From khbeis at uw.edu Sat Dec 1 08:32:15 2012 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 05:32:15 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] question ... In-Reply-To: <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> References: <0b6d01cdcb1b$5ea130b0$1be39210$@com> <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A071783BB@WPVEXCMBX02.purdue.lcl> <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> Message-ID: Leonidas, I would say it is dependent on the reactivity of the byproduct. For pyrophorics we "scrub" at the point of use with a gas reactor column. For acids we just collect at the main scrubber. If there was something that would be potentially reactive with other byproducts, you may be better off with the local scrubber, but these are very expensive. You also need to consider the dilution factor in the exhaust stream. If you have a large volume of exhaust, say from numerous wet benches, this will dilute the shared exhaust so consider the volume and rate of byproduct being produced compared to the total exhaust volume/flow. Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Leonidas Ocola wrote: > > Dear List, > > When does it make sense to just use a point of use scrubber for a > particularly noxious tool or when to install a "capture it all" scrubber > at the end of a facility exhaust? > > Just curious. > > Thanks > > Leo > > > -- > Leonidas E Ocola, PhD > Center for Nanoscale Materials > Argonnne National Laboratory > Bldg 440, Rm A129 > 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 > Ph: 630-252-6613 > Fax: 630-252-5739 > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1345 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rizik at intengr.com Sun Dec 2 12:12:15 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 09:12:15 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] question ... In-Reply-To: References: <0b6d01cdcb1b$5ea130b0$1be39210$@com> <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A071783BB@WPVEXCMBX02.purdue.lcl> <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> Message-ID: <04a701cdd0b0$2d8cdc00$88a69400$@com> In addition, your local/regional air quality management district should have a limit on the quantity of toxic, highly toxic and particulate discharged into the atmosphere. You might want to consult with the local district about the maximum allowable discharge limits. I agree with Michael about the reactivity and byproducts. In case you are using gases with corrosive residual byproducts where some of these gases are released from the tool un-reacted, such gases need to be locally abated. The process could either be a wet scrubber, a thermal-wet abatement system or a dry scrub system. The cost of these systems ranges between $55K for a single canister dry scrub system to up to $125K for a thermal wet point of use scrubber. If you are abating ozone depleting gases along with other toxic/corrosive gases, then the cost could be as high as $150K. Each option brings to the table other challenges that need to be met. Depending on your current facility infrastructure set up you might be able to favor one over the other. Regards Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:32 AM To: Leonidas Ocola Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question ... Leonidas, I would say it is dependent on the reactivity of the byproduct. For pyrophorics we "scrub" at the point of use with a gas reactor column. For acids we just collect at the main scrubber. If there was something that would be potentially reactive with other byproducts, you may be better off with the local scrubber, but these are very expensive. You also need to consider the dilution factor in the exhaust stream. If you have a large volume of exhaust, say from numerous wet benches, this will dilute the shared exhaust so consider the volume and rate of byproduct being produced compared to the total exhaust volume/flow. Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Leonidas Ocola wrote: > > Dear List, > > When does it make sense to just use a point of use scrubber for a > particularly noxious tool or when to install a "capture it all" > scrubber at the end of a facility exhaust? > > Just curious. > > Thanks > > Leo > > > -- > Leonidas E Ocola, PhD > Center for Nanoscale Materials > Argonnne National Laboratory > Bldg 440, Rm A129 > 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 > Ph: 630-252-6613 > Fax: 630-252-5739 > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Mon Dec 3 17:01:53 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:01:53 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] question ... Scrubber feedback Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EECF9A6@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Just to add a little information to help with your decision. We have reconditioned exhaust gas scrubbers at the following prices: (All reconditioned scrubbers carry a full 6 month warranty. Spare parts and start up assistance is offered as well.) Edwards GRCs - M150 (Single Cannister) $15,850.00 - D150 (Dual Cannister) $17,850.00 - Hot Bed Reactor chemically destroys toxic gases - Plasma Etching, PECVD & LPCVD processes - Gases such as CL2, BCl3, SiCl4, CHF3, SF6 Delatech 859 CDOs $23,450.00 - Thermal Oxidation Chamber with Secondary Wet Scrub Chamber - Advaned CVD processes - PECVD, LPCVD & MOCVD - Gases such as SiH4, PH3, GeH4, CH4, H2,B2H6, NH3 ATMI Vector ULtra 3000 $23,450.00 - Dual Stage Aquious Scrubber - For water soluable effluent gases such as F2, Cl2, NH3, SiF4, HF - Etch, CVD & EPI processes If you'd like to discuss this further, please let me know. Best Regards, Tom Britton Director of Sales Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208.890.1417 Office: 877.572.5515 [cid:image003.png at 01CCFBA5.86785370] www.criticalsystemsinc.com -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:32 AM To: Leonidas Ocola Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question ... Leonidas, I would say it is dependent on the reactivity of the byproduct. For pyrophorics we "scrub" at the point of use with a gas reactor column. For acids we just collect at the main scrubber. If there was something that would be potentially reactive with other byproducts, you may be better off with the local scrubber, but these are very expensive. You also need to consider the dilution factor in the exhaust stream. If you have a large volume of exhaust, say from numerous wet benches, this will dilute the shared exhaust so consider the volume and rate of byproduct being produced compared to the total exhaust volume/flow. Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Leonidas Ocola wrote: > > Dear List, > > When does it make sense to just use a point of use scrubber for a > particularly noxious tool or when to install a "capture it all" > scrubber at the end of a facility exhaust? > > Just curious. > > Thanks > > Leo > > > -- > Leonidas E Ocola, PhD > Center for Nanoscale Materials > Argonnne National Laboratory > Bldg 440, Rm A129 > 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 > Ph: 630-252-6613 > Fax: 630-252-5739 > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 15735 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu Mon Dec 3 17:07:10 2012 From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Mac Hathaway) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:07:10 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] question ... In-Reply-To: <04a701cdd0b0$2d8cdc00$88a69400$@com> References: <0b6d01cdcb1b$5ea130b0$1be39210$@com> <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A071783BB@WPVEXCMBX02.purdue.lcl> <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> <04a701cdd0b0$2d8cdc00$88a69400$@com> Message-ID: <50BD228E.8030708@cns.fas.harvard.edu> Hi Leo, One other thing which I have not seen mentioned yet: The only material I know of that we would definitely and always use a local scrubber for is perchloric acid, which forms crystals when its condensate dries out, which crystals are shock sensitive, along the lines of TNT. (Really.) Perchloric is used for etching diamond, among other things... This material calls for a local scrubber, or a "scrubber bench", which incorporates a wet-spray scrubber in the base of the wet-bench. Small or occasional use requires at least a condensing column above the heated material to insure the vapors do not escape. Mac Hathaway Harvard CNS 617-495-9012 On 12/2/2012 12:12 PM, Rizik wrote: > In addition, your local/regional air quality management district should have > a limit on the quantity of toxic, highly toxic and particulate discharged > into the atmosphere. You might want to consult with the local district about > the maximum allowable discharge limits. > > I agree with Michael about the reactivity and byproducts. In case you are > using gases with corrosive residual byproducts where some of these gases are > released from the tool un-reacted, such gases need to be locally abated. The > process could either be a wet scrubber, a thermal-wet abatement system or a > dry scrub system. The cost of these systems ranges between $55K for a single > canister dry scrub system to up to $125K for a thermal wet point of use > scrubber. If you are abating ozone depleting gases along with other > toxic/corrosive gases, then the cost could be as high as $150K. Each option > brings to the table other challenges that need to be met. Depending on your > current facility infrastructure set up you might be able to favor one over > the other. > > Regards > > Rizik Michael, PE > Principal > Integrated Engineering Services > Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 > Cell: +408 718 0927 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] > On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:32 AM > To: Leonidas Ocola > Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question ... > > Leonidas, > > I would say it is dependent on the reactivity of the byproduct. For > pyrophorics we "scrub" at the point of use with a gas reactor column. For > acids we just collect at the main scrubber. If there was something that > would be potentially reactive with other byproducts, you may be better off > with the local scrubber, but these are very expensive. You also need to > consider the dilution factor in the exhaust stream. If you have a large > volume of exhaust, say from numerous wet benches, this will dilute the > shared exhaust so consider the volume and rate of byproduct being produced > compared to the total exhaust volume/flow. > > Dr. Michael Khbeis > Associate Director > Microfabrication Facility (MFF) > University of Washington > Fluke Hall, Box 352143 > (O) 206.543.5101 > (C) 443.254.5192 > khbeis at uw.edu > > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Leonidas Ocola wrote: > >> Dear List, >> >> When does it make sense to just use a point of use scrubber for a >> particularly noxious tool or when to install a "capture it all" >> scrubber at the end of a facility exhaust? >> >> Just curious. >> >> Thanks >> >> Leo >> >> >> -- >> Leonidas E Ocola, PhD >> Center for Nanoscale Materials >> Argonnne National Laboratory >> Bldg 440, Rm A129 >> 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 >> Ph: 630-252-6613 >> Fax: 630-252-5739 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> labnetwork mailing list >> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Mon Dec 3 19:02:42 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 00:02:42 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] question ... In-Reply-To: <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> References: <0b6d01cdcb1b$5ea130b0$1be39210$@com> <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A071783BB@WPVEXCMBX02.purdue.lcl> <50B8ED04.6010301@anl.gov> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EED13B4@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hello Leonidas, This article may help you out as well. http://www.criticalsystemsinc.com/gas-abatement-systems/benefits-point-use-pou-gas-abatement.html Good luck. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Best Regards, Tom Britton Director of Sales Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208.890.1417 Office: 877.572.5515 www.criticalsystemsinc.com -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Leonidas Ocola Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:30 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] question ... Dear List, When does it make sense to just use a point of use scrubber for a particularly noxious tool or when to install a "capture it all" scrubber at the end of a facility exhaust? Just curious. Thanks Leo -- Leonidas E Ocola, PhD Center for Nanoscale Materials Argonnne National Laboratory Bldg 440, Rm A129 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 Ph: 630-252-6613 Fax: 630-252-5739 _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From evporte at uark.edu Thu Dec 6 11:31:10 2012 From: evporte at uark.edu (Errol V. Porter) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:10 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cryopump configuration on a CVD tool Message-ID: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> Greetings members, I wanted to see if there are any members currently using a cryopump on a CVD tool utilizing any of the following gases; germane, hydrogen, methane, silane, diborane or phosphine. Note the main pump being used during processing is a turbopump with the cryopump being used to keep the tool under vacuum while the tool is not being operated. If there are any users using a similar configuration, how was the pump installed specifically to deal with the effluent that is released during a normal regeneration cycle. Regards, Errol Porter University of Arkansas / HiDEC 700 W. Research Center Blvd Fayetteville, AR 72701 Tel. 479 575-2519 Fax 479 575-2719 email: evporte at uark.edu http://www.hidec.uark.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Thu Dec 6 13:14:41 2012 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:14:41 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Cryopump configuration on a CVD tool In-Reply-To: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> References: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C22175517@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> I would highly advise against this practice, it is extremely risky. Dangerous gases could condense in the cryo and be released during regen even if the pop off valve is flanged and exhausted. Why not use the turbo to keep it under vacuum? Steve Paolini Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Errol V. Porter Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:31 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Cryopump configuration on a CVD tool Greetings members, I wanted to see if there are any members currently using a cryopump on a CVD tool utilizing any of the following gases; germane, hydrogen, methane, silane, diborane or phosphine. Note the main pump being used during processing is a turbopump with the cryopump being used to keep the tool under vacuum while the tool is not being operated. If there are any users using a similar configuration, how was the pump installed specifically to deal with the effluent that is released during a normal regeneration cycle. Regards, Errol Porter University of Arkansas / HiDEC 700 W. Research Center Blvd Fayetteville, AR 72701 Tel. 479 575-2519 Fax 479 575-2719 email: evporte at uark.edu http://www.hidec.uark.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schweig at umich.edu Thu Dec 6 14:52:26 2012 From: schweig at umich.edu (Dennis Schweiger) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:52:26 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Cryopump configuration on a CVD tool In-Reply-To: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> References: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> Message-ID: Errol, we have a gas phase MBE tool here at UofM that is using pure Arsine and Phosphine for process gases. Typically during process we'll use a turbo pump, with the cryo only used in stand-by state. We had the same concerns you do in regard to the cryopump warming up, and off-gassing the contaminated material. What we did was install a check valve (pressure relief) in the vent line. The front side of the check is exposed to the cryopump internals, and the back side of the check valve is on our HPM venturi header that runs throughout the fab area. The back side is always under vacuum (it's on a UPS system so even a power outage won't effect us), and so far has worked flawlessly (+ 4 years). I've attached a picture of the mechanical connections. Let me know if you'd like to discuss this further. Dennis Schweiger University of Michigan/LNF 734.647.2055 Ofc On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Errol V. Porter wrote: > Greetings members,**** > > ** ** > > I wanted to see if there are any members currently using a cryopump on a > CVD tool utilizing any of the following gases; germane, hydrogen, methane, > silane, diborane or phosphine. Note the main pump being used during > processing is a turbopump with the cryopump being used to keep the tool > under vacuum while the tool is not being operated. If there are any users > using a similar configuration, how was the pump installed specifically to > deal with the effluent that is released during a normal regeneration cycle. > **** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > ** ** > > Errol Porter**** > > University of Arkansas / HiDEC**** > > 700 W. Research Center Blvd**** > > Fayetteville, AR 72701**** > > Tel. 479 575-2519**** > > Fax 479 575-2719**** > > email: evporte at uark.edu**** > > http://www.hidec.uark.edu**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: photo.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 574583 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpl107 at psu.edu Thu Dec 6 15:04:03 2012 From: gpl107 at psu.edu (Lavallee, Guy P.) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 20:04:03 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question Message-ID: Dear List, I wanted to get some feedback from other sites on what level of conductivity / resistivity they are running their Process Chilled Water (PCW) loop. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Guy Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory Lead Facilities and Etch Engineer Materials Research Institute N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gpl107 at psu.edu Phone: 814-865-9339 Cell: 814-777-0719 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nandini.Iyer at ucsf.edu Thu Dec 6 16:13:02 2012 From: Nandini.Iyer at ucsf.edu (Iyer, Nandini) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:13:02 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Tencor P11 Surface Profiler Message-ID: <91625D20BE5AA24FB206AAAC6EF15617102E35@ex06.net.ucsf.edu> Hi, The group that I am working with has a process where the thickness of some metal bumps are measured on an 8" wafer. Our Tencor P11 surface profiler is down and we are looking for some options on getting these measurements done. The engineers would prefer to use a Tencor P11 surface profiler or something similar to this tool. Are there any places in the SF Bay Area with a Tencor profilometer that we could use? Nan Iyer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Thu Dec 6 21:15:25 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:15:25 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C1513D.4060701@stanford.edu> Guy: Ours (Stanford ...) is an older treated water PCW loop and, as a result, our numbers will vary significantly from the newer facilities that are running DI (or quasi-DI) water in their PCW loops. However, our water conductivity runs at about 500-600 uS/cm. We try to maintain the pH between 7.5 and 8.0 and we treat our water with Nalco TRAC 107 at a concentration of about 2500 ppm. All of our tools that have water-cooled RF supplies or electrodes then have closed-loop chillers or heat exchangers to meet their lower conductivity requirements. Thanks, John From kuhn1 at purdue.edu Fri Dec 7 07:38:50 2012 From: kuhn1 at purdue.edu (Kuhn, Jeffrey G) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:38:50 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A1DEFBD1E@WPVEXCMBX01.purdue.lcl> Guy, At Birck, our PCW resistivity spec is 1.0 Meg-ohm +/- .05 Meg-ohm. Regards, Jeff Kuhn Facility Engineer Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University 1205 W. State St. West Lafayette, IN 47907 Ph: (765) 496-8329 Fax: (765) 496-2018 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Lavallee, Guy P. Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:04 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question Dear List, I wanted to get some feedback from other sites on what level of conductivity / resistivity they are running their Process Chilled Water (PCW) loop. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Guy Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory Lead Facilities and Etch Engineer Materials Research Institute N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gpl107 at psu.edu Phone: 814-865-9339 Cell: 814-777-0719 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vincent.luciani at nist.gov Fri Dec 7 08:53:24 2012 From: vincent.luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:53:24 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Tencor P11 Surface Profiler In-Reply-To: <91625D20BE5AA24FB206AAAC6EF15617102E35@ex06.net.ucsf.edu> References: <91625D20BE5AA24FB206AAAC6EF15617102E35@ex06.net.ucsf.edu> Message-ID: <01F47D4EDEEC64488C10B767D15E4858101B73E684@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> Hello Nan, It' is not a P11 and we are not in the bay area but the XT (below) is a very capable 8" profilometer and with help from FedEx we will gladly turn this around quickly for you. Give me a shout if you don't find a local solution. Vince [cid:image001.png at 01CDD458.B468A5A0] From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iyer, Nandini Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 4:13 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Tencor P11 Surface Profiler Hi, The group that I am working with has a process where the thickness of some metal bumps are measured on an 8" wafer. Our Tencor P11 surface profiler is down and we are looking for some options on getting these measurements done. The engineers would prefer to use a Tencor P11 surface profiler or something similar to this tool. Are there any places in the SF Bay Area with a Tencor profilometer that we could use? Nan Iyer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 126474 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Dec 7 13:38:55 2012 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:38:55 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Cryopump configuration on a CVD tool In-Reply-To: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> References: <49510757561B8E4EB8076830B69BF27733389C10@ex-mbx3.uark.edu> Message-ID: <50C237BF.9010405@eecs.berkeley.edu> Errol Porter, Sidestepping the safety issues of trapping pyrophorics in a confined spare (see my last paragraph about this): I suspect a cryopump would not perform well unless one could assure residual H2 levels were minimized. A good deal of H2 is produced in the disassociation of hydrides. Cryopumps use an activated carbon-array (aka "Christmas tree") as the ~12 K stage to physio-adsorb and trap non-condensible gases (such as H2). Thus, they have finite limitation on the total volumes for such gases. It is often the H2 capacity of a cryo that drives the need for regenerations. Besides CVD, H2 is a product of in PVD processes because sputtered (or evaporated) metals react with residual water vapor inherent on surfaces producing both an oxide and H2. Cryopumps have the option of equipping the vent with a gas tight overpressure/vent port so effluents are properly routed to a fume exhaust system and remediation equipment. This prevents the vent from discharging to an area an area with personnel. More importantly, your query begs the question why not use the turbo to maintain base pressure when the system is in standby? To present a corollary, I would not want to operate our lab with a pump that might inadvertently become the equivalent of a silane cylinder, out of a gas cabinet, connected to a tool. One failure of gate valves are flakes getting onto the o-ring resulting in a leak across the seat. Such flakes are common in deposition systems. Such a leak would result in a reactive load within the cryo. Bob Hamilton Bob Hamilton Marvel NanoLab University of CA at Berkeley Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (e-mail preferred) 510-809-8600 510-325-7557 (mobile - emergencies) On 12/6/2012 8:31 AM, Errol V. Porter wrote: > > Greetings members, > > I wanted to see if there are any members currently using a > cryopump on a CVD tool utilizing any of the following > gases; germane, hydrogen, methane, silane, diborane or > phosphine. Note the main pump being used during processing > is a turbopump with the cryopump being used to keep the > tool under vacuum while the tool is not being operated. If > there are any users using a similar configuration, how > was the pump installed specifically to deal with the > effluent that is released during a normal regeneration cycle. > > Regards, > > Errol Porter > > University of Arkansas / HiDEC > > 700 W. Research Center Blvd > > Fayetteville, AR 72701 > > Tel. 479 575-2519 > > Fax 479 575-2719 > > email:evporte at uark.edu > > http://www.hidec.uark.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rizik at intengr.com Fri Dec 7 14:17:30 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:17:30 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question In-Reply-To: <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A1DEFBD1E@WPVEXCMBX01.purdue.lcl> References: <06C167B22748364D85BCA1AA812FDA1A1DEFBD1E@WPVEXCMBX01.purdue.lcl> Message-ID: <00db01cdd4af$81ef6e90$85ce4bb0$@intengr.com> Depending on the type of tools you have, the RF generators used I saw PCW water resistivity varying between - 50 k-ohm up to 1.5 Meg-Ohm. For example a tool like ANELVA requires between 1 and 1.5 Meg-Ohm. Some Several PCW systems that we are currently designing, our clients plan to fill the system with RO water then use soft water for makeup. Corrosion inhibitor and a biocide are also injected into the systems. Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Kuhn, Jeffrey G Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:39 AM To: 'Lavallee, Guy P.'; 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question Guy, At Birck, our PCW resistivity spec is 1.0 Meg-ohm +/- .05 Meg-ohm. Regards, Jeff Kuhn Facility Engineer Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University 1205 W. State St. West Lafayette, IN 47907 Ph: (765) 496-8329 Fax: (765) 496-2018 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Lavallee, Guy P. Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:04 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Process Chilled Water Question Dear List, I wanted to get some feedback from other sites on what level of conductivity / resistivity they are running their Process Chilled Water (PCW) loop. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Guy Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory Lead Facilities and Etch Engineer Materials Research Institute N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gpl107 at psu.edu Phone: 814-865-9339 Cell: 814-777-0719 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: