From nannini.matthieu at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 16:45:45 2016 From: nannini.matthieu at gmail.com (Matthieu Nannini) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:45:45 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] wafer tracking system Message-ID: Dear colleagues, After a lot of searching and unless I've missed it, I did not find any suitable software package/web app that would allow me to track my wafer activities in and out of the cleanroom. OF course, there are the big software package more geared towards large fabs that handle numerous lots but they are expensive...Other types of package you can find are made for bio-related research so not easily customizable to microfab processes and needs. A software that would allow me the followings would be a good start: - design process (to force students to prepare before going in the lab) - execute processes on a series of samples or wafers (to be able to concentrate on executing the process rather than on which steps comes next) - record rundata as process is executed (to have all rundata in one place and not on a piece of cleanroom rag as I often saw) - retrieve old data and perform analysis (knoledge retention and SPC) Does any of you have a solution for that purpose ? (other than using excel sheets) If you are interested in such a solution, please take 1min to answer the following questions: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/266V3ST Thanks Matthieu Nannini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paj1 at email.gwu.edu Tue Oct 4 09:54:15 2016 From: paj1 at email.gwu.edu (Johnson, Patrick) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:54:15 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] George Washington Job Posting ECE School of Engineering. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have a Associate or Full Professor position open and if you have anyone that may be a good candidate we would very much like to have them apply. Thanks Patrick https://www.gwu.jobs/postings/37728 *Patrick Johnson* *George Washington University* *Nano Fabrication Lab Manager * *Science and Engineering Hall* *800 NW 22nd Street Rm-B2815* *Washington D.C. 20052* *Cell 703 258 2465* *Desk 202 994 2346* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Wed Oct 5 12:29:30 2016 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:29:30 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Message-ID: Hello All, Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the "best practices" that are being described; buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner. So, I'll as the group: Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the "I have fallen and can't get up" type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities: 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a SEM or an AFM. 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system. 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids. Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system? Best, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kckeenan at seas.upenn.edu Wed Oct 5 16:15:51 2016 From: kckeenan at seas.upenn.edu (Kyle Keenan) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:15:51 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] "Frankenstein" e-beam evaporator free to good home Message-ID: <21de3b3b-d8e6-449f-a670-9eaa1f6823b3@seas.upenn.edu> Hello, We have a working, decommissioned e-beam evaporator that we are giving away for free. Items included: 4 space hearth, spare hearth, manual gate valve, dep rate monitor, beam sweep controller, and 3kV Thermionics power supply. The unit just needs a cryo pump setup, a vacuum gauge, and some reassembly. This system is a "Frankenstein" in the sense that it appears homemade, but it was quite reliable right up until we took it off line. The lucky recipient will be responsible for arranging/paying for freight shipping (the recipient will need to provide a large crate for the gate valve and electronics). You may also pick the system up, if you are so inclined. We are looking to get rid of this whole system a.s.a.p., one way or another, so don't delay! Please email for pictures. Requests for entire system only, please. Thank you for your interest. -- Kyle Keenan Laboratory Manager Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility University of Pennsylvania P: 215-898-7560 F: 215-573-4925 From tobi at stanford.edu Wed Oct 5 16:14:56 2016 From: tobi at stanford.edu (Tobi Beetz) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 20:14:56 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Job opening at Stanford: Academic Program Manager, Education and Outreach, National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure Message-ID: Dear All - please help us spread the word ... Thanks, Tobi Academic Program Manager, Education and Outreach, National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure https://stanford.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=72719 Stanford's shared nanofacilities offer a comprehensive array of advanced nanofabrication and nanocharacterization tools. Over 1,000 researchers make use of the shared facilities each year in order to further their research programs. The National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) Site @ Stanford University is a consortium of shared facilities and is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the NNCI program. The goal of the NNCI Site at Stanford University is to provide open, cost-effective access to state-of-the-art nanofabrication and nanocharacterization facilities for scientists and engineers from academia, small and large companies, and government laboratories. The Academic Program Professional will work to develop, implement and administer educational and outreach programs in support of the NNCI Site. Many of the programs focus on research-level education and extend much beyond K-12 focus. The Program Manager will work with the faculty, staff, students and external researchers to identify the set of knowledge and operating procedures that users must acquire to become proficient users of nanofabrication and nanocharacterization tools at the NNCI Site at Stanford and find or create appropriate videos, simulations, and other online resources. Other programs focus on technical notes, process recipes and workshops for teachers and other audiences. The Academic Program Professional should have a solid understanding and experience in a broad range of nanofabrication and nanocharacterization concepts and techniques, as well as proficiency in the use of educational technology. The Program Manager reports to the Associate Director of the Stanford Nano Shared Facilities. For more information about NNCI at Stanford visit http://nanolabs.stanford.edu Tobi Tobi Beetz, Ph.D., Associate Director, Stanford Nano Shared Facilities, Stanford University 348 Via Pueblo, Spilker Building, Room 105, Stanford, CA 94305-4088, 650-644-9541, http://snsf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nclay at seas.upenn.edu Wed Oct 5 16:17:56 2016 From: nclay at seas.upenn.edu (Noah Clay) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:17:56 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B2D6E1E-7598-4D45-BD0B-0E43044EB174@seas.upenn.edu> Vince, We?re considering a robot for this, with active remote monitoring through camera by a lab member. I?m a fan of ALD?s Pepper: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/pepper-aldebaran-softbank-personal-robot https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en Thank you, Noah Clay Noah Clay Director, Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility School of Engineering & Applied Science University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA (215) 898-9308 nclay at upenn.edu > On Oct 5, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) wrote: > > Hello All, > > Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the ?best practices? that are being described; buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner. So, I?ll as the group: > > Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the ?I have fallen and can?t get up? type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities: > 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a SEM or an AFM. > 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system. > 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids. > > Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system? > > Best, > Vince > > > Vincent K. Luciani > NanoFab Manager > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > National Institute of Standards and Technology > 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA > +1-301-975-2886 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gregg.cure at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 16:56:41 2016 From: gregg.cure at gmail.com (Gregg Cure) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:56:41 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Superior Electronic AFPP 4pt probe Message-ID: Dear all, I have a Superior Electronics AFPP 4-pt probe. The main power supply board is bad (failed component burned through the PCB). The PCB is not repairable. Reference: http://www.specequipment.com/index.php/semiconductor_equipment/Superior_Electronics_AFPP-500 Might there be a replacement power PCB available somewhere, say in a corner of someone's lab, or on someone's bone pile? Many thanks in advance. Gregg Cure` -- Gregg D. Cure` The University of Arizona Office for Research and Discovery Nano Fabrication and Processing Center 1230 E. Speedway Blvd. ECE104 Rm 209 Tucson, AZ 85721-0104 Office: 520.626.1987 Cell: 520.307.0925 Fax: 520.626.7877 Website: http://mfc.engr.arizona.edu Website: http://research.arizona.edu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kckeenan at seas.upenn.edu Thu Oct 6 10:52:39 2016 From: kckeenan at seas.upenn.edu (Kyle Keenan) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:52:39 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] "Frankenstein" e-beam evaporator free to good home In-Reply-To: <21de3b3b-d8e6-449f-a670-9eaa1f6823b3@seas.upenn.edu> References: <21de3b3b-d8e6-449f-a670-9eaa1f6823b3@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <9e064053-8d4e-6029-0825-0605d5641e6a@seas.upenn.edu> Hello, FYI, this system is no longer available. Thanks for your interest. Kyle Keenan Laboratory Manager Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility University of Pennsylvania P: 215-898-7560 F: 215-573-4925 On 10/5/2016 4:15 PM, Kyle Keenan wrote: > Hello, > > We have a working, decommissioned e-beam evaporator that we are giving > away for free. Items included: 4 space hearth, spare hearth, manual gate > valve, dep rate monitor, beam sweep controller, and 3kV Thermionics > power supply. The unit just needs a cryo pump setup, a vacuum gauge, and > some reassembly. > > This system is a "Frankenstein" in the sense that it appears homemade, > but it was quite reliable right up until we took it off line. The lucky > recipient will be responsible for arranging/paying for freight shipping > (the recipient will need to provide a large crate for the gate valve and > electronics). You may also pick the system up, if you are so inclined. > > We are looking to get rid of this whole system a.s.a.p., one way or > another, so don't delay! > > Please email for pictures. Requests for entire system only, please. > > Thank you for your interest. > From delombard.1 at osu.edu Thu Oct 6 10:54:44 2016 From: delombard.1 at osu.edu (Jay Vincent) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:54:44 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] "Frankenstein" e-beam evaporator photos Message-ID: Could I see a couple photos? I'm extremely interested as I have been pricing out used systems for us here at Nanotech. Thanks very much! *Jay DeLombard* Research Engineer *The Ohio State University* Ohio Sensor and Semiconductor Innovation Platform Nanotech West Lab Suite 100, 1381 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 614.292.0774 Office | 573.500.0042 Cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.hume at ualberta.ca Thu Oct 6 10:57:28 2016 From: michael.hume at ualberta.ca (Michael Hume) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 08:57:28 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? In-Reply-To: <3B2D6E1E-7598-4D45-BD0B-0E43044EB174@seas.upenn.edu> References: <3B2D6E1E-7598-4D45-BD0B-0E43044EB174@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: Noah, That is definitely a novel approach - I would be very interested in the results of that experiment. -Mike. On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Noah Clay wrote: > Vince, > > We?re considering a robot for this, with active remote monitoring through > camera by a lab member. I?m a fan of ALD?s Pepper: > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/pepper-aldebaran- > softbank-personal-robot > > https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en > > Thank you, > Noah Clay > > *Noah Clay* > *Director, Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility* > *School of Engineering & Applied Science* > *University of Pennsylvania* > *Philadelphia, PA* > > *(215) 898-9308 <%28215%29%20898-9308>* > *nclay at upenn.edu * > > On Oct 5, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) < > Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov> wrote: > > Hello All, > > Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are > also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is > always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an > interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment > with the ?best practices? that are being described; buddy system, CCTV > cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external > microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been > discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost > effective manner. So, I?ll as the group: > > Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the > ?I have fallen and can?t get up? type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone > apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where > there are 3 categories of activities: > 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a > SEM or an AFM. > 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: > Operating a sputter system or RIE system. > 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires > manual handling of dangerous liquids. > > Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a > buddy system? > > Best, > Vince > > > Vincent K. Luciani > NanoFab Manager > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > National Institute of Standards and Technology > 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA > +1-301-975-2886 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Michael Hume Operations Manager University of Alberta - nanoFAB W1-060 ECERF Building 9107 - 116 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2V4 www.nanofab.ualberta.ca Ph: 587-879-1519 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.olsen at utah.edu Thu Oct 6 12:44:12 2016 From: tony.olsen at utah.edu (Tony L Olsen) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:44:12 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9269F95770688D4FA77843D0D2DA2ABD968C570C@X-MB1.xds.umail.utah.edu> Vince/All It is my opinion that there is no single method that satisfies all needs and all options to augment a system need to be considered and vetted. Multiple approaches should be implemented - even a system of a nearby buddy has its weaknesses. Currently, we only implement an active buddy system after-hours and want to augment it, too, so I would like to add to this discussion with my opinions and concerns with the hope that some viable solutions will be identified that we can each consider for our facility. As mentioned, we ALWAYS require a buddy after-hours, regardless of activity or duration. We have no restrictions on after-hours activities. The buddy must be an active member of the lab, who also has after-hours access. First, I consider it a mistake to assume that a lab member can be affected only by those hazards/dangers that he/she has direct control of. Even if a member is entering the lab for a few minutes to retrieve some items, check on a tool, use a microscope, etc., there are still hazards present that put them at risk. Anything can go wrong at any time - regardless of what the lab member(s) may or may not be doing. And, sometimes it has nothing to do with the lab, but the member himself/herself. As an example, a few years ago a researcher was working alone in the fab and recognized he was going into diabetic shock. We had no idea he was diabetic, nor is it anything we would ask our members. Anyway, he left the fab and made it as far as the vending machine before he passed out and was found some time later. Thank goodness he made it out of the fab or the outcome may have been very bad. I've also had an individual faint while in the cleanroom. I have no control over the health or alertness of any individual member entering the cleanroom. Consequently, being alone in the cleanroom for any reason or length of time is a risk I am unwilling to take. Second, I hate exceptions - especially those that loosen restrictions. They are difficult to monitor and enforce. A global, consistent rule is much easier to manage. Members will almost always interpret the rules to simplify their actions. If I were to allow some activities without a buddy, I know it won't be long before I've got users breaking the rules and doing prohibited activities - both intentionally and unintentionally. And, I have no desire to review video every morning to monitor after-hours activities. Currently, I get a report every morning that tells me who was in the lab after-hours and when they left. It takes me about 5 seconds to scan the report and identify violations - including the member that swiped out immediately and stayed in the lab alone. It is quick and easy - although not fool-proof. (Also, some facilities are able to physically and electronically prevent some activities and operations from use after-hours. This is good and generally effective, but a desperate researcher with a rapidly approaching deadline will often find a work-around.) Now, our buddy policy applies only to the cleanroom. We do have a couple of small labs outside the cleanroom where we do not require an after-hours buddy. Also, our surface analysis lab is exempt from the buddy requirement. BTW, resistance to our buddy policy dropped when we changed our billing structure to eliminate ALL charges for entering the cleanroom. It seemed wrong to charge a financial penalty to the buddy. However, even with a buddy requirement in place, the active communication between members remains a big challenge. A nearby buddy can be easily distracted and wander away. Two members can be in the lab for hours together, yet never see each other. So far, I have been unsuccessful at getting members to regularly check on each other. To that end, we are also considering some panic buttons or live displays of other bays to be used WITH our buddy requirement, but have no solid solution. Consequently, I am also interested in other ideas/solutions presented. Here are some more thoughts. * Panic buttons are only effective if they can be activated by the victim - and heard by the buddy who may be too far away. o A person who is unconscious cannot activate the alarm. o They should probably be portable, attached to the researcher, not permanently attached to a wall or wet bench. ? A person could be conscious but unable to reach a fixed button. o The sound cannot be confused with an evacuation alarm. o A strobe or flashing light may also be considered - as long as it can be seen anywhere inside the facility. o It would also be good to alert staff automatically. * Phone apps or other systems that detect a fall may only be good for that purpose. They would not work for an injury or chemical exposure or even someone unconscious in a chair. I would question the false alarm rate, too. * If using a fixed camera system, where are the blind spots? How will you cover them? * If using a robot, where is the redundancy? o How reliable is the wi-fi, server, network, and video stream? o What is your plan when the robot is not available or functioning? o What if it fails while a member is relying on it? o How will the robot react to an event? * If employing active, remote monitoring through a video system or robot, how do you ensure the person monitoring remains alert and focused on the task - especially if it is a lengthy duration? o How do you know who is the active monitor? o How far away from the lab is the monitor? o How does the researcher in the lab know if the monitor is still paying attention? o What is the active communication path between the researcher and the monitor? o How does the monitor decide a situation needs attention? o How long is the delay before anyone can respond? ? Who will respond? ? How will they verify it is safe to enter the lab? (This is especially relevant if a man is down. One victim is a tragedy. Two victims is inexcusable.) * Have you consulted your EHS authority and legal department to ensure your approach(es) will not hold you or your organization liable - both financially and criminally? * Are you comfortable enough with your system(s) to trust the health, well-being, and life of your own child, siblings, parents, spouse, or partner to it? I'm certain there are other concerns that I have not presented. I apologize for my lengthy response, and thank those who have read through it. More importantly, I hope it will generate more dialog for all of us to consider. I applaud those who have worked through these issues and have effective solutions. I am anxious to hear from them, since we, too, need to augment or modify our current system. tonyO Tony Olsen Nanofab Cleanroom Supervisor/Process Engineer University of Utah 36 S Wasatch Dr, Suite 2500 SMBB Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-587-0651 office 801-587-3077 fax www.nanofab.utah.edu From: Luciani, Vincent (Fed) [mailto:Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:30 To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Hello All, Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the "best practices" that are being described; buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner. So, I'll as the group: Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the "I have fallen and can't get up" type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities: 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a SEM or an AFM. 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system. 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids. Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system? Best, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From crraum at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 19:12:04 2016 From: crraum at gmail.com (Christopher Raum) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:12:04 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Just to add my two cents to the list of safety systems. With the Microdevices Lab at JPL, when you use the fab after hours or on the weekend, you would first call into security. Then at the fab you would open a lock box and remove a pager that you would wear around your neck. If you were in distress you could just reach up and press the button. I know most fabs don't have security, but there are derivative systems that could be developed from this idea. Regards, Chris Raum -- R&D Engineer 3 Experimental Cosmology Group Radio Astronomy Lab University of California, Berkeley 151 LeConte Hall Berkeley, CA, 94720 Work: (510) 642-7801 Cell: (949) 677-1905 Fax: (510) 643-5204 Email: crraum at gmail.com Alt Email: craum at berkeley.edu On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) < Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov> wrote: > Hello All, > > > > Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are > also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is > always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an > interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment > with the ?best practices? that are being described; buddy system, CCTV > cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external > microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been > discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost > effective manner. So, I?ll as the group: > > > > Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the > ?I have fallen and can?t get up? type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone > apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where > there are 3 categories of activities: > > 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a > SEM or an AFM. > > 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: > Operating a sputter system or RIE system. > > 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires > manual handling of dangerous liquids. > > > > Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a > buddy system? > > > > Best, > > Vince > > > > > > Vincent K. Luciani > > NanoFab Manager > > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > > National Institute of Standards and Technology > > 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 > > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA > > +1-301-975-2886 > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrweaver at purdue.edu Fri Oct 7 07:58:52 2016 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:58:52 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? In-Reply-To: <9269F95770688D4FA77843D0D2DA2ABD968C570C@X-MB1.xds.umail.utah.edu> References: <9269F95770688D4FA77843D0D2DA2ABD968C570C@X-MB1.xds.umail.utah.edu> Message-ID: <5745acc2433340a4bd6cda77a464a989@wppexc05.purdue.lcl> Tony - This is a valuable and well-thought-out response. I have many of the same thoughts and feelings; we have been battling those issues at the BNC for the entire life of the facility. I'm very interested in hearing some responses to your thoughts. John John R. Weaver Strategic Facilities Officer Birck Nanotechnology Center 1205 West State Street West Lafayette IN 47907 (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu nano.purdue.