From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Fri Mar 1 09:21:59 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:21:59 -0800 Subject: loss of heat on Saturday Message-ID: <3C7FB8B7.516A0BE8@snf.stanford.edu> Reminder: On Saturday, March 2, from 0700 through 1700, the CIS & CISX building heating system will be shut down for the installation of a flowmeter in the water line. With the mild weather we are having, this shutdown should not be noticeable unless you have a room air temperature critical process running. The photo area of the SNF fab will be affected. For photo area users, this shutdown is in addition to the cooling water shutdown affecting only the photo area starting at 0700 today and continuing through 1200 on Tuesday, 3/5/02. Sorry for the inconvenience, but this modification will make future maintenance more efficient. Dick Crane From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Fri Mar 1 17:26:03 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:26:03 -0800 Subject: Furnace move, part two, 3/6/02 Message-ID: <3C802A2B.B5128A5F@snf.stanford.edu> Lab users, The great four to six inch transition is happening. The Thermco furnace in the hall will be moved to bank 1 location on Wednesday, 3/6/02, between 0900 and 1200. During the move the follow areas will disrupted (moving crew, equipment dollies, fab shelves moved, etc.): Aisle L114, bank 1 and 2 area. Main cross aisle from bank 1, through the epi reactor/ion implant area, to bank 5 . Aisle L118, from the chemical passthru to bank 5 & 6. The double door near FW 1 will be opened to the hallway while the furnace in being moved into the fab, therefore, the L118 aisle will have airborne particles present during the move. The actual move should take less than 90 minutes. In general, only the area immediately around the moving furnace and aisle L114, bank 1 and 2 area will be affected. Please plan your furnace area activities accordingly. Furnace gas supplies will not be interrupted. Thank you for your patience, Dick From sanli at piezo.Stanford.EDU Sat Mar 2 15:21:19 2002 From: sanli at piezo.Stanford.EDU (Sanli Ergun) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:21:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: lost mask In-Reply-To: <3C802A2B.B5128A5F@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi everybody, I'm looking for a mask with my name on it. I believe I left it around amtetcher, but not 100% sure. Have you seen such a mask? Sanli Ergun From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Wed Mar 6 07:18:24 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:18:24 -0800 Subject: Furnace move today Message-ID: <3C863340.3718278A@snf.stanford.edu> Just a reminder that the furnace area will be disturbed this morning as we move the new Thermco furnace into position. See note below for details. Lab users, The great four to six inch transition is happening. The Thermco furnace in the hall will be moved to bank 1 location on Wednesday, 3/6/02, between 0900 and 1200. During the move the follow areas will disrupted (moving crew, equipment dollies, fab shelves moved, etc.): Aisle L114, bank 1 and 2 area. Main cross aisle from bank 1, through the epi reactor/ion implant area, to bank 5 . Aisle L118, from the chemical passthru to bank 5 & 6. The double door near FW 1 will be opened to the hallway while the furnace in being moved into the fab, therefore, the L118 aisle will have airborne particles present during the move. The actual move should take less than 90 minutes. In general, only the area immediately around the moving furnace and aisle L114, bank 1 and 2 area will be affected. Please plan your furnace area activities accordingly. Furnace gas supplies will not be interrupted. Thank you for your patience, Dick From deal at ee.Stanford.EDU Thu Mar 7 09:22:56 2002 From: deal at ee.Stanford.EDU (Michael Deal) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:22:56 -0800 Subject: New web-based capabilities for SNF Message-ID: SNF labusers, I would like to acquaint you with some new web-based capabilities for SNF lab users. Although primarily designed for remote users of SNF, they may also be of use to local users who wish to communicate with others outside the lab through live web video and images. The current capabilities include: 1. Live webcams. We currently have a Sony mini DV digital camcorder (and also an inexpensive portable webcam) and a high-end Dell laptop with webcasting software. This set-up can be used to capture video displays on equipment such as an SEM and broadcast them in real time to the SNF remote users web pages. We have demonstrated this with the Hitachi S-800 SEM. Using this, a remote user could view his/her sample in the SEM (while also talking on the phone to the SNF staff operating the SEM) and instruct the staff person which SEM photos to capture on SEMICAPS and download as a JPEG or TIFF image on the web. Or a local user could provide live SEM images to his Advisor or other members of his group in their offices. This set-up can also be used to webcast any live images from inside the lab. Soon we will enhance this capability by directly interfacing with the semicaps camera on the optical microscope in the lab analysis room. We also have an inexpensive webcam in the outside hall producing a live video image of the cleanroom. 2. Live whiteboards. We have a USB Flexcam attached to our laptop in the lab and can be used to display worksheets, graphics and other hardcopy in real time over the web. One could also transmit information or sketches much like an online whiteboard from inside the lab to their colleague or a remote user outside the lab while also talking on a telephone. 3. Image and data download capabilities. Scripts have been written on the computers which have the Semicaps software (i.e. for the Hitachi S-800 SEM and the optical microscope) so that still images captured from those equipment can easily be sent in JPEG or TIFF format to web pages. In all these cases, the people at the receiving end (either a remote user or a colleague of a local user) need just a computer and a web browser with Java enabled to view live images from the lab. Either a SNF staff member or a local user can operate the user-friendly software and webcams in the SNF lab. At this point, I would invite you (both SNF remote users and SNF local users) to try out any or all of these capabilities and act as beta-testers for us. Please contact me or Nancy Latta if you are interested in this and we can arrange a session for either the web cams or the whiteboard. For local users, we can "train" you on the in-lab software and cameras so you can run future sessions on your own if you desire. In some cases, it's just a matter of pointing the camera in the right direction. In any case, visit our web pages at: http://snf.stanford.edu/Access/RemoteUsers/RemoteIntro.html http://snf.stanford.edu/Access/RemoteUsers/RemoteCapabilities.html (or just follow the links from the news section at snf.stanford.edu) and give me a call or email if you have any questions, suggestions, etc. Also, see our live 24-hour cleanroom cam at: http://snf.stanford.edu/Access/RemoteUsers/webcam3.html Thanks. -Mike Deal 650-725-3607 deal at snf.stanford.edu -Nancy Latta 650-725-6727 latta at snf.stanford.edu From yjlin at stanford.edu Thu Mar 7 13:54:41 2002 From: yjlin at stanford.edu (Yu-Ju Lin) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:54:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: 5mil wirebonding Message-ID: Hi all, I am looking for wirebonding service which can bond 5mil wire outside Stanford. It is difficult because 5mil wirebonding needs good heating, but my chip carrier is so large to be a heat sink, therefore the places I would like to bond couldn't be heated efficiently. Please let me know any relevant information. Thanks a lot! Yu-ju From niblock at analatom.com Thu Mar 7 17:10:46 2002 From: niblock at analatom.com (Trevor Niblock) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:10:46 -0800 Subject: Thermal expansion Message-ID: Does anyone have (or know where to fine) the data on thermal Coef' of expansion of oxide and nitride (silicon)?? T. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Trevor Niblock (Ph.D, MRes(MSc),BEng), ANALATOM Inc., 540 Weddell Drive, Suite # 9 Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA. TEL; (408) 734 9392 FAX; (408) 734 8335 Email; niblock at analatom.com URL: http://analatom.com/ This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or protected by other legal rules. It does not constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer, nor shall it form any part of a legally binding contract. If you have received this communication in error, please let us know by reply then destroy it. You should not use, print, copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. E-mail is subject to possible data corruption, is not secure, and its content does not necessarily represent the opinion of this Company. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and no liability can be accepted for any loss arising from its use. This e-mail and any attachments are not guaranteed to be free from so-called computer viruses and it is recommended that you check for such viruses before down-loading it to your computer equipment. This Company has no control over other websites to which there may be hypertext links and no liability can be accepted in relation to those sites. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trevor Niblock.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Mar 7 18:25:04 2002 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:25:04 -0800 Subject: Coef. of Thermal expansion SIxNy, SiO2 References: Message-ID: <3C882100.46342107@snf.stanford.edu> Hello, All the data you desire can be found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Check section 12 pages 197 - 203. There is a copy on my desk if you would like to review it, or at any library. Yours, James Conway SNF Trevor Niblock wrote: > Does anyone have (or know where to fine) the data on thermal Coef' of > expansion of oxide and nitride (silicon)?? > > T. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Trevor Niblock (Ph.D, MRes(MSc),BEng), > ANALATOM Inc., 540 Weddell Drive, Suite # 9 > Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA. > TEL; (408) 734 9392 > FAX; (408) 734 8335 > Email; niblock at analatom.com > URL: http://analatom.com/ > > This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or protected by > other legal rules. It does not constitute an offer or acceptance of an > offer, nor shall it form any part of a legally binding contract. If you have > received this communication in error, please let us know by reply then > destroy it. You should not use, print, copy the message or disclose its > contents to anyone. E-mail is subject to possible data corruption, is not > secure, and its content does not necessarily represent the opinion of this > Company. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy or > completeness of the information and no liability can be accepted for any > loss arising from its use. This e-mail and any attachments are not > guaranteed to be free from so-called computer viruses and it is recommended > that you check for such viruses before down-loading it to your computer > equipment. This Company has no control over other websites to which there > may be hypertext links and no liability can be accepted in relation to those > sites. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Thu Mar 7 18:33:34 2002 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:33:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Coef. of Thermal expansion SIxNy, SiO2 In-Reply-To: <3C882100.46342107@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: The Web is a great resource for this type of question. On google.com I typed in 'coefficient of thermal expansion of silicon nitride' and found many sites, as in the following: http://www.accuratus.com/Silicon_Nitride.htm You can compare the numbers from many sources. Almost any processing or materials question is sitting somewhere on the web. So are many of the answers! -Dan On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, James Conway wrote: > Hello, > > All the data you desire can be found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and > Physics. Check section 12 pages 197 - 203. > There is a copy on my desk if you would like to review it, or at any library. > > Yours, > > James Conway > SNF > > > Trevor Niblock wrote: > > > Does anyone have (or know where to fine) the data on thermal Coef' of > > expansion of oxide and nitride (silicon)?? > > > > T. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > > Trevor Niblock (Ph.D, MRes(MSc),BEng), > > ANALATOM Inc., 540 Weddell Drive, Suite # 9 > > Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA. > > TEL; (408) 734 9392 > > FAX; (408) 734 8335 > > Email; niblock at analatom.com > > URL: http://analatom.com/ > > > > This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or protected by > > other legal rules. It does not constitute an offer or acceptance of an > > offer, nor shall it form any part of a legally binding contract. If you have > > received this communication in error, please let us know by reply then > > destroy it. You should not use, print, copy the message or disclose its > > contents to anyone. E-mail is subject to possible data corruption, is not > > secure, and its content does not necessarily represent the opinion of this > > Company. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy or > > completeness of the information and no liability can be accepted for any > > loss arising from its use. This e-mail and any attachments are not > > guaranteed to be free from so-called computer viruses and it is recommended > > that you check for such viruses before down-loading it to your computer > > equipment. This Company has no control over other websites to which there > > may be hypertext links and no liability can be accepted in relation to those > > sites. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From swcha at stanford.edu Fri Mar 8 11:56:32 2002 From: swcha at stanford.edu (Suk Won Cha) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:56:32 -0800 Subject: local companies for sputtering & electroplating? In-Reply-To: <200203081934.g28JYoa14763@leland3.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <003001c1c6db$59028780$a87640ab@stanford.edu> Dear All Hi, I'm looking for a local company which can do metal(Ni or Al) sputtering or electroplating on small glass pieces in small quantity. I'd appreciate any contact information. Thanks a lot, Suk Won From jkong at stanford.edu Sat Mar 9 01:16:37 2002 From: jkong at stanford.edu (Jing Kong) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:16:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: chlorobenzene spill Message-ID: Hi, I am very sorry I had some chlorobenzene spilled out in the lithography room tonight. Thanks for the help of ping, angie, mike and anu we've got the help from maintainance people and they cleaned up the lab at 1pm. The lab ventilation is on now and the lab should be safe to access after Sat morning ~9am. I hope this won't interrupt many people's work and I am really sorry for the trouble here. Jing From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 12 07:35:57 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:35:57 -0800 Subject: SNF welcomes Charley Williams Message-ID: <3C8E205D.4D84DDE1@snf.stanford.edu> Staff and labmembers please join me in welcoming onboard our newest staff member, Charles Williams. Charlie comes to us from the Berkeley Microlab where he spent his time primarily in the ebeam lithography and SEM area. Charlie's responsibilities here will also focus on the SEM and ebeam area and he will be our local electronics expert for the fab in general. He will be quickly put to work installing the Hitachi 4160 SEM and the Raith 150 ebeam tool. Charlie's office will be in room 155 and his phone number is 723-7734. Email account name to follow. Please give Charlie a welcome onboard when you see him. Thanks, Dick From balaji at sunray.snffab.stanford.edu Wed Mar 13 11:45:52 2002 From: balaji at sunray.snffab.stanford.edu (Balaji Venkateshwaran) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:45:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: bicycle thefts Message-ID: <200203131945.LAA27712@sunray.snffab.stanford.edu> SNF labmembers, If you use a bicycle on campus, watch out for your bikes. I had my bicycle stolen from the CIS bike rack yesterday. Cable securing the bike to the rack was deftly snapped or the lock was picked. Campus police say they've been hit pretty bad this year with bike thefts. Watch out ... Balaji From sher at SLAC.Stanford.EDU Wed Mar 13 16:52:16 2002 From: sher at SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Sherwood Parker) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:52:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: bicycle thefts In-Reply-To: <200203131945.LAA27712@sunray.snffab.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I've seen the UCB policeman in charge of bicycles on the Berkeley campus demonstrate how he could, with small wire clippers hidden in the palm of his hand, cut through a thick cable lock in less than 1 minute. Certain kinds of U locks, placed so there is no free room, are difficult enough to break that whatever parts of your bicycle are locked by it will be relatively safe. You probably also need to have locks for both wheels and even the seat! Or take it in with you. Sherwood Parker On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Balaji Venkateshwaran wrote: > > SNF labmembers, > > If you use a bicycle on campus, watch out for your bikes. I had my bicycle > stolen from the CIS bike rack yesterday. Cable securing the bike to the rack was > deftly snapped or the lock was picked. Campus police say they've been hit pretty > bad this year with bike thefts. > Watch out ... > > Balaji > > > From jazz9152 at SLAC.Stanford.EDU Wed Mar 13 17:07:54 2002 From: jazz9152 at SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jasmine Hasi) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:07:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: bicycle thefts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes I know about this..I was the one to advise him to send a large email out to inform others.. My bike is locked up now at the bike rack... Jasmine On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Sherwood Parker wrote: > I've seen the UCB policeman in charge of bicycles on the Berkeley campus > demonstrate how he could, with small wire clippers hidden in the palm of > his hand, cut through a thick cable lock in less than 1 minute. Certain > kinds of U locks, placed so there is no free room, are difficult enough to > break that whatever parts of your bicycle are locked by it will be > relatively safe. You probably also need to have locks for both wheels and > even the seat! Or take it in with you. > > Sherwood Parker > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Balaji Venkateshwaran wrote: > > > > > SNF labmembers, > > > > If you use a bicycle on campus, watch out for your bikes. I had my bicycle > > stolen from the CIS bike rack yesterday. Cable securing the bike to the rack was > > deftly snapped or the lock was picked. Campus police say they've been hit pretty > > bad this year with bike thefts. > > Watch out ... > > > > Balaji > > > > > > > > From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Thu Mar 14 13:05:43 2002 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:05:43 -0800 Subject: Missing mask Message-ID: <3C9110A7.32553455@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all, I am privileged that you all so feel close to me, but that does not mean you use my training mask and not returning them to my roll around cart. Bring My mask back please. mahnaz From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Fri Mar 15 17:37:51 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:37:51 -0800 Subject: CIS/CISX/Lab alarm test Tuesday, Process gas interupted 3/19/02 Message-ID: <3C92A1EF.7C8FB568@snf.stanford.edu> Labmembers and building occupants, In the ongoing challenge to keep this a safe environment to work in, there will a brief of the toxic gas monitoring system on Tuesday morning, 3/19/02, between 0730 and 0800. During this test the blue strobes and horns in CIS and the lab will be activated for up to one minute. All process gases will be interrupted for up to 5 minutes. Please plan your processing according. In many cases the gas interruption will not be seen by the tool. High flow processes are at greatest risk. As soon as the test is complete, all gases will be restored. Thanks for your patience, Dick Crane From chion at stanford.edu Fri Mar 15 18:30:40 2002 From: chion at stanford.edu (Chi On Chui) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:30:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: return of 3" silicon wafer (fwd) Message-ID: Dear Labmembers, Sorry for spending your valuable time reading this e-mail. But I think it is extremely important to get your attention on this issue to avoid wasting your time processing on the wafers purchased from this vendor. My friend, Hyoungsub Kim, who is also a labmember, urges me to spread this story out. He purchased 30-40 3" wafers from this vendor who claimed they are <100> oriented. My friend spent a month's processing time on the wafers and just found out that they are no way to be 100. He did the generic cleaving test and the whole wafer scattered. To further verify that, he performed an expensive XRD to check the crystallinity. No specific crystal orientation was shown. He checked both on 3 or 4 wafers. Then he asked for a return but the vendor replied with a very rude e-mail. May I ask for a little bit more of your valuable time to read the below e-mail exchanges? I thought my friend is doing everything appropiately. Please be careful when doing business with this vendor. Thanks for your attention! /Chi On ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:45:09 -0800 From: David Chamberlain To: 'Hyoungsub Kim' Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer I really do not appreciate being lectured to when I am making an effort to help were others would not. - Once this order is completed I really would appreciate it if you took your business to other manufacturer. This is not the way I conduce my business. Regards, David Chamberlain -----Original Message----- From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: David Chamberlain Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer Hi. Yes, I want to replace with new 3" <100> wafers having the correct specification. The wafers I returned should be replaced at no charge because they did not meet quality standards. I do not see why I have to write another purchase order when I will not be paying for these new wafers. Regarding to your third remark, I understand your situation, but it is not my job to check the orientation of wafers using expensive measurement tools like XRD. In my opinion, if your company is proud of selling qualified wafers at low prices, then your company should guarantee the specification you write on the wafer box. Actually the wafers were worthless to me as well. These wafers are not suitable for resale anyway. Additionally I have already wasted many hours mistakely believing your company's specification. Hyoungsub Kim On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > Hyoungsub Kim, > > First, do you want me to replace these wafers when new 3" <100> wafers? > > Second, If so, I will still need a Purchase order to replace these > wafers. As the order is so old Stanford Accounting will not except us > placing a new invoice against such an old order. > > Third, If you buy again, you must check these new wafers ASAP. I got into > allot of trouble taking these wafers back and replacing them. All order > disputes must be made within 15 days of receiving the wafers. > > While we strive to have great customer service we must have some > limits. As wafers do have a shelf life, these wafers you have returned > are worthless to us now and we will not be able to resell them. - > Thank you for understanding. > > Best regards, > > David Chamberlain > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:17 PM > To: David Chamberlain > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > Hi. > It was 10/23/01 and purchase order number was VR4798. > We bought it for stock and found that problem these days. > Thanks. > > Hyoungsub Kim > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > > > Dear Hyoungsub Kim, > > > > Can you please provide me with the Date of the order? > > > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:11 PM > > To: david at siliconquest.com > > Subject: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > Hi. > > > > My name is Hyoungsub Kim, a graduate student in Materials Science and > > Engineering at Stanford. > > As I talked on Wednesday, I returned 47 3" wafers to you on Friday. > > (I used 3 wafers for process test and XRD measurement, and reallized it > > does not have a correct orientation) > > Those wafers are not (100) wafer or heavily misoriented according to XRD > > and cutting experiment. > > I would appreciate if you can send me new wafers with the same > > specification as soon as possible. > > Thanks. > > > > ====================================================== > > Hyoungsub Kim From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Fri Mar 15 19:03:48 2002 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:03:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: More bad history...RE: return of 3" silicon wafer (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: These guys also sold us bad SOI. It wasted a month of one lab member's time. The wafers had another layer on top, an oxide of unknown origin. The wafers turned out to have a mysterious and checkered past. David Chamberlain was quite polite and took the wafers back. Two data points is enough to fit a line to! It ain't worth the money saved. -DAn On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Chi On Chui wrote: > Dear Labmembers, > > Sorry for spending your valuable time reading this e-mail. But I think > it is extremely important to get your attention on this issue to avoid > wasting your time processing on the wafers purchased from this vendor. > > My friend, Hyoungsub Kim, who is also a labmember, urges me to spread this > story out. He purchased 30-40 3" wafers from this vendor who claimed they > are <100> oriented. My friend spent a month's processing time on the > wafers and just found out that they are no way to be 100. He did the > generic cleaving test and the whole wafer scattered. To further verify > that, he performed an expensive XRD to check the crystallinity. No > specific crystal orientation was shown. He checked both on 3 or 4 wafers. > > Then he asked for a return but the vendor replied with a very rude e-mail. > May I ask for a little bit more of your valuable time to read the below > e-mail exchanges? > > I thought my friend is doing everything appropiately. > Please be careful when doing business with this vendor. > Thanks for your attention! > > /Chi On > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:45:09 -0800 > From: David Chamberlain > To: 'Hyoungsub Kim' > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > I really do not appreciate being lectured to when I am making an effort to > help were others would not. - Once this order is completed I really would > appreciate it if you took your business to other manufacturer. This is not > the way I conduce my business. > > Regards, > > David Chamberlain > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM > To: David Chamberlain > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > Hi. > > Yes, I want to replace with new 3" <100> wafers having the correct > specification. The wafers I returned should be replaced at no charge > because they did not meet quality standards. I do not see why I have to > write another purchase order when I will not be paying for these new > wafers. > > Regarding to your third remark, I understand your situation, but it is not > my job to check the orientation of wafers using expensive measurement > tools like XRD. > > In my opinion, if your company is proud of selling qualified wafers at low > prices, then your company should guarantee the specification you write on > the wafer box. Actually the wafers were worthless to me as well. These > wafers are not suitable for resale anyway. Additionally I have already > wasted many hours mistakely believing your company's specification. > > Hyoungsub Kim > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > > > Hyoungsub Kim, > > > > First, do you want me to replace these wafers when new 3" <100> wafers? > > > > Second, If so, I will still need a Purchase order to replace these > > wafers. As the order is so old Stanford Accounting will not except us > > placing a new invoice against such an old order. > > > > Third, If you buy again, you must check these new wafers ASAP. I got into > > allot of trouble taking these wafers back and replacing them. All order > > disputes must be made within 15 days of receiving the wafers. > > > > While we strive to have great customer service we must have some > > limits. As wafers do have a shelf life, these wafers you have returned > > are worthless to us now and we will not be able to resell them. - > > Thank you for understanding. > > > > Best regards, > > > > David Chamberlain > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:17 PM > > To: David Chamberlain > > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > Hi. > > It was 10/23/01 and purchase order number was VR4798. > > We bought it for stock and found that problem these days. > > Thanks. > > > > Hyoungsub Kim > > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > Dear Hyoungsub Kim, > > > > > > Can you please provide me with the Date of the order? > > > > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:11 PM > > > To: david at siliconquest.com > > > Subject: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > My name is Hyoungsub Kim, a graduate student in Materials Science and > > > Engineering at Stanford. > > > As I talked on Wednesday, I returned 47 3" wafers to you on Friday. > > > (I used 3 wafers for process test and XRD measurement, and reallized it > > > does not have a correct orientation) > > > Those wafers are not (100) wafer or heavily misoriented according to XRD > > > and cutting experiment. > > > I would appreciate if you can send me new wafers with the same > > > specification as soon as possible. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > ====================================================== > > > Hyoungsub Kim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Mar 18 08:59:15 2002 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:59:15 -0800 Subject: Please share info! References: Message-ID: <3C961CE3.DD70B14E@snf.stanford.edu> Labmembers: Please share this sort of info! It's important and will no doubt SAVE other labmembers from a similar fate! Use the power of community! We have, as a result, just added a new description of SiliconQuest to the SNF website. Please check out: http://snf/Process/Resources/Substrates.html Let me know if you'd like to make any more additions (positive or negative.) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu Dan Grupp wrote: > These guys also sold us bad SOI. It wasted a month of one lab member's > time. The wafers had another layer on top, an oxide of unknown origin. The > wafers turned out to have a mysterious and checkered past. > David Chamberlain was quite polite and took the wafers back. Two data > points is enough to fit a line to! It ain't worth the money saved. > -DAn > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Chi On Chui wrote: > > > Dear Labmembers, > > > > Sorry for spending your valuable time reading this e-mail. But I think > > it is extremely important to get your attention on this issue to avoid > > wasting your time processing on the wafers purchased from this vendor. > > > > My friend, Hyoungsub Kim, who is also a labmember, urges me to spread this > > story out. He purchased 30-40 3" wafers from this vendor who claimed they > > are <100> oriented. My friend spent a month's processing time on the > > wafers and just found out that they are no way to be 100. He did the > > generic cleaving test and the whole wafer scattered. To further verify > > that, he performed an expensive XRD to check the crystallinity. No > > specific crystal orientation was shown. He checked both on 3 or 4 wafers. > > > > Then he asked for a return but the vendor replied with a very rude e-mail. > > May I ask for a little bit more of your valuable time to read the below > > e-mail exchanges? > > > > I thought my friend is doing everything appropiately. > > Please be careful when doing business with this vendor. > > Thanks for your attention! > > > > /Chi On > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:45:09 -0800 > > From: David Chamberlain > > To: 'Hyoungsub Kim' > > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > I really do not appreciate being lectured to when I am making an effort to > > help were others would not. - Once this order is completed I really would > > appreciate it if you took your business to other manufacturer. This is not > > the way I conduce my business. > > > > Regards, > > > > David Chamberlain > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM > > To: David Chamberlain > > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > Hi. > > > > Yes, I want to replace with new 3" <100> wafers having the correct > > specification. The wafers I returned should be replaced at no charge > > because they did not meet quality standards. I do not see why I have to > > write another purchase order when I will not be paying for these new > > wafers. > > > > Regarding to your third remark, I understand your situation, but it is not > > my job to check the orientation of wafers using expensive measurement > > tools like XRD. > > > > In my opinion, if your company is proud of selling qualified wafers at low > > prices, then your company should guarantee the specification you write on > > the wafer box. Actually the wafers were worthless to me as well. These > > wafers are not suitable for resale anyway. Additionally I have already > > wasted many hours mistakely believing your company's specification. > > > > Hyoungsub Kim > > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > Hyoungsub Kim, > > > > > > First, do you want me to replace these wafers when new 3" <100> wafers? > > > > > > Second, If so, I will still need a Purchase order to replace these > > > wafers. As the order is so old Stanford Accounting will not except us > > > placing a new invoice against such an old order. > > > > > > Third, If you buy again, you must check these new wafers ASAP. I got into > > > allot of trouble taking these wafers back and replacing them. All order > > > disputes must be made within 15 days of receiving the wafers. > > > > > > While we strive to have great customer service we must have some > > > limits. As wafers do have a shelf life, these wafers you have returned > > > are worthless to us now and we will not be able to resell them. - > > > Thank you for understanding. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > David Chamberlain > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:17 PM > > > To: David Chamberlain > > > Subject: RE: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > It was 10/23/01 and purchase order number was VR4798. > > > We bought it for stock and found that problem these days. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Hyoungsub Kim > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, David Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Hyoungsub Kim, > > > > > > > > Can you please provide me with the Date of the order? > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hyoungsub Kim [mailto:hsubkim at Stanford.EDU] > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:11 PM > > > > To: david at siliconquest.com > > > > Subject: return of 3" silicon wafer > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > My name is Hyoungsub Kim, a graduate student in Materials Science and > > > > Engineering at Stanford. > > > > As I talked on Wednesday, I returned 47 3" wafers to you on Friday. > > > > (I used 3 wafers for process test and XRD measurement, and reallized it > > > > does not have a correct orientation) > > > > Those wafers are not (100) wafer or heavily misoriented according to XRD > > > > and cutting experiment. > > > > I would appreciate if you can send me new wafers with the same > > > > specification as soon as possible. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > ====================================================== > > > > Hyoungsub Kim > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar > Center for Integrated Systems > Stanford University > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650) 724-6911 > FAX: 723-4659 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Mar 18 11:16:31 2002 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:16:31 -0800 Subject: MEMS Wet Bench Message-ID: <3C963D0F.816B56FE@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- There's an underground proposal afoot to put together (what we are calling for now) a new "MEMS" wet bench. The idea is to expand the wbgeneral concept to try to meet the needs and future requirements of labmembers for non-standard processing of "non-CMOS-clean" substrates. Some suggestions floated thus far: - cassette-compatible wafer handling - dump rinse and spin/rinse dryer - temp controlled/stirred KOH tank - HF tank - sulfuric hot pot - electroplating - porous silicon etching If you have inputs or information you would like to share, please contact Uli (uli at snf.stanford.edu) and Maurice (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) who will be taking inputs and coordinating this effort. Thanks! Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Mon Mar 18 18:45:51 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:45:51 -0800 Subject: Reminder, alarms test tuesday Message-ID: <3C96A65F.3D1EF4FE@snf.stanford.edu> Labmembers and building occupants, a reminder, In the ongoing challenge to keep this a safe environment to work in, there will a brief of the toxic gas monitoring system on Tuesday morning, 3/19/02, between 0730 and 0800. During this test the blue strobes and horns in CIS and the lab will be activated for up to one minute. All process gases will be interrupted for up to 5 minutes. Please plan your processing according. In many cases the gas interruption will not be seen by the tool. High flow processes are at greatest risk. As soon as the test is complete, all gases will be restored. Thanks for your patience, Dick Crane From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 19 10:42:34 2002 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:42:34 -0800 Subject: SiliconQuest Message-ID: <3C978699.CB46EB63@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- Tony tells me that the sales rep from Silicon Quest, stopped by this morning to deliver replacement wafers and told him that he had very likely just lost his job over this... Although I quite agree, from the forwarded emails, that he did not offer customer service with a smile, I truly doubt this is the outcome that any of us wanted or expected. (And quite honestly, I'm not sure this reflects well upon Silicon Quest as an organization.) I still think that as a community, labmembers ought to be able to share information, good and bad. In fact, I think we are obligated to share important general information that could affect people's work. And I don't think a more measured approach to the complaints about Silicon Quest would have really changed the outcome. But do think we should recognize that the labmembers at snf list is an extremely powerful tool which should not be used lightly... By the way, SNF has had a long-standing relationship with Silicon Quest which provides bulk orders of test wafers. To Tony's knowledge, there have been no complaints about these wafers (and perhaps it is the specialty orders that pose more of a problem.) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu From TParco at ACLARA.com Tue Mar 19 10:56:52 2002 From: TParco at ACLARA.com (Parco, Tony) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:56:52 -0800 Subject: SiliconQuest Message-ID: <29B829A288CB704799AF43246973B543076D15@aclara-nt1.aclara-nt1> Hello Fellow Labmembers, Please direct your questions and purchases to this particular company as an alternative (see attached contact file below) that provide also thick thermal oxide silicon wafers (~4+ ?m)and other silicon wafer products. Thanks, T.Parco Tony Parco Process Development Engineer ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. 1288 Pear Ave. Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 210-1255 dir. (650) 210-1210 fax tparco at aclara.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at snf.stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:43 AM To: labmembers at snf.stanford.edu Cc: souza at snf.stanford.edu Subject: SiliconQuest Hi all -- Tony tells me that the sales rep from Silicon Quest, stopped by this morning to deliver replacement wafers and told him that he had very likely just lost his job over this... Although I quite agree, from the forwarded emails, that he did not offer customer service with a smile, I truly doubt this is the outcome that any of us wanted or expected. (And quite honestly, I'm not sure this reflects well upon Silicon Quest as an organization.) I still think that as a community, labmembers ought to be able to share information, good and bad. In fact, I think we are obligated to share important general information that could affect people's work. And I don't think a more measured approach to the complaints about Silicon Quest would have really changed the outcome. But do think we should recognize that the labmembers at snf list is an extremely powerful tool which should not be used lightly... By the way, SNF has had a long-standing relationship with Silicon Quest which provides bulk orders of test wafers. To Tony's knowledge, there have been no complaints about these wafers (and perhaps it is the specialty orders that pose more of a problem.) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Sit, Frank" Subject: Janel King Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:07:25 -0800 Size: 314 URL: From kjliu at san.rr.com Tue Mar 19 14:57:48 2002 From: kjliu at san.rr.com (Kelvin Liu) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:57:48 -0800 Subject: SVMI In-Reply-To: <29B829A288CB704799AF43246973B543076D15@aclara-nt1.aclara-nt1> Message-ID: We've used them before for some CMP and the results were absolutely horrible. From the beginning we told them that we had wafers with 1 um of oxide for polishing down to a specific thickness and smoothness. Once we got the wafers back, we noticed that on 50% of the wafers there was absolutely no oxide remaining. Turns out they did a long HF clean on our wafers. Needless to say, the results were far from satisfactoy and the situation went by unresolved. Kelvin Liu Staff Engineer Molecular Reflections 6330 Nancy Ridge Drive Suite 107 San Diego, CA 92121 Ph: (858) 623-0123 x107 Fax: (858) 623-0197 kliu at molref.com www.molref.com -----Original Message----- From: Parco, Tony [mailto:TParco at ACLARA.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:57 AM To: 'Mary Tang'; labmembers at snf.stanford.edu Cc: souza at snf.stanford.edu Subject: RE: SiliconQuest Hello Fellow Labmembers, Please direct your questions and purchases to this particular company as an alternative (see attached contact file below) that provide also thick thermal oxide silicon wafers (~4+ ?m)and other silicon wafer products. Thanks, T.Parco Tony Parco Process Development Engineer ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. 1288 Pear Ave. Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 210-1255 dir. (650) 210-1210 fax tparco at aclara.com -----Original Message----- From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at snf.stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:43 AM To: labmembers at snf.stanford.edu Cc: souza at snf.stanford.edu Subject: SiliconQuest Hi all -- Tony tells me that the sales rep from Silicon Quest, stopped by this morning to deliver replacement wafers and told him that he had very likely just lost his job over this... Although I quite agree, from the forwarded emails, that he did not offer customer service with a smile, I truly doubt this is the outcome that any of us wanted or expected. (And quite honestly, I'm not sure this reflects well upon Silicon Quest as an organization.) I still think that as a community, labmembers ought to be able to share information, good and bad. In fact, I think we are obligated to share important general information that could affect people's work. And I don't think a more measured approach to the complaints about Silicon Quest would have really changed the outcome. But do think we should recognize that the labmembers at snf list is an extremely powerful tool which should not be used lightly... By the way, SNF has had a long-standing relationship with Silicon Quest which provides bulk orders of test wafers. To Tony's knowledge, there have been no complaints about these wafers (and perhaps it is the specialty orders that pose more of a problem.) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 19 15:31:25 2002 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (Ted Berg) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:31:25 -0800 Subject: Gas line work Message-ID: <3C97CA4D.49F2553F@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings all, The gas lines for the thermco furnace have been moved and leak tested and turned back on.all systems should be back to status before gas work.Thanks for you patience.ted -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Thu Mar 21 09:52:55 2002 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:52:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: photomasks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can anyone tell me where I can get 1 micron resolution photomasks? Thanks. Charis. From yapeter at stanford.edu Thu Mar 21 10:41:18 2002 From: yapeter at stanford.edu (Yves-Alain Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:41:18 -0800 Subject: photomasks References: Message-ID: <3C9A294E.4B1FDBC6@stanford.edu> Charis Quay Huei Li wrote: > Can anyone tell me where I can get 1 micron resolution photomasks? Thanks. > > Charis. Here are some vendors, Yves-Alain Industrial Grade Masks: Photronics (costs about $1500). See further information on the Photronics (http://www.photronics.com/internet/prodserv/standard/standard.htm) Dupont Photomasks http://www.photomask.com/index.html Compugraphics http://www.cgi.co.uk/welframe1.htm Delta Mask: A cheaper alternative than Photronics masks, Delta Mask is a small company associated with Twente University. They produce masks for MEMS design for about $300 Delta Mask Tankelanden 3 7542 DR Enschede The Netherlands Ordering photo masks at Deltamask (NL) by Harald van Lintel First draw your design and save it as a CIF file. It is recommended to open your CIF file with CleWin, and save it with CleWin in order to be sure of correct interpretation of the files by the pattern generator. For correct interpretation by the operator(!): If you have masks that must be mirrored (see third point below), or more than one mask in one file, it's a good habit to write identifying text (e.g. 'microflow mask 3') on the layout, following the convention that the text must be readable if printed on the wafer. Note also that if you define layer names with numbers that mismatch with the layer numbers (etc. etc.), it's up to you to avoid mistakes. For Deltamask the smaller the area with designs is, the better. Therefore: Please DON'T invert a mask design in order to obtain white patterns, but keep the design as you usually draw it (that is: dark patterns on a bright field) and tell Delta Mask if it is a bright or a dark field mask (dark field mask: outside black, coloured parts transparent, the inverse of bright field). Patterns incl. text should be at least 5 mm from the border of the mask (Minimum line size 1 ?m). You can send the CIF file for processing to: Arie Kooy info at deltamask.nl Specify for each mask: your name, the address in case of more layers, the layer number mask size if the design is as it should come on the wafer (=standard) and not as it should come on the mask (=mirror); or explain very clearly, see above if the mask must be dark field or bright field (if the data inside is Cr or Transparent) if you want some text added to the mask (Date, mask no., layer name, ...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yapeter.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 434 bytes Desc: Card for Yves-Alain Peter URL: From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Thu Mar 21 15:42:03 2002 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:42:03 -0800 Subject: Chemicals Message-ID: <3C9A6FCA.F1E6F22@snf.stanford.edu> Hello-- I am greatly disturbed that with in few weeks, I have came across one bottle of resist being totally different from one the label states, One bottle of Acetone which is different color and the bottle of the LOL2000 has been diluted ( or at least it seems that way to me). The first time with the bottle of resist I thought may be the vendor made the mistake now too many of these incidents, tells me otherwise!! I need to know what is going on? mahnaz From das_john at hotmail.com Fri Mar 22 13:41:38 2002 From: das_john at hotmail.com (John Das) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:41:38 -0800 Subject: Need help with CVD W process Message-ID: Hi Folks, We need to deposit CVD W films on 4" wafers and having hard time locating any vendor capable of handeling 4"wafers. We could use some help with CVD W coating the 4" wafers. Thank you very much. John Das _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From yyao at intpax.com Fri Mar 22 13:45:25 2002 From: yyao at intpax.com (Yahong Yao) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:45:25 -0600 Subject: photomasks References: <3C9A294E.4B1FDBC6@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3C9BA5F5.7BCF9BFE@intpax.com> Hello Charis, I did one in IGI (Infinite Graphics Inc.) a year ago and it was very impressive. Contact info: Gary Stoll gstoll at igi.com Regards, -- Yahong Yao, Ph. D. Intpax, Inc. Charis Quay Huei Li wrote: > Can anyone tell me where I can get 1 micron resolution photomasks? Thanks. > > Charis. From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Mon Mar 25 15:08:30 2002 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:08:30 -0800 Subject: Litho Cassettes Message-ID: <3C9FADEE.73621594@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all, To day all morning I cleaned all the litho cassettes and guess what ? Many of the new teflon cassettes are stained with LOL2000, this is unacceptable. There are two boxes that is labeled THICK RESIST AND LOL2000, you should only use these two cassette and if you see a brand new teflon cassette in these boxes that means it has been misplaced. I am not replacing or adding new cassettes ( out of 6 new, 4 are stained) because it makes no difference. Every one needs to be little bit more sensitive to these issues, these cassettes are expensive and the stain from LOL2000 after bake is very hard to clean. mahnaz From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 11:52:56 2002 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:52:56 -0800 Subject: Lab policy Message-ID: <3CA0D198.FB4DA4A4@snf.stanford.edu> Hello I like to let you all know that EV aligner is down an we are waiting for the vendor to sent an service engineer to look at the system. Apparently last night one user had some difficulty with the system and after the system some how got confused they tried to fix the system and we think they manage to damage the WEC or the sensor on the system. This is twice in one month that users try to fix an equipment that has been jammed or something has gone wrong. The lab policy is that the labmember do not attempt to repair equipment, after talking to the person I think serious damages done to the system trying to retrieve the wafers. In this particular case, the person should have simply left the wafers and report the problem on Coral which by the way was not done at all and Leave a note on the system and we will take care of it in the morning. Please any question on the lab policy see the staff and we will be more than happy to review it with you. mahnaz From graham_milne at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 12:17:46 2002 From: graham_milne at hotmail.com (Graham Milne) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:17:46 +0000 Subject: British student Message-ID: Sorry - this is a bit unorthodox but my name is Graham. I'm from Scotland and I was working in the lab this summer. I met a British girl who was just starting her PhD in the gowning room. If you are she, then I'd appreciate hearing how you're getting on and how you find things compare to home. I'm trying to figure out the grad schools I should apply to. I was impressed with SNF, but I didn't experience the teaching aspects of grad life at Stanford. PhD programs here in the UK are a totally different experience so the decision of where to go is one that has to be made carefully. Anyone with any helpful advice, particularly those who have come from Europe, please feel free to write to me. Thanks, Graham Milne _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From beckwith at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 14:25:55 2002 From: beckwith at snf.stanford.edu (Sharleen Beckwith) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:25:55 -0800 Subject: Lab policy In-Reply-To: <3CA0D198.FB4DA4A4@snf.stanford.edu> References: <3CA0D198.FB4DA4A4@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: >Apparently last night one user had some difficulty with the system and >after the system some how got confused they tried to fix the system and >we think they manage to damage the WEC or the sensor on the system. >This is twice in one month that users try to fix an equipment that has >been jammed or something has gone wrong. > >The lab policy is that the labmember do not attempt to repair >equipment, after talking to the person I think serious damages done to >the system trying to retrieve the wafers. In this particular case, the >person should have simply left the wafers and report the problem on >Coral which by the way was not done at all and Leave a note on the >system and we will take care of it in the morning. How about a new lab policy: Anyone breaking something because they thought they could fix it gets kicked off the user list for one month AFTER the machine is back up and running again. One month seems minimal compared to the number of people who cannot do their work because of the disregard of one person. Send your votes to Mahnaz: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu From beckwith at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 15:48:06 2002 From: beckwith at snf.stanford.edu (Sharleen Beckwith) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:48:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fwd: Lab policy] In-Reply-To: <3CA10494.702C1805@rtc.bosch.com> Message-ID: ...but it has always been lab policy that lab users are NOT to try to repair equipment. And in this case, nothing was reported, he just left the machine broken. Two strikes. From beckwith at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 15:57:34 2002 From: beckwith at snf.stanford.edu (Sharleen Beckwith) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fwd: Lab policy] In-Reply-To: <3CA10494.702C1805@rtc.bosch.com> Message-ID: > FIRST: i think suspension should be at the discretion > of the lab staff, not by policy. This is already the case...doesn't seem to keep people from doing things they shouldn't be doing, given Mahnaz's e-mail. > THIRD: there are super-users on some machines. these users > are trained to fix certain problems. Clearly, this isn't what we are talking about. > FORTH: the offending fix is sometimes obvious even to > non-super-users. depending upon the circumstances it may > (rarely) be appropriate for the user to attempt a self-repair. Try to 'fix" it and take your chances. I think there needs to be consequences for messing up other people's work. Sharleen From flannery at stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 16:06:59 2002 From: flannery at stanford.edu (Anthony Flannery) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:06:59 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Lab policy] References: Message-ID: <3CA10D23.6E89A3FC@stanford.edu> Hi All, I beg to differ with both Sharleen and Mahnaz. There is no lab policy that says no user can try to fix any piece of equipment. If there is, it has NEVER been observed. Some equipment is definitely off limits for all users, but that is a small subset. I personally have been responsible for maintaining, upgrading, and/or repairing the stress guage, STS Dep, Innotec, and Metalica systems. I loaded the turbo pump of the Metalica into the trunk of my junker car to drive it Santa Clara for a rebuild. I did it again for the STS. THere are other users such as Eric Piezziola (sorry for the spelling Eric) who have done a whole lot more. I didn't want to answer this publicly because I hate flame wars, but I after Aaron's e-mail I thought I would. Stanford is first and foremost an academic lab. Graduate students have ALWAYS helped with equipment. In some cases, they are the most knowledgeable person about a piece of equipment affiliated with SNF. SNF has an almost criminally deficient record in maintaining equipment over the last three years. Yes, it was horribly understaffed before and things are much better now. Still, I don't know of any publicly announced change in policy from lab management (the only kind that counts) about how the efforts of those people who didn't get paid (even though that would have been possible) or in some cases even a thank you are no longer required. The only reason I bring this up is that the blanket e-mail sent is both wrong in its characterization of the user/staff relationship at SNF historically, and it is insulting to everyone that has freely given weeks of their time to repair or maintain equipment. I know that there is a big difference between the competance of users. Some are qualified to troubleshoot a problem, others are not and public policies tend to cater to the least common denominator. But before going down that road of making some blanket, draconian statement, take a look at what's really been going on over the last few years. Has more benefit than harm come from it? That's an easy answer. Go ahead and be more specific about what types of things should not be handled by users, but don't pretend were just a bunch of mindless sheep who don't know how to change a fuse in a power supply. Tony Flannery Sharleen Beckwith wrote: > > ...but it has always been lab policy that lab users are NOT to try > to repair equipment. And in this case, nothing was reported, he just > left the machine broken. Two strikes. From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Mar 26 18:56:52 2002 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:56:52 -0800 Subject: The final word on "Lab Policy" (or so I hope) Message-ID: <3CA134F4.38469B08@snf.stanford.edu> Hello Labmembers -- I hope you've enjoyed the recent exchanges about "Lab Policy" as much as I have... On behalf of the SNF staff, I would like to say the following: We, the SNF staff, rely enormously on the good will of certain labmembers who go above and beyond the call of duty to contribute time and their fine skills for the good of the lab community. In fact, the lab could not exist without you. There is indeed, a sentence in the training materials (and, accordingly, on the website) stating that labmembers should not attempt repairs -- However, this should clearly be qualified by the additional statement "except by superusers" or something to that effect. I'm not sure as to go so far as to say this is "Lab Policy" as much as a rule of community. "Lab policies" should be hard, definite rules that deal with fundamentals, like safety and ethics. Rules of community are customary practices which are generally good ideas. In this context, I would say that it is *not* a good idea to attempt a repair unless you have some idea of what you are doing, document what you are doing, and are willing to accept the consequences of your act. The superusers in our lab clearly practice this. Mahnaz' grumpy-gram clearly does not apply to knowledgeable users. The damage to the evbond which precipitated these exchanges was inflicted by a very new labmember, who was certainly not authorized to insert the bond tool from the side, nor use a towel to pry it and the samples out. This labmember, moreover, did not report the problem to anyone and only owned up to it after being confronted. A "rule of community" was violated (attempting a repair). Worse yet, though, was the failure to report this and initial denial (downright unethical.) The outcome has not been resolved, although Sharleen's suggestion has a certain appeal. (If the WEC is damaged, as feared, due to prying the tool out, replacement could run to $10K. In light of this, and the number of hours she and Mike put into trying to determine these problems, it is understandable that a grumpy-gram resulted.) Although not articulated as such, Mahnaz's complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the many people who go out of their way to help make SNF a more efficient, more pleasant place to work. So, along these lines, I'd like to take the opportunity to recognize two people who made a significant contribution this week: two gold stars each to Evelyn Hugger for bringing up the Tystar and Hector Calvalos for upgrading the AFM (thanks!) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at snf.stanford.edu From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Wed Mar 27 14:37:09 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:37:09 -0800 Subject: Do not dump acids or bases, neutralizer problem Message-ID: <3CA24995.23FAD310@snf.stanford.edu> To all fab and CISX lab users: ACID WASTE NEUTRALIZER PROBLEM WEDNESDAY, 3/27/02, 1400 THROUGH THURSDAY, 3/28/02, AFTERNOON (tbd) DO NOT DUMP ANY ACIDS OR BASES INTO WETBENCH DRAINS The neutralizer system lost a stirring motor on the input tank, which severely limits its ability to mix acid and bases for neutralizing. A new motor should be installed by tomorrow afternoon. If we are careful in not dumping any acids or bases into the wetbench drain, we can continue to use the wetbenches?quickdump rinsers and the spin-rinser-dryers and the develop track during this time. Sorry for the inconvenience, Dick Crane From rcrane at snf.stanford.edu Thu Mar 28 14:23:32 2002 From: rcrane at snf.stanford.edu (Dick Crane) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:23:32 -0800 Subject: Acid neutralizer is OK to use Message-ID: <3CA397E3.4AC93A0D@snf.stanford.edu> The acid waste neutralizer system has been repaired and is fully operational. All wet benches can be used per normal operation. Thanks for your patience, Dick Crane From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Thu Mar 28 15:49:12 2002 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:49:12 -0800 Subject: EV Message-ID: <3CA3ABF8.47A66D9B@snf.stanford.edu> hello all, Electronic vision is telling me that they will send some one on Monday 4/1 to look at the system. mahnaz From yjlin at stanford.edu Sat Mar 30 21:50:34 2002 From: yjlin at stanford.edu (Yu-Ju Lin) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:50:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Insulating layer for gold Message-ID: Hi all, I am planning to make Au-insulator-Au structures, and I wonder whether SiN or SiO2 is a good diffusion barrier between two Au layers. My sample has to be baked at 200C for one week(for UHV), and I don't want two Au layers to diffuse into the insulator layer during the baking. If anybody could advise me on the above process, I would really appreciate your help. Yu-ju