From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 6 12:08:00 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:08:00 -0700 Subject: Hitachi 4160 Message-ID: <3F315210.E52E7334@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- There was a bit of a row between our more volatile characters in the lab over what's acceptable material for the Hitachi 4160... I think this is something we really need to resolve (if it hasn't been already...) As I understand it, it was originally decided that this would be a "clean" tool (with the exception that resist samples would be OK) because people were going to go back into the lab with their samples. There was also discussion that this should be a "litho" tool, where anything that didn't shed stuff could be placed in it, since there was also a lot of gold already in the machine. And that anyone with samples placed in the 4160 should be treated as if their samples had just left litho, with appropriate cleans required before using clean equipment. As I recall, the "clean" rationale was also a way to try to get people to use the 4160 as an "in-line" tool, rather than as an end-of-line tool, as the Hitachi 800 is supposed to be... So, what do you all think? Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 6 12:42:14 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:42:14 -0700 Subject: Hitachi 4160 References: <3F315210.E52E7334@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F315A16.FA226601@snf.stanford.edu> Mary, > As I understand it, it was originally decided that this would be a > "clean" tool (with the exception that resist samples would be OK) > because people were going to go back into the lab with their samples. The main reason this tool was obtained from Intel was to support in-process wafers going through the Canon I line stepper. As I see it, this is still one of the main reasons for having this tool although we now need it to support the Nikon I-line stepper instead of the Canon. > There was also discussion that this should be a "litho" tool, where > anything that didn't shed stuff could be placed in it, since there was > also a lot of gold already in the machine. And that anyone with samples > placed in the 4160 should be treated as if their samples had just left > litho, with appropriate cleans required before using clean equipment. It is reasonable to treat the 4160 as a litho tool although there is the concern that some sputtering could occur from the e-beam. From talking with Charley, he is not think his is much of a concern. I would like to get an option on this from someone like Fabrian or Mark McCord. > As I recall, the "clean" rationale was also a way to try to get people > to use the 4160 as an "in-line" tool, rather than as an end-of-line > tool, as the Hitachi 800 is supposed to be... No question, it is first and formost a in-line tool. We are not going to be able to operate the Nikon body 9 without it. Jim -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 6 16:13:38 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:13:38 -0700 Subject: SpecMat Requests for July Message-ID: <3F318BA2.5221708F@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- It seems that it would be good to show that SpecMat is working -- not that things are any different now than they were before in terms of the approval process, but that there is all this activity that labmembers -- and even we -- are probably not really aware of... Anyway, I compiled a list of requests that were made during July (as gleaned from the SpecMat at snf emails) and their status (attached here.) I'd like to post this on the website. Let me know what you think and whether there are any changes that we should make. Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SpecMatJuly.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 7 11:31:55 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:31:55 -0700 Subject: SpecMat list for July Message-ID: <3F329B1B.AF43465E@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- At the request of some of the process staff, I've added some ongoing projects to the list... Let me know what you think? I would like very much to upload this (or some version thereof) on the web on Monday... Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SpecMatJuly.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 8 07:23:37 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:23:37 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Hitachi 4160]] Message-ID: <3F33B269.2F3A3A39@snf.stanford.edu> Hello SpcMat'ers -- This is Fabian's response to Jim's concern about possible cross-contamination in the 4160. I presume this all means that we can now officially consider the sem4160 to be a "litho" tool? (--in that anything that doesn't shed or shred or boil or melt in the beam is allowed.) Anything with resist that goes back into the lab is already covered under our "litho" tool policy. Anything that does not contain resist but is going back into the lab is subject to the normal "preclean" policies governing furnaces or metal dep. Priority for use of the tool should be given to users analyzing material in-line. As it looks, however, use of this system is still pretty low, so this is not an issue right now -- although, no doubt, when the user base increases and becomes more experienced, making machine access more difficult -- then, the beam team will have to define guidelines for awarding priority access. How does that sound? Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume this is the verdict of SpecMat and will let Charley and James know. Mary -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Hitachi 4160] Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:20:57 -0700 From: "R. Fabian W. Pease" To: Mary Tang The danger of metals coming off as a result of beam interaction is negligible. There is a danger that various gases, notably Co2 , H2O, could come off when resists are irradiated. Fabian ---------- >From: Mary Tang >To: Fabian Pease >Subject: [Fwd: Re: Hitachi 4160] >Date: Thu, Aug 7, 2003, 11:26 AM > >Hi Fabian -- > >Could I get your expert opinion on something? There's a bit of an >internal controversy having to do with our whole-wafer SEM (the Hitachi >4160.) It has to do with the kinds of samples we should allow in this >system. Initially, it was decided that this system should be used only >for clean and semiclean devices (in other words, nothing with gold or >containing any sodium or any other alkaline or other non-semiconductor >standard metals) and such devices that have photoresist on them. >Basically, the idea was to keep this system for use as an in-line >analysis tool, rather than for end-of-line analysis. > >Part of the reason was the concern that the beam could sputter >contaminants off metal ion, non-standard metal, or gold containing >samples and redeposit on any sensitive devices that labmembers may be >examining in-line. > >Is this a real possibility for the accelerating voltages used in this >system? Please let me know what you think. > >Thanks, > >Mary > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: Hitachi 4160 >Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:42:14 -0700 >From: Jim McVittie >Organization: Stanford Nanofabrication Facility >To: Mary Tang >CC: specmat at snf.stanford.edu >References: <3F315210.E52E7334 at snf.stanford.edu> > >Mary, > >> As I understand it, it was originally decided that this would be a >> "clean" tool (with the exception that resist samples would be OK) >> because people were going to go back into the lab with their samples. > >The main reason this tool was obtained from Intel was to support >in-process >wafers going through the Canon I line stepper. As I see it, this is >still >one of the main reasons for having this tool although we now need it to >support the Nikon I-line stepper instead of the Canon. > >> There was also discussion that this should be a "litho" tool, where >> anything that didn't shed stuff could be placed in it, since there was >> also a lot of gold already in the machine. And that anyone with samples >> placed in the 4160 should be treated as if their samples had just left >> litho, with appropriate cleans required before using clean equipment. > >It is reasonable to treat the 4160 as a litho tool although there is the >concern that some sputtering could occur from the e-beam. From talking >with >Charley, he is not think his is much of a concern. I would like to get >an >option on this from someone like Fabrian or Mark McCord. > >> As I recall, the "clean" rationale was also a way to try to get people >> to use the 4160 as an "in-line" tool, rather than as an end-of-line >> tool, as the Hitachi 800 is supposed to be... > >No question, it is first and formost a in-line tool. We are not going to >be >able to operate the Nikon body 9 without it. > > > Jim > From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 13 11:20:46 2003 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:20:46 -0700 Subject: Leksoltm Message-ID: <3F3A817E.59A4FF04@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all, I have ok the use of this chemical, once for Uma and patrick due to some problems in their lab. Chemical was used to clean off some wax of the wafer and was collected due to being carcinogen. The bottle came to our lab and left the same day. The case # is 106-94-5 mahnaz From uli at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 13 16:56:52 2003 From: uli at snf.stanford.edu (Uli Thumser) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:56:52 -0700 Subject: drop gauge Message-ID: <3F3AD044.5C9D5D79@snf.stanford.edu> Hi, since the non contact SonoGage thickness measurement tool is not functional right now, I asked Charley to buy a drop gauge. We have now one drop gauge with a Ruby tip, but three equipment groups. Charley does not recommend to buy more tips and let users change the tips, the tool might not measure correctly anymore. In the lab, users already are allowed to use Eric P's "gold contaminated" drop gauge. So, my question is, should we declare the one Ruby tip we have as a clean and semiclean tip ( like we do at the clean Dektak)? Or should we buy a second drop gauge, the price is around $300. Uli -- Uli Thumser Stanford Nanofabrication Facility Center for Integrated Systems 420 Via Palou Mall, CIS Room 146 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)725-3694 uli at snf.stanford.edu From chungchu at stanford.edu Wed Aug 13 17:09:10 2003 From: chungchu at stanford.edu (Chung-Chu Chen) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:09:10 -0700 Subject: New material request In-Reply-To: <3F39760A.9878C8CB@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <000a01c361f8$4c8627f0$075540ab@SP750> Hi, I'm going to deposit a layer of tantalum-aluminum (TaAl) on a Pyrex wafer and pattern it with lift-off process, and then deposit and pattern a Si3N4 layer above. I request the following usage of materials and equipments: 1. Co-sputter Ta and Al targets or sputter TaAl target on Pyrex wafer in Metallica Sputter System. 