On the political campaign trail, automation discussions sound familiar. Fears of machines replacing people have abounded since the first Industrial Revolution, and during the fourth massive change to industrial production (Industry 4.0), those cries are particularly noticeable.

Decades from now, those concerns will likely seem quaint. Rather than eliminating humans from manufacturing, embracing the steam engine created countless new opportunities and careers. Electrification had a similar impact, replacing jobs for coal-shoveling brute labor with new positions operating equipment. Computer numeric control (CNC) technology eliminated some hand-crafted metal cutting, but it created opportunities for programmers, engineers, and machinists willing to learn a new way of doing things.

Connected, automated equipment brings up fears of robots loading machining centers 24/7 with humans stopping by occasionally to perform maintenance. However, the reality provides hope for human interaction. Even with artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning, and neural networks, modern machinery can’t replace the experience, creativity, and adaptability of workers. Tesla Motors, for example, couldn’t hit production targets when it relied on robotic assembly, getting the Model 3 electric car to the masses only after hiring more people to staff assembly lines.

In this Automation/Industry 4.0 Target Guide, manufacturing technology providers offer automation as a way to handle an ongoing worker shortage, not eliminate human interaction on the shop floor.

Certainly, automating functions will eliminate specific jobs. However, Industry 4.0 technologies enable greater flexibility and efficiency. Companies should be able to use the excess capacity created by increased production to expand into new markets and products – something that happened with each of the previous Industrial Revolutions.

The way forward requires new skills, new ways of approaching challenges, and new tools – many of which are covered in these pages. As with Industries 1.0 through 3.0, the latest wave is happening, despite some politicians’ resistance, making it vital to embrace that change and prepare for it.

Elizabeth, Robert, Eric, & Michelle

Surgical medical meshes are key in recovery procedures for damaged-tissue surgeries – their flexible and conformable design holds muscles tight and reduces recovery time compared to sewing and stitching methods. However, these meshes carry the risk of bacterial contamination during surgery and formation of an infectious biofilm over mesh surfaces.

Biofilms impede antibiotic agents from reaching and attacking bacteria on the film, meaning antibiotic therapies could fail against resistant bacteria.

Post-surgery aseptic protocols have been implemented in the past, but none have completely eliminated bacteria.

Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) researchers Dr. Ignacio de Miguel and Arantxa Albornoz, led by Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA) professor at ICFO Romain Quidant, collaborated with researchers Irene Prieto, Dr. Vanesa Sanz, Dr. Christine Weis, and Dr. Pau Turon from medical device and pharmaceutical device maker B. Braun Surgical to devise a technique that uses nanotechnology and photonics to combat biofilms. Researchers developed a medical mesh with a chemically modified surface, allowing the mesh to anchor millions of gold nanoparticles that efficiently convert light into heat at localized regions.

In the in-vitro experiment, the surgical mesh was coated with millions of gold nanoparticles – using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to observe a homogenous distribution of nanoparticles – and tested to ensure long-term stability of particles, non-degradation of material, and non-detachment or release of nanoparticles into the surrounding environment. Once the modified mesh was ready, it was exposed to S. aureus bacteria for 24 hours until a biofilm formed on the surface. It was then exposed to short, intense pulses of near-infrared light (800nm) for 30 seconds to ensure thermal equilibrium was reached. This treatment was repeated 20 times with 4 seconds of rest between each pulse. Discoveries included:

• Increasing the amount of light delivered to the mesh’s surface caused dead bacteria to lose adherence and peel off.
• Operating at near infrared light ranges was compatible with in-vivo settings, meaning that such a technique would likely not damage the surrounding healthy tissue.
• Recurrent heating of the mesh did not affect its conversion efficiency capabilities.

“The study’s results have paved the way toward using plasmon nanotechnologies to prevent the formation of bacterial biofilm at the surface of surgical implants,” Quidant says. “Several issues still need to be addressed, but it is important to emphasize that this technique will signify a radical change in operation procedures and further patient post recovery.”

The researchers hope to eventually extend this technology to other areas where infectious biofilms pose a problem.

1. What features differentiate advanced Swiss-type machines from their more traditional counterparts?

There have been several significant innovations in Swiss-type machines. Pneumatically controlled guide bushings increase performance. The ability to quickly remove the guide bushing allows machines to shift between traditional and Swiss-type operation. Fluid-driven spindles eliminate wires from the work area to help with chip management. Precision-ground locating pins in turrets enable fast turnovers with tolerances in the microns. Turrets, especially those with an H-axis, increase machine flexibility. These advances are features of our TRAUB line of machines and some can be found in other machines in the industry as well.

2. For a shop that is used to traditional Swiss-type machines, what’s the most important feature to look for in an advanced machine?

A turret that has an H-axis will have a huge impact. Instead of indexing to set positions, the turret has an encoder and functions as a fully programmable radial axis. That allows up to three tools per station. Some machines use Y offsets to provide a version of this, but you lose your Y-axis. With an H-axis on the turret, you retain all Y-axis functionality with up to 24 tools on the turret.

3. How does a turret with an H-axis increase productivity and throughput?

The most obvious impact is having enough tools on the machine to handle multiple parts. In many instances, shops can change between four or five different parts without changeover. Beyond that, there are frequently trade-offs that occur due to tooling limitations of traditional Swiss-type machines. If you need seven tools to run a part optimally and you’ve got six stations on a gang, you’re going to have to identify a tool that can perform two operations, likely with a sacrifice in performance to each. With 24 tools, you can cut cycle and setup time while boosting flexibility.

4. Beyond benefits of setup and cycle times, are there other direct cost savings with this type of machine?

Absolutely. To maintain high precision with standard guide bushings found on traditional Swiss-type lathes, you must run bar stock that’s been turned, ground, and polished. With the TRAUB line, we use programmable, pneumatically controlled guide bushings that maintain a set pressure if there are slight irregularities in the bar stock. For many manufacturers, that can cut raw material costs by 25% to 50%.

5. What other ways do advanced Swiss-type machines justify the higher investment required?

In a lot of Swiss shops, machines are spec’d out for particular jobs. For example, you might win work on a family of bone screws, so you purchase machines set up specifically for those parts. If that work goes away, drops in quantity, or has significant design changes, you’re stuck with excess capacity for a specific part. If you’ve invested in an advanced machine, you have much more flexibility. If a job changes or is discontinued, you can easily bring different work onto the machine. In today’s market, that level of flexibility provides tremendous value that is often overlooked during the purchasing process.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.index-usa.com

As medical procedures shift to more minimally invasive and catheter-based technology and devices become increasingly smaller and more portable, the push for lighter and more robust components continues. Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved deep-brain stimulation (DBS) as a treatment for Parkinson’s disease and today it’s used to treat depression, epilepsy, obsessive compulsive disorder, and more.

Advancements in miniaturization are also supporting projects such as the Restoring Active Memory (RAM) program funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Its aim is to mitigate effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in military service members with neurotechnologies that facilitate memory formation and recall. DARPA’s end goal with RAM is a wireless, fully implantable neural interface for human clinical use. Expanding upon this, researchers are integrating computational models into implantable, closed-loop systems to deliver targeted neural stimulation to restore normal memory function. Last year, researchers successfully implemented a proof-of-concept system for restoring and improving memory function in humans, facilitating memory encoding using the patient’s own hippocampal spatiotemporal neural codes.

And then there’s Elon Musk’s idea, “symbiosis with artificial intelligence (AI).” Yes, the futurist billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink (founded in 2016) wants to implant a Bluetooth-enabled chip (featuring a USB-C port) connected to 1,000 wires, measuring one-tenth the width of a human hair, into your brain that will connect to a small computer worn over the ear. The implant will be small, requiring only a 2mm incision to insert because, as Musk muses, “If you’re going to stick something in a brain, you want it not to be large… you have no wires poking out of your head. That’s very important.”

While Neuralink’s focus is to understand and treat brain disorders, Musk’s presentation focused more on preserving and enhancing the brain while also “creating a well-aligned future” in the face of humanity that’s at risk of being left behind because of advancement in AI. He says even if AI’s impact is benign, “With a high-bandwidth brain-machine interface, I think we can actually go along with the ride and have the option of merging with AI.” The “ride” we go along with could mean AI’s connection with your brain, a Tesla, or both – one way to advance self-driving cars – but either way I say no thanks!

This raises alarms and seems like an open door for cybercriminals to get brain data if someone “chooses” to interface with a computer. Then there are the ethical questions: Could your data be used to influence, manipulate, and control you? Who will have access to that data? Can it be shared?

Many medical issues are successfully treated with neural implants, but medical differs from allowing Musk access to your mind. Are you ready for symbiosis with AI?

Elizabeth Engler Modic, Editor