From kdhemc at rit.edu Sat Mar 2 12:24:42 2013 From: kdhemc at rit.edu (Karl Hirschman) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:24:42 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey Message-ID: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> Hello Labnetwork, We are currently searching for an ALD system that has the flexibility to meet the needs of multiple users, but is on the lower end of pricing. I realize that these attributes are typically not well aligned, however we have limited internal funding support. I have been exploring ALD systems offered by a number of vendors. There are a few systems that appear to be good candidates - some are upgradable to offer enhanced capabilities, while others are not. We are targeting a system that can accommodate up to 6-inch substrates, and is in the < $200K price range. Initial films of interest are Al2O3, HfO2 and ZnO. however we expect interest in other applications. I have been searching websites, and I have found several of these systems placed in university labs. I would like to ask these universities for their opinion of the system they have, and some of the details that went into their decision on the system they have over the other systems in the market. If there is a survey available for these systems, perhaps prepared for a proposal, this would be especially useful. Thanks for the help! Dr. Karl D. Hirschman, Micron Professor Electrical and Microelectronic Engineering Department Director, Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory Rochester Institute of Technology 82 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623-5604 PH: 585-475-5130 FAX: 585-475-5041 kdhemc at rit.edu http://smfl.microe.rit.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu Sun Mar 3 19:35:31 2013 From: rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu (Lynn Rathbun) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:35:31 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey In-Reply-To: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.r it.edu> References: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20130303193050.0a962178@cnf.cornell.edu> Karl You can find a database of the tools available at the NNIN sites on the NNIN web site.http://www.nnin.org/research-support/tools-database You can also find a spreadsheet of processes and tools available at this process blog entry. http://www.nnin.org/research-support/process-blog/nnin-ald-processes-and-nnin-ald-workshop At Cornell, we are quite happy with our Oxford FlexAl but it is a big system. >Hello Labnetwork, > >We are currently searching for an ALD system >that has the flexibility to meet the needs of >multiple users, but is on the lower end of >pricing. I realize that these attributes are >typically not well aligned, however we have >limited internal funding support. I have been >exploring ALD systems offered by a number of >vendors. There are a few systems that appear to >be good candidates ? some are upgradable to >offer enhanced capabilities, while others are >not. We are targeting a system that can >accommodate up to 6-inch substrates, and is in >the < $200K price range. Initial films of >interest are Al2O3, HfO2 and ZnO. however we >expect interest in other applications. > >I have been searching websites, and I have found >several of these systems placed in university >labs. I would like to ask these universities >for their opinion of the system they have, and >some of the details that went into their >decision on the system they have over the other >systems in the market. If there is a survey >available for these systems, perhaps prepared >for a proposal, this would be especially useful. > >Thanks for the help! > > >Dr. Karl D. Hirschman, Micron Professor >Electrical and Microelectronic Engineering Department >Director, Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory >Rochester Institute of Technology >82 Lomb Memorial Drive >Rochester, NY 14623-5604 >PH: 585-475-5130 >FAX: 585-475-5041 >kdhemc at rit.edu >http://smfl.microe.rit.edu > > >_______________________________________________ >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: From rmorrison at draper.com Mon Mar 4 07:04:19 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:04:19 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey In-Reply-To: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> References: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: Hi, We just purchased a tool called Gemstar-8 from Arradiance in Sudbury, Mass. Tel # is 800-659-2970. Handles one wafer at a time up to 200mm it is about the size of a large briefcase and it easily meet your cost targets. 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 Karl Hirschman Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:25 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey Hello Labnetwork, We are currently searching for an ALD system that has the flexibility to meet the needs of multiple users, but is on the lower end of pricing. I realize that these attributes are typically not well aligned, however we have limited internal funding support. I have been exploring ALD systems offered by a number of vendors. There are a few systems that appear to be good candidates - some are upgradable to offer enhanced capabilities, while others are not. We are targeting a system that can accommodate up to 6-inch substrates, and is in the < $200K price range. Initial films of interest are Al2O3, HfO2 and ZnO. however we expect interest in other applications. I have been searching websites, and I have found several of these systems placed in university labs. I would like to ask these universities for their opinion of the system they have, and some of the details that went into their decision on the system they have over the other systems in the market. If there is a survey available for these systems, perhaps prepared for a proposal, this would be especially useful. Thanks for the help! Dr. Karl D. Hirschman, Micron Professor Electrical and Microelectronic Engineering Department Director, Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory Rochester Institute of Technology 82 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623-5604 PH: 585-475-5130 FAX: 585-475-5041 kdhemc at rit.edu http://smfl.microe.rit.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu Mon Mar 4 10:05:08 2013 From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Hathaway, Malcolm) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:05:08 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey In-Reply-To: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> References: <8E7635DEE489194D870E5B7DBDD2992B7C3715E54D@ex02mail02.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C25A9E872@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Hi Karl, This is Mac Hathaway, at Harvard CNS. We started out with a Cambridge Nanotech Savannah 200, 8" capable, with 6 ports (enough for 5 different ALD films, plus water as the secondary precursor). It works quite well, but has some limitations, such as (for us) the number of ports, and "serviceability" of the gas delivery system. For what is a very simple system, some maintenance tasks are two person jobs. Cost was ~$180K (~$120K for 4" with only two ports). Still going strong after 5 years. Mostly all we do is change pumps, oring, and very occasionally parts of the gas delivery system (pneumatic valves and ALD valves). For reference, Cambridge Nano is now part of Ultratech. We have now gotten (in the cleanroom, but not open to users yet) an Arradiance desktop system, It is a slightly modified GEMStar 8. This unit is quite small, 8 ports, 6" capable, and in standard configuration currently around $120K. This unit is designed to allow better heating uniformity, and somewhat better gas flow dynamics. It turns out that "ideal" ALD processes are quite immune to lots of "CVD" variables like chamber geometry, and flow dynamics, but many non-ideal processes do benefit from more careful control of such variables. As it happens, CNS hosted an NNIN ALD Symposium at the end of Nov. last year, and the presentations for it are on our website: http://cns.harvard.edu/research/presentations.php You will find quite a bit of interesting info going through those presentations. Most NNIN folks have either Savannahs, a few Cambridge Nano plasma/thermal systems, or Oxford Instruments plasma/thermal systems. The Arradiance unit is just starting to get market penetration. As a rule, the thermal systems are the cheaper, smaller units, and the plasma enabled systems tend to be bigger, and cost $300K and up. Feel free to contact me off-line if you have more questions. Mac Harvard CNS 617-495-9012 ________________________________________ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Hirschman [kdhemc at rit.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:24 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] ALD survey Hello Labnetwork, We are currently searching for an ALD system that has the flexibility to meet the needs of multiple users, but is on the lower end of pricing. I realize that these attributes are typically not well aligned, however we have limited internal funding support. I have been exploring ALD systems offered by a number of vendors. There are a few systems that appear to be good candidates ? some are upgradable to offer enhanced capabilities, while others are not. We are targeting a system that can accommodate up to 6-inch substrates, and is in the < $200K price range. Initial films of interest are Al2O3, HfO2 and ZnO. however we expect interest in other applications. I have been searching websites, and I have found several of these systems placed in university labs. I would like to ask these universities for their opinion of the system they have, and some of the details that went into their decision on the system they have over the other systems in the market. If there is a survey available for these systems, perhaps prepared for a proposal, this would be especially useful. Thanks for the help! Dr. Karl D. Hirschman, Micron Professor Electrical and Microelectronic Engineering Department Director, Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory Rochester Institute of Technology 82 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester, NY 14623-5604 PH: 585-475-5130 FAX: 585-475-5041 kdhemc at rit.edu http://smfl.microe.rit.edu From spb1699 at rit.edu Mon Mar 4 12:34:30 2013 From: spb1699 at rit.edu (Scott Blondell) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:34:30 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Message-ID: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> Fellow Labnetworkers, We're looking to purchase a used piece of capital eqpt. and have located a potential candidate. Does anyone have recent experience doing business with Capital Asset and Equipment Trading (aka CAE online)? I'm looking for feedback related to your customer service experience. Before I commit to spending any hard-to-come-by capital funds, I'd like to hear of your pros and cons in any dealings with them. Regards, Scott P. Blondell Facilities Manager Rochester Institute of Technology Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory 82 Lomb Memorial Dr. Bldg. 17-2519 Rochester, NY 14623 585 738-4073 c 585 475-2171 o 585 475-5041 f spb1699 at rit.edu www.smfl.rit.edu [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE18C2.91DBDB70] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2550 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From info at fabsurplus.com Mon Mar 4 16:08:13 2013 From: info at fabsurplus.com (Stephen CS Howe) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:08:13 +0100 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback In-Reply-To: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> References: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <1362431293.2223.90.camel@samsung> Dear Scott, They are my competitors. They are a large brokerage of used equipment. They have an office in California, and are doing their best to expand worldwide, but, so far, have not managed to do this. CAE was pretty much a standard equipment brokerage, but they were bought out a couple of years ago by some business school types, and since then are doing their best to expand. I believe I am right in saying that they work very much from the commercial aspect. Of course, I wish them very much the best of luck in competing with us in the field of used equipment supply. My company, Fabsurplus.com, does pretty much the same kind of thing as CAE.We like to think that the difference between us and CAE is that we have a better level of technical knowledge on the equipment offered than CAE does. On our website, we made a few pages showing some "real world" examples of equipment supply projects at the following links: http://www.fabsurplus.com/sites/nikon_stepper_refurbishment.html http://www.fabsurplus.com/sites/KLA.html http://www.fabsurplus.com/sites/ultratech_stepper_refurbishment.html Anyway, if anyone has the need to buy used equipment, please don't hesitate to contact the fabsurplus.com sales team and I guess you should try our competitors CAE too..... Yours sincerely, Stephen Howe Company Owner SDI Fabsurplus Group +1 830 388 1071 (Mobile) +39 335 710 7756 (Italy Mobile) Skype: Stephencshowe WWW.FABSURPLUS.COM China-Japan-Italy-Ireland-USA Contact us now to buy and sell used equipment and enjoy the benefits of cost-saving. On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 12:34 -0500, Scott Blondell wrote: > Fellow Labnetworkers, > > > > We?re looking to purchase a used piece of capital eqpt. and have > located a potential candidate. > > Does anyone have recent experience doing business with Capital Asset > and Equipment Trading (aka CAE online)? > > I?m looking for feedback related to your customer service experience. > Before I commit to spending any > > hard-to-come-by capital funds, I?d like to hear of your pros and cons > in any dealings with them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Scott P. Blondell > > Facilities Manager > > Rochester Institute of Technology > > Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory > > 82 Lomb Memorial Dr. > > Bldg. 17-2519 > > Rochester, NY 14623 > > > > 585 738-4073 c > > 585 475-2171 o > > 585 475-5041 f > > spb1699 at rit.edu > > www.smfl.rit.edu > > > > http://www.rit.edu/~962www/logos/tiger_walking_rit_color.jpg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Mon Mar 4 17:00:28 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:00:28 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback In-Reply-To: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> References: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF33061@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hi Scott, Everything they sell is "as-is" unless you have a specific agreement in writing. They typically pass through equipment that others have to sell. Make sure that you have a way out if it isn't what you expect and you should be OK. Best to you sir, 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" From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Blondell Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:35 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Fellow Labnetworkers, We're looking to purchase a used piece of capital eqpt. and have located a potential candidate. Does anyone have recent experience doing business with Capital Asset and Equipment Trading (aka CAE online)? I'm looking for feedback related to your customer service experience. Before I commit to spending any hard-to-come-by capital funds, I'd like to hear of your pros and cons in any dealings with them. Regards, Scott P. Blondell Facilities Manager Rochester Institute of Technology Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory 82 Lomb Memorial Dr. Bldg. 17-2519 Rochester, NY 14623 585 738-4073 c 585 475-2171 o 585 475-5041 f spb1699 at rit.edu www.smfl.rit.edu [http://www.rit.edu/~962www/logos/tiger_walking_rit_color.jpg] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2550 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Mon Mar 4 17:27:22 2013 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:27:22 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback In-Reply-To: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> References: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C267FEC0D@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Scott, I'm not sure if this will help you but I have sold equipment to them and they were a pretty organized outfit. Steve Paolini Harvard University Center for Nanoscale systems. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Blondell Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:35 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Fellow Labnetworkers, We're looking to purchase a used piece of capital eqpt. and have located a potential candidate. Does anyone have recent experience doing business with Capital Asset and Equipment Trading (aka CAE online)? I'm looking for feedback related to your customer service experience. Before I commit to spending any hard-to-come-by capital funds, I'd like to hear of your pros and cons in any dealings with them. Regards, Scott P. Blondell Facilities Manager Rochester Institute of Technology Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory 82 Lomb Memorial Dr. Bldg. 17-2519 Rochester, NY 14623 585 738-4073 c 585 475-2171 o 585 475-5041 f spb1699 at rit.edu www.smfl.rit.edu [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE18FD.87EF6A10] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2550 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From elliscd at auburn.edu Mon Mar 4 21:10:56 2013 From: elliscd at auburn.edu (Charles Ellis) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 02:10:56 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback In-Reply-To: <2A84D7901AF8C046AD78BC302AAE478A4042D8B1@ex02mail03.ad.rit.edu> Message-ID: Scott, We have purchased quite a lot of equipment from many different used equipment vendors over the years. We have never been able to close a deal with CAE due to their inability to work with our University's purchasing requirements. They basically want everything up front ? while we are usually only able to give 25 ? 50 % up front ? if that much. We have always found Classone equipment to be very good and very fair with us. We have purchased almost all of our larger pieces of equipment from them (CHA Mark 50, STS AOE, STS PECVD, STS ASE, Branson Asher, etc..). We have also purchased items from GCE Marketing ? they are very good technically. Good Luck? Charles Ellis? Director, Auburn Microlabs... From: Scott Blondell > Date: Monday, March 4, 2013 11:34 AM To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" > Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Fellow Labnetworkers, We?re looking to purchase a used piece of capital eqpt. and have located a potential candidate. Does anyone have recent experience doing business with Capital Asset and Equipment Trading (aka CAE online)? I?m looking for feedback related to your customer service experience. Before I commit to spending any hard-to-come-by capital funds, I?d like to hear of your pros and cons in any dealings with them. Regards, Scott P. Blondell Facilities Manager Rochester Institute of Technology Semiconductor & Microsystems Fabrication Laboratory 82 Lomb Memorial Dr. Bldg. 17-2519 Rochester, NY 14623 585 738-4073 c 585 475-2171 o 585 475-5041 f spb1699 at rit.edu www.smfl.rit.edu [http://www.rit.edu/~962www/logos/tiger_walking_rit_color.jpg] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2550 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From len.olona at ou.edu Tue Mar 5 09:48:15 2013 From: len.olona at ou.edu (Olona, Leonard E.) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:48:15 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Message-ID: <31F2F95FCDFB2A4EBCF5340D57E798E2196B5C98@it-athena.sooner.net.ou.edu> Scott, We have dealt with many vendors over a long span of years. Unfortunately CAE is not one of our most desirable vendors. As Charles Ellis explained, the inability to work with our University's purchasing folks has always created snags. CAE is not unlike many of used equipment vendors out there. Some are better than others, it all depends on what your applications are. Direct Surplus LLC out of Raleigh NC is a good choice for many equipment sets. (http://www.dssurplus.com/) The POC there is Eric Traphagen. Another source for analytical equipment would be Tom Norment of Brumley South out of Charlotte NC. (http://www.brumleysouth.com/) Bid Service, CAE, etc? You really have to know all your details up front. And you also need to follow up with a DETAILED source inspection before accepting the tool. It would be very helpful to have an experienced equipment engineer available to perform this preliminary work. Communication and equipment knowledge should be your guide. That's my two cents? -Len Leonard E. Olona University Cleanroom Manager University of Oklahoma 110 West Boyd Street Norman, Oklahoma 73019 len.olona at ou.edu D: 405 325-4374 C: 405 630-9068 F: 405 325-7066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu Tue Mar 5 12:17:12 2013 From: rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu (Lynn Rathbun) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:17:12 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20130305121357.0a9837c0@cnf.cornell.edu> I have bought stuff from (and sold stuff to) CAE as well as many other brokers. And a lot of stuff bought at auction also. I have never had a problem either with the vendors or with our purchasing department. You obviously have to know what you are buying. Your mileage may vary. Lynn ************************************************************** 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 From hbtusainc at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 17:02:59 2013 From: hbtusainc at yahoo.com (Mario Portillo) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:02:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130305121357.0a9837c0@cnf.cornell.edu> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130305121357.0a9837c0@cnf.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <1362520979.8290.YahooMailNeo@web140701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Best advice so far " be an informed buyer" works every time. Mario A. Portillo Sr. High'born Technology USA Inc. Semiconductor Equipment Services 8130 Glades Road, #229 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561 479-1975 office 561 504-0244 cell hbtusainc at yahoo.com www.hbtusainc.com ________________________________ From: Lynn Rathbun To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Capital eqpt. vendor feedback I have bought stuff from (and sold stuff to) CAE as well as many other brokers. And a lot of stuff bought at auction also.? I have never had a problem either with the vendors or with our purchasing department.? You obviously have to know what you are buying. Your mileage may vary. Lynn ************************************************************** 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 _______________________________________________ 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 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Thu Mar 7 12:49:43 2013 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:49:43 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures Message-ID: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> Colleagues, What is the preferred line pressure for delivering SF6 from a gas vault to a valve-manifold box? The SF6 cylinder pressure in our indoor cylinder vault is ~320 psi. The final delivery pressure is ~18-22 psi. There is a cylinder regulator at the cylinders as well as line pressure regulators in the VMB. Our delivery volume varies from ~100 sccm to 1.5 slpm. Thanks for any enlightenment, 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 khbeis at uw.edu Thu Mar 7 13:23:06 2013 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:23:06 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Looking for qualified field service engineers Message-ID: Dear Fab Colleagues and Friends, Sadly, we are losing one of the best field service engineers (FSE) that I have ever had the privilege of working with. That being said, we are looking to fill at least one, possibly two FSE for on-site equipment maintenance. Given that we are planning a complete fab renovation, there will be a need to learn/master orbital welding for inert gas delivery and foreline fabrication. The job will require equipment facilitation, daily troubleshooting and repair, preventative maintenance, and daily facilities inspections. The job is posted https://uwhires.admin.washington.edu/eng/candidates/default.cfm?szCategory=jobprofile&szOrderID=93558&szCandidateID=0&szSearchWords=&szReturnToSearch=1 We will be looking to fill the first position by April 1. I appreciate your referrals and forwarding of this message to potential candidates. Most gratefully, Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (F) 206.221.1681 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu http://www.engr.washington.edu/mff/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1366 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Thu Mar 7 16:11:02 2013 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:11:02 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures In-Reply-To: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C267FF821@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Bob, My method takes into account how many "sticks" are on the VMB, how far a distance from the gas source, and what the total flow rate could be with all equipment running at max. I start at 20 PSI and add 10 psi per liter of possible flow at the cylinder regulator if the run is 50' of 1/4" line or less. I would add 5 PSI for each additional 25' of tubing with a maximum of 100 into the VMB's. I prefer not to overdo the cylinder regulator pressure since it could result in frosting up the regulator from the J.T. effect if you are using a lot of gas volume (>10 liters). Your actual mileage will vary :) Regards, 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 Robert M. Hamilton Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures Colleagues, What is the preferred line pressure for delivering SF6 from a gas vault to a valve-manifold box? The SF6 cylinder pressure in our indoor cylinder vault is ~320 psi. The final delivery pressure is ~18-22 psi. There is a cylinder regulator at the cylinders as well as line pressure regulators in the VMB. Our delivery volume varies from ~100 sccm to 1.5 slpm. Thanks for any enlightenment, 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) _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Thu Mar 7 16:12:52 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 21:12:52 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures In-Reply-To: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF3591B@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hello Bob, A good rule of thumb to go by is that the cylinder regulator needs to be able to supply enough flow at the correct pressure so that when the maximum flow needed is called for, the system can deliver it without starving the line. So, at each tool you need, worse case, 1.5 SLPM and 22 psi. If multiple, say 5, lines are flowing, you'll need a max of 7.5 SLPM at 23 psi. Attached is a flow curve for an AP1010 regulator, the standard line regulator from APTech for 1/4" service, and what is in many VMBs. This curve shows that with a 50 psi inlet to the regulator, and an outlet pressure set at 30 psi, the regulator will deliver 7 SLPM with around a 3 psi drop. Figure line losses from the regulator to the MFC taking a psi or two and feasibly you would deliver 5 slpm at approximately 24 to 25 psi. The more comfort factor you want, the higher the inlet pressure to the regulator, and the more available flow you have at that pressure. In your situation, based on what we know here, I would set up the line regulator with 60 to 70 psi coming in from the cylinder regulator, and dial the output to 40 psi - 45 psi. This way you have ample safety factor in the system so you don't starve a regulator at max flow. If you have any questions, please let me know. I hope this helps. Best regards, 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" -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Robert M. Hamilton Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:50 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures Colleagues, What is the preferred line pressure for delivering SF6 from a gas vault to a valve-manifold box? The SF6 cylinder pressure in our indoor cylinder vault is ~320 psi. The final delivery pressure is ~18-22 psi. There is a cylinder regulator at the cylinders as well as line pressure regulators in the VMB. Our delivery volume varies from ~100 sccm to 1.5 slpm. Thanks for any enlightenment, 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) _______________________________________________ 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: AP1010 Flow Curve at 50 psi inlet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52841 bytes Desc: AP1010 Flow Curve at 50 psi inlet.pdf URL: From rizik at intengr.com Thu Mar 7 20:09:31 2013 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:09:31 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures In-Reply-To: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <5138D337.3060706@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <01ab01ce1b99$98e84c30$cab8e490$@intengr.com> Hi Bob, My experience is that the discharge pressure from a remote gas cylinder within is between 80 to 100 psi. At the VMB you can reduce it to the desired pressure required to supply the MFC in the tools gas manifold box. In most cases it is about 30 psig. Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Robert M. Hamilton Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:50 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Question regarding SF6 intermediate gas delivery line pressures Colleagues, What is the preferred line pressure for delivering SF6 from a gas vault to a valve-manifold box? The SF6 cylinder pressure in our indoor cylinder vault is ~320 psi. The final delivery pressure is ~18-22 psi. There is a cylinder regulator at the cylinders as well as line pressure regulators in the VMB. Our delivery volume varies from ~100 sccm to 1.5 slpm. Thanks for any enlightenment, 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) _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From rlbemc at rit.edu Fri Mar 8 14:44:57 2013 From: rlbemc at rit.edu (Richard Battaglia) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:44:57 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Anemometer testing Message-ID: I am trying to find a way to check the air flow in our gas cabinets with the doors closed. Right now we are using a hand held anemometer, measuring flow so many dedicated inches inches from the duct and then annotating it. We then are accepting we have the right flow. We are wondering if there is any tool out there, possibly hand held, that would allow us to remotely measure the air flow with the doors closed to ensure we have the right numbers. Thank you, Richard Richard L Battaglia RIT/SMFL 82 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester NY 14623 585-478-3834 cell 585-475-5041 fax From neil.peters at sjsu.edu Fri Mar 8 16:17:13 2013 From: neil.peters at sjsu.edu (Neil Peters) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:17:13 -0800 Subject: [labnetwork] Anemometer testing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Drill a small pilot hole in the duct above the cabinet. Insert the anemometer and measure flow. They sell little cap plugs that can be put in the hole after measurement. That is how we balanced our wet sink dampers. Best Regards Neil On Mar 8, 2013 1:09 PM, "Richard Battaglia" wrote: > I am trying to find a way to check the air flow in our gas cabinets with > the doors closed. Right now we are using a hand held anemometer, measuring > flow so many dedicated inches inches from the duct and then annotating it. > We then are accepting we have the right flow. We are wondering if there > is any tool out there, possibly hand held, that would allow us to remotely > measure the air flow with the doors closed to ensure we have the right > numbers. > > Thank you, > > Richard > > Richard L Battaglia > RIT/SMFL > 82 Lomb Memorial Drive > Rochester NY 14623 > 585-478-3834 cell > 585-475-5041 fax > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 8 16:58:58 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:58:58 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Anemometer testing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF36AF6@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hi Richard, Dwyer makes a number of instruments that can handle what you're looking for, and their prices are pretty good as well. This Air Velocity Kit http://www.dwyer-inst.com/Product/AirVelocity/AirVelocity/Kits-DigitalManometer/Model477-1T-FM-AV is about $550 is portable and measures from 0 - 20" w.c. They also have a nice air flow calculator at http://www.dwyer-inst.com/flowcalc/ that should prove to be useful. Good luck sir! 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" -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Battaglia Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Anemometer testing I am trying to find a way to check the air flow in our gas cabinets with the doors closed. Right now we are using a hand held anemometer, measuring flow so many dedicated inches inches from the duct and then annotating it. We then are accepting we have the right flow. We are wondering if there is any tool out there, possibly hand held, that would allow us to remotely measure the air flow with the doors closed to ensure we have the right numbers. Thank you, Richard Richard L Battaglia RIT/SMFL 82 Lomb Memorial Drive Rochester NY 14623 585-478-3834 cell 585-475-5041 fax _______________________________________________ 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 zdenek.benes at epfl.ch Tue Mar 12 09:50:10 2013 From: zdenek.benes at epfl.ch (Benes Zdenek) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:50:10 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] question about resizing 200mm wafers down to 100mm Message-ID: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> Hi, terribly sorry for this unsolicited email, but would any of you know a good reference for a company, that does wafer resizing from 200mm to 100mm wafers? ideally 2 small wafers from one large one, they would also apply protective resist coating on both sides, and round the edges afterwards? preferably, on the Swiss side of the Atlantic ocean :-) thanks a lot for the tips sincerely zdenek -------------------------------------------- Zdenek Benes, PhD Ebeam, SEM, FIB engineer Center of MicroNanoTechnology, EPFL BM 1.127 (BM Building) Station 17 CH-1015 Lausanne Switzerland Phone: +41 21 693 7751 Fax: +41 21 693 5770 Email: zdenek.benes at epfl.ch CMI : http://cmi.epfl.ch/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Tue Mar 12 15:35:16 2013 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:35:16 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] question about resizing 200mm wafers down to 100mm In-Reply-To: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <513F8374.3050406@eecs.berkeley.edu> http://wafer-coring-resizing.com/wafer-coring/ Benes Zdenek wrote: > Hi, > > terribly sorry for this unsolicited email, but would any of you know a > good reference for a company, that does wafer resizing from 200mm to > 100mm wafers? ideally 2 small wafers from one large one, they would > also apply protective resist coating on both sides, and round the > edges afterwards? > > preferably, on the Swiss side of the Atlantic ocean :-) > > thanks a lot for the tips > > sincerely > > zdenek > > /--------------------------------------------/ > /Zdenek Benes, PhD/ > /Ebeam, SEM, FIB engineer/ > /Center of MicroNanoTechnology, EPFL/ > / > / > /BM 1.127 (BM Building) > Station 17 > CH-1015 Lausanne > Switzerland > > Phone: +41 21 693 7751 > Fax: +41 21 693 5770 > Email: zdenek.benes at epfl.ch > > CMI : http://cmi.epfl.ch// > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 khbeis at uw.edu Tue Mar 12 17:15:56 2013 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:15:56 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] question about resizing 200mm wafers down to 100mm In-Reply-To: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: Benes, From June 2011: Questech Services Corp 2201 Executive Drive Garland TX 75041-6120 972-278-8006 We ran laser downsize from 8" to 6", with bevel, semi-standard flat, edge grinding, photoresist, and laser marking. Good luck, Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (F) 206.221.1681 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu http://www.engr.washington.edu/mff/ On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Benes Zdenek wrote: > Hi, > > terribly sorry for this unsolicited email, but would any of you know a good reference for a company, that does wafer resizing from 200mm to 100mm wafers? ideally 2 small wafers from one large one, they would also apply protective resist coating on both sides, and round the edges afterwards? > > preferably, on the Swiss side of the Atlantic ocean :-) > > thanks a lot for the tips > > sincerely > > zdenek > > -------------------------------------------- > Zdenek Benes, PhD > Ebeam, SEM, FIB engineer > Center of MicroNanoTechnology, EPFL > > BM 1.127 (BM Building) > Station 17 > CH-1015 Lausanne > Switzerland > > Phone: +41 21 693 7751 > Fax: +41 21 693 5770 > Email: zdenek.benes at epfl.ch > > CMI : http://cmi.epfl.ch/ > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1366 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pkarulkar9 at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 18:28:19 2013 From: pkarulkar9 at gmail.com (Pramod C Karulkar) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:28:19 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] question about resizing 200mm wafers down to 100mm In-Reply-To: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <71E7375832B78A4BAB97703675E471C51C1C235D@REXMF.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <513FAC03.1090801@gmail.com> A company in Pasadena, California, Crystal Mark, sold a small machine to do this. They used to do service. See: Wafer Coring and contouring at http://www.crystalmarkinc.com/applications/water-processing Normally the job involves going from a larger diameter (8" or 6") to smaller diameter (6', 4" or 3"). Getting two tiny wafers from one large wafer might be difficult on a lathe-like machine that is normally used for this kind of job. However, it is not impossible. You may have to develop a jig specific to your needs. Good luck. Pramod Karulkar Pramod C Karulkar Ph. D. Home 2*5*3* 3*0*3 0*4*1*8 6024 33rd Street Ct NW Gig Harbor WA 98335 On 3/12/2013 6:50 AM, Benes Zdenek wrote: > Hi, > > terribly sorry for this unsolicited email, but would any of you know a > good reference for a company, that does wafer resizing from 200mm to > 100mm wafers? ideally 2 small wafers from one large one, they would > also apply protective resist coating on both sides, and round the > edges afterwards? > > preferably, on the Swiss side of the Atlantic ocean :-) > > thanks a lot for the tips > > sincerely > > zdenek > > /--------------------------------------------/ > /Zdenek Benes, PhD/ > /Ebeam, SEM, FIB engineer/ > /Center of MicroNanoTechnology, EPFL/ > / > / > /BM 1.127 (BM Building) > Station 17 > CH-1015 Lausanne > Switzerland > > Phone: +41 21 693 7751 > Fax: +41 21 693 5770 > Email: zdenek.benes at epfl.ch > > CMI : http://cmi.epfl.ch// > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com Wed Mar 13 10:39:10 2013 From: Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com (Schultz, Steven) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:39:10 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases Message-ID: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> ALL: Have a client with large quantities of Tools and Equipment's asking: Steve: In your work travels, have you seen a good off-the-shelf commercial product for tracking major tools such as we've done with the equipment database we sent to you? I'm just wondering if you've seen a different end user (or HDR yourselves) have found an outside software product that does this well. No big deal if you haven't. I just thought I would ask. Any suggestions you can give will be appreciated. Even confirmation that no, you haven't seen a good off-the-shelf product will be helpful. Do any of you use an off-the-shelf database for logging and tracking your tools, and as always, the capabilities to input utilities needs, sizes, weights, access zones. Etc. Would appreciate inputs. Thanks. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rmorrison at draper.com Wed Mar 13 11:50:08 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:50:08 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases In-Reply-To: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> References: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> Message-ID: HI, At Draper it is just an excel spreadsheet. Never found any 3rd party tools. 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 Schultz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:39 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases ALL: Have a client with large quantities of Tools and Equipment's asking: Steve: In your work travels, have you seen a good off-the-shelf commercial product for tracking major tools such as we've done with the equipment database we sent to you? I'm just wondering if you've seen a different end user (or HDR yourselves) have found an outside software product that does this well. No big deal if you haven't. I just thought I would ask. Any suggestions you can give will be appreciated. Even confirmation that no, you haven't seen a good off-the-shelf product will be helpful. Do any of you use an off-the-shelf database for logging and tracking your tools, and as always, the capabilities to input utilities needs, sizes, weights, access zones. Etc. Would appreciate inputs. Thanks. 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 | The MTL Mail Server has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.hdrinc.com" claiming to be hdrarchitecture.com Follow Us - Architizer | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Thu Mar 14 23:30:18 2013 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:30:18 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases In-Reply-To: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> References: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB008669B2C57@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> http://www.abbiegregg.com/services_soft_fabtech.html This is our product for tracking tools and utilities. It works very well, we have completed almost 800 projects and sold it to many clients, both University and Industrial. We are developing Revit features for it now with a new release coming next year. A Demo is available on our website. 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 Schultz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:39 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases ALL: Have a client with large quantities of Tools and Equipment's asking: Steve: In your work travels, have you seen a good off-the-shelf commercial product for tracking major tools such as we've done with the equipment database we sent to you? I'm just wondering if you've seen a different end user (or HDR yourselves) have found an outside software product that does this well. No big deal if you haven't. I just thought I would ask. Any suggestions you can give will be appreciated. Even confirmation that no, you haven't seen a good off-the-shelf product will be helpful. Do any of you use an off-the-shelf database for logging and tracking your tools, and as always, the capabilities to input utilities needs, sizes, weights, access zones. Etc. Would appreciate inputs. Thanks. 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 | The MTL Mail Server has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.hdrinc.com" claiming to be hdrarchitecture.com Follow Us - Architizer | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com Mon Mar 18 09:59:41 2013 From: Steven.Schultz at hdrinc.com (Schultz, Steven) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:59:41 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases In-Reply-To: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> References: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0AED33@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> Message-ID: <93B2C4A54D36FF438897A6A387803D215F0B191C@OMAC-INEXDAG1N4.intranet.hdr> FYI - Summary: ? Received only 2 responses: o One response said they use Excel spreadsheet to itemize the tools o The 2 Database Systems identified: ? HDR Tool / Equipment Database System - provided as a service: A Vision database, configured to any need, includes Fac. Asset Mngnmt. system, can include Prevent. Maint. Mngnmnt.; including utilities, sizes, weights, support equipment, etc. HDR will provide all the surveying and data collection for inputting into the System. ? AGI - Has a Database as defined in her email response 3/14/13. Thanks for the inputs! 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 Schultz, Steven Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:39 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Tool Databases ALL: Have a client with large quantities of Tools and Equipment's asking: Steve: In your work travels, have you seen a good off-the-shelf commercial product for tracking major tools such as we've done with the equipment database we sent to you? I'm just wondering if you've seen a different end user (or HDR yourselves) have found an outside software product that does this well. No big deal if you haven't. I just thought I would ask. Any suggestions you can give will be appreciated. Even confirmation that no, you haven't seen a good off-the-shelf product will be helpful. Do any of you use an off-the-shelf database for logging and tracking your tools, and as always, the capabilities to input utilities needs, sizes, weights, access zones. Etc. Would appreciate inputs. Thanks. 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 | The MTL Mail Server has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.hdrinc.com" claiming to be hdrarchitecture.com Follow Us - Architizer | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hwooden at iest.org Mon Mar 18 10:35:26 2013 From: hwooden at iest.org (Heather Wooden) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:35:26 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Complimentary Journal of the IEST Articles on Micro/Nano Facilities Message-ID: The latest issue of the Journal of the IEST features Tech Talk articles based on presentations given at the 2012 University/Government/Industry Micro-Nano (UGIM) Symposium. This special edition also provides a sneak preview of a half-day conference session on Fabrication Facility Operationsat ESTECH 2013, April 29-May 2 in San Diego. Accessible at no charge, the March 2013 Journal articles include the following: - IEST and UGIM Working Together, an editorial by IEST Executive Board member John Weaver, explores potential synergies between these two organizations. - Case Study: Design and Construction of the Draper Laboratory Microfabrication Center describes the renovation of a 30-year-old lab into a state-of-the-art processing facility using the latest cleanroom technology, and includes design specifications, construction and commissioning aspects, and data on temperature, relative humidity, and particle counts. - Facilities Planning for Safety and Emergency Response describes safety considerations for micro/nano facilities and applicable building code provisions with a focus on the two key elements: engineered features incorporated into building construction and administrative features that deal with how people work within the facility. - Financial and Operational Survey of 12 Major University Nanofabrication Facilities reports on a subset of metrics based on an extensive survey of the laboratories, and presents data relating to such factors as laboratory staffing, operating costs, subsidies, cost recovery, tuition, comparative tool rates, hours of use, and populations. The issue also offers an IEST 60th Anniversary Retrospective and a tribute to the late Willis J. Whitfield, ?Father of the Modern Cleanroom.? Tech Talk articles such as these are accessible to all readers. IEST members also enjoy unrestricted access to peer-reviewed technical papers in each issue of theJournal of the IEST, as well as a 25-year archive of technical papers. If you are not a member, consider joining today. View the March Special Edition of the Journal of the IEST 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 rmorrison at draper.com Tue Mar 19 14:32:50 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:32:50 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] cost recovery Message-ID: Hi All, Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was wondering if others could share their detail with me. Thanks 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Tue Mar 19 16:28:20 2013 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:28:20 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] cost recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> Rick: It will be interesting to see the responses to this question ... in my experience there is a greater lab-to-lab variation in how people charge for lab usage than anything else. Here is what we do at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. Details are at http://snf.stanford.edu/join/fees.htm, but I'll provide more of a prose discussion of what we do and why. First, we don't charge a monthly access fee and we don't charge for being in the clean room. We charge one of three hourly rates for equipment usage: most equipment is charged at $75 per hour for academic users. Wet benches, manual spinners, and a number of basic characterization tools are charged at $50 per hour (2/3 of the base rate). Three tools (Raith 150 ebeam, ASML i-line stepper, and AMAT Centura epi) are charged at $92 per hour. Industrial rates are double that of academic rates for all tools. We then have what we call the "notched" cap. If your equipment use charges reach $3000 in a month (the equivalent of 40-hours of base-rate equipment usage), your equipment charges don't go up ... unless you exceed 160 hours of equipment use in a month. If that happens, you begin to get charged again at 25% of the original rate for each tool. The industrial equipment cap kicks in at $6000, so both the "flat" portion and the non-zero slope kick in at the same point in terms of hours of usage. The purpose of the slope after 160 hours of equipment usage is both to prevent equipment hogging and to discourage people from working around the clock for extended periods of time. I view the cap as a volume-discount in the hourly equipment rate for our biggest users. We have survived many audits ... although I believe that auditors are genetically predisposed to dislike anything other than a flat hourly rate. Oh, one minor wrinkle: we also charge for precious metals (Au, At, Pt, and Pd, and Ir, I think) based on the net weight used for each of those materials (labmembers weight the target/crucible before and after their deposition) and those precious metal charges are not subject to capping. Staff usage for processing wafers and training are charged on an uncapped basis of about $60 and $90 per hour, respectively. That rate is applied equally to academic and non-academic users. People like the cap because it is predictable in terms of budgeting and proposal writing. It also doesn't penalize folks for taking longer to get something done (in a given month) than they might have first envisioned. The users who only use a lab a few hours a month probably don't like it because their hourly rate has to be higher than the "true" cost of that usage (otherwise the cap can't work ...) but they still get access to a lot of equipment, technology, and infrastructure for a pretty reasonable hourly rate. Let me know if you have any questions, John On 3/19/2013 11:32 AM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > > Hi All, > > Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication > Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover > cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the > presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was > wondering if others could share their detail with me. > > Thanks > Rick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diadiuk at MIT.EDU Wed Mar 20 08:18:13 2013 From: diadiuk at MIT.EDU (Vicky Diadiuk) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:18:13 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] cost recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI, John Shott is right - there are many variations on charging for use of the fab. Presently, at MTL we have an ANNUAL cap for internal users, none for others. Our rates try to reflect what using a tool actually costs so they are based on process units (pu); they are listed in: http://www-mtl.mit.edu/services/fabrication/machine_charges.html The dollar value of a pu can be adjusted to cover fab expenses as they vary in time. There are many more details which I can discuss if you're interested. Vicky On Mar 19, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > Hi All, > > Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was wondering if others could share their detail with me. > > Thanks > Rick > > > Draper Laboratory > Group Leader Microfabrication Operations > 555 Technology Square > Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 > > www.draper.com > rmorrison at draper.com > W 617-258-3420 > C 508-930-3461 > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberto.panepucci at cti.gov.br Wed Mar 20 10:12:06 2013 From: roberto.panepucci at cti.gov.br (Roberto Panepucci) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:12:06 -0300 Subject: [labnetwork] RES: cost recovery In-Reply-To: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> References: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <007f01ce2574$e7313980$b593ac80$@panepucci@cti.gov.br> Hello, I suggest looking at the data gathered in the paper presented at UGIM2010 by Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger, from Purdue. They look at data from several microfab labs in the US, NNIN and non-NNIN: Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger , ?Microfabrication Process Cost Calculator,? Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA It is in the CD with proceedings, and I am sure the authors would get you a copy. Their emails are: amahmood at purdue.edu, rreger at purdue.edu Cheers, Roberto Panepucci ---- Roberto R. Panepucci, PhD Division Head - DCSH Centro de Tecnologia da Informa??o Renato Archer - CTI Rodovia Dom Pedro I, km 143,6 Bairro:Amarais Campinas - S?o Paulo - Brasil CEP 13069-901 Telefone: +55 19 3746-6072 Fax: +55 19 3746-6028 www.cti.gov.br De: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] Em nome de John Shott Enviada em: ter?a-feira, 19 de mar?o de 2013 17:28 Para: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Assunto: Re: [labnetwork] cost recovery Rick: It will be interesting to see the responses to this question ... in my experience there is a greater lab-to-lab variation in how people charge for lab usage than anything else. Here is what we do at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. Details are at http://snf.stanford.edu/join/fees.htm, but I'll provide more of a prose discussion of what we do and why. First, we don't charge a monthly access fee and we don't charge for being in the clean room. We charge one of three hourly rates for equipment usage: most equipment is charged at $75 per hour for academic users. Wet benches, manual spinners, and a number of basic characterization tools are charged at $50 per hour (2/3 of the base rate). Three tools (Raith 150 ebeam, ASML i-line stepper, and AMAT Centura epi) are charged at $92 per hour. Industrial rates are double that of academic rates for all tools. We then have what we call the "notched" cap. If your equipment use charges reach $3000 in a month (the equivalent of 40-hours of base-rate equipment usage), your equipment charges don't go up ... unless you exceed 160 hours of equipment use in a month. If that happens, you begin to get charged again at 25% of the original rate for each tool. The industrial equipment cap kicks in at $6000, so both the "flat" portion and the non-zero slope kick in at the same point in terms of hours of usage. The purpose of the slope after 160 hours of equipment usage is both to prevent equipment hogging and to discourage people from working around the clock for extended periods of time. I view the cap as a volume-discount in the hourly equipment rate for our biggest users. We have survived many audits ... although I believe that auditors are genetically predisposed to dislike anything other than a flat hourly rate. Oh, one minor wrinkle: we also charge for precious metals (Au, At, Pt, and Pd, and Ir, I think) based on the net weight used for each of those materials (labmembers weight the target/crucible before and after their deposition) and those precious metal charges are not subject to capping. Staff usage for processing wafers and training are charged on an uncapped basis of about $60 and $90 per hour, respectively. That rate is applied equally to academic and non-academic users. People like the cap because it is predictable in terms of budgeting and proposal writing. It also doesn't penalize folks for taking longer to get something done (in a given month) than they might have first envisioned. The users who only use a lab a few hours a month probably don't like it because their hourly rate has to be higher than the "true" cost of that usage (otherwise the cap can't work ...) but they still get access to a lot of equipment, technology, and infrastructure for a pretty reasonable hourly rate. Let me know if you have any questions, John On 3/19/2013 11:32 AM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: Hi All, Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was wondering if others could share their detail with me. Thanks Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From khbeis at uw.edu Wed Mar 20 10:25:31 2013 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:25:31 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] cost recovery In-Reply-To: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> References: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3ED9BF8B-F7A4-4831-AD34-0BA6547F5C62@uw.edu> Rick, We have a similar notch-cap model as SNF for the same reasons. Here is the link: http://www.engr.washington.edu/sites/engr.washington.edu/files/facresearch/microfab/docs/MicrofabricationFacilityRates.pdf We differ from SNF as we do charge a nominal monthly/daily access fee to cover the cost of chemicals (including stock resists), consumables (gloves, booties, etc), and gown rental/cleaning fees, but wet processing and characterization/inspection is included at this rate, so people doing soft litho are just paying to get in and everything else is covered after hitting a very low monthly cap for the spinners. We also charge different rates for different classes and types of equipment. Our mandate is to recover cost on the individual tools and it is not justifiable to our auditors to charge the same rate for running a plasma asher and a DRIE since the chemical costs and turbo/pump rebuild expenses are far higher, so we charge more for the more complex systems that have higher operating overhead and demand more staff time for maintenance. While it is much simpler to charge flat rates, we feel it is unfair to subsidize someone who is doing DRIE or Chlorine ICP with the folks running an asher. Currently we don't charge for training labor, but users are required to pay tool time unless we can coordinate a group training session. John, and the other site managers, I would like to understand how you charge/monitor use for wet chemical benches and chemical consumption. Our consumption (resists, solvents, acid/base) is around $80-100K/year and climbing. I built in CORAL/BADGER capable interlocks into the design of the benches, but the debate with our EH&S was in disabling the bench without impacting safety (e.g. ability to rinse a glove or sample) and with our staff and users on the nuisance of having to log multiple benches in and out when moving from station to station (e.g. going from develop to BOE bench). With so many users simultaneously moving in and out of the benches, we didn't have a good idea of how to manage this, so the chemical overhead is lumped into the daily rate. This unfortunately fostered a "it's free" mentality. I would catch a grad student pouring a liter of sulfuric to do piranha on one wafer (even though we maintain pre and post metal tanks for piranha). Any feedback and insight on this topic is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (F) 206.221.1681 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu http://www.engr.washington.edu/mff/ On Mar 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, John Shott wrote: > Rick: > > It will be interesting to see the responses to this question ... in my experience there is a greater lab-to-lab variation in how people charge for lab usage than anything else. > > Here is what we do at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility. Details are at http://snf.stanford.edu/join/fees.htm, but I'll provide more of a prose discussion of what we do and why. > > First, we don't charge a monthly access fee and we don't charge for being in the clean room. > > We charge one of three hourly rates for equipment usage: most equipment is charged at $75 per hour for academic users. Wet benches, manual spinners, and a number of basic characterization tools are charged at $50 per hour (2/3 of the base rate). Three tools (Raith 150 ebeam, ASML i-line stepper, and AMAT Centura epi) are charged at $92 per hour. Industrial rates are double that of academic rates for all tools. > > We then have what we call the "notched" cap. If your equipment use charges reach $3000 in a month (the equivalent of 40-hours of base-rate equipment usage), your equipment charges don't go up ... unless you exceed 160 hours of equipment use in a month. If that happens, you begin to get charged again at 25% of the original rate for each tool. The industrial equipment cap kicks in at $6000, so both the "flat" portion and the non-zero slope kick in at the same point in terms of hours of usage. The purpose of the slope after 160 hours of equipment usage is both to prevent equipment hogging and to discourage people from working around the clock for extended periods of time. > > I view the cap as a volume-discount in the hourly equipment rate for our biggest users. We have survived many audits ... although I believe that auditors are genetically predisposed to dislike anything other than a flat hourly rate. > > Oh, one minor wrinkle: we also charge for precious metals (Au, At, Pt, and Pd, and Ir, I think) based on the net weight used for each of those materials (labmembers weight the target/crucible before and after their deposition) and those precious metal charges are not subject to capping. > > Staff usage for processing wafers and training are charged on an uncapped basis of about $60 and $90 per hour, respectively. That rate is applied equally to academic and non-academic users. > > People like the cap because it is predictable in terms of budgeting and proposal writing. It also doesn't penalize folks for taking longer to get something done (in a given month) than they might have first envisioned. The users who only use a lab a few hours a month probably don't like it because their hourly rate has to be higher than the "true" cost of that usage (otherwise the cap can't work ...) but they still get access to a lot of equipment, technology, and infrastructure for a pretty reasonable hourly rate. > > Let me know if you have any questions, > > John > > > On 3/19/2013 11:32 AM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> Draper is investigating cost recovery for our new Microfabrication Center. Right now we charge a flat fee of $117 per hour to recover cost. I was wondering what others did in this regard. I have the presentation from UGIM on the Berkeley Marvell center but I was wondering if others could share their detail with me. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> Rick >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1366 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shott at stanford.edu Wed Mar 20 12:54:43 2013 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:54:43 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] cost recovery In-Reply-To: <3ED9BF8B-F7A4-4831-AD34-0BA6547F5C62@uw.edu> References: <5148CA64.7030509@stanford.edu> <3ED9BF8B-F7A4-4831-AD34-0BA6547F5C62@uw.edu> Message-ID: <5149E9D3.8050000@stanford.edu> Michael, Rick, et al: In our case, the chemical cost of a tool ... spinner, wet bench, etc. is built into the tool cost. (Well, approximately, we just make a ball park estimate and lump a tool into one of our three categories. So, when a track is enabled, you are racking up equipment charges that include the cost of resist, developer, etc. Same with the wet benches ... chemical cost is included in the tool cost. Precious metals are our only exception to that rule (although germane cost at the epi reactor should be another exception ...) In terms of interlocking wet benches, we have tried to do this in a way that doesn't jeopardize potential safety ... use of a spray gun to rinse off a spill. In general, we've been successful by interlocking the level switch that is found in most hot pots ... if the tool is not enabled, it thinks that there is low chemcial level and won't let heat be applied to the hot pot. For the few benches where we still have hot plates ... I hate hot plates ... we also interlock the heater power. No interlock enabled, no heat. Finally, although I can't tell you exactly what we've interlocked, we also interlock the SRDs associated with a wet bench. Nobody will try to stick their hand in a SRD in an emergency situation. Since we have few different "tiers" of equipment rate, we probably do have cases where we "make money" on some tools and "lose" on others. We've always felt that tracking detailed cost on a per-tool basis would be onerous. Particularly because our university accounting system doesn't provide us very good resolution in that regard. Just distributing nitrogen costs on a per-tool basis would be a bit tricky. A typical dry pump used for anything other than a load lock consumes on the order of 1 CFM of nitrogen ... at our rate, that's $4k annually. We've certainly been through a bunch of audits ... but never been "written up" because we don't charge a different rate for each tool. Typically, they are so focused on the cap, that they forget to ask about this ... Let me know if you have any other questions. John On 3/20/2013 7:25 AM, Michael Khbeis wrote: > John, and the other site managers, I would like to understand how you charge/monitor use for wet chemical benches and chemical consumption. Our consumption (resists, solvents, acid/base) is around $80-100K/year and climbing. I built in CORAL/BADGER capable interlocks into the design of the benches, but the debate with our EH&S was in disabling the bench without impacting safety (e.g. ability to rinse a glove or sample) and with our staff and users on the nuisance of having to log multiple benches in and out when moving from station to station (e.g. going from develop to BOE bench). With so many users simultaneously moving in and out of the benches, we didn't have a good idea of how to manage this, so the chemical overhead is lumped into the daily rate. This unfortunately fostered a "it's free" mentality. I would catch a grad student pouring a liter of sulfuric to do piranha on one wafer (even though we maintain pre and post metal tanks for piranha). Any feedback and insight on this topic is greatly appreciated. > > Best regards, > > Dr. Michael Khbeis > Associate Director > Microfabrication Facility (MFF) > University of Washington > Fluke Hall, Box 352143 From voros at silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU Wed Mar 20 13:30:27 2013 From: voros at silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Katalin Voros) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [labnetwork] Mahmood/Reger paper is not reliable Message-ID: <201303201730.r2KHURpD007826@silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> The Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger, paper "Microfabrication Process Cost Calculator," at the 2010 UGIM presented incorrect data; several of us repudiated it at the conference and asked Mahmood not to include our lab's name in further publications. Dennis Grimard and Lisa Jones from Michigan presented "FY11 Financial and Operational Survey of Major University Nanofabrication Facilities", at UGIM 2012. Contact dgrimard at umich.edu. Dennis did a thorough work by contacting each participant, double checking accuracy and asking about discrepancies. However, as others stated before me, there are as many charging schemes as there are labs. Each one creates a fee structure best (most acceptable) for the local environment. One suggestion, from experience, do not parse it in overly much detail. It will be a nightmare to administer it and exposes you for nitty-gritty arguments. Sincerely Katalin -------------------------------------------- KATALIN VOROS R&D Engineering Manager Engineering Research Support Organization Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley 545D Cory Hall #1770 Berkeley, CA 94720-1770 phone: (510) 642-2911 voros at eecs.berkeley.edu http://microlab.berkeley.edu -------------------------------------------- From jrweaver at purdue.edu Wed Mar 20 17:09:14 2013 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:09:14 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Mahmood/Reger paper is not reliable In-Reply-To: <201303201730.r2KHURpD007826@silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> References: <201303201730.r2KHURpD007826@silicon2.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: <6A848421F695C54A9210C1A873C96AC2072E8C3C@WPVEXCMBX04.purdue.lcl> This forum should not be a place for personal attacks or the putting forth of biased inputs. As supported by a number of people, the Mahmood-Reger paper did a very thorough job of reviewing the costs presented by various facilities for two hypothetical processes. It was put together accurately, and the discrepancy was in the boundary conditions spelled out in the paper. The fact that it was not reviewed by one party - she was contacted but, in her words, "didn't have time to review it" - does not make the paper inaccurate. In this forum we should stick to the topic rather than turning things into an argument that is not even on topic. The last paragraph in this post is the key - there are many charging schemes used by various facilities. Each individual should look at their goals and what is acceptable to their customers. One can create a very involved system that applies costs to cost-causers in great detail or one can go with a very simple approach such as charging by the time one is in the cleanroom. Most facilities charge by something that is between these two extremes. John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Katalin Voros Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:30 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Mahmood/Reger paper is not reliable The Aamer Mahmood and Ron Reger, paper "Microfabrication Process Cost Calculator," at the 2010 UGIM presented incorrect data; several of us repudiated it at the conference and asked Mahmood not to include our lab's name in further publications. Dennis Grimard and Lisa Jones from Michigan presented "FY11 Financial and Operational Survey of Major University Nanofabrication Facilities", at UGIM 2012. Contact dgrimard at umich.edu. Dennis did a thorough work by contacting each participant, double checking accuracy and asking about discrepancies. However, as others stated before me, there are as many charging schemes as there are labs. Each one creates a fee structure best (most acceptable) for the local environment. One suggestion, from experience, do not parse it in overly much detail. It will be a nightmare to administer it and exposes you for nitty-gritty arguments. Sincerely Katalin -------------------------------------------- KATALIN VOROS R&D Engineering Manager Engineering Research Support Organization Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley 545D Cory Hall #1770 Berkeley, CA 94720-1770 phone: (510) 642-2911 voros at eecs.berkeley.edu http://microlab.berkeley.edu -------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From valli at ee.iitb.ac.in Mon Mar 25 08:48:57 2013 From: valli at ee.iitb.ac.in (Satyavalli Paluri) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:18:57 +0530 (IST) Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India Message-ID: Hello , We have a Sentech ICPRIE system. BCl3 gas line is connected to it for etching purpose. We are facing a problem while evacuating the line sometimes. It takes longer time than normal for evacuation. Can someone please advise. Thanks & regards Valli -- Assistant Lab Manager, CEN, Electrical Engg Dept, Annexe, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, Powai- 400076 Tel No. 02225764435/09820856337(M) > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems > From: "Fouad Karouta" > Date: Thu, August 9, 2012 5:15 am > To: "'Bowser, Jerry'" > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Jerry, > > > > At our facility we have gas monitoring using sensors from Bionics (Cl2, > BCl3, SiH4, NH3, flammables). All sensors are monitored by a home built > monitoring cabinet based on a quite flexible software that we kept > adapting > to meet our needs. All sensors have two levels of alarm: > > 1- Alarm 1: just give a warning at the local level (monitoring > cabinet) > > 2- Alarm 2: here we differentiate between sensors in open area > towards > sensors in exhaust ducting. The open lab sensors will trigger a general > alarm: sirens, shutting down all gases, evacuation and alert fire Dept; > while the exhaust detectors will initiate shutting down the corresponding > gas and the system using it, shutting the exhaust fan plus a local alarm > at > the monitoring cabinet level/lab. > > > > Before taking my actual position in Australia I worked at Technical > University Eindhoven where an 800m2 clean room was built in 2000-2002 with > also Bionics sensors used to monitor gases like AsH3, PH3, SiH4, NH3, Cl2, > flammables. Bionics did deliver a complete system with the interfacing > computer that controls all sensors. > > > > We get the sensors calibrated twice by representatives of Bionics in > Australia. > > > > 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 > > > > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] > On Behalf Of Bowser, Jerry > Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 3:14 AM > To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' > Subject: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems > > > > Hello All, > > > > I wanted to survey the group for information regarding the type and brands > of toxic gas monitoring control systems in use. > > > > Here at the CNST, we use various gas sensors (about 55) connected to a > custom PLC based system that is just about at capacity. If a gas is > detected, the system shuts down gas cabinets, sounds alarms, and alerts > our > fire department. The major shortfall of the system is that the detection > level can be read at the sensor in the detection zone but is not displayed > at the control interface. > > > > Before we decide on upgrading or replacing our control system, I thought I > would see what others are currently using. Thanks for your input. > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > Jerry Bowser > > NanoFab Operations Group > > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > > National Institute of Standards and Technology > > Phone: (301) 975-8187 > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > > -- > -- From len.olona at ou.edu Mon Mar 25 19:16:08 2013 From: len.olona at ou.edu (Olona, Leonard E.) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 23:16:08 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D54658C-2D37-42C9-A136-4AD538E631FE@ou.edu> Valli, A quick check of the following... What is your gas cylinder change out procedure? Do you employ several pump purge cycles? What is your purge gas? BCL3 has a tendency to get "sticky and gooey" if exposed to atmosphere. We like to purge with UHP N2 and He mixture. This will allow for leak checking the gas cabinet as well. Other items to consider... If there was a leak in the gas delivery/jungle, residue would be present inside the gas lines. That could be a culprit for slow evacuation. These are are just a couple of high level thoughts. Without seeing your SOP its hard to say. Can you provide and other particulars? Do you have an excess flow valve that could be hanging up? Thank you, Len Leonard Olona Cleanroom Manager University of Oklahoma 110 West Boyd Norman, Oklahoma 73019 Desk (405) 325-4374 Cell. (405) 630-9068 Len.olona at ou.edu On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:28 PM, "Satyavalli Paluri" wrote: > > Hello , > > We have a Sentech ICPRIE system. BCl3 gas line is connected to it for > etching purpose. We are facing a problem while evacuating the line > sometimes. It takes longer time than normal for evacuation. > Can someone please advise. > > > Thanks & regards > Valli > > -- > Assistant Lab Manager, > CEN, Electrical Engg Dept, Annexe, > IIT Bombay, Mumbai, Powai- 400076 > Tel No. 02225764435/09820856337(M) > > > > > > >> >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- >> Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems >> From: "Fouad Karouta" >> Date: Thu, August 9, 2012 5:15 am >> To: "'Bowser, Jerry'" >> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Hi Jerry, >> >> >> >> At our facility we have gas monitoring using sensors from Bionics (Cl2, >> BCl3, SiH4, NH3, flammables). All sensors are monitored by a home built >> monitoring cabinet based on a quite flexible software that we kept >> adapting >> to meet our needs. All sensors have two levels of alarm: >> >> 1- Alarm 1: just give a warning at the local level (monitoring >> cabinet) >> >> 2- Alarm 2: here we differentiate between sensors in open area >> towards >> sensors in exhaust ducting. The open lab sensors will trigger a general >> alarm: sirens, shutting down all gases, evacuation and alert fire Dept; >> while the exhaust detectors will initiate shutting down the corresponding >> gas and the system using it, shutting the exhaust fan plus a local alarm >> at >> the monitoring cabinet level/lab. >> >> >> >> Before taking my actual position in Australia I worked at Technical >> University Eindhoven where an 800m2 clean room was built in 2000-2002 with >> also Bionics sensors used to monitor gases like AsH3, PH3, SiH4, NH3, Cl2, >> flammables. Bionics did deliver a complete system with the interfacing >> computer that controls all sensors. >> >> >> >> We get the sensors calibrated twice by representatives of Bionics in >> Australia. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu >> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] >> On Behalf Of Bowser, Jerry >> Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 3:14 AM >> To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' >> Subject: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems >> >> >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> I wanted to survey the group for information regarding the type and brands >> of toxic gas monitoring control systems in use. >> >> >> >> Here at the CNST, we use various gas sensors (about 55) connected to a >> custom PLC based system that is just about at capacity. If a gas is >> detected, the system shuts down gas cabinets, sounds alarms, and alerts >> our >> fire department. The major shortfall of the system is that the detection >> level can be read at the sensor in the detection zone but is not displayed >> at the control interface. >> >> >> >> Before we decide on upgrading or replacing our control system, I thought I >> would see what others are currently using. Thanks for your input. >> >> >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ******************************************* >> >> Jerry Bowser >> >> NanoFab Operations Group >> >> Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology >> >> National Institute of Standards and Technology >> >> Phone: (301) 975-8187 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 James_Goodman at uml.edu Tue Mar 26 06:56:58 2013 From: James_Goodman at uml.edu (Goodman, James R) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:56:58 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Valli, Depending on the temperature and pressure in your gas cabinet it is possible to have liquid in the pig tail, regulator, or delivery line. This could cause unpredictable pump down times. Since I do not know your specific cabinet design and configuration this is only a suggestion on my part. Jay. James Goodman Equipment Manager, Saab/ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory University of Massachusetts, Lowell 40 University Ave. Room 121 Lowell, MA -01854 Office (978) 934-3469 Cell (603) 235-1496 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Satyavalli Paluri Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:49 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Cc: xandeeps at gmail.com; vanaparthy at ee.iitb.ac.in; Hemant Ghadi Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India Hello , We have a Sentech ICPRIE system. BCl3 gas line is connected to it for etching purpose. We are facing a problem while evacuating the line sometimes. It takes longer time than normal for evacuation. Can someone please advise. Thanks & regards Valli -- Assistant Lab Manager, CEN, Electrical Engg Dept, Annexe, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, Powai- 400076 Tel No. 02225764435/09820856337(M) > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems > From: "Fouad Karouta" > Date: Thu, August 9, 2012 5:15 am > To: "'Bowser, Jerry'" > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Jerry, > > > > At our facility we have gas monitoring using sensors from Bionics (Cl2, > BCl3, SiH4, NH3, flammables). All sensors are monitored by a home built > monitoring cabinet based on a quite flexible software that we kept > adapting > to meet our needs. All sensors have two levels of alarm: > > 1- Alarm 1: just give a warning at the local level (monitoring > cabinet) > > 2- Alarm 2: here we differentiate between sensors in open area > towards > sensors in exhaust ducting. The open lab sensors will trigger a general > alarm: sirens, shutting down all gases, evacuation and alert fire Dept; > while the exhaust detectors will initiate shutting down the corresponding > gas and the system using it, shutting the exhaust fan plus a local alarm > at > the monitoring cabinet level/lab. > > > > Before taking my actual position in Australia I worked at Technical > University Eindhoven where an 800m2 clean room was built in 2000-2002 with > also Bionics sensors used to monitor gases like AsH3, PH3, SiH4, NH3, Cl2, > flammables. Bionics did deliver a complete system with the interfacing > computer that controls all sensors. > > > > We get the sensors calibrated twice by representatives of Bionics in > Australia. > > > > 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 > > > > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] > On Behalf Of Bowser, Jerry > Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 3:14 AM > To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' > Subject: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems > > > > Hello All, > > > > I wanted to survey the group for information regarding the type and brands > of toxic gas monitoring control systems in use. > > > > Here at the CNST, we use various gas sensors (about 55) connected to a > custom PLC based system that is just about at capacity. If a gas is > detected, the system shuts down gas cabinets, sounds alarms, and alerts > our > fire department. The major shortfall of the system is that the detection > level can be read at the sensor in the detection zone but is not displayed > at the control interface. > > > > Before we decide on upgrading or replacing our control system, I thought I > would see what others are currently using. Thanks for your input. > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > ******************************************* > > Jerry Bowser > > NanoFab Operations Group > > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > > National Institute of Standards and Technology > > Phone: (301) 975-8187 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 valli at ee.iitb.ac.in Tue Mar 26 07:07:14 2013 From: valli at ee.iitb.ac.in (Satyavalli Paluri) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:37:14 +0530 (IST) Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much for the very good suggestions and feedbacks we have received from you all. This information shall be passed on to our students and staff who work on the instrument. We will discuss and revert back to you if we have any further queries. Thanks once again! Valli -- Assistant Lab Manager, CEN, Electrical Engg Dept, Annexe, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, Powai- 400076 Tel No. 02225764435/09820856337(M) > Valli, > > Depending on the temperature and pressure in your gas cabinet it is > possible to have liquid in the pig tail, regulator, or delivery line. This > could cause unpredictable pump down times. Since I do not know your > specific cabinet design and configuration this is only a suggestion on my > part. > > Jay. > > James Goodman > Equipment Manager, Saab/ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory > University of Massachusetts, Lowell > 40 University Ave. > Room 121 > Lowell, MA -01854 > Office (978) 934-3469 > Cell (603) 235-1496 > > -----Original Message----- > From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Satyavalli Paluri > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 8:49 AM > To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > Cc: xandeeps at gmail.com; vanaparthy at ee.iitb.ac.in; Hemant Ghadi > Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India > > > Hello , > > We have a Sentech ICPRIE system. BCl3 gas line is connected to it for > etching purpose. We are facing a problem while evacuating the line > sometimes. It takes longer time than normal for evacuation. > Can someone please advise. > > > Thanks & regards > Valli > > -- > Assistant Lab Manager, > CEN, Electrical Engg Dept, Annexe, > IIT Bombay, Mumbai, Powai- 400076 > Tel No. 02225764435/09820856337(M) > > > > > > >> >> >> ---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >> Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems >> From: "Fouad Karouta" >> Date: Thu, August 9, 2012 5:15 am >> To: "'Bowser, Jerry'" >> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Hi Jerry, >> >> >> >> At our facility we have gas monitoring using sensors from Bionics (Cl2, >> BCl3, SiH4, NH3, flammables). All sensors are monitored by a home built >> monitoring cabinet based on a quite flexible software that we kept >> adapting >> to meet our needs. All sensors have two levels of alarm: >> >> 1- Alarm 1: just give a warning at the local level (monitoring >> cabinet) >> >> 2- Alarm 2: here we differentiate between sensors in open area >> towards >> sensors in exhaust ducting. The open lab sensors will trigger a general >> alarm: sirens, shutting down all gases, evacuation and alert fire Dept; >> while the exhaust detectors will initiate shutting down the >> corresponding >> gas and the system using it, shutting the exhaust fan plus a local alarm >> at >> the monitoring cabinet level/lab. >> >> >> >> Before taking my actual position in Australia I worked at Technical >> University Eindhoven where an 800m2 clean room was built in 2000-2002 >> with >> also Bionics sensors used to monitor gases like AsH3, PH3, SiH4, NH3, >> Cl2, >> flammables. Bionics did deliver a complete system with the interfacing >> computer that controls all sensors. >> >> >> >> We get the sensors calibrated twice by representatives of Bionics in >> Australia. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu >> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] >> On Behalf Of Bowser, Jerry >> Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 3:14 AM >> To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' >> Subject: [labnetwork] Toxic Gas Monitoring Systems >> >> >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> I wanted to survey the group for information regarding the type and >> brands >> of toxic gas monitoring control systems in use. >> >> >> >> Here at the CNST, we use various gas sensors (about 55) connected to a >> custom PLC based system that is just about at capacity. If a gas is >> detected, the system shuts down gas cabinets, sounds alarms, and alerts >> our >> fire department. The major shortfall of the system is that the >> detection >> level can be read at the sensor in the detection zone but is not >> displayed >> at the control interface. >> >> >> >> Before we decide on upgrading or replacing our control system, I thought >> I >> would see what others are currently using. Thanks for your input. >> >> >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ******************************************* >> >> Jerry Bowser >> >> NanoFab Operations Group >> >> Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology >> >> National Institute of Standards and Technology >> >> Phone: (301) 975-8187 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Tue Mar 26 10:29:19 2013 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:29:19 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Query regarding ICPRIE system-IIT Bombay_India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5151B0BF.3060002@eecs.berkeley.edu> Satyavalli Palur You should have a pressure regulator in the BCl3 gas cabinet. It should be set for ~2 psig delivery pressure in order to avoid the possibility of condensation (phase change) in the delivery line. A setpoint of 2 psig will provide you some head-room as the pressure of BCl3 pressure in the cylinder, at room temp, is ~ 4.4 psig. There are a number of good, low and sub-atmospheric pressure regulators available for such gases so make sure the regulator is designed for low pressure delivery. We recently had an issue with a SiCl3 line that was routed under an supply air intake. Periodically, the inlet temperature was low enough to condense the SiCl4. We compensated by dialing down the delivery pressure while making sure we still had enough pressure for maximum recipe flows at the tool. If you do have issues with meeting BCl3 demand at a reduced pressure you may want to check the setup of the BCl3 mass flow controller. Typical "generic" mfc's are setup for use at 18-22 psi delivery pressure. An mfc calibrated for BCl3 will likely be set correctly. Bob Hamilton Bob Hamilton Marvel NanoLab University of CA at Berkeley Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (e-mail preferred) 510-809-8600 510-325-7557 (mobile - emergencies) On 3/26/2013 4:07 AM, Satyavalli Paluri wrote: > Thank you very much for the very good suggestions and feedbacks we have > received from you all. This information shall be passed on to our students > and staff who work on the instrument. We will discuss and revert back to > you if we have any further queries. > > Thanks once again! > > Valli From ocola at anl.gov Tue Mar 26 15:39:12 2013 From: ocola at anl.gov (Leonidas Ocola) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:39:12 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... Message-ID: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> Dear All, We have been hearing about a company called Remi Group that appears to offer a lower cost for service contracts. They act as a intermediary between the customer and the tool vendor. As such they bet that the tool will not break down enough to make service calls more expensive than standard service contracts. Have you any experiences you can share with this company? Thank you, Leonidas -- 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 From rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu Tue Mar 26 21:11:01 2013 From: rathbun at cnf.cornell.edu (Lynn Rathbun) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:11:01 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... In-Reply-To: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> References: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20130326210608.09559ae0@cnf.cornell.edu> We did this once for our SEMs. Different company, at least a different name. It is basically an insurance arrangement. It was a disaster. Service was OK, but there was a dispute about billing between the sem company and the insurance company and we got stuck in the middle. Company refused to pay so the SEM company refused to service our SEMs. We ended up dropping them despite having to pay a penalty. At 02:39 PM 3/26/2013 -0500, you wrote: >Dear All, > >We have been hearing about a company called Remi Group >that appears to offer a lower cost for service contracts. >They act as a intermediary between the customer and >the tool vendor. As such they bet that the tool will not >break down enough to make service calls more expensive >than standard service contracts. > >Have you any experiences you can share with this company? > >Thank you, > >Leonidas > >-- >Leonidas E Ocola, PhD >Center for Nanoscale Materials >Argonnne National Laboratory >Bldg 440, Rm A129 >9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 >Ph: 630-252-6613 >Fax: 630-252-5739 > > >_______________________________________________ >labnetwork mailing list >labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > ************************************************************** 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: From hbtusainc at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 09:13:47 2013 From: hbtusainc at yahoo.com (Mario Portillo) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... In-Reply-To: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> References: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> Message-ID: <1364390027.49388.YahooMailNeo@web140701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Mr. Ocola.........I have been involved?with Semi?equipment maintenance/service contracts?for almost 28 years helping Universities, Government Labs and Industry worldwide.....The third party alternative ( intermediaries) to support semiconductor equipment sounds like a very good?idea to control budgets/expenditures but very utopian........( unless one has the crystal ball to determine how many times a piece of equipment will break and what kind of problems it will have, what are the limits of this insurance policy, one might have a chance) As Mr. Rathbun mentioned, it can get very messy with you in the middle with broken equipment waiting to be repaired...I have seen more bad than good in this situations. I do not know about your particular mentioned company but they all work on the law of probabilities/percentages of equipment failure, win most lose a few......You do not want to be among the few that lost. ? My recommendation is to work directly with the equipment service providers, it will be a little more expensive, but a well spelled out service contract will keep your equipment going and you with peace of mind. ? Regards Mario A. Portillo Sr. High'born Technology USA Inc. Semiconductor Equipment Services 8130 Glades Road, #229 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561 479-1975 office 561 504-0244 cell hbtusainc at yahoo.com www.hbtusainc.com ________________________________ From: Leonidas Ocola To: Fab Network Cc: Leonidas E. Ocola ; Daniel Lopez Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:39 PM Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... Dear All, We have been hearing about a company called Remi Group that appears to offer a lower cost for service contracts. They act as a intermediary between the customer and the tool vendor. As such they bet that the tool will not break down enough to make service calls more expensive than standard service contracts. Have you any experiences you can share with this company? Thank you, Leonidas -- Leonidas E Ocola, PhD Center for Nanoscale Materials Argonnne National Laboratory Bldg 440, Rm A129 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 Ph: 630-252-6613 Fax: 630-252-5739 _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Wed Mar 27 10:56:15 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:56:15 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... In-Reply-To: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> References: <5151F960.8010203@anl.gov> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF4E153@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hi Len, We work with a lot of tool refurbishers and tool owners when we supply the reconditioned facilities equipment, so I sent your question out to a few of them that I respect, and who are very active in the process tool market. Two of the three have never heard of them, the other wrote back with this: "Semi is not listed on their web site. Anyway I've heard about them, not real big in semi side. They bid on job and did not perform well after under cutting the competition at a local customer." I personally haven't heard of them either, but in light of what my contact had to say, and what Lynn Rathbun had to say, I would think it prudent to check references and do a little further research before proceeding. Just my humble opinion. Tom 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" -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Leonidas Ocola Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:39 PM To: Fab Network Cc: Leonidas E. Ocola; Daniel Lopez Subject: [labnetwork] service contracts ... Dear All, We have been hearing about a company called Remi Group that appears to offer a lower cost for service contracts. They act as a intermediary between the customer and the tool vendor. As such they bet that the tool will not break down enough to make service calls more expensive than standard service contracts. Have you any experiences you can share with this company? Thank you, Leonidas -- Leonidas E Ocola, PhD Center for Nanoscale Materials Argonnne National Laboratory Bldg 440, Rm A129 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 Ph: 630-252-6613 Fax: 630-252-5739 _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcchrist at wisc.edu Thu Mar 28 09:46:15 2013 From: dcchrist at wisc.edu (Daniel Christensen) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:46:15 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool Message-ID: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Thu Mar 28 12:55:32 2013 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:55:32 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool In-Reply-To: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> References: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C27C6DC89@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> With the price of metals so High, I would suspect that any scrap metal dealer would be happy to take it away from you providing there are no hazardous components left. 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 Daniel Christensen Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:46 AM To: Univ Lab Network Cc: Connie Brachman Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Thu Mar 28 15:35:54 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:35:54 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool In-Reply-To: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> References: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF553F2@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Hi Dan, Usually a mechanical contractor will remove the tool and can scrap it out to help cover the cost. You might want to check with one of your local contractors who deals with high purity piping. They should be able to take care of you. Enjoy the day, 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" -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Christensen Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:46 AM To: Univ Lab Network Cc: Connie Brachman Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 _______________________________________________ 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 hughes at illinois.edu Thu Mar 28 15:59:18 2013 From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:59:18 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool In-Reply-To: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> References: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Message-ID: Hello Daniel, We used RM Mechanical in Boise, Idaho (http://www.rmmechanical.net) and were very happy with them. They were very professional and were able to overcome some significant unexpected difficulties which they encountered during the operation. -- 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 Mar 28, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Christensen > wrote: Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 _______________________________________________ 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 hughes at illinois.edu Thu Mar 28 16:30:05 2013 From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:05 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool In-Reply-To: References: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Message-ID: I somehow overlooked the comment about "all contaminated components" having already been removed". (Probably because I keyed in on "MOCVD" and assumed contamination was the major issue.) If that's truly the case, disposal should be easy. In our case, we still had all the gas piping intact and the system was not fully operational. (It had been shut down and abandoned a couple years earlier.) If safety (and hence liability) issues are not a factor, I'm certain a local mechanical contractor or scrapyard will be able to help you out. -- John On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:59 PM, "Hughes, John S" > wrote: Hello Daniel, We used RM Mechanical in Boise, Idaho (http://www.rmmechanical.net) and were very happy with them. They were very professional and were able to overcome some significant unexpected difficulties which they encountered during the operation. -- 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 Mar 28, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Christensen > wrote: Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 _______________________________________________ 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 tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com Thu Mar 28 16:33:04 2013 From: tbritton at criticalsystemsinc.com (Tom Britton) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:33:04 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool In-Reply-To: References: <515449A7.8010203@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <9820889A26AAC34EBEB01D62DFCEEB2EF55559@P3PWEX2MB006.ex2.secureserver.net> Guys, I've worked with RM as well for the past 15 years. Good group of people. I little far from Wisconsin though. 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" From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, John S Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:59 PM To: Daniel Christensen Cc: Univ Lab Network; Connie Brachman Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Removal of a decommissioned MOCVD tool Hello Daniel, We used RM Mechanical in Boise, Idaho (http://www.rmmechanical.net) and were very happy with them. They were very professional and were able to overcome some significant unexpected difficulties which they encountered during the operation. -- 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 Mar 28, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Christensen > wrote: Hi, The College of Engineering at the Univ of WI-Madison needs to remove a decommissioned MOCVD tool. As I understand it, the tool has had all the contaminated components removed by our Safety Dept. What is left are the controls, frame, etc.. The tool is an Aixtron AIX200 s/n 1224 (originally purchased in 1994) Does anyone know of a service that would come and remove the tool and dispose of the tool? Thank you, Dan C -- Daniel C. Christensen Laboratory Manager WI Center for Applied Microelectronics University of WI-Madison 608-262-6877 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 29 12:23:43 2013 From: dgrimard at umich.edu (Dennis Grimard) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:23:43 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Guardian Air REME by RGF / AirMaster Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: