DieMate

Previous microreactor packing schemes developed at both MIT and DuPont could not be used since the electrical and fluidic interfaces required significant effort to implement. The microreactor packaging problem was eventually solved by using the DieMate Known Good Die (KGD) socket manufactured by Texas Instruments (Texas Instruments Incorporated, 34 Forest Street, P.O. Box 2964, Attleboro, MA). 

Figure 12.1 shows photographs of the Texas Instruments DieMate Known Good Die socket used for the final microreactor packaging scheme. The particular DieMate socket chosen for the microreactor scale-up system was the 110-pin version (Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX, P/N GBGllO 004 K) since this could accommodate the required sensors. 

As shown in Fig. 12.1(a), the DieMate socket holds the reactor die in place and makes electrical contact through a row of pins on each side of the socket. The pins are forced into contact with the die by four springs that are placed on each comer of the socket. These springs are visible in the side view shown in Fig. 12.1(b). The springs force the upper piece of the socket away from the lower socket body. This force is redirected by the pins to press on the die in the socket. The latching force... 

Fig. 12.1 Texas Instruments DieMate Known Good Die socket used for microreactor packaging in the scale-up system.

The DieMate manifold also functioned as the microreactor die heater since it had four driUed-through holes to accommodate %-inch-o.d. cartridge heaters where each provided 15 watt of power (60 W total). The holes are visible adjacent to the O-rings in Fig. 12.3. The temperature of the DieMate manifold was monitored using two 1 /16-inch-o.d. X 1-inch 100 O platinum Resistive Temperature Devices (RTDs). 

The DieMate manifold (Fig. 12.3) was fabricated from type 316L stainless steel using conventional machining techniques. This material of construction was inert to the anticipated components present in the reaction mixture and was also suitable for operation at the design temperature of 200 C. The DieMate manifold nut plate was also machined from type 316L stainless steel. 

The DieMate manifold is insulated to improve thermal uniformity and to prevent exposure of the DieMate socket to excess temperature. (The DieMate socket maximum temperature specihcation is 150 °C.) Figure 12.4 shows the insulated DieMate manifold before attachment of the 1 /16-inch transfer lines. The insulation consists of a ceramic hber strip that has a maximum operating temperature of 2300 °F (1260° C). 

Fig. 12.4 Insulated DieMate manifold top isometric view (left) and top view (right).

Fig. 12.9 Clam shell heater used for the product transfer lines from the DieMate manifold to the front of the board.

A flexible Kapton -coated heater is wrapped aroimd the clamshell and is powered using a 24 VDC input. The temperature of the clamshell is monitored using two 100 O platinum Resistive Temperature Devices (RTD s). Both the DieMate manifold and the clamshell heater are insulated using ceramic fiber strip obtained from a commercial source with a maximum temperature rating of 2300 F. 

The temperature controller board (Fig. 12.10) consists of five CAL (CAL Control Inc., 1580 S.Milwaukee Ave., libertyville, IL 60048) 3300 temperature controllers mounted on a standard 6U CompactPCl boards. These devices are used to control the temperature of the DieMate manifolds and the product transfer lines by manipulating the power input to their respective heaters. Two controllers are... 

The only item that needed replacing was a DieMate socketwhose pins had been damaged by improper handling. All other components inside the AIMS chassis functioned without any failure during the tests. 

DM 3030, Silver/glass die attach paste. Thermally Conductive Adhesives Selection Guide. Diemat, a Namics Co, www.diemat.com 2003. 

Table 5.18 Typical properties of DieMat DM6030 adhesives ...

DieMat DM 6030 Series, High thermal conductivity silver epoxy adhesive, DieMat Product Data Sheet. March 19, 2008. 

The above paragraphs Illustrate that the field of user innovation, lead users, and user entrepreneurship has evolved from its origination and touched upon a variety of different themes like individual characteristics of lead users, contextual inhibitors, facilitators of user innovation, and differences and interplay of user and manufocturer innovation. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the phenomenon in focus in this dissertation has not been taken into consideration by scholars. In the next chapter 1 will present a systematic analysis of the existing scholarly knowledge in this field to support my claim with quantitative data and structure the field with respect to its main diematic clusters. I will also offer an explanation why the phenomenon of embedded lead users has not caught scholarly attention yet. 

---