethylene (UHMWPE), a type of plasticmade up of unusually long and heavy hydrocarbon chains. Such �bres have astrengthtoweight ratio around 15 timesgreater than steel, says Joe Ashton of AmSafe Bridport, a British manufacturer ofcargo nets. The �rm’s nets are made of Dyneema, a UHMWPE �bre made by RoyalDSM, a Dutch manufacturer, and sell foraround $400 each. That is about four timesas much as a typical polyester net. But aswell as being much stronger, nets madewith Dyneema last longer and, at about9kg, weigh half as much, saving fuel andreducing carbondioxide emissions.
This is just one example of how new
materials and techniques are making possible hightech fabrics with a range of useful new properties. Humans have beenweaving fabrics since the dawn of civilisation, but researchers around the world arenow cooking up myriad new textiles capable of containing explosions, protecting astronauts, thwarting bacteria and evenkeeping buildings standing during earthquakes. These new fabrics are also �ndingmore commonplace uses, such as helpingto keep people cool in the heat or ensuringthat clothes stay clean and smell fresh.
Underlying these novel materials aresome unusual manufacturing techniques.Kuraray, a Japanese �rm, has for exampledeveloped a clever way to harness an attribute of some polymers known as liquidcrystallinity. As the name suggests, themolecules in liquidcrystal polymers (LCP)have arranged themselves to form crystals,which makes them stronger than polymers with randomly ordered molecules.Kuraray pumps melted LCP goo, heated to300°C, through a showerheadlike devicewith holes 23 microns (millionths of a metre) in diameter. The resulting �bres areamazingly strong: twist together 100,000of them to produce a cord a bit thicker thana pencil, and it can suspend about eighttonnes, or the weight of four SUVs.
Vectran, as this material is branded, isalso notable for its low �creep�, or reluctance to stretch. It helps keep robots’ gestures precise when used in their cabling,for instance, and is woven into other mate
rials to make stronger tapes, sails andslashresistant butcher’s gloves. Lindstrand Technologies, a British maker of airships, recently switched from polyester toa Vectranbased fabric, even though it costsabout ten times as much. It has the advantage of being both lighter and tougher, andcan de�ect smallarms �re at about 200metres, says Per Lindstrand, the �rm’smanaging director.
The same material was also used in theairbags that cushion the landing of roverssent to Mars by NASA, America’s spaceagency. This provided �really good PR, notso great volume�, jokes Forrest Sloan ofKuraray’s American arm. More recently,Vectran has been protecting British armoured vehicles from Russianmade rocketpropelled grenades, which use an explosion to propel a spike of copper through asmuch as 25cm of steel. A Vectran nettingsystem, mounted on a light metal frameand wrapped around vehicles about 30cmfrom their surface, deforms the warheadtip in a way that prevents the spike fromforming, says Steve Lawton of AmSafeBridport, which designed the system.
Weave your spellFabrics can be given new properties byclever arrangement of their yarns. Stackingseveral layers of unidirectional yarns atcross angles, for example, makes a powerful �multiaxial� fabric. Using glass andplastic�bre yarns woven in this way, anItalian company, Selcom, has made �seismic wallpaper�. Called SENTEX 8300, ithas been wrapped around a building nearVenice to prevent it from collapsing duringearthquakes. As well as providing support,the fabric contains embedded sensors thatcan be used to monitor a building’s movements during and after seismic shocks.
Another arrangement trick involves thecombination of �bres to create �auxetic�yarn that, when stretched, becomesthicker rather than thinner. To understandhow this works, imagine a rubber bungee
Material bene�ts
Hightech fabrics: Advances in seemingly mundane textile technologiespromise to make the world a safer place�using a variety of tricks
1
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Hightech fabrics 11
2 cord with a piece of �shing line wrappedaround its length in an open spiral. If youpull the �shing line tight, it straightens, andthe bungee cord is distorted into a spiralaround it�a spiral wider than the undistorted cord. Similarly, fabrics made of auxetic yarn get thicker when stretched.
This unusual property gives an auxetictextile made by Advanced Fabric Technologies (AFT), a �rm based in Houston, thestrength to contain powerful explosions.The textile, branded Xtegra, is made withsynthetic �bres including DuPont’s Kevlarand Hytrel, a rubbery plastic. Fragments ofshrapnel from an explosion bounce o� thefabric as it stretches and thickens to absorbtheir kinetic energy and then snaps back.
In a test carried out by the British Ministry of Defence, �ve 1mm layers of Xtegrastopped shrapnel from a rocketpropelledgrenade detonated �ve metres away. Adjusting the size and weaving patterns ofthe auxetic �bre can produce materials optimised for particular uses, says DavidO’Keefe of AFT. His �rm’s customers areusing Xtegra to provide protection frommine explosions, shrapnel in tank crewcompartments, the rupture of oildrillingmanifolds and lashing from hurricanes.
A European consortium of nine partners including Meridiana, an Italian airline, is developing an auxetic textile capable of containing a blast in an airliner’sluggage hold. The FlyBag project, fundedby the European Union, has created multilayered, auxeticfabric bags that hold morethan 30 pieces of luggage. In tests at Blastech, a facility near Buxton in England, aprototype successfully contained �ve detonations of RDX, a plastic explosive. JimWarren, Blastech’s boss, says a FlyBagwould have contained the baggageholdblast that tore through a Boeing 747’s fuselage in 1988 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing 270 people. The bag also smotherspostblast �res thanks to its zipup seal anda coating that restricts air�ow.
Novel materials can also protect people
more directly from �re. Chapman Innovations, a �rm based in Salt Lake City, makes�reresistant garments by baking �bresmade of acrylic, a form of arti�cial silk, athalf a degree below its combustion temperature. This blackens the acrylic andcooks o� its nitrogen, an element thatwould otherwise enable it to burn. Fabricmade from the �bres, called CarbonX, isused to make garments for factory workers, �re�ghters, racing drivers, soldiers andpolice SWAT teams.
An uncommon threadA carefully designed fabric can even prevent a �re in the �rst place. If static electricity collects in clothing, it can generate aspark that ignites fumes. To avoid sparking,the Barnet Trading Company in Shanghaidesigned a yarn made of carbon sheathedin polyester. The trick, says Ma Wei, the�rm’s boss, was to give the carbon core atrilobal shape. Static electricity slips o� thecore’s three ridges, dissipating beforeenough accumulates to create a spark. Theyarn, named NegaStat, is widely used inpetrochemical facilities, industrial cleanrooms and medical operating theatres.
Earlier this year patients at Pirogov Hospital in So�a, Bulgaria, began receiving pyjamas and bedding made from a novelform of cotton. Its �bres had been impregnated with nanoparticles of zinc oxide,giving the material antibacterial properties. Aneta Hubenova, head of hospital’stoxicology clinic, says preliminary resultsindicate that the patients su�ered fewer infections than those in control groups.
Embedding the zinc oxide in the cottonwas not easy. Researchers at the BarIlanUniversity Institute for Nanotechnologyand Advanced Materials in Ramat Gan, Israel, used ultrasound to create momentaryvoids about ten microns in diameter in awatery solution containing zinc. As theycollapse, the voids heat up and shoot tinyparticles of zinc oxide into nearby cotton �bres, says Aharon Gedanken, the project
leader. The EU is providing ¤8.3m ($11m) infunding for the project in the hope of reducing the 10m days patients spend inEuropean hospitals annually due to infections caught within their walls.
Enhanced textiles can also be put tomore everyday uses. Antimicrobial textiles reduce body odour and its attendanttextile discolouration. Mosquitorepellentclothing is made by treating fabric withpermethrin, a synthetic insecticide, or pyrethroid, a compound similar to a naturalchrysanthemum insecticide. Waterrepellent or �hydrophobic� textiles designed toprevent hyperthermia among Swiss andGerman soldiers are being used to makesportswear that is more comfortable in hotweather, says René Rossi of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science andTechnology, which devised the material.
At the other end of the spectrum materials are being developed to protect astronauts from dangerous radiation. High radiation levels beyond lowearth orbit meanthat existing shielding materials used inspacecraft and spacesuits are inadequatefor manned missions lasting more than100 days, says Sheila Thibeault of NASA’sLangley Research Centre. Her team is developing new fabrics based on tiny crystalline �bres made of boron and nitrogen,which are heated under pressure to formboronnitride nanotubes (BNNTs). Resembling white candy�oss, these can be spuninto a �pretty spectacular� yarn that stopsmany harmful particles, she says.
But it is still not quite good enough. Thenext step is to integrate hydrogen into thetubular structure of BNNTs. Modelling hasshown that such hydrogenated BNNTswould provide e�ective shielding againstthe radiation encountered in interplanetary space. Dr Thibeault says her team hasmade good progress incorporating hydrogen in recent months. When she suggeststhat mankind’s future in space depends onthe development of new fabrics, she is notjust spinning a good yarn. 7
12 Biofuels The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
SCIENTISTS have long known how toconvert various kinds of organic materi
al into liquid fuel. Trees, shrubs, grasses,seeds, fungi, seaweed, algae and animalfats have all been turned into biofuels topower cars, ships and even planes. As wellas being available to countries without tarsands, shale �elds or gushers, biofuels canhelp reduce greenhousegas emissions byproviding an alternative to releasing fossilfuel carbon into the atmosphere. Frustratingly, however, making biofuels in largequantities has always been more expensive and less convenient than simply drilling a little deeper for oil.
Ethanol, for instance, is an alcoholicbiofuel easily distilled from sugary orstarchy plants. It has been used to powercars since Ford’s Model T and, blended intoconventional petrol, constitutes about 10%of the fuel burned by America’s vehiclestoday. Biodiesel made from vegetable fatsis similarly mixed (at a lower proportion of5%) into conventional diesel in Europe. Butthese ��rst generation� biofuels havedrawbacks. They are made from plantsrich in sugar, starch or oil that might otherwise be eaten by people or livestock. Ethanol production already consumes 40% ofAmerica’s maize (corn) harvest and a single new ethanol plant in Hull is about tobecome Britain’s largest buyer of wheat,using 1.1m tonnes a year. Ethanol and biodiesel also have limitations as vehicle fuels, performing poorly in cold weather andcapable of damaging unmodi�ed engines.
In an e�ort to overcome these limitations, dozens of startup companiesemerged over the past decade with the aimof developing secondgeneration biofuels.They hoped to avoid the �food versus fuel�debate by making fuel from biomass feedstocks with no nutritional value, such asagricultural waste or fastgrowing trees
and grasses grown on otherwise unproductive land. Other �rms planned to make�drop in� biofuels that could replace conventional fossil fuels directly, rather thanhaving to be blended in.
Governments also jumped on the biofuels bandwagon. George Bush saw biofuels as a route to energy independence,signing into law rules that set minimumprices and required re�ners and importersto sell increasing amounts of biofuel eachyear. By 2013, America was supposed to beburning nearly 3,800m litres a year of �cellulosic� biofuels made from woody plants.
Toil and troubleBut instead of roaring into life, the biofuelsindustry stalled. Startups went bust, surviving companies scaled back their plansand, as prices of �rstgeneration biofuelsrose, consumer interest waned. The spreadof fracking, meanwhile, unlocked new oiland gas reserves and provided an alternative path to energy independence. By 2012America’s Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) had slashed the 2013 targetfor cellulosic biofuels to just 53m litres.What went wrong?
Making a secondgeneration biofuelmeans overcoming three challenges. The�rst is to break down woody cellulose andlignin polymers into simple plant sugars.The second is to convert those sugars intodropin fuels to suit existing vehicles, via athermochemical process (using catalysts,extreme temperatures and high pressures)
or a biochemical process (using enzymes,natural or synthetic bacteria, or algae). Thethird and largest challenge is to �nd waysto do all this cheaply and on a large scale.
In 2008 Shell, an energy giant, wasworking on ten advanced biofuels projects. It has now shut most of them down,and none of those that remain is ready forcommercialisation. �All the technologieswe looked at worked,� says Matthew Tipper, Shell’s vicepresident for alternativeenergy. �We could get each to produce fuelsat a lab scale and a demonstration scale.�But bringing biofuels to market proved tobe slower and more costly than expected.
The optimism of �ve years ago mayhave waned, but e�orts to develop secondgeneration biofuels continue. Half a dozencompanies are now putting the �naltouches to industrialscale plants and several are already producing small quantitiesof secondgeneration biofuels. Some evenclaim to be making money doing so.
Consider Shell. Raizen, its joint venturewith Cosan of Brazil, produces more than2,000m litres of �rstgeneration ethanolannually from sugarcane juice. Usually the�brous stalks left over are burned for power or turned into paper, but next year Raizen will start turning them into secondgeneration bioethanol, using a cocktail ofdesigner enzymes from Iogen, a Canadianbiotechnology �rm. Raizen hopes to produce 40m litres of cellulosic ethanol a year,cutting costs and boosting yield by colocating its cellulosic operation with a tradi
Whathappened tobiofuels?
Energy technology: Making largeamounts of fuel from organic matterhas proved to be more di�cult andcostly than expected
1
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Biofuels 13
2 tional ethanol plant. Under this model,secondgeneration biofuels complementand enhance �rstgeneration processes,rather than replacing them outright.
Three plants in America are expected tostart producing cellulosic ethanol fromwaste corn cobs, leaves and husks in 2014:POETDSM Advanced Biofuels (75m litres)and Dupont (110m litres), both in Iowa, andAbengoa (95m litres) in Kansas. But the �rstcompany to produce ethanol using enzymes on an industrial scale is Beta Renewables, a spino� from Chemtex, an Italianchemical giant. An 80mlitre cellulosic ethanol plant in Crescentino, near Turin, hasbeen running at half capacity over thesummer, using straw from nearby farms. Itwill run on corn waste in the autumn, ricestraw in the winter and then perennial eucalyptus in the spring. Beta Renewableshas already licensed its technology for usein Brazil and Malaysia, and expects to sellseveral more licences by the end of theyear. All Beta’s plants can alreadymake biofuels at a pro�t, albeit onlyin areas with very cheap feedstocks,says the �rm’s boss, Guido Ghisol�.
Just as this cellulosic ethanolcomes on to the market, however,demand for fuel is waning in manydeveloped countries due to improvements in fuel e�ciency andlingering economic weakness. As aresult, demand for ethanol forblending is falling, too. In America,petrol containing up to 15% ethanol,while permitted by the EPA and promoted by ethanol producers, is still arare sight on station forecourts.
Other biofuels companies arecontinuing to pursue dropin fuels.One attraction is that comparedwith ethanol, the demand for whichdepends to a large extent on governmentmandates that it be blended into conventional fuels, dropin fuels are less susceptible to changing political whims. Another isthat dropin fuels are commonly madewith sugar as a feedstock, either conventionally sourced or cellulosic, and sugar iswidely available and easily transported.
Stepping on the gasAmyris, based in California, geneticallyengineers yeasts and other microbes to ferment sugar into a longchain hydrocarbonmolecule called farnesene. This can thenbe processed into a range of chemicals andfuels. After a few rocky years when it overpromised and underdelivered, Amyris isnow producing limited quantities of renewable diesel for public buses in Brazil
and is trying to get its renewable jet fuelcerti�ed for commercial use.
Solazyme, another �rm based in California, is also focusing on renewable dieseland jet fuels, in its case derived from algae.Microscopic algae in openair ponds canuse natural sunlight and atmospheric orindustrialwaste carbon dioxide to produce oils. But harvesting the fuel, which ispresent in only very small proportions, isexpensive and di�cult. Solazyme insteadgrows algae in sealed fermenting vesselswith sugar as an energy source. The US
Navy has used tens of thousands of litresof its algal fuels in exercises, and Propel, anAmerican chain of �lling stations, recentlybecame the �rst to o�er algal diesel. But although its technology clearly works, Solazyme remains cagey about the economics.A 110mlitre algae plant in Brazil, due to beup and running by the end of the year, mayclarify Solazyme’s commercial potential.
If dropin biofuels are going to have an
impact worldwide, they will have to beeconomic away from the tropical climes ofSouth America, where sugar can be growncheaply. The only commercial facility currently making dropin fuels directly fromwoody biomass is operated by a startupcalled KiOR. Its 50mlitre plant in Columbus, Mississippi, turns pinetree chips intodropin petrol and diesel for customers including FedEx, a logistics �rm, and Chevron, an oil giant. KiOR uses a thermochemical process called �uidcatalytic crackingthat borrows many technologies from conventional oil re�neries and, unlike fussierbiochemical systems, should scale up easily. KiOR is planning a 150mlitre facility innearby Natchez. However, the Columbusplant is not yet running at anywhere nearfull capacity, andKiOR has a lot of debt and
is still losing money. In August disgruntledinvestors launched a classaction lawsuit.
Some observers doubt whether eventhe most sophisticated biofuels can compete with fossil fuels in the near future.Daniel KleinMarcuschamer, a researcherat the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, conducted acomprehensive analysis of renewable aviation fuels. He concluded that producing�rstgeneration biojet fuel from sugarcanewould require oil prices of at least $168 abarrel to be competitive, and that somesecondgeneration algae technologieswould require crude oil to soar above$1,000 a barrel (the current price is around$110) to break even. Mr KleinMarcuschamer has made his model opensourcein an e�ort to help the industry �nd waysto make biofuels more competitive.
Even if secondgeneration processescan be economically scaled up, however,that might in turn highlight a further pro
blem. To make a signi�cant dent inthe 2,500m litres of conventional oilthat American re�neries churnthrough each day, biofuel factorieswould have to be able to get hold ofa staggering quantity of feedstock.Mr Ghisol� of Beta Renewablespoints out that a factory with an annual output of 140m litres needs350,000 tonnes of biomass a year tooperate. �There are only certain areas, in Brazil and some parts of theUS and Asia, where you can locatethis much biomass within a close radius,� says Mr Ghisol�. �I am sceptical of scaling to ten times that size,because getting 3.5m tonnes of biomass to a single collection point isgoing to be a very big undertaking.�
Billions of tonnes of agriculturalwaste are produced worldwide each year,but such material is thinly spread, makingit expensive to collect and transport. Moreover, farms use such waste to condition thesoil, feed animals or burn for power. Diverting existing sources of wood to makebiofuels will annoy builders and papermakers, and planting fuel crops on undeveloped land is hardly without controversy: one man’s wasteland is another’s pristine ecosystem. Dozens of environmentalgroups have protested against the EPA’s recent decision to permit plantations of fastgrowing giant reed for biofuels, calling it anoxious and highly invasive weed. Just asthe foodversusfuel argument has provedcontroversial for today’s biofuels, �oraversusfuel could be an equally toughstruggle for tomorrow’s. 7
�Even if processes can be economically scaled up,that might in turn highlight a further problem.�
14 Working with robots The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
AS GIANT welding robots go about theirbusiness in a modern car factory, the
scene looks like a cyberpunk vision ofDante’s �Inferno�. Amid showers ofsparks, articulated mechanical arms nearly the size of telephone poles move sections of partially built vehicles so �scarilyfast� that anyone who accidentally endsup in the wrong place is as good as dead,says Rodney Brooks, the boss of RethinkRobotics, a robotmaker based in Boston.For this reason, industrial robots operate incages or behind security fences. But by segregating robots from humans, such safetymeasures greatly limit the tasks that robotscan perform. In car factories, for example,most of the �nal assembly is done, expensively, by hand.
Neither workers nor robots can reachtheir productive potential without interacting more closely, says Volker Grünenwald, head of systems integration at Pilz, aGerman engineering �rm. Eager to designmachines that can be used for a widerrange of tasks, technologists are now �guring out how to bring robots �out of thecage� so that they can work safely andmore productively with people. The aim isto combine the dexterity, �exibility andproblemsolving skills of humans with thestrength, endurance and precision of ro
bots. The emergence of �cooperative� or�collaborative� robots, as these new machines are called, could also lead to robotsthat are better able to help out in the o�ce,at school or in the home.
Last December, in a company �rst, German carmaker BMW introduced a slowmoving collaborative robot in its factory inSpartanburg, South Carolina, which cooperates with a human worker to insulateand waterseal vehicle doors. The robotspreads out and glues down material thatis held in place by the human worker’smore agile �ngers. When this is done without the help of a robot, workers must be rotated o� this uncomfortable task after justan hour or two to prevent elbow strain. Today four collaborative robots work in thefacility, and more are coming, in Spartanburg and elsewhere.
BMW expects �a big, massive rollout�of the technology in 2014 in Germany, despite the country’s tighter restrictions onhumanrobot interaction, says StefanBartscher, BMW’s head of innovation. Thecompany plans to design additional tasksfor collaborative robots as they are progressively introduced in �ve carmakingplants. These robots will require di�erenttechnologies from those found in traditional, noncollaborative robots. Indeed,
when it comes to dealing with humans, robots have so few skills that even a seemingly simple task such as handing over an object commonly ends in a tugofwar, saysElizabeth Croft, a roboticist at the University of British Columbia.
With funding from GM, America’s biggest carmaker, Dr Croft’s Collaborative Advanced Robotics and Intelligent SystemsLaboratory is designing robots that can execute �unscripted� handovers to humans.This requires the robot to determinewhether a person wants and is authorisedto have a particular item�be it a powerdrill, a document or a cup of tea. The robotmust then present the item in the most advantageous orientation for the human, adjusting its grip as the object’s weight shifts.Finally, the robot must let go only when itssensors detect that the object is being purposefully and safely taken away.
Safety �rstDangerous industrial machinery is typically shut down the instant a worker�breaks� an infrared light curtain or opensa door to enter a robot’s cage. But safetysystems of this sort have drawbacks.Breaches typically stop an entire production line, alarming employees and causingdelays that may cascade throughout theplant. Pilz has developed a multicameracomputer system that monitors the areasurrounding robots and adjusts their behaviour accordingly.
Called SafetyEYE, the system allows arobot to, say, rivet an aircraft wing withoutsectioning o� the entire area from people.Aware of its surroundings, the robot canroll along the length of the wing, slowingits movements if a worker approaches or,if he gets too close, stopping altogetherwithout disrupting activity elsewhere.
Our friends electric
Robotics: A new breed of robots is being designed to collaborate withhumans, working alongside them to make them more productive
1
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Working with robots 15
2
1
be posted online for downloading by other users, who can tweak them as needed.
At the same time, better arti�cial intelligence is even rendering some programming unnecessary. Rethink Robotics saysits twoarmed collaborative robot, calledBaxter (pictured), uses common sense to�gure out some movements on its own.Factory workers use Baxter’s touchscreen�face� to point out the objects it will handle. Baxter then studies them from all angles to determine if, say, a glass is bestgrasped by the outside or by inserting andopening its �ngers. If a conveyor belt bringing items to be processed slows down, sodoes Baxter. More than 100 have been soldsince the robot went on sale in late 2012.
For decades robots have been gettingfaster, stronger and more precise. The newbreed of collaborative robots, by contrast,will move more slowly, lift less and be lessprecise. And yet this is the breed that willusher in the real robotics revolution, saysDr Brooks of Rethink Robotics, becausesuch qualities will allow robots to team upwith people. He points out that it was theadvent not of mainframes but of less powerful but more userfriendly PCs that carried computing into the mainstream.
Collaborative robots are developing soquickly that internationalstandards bodies are having trouble keeping up. Theworld’s largest compiler of voluntary industrial standards, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in Geneva, has yet to work out safety standards forcollaborative robots, such as how muchforce a robot can safely apply to di�erentparts of a human worker’s body.
The ISO needs about two more yearsbefore it can publish painthreshold standards, says Matthias Umbreit, an expertworking on the project who also works asan automation specialist at Germany’s
BGHM, an insurer of woodworkers andmetalworkers. But the signs are encouraging, he says. A hand clamped in a robot’sgripper, for instance, can probably safelybear a pressure of 160 newtons per squarecentimetre. Fortunately, says Dr Umbreit,many useful tasks can be carried out usingless force, so safety standards will notmake robots so feeble that they are no longer useful. Johan Wahren of the SwedishStandards Institute notes that establishingstandards will speed up R&D.
Friend or foe?No matter how �exible, easy to programand safe they are, collaborative workersmay not be welcomed by human workersto begin with. The experience of Alumotion, an Italian distributor of UR’s robots, isillustrative. Workers fear being replaced byrobots, says coowner Fabio Facchinetti, sohis salespeople carry demonstration unitsin unmarked cases and initially only meeta potential client’s senior management behind closed doors.
But rather than �ring workers, Alumotion’s clients often end up adding shifts because production costs drop. RSS Manufacturing in Costa Mesa, California, says itsnew UR robot is helping the �rm competeagainst Asian makers of brass plumbing�xtures. Geo� Escalette, the �rm’s boss,plans to buy more robots because withoutthem some milling machines run at about60% capacity for lack of a nearby workerable to load objects fast enough. It is worthremembering that people also used toworry that computers would steal jobs,notes Chris Melhuish of the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, a joint venture between theUniversity of Bristol and the University ofthe West of England. Instead, computershelped people become more productive.
Workers generally warm to collabora
Since it was launched in 2007, SafetyEYE has allowed robots to be deployed in parts of factories where setting up light curtains or safety cageswould be expensive or impractical.
There are additional ways to avert accidents. Some robots have red emergencystop buttons. Researchers have even madepressuresensing �arti�cial skin� by sandwiching a rubbery silicone made with carbon black, a conductive material, betweenelectrodes. Compressing it with a slap generates an electrical signal that instructs therobot to freeze. For an additional overridefunction, robots could be �tted with microphones and stopped with a shout, says PerVegard Nerseth, robotics boss at ABB, aSwiss industrial giant based in Zurichwhich has ramped up development of collaborative robots in the past few years.
Robots capable of teaming up withpeople are typically used to perform tasksthat are being automated for the �rst time,so productivity gains are especially high�provided the devices are quick and easy toprogram. A onearmed robot (pictured onprevious page) made by Denmark’s Universal Robots (UR) to �work right alongside employees� can be set up within anhour. Programming usually takes less thanten minutes. The user manually moves thearm and the tool it is holding from the starting point of a task to the end point, tappinga touchscreen �record� button at pointsalong the way. Once the task is named andsaved, the robot can be put to work.
