From kcrozier at stanford.edu Thu Jul 1 14:52:05 2004 From: kcrozier at stanford.edu (Kenneth Brian Crozier) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:52:05 -0700 Subject: Raith not working - beam blanking problem In-Reply-To: <40E36986.5080301@snf.stanford.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20040630152500.02327840@kcrozier.pobox.stanford.edu> <5.2.0.9.2.20040630152500.02327840@kcrozier.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040701144245.02337d28@kcrozier.pobox.stanford.edu> hi everyone, this is to clarify the earlier emails. James and I had a more detailed discussion this morning on the problem and it seems that the problem is indeed that the Raith blanking is not functioning correctly. This does not affect all users as the background current (with the beam supposedly blanked) will only be enough to expose the resist for patterns that take a long time to write (such as mine, which takes 90 min). Therefore it might be perfectly OK for your patterns ! Note that the problem is not due to charging as the silicon nitride layer is very thin (200 nm). Also, exactly the same substrates (deposited in the same batch) with exactly the same patterns and exactly the same resist (ZEP) used to work fine. Also, note that other users (such as Arvind) have also experienced the same problem. It would be great if anyone else who has experienced a similar problem could also report it. James has been extremely helpful on this one and is attempting to find a way to fix it. best wishes, Ken From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jul 1 19:30:36 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:30:36 -0700 Subject: Please remove excess materials from the Ebeam lab passthru. Message-ID: <40E4C8CC.5090201@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: Users are directed to please remove excess materials from the Ebeam lab pass through. This is for in-process work only within the Ebeam lab and NOT to be used for storage of engineering materials. Sniff ... What's that smell?!! ;-) Thank you for your support! James Conway Ebeam Technology Group PS If you have GaAs, GaAlAs, GaN substrates you wish to donate to my work this would be of use to me for work in August. jwc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jul 2 06:28:40 2004 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 06:28:40 -0700 Subject: 10-Day Reservation Horizon ... Message-ID: <00a101c46038$7d45ad90$286540ab@jds> SNF Raith Members: A couple of you had pointed out that the new reservation policy wasn't allowing you to make reservations more than 7-days in advance, despite the fact that the Policy panel shows that there is a 10-day horizon rule in efffect for the raith. We've found the cause of that problem. It turns out that we were enforcing the 10-day rule and then, inadvertently, also enforcing the 7-day rule ... which, of course, didn't allow any reservations further than 7-days in the future. We've changed things so that now ONLY the 10-day rule will be enforced. We apologize for that error ... Thank you for you continued support, John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jul 2 18:49:53 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:49:53 -0700 Subject: RAITH Update July 2, 2004 1840 hours. RAITH IS UP and we have a work around for the Trillium blanking defect. Message-ID: <40E610C1.6040400@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jul 2 19:53:26 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:53:26 -0700 Subject: James will be away through July 19, 2004 RAITH Champions are in charge... Message-ID: <40E61FA6.3080104@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: I will be away on business through July 19, 2004. Raith Champions are in Charge of the system. See the Who are you going to call sheet I have placed on the system or refer to archives. Gigi and Arvind are primaries in charge. I can be reached by cell phone at 415-412-4825 for emergencies and desperate plights of terror if you encounter them. Please make every effort to cooperate and maximize throughput on the system. Do please keep up the logbook entries up, and be sure to fill out both pages of the log book including: - recording the APerture and the Beam Current - record of results and errors you are having on the system in the notebook II - record exact working Distances used and - if or if not you are using focus correction and it or if not you observed stitching errors of any magnitude. I am seeing a firm dependence of focus corrections across small chips and stitching breaks in Y on the order of 80 - 120 nm. I need your data to help work this out upon my return. 76 eyes are better than one! Many nice patterns were written on the RAITH 150 this last two weeks. My UVN-30 writes for JPL came out very nice once I got the parameters down. LGX and DWSHIN have this process well optimized... Smallest dot in June 10 nm! Smallest Line from my test 17 nm. Please play nicely together, its is supposed to be fun right?! James Conway in New York State offline till 7-19-04 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: FAQ_PROBLEMS_Who_are_you_going_to_call.txt URL: From pcatryss at stanford.edu Sun Jul 4 17:42:58 2004 From: pcatryss at stanford.edu (Peter B. Catrysse) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:42:58 -0700 Subject: Raith reservation 9AM-2PM Monday July 5th removed: sample not ready Message-ID: From lsmoore at stanford.edu Mon Jul 5 12:50:33 2004 From: lsmoore at stanford.edu (Lindsay Shannon Moore) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:50:33 -0700 Subject: Raith reservation 4-8PM Monday July 5th removed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1089057033.40e9b109e5c58@webmail.stanford.edu> Sorry for the late notice. I am not feeling well. I also can't get coral to launch on my home computer, so I can't remove the reservation from the schedule. From scaccag at stanford.edu Tue Jul 6 13:52:59 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: res removed tonight Message-ID: sorry, can't make it. From ifushman at stanford.edu Wed Jul 7 00:09:31 2004 From: ifushman at stanford.edu (Ilya Fushman) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:09:31 -0700 Subject: free Wed Night Message-ID: <000c01c463f1$59c5a610$555540ab@DBXQS341> Pattern is not ready. Sorry for the late notice. -Ilya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pcatryss at stanford.edu Thu Jul 8 18:19:45 2004 From: pcatryss at stanford.edu (Peter Catrysse) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:19:45 -0700 Subject: Raith in yellow mode due to Decoder/IEEE error Message-ID: <200407090119.i691JkS0011180@smtp3.Stanford.EDU> Hi everyone: When I started my Raith session by unloading the empty stage, I received a decoder error. A message box appeared saying "It is not possible to switch to decoder. Retry or Cancel". Pressing Retry did not help. In addition, the Raith software reported an error in the IEC motor control module saying "Error writing IEEE-488!". I have placed Raith in yellow mode in Coral, but it won't work until this problem is fixed. Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arvisun at stanford.edu Fri Jul 9 18:05:47 2004 From: arvisun at stanford.edu (arvind sundaramurthy) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:05:47 -0700 Subject: Raith Status Update Message-ID: <090201c4661a$08e31860$cd5640ab@arvind> The Raith went down yesterday evening. The user was not able to unload the stage. I cleared all the software issues today with assistance from the Raith folks. I did a hardware reset of the airlock controller and the stage controller. It turns out that the small turbo pump that evacuates the loading chamber during the load/unload procedure does not work anymore. The Raith system is sending a signal to the pump to start but nothing happens after that. We may need to replace the pump. The Raith personnel have promised to send someone to look into it and replace the pump if necessary on Monday. I guess we have to wait until then. The Raith would be down over the weekend and I will update its status on Monday. arvind -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arvisun at stanford.edu Mon Jul 12 14:05:59 2004 From: arvisun at stanford.edu (arvind sundaramurthy) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:05:59 -0700 Subject: Raith is ready for use. Message-ID: <0b8f01c46854$08276e80$cd5640ab@arvind> hi, The raith is back up for use. The vacuum issues that lead to problems with the load/unload procedures seem to have resolved. When you use the raith please remember to do the following: * Enable the machine before loading/unloading your sample so that you do not get a load lock error. * Hold the loading chamber lid down when the green error light on the airlock control panel goes from blinking to steady. * When you have finished loading, please wait for the Raith software to bring up the reset co-ordinate system/set voltage dialog box. This usually takes a few minutes. Consider the load procedure as complete and the machine ready for use only when this happens. * After you have finished, send the stage back into the chamber. DO NOT leave the stage in the vented loadlock chamber. The raith folks suspect this may lead to problems with load/unload procedures. arvind -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atalasaz at stanford.edu Mon Jul 12 14:47:44 2004 From: atalasaz at stanford.edu (Amir Ali Haj Hossein Talasaz) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:47:44 -0700 Subject: Reservation Delayed: Raith is free today Message-ID: <1089668864.40f307002764c@webmail.stanford.edu> From hungtao at stanford.edu Mon Jul 12 15:39:43 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:39:43 -0700 Subject: free Wednesday 10am - 2pm Message-ID: <1089671983.40f3132fa7072@webmail.stanford.edu> sorry, cannot make it. -hungtao From ryantu at stanford.edu Tue Jul 13 10:44:43 2004 From: ryantu at stanford.edu (Ryan Huain Tu) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:43 -0700 Subject: Help with Raith error Message-ID: <1089740683.40f41f8ba50e6@webmail.stanford.edu> When trying to align write field, I encounter the following message: Zoom(Y) would exceed limit For a successful correction, readjust SEM and reset ELPHY Does anyone know how to correct this? This is the first time I have seen this message. Thanks, Ryan From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Tue Jul 13 11:53:14 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Help with Raith error In-Reply-To: <1089740683.40f41f8ba50e6@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: http://elrey.stanford.edu:8080/Raith/22 On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Ryan Huain Tu wrote: > Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:43 -0700 > From: Ryan Huain Tu > To: raith at snf.stanford.edu > Subject: Help with Raith error > > When trying to align write field, I encounter the following message: > > Zoom(Y) would exceed limit > For a successful correction, readjust SEM and reset ELPHY > > Does anyone know how to correct this? This is the first time I have seen > this message. > > Thanks, > Ryan > From scaccag at stanford.edu Tue Jul 13 19:30:14 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: zoom(y) exceed limit again! Message-ID: HI all, I'm in the ebeam room now, I got again the problem with zoom(y) exceeds limit. I tried instructions on swiky but still have the problem (I tried shut down of both computer and turning off the elphy). If anybody has other ideas please email me or better call me here @ 5-3673 Many thanks Gigi From scaccag at stanford.edu Tue Jul 13 21:15:04 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raith problem Message-ID: Hi all, ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers and Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the numbers of WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is stuck on those numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or Raith. If people from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise James plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> SEM condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. No idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot both systems. Any help welcome Thanks Gigi From jk at raithusa.com Tue Jul 13 22:32:51 2004 From: jk at raithusa.com (Joseph Klingfus) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:32:51 -0500 Subject: Raith problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004201c46964$02a12da0$6901a8c0@planck> Follow up.... To overcome the "zoom exceeds limits" message the general solution is to decrease the MAG. The system is quite stable over time so if you are using a WF size and MAG that you have always used what else has changed?? For instance, if you normally have a zoom of 1.46 why is it now suddenly > 1.5? A good observation was the Polaroid output device setting. If correcting this setting does not restore everything to normal then some other setting on the LEO must have been changed recently. Joe. -----Original Message----- From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 PM To: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU Cc: jk at raithusa.com; Kahl, Michael; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU Subject: Raith problem Hi all, ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers and Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the numbers of WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is stuck on those numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or Raith. If people from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise James plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> SEM condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. No idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot both systems. Any help welcome Thanks Gigi From jk at raithusa.com Tue Jul 13 22:05:04 2004 From: jk at raithusa.com (Joseph Klingfus) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:05:04 -0500 Subject: Raith problem --> NO PROBLEM !! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004001c46960$20f63600$6901a8c0@planck> Greetings users. There is nothing wrong with the pattern generator. A key observation is that the Magnification Display of the LEO was not set to Polaroid. This is not the first time I have heard of this happening. It is set correctly when a user account is first added, but then somehow becomes set to current output device. So far we are not able to repeat how it occurs. Please check this setting the next time you log onto the SEM. Important notice concerning "zoom exceeds limits".... If you have never experienced this message before, then you have probably always used a default WF size and have never tried to setup your own WF size. Within the Microscope Control window the relationship between microscope MAG and WF size is only a very "course" field setting. The "fine tuning" is done with the AlignWF procedure and the resultant field scale parameters (zoom, shift, rot.) are displayed/stored in the Align WF window. There are max limits set on the DACs to keep their output response linear. If "zoom exceeds limits" then just decrease the MAG for the given WF size, this will decrease the needed zoom value. This message is in no way an indication that there is a deficiency or problem with the tool. Joe. -----Original Message----- From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 PM To: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU Cc: jk at raithusa.com; Kahl, Michael; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU Subject: Raith problem Hi all, ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers and Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the numbers of WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is stuck on those numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or Raith. If people from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise James plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> SEM condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. No idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot both systems. Any help welcome Thanks Gigi From ryantu at stanford.edu Tue Jul 13 23:20:11 2004 From: ryantu at stanford.edu (Ryan Huain Tu) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:20:11 -0700 Subject: Raith problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1089786011.40f4d09b3585d@webmail.stanford.edu> I will be cancelling my morning session tomorrow b/c Hitachi is down and I need both machines. It seems though, that there is a "fix" to this Zoom Y message. Ryan Quoting Luigi Scaccabarozzi : > Hi all, > ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is > "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers > and > Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the numbers > of > WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is stuck on > those > numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). > I talked to James, and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is > next user) after leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). > If it still does not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or > Raith. > If people from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise > James plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. > > One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> > SEM condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid > 545. > No idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If > polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. > If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot > both > systems. > > Any help welcome > Thanks > Gigi > > > From scaccag at stanford.edu Tue Jul 13 23:47:00 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raith problem --> NO PROBLEM !! In-Reply-To: <004001c46960$20f63600$6901a8c0@planck> Message-ID: Thanks to Joe for the explanations, but if I tried to do things exactly like in past, can you tell me why now it is not working? I mean, what other parameters on LEO could have possibly changed so that now the zoom exceeds the limit? And, if I simply decrease the MAG, what's going to happen to resolution and other parameters? One last question: I thought that the values of zoom-x and zoom-y depend on the WD, as well on other parameters. I tried to change WD (from 5 to 10), keeping all other parameters constants and the numbers don't change. Is this normal? I also noticed doing the align WF that in the first two scan my mark is "reasonably" shifted from the center, whereas in the third scan is extremely shifted (which makes zoom-y exceed the limit). What do you think about it? Thanks for your time Gigi On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Greetings users. > > There is nothing wrong with the pattern generator. > > A key observation is that the Magnification Display of the LEO was not set > to Polaroid. This is not the first time I have heard of this happening. It > is set correctly when a user account is first added, but then somehow > becomes set to current output device. So far we are not able to repeat how > it occurs. Please check this setting the next time you log onto the SEM. > > Important notice concerning "zoom exceeds limits".... > If you have never experienced this message before, then you have probably > always used a default WF size and have never tried to setup your own WF > size. Within the Microscope Control window the relationship between > microscope MAG and WF size is only a very "course" field setting. The "fine > tuning" is done with the AlignWF procedure and the resultant field scale > parameters (zoom, shift, rot.) are displayed/stored in the Align WF window. > There are max limits set on the DACs to keep their output response linear. > If "zoom exceeds limits" then just decrease the MAG for the given WF size, > this will decrease the needed zoom value. This message is in no way an > indication that there is a deficiency or problem with the tool. > > Joe. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 PM > To: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU > Cc: jk at raithusa.com; Kahl, Michael; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU > Subject: Raith problem > > > Hi all, > ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is > "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers and > Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the numbers of WF > correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is stuck on those > numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, and he says to try > again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after leaving the Elphy OFF for > ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does not work, tomorrow morning we > can call him and/or Raith. If people from Raith have any idea or suggestion > are welcome otherwise James plan is to have another Elphy shipped here > tomorrow. > > One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> SEM > condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. No > idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If polaroid > is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. If you have the > wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot both systems. > > Any help welcome > Thanks > Gigi > From jk at raithusa.com Wed Jul 14 09:11:25 2004 From: jk at raithusa.com (Joseph Klingfus) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:11:25 -0500 Subject: Raith problem --> NO PROBLEM !! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c469bd$370d4b10$6901a8c0@planck> Hi there Gigi, My apologies, of course I shouldn't assume that the pattern generator (PG) couldn't be broken. It might be. Please do the following as a test: 1) Turn the PG off, wait a short time and power back on. 2) Restart both PC's. 2) Check Polaroid 545 setting again on the LEO. 3) Load the Chessy calibration target (as square as possible on the stage) and go to your normal working distance (stage Z) and set a 100 ?m WF. 4) Because the Chessy is sitting squarely on the stage, the SEM scan rotation should be 0 and AlignWF rotation values should be nearly 0. 5) Collect a SlowScan image of the Chessy with the PG and see if everything looks OK. 6) Have the AlignWF window visible on the desktop and try an align WF procedure. (Remember, be very aware of your Scansize and Placement values. There are 1 ?m squares composing larger 10 ?m squares. Don't confuse which box intersections are the correct targets.) 7) Write down the calculated zoom correction factors that the system tries to apply. 8) Hopefully accept the corrections without errors and collect another SlowScan image. 9) If you selected the right box intersections the Chessy should be perfectly aligned and sized in the image. Please let me know how this turns out. To answer your question of WD... The Zoom U/V parameters do not depend so much on WD because the SEM takes care of this internally. Imagine setting a MAG of 600 X (~ 100 ?m WF) both at high and low Z height. The MAG determines the scale of things we see on the display screen. It still takes a voltage sweep of +/- 5 Volts on the external column inputs to raster the electron beam from side to side across the image. (just using 5 V as an example, all SEMs are different) This is why we (Raith litho) don't see any great effect on Zoom U/V parameters as WD changes. Although, for good stitching results do an AlignWF at the Z height you are writing at. Joe. -----Original Message----- From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:47 AM To: Joseph Klingfus Cc: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU; 'Kahl, Michael'; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU Subject: RE: Raith problem --> NO PROBLEM !! Thanks to Joe for the explanations, but if I tried to do things exactly like in past, can you tell me why now it is not working? I mean, what other parameters on LEO could have possibly changed so that now the zoom exceeds the limit? And, if I simply decrease the MAG, what's going to happen to resolution and other parameters? One last question: I thought that the values of zoom-x and zoom-y depend on the WD, as well on other parameters. I tried to change WD (from 5 to 10), keeping all other parameters constants and the numbers don't change. Is this normal? I also noticed doing the align WF that in the first two scan my mark is "reasonably" shifted from the center, whereas in the third scan is extremely shifted (which makes zoom-y exceed the limit). What do you think about it? Thanks for your time Gigi On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Greetings users. > > There is nothing wrong with the pattern generator. > > A key observation is that the Magnification Display of the LEO was not > set to Polaroid. This is not the first time I have heard of this > happening. It is set correctly when a user account is first added, > but then somehow becomes set to current output device. So far we are > not able to repeat how it occurs. Please check this setting the next > time you log onto the SEM. > > Important notice concerning "zoom exceeds limits".... > If you have never experienced this message before, then you have > probably always used a default WF size and have never tried to setup > your own WF size. Within the Microscope Control window the > relationship between microscope MAG and WF size is only a very > "course" field setting. The "fine tuning" is done with the AlignWF > procedure and the resultant field scale parameters (zoom, shift, rot.) > are displayed/stored in the Align WF window. There are max limits set > on the DACs to keep their output response linear. If "zoom exceeds > limits" then just decrease the MAG for the given WF size, this will > decrease the needed zoom value. This message is in no way an > indication that there is a deficiency or problem with the tool. > > Joe. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 PM > To: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU > Cc: jk at raithusa.com; Kahl, Michael; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU > Subject: Raith problem > > > Hi all, > ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is > "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers > and Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the > numbers of WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is > stuck on those numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, > and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after > leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does > not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or Raith. If people > from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise James > plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. > > One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> > SEM > condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. > condition-> No > idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If > polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. > If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot > both systems. > > Any help welcome > Thanks > Gigi > From scaccag at stanford.edu Wed Jul 14 16:47:06 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raith update In-Reply-To: <001201c469bd$370d4b10$6901a8c0@planck> Message-ID: HI Joe, we did what you suggested and everything seems fine in terms of slowscan images, although I'm not sure what I should look for exactly. Anyway, we tried decereasing the MAG to 580 (instead of 600) and the zoom x and zoom y go back within the limits and I can complete the align writefield. I haven't tried a test pattern yet (other users where using the system today and they don't really need and precide align writefield), I'll try tomorrow. The only thing I'm worried about is the realtive value of the zoom factors: at 580X they are zoom X:1.37, Y: 1.47, which means 0.1 difference, where it used to be 0.01. Should this still be ok? Does this ring any bell? To RAITH USERS: in the following days please report your results, especially stitch error and deformations, so that we can check if the anomalous zoom values are affecting the writes. Thanks! Gigi On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Hi there Gigi, > > My apologies, of course I shouldn't assume that the pattern generator (PG) > couldn't be broken. It might be. Please do the following as a test: > > 1) Turn the PG off, wait a short time and power back on. > 2) Restart both PC's. > 2) Check Polaroid 545 setting again on the LEO. > 3) Load the Chessy calibration target (as square as possible on the stage) > and go to your normal working distance (stage Z) and set a 100 ?m WF. > 4) Because the Chessy is sitting squarely on the stage, the SEM scan > rotation should be 0 and AlignWF rotation values should be nearly 0. > 5) Collect a SlowScan image of the Chessy with the PG and see if everything > looks OK. > 6) Have the AlignWF window visible on the desktop and try an align WF > procedure. (Remember, be very aware of your Scansize and Placement values. > There are 1 ?m squares composing larger 10 ?m squares. Don't confuse which > box intersections are the correct targets.) > 7) Write down the calculated zoom correction factors that the system tries > to apply. > 8) Hopefully accept the corrections without errors and collect another > SlowScan image. > 9) If you selected the right box intersections the Chessy should be > perfectly aligned and sized in the image. > > Please let me know how this turns out. > > To answer your question of WD... > The Zoom U/V parameters do not depend so much on WD because the SEM takes > care of this internally. Imagine setting a MAG of 600 X (~ 100 ?m WF) both > at high and low Z height. The MAG determines the scale of things we see on > the display screen. It still takes a voltage sweep of +/- 5 Volts on the > external column inputs to raster the electron beam from side to side across > the image. (just using 5 V as an example, all SEMs are different) This is > why we (Raith litho) don't see any great effect on Zoom U/V parameters as WD > changes. Although, for good stitching results do an AlignWF at the Z > height you are writing at. > > > Joe. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:47 AM > To: Joseph Klingfus > Cc: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU; 'Kahl, Michael'; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU > Subject: RE: Raith problem --> NO PROBLEM !! > > > Thanks to Joe for the explanations, but if I tried to do things exactly like > in past, can you tell me why now it is not working? I mean, what other > parameters on LEO could have possibly changed so that now the zoom exceeds > the limit? > > And, if I simply decrease the MAG, what's going to happen to resolution and > other parameters? > > One last question: I thought that the values of zoom-x and zoom-y depend on > the WD, as well on other parameters. I tried to change WD (from 5 to 10), > keeping all other parameters constants and the numbers don't change. Is this > normal? > > I also noticed doing the align WF that in the first two scan my mark is > "reasonably" shifted from the center, whereas in the third scan is extremely > shifted (which makes zoom-y exceed the limit). What do you think about it? > Thanks for your time Gigi > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > > > Greetings users. > > > > There is nothing wrong with the pattern generator. > > > > A key observation is that the Magnification Display of the LEO was not > > set to Polaroid. This is not the first time I have heard of this > > happening. It is set correctly when a user account is first added, > > but then somehow becomes set to current output device. So far we are > > not able to repeat how it occurs. Please check this setting the next > > time you log onto the SEM. > > > > Important notice concerning "zoom exceeds limits".... > > If you have never experienced this message before, then you have > > probably always used a default WF size and have never tried to setup > > your own WF size. Within the Microscope Control window the > > relationship between microscope MAG and WF size is only a very > > "course" field setting. The "fine tuning" is done with the AlignWF > > procedure and the resultant field scale parameters (zoom, shift, rot.) > > are displayed/stored in the Align WF window. There are max limits set > > on the DACs to keep their output response linear. If "zoom exceeds > > limits" then just decrease the MAG for the given WF size, this will > > decrease the needed zoom value. This message is in no way an > > indication that there is a deficiency or problem with the tool. > > > > Joe. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 PM > > To: raith at snf.Stanford.EDU > > Cc: jk at raithusa.com; Kahl, Michael; jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU > > Subject: Raith problem > > > > > > Hi all, > > ryan and I have found problems today in WF alignment. The error is > > "Zoom(Y) exceeds limit". I tried resetting and shutting down computers > > and Elphy, but no way. I tried WF align at WD 4.6 to 10 mm and the > > numbers of WF correction are the same. It looks like that the Elphy is > > stuck on those numbers (zoom X=1.49, zoom Y=1.52). I talked to James, > > and he says to try again tomorrow morning (Ryan is next user) after > > leaving the Elphy OFF for ~20 min (which I just did). If it still does > > not work, tomorrow morning we can call him and/or Raith. If people > > from Raith have any idea or suggestion are welcome otherwise James > > plan is to have another Elphy shipped here tomorrow. > > > > One more thing. I noticed that the option on LEO Tools-> Preferences-> > > SEM > > condition-> device was set to current device instead of POlaroid 545. > > condition-> No > > idea how that could have been switched but check your account. If > > polaroid is not selected, Align writefiled will definitely not work. > > If you have the wrong option, select polaroid, click apply and reboot > > both systems. > > > > Any help welcome > > Thanks > > Gigi > > > From pcatryss at stanford.edu Wed Jul 14 17:12:46 2004 From: pcatryss at stanford.edu (Peter Catrysse) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:12:46 -0700 Subject: Raith: available tomorrow Thursday 9AM-2PM Message-ID: <200407150012.i6F0CkZC016840@smtp2.Stanford.EDU> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jk at raithusa.com Thu Jul 15 17:45:22 2004 From: jk at raithusa.com (Joseph Klingfus) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:45:22 -0500 Subject: Raith update, Joe coming next week In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c46ace$2e117600$6901a8c0@planck> Gigi, all, It is a puzzle why 600 worked before, but now you need 580. No explanations as of yet, but I would accept 580 and go with it. It should be standard operating procedure to do an AlignWF before an exposure so you will always be sure the field size is correctly calibrated. I will be in the lab on Wednesday and Thursday of next week installing a new Raith computer. Perhaps on Thursday afternoon we could discuss the simple test I outlined and I can describe what I would be looking for in steps 5, 6, and 9. Likewise, if any users are having any difficulties on the system, please prepare something if coming to see me. It does little good to "wave hands" in the air trying to describe what the GDSII design looks like compared to the end result. Please have a few images and patterns ready. I know several users have been suffering from beam current leakage through the beam blanker. This is being handled through our service department. Perhaps they will have some ideas for me to try when I am on-site. Lets hope. Joe. HI Joe, we did what you suggested and everything seems fine in terms of slowscan images, although I'm not sure what I should look for exactly. Anyway, we tried decereasing the MAG to 580 (instead of 600) and the zoom x and zoom y go back within the limits and I can complete the align writefield. I haven't tried a test pattern yet (other users where using the system today and they don't really need and precide align writefield), I'll try tomorrow. The only thing I'm worried about is the realtive value of the zoom factors: at 580X they are zoom X:1.37, Y: 1.47, which means 0.1 difference, where it used to be 0.01. Should this still be ok? Does this ring any bell? To RAITH USERS: in the following days please report your results, especially stitch error and deformations, so that we can check if the anomalous zoom values are affecting the writes. Thanks! Gigi On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Hi there Gigi, > > My apologies, of course I shouldn't assume that the pattern generator > (PG) couldn't be broken. It might be. Please do the following as a > test: > > 1) Turn the PG off, wait a short time and power back on. > 2) Restart both PC's. > 2) Check Polaroid 545 setting again on the LEO. > 3) Load the Chessy calibration target (as square as possible on the > stage) and go to your normal working distance (stage Z) and set a 100 > ?m WF. > 4) Because the Chessy is sitting squarely on the stage, the SEM scan > rotation should be 0 and AlignWF rotation values should be nearly 0. > 5) Collect a SlowScan image of the Chessy with the PG and see if everything > looks OK. > 6) Have the AlignWF window visible on the desktop and try an align WF > procedure. (Remember, be very aware of your Scansize and Placement values. > There are 1 ?m squares composing larger 10 ?m squares. Don't confuse which > box intersections are the correct targets.) > 7) Write down the calculated zoom correction factors that the system tries > to apply. > 8) Hopefully accept the corrections without errors and collect another > SlowScan image. > 9) If you selected the right box intersections the Chessy should be > perfectly aligned and sized in the image. > > Please let me know how this turns out. > > To answer your question of WD... > The Zoom U/V parameters do not depend so much on WD because the SEM > takes care of this internally. Imagine setting a MAG of 600 X (~ 100 > ?m WF) both at high and low Z height. The MAG determines the scale of > things we see on the display screen. It still takes a voltage sweep > of +/- 5 Volts on the external column inputs to raster the electron > beam from side to side across the image. (just using 5 V as an > example, all SEMs are different) This is why we (Raith litho) don't see any great effect on Zoom U/V parameters as WD > changes. Although, for good stitching results do an AlignWF at the Z > height you are writing at. > > From acremann at slac.stanford.edu Sat Jul 17 10:25:07 2004 From: acremann at slac.stanford.edu (acremann at slac.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: reservation removed Sat 10:00-14:00 Message-ID: <01LCKC71ZX429JN6P0@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> According to Gigi's report about broken patterns, I decided not to use our time today (Sat, 10:00-14:00). Yves From scaccag at stanford.edu Sat Jul 17 12:11:48 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raith write report: broken patterns and more... In-Reply-To: <001901c46ace$2e117600$6901a8c0@planck> Message-ID: Hi Joe and everybody, I report here the problems I had in the past 3 writes, during the last 3 days. The pattern, attached as gds file consists of plain waveguides (basically boxes) and tapered waveguides (boxes + triangles, one next to the other). I wrote the cell MainTAPER1, which consist of 6 sets of cell1, rotated by mean of the cell TotalMask, in order to write the waveguide along the X direction (to avoid drifting). Actually I hope I attached the updated mask (I don't have a hardlock key with me right now, to check, but eventually the only difference should in the number of subsets "cell1" included in the main pattern. This is a slightly different pattern than the one I used to write in past, but 1) I got the same problems also with the old pattern, which I included for test and 2) the broken pattern are not supposed to be there anyway. In my FIRST write I tried using 10 keV, 20 um aperture (usually I use 10 um). This gave the problem of some charging and I attributed to the aperture the errors in written pattern. This added to the fact that I had to use 570X MAG, instead of 600X, and the values of zoom x/y were 1.41/1.48. However in the written pattern squares came out "square", so eventually this should not be a problem, a part for the weird values of zoom. The other parameters are: current 0.080 nA (20 um) / 0.020 nA (10 um) area step size: 8 nm dose 140 uC/cm^2 beam speed 7.1 mm/s (20 um) / 1.7 mm/s (10 um) ***LINE MODE OFF*** this to avoid the bug in the software of notches at the boundary of patterns next to each other... as found out by Micheal and me last year. The SECOND write was a test write and I tried both 20 um aperture and 10 um aperture. 20um still had signifiacnt errors, 10um looked much better, no stitch error, but some broken pattern. The result was not great but good enough, so I decided to try a long write with 10 um. The THIRD write, overnight, with 10 um aperture included 4 chip (MainTAPER1), each one with reduced working area, so that only 4 subset, instead of 6 were included. In this write I reproduced exactly the same conditions I used in past and that used to work perfectly. In particular the WF alignment was extremely good, as good as in past. I attach some pictures of the results of this last write, which are also representative of the previous ones. Interesting is that the first subset of the first chip was written almost perfectly (just a couple of error). All the other pattern (which is 15 out 16) have a stitch error (write fields shifted vertically by ~0.5 um), present in all the writefields, and a few broken patterns. You can judge by yourself, but according to my modest opinion, the problem with MAG that needs to be decreased and these broken patterns suggest that we have a real problem, either with the pattern generator or something else. I add that we started having this problem on monday, after the problem of the loadlock venting over the wekend. Finally, I heard another user (ryan) saying that his write went ok, however I have no idea if he need good stitching or he has complex patterns. So I wonder if these errors are pattern dependent or affect only complex patterns, or.... If someone tries to write anything, please report the results! Joe, what do you think? I hope that we can have this problem cleared/solved by the time (or at least while) you'll be here on wednesday. I also have found other minor problems/errors with I'd like to discuss with you wed or thur. Thanks! Gigi On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Gigi, all, > > It is a puzzle why 600 worked before, but now you need 580. No explanations > as of yet, but I would accept 580 and go with it. It should be standard > operating procedure to do an AlignWF before an exposure so you will always > be sure the field size is correctly calibrated. > > I will be in the lab on Wednesday and Thursday of next week installing a new > Raith computer. Perhaps on Thursday afternoon we could discuss the simple > test I outlined and I can describe what I would be looking for in steps 5, > 6, and 9. > > Likewise, if any users are having any difficulties on the system, please > prepare something if coming to see me. It does little good to "wave hands" > in the air trying to describe what the GDSII design looks like compared to > the end result. Please have a few images and patterns ready. > > I know several users have been suffering from beam current leakage through > the beam blanker. This is being handled through our service department. > Perhaps they will have some ideas for me to try when I am on-site. Lets > hope. > > Joe. > > > > HI Joe, > we did what you suggested and everything seems fine in terms of slowscan > images, although I'm not sure what I should look for exactly. Anyway, we > tried decereasing the MAG to 580 (instead of 600) and the zoom x and zoom y > go back within the limits and I can complete the align writefield. I haven't > tried a test pattern yet (other users where using the system today and they > don't really need and precide align writefield), I'll try tomorrow. > > The only thing I'm worried about is the realtive value of the zoom > factors: > at 580X they are zoom X:1.37, Y: 1.47, which means 0.1 difference, where it > used to be 0.01. Should this still be ok? Does this ring any bell? > > To RAITH USERS: > in the following days please report your results, especially stitch error > and deformations, so that we can check if the anomalous zoom values are > affecting the writes. > > Thanks! > Gigi > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > > > Hi there Gigi, > > > > My apologies, of course I shouldn't assume that the pattern generator > > (PG) couldn't be broken. It might be. Please do the following as a > > test: > > > > 1) Turn the PG off, wait a short time and power back on. > > 2) Restart both PC's. > > 2) Check Polaroid 545 setting again on the LEO. > > 3) Load the Chessy calibration target (as square as possible on the > > stage) and go to your normal working distance (stage Z) and set a 100 > > ?m WF. > > 4) Because the Chessy is sitting squarely on the stage, the SEM scan > > rotation should be 0 and AlignWF rotation values should be nearly 0. > > 5) Collect a SlowScan image of the Chessy with the PG and see if > everything > > looks OK. > > 6) Have the AlignWF window visible on the desktop and try an align WF > > procedure. (Remember, be very aware of your Scansize and Placement > values. > > There are 1 ?m squares composing larger 10 ?m squares. Don't confuse which > > box intersections are the correct targets.) > > 7) Write down the calculated zoom correction factors that the system tries > > to apply. > > 8) Hopefully accept the corrections without errors and collect another > > SlowScan image. > > 9) If you selected the right box intersections the Chessy should be > > perfectly aligned and sized in the image. > > > > Please let me know how this turns out. > > > > To answer your question of WD... > > The Zoom U/V parameters do not depend so much on WD because the SEM > > takes care of this internally. Imagine setting a MAG of 600 X (~ 100 > > ?m WF) both at high and low Z height. The MAG determines the scale of > > things we see on the display screen. It still takes a voltage sweep > > of +/- 5 Volts on the external column inputs to raster the electron > > beam from side to side across the image. (just using 5 V as an > > example, all SEMs are different) This is why we (Raith litho) don't see > any great effect on Zoom U/V parameters as WD > > changes. Although, for good stitching results do an AlignWF at the Z > > height you are writing at. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mask63004.gds Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5576 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: stitch1.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 31701 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: halfOKhalfStitch.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 32043 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: good.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 31027 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: brokenandStitch2.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29081 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: brokenandStitch.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29256 bytes Desc: URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: broken1.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 28701 bytes Desc: URL: From altug at stanford.edu Sat Jul 17 12:21:27 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:21:27 -0700 Subject: Raith write report: broken patterns and more... References: Message-ID: <007401c46c33$42488f80$419a0c80@hatice> Hi Gigi and all, I had similar "broken pattern" problem last September when pattern generator was broken and some pictures are on Raith Swiki. For a long while it was happening only on my patterns while other people were getting good results. It might be related to the complexity of the patterns. The problems that you are reporting might be caused by the same error. -hatice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luigi Scaccabarozzi" To: "Joseph Klingfus" Cc: ; "'Kahl, Michael'" ; ; "Nathaniel Burt" Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: Raith write report: broken patterns and more... Hi Joe and everybody, I report here the problems I had in the past 3 writes, during the last 3 days. The pattern, attached as gds file consists of plain waveguides (basically boxes) and tapered waveguides (boxes + triangles, one next to the other). I wrote the cell MainTAPER1, which consist of 6 sets of cell1, rotated by mean of the cell TotalMask, in order to write the waveguide along the X direction (to avoid drifting). Actually I hope I attached the updated mask (I don't have a hardlock key with me right now, to check, but eventually the only difference should in the number of subsets "cell1" included in the main pattern. This is a slightly different pattern than the one I used to write in past, but 1) I got the same problems also with the old pattern, which I included for test and 2) the broken pattern are not supposed to be there anyway. In my FIRST write I tried using 10 keV, 20 um aperture (usually I use 10 um). This gave the problem of some charging and I attributed to the aperture the errors in written pattern. This added to the fact that I had to use 570X MAG, instead of 600X, and the values of zoom x/y were 1.41/1.48. However in the written pattern squares came out "square", so eventually this should not be a problem, a part for the weird values of zoom. The other parameters are: current 0.080 nA (20 um) / 0.020 nA (10 um) area step size: 8 nm dose 140 uC/cm^2 beam speed 7.1 mm/s (20 um) / 1.7 mm/s (10 um) ***LINE MODE OFF*** this to avoid the bug in the software of notches at the boundary of patterns next to each other... as found out by Micheal and me last year. The SECOND write was a test write and I tried both 20 um aperture and 10 um aperture. 20um still had signifiacnt errors, 10um looked much better, no stitch error, but some broken pattern. The result was not great but good enough, so I decided to try a long write with 10 um. The THIRD write, overnight, with 10 um aperture included 4 chip (MainTAPER1), each one with reduced working area, so that only 4 subset, instead of 6 were included. In this write I reproduced exactly the same conditions I used in past and that used to work perfectly. In particular the WF alignment was extremely good, as good as in past. I attach some pictures of the results of this last write, which are also representative of the previous ones. Interesting is that the first subset of the first chip was written almost perfectly (just a couple of error). All the other pattern (which is 15 out 16) have a stitch error (write fields shifted vertically by ~0.5 um), present in all the writefields, and a few broken patterns. You can judge by yourself, but according to my modest opinion, the problem with MAG that needs to be decreased and these broken patterns suggest that we have a real problem, either with the pattern generator or something else. I add that we started having this problem on monday, after the problem of the loadlock venting over the wekend. Finally, I heard another user (ryan) saying that his write went ok, however I have no idea if he need good stitching or he has complex patterns. So I wonder if these errors are pattern dependent or affect only complex patterns, or.... If someone tries to write anything, please report the results! Joe, what do you think? I hope that we can have this problem cleared/solved by the time (or at least while) you'll be here on wednesday. I also have found other minor problems/errors with I'd like to discuss with you wed or thur. Thanks! Gigi On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > Gigi, all, > > It is a puzzle why 600 worked before, but now you need 580. No explanations > as of yet, but I would accept 580 and go with it. It should be standard > operating procedure to do an AlignWF before an exposure so you will always > be sure the field size is correctly calibrated. > > I will be in the lab on Wednesday and Thursday of next week installing a new > Raith computer. Perhaps on Thursday afternoon we could discuss the simple > test I outlined and I can describe what I would be looking for in steps 5, > 6, and 9. > > Likewise, if any users are having any difficulties on the system, please > prepare something if coming to see me. It does little good to "wave hands" > in the air trying to describe what the GDSII design looks like compared to > the end result. Please have a few images and patterns ready. > > I know several users have been suffering from beam current leakage through > the beam blanker. This is being handled through our service department. > Perhaps they will have some ideas for me to try when I am on-site. Lets > hope. > > Joe. > > > > HI Joe, > we did what you suggested and everything seems fine in terms of slowscan > images, although I'm not sure what I should look for exactly. Anyway, we > tried decereasing the MAG to 580 (instead of 600) and the zoom x and zoom y > go back within the limits and I can complete the align writefield. I haven't > tried a test pattern yet (other users where using the system today and they > don't really need and precide align writefield), I'll try tomorrow. > > The only thing I'm worried about is the realtive value of the zoom > factors: > at 580X they are zoom X:1.37, Y: 1.47, which means 0.1 difference, where it > used to be 0.01. Should this still be ok? Does this ring any bell? > > To RAITH USERS: > in the following days please report your results, especially stitch error > and deformations, so that we can check if the anomalous zoom values are > affecting the writes. > > Thanks! > Gigi > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Joseph Klingfus wrote: > > > Hi there Gigi, > > > > My apologies, of course I shouldn't assume that the pattern generator > > (PG) couldn't be broken. It might be. Please do the following as a > > test: > > > > 1) Turn the PG off, wait a short time and power back on. > > 2) Restart both PC's. > > 2) Check Polaroid 545 setting again on the LEO. > > 3) Load the Chessy calibration target (as square as possible on the > > stage) and go to your normal working distance (stage Z) and set a 100 > > ?m WF. > > 4) Because the Chessy is sitting squarely on the stage, the SEM scan > > rotation should be 0 and AlignWF rotation values should be nearly 0. > > 5) Collect a SlowScan image of the Chessy with the PG and see if > everything > > looks OK. > > 6) Have the AlignWF window visible on the desktop and try an align WF > > procedure. (Remember, be very aware of your Scansize and Placement > values. > > There are 1 ?m squares composing larger 10 ?m squares. Don't confuse which > > box intersections are the correct targets.) > > 7) Write down the calculated zoom correction factors that the system tries > > to apply. > > 8) Hopefully accept the corrections without errors and collect another > > SlowScan image. > > 9) If you selected the right box intersections the Chessy should be > > perfectly aligned and sized in the image. > > > > Please let me know how this turns out. > > > > To answer your question of WD... > > The Zoom U/V parameters do not depend so much on WD because the SEM > > takes care of this internally. Imagine setting a MAG of 600 X (~ 100 > > ?m WF) both at high and low Z height. The MAG determines the scale of > > things we see on the display screen. It still takes a voltage sweep > > of +/- 5 Volts on the external column inputs to raster the electron > > beam from side to side across the image. (just using 5 V as an > > example, all SEMs are different) This is why we (Raith litho) don't see > any great effect on Zoom U/V parameters as WD > > changes. Although, for good stitching results do an AlignWF at the Z > > height you are writing at. > > > > > From scaccag at stanford.edu Sat Jul 17 13:29:10 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Raith reservation Message-ID: Hi all, just a reminder that you should remove your reservation and email the raith list as soon as you decide that you are not going to use it. In the past 2 days, I noticed at least 3 no-show-up reservations. Thanks Gigi From jhemanth at stanford.edu Sat Jul 17 20:52:12 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:52:12 -0700 Subject: Done Early - Ratih free from 9pm - 12am. Message-ID: <000301c46c7a$9bcbc850$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> Had some issues with my sample. Raith is free from 9pm - 12am 7/17/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pcatryss at stanford.edu Sun Jul 18 16:37:16 2004 From: pcatryss at stanford.edu (Peter B. Catrysse) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:37:16 -0700 Subject: Raith: Cancel Monday 07/19/04 9AM-2PM Message-ID: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jul 19 13:07:31 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:07:31 -0700 Subject: RAITH is going off line today off line through Friday afternoon/evening for repairs and testing. Message-ID: <40FC2A03.2000806@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: To resolve the many user reports on problems on the Raith 150 system related to blanking and write field alignment problems which reportedly are resulting in WF-WF and intra-writefield stitching errors I am taking over the system this week. There will be the opportunity for users to assist me in this testing this evening and overnight -- but we are likely opening the column tomorrow Tuesday to perform corrective actions and we will then need to bake, realign the system, calibrate, and then requalify the system to specifications. We apologize for the interruption to your research plans and activities. Thank you for your support! James Conway From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 20 16:37:30 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:37:30 -0700 Subject: SNF RAITH 150 status Tuesday July 20, 2004 SYSTEM remains offline through Friday evening. Message-ID: <40FDACBA.1030808@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: RE: Beam Blanking: I was able to get the beam banker section on the system back up and running after yesterdays crash and burn. During testing and troubleshooting the beam blanker section I was zapped (shocked) and it arced through my thumb when I disconnected the 8 kV input BNC. Returning to the task this afternoon I found that on the shock I had loosened the power to the unit as my hand jerked away from the chassis. (I was very lucky and am counting my remaining '9 lives'...) Beam Blanking in back and running and we continue to troubleshoot the problems we are having with leakage with high priority. ZEISS came in yesterday but refused to open the column or perform the PM we had requested. They did not return to SNF today, nor did they call us to inform as was expected. No responce from Zeiss on voice mail left on the 800 number as well. This will result in a decided delay in returning the system for users, as we had schedule this time to get their work performed before Raith people arrive. RE: Write Field Alignment problems: I encountered the same problem Gigi had run into with the write field alignment exceeding the ZOOM V value at 600X. I changed the mag setting to 550 X and had not problems whatsoever performing and completing a write field alignment. If you are interested see RAITH Notebook No. 2 for the values I obtained. RE: Write Field to Write Field and intra-write field stitching errors reported: I am now running and exposure on the system to determine ELPHY + operations and to evaluate performance, especially Write Field to Write Field and intra-write field stitching in response to users complaints and reports this last week. I will develop this wafer out tomorrow morning. Arvind will be taking the system this evening for his after my write job completes to continue the testing. NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS TO THE RAITH AFTER 10 AM WED. MORNING through Friday evening. Joe Klingfus, RAITH USA, will arrive tomorrow to deal with a large number of issues. Please give us space to work without interruptions through this period as we certainly have more to do than the time available during his visit. If you have specific questions please post as a thread to this list and we will post replies to everyone. Thank you, James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 20 16:56:50 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:56:50 -0700 Subject: Your comments please! Thread: Ebeam Lab conversion back to class 100 cleanroom Message-ID: <40FDB142.6020706@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: This is to inform you of a management directed plan to return the Ebeam Lab back to Full class 100 cleanroom protocols in the coming month. Initially we would like to return to class 1000 level protocols starting August 1, 2004. Smocks, bouffant, and shoe covers. Gloves with all equipment other than keyboards. Starting Monday August 19, 2004 we wish to merge with the Cleanroom main FAB area and initiate full class 100 level protocols. Full cleanroom gowning protocol and gloves everywhere and at all times... I realize that there has been much discussion and decided disagreement with this amongst users in the Ebeam Lab and during the Ebeam Town Meetings. This is your only opportunity to make your views and opinions known to the community and to SNF management. I seek your consensus and support -- or not -- for this policy change. Please post your reply to beamtools at snf.stanford.edu so we can carry this thread on that specific mail list. Cleaning Up the Ebeam Lab: We also wish for your participation in helping us get the E-beam lab into a cleaner state and you can help us: * Clean up after yourself when working in the Lab. [Your mother doesn't work here!] * No pencils or particulate generating devices such as newsprint, photocopies, and non-lint free paper in the lab. * As you wait for systems to pump down or complete a task -- please take a moment and use a wiper and IPA to wipe down surfaces around the area you are working in. * Pick up trash and material you can see on the floors and around the equipment. * Remove your engineering materials from this lab area and place in your storage boxes. The favor of your comments, opinions and a reply is requested ASAP. We seek you inputs. Users doing critical clean level processes using the SEM4160 are particularly encouraged to comment, as this change is largely in response to concerns when using this tool. Thank you for your support! James Conway | Paul Jerabek | Charley Williams III Ebeam Technology Group Stanford Nanofabrication Facility 650-725-7075 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 20 17:26:03 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:26:03 -0700 Subject: Troubleshooting continues access for RAITH Champions only through 9 AM WED. Message-ID: <40FDB81B.8060109@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhemanth at stanford.edu Fri Jul 23 18:30:06 2004 From: jhemanth at stanford.edu (Hemanth Jagannathan) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:30:06 -0700 Subject: Raith free from 8pm -12am today Message-ID: <000101c4711d$c1855eb0$c66340ab@JAGANNATHANPC> My sample are not ready. Hemanth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scaccag at stanford.edu Fri Jul 23 22:18:18 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: today's test Message-ID: James, I wrote and developed my pattern and I found the same problems as last time. This time no intrra-field errors, but only stitching errors. The weird thing is that the FIRST 2 rows of stitch field (roughly 12 fields x 2) of the FIRST written pattern wrote fine and then suddenly at same point the error appear and keep constant over all fields of all patterns. I think something drifts or triggers at some point. When you wrote my pattern last week and came out right, you were writing at 40 uC instead of 140 (my dose), so you wrote my pattern 3.5 times faster and I believe you stopped the write before the error appeared, if that's something that shows up after some time. Or it could be a pattern dependent error... I don't know. Also, when I started today the align writefield I could do a few alignment at 600X, with reasonable values, and at some point, suddenly, something happened and the zoom(y) limit exceeded appears... In conclusion I think there's still something wrong, although that may affect only specific pattern or patterns written slowly. If other users test the system, please report the results! Thanks Gigi From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jul 26 10:16:32 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:16:32 -0700 Subject: RAITH 150 Status Monday July 26, 2004 10 AM Message-ID: <41053C70.30005@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 27 13:11:54 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:11:54 -0700 Subject: I need my raith offline SW dongles -- please return ASAP. Message-ID: <4106B70A.3000304@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings RAITH USERS: Users whom have borrowed the RAITH 150 offline SW are requested to return all three dongles to me ASAP. We have another group to be trained on the RAITH and I need mine back as well. Thank you, James Conway From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 27 17:26:41 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:26:41 -0700 Subject: RAITH STATUS: PASSED qualification. No blanking artifacts noted! SYSTEM is up... details inside... Message-ID: <4106F2C1.9040003@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 27 17:44:45 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:44:45 -0700 Subject: RAITH STATUS MSG 2: Work completed on the system. New computer and file system. New SP 5. Message-ID: <4106F6FD.8000500@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: 1. NEW RAITH Personal Computer: Last week RAITH USA returned to SNF and we replaced the RAITH PC computer with an entirely new and loaded PC. This is a better unit than we had before has full memory SIMS stuffed on it and should resolve the Blank Dialog Boxes problems we were having. All system files were moved from the old hard drive to the new and an additional back up of these files is also on the drive. All users were reverted to the default RAITH150.vbd and you may need to reestablish your user.vbd profiles the first time you come back onto the system. Be sure to check your standard settings if different than the defaults. 2. Version 3.0 Service Package 5 was installed onto the system: Many of the software request we have made in the last year have been included into this service package. There are also new routines for stage and piezo leveling controls which hopefully will improve focus correcting using working distance for users using the Electrostatic wafer chuck. 3. This morning I recalibrated the piezo leveling post using a reference wafer I have retained for this use. I was able to get through the calibration procedure successfully, but I am still not able to get the wafer samples to level as that the system reports that the desired leveling is out of range of the piezo motion. Some mechanical adjustments may be required to get the Electrostatic chuck to allow leveling on our normal 4 and 6 inch wafer substrates. I will be getting more information on appropriate next steps to perform from RAITH USA. 4. I have saved the setup files for the LEO settings for 10 keV and 10 um aperture and 10 keV and 30 um aperture. I have saved the write field alignment values for 5 mm WD, 10 keV, 100 um2 write fields. Users can accept the prompt to accept these values at the beginning of their run and you should be able to get a suitable contamination dot just after you find your first focus and then easily align write field before writing. ALL USERS ARE REQUESTED TO KEEP UP THE LOGBOOK ENTRIES FOR ALL WRITES AND TO REPORT YOUR RESULTS AS WELL IN THE RESULTS SECTION. REMARKING "OK" JUST MEANS YOU SURVIVED YOUR WRITE SESSIONS AND GIVE US LITTLE ELSE TO GO ON. PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IS YOUR WORKING DISTANCE AND BEAM CURRENT VALUES. Users are requested to note all errors encountered in RAITH Notebook No. 2, now the current logbook so we can get these errors cleared up in the database and system settings. Thank you, James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jul 27 17:57:00 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:57:00 -0700 Subject: Reports surfaced regarding changes to the default RAITH150.VBD system settings. Check your settings... Message-ID: <4106F9DC.6010307@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: Please check to make sure you are in 'line mode' and not 'meander mode. on your user.vbd.' This will result in reduced pattern placement precision and could result in Write Field to Write Field Stitching errors. Seems there may have been someone whom, or an unintentional event which, changed the default settings from 'line mode' to 'meander mode' in the RAITH150.vbd. This may also have been a change made within the service package we just installed. This data base is normally encrypted and it takes a system administrator logon to effect these changes! These settings can also be changed in an individuals user.vbd that will only effect that user(s) login. You can update your database, and/or wipe it back to defaults by selecting 'change to defaults' in the pull down visible on your login screen. I will be examining the RAITH150.vbd and several user.vbd tomorrow for these changes and will effect repairs to this data base. These are critical system settings and no one has permission to make any changes without my express instructions ever. Did anyone change any other settings in the RAITH150.vbd I should know about????? Please RSVP directly to me. Thank you for your support! James Conway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: