From pethe at stanford.edu Tue Jun 1 12:22:16 2004 From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:22:16 -0700 Subject: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films Message-ID: <000801c4480d$bffe1110$296440ab@flash> Hi, Has anyone seen the developer attack thin metal films on the developer track? My process involves deposition of thin Pt/Al film in the Innotec. Pt: 300A Al: 700A Base Pressure: 3e-7 I did a bake in the Yes oven followed by 1mm 3612 resist followed by exposure. When I put the wafers through the standard developer track LDD26W (Prog. 3), I notice metal peeling from those wafers. During the develop program I did notice some reaction on the wafers. Has anyone seen this before? I would appreciate any help on this topic. Thanks Abhijit Abhijit Jayant Pethe PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA Phone :(O)(650)-725-3608; (C) (650)-387-6435 e-mail: pethe at stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afflannery at comcast.net Tue Jun 1 15:53:53 2004 From: afflannery at comcast.net (Anthony Flannery) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:53:53 -0700 Subject: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films In-Reply-To: <000801c4480d$bffe1110$296440ab@flash> Message-ID: <000001c4482b$50778420$1401a8c0@Ibscus3> Yep, You have learned the painful lesson of a galvanic reaction. The etching of Al in contact with Pt is so violent in LDD26W it generates gas and blows out the sidewalls of your resist. This is caused by the work function difference between the two metals. The Pt "biases" the Al and drives its etching. Short answer - you can't do it. Long answer - it will be very difficult. If you can completely isolate the Pt from the developer you can possible pattern them on the same wafer with the same resist, but the Pt must be COMPLETELY isolated (nothing around the edge). If they have to be in contact and exposed, it may be possible to find a developer chemistry that does not attack the Al, but it probably won't be with this resist. You will have to experiment with other resists - I would suggest switching to a negative resist. Good luck. I've always thought there is a very very good paper waiting to be written on using galvanic interaction to selectively control etching in MEMS. Maybe for my next PhD :) Tony Flannery -----Original Message----- From: Abhijit Pethe [mailto:pethe at stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:22 PM To: svgdev at snf.stanford.edu Cc: innotec at snf.stanford.edu Subject: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films Hi, Has anyone seen the developer attack thin metal films on the developer track? My process involves deposition of thin Pt/Al film in the Innotec. Pt: 300A Al: 700A Base Pressure: 3e-7 I did a bake in the Yes oven followed by 1mm 3612 resist followed by exposure. When I put the wafers through the standard developer track LDD26W (Prog. 3), I notice metal peeling from those wafers. During the develop program I did notice some reaction on the wafers. Has anyone seen this before? I would appreciate any help on this topic. Thanks Abhijit Abhijit Jayant Pethe PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA Phone :(O)(650)-725-3608; (C) (650)-387-6435 e-mail: pethe at stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rajesh at t-ram.com Tue Jun 1 16:00:30 2004 From: rajesh at t-ram.com (Rajesh Gupta) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:00:30 -0700 Subject: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films Message-ID: <40F9C31A3EE27D459370EFA2DD3194EA01247FBF@exchange1.t-ram.com> Hello Try bi-layer resist. (develop the top layer; etch the second in an oxygen plasma) Rajesh -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Flannery [mailto:afflannery at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 3:54 PM To: 'Abhijit Pethe'; svgdev at snf.stanford.edu Cc: innotec at snf.stanford.edu Subject: RE: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films Yep, You have learned the painful lesson of a galvanic reaction. The etching of Al in contact with Pt is so violent in LDD26W it generates gas and blows out the sidewalls of your resist. This is caused by the work function difference between the two metals. The Pt "biases" the Al and drives its etching. Short answer - you can't do it. Long answer - it will be very difficult. If you can completely isolate the Pt from the developer you can possible pattern them on the same wafer with the same resist, but the Pt must be COMPLETELY isolated (nothing around the edge). If they have to be in contact and exposed, it may be possible to find a developer chemistry that does not attack the Al, but it probably won't be with this resist. You will have to experiment with other resists - I would suggest switching to a negative resist. Good luck. I've always thought there is a very very good paper waiting to be written on using galvanic interaction to selectively control etching in MEMS. Maybe for my next PhD :) Tony Flannery -----Original Message----- From: Abhijit Pethe [mailto:pethe at stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:22 PM To: svgdev at snf.stanford.edu Cc: innotec at snf.stanford.edu Subject: Ques: Develop Resist on thin metal films Hi, Has anyone seen the developer attack thin metal films on the developer track? My process involves deposition of thin Pt/Al film in the Innotec. Pt: 300A Al: 700A Base Pressure: 3e-7 I did a bake in the Yes oven followed by 1mm 3612 resist followed by exposure. When I put the wafers through the standard developer track LDD26W (Prog. 3), I notice metal peeling from those wafers. During the develop program I did notice some reaction on the wafers. Has anyone seen this before? I would appreciate any help on this topic. Thanks Abhijit Abhijit Jayant Pethe PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA Phone :(O)(650)-725-3608; (C) (650)-387-6435 e-mail: pethe at stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 3 08:48:37 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:48:37 -0700 Subject: innotec bottleneck Message-ID: <40BF4855.96C74431@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings innotec users: Thanks, all, for the inputs (on-line and off-) regarding the innotec bottleneck (what the heck? Sorry...) It is appreciated when these problems are brought to everyone?s attention, and particularly appreciated when there is thoughtful and constructive discussion. The SNF staff have also since had a lot of discussions about this, and although no decisions have been made as yet, I would like to share/summarize some thoughts that have come out and ask for your feedback. 1. Throughput time: a. Pumpdown to 10-6 versus 10-7. With the current configuration, pumpdown time can be reduced up to 75?, if a less stringent base pressure is allowed. Some concern was expressed as to whether doing this routinely would affect the quality of the system and/or of the films deposited. b. Modify the system. The experience of several lab and staff members has been that similar systems do not take as long to pump down to the 10-7 range. We should examine our system to determine if can be readily modified to improve pumping speed. One suggestion is to heat the bell jar. c. Sharing pumpdowns. Is it possible to come up with a way to encourage and coordinate processing for two or more people who have similar desposition needs? Would many people be able to take advantage of this? 2. Charging scheme. Right now, innotec use is a flat fee. Charging by time, instead of by pumpdown, might encourage more efficient use. 3. Reservations. More reservations are made than actually used, leading to inefficient allocation of system time. a. Reconsider the maximum reservation length during prime time. b. Go back to a 7-day reservations horizon window. c. Impose a penalty fee on those who fail to use reservations or do not cancel within 24 hours of reserved time. I?d also like to add something, which I grant may or may not be entirely valid, as I am not a user of the innotec. There has been a lot of discussion about pumpdown time/process time, but because of the way reservations are managed, any improvements here may not necessarily result in greater machine availability. For example, two experienced innotec users have said that they have no problems getting time, but these are people who are in the lab A LOT and therefore do not have to rely on reservations to get machine time... We?re working on getting some data off Coral (equipment utilization and reservation numbers) which might shed some light on this. That?s about it for now, I think. It seems to me that this is a pretty conventional piece of equipment and should therefore not become a bottleneck ? so, there must be a way to address this. If you have any comments, suggestions, or advice to offer, please let us know. Thanks for your attention ? SNF staff -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From curlwang at stanford.edu Thu Jun 3 11:38:08 2004 From: curlwang at stanford.edu (Ke Wang) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: innotec bottleneck In-Reply-To: <40BF4855.96C74431@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mary, Thanks for putting all this together. I don't think it's fair to punish those who are not able to cancel within 24 hrs of reserved time. Sometimes we think we are going to use the reserved time, but one step before fails unexpectedly. This can happen just half an hour before the planned Innotec loading. But I agree that maybe a penalty fee can be charged to those who fail to use the machine, and also fail to cancel their reservations. Also, email notice should be required when a cancellation is made, so we don't have to keep checking coral, trying our luck. Changing the charging scheme may help, but only if extra charge will be made besides the cap fee, and if the pump works properly. Otherwise lots of the users cap anyway, so charging 3 hrs or 6 hrs will not make a difference. Another idea regarding to the reservation policy, maybe we can limit the max time each user can reserve on innotec every week? The actual use time may exceed that limit, if there are empty slots left. That's what I can think of for now. Ke On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Mary Tang wrote: > Greetings innotec users: > > Thanks, all, for the inputs (on-line and off-) regarding the innotec > bottleneck (what the heck? Sorry...) > > It is appreciated when these problems are brought to everyone?s > attention, and particularly appreciated when there is thoughtful and > constructive discussion. The SNF staff have also since had a lot of > discussions about this, and although no decisions have been made as yet, > I would like to share/summarize some thoughts that have come out and ask > for your feedback. > > 1. Throughput time: > a. Pumpdown to 10-6 versus 10-7. With the current configuration, > pumpdown time can be reduced up to 75?, if a less stringent base > pressure is allowed. Some concern was expressed as to whether doing > this routinely would affect the quality of the system and/or of the > films deposited. > b. Modify the system. The experience of several lab and staff members > has been that similar systems do not take as long to pump down to the > 10-7 range. We should examine our system to determine if can be readily > modified to improve pumping speed. One suggestion is to heat the bell > jar. > c. Sharing pumpdowns. Is it possible to come up with a way to encourage > and coordinate processing for two or more people who have similar > desposition needs? Would many people be able to take advantage of this? > > 2. Charging scheme. Right now, innotec use is a flat fee. Charging by > time, instead of by pumpdown, might encourage more efficient use. > > 3. Reservations. More reservations are made than actually used, leading > to inefficient allocation of system time. > a. Reconsider the maximum reservation length during prime time. > b. Go back to a 7-day reservations horizon window. > c. Impose a penalty fee on those who fail to use reservations or do not > cancel within 24 hours of reserved time. > > I?d also like to add something, which I grant may or may not be entirely > valid, as I am not a user of the innotec. There has been a lot of > discussion about pumpdown time/process time, but because of the way > reservations are managed, any improvements here may not necessarily > result in greater machine availability. For example, two experienced > innotec users have said that they have no problems getting time, but > these are people who are in the lab A LOT and therefore do not have to > rely on reservations to get machine time... We?re working on getting > some data off Coral (equipment utilization and reservation numbers) > which might shed some light on this. > > That?s about it for now, I think. It seems to me that this is a pretty > conventional piece of equipment and should therefore not become a > bottleneck ? so, there must be a way to address this. If you have any > comments, suggestions, or advice to offer, please let us know. > > Thanks for your attention ? > > SNF staff > > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu > > _____________________________________________ Ke Wang PHD Candidate Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University CISX B113-14 Stanford, CA 94305-4070 Phone: (650)723-8040 From curlwang at stanford.edu Thu Jun 3 11:42:23 2004 From: curlwang at stanford.edu (Ke Wang) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: innotec free tomorrow from 8:30pm Message-ID: _____________________________________________ Ke Wang PHD Candidate Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University CISX B113-14 Stanford, CA 94305-4070 Phone: (650)723-8040 From pethe at stanford.edu Fri Jun 4 22:14:09 2004 From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Innotec yellow lighted. Message-ID: Hi Innotec users, When I was removing the Ni source from the crucible after my deposition on Friday evening, the source slipped from my hands and fell through the gap between the crucible and the electromagnet and landed at some place under the metal sheath. I am not sure if this will affect other deposition, hence I have yellow lighted the system and posted a note on the system instead of shutting it down. I am extremely sorry for affecting the weekend usage of the system. Thanks Abhijit From hendrikb at stanford.edu Fri Jun 4 22:24:03 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 22:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Innotec yellow lighted. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Users, just wnated to make a comment regarding this event: Before attempting a deposition, locate the target and make sure it is not anywhere anything that looks as if it might carry high voltage - specifically the filament of the ebeam source and its supply leads, which is located somewhere underneath the rotating hearth. If this is not the case, a deposition should be safe, but if there is a risk of a short, (10 kV, fraction of an Amp!), I would be worried about your safety and that of the system. If you can't find the source or are in doubt, I would _strongly_ recommend against use of the system. Hendrik On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Abhijit Pethe wrote: > > Hi Innotec users, > > When I was removing the Ni source from the crucible after my deposition on > Friday evening, the source slipped from my hands and fell through the gap > between the crucible and the electromagnet and landed at some place under > the metal sheath. I am not sure if this will affect other deposition, > hence I have yellow lighted the system and posted a note on the system > instead of shutting it down. > > I am extremely sorry for affecting the weekend usage of the system. > > Thanks > Abhijit > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- Hendrik Bluhm Department of Physics Stanford University Work adress: Moler Lab Lab. for Advanced Materials Phone: (650) 723-4012 McCullough Bldg. Fax: (650) 725-2189 476 Lomita Mall Stanford, CA 94305 From aokyay at stanford.edu Sat Jun 5 00:50:59 2004 From: aokyay at stanford.edu (Ali Kemal Okyay) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Innotec yellow lighted. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello all, I hope everyone is doing great this weekend. I have located and recovered the target. It was under the metal sheath, rolled very close to the side wall. It is in the innotec drawer labeled and stored separately. It did not look clean to me so please reconsider if you would like to evaporate Ni. Have a nice weekend, Ali :) On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > Users, > just wnated to make a comment regarding this event: Before attempting a > deposition, locate the target and make sure it is not anywhere anything > that looks as if it might carry high voltage - specifically the filament > of the ebeam source and its supply leads, which is located > somewhere underneath the rotating hearth. If this is not the case, a > deposition should be safe, but if there is a risk of a short, (10 kV, > fraction of an Amp!), I would be worried about your safety and that of the > system. > If you can't find the source or are in doubt, I would _strongly_ recommend > against use of the system. > > Hendrik > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Abhijit Pethe wrote: > > > > > Hi Innotec users, > > > > When I was removing the Ni source from the crucible after my deposition on > > Friday evening, the source slipped from my hands and fell through the gap > > between the crucible and the electromagnet and landed at some place under > > the metal sheath. I am not sure if this will affect other deposition, > > hence I have yellow lighted the system and posted a note on the system > > instead of shutting it down. > > > > I am extremely sorry for affecting the weekend usage of the system. > > > > Thanks > > Abhijit > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Hendrik Bluhm > Department of Physics > Stanford University > > Work adress: Moler Lab > Lab. for Advanced Materials > Phone: (650) 723-4012 McCullough Bldg. > Fax: (650) 725-2189 476 Lomita Mall > Stanford, CA 94305 > > > From wistey at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Mon Jun 7 02:19:03 2004 From: wistey at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Mark Wistey) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 02:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Innotec cancellations Message-ID: <200406070919.CAA11069@snowmass.Stanford.EDU> Whoever had the 7 hour slot last night and didn't use it, could you please email innotec at snf next time? The machine's booked solid for a week, and we have some depositions we can do on short notice. Thanks. - Mark From andrew_cheeseman at us.ibm.com Mon Jun 7 08:16:53 2004 From: andrew_cheeseman at us.ibm.com (andrew_cheeseman at us.ibm.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:16:53 -0400 Subject: [INNOTEC] from grupp: can't use reservation monday morning, sorry for late notice Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhemanth at stanford.edu Mon Jun 7 08:43:44 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:43:44 -0700 Subject: Reservation 12 - 4pm cancelled. Message-ID: <000501c44ca6$38648390$6501a8c0@JAGANNATHANPC> The slot is up for grabs. I am canceling the reservation as I am not sure if the system will be back up by noon. Hemanth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 7 10:03:12 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:03:12 -0700 Subject: Innotec in Regen, due up this afternoon (~3 PM) Message-ID: <40C49FD0.4050503@snf.stanford.edu> From aokyay at stanford.edu Mon Jun 7 16:12:41 2004 From: aokyay at stanford.edu (Ali Kemal Okyay) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: reservation removed from Tue morning Message-ID: From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 7 17:22:49 2004 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (Maurice Stevens) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:22:49 -0700 Subject: regen complete Message-ID: <40C506D9.90806@snf.stanford.edu> green light From pethe at stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 08:50:05 2004 From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:50:05 -0700 Subject: Removed Reservation Wed 06/09 1030-1600hrs Message-ID: <000001c44d70$4506b580$296440ab@flash> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 11:44:46 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:44:46 -0700 Subject: Finished reservation time early, done at noon today Message-ID: <40C6091E.7020406@snf.stanford.edu> From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 15:55:56 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:55:56 -0700 Subject: Changes in reservations policy Message-ID: <40C643FC.DAC41A9@snf.stanford.edu> Hello innotec users: Thanks for your feedback -- it is much appreciated. It seems that most people agree that a very large part of the problem is in the way reservations are managed, particularly with the recent change in reservations horizon, as it has encouraged some people to hoard reservation time. We also had a chance to look at usage/reservations data. The data I'm about to quote is summed over the course of a week, taken over the past two months during which machine time was excellent. On average, the utilization (as measured by the total time the system was enabled, relative to total equipment availability for use) was 37% (ranging from16% to 63%). Also, the number of blocks of time <4 hours during which the machine was not in use is 16 (ranging from 13 to 21). I think these numbers show that there's actually a lot of machine time available -- but that poorly managed reservations are preventing optimal use. So, this argues for a change in reservations policy. Therefore, we will be implementing the following changes to the reservations policy: 1. Reservations can be made no more than 7 days in advance. 2. Maximum time limit on reservations is four hours during prime time (8 am - 6 pm, weekdays) 3. No one may have more than a total of 12 hours of reservation time within a seven day period. 4. Reservations should be removed as soon as you know you are unable to make it and an email to innotec at snf should be sent, preferably, 24 hours in advance. These reservations policy changes are effective immediately. Please change your reservations if they do not meet these guidelines. We will start removing reservations that do not meet these criteria tomorrow. I am sure that these rules won't cover all cases and that there may be different interpretations as to how they may be applied. We're open to suggestions for changes and/or clarification. These rules will likely be refined as needed. But please work with us on this -- we hope this will address the gross cases of misuse of the reservations policy and allow more open access to this system. Thanks for your attention -- Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmfaulkn at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 16:08:00 2004 From: cmfaulkn at snf.stanford.edu (Carl Faulkner) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: free Wed 4p-7:30p Message-ID: From pnataraj at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 16:31:18 2004 From: pnataraj at snf.stanford.edu (Pradeep Nataraj) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Finished deposition Early; free till 7:00 PM Message-ID: From jhemanth at stanford.edu Tue Jun 8 20:18:00 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:18:00 -0700 Subject: Reservation cancelled today from 11pm to 4am tomorrow Message-ID: <001001c44dd0$5f17ad20$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Had problems with the e-beam. Samples not ready. Sorry for the late notice, tired to get samples out but gave up at 8pm. Hemanth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pethe at stanford.edu Wed Jun 9 11:59:46 2004 From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:59:46 -0700 Subject: Removed res Fri 1630hrs Message-ID: <000c01c44e53$ee705d90$296440ab@flash> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 10 10:15:06 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:15:06 -0700 Subject: Reservations policy - addendum Message-ID: <40C8971A.B463623D@snf.stanford.edu> Hi everyone -- Just to clarify the reservations policy on the innotec (listed for reference, below)... The limit on 12 hours of reservation time is for a rolling 7-day period, from the current date. (So if, as Scott A. posed, if he used 12 hours of reservation time yesterday, he can make 12 hours' worth of reservations today.) Hope this is working. If there are any issues, please don't hesitate to contact me or one of the staff. Thanks, Mary ************************************************************************ To reiterate the innotec reservations rules: 1. Reservations can be made no more than 7 days in advance. 2. Maximum time limit on reservations is four hours during prime time (8 am - 6 pm, weekdays) 3. No one may have more than a total of 12 hours of reservation time within a seven day period. 4. Reservations should be removed as soon as you know you are unable to make it and an email to innotec at snf should be sent, preferably, 24 hours in advance. -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 10 16:19:58 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:19:58 -0700 Subject: Removed Reservation on Innotec for June 15th Message-ID: <40C8EC9E.19E9E6DD@snf.stanford.edu> From Mislam at activeoptical.com Fri Jun 11 11:34:49 2004 From: Mislam at activeoptical.com (Mohammed Islam) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:34:49 -0700 Subject: Reserv. cancelled sat. 8am-12noon Message-ID: <0C491DC1CDFB1D46807C84050FADA89303C015@newton.activeoptical.com> From aokyay at stanford.edu Fri Jun 11 16:01:30 2004 From: aokyay at stanford.edu (Ali Kemal Okyay) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Reservation moved from Fri 6.30pm In-Reply-To: <0C491DC1CDFB1D46807C84050FADA89303C015@newton.activeoptical.com> Message-ID: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 14 07:54:34 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:54:34 -0700 Subject: innotec times References: Message-ID: <40CDBC2A.9D3BADCE@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Ali -- Thanks for your feedback -- please do continue to let us know how this works for you. As for enforcing it, I have it on good authority (i.e., John himself) that the new version of Coral, in which reservations policies can be defined by equipment, will be released very soon (within days!) So soon, Coral will automatically check to ensure that reservations are made within the rules defined. Until then, we will have to rely on the honor system (and, as you say, it actually works quite well, when people fully understand and are conscientious about the rules.) If you notice anyone making reservations outside the acceptable times, please don't hesitate to point this out politely to the person who is violating the rules -- and if you do not feel comfortable with doing this, please, please let one of the staff members know, and we will take care of it! Thanks again! Mary Ali Kemal Okyay wrote: > Hi Mary, > > How is it going? I like the newly adopted polisy on innotec usage. The > rules, when applied by everybody let's all the users reasonable prime > times with high machine utilization. Thank you very much for that. > However, I have one small request. Since the reservation horizon is > reduced to a week, maybe we can adopt a system that does not allow users > to make mistakes and reserve further down a week. Also, I think some users > do not understand the rules and keep reserving humongus amounts of time. > If we do not have any restrictions, I am afraid the whole renovation will > be in vain. > > Thanks for your attention and have a nice weekend, > > Ali -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From zlrao at stanford.edu Mon Jun 14 18:27:41 2004 From: zlrao at stanford.edu (Zhilong Rao) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:27:41 -0700 Subject: reservation on 18:30_21:00 cancled Message-ID: <1087262861.40ce508d53f09@webmail.stanford.edu> Can't find Ge source for my deposition. Sorry for the late notice. From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 17 12:13:13 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:13:13 -0700 Subject: The Fe source has arrived! Message-ID: <40D1ED49.C4BED1B9@snf.stanford.edu> From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Fri Jun 18 22:12:49 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: innotec times In-Reply-To: <40CDBC2A.9D3BADCE@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mary and all, Can we post the final rules somewhere readily accesible? HOw about a link on the tool's website? Hard to keep track of the key email. Thanks, Dan On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Mary Tang wrote: > Hi Ali -- > > Thanks for your feedback -- please do continue to let us know how this works > for you. > > As for enforcing it, I have it on good authority (i.e., John himself) that the > new version of Coral, in which reservations policies can be defined by > equipment, will be released very soon (within days!) So soon, Coral will > automatically check to ensure that reservations are made within the rules > defined. Until then, we will have to rely on the honor system (and, as you > say, it actually works quite well, when people fully understand and are > conscientious about the rules.) If you notice anyone making reservations > outside the acceptable times, please don't hesitate to point this out politely > to the person who is violating the rules -- and if you do not feel comfortable > with doing this, please, please let one of the staff members know, and we will > take care of it! > > Thanks again! > > Mary > > Ali Kemal Okyay wrote: > > > Hi Mary, > > > > How is it going? I like the newly adopted polisy on innotec usage. The > > rules, when applied by everybody let's all the users reasonable prime > > times with high machine utilization. Thank you very much for that. > > However, I have one small request. Since the reservation horizon is > > reduced to a week, maybe we can adopt a system that does not allow users > > to make mistakes and reserve further down a week. Also, I think some users > > do not understand the rules and keep reserving humongus amounts of time. > > If we do not have any restrictions, I am afraid the whole renovation will > > be in vain. > > > > Thanks for your attention and have a nice weekend, > > > > Ali > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From shott at snf.stanford.edu Sat Jun 19 00:44:28 2004 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:44:28 -0700 Subject: innotec times References: Message-ID: <065701c455d1$40040e70$286540ab@jds> Dan: As soon as we can complete testing of it, the new version of the Coral client has a new tab that shows what the policy is for any selected piece of equipment ... and, I hope, that the names of each policy are reasonably self descriptive. (If they are not, there's a window with a full sentence that describes the rule). For example, there are 4- 7- and 10-DayReservationHorizonRules, 4- 6- and 8-HourReservationRules, and 10- and 12-HourReservationTotalTimeRules. Of course, not all pieces of equipment have all rules enforced. I had originally thought that this was going to be released today, but we have a little more checking and testing to make sure that things are working and I hope that we'll release it my next Monday or Tuesday. Of course, there may be adjustments of these rules once we have an enforceable set. In the interim, I believe that the current generally agreed upon rules are described at http://snf.stanford.edu/Labmembers/Reservation.html I hope that helps ... John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Grupp" To: "Mary Tang" Cc: "Ali Kemal Okyay" ; ; "maurice" ; "jperez" Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:12 PM Subject: Re: innotec times > Hi Mary and all, > Can we post the final rules somewhere readily accesible? HOw about a > link on the tool's website? Hard to keep track of the key email. > Thanks, > Dan > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Mary Tang wrote: > > > Hi Ali -- > > > > Thanks for your feedback -- please do continue to let us know how this works > > for you. > > > > As for enforcing it, I have it on good authority (i.e., John himself) that the > > new version of Coral, in which reservations policies can be defined by > > equipment, will be released very soon (within days!) So soon, Coral will > > automatically check to ensure that reservations are made within the rules > > defined. Until then, we will have to rely on the honor system (and, as you > > say, it actually works quite well, when people fully understand and are > > conscientious about the rules.) If you notice anyone making reservations > > outside the acceptable times, please don't hesitate to point this out politely > > to the person who is violating the rules -- and if you do not feel comfortable > > with doing this, please, please let one of the staff members know, and we will > > take care of it! > > > > Thanks again! > > > > Mary > > > > Ali Kemal Okyay wrote: > > > > > Hi Mary, > > > > > > How is it going? I like the newly adopted polisy on innotec usage. The > > > rules, when applied by everybody let's all the users reasonable prime > > > times with high machine utilization. Thank you very much for that. > > > However, I have one small request. Since the reservation horizon is > > > reduced to a week, maybe we can adopt a system that does not allow users > > > to make mistakes and reserve further down a week. Also, I think some users > > > do not understand the rules and keep reserving humongus amounts of time. > > > If we do not have any restrictions, I am afraid the whole renovation will > > > be in vain. > > > > > > Thanks for your attention and have a nice weekend, > > > > > > Ali > > > > -- > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > (650)723-9980 > > mtang at stanford.edu > > http://snf.stanford.edu > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar > Center for Integrated Systems > Stanford University > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650) 724-6911 > FAX: 723-4659 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 22 11:52:24 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:52:24 -0700 Subject: I finished early today 6/22/04 at noon Message-ID: <40D87FE8.2010603@snf.stanford.edu> From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 22 16:06:39 2004 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:06:39 -0700 Subject: Canceled Thursday reservation 6/24 on Innotec Message-ID: <40D8BB7E.CF0466A3@snf.stanford.edu> From pethe at stanford.edu Tue Jun 22 16:09:59 2004 From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:09:59 -0700 Subject: Res changed Thurs 6/24 Message-ID: <000c01c458ae$0a818270$296440ab@flash> I moved my reservation to 10:30am on Thurs. Releasing reservation in the evening. Abhijit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pnataraj at kovio.com Tue Jun 22 16:10:42 2004 From: pnataraj at kovio.com (Pradeep K. Nataraj) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:10:42 -0700 Subject: samples not ready reservation canceled from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM today Message-ID: <17AB8DED04002F4E803EE9A3E29ECFA80C0300@koviomail.print-this.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhemanth at stanford.edu Tue Jun 22 20:26:00 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:26:00 -0700 Subject: Innotec free from 8pm -12am today Message-ID: <000201c458d1$cf900d70$9d6240ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Had problems with my samples. Sorry for the short notice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jun 25 16:32:42 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:32:42 -0700 Subject: Reservation Horizon - new reservation policy Message-ID: <40DCB61A.BDFE63D0@snf.stanford.edu> Innotec users -- As you may have noticed, the new Coral reservation client has a somewhat different policy than what was being used. The new coral Policy system has a 4-day reservation horizon, instead of the usual 7. Sorry about that -- there was some discussion as to how policies were to be administered and, well, I think we dropped the ball in communicating them... Nonetheless, the system is now set up for a 4-day horizon -- please let your local staff person know if this works for you at the innotec. Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From aokyay at stanford.edu Sat Jun 26 21:50:18 2004 From: aokyay at stanford.edu (Ali Kemal Okyay) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: reservation removed Message-ID: hi, wafers will not be ready, reservation removed from sunday 10-3pm thanks, ali From aokyay at stanford.edu Mon Jun 28 14:25:06 2004 From: aokyay at stanford.edu (Ali Kemal Okyay) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: reservation canceled Message-ID: Sorry for the late notice, Reservation from 4pm to 7pm today canceled. Wafers will not be ready. Ali