Subject: Re: TylanSiGe (tylan8) usage survey
From: Chien-Yu Chen <chienyuc@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT)

 Thu, 24 May 2012 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Maurice,

I'm one of the users of tylansige, mainly for low-temperature (300C) Ge film growth.
 To me, one of the advantages of tylansige is the temperature ramping (down) rate is
much faster than thermcopoly.  I was not able to obtain similar Ge film in thermcopoly1
since I usually have hazzy or no deposition, and it may take 3-4 weeks to re-characterize
the growth conditions.

I can continue my research using thermcopoly1/2 although I still prefer tylansige.

Chien-Yu
coral: chienyuc
----- Original Message -----
From: "maurice stevens" <maurice@stanford.edu>
To: tylansige@snf.stanford.edu, "Krishna Saraswat" <saraswat@stanford.edu>, "John Bumgarner"
<jwb2005@stanford.edu>, "Brett Huff" <bhuff@stanford.edu>
Sent: 2012年5月24日 星期四 8:52:15
Subject: TylanSiGe (tylan8) usage survey

Hi TylanSiGe users,

We are looking the usage of all lab tools and TylanSiGe is one of the 
lowest.

I would appreciate if you could quickly answer a couple of questions for 
me.  Thank you in advance for your feedback.


If TylanSiGe were removed from SNF, could you use ThermcoPoly or Epi to 
continue your research?

If you can't use ThermcoPoly or Epi, why?

If you can use ThermcoPoly or Epi, how much time would you need to re 
characterize your process?


-m

-- 
maurice@stanford.edu

Maurice Stevens
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
P. (650)725-3660
F. (650)725.6278