From nathan.nelson-fitzpatrick at uwaterloo.ca Wed Oct 2 09:41:33 2013 From: nathan.nelson-fitzpatrick at uwaterloo.ca (Nathan Nelson - Fitzpatrick) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:41:33 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Stress measurement tool vendors Message-ID: Hi Labnetwork, We are presently looking into procuring a wafer stress measurement tool that is capable of handling 3"-6" wafers. Unfortunately, we are having a hard time finding enough vendors for these tools to satisfy our procurement people. I have already looked into the following vendors with mixed results: Toho Technology: Got a quote for the FLX-2320. Frontier Semiconductor: Received no feedback from two quote requests for the FSM-128. BowOptic: Their website appears to be offline, are they still in business? >From searching the nnin.org tools database it looks like the FLX-2320 is the dominant tool out there. Does anyone out there know of other vendors who manufacture similar competitive products? Any ideas, advice or recommendations would be very welcome. Thanks in advance, -Nathan -- Nathan Nelson-Fitzpatrick PhD Nanofabrication Process Engineer Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Ph: +1 519-888-4567 ext. 31796 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codreanu at udel.edu Wed Oct 2 17:45:11 2013 From: codreanu at udel.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:45:11 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Update on CDA in lieu of N2 purging of drypumps In-Reply-To: <523B7813.1050508@berkeley.edu> References: <523B7813.1050508@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <524C93E7.40908@udel.edu> Bob - thank you very much for the detailed analysis. I am also writing to ask my esteemed colleagues for advice on the following two related items: - My limited experience seems to indicate that dry pumps cost significantly more both upfront and in terms of maintenance. Are wet pumps that bad (in terms of oil backstreaming) to justify the increased cost of dry pumps? Are there some type of processes where dry pumps are a must and other processes where wet pumps are just fine? Are there other advantages of dry pumps I am not aware of? - Are there dry pumps that have standby N2 purge modes (less N2 used when process gases are not flown in the chamber) or do all makes/models need constant N2 purge flow (I heard that some of them will shut down if they do not "see" enough purge N2). Thank you very much! Iulian iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director of Operations, UD NanoFab University of Delaware 149 Evans Hall Newark, DE 19716 302-831-2784 On 9/19/2013 6:17 PM, Bob Hamilton wrote: > > Lab Network Colleagues, > > In response to a labnetwork posting a few months ago, proposing the > use of compressed dry air (CDA) in lieu of N2 for some drypump > purging, the UC Berkeley NanoLab undertook a review of our dry-pumps. > A total of 73 mechanical pumps are in use in the NanoLab. Thirty six > or ~ 50% of these are drypumps which require N2 purge. > > > The NanoLab nitrogen supply is derived from liquid nitrogen. The N2 > resource is a major expense for our operation. A rough calculation > shows our N2 cost to be ~$100/yr/slpm (bulk N2 costs plus cryogenic > vessel support). Our average dry pumps consume ~35 slpm of N2 for > purging (note: some vendor-designed purge circuits are process-driven > meaning N2 is used at high flow rates only during process). > > Our first effort was to review CDA vs. N2 with our pump manufacturers > and with our pump rebuilders. Both gave us positive reports about the > use of CDA in some applications. For obvious reasons the 19 pumps used > to pump flammables or pyrophoric gases were excluded from > consideration. This left the pumps that support etchers, load-locks > and high-vacuum systems. > > Following a review of the dewpoint of the NanoLab CDA (-75F or ~ 6.5 > ppm H2O weight/volume) a decision was made to further exclude pumps > that pumped the "acid gases" (more specifically Cl2, BF3, HBr, HCl, > HF, SiCl4, etc.). While the NanoLab CDA dryer can produce air at > dewpoints around -95F the dryer's shuttle-valve and check-valves must > work significantly harder to achieve this value thus requiring more > frequent maintenance and rebuilds. We have set our CDA standard at -75F. > > Eighteen 18 pumps were identified and converted to CDA-purge. Our > initial results look good. A review of our N2 flow rates shows a > saving of about 23%; average N2 flows decreased from 2200 slpm to 1700 > slpm saving us ~$50k per annum. So far, we have seen no negatives from > this change. Our decision remains open to future review. > > As a footnote, we've also decided to add 25 psi check valves to the 90 > psi N2 supply for the pumps that remain on N2-purge. The reason for > this is we've found dry pumps will pump their N2 supply to sub-ambient > pressure if the N2 supply is inadvertently interrupted. In some cases > this can have negative repercussions. > > > On behalf of the NanoLab equipment staff, regards, > Bob Hamilton > > -- > Robert Hamilton > University of California at Berkeley > Marvell NanoLab > Equipment Eng. Mgr. > Room 520 Sutardja Dai Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 > bob at eecs.berkeley.edu > Phone: 510-809-8600 > Mobile: 510-325-7557 > e-mail preferred > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed Oct 2 18:50:08 2013 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:50:08 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Update on CDA in lieu of N2 purging of drypumps In-Reply-To: <524C93E7.40908@udel.edu> References: <523B7813.1050508@berkeley.edu> <524C93E7.40908@udel.edu> Message-ID: Iulian and esteemed colleagues, There has been more debate about this subject since diffusion pumps were challenged by those newfangled "jet age" turbo molecular pumps but with less of an argument. Wet pumps can be used effectively but with caution. Valve sequencing must be precise in order to avoid backstreaming if the wet pump is to be used alone for processing, this means that you cannot pump on a chamber while at idle without some laminar gas flow to keep those pesky oil molecules in the pump where they belong. Vacuum pump oils must be selected correctly but what is important is that any system that runs O2 MUST have inert oil (Fomblin, Krytox) or risk explosion. Another consideration is with corrosive processes, it is generally accepted to run inert oil in pumps that will see corrosive etch gases but they tend not to "wet" the metal parts and protect them as hydrocarbon oils do which leads to premature pump and case failure. I would not recommend hydrocarbon oils for those applications since the oil traps acidic materials and doesn't offgas them as inerts do. I see no problem in using oil pumps for load lock applications but you must keep an eye on the oil levels since frequent pumping of these volumes from atmosphere tends to push vaporized oil up the exhaust. With all that being said, I must say that whenever I have the opportunity to replace an oil pump with a dry pump, I do it. Dry pumps are cleaner both internally and externally. I do find them to be about twice the initial cost of wet pumps but I must disagree about the maintenance, my experience with dry pumps is that they give superior performance with an extremely long mean time to failure. PECVD and LPCVD processes are the best applications for dry pumps since they are dirty processes. Most modern pumps have heat where its required to push out condensables and cooling where it's necessary to keep seals cool. In my rough estimation, considering the expense of pumps and the extra nitrogen needed vs. the care and maintenance (and possible process/equipment contamination) dry pumps are a better value. Regarding "standby mode" for N2 conservation, I am building a prototype unit that works in conjunction with the process gas pneumatic actuators. When any process gas is called for, a three way valve goes from supplying compressed air to N2. This design keeps those models of dry pumps that require a constant flow of N2 satisfied. I will interlock it with an N2 flowmeter that has a trip point to ensure that the pump sees only N2 when gases are on. Best of luck Steve Paolini Equipment dood Harvard University Center For Nanoscale Systems From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Iulian Codreanu Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Update on CDA in lieu of N2 purging of drypumps Bob - thank you very much for the detailed analysis. I am also writing to ask my esteemed colleagues for advice on the following two related items: - My limited experience seems to indicate that dry pumps cost significantly more both upfront and in terms of maintenance. Are wet pumps that bad (in terms of oil backstreaming) to justify the increased cost of dry pumps? Are there some type of processes where dry pumps are a must and other processes where wet pumps are just fine? Are there other advantages of dry pumps I am not aware of? - Are there dry pumps that have standby N2 purge modes (less N2 used when process gases are not flown in the chamber) or do all makes/models need constant N2 purge flow (I heard that some of them will shut down if they do not "see" enough purge N2). Thank you very much! Iulian iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director of Operations, UD NanoFab University of Delaware 149 Evans Hall Newark, DE 19716 302-831-2784 On 9/19/2013 6:17 PM, Bob Hamilton wrote: Lab Network Colleagues, In response to a labnetwork posting a few months ago, proposing the use of compressed dry air (CDA) in lieu of N2 for some drypump purging, the UC Berkeley NanoLab undertook a review of our dry-pumps. A total of 73 mechanical pumps are in use in the NanoLab. Thirty six or ~ 50% of these are drypumps which require N2 purge. The NanoLab nitrogen supply is derived from liquid nitrogen. The N2 resource is a major expense for our operation. A rough calculation shows our N2 cost to be ~$100/yr/slpm (bulk N2 costs plus cryogenic vessel support). Our average dry pumps consume ~35 slpm of N2 for purging (note: some vendor-designed purge circuits are process-driven meaning N2 is used at high flow rates only during process). Our first effort was to review CDA vs. N2 with our pump manufacturers and with our pump rebuilders. Both gave us positive reports about the use of CDA in some applications. For obvious reasons the 19 pumps used to pump flammables or pyrophoric gases were excluded from consideration. This left the pumps that support etchers, load-locks and high-vacuum systems. Following a review of the dewpoint of the NanoLab CDA (-75F or ~ 6.5 ppm H2O weight/volume) a decision was made to further exclude pumps that pumped the "acid gases" (more specifically Cl2, BF3, HBr, HCl, HF, SiCl4, etc.). While the NanoLab CDA dryer can produce air at dewpoints around -95F the dryer's shuttle-valve and check-valves must work significantly harder to achieve this value thus requiring more frequent maintenance and rebuilds. We have set our CDA standard at -75F. Eighteen 18 pumps were identified and converted to CDA-purge. Our initial results look good. A review of our N2 flow rates shows a saving of about 23%; average N2 flows decreased from 2200 slpm to 1700 slpm saving us ~$50k per annum. So far, we have seen no negatives from this change. Our decision remains open to future review. As a footnote, we've also decided to add 25 psi check valves to the 90 psi N2 supply for the pumps that remain on N2-purge. The reason for this is we've found dry pumps will pump their N2 supply to sub-ambient pressure if the N2 supply is inadvertently interrupted. In some cases this can have negative repercussions. On behalf of the NanoLab equipment staff, regards, Bob Hamilton -- Robert Hamilton University of California at Berkeley Marvell NanoLab Equipment Eng. Mgr. Room 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Phone: 510-809-8600 Mobile: 510-325-7557 e-mail preferred _______________________________________________ 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 roberthamilton at berkeley.edu Wed Oct 2 18:55:09 2013 From: roberthamilton at berkeley.edu (Bob Hamilton) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:55:09 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Update on CDA in lieu of N2 purging of drypumps In-Reply-To: <524C93E7.40908@udel.edu> References: <523B7813.1050508@berkeley.edu> <524C93E7.40908@udel.edu> Message-ID: <524CA44D.5020304@berkeley.edu> Iulian, I was dragged kicking and screaming to dry pumps because of their high cost. A lot of early dry pumps had reliability issues. In the UC Berkeley Microlab we settled on the Edwards DP series eventually moving to later series such as the QDP, then iQDP and iH series. We have a few other brands that we consider reliable, i.e Ebara and Kashiyama. Both have been good. The Kashiyama has thus far, three year's on, been flawless. We are about to test a new pump from Hanbell. Mostly standardizing on a single pump manufacturer gave us the advantage that when we replace pumps we have a standard form-factor. This means our manifold connections match as well as the pump/tool electrical interface. My experience with wet pumps is mostly good. Here are some some ideas. For hivac systems and load locks: backstreaming is not too much of an issue when backing a cryo or turbo pump as long as roughing and crossover pressures stay above 50 mTorr (a running turbo rejects oil passing through it). Having said this, accidents can happen and contamination can be an issue. I see no advantage to using Fomblin or a perfluorinated oil for this type of pumping with one exception. "White oil", a high grade hydrocarbon oil, will deposit in the fume exhaust of a lab. From experience, this oil load is a fuel source and fire hazard. Fomblin is not flammable; however, it has the disadvantage of high cost and in an e-beam system its decomposition products are dielectric which can bias an e-beam and have bad effects. For etch: not many issues with etch pumps and Freon etching, at least in the volume of etching done in a university fab. However, I would not use a wetpump with acid gases, even with Fomblin. This is one place dry pumps excel. Wetpumps pumping acids will fail at the shaft seals. For lpcvd and pecvd: we got away with wet pump using oil filtration units and changing the oil filters after "x" number of hours. Moving to Fomblin on low-stress nitride was tried and not a success. The sight glass showed a snow-storm inside the oil. with this process. Given pyrophoric are being pumped the already stated flammable hydrocarbons/lab's fume exhaust load fire is of serious concern. Our dry pumps get rebuilt several times. They seem to last as long as new ones as long as the vendor doing the work knows their stuff. We routinely buy rebuilt pumps and if cheap enough used pumps and have them rebuilt. Our cost of rebuild is typically in the $4k-5k range depending on the size and vintage of the pump. The more modern dry pumps have better, in-board bearing systems, better coatings and better service life. Having said this, given the harsh conditions of a fab, I would not want to reincarnate as as dry pump. Regards, Bob Hamilton On 10/2/2013 2:45 PM, Iulian Codreanu wrote: > Bob - thank you very much for the detailed analysis. > > I am also writing to ask my esteemed colleagues for advice on the > following two related items: > - My limited experience seems to indicate that dry pumps cost > significantly more both upfront and in terms of maintenance. Are wet > pumps that bad (in terms of oil backstreaming) to justify the > increased cost of dry pumps? Are there some type of processes where > dry pumps are a must and other processes where wet pumps are just > fine? Are there other advantages of dry pumps I am not aware of? > - Are there dry pumps that have standby N2 purge modes (less N2 used > when process gases are not flown in the chamber) or do all > makes/models need constant N2 purge flow (I heard that some of them > will shut down if they do not "see" enough purge N2). > > Thank you very much! > > Iulian > iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. > Director of Operations, UD NanoFab > University of Delaware > 149 Evans Hall > Newark, DE 19716 > 302-831-2784 > On 9/19/2013 6:17 PM, Bob Hamilton wrote: >> >> Lab Network Colleagues, >> >> In response to a labnetwork posting a few months ago, proposing the >> use of compressed dry air (CDA) in lieu of N2 for some drypump >> purging, the UC Berkeley NanoLab undertook a review of our dry-pumps. >> A total of 73 mechanical pumps are in use in the NanoLab. Thirty six >> or ~ 50% of these are drypumps which require N2 purge. >> >> >> The NanoLab nitrogen supply is derived from liquid nitrogen. The N2 >> resource is a major expense for our operation. A rough calculation >> shows our N2 cost to be ~$100/yr/slpm (bulk N2 costs plus cryogenic >> vessel support). Our average dry pumps consume ~35 slpm of N2 for >> purging (note: some vendor-designed purge circuits are process-driven >> meaning N2 is used at high flow rates only during process). >> >> Our first effort was to review CDA vs. N2 with our pump manufacturers >> and with our pump rebuilders. Both gave us positive reports about the >> use of CDA in some applications. For obvious reasons the 19 pumps >> used to pump flammables or pyrophoric gases were excluded from >> consideration. This left the pumps that support etchers, load-locks >> and high-vacuum systems. >> >> Following a review of the dewpoint of the NanoLab CDA (-75F or ~ 6.5 >> ppm H2O weight/volume) a decision was made to further exclude pumps >> that pumped the "acid gases" (more specifically Cl2, BF3, HBr, HCl, >> HF, SiCl4, etc.). While the NanoLab CDA dryer can produce air at >> dewpoints around -95F the dryer's shuttle-valve and check-valves must >> work significantly harder to achieve this value thus requiring more >> frequent maintenance and rebuilds. We have set our CDA standard at -75F. >> >> Eighteen 18 pumps were identified and converted to CDA-purge. Our >> initial results look good. A review of our N2 flow rates shows a >> saving of about 23%; average N2 flows decreased from 2200 slpm to >> 1700 slpm saving us ~$50k per annum. So far, we have seen no >> negatives from this change. Our decision remains open to future review. >> >> As a footnote, we've also decided to add 25 psi check valves to the >> 90 psi N2 supply for the pumps that remain on N2-purge. The reason >> for this is we've found dry pumps will pump their N2 supply to >> sub-ambient pressure if the N2 supply is inadvertently interrupted. >> In some cases this can have negative repercussions. >> >> >> On behalf of the NanoLab equipment staff, regards, >> Bob Hamilton >> >> -- >> Robert Hamilton >> University of California at Berkeley >> Marvell NanoLab >> Equipment Eng. Mgr. >> Room 520 Sutardja Dai Hall >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 >> bob at eecs.berkeley.edu >> Phone: 510-809-8600 >> Mobile: 510-325-7557 >> e-mail preferred >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Robert Hamilton University of California at Berkeley Marvell NanoLab Equipment Eng. Mgr. Room 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Phone: 510-809-8600 Mobile: 510-325-7557 e-mail preferred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rmorrison at draper.com Thu Oct 3 08:08:45 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:08:45 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Stress measurement tool vendors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Check out ClassOne they sell refurbished Flexus tools and Brumbley South, I have dealt with both companies and they are very good. 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 Nathan Nelson - Fitzpatrick Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:42 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Stress measurement tool vendors Hi Labnetwork, We are presently looking into procuring a wafer stress measurement tool that is capable of handling 3"-6" wafers. Unfortunately, we are having a hard time finding enough vendors for these tools to satisfy our procurement people. I have already looked into the following vendors with mixed results: Toho Technology: Got a quote for the FLX-2320. Frontier Semiconductor: Received no feedback from two quote requests for the FSM-128. BowOptic: Their website appears to be offline, are they still in business? >From searching the nnin.org tools database it looks like the FLX-2320 is the dominant tool out there. Does anyone out there know of other vendors who manufacture similar competitive products? Any ideas, advice or recommendations would be very welcome. Thanks in advance, -Nathan -- Nathan Nelson-Fitzpatrick PhD Nanofabrication Process Engineer Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Ph: +1 519-888-4567 ext. 31796 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rmorrison at draper.com Tue Oct 8 08:09:20 2013 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:09:20 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Looking for help Message-ID: Hi everyone, I have a Veeco Ion gun on my evaporator and the power supply is cutting out, the repair will take 2 weeks and I am in the middle of a big project, does anybody have one of the items below that we could borrow? Model: MPS-3000PBN Serial #: PB060499 Facilities: 200-220 VAC, 50/60 Hz, 20 A, 1 Phase Thanks in advance 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 voros at silicon2.eecs.berkeley.edu Mon Oct 21 17:17:16 2013 From: voros at silicon2.eecs.berkeley.edu (Katalin Voros) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [labnetwork] Berkeley Microlab history Message-ID: <201310212117.r9LLHGQV005637@silicon2.eecs.berkeley.edu> Dear Colleagues, I would like to inform you that I retired this past June, after 30 years with the Department of EECS, UC Berkeley. The History of the UC Berkeley Microlab, (now the Marvell Nanolab,) is documented in Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2013-158, on-line at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2013/EECS-2013-158.html. You are welcome to peruse it. Be forwarned, it is 171 pages long. Sincerely Katalin -------------------------------------------- KATALIN VOROS R&D Engineering Manager Emerita Engineering Research Support Organization Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley 589 Cory Hall #1770 Berkeley, CA 94720-1770 voros at eecs.berkeley.edu http://microlab.berkeley.edu/~voros -------------------------------------------- From Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Wed Oct 23 14:17:43 2013 From: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu (Jacob Trevino) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:17:43 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) Message-ID: Greetings Everyone, My name is Jacob Trevino and I am the scientific cleanroom director at a new cleanroom that is going up at the City University of New York (CUNY). The cleanroom is part of a new larger facility known as the Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) opening fall 2014 in Upper Manhattan. Anyone who is interested can get more information at this site http://asrc.cuny.edu/or contact me anytime. We are starting from scratch, purchasing all new equipment to fill a plasma/etch, deposition, lithography, and metrology bay. Several people and neighboring institutions have already been very helpful in this process. We are now in the process of setting up a fee and billing structure, which is the main topic of this post. The facility will be open to all CUNY schools, other Universities, as well as external users. Being that we have no prior data for costs (consumables, repairs, utilities, etc) and an unknown user base size, coming up with a fee structure is proving to be a bit challenging. Any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated. A couple specific areas of feedback that might be useful are: Is there any literature you have found to be helpful in this matter? Does anyone have any suggestions on key items to consider, possibly items that often go unaccounted for? Does anyone have an algorithm or model of sorts they find produces a reasonable fee? As of now we are thinking of charging a rate for cleanroom entry and then an additional fee depending on the tool being used. There will also be an industrial user fee that is higher than the university user rate. Additionally, any questions about the new center are always welcome. Cheers, --------------------------- Jacob Trevino, PhD Scientific Cleanroom Director The City University of New York (CUNY) Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) Tel. (646) 664-8914 Fax. (646) 664-2965 Email: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Web: http://asrc.cuny.edu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.call at maine.edu Wed Oct 23 15:13:30 2013 From: michael.call at maine.edu (Michael Call) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:13:30 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD vacuum pump oil Message-ID: We have a thermal ALD system that has an Alcatel 2063C2 pump with Anderol 555(A155) oil for fluid(no turbo). We recently cleaned the system and noticed oil in the low points in the chamber. Has anyone else had any experience with this oil? The vapor pressure for the oil is 10^-3 mBar at 100Cwhich is fairly high. -- Mike Call Research Engineer UMaine LASST 207-581-3382 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 17:17:02 2013 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:17:02 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD vacuum pump oil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, You will almost always get oil migration (backstreaming) in any vacuum chamber that pumps in the molecular flow regime for a period of time. Why do you use that oil? Is it inert? Do you run pure O2 at any time? I would recommend Fomblin 25/6 for a low V.P. and O2 safety. Alcatel 2063's are a very robust rotary pump and I have used them in the harshest of processes but to minimize backstreaming, it would be in your best interest to reduce the amount of time that you are pumping on the chamber without a gas flow (if possible), Lengthen the pumping line (if this does not create conductance problems), and use a molecular sieve trap just above the pump (Lesker, MDC, Etc.) These are the standard techniques for containing oil molecules within the pump on an application that has just a roughing pump. This problem rarely exists when the pump is used to back a turbo since the oil can't backstream through the turbo's foreline and into the throat of the pump. Hope this helps, Steve Paolini Equipment dood Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Call Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:14 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] ALD vacuum pump oil We have a thermal ALD system that has an Alcatel 2063C2 pump with Anderol 555(A155) oil for fluid(no turbo). We recently cleaned the system and noticed oil in the low points in the chamber. Has anyone else had any experience with this oil? The vapor pressure for the oil is 10^-3 mBar at 100C which is fairly high. -- Mike Call Research Engineer UMaine LASST 207-581-3382 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed Oct 23 17:27:41 2013 From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Mac Hathaway) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:27:41 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD vacuum pump oil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52683F4D.1000006@cns.fas.harvard.edu> Hi Mike, This is Mac Hathaway at Harvard. I'm not familiar with that oil, but we use Fomblin-type "O2 Service" oil. What is the make of your ALD system? Does it use a constant N2 or Ar purge? If not, I can easily imagine a fair amount of backstreaming over time. In our Cambridge Nanotech (Ultratech, now) Savannah, we run 20 sccm of N2 all the time. Also, if yours is a shared use facility, never discount the possibility of strange things being introduced into the chamber by "less experienced" users... Mac On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, Michael Call wrote: > We have a thermal ALD system that has an Alcatel 2063C2 pump with > Anderol 555(A155) oil for fluid(no turbo). We recently cleaned the > system and noticed oil in the low points in the chamber. Has anyone > else had any experience with this oil? The vapor pressure for the oil > is 10^-3 mBar at 100C which is fairly high. > > -- > Mike Call > Research Engineer > UMaine LASST > 207-581-3382 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 julia.aebersold at louisville.edu Wed Oct 23 18:06:43 2013 From: julia.aebersold at louisville.edu (Aebersold,Julia W.) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:06:43 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Katalin Voros of Berkeley prepared a great presentation at the 2012 UGIM conference on "Financial analysis of a successful Multi-User Academic Laboratory". She has retired, but their group may be able to forward her presentation to you. Cheers! Julia Aebersold, Ph.D. MNTC Cleanroom Manager Shumaker Research Building, Room 233 2210 South Brook Street University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292 502-852-1572 http://louisville.edu/micronano/ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob Trevino Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:18 PM To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) Greetings Everyone, My name is Jacob Trevino and I am the scientific cleanroom director at a new cleanroom that is going up at the City University of New York (CUNY). The cleanroom is part of a new larger facility known as the Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) opening fall 2014 in Upper Manhattan. Anyone who is interested can get more information at this site http://asrc.cuny.edu/or contact me anytime. We are starting from scratch, purchasing all new equipment to fill a plasma/etch, deposition, lithography, and metrology bay. Several people and neighboring institutions have already been very helpful in this process. We are now in the process of setting up a fee and billing structure, which is the main topic of this post. The facility will be open to all CUNY schools, other Universities, as well as external users. Being that we have no prior data for costs (consumables, repairs, utilities, etc) and an unknown user base size, coming up with a fee structure is proving to be a bit challenging. Any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated. A couple specific areas of feedback that might be useful are: Is there any literature you have found to be helpful in this matter? Does anyone have any suggestions on key items to consider, possibly items that often go unaccounted for? Does anyone have an algorithm or model of sorts they find produces a reasonable fee? As of now we are thinking of charging a rate for cleanroom entry and then an additional fee depending on the tool being used. There will also be an industrial user fee that is higher than the university user rate. Additionally, any questions about the new center are always welcome. Cheers, --------------------------- Jacob Trevino, PhD Scientific Cleanroom Director The City University of New York (CUNY) Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) Tel. (646) 664-8914 Fax. (646) 664-2965 Email: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Web: http://asrc.cuny.edu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Wed Oct 23 18:37:25 2013 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:37:25 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5863FB4055D90542A7A7DAE0CEF2ACB0086BEAC575@E2K7CCR1.netvigour.com> Hi Jacob, I am Abbie Gregg of AGI. We are a Nanofabrication Cleanroom and Imaging/High Bay lab design firm. We also have research facility cost models based on overlay programs to Excel. We are a consulting firm. You can visit our website at http://www.abbiegregg.com/ As well as http://www.abbiegregg.com/services_soft_carme.html This is a link to our CARME Research facility cost models and a free download. Partial lists of AGI clients and cost Modeling experience are listed at http://www.abbiegregg.com/experience/exp_service_model.html http://www.abbiegregg.com/experience/exp_proj_univ.html http://www.abbiegregg.com/experience/exp_proj_gov.html Sorry for the commercial....but you may find this useful. Feel free to call or email April Rossrucker or myself any time for more information. Best Regards, Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob Trevino Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:18 AM To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) Greetings Everyone, My name is Jacob Trevino and I am the scientific cleanroom director at a new cleanroom that is going up at the City University of New York (CUNY). The cleanroom is part of a new larger facility known as the Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) opening fall 2014 in Upper Manhattan. Anyone who is interested can get more information at this site http://asrc.cuny.edu/or contact me anytime. We are starting from scratch, purchasing all new equipment to fill a plasma/etch, deposition, lithography, and metrology bay. Several people and neighboring institutions have already been very helpful in this process. We are now in the process of setting up a fee and billing structure, which is the main topic of this post. The facility will be open to all CUNY schools, other Universities, as well as external users. Being that we have no prior data for costs (consumables, repairs, utilities, etc) and an unknown user base size, coming up with a fee structure is proving to be a bit challenging. Any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated. A couple specific areas of feedback that might be useful are: Is there any literature you have found to be helpful in this matter? Does anyone have any suggestions on key items to consider, possibly items that often go unaccounted for? Does anyone have an algorithm or model of sorts they find produces a reasonable fee? As of now we are thinking of charging a rate for cleanroom entry and then an additional fee depending on the tool being used. There will also be an industrial user fee that is higher than the university user rate. Additionally, any questions about the new center are always welcome. Cheers, --------------------------- Jacob Trevino, PhD Scientific Cleanroom Director The City University of New York (CUNY) Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) Tel. (646) 664-8914 Fax. (646) 664-2965 Email: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Web: http://asrc.cuny.edu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at fabsurplus.com Thu Oct 24 04:04:58 2013 From: info at fabsurplus.com (Stephen Howe) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:04:58 +0200 Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1382601898.2790.22.camel@stephen-Q500A> Dear Jacob, We are dealers of used equipment. Hence, I am surprised to see you are buying all new equipment. If you are an R and D lab on a limited budget, then you should surely consider used equipment. Other labs in your area like RIT have bought and sold used equipment in the past. We have sold tools to a lot of universities worldwide. For example, I have been offered a quantity of used cleanroom located in your area for a low price. We also find regularly top-of-the-line research instruments available for sale in the used market. In the event of breakages, we also sell major subsystems like robots that are recovered from old equipment or unwanted spares stocks. We regularly deal with the top semiconductor manufacturing and research laboratories. In the interests of impartiality, I should also mention that we have numerous competitors, whom you will surely find on google. 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 Japan-Italy-Ireland-USA Facebook: www.facebook.com/fabsurplus Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabsurplus Google+: https://plus.google.com/110788841791240802322 Featured Sales Items - October 2013 *********************************** 71740 AMAT/Etech MEBES 4500S Mask writer for sale http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=71740 71466 Applied Materials Reflexion CMP System http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=71466 70151 Applied Materials Mirra 3400 CMP System for sale http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=70151 70150 Applied Materials Mirra 3400 CMP System for sale http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=70150 67955 ASML XT1250D, 300 MM 193 NM SCANNER http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=67955 70287 Canon FPA5000 ES4 248 nm scanner for sale:- http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=70287 70288 Canon FPA5000 ES4 248 nm scanner for sale:- http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=70288 71562 CAMECA SC-ULTRA SIMS http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=71562 71707 Mattson Aspen 3 for sale: 2 chamber , 1 X ICP, 1 X Highlands :- http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=71707 69882 Oerlikon Clusterline 200 PVD System for sale :- http://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=69882 Wanted items - October 2013 *************************** Our worldwide agents are looking to purchase immediately the following items of equipment:- AMAT PI-9500XR 6 inch AMAT MIRRA Reflexion Low K STS Multiplex ICP AOE System Fuji Impulse V300 Vacuum Sealer DNS 60A or 80A 2C/2D Coater/Developer Takatori 1100 Taper for 6/8 inch wafers. Canon AS4 FETtest 3400E Leybold Mag 2000 GSI Lumonics Sigma Clean AMAT Mirra Mesa 200mm. Gasonics Aura 3010. TEL Act 8 2C/2D parts machine. KLA FX100 SMIF 200mm Loaders. KLA RS 200, 300 mm loaders Teradyne J750, 8 or 16Meg Tester MSI (Mass Spectrometry Instruments) Autoconcept GD 90 GDMS - With RF Option Varian Viista 810 EHP On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 18:17 +0000, Jacob Trevino wrote: > Greetings Everyone, > > > > My name is Jacob Trevino and I am the scientific cleanroom director at > a new cleanroom that is going up at the City University of New York > (CUNY). The cleanroom is part of a new larger facility known as the > Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) opening fall 2014 in Upper > Manhattan. Anyone who is interested can get more information at this > site http://asrc.cuny.edu/or contact me anytime. We are starting from > scratch, purchasing all new equipment to fill a plasma/etch, > deposition, lithography, and metrology bay. Several people and > neighboring institutions have already been very helpful in this > process. > > > > We are now in the process of setting up a fee and billing structure, > which is the main topic of this post. The facility will be open to all > CUNY schools, other Universities, as well as external users. Being > that we have no prior data for costs (consumables, repairs, utilities, > etc) and an unknown user base size, coming up with a fee structure is > proving to be a bit challenging. > > > > Any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated. A couple > specific areas of feedback that might be useful are: > > > > Is there any literature you have found to be helpful in this matter? > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions on key items to consider, possibly > items that often go unaccounted for? > > > > Does anyone have an algorithm or model of sorts they find produces a > reasonable fee? > > > > As of now we are thinking of charging a rate for cleanroom entry and > then an additional fee depending on the tool being used. There will > also be an industrial user fee that is higher than the university user > rate. Additionally, any questions about the new center are always > welcome. > > > > Cheers, > > > > --------------------------- > > Jacob Trevino, PhD > Scientific Cleanroom Director > The City University of New York (CUNY) > Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) > Tel. (646) 664-8914 > > Fax. (646) 664-2965 > > Email: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu > > Web: http://asrc.cuny.edu/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From michael.call at maine.edu Thu Oct 24 09:06:22 2013 From: michael.call at maine.edu (Michael Call) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:06:22 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ALD vacuum pump oil In-Reply-To: <52683F4D.1000006@cns.fas.harvard.edu> References: <52683F4D.1000006@cns.fas.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Thank you everyone for the responses. The system is an Oxford OpAL thermal ald and the oil(A155) was shipped with it. I'm not sure why they use(d) it, but the 2063 pump is actually labeled for service with A155 oil. Can this pump be easily converted to run fomblin? The Nitrogen pump purge is only turned on during processing and has heated forelines. So now that I know more about the oil I'm not surprised it backstreamed too. I was told that all of the new systems are shipped with dry pumps now. Mike On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Mac Hathaway wrote: > Hi Mike, > > This is Mac Hathaway at Harvard. I'm not familiar with that oil, but we > use Fomblin-type "O2 Service" oil. What is the make of your ALD system? > Does it use a constant N2 or Ar purge? If not, I can easily imagine a fair > amount of backstreaming over time. In our Cambridge Nanotech (Ultratech, > now) Savannah, we run 20 sccm of N2 all the time. > > Also, if yours is a shared use facility, never discount the possibility of > strange things being introduced into the chamber by "less experienced" > users... > > > Mac > > > > On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, Michael Call wrote: > > We have a thermal ALD system that has an Alcatel 2063C2 pump with Anderol > 555(A155) oil for fluid(no turbo). We recently cleaned the system and > noticed oil in the low points in the chamber. Has anyone else had any > experience with this oil? The vapor pressure for the oil is 10^-3 mBar at 100Cwhich is fairly high. > > -- > Mike Call > Research Engineer > UMaine LASST > 207-581-3382 > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing listlabnetwork at mtl.mit.eduhttps://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > > -- Mike Call Research Engineer UMaine LASST 207-581-3382 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccheney at infinityhps.com Thu Oct 24 11:54:39 2013 From: ccheney at infinityhps.com (Craig Cheney) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:54:39 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004b01ced0d1$645caae0$2d1600a0$@infinityhps.com> Jacob, Here is the link to the Berkeley paper that Ms. Voros published, there is a lot of good information on how they did fee structuring and how they managed lab costs, it is a very good read and a lot of insightful thinking and problem resolution also. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2013/EECS-2013-158.html Thanks, Craig Cheney Description: cid:image001.jpg at 01C7E19F.47FFBAE0 Desk: (608)834-4200 Fax: (608)834-4299 Cell: (608)438-8714 This e-mail transmission and any attachments to it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, your use, forwarding, printing, storing, disseminating, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and delete it from your computer. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob Trevino Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:18 PM To: 'labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu' Subject: [labnetwork] Fee Structure - New Cleanroom (CUNY ASRC) Greetings Everyone, My name is Jacob Trevino and I am the scientific cleanroom director at a new cleanroom that is going up at the City University of New York (CUNY). The cleanroom is part of a new larger facility known as the Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) opening fall 2014 in Upper Manhattan. Anyone who is interested can get more information at this site http://asrc.cuny.edu/or contact me anytime. We are starting from scratch, purchasing all new equipment to fill a plasma/etch, deposition, lithography, and metrology bay. Several people and neighboring institutions have already been very helpful in this process. We are now in the process of setting up a fee and billing structure, which is the main topic of this post. The facility will be open to all CUNY schools, other Universities, as well as external users. Being that we have no prior data for costs (consumables, repairs, utilities, etc) and an unknown user base size, coming up with a fee structure is proving to be a bit challenging. Any advice on this process would be greatly appreciated. A couple specific areas of feedback that might be useful are: Is there any literature you have found to be helpful in this matter? Does anyone have any suggestions on key items to consider, possibly items that often go unaccounted for? Does anyone have an algorithm or model of sorts they find produces a reasonable fee? As of now we are thinking of charging a rate for cleanroom entry and then an additional fee depending on the tool being used. There will also be an industrial user fee that is higher than the university user rate. Additionally, any questions about the new center are always welcome. Cheers, --------------------------- Jacob Trevino, PhD Scientific Cleanroom Director The City University of New York (CUNY) Advanced Science Research Center (ASRC) Tel. (646) 664-8914 Fax. (646) 664-2965 Email: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Web: http://asrc.cuny.edu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Wed Oct 30 22:13:28 2013 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:13:28 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Job Opportunity Message-ID: <5271BCC8.4070105@eecs.berkeley.edu> Colleagues, The UC Berkeley Physics Departtment is seeking a Process Engineer for fabrication work primarily (but not exclusively) in the Berkeley NanoLab. The position reports to a Professor in the UCB Physics Department; this is not a NanoLab staff position. Additional information is appended. Cosmology Detector Array Fabrication Engineer (R&D Engineer 2) (7119U) #16909 UC Berkeley Main Campus-Berkeley You can view and apply for this job at: https://hrw-vip-prod.is.berkeley.edu/psp/JOBSPROD/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=16909&SiteId=1&PostingSeq=1