I want to say that I enjoy your posts and I appreciate the information you find on LUMM and other general information.
I've followed the LUMM boards for a long time but not being the technical type I haven't posted before because I wouldn't be able to contribute anything worthwhile.(Although I can swear with the best of them I chose not to make a contribution in that field. I leave the vulgarity for the others.)
I have a couple of questions for you.
When we invested in LUMM we did so because we were told that they had perfected a way to produce optical devices in volume and it was even said by some that their process was a "disruptive technology".
By reading the mesage boards I gather that you are/were employed by the patent office of Canada. Since you have read Lumm's patents and understand them,do you still believe that LUMM has a potentially disruptive process if it can solve the bugs soon? Can any other company now produce the devices in the volumes that are claimed by LUMM ?
And do you think that it can find enough experts in packaging to solve their insertion loss problem? (I gather that the insertion loss problem comes in during the pigtailing process)
And one last question. Do you think that there is an outside chance that LUMM ,by itself, can come up with a robotic packaging solution by hiring some of those out of work photonic experts that have been let go by the major
companies? Or is this too much to hope for?
I want to thank you in advance and wish you the best of luck in your investments.
P.S. Please, no responses from vulgar types,bashers, wierdos and assorted low lifes because I've already put most of you on ignore.
Regrettably insertion loss might not be due to pigtailing skill / design. Yes you have to pigtail to measure insertion loss, but I would be loath to pin the higher losses to the pigtailing ( althought possible ). It is far likelier it might be due to -
A] Edge/ sidewall roughness of the waveguide core - before ecapsulation by the covering dielectric. This has some non-zero probability attached to this hypothesis ( I will grant you it is that ) because of the graininess observed in the sidewalls in the original IEEE article on a PHASIC filter / waveguide. Since the PHASIC process is low temperature technique - normal methods of high temperature oxidation or annealing cannot smooth the relatively rough Phasic waveguide core sidewall. This observation might be a source of excess sidewall related scattering losses ( and hence measured insertion losses ). Donpat is not competent to comment on this because he has no process engineering background < NOTE.
It also is conceivable that some method might be used to attempt to smooth the sidewall, and I would not rule out a plasma etch or some PECVD coating although the effctiveness in doing so in the PHASIC process is very speculative. You have to experiment and measure the effecto fovarious techniques and for example plasma chemistries.
B] It is possible that the bulk material of the PHASIC waveguide has marginally higher scattering losses and this is near impossible to fix by some post wave guide patterning / formation technique. I cannot conceive of a means to reduce light scattering if the "bulk volume" of PHASIC material has higher light scattering intrinsically. Low temp hybrid solgel glass will limit the kind of maximum usable high temperature used for diffusion related glass anealing. Hihg temp annealing is possible in conventional high temperature waveguide formation methods such as FHCVD ( flame hydrolysis Chemical Vapor Deposition ) where high temperature annealing ( 1000+deg C )is used extensively in the wave guide layer formation. ( and subsequent high temperature anneals for edge smoothing and index homogenization are commonly employed ).
PHASIC, because of the polymer component used for low temperature "binding material" ( aka sort of a glue in the mix < which is the special sauce of Phasic ) will have difficulty being processed at temperatures which would destroy the polymer component as far as I could guess.
So it is possible that PHASIC will always have higher losses - but I could not be certain. This is in large part speculative on my part. But has some basis for the line of reasoning.
Yours truly, tuvatrader
*** So it's possible that PHASIC will always have higher losses***
Thanks Tuvatrader for the very expert explanation. I see that you have done this work before.
Do you think that even at these insertion losses their products can be still acceptable to systems manufacturers or does LUMM have to get the insertion losses way down To be able to sell product?
Tuvatrader, what I don't understand in all this is why Lumm says that "LUMM's products MEET or EXCEED industry standards". How can they make this statement if technical people keep saying that LUMM's insertion loss is not as good as in other processes?
What are they saying? That the insertion loss as is now is still acceptable to the companies they will be selling to?
What is your view?
Thank you for yor help.
BTW Have you visited the plant and did they let you view the process? What did you think? Is it the disruptive tech that has been talked about?
***if it can solve the bugs soon?***
That's the key, IMO. They are working flat out on the solution to the unnamed problem and should have the solution shortly, as they said 2 months ago that the solution would take about 3 months.
Insertion loss? I'm not sure where it comes from. it could be from the pigtailing/packaging effort.
I do believe that LUMM has a disruptive tech and Litton agrees with me. Together I hope they do great things. Waveguide devices were not my particular area of expertise in the patent office, so I am no expert. I have read and discussed the invention with LUMM people and it is disruptive, still, and for years to come. It will be particularly beneficial in INTEGRATION where multiple devices are combined together on one chip. I know of no other company that has the potential that LUMM has. Cheap DWDMs were their first product but cheap modules will be where LUMM's PHASIC process truly comes into its own. The COADM that LUMM/Litton are cooperating on at the moment is the first of those combined DWDM/MEMS products.
LUMM is looking for a packaging expert to hire and for a materials expert as well. They have had these jobs available for quite a while now, even with the layoffs elsewhere, so it looks like they are going for the very best.
Robotic packaging is difficult to achieve. Molex failed. Litton succeeded - it has a patent on robotic packaging. I would think that LUMM will use the Litton connection in achieving robotic packaging. But I'm guessing. And hoping!
Why is LUMM at ~ $0.50?
No sales! Pure and simple. When the sales arrive, expected around spring 2002, the share price will improve. :o)
"LUMM is looking for a packaging expert to hire and for a materials expert as well. They have had these jobs available for quite a while now, even with the layoffs elsewhere, so it looks like they are going for the very best."
Uh, what makes you think the very best talent wants to work at lumm?
Thanks Donpatent for your very informative response. Glad to hear that you still consider LUMM to have a disruptive tech.
Sorry to see that so many "humanoids" get on your case when you try to give the boards good information.
Good luck, and thanks again for your response.