From voros at silicon.EECS.Berkeley.EDU Tue Feb 13 14:39:45 2007 From: voros at silicon.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Katalin Voros) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:39:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [labnetwork] reports from UCB Message-ID: <200702131939.l1DJdj9g025182@silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> Dear Colleagues, If you are interested in what we are doing you may peruse our 2006 Year End Report at http://microlab.berkeley.edu/text/2K6YER/ and our latest CMOS baseline report at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2007/EECS-2007-26.html Sincerely Katalin -------------------------------------------- KATALIN VOROS Principal Development Engineer Microlab Operations Manager Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley 406 Cory Hall #1770 Berkeley, CA 94720-1770 phone: (510) 642-2716 fax: (510) 642-2916 voros at eecs.berkeley.edu http://microlab.berkeley.edu -------------------------------------------- From gleskova at Princeton.EDU Tue Feb 13 16:59:40 2007 From: gleskova at Princeton.EDU (Helena Gleskova) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:59:40 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Dry etching of ITO Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20070213165336.02627ed8@imap.princeton.edu> Does anyone have an experience with dry etching of ITO? According to some publications, CH4/H2 gas mixture is used. While we have these gases, I am concerned that the etcher will be coated with indium afterwards. Do you have any suggestions, literature references, etc.? Thank you for your help, Helena -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Helena Gleskova, Ph.D. Director, PRISM Micro/Nano Fabrication Facility http://www.prism.princeton.edu/PRISM_cleanroom/fabrication.htm Princeton University Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials (PRISM) Engineering Quadrangle, Room J301 Olden Street Princeton, NJ 08544 Phone: (609) 258-4626 Fax: (609) 258-3585 Pager: (888) 200-3481 E-mail: gleskova at princeton.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mark.crain at louisville.edu Tue Feb 20 13:39:53 2007 From: mark.crain at louisville.edu (Mark M Crain) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:39:53 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom Buddy protocol Message-ID: <45DAFA2A.716B.0008.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Hi Everyone I am interested in an informal survey of facilities implementing a *buddy system* in their multi user labs. Our microfabrication cleanroom user base is around 50 research students and staff. The user size of this facility puts us in a situation where there may not always 2 or more people in the cleanroom at all times; this has precipitated a number of requests from students and faculty about conditions in which they can enter the cleanroom as a *solitary user*. Here are some of the conditions in which people want to be able to work in the facility alone. 1) staff cleaning the floors, stock wafers, organize in dry bays alone 2) using tools like profilometers, ellipsometers, or wire bonder alone 3) sputtering and evaporation systems 4) Can staff walk through chemical storage areas alone? 5) What is your schools *buddy system* policy for individual researchers labs? 6) Do cameras and a TGM system count as a buddy? PRO*s to the *Solitary User* Researchers can work during hours most productive to them. It*s good to have happy paying users. CON*s to the *Solitary User* Even if the solitary access requests are to complete some relatively safe task, there are still many hazards in the facility and some equipment (furnaces, PECVD) may actually be in active use even without the tool user being in the room. This is the foundation of my concern for permitting any *solitary users*. Users may be tempted to do short unapproved *solitary user* processes like an HF dip before a potentially approved process such as sputtering. I am looking forward your replies about the Buddy System. Thank you for your time. Mark Crain Cleanroom Manager University of Louisville From mark.crain at louisville.edu Mon Feb 26 16:14:50 2007 From: mark.crain at louisville.edu (Mark M Crain) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:14:50 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Buddy System Synopsis Message-ID: <45E3077B.716B.0008.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Hi Everyone I am sure it has come as no surprise that there were a range of answers regarding the implementation of the *buddy system*. Of the respondents, it seems that the buddy system is used mostly to address requirements of the cleanroom users defined as Student, Staff Researcher, or External User. There was no real discussion of a buddy system required for those who are maintenance staff. Some respondents use interlocks to prevent unauthorized use of equipment and others depend on the honor system. In our facility the wet benches are really the most dangerous tools we have, so I would be interested in knowing how those can be interlocked. Here are the composite answers to the "solitary users" conditions we are considering 1) Staff cleaning the floors, stock wafers, organize in dry bays Alone (Answer: Requires no buddy according to all respondents who addressed the issue.) 2) Using tools like profilometers, ellipsometers, or wire bonder Alone (Answer: Requires no buddy by a majority of respondents.) 3) sputtering and evaporation systems (Answer: Needs a buddy by most respondents.) 4) Can staff walk through chemical storage areas alone? (Answer: No buddy required by majority of respondents.) 5) What is your schools *buddy system* policy for individual researchers labs? (Answer: No Reply, I am guessing that most schools have not gotten to the point of addressing this policy.) 7) Do cameras and a TGM system count as a buddy? (Answer: Of course not!) Based on the results, we plan to implement a solitary user policy so that profilometers, ellipsometers, microscope, and probe stations can be used alone. Staff should be allowed to clean non wet bench areas alone, take inventory, stock non hazardous items, and inspect areas without a buddy. Maintenance and tool hook up will require a buddy. Thank You all for the comments and insight. Best Regards, Mark