Milestone-Proposal talk:Molecular Beam Epitaxy

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and in the citation?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the Advocate. If the Advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the Advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful?
8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement?
9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
10. Will the citation be read correctly in the future by only using past tense? Does the citation wording avoid statements that read accurately only at the time that the proposal is written?
11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
13. Are any scientific and technical units correct (e.g., km, mm, hertz, etc.)? Are acronyms correct and properly upper-cased or lower-cased? Are the letters in any acronym explained in the title or the citation?
14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations
15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title?
16. Note that it is the Advocate's responsibility to confirm that the independent reviewers have no conflict of interest (e.g., that they do not work for a company or a team involved in the achievement being proposed, that they have not published with the proposer(s), and have not worked on a project related to the funding of the achievement). An example of a way to check for this would be to search reviewers' publications on IEEE Xplore.

Independent Expert Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?
5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that independent expert reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log (For staff use only)

Submitted date: 26 November 2024
Advocate approval date: 18 February 2025
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This milestone proposal needs more additional work. Historical background tied to sources should be expanded. One sentence responses to questions intended to address historical claims need to be expanded. Supporting materials should be identified and linked. The context of the achievement and its challenges need further explanation. The claims and context for the initial discovery both need to be narrowed to Bell Labs/Cho.

See this biography of Cho for reference: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=328644

You may be able to get this lecture from Cho as well: 1991 - Molecular beam epitaxy, from basic research to device fabrication Lecture sponsored by the Dept. of Electrical and Computer engineering, University of California, San Diego. Electrical and Computer Engineering Distinguished Lecture Series. Digital Object Made Available by Special Collections & Archives, UC San Diego.

I suggest the following approach to the milestone text that explains to the reader the nature of the original discovery/achievement (70 words). It also limits the claims to the initial work by Cho which was patented:

Molecular Beam Epitaxy, 1968-1970

Discovery and development of molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) techniques using reflection high-energy electron diffraction for growing epitaxial compound semiconductor films took place in 1968-1970. MBE deposits single crystal structures one atomic layer at a time, creating materials that cannot be duplicated through other known techniques. This precise crystal growth method is used to fabricate semiconductor devices, quantum structures, and electronic and optical devices, including lasers employed in optical disc readers.

Dave Bart Milestone Advocate

Re: Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the updated proposal. Progress is being made, but my earlier comments need to be addressed. Dave Bart

Support of Milestone Proposal -- Jbart64 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers, and they have addressed all my concerns. I fully support this milestone proposal, and in my opinion the requirements have been met, subject to the expert reviews. The responses of the experts will be posted as they come in. David Bart - Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #1 -- Jbart64 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Rolf Aidam is the Head of Department Epitaxy at Fraunhofer IAF. He received the Diploma and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, in 1996 and 1998, respectively. Since 2002, he has been a Research Physicist with the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Solid State Physics, Freiburg, Germany. His research interests include InP- and GaAs-based electronics and optoelectronics as well as GaN-based electronics. He has published on the following topics: Amplification Stage, Amplifier Circuit, Back-gate Voltage, Band Gap, Bias Voltage, Circuit Design, Circuit Level, Commercial Laser, Diode Characteristics, Disk Laser, Distinct Wavelengths, and Double-gate.

I received the following expert review from Dr. Aidam on Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:07 AM:

I have carefully reviewed the proposed honor "Molecular Beam Epitaxy, 1968-1970" and can confirm that this is a very significant development for the fabrication of semiconductor structures.

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? à Yes

2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? à Yes

3. Does the proposed Citation represent a significant historical site? à Yes

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? The authors mention “Vapor Phase and Liquid Phase Epitaxy” and highlight their disadvantages. They do not mention the success of Metal Organic Vapor Phase Epitaxy. I recommend discussing how the Molecular Beam Epitaxy separates from MOVPE despite the success of MOVPE.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Yes

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #2 -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Tom Coughlin, President, Coughlin Associates, is a digital storage analyst and business/technology consultant. He has over 40 years in the data storage industry with engineering and senior management positions. Coughlin Associates consults, publishes books and market and technology reports, and organizes digital storage and memory-oriented events. Tom is a regular contributor for Forbes.com and M&E organization websites. He has a PhD and Masters in Electrical Engineering with a minor in materials science, as well as a BS in Physics. Tom has been involved in thin film deposition and characterization for over 20 years, and is familiar with deposition technologies such as molecular beam epitaxy.

Dr. Coughlin is an IEEE Fellow, 2025 IEEE Past President, Past-President IEEE-USA, Past Director IEEE Region 6, and Past Chair Santa Clara Valley IEEE Section. He is also active with SNIA and SMPTE. More information is at www.TomCoughlin.com.

I received the following expert review at February 18, 2025 09:53 AM:

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes

2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation? Yes

3. Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? Yes. MBE is a fundamental device fabrication technique used widely in the semiconductor, laser and other fields.

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? There are other epitaxial deposition techniques, but MBE offers scalability and specificity that these other methods do not allow. This is described in the proposal.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Yes, many modern devices would not be possible without this technology.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #3 -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Daniel M. Dobkin has worked in semiconductor process, device design, and wireless communications for over 50 years. He spent 15 years at Watkins-Johnson Company, the first decade primarily involved in fabrication and characterization of GaAs transistors fabricated on materials manufactured with MBE and MOCVD techniques, and an additional 5 years on silicon dioxide chemical vapor deposition equipment and processes. Dr. Dobkin has published over 35 technical articles. He is the author, with Michael Zuraw, of a book on chemical vapor deposition, and has also written books on wireless communications with Wi-Fi and RFID (the last cited over 1000 times in the technical literature). Dobkin holds MS and PhD degrees from Stanford University, and a BS from the California Institute of Technology, all in Applied Physics.

I received the following expert review on February 18, 2025 at 09:53 AM:

Dr. Dobkin requests the addition of 2 sentences (shown in bold) at the end of the next-to-last paragraph of the "historical significance" section in order to support his opinion:

After the development of ... and hBN. MBE is a key element of the mix of deposition technologies, which include metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) and high-temperature chemical vapor deposition (HTCVD). Together these support fabrication of a wide variety of semiconductor devices which are indispensable in the modern world.

All 5 questions answered yes.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Final approval -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers and Brian Berg. The proposers have addressed all suggestions and concerns and this proposal is ready for milestone committee review. David Bart, Milestone Advocate

Support for Milestone -- Dae-Gwon Jeong (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I read the proposal and advocate's comments on the expert's reviews. I fully support the proposal as a milestone.

Revised citation -- Dmichelson (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Title of the proposed milestone:

Molecular Beam Epitaxy, 1968-1970

Plaque citation:

In 1968-70, molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) techniques using reflection high-energy electron diffraction for growing epitaxial compound semiconductor films were introduced. MBE deposits single crystal structures one atomic layer at a time, creating materials that cannot be duplicated through other known techniques. This precise crystal growth method has revolutionized the fabrication of semiconductor devices, quantum structures, and electronic devices, including lasers for reading and writing optical disc media.

[68 words]

The original citation used awkward tenses and was oddly sequenced.

Re: Revised citation -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This version is acceptable to me but it is up to the proposer. Thanks everyone for your input. Dave Bart

Re: Revised citation -- Coronath (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this version of the citation.

Re: Re: Revised citation -- Tsizer (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I accept the revised citation language and have made the change in the Proposal.

Tod Sizer