Machine workshops often program collaborative robots to perform tasks for onlya brief period. UR’s models can be fastened to a workbench to, say, screw together eyeglass frames to meet a rush order,and then moved to cap and box jars to cover for a worker who is o� sick. Traditionalrobots, by contrast, are typically con�gured by highly paid, specialist engineerswho work on a mock production line, sothat the real production line need not beshut down for the weeks or months required for programming. UR sold morethan 700 robots last year and expects tosell 1,500 this year, some to clients with justa few employees. Many users say that theyrecover the investment in a ¤20,000($27,000) UR robot within six months.
Programming collaborative robots willbecome even easier as software improves.Already, some experimental robots can becon�gured using spoken commands suchas �create new skill� and �save pose�. DrNerseth of ABB reckons that it will eventually be possible to program robots usingspeech. And the control �les for robots can
Baxter gets to work
16 Working with robots The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
2 tive robots quickly. Employees are keen too�oad the �mindless, repetitive stu��, asone roboticist puts it. And because workers themselves do the programming, theytend to regard the robots as subordinate assistants. This is good for morale, says EsbenOstergaard, UR’s technology chief. In late2012 MercedesBenz began equippingworkers who assemble gearboxes at aStuttgart plant with lightweight �thirdhand� robots initially designed for use inspace by the German Aerospace Centre.The German carmaker’s parent company,Daimler, is expanding the initiative, whichit describes as �robot farming� becauseworkers shepherd the robots �just like afarmer tending sheep�.
Don’t frighten the humansTo keep human workers at ease, collaborative robots should also have an appropriate size and appearance. Takayuki Kandaof the ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories in Kyoto says thatcollaborative, humanoid robots shouldgenerally be no larger than a sixyearold, asize most adults reckon they could overpower if necessary. Large eyes make robotsseem friendlier and, crucially, more awareof their surroundings. But overly humanoid features can lead to problematicallyunrealistic expectations, says Ulrich Reiserof Fraunhofer IPA, a manufacturing research institute in Stuttgart that makes a¤250,000 homeassistant robot calledCareObot. He notes that people tend todistrust robots with protruding sensors,�Terminator�like exposed cables, or a jerryrigged, studentproject look.
To interact smoothly with people, robots will also need �social intelligence�. Itturns out, for example, that people are
cine isn’t taken, say, the robot may alert relatives or the hospital. It is vital that a robotof this sort is not perceived as hostile, butas having its owner’s best interests at heart.
One way to do this is to give robots a de�ning human trait�the ability to makemistakes. Maha Salem, a researcher underDr Dautenhahn, programmed a humanoid Asimo robot, made by Honda, to makeoccasional harmless mistakes such aspointing to one drawer while talking aboutanother. When it comes to household robots, test subjects prefer those that err overinfallible ones, Dr Salem says.
Another approach uses sensors to assess the state of nearby humans, so that robots can respond appropriately. Withfunding from the European Union, researchers are using bracelets equippedwith electrodes to enable classroom robotsto determine whether students are bored,confused or anxious. The robots can adapttheir teaching style accordingly, says Iolanda Leite of the Instituto Superior Técnico, a Portuguese university participatingin the programme, which is called EMOTE.One of its objectives is to foster �socialbonding� between people and robots.
Such bonding could have some surprising uses. In experiments carried out at YaleUniversity involving a biped humanoidcalled NAO, made by a French �rm calledAldebaran Robotics, children proved to bejust as willing to share secrets with it asthey were with an adult. The researcherwho performed the experiments, CindyBethel, who is now at Mississippi StateUniversity in Starkville, has also foundthat children who have witnessed a crimeare less likely to be misled in a forensic interview with a robot than with a humanexpert�even one trained to obtain testimony. Mark Ballard of the Starkville policedepartment, who has been working withDr Bethel, reckons that the robots neededto conduct �child friendly� forensic interviews will be available by 2020.
What’s next? Market research is notmuch good at predicting developments inthe �eld of collaborative robots, says Bruno Bonnell of Robolution Capital, a robotics investment fund in France. For onething, he says, people say they want complete control over robots, but once theystart using them they actually prefer themto be as autonomous as possible. Workingalongside robots changes the way peoplethink about them, in other words. Whether on the factory �oor, at home or in theclassroom, the evolving relationship between human robots will be de�ned by aprocess of collaboration. 7
more trusting of robots that use metaphorsrather than abstract language, says BilgeMutlu, the head of the robotics laboratoryat the University of WisconsinMadison.He has found that robots are more persuasive when they refer to the opinions of humans and limit pauses to about a third of asecond to avoid appearing confused. Robots’ gazes must also be carefully programmed lest a stare make someone uncomfortable. Timing eye contact for�intimacy regulation� is tricky, Dr Mutlusays, in part because gazes are also used indialogue to seize and yield the �oor.
When a person enters a room, robotsinside should pause for a moment and acknowledge the newcomer, a sign of deference that puts people at ease, says the University of British Columbia’s Dr Croft.Robots also appear friendlier when theirgaze follows a person’s moving hands,says Maya Cakmak of Willow Garage, theCaliforniabased maker of the PR2, a$400,000 robot skilled enough to make anomelette�albeit slowly.
It will probably be a decade or two atleast before the descendants of PR2, CareObot, and other �home assistance� or�companion� robots will be nimble andintelligent enough to zip autonomouslythrough houses performing chores. Theywill need far better sensors, movementcontrol actuators and batteries, and muchsmarter software. They must also be capable of displaying empathy or they will berejected, says Kerstin Dautenhahn, head ofa �social robotics� team at the Universityof Hertfordshire in Britain.
Her team’s CareObot robots crunchdata from 60odd household sensors thatmonitor door and cupboard hinges, taps,electrical appliances and so forth. If medi
�To keep humans at ease, collaborative robotsshould have an appropriate size and appearance.�
CareObot tries not to look scary
The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013 Brain scan 17
�THE brain is quite unlike a computer.Instead of memory and a few calcu
lating elements, evolution designed everylittle bit of it to be hideously complex,�says Paul Allen, cofounder of Microsoftand main benefactor of the Allen Institutefor Brain Science. �And then when youstart studying every little bit of it, you �ndthere’s even additional complexity. Understanding how the brain works is a�endishly challenging problem.�
It is a problem that Mr Allen is doinghis best to solve. For the past decade, hisinstitute, based in Seattle, has been mapping the grey matter of mice, primates andhumans on an industrial scale. Thin slicesof tissue are analysed to pinpoint thethreedimensional locations in the brainwhere individual genes�20,000 in micealone�have a biological e�ect. Laboratoryrobots and automated cameras feed thiscellularlevel data into vast databases thatin turn populate online multimedia brain�atlases�, freely accessible to all.
�There’s a wave of enthusiasm andrecognition for open data which startedwith the Human Genome Project,� saysMr Allen. �These databases can reallykickstart development in many areas.That’s what I wanted to do.� There aresigns he might be succeeding. Since theinstitute’s mousebrain atlas was completed in 2006, it has helped identify genesthat may play roles in obesity, multiplesclerosis, Alzheimer’s and other diseases.The humanbrain atlas launched in 2010.
Mr Allen’s enthusiasm for openness isperhaps surprising. Microsoft, the software giant he cofounded in 1975 with hisschoolmate Bill Gates, enjoyed years ofdominance with its proprietary Windowsoperating systems. Its current boss, SteveBallmer, once likened opensource software, whose code is made available to allonline, to cancer. Mr Allen sees no contradiction, however. �For me, there’s a di�erence between science and technology,� hesays. �If you’re trying to lift all scienti�cboats around the world, you need to haveopen systems. If you’re developing technologies for commercial projects, that’s awhole di�erent perspective.�
In the 1970s Mr Allen helped write thesoftware that would make Microsoft ahousehold name. He used a mainframe
computer to devise simulations of themicroprocessors that powered the very�rst personal computers. This allowedhim and Mr Gates to develop softwareextremely quickly�on at least one occasion, before the machine it was intendedto run on even existed.
�Through a lot of hard work and beingearly, it all fell into place,� remembers MrAllen. �We worked crazy hours and ate alot of pizza.� They also inspired storiesthat have since echoed through computing, such as hacking into a local company’s �les to secure free access to itsmainframes or selling an operating systemto IBM that they had only licensed the daybefore. �Working with Bill was one ofthose partnerships where one plus oneequals much more than either of us couldhave accomplished individually,� he says.
A walk in the PARCAs early as 1977, Mr Allen envisaged afuture in which home computers linkedby highspeed �breoptic cables wouldallow people to order groceries or selltheir cars. A visit to Xerox’s Palo AltoResearch Centre (PARC) in 1980 showedhim how such a system might operate.There, Mr Allen saw for the �rst time thegraphical user interface and mouse thatMicrosoft’s Windows software wouldlater rely on, as well as prototypes ofEthernet networking and laser printers.
But Mr Allen’s time running Microsoftwas nearly over. Fighting Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer, and frustrated by his cofounder’s confrontational managementstyle, Mr Allen withdrew from daytodayoperations in 1982 and retired from Microsoft the following year. But his 36% stake inthe growing company made him fabulously wealthy when the company wentpublic in 1986 (Wired magazine dubbedhim the �accidental zillionaire�).
Mr Allen immediately ploughed someof his newfound wealth (currently estimated at $15 billion) into local projects. Heowns several sports teams in the Paci�cNorthwest and has showered Seattle withtourist landmarks, including an elaboratecinema, a music and science�ction museum housed in a striking Frank Gehrybuilding, a collection of rare militaryaircraft and a Living Computer Museumthat restores vintage computers.
Yet despite his taste for nostalgia, MrAllen’s primary focus remained the creation of a fully digitised society. In the late1980s and early 1990s, he invested in morethan 100 internet, media and communications �rms as part of a strategy he called
Microsoft’s other mogul
Paul Allen made his fortune as thecofounder, with Bill Gates, ofMicrosoft. He has since put hiswealth to use in a variety of �elds
1
18 Brain scan The Economist Technology Quarterly September 7th 2013
�wired world�. A few paid o� handsomely, such as his timely investment in America Online, then an early internetserviceprovider. Others were less successful.SkyPix, the world’s �rst digitalsatellitebroadcaster, went bankrupt withoutselling a single dish. Metricom, a broadband mobile data provider, followed suitafter it struggled to attract customers.
�I’ve been too early a number oftimes,� admits Mr Allen. �But I’d rather beearly than too late. A lot of things have toline up to have a successful startup. Youlearn some very expensive lessons as lifegoes on.� Lessons do not come muchpricier than Mr Allen’s unfortunate foraysinto �breoptic cable TV, which eventuallycost him a staggering $8 billion.
Perhaps Mr Allen’s most ambitiouse�ort to realise his vision of a connectedworld was the founding of Interval Research in 1992. Intended to reproduce theinnovative dynamism of Xerox PARC,Interval was home to leading researchersfrom Stanford, the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, Bell Labs and PARC itself,as well as artists, journalists and a parapsychologist. The lab cooked up somefascinating ideas, but none of the sevenstartups it spun o� made any money, andMr Allen closed Interval Research in 2000.
�Innovation in anything is a peculiarthing,� says Mr Allen. �You can set thetable, bring on great people and challengethem with great problems that need to besolved, but it’s unpredictable what’s goingto come out.� Interval Research did manage to �le around 300 patents, a few ofwhich were later used to sue 11 technologycompanies including Apple, Google andFacebook�but not Microsoft. This ledSteve Wozniak, the cofounder of Apple, toremark in 2011 that �Paul Allen should beout there investing in companies that aremaking products, actually making a newfuture for the world, not getting in bedwith lawyers to make money.�
Interval’s demise did not dampen MrAllen’s enthusiasm for risky ventures. In2000 he was approached by Burt Rutan,an aerospace engineer who was pro�ledin this column last year, with a design for awinged, carbon�bre spacecraft. It wouldbe launched from a jetpowered mothership, �y to the edge of space using a rocketnever before used for manned �ight,transform into a �shuttlecock� con�guration for reentry and then turn backinto a glider to land on a normal runway.Although Mr Rutan had made and �owndozens of advanced propeller and jetaircraft, he had never built anything pow
ered by a rocket or capable of supersonic�ight. Nevertheless, Mr Allen promised tofund the development of the world’s �rstprivate spaceship. �What Burt will drawon a napkin is pretty inspiring,� says MrAllen. �I don’t think anyone else wouldhave had the ability to pull that o�.�
Just four years later, Mr Rutan’s SpaceShipOne made its successful maidenvoyage. The entire project cost Mr Allenjust $28m: less than onetenth of the costof a single Space Shuttle mission. Twoyears later he recouped his investment bylicensing SpaceShipOne’s technology toRichard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, a spacetourism �rm. Then in 2011Mr Allenformed a company called Stratolaunch toscale up the airlaunch system to sendrockets into orbit. The carrier aircraft iscurrently being manufactured using partsfrom two secondhand Boeing 747s. When�nished, probably in 2015, it will be thelargest plane ever �own. �Stratolaunchwill be unique in that it won’t need alaunch pad. You can take o� from a bigairstrip, �y out over the ocean and rapidlydo multiple launches,� says Mr Allen.
The Vulcan empireNot all Mr Allen’s current business interests are quite so out of this world, however. The portfolio of Vulcan, his investment �rm, includes energy companies,�nancial services, computerchip technologies, �lm producers and web startups.He has a longterm research e�ort calledProject Halo that aims to encapsulatearti�cial intelligence within digital textbooks, to help teach students in developing countries and assist researchers. MrAllen says he is still rooting for Microsoft,in which he still owns a large stake,though he worries that the �rm has grownbig and sluggish. �There are a number ofareas where Microsoft is playing catch up,trying to claw back market share fromApple, Google or others,� he says. �Theyhave to jump on changes in technology orthey’re in danger of being left behind.�
Although science is more forgivingthan commerce, Mr Allen continues tospend freely to keep his Institute for BrainScience at the cutting edge. Last year heraised his �nancial commitment to half abillion dollars, dwar�ng a $100m brainimaging initiative announced by BarackObama in April. �The Brain Institute started out doing datagathering research. Nowwe’ve shifted gears to the really hard workof �guring how to work with this data and�nd out what it means,� he says. This will,he says, take �many decades�.
And Mr Allen now seems to be embarking on yet another grand mission. InAugust he invited scientists and experts inthe �eld of cell biology to Seattle to brainstorm ideas around �ghting cancer. TheAllen Institute for Brain Science was bornout of a similar workshop. But there arestill some problems that daunt even abillionaire. �It’s important to get seriousabout climate change,� says Mr Allen. �Iwould di�erentiate between somethingthat can be done for tens or hundreds ofmillions of dollars, like scienti�c research,and things that require trillions. Solvingglobal warming is a many trilliondollarproblem, if it gets addressed at all.�
That’s not to say he isn’t trying. �BillGates and I still talk fairly frequently andwe both see the importance of nuclearenergy,� says Mr Allen. �Di�erent forms ofnuclear energy have to be part of theanswer.� Mr Gates has invested in a pioneering reactor fuelled by nuclear waste,while Mr Allen has a stake in a �rm working on nuclear fusion.
�I’m trying to be a catalyst in all thesedi�erent areas, looking over the horizon tosee where things are going and pushingthem through to fruition,� he says. Like acatalyst, Mr Allen’s work in software,space travel and basic science has certainly accelerated the pace of change. But heconfesses to having been altered in theprocess, most notably by his enduringrelationship with Bill Gates. �Sometimesyou have these partnerships that accomplish more than you or anyone expects,�says Mr Allen. �Although we’ve had ourmoments of disagreement, it’s been anamazingly productive relationship forboth of us.� 7
�Sometimes you have these partnerships thataccomplish more than you or anyone expects.�
O�er to readersReprints of Technology Quarterly are availablefrom the Rights and Syndication Department.A minimum order of �ve copies is required.
Corporate o�erCustomisation options on corporate orders of100 or more are available. Please contact us todiscuss your requirements.For more information on how to order specialreports, reprints or any queries you may haveplease contact:
The Rights and Syndication DepartmentThe Economist20 Cabot SquareLondon E14 4QWTel +44 (0)20 7576 8148Fax +44 (0)20 7576 8492email: [email protected]/rights
2