On the Three Paradigms of Manufacturing Advancement

Dear young scientists Good morning! Before we begin our discussions, I would like to share my thoughts regarding the three paradigms of manufacturing advancement. Since my college days and even earlier, I have been fascinated by the concept of a “salon”, a gathering of likeminded people. My interest was rooted in my impression of the Copenhagen group, which organized a salon that allowed everyone to freely express their thoughts on a particular topic. The last two days of our forum mainly focused on presentations, and each presentation was excellent. The success of this forum was owed to the outstanding achievements of our young scientists, and we extend our special thanks to the China Association for Science and Technology for providing this platform. Today, however, we aim to return to the original spirit of the salon, that is, the free discussion of everyone’s ideas. I hope that we can regularly organize such activities in the future and everyone is happy to freely express themselves and share their views. The theme of today’s salon is “atomic and close-toatomic scale manufacturing (ACSM)”. The idea of ACSM can be traced back to the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012 when the concept of “Industry 4.0” was proposed in Germany. Around that time, a German friend of mine inquired, “What do you think of Industry 4.0, or how do you understand Industry 4.0?” Back then, I was unfamiliar with the context of Industry 4.0, and thus, it started piquing my attention. I aimed to gain insights into the background and further comprehend the third, second, and first industrial revolutions. I spent most of my time perusing related books and articles to understand Industry 4.0. As my understanding of this new stage of industry development deepened, I discovered the inherent laws of manufacturing advancement. Let me explain the evolution of core components in computers as an example. Everyone has witnessed a visible change from early vacuum tubes to transistors to the chips we use today. The most tangible experience initially transpired with radios: the radios I saw when I was young were massive and only had simple functions. They could broadcast a few stations but had a lot of noise because their main components consisted of bulky vacuum tubes. The vacuum tube was considered the core industrial component at that time. However, another type of component, the transistor, emerged immediately afterward. For convenience, we consider vacuum tubes and transistors as the firstand second-generation core components, respectively. The invention of the transistor led to the production of smaller radios with substantially improved performance. The additional functions prompted everyone to start using transistor radios. Similarly, vacuum tubes became rare in the industry, and transistors have been widely utilized. Afterward, thirdgeneration components consisting of integrated circuits or chips emerged. The current core components include chips, and based on previous experiences, we can expect the fourth generation to emerge. What should this next generation of core components be, and can we start researching them now? I began reading relevant literature and consulted scientists in physics, chemistry, and biology. Despite the different perspectives on various fields, these inquiries implied the existing debate regarding the next generation of core components. However, their realization will require novel manufacturing processes. A conclusion reached at that time was the Fengzhou Fang, the Editor-in-Chief of Nanomanufacturing and Metrology, delivered the keynote speech at the Young Scientists Salon on “Atomic and Close-to-atomic Scale Manufacturing” held in Chengdu on December 3-5, 2021. Below is an English language translation of the speech originally published in the Journal of Tianjin University (Science and Technology) [1]. Permission was granted by Tianjin University.


Dear young scientists
Good morning!Before we begin our discussions, I would like to share my thoughts regarding the three paradigms of manufacturing advancement.
Since my college days and even earlier, I have been fascinated by the concept of a "salon", a gathering of likeminded people.My interest was rooted in my impression of the Copenhagen group, which organized a salon that allowed everyone to freely express their thoughts on a particular topic.The last two days of our forum mainly focused on presentations, and each presentation was excellent.The success of this forum was owed to the outstanding achievements of our young scientists, and we extend our special thanks to the China Association for Science and Technology for providing this platform.Today, however, we aim to return to the original spirit of the salon, that is, the free discussion of everyone's ideas.I hope that we can regularly organize such activities in the future and everyone is happy to freely express themselves and share their views.
The theme of today's salon is "atomic and close-toatomic scale manufacturing (ACSM)".The idea of ACSM can be traced back to the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012 when the concept of "Industry 4.0" was proposed in Germany.Around that time, a German friend of mine inquired, "What do you think of Industry 4.0, or how do you understand Industry 4.0?"Back then, I was unfamiliar with the context of Industry 4.0, and thus, it started piquing my attention.I aimed to gain insights into the background and further comprehend the third, second, and first industrial revolutions.I spent most of my time perusing related books and articles to understand Industry 4.0.As my understanding of this new stage of industry development deepened, I discovered the inherent laws of manufacturing advancement.
Let me explain the evolution of core components in computers as an example.Everyone has witnessed a visible change from early vacuum tubes to transistors to the chips we use today.The most tangible experience initially transpired with radios: the radios I saw when I was young were massive and only had simple functions.They could broadcast a few stations but had a lot of noise because their main components consisted of bulky vacuum tubes.The vacuum tube was considered the core industrial component at that time.However, another type of component, the transistor, emerged immediately afterward.For convenience, we consider vacuum tubes and transistors as the firstand second-generation core components, respectively.The invention of the transistor led to the production of smaller radios with substantially improved performance.The additional functions prompted everyone to start using transistor radios.Similarly, vacuum tubes became rare in the industry, and transistors have been widely utilized.Afterward, thirdgeneration components consisting of integrated circuits or chips emerged.
The current core components include chips, and based on previous experiences, we can expect the fourth generation to emerge.What should this next generation of core components be, and can we start researching them now?I began reading relevant literature and consulted scientists in physics, chemistry, and biology.Despite the different perspectives on various fields, these inquiries implied the existing debate regarding the next generation of core components.However, their realization will require novel manufacturing processes.A conclusion reached at that time was the Fengzhou Fang, the Editor-in-Chief of Nanomanufacturing and Metrology, delivered the keynote speech at the Young Scientists Salon on "Atomic and Close-to-atomic Scale Manufacturing" held in Chengdu on December 3-5, 2021.Below is an English language translation of the speech originally published in the Journal of Tianjin University (Science and Technology) [1].Permission was granted by Tianjin University.* Fengzhou Fang fzfang@tju.edu.cnAnother example is the continuous upgrading of processing technology.After working as a university academic in 1982, I assisted students in their factory internships, where we practiced production in the workshop daily.In those days, the precision of workpieces made by experienced craftsmen was approximately a few tens of micrometers.Later, it improved to roughly a dozen micrometers and later to micrometer and submicrometer levels.Their constant improvement finally led to the current precision reaching the single-digit nanometer level.Manufacturing technology has been continuously developing, and to date, the terms "micro/nano manufacturing" or "nanomanufacturing" are often used.However, the basic theory and its foundation remain unchanged.Another advancement from the nanometer scale will inevitably lead to the scale of "atoms" where classic theories are no longer completely applicable.At this scale, the discrete and quantum nature of atoms will affect the features being produced, and therefore, the fundamentals must be different.Thus, from a theoretical perspective, the foundations of precision or ultraprecision manufacturing are the same, but in ACSM, a different foundation is required.Therefore, given the development of manufacturing technology, the "foundation" of precision and ultraprecision manufacturing is essentially different from that of ACSM.
Although I used chips as an example of a typical product, I want to avoid creating a misconception that only chips require ACSM.Often, science and technology lead the way and drive the demand.For example, scanning tunneling microscopy drove the development of nanotechnology, and the emergence of graphene induced the rapid growth of lowdimensional materials.In the history of technology development, the emergence of cutting-edge capabilities laid the path for previously unthinkable applications.To date, an increasingly higher number of fields require ACSM technology.A few years ago, this demand was thought to still be in the distant future, and I assumed that the market might gradually emerge after tens of years.Instead, the reality has far exceeded our expectations.Applications of ACSM in various fields have recently emerged.Thus, our imagination lags behind the pace of technology, and a new era is possibly about to begin.Hence, one must keep an open mind when ACSM is discussed.
Manufacturing development follows certain rules and often follows a distinct pathway.We first need to understand what manufacturing is before clarifying this pathway.This term is ubiquitous in our daily lives and undoubtedly important.Manufacturing refers to the entire production process from raw materials to the final products.Two key factors must be considered when discussing manufacturing: functionality and performance.First, the functionality of the product needs to be determined.Whether it is a computer or a car, its function is specified.Next, performance requirements must be identified, which are ensured through precision, feature structure, and material performance.Interpreting manufacturing at the atomic and closeto-atomic scale (ACS) only regarding precision or feature size will not be sufficiently comprehensive.ACSM encompasses these aspects but includes the dimensions of material removal, migration, and addition and the damage caused by manufacturing to surfaces and interfaces.Only when these requirements are met can ACSM be considered a complete manufacturing process.For example, when discussing manufacturing at ACS, some may argue that atomic manufacturing already exists and that IBM could move atoms using probes long ago.However, is this atomic-level manipulation considered manufacturing?Similarly, discussions on atomic-level processes have been ongoing in materials and chemistry for a long time, but are they about manufacturing?Reflection on these concepts will be beneficial for clarifying manufacturing technologies.In the new field of manufacturing at ACS, "materials" refers to the basic building blocks of matter, namely, atoms.Thus, manufacturing and material fabrication have already naturally merged in this new field.
History reveals that the development of modern manufacturing had a specific jump-off point in time, namely, during the First Industrial Revolution in the 1760s.However, manufacturing existed before then and was not a novel concept.Some people may assume that manufacturing has always existed and therefore fail to grasp the importance of studying its concept.Given its long history and the fact that manufacturing back then was different from modern manufacturing, clarification is necessary to determine how these manufacturing types vary.Manufacturing before the Industrial Revolution was based on personal experience and skills, and the products made were, to some extent, works of art.For illustration, let us consider the machines designed by Leonardo da Vinci.From today's perspective, Leonardo's works are still considered sophisticated machines.Leonardo's creations were unique, but others might not be able to create the same.Similarly, Michelangelo's statue of David is a work that only an artist can create.Thus, the statue was an artistic stage, and we categorized it as the first stage of manufacturing advancement.Afterward, machines were introduced and allowed the replication of objects.One person can reproduce the creation of another individual.At this point, manufacturing was considered technology.In line with the development of other related technologies, the manufacturing accuracy increased from classical manufacturing to precision manufacturing and finally to nanomanufacturing.However, regardless of the extent of improvement, manufacturing is still based on a quantitative change, and the basic theory did not undergo fundamental changes.Yet, moving forward from nanomanufacturing, the core fundamental theory changes.Following all considerations outlined thus far, manufacturing technologies can be divided into three different stages: the early phase ("artistic", Manufacturing I), the second stage where the classical theory applies (Manufacturing II), and finally, a new era where the classical theory breaks down and quantum physics emerges (Manufacturing III).However, the three manufacturing phases are not replacements for each other but coexist in the modern age.In other words, manufacturing advancement has three paradigms, each with its enormous application areas.For example, when it comes to the third stage, the second stage, including digital, intelligent, and additive manufacturing, as well as characterization and testing, is still in use parallel to and in support of the new stage, with each relying on its own fundamental theory.Given the relationship between "1" and "0" to understand the manufacturing of products, here, "1" can represent the core consideration of production, which includes meeting the precision of its function and performance, structural dimensions, removal, migration, and addition of materials."0" denotes the consideration of product improvement, for example, through digital, intelligent, and sustainable manufacturing, to control costs and increase efficiency while still achieving the core function and performance of a product.However, if "1" is not met, regardless of how often "0" is achieved, the product will remain unqualified, which implies the lack of a complete manufacturing process.As a result, the connotation of the manufacturing paradigms is clarified, and "atomic and atomic-to-atomic scale manufacturing" in "Manufacturing III" is the new field that takes on the role of "1".We refer to it as the fundamental technology of "Manufacturing III".
The second manufacturing stage involves the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0.However, considering the "core foundation", the concepts remained the same.ACSM is the core of "Manufacturing III" and based on radically different principles of physics and engineering, it represents a groundbreaking point in manufacturing and, as such, an actual revolution.
Finally, with this new manufacturing paradigm, will all future products be made at the atomic scale?The answer is not necessary.Notably, although the three manufacturing paradigms will continue to coexist until a considerable period in the foreseeable future, "Manufacturing II" will still play a dominant role.However, the demands for high-performance large-scale scientific projects and the next generation of chips will certainly rely on "Manufacturing III".
In conclusion, we have discussed the background behind the three paradigms of manufacturing advancement and the concept of ACSM.This discussion with young scientists at this salon has been a great pleasure, and I hope that future forums will contribute to clarifying our thoughts.

1 State
Key Laboratory of Precision Measuring Technology and Instruments, Laboratory of Micro/Nano Manufacturing Technology (MNMT), Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China 2 Center of Micro/Nano Manufacturing Technology (MNMT-Dublin), University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland guaranteed involvement of ACSM for the next generation of core components.