Innotec Planning Questionaire

Jeannie Perez nperez at stanford.edu
Thu Mar 12 07:54:37 PDT 2009


During training I can or do depositions for users to help relieve 
Innotec. As long as it can help the trainee and not more then two
metals (do to the time restriction). This Friday I will be doing a 
150nm Aluminum deposition for a customer and it is posted on my 
reservation if anyone would like to share a ride.
Jeannie

At 09:11 PM 3/11/2009, Albert Lin wrote:
>Hi Ed,
>
>I use Innotec to evap. metals on carbon nanotubes, which are 
>destroyed in sputtering systems.
>
>Also, when calculating utilization, you may want to do (non-staff 
>usage) / (available time for students), that is, subtract training / 
>staff usage time from the "avail time" since that will be the true 
>time available to students. You may also want to compute a similar 
>number for reservations. That utilization will then truly reflect 
>how crazy it has been to use (or get a reservation) on the innotec.
>
>Albert
>
>
>
>At 01:44 PM 3/11/2009, Ed Myers wrote:
>>Innotec Users,
>>
>>Attached are two documents regarding Innotec usage.  The 
>>utilization graph shows the level of usage of the Innotec.  As you 
>>can see, the utilization rate has climbed by ~25% over the last few 
>>years.  This, along with the cancelation of reservations has 
>>created a lot of pain for those depending on this tool.
>>
>>The second attachment (Usage Items) is a list of all the 
>>depositions done in the system since mid-October 2008.  When I 
>>looked at the depositions, it appears that ~75% of those 
>>depositions could be done in a different tool.  I admit, there are 
>>a lot of assumptions regarding this estimation, one being we may 
>>not have that other tool.  We are attempting to do some equipment 
>>planning and we need clarification as to why you have chosen to use 
>>the Innotec.
>>
>>To me, there are a couple of options to relieve the pressure on the 
>>Innotec.  The simplest and the one you hear the most is a second 
>>Innotec.  Option two may be adding/replacing/modifying a metal 
>>system to off load the deposition which don't have to be on the 
>>Innotec.  A third option may be addition of an ion mill system to 
>>lower our dependence on lift-off processing.  Or options you can point out.
>>
>>I prefer we chose the correct tool for the right applications and 
>>add capability if possible (we have not forgotten about the 
>>requests for dielectric depositions).  For example, if we can 
>>identify another tool which can off load the Innotec and provide 
>>new capability this could also be a winning solution.  Another 
>>approach could reconfigure the Gryphon or SCT or working on the 
>>uniformity of the metalica.
>>
>>To help us in planning, could you please respond as to why you use 
>>the Innotec.  The reasons may range from the need for very thin 
>>films, uniformity of the deposition (then you should provide a 
>>uniformity target), in-situ thickness monitoring (what range can 
>>you tolerate?), multiple layers in a single pump down (how many?), 
>>required for lift-off (what metals are you  sing) device 
>>sensitivity (plasma damage), substrate (polymer or organic), 
>>contamination categories (clean verse gold contaminated), large 
>>batch of wafers (how many), or I would use a different tool (if it did...).....
>>
>>Please hit the reply button and share your reasons for using the 
>>Innotec and what other approaches could serve your needs.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ed and your SNF staff
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/innotec/attachments/20090312/0aa6b097/attachment.html>


More information about the innotec mailing list