[lampoly] Lampoly Update
elmere at stanford.edu
Thu May 9 08:18:51 PDT 2013
I agree with your comments for the most part but with a couple of
clarification. Regarding the holiday shutdowns. In general, we do not
power down equipment unless there are planned power interruptions in the
lab. Usually, parts of tools are turned off such as heaters but
computers and electronics are left on. The lampoly started up fine
after the shutdown. The root cause of our current problem was a
defective cooling which cooled the electronics rack. As far the Plasma
Therm etchers, I believe that they are in general a well designed
tool. The rash of handling problems we have had recently has, for the
most part, been caused by users. Resist left around edge of the wafers,
wafers too thin and wafer improperly placed on the loader has caused
most of handling issues. I think this is just part of the learning
curve and that proper procedures and policies regarding resist and wafer
thickness should address.
On 5/9/2013 12:40 AM, Pradeep Nataraj wrote:
> Lam poly was one of the really good etchers we had in terms of
> selective etching.
> It all started during holidays shut down. To my common sense we should
> never shutoff old tools like Lam poly during the X-mas break. I am not
> sure why did we completely shutoff the tool. Could we have just
> shutoff all the gasses and let hardware and the computer
> controller running? ( I am not sure that I may not know about the
> Also for coming holiday shutdown, can we try not shutdown hardware
> controllers on older tools? If I remember correctly STS PECVD had the
> same problem.
> I don't know about other users opinion, I have no confidence in Plasma
> Therm etchers. The tool is very sensitive, any time I load a wafer I
> have to pray that my wafer will come back!Plasma Therm is no match for
> Lam Poly in terms of wafer recovery reliability. If we have to spend
> reasonable amount of money to upgrade the hardware/software interface
> we should do it.
> I am for one who knows how hard you trying to bring the tool up and I
> know for sure it is your most beloved tool.
> Whenever in future when SNF decides to buy new tools, can SNF staff
> please include super users or lab addicts in the loop for our inputs?
> Any good or bad feedback can't hurt.
> We all want our lab to succeed and stay on top.
> Bringing any new tools must be accurately thought out of its purpose
> and it's usage that will help users.
> I am willing to help out any ways even going to Berkeley, if it helps us.
> Thank you for listening.
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Mary Tang <mtang at stanford.edu
> <mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>> wrote:
> Dear lampoly users --
> Today marks exactly 3 months since lampoly went down, hard. I
> know an update is long overdue and am sorry to say I've no news to
> report. Although this machine is not very well utilized, it has
> certain special capabilities. I expect many people have found
> alternatives acceptable for less critical processes (amtetcher,
> p5000etch ChC) but that those who need precision etch control this
> system can achieve are at a loss.
> SNF staff are investigating several possible solutions, both near
> and long term.
> In the near term, the UC Berkeley Marvel lab has a nearly
> identical system with the same base processes. If you would like
> to explore this alternative, please get in touch with me, as we
> are setting up a process for moving material and/or people between
> our two labs. I'd also like to take the liberty of offering up the
> process expertise of J Provine, who is familiar with and has used
> the Berkeley system and Ed, who is in the process of mapping
> Berkeley and SNF processes. Ed and Brett have also begun working
> with Kim to see if one of the new PlasmaTherm etchers can meet her
> process needs - it's not likely to be a one-to-one match, but may
> offer the vertical wall profiles and clean etch she requires. If
> anyone is interested in helping, I am sure it would appreciated.
> Longer term, we will need to come up with a solution that gives us
> a system that is supportable -- in recent years, downtime has
> become increasingly high for the low use this system sees. Lam
> does not service this legacy system and quality third-party
> service has been difficult to find. The solution may be to
> upgrade our system to current standard or perhaps replace it
> altogether. Ed & Brett are looking into upgrade options now. We
> expect to decide in coming weeks, but execution may still be
> months. Meanwhile, the maintenance team continues to track down
> replacement parts and boards.
> Lastly, Kim suggests that the Lam user community work together to
> share information and resources. I believe membership of this
> mail list (lampoly at snf.stanford.edu
> <mailto:lampoly at snf.stanford.edu>) is comprised of everyone with a
> badger account who is qualified on lampoly as of mid-February.
> Please feel free to forward to anyone you know who might not be on
> the list, either because they haven't been qualified on the lam
> but would like to be (like Kim) or haven't made the leap to Badger
> yet. (Anyone can subscribe at:
> Thanks for your attention -- and patience --
> Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
> Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> Paul G. Allen Room 136, Mail Code 4070
> Stanford, CA 94305
> (650)723-9980 <tel:%28650%29723-9980>
> mtang at stanford.edu <mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>
> lampoly mailing list
> lampoly at snf.stanford.edu <mailto:lampoly at snf.stanford.edu>
> lampoly mailing list
> lampoly at snf.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lampoly