PQuest Reservation Restrictions

Jim McVittie mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu
Thu Dec 18 13:17:07 PST 2003


Dan,

Mark is correct in that the tool was obtained by the III-V users for III-V work.
The condition for putting it in the lab was that it be available for industrial
users doing III-V work. So it is an III-V tool and the III-V users have a lot to
say about its use. On the other hand, the tool has always been under used by the
III-V users and has a lot of capabilities that is extremely useful to non-III-V
users, which is not available in other tools in the lab. The III-V users are open
to other uses of the tool as long as what is done does not affect their etch
results. As we all know, the slitting of the week came about because the III-V
users were having problems getting reproducible results. While the slit has worked
well fot the III-V users, it is now that clear that the slit is having a
significant impact on the ability of the non-III-V  users to get timely results.

What can we do to improve the situation without impacting the III-V users in a
negative way? We could put in an effort to come up with better conditioning
process so that we could go back to the old non-slit week. I just do not think
this will work. There is just too many unknowns and there will be new etch
processing coming along which would require redoing the qualification of the
conditioning processes. Now, that we have seen the slit week working for the III-V
users, they are not going to go back to the old way. I agree with you that a big
improvement would be to let the non-III-V period continue past the midnight
deadline and keep going until a III-V user needs the tool. To do this, we need
agreement from the III-V users and we need to work out details on how exactly this
would be done. The additional thing that could be done would be to put more effort
in obtaining a new general purpose Cl2 based etcher. The space and gas lines are
available for this tool but there is no money set aside for it.

    Jim

Dan Grupp wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>    First, it is good to know that your problems with the etcher have gone
> away. Second, I am thankful that you have created such a useful resource.
> This is your gift to the community from which we all benefit.
>    I would like to point out that if the schedule is changed, the usage on
> the machine would stay the same. Since that is  true, it seems
> unreasonable to have a machine which sits largely idle, while people
> struggle to get what they need done in a cramped allotment of time. I
> suggest simply that Wednesday be added to the non-GaAs time.
>    Further, I hope we can find some room for flexibility through
> communication. Is it workable if no GaAs users have signed up on Wed or
> Sat to request from the GaAs users to extend the non-GaAs etch period into
> that time on that day?
>    I would be very disappointed if we, as a small group, cannot manage
> such a small negotiation. My dissappointment would not be so much for the
> loss of the time, but for the implication that if we can't manage it, how
> do we expect the larger world to deal with much more important issues?
> Really, if we can't do something this simple in our own lives, what right
> do we have to ask people in places like the middle east to do it?
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Mark Wistey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Randall True wrote:
> > > From discussions with other non-III-V users, NONE of us are happy with the
> > > situation. In fact, we are very unhappy with it.
> >
> > The III-V people pooled their money and bought a nice dry etcher, and
> > they're letting you have 43% of the time on the machine.  If the
> > existing situation is so untenable, and if there are as many people as
> > unhappy as you say, it should be easy for you to pool all your money
> > and come up with your own machine.
> >
> > On the other hand, the mysterious problems the "high-aluminum AlGaAs"
> > users were having were mysteriously solved when the week was split.
> > This was about the simplest, most effective way of resolving user
> > conflict that I've seen.  Your complaints are that you have to work
> > on Sunday.  My complaints were that I lost irreplaceable samples, for
> > reasons that nobody could explain, on a machine that my group
> > significantly paid for.  Enough said?
> >
> >  - Mark
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar
> Center for Integrated Systems
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305
> (650) 724-6911
> FAX:  723-4659
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mcvittie.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 422 bytes
Desc: Card for Jim McVittie
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/pquest/attachments/20031218/12f28eee/attachment.vcf>


More information about the pquest mailing list