From na2661 at columbia.edu Fri Jul 7 08:10:03 2017 From: na2661 at columbia.edu (Nava Ariel-Sternberg) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 08:10:03 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Safety shower curtain Message-ID: <002801d2f719$f72d7440$e5885cc0$@columbia.edu> Good morning all, A few months ago there was a discussion here (started by Julia I believe) about a safety shower curtain. We?ve adopted the idea enthusiastically after hearing of people going to the restroom instead of using the safety showers in other labs on campus for the sake of privacy. Now, that we have two beautiful safety shower curtains installed in our clean room, our fire safety department is insisting we take them down as the curtains are not flame retardant. Has anyone faced this discussion and can share opinion/experience? Anyone using a flame retardant safety shower curtain they can recommend? (quick web search didn?t come up with clean room compatible curtains). Thanks, Nava Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codreanu at udel.edu Fri Jul 7 12:39:21 2017 From: codreanu at udel.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:39:21 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Safety shower curtain In-Reply-To: <002801d2f719$f72d7440$e5885cc0$@columbia.edu> References: <002801d2f719$f72d7440$e5885cc0$@columbia.edu> Message-ID: <9d025f8e-996b-b985-41fa-c7c4e9421ab7@udel.edu> Hi Nava, Can you modify a fire blanket (they come in different sizes, Amazon link below) to serve as a shower curtain? Iulian https://www.amazon.com/Tonyko-Fiberglass-Fire-Blanket-39-inch/dp/B01FOILJEI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1499445501&sr=8-3&keywords=fire+blanket iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director of Operations, UD NanoFab 163 ISE Lab 221 Academy Street Newark, DE 19716 302-831-2784 http://udnf.udel.edu On 7/7/2017 8:10 AM, Nava Ariel-Sternberg wrote: > > Good morning all, > > A few months ago there was a discussion here (started by Julia I > believe) about a safety shower curtain. We?ve adopted the idea > enthusiastically after hearing of people going to the restroom instead > of using the safety showers in other labs on campus for the sake of > privacy. > > Now, that we have two beautiful safety shower curtains installed in > our clean room, our fire safety department is insisting we take them > down as the curtains are not flame retardant. Has anyone faced this > discussion and can share opinion/experience? Anyone using a flame > retardant safety shower curtain they can recommend? (quick web search > didn?t come up with clean room compatible curtains). > > Thanks, > > Nava > > Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. > > Director of CNI Shared Facilities > > Columbia University > > 530 w120th st., NY 10027 > > Room 1015/MC 8903 > > Office: 212-854-9927 > > Cell: 201-562-7600 > > ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fgavin at wafabintl.com Fri Jul 7 12:57:42 2017 From: fgavin at wafabintl.com (Frank Gavin) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:57:42 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? Message-ID: Hello everyone We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit ultraviolet light. I am always suspicious of simple convenient solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned community and learn if this statement is true. Perhaps some members have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab and would care to comment? Best Regards, FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. [Description: WaFab_Logo200px] 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 (925) 455-5252 ext 2420 Fax: (925) 455-5351 http://www.wafabintl.com direct dial: 925-800-5551 cell (408) 314-6199 Please visit us at: [Description: Description: Description: \\WAFAB-DC\Folder Redirection\fgavin\Desktop\semi17-hdpi-logo.png] July 11th -13th Moscone Center, San Francisco Booth: 7817 (West Hall) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri Jul 7 13:59:40 2017 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:59:40 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b9597b9-2183-bd22-8e3a-d445f70220a6@eecs.berkeley.edu> Request spectral output of LED from LED supplier. Compare output curve to specifications of room bench is designed for. Bill UC Berkeley On 7/7/2017 9:57 AM, Frank Gavin wrote: > > Hello everyone > > We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of > HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add > yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit > ultraviolet light. I am always suspicious of simple convenient > solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned > community and learn if this statement is true. Perhaps some members > have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab > and would care to comment? > > Best Regards, > > FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. > > Description: WaFab_Logo200px > > 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 > *(925) 455-5252 ext 2420* Fax: (925) 455-5351 > http://www.wafabintl.com > > direct dial: 925-800-5551 > > cell (408) 314-6199 > > ** > > *Please visit us at:* > > Description: Description: Description: \\WAFAB-DC\Folder > Redirection\fgavin\Desktop\semi17-hdpi-logo.png > > > ** > > *July 11^th ?13^th * > > *Moscone Center, San Francisco **Booth: 7817 (West Hall)* > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From na2661 at columbia.edu Fri Jul 7 15:07:18 2017 From: na2661 at columbia.edu (Nava Ariel-Sternberg) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:07:18 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01ff01d2f754$4144d7f0$c3ce87d0$@columbia.edu> Hi Frank, We have installed LED lights in our litho area and heard the same claim but we checked with photoresist manufacturers and their recommendation was to have amber filers and block all wavelength below 500nm. Although LED lights do not emit in the UV, some of the photoresists are sensitive to the lower part of the visible range. We ended up purchasing amber plastic filters and installed them on top of the LED lights. Hope this helps, Nava Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Gavin Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:58 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? Hello everyone We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit ultraviolet light. I am always suspicious of simple convenient solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned community and learn if this statement is true. Perhaps some members have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab and would care to comment? Best Regards, FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 (925) 455-5252 ext 2420 Fax: (925) 455-5351 http://www.wafabintl.com direct dial: 925-800-5551 cell (408) 314-6199 Please visit us at: July 11th ?13th Moscone Center, San Francisco Booth: 7817 (West Hall) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bgila at ufl.edu Fri Jul 7 16:02:51 2017 From: bgila at ufl.edu (Brent Gila) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:02:51 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Frank, Typical positive resist (example is AZ1500 series) is photosensitive in the violet-blue light spectrum and white LEDs have a very strong blue emission. Your best bet is to use the standard amber filters or use a single wavelength LED like green or yellow. Best Regards, Brent -- Brent P. Gila, PhD. Director, Nanoscale Research Facility 1041 Center Drive University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Tel:352-273-2245 Fax:352-846-2877 email:bgila at ufl.edu On 7/7/2017 12:57 PM, Frank Gavin wrote: > > Hello everyone > > We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of > HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add > yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit > ultraviolet light. I am always suspicious of simple convenient > solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned > community and learn if this statement is true. Perhaps some members > have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab > and would care to comment? > > Best Regards, > > FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. > > Description: WaFab_Logo200px > > 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 > *(925) 455-5252 ext 2420* Fax: (925) 455-5351 > http://www.wafabintl.com > > direct dial: 925-800-5551 > > cell (408) 314-6199 > > ** > > *Please visit us at:* > > Description: Description: Description: \\WAFAB-DC\Folder > Redirection\fgavin\Desktop\semi17-hdpi-logo.png > > > ** > > *July 11^th ?13^th * > > *Moscone Center, San Francisco **Booth: 7817 (West Hall)* > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From schweig at umich.edu Fri Jul 7 16:05:33 2017 From: schweig at umich.edu (Dennis Schweiger) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:05:33 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? Message-ID: Frank, we just upgraded all of our T-12 tubes to LED, and through testing, found that the LED still needed to have a filter. I've attached a cut sheet of the filter we installed. We found that our existing "yellow" filters weren't cutting out enough of the 400-500nm spectrum. Dennis Schweiger University of Michigan/LNF Facilities Manager 734.647.2055 Ofc On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Frank Gavin wrote: > Hello everyone > > > > We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of HEPA > and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add yellow lens > covers over LED light because such lights do not emit ultraviolet light. I > am always suspicious of simple convenient solutions so I want to put this > statement out to this learned community and learn if this statement is > true. Perhaps some members have experience using LED lights in > photosensitive areas of their fab and would care to comment? > > > > > > Best Regards, > > FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. > > [image: Description: WaFab_Logo200px] > > 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 > *(925) 455-5252 ext 2420 <(925)%20455-5252>* Fax: (925) 455-5351 > http://www.wafabintl.com > > direct dial: 925-800-5551 <(925)%20800-5551> > > cell (408) 314-6199 > > > > *Please visit us at:* > > [image: Description: Description: Description: \\WAFAB-DC\Folder > Redirection\fgavin\Desktop\semi17-hdpi-logo.png] > > > > > *July 11th ?13th * > > *Moscone Center, San Francisco **Booth: 7817 (West Hall)* > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tarp50 lens.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 466100 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dgrimard at mit.edu Fri Jul 7 17:06:45 2017 From: dgrimard at mit.edu (Dennis Grimard) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:06:45 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? In-Reply-To: <01ff01d2f754$4144d7f0$c3ce87d0$@columbia.edu> References: <01ff01d2f754$4144d7f0$c3ce87d0$@columbia.edu> Message-ID: <5F7A88260FF94B47B34C0B2E3F56CBCB82622866@OC11EXPO29.exchange.mit.edu> Frank: LED?s do emit in the UV ? see spectral response below ? thus they need filters ? These are for 4000K and 5000K LED?s. The lower the temperature the broader the spectral output in the visible range and the lower the peak output is in the 400 to 450 nm range. There is also a shift to the visible for the lower temperatures towards higher wavelengths (toward 500 nM). D 4000K [Inline image 1] 5000K [Inline image 2] Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Associate Director of Operations MIT.nano School of Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 60 Vassar Street, Bldg 39-559 Cambridge, MA 02139 C: (734) 368-7172 EM: dgrimard at mit.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Nava Ariel-Sternberg Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:07 PM To: 'Frank Gavin' ; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? Hi Frank, We have installed LED lights in our litho area and heard the same claim but we checked with photoresist manufacturers and their recommendation was to have amber filers and block all wavelength below 500nm. Although LED lights do not emit in the UV, some of the photoresists are sensitive to the lower part of the visible range. We ended up purchasing amber plastic filters and installed them on top of the LED lights. Hope this helps, Nava Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Gavin Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:58 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? Hello everyone We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit ultraviolet light. I am always suspicious of simple convenient solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned community and learn if this statement is true. Perhaps some members have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab and would care to comment? Best Regards, FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. [Description: WaFab_Logo200px] 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 (925) 455-5252 ext 2420 Fax: (925) 455-5351 http://www.wafabintl.com direct dial: 925-800-5551 cell (408) 314-6199 Please visit us at: [Description: Description: Description: \\WAFAB-DC\Folder Redirection\fgavin\Desktop\semi17-hdpi-logo.png] July 11th ?13th Moscone Center, San Francisco Booth: 7817 (West Hall) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 63394 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 61380 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From hbtusainc at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 20:16:55 2017 From: hbtusainc at yahoo.com (Mario Portillo) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 00:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? In-Reply-To: <5F7A88260FF94B47B34C0B2E3F56CBCB82622866@OC11EXPO29.exchange.mit.edu> References: <01ff01d2f754$4144d7f0$c3ce87d0$@columbia.edu> <5F7A88260FF94B47B34C0B2E3F56CBCB82622866@OC11EXPO29.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <408910525.955786.1499473015934@mail.yahoo.com> LEDs are being used and can be use as replacements to the mercury arc lamps to expose photoresists, from 365nm out to the 400s... filtering is needed... Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, July 8, 2017, 5:06 AM, Dennis Grimard wrote: #yiv7714996088 #yiv7714996088 -- _filtered #yiv7714996088 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7714996088 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7714996088 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7714996088 #yiv7714996088 p.yiv7714996088MsoNormal, #yiv7714996088 li.yiv7714996088MsoNormal, #yiv7714996088 div.yiv7714996088MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7714996088 a:link, #yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7714996088 a:visited, #yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7714996088 p.yiv7714996088MsoAcetate, #yiv7714996088 li.yiv7714996088MsoAcetate, #yiv7714996088 div.yiv7714996088MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088BalloonTextChar {color:black;}#yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088EmailStyle19 {color:windowtext;}#yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7714996088 span.yiv7714996088EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7714996088 .yiv7714996088MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7714996088 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7714996088 div.yiv7714996088WordSection1 {}#yiv7714996088 Frank: ? LED?s do emit in the UV ? see spectral response below ? thus they need filters ? ? These are for 4000K and 5000K LED?s. ? The lower the temperature the broader the spectral output in the visible range and the lower the peak output is in the 400 to 450 nm range.? There is also a shift to the visible for the lower temperatures towards higher wavelengths (toward 500 nM). ? D ? 4000K ? ? 5000K ? ? Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Associate Director of Operations ? MIT.nano School of Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 60 Vassar Street, Bldg 39-559 Cambridge, MA 02139 ? C: ? (734) 368-7172 EM: ?dgrimard at mit.edu ? From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Nava Ariel-Sternberg Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 3:07 PM To: 'Frank Gavin' ; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? ? Hi Frank, ? We have installed LED lights in our litho area and heard the same claim but we checked with photoresist manufacturers and their recommendation was to have amber filers and block all wavelength below 500nm. ? Although LED lights do not emit in the UV, some of the photoresists are sensitive to the lower part of the visible range. ? We ended up purchasing amber plastic filters and installed them on top of the LED lights. ? Hope this helps, ? Nava ? ? Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? ? ? From:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Frank Gavin Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:58 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] LED lights in photosensitive areas - yellow lens needed? ? Hello everyone ? We are suppliers of wet process equipment and one of our vendors of HEPA and ULPA fan/filter units tells us that we do not need to add yellow lens covers over LED light because such lights do not emit ultraviolet light.? I am always suspicious of simple convenient solutions so I want to put this statement out to this learned community and learn if this statement is true.? Perhaps some members have experience using LED lights in photosensitive areas of their fab and would care to comment? ? ? Best Regards, FRANK GAVIN, Sales Eng. 6161 Industrial Way, Livermore CA 94551 (925) 455-5252 ext 2420? Fax: (925) 455-5351 http://www.wafabintl.com direct dial: 925-800-5551 cell (408) 314-6199 ? Please visit us at: ? July 11th ?13th Moscone Center, San Francisco???Booth: 7817 (West Hall) ? ? ? _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 61380 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 63394 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 8427 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 61380 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 63394 bytes Desc: not available URL: From schweig at umich.edu Mon Jul 10 15:24:38 2017 From: schweig at umich.edu (Dennis Schweiger) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:24:38 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] LonWorks hardware availalbility Message-ID: Good afternoon all, with the replacement of our LonWorks based gas detection system, we have a variety of Lon devices that we no longer have a use for, but they're too good to just toss into the trash can. Since I don't want to turn this into a For Sale message, if you're interested, please contact me directly, and I'll be happy to provide a list of devices we have. All of them are based on the MST technology. Just as an FYI, our reason for replacement was that our facility had gotten too complex for the way we were using the Lon system, and we were looking for something with a more seamless integration at the GUI interface. Our upgrade also allowed us to change out some of the electrochemical technology we were using to something more user friendly. The upgrade also provided a way for us to "clean up" the legacy issues in regard to manual pushbutton placement, naming conventions, and overall removal of old technology. We only have about a month on the new system, but so far, it's been quite impressive. Currently, we're at about 165 points of gas detection for just the LNF fab. In addition, we're looking at about two dozen analog signals where we're monitoring pH, liquid levels, or flow rates. Our long term goal is to use this new system as a campus wide monitoring system for a variety of other labs, all integrated into one gas detection, and monitoring, umbrella. Thank you, Dennis Schweiger University of Michigan/LNF 734.647.2055 Ofc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Mon Jul 10 16:08:25 2017 From: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca (Vito Logiudice) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:08:25 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Safety shower curtain In-Reply-To: <9d025f8e-996b-b985-41fa-c7c4e9421ab7@udel.edu> References: <002801d2f719$f72d7440$e5885cc0$@columbia.edu> <9d025f8e-996b-b985-41fa-c7c4e9421ab7@udel.edu> Message-ID: <1D1B4CB3-B91D-4059-BAD4-15B475447BBB@connect.uwaterloo.ca> Hi Nava, W would probably proceed as suggested by Iulian if we wanted curtains installed. FYI, we?ve placed these fire blankets at each of our emergency showers in the hopes that it will encourage people to use them if needed; we have not hung them as shower curtains. Our thinking is that a buddy or a member of staff could hold the blanket up while the affected person is rinsing him/herself. The blanket could then be used by the affected person as they move out of the facility. Best, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca From: > on behalf of Iulian Codreanu > Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:39 PM To: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" > Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Safety shower curtain Hi Nava, Can you modify a fire blanket (they come in different sizes, Amazon link below) to serve as a shower curtain? Iulian https://www.amazon.com/Tonyko-Fiberglass-Fire-Blanket-39-inch/dp/B01FOILJEI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1499445501&sr=8-3&keywords=fire+blanket iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director of Operations, UD NanoFab 163 ISE Lab 221 Academy Street Newark, DE 19716 302-831-2784 http://udnf.udel.edu On 7/7/2017 8:10 AM, Nava Ariel-Sternberg wrote: Good morning all, A few months ago there was a discussion here (started by Julia I believe) about a safety shower curtain. We?ve adopted the idea enthusiastically after hearing of people going to the restroom instead of using the safety showers in other labs on campus for the sake of privacy. Now, that we have two beautiful safety shower curtains installed in our clean room, our fire safety department is insisting we take them down as the curtains are not flame retardant. Has anyone faced this discussion and can share opinion/experience? Anyone using a flame retardant safety shower curtain they can recommend? (quick web search didn?t come up with clean room compatible curtains). Thanks, Nava Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.eduhttps://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seholland at lbl.gov Wed Jul 12 13:39:12 2017 From: seholland at lbl.gov (Stephen Holland) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:39:12 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] LBNL MicroSystems Lab Manager job posting Message-ID: The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has an opening for the MicroSystems Lab Manager. The posting can be found at https://lbl.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?lang=en&job=83885 For more on the MSL, see http://engineering.lbl.gov/microsystems-laboratory/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stieg at cnsi.ucla.edu Wed Jul 12 16:19:31 2017 From: stieg at cnsi.ucla.edu (Stieg, Adam) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:19:31 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] AMAT CD-SEM support Message-ID: Dear All, We are having difficulty diagnosing a few issues with our Applied Materials Optal 7830i CD-SEM, even with the assistance of AMAT service engineers. Does anyone have this or a similar tool and have information for other 3rd party vendors we might contact for support? All the best, Adam Adam Z. Stieg Ph.D. Associate Director, California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA Director, Nano and Pico Characterization Laboratory Technical Director, Integrated Systems Nanofabrication Cleanroom (p) 310.206.2902 (e) stieg at cnsi.ucla.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Fri Jul 14 16:23:03 2017 From: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca (Vito Logiudice) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:23:03 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Fri Jul 14 21:07:43 2017 From: shott at stanford.edu (John D Shott) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:07:43 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0088C7EF-2567-44F3-8531-CE8F179518C6@stanford.edu> Vito: As I no longer am a practicing engineer, you are welcome to take my comments with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I do have some comments based on prior experience with this topic. For starters, since 7x24 = 168 hours, if your evaporator was reserved for 192 hours in a week you have a different problem ? Nonetheless, my guess is that many folks see "reservation challenges" on their high-demand tools. When a tool is used a lot, I think that folks begin to grab reservation time just in case they need it. I don't know what reservation system you run, but do you have the ability to make tool-specific reservation rules?If so, things that can help include tinkering with the reservation horizon (how far in advance a reservation can be made), maximum duration of one or all reservations over that horizon, maximum number of reservations for a single user over that horizon, etc. Can you track when reservations were made and deleted in addition to the period for which the reservation was made? If so, I expect that you will see evidence of a "feeding frenzy" ? many reservations are snapped up as far in the future as legally allowed by your policies/software. We have seen the use of keystroke automation tools to snap up a reservation the second that a new time slot became available. Even if you don't intend to use it, having reservations on a high-demand tool can be a useful bartering tool in many lab economies. You and your reservation policies need to help your users NOT get caught up in reservation gaming ? What is your reservation deletion/cancellation policy ? or are people simply failing to cancel reservations? Along these lines, a frequent suggestion is to "charge them for unused reservations". While that is easy to say, I have yet to see a reliable, automated means of determining that a reservation was not used. What is the evaporator was down? What if an upstream tool was down? What if, ? Your lab users are smart: have they found a way to actually use the tool for longer than their usage records indicate? That becomes a question of what is actually interlocked on the tool, but if you interlock cooling water or things that affect only the actual evaporation, for example, your users likely know that and may not be paying for all of their actual equipment time. Of course, in a university research lab, a tool that is actually used more than 50% of the time should probable place that tool quite high on our "we'd like another X" list. I certainly expect to see a lively discussion of this topic ? Have a good weekend, John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Vito Logiudice > wrote: Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca _______________________________________________ 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 na2661 at columbia.edu Mon Jul 17 08:41:13 2017 From: na2661 at columbia.edu (Nava Ariel-Sternberg) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:41:13 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005a01d2fef9$f9d9ad70$ed8d0850$@columbia.edu> Hi Vito, Since we?re just opening our clean room back after a long renovation, it?s hard to have tool reservation efficiency numbers but we?ve had this problem in the past and what we did to fight it is to randomly check on highly popular tools and compare reservations to actual use. If we found a big difference we would email the user and copy the PI. The big offenders got warnings and that was effective in the sense that they became more mindful of the reservation time. We also ask them to update their reservation if they finish using the tool sooner. -Nava Nava Ariel-Sternberg, Ph.D. Director of CNI Shared Facilities Columbia University 530 w120th st., NY 10027 Room 1015/MC 8903 Office: 212-854-9927 Cell: 201-562-7600 ? From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Vito Logiudice Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:23 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dylan.klomparens at nist.gov Mon Jul 17 10:07:04 2017 From: dylan.klomparens at nist.gov (Klomparens, Dylan L. (Fed)) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:07:04 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: <0088C7EF-2567-44F3-8531-CE8F179518C6@stanford.edu> References: <0088C7EF-2567-44F3-8531-CE8F179518C6@stanford.edu> Message-ID: CNST at NIST has thought about this quite a bit, and we now have a ruleset that I think works pretty well to match reservation time with usage time. I work on the lab logistics software for CNST, called NEMO, and I can describe the things we?ve implemented. * Up front training ? all new users complete a tutorial that?s built into our lab management software, discussing reservation policy * 2 hours before their reservation, users are sent an email reminding them they have a reservation coming up * Missed reservations * Users are charged a fee for missed reservations ? the fee varies per tool * Users are informed automatically via email that they missed a reservation * Automated ?reservation abuse? reports are available to NanoFab managers * Reservation abuse is defined as cancelling, moving, or extending a reservation shortly before the reservation would have started * We have some code that will calculate a score for each user * NanoFab management can choose to do what they will with this information * When a user has finished using a tool, and they ?disable? it through NEMO, any remainder of their reservation is relinquished. This allows other users to see that the tool is available (when someone is done early) and pop in to make a reservation if they?d like * A set of reservation and usage parameters that can be tweaked for each tool: * Reservation horizon ? ?Users may create reservations this many days in advance (but not beyond the horizon)? * Minimum usage block time ? ?The minimum amount of time that a user must reserve this tool for a single reservation? * Maximum usage block time ? ?The maximum amount of time that a user may reserve this tool for a single reservation? * Maximum reservations per day * Maximum future reservation time ? The total maximum amount of time that a user may reserve from the current time onwards * Missed reservation threshold ? The amount of time that a tool reservation may go unused before it is automatically marked as "missed" and hidden from the calendar. Usage can be from any user, regardless of who the reservation was originally created for I hope this helps. -- Dylan Klomparens From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of John D Shott Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 9:08 PM To: Vito Logiudice Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies Vito: As I no longer am a practicing engineer, you are welcome to take my comments with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I do have some comments based on prior experience with this topic. For starters, since 7x24 = 168 hours, if your evaporator was reserved for 192 hours in a week you have a different problem ? Nonetheless, my guess is that many folks see "reservation challenges" on their high-demand tools. When a tool is used a lot, I think that folks begin to grab reservation time just in case they need it. I don't know what reservation system you run, but do you have the ability to make tool-specific reservation rules?If so, things that can help include tinkering with the reservation horizon (how far in advance a reservation can be made), maximum duration of one or all reservations over that horizon, maximum number of reservations for a single user over that horizon, etc. Can you track when reservations were made and deleted in addition to the period for which the reservation was made? If so, I expect that you will see evidence of a "feeding frenzy" ? many reservations are snapped up as far in the future as legally allowed by your policies/software. We have seen the use of keystroke automation tools to snap up a reservation the second that a new time slot became available. Even if you don't intend to use it, having reservations on a high-demand tool can be a useful bartering tool in many lab economies. You and your reservation policies need to help your users NOT get caught up in reservation gaming ? What is your reservation deletion/cancellation policy ? or are people simply failing to cancel reservations? Along these lines, a frequent suggestion is to "charge them for unused reservations". While that is easy to say, I have yet to see a reliable, automated means of determining that a reservation was not used. What is the evaporator was down? What if an upstream tool was down? What if, ? Your lab users are smart: have they found a way to actually use the tool for longer than their usage records indicate? That becomes a question of what is actually interlocked on the tool, but if you interlock cooling water or things that affect only the actual evaporation, for example, your users likely know that and may not be paying for all of their actual equipment time. Of course, in a university research lab, a tool that is actually used more than 50% of the time should probable place that tool quite high on our "we'd like another X" list. I certainly expect to see a lively discussion of this topic ? Have a good weekend, John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Vito Logiudice > wrote: Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca _______________________________________________ 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 bgila at ufl.edu Mon Jul 17 10:36:43 2017 From: bgila at ufl.edu (Brent Gila) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:36:43 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b68955a-c592-afdf-318e-5a6183ee6af4@ufl.edu> Hello Vito, Our tracking system was developed in-house and it stores the reservations and actual use in a database. From this we run reports and can compare all aspects of the tool reservation (even when it was made or canceled) and the actual tool use. We then look for large discrepancies between the two and address these as needed. I am not familiar with other systems (either turn-key or home made) but our has worked very well for us. We find that with some open discussion with the user groups we can reel in the ones that make a 10hr reservation for 1hr of use. There needs to be wiggle room for process issues and it is very hard to predict exact times, we have a 15 minute window that is allowable on both ends of the reservation to help out with this and take uncommon circumstances into consideration when needed. The more open we are on these kinds of issues and the more we communicate effectively with the user groups, the less of an issue this has become. Best Regards, Brent -- Brent P. Gila, PhD. Director, Nanoscale Research Facility 1041 Center Drive University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Tel:352-273-2245 Fax:352-846-2877 email:bgila at ufl.edu On 7/14/2017 4:23 PM, Vito Logiudice wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which > tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially > problematic on some of our most popular tools. > > For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or > use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool > was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This > translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very > poor to me. > > I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time > one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that > a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented > processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) > should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so > that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently > above 75% or so. > > If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I > would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency > range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also > appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the > past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly > popular tools. > > Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. > > Best regards, > Vito > -- > Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. > Director, Quantum NanoFab > University of Waterloo > Lazaridis QNC 1207 > 200 University Avenue West > Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 > Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 > Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca > Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 shuyou at fomnetworks.com Mon Jul 17 13:10:21 2017 From: shuyou at fomnetworks.com (Shuyou Li) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:10:21 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Vito, The key point here is to provide an incentive for our tool users to book time as accurate as they can, no more no less. In the FOM system, many different charge policies can be defined, including a popular "combined" charge policy, in which the users are charged according to the earlier start time and latest end time, between the reservation and actual usage. This means that if a user reserves an instrument with this charge policy from, say, 4pm to 5pm, and uses it from 4:30 to 5:30, they will be charged for the time between 4 and 5:30, which provides a financial incentive to reserve accurately. According to our users' experiences, this policy is the most widely used across our FOM customer institutions. The late cancellation charge and no-show penalties are also critical to ensure every user cancels their reservation if they don't need. There are other tool-specific settings available in FOM that help with the fair and maximized usage of particularly popular tools as well. For instance, to minimize idle time, an option is provided to users to opt to receive an email notification when a reservation is cancelled, or when a user on their reservation logs off a set amount of minutes before their reservation's end time. Other tool-specific options that the instrument manager can set include a limit on the days a reservation can be made in advance, the maximum time per user during this period, the option to open new reservations day by day or hour by hour, and many more. Thanks, Shuyou _________________ Shuyou Li, Ph.D. FOM Networks, Inc. www.fomnetworks.com Ph: (224) 225-9168 Fax: (224) 218-2807 ? On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Vito Logiudice wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend > to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic > on some of our most popular tools. > > For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) > time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was > reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into > a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. > > I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one > might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust > and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as > is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our > membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s > reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. > > If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would > appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be > for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your > thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this > performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. > > Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. > > Best regards, > Vito > -- > Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. > Director, Quantum NanoFab > University of Waterloo > Lazaridis QNC 1207 > 200 University Avenue West > Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 > Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 <(519)%20888-4567> > Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca > Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 17 13:55:10 2017 From: lvchang at Central.UH.EDU (Chang, Long) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:55:10 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: <8b68955a-c592-afdf-318e-5a6183ee6af4@ufl.edu> References: <8b68955a-c592-afdf-318e-5a6183ee6af4@ufl.edu> Message-ID: Hi Vito, We began investigating this issue in 10/2016. We use a commercial scheduling system, Booked Scheduler, that generates a report for created and deleted reservations. After analyzing the cancellation rates for each tool and each user, it was quite clear that it was a user behavior problem. In December, we made an announcement describing average cancellation rates, specified that we are aware of 9 abusers, and we're considering fines for canceled time. In March, we made a similar announcement specifying 3 remaining abusers. The data at this time showed a downward trend in cancellation rates for all the abusers except one. In May, I contacted the one remaining abuser with a plot of his cancellation rate. Today, a past abuser is returning to old habits. 90% of our students have cancellation rates below 20%. We are addressing abusers individually to avoid any changes to our reservation policy. The google spreadsheet we made to automate the analysis makes identifying abusers effortless. Then checking their cancellation trends helps us decide what we want to do. This is a very slow experiment, but it feels promising. Perhaps by disciplining the few abusers, we can avoid the overhead/waste associated with charging for cancelled time or fines. Best, Long On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Brent Gila > wrote: Hello Vito, Our tracking system was developed in-house and it stores the reservations and actual use in a database. From this we run reports and can compare all aspects of the tool reservation (even when it was made or canceled) and the actual tool use. We then look for large discrepancies between the two and address these as needed. I am not familiar with other systems (either turn-key or home made) but our has worked very well for us. We find that with some open discussion with the user groups we can reel in the ones that make a 10hr reservation for 1hr of use. There needs to be wiggle room for process issues and it is very hard to predict exact times, we have a 15 minute window that is allowable on both ends of the reservation to help out with this and take uncommon circumstances into consideration when needed. The more open we are on these kinds of issues and the more we communicate effectively with the user groups, the less of an issue this has become. Best Regards, Brent -- Brent P. Gila, PhD. Director, Nanoscale Research Facility 1041 Center Drive University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Tel:352-273-2245 Fax:352-846-2877 email:bgila at ufl.edu On 7/14/2017 4:23 PM, Vito Logiudice wrote: Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Mon Jul 17 15:57:22 2017 From: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca (Vito Logiudice) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:57:22 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies In-Reply-To: <0088C7EF-2567-44F3-8531-CE8F179518C6@stanford.edu> References: <0088C7EF-2567-44F3-8531-CE8F179518C6@stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi John, Thanks very much for piping in. You?re of course correct about my error. We?re running Badger and the equipment reservation efficiency report in question was for the period 2017-07-04 to 2017-07-13 which translates to a 10 day period rather than the 7 days I mentioned in my email. Sorry about that. Since we?re running Badger you already know that we do have the ability to make tool-specific reservation rules. Right now, this particular tool has a 14-day reservation horizon, a 3hr maximum single reservation duration and a 12hr total reservation maximum for the 14-day horizon. We?ve thought about tweaking these but I was curious to hear what others in the community might be doing before heading in that direction. Along the same lines, the good folks at Badger have recently created a new ?fair play protocol? for us that reduces the total 14-day reservation horizon for a tool on a per-user basis based on their behaviour. Specifically, anyone who does not cancel an unneeded reservation within the 24 hour grace period will see their 14-day reservation horizon maximum reduced by the duration of the cancelled reservation(s). We recently rolled out this new protocol on another single tool but have not yet accumulated enough data to extract anything meaningful as of yet. Maybe this will be the way to go with the evaporator as well if we see an improvement on this other tool (e-beam litho system). Time will tell. Thanks again for sharing your insights. Always appreciated. Best, Vito From: John D Shott > Date: Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:07 PM To: Vito Logiudice > Cc: "labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu" > Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies Vito: As I no longer am a practicing engineer, you are welcome to take my comments with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I do have some comments based on prior experience with this topic. For starters, since 7x24 = 168 hours, if your evaporator was reserved for 192 hours in a week you have a different problem ? Nonetheless, my guess is that many folks see "reservation challenges" on their high-demand tools. When a tool is used a lot, I think that folks begin to grab reservation time just in case they need it. I don't know what reservation system you run, but do you have the ability to make tool-specific reservation rules?If so, things that can help include tinkering with the reservation horizon (how far in advance a reservation can be made), maximum duration of one or all reservations over that horizon, maximum number of reservations for a single user over that horizon, etc. Can you track when reservations were made and deleted in addition to the period for which the reservation was made? If so, I expect that you will see evidence of a "feeding frenzy" ? many reservations are snapped up as far in the future as legally allowed by your policies/software. We have seen the use of keystroke automation tools to snap up a reservation the second that a new time slot became available. Even if you don't intend to use it, having reservations on a high-demand tool can be a useful bartering tool in many lab economies. You and your reservation policies need to help your users NOT get caught up in reservation gaming ? What is your reservation deletion/cancellation policy ? or are people simply failing to cancel reservations? Along these lines, a frequent suggestion is to "charge them for unused reservations". While that is easy to say, I have yet to see a reliable, automated means of determining that a reservation was not used. What is the evaporator was down? What if an upstream tool was down? What if, ? Your lab users are smart: have they found a way to actually use the tool for longer than their usage records indicate? That becomes a question of what is actually interlocked on the tool, but if you interlock cooling water or things that affect only the actual evaporation, for example, your users likely know that and may not be paying for all of their actual equipment time. Of course, in a university research lab, a tool that is actually used more than 50% of the time should probable place that tool quite high on our "we'd like another X" list. I certainly expect to see a lively discussion of this topic ? Have a good weekend, John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Vito Logiudice > wrote: Dear Colleagues, We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially problematic on some of our most popular tools. For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very poor to me. I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time one might need on any given tool. However, I?m inclined to think that a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so that the tool?s reservation efficiency should remain consistently above 75% or so. If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly popular tools. Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome. Best regards, Vito -- Vito Logiudice MASc, P.Eng. Director, Quantum NanoFab University of Waterloo Lazaridis QNC 1207 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1 Tel.: (519) 888-4567 ext. 38703 Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca _______________________________________________ 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 info at fabsurplus.com Wed Jul 26 04:08:54 2017 From: info at fabsurplus.com (Stephen Howe) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:08:54 +0200 Subject: [labnetwork] Equipment crating in Lexington, Kentucky Message-ID: <1501056534.2532.51.camel@fabsurplus.com> Dear Lab members, I am having trouble to crate an item of equipment which is in Lexington, KY. I wonder if any of your lab members can recommend a crating company nearby that location ? ?Yours sincerely, Stephen Howe Company Owner SDI Fabsurplus Group +1 830 388 1071 (Mobile) +39 335 710 7756 (Mobile, Italy) Skype: Stephencshowe email: info at fabsurplus.com WWW.FABSURPLUS.COM Facebook: www.facebook.com/fabsurplus Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabsurplus Google+: https://plus.google.com/+Fabsurplus Featured Sales Items:- ********************** Balzers/Unaxis BA810 PVD refurbished sputtering system for sale by fabsurplus.com:- https://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=86320 Disco DFG 821 F/8 Back Grinder, 8 inch, for sale by Fabsurplus:- https://www.fabsurplus.com/sdi_catalog/salesItemDetails.do?id=83981 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at finetechusa.com Wed Jul 26 13:43:56 2017 From: ra at finetechusa.com (Robert Avila) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:43:56 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Flip Chip Bonding 101 Message-ID: A question for the University community - Finetech is creating a Bonding/Flip Chip 101 course and we are in the process of putting the curriculum together. The complimentary program would last approximately 4 hours and can be held at a university location. It would cover many types of bonding technologies (listed below). Would there be interest at your university for such an opportunity? Please feel free to reach out to me individually if you feel that is more appropriate. * Thermo-Compression Bonding - approx.. 2 hours * Au/Sn * Au/Au * Sintering * Indium * Thermo-Sonic Bonding - approx.. 1 hour * Au/Au * Chip on flex * Laser Bar Bonding - approx. 30 minutes * UV Cure - approx. 15 minutes * Adhesive Bonding - approx. 15 minutes * ACF/ACP Bonding - approx. 15 minutes Regards, Robert Avila [Finetech_Logo_20-50mm_orange copy] National Sales Manager - North America 560 E. Germann Road, Ste. #103 Gilbert, AZ 85297-2943 (')480.231.7902 mobile (')480-893-1630 office finetechusa.com * Check out my bonding blog: finetechusa.com/bonders/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1946 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From grau at eecs.yorku.ca Fri Jul 28 17:13:55 2017 From: grau at eecs.yorku.ca (Gerd Grau) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Job posting: Microfabrication Research Facility Manager at York University, Toronto Message-ID: <09bd01d307e6$6efc0900$4cf41b00$@eecs.yorku.ca> Job Posting Summary Lassonde School of Engineering, York University Position Title: Lassonde Microfabrication Research Facility Manager Posting Type: 2 year contract, renewable Start date: September 2017 or earlier Hours: Full time, 35 per week Salary: $75,000-$95,000 depending on experience Closing date for Applications: August 15, 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Job Summary Lassonde School of Engineering, York University is opening a Microfabrication Testing Facility at the Bergeron Centre for Engineering Excellence. The state-of-the-art facility is part of the CFI funded Suborbital Payload Research Centre (SPaRC) project where scientists and engineers collaborate to design, engineer, prototype, fabricate, test and characterize suborbital payloads using advanced Microsystems technologies. The Microfabrication Research Facility Manager will support the development and implementation of the centre. Experience: 3-5 years in Microfabrication Research Educational requirements: Masters required, PhD preferred in a related discipline such as Physics or Engineering discipline Skills and Qualifications: Microfabrication Laboratory will be equipped with the capability to perform system characterization, wafer bonding, photo and nano-imprint lithography, Reactive Ion Etching (RIE), Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapour Deposition (PECVD) and Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD). The facility will be housed in a class 10,000 cleanroom. The successful candidate should have required skills and qualifications to handle, maintain and operate the above micro-fabrication equipment as well as experience with the software for design and fabrication of the micro-devices. . Previous experience working in an Academic Setting . Familiar with the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act . Familiar with Federal and Provincial granting agencies - i.e. CFI, NSERC, ORF and OCE . Previous experience with creating budgets and subsequent reporting . Additional experience in microfabrication industry an asset . Eligible to obtain Clearance from Controlled Goods Program . Interest in pursuing independent research in microfabrication Key Responsibilities: . Supports internal and external use of the facility including scheduling, web-site and the financial administration of the centre. . Responsible for the daily maintenance and operations of equipment, maintaining and re-stocking an inventory of consumables, training and qualification of users. . Procurement of equipment; responsible for supporting the establishment and planning of the center. . Development of SOP and protocols for usage and safety of the users. . Responsible for coordination of future equipment purchases including planning and writing of applications/reports. . Manager will support other departmental instrumentational facilities as needed. How to apply: Please send a brief cover letter, CV and names of two references to REGINAL at yorku.ca -- Gerd Grau PhD Assistant Professor Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Lassonde School of Engineering York University 4700 Keele St., LAS 2010 Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada (416)736-2100 Ext. 70127 grau at eecs.yorku.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: job_description_MicroFabrication_Manager_July12.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 126601 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael.rooks at yale.edu Sat Jul 29 11:52:21 2017 From: michael.rooks at yale.edu (Michael Rooks) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:52:21 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] job opening - cleanroom, yale Message-ID: <597CAF35.2060507@yale.edu> Assistant Director, Cleanroom Operations Yale University Reporting to the Cleanroom Director, the successful candidate will play a critical role in the Cleanroom?s efforts to support research across a broad range of technical disciplines and interests. The candidate must have a strong technical background and be able to perform the following duties with minimal oversight: Develop and implement Cleanroom processes complying with all safety standards; develop and implement state of the art research applications that enable fabrication by researchers in the Cleanroom; assist in managing research groups? utilization of the cleanroom, perform initial user laboratory training and testing; perform maintenance and repair of Cleanroom equipment; develop relationships with internal contacts such as faculty, researchers, students, and technical support groups to consult on research projects and maintain efficient Cleanroom operations. Interface with vendors of cleanroom equipment and supplies. Day to day activities include photolithography, dry etching, deposition using CVD, PECVD, thermal, e-beam, sputter, and ALD, metrology/measurement, materials handling, wet chemistry, and rapid thermal process. Work in this campus core facility addresses topics in a wide variety of fields. Examples: Applied Physics-quantum devices, nonlinear optics; EE-photonics, sensors, emitters, 2D materials; Medical-micro/nanofluidics, sensors; Chem/Environmental Eng.-nanomaterials, fluid mechanics; Mechanical Eng.-micro/nanoreplication; Biomed-micro/nanofabrication; Materials-heterostructures. The successful candidate will have a Bachelor?s Degree in Engineering and six years of related experience in a research development facility or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Experience in supervising and overseeing operations as well as experience in device fabrication and a deep understanding of Cleanroom processing equipment are preferred. Applying For more information and immediate consideration, please apply online at http://bit.ly/2uFNzQJ. Please be sure to reference this website applying. Working at Yale We invite you to discover the excitement, diversity, rewards and excellence of a career at Yale University. One of the country's great workplaces, Yale University offers exciting opportunities for meaningful accomplishment and true growth. Our benefits package is among the best anywhere, with a wide variety of insurance choices, liberal paid time off, fantastic family and educational benefits, a variety of retirement benefits, extensive recreational facilities, and much more. Yale University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. Yale values diversity in its faculty, staff, and students and strongly encourages applications from women and members of underrepresented minority groups. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eabelev at pitt.edu Mon Jul 31 20:09:35 2017 From: eabelev at pitt.edu (Abelev, Esta) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:09:35 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Metamaterials deposition - Ag and SiO2 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Recently, we got a request to deposit SiO2 and Ag in our e-beam evaporator. We have only one e-beam UHV evaporator (brand new) which we planned to dedicate for metals (only). From what was discussed the group is planning to deposit alternative layers of SiO2 and Ag (10-20nm thick) to ~1micron thick overall thickness. Did anyone have experience with similar multilayer structures, would you advise me if e-beam evaporation or sputtering would better for this project? If we will have to go with evaporation of SiO2, will it have contamination issues with metal deposition? Thanks for advice, Esta ----------------------- Esta Abelev, PhD Technical Director, Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering University of Pittsburgh | 3700 O'Hara Street | 636| Pittsburgh, PA 15261 412-383-4096 | eabelev at pitt.edu | nano.pitt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: