[labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?

Thu Jul 3 21:41:17 EDT 2014

Hi all,

I'm a lurker from Harvard (planner, so watching for things I should think about changing in the LISE CNS based upon what you all say) and I totally support Vicky's position to keep the list intact.

Sharalee

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 3, 2014, at 21:13, "Tom Reynolds" <reynolds at ece.ucsb.edu<mailto:reynolds at ece.ucsb.edu>> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I also agree with Vicky and Mary’s viewpoints.

Thanks,  Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Reynolds,  Lab Manager
UCSB Nanofabrication Facility
Electrical and Computer Engineering Dept.
Engineering Science Bldg #225, Room 1109E
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
805-893-3918 x215  office
805-451-3979  cell
805-893-3918  fax
reynolds at ece.ucsb.edu<mailto:reynolds at ece.ucsb.edu>

From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Tang
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:07 AM
To: Vicky Diadiuk; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu> Network
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?

Hi all --

I vote with Vicky.  I think it would be hard to separate process, maintenance, and operations.  Managing operations, even at a very local tool level, seems to me to require a holistic approach --  if a fabrication process is having a problem, it may be because of equipment issues or maybe the way the tool is managed or shared.  I also learn an awful lot from the discussions because the questions asked are generally things I haven't thought of before -- or maybe something I've always wanted to know, but couldn't articulate. So I'm also with Vince, I read most every one that comes through.  And yes, I've been Duane'd on one or two overly specific postings which I've learned to redirect to specific individuals...  The system works.

Mary

--

Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.

Stanford Nanofabrication Facility

Paul G. Allen Bldg 141, Mail Code 4070

Stanford, CA  94305

(650)723-9980

mtang at stanford.edu<mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>

http://snf.stanford.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://snf.stanford.edu&k=AjZjj3dyY74kKL92lieHqQ%3D%3D%0A&r=Z75bIoMcRLvhve0L6q2ezdfHNTmn3PFBNKKBh7Da%2BOA%3D%0A&m=aa%2BMCrlV1YepL9FytX695Q30dCSswFPetsS8GKNSE84%3D%0A&s=336ba5dba78997af78df08bf24f145ab36da41050b7809f2e6d78d478c731824>

On 7/3/2014 5:11 AM, Vicky Diadiuk wrote:
HI,
 I respectfully but COMPLETELY disagree.
MIT (Prof Duane Boning to be precise) has been moderating Labnetwork for years & it's working beautifully.
The information one gleans (even if one wasn't explicitly interested before it got asked) is most useful, & participants seem to be pretty relaxed asking specific questions.
If the thread gets too detailed, it switches seamlessly to a conversation between the parties.
I don't think we need to make rather artificial process, equipment & operations distinctions.

If ain't broke ...

 Happy 4th!
Vicky

On Jul 2, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Bob Henderson wrote:

Mac:

I think that is a wonderful idea. As I am more involved in various equipment and process technologies, it would be a good opportunity to help with more specific issues regarding advancements and new equipment available for a variety of nano specific questions and projects. Bob Henderson

From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Mac Hathaway
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 6:56 AM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: [labnetwork] Labnetwork - Process?

Hey All,

As there is still occasional uncertainty regarding the main thrust of Labnetwork (i.e. general questions about cleanroom operation and administration vs. more specific questions of more narrow interest), I'm guessing that some Labnetworkers sometimes don't ask certain question, out of deference to others...

If this is the case, does it make sense to create a parallel list, for instance "Labnetwork - Process" or "Labnetwork - Equipment", where much more specific questions can be aired without guilt(!), such as "Has anyone seen a difference between 5x9s purity and 98% purity TMA in their ALD aluminum oxide?"  Or do folks feel it's fine as it is?  I'm thinking a specific process or equipment list might bring in other folks for whom the general questions have not been sufficiently relevant to merit their attention.

Just a thought that came up during the UGIM...

Mac Hathaway
Harvard CNS
_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork&k=AjZjj3dyY74kKL92lieHqQ%3D%3D%0A&r=Z75bIoMcRLvhve0L6q2ezdfHNTmn3PFBNKKBh7Da%2BOA%3D%0A&m=aa%2BMCrlV1YepL9FytX695Q30dCSswFPetsS8GKNSE84%3D%0A&s=5f13ff5802f570dadea05414f068e9427f6582604da59eff2f731f299e5e2b15>

_______________________________________________

labnetwork mailing list

labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>

https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork&k=AjZjj3dyY74kKL92lieHqQ%3D%3D%0A&r=Z75bIoMcRLvhve0L6q2ezdfHNTmn3PFBNKKBh7Da%2BOA%3D%0A&m=aa%2BMCrlV1YepL9FytX695Q30dCSswFPetsS8GKNSE84%3D%0A&s=5f13ff5802f570dadea05414f068e9427f6582604da59eff2f731f299e5e2b15>

_______________________________________________
labnetwork mailing list
labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20140704/c2d32afb/attachment.html>