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Tony L Olsen Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 12:44 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Vince/All It is my opinion that there is no single method that satisfies all needs and all options to augment a system need to be considered and vetted. Multiple approaches should be implemented - even a system of a nearby buddy has its weaknesses. Currently, we only implement an active buddy system after-hours and want to augment it, too, so I would like to add to this discussion with my opinions and concerns with the hope that some viable solutions will be identified that we can each consider for our facility. As mentioned, we ALWAYS require a buddy after-hours, regardless of activity or duration. We have no restrictions on after-hours activities. The buddy must be an active member of the lab, who also has after-hours access. First, I consider it a mistake to assume that a lab member can be affected only by those hazards/dangers that he/she has direct control of. Even if a member is entering the lab for a few minutes to retrieve some items, check on a tool, use a microscope, etc., there are still hazards present that put them at risk. Anything can go wrong at any time - regardless of what the lab member(s) may or may not be doing. And, sometimes it has nothing to do with the lab, but the member himself/herself. As an example, a few years ago a researcher was working alone in the fab and recognized he was going into diabetic shock. We had no idea he was diabetic, nor is it anything we would ask our members. Anyway, he left the fab and made it as far as the vending machine before he passed out and was found some time later. Thank goodness he made it out of the fab or the outcome may have been very bad. I've also had an individual faint while in the cleanroom. I have no control over the health or alertness of any individual member entering the cleanroom. Consequently, being alone in the cleanroom for any reason or length of time is a risk I am unwilling to take. Second, I hate exceptions - especially those that loosen restrictions. They are difficult to monitor and enforce. A global, consistent rule is much easier to manage. Members will almost always interpret the rules to simplify their actions. If I were to allow some activities without a buddy, I know it won't be long before I've got users breaking the rules and doing prohibited activities - both intentionally and unintentionally. And, I have no desire to review video every morning to monitor after-hours activities. Currently, I get a report every morning that tells me who was in the lab after-hours and when they left. It takes me about 5 seconds to scan the report and identify violations - including the member that swiped out immediately and stayed in the lab alone. It is quick and easy - although not fool-proof. (Also, some facilities are able to physically and electronically prevent some activities and operations from use after-hours. This is good and generally effective, but a desperate researcher with a rapidly approaching deadline will often find a work-around.) Now, our buddy policy applies only to the cleanroom. We do have a couple of small labs outside the cleanroom where we do not require an after-hours buddy. Also, our surface analysis lab is exempt from the buddy requirement. BTW, resistance to our buddy policy dropped when we changed our billing structure to eliminate ALL charges for entering the cleanroom. It seemed wrong to charge a financial penalty to the buddy. However, even with a buddy requirement in place, the active communication between members remains a big challenge. A nearby buddy can be easily distracted and wander away. Two members can be in the lab for hours together, yet never see each other. So far, I have been unsuccessful at getting members to regularly check on each other. To that end, we are also considering some panic buttons or live displays of other bays to be used WITH our buddy requirement, but have no solid solution. Consequently, I am also interested in other ideas/solutions presented. Here are some more thoughts. * Panic buttons are only effective if they can be activated by the victim - and heard by the buddy who may be too far away. o A person who is unconscious cannot activate the alarm. o They should probably be portable, attached to the researcher, not permanently attached to a wall or wet bench. ? A person could be conscious but unable to reach a fixed button. o The sound cannot be confused with an evacuation alarm. o A strobe or flashing light may also be considered - as long as it can be seen anywhere inside the facility. o It would also be good to alert staff automatically. * Phone apps or other systems that detect a fall may only be good for that purpose. They would not work for an injury or chemical exposure or even someone unconscious in a chair. I would question the false alarm rate, too. * If using a fixed camera system, where are the blind spots? How will you cover them? * If using a robot, where is the redundancy? o How reliable is the wi-fi, server, network, and video stream? o What is your plan when the robot is not available or functioning? o What if it fails while a member is relying on it? o How will the robot react to an event? * If employing active, remote monitoring through a video system or robot, how do you ensure the person monitoring remains alert and focused on the task - especially if it is a lengthy duration? o How do you know who is the active monitor? o How far away from the lab is the monitor? o How does the researcher in the lab know if the monitor is still paying attention? o What is the active communication path between the researcher and the monitor? o How does the monitor decide a situation needs attention? o How long is the delay before anyone can respond? ? Who will respond? ? How will they verify it is safe to enter the lab? (This is especially relevant if a man is down. One victim is a tragedy. Two victims is inexcusable.) * Have you consulted your EHS authority and legal department to ensure your approach(es) will not hold you or your organization liable - both financially and criminally? * Are you comfortable enough with your system(s) to trust the health, well-being, and life of your own child, siblings, parents, spouse, or partner to it? I'm certain there are other concerns that I have not presented. I apologize for my lengthy response, and thank those who have read through it. More importantly, I hope it will generate more dialog for all of us to consider. I applaud those who have worked through these issues and have effective solutions. I am anxious to hear from them, since we, too, need to augment or modify our current system. tonyO Tony Olsen Nanofab Cleanroom Supervisor/Process Engineer University of Utah 36 S Wasatch Dr, Suite 2500 SMBB Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-587-0651 office 801-587-3077 fax www.nanofab.utah.edu From: Luciani, Vincent (Fed) [mailto:Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:30 To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Hello All, Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the "best practices" that are being described; buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner. So, I'll as the group: Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the "I have fallen and can't get up" type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities: 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a SEM or an AFM. 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system. 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids. Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system? Best, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Fri Oct 7 08:42:15 2016 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 12:42:15 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Message-ID: Hello LabNetwork, Thanks to everyone for the extremely valuable feedback on the question I posed. One cannot over estimate the value of the experiences and advice from such a knowledgeable group. I will continue to collect all the responses and if helpful, consolidate them for easy reference by the group in the future. We have much to ponder and I'll let you know how we move forward once we digest it all. Already looking forward to UGIM 2018! Thanks again, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 From: Luciani, Vincent (Fed) [mailto:Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:30 To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Engineering controls to replace a buddy? Can it be done? Hello All, Michael Hume brings up an interesting and poignant topic for us as we are also reexamining our after-hours access and buddy-system policy. It is always interesting to see what others are doing and this is always an interesting topic. Here at CNST our policies are pretty much in alignment with the "best practices" that are being described; buddy system, CCTV cameras buddy matchmaking etc. We do allow 24/7 use of our external microscopy labs that pose little risk. However, we have recently been discussing options to permit more 24/7 flexibility in a safe and cost effective manner. So, I'll as the group: Has anyone found a technology solution they like? We have discussed the "I have fallen and can't get up" type monitors; CCTV surveillance; phone apps that detect falls etc. At a minimum we are pondering a system where there are 3 categories of activities: 1) Activities where no buddy system is needed. For example: operating a SEM or an AFM. 2) Activities that require an electronic buddy at a minimum: For example: Operating a sputter system or RIE system. 3) Activities that must have a nearby buddy.: Anything that requires manual handling of dangerous liquids. Has anybody tested the viability of these electronic devices to augment a buddy system? Best, Vince Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lvchang at Central.UH.EDU Tue Oct 11 19:24:34 2016 From: lvchang at Central.UH.EDU (Chang, Long) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:24:34 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO Message-ID: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> Hi All, We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2? diameter targets. We?ve been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the student is using too much power. Thanks, Long Chang Nanofab Manager University of Houston 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 Houston, TX 77204-5062 [cid:3086A57B-3DB1-4B85-8710-71DBF15B4CB1 at uh.edu] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_3951.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59271 bytes Desc: IMG_3951.jpeg URL: From janney.9 at osu.edu Wed Oct 12 08:42:33 2016 From: janney.9 at osu.edu (Janney, Peter J.) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:42:33 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO In-Reply-To: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> References: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> Message-ID: Are you bead blasting all your shields and shutter. We have 3? targets and use a 100W max power. I suspect that you should be a little lower than that. We get our targets from Kurt J. Lesker. They could give you a recommendation for you 2 ?. You could deposit an adhesion layer of Ti on your shields before using the ITO. Best regards, Peter Janney [The Ohio State University] Peter Janney Lab Services Coordinator Nanotech West Lab 100 Science Village, 1381 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 614-688-4213 Office 614-753-3926 Cell janney.9 at osu.edu nanotech.osu.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Chang, Long Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:25 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO Hi All, We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2? diameter targets. We?ve been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the student is using too much power. Thanks, Long Chang Nanofab Manager University of Houston 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 Houston, TX 77204-5062 [cid:image002.jpg at 01D22463.AEAD7050] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 3605 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59271 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From mhofheins at unm.edu Wed Oct 12 08:54:12 2016 From: mhofheins at unm.edu (Mark Hofheins) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:54:12 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO In-Reply-To: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> References: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> Message-ID: The power is relative to the target material. Also the surface roughness will have a bearing on how well the sputtered material holds onto the surrounding chamber parts or flakes off. Most metals, we run around 200 to 300 watts. If a previous compound has been sputtered and the fixtures have not been cleaned or changed, flaking will also become an issue. Good luck. Mark Hofheins mhofheins at unm.edu 505-710-3527 Micro Electronics Technician Manufacturing Engineering University of New Mexico MTTC 800 Bradbury S.E. Suit 235 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106-4346 ________________________________ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu on behalf of Chang, Long Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:24 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO Hi All, We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2" diameter targets. We've been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the student is using too much power. Thanks, Long Chang Nanofab Manager University of Houston 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 Houston, TX 77204-5062 [cid:3086A57B-3DB1-4B85-8710-71DBF15B4CB1 at uh.edu] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_3951.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59271 bytes Desc: IMG_3951.jpeg URL: From ulbricht at physics.ucsb.edu Wed Oct 12 16:33:32 2016 From: ulbricht at physics.ucsb.edu (Gerhard Ulbricht) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:33:32 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO In-Reply-To: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> References: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> Message-ID: <57FE9E1C.3050909@physics.ucsb.edu> Sputtering at lower power will produce less heat and thermal stress and can delay flaking, but flakes will still show up when the film deposited on your sputter chimney and shutter gets thicker. What we do for materials that are very prone to flaking (e.g. RF sputtered Si or DC sputtered W) is to send out chimney and shutter to get their insides arc-spray coated with a very rough and thick Al layer - about the surface structure of extra coarse sand paper. That for us has stopped Si flaking completely, in contrast to having to clean the sputter gun from flakes every 2 weeks. We have to get these parts re-coated every time we change a sputter target, but the company (Pentagon Technologies) does both the bead blasting and the new coating for us (what is very convenient), and it's not expensive. Best regards, Gerhard Ulbricht Department of Physics Broida Hall University of California Santa Barbara CA 93106 On 10/11/2016 4:24 PM, Chang, Long wrote: > Hi All, > > We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2" diameter targets. > We've been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student > is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC > power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken > to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the > student is using too much power. > > Thanks, > Long Chang > Nanofab Manager > University of Houston > 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 > Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 > Houston, TX 77204-5062 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 hbtusainc at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 17:37:57 2016 From: hbtusainc at yahoo.com (Mario Portillo) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [labnetwork] YES NH3 Image reversal oven References: <327063235.4452808.1476308277564.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <327063235.4452808.1476308277564@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Members.....I am looking on behalf of a customer for one these units. Let me know please. Regards Mario A. Portillo Sr. HIGH'born Technology USA Inc.. Semiconductor Equipment Services 8130 Glades Road, #229 Boca Raton, FL 33434 561 470-1975 office 561 504-0244 cell hbtusainc at yahoo.com www.hbtusainc.com From bshiva at stanford.edu Thu Oct 13 00:00:44 2016 From: bshiva at stanford.edu (Shivakumar Bhaskaran) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 04:00:44 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO In-Reply-To: <57FE9E1C.3050909@physics.ucsb.edu> References: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> <57FE9E1C.3050909@physics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: Long Chang, I used to Sputter at low power. I usually start at 15W 2mTorr 10 SCCM of Ar, slowly ramp to 50W but not more than 50W. Sometimes ITO target cracks at high power and to avoid this I usually tell users to go at low power. I usually check the sputtering shield,chimney, shutter once a week for the flakes. -Regards -Shiva Shivakumar Bhaskaran, Ph.D., Research and Development Scientist and Engineer, National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), Stanford University, 348 Via Pueblo, Spilker Building,Room 004, Stanford, CA 94305. Ph:650-498-5653 http://nanolabs.stanford.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Gerhard Ulbricht Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 1:34 PM To: Chang, Long Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO Sputtering at lower power will produce less heat and thermal stress and can delay flaking, but flakes will still show up when the film deposited on your sputter chimney and shutter gets thicker. What we do for materials that are very prone to flaking (e.g. RF sputtered Si or DC sputtered W) is to send out chimney and shutter to get their insides arc-spray coated with a very rough and thick Al layer - about the surface structure of extra coarse sand paper. That for us has stopped Si flaking completely, in contrast to having to clean the sputter gun from flakes every 2 weeks. We have to get these parts re-coated every time we change a sputter target, but the company (Pentagon Technologies) does both the bead blasting and the new coating for us (what is very convenient), and it's not expensive. Best regards, Gerhard Ulbricht Department of Physics Broida Hall University of California Santa Barbara CA 93106 On 10/11/2016 4:24 PM, Chang, Long wrote: Hi All, We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2" diameter targets. We've been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the student is using too much power. Thanks, Long Chang Nanofab Manager University of Houston 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 Houston, TX 77204-5062 _______________________________________________ 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 lvchang at Central.UH.EDU Wed Oct 12 23:12:19 2016 From: lvchang at Central.UH.EDU (Chang, Long) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 22:12:19 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering of ITO In-Reply-To: <57FE9E1C.3050909@physics.ucsb.edu> References: <406F6B69-5D08-45CD-9D79-AB9A60A314F7@central.uh.edu> <57FE9E1C.3050909@physics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <671BECCA-89E3-421A-BD04-07E0C65E309B@central.uh.edu> We?ll try the arc-spray coating from Pentagon Technologies and keep the other advice in mind. Thanks everyone! --Long On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Gerhard Ulbricht > wrote: Sputtering at lower power will produce less heat and thermal stress and can delay flaking, but flakes will still show up when the film deposited on your sputter chimney and shutter gets thicker. What we do for materials that are very prone to flaking (e.g. RF sputtered Si or DC sputtered W) is to send out chimney and shutter to get their insides arc-spray coated with a very rough and thick Al layer - about the surface structure of extra coarse sand paper. That for us has stopped Si flaking completely, in contrast to having to clean the sputter gun from flakes every 2 weeks. We have to get these parts re-coated every time we change a sputter target, but the company (Pentagon Technologies) does both the bead blasting and the new coating for us (what is very convenient), and it's not expensive. Best regards, Gerhard Ulbricht Department of Physics Broida Hall University of California Santa Barbara CA 93106 On 10/11/2016 4:24 PM, Chang, Long wrote: Hi All, We have a DC magnetron sputtering system using 2? diameter targets. We?ve been observing many shorts due to severe flaking. The student is using a recipe developed by her predecessor which uses 100W of DC power and 5 mTorr of Ar. Does anyone know what steps should be taken to avoid/reduce flaking when DC sputtering ITO? I suspect that the student is using too much power. Thanks, Long Chang Nanofab Manager University of Houston 3605 Cullen Blvd, Entrance 14 Room E1007A, SERC Bldg 545 Houston, TX 77204-5062 _______________________________________________ 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 eabelev at pitt.edu Thu Oct 13 12:52:49 2016 From: eabelev at pitt.edu (Abelev, Esta) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:52:49 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE Message-ID: Hi, I would like to introduce myself, I am Esta Abelev a Technical Director of Nanoscale Fabrication facility at University of Pittsburgh. Recently, I received request to etch following materials (see below table), that I have never worked with. I wanted to ask the community if somebody have an experience with those materials and how the best way to etch it. Need to etch the polymer electrolyte (salt concentration is 2.5 mM based on the volume of Ionic liquid. And PEGDA/IL is 60/40 wt.%) on the silicon substrate except those areas protected by metal. The chemical formulas for these materials are as follows: Name Chemical Formula Polyethylene glycol dicrylate CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2 1-butyl-3-methylimiadazolium tetrafluoroborate C8H15BF4N2 Silver tetrafluoroborate AgBF4 2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone C10H12O2 Thank you, Esta ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Dr. Esta Abelev Technical Director of PINSE/NFCF Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering (PINSE) Nanoscale Fabrication and Characterization Facility (NFCF) University of Pittsburgh 636 Benedum Hall 3700 O'Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA 15261 Phone: 412-383-4096 Email: eabelev at pitt.edu Office: M104 Benedum Hall http://www.nano.pitt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au Fri Oct 14 00:42:47 2016 From: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au (Fouad Karouta) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:42:47 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Esta, First I have to say I haven't worked directly with the materials you named. But in general for materials #1 and 4 as they are pure hydrocarbons you can etch them with O2 plasma. This should remove all organic materials. For B-containing material you need to add something like fluoride (CHF3 or equivalent) to O2, you may need to look for an optimum mixture ratio. The one with silver would be the trickiest: if I were you I would try Cl2+O2, hoping you get AgClO3 as an etching product which is volatile. My simple approach to RIE in general is to look at possible etching products and their melting, boiling temperatures and take the gas which gives you the lowest temperature (this must definitely be below 500?C). As an example etching InP in Cl2- chemistry results in an etching product of InCl3 which has a melting point of 583?C at 1 atm. We know in RIE you need to heat the table to something like 150-200?C and at pressure like 4 mTorr then nCl3 becomes volatile. You may want to look at a tutorial paper I published 2 years ago: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/47/23/233501 Good luck, Fouad Karouta ************************************* Manager ANFF ACT Node Australian National Fabrication Facility Research School of Physics and Engineering L. Huxley Building (#56), Mills Road, Room 4.02 Australian National University ACT 0200, Canberra, Australia Tel: + 61 2 6125 7174 Mob: + 61 451 046 412 Email: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au http://anff-act.anu.edu.au/ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Abelev, Esta Sent: Friday, 14 October 2016 3:53 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE Hi, I would like to introduce myself, I am Esta Abelev a Technical Director of Nanoscale Fabrication facility at University of Pittsburgh. Recently, I received request to etch following materials (see below table), that I have never worked with. I wanted to ask the community if somebody have an experience with those materials and how the best way to etch it. Need to etch the polymer electrolyte (salt concentration is 2.5 mM based on the volume of Ionic liquid. And PEGDA/IL is 60/40 wt.%) on the silicon substrate except those areas protected by metal. The chemical formulas for these materials are as follows: Name Chemical Formula Polyethylene glycol dicrylate CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2 1-butyl-3-methylimiadazolium tetrafluoroborate C8H15BF4N2 Silver tetrafluoroborate AgBF4 2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone C10H12O2 Thank you, Esta ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Dr. Esta Abelev Technical Director of PINSE/NFCF Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering (PINSE) Nanoscale Fabrication and Characterization Facility (NFCF) University of Pittsburgh 636 Benedum Hall 3700 O'Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA 15261 Phone: 412-383-4096 Email: eabelev at pitt.edu Office: M104 Benedum Hall http://www.nano.pitt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Mon Oct 17 10:59:52 2016 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:59:52 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, I checked with our RIE chemist. He does not have direct experience with these chemicals but offered the following comments. Based on the formula, the film is a solid polymer (CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2) blended with the ionic liquids (C8H15BF4N2+ AgBF4+ C10H12O2) inside. It is a Carbon based film, so normal Oxygen plasma should etch it. The concern is if the small molecular organic compounds (C8H15BF4N2 and C10H12O2) will vaporize inside the high vacuum plasma chamber which may change the electrolyte chemical composition and contaminate the plasma system. Best, Vince Luciani Vincent K. Luciani NanoFab Manager Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA +1-301-975-2886 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Abelev, Esta Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:53 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE Hi, I would like to introduce myself, I am Esta Abelev a Technical Director of Nanoscale Fabrication facility at University of Pittsburgh. Recently, I received request to etch following materials (see below table), that I have never worked with. I wanted to ask the community if somebody have an experience with those materials and how the best way to etch it. Need to etch the polymer electrolyte (salt concentration is 2.5 mM based on the volume of Ionic liquid. And PEGDA/IL is 60/40 wt.%) on the silicon substrate except those areas protected by metal. The chemical formulas for these materials are as follows: Name Chemical Formula Polyethylene glycol dicrylate CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2 1-butyl-3-methylimiadazolium tetrafluoroborate C8H15BF4N2 Silver tetrafluoroborate AgBF4 2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone C10H12O2 Thank you, Esta ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Dr. Esta Abelev Technical Director of PINSE/NFCF Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering (PINSE) Nanoscale Fabrication and Characterization Facility (NFCF) University of Pittsburgh 636 Benedum Hall 3700 O'Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA 15261 Phone: 412-383-4096 Email: eabelev at pitt.edu Office: M104 Benedum Hall http://www.nano.pitt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hower at umich.edu Mon Oct 17 14:03:22 2016 From: hower at umich.edu (Robert Hower) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:03:22 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Vince on the contamination of the vacuum plasma chamber. In addition to just the volatile components, how pure were the components prior to mixing? You may have other metals/ions in the material, that could contaminate your chamber, and cause changes in the plasma. Rob On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) < Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov> wrote: > Hello, > > > > I checked with our RIE chemist. He does not have direct experience with > these chemicals but offered the following comments. > > > > Based on the formula, the film is a solid polymer > (CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2) blended with the ionic liquids (C8H15BF4N2+ > AgBF4+ C10H12O2) inside. It is a Carbon based film, so normal Oxygen plasma > should etch it. The concern is if the small molecular organic compounds > (C8H15BF4N2 and C10H12O2) will vaporize inside the high vacuum plasma > chamber which may change the electrolyte chemical composition and > contaminate the plasma system. > > > > Best, > > Vince Luciani > > > > > > Vincent K. Luciani > > NanoFab Manager > > Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology > > National Institute of Standards and Technology > > 100 Bureau Drive, MS 6201 > > Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6200 USA > > +1-301-975-2886 > > > > > > > > > > *From:* labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces@ > mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Abelev, Esta > *Sent:* Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:53 PM > *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Subject:* [labnetwork] Project Feasibility for RIE > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to introduce myself, I am Esta Abelev a Technical Director of > Nanoscale Fabrication facility at University of Pittsburgh. > > Recently, I received request to etch following materials (see below > table), that I have never worked with. I wanted to ask the community if > somebody have an experience with those materials and how the best way to > etch it. > > > > Need to etch the polymer electrolyte (salt concentration is 2.5 mM based > on the volume of Ionic liquid. And PEGDA/IL is 60/40 wt.%) on the silicon > substrate except those areas protected by metal. The chemical formulas for > these materials are as follows: > > *Name * > > *Chemical Formula* > > Polyethylene glycol dicrylate > > CH2CHCO(C2H4O)nCOOCHCH2 > > 1-butyl-3-methylimiadazolium tetrafluoroborate > > C8H15BF4N2 > > Silver tetrafluoroborate > > AgBF4 > > 2-Hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone > > C10H12O2 > > > > Thank you, Esta > > > > ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.. > > Dr. Esta Abelev > > > > Technical Director of PINSE/NFCF > > *Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering (PINSE)* > > *Nanoscale Fabrication and Characterization Facility (NFCF > )* > > University of Pittsburgh > > 636 Benedum Hall > > 3700 O?Hara Street > > Pittsburgh, PA 15261 > > > > Phone: 412-383-4096 > > Email: eabelev at pitt.edu > > Office: M104 Benedum Hall > > http://www.nano.pitt.edu > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -- Robert W. Hower, Ph.D. The University of Michigan, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility 1301 Beal Ave, 1234A EECS Ann Arbor, MI 48109 734-827-4370 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jguo5 at Central.UH.EDU Wed Oct 19 16:17:30 2016 From: jguo5 at Central.UH.EDU (Guo, Jing) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:17:30 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] DC sputtering ITO arcing problem Message-ID: Dear All, Last week we experienced a severe flaking problem on our ITO target (DC magnetron sputtering). While we are looking for the arc spray Al coating, we placed a brand new ITO target with a clean chimney (Alumina grit blasted) into the chamber this week. Once the plasma was on, it was arcing. The ITO target surface became more metallic instead of black color as shown in the attachment when we checked the target. This is the second time we have this problem. Did anyone have a similar problem on the ITO target? What could be the reason or solution to solve this problem? The clean chimney was used on Cu target before cleaning process. There is some Cu residue inside the chimney. Could it be the reason that the ITO surface looks more metallic? Thanks for all the advice and help. Best Regards, Jing Research Lab Supervisor Nanofabrication Facility University of Houston Postal Address: UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON NANOFABRICATION FACILITY 3605 CULLEN BLVD, RM 1011 HOUSTON TX 77204-5062 Phone: 832-842-8822 FAX: 713-743-0428 Email: jguo5 at central.uh.edu Web: www.uh.edu/nanofab [cid:E6B631BF-30AA-40B5-9BBD-8EDB60CA6F9A at uh.edu] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_20161019_095639.jpeg Type: image/jpg Size: 43217 bytes Desc: IMG_20161019_095639.jpeg URL: From aju-jugessur at uiowa.edu Fri Oct 21 12:52:41 2016 From: aju-jugessur at uiowa.edu (Jugessur, Aju S) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:52:41 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Sputtering AuSn Message-ID: Hi, I have a user would like to sputter 2-3 micron thick AuSn using our Intlvac Sputter coater. Does anyone have experience with this process and can also comment on any contamination issues that might cause problems for other processes? The sputterer is currently used to coat Al, SiN, SiO. If you could also suggest other deposition techniques that will work to coat AuSn. Thanks for your help. Regards Aju Aju Jugessur Ph.D. Director, University of Iowa Microfabrication Facility Professor (Adj.), Physics and Astronomy OSTC, Iowa Advanced Technology Labs University of Iowa 205 N. Madison St Iowa City, IA 52242 319 -353-2342 aju-jugessur at uiowa.edu http://ostc.uiowa.edu/uimf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariusz.martyniuk at uwa.edu.au Fri Oct 28 04:18:59 2016 From: mariusz.martyniuk at uwa.edu.au (Mariusz Martyniuk) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:18:59 +0800 Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? Message-ID: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> Dear LabNetwork, I would like to investigate what purity of CO2 is being used for Critical Point Drying (CPD) of MEMS in various labs. Could I please ask for a reply with a comment if you are using CPD? Did anyone investigate if there are significant benefits of using 5N over 3N purity of CO2? Cheers, Marius Mariusz Martyniuk ----------------------------- Associate Professor, ANFF-WA Managing Director Microelectronics Research Group School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Rm 4.17, M018 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia<%20%20> Tel: +61 8 6488 1905, Fax: +61 8 6488 1095 Secretary Tel: +61 8 6488 3801, Rm 1.73, http://www.mrg.uwa.edu.au/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.aebersold at louisville.edu Fri Oct 28 09:36:45 2016 From: julia.aebersold at louisville.edu (julia.aebersold at louisville.edu) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:36:45 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? In-Reply-To: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> References: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: We use CPD and 5N purity which is standard for most of our gases. We haven't used 3N so I can't comment on differences. Cheers! Julia Aebersold, Ph.D. MNTC Cleanroom Manager University of Louisville 2210 South Brook Street Shumaker Research Building, Room 233 Louisville, KY 40292 (502) 852-1572 http://louisville.edu/micronano/ ________________________________ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] on behalf of Mariusz Martyniuk [mariusz.martyniuk at uwa.edu.au] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 4:18 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? Dear LabNetwork, I would like to investigate what purity of CO2 is being used for Critical Point Drying (CPD) of MEMS in various labs. Could I please ask for a reply with a comment if you are using CPD? Did anyone investigate if there are significant benefits of using 5N over 3N purity of CO2? Cheers, Marius Mariusz Martyniuk ----------------------------- Associate Professor, ANFF-WA Managing Director Microelectronics Research Group School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Rm 4.17, M018 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia Tel: +61 8 6488 1905, Fax: +61 8 6488 1095 Secretary Tel: +61 8 6488 3801, Rm 1.73, http://www.mrg.uwa.edu.au/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.hume at ualberta.ca Fri Oct 28 10:54:22 2016 From: michael.hume at ualberta.ca (Michael Hume) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:54:22 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? In-Reply-To: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> References: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: Hi Mariusz, We use bone dry 3.0 liquid withdrawal CO2. I can't say that we've ever done any analysis of the benefits of moving to a higher purity. I'd be interested in any comments as well. Regards, -Mike. On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Mariusz Martyniuk < mariusz.martyniuk at uwa.edu.au> wrote: > Dear LabNetwork, > > > > I would like to investigate what purity of CO2 is being used for Critical > Point Drying (CPD) of MEMS in various labs. Could I please ask for a reply > with a comment if you are using CPD? Did anyone investigate if there are > significant benefits of using 5N over 3N purity of CO2? > > > > Cheers, > > Marius > > > > Mariusz Martyniuk > ----------------------------- > Associate Professor, ANFF-WA Managing Director > Microelectronics Research Group > School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Rm 4.17, M018 > The University of Western Australia > 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia > Tel: +61 8 6488 1905 <+61%208%206488%201905>, Fax: +61 8 6488 1095 > <+61%208%206488%201095> > Secretary Tel: +61 8 6488 3801 <+61%208%206488%203801>, Rm 1.73, > http://www.mrg.uwa.edu.au/ > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -- Michael Hume Operations Manager University of Alberta - nanoFAB W1-060 ECERF Building 9107 - 116 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2V4 www.nanofab.ualberta.ca Ph: 587-879-1519 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Oct 28 11:16:02 2016 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. HAMILTON) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:16:02 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? In-Reply-To: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> References: <557C87D8E1F1AE4F9C0CD5B31CF5C253022CFFAC59F6@IS-WIN-383.staffad.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: Mariusz Martyniuk The UC Berkeley Marvell NanoFabrication Laboratory uses a LCO2 grade sold by Praxair as "ultra high purity: Praxair p/n: CD 3.0-KS, 3.0, 99.9 purity Bob Hamilton Marvell NanoLab Equipment Manager Robert Hamilton University of CA, Berkeley Marvell NanoLab Equipment Manager Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall, MC 1754 Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone 510-809-8618 (desk - preferred) Mobile 510-325-7557 (my personal mobile) E-mail preferred: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu http://nanolab.berkeley.edu/ On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Mariusz Martyniuk < mariusz.martyniuk at uwa.edu.au> wrote: > Dear LabNetwork, > > > > I would like to investigate what purity of CO2 is being used for Critical > Point Drying (CPD) of MEMS in various labs. Could I please ask for a reply > with a comment if you are using CPD? Did anyone investigate if there are > significant benefits of using 5N over 3N purity of CO2? > > > > Cheers, > > Marius > > > > Mariusz Martyniuk > ----------------------------- > Associate Professor, ANFF-WA Managing Director > Microelectronics Research Group > School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Rm 4.17, M018 > The University of Western Australia > 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia > Tel: +61 8 6488 1905 <+61%208%206488%201905>, Fax: +61 8 6488 1095 > <+61%208%206488%201095> > Secretary Tel: +61 8 6488 3801 <+61%208%206488%203801>, Rm 1.73, > http://www.mrg.uwa.edu.au/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 derose at caltech.edu Fri Oct 28 14:47:53 2016 From: derose at caltech.edu (DeRose, Guy A.) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:47:53 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? Message-ID: Mariusz, In my lab, we use ?Coleman Instrument grade? 99.99% CO2 in an aluminum cylinder with a dip tube. We have found that the aluminum cylinders are much easier to handle than the steel ones due to reduced weight, and much cleaner to have inside the lab. Guy DeRose, PhD, Member of the Professional Staff Associate Director, Kavli Nanoscience Institute California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA USA (O) 1-626-395-3423 (M) 1-626-676-8529 http://kni.caltech.edu Skype: guy_derose From: on behalf of Mariusz Martyniuk Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:18 AM To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" Subject: [labnetwork] CO2 purity for CPD? Dear LabNetwork, I would like to investigate what purity of CO2 is being used for Critical Point Drying (CPD) of MEMS in various labs. Could I please ask for a reply with a comment if you are using CPD? Did anyone investigate if there are significant benefits of using 5N over 3N purity of CO2? Cheers, Marius Mariusz Martyniuk ----------------------------- Associate Professor, ANFF-WA Managing Director Microelectronics Research Group School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, Rm 4.17, M018 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia<%20%20> Tel: +61 8 6488 1905, Fax: +61 8 6488 1095 Secretary Tel: +61 8 6488 3801, Rm 1.73, http://www.mrg.uwa.edu.au/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: