From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 6 09:46:01 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:46:01 -0800 Subject: RAITH STATUS -- January System Start up in progress. Message-ID: <3FFAF459.7000803@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings RAITH Users, Welcome back and Happy New Year! System Start up status as of 9:30 AM Tuesday January 6, 2004: RAITH COMPUTER BACK UP: On the shut down December 19, 2003 I managed to hose the RAITH PC's Windows 2000 Professional Operating System during the power down of the system. I didn't realize that the PC was connected to the RAITH power bus and inadvertently powered down the system while SYS. Admin. routines were running. (Defrag.exe) I had to get help and reload the OS -- copying over files that had been corrupted. We now have the Raith PC back up and running with no loss of data or capability. Thank yous go out to Hendrik Bluhm for offering assistance and expertise in Windows Y2K Pro which go us back up quickly. LEO Column GUN section will likely need a Bake Out: We have not achieved suitable vacuum in the Gun area to restart the Field Emission Gun after 24 hours of pumping and likely will have to perform a bake out of the system. LEO Field Service is here today and we will evaluate this item together and take appropriate means to completely resolve this concern before opening the system for lab members usage. We will run a re-qualification EBL write run for min. line width and stitching to get current data and verify system performance is within specifications before allowing the first users onto the system. The RAITH computer itself and the design utilities are available to users at this time should you wish to take advantage of this capability. I am currently hoping to have the system available to users sometime Thursday afternoon. Please plan your CORAL reservations accordingly. Thank you for your support! James Conway SNF From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 6 18:11:21 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:11:21 -0800 Subject: REMINDER: EIPBN 2004 FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS -- Deadline Jan. 7, 2003. Message-ID: <3FFB6AC9.60606@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings SNF Ebeam Tool Users: RE: EIPBN 2004 FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS 'Three Beams' as it is informally called is one of the premier conferences in the United States for Electron, Ion, and Photon Beam and Nanofabrication Technologies. More recently it has also show marked increase in reports on Nano-imprint Lithography and other novel fabrication methods that soon may become critical enabling technologies in the future. It is widely attended by industrial and academic researchers and students in the USA, and also well attended by members from Europe and Asia. I have found this not only greatly stimulating in the quality and breath of the topics presented -- but also most effective in networking with people working in this technical arena. You are encouraged to get you act together and submit and abstract and or poster for EIPBN 2004. In the last year we have achieved some wonderful results on the two EBL systems we have here at SNF, most of this work has been of great quality but thus far largely unreported . Nothing would me feel better than to see students I have worked with here at SNF presenting their results at Three Beams. So get on it! Send in your abstract or poster submission today. (They are also pretty easy about accepting late submissions... ;-) Welcome back to SU and have a Happy New Year! James Conway Ebeam Technology Group SNF ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EIPBN 2004 FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS This is the Final Call for Papers for the 48th International Conference on Electron, Ion, Photon Beam Technology and Nanofabrication. Please see the attached brochure or our web site (www.eipbn.org ) for complete information on abstract submission. ************************************************* Abstract Submission Deadline is January 7, 2004 ************************************************* The EIPBN Conference will be held at the Marriott Hotel & Marina in San Diego, CA from June 1 - 4, 2004. The conference brings together engineers and scientists from industry, universities, and government from all over the world to discuss recent progress and future trends of lithography. We have already enlisted several invited and plenary speakers for this meeting, covering lithographic science and process technology and its application to micro and nanofabrication techniques. For example, the Plenary Session is featuring the following speakers and topics: M. Rothschild (MIT Lincoln Laboratory) Optical Immersion Lithography K. Cummings (ASML) Optical Maskless Lithography E.L. Hu (CNSI, UC-Santa Barbara) The 'New Nanotechnology': New Approaches and Critical Challenges A. Belcher (MIT) Using Nature Tools to Grow Nanostructural Materials H. Smith & R.F.W. Pease (MIT & Stanford) EIPBN 48 Years On and Still Beaming Please see the web site or the attached announcement for further information on the technical program, conference committees, meeting registration, and accommodations. We look forward to seeing you in San Diego! W. Dan Meisburger, Conference Chair 2004 WD Meisburger Consulting 1507 Montalban Drive San Jose, CA 95120 USA Phone: 408-396-3862 Fax: 408-997-1366 E-mail: d.meisburger at att.net Roxann L. Engelstad, Program Chair 2004 University of Wisconsin 1513 University Ave. Madison, WI 53706 USA Phone: 608-262-5745 Fax: 608-265-0781 E-mail: engelsta at engr.wisc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14651 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Last_Call_EIPBN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 113444 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jan 7 17:27:15 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:27:15 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Comment raith 2004-01-07 10:46:51: WED corl reservations have been deleted] Message-ID: <3FFCB1F3.9030605@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jan 7 17:38:36 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:38:36 -0800 Subject: RAITH 150 Start up status update 1730 hrs. WED. 1-7-2003 Message-ID: <3FFCB49C.6010508@snf.stanford.edu> Hello Folks, Startup Status: We are still working to bring the system back up after shut down. We have encountered several minor problems, which have now been resolved, but my original time estimate has slipped back by at least another day. We are hoping now to allow access to the system Friday with some opportunities to help us test Thursday afternoon and overnight. Full update tomorrow at Noon. RAITH: Today I have completed the X-Y stage calibrations and the stage is working superbly. The stage leveling control section is next... LEO and FE-Gun: This afternoon we had 'first light' on the FE-Gun and it will require overnight to stabilize. Thursday AM we plan to realign the column and adjust and calibrate the three magnification amplifiers and perform the centering calibrations for the aperture align and stigmation amplifiers to the deflection plate section. Once we have completed these task if the beam current and imaging resolution is acceptable we will start with qualification of the system for line width, resolution, and stitching. Note that SEM measurements made at the last day of the year DID NOT display suitable imaging resolution and we are evaluating the FE-tip condition with respect to the beam diameter. (read: Beam spot size) Both system's data and image files were back up today and new emergency recovery disk were generated. What does this mean for You? Please don't expect access to the system until we are up and have established new baselines for the system. I am hoping we can have this finished by late Friday. There possibly may be access for people willing to help test the system on Thursday afternoon and overnight for RAITH Champions and experienced users whom are reserved on the CORAL schedule. Please see me directly if you have questions. Thank you for your support! James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 8 11:32:38 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:32:38 -0800 Subject: Raith is up and in green light status. Message-ID: <3FFDB056.8080305@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings, Calibrations have been finished and alignments and system test completed. Please report any errors and troubles you may encounter. I will continue qualifications testing for line width and stitching later this week and Monday. Thank you for your support! James Conway From scaccag at stanford.edu Fri Jan 9 21:06:05 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:06:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: res removed sunday night Message-ID: sorry, will not be able to prepare the sample in time... From hendrikb at stanford.edu Fri Jan 9 22:28:43 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:28:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Done early Message-ID: Should be done in an hour at the latest. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Sat Jan 10 15:20:16 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:20:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: loadlock error 4 Message-ID: and cannot be cleared. cqhl. From jhemanth at stanford.edu Sat Jan 10 16:51:13 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:51:13 -0800 Subject: Raith not in use Message-ID: <000001c3d7dd$038cf6e0$6601a8c0@JAGANNATHANPC> I came in after the previous user and found a problem reported on CORAL. I gave James a call to report the problem and left him a message and as a result, I am not using my reservation today. Hemanth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jan 12 10:58:57 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:58:57 -0800 Subject: RAITH is coming back up... Message-ID: <4002EE71.9080006@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jan 12 12:26:54 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:26:54 -0800 Subject: RAITH is back UP! Message-ID: <4003030E.80806@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings Raith Users: The Raith is back up after recovering from the evil Load Lock Fatal Error No. 4 which occurred over the weekend. I had to calibrated the stage and established new settings for the exchange position and loader arm limits and updated the RAITH150.VBD. ALL USERS PLEASE NOTE: Please NEVER abort or ctrl-alt-del the RAITH computer when running the exchange navigator scripts! ALWAYS allow all MACROS and Navigator scripts to complete before resuming operations or entering the next position to move to or a command line action. All standard user specific positions are intact. Stage calibrations were performed again to verify stage functions. A-OK. Piezos were set to center point of each piezo. A-OK. Gun and aperture alignment settings for the 5.00 mm (4.99) Working Distance (WD) have been saved to state files in the MIC.INI file on the RAITH. You can now be comfortable in accepting these settings when prompted for the 10 kV, 30 um aperture settings. I will update for the 10 and 20 um apertures and for 20 and 30 kV, the next time I work at these settings in the future. I have finished my check out and Users are good to go. Cummings is next -- come on down. Please report all problems to CORAL and note in the Notebook NO. 2. I will check back after lunch. Be careful! Thank you, James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Tue Jan 13 21:39:23 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:39:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith: swap time? Message-ID: would anyone like to write earlier in the week? I have 4 hours on Wed at 10:30 which i would give up for later time in the week. thanks, dan ps - if you are answering this on Tu eve, please just call me on my cell until midnight at 650-704-9551 (off email for rest of evening). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sluesch at stanford.edu Wed Jan 14 20:38:29 2004 From: sluesch at stanford.edu (Silvia Luescher) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:38:29 -0800 Subject: reservation Friday 5am-8am removed Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040114203809.024c6180@sluesch.pobox.stanford.edu> From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Thu Jan 15 10:19:36 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:19:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trying to reserve thursday...please help Message-ID: Guys, I have planned my week and really need to run next thursday. I don't want to play the half-hour-grabbing game on this one. I respectfully request that you refrain from signing up for next thurdayfrom 9-1. I hope the user community can support this request and others like it in the future to manage the overload with better communication. THanks, Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 15 12:21:40 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:21:40 -0800 Subject: READ ME: Trying to reserve thursday..-- RESERVATION LIMITS POLICY RESTATED. References: Message-ID: <4006F653.96BB5EC6@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings, I understand how difficult it has become to make reservations on the CORAL system. Even I cannot get the time I need on the system to just perform normal maintenance and performance testing that I must complete. RE: Coral Reservations are booked solid for the week... We all knew that this may happen once we had more than 30 users on the system. The goal for 2003 was only 30 users! We now have some 60 odd users on the system and by the end of February likely will reach ~65 - 70 users. Surely this will require us to modify the reservation limits and policies we hold so dear and strive to stay within the limits. The nearly 100% utilization on this system, and the number of users whom would desire to come onto the system, points to a need to consider purchasing a second RAITH system in the distant future. It is requested that all users please reserve only the actual time they need for the runs they need to finish AND stay within reservation limits. Reservation Policy as of today January 15, 2003: 18 hours total time on the CORAL schedule not to exceed 12 hours between 6 AM and 6 PM in any 7 day rolling period. If you cannot honor your reservation -- at your earliest awareness or opportunity -- you are to cancel your reservation and post to the raith at snf.stanford.edu the opening. That opening goes to the next person in the STANDBY cue if one is running, or to the next user reserved on CORAL if able to move into that time slot, or the next person to reply that they wish to utilize that opening in this order of hierarchy. To get on Standby List all you need to do is place your name and phone no. on the RAITH Standby List on my white board in my office. Reservations need to be honored and generally should not be handed off informally to others in your group or group of friends. It is of primary importance to be above board and in plain view for EVERYONE on the system to ensure equal opportunity and access for all users. Lets try this for the reminder of the month and evaluate if this situation will improve. We will be holding an EBEAM TOWN MEETING in early February and where can all get together in a parley and discuss this and other issues of interest to the Ebeam community in a open comfortable forum. I am eagerly interested in learning of your suggestions for modification of reservation and utilization limits policies, how we can streamline operations coordinating users' flow through the system. I will post an announcement for the next Ebeam Town Meeting this week. Thank you for your support! James Conway Ebeam Technology Group Stanford Nanofabrication Facility 650-725-7075 Dan Grupp wrote: > Guys, > I have planned my week and really need to run next thursday. I don't > want to play the half-hour-grabbing game on this one. I respectfully > request that you refrain from signing up for next thurdayfrom 9-1. I hope > the user community can support this request and others like it in the > future to manage the overload with better communication. > THanks, > Dan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar > Center for Integrated Systems > Stanford University > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650) 724-6911 > FAX: 723-4659 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 15 16:52:43 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:52:43 -0800 Subject: READ ME: Trying to reserve thursday..-- RESERVATION LIMITSPOLICY RESTATED. References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040115124101.00b640e0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <400735DB.A78C8754@snf.stanford.edu> Mark, Thank you for your support! >> Also, I wanted to let you know that Dan Grupp is going to use my time today. What is the proper way to handle switches like this? I think the best way to accomplish this is together both log in to CORAL separately deleted your reservation and have him place his in the same time slot you opened, and also post to the raith at snf.stanford.edu list informing people that you have exchanged your reservations. This would not be considered a cancellation. I am interested in learning of peoples opinions and solutions on how we all can: * Streamline RAITH operations, particularly by reducing load/unload sequences by having several users load together and hand off the system smoothly. Load/unload eats up about 30 - 40 minutes, I think this would be one way to squeeze more write time out of the system. * Determine if a better policy towards reservations and constraints to reservations could be developed. I.e., ..should we reduce reservation limits or utilization limits, or possibly consider group usage limits, or simply adopt a first in- first out cue and not allow multiple reservations/person to occur. This would open the schedule and should allow everyone access but I would expect with a longer time scale to get on the system. o Should we migrate some users back to the Hitachi, or to outside resources for EBL, when the system can perform the task. (We were getting features to 50 nm on thin PMMA in december on this system.) This should open some interesting discussions on the raith at snf.stanford.edu!!! Thank you, James Conway Mark Topinka wrote: > Hi James- > I liked your email and agree 100%. Charis mentioned that there had > been some concern about people in the DGG group handing time off to each > other. I will talk to people- I agree that this practice wouldn't really > be fair or "above to board." It doesn't really happen very much, I have to > say, but I can understand that some people might have the perception that > it is happening more than it actually is. > Also, I wanted to let you know that Dan Grupp is going to use my time > today. What is the proper way to handle switches like this? -Mark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 16 16:28:33 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:28:33 -0800 Subject: queue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <400881B1.9060706@snf.stanford.edu> Here is the RAITH Standby cue for the weekend: 1 1-14-04 Scott Andrews 2 1-15-04 Hatice Altug Needs 2.5 to 3 hours 3 1-16-04 Charis Quay Charis Quay Huei Li wrote: >could i be next in the raith queue? thanks. > >charis. > > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 16 18:15:55 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:15:55 -0800 Subject: Chip 2 write in progress...May run a bit later than expected... Message-ID: <40089ADB.8040407@snf.stanford.edu> Mark, I was able to start chip 2 of my run. The run started at 17:58 and will finish exactly 20:28 hours. Please let it run as long as you can so I can free up a session next Wed. for other work. It is a 4 X 3 array of patterns. Positions 1 - 5 ~33 minutes per device (EPC) Positions 6 - 13 8 - 10 minutes per device (NO EPC) Position 14 ~3 - 5 minutes. It would be wonderful if we can not abort before the end of position 5, better if we can let it run until after position 9. 10 - 13 are a repeat of 6 - 9 so less critical. Feel free to abort when you need to... saving the position list of course so I can start again later if necessary. They are 150 um thick quartz so please handle careful and place front side up onto the Silicon wafer in the carrier on the load area and place into my dry box for me. Thanks. System is running well I had no problems with memory or displays at all ... Thank you for your help! James Conway I can be reached on my cell through about 10 PM and back on air about 12. Never sleep... ;-) Back Tuesday . From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Sat Jan 17 10:21:43 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:21:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: raith free 11am-4pm Message-ID: card would not let me into ginzton submicron room to spin and supplies inside. charis. From dfattal at stanford.edu Sat Jan 17 10:48:52 2004 From: dfattal at stanford.edu (David Albert Fattal) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:48:52 -0800 Subject: took Charis' spot saturday afternoon, sunday morning free Message-ID: <1074365332.400983948f15d@webmail.stanford.edu> I took Charis' spot today 1:00 - 4:00 pm, and thus cancelled my reservation for sunday morning (7:00 - 9:30). I hope somebody will use this time. David From hendrikb at stanford.edu Mon Jan 19 07:05:10 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:05:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith possibly available tomorrow morning Message-ID: Depending on how things turn out, I may be able to give up my Raith slot starting tomorrow 5 am. Let me know if you are interested. I will know more this afternoon. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 ajavey at stanford.edu Mon Jan 19 14:48:38 2004 From: ajavey at stanford.edu (Ali Javey) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:48:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith possibly available tomorrow morning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Hendrik, I'll be very interested in that time. Thanks, Ali On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > Depending on how things turn out, I may be able to give up my Raith slot > starting tomorrow 5 am. Let me know if you are interested. I will know > more this afternoon. > > Hendrik > > > --------------------------------------------------- > 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 hendrikb at stanford.edu Mon Jan 19 15:29:14 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:29:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith possibly available tomorrow morning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am afraid my etch test did not work out as well as I hoped, so I would like to produce another data point tomorrow. It will be a short write though, so I will probably be done after 2-2 1/2 hours. Silvia was the first to respond though, in case several people are still interested. Hendrik On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Ali Javey wrote: > Hey Hendrik, > > I'll be very interested in that time. > > Thanks, > Ali > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > > > Depending on how things turn out, I may be able to give up my Raith slot > > starting tomorrow 5 am. Let me know if you are interested. I will know > > more this afternoon. > > > > Hendrik > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- 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 grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Mon Jan 19 18:15:25 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:15:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith possibly available tomorrow morning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: if it is available, and no one on the waiting list wants it, i will take it. Hendrik, can you please call me (650-704-9551) as i may be offline. Thanks, -DAn On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > Depending on how things turn out, I may be able to give up my Raith slot > starting tomorrow 5 am. Let me know if you are interested. I will know > more this afternoon. > > Hendrik > > > --------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandrew at stanford.edu Tue Jan 20 17:29:57 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:29:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith free early Message-ID: It looks like I won't be able to finish the second part of the write that I had intended for today. Thus, I will finish early after the first section of my write, which will be done in just a few minutes. Sorry that I couldn't give more advanced notice. I didn't know exactly how long focusing and alignment would take. This portion of the write only takes 10 minutes. Raith will be unloaded at 5:45. -Scott From dfattal at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 00:21:30 2004 From: dfattal at stanford.edu (David Albert Fattal) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:21:30 -0800 Subject: reservation next wednesday Message-ID: <1074759690.400f880acae65@webmail.stanford.edu> Dear users, after six unsuccesful hours of trying to get a spot for next wednesday, I now kindly ask you to leave me some time starting wednesday night, 11:30 pm. I reserved the first 30min slot, but must get some sleep now. Would you all be so kind as to leave me say a two hour spot that night ? thank you, David From cumings at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 11:17:31 2004 From: cumings at stanford.edu (John Cumings) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:17:31 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? Message-ID: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Raith users, We're all having trouble getting time on the Raith, and James is currently exploring a number of possible modifications/solutions to make all our lives easier. I would like to see people post ideas to this list, to help start a discussion before the upcoming "Raith town meeting". Along these lines: Dan Grupp recently suggested an idea for scheduling Raith time that I rather liked. I've expanded it, and I want to pass it on to see how people feel. Basically, the idea is that when the schedule is full (like it is now, and possibly may continue to be), that James schedules time for us, taking into account our needs and wishes (expressed in general terms). I think this could help centralize communications and keep up an efficient use of time on the machine. This would also help prevent the <2 hr dead times that we occasionally see on the machine. An official policy on this could read: "During times when the schedule is full, submit requests for time to James 7-10 days in advance, and James will schedule and shuffle around requests at (say) 6-7PM every weekday. James reserves the right to move or cancel any session scheduled this way, until it is within the 7 day time limit. You won't get an email confirmation; it's your responsibility to make sure you show up for your sessions. The usual time limits (12 hours prime time, 18 hours total) apply even to time reserved this way." The way that Coral works now, James would have to put these reservations under his name, and double-clicking on the session would reveal who it is actually for. James would be the only one who could cancel these sessions. James is looking into the possibility of putting these reservations under other users' names, but if this is not possible, then cancellation of these sessions would be somewhat problematic. If Coral can't be changed, then the official policy could be amended to read: "Only James can cancel these sessions (just a fact of how Coral works), and cancellation of these sessions *must* be at least 24hr notice (by Friday 5PM for all Sunday and Monday sessions). " The main drawback of this is that it gives James more work and more pressure. Let me stress - this is just an *idea*. I'm not sure I even like the idea or that it will work out well in the long run, but I'd like to start the discussion. What do people think? -John ------------------------------------------------------------ John Cumings cumings at stanford.edu Postdoctoral Scholar Physics Department Stanford University office (650) 725-1025 lab (650) 725-2047 fax (650) 724-3681 Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials 239 McCullough Building 476 Lomita Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4045 ------------------------------------------------------------ From hendrikb at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 12:03:23 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:03:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Hi, I like the idea of having a request based time allocation system which takes into account how much time people had on the machine recently, but implementing this via a human agent who sits in front of coral seems inefficient, unflexible and probably also unreliable. However, it should be possible to automate this by hosting a web interface on the snf homepage. The procedure could roughly look like this: people request time some 10 days in advance, specifying preferred/impossible time of the day/week, minimum length etc. 8 days ahead, those requests are assigned a priority based on recent machine use (to be obtained from the coral database, reflecting actual use) and granted according to the priority score. People could then have 2 days to transfer the allocated slots onto coral, which would require that everyone agrees not to make reservations during this time. Less than 5 days in advance, any free spot on coral would be available. Of course, the whole system can be refined and supplemented by additional rules regarding cancellation etc, e.g. canceling less than 24 hrs in advance counts as actual beam time when calculating priorities. Implementing this would of course require some cooperation with the SNF admins, but should not be to hard. I would be willing to work on the scheduling algorithm, but would greatly appreciate an help regarding how to set up a web interface. The same system could in principle be used for other equipment (innotec, stsetch?, etc.), and if it turns out to be very useful, it could be incorporated directly in coral one day. (Not by us, though) Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 shott at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 14:08:32 2004 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:08:32 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> References: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <401049E0.10207@snf.stanford.edu> John, Hendrik, and all Raith Users: I certainly welcome discussions related to improved ways of reserving the Raith. As I'm sure many of you are painfully aware, there are a handful of tools in the lab for which reservation "allocation" becomes a problem. My own preference would be to try to avoid solutions that avoid staff time to administer and I would hope that we could come up with a set of reservation rules that could be enforced or checked in an automated way. I want to make you aware that Bill Murray is currently working on putting the infrastructure in place that will allow us to specify and check equipment-specific reservation rules. While it will likely take several months before something is ready for production, I can also tell you that this capability has been on our wish list for some time and has finally gotten to the top of the list. I would encourage you to continue to think of rules or collections of rules that you think might offer the means of allowing fair allocation of scarce equipment time. I expect that we will be able to accommodate AND/OR combinations of different rules. In many respects easily expressed rules may offer a good place to start ... easily expressed probably translates into easily understood and easily implemented. Examples of easily expressed rules might include: 1. A limit of X total hours of reservation time during the coming week. 2. Maximum individual reservation duration of 4 hours during "prime time" and 8 hours during other times. (For some definition of prime time such as M-F, 9am-6pm). 3. Cancellation of a reservation less than X hours in advance penalizes the ability to make reservations for a time into the future. Some of the things that may be harder to do would include some sort of waitng list or priority-based allocation ... at the moment we have no support for "bidding" for reservations or a waiting list. While that could be added, if need by, my guess is that we can improve many things, from a reservation standpoint, by being able to define and enforce collections of simpler rules. In any event, I wanted you all to know that support for improved means of allocating reservations is important to Team Coral and we are beginning to work on tools that will, we believe, have a positive impact on many if not all of the heavily used tools such as the Raith, STS etcher, LPCVD nitride, etc. Thanks, John From mtopinka at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 14:21:22 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:21:22 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: References: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122140721.00b65fe0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi all- Thanks to John, Hendrik, James, and John for the ideas so far on this issue. It is indeed next to impossible to sanely schedule time on the Raith these days. I have a proposal which I believe is simple to put into place, takes nobody any extra time, and could be started immediately... How about if the rule becomes no more than 10 hours of signup per person for the next 7-day (rolling) period. As soon as you start one block of time, that time comes off your total and you can sign up for more time. This would be a self-policiing rule, but if one notices anybody violating it, one could contact James and James could remove the offending reservations (I would propose not All of that persons reservations be removed, just the most distant offending ones). I took a quick look at the upcoming week, and this policy would free up about 35 hours of time in the next week. It might slightly slow down super-hard-core users, but it would allow less intensive users the occasional use they need. Just a proposal... There is no perfect solution (short of maybe buying five more Raiths), but this might be a decent compromise for the time being... What think y'all? -Mark At 12:03 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: >Hi, > >I like the idea of having a request based time allocation system which >takes into account how much time people had on the machine recently, >but implementing this via a human agent who sits in front of coral seems >inefficient, unflexible and probably also unreliable. However, it >should be possible to automate this by hosting a web interface on the >snf homepage. > >The procedure could roughly look like this: > >people request time some 10 days in advance, specifying >preferred/impossible time of the day/week, minimum length etc. > >8 days ahead, those requests are assigned a priority based on >recent machine use (to be obtained from the coral database, reflecting >actual use) and granted according to the priority score. >People could then have 2 days to transfer the allocated slots onto coral, >which would require that everyone agrees not to make reservations >during this time. >Less than 5 days in advance, any free spot on coral would be available. >Of course, the whole system can be refined and supplemented by additional >rules regarding cancellation etc, e.g. canceling less than 24 hrs >in advance counts as actual beam time when calculating priorities. > >Implementing this would of course require some cooperation with the >SNF admins, but should not be to hard. I would be willing to work on the >scheduling algorithm, but would greatly appreciate an help regarding how >to set up a web interface. > >The same system could in principle be used for other equipment >(innotec, stsetch?, etc.), and if it turns out to be very useful, it could >be incorporated directly in coral one day. (Not by us, though) > >Hendrik > > >--------------------------------------------------- >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 sandrew at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 15:22:56 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:22:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122140721.00b65fe0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. -Scott From altug at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 16:27:12 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:27:12 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? References: Message-ID: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> Hi everybody, I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and very big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my case for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers day (or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours writing as an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots which is getting extremely difficults this quarter. Can we also make some regulations for users like me? My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent e-mail to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut his time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again saying how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the inbox, but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for half an hour fight. hatice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" To: "Mark Topinka" Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling > period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself > sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > > -Scott > From hendrikb at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 18:00:33 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:00:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> Message-ID: Hi, I think Mark's suggestion would be worth trying. Ideally, this would constantly leave a number of open slots which none of the current users is allowed to take. Thus less frequent users can always get on, and so can anyone after waiting for a while. If you are hiting the 10 hr limit, you and only you will be able to get more time once you finish a write, so that there is no need for "reaction time testing" when making a reservation. The whole scheme of course relies on there being less than 24 * 7/10 = 16.8 users (or some people not using all 10 hrs). I am not sure we will meet this criterium very well. I think routinely working with email would be a less, but it should always be possible to organise longer sessions by email if needed in particular cases. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 lsmoore at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 18:22:55 2004 From: lsmoore at stanford.edu (Lindsay Moore) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:22:55 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <401049E0.10207@snf.stanford.edu> References: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <5.1.1.5.2.20040122180722.04366050@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> I agree that it would be very useful to have a much shorter max time per week for each user such as 8 or 10hrs. Clearly, as with other equipment at SNF (i am thinking specifically of the KarlSuss mask aligner) there can be exceptions in special cases. It is my impression that many people use the Raith gratuitously, doing very long and involved exposure matrices or not getting help from more experienced users, leading to a guess-and-check writing scheme in which many writes are done when one could have been done if more experienced users had helped out. I think that a more restrictive time limit would result in people using the Hitachi more often (when it is working and if their write allows), people loading their samples in groups (thereby saving 1/2 hr) and considering more carefully how long they really need for their write. Yup. Lindsay At 02:08 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, John Shott wrote: >John, Hendrik, and all Raith Users: > >I certainly welcome discussions related to improved ways of reserving the >Raith. As I'm sure many of you are painfully aware, there are a handful >of tools in the lab for which reservation "allocation" becomes a problem. > >My own preference would be to try to avoid solutions that avoid staff time >to administer and I would hope that we could come up with a set of >reservation rules that could be enforced or checked in an automated way. > >I want to make you aware that Bill Murray is currently working on putting >the infrastructure in place that will allow us to specify and check >equipment-specific reservation rules. While it will likely take several >months before something is ready for production, I can also tell you that >this capability has been on our wish list for some time and has finally >gotten to the top of the list. > >I would encourage you to continue to think of rules or collections of >rules that you think might offer the means of allowing fair allocation of >scarce equipment time. I expect that we will be able to accommodate >AND/OR combinations of different rules. In many respects easily expressed >rules may offer a good place to start ... easily expressed probably >translates into easily understood and easily implemented. Examples of >easily expressed rules might include: > >1. A limit of X total hours of reservation time during the coming week. >2. Maximum individual reservation duration of 4 hours during "prime time" >and 8 hours during other times. (For some definition of prime time such as >M-F, 9am-6pm). >3. Cancellation of a reservation less than X hours in advance penalizes >the ability to make reservations for a time into the future. > >Some of the things that may be harder to do would include some sort of >waitng list or priority-based allocation ... at the moment we have no >support for "bidding" for reservations or a waiting list. While that >could be added, if need by, my guess is that we can improve many things, >from a reservation standpoint, by being able to define and enforce >collections of simpler rules. > >In any event, I wanted you all to know that support for improved means of >allocating reservations is important to Team Coral and we are beginning to >work on tools that will, we believe, have a positive impact on many if not >all of the heavily used tools such as the Raith, STS etcher, LPCVD >nitride, etc. > >Thanks, > >John > > From scaccag at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 19:52:07 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:52:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> Message-ID: HI all, I also agree that the quick and dirty way to have more users access the system is to reduce the max hours/week, however I share the same problem as Hatice: I do one single long write (usually overnight) every 2-3 weeks. So, apart putting a limit on the max time, definitely we need to find a way to book a full 10 hrs slot without fighting evry half hour. Email may not be the best way but it should work fine if everybody check his email before reserving any time slot. Another idea would be simply to extend the reservation time on coral to 2 weeks (as it's done for the FIB in McCull), of course putting a max hrs/ 2 weeks as time limit. This should be a quick modification to implement in Coral(at least, I guess... John?). That's also not the best solution, and would probably increase the waiting time, but would allow more planning... Gigi On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Hatice Altug wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and very > big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my case > for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers day > (or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours writing as > an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots which > is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > > Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > > My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent e-mail > to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut his > time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again saying > how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the inbox, > but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for half > an hour fight. > > hatice > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott D. Andrews" > To: "Mark Topinka" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM > Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > > > > > I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling > > period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself > > sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > > > > -Scott > > > From cumings at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 21:04:26 2004 From: cumings at stanford.edu (John Cumings) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:04:26 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? Message-ID: <200401230504.i0N54QPL022500@elaine11.Stanford.EDU> All, Short attention span? 2 old ideas, 1 new idea. Old idea 1: I agree with reducing the time allocation for all users. This should free up time towards the end of the week. I think 6 hrs prime time/10 hrs. total would help a lot. It is even possible that with this, there will be 8-10 hr time slots towards the end of the week, accommodating the long-session people among us. I don't think people should be allowed more than 10 hrs. for a single write as a policy. Maybe once every couple months for a major project, but even then only at James' discretion. Those who do need 10 hr. sessions should only get them one-at-a-time. I know this stings, but it should. Old idea 2: I also like implementing the "James does reservations" policy as a contingency: for when the Coral schedule truly is full. In the ideal case, this shouldn't happen very often. This stings James, but again, it should: if the schedule is full, he's been doing a bad job at setting policy. (No offense intended James - I don't think you're doing a bad job. We're all learning here...) New idea: I also had the idea of having a whole day open up at one time on Coral for new reservations, rather than opening up sessions 1/2hr by 1/2hr. This prevents the annoying 1/2hr-by-1/2hr reservation game. If this is implemented, I think the cusp should by 5AM, and the opening time should be 12 noon. This should make those who need 10 hr sessions happy, especially if they are good at clicking a mouse fast ;) Just a few more cents... -John ------------------------------------------------------------ John Cumings cumings at stanford.edu Postdoctoral Scholar Physics Department Stanford University office (650) 725-1025 lab (650) 725-2047 fax (650) 724-3681 Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials 239 McCullough Building 476 Lomita Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4045 ------------------------------------------------------------ From mtopinka at stanford.edu Thu Jan 22 23:15:44 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:15:44 -0800 Subject: how 'bout this for a new trial Raith-signup policy? (relatively short email) In-Reply-To: <200401230504.i0N54QPL022500@elaine11.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122225409.028fa478@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi everyone- It seems we're making progress towards consensus. Here's a proposal for something simple we could try as soon as James says "Yes": we institute a 10-hours-total per Rolling-TWO-week-period cap immediately, and see if any other adjustments (like "old idea 2" or "new idea" in John's email) are necessary. I think the 2-week cap is a good idea because it would basically guarantee that some sign-up-able slots are always open, perhaps 7 or 8 days in advance, but open none-the-less. James- how hard would it be make the two week change? Do people feel like the other ideas need to be implemented at the same time? My vote is to try the new cap and then see if we need to do more. -Mark From hendrikb at stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 11:33:19 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:33:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free slot! Message-ID: Hi, It seems that a raith slot miraculously opened tonight. I took some of the time (labeled topinka) after 22:30, but if someone needs a longer slot than midnight - 2:30 am, it should be possible to "find" more time for him. If no one takes it, I will do a longer write today so that I could give up some or even all my time on Sunday. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 ajavey at stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 11:47:32 2004 From: ajavey at stanford.edu (Ali Javey) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:47:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free slot! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll take it. Thanks... Ali On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > Hi, > It seems that a raith slot miraculously opened tonight. I took some of the > time (labeled topinka) after 22:30, but if someone needs a longer slot > than midnight - 2:30 am, it should be possible to "find" more time for > him. If no one takes it, I will do a longer write today so that I could > give up some or even all my time on Sunday. > > Hendrik > > > --------------------------------------------------- > 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 jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 16:33:11 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:33:11 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> References: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <4011BD47.1020509@snf.stanford.edu> Hello All: I see a slew of mail on the discussion list -- to be read... Let me make a point to ponder: I will not buy into anything that adds to my time commitment here as that I already average over 50 - 55 hours a week here and am on call 24-7. I have no desire to administrate CORAL reservations whatsoever. Even now it is difficult to catch up or keep up with email alone. (There are now 226 unread emails in my in box and I am not counting SPAM! Now returning to your previous programming -- please play nicely together! Lets keep the ideas coming. All the best, JWC John Cummins wrote: >Raith users, > >We're all having trouble getting time on the Raith, and James is currently >exploring a number of possible modifications/solutions to make all our >lives easier. I would like to see people post ideas to this list, to help >start a discussion before the upcoming "Raith town meeting". > >Along these lines: > >Dan Group recently suggested an idea for scheduling Raith time that I >rather liked. I've expanded it, and I want to pass it on to see how >people feel. > >Basically, the idea is that when the schedule is full (like it is now, and >possibly may continue to be), that James schedules time for us, taking >into account our needs and wishes (expressed in general terms). I think >this could help centralize communications and keep up an efficient use of >time on the machine. This would also help prevent the <2 hr dead times >that we occasionally see on the machine. > >An official policy on this could read: >"During times when the schedule is full, submit requests for time to James >7-10 days in advance, and James will schedule and shuffle around requests >at (say) 6-7PM every weekday. James reserves the right to move or cancel >any session scheduled this way, until it is within the 7 day time limit. >You won't get an email confirmation; it's your responsibility to make sure >you show up for your sessions. The usual time limits (12 hours prime >time, 18 hours total) apply even to time reserved this way." > >The way that Coral works now, James would have to put these reservations >under his name, and double-clicking on the session would reveal who it is >actually for. James would be the only one who could cancel these >sessions. James is looking into the possibility of putting these >reservations under other users' names, but if this is not possible, then >cancellation of these sessions would be somewhat problematic. > >If Coral can't be changed, then the official policy could be amended to >read: >"Only James can cancel these sessions (just a fact of how Coral works), >and cancellation of these sessions *must* be at least 24hr notice (by >Friday 5PM for all Sunday and Monday sessions). " > >The main drawback of this is that it gives James more work and more >pressure. Let me stress - this is just an *idea*. I'm not sure I even >like the idea or that it will work out well in the long run, but I'd like >to start the discussion. > >What do people think? > >-John > >------------------------------------------------------------ > John Cumings > cumings at stanford.edu > Postdoctoral Scholar > Physics Department > Stanford University > > office (650) 725-1025 > lab (650) 725-2047 > fax (650) 724-3681 > > Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials > 239 McCullough Building > 476 Lomita Mall > Stanford, CA 94305-4045 >------------------------------------------------------------ > > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 16:53:31 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:53:31 -0800 Subject: Please use caution working above 25 keV -- Collumn PM schedule for mid-February. Message-ID: <4011C20B.4090907@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: All Users are requested to use caution when working above 25 keV. We have been observing EHT power supply trips which may be brief arcing or corona discharge events at the FE-Gun tip. There have been more than five of these EHT trips since we brought the system up at the beginning of the year -- all while working at 30 keV! > This seems to indicate that the tip is wearing out or there again is a problem in the EHT power supply. < Today at 1500 hours we lost the RAITH image acquisition display card after a EHT trip event. I had a spare board and have swapped it out. It may take up to a week to get a new card if they don't have a spare board handy in NY State. SO PLEASE -- RAMP UP TO HIGHER KV IN SMALL STEPS. DO ALL YOUR ACCELERATION VOLTAGE REQUEST THROUGH THE RAITH COLUMN.NAV CONTROLS AND NOT FROM THE LEO SIDE. I would recommend steps of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 keV. (This is very common practice in the 'old days' when FE-GUN tips were much more fragile and somewhat unreliable.) Column PM: Exact dates to be determined -- but we wish to minimize users impact if possible. I have requested that LEO be available for a complete annual PM including aperture plate, final pole piece clean, and FE-GUN tip replacement and a full 40 hour bake out of the column to be scheduled for the Valentines Day weekend. The system would come down on February 13 at 9:00 AM. We hope to be back up and running on Tuesday February 17. There will be some alignments and calibrations that need to be performed Tuesday morning. My goal is to have user access late the afternoon or evening of 2-17-2004. Thank you for your support! James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 17:14:09 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:14:09 -0800 Subject: EBEAM TOWN MEETING -- MONDAY FEB. 2, 2003 2 - 4 PM CIS 101 Message-ID: <4011C6E1.20307@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings Raith 150 and EBEAM Users: We will be holding a EBEAM TOWN HALL MEETING, Monday February 2, 2003 from 2 - 4 PM, to held in the CIS 101 conference room. I am putting together a agenda and will post late next week after receiving your inputs... Certainly during the first hour we will be gathering to parley out a new CORAL reservation and system utilization policy for the RAITH 150 to address the current situation that has presented itself as we reach 60 + users on the system. Note that the goal for 2003 was to train only 30 users on the RAITH system! We now have almost double that amount and have reached capacity on the tool. This will include discussions of: * Coral Reservation limits * Group and/or individual system utilization limits. * Migration of some users back to the Hitachi where appropriate. * Stand By List policies to gain access when cancellations or free space opens on the system. * Methods that users can employ to increase throughput of the system reducing load/unload time overhead. * Equipment infrastructure improvements for the Ebeam and Photolithography area. Please forward to me additional items you wish to discuss at this meeting to add to the agenda to be posted. Kudos this week to the several users whom have been working hard to increase throughput by working and loading their samples together to reduce the load/unload events. There has been some nice synergy going on in the lab this week! Lets keep up the good attitudes! Thank you for your support! James Conway Ebeam Technology Group Stanford Nanofabrication Facility 650-725-7075 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 23 17:32:46 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:32:46 -0800 Subject: Lab PMMA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4011CB3E.20604@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: I hope someone will use up the remaining 5% 495K MW PMMA in the yellow cabinet. I will bring out more 5% 495K MW PMMA when that is finished. A new bottle of 2% 950K MW PMMA from Microchem has just been placed in the yellow cabinet. Have a productive weekend! James Conway Ali Javey wrote: >Hi James, > >Can you please bring new bottles of 5% STD and 2% 950K PMMA to the lab? >We are now out.... Thanks. > >Best, >Ali > > From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Sat Jan 24 07:32:48 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: trade slot? Message-ID: does anyone have a five hour slot earlier in the week that they would like to exchange for one on thursday starting at 9am? my write didn't go well today. charis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. - Paul to the Romans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mtopinka at stanford.edu Sat Jan 24 19:28:07 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:28:07 -0800 Subject: raith red-lighted? Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040124192614.01af9ab0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi everyone- what is the status of the raith? There is no additional information on the log, other than it was shut down this morning at 10:44. Has anybody called James? -Mark From hendrikb at stanford.edu Sat Jan 24 23:43:03 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:43:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith back up Message-ID: Hi, it seems the raith is back up! The shutdown is cleared. I am starting my write now. Should be finished by 6-7 am. Next user: please unload my sample on the left outer clip and put it into the black holder. I will post a message if further problems occur. I did not have to do naything to clear the problem. However, I found the scan rotation to be set to 180 degrees. I have no clue how that could cause the problems observed, but users should generally reset this in order to avoid confusing the next user. Happy writing, Hendrik The message below is outdated. I tried to send it earlier, but to the wrong adress. --------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:40:12 -0800 (PST) From: Hendrik Bluhm To: raith at stanford.edu Subject: Shutdown Hi, for your general info: I just called Raith, he has already been informed. It seems that the communication with the ELPHY board is flaky, possibly related to the EHT trip on Fri. He gave me some instructions on what to try in case it is just a SCSI or board connector. In the unlikely evvent this will help, the machine should be back up tonight or tomorrow. A new chip/board apparently has been requested. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 hendrikb at stanford.edu Sun Jan 25 01:07:15 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:07:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith back up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Things work fine so far. Hemanth (jhemanth) will take over around 6 am as he had a reservation while I used the machine tonight. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 jhemanth at stanford.edu Sun Jan 25 21:39:25 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:39:25 -0800 Subject: Finished Early Message-ID: <1075095565.4014a80d6293e@webmail.stanford.edu> Finished my write early. Raith is ready for the next user. The system seems to be A OK. Hemanth From jiencao at stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 02:33:02 2004 From: jiencao at stanford.edu (Jien Cao) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 02:33:02 -0800 Subject: finished early Message-ID: <000501c3e3f7$c6babd20$0200a8c0@jienpc> From lsmoore at stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 14:50:28 2004 From: lsmoore at stanford.edu (Lindsay Moore) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:50:28 -0800 Subject: problem with position list Message-ID: <5.1.1.5.2.20040126144522.01aafdf8@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> Today's Raith computer fun is that it would not allow me to modify my position list in any way. I could not drag and drop a gdsii into the pos. list window, i could not change the dose in an existing pos list, and i could not delete elements of an existing position list. When the next user came on, he exited the raith software after a successful unload procedure. the Raith150 software would not restart. (when double clicking on the raith 150 icon a "my computer" window opened instead, and there was some error about how we were trying to download some software. I don't know what the current status is, but i wanted to update everyone about the errors that are happening. Lindsay From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 15:26:12 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:26:12 -0800 Subject: problem with position list -- Disappearing windows and blank dialog boxes. In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.5.2.20040126144522.01aafdf8@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20040126144522.01aafdf8@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4015A214.9020509@snf.stanford.edu> Lindsay: Thank you for your report! ALL Users: It is really important that if you run into a problem you report it to both the CORAL ' report problem' or 'make comment' and to the RAITH notebook 2 and logbook, so that SNF staff are informed of the problem and can easily document the problem encountered. I have been working on identifying this problem for over a week and have not found the root cause. RAITH too has not seen this problem before either -- but they remind us to not run other applications on the PC while the RAITH150.exe is running. Virus alert and concern: There is a remote possibility that we have become infected with a virus on the system. Users must be vigilant and take necessary means to ensure you do not transport germs and viruses onto the RAITH system. WE cannot run anti-virus software on the system easily. (This requires me to load a virus software not the system, run it then remove it from the system. I am planning to perform this task post haste!!!) Thank you for your support! JWC Lindsay Moore wrote: > > Today's Raith computer fun is that it would not allow me to modify my > position list in any way. I could not drag and drop a gdsii into the > pos. list window, i could not change the dose in an existing pos list, > and i could not delete elements of an existing position list. When > the next user came on, he exited the raith software after a successful > unload procedure. the Raith150 software would not restart. (when > double clicking on the raith 150 icon a "my computer" window opened > instead, and there was some error about how we were trying to download > some software. > > I don't know what the current status is, but i wanted to update > everyone about the errors that are happening. > > Lindsay From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Mon Jan 26 21:53:18 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:53:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <200401230504.i0N54QPL022500@elaine11.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: i counted 20 users last week. slot size = 7 x 24 / 20 = 8.4 So allocating 10hrs/wk is clearly over the available time. to free up the scarece resource would have to set the limit to less than 8 hours. -dan On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, John Cumings wrote: > All, > > Short attention span? 2 old ideas, 1 new idea. > > Old idea 1: > I agree with reducing the time allocation for all users. This should free > up time towards the end of the week. I think 6 hrs prime time/10 > hrs. total would help a lot. It is even possible that with this, there > will be 8-10 hr time slots towards the end of the week, accommodating the > long-session people among us. I don't think people should be allowed more > than 10 hrs. for a single write as a policy. Maybe once every couple > months for a major project, but even then only at James' discretion. > Those who do need 10 hr. sessions should only get them one-at-a-time. > I know this stings, but it should. > > Old idea 2: > I also like implementing the "James does reservations" policy as a > contingency: for when the Coral schedule truly is full. In the ideal > case, this shouldn't happen very often. This stings James, but again, it > should: if the schedule is full, he's been doing a bad job at setting > policy. (No offense intended James - I don't think you're doing a bad > job. We're all learning here...) > > New idea: > I also had the idea of having a whole day open up at one time on Coral for > new reservations, rather than opening up sessions 1/2hr by 1/2hr. This > prevents the annoying 1/2hr-by-1/2hr reservation game. If this is > implemented, I think the cusp should by 5AM, and the opening time should > be 12 noon. This should make those who need 10 hr sessions happy, > especially if they are good at clicking a mouse fast ;) > > Just a few more cents... > > -John > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > John Cumings > cumings at stanford.edu > Postdoctoral Scholar > Physics Department > Stanford University > > office (650) 725-1025 > lab (650) 725-2047 > fax (650) 724-3681 > > Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials > 239 McCullough Building > 476 Lomita Mall > Stanford, CA 94305-4045 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From goldhaber-gordon at stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 22:09:43 2004 From: goldhaber-gordon at stanford.edu (David Goldhaber-Gordon) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:09:43 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <012101c3e49c$2857f530$46d642ab@stanford.edu> Dan, Your analysis is only correct if all 20 users each week want as much time as possible. If a quarter of them just want one 3-hour session each, a 10 hour limit should indeed leave unclaimed time. I'm not saying an 8-hour limit would not be preferable, but we do need to be careful not to overmanage and end up with unclaimable time slots. Best, David -----Original Message----- From: Dan Grupp [mailto:grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:53 PM To: John Cumings Cc: raith at snf.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? i counted 20 users last week. slot size = 7 x 24 / 20 = 8.4 So allocating 10hrs/wk is clearly over the available time. to free up the scarece resource would have to set the limit to less than 8 hours. -dan From sandrew at stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 22:10:33 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:10:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > So allocating 10hrs/wk is clearly over the available time. to free up the > scarece resource would have to set the limit to less than 8 hours. Possibly, but this assumes everyone needs all ten hours. In many weeks this is not the case for myself and several other users. -Scott From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Mon Jan 26 22:58:37 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:58:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <012101c3e49c$2857f530$46d642ab@stanford.edu> Message-ID: good point. possible solution (similar to FIB reservations, where it works well, self-regulated): any unclaimed time is fair game 24 hrs in advance. THanks, DAn On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, David Goldhaber-Gordon wrote: > Dan, > > Your analysis is only correct if all 20 users each week want as much time as > possible. If a quarter of them just want one 3-hour session each, a 10 hour > limit should indeed leave unclaimed time. I'm not saying an 8-hour limit > would not be preferable, but we do need to be careful not to overmanage and > end up with unclaimable time slots. > > Best, > > David > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Grupp [mailto:grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:53 PM > To: John Cumings > Cc: raith at snf.stanford.edu > Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > i counted 20 users last week. > > slot size = 7 x 24 / 20 = 8.4 > > So allocating 10hrs/wk is clearly over the available time. to free up the > scarece resource would have to set the limit to less than 8 hours. > > -dan > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mtopinka at stanford.edu Mon Jan 26 23:19:05 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:19:05 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: References: <012101c3e49c$2857f530$46d642ab@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126231710.00b66f98@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Yes, I remember liking how the FIB scheduling is set up- some fixed total amount of time per rolling-7-day period, but with the additional wrinkle that Any unclaimed time can be claimed by Anybody if it's still free 24 hours in advance? -Mark At 10:58 PM 1/26/2004 -0800, Dan Grupp wrote: >good point. possible solution (similar to FIB reservations, where it works >well, self-regulated): any unclaimed time is fair game 24 hrs in advance. > >THanks, >DAn > >On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, David Goldhaber-Gordon wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > Your analysis is only correct if all 20 users each week want as much > time as > > possible. If a quarter of them just want one 3-hour session each, a 10 hour > > limit should indeed leave unclaimed time. I'm not saying an 8-hour limit > > would not be preferable, but we do need to be careful not to overmanage and > > end up with unclaimable time slots. > > > > Best, > > > > David > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Grupp [mailto:grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU] > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:53 PM > > To: John Cumings > > Cc: raith at snf.stanford.edu > > Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > > > i counted 20 users last week. > > > > slot size = 7 x 24 / 20 = 8.4 > > > > So allocating 10hrs/wk is clearly over the available time. to free up the > > scarece resource would have to set the limit to less than 8 hours. > > > > -dan > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar >Center for Integrated Systems >Stanford University >Stanford, CA 94305 >(650) 724-6911 >FAX: 723-4659 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandrew at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 09:20:11 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:20:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Double layer PMMA dose Message-ID: Hello, Does anyone have recent data on the proper dot and line dose for the bilayer PMMA process? If you also know the undercut you achieved, could you let me know that as well? Thank you, Scott Andrews From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 12:04:18 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:04:18 -0800 Subject: Please fill out the RAITH 150 logbook for your sessions .. Message-ID: <4016C442.4050701@snf.stanford.edu> Gentlemen and all RAITH Users: PLEASE -- PLEASE be sure to always fill out the RAITH 150 Logbook at the beginning and end of your runs. This logbook give me valuable information about system conditions and your entries are important to everyone. The entries for Beam Current for each aperture you use is very useful for us to monitor the system and FE-Gun conditions. Recording your EBL write parameters used and making process result notes in the comments section is also very useful to others just starting on the system to get into the center of suitable parameter space for their first writes. Thank you, James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 13:49:10 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:49:10 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122140721.00b65fe0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <200401221917.i0MJHVTo026795@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> <5.2.0.9.0.20040122140721.00b65fe0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4016DCD6.40302@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings Mark Topinka and Raith Users: This is an interesting idea. Similar to one proposed by arvind, hendrikb, and myself as we all seek fair solutions to this issue. For my take I do not wish to administrate the Coral reservations and only wish to resolve disputes between people at the time of access. I will not baby sit people or the schedule -- there is no time! >> This would be a self-policiing rule, but if one notices anybody violating it, ... Once we agree on a straightforward policy my intention is to become very severe with violations after the first warning... If it come to the point where I must intervene then the user(s) get put off the system with no access for one week on second occurrence, then one month on the third. That I expect would keep people toeing to the line of the soon to be established new reservation policy. Hopefully we can come to a consensus and a new policy at our EBEAM Town Meeting February 2, 2004. We will likely run this policy for a trial one or two month period; continue discussions on the raith at snf.stanford.edu list and then reconvene and re-evaluate. Thank you and keep the ideas coming... James Conway Mark Topinka wrote: > Hi all- > Thanks to John, Hendrik, James, and John for the ideas so far on > this issue. It is indeed next to impossible to sanely schedule time > on the Raith these days. I have a proposal which I believe is simple > to put into place, takes nobody any extra time, and could be started > immediately... How about if the rule becomes no more than 10 hours > of sign-up per person for the next 7-day (rolling) period. As soon as > you start one block of time, that time comes off your total and you > can sign up for more time. This would be a self-policiing rule, but > if one notices anybody violating it, one could contact James and James > could remove the offending reservations (I would propose not All of > that persons reservations be removed, just the most distant offending > ones). I took a quick look at the upcoming week, and this policy > would free up about 35 hours of time in the next week. It might > slightly slow down super-hard-core users, but it would allow less > intensive users the occasional use they need. Just a proposal... > There is no perfect solution (short of maybe buying five more Raiths), > but this might be a decent compromise for the time being... What > think y'all? -Mark > > At 12:03 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, Hendrik Bluhm wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I like the idea of having a request based time allocation system which >> takes into account how much time people had on the machine recently, >> but implementing this via a human agent who sits in front of coral seems >> inefficient, unflexible and probably also unreliable. However, it >> should be possible to automate this by hosting a web interface on the >> snf homepage. >> >> The procedure could roughly look like this: >> >> people request time some 10 days in advance, specifying >> preferred/impossible time of the day/week, minimum length etc. >> >> 8 days ahead, those requests are assigned a priority based on >> recent machine use (to be obtained from the coral database, reflecting >> actual use) and granted according to the priority score. >> People could then have 2 days to transfer the allocated slots onto >> coral, >> which would require that everyone agrees not to make reservations >> during this time. >> Less than 5 days in advance, any free spot on coral would be available. >> Of course, the whole system can be refined and supplemented by >> additional >> rules regarding cancellation etc, e.g. canceling less than 24 hrs >> in advance counts as actual beam time when calculating priorities. >> >> Implementing this would of course require some cooperation with the >> SNF admins, but should not be to hard. I would be willing to work on the >> scheduling algorithm, but would greatly appreciate an help regarding how >> to set up a web interface. >> >> The same system could in principle be used for other equipment >> (innotec, stsetch?, etc.), and if it turns out to be very useful, it >> could >> be incorporated directly in coral one day. (Not by us, though) >> >> Hendrik >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Tue Jan 27 13:54:33 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:54:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Double layer PMMA dose In-Reply-To: Message-ID: http://elrey.stanford.edu:8080/Raith/26 Note that results may vary by stubstrate. Charis. From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:12:19 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:12:19 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. In-Reply-To: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> Message-ID: <4016E243.6020806@snf.stanford.edu> Hello Hatice, I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their inherent psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the users on the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on the system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the resource. Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to lump two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. (This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam Town Meeting.) Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu James Conway Hatice Altug wrote: >Hi everybody, > >I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and very >big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my case >for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers day >(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours writing as >an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots which >is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > >Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > >My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent e-mail >to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut his >time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again saying >how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the inbox, >but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for half >an hour fight. > >hatice > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Scott D. Andrews" >To: "Mark Topinka" >Cc: >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > > > >>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling >>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself >>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. >> >>-Scott >> >> >> From lsmoore at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:22:54 2004 From: lsmoore at stanford.edu (Lindsay Moore) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:22:54 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. In-Reply-To: <4016E243.6020806@snf.stanford.edu> References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> Message-ID: <5.1.1.5.2.20040127141603.01c8de60@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get your intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator of the beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them know that you intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your computer for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process would be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where people will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a full reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know who you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan of getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans, but if it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much of a choice. Lindsay At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: >Hello Hatice, > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their inherent >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the users on >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on the >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the >resource. > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to lump >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam >Town Meeting.) > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu > >James Conway > >Hatice Altug wrote: > >>Hi everybody, >> >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and very >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my case >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers day >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours writing as >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots which >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. >> >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? >> >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent e-mail >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut his >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again saying >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the inbox, >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for half >>an hour fight. >> >>hatice >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" >>To: "Mark Topinka" >>Cc: >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? >> >> >> >> >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. >>> >>>-Scott >>> >>> From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:37:46 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:37:46 -0800 Subject: how 'bout this for a new trial Raith-signup policy? (relatively short email) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122225409.028fa478@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122225409.028fa478@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4016E83A.9040808@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings ALL: Good comments coming in from everyone! Don't be shy! This is one proposal we should continue to consider -- but my concern is that it may negatively impact a larger number of users than the 10 hour/ 7 day rolling period idea. If the limits and system is working well -- everyone should be able to get access to the system in a reasonable time period. (7 - 10 days is my expectation) old idea 2 (james makes reservations when coral is full) ... WILL NOT FLY! Read:" I don't do reservations..." >> James- how hard would it be make the two week change? I do not know... I cc'd the coral group so we can determine if this is easy or not to add... We will all decide this issue at the EBEAM Town Meeting February if we can reach consensus. Those whom have not contributed their new ideas to this discussion are invited to do so before February 2. Thank you! James Conway Mark Topinka wrote: > Hi everyone- It seems we're making progress towards consensus. > Here's a proposal for something simple we could try as soon as James > says "Yes": we institute a 10-hours-total per Rolling-TWO-week-period > cap immediately, and see if any other adjustments (like "old idea 2" > or "new idea" in John's email) are necessary. I think the 2-week cap > is a good idea because it would basically guarantee that some > sign-up-able slots are always open, perhaps 7 or 8 days in advance, > but open none-the-less. James- how hard would it be make the two > week change? Do people feel like the other ideas need to be > implemented at the same time? My vote is to try the new cap and then > see if we need to do more. > -Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From altug at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:42:04 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:42:04 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <5.1.1.5.2.20040127141603.01c8de60@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <0bf601c3e526$c9ec4b50$da5540ab@hatice> hello, One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is that: people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like: "Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am" and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also trying to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away. I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some people including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are not using this much time every week!! -hatice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lindsay Moore" To: "James Conway" ; "Raith SNF Mailing list" Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. > > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get your > intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator of the > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them know that you > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your computer > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process would > be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where people > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a full > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know who > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan of > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans, but if > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much of a > choice. > > Lindsay > > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: > >Hello Hatice, > > > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the > >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their inherent > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being > >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the users on > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on the > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the > >resource. > > > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to lump > >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam > >Town Meeting.) > > > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu > > > >James Conway > > > >Hatice Altug wrote: > > > >>Hi everybody, > >> > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and very > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my case > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers day > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours writing as > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots which > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > >> > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > >> > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent e-mail > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut his > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again saying > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the inbox, > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for half > >>an hour fight. > >> > >>hatice > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" > >>To: "Mark Topinka" > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling > >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including myself > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > >>> > >>>-Scott > >>> > >>> > From mtopinka at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:56:52 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:56:52 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. In-Reply-To: <0bf601c3e526$c9ec4b50$da5540ab@hatice> References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <5.1.1.5.2.20040127141603.01c8de60@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040127144732.02148c70@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi Hatice and other "long-write-time users": I hear your concerns, but I think that a simple 10hr/2wk or 8hr/2wk cap (note: lower hours/user combined with a 2-WEEK signup window means there will be ALOT of open slots!) really might solve your problems as well as everybody else's. If we impose a 10hr/2wk period cap, then I'm pretty sure there will be many many 8 hour windows open for you (and others) to sign up for all at once- no more waiting every half-hour to pounce on coral :) (I've done that too, and I know it's not fun!) I think it's worth a try, and if it doesn't solve everybody's problems, then we can try further things. What do you think of this proposal- do you think it would allow you to sign up for the time you need? -Mark At 02:42 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote: >hello, > >One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is that: >people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like: >"Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am" >and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also trying >to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away. > >I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some people >including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are >not using this much time every week!! > >-hatice > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Lindsay Moore" >To: "James Conway" ; "Raith SNF Mailing list" > >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long >write time users. > > > > > > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get your > > intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator of >the > > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them know that you > > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your computer > > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process would > > be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where people > > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a full > > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know who > > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan of > > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans, but if > > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much of a > > choice. > > > > Lindsay > > > > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: > > >Hello Hatice, > > > > > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. > > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the > > >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their inherent > > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being > > >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the users on > > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on the > > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the > > >resource. > > > > > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to >lump > > >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would > > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. > > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam > > >Town Meeting.) > > > > > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu > > > > > >James Conway > > > > > >Hatice Altug wrote: > > > > > >>Hi everybody, > > >> > > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and >very > > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my >case > > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers >day > > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours >writing as > > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots >which > > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > > >> > > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > > >> > > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent >e-mail > > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut >his > > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again >saying > > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the >inbox, > > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for >half > > >>an hour fight. > > >> > > >>hatice > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" > > > >>To: "Mark Topinka" > > >>Cc: > > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling > > >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including >myself > > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > > >>> > > >>>-Scott > > >>> > > >>> > > From dfattal at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 14:57:05 2004 From: dfattal at stanford.edu (David Fattal) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:57:05 -0800 Subject: how 'bout this for a new trial Raith-signup policy? (relatively short email) In-Reply-To: <4016E83A.9040808@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I don't know if I'm the only one in this case, but I need Raith regularly for quite short periods of time (3-4 hours). It would be interesting if users like me could have one or two reserved (understand preferred) spots per week, not necessarily in prime time. If we do need the spots (agreed on at the townhall meeting for instance), we could notify the users a reasonably long time before. However, we would not attempt to make Raith reservations at any other time. Also if we don't notify the users on time, we would lose the reservation. does it sound interesting ? David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hendrikb at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 15:06:32 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:06:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: how 'bout this for a new trial Raith-signup policy? (relatively short email) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was recently also amongst the short users, but I would probably not participate in such a scheme, as it seems a little bit too complicated and fabbing usually does not fit into predefined schedules. I must admit thought that I effectively had my "private spots", i.e. the early morning sessions. Hendrik On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, David Fattal wrote: > > I don't know if I'm the only one in this case, but I need Raith regularly > for quite short periods of time (3-4 hours). It would be interesting if > users like me could have one or two reserved (understand preferred) spots > per week, not necessarily in prime time. If we do need the spots (agreed on > at the townhall meeting for instance), we could notify the users a > reasonably long time before. However, we would not attempt to make Raith > reservations at any other time. Also if we don't notify the users on time, > we would lose the reservation. > > does it sound interesting ? > > David > --------------------------------------------------- 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 altug at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 15:13:22 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:13:22 -0800 Subject: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <5.1.1.5.2.20040127141603.01c8de60@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20040127144732.02148c70@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <0c0701c3e52b$29cfe230$da5540ab@hatice> we can try 10hrs/2wk option. (but: 1--it means 5hours/week !!, 2--if something goes wrong (writing/development/etching/...) for long-write-time users this also means freezing the research for 2 weeks because for us 3-4 hours time slot does not mean that much) -hatice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Topinka" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users. > Hi Hatice and other "long-write-time users": > I hear your concerns, but I think that a simple 10hr/2wk or 8hr/2wk > cap (note: lower hours/user combined with a 2-WEEK signup window means > there will be ALOT of open slots!) really might solve your problems as well > as everybody else's. If we impose a 10hr/2wk period cap, then I'm pretty > sure there will be many many 8 hour windows open for you (and others) to > sign up for all at once- no more waiting every half-hour to pounce on coral > :) (I've done that too, and I know it's not fun!) I think it's worth a > try, and if it doesn't solve everybody's problems, then we can try further > things. What do you think of this proposal- do you think it would allow > you to sign up for the time you need? -Mark > > At 02:42 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote: > > >hello, > > > >One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is that: > >people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like: > >"Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am" > >and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also trying > >to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away. > > > >I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some people > >including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are > >not using this much time every week!! > > > >-hatice > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Lindsay Moore" > >To: "James Conway" ; "Raith SNF Mailing list" > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM > >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long > >write time users. > > > > > > > > > > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get your > > > intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator of > >the > > > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them know that you > > > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your computer > > > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process would > > > be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where people > > > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a full > > > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know who > > > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan of > > > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans, but if > > > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much of a > > > choice. > > > > > > Lindsay > > > > > > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: > > > >Hello Hatice, > > > > > > > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. > > > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the > > > >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their inherent > > > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being > > > >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the users on > > > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on the > > > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the > > > >resource. > > > > > > > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to > >lump > > > >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would > > > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. > > > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam > > > >Town Meeting.) > > > > > > > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu > > > > > > > >James Conway > > > > > > > >Hatice Altug wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi everybody, > > > >> > > > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and > >very > > > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my > >case > > > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers > >day > > > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours > >writing as > > > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots > >which > > > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > > > >> > > > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > > > >> > > > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent > >e-mail > > > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut > >his > > > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again > >saying > > > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the > >inbox, > > > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for > >half > > > >>an hour fight. > > > >> > > > >>hatice > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" > > > > > >>To: "Mark Topinka" > > > >>Cc: > > > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM > > > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day rolling > > > >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including > >myself > > > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > > > >>> > > > >>>-Scott > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > From mtopinka at stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 15:42:59 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:42:59 -0800 Subject: clarification on Raith scheduling proposal In-Reply-To: <0c0701c3e52b$29cfe230$da5540ab@hatice> References: <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <08db01c3e147$a54eac30$da5540ab@hatice> <5.1.1.5.2.20040127141603.01c8de60@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> <5.2.0.9.0.20040127144732.02148c70@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040127151640.02171510@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi Raith folks- Thanks to Hattice for the email. Hattice and I just chatted on the phone and I realized I explained part of my proposal badly- I'm sorry- my fault. When I said "10hrs/2wks" I was not proposing that users cannot use the Raith for more than 10 hours every two weeks. What I meant to say is this: "at any given moment in time, a user cannot be signed up for more than 10 hours and each user is allowed to sign up up to 2 wks in advance". This may *sound* the same as "no more than 10 hours of Raith use per 2 week period", but it's NOT the same thing. With this new proposed system, once you start using a session on the Raith, that "erases" that session's hours from your total, and you are free to sign up for more time immediately! (Which, with the new, stricter cap per user will be in on average, say, 5 days in the future?). So even though the policy would be"10hrs/2wks" of reservations, that does not equal "10hrs/2ks" of use, hopefully! I hope this helps clarify what I was proposing. -Mark At 03:13 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote: >we can try 10hrs/2wk option. > >(but: >1--it means 5hours/week !!, >2--if something goes wrong (writing/development/etching/...) for >long-write-time users this also means freezing the research for 2 weeks >because for us 3-4 hours time slot does not mean that much) > >-hatice > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mark Topinka" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:56 PM >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long >write time users. > > > > Hi Hatice and other "long-write-time users": > > I hear your concerns, but I think that a simple 10hr/2wk or 8hr/2wk > > cap (note: lower hours/user combined with a 2-WEEK signup window means > > there will be ALOT of open slots!) really might solve your problems as >well > > as everybody else's. If we impose a 10hr/2wk period cap, then I'm pretty > > sure there will be many many 8 hour windows open for you (and others) to > > sign up for all at once- no more waiting every half-hour to pounce on >coral > > :) (I've done that too, and I know it's not fun!) I think it's worth a > > try, and if it doesn't solve everybody's problems, then we can try further > > things. What do you think of this proposal- do you think it would allow > > you to sign up for the time you need? -Mark > > > > At 02:42 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote: > > > > >hello, > > > > > >One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is >that: > > >people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like: > > >"Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am" > > >and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also >trying > > >to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away. > > > > > >I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some >people > > >including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are > > >not using this much time every week!! > > > > > >-hatice > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Lindsay Moore" > > >To: "James Conway" ; "Raith SNF Mailing list" > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM > > >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long > > >write time users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get >your > > > > intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator >of > > >the > > > > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them know that >you > > > > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your >computer > > > > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process >would > > > > be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where >people > > > > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a >full > > > > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know >who > > > > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan >of > > > > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans, >but if > > > > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much >of a > > > > choice. > > > > > > > > Lindsay > > > > > > > > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: > > > > >Hello Hatice, > > > > > > > > > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your >project. > > > > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the > > > > >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and their >inherent > > > > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources >being > > > > >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine the >users on > > > > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on >the > > > > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all >the > > > > >resource. > > > > > > > > > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to > > >lump > > > > >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect >would > > > > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed >it. > > > > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our >Ebeam > > > > >Town Meeting.) > > > > > > > > > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu > > > > > > > > > >James Conway > > > > > > > > > >Hatice Altug wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Hi everybody, > > > > >> > > > > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense >and > > >very > > > > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in >my > > >case > > > > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours >anothers > > >day > > > > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours > > >writing as > > > > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots > > >which > > > > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. > > > > >> > > > > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? > > > > >> > > > > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can >sent > > >e-mail > > > > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't >cut > > >his > > > > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again > > >saying > > > > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in >the > > >inbox, > > > > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral >for > > >half > > > > >>an hour fight. > > > > >> > > > > >>hatice > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" > > > > > > > >>To: "Mark Topinka" > > > > >>Cc: > > > > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM > > > > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day >rolling > > > > >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including > > >myself > > > > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>-Scott > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 18:07:50 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:07:50 -0800 Subject: SPURIOUS AND BLOCKING RESERVATIONS ON THE RAITH CORAL SCHEDULE. Message-ID: <40171976.1030905@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings, Recently I have taken this issue up with several users individually, and have also mentioned this in previous emails to this list. There will be no longer any tolerance for users whom are simply making spurious half hour reservations on the CORAL schedule. Access to the system must be fair and uniform for all users seeking access to the system. This is not a horse race and I do not support the recent activities of racing to get a CORAL schedule reservation by half hour increments. After all this is not 'E-BAY' folks! I will remove all half hour reservations I observe that seem to be attempts to block other users from signing up for a complete session. This hour I have just removed two half hour sessions reserved by users grupp and vignesh. Your half hour sessions have been canceled. It pains me to see some users getting desperate and moving into this behavior. Just don't do it. I know you need the system to get your work done. Even I cannot get enough access to complete needed system admin. task and performance testing. If you are having problems making a reservation please come and see me during my office hour, and/or place your name on the standby list. Thank you for your consideration and support! James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 18:10:46 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:10:46 -0800 Subject: ALERT: Please virus scan all media coming on to the RAITH. Message-ID: <40171A26.9080406@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grupp at snowmass.stanford.edu Tue Jan 27 18:42:59 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.stanford.edu (Dan Grupp) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:42:59 -0800 Subject: Data Message-ID: I would like to encourage people to gather data to support various plans. It's all there in the history list: 1)How many users/wk? Average? Min and Max? 2)Distribution of reservation times. (make a histogram of number of sessions of particular length). 3)Number of users who would use it if time were more available. 4)Trends in usage over time. Is it steadily going up, and how fast? Why are we in this crunch period, and will it last? -dan > > > >>Hi Hatice and other "long-write-time users": >> I hear your concerns, but I think that a simple 10hr/2wk or >>8hr/2wk cap (note: lower hours/user combined with a 2-WEEK signup >>window means there will be ALOT of open slots!) really might solve >>your problems as well as everybody else's. If we impose a 10hr/2wk >>period cap, then I'm pretty sure there will be many many 8 hour >>windows open for you (and others) to sign up for all at once- no >>more waiting every half-hour to pounce on coral :) (I've done that >>too, and I know it's not fun!) I think it's worth a try, and if >>it doesn't solve everybody's problems, then we can try further >>things. What do you think of this proposal- do you think it would >>allow you to sign up for the time you need? -Mark >> >>At 02:42 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote: >> >>>hello, >>> >>>One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is that: >>>people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like: >>>"Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am" >>>and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also trying >>>to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away. >>> >>>I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some people >>>including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are >>>not using this much time every week!! >>> >>>-hatice >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Lindsay Moore" >>>To: "James Conway" ; "Raith SNF Mailing list" >>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM >>>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long >>>write time users. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you >>>can get your >>> > intended time slot. If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator of >>>the >>> > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to let them >>>know that you >>> > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your computer >>> > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process would >>> > be much less time consuming and annoying. The current game where people >>> > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a full >>> > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know who >>> > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time. I am not a huge fan of >>> > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith >>>plans, but if >>> > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't >>>see much of a >>> > choice. >>> > >>> > Lindsay >>> > >>> > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote: >>> > >Hello Hatice, >>> > > >>> > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your project. >>> > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the >>> > >limited resource fairly. Unfortunately human instinct and >>>their inherent >>> > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources being >>> > >available to a large group. This is apparent if you examine >>>the users on >>> > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and >>>access on the >>> > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all the >>> > >resource. >>> > > >>> > >Query for ALL: Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to >>>lump >>> > >two weeks work of access into one writing session? That in effect would >>> > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed it. >>> > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish in our Ebeam >>> > >Town Meeting.) >>> > > >>> > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu >>> > > >>> > >James Conway >>> > > >>> > >Hatice Altug wrote: >>> > > >>> > >>Hi everybody, >>> > >> >>> > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense and >>>very >>> > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in my >>>case >>> > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours anothers >>>day >>> > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours >>>writing as >>> > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots >>>which >>> > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter. >>> > >> >>> > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me? >>> > >> >>> > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can sent >>>e-mail >>> > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't cut >>>his >>> > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again >>>saying >>> > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in the >>>inbox, >>> > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral for >>>half >>> > >>an hour fight. >>> > >> >>> > >>hatice >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" >>> >>> > >>To: "Mark Topinka" >>> > >>Cc: >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 >>>day rolling >>> > >>>period. I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including >>>myself >>> > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone. >>> > >>> >>> > >>>-Scott >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6097 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtopinka at stanford.edu Wed Jan 28 17:56:10 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:56:10 -0800 Subject: can I please reserve Raith 5pm-8pm Wednesday. Thank you Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040128175505.02936a50@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> I will be afk (away from keyboard) 6:30pm-9:00pm, but I would very much appreciate it if people would let me make that reservation. Thank you! -Mark From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Wed Jan 28 20:57:57 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:57:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: reservation 8pm-1am Message-ID: guys, i'm trying to reserve 8pm to 1am but am biking home. :-) please could people leave that for me? many thanks. charis. From hendrikb at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 07:07:32 2004 From: hendrikb at stanford.edu (Hendrik Bluhm) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:07:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Some remarks: Migrarting user directories and buffered exposure Message-ID: Dear users, 1. I found yesterday that my whole user directory on the Raith computer had been migrated into hungtaos directory, presumably by someone accidentally dragging it there in the file manager. Please try to avoid this, be alert to this possibility and particularly don't delete mysterious file suddenly appearing in your directory. 2. Recently, I had a discussion with another user about the waste of beam time because the raith software does all computations for pattern breaking etc. online. I just found out that there is a way of avoiding this which I beleive is not known to many users, so I thought it might be a good idea to share this discovery. You can record a simulated exposure using the exposure buffer and then replay it for a real exposure so that the computation does not have to be repeated. I think this may be interesting if your time prediction shows a large fraction of computation time, particularly if you have to repeat the exposure a couple of times. For (some) details, see p. 132 of the software manual. Hendrik --------------------------------------------------- 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 jhemanth at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 12:08:35 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:08:35 -0800 Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Thursday 1-29 Message-ID: <000301c3e6a3$ad73a1c0$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> I will be AFK (away from keyboard) (credits for the acronym give to Mark Topinka) 5pm - 10:00pm, and would appreciate it if people would let me make that reservation. Thank you! Hemanth Jagannathan PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA Phone :(O)(650)-725-0417; (C) (650)-380-2105 e-mail: jhemanth at stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajavey at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 12:33:30 2004 From: ajavey at stanford.edu (Ali Javey) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:33:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: reserving 10 pm - 4 am next Thursday In-Reply-To: <000301c3e6a3$ad73a1c0$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Message-ID: I'm not a big fan of sending an e-mail way ahead of time to make a reservation, but it seems that's the only way to make a reservation at the moment. I really need to get some time on next thrusday night. I'll be very appreciated if you can please leave 10 pm Thursday - 3 am Friday to me. Thanks.... Cheers, Ali On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Hemanth Jagannathan wrote: > I will be AFK (away from keyboard) (credits for the acronym give to Mark > Topinka) 5pm - 10:00pm, and would appreciate it if people would let me make > that reservation. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Hemanth Jagannathan > > PhD Candidate > > Department of Electrical Engineering > > Stanford University, CA > > Phone :(O)(650)-725-0417; (C) (650)-380-2105 > > e-mail: jhemanth at stanford.edu > > > > From jiencao at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 14:12:51 2004 From: jiencao at stanford.edu (Jien Cao) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:12:51 -0800 Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 References: <000301c3e6a3$ad73a1c0$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Message-ID: <001201c3e6b5$09ae1ae0$0400a8c0@Jienlaptop> I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. Jien ----- Original Message ----- From: Hemanth Jagannathan To: raith at snf.stanford.edu Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:08 PM Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Thursday 1-29 I will be AFK (away from keyboard) (credits for the acronym give to Mark Topinka) 5pm - 10:00pm, and would appreciate it if people would let me make that reservation. Thank you! Hemanth Jagannathan PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA Phone :(O)(650)-725-0417; (C) (650)-380-2105 e-mail: jhemanth at stanford.edu From sandrew at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 14:34:39 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:34:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 In-Reply-To: <001201c3e6b5$09ae1ae0$0400a8c0@Jienlaptop> Message-ID: > I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm > next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we can reserve. However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the same time they know the next available time slot. -Scott From cumings at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 15:32:28 2004 From: cumings at stanford.edu (John Cumings) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:32:28 -0800 Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:34:39 PST." Message-ID: <200401292332.i0TNWSah016287@elaine28.Stanford.EDU> Hear Hear. (I agree with Scott) ------------------------------------------------------------ John Cumings cumings at stanford.edu Postdoctoral Scholar Physics Department Stanford University office (650) 725-1025 lab (650) 725-2047 fax (650) 724-3681 Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials 239 McCullough Building 476 Lomita Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4045 ------------------------------------------------------------ In message you write: > >> I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm >> next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. > >I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead >via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am >assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on >tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write >email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we >can reserve. > >However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new >policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you >have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to >reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other >users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the >same time they know the next available time slot. > >-Scott > > > From altug at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 15:48:44 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:48:44 -0800 Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 References: Message-ID: <129601c3e6c2$6e3f1e20$da5540ab@hatice> I also agree with Scott.. Otherwise: --it is so confusing without seeing the first 1/2 half and people have to make new calander to keep track of Raith reservations. (It was more easy with Mark and Quay when they signed first 1/2 hour) --the reservation time extends much more than a week (by this I does not mean to oppose Mark's 2 week idea tough!) hatice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews" To: Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 > > > I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm > > next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. > > I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead > via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am > assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on > tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write > email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we > can reserve. > > However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new > policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you > have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to > reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other > users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the > same time they know the next available time slot. > > -Scott > > > From ajavey at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 16:18:37 2004 From: ajavey at stanford.edu (Ali Javey) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:18:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Can I reserve 5pm to 10pm Friday 1-30 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I also absolutely agree. I'm not a big fan of the e-mailing idea. It makes sense to me to send an e-mail only when one has at least one 1/2 hour block of reservation..... Ali On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Scott D. Andrews wrote: > > > I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm > > next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. > > I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead > via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am > assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on > tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write > email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we > can reserve. > > However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new > policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you > have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to > reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other > users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the > same time they know the next available time slot. > > -Scott > > > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 16:31:20 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:31:20 -0800 Subject: 'Take a Spin with Me' :: Monday December 9, 2004 10 - 12 AM SNF Cleanroom In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040126172830.01c362e0@vigneshg.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <5.1.1.5.2.20040126144522.01aafdf8@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> <5.1.1.5.2.20040126144522.01aafdf8@lsmoore.pobox.stanford.edu> <5.2.1.1.2.20040126172830.01c362e0@vigneshg.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4019A5D8.8060809@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: I will be conducting the monthly Ebeam Resist Handling and Headway Spinner Training class for ebeam users on Monday February 9, 2004 from 10 - 12 Noon in the SNF cleanroom. We will review policy and procedures for handling Ebeam resist and to obtain quality reproducible PMMA thin films. This session will qualify you for access and use of the Headway2 wafer coater and Blue M Oven. I have reserved the Headway and the Blue M oven for your use. Come and learn and get some work done too! Please have your wafers clean and in the 150 degree singe oven or HMDS prime oven so you are ready to spin... Thank you, James Conway No need to reply to this message just show up on time. From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 16:45:26 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:45:26 -0800 Subject: Double layer PMMA dose In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4019A926.5050404@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Scott: Hitachi 30 KeV: Threshold to clear large areas: 350 uC/cm2 Normal area dose I use: 500 uC/cm2 Line dose to 100 - 150 nm: 650 - 800 uC/cm2 Jing Kong used 900 uC/cm2 You will have to adjust your dose for 10 keV downward divide by 2.5. 10 keV gave me ~ 0.2 um of undercut. I will be running more samples in late February. All the best, JWC Scott D. Andrews wrote: >Hello, > >Does anyone have recent data on the proper dot and line dose for the >bilayer PMMA process? If you also know the undercut you achieved, could >you let me know that as well? > >Thank you, >Scott Andrews > > From mtopinka at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 17:04:17 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:04:17 -0800 Subject: raith email reservations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040129170101.028abe50@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> At the risk of sounding like a broken record- I totally agree with the previous 3-4 emails- let's make it the policy that once you have a 1/2 hour block reserved, you can email the rest of the group and say "I would like to reserve from NOW until X please". By the way- in the interest of full disclosure, I was the one to "open Pandora's box" yesterday evening,, but just for the record: I did already have a reservation going at the time. :) -Mark At 04:18 PM 1/29/2004 -0800, Ali Javey wrote: >I also absolutely agree. I'm not a big fan of the e-mailing idea. It >makes sense to me to send an e-mail only when one has at least one 1/2 >hour block of reservation..... > >Ali > > >On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Scott D. Andrews wrote: > > > > > > I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm > > > next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. > > > > I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead > > via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am > > assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on > > tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write > > email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we > > can reserve. > > > > However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new > > policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you > > have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to > > reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other > > users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the > > same time they know the next available time slot. > > > > -Scott > > > > > > From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Thu Jan 29 17:22:46 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:22:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: raith email reservations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040129170101.028abe50@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: > but just for the record: I did already have a reservation going at the > time. :) -Mark Just for the record, i started this about two weeks ago. I'm glad it is spreading. At that time, jwc honored my request by reserving the time. -Dan > > At 04:18 PM 1/29/2004 -0800, Ali Javey wrote: > >I also absolutely agree. I'm not a big fan of the e-mailing idea. It > >makes sense to me to send an e-mail only when one has at least one 1/2 > >hour block of reservation..... > > > >Ali > > > > > >On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Scott D. Andrews wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would really appreciate it if you would let me reserve 5pm-10pm > > > > next Friday (1-30). Many thanks. > > > > > > I would like to request that today's new idea of reserving times far ahead > > > via email becomes the exception instead of the rule. (Note, that I am > > > assuming the request for 1/30 is a typo -- byu already has this time on > > > tomorrow's slot). This effectively makes the game to be the first to write > > > email reserving time and brings up many questions of how far in advance we > > > can reserve. > > > > > > However, I want to stress that I am not suggesting that we curb the new > > > policy of telling people how long you are trying to reserve, i.e. once you > > > have reserved the first 1/2 hour, telling people that you are trying to > > > reserve a 4 hour block. To me, this is a very effective policy so other > > > users don't accidentally block the user making the reservation and at the > > > same time they know the next available time slot. > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 18:23:47 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:23:47 -0800 Subject: Ebeam Town Meeting Agenda Monday February 2, 2004 2 - PM CIS 101 Message-ID: <4019C033.7030206@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings, I am looking forward to holding the first Ebeam Town Meeting for 2004. This is a great opportunity to meet the main participants in the Ebeam community that has formed in the SNF Ebeam Lab. This event is intended to have your opinions and concerns discussed in an open comfortable forum. This meeting is open to all interested parties student, faculty, and industrial users alike. Your inputs and the outcome of this meeting will be presented to SNF Management and the Ebeam Technology Advisory Committee later next month. Ebeam Town Meeting Agenda: 2:00 - 2:10 Greetings and opening statements. 2:10 - 2:55 Discussion: Towards developing a new RAITH reservation and utilization policy. Goal: Gain consensus on what the new reservation limits and utilization policies are necessary to maintain fair access to all Raith system users. * Coral Reservation Limits * Group or individual system utilization limits. * Migration of some users back to EBEAM Hitachi H-700. 2:55 - 3:05 Standby Status List policy: To gain access when cancellations or free space opens on the system. 3:05- 3:20 Brainstorming and sharing of ideas on methods to improve system throughput capability. 3:20 - 3:30 Equipment Infrastructure Request for improvements for the Ebeam and Photolithography areas to support the Ebeam Community. 3:30 - 4:00 Open Discussion: Topics of Interest * Conversion of the Ebeam Lab back to Class 100 cleanroom status? * Advanced Users School here at SNF-SU -- where does your interest lie? * Other topics you may have? I am looking forward to hearing your opinions and working together as we continue to create a community of Ebeam users with the goal of making our facility the leading Academic Ebeam Lithography Users facility in America. Thank you for your support and interest in Ebeam Technologies at SNF. See you Monday at 2:00 PM James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Thu Jan 29 18:56:13 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith (and other tools) scheduling: another idea... Message-ID: First, i would like to say that the email forum has been a great process! Second, I would like to point out that no matter what we do, usage will still be at 100%. Competition will still arise. One way to view the problem is that of allocating a scarce resource. We have only so much time, and all if it will get used up. How do we decide who gets what? What forum do we use for communication about those decisions? The keywords here are communicate, decide, and allocate. The recent emails about publicly posted requests highlights the need for more communication. THe present land-grab procedure begs for more communication and active decision making. it's like cutting a cake for our guests without first counting how many people want dessert. Ideally, we would all get together once a week, put in our requests, and work out a schedule. Clearly a nightmare. However, i would like to suggest a solution: software. It could work like this: by noon on Wednesday, everyone sends in their requests electronically, and a simple program allocates the time, in an optimized way. The week's schedule is done. No races. No forgetting to sign up. No finding 5 hours a week in advance to spend at a computer signing up. Any leftover time becomes available to those who haven't capped (i am guessing we will go with a reduced cap of 10 hrs), or within 24 hrs for those who have capped. Optimization details include first allocating small slots (say 4 hrs) to all. Then in a second pass, if there's more time, additional requests can be honored. Allocation can also accomodate indivisible blocks. Blackout times can be included in schedule requests (meaning "i'd like 4 hours monday morning, but not from 11-2"). Ideally the schedule is enetered automattically on corall. if not, it can be posted, and people use the honor system to fill in their allotment. Or one person can enter it all (good work-study job). Many, many options! I looked online for such software, thousands of sites selling various schdeuling packages. havne't found this one yet. is it out there? is it hard to write (seems ez to me)? Summary (so far!): 1)schedule requests submitted electronically. a)preferred total time b)minimum continuous time c)blackout times 2)deadline for schedule submission: noon Wed. 3)allocation: a)optimization criteria such as "some to all first". b)10 hour cap/wk. c)ranked slot requests. 4)Schedule posted Wed noon. a)integrated manually i)individual users on honor system ii)singel individual (such as work-study student) b)auto with coral. 5)Remaining time: a)open to users at noon Wed who have not capped. b)24 hours in advance unscheduled time can be reserved by capped users. 6)Your idea here. If this works, it could be used by other tools in the fab that hit similar crunches (STS!). No more Schedule Wars! Is this workable? Is it sufficiently simple? Can it be implemented? Many questions. Please consider this email as raw material, perhaps a good starting point for something (that could be?) great. Thanks, Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From vigneshg at stanford.edu Thu Jan 29 23:33:48 2004 From: vigneshg at stanford.edu (Vignesh Gowrishankar) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:33:48 -0800 Subject: Raith Reservations next week Message-ID: <1075448028.401a08dc9085b@webmail.stanford.edu> Hi all, I am trying to reserve 4 hours next thursday night 10pm - 2am. I have the first half housr slot as per the string of e-mails. Thanks. - Vignesh From sandrew at stanford.edu Fri Jan 30 03:03:42 2004 From: sandrew at stanford.edu (Scott D. Andrews) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:03:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Request Raith reservation 2:30 - 7:30 Message-ID: I just reserved the first 1/2 hour of a Raith reservation from 2:30 am - 7:30 am on Fri, Feb 6. Please keep the rest of the reservation open. Thanks, Scott From shott at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jan 30 08:02:00 2004 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:02:00 -0800 Subject: Raith (and other tools) scheduling: another idea... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401A7FF8.2090107@snf.stanford.edu> Dan and all Raith users: I appreciate all of the efforts, suggestions, and discussion of improved ways for allocating scarce resources. There are clearly a handful of pieces of equipment for which this has become a major issue. The Raith and the STS deep etcher, I'm sure, head that list! I agree with Dan that software can provide a lot of tools to help ... although, as you'll see later, I'm not sure that I think that a multipass, bid system is the best approach. Before launching into that, however, let me point out something about the existing reservation system that may be obvious to all but that bears on the current discussion. The current system enforces one simple rule: your reservation has to be COMPLETED no more than 7 days from "right now". When things get jammed up, this has resulted in the unfortunate situation of people madly grabbing each 30 minute hunk of time ... even though 30 minutes isn't a particularly useful or usable block of time on either the Raith or the STS etcher. Why was the rule made that the reservation had to be completed in less than seven days? This was a simple choice ... at least when it was made: we didn't want to allow someone to grab an arbitrarily long time if the rule were "your reservation has to START no more than 7 days from right now" because we didn't have a system for regulating or enforcing exactly how long each reservation could be. While I'm sure that the Raith and STS users will laugh in my face, I'll stick my neck out and say that this simple system has worked surprisingly well if you consider that this was also the reservation rule that was used in the predecessor to Coral (Berkeley's Microlab AKA Stanford's Crystal) that was originally released some time prior to 1985 ... that is, 20 years ago. Now I'm not proposing that we do nothing ... in fact, just the opposite. It is painfully clear that the current approach fails badly when demand for equipment time approaches 24x7. As I indicated previously, Bill Murray has been working on putting the tools in place to improve the reservation system since the first of the year. He is working on what I think can be called a "rule based" system for making reservations. I believe that we can come up with a reasonable set of rules that prevents hogging and gave everyone a legitimate chance of getting reasonable blocks of time. Consider the very simple prototype rule: 1. Your reservation has to START no more than 7 days from right now. 2. That reservation has to conform to some other rules related to duration of a single reservation (including sub-rules for peak and off-peak usage times) and collective total time of outstanding reservations. This would immediately make 2 enormous improvement to the existing system: Each reservation could be a useful lenght of time ... you would no longer have to try to swap a bunch of individually useless 30 minute time segments for a "real" reservation. Plus, you would not have to compete for each 30 minute slot when it became available. The advantage of a rule-based system is that it is easier to "publish", understand, and fine tune. I would argue that playing with maximum "prime time" reservation length and total outstanding reservation length (with, of course, eliminating the need to compete for 30 minute blocks) would offer a lot of flexibility. If simple rules didn't work, I'm sure that we could come up with effective (if somewhat more complex) rules to "fine tune" our allocation. Of course, this assumes that we have the infrastructure in place to easily modify/add/delete reservation rules ... it is exactly this infrastructure that Bill is putting in place. What are my concerns with the "bid and then allocate" approach? 1. I fear it is not too convenient from a process perspective. I assume that there would be multiple "bid/allocate" tools in the lab ... raith, stsetch, and tylannitride, to name three. Suppose your are allocated a time for patterning prior to your time for depositing a nitride layer and it is the nitride layer that you are hoping to pattern? Supporting "process constraints" (I need to deposit a layer before I pattern it) in addition to all of the time based constraints sounds awfully complex. 2. What do you do about cancelled reservations? Is there a secondary bidding system, or does it become the first one to grab it? Or do you need rules to allocate who can compete for any reservations slots that weren't claimed at bid time (or that were later released). I am unaware of any existing, automated "bid/allocate" reservation systems. This, to me, says one of 2 things: 1. It is harder to implement than it appears. 2. Other, simpler, approaches work better. Most systems for allocating scarce resources seem to be simple and rule based including: 1. First come, first served. ... Seat selection on Southwest Airlines. 2. Rules plus first come, first served ... tickets go on sale at 10 a.m. on Sunday, each person in line can buy up to four tickets. 3. Rules (incentives) to encourage more use during "off hours" ... checked the fares on flights leaving at 6 a.m. instead of at noon? 4. The "patron" model. Big donors get to select their seats before the rest. (AKA the Opera model). Now it is true that there are very sophisticated algorithm-based scheduling systems for getting maximum throughput in a manufacturing facility ... and a lot of PhDs have been awarded in industrial engineering and in the business school developing even better algorithms. Of course a lot of effort also goes into trying to figure out how to control access to and throughput on freeways particularly during "prime time". However, these approaches are not likely to result in short-term benefits in our setting. I would argue that examples of commonly used and easily implemented means of automatically allocating scarce resources are largely rule-based and that it is the most useful avenue for us to explore. Thank you all for your thoughtful discussion of these matters. A detailed discussion of the pros and cons of various approaches to allocating reservations will, I'm sure, result in a more workable system for all. Thanks, John From grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU Fri Jan 30 11:38:08 2004 From: grupp at snowmass.Stanford.EDU (Dan Grupp) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:38:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raith (and other tools) scheduling: another idea... In-Reply-To: <401A7FF8.2090107@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hello John (and everyone), Wow, thanks for that exposition! It is also great news that you guys have been working on this. I would like to know more about the rules you are thinking about in the new system. Is it just the addition of larger time slots? My question is how to we eliminate the fierce competition? There are two kinds of systems. The first, of which there are many, have application/optimized allocation systems (e.g., any funding institution). The second are first-come-first-served. The difference between systems that are first-come-first-served and those that are allocated is need. That is, in the former, there is no "need" (to go to the opera), and in the latter all applicants express some need (for the scarce resource). Another way to put it is "Is there a resource involved?". Entertainment is not a resource, whereas food is. Tool time in the fab is also a resource, associated with a clear need. This would imply that fair allocation would not be fcfs, but by application/optimized allocation. Interesting point about scheduling a flow on multiple machines. This is solved by a)requested blackout times b)leaving sufficient windows between processes, knowing that you're requested time may fall in a range. c)first,second, and third choice slots may (must?) be requested. Fact is, this can be NO WORSE than the competition we have now! At least allocation is made on the basis of optimal requests, rather than what it often is, which is "i have time to make a reservation now, and some time is available next week". Thanks, Dan On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, John Shott wrote: > ab_boundary > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="-----------------------------1075484579" > > > -------------------------------1075484579 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Cosmo, > > I have attached a list of men who are going to the training. Hopefully you > can connect with one of them. > > Bruce Reinhardt > > -------------------------------1075484579 > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > t=3Dutf-8"> > > f"> >
Cosmo,
>
 
>
I have attached a list of men who are going to the training.  Hope= > fully you can connect with one of them.
>
 
>
Bruce Reinhardt
> > -------------------------------1075484579-- > > --part1_45.42aa58c.2d4bf1ab_boundary > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Weekend Staff List ,28 Jan 04.wpd" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Weekend Staff List ,28 Jan 04.wpd" > > /1dQQ4caAAABCgIBAAAAAgUAAACk1wAAAAIAACLrqAeqrfDte+w6oh7yhNsqk9LtWmYtIFHm > x+vMdL+oRzmmKOI9mgp0RD8OuxZyLIwS5v57I8PC5J/PNUGNlzM7i47I4LlSvjcfsIAWaATg > q+aoFb0JD7yO2jdlzWecRF7hr559/OKsEfHkX9NK43caNmj+Ty5vwoghDMs3vl4OCV8gf2gi > x915l00V/4UJthJiniC7mSrvxwsCeC+d65eVNdVgJPyAUj3RNm+moq8aQzZcEW/P0jgbPYDH > qU7rVzdqEpjPQUTuKCMzoWpcZ4uF6on30U20o+ZnUpGAHFGDmegnm1QXIsyxEsToo424Q+OC > 1IOuR/AgXBLNBebnHBvvBXGOiMHlVKLpHl/LRuh6q3nJq3k4mqxEpxDdS2tbanfFmNIVck7P > 3rTBzAh96OzxDZctA+LpQLWqhTBK4DTbEwUiiSt1pOR1V66bDoZkUD+CNAA+ZI1LmGvt9lyz > Yz016uQlJ33kH4zOqQD5jTJe1tGjYCSPmxo3n52Z81+bplKGi6aK6jUk2dolj7AFp/vW1BLk > /uwU+ZJ0npAZWHW6DJw7XjAB5+pqBwl2xXZrzBsliruaDstfMaG3C7P72kG/37JEswI+TlEE > jRrQjXudxKKIFuFvj9b/1ZFZ9ATEY5tdAxYCADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgjAQAAAMkCAACgBAAA > AFUMAAAATgAAAGkHAAAJJQEAAAAGAAAAtwcAAAswAgAAADoAAAC9BwAACzABAAAAVQAAAPcH > AAALMAEAAADdAAAATAgAAAswAQAAAL8AAAApCQAACzABAAAAuQAAAOgJAAALMAEAAACzAAAA > oQoAAAswAQAAAK0AAABUCwAACzABAAAApwAAAAEMAAALMAEAAAChAAAAqAwAAAswAQAAAJsA > AABJDQAACzABAAAAvwAAAOQNAAALMAEAAADLAAAAow4AAAswAQAAAK0AAABuDwAACzABAAAA > pwAAABsQAAALMAEAAAChAAAAwhAAAAswAQAAAJsAAABjEQAACzABAAAAlQAAAP4RAAALMAEA > AACPAAAAkxIAAAswAQAAAIcAAAAiEwAACzABAAAAvAAAAKkTAAALMAEAAADIAAAAZRQAAAsw > AQAAAKoAAAAtFQAACzABAAAApAAAANcVAAALMAEAAACeAAAAexYAAAswAQAAAJgAAAAZFwAA > CzABAAAAkgAAALEXAAALMAEAAACMAAAAQxgAAAswAQAAAIQAAADPGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM8Y > AAAAVb8CAAAqAAAAUxkAAABmAQAAAAIAAAB9GQAAAGEBAAAAFAAAAH8ZAAAABwEAAAAuAAAA > kxkAAAswAwAAAE4AAADBGQAACF4BAAAADAAAAA8aAAAIdwEAAAAEAAAAGxoAAAg0AQAAABQA > AAAfGgAACAIBAAAADwAAADMaAAAIEAEAAAACAAAAQhoAAAltAQAAABcAAABEGgAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAEQaAAAAZgEAAAACAAAAWxoAAABhAQAAABQAAABdGgAABggBAAAAFgAAAHEaAAAAmAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAKAAoACgAK > AAoACgAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAACYA1h5kDjkIAAARCQAAAFoAGwEAixQ2AFQAaQBtAGUAcwAgAE4AZQB3ACAAUgBv > AG0AYQBuACAAUgBlAGcAdQBsAGEAcgAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAgBYAgEAAAAEACgAAAASAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAARL8nCQAoQAAAKEAAADUHBIAAAIAVVNVUy4ALAASANQBAAAABAAqAAAAAAAA > ACsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMM//8oAF8AMgA2AAAAAADUMg4AAwQAAAAAAw4A1NQzCgADAAAKANTg > ERMAAAAAAAAuAC4AAQAAEwDgAQAAAAQAKgAAAEQAAAArAAAAAAAAAEQAAAADDP//KABfADIA > NQAAAAAA0wsMAAACAKj9DADT0wwMAAACALAEDADT0wQsAAAiAAGMCgoAjAoA5AwAPA8AlBEA > 7BMARBYAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8sANPUMg4AAwQAAAABAw4A1NQzCgADAAAKANTgERMAAAAAAAAu > AC4AAQAAEwDg0wQsAAAiAAGMCgoAjAoA5AwAPA8AlBEA7BMARBYAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8sANPT > CwwAAAIAqP0MANPTDAwAAAIAsAQMANMBAAAABAAqAAAANQAAACsAAAAAAAAANQAAAAMM//8o > AF8AMgA0AAAAAADTDAwAAAIACAcMANPTBCkAAB8AAeQMCQDkDAA8DwCUEQDsEwBEFgCcGAD0 > GgBMHQCkHykA09QyDgADBAAAAAIDDgDU1DMKAAMAAAoA1OAREwAAAAAAAC4ALgABAAATAODT > BCkAAB8AAeQMCQDkDAA8DwCUEQDsEwBEFgCcGAD0GgBMHQCkHykA09MMDAAAAgAIBwwA0wEA > AAAEACoAAAAyAAAAKwAAAAAAAAAyAAAAAwz//ygAXwAyADMAAAAAANMMDAAAAgBgCQwA09ME > JgAAHAABPA8IADwPAJQRAOwTAEQWAJwYAPQaAEwdAKQfJgDT1DIOAAMEAAAAAwMOANTUMwoA > AwAACgDU4BETAAAAAAAALgAuAAEAABMA4NMEJgAAHAABPA8IADwPAJQRAOwTAEQWAJwYAPQa > AEwdAKQfJgDT0wwMAAACAGAJDADTAQAAAAQAKgAAAC8AAAArAAAAAAAAAC8AAAADDP//KABf > ADIAMgAAAAAA0wwMAAACALgLDADT0wQjAAAZAAGUEQcAlBEA7BMARBYAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8j > ANPUMg4AAwQAAAAEAw4A1NQzCgADAAAKANTgERMAAAAAAAAuAC4AAQAAEwDg0wQjAAAZAAGU > EQcAlBEA7BMARBYAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8jANPTDAwAAAIAuAsMANMBAAAABAAqAAAALAAAACsA > AAAAAAAALAAAAAMM//8oAF8AMgAxAAAAAADTDAwAAAIAEA4MANPTBCAAABYAAewTBgDsEwBE > FgCcGAD0GgBMHQCkHyAA09QyDgADBAAAAAUDDgDU1DMKAAMAAAoA1OAREwAAAAAAAC4ALgAB > AAATAODTBCAAABYAAewTBgDsEwBEFgCcGAD0GgBMHQCkHyAA09MMDAAAAgAQDgwA0wEAAAAE > ACoAAAApAAAAKwAAAAAAAAApAAAAAwz//ygAXwAyADAAAAAAANMMDAAAAgBoEAwA09MEHQAA > EwABRBYFAEQWAJwYAPQaAEwdAKQfHQDT1DIOAAMEAAAABgMOANTUMwoAAwAACgDU4BETAAAA > AAAALgAuAAEAABMA4NMEHQAAEwABRBYFAEQWAJwYAPQaAEwdAKQfHQDT0wwMAAACAGgQDADT > AQAAAAQAKgAAACYAAAArAAAAAAAAACYAAAADDP//KABfADEAOQAAAAAA0wwMAAACAMASDADT > 0wQaAAAQAAGcGAQAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8aANPUMg4AAwQAAAAHAw4A1NQzCgADAAAKANTgERMA > AAAAAAAuAC4AAQAAEwDg0wQaAAAQAAGcGAQAnBgA9BoATB0ApB8aANPTDAwAAAIAwBIMANMB > AAAABAAqAAAAIwAAACsAAAAAAAAAIwAAAAMM//8oAF8AMQA4AAAAAADTDAwAAAIAGBUMANPT > BBcAAA0AAfQaAwD0GgBMHQCkHxcA09QyDgADBAAAAAgDDgDU1DMKAAMAAAoA1OAREwAAAAAA > AC4ALgABAAATAODTBBcAAA0AAfQaAwD0GgBMHQCkHxcA09MMDAAAAgAYFQwA0wEAAAAEACoA > AAA+AAAAGQAAAAAAAAA+AAAAAwz//ygAXwAxADcAAAAAANMMDAAAAgAAAAwA09MEMgAAKAAB > 3AUMANwFADQIAIwKAOQMADwPAJQRAOwTAEQWAJwYAPQaAEwdAKQfMgDT1DIOAAMEAAAAAAMO > ANTUMwoAAwAACgDUgNMEMgAAwBpAHQ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Daniel Grupp, Visiting Scholar Center for Integrated Systems Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-6911 FAX: 723-4659 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jiencao at stanford.edu Fri Jan 30 17:32:40 2004 From: jiencao at stanford.edu (Jien Cao) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:32:40 -0800 Subject: reserving 5-10pm next fri. Message-ID: <1075512760.401b05b8e985b@webmail.stanford.edu> I've started reserving 5-10pm next Friday (got the first half-an-hour block), would really appreciate it if you would let me get the reservation I need. Thank you! Jien From ajavey at stanford.edu Fri Jan 30 22:33:59 2004 From: ajavey at stanford.edu (Ali Javey) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:33:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: reserving 10 pm Friday - 4 am Saturday Message-ID: I've got the first 1/2 hour for the slot starting at 10 pm of Friday of next week. I would be very appreciated if you can please leave that block till 4 am of next Saturday to me. Thanks!!! Ali From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Sat Jan 31 05:20:23 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:20:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: reservation till noon Message-ID: guys, this is going to sound really bad, but i need to do a long write. can i please please please have the raith till noon next week? who really wants ot be up early on saturday anyway? charis. From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Sat Jan 31 05:34:56 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:34:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: reservation till 9am Message-ID: sorry, guys. i made a mistake in my time calculation. 9am is rnough. charis. From jhemanth at stanford.edu Sat Jan 31 13:38:35 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:38:35 -0800 Subject: Reservation on Message-ID: <000001c3e842$9581c060$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Hi everyone, I have made the first half hour reservation for next Saturday starting at 1pm and would appreciate it if I could take the 1pm to 7pm slot. Thanks Hemanth Jagannathan PhD Candidate Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford University, CA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: