From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu Thu Jul 5 08:33:52 2012 From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:33:52 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Message-ID: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab From schweig at umich.edu Thu Jul 5 16:10:35 2012 From: schweig at umich.edu (Schweiger, Dennis) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:10:35 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <4E7EB3A5C63C4B4FA973714C1DAF0B0F22FB1AEC@its-embx-02.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> Iulian, Our new system here is fully fused, butt joints. All of the cleanroom is PVDF, supply and return. In the mechanical spaces (primarily the subfab area), the return side is butt fused poly-propylene. Wherever we transitioned from PVDF to poly-pro on the return side, we used a gasketed flange connection. There was quite a bit of cost savings going that route. Dennis Schweiger Facilities Manager Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1301 Beal Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 734.647.2055 Ofc 877.471.6208 Fax 586.531.3030 Cell "People can be divided into 3 groups - those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened." -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Thu Jul 5 16:33:26 2012 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:33:26 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9B5C6ED35E@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Iulian, In my experience over the years, I have seen PVDF replace PVC for DI piping with great success. PVDF is superior in keeping bacteria colonies at check and systems can be constructed with virtually no intermediate materials that would compromise its integrity. That being said, various construction methods can have various results. In the 4 methods you have listed, a fully welded system is superior to all others since there are less intermediate materials (O-rings, Teflon tape,Glue, etc.) and zero dead space at each joint. I can't imagine any other system being dramatically less costlier to install because the fittings you mention all require careful assembly. I would imagine using these fittings would require the same amount of labor that it would be to clamp a pipe and fitting into the infra-red heater then push them together. The tools designed for this operation are simple to use and once the settings are "zeroed in", the weld quality is consistent. I am of the opinion that the quality of the product is a sum of the parts and would suggest a fully welded system with zero dead space valves designed for DI water. Hope this helps, Steve Paolini Harvard University Center For Nanoscale systems. -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From shott at stanford.edu Thu Jul 5 17:46:39 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:46:39 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <4FF60B3F.60502@stanford.edu> Iulian: Our PVDF system is predominantly welded with occasional unions where needed. The original part of our system was installed sufficiently long ago, that I believe the only choice at that time was the Georg Fischer socket fused connections. Since that time we have had a few segments added ... a bit as recently as a couple of months ago. For that we have used the butt-welded fusion fittings (rather than socket fused joints) ... with occasional butt-welded unions where required for easy assembly and/or disassembly. I hope that helps and, as usual, I will be looking to see what other folks have done. Good luck, John On 7/5/2012 5:33 AM, Iulian Codreanu wrote: > Good Morning. > > We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on > our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per > ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: > - fully welded system > - systems using flanges > - systems using unions > - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps > > Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in > making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and > thus your input will be much appreciated. > > Iulian From rmorrison at draper.com Fri Jul 6 07:12:13 2012 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:12:13 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: Hi, We are just finishing construction on a new cleanroom here at Draper. Our DI water piping is natural polypropylene, IR fusion welded with butt joints. We felt that this could provide us a DI system that meets the semiconductor standard. The pipe supplier is Asahi/America. The pipe is weld in an on-site cleanroom then the pieces are assembled in the air on overhead racks resting in a pipe trough. To make assembly a little easier the pipe sections are joined by clamps. This was done to keep assembly cost reasonable and purity sufficient for our operation. Hopes this helps. Rick Rick Morrison Senior Member Technical Staff Group Leader Microfabrication Operations Draper Laboratory 555 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From schweig at umich.edu Fri Jul 6 07:37:51 2012 From: schweig at umich.edu (Schweiger, Dennis) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:37:51 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <4E7EB3A5C63C4B4FA973714C1DAF0B0F22FB2174@its-embx-02.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> Iulian, Here's something else to consider, Spears now offers a PVC product for DI water systems. When we did the renovation project (wet chemistry suite, and surrounding labs) here at UofM, they were very interested in getting us to try the product as a beta site for the entire University. To sweeten the deal, they donated all of the material (valves, piping, fittings, etc.) for the entire installation. It was a LOT of money as a donation. We're currently generating 17.07M-ohm water at the plant, and on the far end of the loop, we're measuring it at 16.9 M-ohm. It's not a material we would have considered for the clean room project, but for our wet chemistry suite, it works very well, and was very cost effective. The biggest savings, other than the donation of material, was the labor to install the product. It was roughly half the man-hours from a fused system. By the way, you may want to look at their Lab Waste product for your drain system as well. It's also a CPVC system that saved us quite a bit on the installation costs. Dennis Schweiger Facilities Manager Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1301 Beal Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 734.647.2055 Ofc 877.471.6208 Fax 586.531.3030 Cell "People can be divided into 3 groups - those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wonder what happened." -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ 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: Spears LXT-2-1002_0408_web.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1322204 bytes Desc: Spears LXT-2-1002_0408_web.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Spears LW-2-0810_0810_web.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 105723 bytes Desc: Spears LW-2-0810_0810_web.pdf URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Fri Jul 6 15:39:59 2012 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:39:59 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB0086522490C@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Hi Richard, Has the piping been certified to deliver E-1 grade water yet? Or some other specific criteria? Everyone is interested to know if your material and method are adequate.... Best Regards, Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: ??All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients.? This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. ??All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited.? If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:12 AM To: Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: Re: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Hi, We are just finishing construction on a new cleanroom here at Draper. Our DI water piping is natural polypropylene, IR fusion welded with butt joints. We felt that this could provide us a DI system that meets the semiconductor standard. The pipe supplier is Asahi/America. The pipe is weld in an on-site cleanroom then the pieces are assembled in the air on overhead racks resting in a pipe trough. To make assembly a little easier the pipe sections are joined by clamps. This was done to keep assembly cost reasonable and purity sufficient for our operation. Hopes this helps. Rick Rick Morrison Senior Member Technical Staff Group Leader Microfabrication Operations Draper Laboratory 555 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ 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 susan_davis at harvard.edu Fri Jul 6 11:50:38 2012 From: susan_davis at harvard.edu (Davis, Susan) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:50:38 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Job Posting: Laboratory Health & Safety Officer Message-ID: <99590B6491CC4642B415001B998937361C4192F6@ENTWEXMB0000006.university.harvard.edu> Good Morning, Can you please post the attached job description to your website? The job title is Laboratory Health & Safety Officer. Can you please send me a copy of the posting when it is posted so I know that is it up? Thank you, Susan Susan Pauline Davis Recruitment Services Coordinator Recruitment Services Harvard University University Place 124 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, MA 02138 T- 617.496.9248 F- 617.496.2600 susan_davis at harvard.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Laboratory Health & Safety Officer 27227BR.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16437 bytes Desc: Laboratory Health & Safety Officer 27227BR.docx URL: From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Jul 6 17:54:17 2012 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:54:17 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <4FF75E89.6040901@eecs.berkeley.edu> Iulian Codreanu, The DI water guidelines available at Balazs Analytical Services are worth a read: http://www.balazs.com/file/otherelement/pj/2_upw_guidelines_rev2.34758.pdf Since cost/benefit it critical for most university lab construction it is worth considering point-of-use purification when or if a hypercritical need arises (such as ultra-low oxygen content) instead of trying to bring the whole delivery system up to an exotic spec. A more direct answer to your query: the UC Berkeley NanoLab uses fusion-welded PVDF. Its predecessor, the Microlab, used glued PVC piping without issue. The Microlab regularly received compliments about extraordinarily high quality of the silicon oxide it was capable of producing. Bob Hamilton Robert M. 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 7/5/2012 5:33 AM, Iulian Codreanu wrote: > Good Morning. > > We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of > PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to > achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the > following methods: > - fully welded system > - systems using flanges > - systems using unions > - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps > > Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very > helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, > cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much > appreciated. > > Iulian From rmorrison at draper.com Fri Jul 6 19:53:44 2012 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:53:44 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB0086522490C@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB0086522490C@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Message-ID: We have not started to commission the systems yet, system commissioning starts the 1st of August. Rick ________________________________________ From: Abbie Gregg [agregg at abbiegregg.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 3:39 PM To: Morrison, Richard H., Jr.; Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: RE: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Hi Richard, Has the piping been certified to deliver E-1 grade water yet? Or some other specific criteria? Everyone is interested to know if your material and method are adequate.... Best Regards, Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:12 AM To: Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: Re: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Hi, We are just finishing construction on a new cleanroom here at Draper. Our DI water piping is natural polypropylene, IR fusion welded with butt joints. We felt that this could provide us a DI system that meets the semiconductor standard. The pipe supplier is Asahi/America. The pipe is weld in an on-site cleanroom then the pieces are assembled in the air on overhead racks resting in a pipe trough. To make assembly a little easier the pipe sections are joined by clamps. This was done to keep assembly cost reasonable and purity sufficient for our operation. Hopes this helps. Rick Rick Morrison Senior Member Technical Staff Group Leader Microfabrication Operations Draper Laboratory 555 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ 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 agregg at abbiegregg.com Fri Jul 6 23:25:23 2012 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 23:25:23 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs In-Reply-To: References: <4FF589B0.9020002@seas.upenn.edu> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB0086522490C@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865224998@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Thanks Richard, It will be great to get this data next month... thanks much! Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: ??All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients.? This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. ??All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited.? If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. -----Original Message----- From: Morrison, Richard H., Jr. [mailto:rmorrison at draper.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:54 PM To: Abbie Gregg; Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: RE: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs We have not started to commission the systems yet, system commissioning starts the 1st of August. Rick ________________________________________ From: Abbie Gregg [agregg at abbiegregg.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 3:39 PM To: Morrison, Richard H., Jr.; Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: RE: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Hi Richard, Has the piping been certified to deliver E-1 grade water yet? Or some other specific criteria? Everyone is interested to know if your material and method are adequate.... Best Regards, Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:12 AM To: Iulian Codreanu; Fab Network Subject: Re: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Hi, We are just finishing construction on a new cleanroom here at Draper. Our DI water piping is natural polypropylene, IR fusion welded with butt joints. We felt that this could provide us a DI system that meets the semiconductor standard. The pipe supplier is Asahi/America. The pipe is weld in an on-site cleanroom then the pieces are assembled in the air on overhead racks resting in a pipe trough. To make assembly a little easier the pipe sections are joined by clamps. This was done to keep assembly cost reasonable and purity sufficient for our operation. Hopes this helps. Rick Rick Morrison Senior Member Technical Staff Group Leader Microfabrication Operations Draper Laboratory 555 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 8:34 AM To: Fab Network Subject: [labnetwork] joining long PVDF pipe runs Good Morning. We are trying to determine how to best join long runs of PVDF pipe on our ultrapure water system (we are trying to achieve Type E-1.1 per ASTM D5127). We are aware of the following methods: - fully welded system - systems using flanges - systems using unions - systems using GF sanitary couplings with clamps Knowing how other University Fabs do it would be very helpful in making a decision (affecting water quality, cost, and schedule) and thus your input will be much appreciated. Iulian -- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab _______________________________________________ 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 voros at eecs.berkeley.edu Mon Jul 9 20:42:01 2012 From: voros at eecs.berkeley.edu (voros at eecs.berkeley.edu) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:42:01 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Looking for a Parylene system Message-ID: <15f9aec3dd331b0ee7a075c9a8d601ae.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Parylene system From: "Scott Arnett" Date: Mon, July 9, 2012 4:12 pm To: voros at eecs.berkeley.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Katalin, We are looking for a Parylene deposition system for R&D work and would like to hear your suggestions. regards, Scott Arnett Phoenix DeVentures 18655 Madrone Pkwy, suite 180 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 phone 408-706-4707 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca Thu Jul 12 02:52:41 2012 From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:52:41 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemcials Message-ID: Dear colleagues, What is your take on expired chemicals like: - PMMA - acids - H2O2 - BOE - TMAH - LOR - MIBK and solvents Thanks Matthieu From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Thu Jul 12 16:26:40 2012 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:26:40 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemcials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FFF3300.3060100@eecs.berkeley.edu> Matthieu, There are liability concerns with public response to potential safety questions such as this. Regardless, I will offer my personal suggestions on this topic. For a safety issue such as a peroxide former, the expiration date is strict. For a performance issue, such as a photoresist, the expiration date is open to judgement if the application is research and not ISO certified production. In general, I would encourage use of unopened expired chemicals without issue. I consider many expiration dates "release of liability" dates for the manufacturer. There are some specific concerns. Case by case review and your judgment is required. Months past expiration or years past expiration? Check condition of container, signs of discoloration, leakage etc. Does the compound degrade upon reaction with water vapor or O2 is an important consideration. No sealing/bottling technique is perfect. For resists - good temp control and light exclusion are key. In dark cabinet or foil pouch - not just in an opaque bottle. Higher performance, shorter wavelength resists are less forgiving. Ebeam resists vary depending upond rxn mechanism. - hydrogen peroxide (esp low concentrations) is likely to lose activity * * Caution with any peroxide formers.** Many published lists and guidelines are available - review them. Dating peroxide formers upon receipt is best practice. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > What is your take on expired chemicals like: > > - PMMA > - acids > - H2O2 > - BOE > - TMAH > - LOR > - MIBK and solvents > > Thanks > > Matthieu > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From rmorrison at draper.com Mon Jul 16 06:28:25 2012 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:28:25 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemicals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Matthieu, In general solvent materials are ok to use after the expiration date, we leave it up to the engineer. Stuff like resist can be useable up to a year after they expire. The risk that you run is that you will need to change your exposure and development time. Then when you receive the new material the parameters will change again. Hydrogen peroxide will not be active after the expiration date, the H2 comes out as a gas, that is why H2O2 has a vented cap. Be careful with H2O2 it comes in 2 flavors, stabilized and un-stabilized. The stabilized has an expiration date longer than the un-stabilized. Other acids maybe ok to use after the date, but things like HF may change concentration over time as the gas evolves out of the solution. Rick -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthieu Nannini, Dr. Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:53 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemcials Dear colleagues, What is your take on expired chemicals like: - PMMA - acids - H2O2 - BOE - TMAH - LOR - MIBK and solvents Thanks Matthieu _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From voros at silicon.EECS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Jul 16 13:09:21 2012 From: voros at silicon.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Katalin Voros) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [labnetwork] UGIM 2012 Symposium Message-ID: <201207161709.q6GH9Lmc029072@silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> Dear Colleagues, Judging from the feedback we are getting we had a very successful and enjoyable UGIM 2012 Symposium last week. At the business meeting we discussed the following: 1. UGIM 2014 will be hosted by Harvard University, with the cooperation of MIT and UMass Lowell. Eric Martin is the Chair of the Local Organizing Committee. 2. John Weaver proposed and we discussed possible synergies with IEST, the Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, http://www.iest.org, specifically, participating in their conference, ESTECH 2013, to be held April 29-May 2 in San Diego, California. Labnetwork members are encouraged to submit papers; ESTECH 2013 is accepting abstracts now. See their website for details. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely UGIM Steering Committee Chair: Greg Cibuzar, University of Minnesota, cibuzar at umn.edu Past Conference Chair: A. William Flounders, UC Berkeley, bill at eecs.berkeley.edu UGIM 2014 Conference Chair: Eric Martin, Harvard University, emartin at cns.fas.harvard.edu Honorary At Large: Lynn Fuller, Rochester Inst. of Technology, lffeee at rit.edu At Large: Daniel C. Christensen, U. of Wisconsin, dan at engr.wisc.edu Rob Pierce, Rochester Institute of Technology, repemc at rit.edu Katalin Voros, UC Berkeley, voros at eecs.berkeley.edu Kevin Walsh, University of Louisville, walsh at louisville.edu From fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au Mon Jul 16 20:32:14 2012 From: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au (Fouad Karouta) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:32:14 +1000 Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemicals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006401cd63b3$9d493990$d7dbacb0$@anu.edu.au> Hi all, I agree with what is said so far. We do tend to use resists a few months after expiry (also PMMA and ZEP). We've seen negative resists (maN series from Micro-Resist) need replacement hardly 1-2 months after expiry date. Solvents should be fine though we usually consume son much that we never get to expiry date. BOE should be fine to use after date as the NH4F should compensate for any volatile HF. H2O2 peroxide is unstable especially if mixed with other chemicals. Piranha solution for instance should be used within 1-2 hours as H2O2 degrades in acid presence. The same stands for III-V etchants like H3PO4:H2O2:H2O (or H2SO4 instead of H3PO4). In general whenever you doubt about results then it is time to get new chemicals. Kind regards, Fouad Karouta ********************************* Facility Manager ANFF ACT Node Research School of Physics and Engineering Australian National University ACT 0200, Canberra, Australia Tel: + 61 2 6125 7174 Mob: + 61 451 046 412 Email: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012 8:28 PM To: Matthieu Nannini, Dr.; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Expired chemicals Hi Matthieu, In general solvent materials are ok to use after the expiration date, we leave it up to the engineer. Stuff like resist can be useable up to a year after they expire. The risk that you run is that you will need to change your exposure and development time. Then when you receive the new material the parameters will change again. Hydrogen peroxide will not be active after the expiration date, the H2 comes out as a gas, that is why H2O2 has a vented cap. Be careful with H2O2 it comes in 2 flavors, stabilized and un-stabilized. The stabilized has an expiration date longer than the un-stabilized. Other acids maybe ok to use after the date, but things like HF may change concentration over time as the gas evolves out of the solution. Rick -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthieu Nannini, Dr. Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:53 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemcials Dear colleagues, What is your take on expired chemicals like: - PMMA - acids - H2O2 - BOE - TMAH - LOR - MIBK and solvents Thanks Matthieu _______________________________________________ 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 miller at purdue.edu Tue Jul 17 09:05:47 2012 From: miller at purdue.edu (Miller, Timothy J) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:05:47 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemicals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4236EE4ACF400B428955E0E7D5012AAD015138B75184@VPEXCH06.purdue.lcl> Re: Hydrogen peroxide - it evolves O2, not H2. ;-) The stabilized version usually has some sort of tin compound to slow the spontaneous breakdown, and has been shown to interfere with some processes. We typically do not allow the stabilized version in our labs. Tim Miller Purdue University Birck Nanotechnology Center 1205 West State Street West Lafayette, IN 47907-2057 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:28 AM To: Matthieu Nannini, Dr.; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Expired chemicals Hi Matthieu, In general solvent materials are ok to use after the expiration date, we leave it up to the engineer. Stuff like resist can be useable up to a year after they expire. The risk that you run is that you will need to change your exposure and development time. Then when you receive the new material the parameters will change again. Hydrogen peroxide will not be active after the expiration date, the H2 comes out as a gas, that is why H2O2 has a vented cap. Be careful with H2O2 it comes in 2 flavors, stabilized and un-stabilized. The stabilized has an expiration date longer than the un-stabilized. Other acids maybe ok to use after the date, but things like HF may change concentration over time as the gas evolves out of the solution. Rick -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Matthieu Nannini, Dr. Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:53 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Expired chemcials Dear colleagues, What is your take on expired chemicals like: - PMMA - acids - H2O2 - BOE - TMAH - LOR - MIBK and solvents Thanks Matthieu _______________________________________________ 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 len.olona at ou.edu Tue Jul 17 13:57:37 2012 From: len.olona at ou.edu (Olona, Leonard E.) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:57:37 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Photoresist Message-ID: Colleagues, Here at the University of Oklahoma we are pressed for space inside our photo lab. We would like to order photoresist in small amounts for refrigerated storage reasons. Can someone be kind enough to suggest where we can purchase these small amounts. We are looking for 250ml sizes or so. The types photoresist are: * AZ 5214E * AZ 1512 HS * AZ nLOF 2000 * AZ MiR 701 Cheers! Len Leonard E. Olona University of Oklahoma ECE Cleanroom Manager School of Electrical and Computer Engineering 110 West Boyd St. Norman, Oklahoma Zip 73019 O/ (405) 325-4374 C/ (405) 630-9068 Email len.olona at ou.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccgrot01 at louisville.edu Tue Jul 17 14:47:25 2012 From: ccgrot01 at louisville.edu (Caitlin Grothaus) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:47:25 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Photoresist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I know here at University of Louisville, we order our AZ Photoresists from Capitol Scientific. The smallest size we order is a quart (although they might offer smaller sizes). I hope this helps! Caitlin On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Olona, Leonard E. wrote: > Colleagues, > > Here at the University of Oklahoma we are pressed for space inside our > photo lab. We would like to order photoresist in small amounts for > refrigerated storage reasons. Can someone be kind enough to suggest where > we can purchase these small amounts. We are looking for 250ml sizes or > so. > > The types photoresist are: > > - AZ 5214E > - AZ 1512 HS > - AZ nLOF 2000 > - AZ MiR 701 > > Cheers! > > Len > > Leonard E. Olona > University of Oklahoma ECE Cleanroom Manager > School of Electrical and Computer Engineering > 110 West Boyd St. > Norman, Oklahoma > Zip 73019 > O/ (405) 325-4374 > C/ (405) 630-9068 > Email len.olona at ou.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 dcchrist at wisc.edu Tue Jul 17 15:14:16 2012 From: dcchrist at wisc.edu (Daniel C. Christensen) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:14:16 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Staff opening at Univ of Wisconsin cleanroom microfab In-Reply-To: <7680d16d118c82.5005b92d@wiscmail.wisc.edu> References: <77809a0c11d8c4.5005b876@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7750d076119ef5.5005b8b4@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76c0b1fc11ead9.5005b8f0@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7680d16d118c82.5005b92d@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <75e08f4811f858.50057338@wiscmail.wisc.edu> We have a staff position open here at the University of Wisconsin. Website & how to apply: http://www.ohr.wisc.edu/pvl/pv_074123.html Degree and area of specialization: A minimum of BS in Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Physics, Materials Science, or Interdisiplinary Program Degree with micro/nano device fabrication experience is required. An Advanced degree is desirable or equivalent professional experience and knowledge in varied area of semiconductor fabrication and process design. Minimum number of years and type of relevant work experience: Minimum of 3-5 years in semiconductor/device fabrication and failure analysis is required. Demonstrated experience in device fabrication, and industry experience is desirable. Experience in student instruction or development of instructional materials a definite plus. Strong interpersonal and communications skills and the ability to work well in a team are an essential requirement. Budget responsibility at the project level, supervision of small teams (2 to 3) members, and project documentation experience. The candidate must have experience and expertise in semiconductor safety procedures and clean room protocols with flexibility to perform other lab tasks such as equipment operation training and facility inventory. Experience with toxic gas protocols, wet chemical protocols, and hazardous materials training, is required. The candidate must have a strong background in the use of micro fabrication techniques, equipment, and clean room protocols. Experience and expertise in electrical and electronic, mechanical, pneumatic, and vacuum components as related to semiconductor/device fabrication equipment is desired. Experience with specific instruments such as: mask aligners, evaporators, metal deposition, plasma etch, horizontal tube furnaces, and CVD systems, is required. Principal duties: The Wisconsin Center for Applied Microelectronics (WCAM ) supports a broad range of research by students, staff, and faculty and industrial clients with interests in micro and nano fabrication and device development including CMOS and a variety of experimental devices. A growing component of this work is in MEMS and NEMs systems design and processing (microfluidics, sensors, medical devices). The position's responsibilities will include, but are not limited to: - Interaction with users of the Center. The position will be responsible for developing materials and leading the new user orientation class for the Center which includes teaching proper protocols including safety and clean room etiquette. Write standard operating procedures and train students in use microfabrication tools and processes assigned to the care of this position (40%) -Maintenance and repair of the fabrication equipment in the clean room, both directly and by working closely with field service engineers assigned to the position. Assist students in all areas of tool use and process design for common WCAM applications (40%) -Environmental health and safety for the Center. The position will liaison with the UW Safety Dept. The position will train all students in the proper handling of chemicals and use of fume hoods, etc. The position will provide on-site 'management' of the user behavior for their assigned instruments. The position will be responsible keeping updated the WCAM chemical and gas inventory, the Center's Chemical Hygiene Plan, MSDS binders, hazardous materials receiving, and invoice tracking. The position will perform the 1/year right-to-know renewal class. (15%) -Work closely with the lead PI groups and the lab manager to identify research trends and new tools for the fab. Advises researchers, industrial and academic scientists and faculty in developing or acquiring tools and may participate in preparation of grant and contract proposals. (5%) -- Daniel C Christensen Wisconsin Center for Applied Microelectronics University of Wisconsin-Madison dan at engr.wisc.edu 608-262-6877 From gjb1 at cornell.edu Tue Jul 17 17:00:59 2012 From: gjb1 at cornell.edu (Garry J Bordonaro) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:00:59 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Photoresist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CC1F9989A5B2F4D884587D24E20998708E1F532@MBXA-02.exchange.cornell.edu> Len, I do not believe that anyone sells amounts or photoresist that small. We buy in 1 ltr. or qt. sizes if possible, but if not we decant from gallons into smaller bottles for in-lab use. I always backfill the gallon bottles with N2 before returning them to the fridge. This is the company we buy AZ products from as they no longer sell directly to us: Capitol Scientific 1711 Briercroft Court, Suite 140 Carrollton, TX 75006 (800) 580-1167 www.capitolscientific.com Good luck, Garry J. Bordonaro Microlithographic Engineer Cornell NanoScale Facility Cornell University 250 Duffield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-2700 (607) 254-4936 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Olona, Leonard E. Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:58 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Photoresist Colleagues, Here at the University of Oklahoma we are pressed for space inside our photo lab. We would like to order photoresist in small amounts for refrigerated storage reasons. Can someone be kind enough to suggest where we can purchase these small amounts. We are looking for 250ml sizes or so. The types photoresist are: * AZ 5214E * AZ 1512 HS * AZ nLOF 2000 * AZ MiR 701 Cheers! Len Leonard E. Olona University of Oklahoma ECE Cleanroom Manager School of Electrical and Computer Engineering 110 West Boyd St. Norman, Oklahoma Zip 73019 O/ (405) 325-4374 C/ (405) 630-9068 Email len.olona at ou.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Wed Jul 18 07:53:32 2012 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:53:32 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Message-ID: Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PD-0600-0060_Rev_b - HOGEN GC lab hydrogen generators.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 767850 bytes Desc: PD-0600-0060_Rev_b - HOGEN GC lab hydrogen generators.pdf URL: From mcrain3 at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 10:02:44 2012 From: mcrain3 at gmail.com (mark crain) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:02:44 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dr. Ferraguto, The University of Louisville considered the same option when building a new facility several years ago and it met the high standards of our cleanroom consultant Abbie Gregg. The Hogen system we installed has been used mostly to support or Oxford PECVD. It has worked out very well for our processing. We purchased our first H2 generator in the late 90's for a small bench top etcher, I have never had any regrets for moving away from the infrastructure required to support an H2 gas bottle. It seems a great option as long as it meets your purity and flow requirements. I would be interested in hearing from others on the network, what limitations they may see for an H2 generator. Best Regards, Mark Crain University of Louisville 502/442-9727 On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: > Colleagues,**** > > ** ** > > We?re in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for > our fab.**** > > ** ** > > I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we?re looking at > Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute)*** > * > > ** ** > > I can?t find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, > when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K**** > > ** ** > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in > general ? (primarily for PECVD)**** > > ** ** > > Thanks?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thomas S. Ferraguto**** > > ETIC Clean Room Director**** > > University of Massachusetts Lowell**** > > 600 Suffolk Street 456C**** > > Lowell MA 01854-5120**** > > 978-934-1809 land**** > > 617-755-0910 mobile**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Wed Jul 18 10:02:26 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:02:26 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EDF6FED@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hello Thomas, Whether or not this is a good buy will depend on how much Hydrogen you are going to use. We've placed hydrogen generators in the past in place of gas cabinets, but they were much larger than the 600 ccs mentioned here. Will 600 ccs meet your needs now and when your lab is built out? Does it give you adequate pressure for your needs? Where does it need to be located in relation to the tool to deliver adequate pressure and flow? If this provides all the H2 you will need, and it's only $12K, it will probably work fine. If you think you'll need more down the road, you'll probably eclipse the capacity of the generator and have to go the gas cabinet route anyways. We offer reconditioned gas delivery and abatement systems, so we could probably come in between the two and give you capacity for future expansion at a cost more in line with your budget. If you want to discuss, please let me know. I'll check this unit out and see what the industry is saying about it. Enjoy the day, Tom Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 [cid:image003.png at 01CD64BB.A98E2720] www.criticalsystemsinc.com From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:54 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 21892 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed Jul 18 10:03:10 2012 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:03:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9B5C9F8E6B@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Thomas, Here at Harvard's Center For Nanoscale Systems, we have recently taken advantage of onsite Hydrogen generation technology and have incorporated a generator as our main source of H2. Our original clean room configuration was a cylinder in cabinet configuration which required a change out approximately every two weeks. Our main objective, driven by senior management and faculty, is to improve lab safety continuously. Since it has been proven that most compressed gas cylinder incidents happen during change outs, we focused on eliminating these scenarios wherever possible. Having onsite H2 generation eliminated the cylinder change outs, transporting, and inventory of H2 cylinders. Our system is a Proton GC 4800 and it has been in service for about a year without any problems. We have the advantage of an existing H2 cabinet already in place that we have piped in as a backup (with check valves) should there be an issue with the generator. The purity of the gas speaks for itself and it's great to be able to tell a researcher that questions the purity of it because of a failed experiment "It's six nines". Good luck, Steve Paolini From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 7:54 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Wed Jul 18 11:00:33 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:00:33 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation - Data to consider Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EDF70A8@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hi Thomas, I did some checking and they make a nice unit. Depending on what you actually need it to do, it might be just what the doctor ordered. Summary of my "research": * There are 2 Lab units; a GC600 (600 cc/min) and a GC4800 (4.8LPM). They have a smaller unit, but it's designed for a specific application and not applicable here. * The GC unit is designed primarily for gas chromatography service. The stainless tubing inside is passivated, not electropolished, and they use compression fittings. On the GC4800, you can get a VCR bulkhead out, but there are still compression fittings inside. * Purity looks good. The palladium purifier on the GC600 provides < 1 ppm H2O. The GC4800 uses a dryer to remove the moisture, but is still rated at <1 ppm. If your tool's moisture spec is tighter than this, they or you can provide an external purifier. (we have these at low cost) * These units are designed, as mentioned, for gas chromatography so they aren't designed to deliver continual stable flow if connected directly to an MFC, so you might see fluctuations in your MFC's output depending on what type of MFC you're using (Some are more stable than others. Can discuss if desired). It was recommended to set the generator at 200 psi and place an inline regulator in front of the tool to eliminate the pulsing. * There are no bottles to change so you save on gas purchases and maintenance related to bottle changes. You also will never have to worry about running out of gas. * Price: The GC600 runs around $12K and the GC4800 runs between $50 and $60K. Summary: Good unit if it meets your applications. Low cost compared to a gas cabinet if your total flow is under 600 ccs. Uses compression fittings and passivated stainless tubing, which should be OK for research applications. Personally don't like the compression fittings on any UHP process, but on a dry H2 line, you should be OK. Would recommend switching to VCR style fittings and hard plumbing the line to the tool. If your flow is going to exceed 600 ccs, you can run 2 of these in parallel for 1.2 LPM and $24K, or get a gas cabinet for substantially less. Hope this is of use. Best Regards, Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 [cid:image003.png at 01CD64C3.C7F624D0] www.criticalsystemsinc.com From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:54 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 21892 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Wed Jul 18 11:07:51 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:07:51 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation - Data to consider - One last point Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EDF70FD@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Last item and I'll sign off. Code requires a way to shut down the gas system if your hazardous gas monitor trips indicating a leak. The GC4800 has the ability to receive this signal from the monitor, the GC600 doesn't. You can get around this by running the signal from the gas monitor to a breaker which will kill power to the unit, but the switch isn't physically on the unit. You might want to check with your Safety group to see if this is acceptable. Enjoy the day! Tom From: Tom Britton Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:00 AM To: 'Ferraguto, Thomas'; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: RE: Hydrogen Generation - Data to consider Hi Thomas, I did some checking and they make a nice unit. Depending on what you actually need it to do, it might be just what the doctor ordered. Summary of my "research": * There are 2 Lab units; a GC600 (600 cc/min) and a GC4800 (4.8LPM). They have a smaller unit, but it's designed for a specific application and not applicable here. * The GC unit is designed primarily for gas chromatography service. The stainless tubing inside is passivated, not electropolished, and they use compression fittings. On the GC4800, you can get a VCR bulkhead out, but there are still compression fittings inside. * Purity looks good. The palladium purifier on the GC600 provides < 1 ppm H2O. The GC4800 uses a dryer to remove the moisture, but is still rated at <1 ppm. If your tool's moisture spec is tighter than this, they or you can provide an external purifier. (we have these at low cost) * These units are designed, as mentioned, for gas chromatography so they aren't designed to deliver continual stable flow if connected directly to an MFC, so you might see fluctuations in your MFC's output depending on what type of MFC you're using (Some are more stable than others. Can discuss if desired). It was recommended to set the generator at 200 psi and place an inline regulator in front of the tool to eliminate the pulsing. * There are no bottles to change so you save on gas purchases and maintenance related to bottle changes. You also will never have to worry about running out of gas. * Price: The GC600 runs around $12K and the GC4800 runs between $50 and $60K. Summary: Good unit if it meets your applications. Low cost compared to a gas cabinet if your total flow is under 600 ccs. Uses compression fittings and passivated stainless tubing, which should be OK for research applications. Personally don't like the compression fittings on any UHP process, but on a dry H2 line, you should be OK. Would recommend switching to VCR style fittings and hard plumbing the line to the tool. If your flow is going to exceed 600 ccs, you can run 2 of these in parallel for 1.2 LPM and $24K, or get a gas cabinet for substantially less. Hope this is of use. Best Regards, Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 [cid:image001.png at 01CD64C4.CA842D40] www.criticalsystemsinc.com From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:54 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 21892 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From ocola at anl.gov Wed Jul 18 13:06:26 2012 From: ocola at anl.gov (Leonidas Ocola) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:06:26 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5006ED12.9020301@anl.gov> We use Hogen for hydrogen generation at our cleanroom here near Chicago. Being able to just use our 18 M-ohm DI water for hydrogen is nice. Beats having to replace H bottles in the middle of the winter. We have a unit that provides about 20 l/min at 200 psi that we connect to a manifold for distribution to our etch and other tools. The only case we needed a bottle of pure H2 was for diamond thin film deposition. There, that extra 9 in purity is absolutely necessary. Leo On 7/18/2012 6:53 AM, Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: > > Colleagues, > > We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout > for our fab. > > I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking > at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) > > I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for > ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in > general ? (primarily for PECVD) > > Thanks... > > Thomas S. Ferraguto > > ETIC Clean Room Director > > University of Massachusetts Lowell > > 600 Suffolk Street 456C > > Lowell MA 01854-5120 > > 978-934-1809 land > > 617-755-0910 mobile > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Wed Jul 18 16:30:36 2012 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:30:36 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> Thomas, While I have had excellent experience with Proton Systems and recommend an H2 generator to minimize bottle changes, I know of no requirement to keep H2 in a gas cabinet. Your local authority may impose a different requirement. On site hydrogen generation with a PEM strategy rather than a potassium hydroxide system - in a facility that already has excess high quality DI water and excess electrical capacity (as our labs usually do) makes sense. It takes some time to recover the investment - if it is not being compared to a gas cabinet. I ask that the discussion address which labs keep H2 in a gas cabinet and why. There are arguments against keeping H2 in a gas cabinet rather than having it open to lab air where the air changes per hour are significant and offer their own safety. Bill Flounders UCBerkeley Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: > > Colleagues, > > We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout > for our fab. > > I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking > at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) > > I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for > ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in > general ? (primarily for PECVD) > > Thanks... > > Thomas S. Ferraguto > > ETIC Clean Room Director > > University of Massachusetts Lowell > > 600 Suffolk Street 456C > > Lowell MA 01854-5120 > > 978-934-1809 land > > 617-755-0910 mobile > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgrimard at umich.edu Wed Jul 18 16:37:27 2012 From: dgrimard at umich.edu (Grimard, Dennis) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:37:27 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators Message-ID: All: I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to change from bottles to generators. When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the added detectors ... which are not cheap ... Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. Managing Director Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1246D EECS Blding 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 Cell http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rizik at intengr.com Wed Jul 18 18:37:37 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:37:37 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04d601cd6535$f24e1d10$d6ea5730$@com> Hi Tom, It was nice meeting you during the UGIM event. I am still at my promise to visit with you in Mass. When using H2 generators, please make sure that distribution piping form the generator to the tool is all welded. Mechanical connections should be in exhausted enclosures and equipped with LEL sensors interlocked with the generator. Good luck. 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 Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:54 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks. Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rizik at intengr.com Wed Jul 18 21:00:53 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:00:53 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <056d01cd6549$f3288770$d9799650$@com> Excellent suggestion. To add to Bill's recommendation, usually, when we install flammable gas cylinders with regulator or gas panel without an exhausted enclosure, we expose mechanical connections to the open space. If this is the lab/fab strategy, then we recommend installing LEL/flammable gas sensor in the vicinity with horn/strobe and manual pull station. Usually the AHJ will require monitoring in this situation. 