From eabelev at pitt.edu Mon May 1 08:58:26 2017 From: eabelev at pitt.edu (Abelev, Esta) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 12:58:26 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] NbTiN etch Message-ID: Good morning, Can anyone offer some advice on NbTiN etch? We have a group that trying to etch NbTiN film (~15nm thickness), optimally, they will need to use EBL for it patterning. We tried to use only PMMA so far, the only etch tool we have is Trion RIE and the recipe we used is: Power = 50W, Pressure = 20mTorr, SF6 20ccm with various amounts of Ar 10-50ccm (it looked like Ar was helping but it still not ideal). I am reaching out on behalf of this group to see if anyone used to work on etching NbTiN and can advise us what else we can try? Thanks, Esta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu Wed May 3 12:25:17 2017 From: Jacob.Trevino at asrc.cuny.edu (Jacob Trevino) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:25:17 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations Message-ID: Hello All, For those facilities that take on foundry service projects, I am curious if you have a model that you recommend. For example, is it simply the standard hourly rate plus some hourly engineering charge? What other factors do you consider when developing a cost structure for the potential new client? How do you quote if there is some small development work involved? How do you balance the income that can be generated from these activities verses pulling critical staff time away from training and maintaining the facility? Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Jacob -- Jacob Trevino, PhD NanoFabrication Facility Director |Research Associate Professor CUNY Advanced Science Research Center 85 St. Nicholas Terrace, New York, NY 10031 212-413-3310 | jacob.trevino at asrc.cuny.edu http://www.trevinolab.com/| http://nanofab.asrc.cuny.edu/ NanoFab Blogsite: https://www.nanonotes.org/ Twitter: @JTrevinoNano | @ASRCNanoFab -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.aebersold at louisville.edu Thu May 4 11:58:09 2017 From: julia.aebersold at louisville.edu (julia.aebersold at louisville.edu) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:58:09 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacob, can you more thoroughly define foundry work? We do lots of service work for internal and external clients where we charge established process rates + labor. We have the capacity to do service work, training and maintenance of the facility. We quote processes for projects, but always say up front that if additional processing or development is needed then the final invoiced price can change. However, we have guidelines that delineates processing and development of IP. Cheers! Julia Aebersold Manager, Micro/Nano Technology Center University of Louisville Shumaker Research Building, Room 233 2210 South Brook Street Louisville, KY 40292 (502) 852-1572 http://louisville.edu/micronano/ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob Trevino Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:25 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations Hello All, For those facilities that take on foundry service projects, I am curious if you have a model that you recommend. For example, is it simply the standard hourly rate plus some hourly engineering charge? What other factors do you consider when developing a cost structure for the potential new client? How do you quote if there is some small development work involved? How do you balance the income that can be generated from these activities verses pulling critical staff time away from training and maintaining the facility? Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Jacob -- Jacob Trevino, PhD NanoFabrication Facility Director |Research Associate Professor CUNY Advanced Science Research Center 85 St. Nicholas Terrace, New York, NY 10031 212-413-3310 | jacob.trevino at asrc.cuny.edu http://www.trevinolab.com/| http://nanofab.asrc.cuny.edu/ NanoFab Blogsite: https://www.nanonotes.org/ Twitter: @JTrevinoNano | @ASRCNanoFab -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dale.scott at oxinst.com Thu May 4 16:39:58 2017 From: dale.scott at oxinst.com (SCOTT Dale) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:39:58 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] FW: Networking Annoucement - Process/Field Applications Engineer In-Reply-To: <0BEBC40B17C2344C864B5592F1088D6C696A3381@UKCENMBX02.oxinst.com> References: <0BEBC40B17C2344C864B5592F1088D6C696A3381@UKCENMBX02.oxinst.com> Message-ID: Hello Network, The Plasma Technology group at Oxford Instruments is pleased to be opening another role for a home-based Field Applications Engineer (Process Engineer) for the Eastern Region of the USA. This person will work closely with our customers to ensure that their OIPT equipment is fully functional and available and to provide technical process troubleshooting and liaison, when needed. Grad level individuals straight out of school encouraged to apply! In this role they will: * Demonstrate process performance of tools installed at customer's sites to pass customer acceptance tests and achieve system acceptance. * Ensure the Company responds quickly to process issues in the field during emergency breakdowns, warranty service and service contract work. Ensure that effective and accurate communication is maintained between all relevant parties and ensure that information is fed back to Service Management and Process Management so that all files may be up-dated effectively. * Develop an excellent working knowledge of the technology to facilitate faultfinding and root cause analysis on processing results or equipment performance to deliver optimized process and hardware performance. * Carry out customer training at customer sites. * Liaise with the UK process department and development teams to gain a working knowledge of new processing requirements for Plasma / ALD / Ion Beam and other new market technologies. Please circulate within your networks or forward to anyone you think would be interested. We would prefer: Plasma Etch or Deposition, ALD or ION Beam experience (which could be during a graduate level program) and have a willingness to travel up to 60% (as needed), please email your resume and cover letter to heather.mcbride at oxinst.com for immediate consideration. Best Regards, Dale Scott Oxford Instruments, Plasma Technology Off. 415-742-4501 Cell 925-699-6410 THE PERSON: * A relevant science or engineering degree, such as Material Science, Chemistry, Electrical engineering. * Previous experience of the semiconductor industry (or Plasma related) or relevant experience in an academic institution. Graduate level encouraged to apply! * Excellent written and oral communication. Able to articulate, present and report on technical or complex issues clearly and succinctly. * Thin film measuring skills (e.g. SEM) * Must have or be able to obtain a U.S. Passport for U.S. government facilities. * East Coast candidates given preference, but willing to consider other areas for this home based position. For immediate consideration, please include in your cover letter how your experience aligns with our requirements, specifically around your sales of device processing equipment. COMPANY & BUSINESS OVERVIEW Oxford Instruments Plasma Technology provides a range of high performance, flexible tools to semiconductor processing customers involved in research and development, and production. We offer a comprehensive compensation and benefits package including vacation pay, medical and dental coverage, and a matching 401k plan. Oxford Instruments is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or protected veteran status. Follow us at www.twitter.com/oxinst and www.facebook.com/oxinst. EOE/M/F/D/V Note to recruitment agencies: Oxford Instruments does not accept agency CV's. Please do not forward details to our jobs alias, Oxford Instruments employees or any other company location. Oxford Instruments is not responsible for any fees related to unsolicited CV's. Heather McBride, SPHR, SHRM-SCP U.S. Recruiter, Oxford Instruments heather.mcbride at oxinst.com 541-913-3414 Eugene, Oregon ___________________________________________________________________________This e-mail is confidential and is for the addressee only. Please refer to www.oxinst.com/email-statement for regulatory information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhub at danchip.dtu.dk Fri May 5 03:00:32 2017 From: jhub at danchip.dtu.dk (=?utf-8?B?SsO2cmcgSMO8Ym5lcg==?=) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 07:00:32 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <627EF7C75C01AA4D850017E027356FB70DB585F0@ait-pex02mbx05.win.dtu.dk> Dear Jacob, We also do a considerable amount of foundry work. It is rather straightforward for single, established processes but when it gets to development work things are getting more tricky. Here are but a few of our guidelines: As a general rule we define the acceptance criteria on measurable, dimensional features (size, distance, roughness, film thickness, etc) that we ourselves can verify with standard cleanroom characterization equipment. We avoid all criteria that involve functionality of the device in other words functionality that is design related. We try to involve costs not only for the finished device but also for the different steps toward the device (which is not always possible and depends on the risk/complexity of the task). We normally charge materials (wafer, masks) separately and independent of the results and return these items to the customer if that is wished. We calculate process cost including operator, engineer, mask design (if applicable) and multiply by a factor according to the risk and complexity of the task. We try to explain that all we do is best effort and that is also written in the contract (I know that some lawyers have allergic reactions to that but it describes reality). There are many more considerations and every development project is special. Do we earn money on foundry work? Yes, but mostly on the single, well established processes tasks. Complex development tasks, more often than not, turn out to be more time consuming than anticipated. Still, we love it out of two reasons: These tasks are a welcoming change and challenge for the process engineers where they can hone their skills. And most important, in normal operations our staff does not go through long, complex, process sequences, so in every complex development project we discover some dependencies and strange behavior that we did not anticipate. In other words once in a while it is extremely helpful to be a demanding ? user of your own facility. Cheers J?rg J?rg H?bner, Ph.D. Director DTU Danchip National Center for Micro- and Nanofabrication DTU CEN National Center for Electron Nanoscopy Technical University of Denmark [http://www.dtu.dk/images/DTU_email_logo_01.gif] Danchip ?rstedsPlads Building 347 2800 Kgs Lyngby Direct +45 4525 5762 Mobile +45 22785157 jhub at danchip.dtu.dk www.danchip.dtu.dk From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of julia.aebersold at louisville.edu Sent: 4. maj 2017 17:58 To: Jacob Trevino ; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations Jacob, can you more thoroughly define foundry work? We do lots of service work for internal and external clients where we charge established process rates + labor. We have the capacity to do service work, training and maintenance of the facility. We quote processes for projects, but always say up front that if additional processing or development is needed then the final invoiced price can change. However, we have guidelines that delineates processing and development of IP. Cheers! Julia Aebersold Manager, Micro/Nano Technology Center University of Louisville Shumaker Research Building, Room 233 2210 South Brook Street Louisville, KY 40292 (502) 852-1572 http://louisville.edu/micronano/ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Jacob Trevino Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:25 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Foundry Service Considerations Hello All, For those facilities that take on foundry service projects, I am curious if you have a model that you recommend. For example, is it simply the standard hourly rate plus some hourly engineering charge? What other factors do you consider when developing a cost structure for the potential new client? How do you quote if there is some small development work involved? How do you balance the income that can be generated from these activities verses pulling critical staff time away from training and maintaining the facility? Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Jacob -- Jacob Trevino, PhD NanoFabrication Facility Director |Research Associate Professor CUNY Advanced Science Research Center 85 St. Nicholas Terrace, New York, NY 10031 212-413-3310 | jacob.trevino at asrc.cuny.edu http://www.trevinolab.com/| http://nanofab.asrc.cuny.edu/ NanoFab Blogsite: https://www.nanonotes.org/ Twitter: @JTrevinoNano | @ASRCNanoFab -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 1918 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From r.khanna at ucl.ac.uk Fri May 5 05:59:15 2017 From: r.khanna at ucl.ac.uk (Khanna, Rohit) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 09:59:15 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Fw: Card Readers for equipment interlocks In-Reply-To: References: <9636e814204a4da4be4e627551a91881@uml.edu> <953e1093-b5a0-2e9e-e1c8-8be6d56042f9@nd.edu> <83583687862B8444A85296A4944147DF95558152@CIO-TNC-D2MBX03.osuad.osu.edu>, , , Message-ID: Daer Members, Hope you are doing good. A brief introduction, I am an Electronics engineer working with UCL (University college London). We have a Clean room facility at London Center for NANO Tech. Incidentally I was directed to this mailing list by my manager Steve Etienne as we were also exploring option for card access for clean room equipment. We had also developed a custom solution for cleanroom equipment control. The hardware prototypes have been developed by me and has been under trial for a few months with few simple equipment we have. So far the hardware seems to be working reasonably well. The system is based on wired ethernet or WiFi (there have been two separate version of the hardware). The current firmware supports usage logging only as I didn't have the requisite support/expertise for developing the PC side application/middle ware which would accept UDP/TCP requests from multiple control units and run verification requests with the data base and send back confirmation UDP/TCP packets to the hardware units to unlock equipment. Here is a youtube link for the system demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9hz3KTrfno&t=30s If this seems interesting we could discuss possibility of developing the system further and share designs for mutual benefit. Also, I am attaching the system overview block diagram for the same. Warm Regards Rohit Khanna Electronic Test & Measurement Engineer London Center for NANO Technology, UCL Ph:+44-020-7679984 Int Ext: 39984 Mob: +44 7456265557 ________________________________ From: Etienne, Steve Sent: 24 April 2017 10:55 To: Khanna, Rohit Subject: FW: [labnetwork] Card Readers for equipment interlocks Rohit, Are you subscribed to this mailing list? It has some information about access systems from time to time. You could also contribute if you wish. Steve From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Price, Aimee Sent: 18 April 2017 18:30 To: Klomparens, Dylan L. (Fed) ; Mike Young ; Ferraguto, Thomas ; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Card Readers for equipment interlocks We have a home built system that utilizes Raspberry Pi. Users fob in and out of the equipment and it talks to our database to ensure they are certified to use that equipment. We use it for billing as well. Our engineer who designed it is out this week and much of next, but if you contact me I can put you in touch with him. I?m not sure if he?s on this list or not. He and our IT engineer worked through a lot of the issues and bugs. We are happy with it for the most part. Aimee From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Klomparens, Dylan L. (Fed) Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:33 AM To: Mike Young; Ferraguto, Thomas; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Card Readers for equipment interlocks Hi Tom, CNST has ?tap in/out? system to control physical access to the cleanroom and tool interlocks. We use wall mounted Windows tablets that communicate with our lab management software, NEMO. I?ve attached a picture and parts list of one of the entryway tablets. I have received many positive comments about this system, the users really enjoy the convenience and speed of logging in. It?s been working well for over a year now. I enjoyed reading Mike Young?s response, since we?re also working on improved interlocks using the Raspberry Pi. We have a working prototype (read: kludge) for a single tool. The eventual goal will be to polish it to product level quality. What?s nice about the Raspberry Pi is that it has the potential to enable us to collect data from sensors, or create a small embedded systems controller for tools. While prototyping, I?ve successfully programmed a Raspberry Pi to read an ID number from my government badge. I?d be interested in continuing a conversation about this off-list if anyone is interested in collaborating on Raspberry Pi interlocks. -- Dylan Klomparens From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Young Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:10 AM To: Ferraguto, Thomas >; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Card Readers for equipment interlocks Hi Tom. We use Coral, along with a mix of internet-based interlocks. We also use RFID cleanroom badges. I have made a first-cut implementation of this for one of our resist spinners, using a Raspberry Pi and an RFID reader. It's a bit of a kludge, I think I can do better, but it is functional. I'd extend the implementation to other tools also, if the darn readers weren't so expensive (~$100 each)! What I have not addressed, is how to do this for equipment which collects run data at disable. I suppose if coral could download the run data from the tool at disable, via SECS or some other interface... That's how the Big Boys do it... Good luck, and contact me offline if you'd like more of the gory details. --Mike On 4/13/2017 1:47 PM, Ferraguto, Thomas wrote: Colleagues, Has anyone integrated RFID card readers to their equipment interlocks. I?d like to set up a system where the ?Tap in? & ?Tap Out? ID the user on opens the interlock on the tool. Thanks in advance?. Best Regards? Tom Ferraguto -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Smart access system.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 645169 bytes Desc: Smart access system.pdf URL: From pchapman at latech.edu Tue May 9 10:47:28 2017 From: pchapman at latech.edu (Phillip Chapman) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 09:47:28 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Job Opportunity at Louisiana Tech Institute for Micromanufacturing Message-ID: <005101d2c8d3$2e3a6800$8aaf3800$@latech.edu> The Institute for Micromanufacturing (IfM) at Louisiana Tech University is seeking applications for a Research Assistant Professor (non-tenure track appointment) with experience in Microscopy, Metrology, and Microfabrication. The selected applicant will be expected to: 1. assist in the daily operation and maintenance of processing and metrology tools, develop and update operating procedures, and provide process and tool safety training to users; 2. serve as the lead scientist over the Institute's measurement and characterization laboratory, where s/he will participate with other IfM staff in the operation and user training of existing tools as well as future equipment acquisitions; and 3. collaborate with faculty members on cutting edge micro/nano research projects, journal manuscripts, and conference publications. For more details on the position and application process please go to the Louisiana Tech University employment web site or go directly to the posting at: http://finance.latech.edu/hr/vacan2561.php Phil Chapman Associate Director-Operations Institute for Micromanufacturing Louisiana Tech University (318) 257-5114 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Thu May 11 09:34:07 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:34:07 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Interlocks and paying for them Message-ID: Colleagues, We're doing a reboot of our equipment interlock strategy. I was hoping to get a couple of data points. #1 In your experience what was the change in booked equipment activity between the time you went from an honor (scheduling system) to an interlocked system. (Was there a change in the level of captured revenue/activity attributable to the interlocks). #2 Can equipment interlocks be considered equipment (i.e. billed to the equipment and maintenance budget) or do they have to be considered part of an operations budget. I'm hoping to use RFID readers already equipped with dry contacts to be my method for capturing data and equipment usage. Our scheduling system would be separate for now. The user would just scan in and out to open the interlock. Thanks in advance Best Regards Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Thu May 11 12:27:28 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:27:28 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] to add to the survey Message-ID: <5bb0a4d93c584022af016d1caed3e672@uml.edu> Colleagues, As I've been trudging through the reboot of our scheduling system... I was thinking this may a good set of data points for the survey database also? With that being said. Could you answer the following and send the data back to me. Question Answer What is the Name of your scheduling system (i.e. Coral, Ilab, homegrown etc.)? How many FTE's support the scheduling system? Does your system support interlocks ? Best Regards Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Fri May 12 08:58:16 2017 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:58:16 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating Message-ID: Hello LabNetwork, A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent on my radar screen. I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated with the government acquisition requirements. Current practice: Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 hoods/suits/booties per week. So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom garments. Thanks, 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 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Fri May 12 12:35:38 2017 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. HAMILTON) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:35:38 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Vincent Luciani, In 1985 the UC Berkeley Microlab began using the gowning model most universities adapt - Nylon fabric or Gortex gowns, boot covers and hoods, probably owned by a laundry service. Our service delivered clean gowns and picked up the dirty gowns which they owned. We got suspicious as we regularly got screwed with reports of lost or damaged gowns. Plus this particular service surreptitiously renewed two-year contracts every time an invoice got signed. Getting rid of them was like switching mobile phone companies or internet providers. Our manager at that time was not one to take a threat. He told them to go to Hell and where to find their gowns for removal. We switched to disposable monofilament polypro gowns (Tyvek) for a significant savings. Each lab member gets a gowning box to keep their gown in and their asked to replace gowns on a regular bais. This works well. In my 37 years associated with the Microlab and its successor, the Marvel NanoLab we have not revisited this decision. Having said this, I cannot say we've done any recent cost analysis, either. I can say our relaxed gowning has *never* resulted in a report of yield issues. No one has failed to make what they wanted in our labs because of ambient particle issues. It is difficult to understand why research labs takes such pains to mimic production fabs. If we were in the microprocessor business, with a billion transistors on a chip and pushing 95%+ yields things would have to be different. Fortunately we don't make microprocessors and and likely neither do you. University and Government labs are not there or funded to make such devices. Regards, Bob Hamilton 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, May 12, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) < Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov> wrote: > Hello LabNetwork, > > > > A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the > issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and > charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The > cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent > on my radar screen. > > I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting > opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated > with the government acquisition requirements. > > > > Current practice: > > Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we > have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and > launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). > Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set > weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 > hoods/suits/booties per week. > > > > So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of > the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom > garments. > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 <(301)%20975-2886> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pi12 at cornell.edu Fri May 12 12:38:11 2017 From: pi12 at cornell.edu (Philip Infante) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:38:11 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88811E6D-CE47-48D3-96AA-D75E40BF869A@cornell.edu> Hi Vince, We just moved to a new supplier that has various grading levels for the washed garments. The default started at the most stringent and we had to request adjusting to a lower grading scale. (We can live with residual staining on our garments as long as it is not a particle generator) You might want to explore if that is an option with your supplier. Our suits also get swapped out after a set number of wash cycles, so it is only a matter of time before stained garments get automatically cycled out of use in our inventory. An online tracking system to see what is being laundered and replaced is also a very useful tool in understanding your usage pattern. Phil Infante Cornell Nanoscale Facility Cornell University 250 Duffield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 607-254-4926 On May 12, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) > wrote: Hello LabNetwork, A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent on my radar screen. I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated with the government acquisition requirements. Current practice: Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 hoods/suits/booties per week. So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom garments. Thanks, 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 rmorrison at draper.com Fri May 12 13:47:41 2017 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:47:41 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87807270281745369e47e3d58f4e5137@draper.com> HI. At Draper we have 60 users that are swapped out every Friday. At first we were on a replace as needed (resist stains and tears) and at first is was one coverall per month, then it went high to 3-5 per month at full price of $225 each coverall. We then added insurance on every garment as a weekly charge and by a miracle the toss out rate reduced. The insurance added $130/week (840 pieces at $0.15/piece) but it was better than $225-$550 per week for damaged goods. See if your vendor offers insurance, my guy calls it uniform advantage, total bill for us in $580/week for about 60 users, hoods, coverall, knee high boots. Rick Richard H. Morrison Principal Member of the Technical Staff Draper 555 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139-3573 Work 617-258-3420 Cell 508-930-3461 www.draper.com . Rick From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Luciani, Vincent (Fed) Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating Hello LabNetwork, A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent on my radar screen. I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated with the government acquisition requirements. Current practice: Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 hoods/suits/booties per week. So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom garments. Thanks, 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 ________________________________ Notice: This email and any attachments may contain proprietary (Draper non-public) and/or export-controlled information of Draper. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and immediately destroy all copies of this email. ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Fri May 12 13:47:26 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:47:26 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Keep it coming Message-ID: First off ! The labnetwork is GREAT. I've gotten 11 responses in less than a day. KEEP IT COMING! This is what I've got so far. Additionally, I'd still like to know what people thought the impact of interlocks were on bookings (for those of you who didn't respond) Institution System FTE's Interlocks UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell Filemaker 0.2 No Have a great weekend. Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agregg at abbiegregg.com Sun May 14 15:55:49 2017 From: agregg at abbiegregg.com (Abbie Gregg) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 19:55:49 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Keep it coming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AGI, as Cleanroom and lab designers, are seeing a recent big trend toward FOM for All kinds of shared user facilities, among our university and government lab clients. Abbie Gregg President Abbie Gregg, Inc. 1130 East University Drive, Suite 105 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Phone 480 446-8000 x 107 Cell 480-577-5083 FAX 480-446-8001 email agregg at abbiegregg.com website www.abbiegregg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: All information contained in or attached to this email constitutes confidential information belonging to Abbie Gregg, Inc., its affiliates and subsidiaries and/or its clients. This email and any attachments are proprietary and/or confidential and are intended for business use of the addressee(s) only. All other uses or disclosures are strictly prohibited. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that the perusal, copying or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments immediately. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:47 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Keep it coming First off ! The labnetwork is GREAT. I've gotten 11 responses in less than a day. KEEP IT COMING! This is what I've got so far. Additionally, I'd still like to know what people thought the impact of interlocks were on bookings (for those of you who didn't respond) Institution System FTE's Interlocks UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell Filemaker 0.2 No Have a great weekend. Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au Sun May 14 19:47:01 2017 From: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au (Fouad Karouta) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 23:47:01 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Sputter V, VO2 Message-ID: Dear network, We have an AJA sputter system with over 50 different targets. It is a multi-users facility and we do change targets 2-3 times per week. To minimise possible cross-contamination every target has its own mounting accessories (housing, chimney, etc). My question relate to possible toxic by-products and we like to share this topic within this network looking to hear your experience with same targets or targets that may produce toxic/dust by-products. So recently we purchased Vanadium and Vanadium oxide VO2 targets. Our user intends to use reactive sputtering to produce different stoichiometry of the alloys. We found that some forms of vanadium oxide are toxic like V2O4 and V2O5 (highly toxic and poisonous, especially the dust and fumes). So we like to share the following questions/remarks and we appreciate your comments: 1- Does someone use targets that may produce such toxic by-products, and how you handle this in a multi-user facility? 2- Outside an adequate mask + filters do you take any other precautions when opening chamber to change targets? 3- After the use of such targets with the potential risk of toxic particles would a sputtering a thin layer of an Al or Cr layer would cover the toxic particles and form a possible alternative to this issue? Thank you, 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Daniel.Pulver at ll.mit.edu Mon May 15 07:42:43 2017 From: Daniel.Pulver at ll.mit.edu (Pulver, Daniel - 0835 - MITLL) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 11:42:43 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BE80EB20883A640AF8925DC762D77FB3B4924F7@LLE2K10-MBX02.mitll.ad.local> Vince, We abandoned our Gore-Tex garments over a year ago due to material availability issues for new garments or repairs. During consideration of switching to Alltex (static dissipative polyester) we tested with airborne particle counts in proximity of the wearer and with numerous tests reaching over wafers and measuring added particles (at >0.12um on 200mm wafers). The Alltex suites performed equally with the Gore-Tex. Perhaps this fabric option will provide flexibility in your situation. Dan Dan Pulver Microelectronics Laboratory Manager MIT Lincoln Laboratory 244 Wood Street Lexington, MA 02420 781-981-1716 Phone daniel.pulver at ll.mit.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Luciani, Vincent (Fed) Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating Hello LabNetwork, A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent on my radar screen. I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated with the government acquisition requirements. Current practice: Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 hoods/suits/booties per week. So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom garments. Thanks, 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 codreanu at udel.edu Mon May 15 08:38:58 2017 From: codreanu at udel.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 08:38:58 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Tools from Nano-Master Message-ID: Good Morning, I recently learned about this equipment supplier. If you have Nano-Master tools in your lab, would you be willing to provide some offline feedback on them? Thank you very much, Iulian -- 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 From mcrain3 at gmail.com Mon May 15 10:41:35 2017 From: mcrain3 at gmail.com (Mark Crain) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:41:35 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Vince, Cleanroom suit maintenance can be expensive but we made a compromise that I think worked well by buying our suits and setting up our own laundry system. We collected water from our DI water system in a poly drum ( to keep it isolated from our DI water system) and ran a pneumatically driven pump to pump the water to a high end home SS clothes washer. We started with special cleanroom gown detergent but you may find alternatives. Boots are washed separately from gowns and hoods. We went through detail trials with a particle counter to see if we could keep the particle count as low as a new suit and it worked well. We continued to use the particle counter from time to time (over years) to see if our cleaning was still effective. Cleanroom maintenance for laundry and general cleaning was typically done by undergraduate work studies and was a great way to introduce them to the cleanroom world. If they were good at cleaning spinner bowls, they learned to fab! We never did any analysis on bacteria or ion contamination but it would be something that I would consider if I did it again. Best Regards Mark Mark Crain On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luciani, Vincent (Fed) < Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov> wrote: > Hello LabNetwork, > > > > A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the > issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and > charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The > cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent > on my radar screen. > > I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting > opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated > with the government acquisition requirements. > > > > Current practice: > > Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we > have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and > launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). > Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set > weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 > hoods/suits/booties per week. > > > > So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of > the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom > garments. > > > > Thanks, > > > > 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 <(301)%20975-2886> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Mon May 15 12:59:45 2017 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:59:45 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Sputter V, VO2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2ec9855a-845c-26b2-7876-93af7015035f@eecs.berkeley.edu> Fouad, Appended are several control measures we use when there might be material concerns. Secondary coating is intriguing as a mechanism to trap materials on coated surfaces but I would doubt effective with respect to particulate issues. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Multiple pump/purge sequences before opening chamber to lab. Additional aluminum foil shielding which is removed, gently folded, and placed in ziploc bags immediately after chamber opening. IPA and wipes and hepa vacuum of chamber internals when complete. Multiple reminders to never use N2 blow off guns with metal dep systems. -------------------------------------- Fouad Karouta wrote: > > Dear network, > > We have an AJA sputter system with over 50 different targets. It is a > multi-users facility and we do change targets 2-3 times per week. To > minimise possible cross-contamination every target has its own > mounting accessories (housing, chimney, etc). > > My question relate to possible toxic by-products and we like to share > this topic within this network looking to hear your experience with > same targets or targets that may produce toxic/dust by-products. > > So recently we purchased Vanadium and Vanadium oxide VO2 targets. Our > user intends to use reactive sputtering to produce different > stoichiometry of the alloys. We found that some forms of vanadium > oxide are toxic like V2O4 and V2O5 (highly toxic and poisonous, > especially the dust and fumes). > > So we like to share the following questions/remarks and we appreciate > your comments: > > 1-Does someone use targets that may produce such toxic by-products, > and how you handle this in a multi-user facility? > > 2-Outside an adequate mask + filters do you take any other precautions > when opening chamber to change targets? > > 3-After the use of such targets with the potential risk of toxic > particles would a sputtering a thin layer of an Al or Cr layer would > cover the toxic particles and form a possible alternative to this issue? > > Thank you, > > 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Mon May 15 13:07:46 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:07:46 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] fast survey results Message-ID: Here's what I've got so far... Thanks again... I hope everyone likes these "flash survey's" I'm making my pitch for RFID readers at every tool. Best Regards Institution System FTE's Interlocks UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Total 50% HG 0.57 80% have interlocks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony.olsen at utah.edu Mon May 15 17:01:09 2017 From: tony.olsen at utah.edu (Tony L Olsen) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:01:09 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9269F95770688D4FA77843D0D2DA2ABDC7C79D22@X-MB1.xds.umail.utah.edu> Vince, et al. This was a question we pondered for a while as we moved into our new facility a few years ago. We had previously inherited some polyester cleanroom garments from a local semiconductor facility and were using them in the old lab - primarily to let the lab members get used to the idea. Since it was not much of a cleanroom, we just had them laundered locally. As we moved to the new facility, we considered what our current and future customers would expect for a Class 100 cleanroom. Although disposables were intriguing, we opted for a rental/laundry agreement. One of our challenges with disposables was lack of storage space and risk of supply shortages. I'm also not very comfortable with the lack of traction for the boots. Anyway, we went with a rental/laundry agreement. We launder every 2 weeks, which lowered the cost considerably. (Most users don't spend enough time in the lab to warrant a weekly clean. Those who do can replace their garments, as needed.) With that said, we are ready to change vendors and I fear I may have a situation similar to what Berkeley explained. My vendor has not been very responsive or customer oriented. As we move to a different approach, I may reconsider disposables. I have also stumbled across an option where I can finance the purchase of the garments and set up a separate agreement with a laundry service. That should give me complete control over replacements and repairs. At that point I can purchase replacements as needed, without the need for additional financing. BTW, I do keep some disposables on hand for construction-type work - anything that may damage the rented garments. tonyO Tony Olsen Nanofab Cleanroom Supervisor/Process Engineer University of Utah 36 S Wasatch Dr, Suite 2500 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: Friday, May 12, 2017 06:58 To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom garments - Costs escalating Hello LabNetwork, A new problem has come up for us and we have not been able to resolve the issue with the vendor. The contractor is adamant in discarding and charging us for stained or damaged garments at a startling frequency. The cost associated with this have become prohibitively expensive and prominent on my radar screen. I now have an opportunity to rethink that arrangement which is a fleeting opportunity for me simply due to the bureaucracy and lead time associated with the government acquisition requirements. Current practice: Our cleanroom is class 100 and since our beginning (10 years ago), we have gone the conventional route of contracting with a vendor to supply and launder our Gore-Tex garments (bunny suits, hoods, booties, frocks). Currently, we collect all garments every Friday so users get a fresh set weekly. We have about 100 different users weekly so swap out about 100 hoods/suits/booties per week. So, I will take this opportunity to reach out to the collective wisdom of the LabNetwork to see how others have contained the costs of cleanroom garments. Thanks, 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 pgould at mit.edu Wed May 17 10:12:10 2017 From: pgould at mit.edu (Parker Gould) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 10:12:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] ICP-CVD recipe development? Message-ID: Hi labnetwork members, I'm currently trying to design some recipes for a new ICP-CVD system we are developing at MTL/MIT, and I was hoping to find someone to chat briefly with about some questions we've come up against (mostly regarding gas delivery and operating pressures). If anyone has a few moments to spare, I can be reached at pgould at mit.edu, or via phone at 281-660-9076. Thank you! Parker Gould Schmidt Research Group, MIT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Wed May 17 12:45:22 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 16:45:22 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Message-ID: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Here's the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our "Honor System" run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed May 17 15:09:04 2017 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 19:09:04 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Message-ID: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that's fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the "wrap em' up" method, but my perennial question is "at what expense?" Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room's performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren't fully gowned but that's half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a "non value add" activity? Wouldn't it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It's been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it's time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here's the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our "Honor System" run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu Wed May 17 20:19:50 2017 From: IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu (Ian Harvey) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:19:50 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Message-ID: <6EC4376C-6EF4-4470-A7E0-674CC4440675@eng.utah.edu> Hear, Hear! Great question! Though another possible benefit is to our students and their potential employers. We are an educational institution, after all. If it looks like a fab and acts like a fab then maybe we give our students the credibility to be hired by a fab because they have not become lazy. Too, we hope that when inside the fab they also act thoughtfully and deliberately around some of the dangerous materials they work with. When I worked in industry, we generally regarded the air showers as not being very helpful to the cause of particle reduction, but the ritual of gowning and the air shower created a transition space for both thought and behavior: when inside the cleanroom, there are certain behaviors (such as running) that you simply do not do here. Fortunately we have not built the expense of an air shower into our research cleanroom, but our students are already so prone to taking shortcuts that I wonder if the bunnysuit-assisted culture of "act and think differently here" isn't worth it. Let the debate rage on! ?Ian Harvey Utah Nanofab On May 17, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Paolini, Steven wrote: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 _______________________________________________ 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 bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Wed May 17 20:30:01 2017 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:30:01 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Message-ID: <0c9300ed-d54a-6e6c-fd0c-2a8fa92b8e86@eecs.berkeley.edu> Steve, Have I seen a study - no. Am I an advocate of modest gowning - yes. Am I an advocate of no gowning - no Modest gowning = frock coat, booties and bouffant cap. (and gloves) This is easy to don and remove for staff that are primarily in the chases. We switched to full bunny suit instead of frock coat for researchers and process staff who are mainly in the bays. I like the additional layer of chemical protection provided to the legs. Full bunny suit emphasizes you are in a clean room and provides some level of training on protocol and attention to your environment. Disposable suits with a single zipper are quick to don and remove. I don't see either of our protocols as significant impact on productivity. I have been to many labs that have complex and expensive protocol that I consider of questionable value. Good Luck with the national debate. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Paolini, Steven wrote: > > Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a > comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense > and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, > I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The > interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is > the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? > I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, > but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes > lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever > benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss > of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I > am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best > contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that > the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier > offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. > > After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a > /comprehensive /study on this subject. I have seen many a paper > written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t > fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity > and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non > value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear > booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to > your space? > > I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been > influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the > right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to > enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble > and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under > constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. > The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a > clean general space to mini environments in which critical process > steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. > > Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has > access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) > dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full > gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? > > Thanks for listening. > > Steve Paolini > > Principal Equipment Engineer > > Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems > > 11 Oxford St. > > Cambridge, MA 02138 > > 617- 496- 9816 > > spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu > > www.cns.fas.harvard.edu > > *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ferraguto, Thomas > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM > *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Subject:* [labnetwork] updated survey > > Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. > > On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and > we did not book 31% of the Activity. > > *Institution* > > > > *System* > > > > *FTE's* > > > > *Interlocks* > > *Total* > > > > *52% Home Grown* > > > > *0.60* > > > > *83.3%* > > UC Davis > > > > Badger > > > > 0.25 > > > > Yes > > University of Houston > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.0025 > > > > No > > Stanford > > > > Badger > > > > 0 > > > > Yes > > University of Utah > > > > Coral > > > > 1 > > > > Yes > > University of Freiburg > > > > Home Grown/w Coral > > > > 1 > > > > Yes > > MIT > > > > Coral > > > > 1 > > > > Yes > > Delft University > > > > Phoenix > > > > 2 > > > > Yes > > University of Delaware > > > > FOM > > > > 0.1 > > > > Yes > > UNC > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.1 > > > > No > > UC San Diego > > > > FOM > > > > 0.25 > > > > Yes > > University of Louisville > > > > FOM > > > > 0.1 > > > > Yes > > UMass Lowell > > > > FOM > > > > 0.2 > > > > No > > Purdue > > > > Ilab > > > > 2 > > > > Yes > > EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: > > > > Home Grown > > > > 1 > > > > Yes > > Cal-Tech > > > > Home Grown/Labrunr > > > > 0.3 > > > > Yes > > University of Texas > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.2 > > > > Yes > > Harvard > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.1 > > > > Yes > > Berkeley > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.75 > > > > Yes > > UCSB > > > > Home Grown/SignupMonkey > > > > 0.125 > > > > No > > Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) > > > > Home Grown/w Coral > > > > 1 > > > > Yes > > Georgia Tech > > > > Home Grown SUMS > > > > 2 > > > > Yes > > Columbia University > > > > Badger > > > > 0 > > > > Yes > > University of Alberta > > > > Home Grown LMACS > > > > 0.5 > > > > Yes > > University of Florida > > > > Home Grown > > > > 0.5 > > > > Yes > > Best Regards > > Tom > > Thomas S. Ferraguto > > Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director > > Saab ETIC Building Director > > 1 University Avenue > > Lowell MA 01854 > > Mobile 617-755-0910 > > Land 978-934-1809 > > Fax 978-934-1014 > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgrimard at mit.edu Wed May 17 23:50:50 2017 From: dgrimard at mit.edu (Dennis Grimard) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 03:50:50 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu>, Message-ID: Steve: Not a scientific study but back in 1995 after taking over as lab manager for the university of Michigan's fab I was challenged by the faculty to just this question: why do we need to gown up? I decided to "do the experiment" and lower the gowning requirements to booties, lab coat, and bouffant cap. I knew what the outcome would be ... but I decided to let the data drive the decision. The faculty were thrilled to have this new freedom. Within a month, the very same faculty requested we go back to full gowning protocols. I happily complied and the subject was never raised again. By the way, it was quite "fun" to see the endless parade of pictures of contaminated wafers. D 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 02149 C: (734) 368-7172 EM: dgrimard at mit.edu On May 17, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Paolini, Steven > wrote: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 _______________________________________________ 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 hgilles at wisc.edu Thu May 18 08:56:05 2017 From: hgilles at wisc.edu (Harold Gilles) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:56:05 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: <0c9300ed-d54a-6e6c-fd0c-2a8fa92b8e86@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> <0c9300ed-d54a-6e6c-fd0c-2a8fa92b8e86@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Good Morning Folks, I started work at Intel as a process engineer in 1976. In those days we did not have bunny suits, we wore smocks and hair cover and gloves when needed. I retired from Intel in 2010. We made lots of changes in this area based on need over the years. Changes were justified by data. Defects are expensive and don?t help you make devices. There are different levels of protocol that can be applied and your lab will need to decide based on what they are making. You should also consider what you may be doing in the future. Getting folks on board with the proper level of discipline is difficult, maintaining the culture is difficult and trying to change to the next level can be an endless task. In a university setting it is even more difficult to make the changes and those that need to benefit from the change will likely be gone before they can benefit. I would always error on the side of better control in this topic. Hal Gilles From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:30 PM To: Paolini, Steven; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu) Subject: Re: [labnetwork] updated survey Steve, Have I seen a study - no. Am I an advocate of modest gowning - yes. Am I an advocate of no gowning - no Modest gowning = frock coat, booties and bouffant cap. (and gloves) This is easy to don and remove for staff that are primarily in the chases. We switched to full bunny suit instead of frock coat for researchers and process staff who are mainly in the bays. I like the additional layer of chemical protection provided to the legs. Full bunny suit emphasizes you are in a clean room and provides some level of training on protocol and attention to your environment. Disposable suits with a single zipper are quick to don and remove. I don't see either of our protocols as significant impact on productivity. I have been to many labs that have complex and expensive protocol that I consider of questionable value. Good Luck with the national debate. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Paolini, Steven wrote: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 _______________________________________________ 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 mweiler at andrew.cmu.edu Thu May 18 10:58:13 2017 From: mweiler at andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Weiler) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 14:58:13 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Message-ID: <258B73C7-3C5D-4A37-A555-14EEE79C49B6@andrew.cmu.edu> Hi Steven, Like you, I have worked as a fab rat for numerous years and have observed the same diversity you mention. Intel has studied the effects of different gowns, hoods, boots, gloves and wipe-down methods to exhaustion. None of our nano-facilities, however, will need to meet the expectations Intel has with their processor business in the next two decades. I have also worked in classes 1 through 10000, and in the 1k and 10k spaces I have seen and used the booties, hairnets and lab coats you mention. Most of them had high flow HEPA regions directly over the areas operators introduced material (like a mini-environment). Most experienced lint, occasionally, on final product... trapped under a film. The majority of these were due to long-sleeved shirts and sweaters of personnel as they reached in to remove their gowns from the hangar. The lint would transfer to adjacent gowns, and then get blown on to the product during production activity. This can be avoided by banning sweaters, and by allowing hangars to be removed from their positions in the rack so that one?s arm does not need to reach in to retrieve it. If a user was laying down a critical film, and lint was an issue?it would be an issue whether they were wearing a lab coat or a full gown? the source of the lint would likely have originated in the gown room, and that?s where the control needs to take place. Even with our full gown protocols, we still occasionally need to reemphasize to the user group the importance of not wearing particle generating items (cosmetics, colognes, dangling earrings, scarves and sweaters), and to fully cover their hair and beards. Poor hygiene itself can lead to significant particle generation. As for the benefit, well there are other costs to argue besides full- versus partial-gowns. The cleaning of horizontal surfaces in a modern CR of Class 10/100, with a recirculating system and a small amount of makeup air, has proven here to be of high importance; the cost of keeping the CR clean must also be assessed. If gowns were not to be used, there would likely be a higher amount of particulate being filtered and, therefore, higher filter replacement frequency, and a more frequent need to wipe surfaces, etc. and all of these activities are cost intensive. Especially if the staff were doing the work, because now their time would be pulled away from equipment and process activities. The aforementioned are my thoughts and observations and I?ve been shown wrong before, but I think their may be cost benefits to wearing gowns if all costs are accounted for. We are planning on doing a study and analysis on this subject once we are completed with our move to the new facility. I?m sure there might be some data available, however, from Intel?s studies of these issues? Best regards, ________________________________________________________________ Mark Weiler Fab Equipment Manager CMU Nanofabrication Facility Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 P: 412-268-2471 F: 412-268-4323 www.ece.cmu.edu [cid:2D2E01E3-CEC1-4F48-A845-224D8D7CED12 at wv.cc.cmu.edu] On May 17, 2017, at 3:09 PM, Paolini, Steven > wrote: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 _______________________________________________ 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: images.png Type: image/png Size: 720 bytes Desc: images.png URL: From Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu Thu May 18 12:27:33 2017 From: Thomas_Ferraguto at uml.edu (Ferraguto, Thomas) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:27:33 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] ERP Survey Message-ID: <749c979348ac430e868aa8e6871fb276@uml.edu> I hope I got everyone. Thank you for responding... (Feel free to reach out to me for suggestions for new Flash Surveys). Tom Institution System FTE's Interlocks Totals 48% are Home Grown 50% 85% Have Interlocks UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes Stanford Badger 0 Yes Yale Badger 0.001 Yes University of Waterloo Badger 0 Yes CUNY ASRC Badger 0.2 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes McGill University Coral 0 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No UNC Home Grown 0.1 No EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes Louisiana Tech University Home Grown 0.1 Yes University of Michigan Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes National Institute of Standards and Technology Home Grown/Nemo 0.825 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Purdue Ilab 2 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mheiden at engr.ucr.edu Thu May 18 13:04:06 2017 From: mheiden at engr.ucr.edu (Mark Heiden) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:04:06 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> <0c9300ed-d54a-6e6c-fd0c-2a8fa92b8e86@eecs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <0001ded8f9a14f27ab8738b1777ce7d6@engr.ucr.edu> Greetings Network, At UC Riverside we have been fortunate to have a facility that was designed to be class 100 in one bay and 1,000 in the other and after 11 years of operation the particle counting still comes out well under the designed spec. when measured anywhere around the working height. The floor is another story of course as that is where the particles that shed from the users end up. A well designed room is essential though. Since we are strictly a research lab working almost exclusively with small fragments, should there be contamination on a sample it won?t cause thousands of dollars of damage as it could in a production environment. Yield is a non-issue here. Obviously when doing Nanoscale research any particle in the micron region that lands on a sample could completely obscure the area of interest rendering that sample worthless. However that particle would have to land on exactly the ?wrong spot? in order to cause failure of the experiment so it becomes a matter of random fortune. So far, that has not been an issue so the protocols we are using are adequate for the work product we have. The largest wafers we use are 4 inch and even in that scale the contamination is extremely minimal. We do use full length smocks, hair nets, shoe covers, gloves and face masks and try to enforce taking them off whenever leaving the clean area. As for smocks, we started out using Tyvek disposable smocks and due to their excellent chemical resistance have never changed. We do re-use them but if they get torn or damaged they get tossed. This may be unusual but the results speak for themselves and the peace of mind having the students all in plastic bags is worth it to me. Cheers, Mark Heiden UC Riverside From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Harold Gilles Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:56 AM To: Bill Flounders ; Paolini, Steven ; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu) Subject: Re: [labnetwork] updated survey Good Morning Folks, I started work at Intel as a process engineer in 1976. In those days we did not have bunny suits, we wore smocks and hair cover and gloves when needed. I retired from Intel in 2010. We made lots of changes in this area based on need over the years. Changes were justified by data. Defects are expensive and don?t help you make devices. There are different levels of protocol that can be applied and your lab will need to decide based on what they are making. You should also consider what you may be doing in the future. Getting folks on board with the proper level of discipline is difficult, maintaining the culture is difficult and trying to change to the next level can be an endless task. In a university setting it is even more difficult to make the changes and those that need to benefit from the change will likely be gone before they can benefit. I would always error on the side of better control in this topic. Hal Gilles From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Flounders Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:30 PM To: Paolini, Steven; Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu) Subject: Re: [labnetwork] updated survey Steve, Have I seen a study - no. Am I an advocate of modest gowning - yes. Am I an advocate of no gowning - no Modest gowning = frock coat, booties and bouffant cap. (and gloves) This is easy to don and remove for staff that are primarily in the chases. We switched to full bunny suit instead of frock coat for researchers and process staff who are mainly in the bays. I like the additional layer of chemical protection provided to the legs. Full bunny suit emphasizes you are in a clean room and provides some level of training on protocol and attention to your environment. Disposable suits with a single zipper are quick to don and remove. I don't see either of our protocols as significant impact on productivity. I have been to many labs that have complex and expensive protocol that I consider of questionable value. Good Luck with the national debate. Bill Flounders UC Berkeley Paolini, Steven wrote: Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 _______________________________________________ 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 Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Thu May 18 14:01:01 2017 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:01:01 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> Message-ID: Hello Steve, I'll add my voice to the chorus. I've worked in labs that have ramped down their garment protocols only to discover they need to ramp them back up. It was easy to get people to loosen up much harder to get folks to welcome the more stricter protocols. I have also been involved in yield enhancement projects for volume IC production where are analysis of particle sources was very enlightening and convinced me of the benefits of keeping things clean. I recall in the early days of silicon-on-insulator in our rather casually enforced research cleanrooms, many of us were bonding our own wafers together...the stray particle was enough to ruin our day. We had to tighten up our lab even more. 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 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Paolini, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:09 PM To: Ferraguto, Thomas Cc: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu) Subject: Re: [labnetwork] updated survey Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that's fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the "wrap em' up" method, but my perennial question is "at what expense?" Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room's performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren't fully gowned but that's half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a "non value add" activity? Wouldn't it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It's been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it's time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? Thanks for listening. Steve Paolini Principal Equipment Engineer Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems 11 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02138 617- 496- 9816 spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu www.cns.fas.harvard.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey Here's the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. On a side note, I did a video audit of our "Honor System" run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. Institution System FTE's Interlocks Total 52% Home Grown 0.60 83.3% UC Davis Badger 0.25 Yes University of Houston Home Grown 0.0025 No Stanford Badger 0 Yes University of Utah Coral 1 Yes University of Freiburg Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes MIT Coral 1 Yes Delft University Phoenix 2 Yes University of Delaware FOM 0.1 Yes UNC Home Grown 0.1 No UC San Diego FOM 0.25 Yes University of Louisville FOM 0.1 Yes UMass Lowell FOM 0.2 No Purdue Ilab 2 Yes EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: Home Grown 1 Yes Cal-Tech Home Grown/Labrunr 0.3 Yes University of Texas Home Grown 0.2 Yes Harvard Home Grown 0.1 Yes Berkeley Home Grown 0.75 Yes UCSB Home Grown/SignupMonkey 0.125 No Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) Home Grown/w Coral 1 Yes Georgia Tech Home Grown SUMS 2 Yes Columbia University Badger 0 Yes University of Alberta Home Grown LMACS 0.5 Yes University of Florida Home Grown 0.5 Yes Best Regards Tom Thomas S. Ferraguto Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director Saab ETIC Building Director 1 University Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Mobile 617-755-0910 Land 978-934-1809 Fax 978-934-1014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Thu May 18 17:53:00 2017 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:00 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom Garments - summary Message-ID: Hello All, Thanks for all the great responses. I very briefly summarized them in the table below. Lab Solution Comments NIST CNST NanoFab Laundry service Cycled weekly, significant problem with replacement cost, about 100 sets/week University of Louisville Self-laundered No significant problems University of Wisconsin Self-laundered Owns their garments laundered in their HEPA filtered washer and dryer University of CA, Berkeley Tyvek User replaces their own regularly Cornell Nanoscale Facility Laundry service Had a problem, reduced inspection criteria to control replacement costs Draper Labs Laundry service 60 users. Vendor offered insurance that proved cost effective University of Delaware Laundry service Cycled out every two weeks, also some problems with cost of replacing damaged goods University of Washington Laundry service Had a similar experience to NIST. Switched vendors and it got better. UCSB Nanofabrication Facility Laundry service Large volume. Found better, cheaper service from a local small business instead of the big guys University of Pennsylvania Laundry service Suffering similar experience as NIST. Working with vendor to try to control costs. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Laundry service Switched to Alltex fiber suits. Just as clean as Gore-Tex University of Utah Laundry service Owns their garments, laundered by contractor every two weeks. I am not sure what we will do yet as we are trying to negotiate with the vendor. We reduced to the lowest inspection criteria but are still having problems, for example booties with a piece of tape stuck to them pulled as defective, then it takes them 8 weeks to replace it. We now require all rejected garments be returned to us for inspection. We then inspect all discarded garments ourselves in order to train the vendor on what constitutes a defect. It is a painful process. Disposable garments are in our future until and if we can find a better solution. Thanks again, Vince -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nclay at upenn.edu Thu May 18 20:42:11 2017 From: nclay at upenn.edu (Noah Clay) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 20:42:11 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey In-Reply-To: <258B73C7-3C5D-4A37-A555-14EEE79C49B6@andrew.cmu.edu> References: <3720ee91242540baa2adb1c9e2ef26cf@uml.edu> <258B73C7-3C5D-4A37-A555-14EEE79C49B6@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <0959946E-1C10-4199-8700-0C581394AF78@upenn.edu> It seems most us agree that full gowning is excessive in the non-profit lab setting. From a training or pedagogical perspective, however, I think full gowning may be important. In our new user orientation, we explain that our level of gowning is likely too much, yet we're both a research and teaching facility - and part of our mission is exposing the nanofab community to common practices found in... From another point of view, companies seem to be more comfortable with full gowning and I've convinced myself that they'd leave or go elsewhere if we changed our standards. Since I rely on this community for cost recovery, their satisfaction is important. My garment laundering contract is about 1 % of the operating budget; industrial fee income far exceeds this. That said, if an overwhelming number of fellow labs were moving in the direction of disposables, I'd move in that direction as well. It would be interesting to see if we could converge on a handful of standards for gowning in labs such as ours. Tom - another survey? Noah Clay Director, Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility University of Pennsylvania > On May 18, 2017, at 10:58, Mark Weiler wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > Like you, I have worked as a fab rat for numerous years and have observed the same diversity you mention. Intel has studied the effects of different gowns, hoods, boots, gloves and wipe-down methods to exhaustion. None of our nano-facilities, however, will need to meet the expectations Intel has with their processor business in the next two decades. I have also worked in classes 1 through 10000, and in the 1k and 10k spaces I have seen and used the booties, hairnets and lab coats you mention. Most of them had high flow HEPA regions directly over the areas operators introduced material (like a mini-environment). Most experienced lint, occasionally, on final product... trapped under a film. The majority of these were due to long-sleeved shirts and sweaters of personnel as they reached in to remove their gowns from the hangar. The lint would transfer to adjacent gowns, and then get blown on to the product during production activity. This can be avoided by banning sweaters, and by allowing hangars to be removed from their positions in the rack so that one?s arm does not need to reach in to retrieve it. If a user was laying down a critical film, and lint was an issue?it would be an issue whether they were wearing a lab coat or a full gown? the source of the lint would likely have originated in the gown room, and that?s where the control needs to take place. > > Even with our full gown protocols, we still occasionally need to reemphasize to the user group the importance of not wearing particle generating items (cosmetics, colognes, dangling earrings, scarves and sweaters), and to fully cover their hair and beards. Poor hygiene itself can lead to significant particle generation. > > As for the benefit, well there are other costs to argue besides full- versus partial-gowns. The cleaning of horizontal surfaces in a modern CR of Class 10/100, with a recirculating system and a small amount of makeup air, has proven here to be of high importance; the cost of keeping the CR clean must also be assessed. If gowns were not to be used, there would likely be a higher amount of particulate being filtered and, therefore, higher filter replacement frequency, and a more frequent need to wipe surfaces, etc. and all of these activities are cost intensive. Especially if the staff were doing the work, because now their time would be pulled away from equipment and process activities. > > The aforementioned are my thoughts and observations and I?ve been shown wrong before, but I think their may be cost benefits to wearing gowns if all costs are accounted for. > > We are planning on doing a study and analysis on this subject once we are completed with our move to the new facility. > > I?m sure there might be some data available, however, from Intel?s studies of these issues? > > Best regards, > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Mark Weiler > Fab Equipment Manager > CMU Nanofabrication Facility > Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering > 5000 Forbes Avenue > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > P: 412-268-2471 > F: 412-268-4323 > www.ece.cmu.edu > > > > >> On May 17, 2017, at 3:09 PM, Paolini, Steven wrote: >> >> Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that?s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the ?wrap em? up? method, but my perennial question is ?at what expense?? Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room?s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance. >> After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren?t fully gowned but that?s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a ?non value add? activity? Wouldn?t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space? >> I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It?s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it?s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product. >> Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ? >> Thanks for listening. >> >> >> Steve Paolini >> Principal Equipment Engineer >> Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems >> 11 Oxford St. >> Cambridge, MA 02138 >> 617- 496- 9816 >> spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu >> www.cns.fas.harvard.edu >> >> From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas >> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM >> To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu >> Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey >> >> Here?s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks. >> >> On a side note, I did a video audit of our ?Honor System? run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity. >> >> Institution >> System >> FTE's >> Interlocks >> Total >> 52% Home Grown >> 0.60 >> 83.3% >> UC Davis >> Badger >> 0.25 >> Yes >> University of Houston >> Home Grown >> 0.0025 >> No >> Stanford >> Badger >> 0 >> Yes >> University of Utah >> Coral >> 1 >> Yes >> University of Freiburg >> Home Grown/w Coral >> 1 >> Yes >> MIT >> Coral >> 1 >> Yes >> Delft University >> Phoenix >> 2 >> Yes >> University of Delaware >> FOM >> 0.1 >> Yes >> UNC >> Home Grown >> 0.1 >> No >> UC San Diego >> FOM >> 0.25 >> Yes >> University of Louisville >> FOM >> 0.1 >> Yes >> UMass Lowell >> FOM >> 0.2 >> No >> Purdue >> Ilab >> 2 >> Yes >> EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland: >> Home Grown >> 1 >> Yes >> Cal-Tech >> Home Grown/Labrunr >> 0.3 >> Yes >> University of Texas >> Home Grown >> 0.2 >> Yes >> Harvard >> Home Grown >> 0.1 >> Yes >> Berkeley >> Home Grown >> 0.75 >> Yes >> UCSB >> Home Grown/SignupMonkey >> 0.125 >> No >> Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF) >> Home Grown/w Coral >> 1 >> Yes >> Georgia Tech >> Home Grown SUMS >> 2 >> Yes >> Columbia University >> Badger >> 0 >> Yes >> University of Alberta >> Home Grown LMACS >> 0.5 >> Yes >> University of Florida >> Home Grown >> 0.5 >> Yes >> >> Best Regards >> >> Tom >> >> Thomas S. Ferraguto >> Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director >> Saab ETIC Building Director >> 1 University Avenue >> Lowell MA 01854 >> Mobile 617-755-0910 >> Land 978-934-1809 >> Fax 978-934-1014 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 lej at danchip.dtu.dk Fri May 19 02:52:05 2017 From: lej at danchip.dtu.dk (Leif Johansen) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 06:52:05 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom Garments - summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <879AEF5002D70747B136D02BC86A9C980C63B476@ait-pex02mbx05.win.dtu.dk> Hello Thomas, At DTU Danchip we use a laundry service. We own our own cleanroom garments. All garments are removed from the gowning area every weekend. The laundry service replaces damaged garments with new ones and invoices us. We receive the discarded garments for control inspection. Sometimes we think that the discarded garments are still worthy of being used in our university cleanroom (e.g. loose thread or very small pinhole). However, the laundry company also delivers to several large pharmaceutical companies, so they follow both ISO 14644 as well as GMP and ISO 13485 (medical devices). They claim it would be too costly to set up a special laundry line just for our purpose. Every third year the Technical University of Denmark holds a tender on all laundry service to insure that we get the best price/quality . Best regards, Leif From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Luciani, Vincent (Fed) Sent: 18. maj 2017 23:53 To: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu) Subject: [labnetwork] Cleanroom Garments - summary Hello All, Thanks for all the great responses. I very briefly summarized them in the table below. Lab Solution Comments NIST CNST NanoFab Laundry service Cycled weekly, significant problem with replacement cost, about 100 sets/week University of Louisville Self-laundered No significant problems University of Wisconsin Self-laundered Owns their garments laundered in their HEPA filtered washer and dryer University of CA, Berkeley Tyvek User replaces their own regularly Cornell Nanoscale Facility Laundry service Had a problem, reduced inspection criteria to control replacement costs Draper Labs Laundry service 60 users. Vendor offered insurance that proved cost effective University of Delaware Laundry service Cycled out every two weeks, also some problems with cost of replacing damaged goods University of Washington Laundry service Had a similar experience to NIST. Switched vendors and it got better. UCSB Nanofabrication Facility Laundry service Large volume. Found better, cheaper service from a local small business instead of the big guys University of Pennsylvania Laundry service Suffering similar experience as NIST. Working with vendor to try to control costs. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Laundry service Switched to Alltex fiber suits. Just as clean as Gore-Tex University of Utah Laundry service Owns their garments, laundered by contractor every two weeks. I am not sure what we will do yet as we are trying to negotiate with the vendor. We reduced to the lowest inspection criteria but are still having problems, for example booties with a piece of tape stuck to them pulled as defective, then it takes them 8 weeks to replace it. We now require all rejected garments be returned to us for inspection. We then inspect all discarded garments ourselves in order to train the vendor on what constitutes a defect. It is a painful process. Disposable garments are in our future until and if we can find a better solution. Thanks again, Vince -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov Fri May 19 11:15:03 2017 From: Vincent.Luciani at nist.gov (Luciani, Vincent (Fed)) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:15:03 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] UPDATE - Garment service info Message-ID: The latest: Lab Garments Laundering Comments NIST CNST NanoFab Rent Laundry service Cycled weekly, significant problem with replacement cost, about 100 sets/week University of Louisville Own In-House No significant problems University of Wisconsin Own In-House Owns their garments laundered in their HEPA filtered washer and dryer University of CA, Berkeley Own NA Disposable Tyvek, users replace their own regularly Cornell Nanoscale Facility Rent(?) Laundry service Had a problem, reduced inspection criteria to control replacement costs Draper Labs Rent Laundry service 60 users. Vendor offered insurance that proved cost effective University of Delaware Rent Laundry service Cycled out every two weeks, also some problems with cost of replacing damaged goods University of Washington Rent Laundry service Had a similar experience to NIST. Switched vendors and it got better. UCSB Nanofabrication Facility Rent Laundry service Large volume. Found better, cheaper service from a local small business instead of the big guys University of Pennsylvania Rent Laundry service Suffering similar experience as NIST. Working with vendor to try to control costs. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Rent(?) Laundry service Switched to Alltex fiber suits. Just as clean as Gore-Tex DTU Danchip Own Laundry service Also deal with strict inspection criteria Tufts Own NA Disposable Tyvek, users replace their own as needed Melbourne Center for Nanofabrication Own In-House Puritech gowns University of Utah Rent Laundry service Laundered by contractor every two weeks. 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 dlloyd at laseroptical.co.uk Mon May 22 11:06:59 2017 From: dlloyd at laseroptical.co.uk (Daniel Lloyd) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:06:59 +0100 Subject: [labnetwork] Oxford Plasma RIE 80+ Message-ID: <4C2CFF251A72F24F8BCF7349EC7F013B01156093FE5D@LOSERVER.laseropt.local> Hi guys, I don't suppose anyone has one of these and the early software of around 2000 vintage? The computer driving the one at Loughborough University has broken and while we've found some possible alternatives seem to have lost the backup version of the software. The current version needs an upgrade to the PLC which is outside the budget that had been planned for anytime in the future. While we will need to look into this in the future something to get us back on our feet would be appreciated! Thanks, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From James_Goodman at uml.edu Mon May 22 14:42:44 2017 From: James_Goodman at uml.edu (Goodman, James R) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 18:42:44 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Oxford Plasma RIE 80+ In-Reply-To: <4C2CFF251A72F24F8BCF7349EC7F013B01156093FE5D@LOSERVER.laseropt.local> References: <4C2CFF251A72F24F8BCF7349EC7F013B01156093FE5D@LOSERVER.laseropt.local> Message-ID: <7882cb41b8644227b86fa6cfe6f2bc0d@uml.edu> Danial, What is the system type? We upgraded our 2 chamber RIE system last year (Plasmalab 80) and if you can use it I can send you the hard drive. Jay. From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Lloyd Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:07 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Oxford Plasma RIE 80+ Hi guys, I don't suppose anyone has one of these and the early software of around 2000 vintage? The computer driving the one at Loughborough University has broken and while we've found some possible alternatives seem to have lost the backup version of the software. The current version needs an upgrade to the PLC which is outside the budget that had been planned for anytime in the future. While we will need to look into this in the future something to get us back on our feet would be appreciated! Thanks, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paj1 at email.gwu.edu Wed May 31 14:59:25 2017 From: paj1 at email.gwu.edu (Johnson, Patrick) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 14:59:25 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Job Posting Research Director George Washington University Washington DC Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We have a position open for Nano-Fabrication Research Director here in our facility. https://www.gwu.jobs/postings/43238 https://chroniclevitae.com/jobs/0000370656-01 Thanks Patrick *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: