From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Mon Apr 1 11:22:44 2013 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:22:44 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Guardian Air REME by RGF / AirMaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5159A644.9070107@eecs.berkeley.edu> Dennis, Heard of it. Haven't used it. Evaluated it during design and came up with the following: 1. Another system to buy and maintain. 2. Efficiency and capture effectiveness of hepas is well established. 3. Unclear how it will lower costs unless they link it with decreased fan speed.We can all lower fan speed when the lab is empty and save as much (or more) energy. 4. Though the filters may be effective at lower fan speed with charged particles -lowering fan speed decreases entrainment of particles in the lab space. We have to get the particles to the filter - and a minimum linear velocity is needed to do that. 5. Unclear (skeptical) how it will reduce hepa load. We have to capture whatever there is to capture whether we electrostatically activate it to enhance capture or not. i.e. the load seems fixed by occupancy and activity. 6. NIOSH already has encouraging data of non charged hepas as effective for nanoparticle capture. I would not want this company to tout their product as "required" for nanoparticle or nanowire filtering. Sincerely, Bill Flounders Berkeley NanoLab Dennis Grimard wrote: > All: > > Has anyone used or heard of this technology or this company? > > They claim to be able to purify the air reducing the load on the HEPAs > thereby lowering energy costs (not sure what they are > actually claiming ... but I think it is something like that). > > -- > Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D > Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility > > University of Michigan > 1246D EECS Building > 1301 Beal Avenue > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 > (734) 368-7172 (Cell) > (734) 647-1781 (Fax) > http://www.lnf.umich.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 vmenon at qc.cuny.edu Wed Apr 3 17:23:07 2013 From: vmenon at qc.cuny.edu (Vinod Menon) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:23:07 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom Laboratory Manager - City University of New York (CUNY) Message-ID: Wanted to bring to your attention an opening for a clean room manager at the new Advanced Science Research Center of CUNY in Manhattan. (http://asrc.cuny.edu/asrc.html) Here is link to the advertisement: http://cunyportal.cuny.edu/cms/id/cuny/documents/AdditionalJob/032909.htm#P-4_0 Best Vinod -- Vinod M. Menon Associate Professor of Physics The City University of New York (CUNY) Tel. (718)997-3147 Fax.(718)997-3349 vmenon at qc.cuny.edu http://physics.qc.edu/pages/vmenon/ www.lanmp.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Thu Apr 4 07:51:22 2013 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:51:22 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] versatile electrical measurement system ? Message-ID: Colleagues, I'm trying to find a plug and play (electrical measurement) system for the clean room. I know a lot depends on applications (but we're just getting started and those applications are not clear). I would prefer not to have to build/configure a system myself. Has anyone had experience with CV measurement systems attached. Best Regards Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile 978-934-1014 fax -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CV Measurement Brochure.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 138478 bytes Desc: CV Measurement Brochure.pdf URL: From anjum04 at gmail.com Thu Apr 4 08:08:47 2013 From: anjum04 at gmail.com (Anjum Ahmed) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:38:47 +0530 Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding MFC_IIT Bombay Message-ID: Dear Sir, We are using toxic gases like silane, phosphine,Diborane, hydrogen, ammonia in our lab. We have a query whether Nitrogen gas Mass flow controller (MFC) can be used for following gases: 1.Silane 2.Diborane 3.Phosphine 4. Ammonia If we can use, what are the correction factors we need to follow. Also, whether the above gas MFCs are compatible with each other. Is there any safety concern. Please advice for the same. Regards, Anjum Ahmed, CEN, Eectrical Engg Dept, Annex, IIT Bombay,Mumbai, Powai-400076. Tel no. 02225764464 / 9920470606 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From khbeis at uw.edu Thu Apr 4 10:21:36 2013 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 07:21:36 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Thick, high purity copper plating source Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have a researcher working on a DOE program that will require structures that are 1mm thick and have lateral dimension tolerances <10um in high purity copper. There is a source claiming this capability online, but they have been unresponsive. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a source short of outsourcing a LIGA process. 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 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Thu Apr 4 13:01:36 2013 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:01:36 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] ion-implantion & CO2 snow cleaning Message-ID: <515DB1F0.1050806@eecs.berkeley.edu> Colleagues, Two general questions: Can anyone provide experience with implants from Cutting Edge Ions? We have used Innovion (formerly CORE) with good results; however, we like to provide our members choices for specialized services and prefer to do this based on experience. We find the NanoLab need for specialized cleaning services, such as PVD shields and etch chamber liners is increasing. There are some cleaning tasks that traditional bead-blasting, chemical etching and plasma do not address, such as stripping Parylene from a coater. Is anyone familiar with CO2 snow cleaning? Is this a technology that can be brought in-house? Thank you in advance, Bob Hamilton -- Bob Hamilton Marvel NanoLab University of CA at Berkeley Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (e-mail preferred) 510-809-8600 510-325-7557 (mobile - emergencies) From william.l.benard.civ at mail.mil Fri Apr 5 09:11:33 2013 From: william.l.benard.civ at mail.mil (Benard, William L CIV USARMY ARL (US)) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:11:33 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Thick, high purity copper plating source (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1DBF5BF50017CC4FAD327FD5409ADF102C7CEAEF@umechphc.easf.csd.disa.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Mike, I don't know whether they can meet extreme purity requirements, but I have had very good experience in the past working with Dave Roberts, now at Silicon Valley Wafer Plating (http://www.waferplating.com/). He knows his stuff and has been willing to engage on challenging plating projects. Best regards, William William Benard Ph.D. Cleanroom Manager U.S. Army Research Laboratory Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate (RDRL-SEG) 2800 Powder Mill Road Adelphi, MD, 20783-1473 Phone: 301-394-1322 Cell: 240-753-2510 Fax: 301-394-1074 E-mail: william.l.benard.civ at mail.mil -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:22 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Thick, high purity copper plating source Dear Colleagues, We have a researcher working on a DOE program that will require structures that are 1mm thick and have lateral dimension tolerances <10um in high purity copper. There is a source claiming this capability online, but they have been unresponsive. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a source short of outsourcing a LIGA process. 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 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5575 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rmorrison at draper.com Fri Apr 5 09:57:57 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:57:57 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] versatile electrical measurement system ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Tom, Back in the late 80's and early 90's I used a MDC system and it was very easy to use and repeatable. Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:51 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] versatile electrical measurement system ? Colleagues, I'm trying to find a plug and play (electrical measurement) system for the clean room. I know a lot depends on applications (but we're just getting started and those applications are not clear). I would prefer not to have to build/configure a system myself. Has anyone had experience with CV measurement systems attached. Best Regards Thomas S. Ferraguto ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director University of Massachusetts Lowell 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854-5120 978-934-1809 land 617-755-0910 mobile 978-934-1014 fax -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elliscd at auburn.edu Fri Apr 5 11:58:17 2013 From: elliscd at auburn.edu (Charles Ellis) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:58:17 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Thick, high purity copper plating source (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <1DBF5BF50017CC4FAD327FD5409ADF102C7CEAEF@umechphc.easf.csd.disa.mil> Message-ID: Mike, You may also want to try a technique we have used in the past to generate similar structures- we DRIE holes in silicon and then fill with copper, polish the surface, and then remove the silicon. You can get very tight tolerances on these holes using the Bosch process - We have made very high aspect ratio structures for people needing ion milling mask structures. One of the grad students published on this technique ( http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/2681/Adanur,%20Emir%20Thes is%20Final.pdf?sequence=2 ). Hope this helps - Charles Ellis.. Auburn University 334-750-0734 On 4/5/13 8:11 AM, "Benard, William L CIV USARMY ARL (US)" wrote: >Classification: UNCLASSIFIED >Caveats: NONE > >Mike, > >I don't know whether they can meet extreme purity requirements, but I >have had >very good experience in the past working with Dave Roberts, now at >Silicon >Valley Wafer Plating (http://www.waferplating.com/). He knows his stuff >and >has been willing to engage on challenging plating projects. > > >Best regards, > >William > >William Benard Ph.D. >Cleanroom Manager >U.S. Army Research Laboratory >Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate (RDRL-SEG) >2800 Powder Mill Road >Adelphi, MD, 20783-1473 >Phone: 301-394-1322 >Cell: 240-753-2510 >Fax: 301-394-1074 >E-mail: william.l.benard.civ at mail.mil > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu >[mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] >On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis >Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:22 AM >To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >Subject: [labnetwork] Thick, high purity copper plating source > >Dear Colleagues, > >We have a researcher working on a DOE program that will require >structures >that are 1mm thick and have lateral dimension tolerances <10um in high >purity >copper. There is a source claiming this capability online, but they have >been >unresponsive. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a source short of >outsourcing a LIGA process. > >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 > >Classification: UNCLASSIFIED >Caveats: NONE > > From shott at stanford.edu Thu Apr 11 11:47:30 2013 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:47:30 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? Message-ID: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Labnetwork Community: Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). Thanks for your consideration, John From gpl107 at psu.edu Thu Apr 11 15:46:35 2013 From: gpl107 at psu.edu (Lavallee, Guy P.) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:46:35 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: John, I believe the issue with the Fluorine chemistries is the formation of HF if you ever have water in the CDA which then gets into the pumps. The potential of creating this would obviously be dependent on how much unreacted fluorine would reach the pump as well as how reactive the effluents would be with water leading to the formation of HF. The other issue you have to think about besides water (which the pumps won't like either regardless of HF formation) would be the potential of oil being in the CDA. This will be highly dependent on the type of CDA system you have at your facility. We have thought about changing from N2 to CDA as well but have been very hesitate due to the many unknowns and not wanting to risk it. It would be interesting to hear others inputs. Thanks, Guy Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory Lead Etch Engineer Materials Research Institute N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gpl107 at psu.edu Phone: 814-865-9339 Cell: 814-777-0719 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John Shott Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:48 AM To: Labnetwork Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? Labnetwork Community: Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). Thanks for your consideration, John _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au Thu Apr 11 19:18:49 2013 From: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au (Fouad Karouta) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:18:49 +1000 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <002a01ce370a$ec6ba000$c542e000$@anu.edu.au> Hi John, It is true N2 for purging dry pumps can be a very pricy item. I don't believe CDA is an option especially with a PECVD tool when using SiH4 for instance. An idea for discussion: I believe the pumps do require a really low amount of N2 when in standby (about 1 SLM) while the 25-30SLM should be used (required) during processes and I am investigating with equipment manufacturers to add a feature to the software controlling the total system which would increase N2 flow when starting a process and maintain it like 10-15 min after process end and switch back to standby mode. Most dry pumps controls allow such a feature but manufacturers are not implementing it among their options and if all of us would push in that direction I am convinced we can reach there. Kind regards, Fouad ********************************* 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 John Shott Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013 1:48 AM To: Labnetwork Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? Labnetwork Community: Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). Thanks for your consideration, John _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Thu Apr 11 20:40:49 2013 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:40:49 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <51675811.1010509@eecs.berkeley.edu> All, I believe this is a simple and valuable savings in select applications at the discretion of each facility. We estimate $2k/pump/year savings. Our CDA is backed up with auto crossover to N2 - so these pumps get auto backup for purge gas. Our oil free compressors and -75F monitored dewpoint CDA will be replacing N2 at two select tools within the week. We will report our results. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Lavallee, Guy P. wrote: > John, > I believe the issue with the Fluorine chemistries is the formation of HF if you ever have water in the CDA which then gets into the pumps. The potential of creating this would obviously be dependent on how much unreacted fluorine would reach the pump as well as how reactive the effluents would be with water leading to the formation of HF. > > The other issue you have to think about besides water (which the pumps won't like either regardless of HF formation) would be the potential of oil being in the CDA. This will be highly dependent on the type of CDA system you have at your facility. > > We have thought about changing from N2 to CDA as well but have been very hesitate due to the many unknowns and not wanting to risk it. It would be interesting to hear others inputs. > > Thanks, > Guy > > Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory > Lead Etch Engineer > Materials Research Institute > N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) > University Park, PA 16802 > Email: gpl107 at psu.edu > Phone: 814-865-9339 > Cell: 814-777-0719 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John Shott > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:48 AM > To: Labnetwork > Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? > > Labnetwork Community: > > Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. > > Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. > > What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). > > Thanks for your consideration, > > John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 raghavan at ece.iisc.ernet.in Fri Apr 12 00:28:18 2013 From: raghavan at ece.iisc.ernet.in (raghavan) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:58:18 +0530 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <005301ce3736$29c71e40$7d555ac0$@iisc.ernet.in> Dear Guy, John and Fouad I am very glad to see this discussion on Labnetwork. We at NNFC are also facing similar issues. It turns out, our SPTS DRIE tool pumps will let in N2 only when the process is running. During the process idle time the N2 flow is turned off. We also have Oxford instrument's RIE and PECVD tools which have a 24/7 N2 flow need, a very high consumption. Last week we were informed that Oxfod is introducing a new software interface to control Nitrogen flow. I will post the details when I get them. Regards Raghavan ************************************************* Dr.Vijayaraghavan Technology Manager National Nanofabrication Centre Centre for Nano Science and Engineering Indian institute of Science ( IISc) Bangalore - 560 012 India Ph: 09663304316 *************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Lavallee, Guy P. Sent: 12 April 2013 01:17 To: John Shott; Labnetwork Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? John, I believe the issue with the Fluorine chemistries is the formation of HF if you ever have water in the CDA which then gets into the pumps. The potential of creating this would obviously be dependent on how much unreacted fluorine would reach the pump as well as how reactive the effluents would be with water leading to the formation of HF. The other issue you have to think about besides water (which the pumps won't like either regardless of HF formation) would be the potential of oil being in the CDA. This will be highly dependent on the type of CDA system you have at your facility. We have thought about changing from N2 to CDA as well but have been very hesitate due to the many unknowns and not wanting to risk it. It would be interesting to hear others inputs. Thanks, Guy Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory Lead Etch Engineer Materials Research Institute N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) University Park, PA 16802 Email: gpl107 at psu.edu Phone: 814-865-9339 Cell: 814-777-0719 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John Shott Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:48 AM To: Labnetwork Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? Labnetwork Community: Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). Thanks for your consideration, John _______________________________________________ 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 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From vamsinittala at gmail.com Fri Apr 12 00:36:47 2013 From: vamsinittala at gmail.com (N P VAMSI KRISHNA) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:06:47 +0530 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: Dear John, Even we face same problem. Our Dry etch and PECVD tools drink more N2 than any other pumps in the clean room. We found our DRIE tool has an inbuilt software option which restricts the pump N2 flow during stand by mode, which is really helping us to save a lot of N2. For the same option we had a long discussion with our RIE and PECVD manufacturer; recently we got to know that they also developed a software for the same, which we still need to purchase and install. For your tools you may need to talk to the manufactures if they have any option as such. So as Fouad mentioned that would be great if the all the manufactures work on this. Thanks & Regards, *Vamsi Krishna* Sr.Facility Technologist - Dry Etch & Process Integration National Nano Fabrication Center Center for Nano Science and Engineering (CeNSE) Indian Institute of Science(IISc) Bangalore 560012, INDIA Mobile: +91 9880988239 On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Lavallee, Guy P. wrote: > John, > I believe the issue with the Fluorine chemistries is the formation of > HF if you ever have water in the CDA which then gets into the pumps. The > potential of creating this would obviously be dependent on how much > unreacted fluorine would reach the pump as well as how reactive the > effluents would be with water leading to the formation of HF. > > The other issue you have to think about besides water (which the pumps > won't like either regardless of HF formation) would be the potential of oil > being in the CDA. This will be highly dependent on the type of CDA system > you have at your facility. > > We have thought about changing from N2 to CDA as well but have been very > hesitate due to the many unknowns and not wanting to risk it. It would be > interesting to hear others inputs. > > Thanks, > Guy > > Penn State University's Nanofabrication Laboratory > Lead Etch Engineer > Materials Research Institute > N-105 Millennium Science Complex (MSC Bldg) > University Park, PA 16802 > Email: gpl107 at psu.edu > Phone: 814-865-9339 > Cell: 814-777-0719 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto: > labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John Shott > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:48 AM > To: Labnetwork > Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in > Bosch-like processes? > > Labnetwork Community: > > Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary > expense associated with running our facility. > > Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average > dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our > pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes > using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using > nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as > obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a > SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that > many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 > bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University > supplied and supported building utility. > > What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to > switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it > matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is > not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). > > Thanks for your consideration, > > John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Thanks & Regards, *Vamsi Krishna* Sr.Facility Technologist - Process Integration National Nano Fabrication Center Center for Nano Science and Engineering (CeNSE) Indian Institute of Science(IISc) Bangalore 560012, INDIA Mobile: +91 9880988239 *A bird sitting on the branch of a tree is not afraid of the branch shaking or breaking, because it trusts not the branches but its OWN WINGS. * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hwooden at iest.org Fri Apr 12 14:02:01 2013 From: hwooden at iest.org (Heather Wooden) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:02:01 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Micro/Nano Facility Operations Session at ESTECH 2013 Message-ID: Keep up with Trends in Planning, Building, and Operating a Micro/Nanofabrication Facility Fabrication Facility Operations Conference Session Tuesday, April 30, 2013 Held during ESTECH 2013, the IEST Annual Technical Meeting and Exposition San Diego, California Online registration closes April 21! This half-day track offers a meeting opportunity to University/Government/Industry Micro-Nano (UGIM) participants in the off year of the biennial (UGIM) Symposium conference. The session will discuss planning, building, and operating a modern micro/nanofabrication facility efficiently, effectively, and safely. Presentation topics include: - Implementing Multidisciplinary Research Center Infrastructure ? Burak Birkan and Bulent Koroglu, Sabanci University Nanotechnology Research and Application Center - Building the Perfect Beast (Building a Publically Funded University Cleanroom) ? Thomas S.Ferraguto, ETIC Micro/Nano Laboratory - Software Solutions for Fabrication Facilities ? Michael Bell, Badger Lab Management Systems - Components of an Effective Emergency Response Team in an Urban University Setting ? John Sweeney, Center for Nanoscale Systems, Harvard - CLEAN: A Holistic Approach to LIMS ? Vincenzo Di Bernardo, Center for Nanoscale Systems, Harvard - Improved Safety, Productivity, and Quality in Semiconductor Manufacture with Onsite Hydrogen Production ? Dave Wolff, Proton Onsite - Laboratory Staff Evaluation Process ? John Weaver, Purdue University, Birck Nanotechnology Center - Towards a Supermassive Research Center: Scaling Rules for Cleanroom Facilities ? Eric Martin, Center for Nanoscale Systems, Harvard The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST)is a founding member of the ANSI-accredited US TAG to ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies. IEST has been increasing its focus on nanotechnology facilities and formed Working Groups (WGs) to develop Recommended Practices (RPs). A WG on Nanotechnology Facility Design and Construction will soon publish an RP. Other WGs will meet at ESTECH 2013 to continue to develop various Nanotechnology RPs. The following meetings are open to anyone who is registered for the three days of conference sessions, which includes a discounted academic rate: - WG-CC205: Nanotechnology Safety: Applying Prevention through Design Principles to Nanotechnology Facilities (Tuesday, April 30, 1 ? 5:15 p.m.) - NEW! Vibration and Acoustics in Nanotechnology (Wednesday, May 1, 8-10 a.m.) - NEW! Testing Aerosol-Nanomaterial Containment Devices (Thursday, May 2, 8-10 a.m.) Save when you join! If you are not a member of IEST, considering joiningbefore you register for ESTECH and you will receive the $100 membership discount on your three-day conference registration plus a complimentary membership renewal. Heather Wooden IEST Meetings and Education Manager Phone: 847-981-0100 ext. 20 E-mail: hwooden at iest.org Please note our new mailing address starting October 1, 2012: Arlington Place One 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road Suite 620 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 IEST - Membership Is a Best Practice - www.iest.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Fri Apr 12 14:42:58 2013 From: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca (Vito Logiudice) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:42:58 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi John, I have in the past used CDA fed through a cascade of nitrogen membrane filters to achieve 99.9% N2 purity which was then used to purge dry pumps used in a variety of applications. The setup worked well without any issues for a number of years. I don't recall the membrane manufacturer we used at the time but a quick Google search will reveal a few current vendors. Here's some info I came across on Air Liquide's site: http://www.medal.airliquide.com/en/nitrogen-membranes/medal-nitrogen-membra ne-modules.html As several others have already mentioned, the CDA supply must be monitored to ensure it remains oil-free & dry. In my particular application, the compressor/dryer was dedicated to fab operations under my responsibility and therefore easily monitored. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Director of Operations, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel: 1-519-888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vlogiudi at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://qncfab.uwaterloo.ca/ -----Original Message----- From: John Shott Date: Thursday, 11 April, 2013 11:47 AM To: Labnetwork Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? >Labnetwork Community: > >Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary >expense associated with running our facility. > >Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average >dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our >pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes >using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using >nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as >obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a >SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes >that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, >the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a >University supplied and supported building utility. > >What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to >switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If >it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, >but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored >periodically ...). > >Thanks for your consideration, > >John > > > > >_______________________________________________ >labnetwork mailing list >labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From diadiuk at MIT.EDU Fri Apr 12 15:26:45 2013 From: diadiuk at MIT.EDU (Vicky Diadiuk) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:26:45 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Using CDA, rather than N2, as pump purge in Bosch-like processes? In-Reply-To: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> References: <5166DB12.9010608@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5EDE7E0F-1841-45B3-BAD7-C0F85A9CC3F7@MIT.EDU> Hi John, If your CDA compressors are anything like ours, don't go there! We've been switching anything we can to N2 simply because the compressors are totally unreliable. Next yr we'll connect to the main co-gen plant compressors & we may learn to trust them more in due course. Our tools only call for N2 when running, so our consumption, while high, is not terrible. We stil blow off a lot of N2 from our 11k gal LN2 tank. Hope this helps, Vicky On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Shott wrote: > Labnetwork Community: > > Like many of you, I suspect, nitrogen is the single largest non-salary expense associated with running our facility. > > Much of our nitrogen is used for pump purges in dry pumps. Our average dry pump seems to use about 1 CFM (sorry, 25-30 SLM ...) which, at our pricing is about $4k per year. For virtually all deposition processes using reactive gases and etch processes using corrosive gases, using nitrogen as a pump purge seems to be a firm requirement. It is not as obvious, to me at least, that nitrogen is required in something like a SF6/fluorocarbon-based etch process like the switched Bosch processes that many of us run. While I know that CDA isn't "free", in our case, the LN2 bill definitely comes out of our pocket whereas as CDA is a University supplied and supported building utility. > > What experience, recommendations, or cautions can you offer related to switching our Bosch process tools from nitrogen to CDA pump purges? If it matters, the dew point of our CDA is believed to be less than -40 C, but is not monitored continuously (and maybe not even monitored periodically ...). > > Thanks for your consideration, > > John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From raghavan at ece.iisc.ernet.in Mon Apr 15 01:52:12 2013 From: raghavan at ece.iisc.ernet.in (raghavan) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:22:12 +0530 Subject: [labnetwork] CdS sputtering Message-ID: <005f01ce399d$60db3330$22919990$@iisc.ernet.in> Hi All Can anyone comment on the contamination issues involved in sputtering CdS material? Thank you Regards Raghavan ************************************************* Dr.Vijayaraghavan Technology Manager National Nanofabrication Centre Centre for Nano Science and Engineering Indian institute of Science ( IISc) Bangalore - 560 012 India Ph: 09663304316 *************************************************** -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Mon Apr 15 18:33:45 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:33:45 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF66354@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hello everyone. Can I request your assistance? We will soon be offering a scholarship for students majoring in Nanotechnology/Microtechnology, and had a few questions regarding who we should target this scholarship towards, and how we should set it up so it goes to a student whose future career is in this industry. Any feedback/advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Below are the question to me from the person at our office who has been tasked with creating this scholarship. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Tom - Here are my questions re: how to structure the scholarship from an eligibility standpoint. If you could forward these questions to a couple of your colleagues, that would be most appreciated. I want to make sure that we're setting this up properly. Also, I need to keep it general enough to keep things fair, knowing that different programs will be structured differently... 1st questions revolve around who can receive the scholarship. We'd like to target engineering undergrads that are showing intentions/interest in microelectronics (Nano, MEMS, Semiconductor, Solar PV). Thinking of targeting Juniors and/or Seniors, since their coursework will reflect elective courses that move into any given area by the time they hit their Jr. year. * Should this be open to engineering and math majors? * Am I correct in that assumption? * If I'm not correct in that assumption (i.e. - students who are starting their Junior year don't have electives under their belt), then would limiting this to Seniors be the most equitable thing to do? Next question revolves around how to set up a coursework eligibility requirement. I think something in this realm would be a good, objective means of showing true intent/interest in nanotechnology, microelectronics, etc. * Would X number of classroom and/or labwork hours under their belt towards a minor in one of these specialty fields be a fair requirement? * If so, how many classroom and/or labwork hours should be required to qualify? (Again, being mindful of diversity in programs.) * If a "number of hours" type of requirement would not be fair, what might be a suggested eligibility requirement that reflects classroom and or lab work? It might just be easier for me to have a 5 minute conversation with a couple of these folks instead of having them respond in writing. I'm obviously open to both. Thanks for passing this along, Tom. Jim Blythe 208.639.0459 (office) 208.921.0409 (cell) I appreciate all of your input! Thank you! Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 www.criticalsystemsinc.com "World Leader in UHP Reconditioned Gas Delivery & Abatement Technologies" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sgupta at eng.ua.edu Tue Apr 16 10:15:35 2013 From: sgupta at eng.ua.edu (Gupta, Su) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:15:35 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF66354@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> References: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF66354@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <1B53C0DED5D00E40A81DF47DBF6A3DCB03CBC62B6FD5@MAIL1.ua-net.ua.edu> This sounds like a great idea. 1st questions revolve around who can receive the scholarship. We'd like to target engineering undergrads that are showing intentions/interest in microelectronics (Nano, MEMS, Semiconductor, Solar PV). Thinking of targeting Juniors and/or Seniors, since their coursework will reflect elective courses that move into any given area by the time they hit their Jr. year. * Should this be open to engineering and math majors? I would say engineering and science majors * Am I correct in that assumption? * If I'm not correct in that assumption (i.e. - students who are starting their Junior year don't have electives under their belt), then would limiting this to Seniors be the most equitable thing to do? I think Juniors and Seniors would be best Next question revolves around how to set up a coursework eligibility requirement. I think something in this realm would be a good, objective means of showing true intent/interest in nanotechnology, microelectronics, etc. * Would X number of classroom and/or labwork hours under their belt towards a minor in one of these specialty fields be a fair requirement? Minors have to be set up through the College Dean, so a conversation could be started along those lines * If so, how many classroom and/or labwork hours should be required to qualify? (Again, being mindful of diversity in programs.) I will need to check on that __ I will email the Dean * If a "number of hours" type of requirement would not be fair, what might be a suggested eligibility requirement that reflects classroom and or lab work? There are courses that are offered here in Micro-Nanofabrication and Thin film Processing that could be cobbled together to form an eligibility requirement - the minor sounds like the best idea - but it would have to be interdisciplinary here, since MTE, ECE and ChBE all offer multiple courses on this topic. It might just be easier for me to have a 5 minute conversation with a couple of these folks instead of having them respond in writing. I'm obviously open to both. My contact information: Dr. Su (Subhadra) Gupta Professor, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Director UA Microfabrication Facility University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (205) 348-4272 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Britton Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:34 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Cc: jim.blythe at criticalsystemsinc.com Subject: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology Hello everyone. Can I request your assistance? We will soon be offering a scholarship for students majoring in Nanotechnology/Microtechnology, and had a few questions regarding who we should target this scholarship towards, and how we should set it up so it goes to a student whose future career is in this industry. Any feedback/advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Below are the question to me from the person at our office who has been tasked with creating this scholarship. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Tom - Here are my questions re: how to structure the scholarship from an eligibility standpoint. If you could forward these questions to a couple of your colleagues, that would be most appreciated. I want to make sure that we're setting this up properly. Also, I need to keep it general enough to keep things fair, knowing that different programs will be structured differently... 1st questions revolve around who can receive the scholarship. We'd like to target engineering undergrads that are showing intentions/interest in microelectronics (Nano, MEMS, Semiconductor, Solar PV). Thinking of targeting Juniors and/or Seniors, since their coursework will reflect elective courses that move into any given area by the time they hit their Jr. year. * Should this be open to engineering and math majors? * Am I correct in that assumption? * If I'm not correct in that assumption (i.e. - students who are starting their Junior year don't have electives under their belt), then would limiting this to Seniors be the most equitable thing to do? Next question revolves around how to set up a coursework eligibility requirement. I think something in this realm would be a good, objective means of showing true intent/interest in nanotechnology, microelectronics, etc. * Would X number of classroom and/or labwork hours under their belt towards a minor in one of these specialty fields be a fair requirement? * If so, how many classroom and/or labwork hours should be required to qualify? (Again, being mindful of diversity in programs.) * If a "number of hours" type of requirement would not be fair, what might be a suggested eligibility requirement that reflects classroom and or lab work? It might just be easier for me to have a 5 minute conversation with a couple of these folks instead of having them respond in writing. I'm obviously open to both. Thanks for passing this along, Tom. Jim Blythe 208.639.0459 (office) 208.921.0409 (cell) I appreciate all of your input! Thank you! Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 www.criticalsystemsinc.com "World Leader in UHP Reconditioned Gas Delivery & Abatement Technologies" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From repemc at rit.edu Tue Apr 16 18:05:58 2013 From: repemc at rit.edu (Robert Pearson) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:05:58 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <1B53C0DED5D00E40A81DF47DBF6A3DCB03CBC62B6FD5@MAIL1.ua-net.ua.edu> References: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF66354@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> <1B53C0DED5D00E40A81DF47DBF6A3DCB03CBC62B6FD5@MAIL1.ua-net.ua.edu> Message-ID: This a very good idea. Young students do not view semiconductor manufacturing as very glamorous until they start hunting for jobs. I agree that it should be aimed at engineering and science majors. Targeting juniors and seniors is a good idea in general but there are some programs like ours at RIT in Microelectronic Engineering that offer specific coursework in this area as soon as the sophomore year. The amount of course work required will depend on the school and the number of courses offered to undergraduate students. Most schools are lucky to have one or two undergraduate fabrication courses and would then put other related (possibly non lab) courses together to create a four or five course minor. In the case of our BS degree offering we have seven lab-based specific microelectronic engineering courses, two senior design capstone courses and two electives that the student could devote this area of study. I look forward to the announcement of these scholarships. Robert Pearson Microelectronic Engineering Programs Director Rochester Institute of Technology robert.pearson at rit.edu (585) 475-2923 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Gupta, Su Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:16 AM To: Tom Britton; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Cc: jim.blythe at criticalsystemsinc.com Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology This sounds like a great idea. 1st questions revolve around who can receive the scholarship. We'd like to target engineering undergrads that are showing intentions/interest in microelectronics (Nano, MEMS, Semiconductor, Solar PV). Thinking of targeting Juniors and/or Seniors, since their coursework will reflect elective courses that move into any given area by the time they hit their Jr. year. * Should this be open to engineering and math majors? I would say engineering and science majors * Am I correct in that assumption? * If I'm not correct in that assumption (i.e. - students who are starting their Junior year don't have electives under their belt), then would limiting this to Seniors be the most equitable thing to do? I think Juniors and Seniors would be best Next question revolves around how to set up a coursework eligibility requirement. I think something in this realm would be a good, objective means of showing true intent/interest in nanotechnology, microelectronics, etc. * Would X number of classroom and/or labwork hours under their belt towards a minor in one of these specialty fields be a fair requirement? Minors have to be set up through the College Dean, so a conversation could be started along those lines * If so, how many classroom and/or labwork hours should be required to qualify? (Again, being mindful of diversity in programs.) I will need to check on that __ I will email the Dean * If a "number of hours" type of requirement would not be fair, what might be a suggested eligibility requirement that reflects classroom and or lab work? There are courses that are offered here in Micro-Nanofabrication and Thin film Processing that could be cobbled together to form an eligibility requirement - the minor sounds like the best idea - but it would have to be interdisciplinary here, since MTE, ECE and ChBE all offer multiple courses on this topic. It might just be easier for me to have a 5 minute conversation with a couple of these folks instead of having them respond in writing. I'm obviously open to both. My contact information: Dr. Su (Subhadra) Gupta Professor, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Director UA Microfabrication Facility University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (205) 348-4272 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Britton Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:34 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Cc: jim.blythe at criticalsystemsinc.com Subject: [labnetwork] Assistance Needed - Scholarship for students working towards careers in Nanotechnology Hello everyone. Can I request your assistance? We will soon be offering a scholarship for students majoring in Nanotechnology/Microtechnology, and had a few questions regarding who we should target this scholarship towards, and how we should set it up so it goes to a student whose future career is in this industry. Any feedback/advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Below are the question to me from the person at our office who has been tasked with creating this scholarship. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Tom - Here are my questions re: how to structure the scholarship from an eligibility standpoint. If you could forward these questions to a couple of your colleagues, that would be most appreciated. I want to make sure that we're setting this up properly. Also, I need to keep it general enough to keep things fair, knowing that different programs will be structured differently... 1st questions revolve around who can receive the scholarship. We'd like to target engineering undergrads that are showing intentions/interest in microelectronics (Nano, MEMS, Semiconductor, Solar PV). Thinking of targeting Juniors and/or Seniors, since their coursework will reflect elective courses that move into any given area by the time they hit their Jr. year. * Should this be open to engineering and math majors? * Am I correct in that assumption? * If I'm not correct in that assumption (i.e. - students who are starting their Junior year don't have electives under their belt), then would limiting this to Seniors be the most equitable thing to do? Next question revolves around how to set up a coursework eligibility requirement. I think something in this realm would be a good, objective means of showing true intent/interest in nanotechnology, microelectronics, etc. * Would X number of classroom and/or labwork hours under their belt towards a minor in one of these specialty fields be a fair requirement? * If so, how many classroom and/or labwork hours should be required to qualify? (Again, being mindful of diversity in programs.) * If a "number of hours" type of requirement would not be fair, what might be a suggested eligibility requirement that reflects classroom and or lab work? It might just be easier for me to have a 5 minute conversation with a couple of these folks instead of having them respond in writing. I'm obviously open to both. Thanks for passing this along, Tom. Jim Blythe 208.639.0459 (office) 208.921.0409 (cell) I appreciate all of your input! Thank you! Tom Britton Sales Manager Critical Systems, Inc. 7000 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 Direct: 208-890-1417 Shop: 877-572-5515 www.criticalsystemsinc.com "World Leader in UHP Reconditioned Gas Delivery & Abatement Technologies" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.walsh at louisville.edu Thu Apr 25 16:22:00 2013 From: kevin.walsh at louisville.edu (Walsh,Kevin M.) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:22:00 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Magne-Tron M-700 Resistivity System Message-ID: <0D1ABD6DF2541B42A05BD6E6D3695411BE84E67F@EXMBX03.ad.louisville.edu> I was given an older Magne-tron Instruments Model M-700 Resistivity System without the 4-point probe assembly. I'm adapting it to an existing 4-point probe head. The connector on the back of the Magne-Tron is a microphone-style plug with 4 pins labeled 1-4. Can anyone with an existing system tell me which plug pins go to which probes. I expect it makes a difference, especially when using the conductivity type feature (both rectifying and thermal diffusion modes). Thanks, Kevin 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 savitha.p at ece.iisc.ernet.in Tue Apr 30 03:01:58 2013 From: savitha.p at ece.iisc.ernet.in (Savitha P) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:31:58 +0530 Subject: [labnetwork] Electroplating of Ni and Gold Message-ID: <7b04e47d9ebad440580e56680b51c0ef.squirrel@www.ece.iisc.ernet.in> Hi! We wanted to buy two solutions for mainly making seed layers for plating. These are Gold Chloride solution (0.5%) and TRANSENE Nickelex solution. >From MSDS, these solutions are shown to bioaccumulate and are toxic to aquatic life. Nickelex comes with additional warnings of being carcinogenic and mutagenic with special safety requirements and disposal protocols. Could someone please let me know whether these chemicals are used routinely in the fabs and if yes, what are the disposal protocols for the same. Are there any other chemicals (maybe, less toxic) which can be used for the same purpose. We are planning to dedicate one of our general wet benches as the electroplating bench for the time being, so chances of cross contamination will be low. Thanks and regards, Savitha -- Dr.Savitha P Facility Technology Manager National Nanofabrication Centre Centre for Nano Science and Engineering (CeNSE) Indian Institute of Science Bangalore - 560012 Ph: +91 80 2293 3254 www.nano.iisc.ernet.in -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From tufts at usf.edu Tue Apr 30 10:46:27 2013 From: tufts at usf.edu (Tufts, Robert) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:46:27 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Accepting new tools to a shared facility Message-ID: Dear All, Do any of you have criteria or some sort of written agreement that you execute when a faculty member asks to have a tool of theirs taken under your shared facility's umbrella? If so could you share it? Thanks, Rob Robert Warner Tufts Jr. , MEE Assistant Director Nanotechnology Research & Education Center College of Engineering, University of South Florida [cid:image001.png at 01CE458F.F7212EF0] 4202 E. Fowler Ave, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 Office Phone 813.974.5274 Cell Phone 813-505-1626 E-Mail: tufts at usf.edu Web: http://www.nrec.usf.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 27584 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From hughes at illinois.edu Tue Apr 30 15:57:48 2013 From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:57:48 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Accepting new tools to a shared facility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rob, Our criteria is very simple: They have to share it. They can set the ground rules regarding what materials/processes are acceptable, but if others want to use it for those allowed purposes, they must be given permission to do so. We also allow them to have their students do the training (and/or maintenance) on the tool if they choose, but they usually prefer to let our technical staff to do that. -- John ------------------------------------------------------------- John S. Hughes Office: (217) 333-4674 Associate Director FAX: (217) 244-6375 Laboratory Operations hughes at illinois.edu Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2000E Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory 208 North Wright Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 http://mntl.illinois.edu ------------------------------------------------------------- On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:46 AM, "Tufts, Robert" > wrote: Dear All, Do any of you have criteria or some sort of written agreement that you execute when a faculty member asks to have a tool of theirs taken under your shared facility?s umbrella? If so could you share it? Thanks, Rob Robert Warner Tufts Jr. , MEE Assistant Director Nanotechnology Research & Education Center College of Engineering, University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 Office Phone 813.974.5274 Cell Phone 813-505-1626 E-Mail: tufts at usf.edu Web: http://www.nrec.usf.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 hft at ncsu.edu Tue Apr 30 16:18:10 2013 From: hft at ncsu.edu (Henry Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:18:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Accepting new tools to a shared facility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rob, This is exactly what we have here at the NNF at NCSU. Here is a link to our website. http://www.nnf.ncsu.edu/ If you click the picture it will take you to another page that explains the setup. This has been very good for our research community. I am cc'ing our Direct, Dr. Mehmet Ozturk also. We have a NSF review this week. If you would like to contact Dr. Ozturk I would suggest Friday. Feel free to send me any questions also. Henry Taylor Senior Hardware Engineer NNF @ NCSU Equipment Manager North Carolina State University Office Phone 919 515 2767 E-Mail hft at ncsu.edu On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Tufts, Robert wrote: > Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > Do any of you have criteria or some sort of written agreement that you > execute when a faculty member asks to have a tool of theirs taken under > your shared facility?s umbrella? If so could you share it? **** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > Rob**** > > ** ** > > *Robert Warner Tufts Jr. , MEE*** > > Assistant Director **** > > Nanotechnology Research & Education Center > College of Engineering, University of South Florida**** > > [image: Description: Description: Picture1]** > > 4202 E. Fowler Ave, ENB 118**** > > Tampa, Florida 33620**** > > Office Phone 813.974.5274**** > > Cell Phone 813-505-1626**** > > E-Mail: *tufts at usf.edu* **** > > Web: *http://www.nrec.usf.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 rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu Tue Apr 30 23:18:10 2013 From: rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu (Lynn Rathbun) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:18:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Accepting new tools to a shared facility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20130430230733.0c152438@cnf.cornell.edu> At Cornell, our agreement is even simpler. They have to give it to us, outright, no strings attached. We own it, we train on it, we take care of it, we charge for it. Co-ownership does not work in our opinion Lynn Rathbun At 07:57 PM 4/30/2013 +0000, you wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_BAEB67F7D00AEE4F8513105A149258C0383F9182CITESMBX2aduill_" > > >Hi Rob, > >Our criteria is very simple: They have to share it. They can set the >ground rules regarding what materials/processes are acceptable, but >if others want to use it for those allowed purposes, they must be >given permission to do so. We also allow them to have their students >do the training (and/or maintenance) on the tool if they choose, but >they usually prefer to let our technical staff to do that. > > -- John > >------------------------------------------------------------- >John S. Hughes Office: (217) 333-4674 >Associate Director FAX: (217) 244-6375 >Laboratory >Operations hughes at illinois.edu >Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory >University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >2000E Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory >208 North Wright Street >Urbana, >Illinois 61801 http://mntl.illinois.edu >------------------------------------------------------------- > >On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:46 AM, "Tufts, Robert" ><tufts at usf.edu> > wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>Do any of you have criteria or some sort of written agreement that >>you execute when a faculty member asks to have a tool of theirs >>taken under your shared facility's umbrella? If so could you share it? >> >>Thanks, >>Rob >> >>Robert Warner Tufts Jr. , MEE >>Assistant Director >>Nanotechnology Research & Education Center >>College of Engineering, University of South Florida >> >>4202 E. Fowler Ave, ENB 118 >>Tampa, Florida 33620 >>Office Phone 813.974.5274 >>Cell Phone 813-505-1626 >>E-Mail: tufts at usf.edu >>Web: http://www.nrec.usf.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 ************************************************************** Dr. Lynn Rathbun Rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu NNIN Deputy Director (607)-254-4872 CNF Laboratory Manager Duffield Hall (607)-255-8601 Fax Cornell University (607)-592-1549 Work Cell Ithaca, New York 14853 (607)-342-1880 Personal Cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: