From altug at stanford.edu Wed Sep 1 01:54:45 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 01:54:45 -0700 Subject: Raith:Tomorrow 4:00-7:30pm free Message-ID: <001b01c49001$542b08d0$419a0c80@hatice> Samples will not be ready. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Wed Sep 1 13:43:16 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: finished early Message-ID: will be done at 2:30pm at the latest. maghine working well. everything went better than expected, except that since i was using the clips, y stigmation changed by 7% from top to bottom of 5mm chip. charis. From hungtao at stanford.edu Wed Sep 1 18:26:56 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:26:56 -0700 Subject: finished early Message-ID: <1094088416.413676e0cdb78@webmail.stanford.edu> took the afternoon spot. will be done at 7:30pm. -Hungtao From john at cumings.stanford.edu Thu Sep 2 12:17:36 2004 From: john at cumings.stanford.edu (John Cumings) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:17:36 -0700 Subject: session shortened Message-ID: <30CEC1A931226232@cumings.stanford.edu> Hi Raith users, I've shortened by session today starting at 12:00 to start instead at 13:00 Sorry for the inconvenience. -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 scaccag at stanford.edu Thu Sep 2 15:21:44 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: URGENT: PMMA 950 2% Message-ID: HI all, I have a scheduled write at 5pm today and I need to spin the MIcrochem PMMA 950k 2%. The bottle is not in the yellow cabinet and is not around in the litho area. Does anybody know where is it? Please can you email me or bring the bottle back if you have it? Thanks Gigi From jerabek at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 2 16:22:19 2004 From: jerabek at snf.stanford.edu (Paul Jerabek) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: URGENT: PMMA 950 2% In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Luigi, if you still did not find the PMMA 950k 2% bottle i have one in my office,which I took from the storage.Where should I leave it for you? -Paul On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Luigi Scaccabarozzi wrote: > HI all, > I have a scheduled write at 5pm today and I need to spin the MIcrochem > PMMA 950k 2%. The bottle is not in the yellow cabinet and is not around in > the litho area. Does anybody know where is it? > Please can you email me or bring the bottle back if you have it? > Thanks > Gigi > From atalasaz at stanford.edu Fri Sep 3 10:41:39 2004 From: atalasaz at stanford.edu (Amir Ali Haj Hossein Talasaz) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:41:39 -0700 Subject: Cancelled Reservation (today) Message-ID: <1094233299.4138acd3a2a9f@webmail.stanford.edu> Hi everybody, Unfortunately I have to cancel my session today. Please use it if you want. Cheers, -Amir --------------------------------------- AmirAli H. Talasaz Ph.D. Candidate, Electrical Engineering Stanford Genome Technology Center Tel: (650)812-1974 --------------------------------------- From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Fri Sep 3 19:41:48 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: stitching wait? Message-ID: hi guys, i noticed in my write today that the raith is takin unusually long. it even stops in empty write fields and shows 'stitching wait' for 3s. what is this 'stitching wait' and how do i turn it off? thanks. cheers, charis. From scaccag at stanford.edu Mon Sep 6 18:32:05 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: raith status In-Reply-To: <000701c491de$03b33560$6501a8c0@CLLaptop> Message-ID: Hi Cole, thanks for your answer, I developed and inspected at the optical microscope my chip: everything seemed fine: I could see very small stitching error in underexposed lines, but I think that it was within specs (really hard to see). I wrote a few patterns (800 um-long waveguides) over ~1x1.5 cm^2 and no visible errors in any of them. Some of the lines far away from my focus points were slightly rough but I assume that's because I was starting to go out of focus (sample tilted). So, in conclusion, at least at the optical microscope, everything seems normal. I received also a notice from another user, Charis: > > hi guys, > > i noticed in my write today that the raith is takin unusually long. > it even stops in empty write fields and shows 'stitching wait' for 3s. > what is this 'stitching wait' and how do i turn it off? thanks. > > cheers, > charis. > Can you say anything about that? It happened to me in past that some patterns which should write fast were actually written very slow and sometimes with errors: it looked actually like there was an error in the interpretation of the gds pattern, although it was displayed correctly in the editor. It's a bit complicate to explain by email, but I can call you or send you some detailed explanations if you want. Anyway, the time required to write those patterns seemed to be pattern- and size-depent. That's it for now, I will be able to give you more info about the sample in a week or so (after finishing processing it and SEM it), if you need. Thanks Luigi PS: I haven't checked the beam current at all aperture yet, I'll try to do that this week On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Cole Loomis wrote: > Hi Luigi, > > Thank you for the system update. I would like to hear how your exposure > turns out, so please keep me posted. In reference to your > questions/comments below, my comments are in BLUE. > > Thanks again, > > Cole Loomis > Service Engineer > ---------------------------------- > Raith USA, Inc. > 2805 Veteran's Hwy - Suite 23 > Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 > > Office: (631) 738-9500 EXT: 16 > Fax: (631) 738-2055 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Scaccabarozzi [mailto:scaccag at stanford.edu] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:01 PM > To: cl at raithusa.com > Cc: jwc at snf.Stanford.EDU > Subject: raith status > > > Hi ... (sorry, I'm not sure how to spell your name), > I got your voice mail. I've been away the past two days, however this is > what I can tell you: I just started an overnight write, everything seemed ok > (beam quality, spot size, align writefield...) except one detail: the V zoom > factor for 100um WF, 600X, 5mm WD, 10um aperture, 10keV was 1.52 whereas > the U zoom factor was 1.49. I remember in past the two numbers were about > the same (~1.49). A few weeks ago we had the problem of V zoom factor > exceeding the range (which, BTW, is close to 1.52), and we could not write > at 600x, but only at, say 570X. After a while the problem misteriously > disappeared and zoom V factor got back to normal values (~1.49). This time > the V factor didn't exceed the limit, so I started the write anyway. > > This zoom value depends on the calibration of the Electro-Optics board; > which was replaced last week and recalibrated over several iterations. It > is normal for these values to be slightly different, so if your > align-writefield is working at a mag of 570, then leave it there. Please > verify that the magnification display is correct: On the LEO PC, go to > "Tools > User Preferences > SEM Conditions > Magnification Display" Make > sure this is set to "Polaroid 545". > > Another comment is about the current: at 10 keV, 10um , after cleaning and > bake I would expect a current of at least 0.025nA, whereas I measured only > 0.0175 nA... has the column already got that bad? > > What are the beam current values for all apertures at 10keV? If they are > all a little low, we could adjust the extractor voltage to increase the beam > current. I highly doubt that the column is already contaminated. Since > there were a few extractor trips on the system last week, the gun parameters > might need some minor tweaking. > > Otherwise I didn't hear of any complain from other users. > I will develop tomorrow morning and I'll be able to tell you more. > > I haev also one question about the piezos: I'm using small pieces (~ 1x 2 > cm) and trying to write on most of that area. I use the standard clips and I > notice that it's hard to keep the focus over such area. Can I use the piezos > for this purpose, or the piece is too small? what's the standard position of > the piezos, for which the stage itself is flat? Should I "center the piezos" > at the beginning of the session or leave them as they are after the warm up? > Thanks! > > The leveling piezo's are intended to level larger samples/wafers (2.5" and > greater). As far as starting with a level sample holder...the Universal > Sample Holder itself was not machined to the level of accuracy needed for > leveling with these piezo's. In general, the system admin must go through > the calibration procedure for each sample holder. In the window "Height > Control", you can select the sample holder you are using, then select > "LEVEL". This should adjust the piezo's to the pre-calibrated values. > Before the recent service issues with the column, James was planning on > calibrating the electro-static chuck. Once this is done, you will be able > to level entire wafers. Another idea...if you are using the clips to secure > your sample, try using larger samples. The further in the clip is on your > sample, the less the sample will tilt. > > When James returns, ask him if he has calibrated the piezo's in the Height > Control window. In the meantime, I would center the piezo's after loading a > sample. > > > > I'll write/call you tomorrow after developing tonight's sample. Regards > Luigi > > > > > > From hungtao at stanford.edu Tue Sep 7 00:41:01 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 00:41:01 -0700 Subject: time available from 5-9 am today Message-ID: <1094542861.413d660d26e94@webmail.stanford.edu> Take the slot from 2-6 pm today -hungtao From ryantu at stanford.edu Tue Sep 7 16:25:00 2004 From: ryantu at stanford.edu (Ryan Huain Tu) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:25:00 -0700 Subject: Reservation cancelled Wed 6-9:30AM Message-ID: <1094599500.413e434c33402@webmail.stanford.edu> From jiencao at stanford.edu Wed Sep 8 17:08:33 2004 From: jiencao at stanford.edu (Jien Cao) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:08:33 -0700 Subject: raith free 6:30-10pm WED. Message-ID: <000301c49601$2554baa0$ec7840ab@Jienlaptop> Sorry for the late notice. From scaccag at stanford.edu Thu Sep 9 08:58:12 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: raith free friday night Message-ID: From levi at snowmass.stanford.edu Thu Sep 9 15:07:57 2004 From: levi at snowmass.stanford.edu (Ofer Levi) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:07:57 -0700 Subject: SEM computer problem on Wed. night Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040909150016.05293790@snow.stanford.edu> Hi all, last night when I was preparing for writing on the Raith system, I was imaging a sample with the Raith SEM [10 KV, 30 micron aperture, sample is Quartz sample with ZEP 520 resist, and metal coating layer for conduction purposes]. At one point after about 1/2 hour of SEM usage, while I was using a high magnification to see features of 100 nm wide, the SEM computer suddenly crashed. After restarting the SEM computer and logging in, I was able to resume operation as normal, get reasonable spot sizes in contamination dot burning, and write my job. I have no indication for what caused this problem but it only happened last night once. I have written at least 10 times on identical samples and had no problems, so probably it is not a sample related issue. Any idea what may have caused it and how to avoid/overcome it ? Thanks, Ofer ______________________________________________ Ofer Levi, Ph.D. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University CIS-X Rm 310, Stanford, CA 94305-4075 Phone: (650)723-0464 or 725-6907 Fax: (650)723-4659 Adm. Asst.: Gail Chun-Creech Ph: (650)723-0983 E-Mail: levi at snow.stanford.edu Web page: http://snow.stanford.edu/~levi/ ______________________________________________ From atalasaz at stanford.edu Thu Sep 9 16:12:17 2004 From: atalasaz at stanford.edu (Amir Ali Haj Hossein Talasaz) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:12:17 -0700 Subject: Raith will be free tonight (18:30-4:00) Message-ID: <1094771537.4140e351cb9ac@webmail.stanford.edu> --------------------------------------- AmirAli H. Talasaz Ph.D. Candidate, Electrical Engineering Stanford Genome Technology Center Tel: (650)812-1974 --------------------------------------- From dwshin at stanford.edu Fri Sep 10 20:22:10 2004 From: dwshin at stanford.edu (Dong-Woon Shin) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:22:10 -0700 Subject: Zoom(Y) out of range Message-ID: <1094872930.41426f62b4c82@webmail.stanford.edu> Hello. I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field is OK. What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? - DW PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" From scaccag at stanford.edu Fri Sep 10 22:37:15 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Zoom(Y) out of range In-Reply-To: <1094872930.41426f62b4c82@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi Dong-Woon, I guess you are writing at 600X, 100um field. What's the value of zoom Y? the Y zoom factor must be < ~1.52. you may set 590X, 100um, or decrease more the mag (570 or 550), that should work, but this is not normal and its the same problem we had in past. Cole or Joe, can you help with this? I guess it's again a problem with the calibration of the EO board... Thanks Gigi On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Dong-Woon Shin wrote: > > Hello. > > I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of > range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field is OK. > What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? > > - DW > > PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in > module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" > From cumings at stanford.edu Sat Sep 11 09:56:54 2004 From: cumings at stanford.edu (cumings at stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 9:56:54 -0700 Subject: Idea Re: Zoom(Y) out of range Message-ID: <30CEC528312B4F1B@cumings.stanford.edu> Hey all, I had the same error last week, but I didn't have it during my write this week. Perhaps the (Y) gain on the new E/O board is just a little bit lower than on the previous board, requiring higher voltage output from the elphy. I did notice that the (Y) zoom factor was about 1.52 during successful WF alignments. I remember it being more like 1.48 in the past. My idea: could this depend on the working distance? Maybe if you get this error again, try reducing the working distance, perhaps 50-100 micron or so? Just a thought. I'm not cc'ing Raith on this one - if one of the Raith champions wants to pass my ideas on to them, feel free. -John -----Original Message----- Sent: Friday 9/10/2004 10:37:14 PM Subject: Re: Zoom(Y) out of range >Hi Dong-Woon, >I guess you are writing at 600X, 100um field. What's the value of zoom Y? >the Y zoom factor must be < ~1.52. you may set 590X, 100um, or decrease >more the mag (570 or 550), that should work, but this is not normal and >its the same problem we had in past. Cole or Joe, can you help with this? >I guess it's again a problem with the calibration of the EO board... >Thanks >Gigi > >On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Dong-Woon Shin wrote: > >> >> Hello. >> >> I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of >> range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field is OK. >> What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? >> >> - DW >> >> PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in >> module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" >> > -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Sep 11 11:39:07 2004 From: mtopinka at stanford.edu (Mark Topinka) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:39:07 -0700 Subject: Idea Re: Zoom(Y) out of range In-Reply-To: <30CEC528312B4F1B@cumings.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040911112944.0267f3c0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi John, Raith folks- My two cents: I doubt simply changing the working distance will fix it, because the Leo system will automatically compensate for any changes in working distance by offsetting changes in the Y and X deflection coil constants, resulting in roughly the same Zoom(Y) and Zoom(X). Inst\ead, use what Gigi suggested- it worked last time (ie. go to lower mag for a 100 micron writefield- this needs to be set somewhere, maybe in the writefield dialog box? maybe somewhere deep in the menus- I can't remember). The basic problem is that for some reason the Raith PG + Leo system is not physically able to bend the electron beam by (0.5 * 100 micron =) 50 microns at what it calls "600x", regardless of working distance. But it can at "590X" or, to be even safer, at "580X" or "570X". I don't see any problems with just going with this solution (use "570X" for a 100 micron writefield)- I can't think of a reason it would degrade anybody's results (maybe somebody else can?). Eventually we can get the calibration on the EO board fixed, but until then I don't see a reason for why this won't work perfectly well. -Mark At 09:56 AM 9/11/2004 -0700, cumings at stanford.edu wrote: >Hey all, > >I had the same error last week, but I didn't have it during my write this >week. Perhaps the (Y) gain on the new E/O board is just a little bit >lower than on the previous board, requiring higher voltage output from the >elphy. I did notice that the (Y) zoom factor was about 1.52 during >successful WF alignments. I remember it being more like 1.48 in the past. > >My idea: could this depend on the working distance? Maybe if you get this >error again, try reducing the working distance, perhaps 50-100 micron or >so? Just a thought. > >I'm not cc'ing Raith on this one - if one of the Raith champions wants to >pass my ideas on to them, feel free. > >-John > >-----Original Message----- >Sent: Friday 9/10/2004 10:37:14 PM >Subject: Re: Zoom(Y) out of range > > >Hi Dong-Woon, > >I guess you are writing at 600X, 100um field. What's the value of zoom Y? > >the Y zoom factor must be < ~1.52. you may set 590X, 100um, or decrease > >more the mag (570 or 550), that should work, but this is not normal and > >its the same problem we had in past. Cole or Joe, can you help with this? > >I guess it's again a problem with the calibration of the EO board... > >Thanks > >Gigi > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Dong-Woon Shin wrote: > > > >> > >> Hello. > >> > >> I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of > >> range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field > is OK. > >> What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? > >> > >> - DW > >> > >> PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in > >> module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" > >> > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > 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 scaccag at stanford.edu Sat Sep 11 14:13:20 2004 From: scaccag at stanford.edu (Luigi Scaccabarozzi) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Idea Re: Zoom(Y) out of range In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040911112944.0267f3c0@mtopinka.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: mark and all, correct, changing the WD won't help (we tried it already...). In past zoom X and zoom Y used to be both ~ 1.49. At some point, with no apparent reason, zoom Y became 1.52, which is very close to the limit, and in some cases can give errors (when it goes beyond the limit). IN past the problem fixed by "itself" after a while and the values became again the usual ones. Now the problem reappears. Switching to lower mag should avoid the problem although there is definitely something wrong with the EO board (or something else) The bad side of decreasing the mag is that you loose in resolution, but probably this will not affect your write too much. Another solution is to decrease the writefield (write at 50um, 1200X): this should also work, but this means having a smaller writefield (higher stage time, stitching...) For everybody: if this happens again before the raith people can take care of it, here is how to get around the problem: go on the mag and writefield window (I forgot the exact name), click on edit and put the values you want (say 570X, 100um), then click on SET. At this point, when you do align writefield, LEO should go automatically at the new mag (570X, instead of 600x). Hope this will help, at least for now. Gigi On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Mark Topinka wrote: > Hi John, Raith folks- > My two cents: I doubt simply changing the working distance will fix > it, because the Leo system will automatically compensate for any changes in > working distance by offsetting changes in the Y and X deflection coil > constants, resulting in roughly the same Zoom(Y) and Zoom(X). Inst\ead, > use what Gigi suggested- it worked last time (ie. go to lower mag for a 100 > micron writefield- this needs to be set somewhere, maybe in the writefield > dialog box? maybe somewhere deep in the menus- I can't remember). The > basic problem is that for some reason the Raith PG + Leo system is not > physically able to bend the electron beam by (0.5 * 100 micron =) 50 > microns at what it calls "600x", regardless of working distance. But it > can at "590X" or, to be even safer, at "580X" or "570X". I don't see any > problems with just going with this solution (use "570X" for a 100 micron > writefield)- I can't think of a reason it would degrade anybody's > results (maybe somebody else can?). Eventually we can get the > calibration on the EO board fixed, but until then I don't see a reason for > why this won't work perfectly well. -Mark > > At 09:56 AM 9/11/2004 -0700, cumings at stanford.edu wrote: > >Hey all, > > > >I had the same error last week, but I didn't have it during my write this > >week. Perhaps the (Y) gain on the new E/O board is just a little bit > >lower than on the previous board, requiring higher voltage output from the > >elphy. I did notice that the (Y) zoom factor was about 1.52 during > >successful WF alignments. I remember it being more like 1.48 in the past. > > > >My idea: could this depend on the working distance? Maybe if you get this > >error again, try reducing the working distance, perhaps 50-100 micron or > >so? Just a thought. > > > >I'm not cc'ing Raith on this one - if one of the Raith champions wants to > >pass my ideas on to them, feel free. > > > >-John > > > >-----Original Message----- > >Sent: Friday 9/10/2004 10:37:14 PM > >Subject: Re: Zoom(Y) out of range > > > > >Hi Dong-Woon, > > >I guess you are writing at 600X, 100um field. What's the value of zoom Y? > > >the Y zoom factor must be < ~1.52. you may set 590X, 100um, or decrease > > >more the mag (570 or 550), that should work, but this is not normal and > > >its the same problem we had in past. Cole or Joe, can you help with this? > > >I guess it's again a problem with the calibration of the EO board... > > >Thanks > > >Gigi > > > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Dong-Woon Shin wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Hello. > > >> > > >> I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of > > >> range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field > > is OK. > > >> What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? > > >> > > >> - DW > > >> > > >> PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in > > >> module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" > > >> > > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Sep 13 13:59:20 2004 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:59:20 -0700 Subject: Time available Message-ID: <41460A28.D1C9CEB3@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- Just to let you know -- James won't be able to use the time he's reserved today, so it's up for grabs (he's already cancelled on Coral.) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From hungtao at stanford.edu Mon Sep 13 14:14:56 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:14:56 -0700 Subject: Time available In-Reply-To: <41460A28.D1C9CEB3@snf.stanford.edu> References: <41460A28.D1C9CEB3@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <1095110096.41460dd0e2e47@webmail.stanford.edu> I'll take from 4 to 8 pm. -Hungtao Quoting Mary Tang : > Hi all -- > > Just to let you know -- James won't be able to use the time he's > reserved today, so it's up for grabs (he's already cancelled on Coral.) > > Mary > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu > > > From hungtao at stanford.edu Mon Sep 13 20:25:24 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:25:24 -0700 Subject: time free tomorrow 9am -1pm Message-ID: <1095132324.414664a46bc03@webmail.stanford.edu> Using the open time slot right now to write. -hungtao From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Sep 14 11:17:27 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:17:27 -0700 Subject: READ ME: 2% 950K MW PMMA by MICROCHEM is now in the cleanroom. PMMA Material Notes ... Message-ID: <414735B7.2000408@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings Ebeam Lab Users: Late in August Bottle No. 4 of the 2% 950K MW PMMA by MICROCHEM was either finished or removed from the lab. The bottle was never found, nor placed into hazardous waste in the solvent pass through, nor returned to me. I waited to hear from Users that they needed the material but no one came forward before I went away on leave. I have placed one 250 ml bottle (#1A) of the 2% 950K MW PMMA by MICROCHEM into the Solvent cabinet in the cleanroom for general Lab use. This bottle and its contents is NOT to be removed from the cleanroom nor used for projects outside of SNF! When this bottle is finished rinse it in IPA, place it into a Poly bag tagged with a hazardous waste tag and place in the solvent pass through in the hazardous waste section. Finally send either me or mahnaz a email and we will stock the next bottle in the queue. PMMA Material NOTE: We have two types of 2% 950K MW PMMA -- one by Microchem and a back up source of material by OCG. These materials are plainly labeled by manufacturer, lot number, and expiration date. These source materials are inventoried on a listing sheet and usage is closely tracked. I have made Microchem materials the preferred high resolution material in our Lab because of improved consistency of CD Single Pixel Line width results and better ultimate resolution. Batch to batch it is more consistent in its exposure dose response and good QA information is available from zmicrochem. The OCG materials should be used for non critical applications including planarizing / protection layers along with bulk coating operations. This material is also available in 9% solids content solution as well for thick film operations. If anyone has specific questions please 'Reply to All ' this list or see me during my office hour. Thank you for your support! James Conway From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Sep 14 11:35:36 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:35:36 -0700 Subject: raith status from gigi a week ago... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <414739F8.3010908@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings, James Conway is back in the office.... The piezo calibrations are still outstanding and likely adjustments may need to be made to the kinetic mounts to get the standard sample holder truly flat across its 150 mm range. Note that the specs for the standard sample holder are not as tight as the Electrostatic chuck (ESC) and the scratches on the surface of the Std. sample holder or resist on the back of the chip may also negatively affect your results. The range of the piezo post are only 105 um and currently we are not able to complete the leveling routines to obtain a leveled wafer on the ESC despite several efforts to perform the calibration. (Out of range errors...mechanical adjustments must be performed....) NOTE: ALWAYS START OUT WITH CENTER PIEZO'S AFTER THE WARM UP ROUTINE. This setting was changed or lost after the recent RAITH150.vbd modification that came back from RAITH and I have been unable to find the init setting call in either the RAITH150.vbd or my User.vbd so I can get it to start as a default with Piezo's centered upon loading the system. I continue to evaluate the 'Zoom U. or V. exceeds range allowed' issues in the Align Writefield, but clearly there was as significant change to the column or E/O board set up during the period of down time we experienced in August. It is my understanding that this can be improved with the quadrazitung or orthogonality adjustment calibration of the E/O section of the system. It was expected that ZEISS would return for final calibrations and adjustments after we ran the system in for a week, so I will follow up with them later this week after I get some more time on the system this week. RAITH was not able to complete the piezo leveling adjustments during their last visit here as we ran out of time working on chiller issues. Will post to this listing more information as I collect the data. Thank you, James Conway Luigi Scaccabarozzi wrote: >Hi ... (sorry, I'm not sure how to spell your name), >I got your voice mail. I've been away the past two days, however this is >what I can tell you: I just started an overnight write, everything seemed >ok (beam quality, spot size, align writefield...) except one detail: >the V zoom factor for 100 um WF, 600X, 5mm WD, 10um aperture, 10keV was >1.52 whereas the U zoom factor was 1.49. >I remember in past the two numbers were about the same (~1.49). A few >weeks ago we had the problem of V zoom factor exceeding the range (which, >BTW, is close to 1.52), and we could not write at 600x, but only at, say >570X. After a while the problem misteriously disappeared and zoom V factor >got back to normal values (~1.49). >This time the V factor didn't exceed the limit, so I started the write >anyway. > >Another comment is about the current: at 10 keV, 10um , after cleaning and >bake I would expect a current of at least 0.025nA, whereas I measured only >0.0175 nA... has the column already got that bad? > >Otherwise I didn't hear of any complain from other users. >I will develop tomorrow morning and I'll be able to tell you more. > >I haev also one question about the piezos: I'm using small pieces (~ 1x 2 >cm) and trying to write on most of that area. I use the standard clips and >I notice that it's hard to keep the focus over such area. Can I use the >piezos for this purpose, or the piece is too small? >what's the standard position of the piezos, for which the stage itself is >flat? Should I "center the piezos" at the beginning of the >session or leave them as they are after the warm up? >Thanks! > >I'll write/call you tomorrow after developing tonight's sample. >Regards >Luigi > > > > > > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Sep 14 17:36:29 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:36:29 -0700 Subject: SNF Annual Project Reports requested from all Ebeam Lab Users. Message-ID: <41478E8D.5040407@snf.stanford.edu> Greeting Ebeam and RAITH Users: SNF staff members have been working hard to get further resources and equipment targeted for the Ebeam Lab. This is to enhance and improve our equipment and processing capabilities assisting you in your research here at SNF. It is imperative that all Ebeam Users submit an annual project report. I am requesting you personally to get this task completed by October 1, 2004. Last year we did not get any reports from the Ebeam Lab users community. Our existence and future NNIN funding streams depend on you reporting your results in the annual SNF report. This is also a requirement that you agreed to when you joined SNF as a lab member. Thank you for your support! James Conway Ebeam Technology Group Stanford Nanofabrication Facility 001-650-725-7075 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: SNF Annual Reports Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:04:48 -0700 From: Mary Tang Organization: Stanford University To: labmembers at snf.stanford.edu Greetings labmembers! It's that time of the year again, when we ask (beg, plead, browbeat) you for annual reports... Your reports are very important to us: they help us to show NSF the kinds of activities that our tax dollars are supporting. And perhaps even more importantly, they provide a really nice snapshot of what you and your fellow SNF labmates are up to... As for the reports: 1. Reports are due October 1, 2004. Email them as attachments to access at snf.stanford.edu. 2. Format is a single powerpoint slide, with a few bullets describing your work in general terms, and a graphic or two. The graphic may be an SEM, a photo, or even just a conceptual sketch. More than one slide may be used, if desired. If there are any publications resulting from your work, please reference them. 3. Unless you wish to do so yourself, we will reformat your material to fit a standard layout. If you would like the template, let us know and we'll send it to you. And let us know if you wish to see how the slide looks before it is shown to NSF. 4. No proprietary or unreleased information should be included in this slide. Please note that the slide will be presented to our NSF governing committees, and may be used (with permission) in promotional materials for SNF, including possible posting on our website. If you wish the information to be embargoed (i.e., info is about to be published or presented at a conference), please let us know when it may be released. 5. This report is required from all labmembers active in the lab over the past academic year. Two or more people on the same project can submit a single report. Labmembers who have joined in the last three months are not required to submit a report, although are absolutely welcome to do so. 6. If you have material (meeting abstracts, publications, websites) which describe your work and are willing to allow us to interpret and extract the pertinent information, you can provide this material in electronic format instead of a slide. Please indicate which aspects of your work required the use of SNF or Nanocharacterization Lab resources. 7. We have fifty nifty gifts awaiting the first 10 labmembers to submit reports and drawing winners for later entries. Thanks for your attention and we look forward to your contributions (really and truly, we do -- despite the administrative overhead, this is something we staff members do enjoy doing - it's really gratifying to see the breadth, quality, and sheer ingenuity of the work that is done here!) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact access at snf.stanford.edu. Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Sep 14 17:53:48 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:53:48 -0700 Subject: RAITH scheduling snafu... cancelling remainder of my session this evening free through midnight tonight. Message-ID: <4147929C.8040504@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Tue Sep 14 18:12:16 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:12:16 -0700 Subject: Zoom(Y) out of range In-Reply-To: <1094872930.41426f62b4c82@webmail.stanford.edu> References: <1094872930.41426f62b4c82@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <414796F0.5070705@snf.stanford.edu> Hello: RE: Zoom(Y) out of range Be sure to check your working distance and verify by measuring and adjusting again WD within the WD tab of the Adjust UVW panel and assure that you are actually at 5 mm WD! Users often find they are actually at 4.5 - 4.7 mm WD after loading and sending the WD on the stage control to 5 mm which is using the coders and not the interferometer. If you still have a problem aligning the write field then reduce your write field magnification by about 10% and you should be back in the pink. I will be making further adjustments on the E/O section of the LEO system that may improve things as well later next week during a follow up and tuning session with Zeiss SMT field service. So the correct initial procedure is: 1. Load your sample holder and center the piezo post within height control panel to the center reference positions. (Center Piezo...) 2. Drive WD to 5 mm. 3. Bring up the Ebeam and in SEM mode focus on your sample carefully. 4. 'Read' and press 'Adjust' within the WD tab of the Adjust UVW panel. 5. Repeat Stage control drive to WD = 5 mm 6. Refocus and adjust again if necessary and confirm you are at your actual WD. 7. Perform your write field alignment but only after one hour of EHT on time to allow for thermal stabilization in the column. Please see me during my office hour if you have more questions or continue to have any problems. Thank you for your support! James Conway Dong-Woon Shin wrote: >Hello. > >I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of >range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field is OK. >What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? > >- DW > >PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in >module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Sep 15 09:04:40 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:04:40 -0700 Subject: Operations to 25 kV acceleration voltage allowed without restrictions... Message-ID: <41486818.2070202@snf.stanford.edu> Good Morning, Yesterday we tested the system to 20 kV acceleration voltage during Peter Catrysee's EBL write. I briefly ran the gun up to 26 kV and observed no elevation in the vacuum levels or EHT trips. I will be on the system this afternoon and evening and hope to complete more operations at higher acceleration voltages to confirm our FE-Tip has been properly conditioned. More PCM qualifications and measurements in the queue... Questions -- please visit me during my office hour. Thank you for your support! James Conway From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Sep 15 12:52:28 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:52:28 -0700 Subject: Idea Re: Zoom(Y) out of range In-Reply-To: <30CEC528312B4F1B@cumings.stanford.edu> References: <30CEC528312B4F1B@cumings.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <41489D7C.2060308@snf.stanford.edu> make that increase the working distance.... see my previous message posted Tuesday Night to this list. JWC cumings at stanford.edu wrote: >Hey all, > >I had the same error last week, but I didn't have it during my write this week. Perhaps the (Y) gain on the new E/O board is just a little bit lower than on the previous board, requiring higher voltage output from the elphy. I did notice that the (Y) zoom factor was about 1.52 during successful WF alignments. I remember it being more like 1.48 in the past. > >My idea: could this depend on the working distance? Maybe if you get this error again, try reducing the working distance, perhaps 50-100 micron or so? Just a thought. > >I'm not cc'ing Raith on this one - if one of the Raith champions wants to pass my ideas on to them, feel free. > >-John > >-----Original Message----- >Sent: Friday 9/10/2004 10:37:14 PM >Subject: Re: Zoom(Y) out of range > > > >>Hi Dong-Woon, >>I guess you are writing at 600X, 100um field. What's the value of zoom Y? >>the Y zoom factor must be < ~1.52. you may set 590X, 100um, or decrease >>more the mag (570 or 550), that should work, but this is not normal and >>its the same problem we had in past. Cole or Joe, can you help with this? >>I guess it's again a problem with the calibration of the EO board... >>Thanks >>Gigi >> >>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Dong-Woon Shin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hello. >>> >>>I am having continuous error in write field alignment - "Zoom(Y) out of >>>range: please readjust SEM stage and ELPHY" Only down to 10 um field is OK. >>>What does the message mean and what am I supposed to do? >>> >>>- DW >>> >>>PS. Also I met "access violation err. address 4006A668 in >>>module "vcl50.bpl" reads of address 00000060" >>> >>> >>> > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > 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 >-------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cquayhl at stanford.edu Wed Sep 15 13:58:00 2004 From: cquayhl at stanford.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: cancelled write tomorrow 1pm Message-ID: Decided existing chips OK. Charis. From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 16 10:52:55 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:52:55 -0700 Subject: I am taking RAITH SESSION 10 - 1300 J.Cao did not show up by 10:46... Message-ID: <4149D2F7.2020204@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: I am taking RAITH SESSION 10 - 1300 J. Cao did not show up by 10:46... Ryan Tu will you be needing your RAITH session this afternoon? RSVP or call me in the ebeam lab. 415-412-4825 JWC From hungtao at stanford.edu Thu Sep 16 11:07:20 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:07:20 -0700 Subject: time open 8am -12pm tomorrow Message-ID: <1095358040.4149d65805a6f@webmail.stanford.edu> Need more characterization on my precious write to decide how to modify the pattern. -hungtao From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 16 20:31:31 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:31:31 -0700 Subject: Current job on the raith completes about 10 -- 11:00 AM tomorrow morning... Message-ID: <414A5A93.2060003@snf.stanford.edu> Arvind and others: I have set up an overnight job on the RAITH I expect it to be completed between 10 and 11 AM Friday Morning. Once this job is completed I will hand off the system for the weekend. Thank you for your support! JWC From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Fri Sep 17 14:15:13 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:15:13 -0700 Subject: Raith Status Friday Septrember 17, 2004 1330 hours. Message-ID: <414B53E1.9060201@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings Raith Community: I had a large amount of time on the system this week and was able to complete two difficult pattern writes over the last two days. These are the wafers that I had been trying to write for nearly a month. A number of simple test and check outs were performed in parallel to this work. The RAITH 150 system is working well and appears to be within specification for stitching and better than specification for overlay. I will be repeating the PCM performance testing we completed August 28, 2004 to confirm we are still were we were then. As this work is completed I will report the results and post images on the bulletin board superseding the work done in May 2004. LEO /Zeiss SMT will return early next week for adjustments to and checking the settings on the E/O and column calibrations we performed two weeks ago. We will also attempt to bring down the Zoom V value to levels farther from the Zoom V Limit value. I have been able to complete a number (9X3) write field alignments without encountering the Sweep Sum exceeds limits error. Several users whom encountered problems during write field alignment had not measured and adjusted the WD to 5 mm using the SEM to measure WD. IN one case they were only at 3 mm! The FE-Gun tip has run in nicely and Gun vacuum EHT ON is in the 8E-010 T region. The system has been tested this week to 25 kV with extended writes performed at 20 and 10 keV. I will perform some pattern writes next week at 20,25, and 30 kV to ensure beyond any doubt that we can start general operations at this acceleration voltage for any users wishing to do so. I recalibrated the Piezo height controls using a bare Si wafer on the ElectroStatic Chuck (ESC) and the new calibration for centered post is within 0.149 mm across a six inch wafer. I will be making mechanical adjustments to the ESC and will recalibrate the piezo's once again. At that point we should be able to level samples on the ESC and not exceed the range of the piezo's travel in Z. Following that I will evaluate the leveling of the Standard Sample holder as it sits onto the kinetic mounts of the Piezo post and see if there are actually any issues with this holder being level or not. Made measurements of the Beam Current at 10 keV and 5 mm Working distance for all the apertures. We are in the middle of the decent of Beam Current as we close these apertures with hydrocarbon contamination. Overall we are doing well on this issue and beam speeds are near optimum for all apertures on 100 nm thick 2% 950K MW PMMA; allowing us to use suitably small area steps and still have Beam speed below 10 mm/sec. Beam Current (Beam I) measurements I made today: APT Beam I Today Beam I after May PM and aperture plate replacement Delta (um) ( nA ) (nA aperture values just installed) (% of Beam I new) 120 2.345 4.842 48 60 0.6182 1.025 60 30 0.1339 0.233 57 20 0.0699 0.085 6-15-2004 first value recorded in logbook? 82 10 0.0168 0.0459 36 7.5 0.0078 0.011 70 Conclusions: We are approximately 50 % into our PM interval with acceptable beam currents for all apertures albeit slightly on the low side for the 10 um aperture. This is consistent with the usage we have on the system for each aperture, particularly considering the large number of EBL writes that have been performed this summer. The 10 um aperture beam I is reducing more rapidly than during the previous PM interval last year. This value may be indicative of a greater contribution of contamination from samples by users working with this aperture than the 30 um aperture. Thanks to the many users which have been diligently recording their Beam Currents in the logbook. This information is very useful to us and helps me greatly to monitor the condition of the system. System is up and in Green Light for your usage. If anyone is having any problems whatsoever on the system please see me during my office hour. Thank you for your support and have a pleasant weekend. James Conway Upcoming in October: RAITH Group XI a four day intensive short course will be conducted the week of October 12 - 15, 2004 There are two slots remaining in this class. Please maximize your utilization of the system coming into this period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fatih at stanford.edu Sat Sep 18 20:41:26 2004 From: fatih at stanford.edu (Mehmet Fatih Yanik) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:41:26 -0700 Subject: Sunday Reservation cancelled In-Reply-To: <40E610C1.6040400@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: STS not working => sample not ready -----Original Message----- From: James Conway [mailto:jwc at snf.stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:50 PM To: Raith SNF Mailing list Subject: RAITH Update July 2, 2004 1840 hours. RAITH IS UP and we have a work around for the Trillium blanking defect. Hello RAITH USERS: Here is the update you have been waiting for. I have had nearly 35 hours on the system this week. Some very nice writes have been completed! Last night my write on SOI with 400 nm of UVN-30 looks just fine. In my patterns I did not see the blanking artifact that Ken Crozier and Arvin S. reported in any write field. I did find a 'trillium or comet shaped' artifact at the position of the final rest of the stage when the system was unloaded when the CCD TV was turned on and the EHT was turned off. Diagnosis: I believe this is due to the beam making a single transit across the aperture plate that crosses one or several apertures as the LEO blanker pulls the beam to the 1 o'clock position (LEO Blanking SPOT) Three test exposures resting the beam with Raith blanked and LEO unblanked did not expose the resist to where I see either a latent image or pattern. Just blanking the TV with the RAITH blanker off will leave a artifact but not each and every time! It did not create the artifact when I turned the CCD TV on and off over a test area, but only at the rest location at EHT off as described. This is why it was difficult to troubleshoot last week. Was it the RAITH or LEO Beam blanker causing the problem? I think there must be a specific order of events to obtain the artifact. ALL Users Should consider moving to a position off their wafers before switching to CCD TV mode or starting the unload sequence. excerpt from RAITH emails today >> I don't think this issue will be resolved by adjusting the LEO blank position. We will need to open the column and rotate the RAITH beam blanker 90 degrees and then establish new blanking points for the RAITH and LEO blankers. Please add that we are now about half way through our PM interval based on the observed current decrease on the 30 um aperture from when it was freshly PM'ed. Beam Current 30 um APT. new in late April was 0.211 nA and now I am seeing 0.144 nA with some fluctuations +- 0.010 nA. This takes us to 68% of our Beam Current level new, where we call for a PM at about 50% or 0.108 nA as I did in February. >> I don't think the Raith blanker is contaminated, because we don't see any charging/drift effects when blanking/unblanking. Admittedly I observe very minor effects from some contamination in the column consistent with the level of use we have here at SNF. SO... Lets go ahead and schedule another PM and we will get this all straightened out for everyone use and utility. I am meeting with RAITH USA Tuesday and likely we will bring the system down for PM and repairs to the blanker the week of July 18, 2004. Thank you for your support and patience! This problem was a bit challenging to troubleshoot. Please play nicely together. James Conway Happy Fourth of July! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fatih at stanford.edu Sat Sep 18 21:00:48 2004 From: fatih at stanford.edu (Mehmet Fatih Yanik) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:00:48 -0700 Subject: Rebooked Sunday Reservation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: sorry for the emails. decided to try something else -----Original Message---- From: Mehmet Fatih Yanik [mailto:fatih at stanford.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:41 PM To: Raith SNF Mailing list Subject: Sunday Reservation cancelled STS not working => sample not ready -----Original Message----- From: James Conway [mailto:jwc at snf.stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:50 PM To: Raith SNF Mailing list Subject: RAITH Update July 2, 2004 1840 hours. RAITH IS UP and we have a work around for the Trillium blanking defect. Hello RAITH USERS: Here is the update you have been waiting for. I have had nearly 35 hours on the system this week. Some very nice writes have been completed! Last night my write on SOI with 400 nm of UVN-30 looks just fine. In my patterns I did not see the blanking artifact that Ken Crozier and Arvin S. reported in any write field. I did find a 'trillium or comet shaped' artifact at the position of the final rest of the stage when the system was unloaded when the CCD TV was turned on and the EHT was turned off. Diagnosis: I believe this is due to the beam making a single transit across the aperture plate that crosses one or several apertures as the LEO blanker pulls the beam to the 1 o'clock position (LEO Blanking SPOT) Three test exposures resting the beam with Raith blanked and LEO unblanked did not expose the resist to where I see either a latent image or pattern. Just blanking the TV with the RAITH blanker off will leave a artifact but not each and every time! It did not create the artifact when I turned the CCD TV on and off over a test area, but only at the rest location at EHT off as described. This is why it was difficult to troubleshoot last week. Was it the RAITH or LEO Beam blanker causing the problem? I think there must be a specific order of events to obtain the artifact. ALL Users Should consider moving to a position off their wafers before switching to CCD TV mode or starting the unload sequence. excerpt from RAITH emails today >> I don't think this issue will be resolved by adjusting the LEO blank position. We will need to open the column and rotate the RAITH beam blanker 90 degrees and then establish new blanking points for the RAITH and LEO blankers. Please add that we are now about half way through our PM interval based on the observed current decrease on the 30 um aperture from when it was freshly PM'ed. Beam Current 30 um APT. new in late April was 0.211 nA and now I am seeing 0.144 nA with some fluctuations +- 0.010 nA. This takes us to 68% of our Beam Current level new, where we call for a PM at about 50% or 0.108 nA as I did in February. >> I don't think the Raith blanker is contaminated, because we don't see any charging/drift effects when blanking/unblanking. Admittedly I observe very minor effects from some contamination in the column consistent with the level of use we have here at SNF. SO... Lets go ahead and schedule another PM and we will get this all straightened out for everyone use and utility. I am meeting with RAITH USA Tuesday and likely we will bring the system down for PM and repairs to the blanker the week of July 18, 2004. Thank you for your support and patience! This problem was a bit challenging to troubleshoot. Please play nicely together. James Conway Happy Fourth of July! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Sep 20 16:41:54 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:41:54 -0700 Subject: Finished early today. RAITH IS AVAILABLE THIS EVENING for your use. Message-ID: <414F6AC2.9010209@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: Finished early today. RAITH IS AVAILABLE THIS EVENING for your use. I could not get as far as I wanted this afternoon so I will not be needing the entire session I reserved. Anyone wish to ride standby for tomorrow's session? I may run into the same issues as I did today.... All the best, James Conway From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Mon Sep 20 16:44:39 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:44:39 -0700 Subject: Please inspect your patterns for Stitching and Butting errors... Message-ID: <414F6B67.9090406@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From altug at stanford.edu Mon Sep 20 21:30:24 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:30:24 -0700 Subject: Used JWC time: It is available now References: <414F6AC2.9010209@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <012e01c49f93$b6976300$675440ab@hatice> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Conway" To: "Raith SNF Mailing list" ; "Hatice Altug" Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: Finished early today. RAITH IS AVAILABLE THIS EVENING for your use. > Greetings: > > Finished early today. RAITH IS AVAILABLE THIS EVENING for your use. > I could not get as far as I wanted this afternoon so I will not be needing > the entire session I reserved. > > Anyone wish to ride standby for tomorrow's session? I may run into the > same issues as I did today.... > > All the best, > > James Conway > From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Sep 22 09:39:13 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:39:13 -0700 Subject: stitching wait? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4151AAB1.7020007@snf.stanford.edu> Hello: The stage moves and rest 3 seconds before it allows the next step the exposure operation. There is by default a 3 ms beam park and wait before initiating deflection. This is to allow the deflection coils a suitable time frame to stabilize before moving the beam (Beam sweep operation) YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE THE STITCHING WAIT. 3 ms is the default on the RAITH system and it is user addressable. It is in the exposure panel --> details... menu. However if there is no structure or element in a writefield it should just quickly move through that WF and to the next field with an element. Normally it will not stop at an empty writefield... Check your pattern and make sure their are no borders, Area refs, structure refs, lines, or dots in each of these writefield. Also be sure that if you have any borders around your patterns that they are not filled boxes but simply a line border. The solution to your problem may be as easy as turning off any additional layers that may have resulted from the CAD programs. Once before I saw this when the pattern was in layer one but there was an additional "empty pattern layer' in Layer 9. This turned out to be a working area definition that did not carry over through the L-edit export to GDS II properly. (old L-edit version 7) If you still are having problems please come and see me when you are next on the system. Hope this helps! James Conway Charis Quay Huei Li wrote: >hi guys, > > i noticed in my write today that the raith is taking unusually long. >it even stops in empty write fields and shows 'stitching wait' for 3s. >what is this 'stitching wait' and how do i turn it off? thanks. > >cheers, >charis. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Sep 22 11:43:41 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:43:41 -0700 Subject: Raith System Status WED. September 22, 2004 1140 hours -- SYSTEM IS UP PASSES QUALIFICATION Message-ID: <4151C7DD.5050104@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjeletic at ece.ucdavis.edu Wed Sep 22 14:12:24 2004 From: bjeletic at ece.ucdavis.edu (Peter Bjeletich) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:12:24 -0700 Subject: Reservation Moved Message-ID: Problem with my sample caused me to move my reservation. Now tomorrow (9/23) afternoon is free. Sorry, Peter From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Wed Sep 22 17:51:44 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:51:44 -0700 Subject: Cancelling my reservation for this evening 4 - 12 midnight. Process problem using ZEP - 520... Message-ID: <41521E20.8010606@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings RAITH Users: I am canceling my session after my wafers did not spin up uniformly using ZEP-520-12. I am using ZEP - 520 - 12 and was surprised to have this result after many runs with no problems. Other users working with this bottle of resist since 9-14-2004 are requested to send me a brief email and tell me if their wafers spun up uniformly or not? Thickness measurements? This problem is the same or similar to what Arvind reported several weeks ago. The wafers under microscope inspection at any magnification look like a psychedelic light show. I will strip and repeat tomorrow morning for tomorrow afternoon. System is available for the next user... James Conway From fatih at stanford.edu Wed Sep 22 20:39:15 2004 From: fatih at stanford.edu (Mehmet Fatih Yanik) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:39:15 -0700 Subject: Cancelling reservation for this evening In-Reply-To: <41521E20.8010606@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: sorry for the late notice, sample not ready > -----Original Message----- > From: James Conway [mailto:jwc at snf.stanford.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:52 PM > To: Raith SNF Mailing list > Cc: Mehmet Fatih Yanik > Subject: Cancelling my reservation for this evening 4 - 12 midnight. > Process problem using ZEP - 520... > > > > > Greetings RAITH Users: > > I am canceling my session after my wafers did not spin up uniformly > using ZEP-520-12. > > I am using ZEP - 520 - 12 and was surprised to have this result after > many runs with no problems. > Other users working with this bottle of resist since 9-14-2004 are > requested to send me a brief email and tell me if their wafers spun up > uniformly or not? Thickness measurements? > > This problem is the same or similar to what Arvind reported several > weeks ago. The wafers under microscope inspection at any magnification > look like a psychedelic light show. > > I will strip and repeat tomorrow morning for tomorrow afternoon. > > System is available for the next user... > > James Conway > > > > > > From chquay at MtHolyoke.edu Thu Sep 23 08:42:10 2004 From: chquay at MtHolyoke.edu (Charis Quay Huei Li) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: reservation NOW cancelled Message-ID: sorry! no excuses at all. charis. From hungtao at stanford.edu Fri Sep 24 10:02:17 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:02:17 -0700 Subject: time available 9am - 1pm next Tuesday Message-ID: <1096045337.4154531945deb@webmail> Sample needs further process -Hungtao From altug at stanford.edu Sun Sep 26 16:15:54 2004 From: altug at stanford.edu (Hatice Altug) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:15:54 -0700 Subject: Raith:tomorrow afternoon is free Message-ID: <000801c4a41e$c62a4690$675440ab@hatice> sample is not ready. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pcatryss at stanford.edu Tue Sep 28 17:43:47 2004 From: pcatryss at stanford.edu (Peter Catrysse) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:43:47 -0700 Subject: [Raith] Giving up my reservation due to scheduling conflict: Wed 09-29-2004 9AM-1PM Message-ID: <200409290043.i8T0hsBY023936@smtp1.Stanford.EDU> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hungtao at stanford.edu Wed Sep 29 11:01:16 2004 From: hungtao at stanford.edu (Hung-Tao Chou) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:01:16 -0700 Subject: time open tomorrow 11:30am - 3pm Message-ID: <1096480876.415af86ca2986@webmail.stanford.edu> One step of process has been delayed, sample won't be ready tomorrow for Raith. -Hungtao From ryantu at stanford.edu Wed Sep 29 23:55:49 2004 From: ryantu at stanford.edu (Ryan Tu) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:55:49 -0700 Subject: Raith free 9/30 9:30am-11:30am Message-ID: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 30 09:21:50 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:21:50 -0700 Subject: Raith free 9/30 9:30am-11:30am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415C329E.4040707@snf.stanford.edu> Greetings: My writing session that has been running overnight will extend through about 11:00 AM. So I will take the time... I expect the system to be available at 11:00 - 11:30 if someone wishes to get a write in before the PM session I have reserved. I am also seeking someone to be in standby mode for the later part of the afternoon session and overnight if I cannot complete the preparation of the next wafer set. Otherwise I will run PCM testing patterns and be finished with the system early this evening. Is anyone interested? James Conway Ryan Tu wrote: Raith free 9/30 9:30am-11:30am From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 30 15:05:33 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:05:33 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Problem raith SNF 2004-09-30 11:49:30: raith Blanker leaking] Message-ID: <415C832D.40908@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwc at snf.stanford.edu Thu Sep 30 15:08:55 2004 From: jwc at snf.stanford.edu (James Conway) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:08:55 -0700 Subject: Raith available this evening and overnight Message-ID: <415C83F7.7020303@snf.stanford.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: