Monday, June 6

Do as I'm Doing

So, it was probably sub-optimal that I moved to the other side of the country, and then quit blogging. But, amazingly, only a week or two ago I had an actual request from someone that I update my blog. So, my adoring fan, this one's for you. (If you even remember who you are.)

I've been thinking lately about the difficulty in keeping in touch with my sisters. (Not doing anything about it, mind you. Just thinking about it.) Over the last few months we've been busy with moving and kids and life in general. And my sisters have been busy with moving and kids and more kids, and jobs and college and life in general. (Aside: I seriously don't understand how people survive with more than 2 kids. My house is about a foot deep in toys and blankets and clothes and mess. Is my sister's house 2 feet deep?) The specific thing that stuck out in my mind was that I'm really not sure that any of my sisters could give a description of what I do for a living these days. (Whether they could do that before I got a new job, we may never know.) So, for my sisters, and anyone else who is tagging along on this adventure, here is what Clark does at work now.

Hi, I'm Clark, and I'm a Process Engineer. My business card says that I'm a "Bulk Growth Process Engineer". Let's look at that title one piece at a time. "Bulk Growth" describes the fact that I grow big things. "Big" is relative, and in this case it means something you can hold in your hand. Our finished product is silicon carbide wafers. (see picture below) The bulk growth step is first, in which we grow crystals which are then sliced into wafers. One of the last steps that we do is to grow an epitaxial layer on top of the wafer. The epi growth is very thin, only a few thousandths of an inch. Which is why we get to describe our growth as "bulk". My dad gave me a hard time about the "Bulk Growth" part. I guess it sounds less than flattering.



Next comes "Process Engineer". The engineers are divided into three groups: Manufacturing Engineers, Process Engineers and R&D. I haven't used an analogy yet, so it's about time. If we were in charge of a fleet of cars, the MEs would be in charge of all the many day to day things. Oil changes, tires, fuel grades, tune-ups, that sort of thing. R&D people are at the extreme other end. They're in the back room drawing up some wild ideas for building a completely better car. You know, put the engine in the back, headlight that turns with the wheels, 6 wheels, fins, wankel engines, and all that good stuff. A lot of their ideas are probably going to fail miserably, but that's ok, provided that stumble into some really good stuff once in a while. In the middle are the PEs. PEs take something that is already working, and make a significant change, but without completely starting from scratch. The analogy here would be to re-build an engine, but leave the rest of things alone. (You like the car analogy? I'm trying hard to fit in in Michigan.)

So, before this gets any longer, what do I actually do? Well, today, I sat at a computer all day and drew pictures. (That's what I told Julia. And it's true.) We grow our crystals inside what is basically an intricate little graphite bucket. We put a wafer in there, along with a bunch of silicon and carbon, heat it all up until it's glowing and the silicon carbide vaporizes (it's like 2000 °C in there) and then condenses on the wafer, which slowly grows. Once it has grown big enough we let it cool down, take it out and slice it into lots of wafers. (We save some to repeat the process.) These graphite buckets are a bit more complicated than your average bucket, and we're regularly trying out minor modifications. One of my jobs is to produce the drawings that we send out to get the parts manufactured. Then, I set up experiments where I vary a few parameters, throw everything in the furnace and let it run for a few days and see if it worked or not. I collect up all the data and eventually get around to writing up a report detailing the findings. Is it better? Is it worse? (Or, better in some ways but worse in others.) And what have we learned in general about the whole process?

So, I feel like this has turned out both very generic and simplistic, but way to long at the same time. That's what you get for asking an engineer what he does.

5 comments:

Alex said...

You once explained to me how you "grew" Germanium crystals, this sounds fairly similar only they don't turn out quite so big... am I correct?
When I first saw the picture I immediately thought you had switched over to producing green agar plates, they look very similar!
Anyway, hooray for the update... I was beginning to wonder when you'd resurface!

Brett said...

Hmm, I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the division of engineers. Maybe it's because I'm an "R&D" engineer by your definition. My classification system puts process and manufacturing engineers as just another of the many types of engineers. BTW, welcome to the world of being an engineer. I'm glad we've helped you shed the physicist title...

Tim Timmons said...

I am glad to see you updating your blog - long time, no update! :)

Clark the Engineer - love it!

Clark said...

Brett: There are certainly many different ways to classify engineers. And that wasn't the major effort of my post, but here's my thoughts:

There are two fundamentally different ways to classify engineers that are essentially orthogonal to each other. By what they do and by what they know.

The "what they know" classification is more or less "what is your degree in?" (Of course, some of us don't have an engineering degree, and some people would probably say that excludes me from ever being a real engineer.) Typical flavors of engineer include mechanical, chemical, electrical and manufacturing. (Not an exhaustive list.)

The other category is "what do you do?" and is harder to pin down, primarily because the division of tasks can be very different in different companies and situations. People with the same degree and background might be assigned to do either research type stuff, or work with existing processes. Each task might use many of the same skills and knowledge.

The end result is, it's complicated. We build job descriptions to fill a need, not to match a title. (Or at least, that's what companies should do.) So boundaries and bound to get fuzzy, and terminology will be inconsistent.

Melissa said...

Clark, I was about to make a comment about not being knee-deep in kid stuff, and saying it gets better as they get older. Then Michael poured out an entire pitcher of Crystal Light all over the kitchen and knocked over another glass of juice in the process of cleaning up the Crystal Light. It might not have been 2 feet deep, but it sure felt like it.