As Jim S questioned "...or is a group excercising beaurocratic muscle?" This is often the case. Many standards and regulations are born of political or beaurocratic moves rather than the need to make a product or process "better". The cost can sometimes be stifled innovation and unnecessary costs to designers & manufacturers. I believe the motive and the true (often hidden) goals are usually worth questioning...
So MEMS manufacturers are goingto have to evolve to meet the needs & requirementsvof their customer (the automotive market) if they are going to have continued growth. Such is life in many industries. At least a (hopefully) widely accepted standard gives concrete guidance on where to focus efforts. Doesn't mean it'll be easy, but if it was then everybody'd be doing it.
To quote Jimmy Dugan: "It's supposed to be hard, the hard is what makes it great!" Isn't that why we do what we do, for the challenge of the hard?
Is there an underlying need for this or is a group excercising beaurocratic muscle. If the mems makers chose not to revamp their internal procedures where would these guys go for parts. I think some of the standardization is losing all real benefit.
You say MEMS makers have to change the way they develop and manufacture if they are to enjoy continued and sustained success selling into the automotive OEM channel. What specifically is the issue around they way they currently manufacture that is at issue? Are there safety concerns, is it related to quality and production? What exactly is the disconnect, and any sense of whether or not the MEMS makers are doing anything to address the issue?
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
Using Siemens NX software, a team of engineering students from the University of Michigan built an electric vehicle and raced in the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge. One of those students blogged for Design News throughout the race.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.