September 10, 2005
Dr. Richard Claus, Director, Fiber and Electro-Optics Research Center, Virginia Tech, and President, Nanosonic, 7/20/05
Dr. David Lemberg: Our next guest is Dr. Richard Claus, Director of the Fiber and Electro-Optics Research Center at Virginia Tech and President, Nanosonic, located in Blacksburg, VA. Dr. Claus is a recognized expert in advanced materials and structures. He is the author of more than 850 technical journal and conference publications and holds 30 issued patents, most concerning smart materials and structures in nanotechnology. Dr. Claus is co-Editor-in-Chief of Smart Materials and Structures, a journal of the Institute of Physics. He received the Optical Engineering Society’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2002 and he was named Virginia’s Outstanding Scientist in 2001. Welcome, Dr. Richard Claus.
Dr. Richard Claus: Thank you very much.
Lemberg: Rick, thank you so much for being with us. Can you give us a brief background on the Fiber and Electro-Optics Research Center at Virginia Tech?
Claus: Sure. Our Fiber and Electro-Optics Research Center, or FEORC, was started in 1985, largely by the State of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in an effort to try to entice university faculty to work with industrial people around the state and around the country. And, over the years, we’ve worked on, I think, now, it’s about 650 programs, totaling about $45,000,000. Things, obviously, in the fiberoptics area changed quite dramatically, as you know, a few years ago.
And, one of the technologies that we were involved in was making optical fibers with very specialized coatings. At Virginia Tech, we have a complete optical fiber manufacturing facility and out of that very specialized coating research work that was funded by the Army, we developed, back in the early 1990s, what now would be called a nanotechnology manufacturing capability, based on self-assembly.
Lemberg: Rick, we were just speaking about building a space elevator with carbon nanotube composites.
Claus: Yeah, I heard that. That’s interesting.
Lemberg: Really interesting.
Claus: Very interesting.
Lemberg: Can you tell us some of the primary technical challenges involved in developing nanotech for practical use?
Claus: Good question. Probably, the biggest challenge is one that’s been recognized by, for instance, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the NNI, and that challenge is the transition of nano to macro. I heard your speaker a few minutes ago, say that his company doesn’t make the individual building blocks that are required to make something like a space elevator or the carbon nanotube components that go in. And, that’s one of the challenges. Right now, there is no nano-store. You can’t go and buy nano-things in large quantities. And, you also can’t find ways to put together nano-sized molecules or polymers or other materials to make large scale systems such as the space elevator components.
Sam Kephart: In terms of the whole concept of self-assembly, that assumes that you’re able to commercially produce sufficient quantities. And then, embedded in the material is, forgive the phrase, but some intelligence that lets it know what to do when it’s put to work.
Claus: That’s correct. That’s a good analogy. If I can repeat that back to you a different way, self-assembly’s real attractive because it means that we, as people, don’t have to do all the work in some way, and it would be very attractive if you could take a lot of molecules, put them in a beaker, shake them up and get part of an automobile. That’s not what we’re doing and I don’t think that’s what really anybody has in mind when they think about self-assembly. But, I think what they do mean, is that instead of working with materials, traditional materials as we normally do, taking large sheets of metal and cutting them and beating them and processing them to make some kind of a material or starting with a boule of silicon and cutting it, and then machine it and functionalizing it and transitioning materials into it and defining areas. That’s very complicated, as well.
The self-assembly process that we use is called a couple different names. What we usually call it is electrostatic self-assembly because the self-assembly occurs due to positive negative charge interactions. The way that it works, is we take a substrate. I’m sitting here in an office and I’m looking at my computer screen, so let’s take the piece of glass that’s on my computer screen, make that the substrate. We clean it and in cleaning it, we expose charges on the surface. If you want an analogy, we expose the top valance band electrons or the outer most atoms on the surface of the material. So, let’s say that the material that we start with is negative. It has a negative charge, locally, on the surface. We, then, make up usually water-based solutions but solvent-based solutions of materials, of molecules that are either anionic or cationic. They’re either negatively charged or positively charged molecules.
And, we take our substrate, and for want of a better analogy, we don’t get in the opposite charged solution. So, we would take my negatively charged computer screen and we’d immerse it in a bucket that contains positively charged molecules. And, everybody knows that the positively charged molecules are going to be attracted to the negative charges on the surface and they form a nice, perfect monolayer on the surface of the material.
We, then, take the material—now, the outside surface is positively charged. We go over to our negative molecule bucket and we stick our positively charged substrate into our negative bucket and the negative molecules stick on the surface. Now, the material’s negative. We stick it in the positive, then the negative and the positive, and we gradually grow a material and the thickness of the material is determined by the size of the molecules, which are small, they’re nano-sized—the size of the molecules and the number of dips that we use.
Also, of course, it depends if we’re at a university and we use graduate students, it depends on how tired the graduate students get. Over at Nanosonic, we have large robot systems that don’t tire out and they don’t eat as much as graduate students, and they run 24/7, so we can do this process for a long time to build up very interesting materials that are similar, in a way, if you like another analogy, to the way that your bones grow, one molecular layer at a time.
Kephart Well, the implication, again, going back to our previous guest, in theory, some of these intelligent materials could be positioned on this spaceport or space elevator and basically, it builds itself as it goes out. I’m oversimplifying, but if there’s robotics involved and sources of supply in a controlled environment, there’s no reason to assume that could not happen.
Claus: No, no, there would certainly be some engineering challenges to overcome, for example, what do you do with the water in space? That would be kind of difficult. How would you do dunking? How would you immerse a substrate? If you could work out some of those, you could do it. The type of approach that we’re looking at for terrestrial manufacturing, is, again, back to that nano to macro, that molecule to large scale structural component manufacturing where you, effectively, tell all the little molecules where to go and how to position themselves in the material. And, so far, the success we’ve had has been making materials up to about a half-inch thick and about two foot square, so something that’s about the size of a desk pad, or about a quarter of a four by eight sheet of half-inch plywood.
Lemberg: Rick, thanks. Can we talk more about Nanosonic? And, you have a product called Metal Rubber. Can you tell us about this? It sounds like a terrific product.
Claus: It’s a fun product. Let’s see, Nanosonic, we were formed back in 1998. We currently have 56 people. We’re located in Blacksburg, VA on Main Street, so it’s a hometown kind of company. Metal Rubber came about because I went to a technical conference with a couple colleagues, a couple young colleagues. And, an esteemed colleague from a university in the Northeast was giving a talk about self-assembly. And, he said that no one would ever make anything large using self-assembly. It was wonderful for making very thin coatings, what are called ultra-thin films, so maybe a hundred nanometer thick or submicron thick films. But, no one was ever going to use self-assembly processes to make anything significantly large.
And, the young Ph.D. student next to me leaned over and said, “We can do that.” So, obviously, motivation was there, especially knowing who our colleague was. So, she came back and put together a small group of people, and within about six weeks, we had our material called Metal Rubber. And, what it is, is we went back to our drawing board of self-assembly and we very carefully didn’t select—we didn’t buy, but we made our own nanoclusters and we made our own polymers. One of the great things about Blacksburg is it’s near Virginia Tech. And, Virginia Tech, as a research university, has a number of excellent programs, but one of them is in polymer science. And, we have some very good people working for Nanosonic who can design and synthesize pretty much anything we want in the polymer area.
By very good control over our molecules, we were able to put together metal nanoclusters and polymers very quickly, using that self-assembly process. And, we were able to make relatively thick millimeter- to centimeter-thickness materials. Again, I’m in an office and I’ve got a mouse pad in front of me. We were able to make pieces of material about the size of a mouse pad. And, the material has properties that are somewhat similar to metals and somewhat similar to polymers. Like metals, they conduct electricity, they’re electrical conductors. Top electrical conductivity is about 10-5 ohm-centimeters, which is about a factor of 10 less than the best noble metals like copper, silver, or gold.
So, the material’s an electrical conductor, but it’s also an elastomer, it’s also a rubbery-like material. It has a Young’s modulus—the lowest we can manage is around 1 megapascal, which is sort of like a very droopy rubber band. And, through design, we can make the modulus up to about that of a piece of plywood. So, Metal Rubber is pretty cool. The other really neat thing about it is that since you tell all the molecules where to go during the self-assembly process, you can control the percolation properties.
In other words, you can control sort of the exact percentage of, in this case, the electrically conducting species in the material so that from end to end, through the material. Now, remember, the material is, effectively, a polymer C, if you like, with little electrically conducting lily pads across it. So, electrical conductivity occurs by electron hopping or frog-hopping from lily pad to lily pad.
You can position the lily pads, so that the metal nanoclusters—just far apart enough, so that the frogs can just jump and get from end to end. And, by doing that, it means that you can make the weight percentage of the metal and the polymer very low. So, our Metal Rubber is electrically conducting. We can stretch it like a rubber band, and it weighs as much as the polymer, itself. So, its density is about a tenth of that, of conventional metals. Very exciting, very fun stuff.
Lemberg: Rick, this is great, thank you. We only have a minute left, and I apologize. Can you tell us just a bit about your nanotechnology school kits? This sounds terrific.
Claus: That came about—real briefly, that came about almost in the same way that Metal Rubber did. We saw some things that came out of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and one of them was that it extolled the fact that nanotechnology was something that really could only be done at major research universities in the United States and elsewhere, around the world. We thought, you know, middle school is where—isn’t that where science and engineering and technology in students is really critical, in exposing middle schools? Why don’t we make a school kit for middle school students and have those middle school students two blocks down the road in Blacksburg, VA, be making nanotechnology stuff. So, we put some together, and we go on the road probably every two months or so and do another demo at another school, mostly in the region, of how to make your own nanomaterials.
Posted by David Lemberg at 04:25 PM | Comments (0)
September 06, 2005
Neil Gordon, President, Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance, 7/27/05
Dr. David Lemberg: Our first guest is Neil Gordon, President of the Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance. The CNBA is involved in developing major nanotechnology initiatives throughout the world. With an extensive network of nanotechnology leaders in business, science, finance and politics, CNBA offers leadership and know how for establishing commercial-oriented nanotechnology programs.
Mr. Neil Gordon has worked with various government agencies, investors, start-ups and business units and large companies throughout the world, in diverse industries. Mr. Gordon has 22 years of business experience in management consulting, information technologies, aerospace and defense, and the engineering sectors. Welcome, Neil Gordon.
Neil Gordon: Hi, David, thanks for having me.
Lemberg: Neil, thank you so much for being on the show. Would you please give us some background on the Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance, and how did CNBA get started?
Gordon: All right, Canada is one of the only industrialized countries in the world without a national nanotech initiative. And, as you can see, nanotech is going to be doing many things in science and industry, and in 2000 or so, Clinton made a very good decision to initiate a national nanotech initiative in the U.S., and many countries have followed through, afterwards. We’re trying to advocate an approach that is similar, but also has a Canadian flavor, that builds upon the strengths in Canada.
Lemberg: And, Neil, can you tell us how nanotech is approached in Canada, compared to other venues, like the U.S., for example?
Gordon: Well, there’s a couple of strengths in Canada that are quite unique, so geographically, half of the population of Canada is in a small patch of land that’s 600 miles long, and 150 miles across, between Quebec City and Windsor. And, half of those people live in Greater Montreal or Toronto. So, in addition to our geographic density, and then, you have the rest of Canada, there’s also a different social orientation, free Medicare and university education. Because our university education is so cheap, it can run as little as $2000 per year at a major Canadian university, the opportunities for people to go into a university program is quite extensive. And, based on that, you have a great pool of talent getting access to education, who could be applied into industry at some point in time.
And, one other factor I’ll bring up, is the bulk of research being conducted by the Canadian government is, in one institute, called the National Research Council, which has 22 sub-institutes throughout the country. And, they focus on different areas of science and technology, which can bring this great convergence together under one roof.
Lemberg: Thanks, Neil.
Sam Kephart: Neil, one of the issues that we hear repeatedly, at least here for the U.S. population, is that the population, in general, is very poorly prepared for the onslaught of the implications of the arrival of nanotech. Is that the same in Canada, or are Canadians better prepared?
Gordon: You see, here’s where I have a real challenge, in that nanotechnology is going to be embedded in other products. For example, 2% of the world capacity of semiconductors is already at the nano scale. So, just as we wake up in the morning, we realize that our leading edge computers and other semiconductor products are already in the nanoscale, with little fanfare. There’s other products like sunscreen, which has nanoparticles in it. And, to my evidence, there is no real outcry, because we are already at the nanoscale.
Kephart: But, are Canadians, generally, as aware, or is this an educational process in Canada, as well?
Gordon: Well, you see, for the general consumers to be all excited about the advent of technology, in general, and nanotech, I don’t think it’s as much an issue, as in other places.
Kephart: I see. OK.
Lemberg: Neil, thanks. I understand that you’ve recently launched NIL Fab, and can you tell us what that refers to?
Gordon: Sure. Nanoimprint lithography is one of the up and coming semiconductor or patterning fabrication technologies. So, if you think about the great advent of semiconductors, you have silicon, which is a wonderful material, and it could be used as a conductive material or other. The bulk of the world capacity is based on this silicon material, and it’s been a standard in many of our technologically-based products.
As an alternative to that, you can have polymer as a base. And, one of the advantages of polymer, is it’s so cheap, and can be used for many applications that haven’t been used before. As an example, you have throwaway biosensors. So, at the appropriate time, you’re going to see a lot of new environmental products and Homeland Security products, which are based on these polymers, which will be patterned using this technology, nanoimprint lithography, to use and then solve different types of problems not possible, or not cost-effective with silicon.
Lemberg: Great, so this is using low cost polymer substrates, rather than silicon.
Gordon: That’s the main advantage of it, yes.
Lemberg: That’s great. All right, Neil, can you tell us about CANEUS? Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Gordon: Yes, it is. So, CANEUS is a NASA-led initiative between the government agencies in the U.S., including Homeland Security and DOD, private sector companies, and international groups in the aerospace and defense industry, but primarily with the intention of providing standards for micro and nanotechnologies for space and other aerospace applications.
Kephart: When you say, “standards,” that’s been one of the things missing, is anyone agreeing on what is this thing, you know? What size is a fullerene or something, you know, is there a standard, like VHS is a standard for television?
Gordon: But, there’s greater implications, so if you look at the challenges in aerospace, and a lot of it has to do with weight. And, the lighter your aircraft is, or the lighter your spacecraft is, the less fuel you need. And, ultimately, aircraft and other subsystems, they’re based on systems, and the systems are based on subsystems, and ultimately, you have these platforms, the materials, the sensors, the devices that go into all of these subsystems. From the bottom up, the stronger and more performing your subsystems are, ultimately, the better your end products will be.
And, the objective is to define certain subsystems, such as materials, and the materials could have sensors embedded in them, so you know if there’s going to be a crack, or some stress issue. And then, in time, have the materials have capabilities where they could, actually, repair themselves. So, this is the direction of what this group is being, where it’s a consortium of customers, along with the technologists and academia, to define what those standards are, and in time, deliver the solutions collectively.
Lemberg: Neil, this is great, and so, are you implying that CANEUS will be involved in bringing products to market?
Gordon: Well, that’s the intention, because if you have a collaborative effort, not only will you shorten the development time and development cost, but also, you’ll be able to create this environment where the end users, the aircraft manufacturers, the Homeland Security people can worry about their own application, and be aware that the core technologies and platforms will be available when they need it, in a predictable time period, much as like what’s done in the semi-conductor industry with Moore’s Law.
Kephart: Quick question, Neil. In terms of getting to market, or getting to revenue, obviously, there are huge implications with nanotech, overall, but what are some of the factors to getting to the low-hanging fruit, if you will, or early commercialization? What would you see are near horizon opportunities?
Gordon: Well, the biggest challenge is the first customer. And, most approaches, which is we have this brilliant technology, let’s try to bring it to marketplace, and be damned if there are any customers, or anyone in the world who needs it. So, if you think about the customers, what they really need, and the most sophisticated customers will already develop what their needs are, it’s just a matter of matching what the customer needs are, along with what the technologies are available that can provide those needs. And, that’s not as easy as it sounds.
On one hand, you can think about these shrewd business people who are protecting their businesses. These are the Donald Trump’s of the world. And, on the other hand, you have the Albert Einstein’s, the nanotech researchers, who are trying to find a way to characterize solutions in quantum mechanics, and nanoparticles, and how their carbon nanotubes could be used. And, the language that they communicate with is not very effective. So, one of the challenges to characterize what does the user really need in a business terminology, along with some interface where the technologist could say, “Well, that makes sense to me,” and now, whether it’s carbon nanotubes or some other technology, we can find a way to move forward and bring it out of the lab, into customer terminology.
Kephart: Getting straight to your NanoBusiness Alliance, are you, more or less, an administrative arm for the industry, or do you actually make introductions? And, when I say, “broker” deals, I realize you’re not an investment banking arm, but kind of foster more business that way, and exchange or bring in non-players, and introduce them to players inside the industry.
Gordon: Well, we first started off being an advocacy group only in Canada, but what we’ve found is, first of all, nanotech is a global business, and the best solution might exist in Australia for a problem that’s in the United States. So, it’s not really promoting a government agency because, ultimately, you don’t want to have all these great gems and government labs or academia. You want to see it moved out to industry. So, what we have now done, is instead of observing the world go by, is to become more of a hands-on facilitator, to take an initiative, and make it happen.
Lemberg: Neil, this is great, and this is unique, in my experience. What I’m getting is that CNBA is an advocate for nanosciences, broadly.
Gordon: Well, as an example, my partner, Uri Sagman, he was a businessman, he co-founded C60, which is a company that uses fullerenes to develop and apply drug delivery systems within the biomedical field. Since he left that, he’s taken on more of an advocacy role in clean water solutions. And, he had a great liaison with Shimon Perez, and now works with him to try to find clean water solutions for Israel, and, ultimately, other countries in the world. And, the thought, here, is that 97% of the world’s water has salt in it, 2% is frozen. And, we’re all struggling with that other 1% that has hundreds of contaminants, some natural, some caused by agriculture, some caused by other sources.
The challenge here is first, to flush out the clean water with early warning systems and other technologies, but what do you do with that 97% of the world’s water, which if you have a more cost-effective desalination approach, well maybe you could greatly lower the cost of accessing this water to the world community.
And, just a final point is, Shimon Perez had made a speech a few years ago, saying that he’s seen a lot of these things happen, but if you give people what they want, and that would be basic needs, like clean water, you can trade technology for peace. And, that’s one of his legacies that he wants to perform in the Middle East before he retires.
Kephart: Well, I’m sure that’s true, because if someone really had an inexpensive way to desalinate water, you could use it as, forgive the expression, a political club, and have a lot of clout in the Middle East, and other places.
Gordon: Well, even in the Southwestern U.S.
Kephart: Yeah, right! That’s true.
Gordon: Which party do you want to have take a go at this? But, the issue here, is the technologies are becoming available. The real creativity is matching the technologies with real market needs.
Lemberg: Yes. Neil, would you talk about applications of nanoscience, nanotech to the medical sector? We know there are many applications here.
Gordon: Well, the biggest single line item in the GDP of any industrialized nation is medicine, you know, and it’s not getting better. People are living longer. There’s more and more types of health challenges, skyrocketing health costs, and so on. And, if you look at the cost of bringing a new drug to market, you know, it’s something like $800 million, along with 12 to 16 years of development time. Well, could you imagine if that could be cut by an order of magnitude? And, that’s with better drug discovery tools, as well as the whole process of bringing things to market faster, because you already can reuse things, like drug delivery systems, and so on.
But, the greatest advantage that nano can offer is the combination of nanotech with other things, like stem cells, and the ability to use information technology, along with that. And, just coming out of one area is Leroy Hood, for example, who is the founder of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, along with about 14 other companies like Amgen, and so on. But, his belief is that if you use nano along with other technologies, you’ll be able to predict medical challenges, then, ultimately, prevent them. That, if you know certain predispositions of an individual by taking a blood test, and seeing exactly what makes that individual tick or if they’re predisposed to diseases like cancer, or cardiovascular disease, or other type of neurological disease, first, predict what that individual will be susceptible to, and then, find ways to prevent that, different types of challenges where you can have new drugs with stem cells and engineered proteins, and so on.
And then, in time, personalize the medicine, because there’s so much danger in taking certain drugs for a long period of time. If you could prescribe the specific needs for the individuals’ unique 6 million DNA variations, you’ll be able to provide a better solution, which will have less adverse effects, and, perhaps, let the person live longer at a lower cost.
Kephart: I’m curious, Neil, I believe there’s an underground laboratory in Canada that does neutrino research, called the Snow Lab, I think. Does that have anything to do with what you guys are doing in nanotech? Is there any kind of particle physics research that impacts what you’re trying to do with your Business Alliance?
Gordon: Well, I’ll tell you, there’s just so much great science going on in Canada, and throughout the world. The area that we’re looking at is starting with user needs. Now, whether something can be developed in that lab or other labs within the next five to ten years, is to be determined. And, that’s not as exciting to us as something that’s already been worked on for ten years, and it’s ready to hit the market, depending on what the application is. So, we’re starting from the user’s perspective, and then, doing the worldwide survey of the potential technologies that can be available.
Kephart: And, in terms of the nanotech stuff, I know even though a lot of it has been proven in principle, and is based on real, solid physics, there’s still power in packaging issues. Is that any different in Canada, or are those things getting handled?
Gordon: Well, technology is technology, and you know, there’s only so much you can do with that. But, again, if the user has certain requirements . . . again, there’s a big difference between a technology and a product. The product has to connect to something, it has to work in a certain environment, it has to be available for a certain time, and so on. You could take longer to productize a technology than to create the technology, itself. And, that’s where, take a look at catalytic converters. Platinum is used as the baseline in most catalytic converters. It’s a very expensive material at $500 an ounce, and growing.
And, when the EPA and the Europeans increase the regulations, that they want to have catalysts start faster, meaning, when the engine is still cooled, you either have to put more platinum in a car, or you have to find a nanomaterial substitute. So, if this is driven by a regulatory requirement, or a user need like cost, then the opportunity is available to find a solution, as opposed to, “Here’s my great physics project, to find a home for it,” which I think is more challenging, and less likely to commercialize.
Lemberg: Neil, thank you for a great conversation. My sense is there’s much more to talk about, and we would love to have you back.
Gordon: Well, thanks for having me, and I appreciate the questions you’ve been asking.
Posted by David Lemberg at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)