Talk:Microelectromechanical systems

message: It seems to me that this article could be VASTLY improved by the addition of a section on APPLICATIONS,
which gives a reasonably complete overview of what MEMS can be used for.  I'm no expert, so don't feel qualified to write the section, but surely some applications experts are out there.  Also, a brief description of how a MEMS device accomplishes the listed applications would be useful, or else a link to a real article that does that.  For example, I'm aware of applications such as mechanical resonators and filters, capable of extremely high performance and miniaturization, and molecule-specific or pathogen-specific biosensors, and some pretty good approaches to the "artificial nose" based on the latter.  Also is it not true that highly miniaturized gyroscopes and inertial sensors have been built using this technology?  That's far from a complete list, but perhaps it will kick off an effort to improve the article's coverage of applications, so that readers will start to know why they even care about MEMS technology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.9 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications???

message: I wonder what the largest structure size is that is still considered micromachining?
What about pieces just below one mm? C9g 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about size range in which its called micro-machining

message: Most of the content under "Etching processes" is lifted directly from [].  It appears the original source is copyrighted and not cited in the article. 138.67.5.173 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism of "Etching Processes"

message: i am depositing gold film of 0.5 micron thickness over a pattrened wafer which is thereafter going for bulk micromachining in KOH solution. i am obeserving that gold is pilling out form the surface where beneath layer is silicon. is it possible that Au adhesion is poor with Silicon, or the pin holes are main culprit in this. please suggest.
:Au adhesion is known to be poor on Si.   Try a thin Cr or Ti underlayer first as they will bond more strongly the with the native oxide on the Si.   5 nm should be enough.   Alison Chaiken 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Au is solubile in Si. Perhaps this removes the Au next to Si so the adhesion is lost by removing material at the interface.--Peterpall (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: (old chat not related to improvement of the page)

message: Consider starting the intro with something a little more layman friendly.  I'm an engineering student and I was getting lost by the second sentance.  I imagine someone with a non-technical background will get even less out of it.  
My suggestion would be start of with the applications and especially the motivation for using mems over older technologies that could perform the same tasks.  it seems like this could be seperated from the manufacturing details that are currently in the introduction.
:I agree in that the introduction is not very good. The second sentence sets MEMS in relation to Nanotechnology. What kind of definition is that? It just introduces another concept that is probably unfamiliar to the reader. It is ok to explain the relationship between the two, but this should not be done in the lead!
:Jonas Henriksson (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The external links are getting too numerous (if one follows WP:EL). However, due to the diversity of the field I think we can live with an above-average number of links, at least until the wiki content has expanded reasonably. In the meantime, I have started some cleaning by separating research institutions from foundries, and skipping vendors (actually one so far) of MEMS based systems. --DrTorstenHenning 11:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, good that you got an account; you can sign talk comments using four tildes; do so and you can remove this comment and unsigned remark above. Dicklyon 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. A number of editors have reviewed your added link and deemed it inappropriate according to the external link guidelines. I actualy think the MEMS net link is worth keeping, the Exchange link really should go. It's just a consulting service. Wikipedia is not a directory of links - see guideline WP:NOT. There is no encyclopedic information about MEMS, except the promotion of a service (again something Wikipedia is not). The only thing worth link at the url is the FAQ, but it the same information is already available on the Net site. So, not only does the link not pass the external link guidelines WP:EL, it is also redundant. I am removing it again, and I encourage you to wait until other editors decide if the exchange link is a valid addition. You should not have added the link in the first place since it is a clear "conflict of interest" see WP:COI. Nposs 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is the link to the process catalog that you are talking about: http://www.mems-exchange.org/catalog/. This might actually be worth linking since it includes relevant information that could not be accomodated in an encyclopedia article. If you can explain more clearly what it is, I think it could be worth adding. Nposs 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for explaining. I'm concerned that many of the processes don't contain very detailed information, but others contain jpgs and other useful information. I've linked with a neutral, descriptive title. Others might find the link to be too promotional (since it is basically selling the services of a specific fabricator) and might remove it. Thanks for discussing it, though. Nposs 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Many MEMS devices are based on electro-mechanical coupling but that is not mentioned on the page. Also one could add the fields of physics which MEMS devices combine: electromagnetics, solid mechanics, fluid dynamics, and heat transfer. There's quite a lot of text on the manufacturing side but not so much on the operating principles. Do you think it would be helpful to add something on these? 
-[Apursula, 28-Aug-2006]
:Definitely yes, this article aought to be expanded considerably. So far, most of the edits have consisted of dumping ever more external links. I wish I had more time at hand right now, so please go ahead and add the things you mentioned. --DrTorstenHenning 12:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Electro-mechanical coupling

message: Para 2 seems to be ripped from a investment journal.  In anycase there should not be a investment or corporate focus this early in the article.  If it is not plagarised, somebody should summerise it and give it less emphasis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.23.124 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para 2 from a investment journal?

message: I agree that a reference to an etching model is not consistent with the rest of the article.  But I think the fix should go the other way - each etching method should point to a paper in the literature that describes the method in detail.  A survey paper would be best if one exists.
Also, I know Berkeley did this XeF2 work very early.  Surely there is a technical report, conference paper, or journal submission you can cite to show this.
Finally, in the phrase "Its etch selectivity to silicon is very high", you do not want "it's", which is an abbreviation for "it is".  You want "its", which is a possessive adjective.  See ITS. LouScheffer 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenon DiFluoride and References 

message: They (-the two articles) seem to be the same thing, but I'm worried that microsystem might have information that isn't included here... So if someone is familiar with this article, can you check that quickly?  Otherwise, I'll get to it myself eventually, but I don't have time to read the whole article right now. ^^  --Oracleoftruth (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[microsystem]] be made a redirect? 

message: i'm a research student .
i have the following questions
1.what is the scope of mems in electrical drives and what is the new problem
2. what are the companies doing with this mems  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.116.138 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consult with your professor/advisor for the information that you seek if you are attempting to leverage the article for your research. If that is the case, I would highly advise against it.  Additionally, there is already some examples indicated in the article of what you are looking for from what I can decipher from your questions.  If you are trying to suggest that those items would benefit the article please clearly indicate that.  Also, please realize the discussion page is NOT a forum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mems 

message: We see some positive discussion, but very little regarding the problematic limitation of current fabrication techniques. For example, silicon-based fab methods are slow and expensive to develop devices with. What's more, they do not allow for many geometries that are desirable, forcing developers to "devolve" ideal device concepts to make the compatible with existing fab techniques. i think that there should be discussion on the major fab techniques regarding their limits. 
there should also be discussion on desirable criteria of future microfab techniques, even if the criteria is only theoretical in nature..it at least informs people what the industry would like to see, and what would be beneficial to MEMS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.44.4 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about limitations of current fabrication technologies?? 

message: *Add a ==History== section
*Add a section on difficulties of design and manufacture
*Reorganize?
*Image suggestion
It would be great if some images could be added. You can see some examples on Google. I invite you to add an image if you find one on commons. Wikispaghetti (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who inserted that seems to have forgotten to add the image.  No such image has ever been in the article.  I have removed the sentence. SpinningSpark 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually, the whole contribution was a copyvio, which explains the failure to include the diagram.  I have deleted it, please do not reinstate. SpinningSpark 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: It's a very impressive picture, but the main focus of the picture is the mite.  Also, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who is grossed out by the thought of these little buggers.  I understand Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but I didn't come to this article to see pictures of mites.  It would be like if the main picture for the couch article was of a naked man sitting on a couch. KenFehling (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is nice to see how small the parts are. But the text definitely needs images of MEMS parts themselves. Wikispaghetti (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to have the mite? 

message: "The global market for micro-electromechanical systems, which includes products such as automobile airbag systems, display systems and inkjet cartridges totaled $40 billion in 2006 according to Global MEMS/Microsystems Markets and Opportunities, a research report from SEMI and Yole Developpement and is forecasted to reach $72 billion by 2011.[12]"
The impression this sentence gives is that the MEMS devices themselves are a $40 billion market and expected to be a $72 billion market by 2011.  The actual forecast as of July 2010 is that MEMS devices will be a $16 billion market by 2015, and were,in 2009,a $6.5 billion market.  The difference is between the price of an inkjet printer cartridge or an airbag and the cost of the MEMS device. Walt Sciencewriter (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry structure section is misleading 

message: Will MEMS devices be capable of self replication?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self replication? 

message: I note that several sequences are replicated here http://oece.usst.edu.cn/Nanotechnology/show.asp?id=81
I'm not sure how to proceed to check this source and qualify WP:PLAG any suggestions?
--Seanwong (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell who copied from whom - there is no date stamp on that page. Materialscientist (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is now dead, but it was archived in 2012 by the Wayback Machine.  I think it is highly unlikely that this is a copyvio on the part of Wikipedia.  Although the copyright notice on the site says "copyright 2003-2011, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology" there is no evidence in any archive that I can find that the page even existed before 2011 and I suspect that that was just a general notice on all pages of the site.  Against that, the corresponding passages started in the Wikipedia article in 2007 with a noticeably different wording and slowly evolved to the current wording over a number of years.  Hence, my surmise is that it is oece.usst.edu.cn that is (or was) infringing the copyright of Wikipedia editors, not the other way round. SpinningSpark 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagerism?

message: Hi, it is physically incorrect to say:
"At these size scales, the standard constructs of classical physics are not always useful. Because of the large surface area to volume ratio of MEMS, surface effects such as electrostatics and wetting dominate over volume effects such as inertia or thermal mass"
Namely, by saying "classical physics" one thinks of a quantum-mechanical physics (i.e., non-classical). But what follows in the next sentence is "electrostatics and wetting", which is still a classical physics.
I suggest to to rewrite "At these size scales, the standard constructs of classical physics are not always useful. Because of the large surface area to volume ratio of MEMS, surface effects such as electrostatics and wetting dominate over volume effects such as inertia or thermal mass" with "At these size scales, in addition to the Newtonian mechanics one also has to account for forces produced by electromagnetism (e.g., electrostatic charges, magnetic moments, etc.), fluid dynamics (e.g., surface tension, viscosity, etc.) and of other sources."
In addition, from physical point of view, "electrostatics" and "wetting" belong to different logical classes. Thus, it is like making a comparison between length and weight.
Hope it will help!
Alex,
foyevtsov@phas.ubc.ca  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79C0:3100:384A:600:9D27:C37C (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a bad point but it seems to lose the fact that this happens because of the high area/volume ratio. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the second sentence is fine, the problems are all in the first sentence.  It would be better to say "are not always sufficient" rather than "not always useful", I'm going to change that after posting this.  More difficult, the IP would change "classical physics" to "Newtonian mechanics", but I don't think Newtonian mechanics would cover thermal mass so that doesn't quite work. SpinningSpark 18:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics 

message: It appears that microsystem is a WP:FORK for this article. The two cover the same territory, the former is a stub with inadequate citations, and the lede indicates that they are synonyms. Any objections? — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to revise as it suits you. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Ken Gabriel, real name Kaigham Gabriel seemed to have invented Mems and is considered the father of MEMS.,,  scope_creepTalk 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ken Gabriel

message: Is there a need to have a section to discuss this aspect of MEMS, e.g. the issue of Helium affecting the frequency of oscillator chips?
There may be other issues or concerns which would need to be considered before selecting this technology as an engineering solution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:B381:0:757A:CAD8:2BB8:4944 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and Concerns