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 Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:31 PM To: Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thomas, While I have had excellent experience with Proton Systems and recommend an H2 generator to minimize bottle changes, I know of no requirement to keep H2 in a gas cabinet. Your local authority may impose a different requirement. On site hydrogen generation with a PEM strategy rather than a potassium hydroxide system - in a facility that already has excess high quality DI water and excess electrical capacity (as our labs usually do) makes sense. It takes some time to recover the investment - if it is not being compared to a gas cabinet. I ask that the discussion address which labs keep H2 in a gas cabinet and why. There are arguments against keeping H2 in a gas cabinet rather than having it open to lab air where the air changes per hour are significant and offer their own safety. Bill Flounders UCBerkeley Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks. Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jul 18 21:10:38 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:10:38 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> The average cost runs about $6,500 per gas sensor including hardware, programming, sensor, wiring, conduit, functional testing, commissioning, etc. Pull Stations and horn/strobes each runs about $1,500 installed. You really got a point there. And yes, you will need to place gas sensors to overlap in the area of work so that they will not miss a gas leak. Although this is quite difficult to achieve, you try to install welded tubing from the generator to the point of use then provide as sensor at each point. Again, cost will be an issue. In a previous email, I mentioned that the gas monitoring system shall be interlocked with the generator to ensure that it shuts down upon gas detection, manual activation and fire alarm signal initiation. One more item to consider, is installing an orifice in the tubing leaving the generator to ensure that we do not allow more than 150% of the process gas demand to be supplied to the tools. On past projects, we installed excess flow mechanical valves that would trip if H2 flow rate exceeds a preset limit. This will allow us to limit H2 leakage to a level that would not exceed 25% of the LEL concentration in the lab space. All these parameters MUST be taken in consideration by the engineer of record. Occasionally, these parameters are overlooked and are only discovered during the plan review cycle by the AHJ. Regards 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 Grimard, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:37 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators All: I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to change from bottles to generators. When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the added detectors . which are not cheap . Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. Managing Director Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1246D EECS Blding 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 Cell http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocola at anl.gov Thu Jul 19 01:28:18 2012 From: ocola at anl.gov (Leonidas Ocola) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:28:18 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50079AF2.6050900@anl.gov> Dennis, Depends on how you set it up. We use coaxial piping with vacuum in between the 316 stainless steel pipes so that any leak is detected. Orbital welding on both pipes. We used Applied Energy Systems (AES) for the piping. Our tool generates H2 on demand and only has 13 liters of actual H2 at any time. Our system has been working for over 6 years with no problem. You can contact Steve Buerkel for more info on the tubing, fittings, the Hydrogen manifolds and detection. We started out with the generator from day one. So we did not have to worry about converting. Our facility has a maximum volume requirement that led us to two choices: bunker with gas bottles outdoors or hydrogen generator. Leo On 7/18/2012 3:37 PM, Grimard, Dennis wrote: > > All: > > I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although > I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to > shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know > that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then > the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is > not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they > will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak > point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to > change from bottles to generators. > > When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the > added detectors ... which are not cheap ... > > Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. > > Managing Director > > Lurie Nanofabrication Facility > > 1246D EECS Blding > > 1301 Beal Avenue > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 > > (734) 368-7172 Cell > > http://www.lnf.umich.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Thu Jul 19 01:57:59 2012 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:57:59 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB008652B8E21@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Pressure from hydrogen generators is low. Accidents I am aware of happened due to high hydrogen bottle pressure, and failure of regulator (if this happens, H2 can also very quickly go right through intact piping into the process tool and out the other end, causing a problem in the exhaust!). So speed/volume of gas escape is much less from a generator. A Valve Manifold Box can be used close but downstream of a generator for any distribution to multiple tools, and that is a place where excess flow sensing and leak detection around valves in an exhausted enclosure is possible. And you are not storing any hydrogen with a generator. Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Grimard, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:37 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators All: I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to change from bottles to generators. When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the added detectors ... which are not cheap ... Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. Managing Director Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1246D EECS Blding 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 Cell http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Thu Jul 19 08:16:37 2012 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:16:37 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: <056d01cd6549$f3288770$d9799650$@com> References: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> <056d01cd6549$f3288770$d9799650$@com> Message-ID: Thank you all for the excellent discussion. To Denis Grimards point about TGMS points, we're either going to move the Hydrogen generator to the interstitial space above the point of use (shortest distance possible) or a wall mount near the non-toxic gas distribution panel. The TGMS is not yet completed , so we'll design " tank like" shut offs at the generator (orbitally welded connections). This also moves a non-rated piece of equipment out of the HPM room (the unit is UL rated, not NEC Class 1 Division 2). To Bills point about H2 in cabinets, it's a good question whether its required by the state or just "best practice". AGI specified as being in a gas cabinet in our design, every facility in Massachusetts I have worked (3 private) has had it in gas cabinets. NFPA 55 says that the exhaust cannot be recirculated for Hazardous Gases. Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile From: Rizik [mailto:rizik at intengr.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:01 PM To: 'Bill Flounders'; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: RE: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Excellent suggestion. To add to Bill's recommendation, usually, when we install flammable gas cylinders with regulator or gas panel without an exhausted enclosure, we expose mechanical connections to the open space. If this is the lab/fab strategy, then we recommend installing LEL/flammable gas sensor in the vicinity with horn/strobe and manual pull station. Usually the AHJ will require monitoring in this situation. 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 Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:31 PM To: Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thomas, While I have had excellent experience with Proton Systems and recommend an H2 generator to minimize bottle changes, I know of no requirement to keep H2 in a gas cabinet. Your local authority may impose a different requirement. On site hydrogen generation with a PEM strategy rather than a potassium hydroxide system - in a facility that already has excess high quality DI water and excess electrical capacity (as our labs usually do) makes sense. It takes some time to recover the investment - if it is not being compared to a gas cabinet. I ask that the discussion address which labs keep H2 in a gas cabinet and why. There are arguments against keeping H2 in a gas cabinet rather than having it open to lab air where the air changes per hour are significant and offer their own safety. Bill Flounders UCBerkeley Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hydrogen Generator layout.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 224164 bytes Desc: Hydrogen Generator layout.pdf URL: From Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com Thu Jul 19 14:36:39 2012 From: Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com (Schultz, Steven) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:36:39 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> <056d01cd6549$f3288770$d9799650$@com> Message-ID: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D214A8F5F6D@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> See International Fire Code - Chaps 35, 30, 27. NFPA 55, 318. Then- Verify w/ your EHS. STEVEN SCHULTZ R.A. LEED AP BD+C HDR Architecture Sr. Project Manager 3200 E. Camelback Road, Suite 250 | Phoenix, AZ 85018 602.522.4391 steven.schultz at hdrinc.com | hdrarchitecture.com Follow Us - Architizer | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:17 AM To: Rizik; 'Bill Flounders' Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thank you all for the excellent discussion. To Denis Grimards point about TGMS points, we're either going to move the Hydrogen generator to the interstitial space above the point of use (shortest distance possible) or a wall mount near the non-toxic gas distribution panel. The TGMS is not yet completed , so we'll design " tank like" shut offs at the generator (orbitally welded connections). This also moves a non-rated piece of equipment out of the HPM room (the unit is UL rated, not NEC Class 1 Division 2). To Bills point about H2 in cabinets, it's a good question whether its required by the state or just "best practice". AGI specified as being in a gas cabinet in our design, every facility in Massachusetts I have worked (3 private) has had it in gas cabinets. NFPA 55 says that the exhaust cannot be recirculated for Hazardous Gases. Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile From: Rizik [mailto:rizik at intengr.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:01 PM To: 'Bill Flounders'; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: RE: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Excellent suggestion. To add to Bill's recommendation, usually, when we install flammable gas cylinders with regulator or gas panel without an exhausted enclosure, we expose mechanical connections to the open space. If this is the lab/fab strategy, then we recommend installing LEL/flammable gas sensor in the vicinity with horn/strobe and manual pull station. Usually the AHJ will require monitoring in this situation. 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 Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:31 PM To: Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thomas, While I have had excellent experience with Proton Systems and recommend an H2 generator to minimize bottle changes, I know of no requirement to keep H2 in a gas cabinet. Your local authority may impose a different requirement. On site hydrogen generation with a PEM strategy rather than a potassium hydroxide system - in a facility that already has excess high quality DI water and excess electrical capacity (as our labs usually do) makes sense. It takes some time to recover the investment - if it is not being compared to a gas cabinet. I ask that the discussion address which labs keep H2 in a gas cabinet and why. There are arguments against keeping H2 in a gas cabinet rather than having it open to lab air where the air changes per hour are significant and offer their own safety. Bill Flounders UCBerkeley Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile _______________________________________________ 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 agregg at abbiegregg.com Thu Jul 19 22:49:55 2012 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:49:55 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Yes, the flow restricting orifice is key, as well as an excess flow sensor in the hydrogen lines, regardless of the source. Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Rizik Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:11 PM To: 'Grimard, Dennis'; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators The average cost runs about $6,500 per gas sensor including hardware, programming, sensor, wiring, conduit, functional testing, commissioning, etc. Pull Stations and horn/strobes each runs about $1,500 installed. You really got a point there. And yes, you will need to place gas sensors to overlap in the area of work so that they will not miss a gas leak. Although this is quite difficult to achieve, you try to install welded tubing from the generator to the point of use then provide as sensor at each point. Again, cost will be an issue. In a previous email, I mentioned that the gas monitoring system shall be interlocked with the generator to ensure that it shuts down upon gas detection, manual activation and fire alarm signal initiation. One more item to consider, is installing an orifice in the tubing leaving the generator to ensure that we do not allow more than 150% of the process gas demand to be supplied to the tools. On past projects, we installed excess flow mechanical valves that would trip if H2 flow rate exceeds a preset limit. This will allow us to limit H2 leakage to a level that would not exceed 25% of the LEL concentration in the lab space. All these parameters MUST be taken in consideration by the engineer of record. Occasionally, these parameters are overlooked and are only discovered during the plan review cycle by the AHJ. Regards 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 Grimard, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:37 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators All: I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to change from bottles to generators. When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the added detectors ... which are not cheap ... Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. Managing Director Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1246D EECS Blding 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 Cell http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Thu Jul 19 23:12:18 2012 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:12:18 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation In-Reply-To: References: <50071CEC.3070502@eecs.berkeley.edu> <056d01cd6549$f3288770$d9799650$@com> Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E55@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Thanks Tom, This sounds like a good solution and glad to know this unit is now UL Listed. The Hydrogen generator is quite heavy so please keep in mind the point load on the structure above if/when trying to place it on the interstitial catwalk which is hung from the ceiling. You should be able to use orbital welding and even add the excess flow sensor and flow restricting orifice to the generator if it is not already included. Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:17 AM To: Rizik; 'Bill Flounders' Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thank you all for the excellent discussion. To Denis Grimards point about TGMS points, we're either going to move the Hydrogen generator to the interstitial space above the point of use (shortest distance possible) or a wall mount near the non-toxic gas distribution panel. The TGMS is not yet completed , so we'll design " tank like" shut offs at the generator (orbitally welded connections). This also moves a non-rated piece of equipment out of the HPM room (the unit is UL rated, not NEC Class 1 Division 2). To Bills point about H2 in cabinets, it's a good question whether its required by the state or just "best practice". AGI specified as being in a gas cabinet in our design, every facility in Massachusetts I have worked (3 private) has had it in gas cabinets. NFPA 55 says that the exhaust cannot be recirculated for Hazardous Gases. Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile From: Rizik [mailto:rizik at intengr.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:01 PM To: 'Bill Flounders'; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: RE: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Excellent suggestion. To add to Bill's recommendation, usually, when we install flammable gas cylinders with regulator or gas panel without an exhausted enclosure, we expose mechanical connections to the open space. If this is the lab/fab strategy, then we recommend installing LEL/flammable gas sensor in the vicinity with horn/strobe and manual pull station. Usually the AHJ will require monitoring in this situation. 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 Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:31 PM To: Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Hydrogen Generation Thomas, While I have had excellent experience with Proton Systems and recommend an H2 generator to minimize bottle changes, I know of no requirement to keep H2 in a gas cabinet. Your local authority may impose a different requirement. On site hydrogen generation with a PEM strategy rather than a potassium hydroxide system - in a facility that already has excess high quality DI water and excess electrical capacity (as our labs usually do) makes sense. It takes some time to recover the investment - if it is not being compared to a gas cabinet. I ask that the discussion address which labs keep H2 in a gas cabinet and why. There are arguments against keeping H2 in a gas cabinet rather than having it open to lab air where the air changes per hour are significant and offer their own safety. Bill Flounders UCBerkeley Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: Colleagues, We're in the process of designing our gas cabinet and abatement layout for our fab. I just met with the sales representative from Proton and we're looking at Hogen GC600 (99.9999%) purity hydrogen delivery system (600cc a minute) I can't find any holes in the argument for Hydrogen generation for ~$12k, when a gas cabinet will cost me ~$20K Does anyone have any thoughts on this unit or Hydrogen generation in general ? (primarily for PECVD) Thanks... Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Clean Room Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street 456C Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile _______________________________________________ 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 jrweaver at purdue.edu Fri Jul 20 08:51:49 2012 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:51:49 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Message-ID: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> I know that some people consider me far too conservative, but I guess the number of incidents (fires, etc.) that I have seen over the past 40 years has led me down that path. I prefer doubly contained piping for hydrogen, with LEL sensors in the generator, VMBs, and tools. I run N2:He in the interstitial at half the delivery pressure of the H2. This is static, and I monitor the interstitial pressure real time. If the pressure goes up, I have a leak in my H2 line. If the pressure goes down, I have a leak in my outer containment. If my pressure goes to zero, someone drove a fork truck through my line and I evacuate the facility. I'm also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed orifices. It seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), but the excess-flow sensor must be set above the flow rate allowed by the orifice :). We have had a Proton Hogen since we opened the BNC and have been very happy with it. We have had the usual maintenance issues, but nothing serious. John Coy (jcoy at purdue.edu) and Kenny Schwartz (kfschwar at purdue.edu) have more solid information that I do. They are the engineers who keep the system running. John John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Abbie Gregg Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:50 PM To: Rizik; 'Grimard, Dennis'; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; Mark Winter Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators Yes, the flow restricting orifice is key, as well as an excess flow sensor in the hydrogen lines, regardless of the source. Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Rizik Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:11 PM To: 'Grimard, Dennis'; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators The average cost runs about $6,500 per gas sensor including hardware, programming, sensor, wiring, conduit, functional testing, commissioning, etc. Pull Stations and horn/strobes each runs about $1,500 installed. You really got a point there. And yes, you will need to place gas sensors to overlap in the area of work so that they will not miss a gas leak. Although this is quite difficult to achieve, you try to install welded tubing from the generator to the point of use then provide as sensor at each point. Again, cost will be an issue. In a previous email, I mentioned that the gas monitoring system shall be interlocked with the generator to ensure that it shuts down upon gas detection, manual activation and fire alarm signal initiation. One more item to consider, is installing an orifice in the tubing leaving the generator to ensure that we do not allow more than 150% of the process gas demand to be supplied to the tools. On past projects, we installed excess flow mechanical valves that would trip if H2 flow rate exceeds a preset limit. This will allow us to limit H2 leakage to a level that would not exceed 25% of the LEL concentration in the lab space. All these parameters MUST be taken in consideration by the engineer of record. Occasionally, these parameters are overlooked and are only discovered during the plan review cycle by the AHJ. Regards 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 Grimard, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:37 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators All: I have been watching the discussion regarding H2 generators. Although I agree with most of what has been said I worry about being able to shut off the generator in case of a leak. The generator does not know that it is delivering into a leak and unless the leak is detected then the generator will continue pumping to that leak. Adding detectors is not the solution. H2 detectors are difficult to place such that they will pick up a leak. Do you add detectors at every possible leak point? Add in the high velocities of the cleanroom and I hesitate to change from bottles to generators. When considering the costs, you also have to consider the cost of the added detectors ... which are not cheap ... Dennis Grimard, Ph.D. Managing Director Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1246D EECS Blding 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 Cell http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Fri Jul 20 10:23:11 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:23:11 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> Message-ID: <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> John et al: I am also a big believer in excess-flow switches and RFOs in virtually all cylinders. We typically select a 0.010" RFO unless there is a good reason to go larger or smaller. It is normally installed by the gas supplier in the cylinder valve before it ever shows up at our site ... although we do try to confirm that the proper RFO has been installed before we install it. However, I'm a bit confused by the comment about setting the excess-flow sensor ABOVE the flow rate allowed by the orifice .... maybe I'm guilty of the mistake that you are describing. If the excess flow switch is downstream of the RFO (which it is in all cases for us), doesn't that mean that the excess flow switch would never trip if it is set higher than the RFO-limited flow (at least under steady-flow conditions)? We typically try to size our excess flow switch so that it will trip at a flow that is 2-3 times higher than the maximum expected flow but that is typically several times LOWER than the RFO-limited flow (at least at full cylinder pressure). For most of our gases, we would likely have excess flow switches set to trip at 6-10 SLM. Am I off the mark? More directly related to the hydrogen discussion, we've recently changed our hydrogen sensors from LEL to 0-1000 ppm. While I believe that the legal requirement is to detect a leak that reaches 25% LEL, all of our hydrogen sensors are now set to give us a warning at 200 ppm and an alarm at 400 ppm. Our thinking is that we are better off catching a leak as early as possible, since small leaks seem to have a way of becoming large leaks. My apologies to all for not staying on the topic of H2 generators ... but whether coming from cylinders, generators, or a bulk cryogenic source, safe handling and distribution of H2 is important to us all. Thanks, John On 7/20/2012 5:51 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: > I'm also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed orifices. It > seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), but the excess-flow > sensor must be set above the flow rate allowed by the orifice J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrweaver at purdue.edu Fri Jul 20 10:34:33 2012 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:34:33 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> John - My addled brain said it backward! Yes, the flow rate allowed by the fixed orifice should be higher than the trip point of the excess-flow sensor. The key is that you need to allow the sensor to trip in a downstream failure that causes excess flow while limiting the maximum allowable flow. My apologies to the group for my confusing remark! John John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: John Shott [mailto:shott at stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:23 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; John Weaver Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators John et al: I am also a big believer in excess-flow switches and RFOs in virtually all cylinders. We typically select a 0.010" RFO unless there is a good reason to go larger or smaller. It is normally installed by the gas supplier in the cylinder valve before it ever shows up at our site ... although we do try to confirm that the proper RFO has been installed before we install it. However, I'm a bit confused by the comment about setting the excess-flow sensor ABOVE the flow rate allowed by the orifice .... maybe I'm guilty of the mistake that you are describing. If the excess flow switch is downstream of the RFO (which it is in all cases for us), doesn't that mean that the excess flow switch would never trip if it is set higher than the RFO-limited flow (at least under steady-flow conditions)? We typically try to size our excess flow switch so that it will trip at a flow that is 2-3 times higher than the maximum expected flow but that is typically several times LOWER than the RFO-limited flow (at least at full cylinder pressure). For most of our gases, we would likely have excess flow switches set to trip at 6-10 SLM. Am I off the mark? More directly related to the hydrogen discussion, we've recently changed our hydrogen sensors from LEL to 0-1000 ppm. While I believe that the legal requirement is to detect a leak that reaches 25% LEL, all of our hydrogen sensors are now set to give us a warning at 200 ppm and an alarm at 400 ppm. Our thinking is that we are better off catching a leak as early as possible, since small leaks seem to have a way of becoming large leaks. My apologies to all for not staying on the topic of H2 generators ... but whether coming from cylinders, generators, or a bulk cryogenic source, safe handling and distribution of H2 is important to us all. Thanks, John On 7/20/2012 5:51 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: I'm also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed orifices. It seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), but the excess-flow sensor must be set above the flow rate allowed by the orifice :). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Jul 20 13:29:58 2012 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:29:58 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> Message-ID: <50099596.90907@eecs.berkeley.edu> Colleagues, I'd like to add another note of caution. I too have worked with H2 for a considerable amount of time. Given most lab's volumes I do not agree a gas cabinet is "best practice" for 180 cu ft cylinder of H2. Having said this I'd like to stay of out that fray (note the LEL's for H2/air are ~17%, the LFL's ~ 5%; it doesn't take a big room to dilute H2 to below these values. Worth adding to this discussion is the routing of H2 lines and the danger of H2 mixtures in closed chambers. H2, when routed through lines near a ceiling can pool H2 in dangerous amounts. For a mocvd installation, done some years ago in a room with a t-grid ceiling, an exhaust was added at the ceiling level to prevent the danger of pooling H2, a lighter gas than air. A mixture of H2 and air or another oxidizer, in a closed chamber such as a furnace tube or bell-jar, is a significant hazard. The brisance of H2 reactions can result in significant force. Proper mixtures of Ar/H2 or N2/H2 eliminate this risk. Ratios on the order of 20/1 are common. A few decades ago I routinely (daily) used forming gas (N2 80%/H2 20%) in confined spaces (mircowave tube processing) with open flames. I never witnessed that ratio burn. That was best known method at that time. Currently, the commonly accepted ratio H2 mixes is 5% in some other inert gas. I agree RFO's are a great line of defense. As per John Shott/Stanford we use the DISS standard for all of our dangerous gases and incorporated DISS + RFO's early on. Bob PS as an added note, the worst lab explosion I've witnessed (after the fact) was an iced-over LN Dewar Robert M. 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 7/20/2012 7:34 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: > > John -- > > My addled brain said it backward! Yes, the flow rate > allowed by the fixed orifice should be higher than the > trip point of the excess-flow sensor. The key is that you > need to allow the sensor to trip in a downstream failure > that causes excess flow while limiting the maximum > allowable flow. > > My apologies to the group for my confusing remark! > > John > > */John R. Weaver/* > > */Facility Manager/* > > */Birck Nanotechnology Center/* > > */Purdue University/* > > */(765) 494-5494/* > > */jrweaver at purdue.edu/* > > *From:*John Shott [mailto:shott at stanford.edu] > *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 10:23 AM > *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; John Weaver > *Subject:* Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators > > John et al: > > I am also a big believer in excess-flow switches and RFOs > in virtually all cylinders. We typically select a 0.010" > RFO unless there is a good reason to go larger or > smaller. It is normally installed by the gas supplier in > the cylinder valve before it ever shows up at our site ... > although we do try to confirm that the proper RFO has been > installed before we install it. However, I'm a bit > confused by the comment about setting the excess-flow > sensor ABOVE the flow rate allowed by the orifice .... > maybe I'm guilty of the mistake that you are describing. > If the excess flow switch is downstream of the RFO (which > it is in all cases for us), doesn't that mean that the > excess flow switch would never trip if it is set higher > than the RFO-limited flow (at least under steady-flow > conditions)? We typically try to size our excess flow > switch so that it will trip at a flow that is 2-3 times > higher than the maximum expected flow but that is > typically several times LOWER than the RFO-limited flow > (at least at full cylinder pressure). For most of our > gases, we would likely have excess flow switches set to > trip at 6-10 SLM. Am I off the mark? > > More directly related to the hydrogen discussion, we've > recently changed our hydrogen sensors from LEL to 0-1000 > ppm. While I believe that the legal requirement is to > detect a leak that reaches 25% LEL, all of our hydrogen > sensors are now set to give us a warning at 200 ppm and an > alarm at 400 ppm. Our thinking is that we are better off > catching a leak as early as possible, since small leaks > seem to have a way of becoming large leaks. > > My apologies to all for not staying on the topic of H2 > generators ... but whether coming from cylinders, > generators, or a bulk cryogenic source, safe handling and > distribution of H2 is important to us all. > > Thanks, > > John > > On 7/20/2012 5:51 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: > > I'm also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed > orifices. It seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), > but the excess-flow sensor must be set above the flow rate > allowed by the orifice J. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Fri Jul 20 13:44:48 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:44:48 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] H2 Generators In-Reply-To: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EDF894E@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Something to remember - The trip point of the excess flow switch is a function of switch size and inlet pressure, so the location where you place it (before or after the regulator) makes a difference. If you place the switch on the pigtail, size the switch so it won't trip when your bottle decays in pressure. Depending on range selected, a switch that is fine at 60 slpm when the cylinder is at 1000 psig, could trip at as little as 10 slpm if your cylinder pressure decays to 100 psig. Always size for the worst case scenario. Best Regards, Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 [cid:image003.png at 01CD666D.0CFE1920] www.criticalsystemsinc.com From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Weaver, John R Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:35 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators John - My addled brain said it backward! Yes, the flow rate allowed by the fixed orifice should be higher than the trip point of the excess-flow sensor. The key is that you need to allow the sensor to trip in a downstream failure that causes excess flow while limiting the maximum allowable flow. My apologies to the group for my confusing remark! John John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: John Shott [mailto:shott at stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:23 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; John Weaver Subject: Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators John et al: I am also a big believer in excess-flow switches and RFOs in virtually all cylinders. We typically select a 0.010" RFO unless there is a good reason to go larger or smaller. It is normally installed by the gas supplier in the cylinder valve before it ever shows up at our site ... although we do try to confirm that the proper RFO has been installed before we install it. However, I'm a bit confused by the comment about setting the excess-flow sensor ABOVE the flow rate allowed by the orifice .... maybe I'm guilty of the mistake that you are describing. If the excess flow switch is downstream of the RFO (which it is in all cases for us), doesn't that mean that the excess flow switch would never trip if it is set higher than the RFO-limited flow (at least under steady-flow conditions)? We typically try to size our excess flow switch so that it will trip at a flow that is 2-3 times higher than the maximum expected flow but that is typically several times LOWER than the RFO-limited flow (at least at full cylinder pressure). For most of our gases, we would likely have excess flow switches set to trip at 6-10 SLM. Am I off the mark? More directly related to the hydrogen discussion, we've recently changed our hydrogen sensors from LEL to 0-1000 ppm. While I believe that the legal requirement is to detect a leak that reaches 25% LEL, all of our hydrogen sensors are now set to give us a warning at 200 ppm and an alarm at 400 ppm. Our thinking is that we are better off catching a leak as early as possible, since small leaks seem to have a way of becoming large leaks. My apologies to all for not staying on the topic of H2 generators ... but whether coming from cylinders, generators, or a bulk cryogenic source, safe handling and distribution of H2 is important to us all. Thanks, John On 7/20/2012 5:51 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: I'm also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed orifices. It seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), but the excess-flow sensor must be set above the flow rate allowed by the orifice :). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 21902 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu Fri Jul 20 13:57:03 2012 From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:57:03 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] on RFOs In-Reply-To: <50099596.90907@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <057801cd654b$4fdd05d0$ef971170$@com> <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB00865340E4F@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01805@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> <500969CF.7040904@stanford.edu> <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDC8B0F01807@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> <50099596.90907@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <50099BEF.5010903@seas.upenn.edu> Good Afternoon. What is your take on having an RFO installed in the gas pigtail while also asking the gas supplier to have one RFO installed in the cylinder valve? I used to think it was a good idea (especially if the supplier forgot to install one) until someone mentioned that it may hinder the complete removal of the hazardous gas from the space between the two RFOs during the "purge down" sequence before the cylinder removal. Thank you for your input. Iulian --- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab On 7/20/2012 1:29 PM, Robert M. Hamilton wrote: > Colleagues, > > I'd like to add another note of caution. I too have worked with H2 for a > considerable amount of time. Given most lab's volumes I do not agree a > gas cabinet is "best practice" for 180 cu ft cylinder of H2. Having said > this I'd like to stay of out that fray (note the LEL's for H2/air are > ~17%, the LFL's ~ 5%; it doesn't take a big room to dilute H2 to below > these values. > > Worth adding to this discussion is the routing of H2 lines and the > danger of H2 mixtures in closed chambers. > > H2, when routed through lines near a ceiling can pool H2 in dangerous > amounts. For a mocvd installation, done some years ago in a room with a > t-grid ceiling, an exhaust was added at the ceiling level to prevent the > danger of pooling H2, a lighter gas than air. > > A mixture of H2 and air or another oxidizer, in a closed chamber such as > a furnace tube or bell-jar, is a significant hazard. The brisance of H2 > reactions can result in significant force. Proper mixtures of Ar/H2 or > N2/H2 eliminate this risk. Ratios on the order of 20/1 are common. A few > decades ago I routinely (daily) used forming gas (N2 80%/H2 20%) in > confined spaces (mircowave tube processing) with open flames. I never > witnessed that ratio burn. That was best known method at that time. > > Currently, the commonly accepted ratio H2 mixes is 5% in some other > inert gas. > > I agree RFO's are a great line of defense. As per John Shott/Stanford we > use the DISS standard for all of our dangerous gases and incorporated > DISS + RFO's early on. > > Bob > > PS as an added note, the worst lab explosion I've witnessed (after the > fact) was an iced-over LN Dewar > > > Robert M. 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 7/20/2012 7:34 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: >> >> John ? >> >> My addled brain said it backward! Yes, the flow rate allowed by the >> fixed orifice should be higher than the trip point of the excess-flow >> sensor. The key is that you need to allow the sensor to trip in a >> downstream failure that causes excess flow while limiting the maximum >> allowable flow. >> >> My apologies to the group for my confusing remark! >> >> John >> >> */John R. Weaver/* >> >> */Facility Manager/* >> >> */Birck Nanotechnology Center/* >> >> */Purdue University/* >> >> */(765) 494-5494/* >> >> */jrweaver at purdue.edu/* >> >> *From:*John Shott [mailto:shott at stanford.edu] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 10:23 AM >> *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; John Weaver >> *Subject:* Re: [labnetwork] H2 Generators >> >> John et al: >> >> I am also a big believer in excess-flow switches and RFOs in virtually >> all cylinders. We typically select a 0.010" RFO unless there is a good >> reason to go larger or smaller. It is normally installed by the gas >> supplier in the cylinder valve before it ever shows up at our site ... >> although we do try to confirm that the proper RFO has been installed >> before we install it. However, I'm a bit confused by the comment >> about setting the excess-flow sensor ABOVE the flow rate allowed by >> the orifice .... maybe I'm guilty of the mistake that you are >> describing. If the excess flow switch is downstream of the RFO (which >> it is in all cases for us), doesn't that mean that the excess flow >> switch would never trip if it is set higher than the RFO-limited flow >> (at least under steady-flow conditions)? We typically try to size our >> excess flow switch so that it will trip at a flow that is 2-3 times >> higher than the maximum expected flow but that is typically several >> times LOWER than the RFO-limited flow (at least at full cylinder >> pressure). For most of our gases, we would likely have excess flow >> switches set to trip at 6-10 SLM. Am I off the mark? >> >> More directly related to the hydrogen discussion, we've recently >> changed our hydrogen sensors from LEL to 0-1000 ppm. While I believe >> that the legal requirement is to detect a leak that reaches 25% LEL, >> all of our hydrogen sensors are now set to give us a warning at 200 >> ppm and an alarm at 400 ppm. Our thinking is that we are better off >> catching a leak as early as possible, since small leaks seem to have a >> way of becoming large leaks. >> >> My apologies to all for not staying on the topic of H2 generators ... >> but whether coming from cylinders, generators, or a bulk cryogenic >> source, safe handling and distribution of H2 is important to us all. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> On 7/20/2012 5:51 AM, Weaver, John R wrote: >> >> I?m also a believer in excess-flow sensors and fixed orifices. It >> seems obvious (but I have seen this mistake), but the excess-flow >> sensor must be set above the flow rate allowed by the orifice J. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 khbeis at uw.edu Tue Jul 24 13:29:26 2012 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:29:26 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift Message-ID: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> Dear Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you had experience in pH swings on fume scrubbers. We inherited the facility and associated scrubber that is attached to all our gas cabinets, GRC, and fume hoods. We have little documentation on the PM schedule and no Operating and Maintenance manuals. Basically, we are neutralizing or raising pH to 10, but then over the course of a few minutes up to several hours the system will drop to pH of <5. Acceptable range in our AOP is 5.5 - 11. We see this swing even when tools are idle - there does not appear to be an operational indicator that tracks the system response. System description at a high level: Age of system is 15 years. Last media change - unknown, but plastic media looks mostly normal. Manual fill/drain, system recirculates with addition of caustic soda to balance out acidification - also manual dispense when pH is out of range. We started a bacterial kill that was recommended in the weekly PM schedule about 3 weeks ago and starting seeing this instability in pH a week later. We halted the PM schedule to see what impact there is, if any. Remedies attempted: 1) Added sodium bicarbonate to increase buffering of system. Minimal impact. 2) Multiple drain/flush cycles - pH was normal (7) for few minutes then dropped to 4 shortly after. 3) pH probes were recalibrated and verified to be operational independently. Any recommendations or anecdotal experience would be appreciated. I thank you for participating in this community. Gratefully, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sivapenmetsapr at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 04:00:36 2012 From: sivapenmetsapr at gmail.com (Siva Penmetsa) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 04:00:36 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift In-Reply-To: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> References: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> Message-ID: Hi, We have a new wet scrubber that has a similar issue. When ever we run a process that has HCl as by product the pH reduces drastically(pH< 4 from idle of 8) Maintenance 1. We drain and fill water once every week, and set the pH between 9 and 10 by adding few drops of NaOH solution 2. We monitor the pH periodically (morning and afternoon everyday) and when pH<4 , few drops of NaOH(Sodium Hydroxide) is added so that the pH > 9(pH= 10 is the upper limit) 3. Clean pH probe with water when any deposites on it Hope the above informations helps. Regards, Siva Prasad Raju Penmetsa Senior Facility Technologist Nantional Nano Fabrication Center Indian Institute of Science(IISc) Bangalore, India siva at cense.iisc.ernet.in On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Michael Khbeis wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I was wondering if any of you had experience in pH swings on fume > scrubbers. We inherited the facility and associated scrubber that is > attached to all our gas cabinets, GRC, and fume hoods. We have little > documentation on the PM schedule and no Operating and Maintenance manuals. > Basically, we are neutralizing or raising pH to 10, but then over the > course of a few minutes up to several hours the system will drop to pH of > <5. Acceptable range in our AOP is 5.5 - 11. We see this swing even when > tools are idle - there does not appear to be an operational indicator that > tracks the system response. > > System description at a high level: Age of system is 15 years. Last media > change - unknown, but plastic media looks mostly normal. Manual fill/drain, > system recirculates with addition of caustic soda to balance out > acidification - also manual dispense when pH is out of range. We started a > bacterial kill that was recommended in the weekly PM schedule about 3 weeks > ago and starting seeing this instability in pH a week later. We halted the > PM schedule to see what impact there is, if any. > > Remedies attempted: > 1) Added sodium bicarbonate to increase buffering of system. Minimal > impact. > 2) Multiple drain/flush cycles - pH was normal (7) for few minutes then > dropped to 4 shortly after. > 3) pH probes were recalibrated and verified to be operational > independently. > > Any recommendations or anecdotal experience would be appreciated. I thank > you for participating in this community. > > Gratefully, > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kuhn1 at purdue.edu Wed Jul 25 08:11:13 2012 From: kuhn1 at purdue.edu (Kuhn, Jeffrey G) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:11:13 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift In-Reply-To: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> References: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Khbeis, We have a Harrington fume scrubber at Birck. Your experience is the opposite of ours. In our case, the sump pH typically climbs to around 9.2 and stays there. We are fine with that since our POTW requirements call for a discharge pH of 5.0 - 10.0. The scrubber system was built with a caustic feed pump assuming that the pH would typically drop during normal operations, but in my five years at Birck the caustic pump has never been required. Without knowing your facility's chemicals, gases, or processes, I assume that your scrubber's incoming airstream is similar to ours since we are connected to the same types of equipment. If that is true, then my first thought is that perhaps there is a gas leak somewhere in one of your cabinets or process tools since your scrubber pH drops even when tools are idle. Do you have a toxic gas monitoring system? If so, it should have identified the leak and be in alarm if it is functioning correctly. I do not think that the beaker quantities of acids typically used in fume hoods would produce enough fumes to cause the pH to drop so quickly. This is a bit of a long shot, but do you use ultrapure water for the scrubber sump make-up? If so, the moving airstream would quickly dissolve CO2 into the water and form a dilute carbonic acid. In that event, I could see the pH dropping to as low as 3.5. The cost of producing UPW typically precludes its use in such applications but the formation of carbonic acid would indeed cause the pH to drop. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any additional questions and I will do my best to assist you. 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 Michael Khbeis Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:29 PM To: Fab Network Cc: Leonard Hixson Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift Dear Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you had experience in pH swings on fume scrubbers. We inherited the facility and associated scrubber that is attached to all our gas cabinets, GRC, and fume hoods. We have little documentation on the PM schedule and no Operating and Maintenance manuals. Basically, we are neutralizing or raising pH to 10, but then over the course of a few minutes up to several hours the system will drop to pH of <5. Acceptable range in our AOP is 5.5 - 11. We see this swing even when tools are idle - there does not appear to be an operational indicator that tracks the system response. System description at a high level: Age of system is 15 years. Last media change - unknown, but plastic media looks mostly normal. Manual fill/drain, system recirculates with addition of caustic soda to balance out acidification - also manual dispense when pH is out of range. We started a bacterial kill that was recommended in the weekly PM schedule about 3 weeks ago and starting seeing this instability in pH a week later. We halted the PM schedule to see what impact there is, if any. Remedies attempted: 1) Added sodium bicarbonate to increase buffering of system. Minimal impact. 2) Multiple drain/flush cycles - pH was normal (7) for few minutes then dropped to 4 shortly after. 3) pH probes were recalibrated and verified to be operational independently. Any recommendations or anecdotal experience would be appreciated. I thank you for participating in this community. Gratefully, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Wed Jul 25 11:57:17 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:57:17 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift In-Reply-To: References: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> Message-ID: If the pH is dropping that steadily (and fairly quickly) I would also be looking at the liquid sources that feed this system more than for gaseous sources. Certainly looking at carbonic acid if you are using DI water is a good thing to check. People often try to use a variety of sources of water to reduce usage of potable water. Does your system have an alternative source of water? For example, we use the output of AWN system when the pH is in range. If what senses/controls that is messed up, you could see low pH. In the past, we used to use RO reject water which can also be a low pH source. I think that tracing water lines that feed this system might be a useful exercise to make sure that there's no possible source of low pH water being used to conserve use of potable water. John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 25, 2012, at 5:11 AM, "Kuhn, Jeffrey G" wrote: > Dr. Khbeis, > > We have a Harrington fume scrubber at Birck. Your experience is the opposite of ours. In our case, the sump pH typically climbs to around 9.2 and stays there. We are fine with that since our POTW requirements call for a discharge pH of 5.0 ? 10.0. The scrubber system was built with a caustic feed pump assuming that the pH would typically drop during normal operations, but in my five years at Birck the caustic pump has never been required. > > Without knowing your facility?s chemicals, gases, or processes, I assume that your scrubber?s incoming airstream is similar to ours since we are connected to the same types of equipment. If that is true, then my first thought is that perhaps there is a gas leak somewhere in one of your cabinets or process tools since your scrubber pH drops even when tools are idle. Do you have a toxic gas monitoring system? If so, it should have identified the leak and be in alarm if it is functioning correctly. I do not think that the beaker quantities of acids typically used in fume hoods would produce enough fumes to cause the pH to drop so quickly. > > This is a bit of a long shot, but do you use ultrapure water for the scrubber sump make-up? If so, the moving airstream would quickly dissolve CO2 into the water and form a dilute carbonic acid. In that event, I could see the pH dropping to as low as 3.5. The cost of producing UPW typically precludes its use in such applications but the formation of carbonic acid would indeed cause the pH to drop. > > Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any additional questions and I will do my best to assist you. > > 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 Michael Khbeis > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:29 PM > To: Fab Network > Cc: Leonard Hixson > Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift > > Dear Colleagues, > > I was wondering if any of you had experience in pH swings on fume scrubbers. We inherited the facility and associated scrubber that is attached to all our gas cabinets, GRC, and fume hoods. We have little documentation on the PM schedule and no Operating and Maintenance manuals. Basically, we are neutralizing or raising pH to 10, but then over the course of a few minutes up to several hours the system will drop to pH of <5. Acceptable range in our AOP is 5.5 - 11. We see this swing even when tools are idle - there does not appear to be an operational indicator that tracks the system response. > > System description at a high level: Age of system is 15 years. Last media change - unknown, but plastic media looks mostly normal. Manual fill/drain, system recirculates with addition of caustic soda to balance out acidification - also manual dispense when pH is out of range. We started a bacterial kill that was recommended in the weekly PM schedule about 3 weeks ago and starting seeing this instability in pH a week later. We halted the PM schedule to see what impact there is, if any. > > Remedies attempted: > 1) Added sodium bicarbonate to increase buffering of system. Minimal impact. > 2) Multiple drain/flush cycles - pH was normal (7) for few minutes then dropped to 4 shortly after. > 3) pH probes were recalibrated and verified to be operational independently. > > Any recommendations or anecdotal experience would be appreciated. I thank you for participating in this community. > > Gratefully, > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Wed Jul 25 12:11:24 2012 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:11:24 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift In-Reply-To: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> References: <01DE4D8A-57EF-44AF-BD8C-555ACA16ED01@uw.edu> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EE03FA5@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hello Dr. Khbeis, We supply a fair number of fume scrubbers and here are a few tips that should solve most of the problems with scrubbers. First, the most important part of the pH system is the probe. They last one year no more. Always have a new probe in stock and on a regular basis replace it. If you have to continually recalibrate the system, the probe is bad. Next is to get the hysteresis set up correctly. This should solve the problem. Second. If you over shoot on the pH, never try to buffer it back. Send it to waste treatment and start with fresh water. It is a logarithmic calculation and will take too much buffer to get it back and you will end up with soup. Third. Over flow of the scrubber is critical. Min. .5 gpm and Max. 2 gpm. You should always have fresh water entering the scrubber. Hopefully this helps, but if you have any questions, please let me know. Best Regards, Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 [cid:image003.png at 01CD6A4D.D5309790] www.criticalsystemsinc.com From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:29 AM To: Fab Network Cc: Leonard Hixson Subject: [labnetwork] Fume Scrubber pH Drift Dear Colleagues, I was wondering if any of you had experience in pH swings on fume scrubbers. We inherited the facility and associated scrubber that is attached to all our gas cabinets, GRC, and fume hoods. We have little documentation on the PM schedule and no Operating and Maintenance manuals. Basically, we are neutralizing or raising pH to 10, but then over the course of a few minutes up to several hours the system will drop to pH of <5. Acceptable range in our AOP is 5.5 - 11. We see this swing even when tools are idle - there does not appear to be an operational indicator that tracks the system response. System description at a high level: Age of system is 15 years. Last media change - unknown, but plastic media looks mostly normal. Manual fill/drain, system recirculates with addition of caustic soda to balance out acidification - also manual dispense when pH is out of range. We started a bacterial kill that was recommended in the weekly PM schedule about 3 weeks ago and starting seeing this instability in pH a week later. We halted the PM schedule to see what impact there is, if any. Remedies attempted: 1) Added sodium bicarbonate to increase buffering of system. Minimal impact. 2) Multiple drain/flush cycles - pH was normal (7) for few minutes then dropped to 4 shortly after. 3) pH probes were recalibrated and verified to be operational independently. Any recommendations or anecdotal experience would be appreciated. I thank you for participating in this community. Gratefully, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 21892 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From mheiden at engr.ucr.edu Wed Jul 25 19:05:41 2012 From: mheiden at engr.ucr.edu (Mark Heiden) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:05:41 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms Message-ID: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside your cleanrooms? We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will already be full of hard line network ports. If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are there any potential equipment interference issues? Thanks in advance, Mark Heiden UC Riverside Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering NanoFab Cleanroom Manager (951) 827-2551 mheiden at engr.ucr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.aebersold at louisville.edu Thu Jul 26 09:13:07 2012 From: julia.aebersold at louisville.edu (Aebersold,Julia W.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:13:07 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms In-Reply-To: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> References: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Message-ID: We use primarily wireless with some Ethernet ports, which are provided by the university. The reason why is that our IT group charges $10/ethernet port per month. Hence, these charges steered us towards wireless. Now they are going to a one time fee of $550 to turn on a port. I am in the process of considering Badger, which will maneuver me to wireless even more. Cheers! Julia Aebersold, Ph.D. MNTC Cleanroom Manager Shumaker Research Building, Room 233 2210 South Brook Street University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292 502-852-1572 http://louisville.edu/micronano/ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Heiden Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:06 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside your cleanrooms? We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will already be full of hard line network ports. If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are there any potential equipment interference issues? Thanks in advance, Mark Heiden UC Riverside Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering NanoFab Cleanroom Manager (951) 827-2551 mheiden at engr.ucr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Thu Jul 26 12:22:06 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:22:06 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms In-Reply-To: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> References: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Message-ID: Mark We provide wireless access in our clean room for use of laptops, iPads, smart phones, and similar devices. My guess is that if you don't provide wireless, you'll have a collection of self-installed wireless access points ? which will probably cause you more headaches than an "official" installation. Clean rooms often provide a challenge in terms of getting good wireless coverage given all of the steel that tends to block good coverage. Note, we also have a collection of wireless sensors that are monitoring a variety of facility utilities. To my knowledge, we've never seen problems with wireless signals interfering with equipment. Things like RF supplies and "bang-bang" heater circuits seem to offer greater potential for interference ? often by inducing noise on AC lines. I would suggest that you add wireless to the list of utilities in you clean room. John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 25, 2012, at 5:05 PM, "Mark Heiden" wrote: > Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside your cleanrooms? > We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will already be full of hard line network ports. > If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are there any potential equipment interference issues? > > Thanks in advance, > > > Mark Heiden > UC Riverside > Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering > NanoFab Cleanroom Manager > (951) 827-2551 > mheiden at engr.ucr.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 mheiden at engr.ucr.edu Thu Jul 26 14:53:22 2012 From: mheiden at engr.ucr.edu (Mark Heiden) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:53:22 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network Responses Message-ID: <008301cd6b5f$ee139ba0$ca3ad2e0$@engr.ucr.edu> Thanks to all for the quick and comprehensive responses. There seems to be no downside to having these inexpensive wireless antennae installed to add another capability to our space. Cheers, Mark Heiden UC Riverside Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering NanoFab Cleanroom Manager (951) 827-2551 mheiden at engr.ucr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca Thu Jul 26 15:11:03 2012 From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:11:03 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Arsenic(III) sulfide Message-ID: Dear network, A user would like to use our spincoater to spin coat a solution made of Arsenic(III) sulfide dissolved in Propylamine. Goal is to make Chalcogenides waveguides. Any body familiar with this substance ? My prior concerns are safety since my wetbenches are not real fume hoods and contamination of course. Matthieu From vincent.luciani at nist.gov Thu Jul 26 16:36:21 2012 From: vincent.luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:36:21 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms In-Reply-To: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> References: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Message-ID: <01F47D4EDEEC64488C10B767D15E4858100F8BCF77@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> Hello Mark, After a couple tests and months of contemplation we came to the conclusion that wireless repeater system would have no deleterious effect. We installed the attached equipment and it works well with no effect on nearby experiments; including very sensitive TEM's and the like. This is not an endorsement of this brand we think there are many COTS products that would work just as well. Good Luck, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 [cid:image001.jpg at 01CD6B4C.DF3213E0] From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Heiden Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:06 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside your cleanrooms? We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will already be full of hard line network ports. If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are there any potential equipment interference issues? Thanks in advance, Mark Heiden UC Riverside Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering NanoFab Cleanroom Manager (951) 827-2551 mheiden at engr.ucr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6965 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NPRM.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 81409 bytes Desc: NPRM.PDF URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Multi-Band Indoor Ceiling Antenna.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 269840 bytes Desc: Multi-Band Indoor Ceiling Antenna.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Quad Band Yagi Antenna.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 239127 bytes Desc: Quad Band Yagi Antenna.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JD60-4-DB Product Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288445 bytes Desc: JD60-4-DB Product Flyer.pdf URL: From kevin.walsh at louisville.edu Thu Jul 26 17:45:19 2012 From: kevin.walsh at louisville.edu (Walsh,Kevin M.) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:45:19 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Open Endowed Chair Position in bioMEMS at Univ of Louisville Message-ID: <0D1ABD6DF2541B42A05BD6E6D369541132F37B03@EXMBX03.ad.louisville.edu> University of Louisville DEPARTMENT OF BIOENGINEERING Endowed Chair Positions in BioMEMS The Department of Bioengineering in the J. B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville (UofL) was founded in 2004 and has quickly become a leader in education and translational research. In 2010, our department became the first bioengineering program in the country to be dual-level accredited by the ABET EAC for the integrated Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering degrees. In 2011, the UofL Department of Bioengineering received the Coulter Translational Partnership Award from the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation to promote translational research between bioengineers and clinicians. UofL is currently ranked as a Carnegie Research Intensive institution that has gained international recognition in recent years for its pioneering research in the areas of BioMEMS/NEMS (new top-10 cleanroom in the US), Cardiovascular Devices (1st Totally Implantable Artificial Heart Procedure), Cancer Therapy ($80M Brown Cancer Center), Orthopedics (1st hand transplant in U.S.), Neurosurgery and Neuroscience (1st to establish voluntary movement in a paraplegic patient), and Stem Cell Biology (Institute for Cellular Therapeutics). The bioengineering effort is a fast growing program with eight full-time faculty conducting bioengineering research currently supported by over $13M in extramural funding. A primary mission of the Bioengineering Department is to develop a top research program for the discovery and commercialization of technologies that will translate into effective therapies, restore patient quality of life, and stimulate economic development. The Bioengineering Department is recruiting two endowed chairs - one in the area of BioMEMS and the other in the area of Cardiac Implant Science to partner with researchers in the Brown Cancer Center, Kentucky Spinal Cord Injury Research Center and Cardiovascular Innovation Institute. Applications and nominations will be accepted and reviewed on a continuous basis until all the positions are filled. The successful candidate will have the opportunity to leverage the University's recent $30M investment in MEMS and nanotechnology through the use of the new AGI-designed 10,000 sq ft class 100/1000 MicroNanoTechnology Cleanroom. Applicants must apply on-line at http://www.louisville.edu/jobs, reference ID (BioMEMS - #26879 and Cardiac Implant Science - #26882), and submit the following: (1) cover letter clearly stating the position name and the job ID number; (2) a summary of research interests and teaching interests; (3) curriculum vitae; (4) copies of one or two recent publications; and (5) three letters of reference. Please direct any questions or inquiries for the positions to: Palaniappan Sethu, PhD Chair, Department of Bioengineering Search Committee c/o Nancy Hansford e-mail to: nahans01 at louisville.edu The University of Louisville is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity employer and encourages qualified women and minorities to apply. Dr. Kevin M. Walsh Samuel T. Fife Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Founding Director of the UofL Micro/Nanotechnology Center University of Louisville BRB Building, Room 234 2210 S. Brook St Louisville, KY 40292 (502) 852-0826 office (502) 852-8128 fax walsh at louisville.edu or walsh at ieee.org www.louisville.edu /micronano -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eheves at sabanciuniv.edu Thu Jul 26 18:38:38 2012 From: eheves at sabanciuniv.edu (Emre Heves) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:38:38 +0300 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms In-Reply-To: References: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Message-ID: <5011C6EE.9030002@sabanciuniv.edu> Dear John, what about more critical equipment like an E-beam lithography tool? Can wireless signal be a problem in terms of electromagnetic noise? Regards Emre -- Emre Heves Sabanc? University Nanotechnology Research and Application Center Orta Mahalle, ?niversite Caddesi No: 27 34956 Tuzla-I.stanbul Office: 0 216 483 9884 Fax: 0 216 483 9885 Email: eheves at sabanciuniv.edu http://sunum.sabanciuniv.edu/ On 26.07.2012 19:22, John Shott wrote: > Mark > > We provide wireless access in our clean room for use of laptops, > iPads, smart phones, and similar devices. My guess is that if you > don't provide wireless, you'll have a collection of self-installed > wireless access points ... which will probably cause you more > headaches than an "official" installation. > > Clean rooms often provide a challenge in terms of getting good > wireless coverage given all of the steel that tends to block good > coverage. Note, we also have a collection of wireless sensors that are > monitoring a variety of facility utilities. > > To my knowledge, we've never seen problems with wireless signals > interfering with equipment. Things like RF supplies and "bang-bang" > heater circuits seem to offer greater potential for interference ... > often by inducing noise on AC lines. > > I would suggest that you add wireless to the list of utilities in you > clean room. > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 5:05 PM, "Mark Heiden" > wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside >> your cleanrooms? >> >> We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted >> wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will >> already be full of hard line network ports. >> >> If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are >> there any potential equipment interference issues? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Mark Heiden >> UC Riverside >> Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering >> NanoFab Cleanroom Manager >> (951) 827-2551 >> mheiden at engr.ucr.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eheves at sabanciuniv.edu Thu Jul 26 18:53:38 2012 From: eheves at sabanciuniv.edu (Emre Heves) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:53:38 +0300 Subject: [labnetwork] E-Beam & thermal Evaporator Message-ID: <5011CA72.5020705@sabanciuniv.edu> Dear Colleagues, we have two evaporator systems on our site, one is capable of E-beam and thermal evaporation and the other one is only capable of thermal evaporation. We are thinking to seperate the metals that can create cross contamination. We are thinking to evaporate metals like Cr, Au, Ge, Ti, Ni, Nb, Pt, W, Mo in E-beam system. Does Al create cross contamination with these metals? And also what about Fe. As I know some groups evaporate Fe in separated chambers. Thanks in advance for your valuable comments. Regards Emre -- Emre Heves Sabanc? University Nanotechnology Research and Application Center Orta Mahalle, ?niversite Caddesi No: 27 34956 Tuzla-?stanbul Office: 0 216 483 9884 Fax: 0 216 483 9885 Email: eheves at sabanciuniv.edu http://sunum.sabanciuniv.edu/ From ds120 at gatech.edu Thu Jul 26 21:29:58 2012 From: ds120 at gatech.edu (Dean Sutter) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:29:58 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Wireless Network In Cleanrooms In-Reply-To: References: <000601cd6aba$033cccf0$09b666d0$@engr.ucr.edu> Message-ID: <5011EF16.3080408@gatech.edu> Mark, We at GT use it similarly. Same suggestion, install it. Dean On 7/26/2012 12:22 PM, John Shott wrote: > Mark > > We provide wireless access in our clean room for use of laptops, > iPads, smart phones, and similar devices. My guess is that if you > don't provide wireless, you'll have a collection of self-installed > wireless access points ... which will probably cause you more > headaches than an "official" installation. > > Clean rooms often provide a challenge in terms of getting good > wireless coverage given all of the steel that tends to block good > coverage. Note, we also have a collection of wireless sensors that are > monitoring a variety of facility utilities. > > To my knowledge, we've never seen problems with wireless signals > interfering with equipment. Things like RF supplies and "bang-bang" > heater circuits seem to offer greater potential for interference ... > often by inducing noise on AC lines. > > I would suggest that you add wireless to the list of utilities in you > clean room. > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 25, 2012, at 5:05 PM, "Mark Heiden" > wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, Have any of you implemented wireless networks inside >> your cleanrooms? >> >> We are constructing a new facility and I was asked if I wanted >> wireless installed and my first reaction was why? The clean-bays will >> already be full of hard line network ports. >> >> If you are using a wireless network what are you using it for and are >> there any potential equipment interference issues? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Mark Heiden >> UC Riverside >> Center for Nanoscale Science and Engineering >> NanoFab Cleanroom Manager >> (951) 827-2551 >> mheiden at engr.ucr.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Dean A. Sutter Associate Director, Research Operations and Business Development Inst. of Electronics and Nanotechnologies Georgia Institute of Technology dean.sutter at ien.gatech.edu 404 894 3847 - Office 404 558 1844 - Cell www.ien.gatech.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From warren.lai at rutgers.edu Fri Jul 27 15:58:54 2012 From: warren.lai at rutgers.edu (Warren Lai) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:58:54 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD cross contamination issue Message-ID: <019901cd6c32$40434f10$c0c9ed30$@rutgers.edu> Colleagues I have a cross contamination question on our Cambridge ALD tool. A user requests to do Al2O3 on Bi2Se3 and Nb structures on sapphire (and prefers to use only acetone and IPA pre-clean). Does anyone know: 1. If there is cross-contamination issue for MOS users? 2. Any procedure to minimize the contamination (Additional pre-clean or post-clean? Certain deposition to "bury" the contamination etc.)? Several things to note are: a. The exposed areas are sapphire, Bi2Se3 and Nb b. The device is made by MBE and ion-milling, so the device (and exposed area of Bi2Se3 and Nb) is quite small c. Because of MBE, the Bi2Se3 is quality grade and "clean" d. They prefer pre-clean with only acetone and IPA (based on some limited experience of acid damage to the device) Your advice will be most appreciated. Best regards, Warren Lai, Ph.D. Associate Director Micro Electronics Research Laboratory (MERL) Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Room EE-115 94 Brett Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 732-445-0680 warren.lai at rutgers.edu www.merl.rutgers.edu www.ece.rutgers.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jprovine at stanford.edu Sat Jul 28 17:04:42 2012 From: jprovine at stanford.edu (J Provine) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:04:42 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD cross contamination issue In-Reply-To: <019901cd6c32$40434f10$c0c9ed30$@rutgers.edu> References: <019901cd6c32$40434f10$c0c9ed30$@rutgers.edu> Message-ID: hi warren, i would think this is a cross-contamination issue for MOS users because of the Bi2Se3. the Nb and sapphire, are not a concern. if you really want to do this, i think you need to eliminate physical contact (tweezers, sliding on the heater of the chamber, etc. luckily ald is relatively low in temperature and you can paste the chamber after the run. i'm assuming this is a savannah ald tool. some recommendations: 1) have them keep their pieces on a clean Si or oxidized Si carrier wafer. 2) the tweezers that go into chamber and touch the Si carrier wafer should not be the tweezers touching the contaminated sample 3) after deposition run 200 cycles of alumina on an empty chamber to coat everything down with 20nm of film (user should book this time as well). 4) (optional) to really be careful, you could make a MOSCAP before and after the above three steps and compare performance. if the chamber was contaminated (as shown by CV degradation) you could put the user on the hook cleaning the chamber - which would cause a few days to a week of downtime. but if everything is great, then the above can be the procedure going forward. we follow steps 1-3 for a GaAs and InGaAs samples because we found through 4 that it isn't leave a lasting issue. hope this helps. j On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Warren Lai wrote: > Colleagues**** > > ** ** > > I have a cross contamination question on our Cambridge ALD tool. A user > requests to do Al2O3 on Bi2Se3 and Nb structures on sapphire (and prefers > to use only acetone and IPA pre-clean). Does anyone know:**** > > **1. **If there is cross-contamination issue for MOS users?**** > > **2. **Any procedure to minimize the contamination (Additional > pre-clean or post-clean? Certain deposition to ?bury? the contamination > etc.)?**** > > Several things to note are:**** > > **a. **The exposed areas are sapphire, Bi2Se3 and Nb**** > > **b. **The device is made by MBE and ion-milling, so the device (and > exposed area of Bi2Se3 and Nb) is quite small**** > > **c. **Because of MBE, the Bi2Se3 is quality grade and ?clean?**** > > **d. **They prefer pre-clean with only acetone and IPA (based on > some limited experience of acid damage to the device)**** > > ** ** > > Your advice will be most appreciated.**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > Warren Lai, Ph.D.**** > > Associate Director**** > > Micro Electronics Research Laboratory (MERL)**** > > Electrical and Computer Engineering Department**** > > Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey**** > > Room EE-115**** > > 94 Brett Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854**** > > 732-445-0680**** > > warren.lai at rutgers.edu**** > > www.merl.rutgers.edu**** > > www.ece.rutgers.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 warren.lai at rutgers.edu Mon Jul 30 13:02:50 2012 From: warren.lai at rutgers.edu (Warren Lai) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:50 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD cross contamination issue In-Reply-To: References: <019901cd6c32$40434f10$c0c9ed30$@rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <006901cd6e75$276b60f0$764222d0$@rutgers.edu> John Thank you for sharing the details, so we can make an informed decision. Most appreciated. Best, Warren Warren Lai, Associate Director, MERL, ECE, Rutgers EE-115 warren.lai at rutgers.edu 732-445-0680 www.merl.rutgers.edu From: J Provine [mailto:jprovine at stanford.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 5:05 PM To: warren.lai at rutgers.edu Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] ALD cross contamination issue hi warren, i would think this is a cross-contamination issue for MOS users because of the Bi2Se3. the Nb and sapphire, are not a concern. if you really want to do this, i think you need to eliminate physical contact (tweezers, sliding on the heater of the chamber, etc. luckily ald is relatively low in temperature and you can paste the chamber after the run. i'm assuming this is a savannah ald tool. some recommendations: 1) have them keep their pieces on a clean Si or oxidized Si carrier wafer. 2) the tweezers that go into chamber and touch the Si carrier wafer should not be the tweezers touching the contaminated sample 3) after deposition run 200 cycles of alumina on an empty chamber to coat everything down with 20nm of film (user should book this time as well). 4) (optional) to really be careful, you could make a MOSCAP before and after the above three steps and compare performance. if the chamber was contaminated (as shown by CV degradation) you could put the user on the hook cleaning the chamber - which would cause a few days to a week of downtime. but if everything is great, then the above can be the procedure going forward. we follow steps 1-3 for a GaAs and InGaAs samples because we found through 4 that it isn't leave a lasting issue. hope this helps. j On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Warren Lai wrote: Colleagues I have a cross contamination question on our Cambridge ALD tool. A user requests to do Al2O3 on Bi2Se3 and Nb structures on sapphire (and prefers to use only acetone and IPA pre-clean). Does anyone know: 1. If there is cross-contamination issue for MOS users? 2. Any procedure to minimize the contamination (Additional pre-clean or post-clean? Certain deposition to "bury" the contamination etc.)? Several things to note are: a. The exposed areas are sapphire, Bi2Se3 and Nb b. The device is made by MBE and ion-milling, so the device (and exposed area of Bi2Se3 and Nb) is quite small c. Because of MBE, the Bi2Se3 is quality grade and "clean" d. They prefer pre-clean with only acetone and IPA (based on some limited experience of acid damage to the device) Your advice will be most appreciated. Best regards, Warren Lai, Ph.D. Associate Director Micro Electronics Research Laboratory (MERL) Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Room EE-115 94 Brett Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 732-445-0680 warren.lai at rutgers.edu www.merl.rutgers.edu www.ece.rutgers.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 hwooden at iest.org Tue Jul 31 11:15:00 2012 From: hwooden at iest.org (Heather Wooden) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:15:00 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Nanotechnology Session Track Added to IEST Annual Technical Meeting Message-ID: The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST) announces that a new track of sessions has been added to ESTECH 2013, the 59th Annual Technical Meeting and Exposition of IEST, which will be held in conjunction with the University, Government, Industry Micro/Nano (UGIM) consortium. Presentation abstracts for the new track, Operation and Management of Nanotechnology Research and Manufacturing Facilities, are now being accepted on the following topics: Nanotechnology Facility Management - Management systems - Scheduling and billing - Space utilization and prioritization - Rules and enforcement - Priorities: Research vs. Education - Staff management structures - Fostering collaboration - International partnerships and collaboration Dealing with Anomalies - Emergency planning and response - PM shutdown management - Recovery from events Financial Management - Charging models - Income streams - Reporting Materials Management - Chemical procurement and distribution - Decommissioning equipment and nanotechnology facilities - ITAR and Homeland Security issues - Priorities for equipment purchases - Processing equipment selection - Collaboration and cross-contamination - Sustainability opportunities in nanotechnology cleanrooms - Training and education The deadline for abstracts is September 17, 2012. For more information on submitting presentation abstracts, contact Heather Wooden at marketing at iest.org or 847-981-0100. ESTECH 2013, the 59th Annual Technical Meeting and Exposition of IEST, offers technical conference sessions, continuing education training courses, working group meetings, and exhibits in the fields of contamination control; design, test, and evaluation; product reliability; aerospace; and nanotechnology. The conference will take place April 29-May 2, 2013, in San Diego, California. More information about IEST can be found at www.iest.org. Heather Wooden IEST Marketing and Meeting Coordinator Arlington Place One 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road Suite 100 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Phone: 847-981-0100 ext. 20 E-mail: hwooden at iest.org Mark your calendars for the 2012 IEST Fall Conference - November 12-15 in northshore suburban Chicago. *IEST - Membership Is a Best Practice - www.iest.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: