What do you do with an aging linear accelerator? You use it to make an ultrafast free-electron hard x-ray laser, that’s what. And that laser is now the brightest x-ray source in the universe (so far as we know) and the only hard x-ray laser in the world. Where? At the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. At Stanford. It’s a national lab. Nice place, too.
Government labs love acronyms of acronyms, so the laser is called the Linac Coherent Light Source, or LCLS. Last month I was able to tour the new laser facility with the local IEEE Photonics Society chapter. It brought back flashbacks of grad school, but without the poverty. It’s a plush lab. For you laser geeks, here are some stats:
Pulse energy ~ 1 mJ
Pulse duration 5 to 200 fs
Peak power 10 GW
Average power 1 W
Repetition rate 120 Hz
Wavelength 0.1 to 10 nm
Electrical power bill per month: $ 1,000,000
Temperature control in beam delivery system: 0.01 degrees
Laser design: Self-amplified spontaneous emission (ASE)
The laser doesn’t sound that impressive, until you consider the infrastructure to build it. About 3 km of accelerator and beam delivery. A massive electrical bill to run the magnets and the air conditioning. A tunnel underground to keep the temperature stable (they used the same company to dig it that digs wine cellers in Napa Valley). The experiments are all done by remote control, just to ensure radiation safety. Not that they need to, with all the shielding and massive ground wires everywhere.
There is a great animation video that shows how it works, here. The electrons are accelerated to relativistic energies, then run through the free-electron laser, creating coherent hard x-rays. The rest is beam delivery. So, it’s just like your benchtop custom-built laser, but on a cosmic scale.
And what do they want to do with it? For one, it’s like a very fast x-ray camera that exists nowhere else on earth. It’s so fast, it can take diffraction images of crystals before the materials degrade from the x-rays. It can do pump-probe experiments on atoms and nuclei. It can reproduce the harsh environments in the universe by imparting a lot of energy into a very small volume. The SLAC SCLS aims a stream of x-rays at a small spot size, creating a huge intensity. (The new Livermore NIF laser also creates x-rays at the target, but they go in all directions. The NIF laser produces higher energy pulses, for fusion reaction.)
You can drive over the accelerator on Interstate 280, just near Sand Hill Road, near Stanford’s radio telescope and open cattle range. But you can’t just drive onto the SLAC national lab campus. There’s a guard. And anyway, the laser and beam delivery is all underground.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The numbers are in: $8.8B by 2014
We've finalized the 2010 edition of our laser report, and it's official: a 25% decline in the market for 2009, but still among the top 6 years in terms of revenue. And, everything from here is up, with about 9% growth to $8.8 billion in 2014. Some of you saw the draft in March, after the Q4 numbers came in. Here is the chart:
Fiber lasers are doing well, under the circumstances. Our estimate for fiber lasers came out a little higher than many people expected, including us. We recorded a decline of only 5% overall, to $280 million. IPG took a big hit in 2009, returning to its 2007 level. This is because it is strong in kilowatt fiber lasers. (Other kilowatt laser companies were hit even worse, like Rofin-Sinar and TRUMPF, for the same reason.)
But there are several smaller fiber laser suppliers that are selling into various applications from Europe to China. Two very promising sectors are medical systems and military projects. True, one could exclude some of those military projects from a count of the market, but it shows up as revenue to companies so we include them.
No shopping sprees. Another surprise is that, so far, there haven't been as many acquisitions as one might expect. This is partly due to the tight credit and the uncertainty that weighed on the market last year. There has been consolidation of other kinds, just not the kind of shopping spree that sometimes accompanies downturns.
More coverage. This year, we extended the coverage of the laser market report to include every major market, beyond fiber lasers, beyond even industrial lasers. It now has everything that the annual Laser Focus survey covers, but with the most updated data, forecasts to 2014, and 300 pages of detail not provided in the January issue of the magazine or the January seminar. (Disclaimer: our numbers also continue to differ in some key places from the LFW numbers due to differences in segmentation.)
Friday, April 30, 2010
Pecha Kucha 20x20
Ever wondered why techie presentations are so notoriously bad? You think, am I the only one who's bored or confused? Well, check out this completely new way of doing presentations. I've seen it and it's a breath of fresh air.
First of all, you know what kind of bad presentations I'm talking about, don't you? Presenters who assume you love their narrow topic. They have too much detail. The print is too small. Equations that you can't follow. Monotone voice. Wooden statue posture. A nervous laser pointer flitting across the screen. We're all guilty, and sure, photonics is supposed to be technical. But do so many presentations have to be so bad?
Well, there's a new way of presenting called Pecha Kucha 20x20. It's very simple. You present 20 slides with 20 seconds each. That's about 7 minutes. During that time, you can't ask questions--questions come after (sorry, Intel employees). You have to get through your main points fast, like an elevator speech.
I've seen it and it gets to the point. It cuts the bull. It's great for those small-ish sessions: internal company meetings, B-to-B briefings, that sort of thing.
It started in Japan as a social event in 2003 as a way for architects and other designers to network without boring everyone. It spread to cities all over the world. The subjects can include anything. There's now also a group called Ignite in the U.S. that is doing kind of the same thing, for fun. Imagine.
Using it as a social scene does sound a bit geeky. After working in the tech industry all day, the last thing you might want to do is to go listen to more Power Point presentations, even if they use 20x20. But, it's kind of the modern equivalent of Toastmasters. Or salons. Or speed dating. That might be fun after all.
Spread the word. Managers, start using 20x20 in your meetings. Salespeople, use it in your sales calls. Engineers, use it in your presentations, and leave the other slides as backup for the Q&A. Don't be afraid to try it. Think Pecha Kucha 20x20.
First of all, you know what kind of bad presentations I'm talking about, don't you? Presenters who assume you love their narrow topic. They have too much detail. The print is too small. Equations that you can't follow. Monotone voice. Wooden statue posture. A nervous laser pointer flitting across the screen. We're all guilty, and sure, photonics is supposed to be technical. But do so many presentations have to be so bad?
Well, there's a new way of presenting called Pecha Kucha 20x20. It's very simple. You present 20 slides with 20 seconds each. That's about 7 minutes. During that time, you can't ask questions--questions come after (sorry, Intel employees). You have to get through your main points fast, like an elevator speech.
I've seen it and it gets to the point. It cuts the bull. It's great for those small-ish sessions: internal company meetings, B-to-B briefings, that sort of thing.
It started in Japan as a social event in 2003 as a way for architects and other designers to network without boring everyone. It spread to cities all over the world. The subjects can include anything. There's now also a group called Ignite in the U.S. that is doing kind of the same thing, for fun. Imagine.
Using it as a social scene does sound a bit geeky. After working in the tech industry all day, the last thing you might want to do is to go listen to more Power Point presentations, even if they use 20x20. But, it's kind of the modern equivalent of Toastmasters. Or salons. Or speed dating. That might be fun after all.
Spread the word. Managers, start using 20x20 in your meetings. Salespeople, use it in your sales calls. Engineers, use it in your presentations, and leave the other slides as backup for the Q&A. Don't be afraid to try it. Think Pecha Kucha 20x20.
Friday, April 23, 2010
IPG makes moves
IPG seemed to make a vertical move into machine tools this week, with its announcement that it acquired Cosytronic. Well, it turns out that it’s not exactly a vertical move. In fact, it’s a pretty narrow acquisition, but an interesting one. Where does this put IPG on the longer term roadmap?
IPG has done well so far in kilowatt lasers, selling mainly to systems integrators for metal welding. But the huge majority of welders use good old-fashioned electrical welders, not laser welders.
IPG aims to change that. Cosytronic has 20-some years of experience in resistance welding, from the “Welding Valley” in Germany. It has a tool that can make seam welds with a laser head that swaps with the head of a resistance spot welder. The aim here isn’t to take on resistance spot welders. The aim is to increase the pie for laser welding. For IPG, it’s about the application, not making systems per se.
I should mention that IPG's main competitor, TRUMPF, aims to do the same thing, of course. But TRUMPF has a machine tool business and lots of internal expertise. IPG is working on that.
It’s a very different story in sheet metal cutting, by the way. That is the grand prize in materials processing. But, several big tool vendors make their own CO2 resonators for their tools, or have loyal relationships with independent suppliers of resonators, mainly Rofin and Fanuc. It’s hard for a new player to break in with a new type of laser. Nonetheless, IPG is making progress there too. IPG plans to continue to work with the systems integrators to gain share in that segment, rather that to make a vertical move.
This is IPG's 2nd acquisition in 2010, by the way. It acquired little-known Photonics Innovations, of Alabama, in January. That acquisition is also narrowly strategic, aiming at materials and the mid-IR range.
IPG has done well so far in kilowatt lasers, selling mainly to systems integrators for metal welding. But the huge majority of welders use good old-fashioned electrical welders, not laser welders.
IPG aims to change that. Cosytronic has 20-some years of experience in resistance welding, from the “Welding Valley” in Germany. It has a tool that can make seam welds with a laser head that swaps with the head of a resistance spot welder. The aim here isn’t to take on resistance spot welders. The aim is to increase the pie for laser welding. For IPG, it’s about the application, not making systems per se.
I should mention that IPG's main competitor, TRUMPF, aims to do the same thing, of course. But TRUMPF has a machine tool business and lots of internal expertise. IPG is working on that.
It’s a very different story in sheet metal cutting, by the way. That is the grand prize in materials processing. But, several big tool vendors make their own CO2 resonators for their tools, or have loyal relationships with independent suppliers of resonators, mainly Rofin and Fanuc. It’s hard for a new player to break in with a new type of laser. Nonetheless, IPG is making progress there too. IPG plans to continue to work with the systems integrators to gain share in that segment, rather that to make a vertical move.
This is IPG's 2nd acquisition in 2010, by the way. It acquired little-known Photonics Innovations, of Alabama, in January. That acquisition is also narrowly strategic, aiming at materials and the mid-IR range.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Why Net Neutrality is above your job grade
As a supplier in the photonics or telecom food chain, should you care about the landmark decision this week over the FCC vs. Comcast? In short, no. It’s above your job grade. Here’s why.
Much is made about this kind of thing at the carrier level, since it impacts how they do their business. And what the carriers do—who wins and who loses—impacts the optical equipment vendors. And that passes on to the component vendors, who win or lose depending on their customers . So far, that’s all true.
But these kinds of decisions are really for policy wonks and legal nerds. I know, because I’m a recovering wonk myself. I once worked on telecom policy for Congress.
It’s not that technologists are above policy issues, or have nothing to contribute. Technologists are notoriously aloof in policy debates, but badly needed.
Rather, the neutrality debate is irrelevant to the optical networking community because it’s mostly decoupled from the day to day business of the network. There are so many other factors that are also very important. Think of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each has a regulatory agency. There are municipal agencies. Federal courts. The FCC. Congress. European countries. The European Commission. Japan. China. India. And a hundred other countries. Think of Google, iPhones, Facebook, Youtube. Think of refrigerators with IP addresses. (Then again, let’s leave that out.)
While policies get worked out, traffic just keeps on going up and up. And no one really has a good grasp just exactly how fast the traffic is growing, much less how much it will grow in the future. And even when big policy decisions are made, the consequences take years to work out. There will be more appeals, reactions by competitors, possibly legislation.
It’s important to take an interest in Net Neutrality as a citizen. It’s about whether you think broadband service should be a regulated utility, or if it should be a competitive service. And yes, the consequences do trickle down to the equipment and component vendors. But the ones who stand to gain the most from these debates? Lawyers and government affairs officers (also known as lobbyists). That’s a certainty.
Much is made about this kind of thing at the carrier level, since it impacts how they do their business. And what the carriers do—who wins and who loses—impacts the optical equipment vendors. And that passes on to the component vendors, who win or lose depending on their customers . So far, that’s all true.
But these kinds of decisions are really for policy wonks and legal nerds. I know, because I’m a recovering wonk myself. I once worked on telecom policy for Congress.
It’s not that technologists are above policy issues, or have nothing to contribute. Technologists are notoriously aloof in policy debates, but badly needed.
Rather, the neutrality debate is irrelevant to the optical networking community because it’s mostly decoupled from the day to day business of the network. There are so many other factors that are also very important. Think of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each has a regulatory agency. There are municipal agencies. Federal courts. The FCC. Congress. European countries. The European Commission. Japan. China. India. And a hundred other countries. Think of Google, iPhones, Facebook, Youtube. Think of refrigerators with IP addresses. (Then again, let’s leave that out.)
While policies get worked out, traffic just keeps on going up and up. And no one really has a good grasp just exactly how fast the traffic is growing, much less how much it will grow in the future. And even when big policy decisions are made, the consequences take years to work out. There will be more appeals, reactions by competitors, possibly legislation.
It’s important to take an interest in Net Neutrality as a citizen. It’s about whether you think broadband service should be a regulated utility, or if it should be a competitive service. And yes, the consequences do trickle down to the equipment and component vendors. But the ones who stand to gain the most from these debates? Lawyers and government affairs officers (also known as lobbyists). That’s a certainty.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Fragmentation depends on your point of view
A recent poster on the Photonics LinkedIn group was impressed by the stratification and fragmentation in the HB-LED business. The self-described newcomer can be excused for being naïve, but there are some things I think are worth repeating here. Most importantly, whether fragmentation is good or bad depends on where you sit.
A lot of people like to compare photonics with some industry X just before the industry took off. The most common example is silicon electronics in some early stage. Who wouldn’t want to repeat that ride?
But that’s a poor analogy. Photonics components are more like airplane parts than CMOS. Most photonics parts are highly specialized, and the suppliers can often make a nice profit because of the complexity or service they provide. That's good for a lot of companies, including small and medium size companies. For them, fragmentation is good. It means niche opportunities for them.
However, it turns out that a lot of photonics parts require an expensive clean room—a fab. Anyone who has an expensive capital investment, like a fab, wants to get volume through it to pay for the lights, and that favors consolidation. These suppliers want everyone else to get out of the business and leave it to them. Who wouldn’t? So, many of these companies look to minimize differences in products, even if it means standardizing the parts a little and giving up some of the profit margin. For them, fragmentation is bad because it limits their volume, and therefore their profitability.
If you are a customer or an end-user, there is occasionally a segment where consolidation is needed to lower the price to the customer, and move the market forward. But these opportunities are rare. When they appear, the customers usually have a way of forcing standardization onto the suppliers, not the other way around. Solid-state lighting might be an example where consolidation might help the end-user. (Or not, since it's not the only factor in its adoption.)
But watch out what you wish for. What's good for the customer, or for one supplier, may not be good for everyone. Whether the consolidation is good or bad depends on whether you survive the shake-out or not.
In summary:
* Photonics markets are notoriously fragmented.
* They always will be.
* That’s good for some companies.
* That’s bad for some companies.
* Consolidating suppliers can sometimes help grow the industry, but watch out what you wish for.
A lot of people like to compare photonics with some industry X just before the industry took off. The most common example is silicon electronics in some early stage. Who wouldn’t want to repeat that ride?
But that’s a poor analogy. Photonics components are more like airplane parts than CMOS. Most photonics parts are highly specialized, and the suppliers can often make a nice profit because of the complexity or service they provide. That's good for a lot of companies, including small and medium size companies. For them, fragmentation is good. It means niche opportunities for them.
However, it turns out that a lot of photonics parts require an expensive clean room—a fab. Anyone who has an expensive capital investment, like a fab, wants to get volume through it to pay for the lights, and that favors consolidation. These suppliers want everyone else to get out of the business and leave it to them. Who wouldn’t? So, many of these companies look to minimize differences in products, even if it means standardizing the parts a little and giving up some of the profit margin. For them, fragmentation is bad because it limits their volume, and therefore their profitability.
If you are a customer or an end-user, there is occasionally a segment where consolidation is needed to lower the price to the customer, and move the market forward. But these opportunities are rare. When they appear, the customers usually have a way of forcing standardization onto the suppliers, not the other way around. Solid-state lighting might be an example where consolidation might help the end-user. (Or not, since it's not the only factor in its adoption.)
But watch out what you wish for. What's good for the customer, or for one supplier, may not be good for everyone. Whether the consolidation is good or bad depends on whether you survive the shake-out or not.
In summary:
* Photonics markets are notoriously fragmented.
* They always will be.
* That’s good for some companies.
* That’s bad for some companies.
* Consolidating suppliers can sometimes help grow the industry, but watch out what you wish for.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
3 countries make 87% of all lasers. Wow!
Bet you didn't know this: about 87% of all laser revenues attribute to companies headquartered in only three countries: the U.S., Japan, and Germany. Wow! Who'd have guessed?
Don't believe me? Consider that about 1/2 of all laser revenues are for diode lasers for communications and optical storage. These are mostly made by Japanese companies, some U.S., some Taiwan, and a few others.
Then, consider that several big laser makers hail from Germany and Japan: TRUMPF, Rofin-Sinar, FANUC, Gigaphoton, and Mitsubishi. Germany is also home to many smaller laser makers, like Jenoptik, Toptica, and (despite the name) Menlo Systems. The U.S. is the official home to many familiar names: Coherent, GSI (including Synrad, Quantronix, and Continuum), Newport, IPG, Cymer, JDS Uniphase, Oclaro, and many, many smaller companies.
I'm counting revenues here, not units. A lot of commodity lasers are made in Taiwan, or even China, for laser pointers and such things. Oh, and of course, I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
True, the assembly may be anywhere from Russia to China, but the companies are headquartered in only a few countries. This means that at least a large part of the revenues (including the profits) flow back through headquarters. (More on that in a later post.) Oh, and of course I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
For the record, this all came about from a question I got from Breck Hitz, the Executive Director of the Lasers and Electro-Optics Manufacturers Association, LEOMA, who is trying to advance laser standards at the ISO.
Don't believe me? Consider that about 1/2 of all laser revenues are for diode lasers for communications and optical storage. These are mostly made by Japanese companies, some U.S., some Taiwan, and a few others.
Then, consider that several big laser makers hail from Germany and Japan: TRUMPF, Rofin-Sinar, FANUC, Gigaphoton, and Mitsubishi. Germany is also home to many smaller laser makers, like Jenoptik, Toptica, and (despite the name) Menlo Systems. The U.S. is the official home to many familiar names: Coherent, GSI (including Synrad, Quantronix, and Continuum), Newport, IPG, Cymer, JDS Uniphase, Oclaro, and many, many smaller companies.
I'm counting revenues here, not units. A lot of commodity lasers are made in Taiwan, or even China, for laser pointers and such things. Oh, and of course, I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
True, the assembly may be anywhere from Russia to China, but the companies are headquartered in only a few countries. This means that at least a large part of the revenues (including the profits) flow back through headquarters. (More on that in a later post.) Oh, and of course I'm talking just the laser, not the system or end-use.
For the record, this all came about from a question I got from Breck Hitz, the Executive Director of the Lasers and Electro-Optics Manufacturers Association, LEOMA, who is trying to advance laser standards at the ISO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)