2. Deposite Si3N4 on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in STS PECVD System. 3. Dry etch Si3N4 layer on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in MRC Model 55 RIE Etcher. Thanks a lot! Chung-Chu Chen SNF user name: chungchu Acct.#: 2WMN409 E. L. Ginzton Lab, Rm 124 Stanford University (O)650-724-4654 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SpecMatNewlRequest.doc Type: application/msword Size: 196096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 14 16:09:42 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:09:42 -0700 Subject: New material request References: <000a01c361f8$4c8627f0$075540ab@SP750> Message-ID: <3F3C16B5.BB06E699@snf.stanford.edu> Hello SpecMat and Jeannie -- What's the scoop with Ta or TaAl in Metalica, sts, and mrc? Are there any special concerns? Mary Chung-Chu Chen wrote: > Hi, > > I'm going to deposit a layer of tantalum-aluminum (TaAl) on a Pyrex > wafer and pattern it with lift-off process, > > and then deposit and pattern a Si3N4 layer above. > > I request the following usage of materials and equipments: > > 1. Co-sputter Ta and Al targets or sputter TaAl target on Pyrex wafer in > Metallica Sputter System. > > 2. Deposite Si3N4 on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in STS PECVD System. > > 3. Dry etch Si3N4 layer on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in MRC Model > 55 RIE Etcher. > > Thanks a lot! > > Chung-Chu Chen > > SNF user name: chungchu > > Acct.#: 2WMN409 > > E. L. Ginzton Lab, Rm 124 > > Stanford University > > (O)650-724-4654 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: SpecMatNewlRequest.doc > SpecMatNewlRequest.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > Download Status: Not downloaded with message -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 14 16:11:57 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:11:57 -0700 Subject: drop gauge References: <3F3AD044.5C9D5D79@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F3C173D.D889175@snf.stanford.edu> Specmatters -- What do you think? I think I agree with Uli -- it's simpler to just have one system for gold/KOH-contaminated wafers and another for clean/semiclean wafers. The risk is the same for the drop gage as for the dektak, where this policy exists -- like the dektak, there is only a single point contact with a probe, but the backside of the wafer contacts a chuck. Unless we hear otherwise, can I assume this is a "go"? Mary Uli Thumser wrote: > Hi, > > since the non contact SonoGage thickness measurement tool is not > functional right now, I asked Charley to buy a drop gauge. We have now > one drop gauge with a Ruby tip, but three equipment groups. Charley does > not recommend to buy more tips and let users change the tips, the tool > might not measure correctly anymore. In the lab, users already are > allowed to use Eric P's "gold contaminated" drop gauge. So, my question > is, should we declare the one Ruby tip we have as a clean and semiclean > tip ( like we do at the clean Dektak)? Or should we buy a second drop > gauge, the price is around $300. > > Uli > > -- > Uli Thumser > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > Center for Integrated Systems > 420 Via Palou Mall, CIS Room 146 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)725-3694 > uli at snf.stanford.edu -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 14 22:23:04 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:23:04 -0700 Subject: New material request References: <000a01c361f8$4c8627f0$075540ab@SP750> <3F3C16B5.BB06E699@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F3C6E38.BA06F49A@snf.stanford.edu> Mary, I do see any problems. I am not 100% sure about Pyrex in the STS dep tool. Ta is a low vapor pressure material that is easily sputtered. The addition of Al does not hurt anything. Pyrex should be no problem in the Metalica. As for the STS, I do not think there will be any problems. It should take the temperature. I am not crazy about the Na in the Pyrex going into the STS but we no restrictions. I do not see a problem with these wafers going into the MRC however again I am not crazy about Pyrex in the MRC. There are no restrictions about Pyrex in the MRC. Jim Mary Tang wrote: > Hello SpecMat and Jeannie -- > > What's the scoop with Ta or TaAl in Metalica, sts, and mrc? Are there any > special concerns? > > Mary > > Chung-Chu Chen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm going to deposit a layer of tantalum-aluminum (TaAl) on a Pyrex > > wafer and pattern it with lift-off process, > > > > and then deposit and pattern a Si3N4 layer above. > > > > I request the following usage of materials and equipments: > > > > 1. Co-sputter Ta and Al targets or sputter TaAl target on Pyrex wafer in > > Metallica Sputter System. > > > > 2. Deposite Si3N4 on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in STS PECVD System. > > > > 3. Dry etch Si3N4 layer on a TaAl-containing Pyrex wafter in MRC Model > > 55 RIE Etcher. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > Chung-Chu Chen > > > > SNF user name: chungchu > > > > Acct.#: 2WMN409 > > > > E. L. Ginzton Lab, Rm 124 > > > > Stanford University > > > > (O)650-724-4654 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: SpecMatNewlRequest.doc > > SpecMatNewlRequest.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > > Download Status: Not downloaded with message > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 14 22:31:12 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:31:12 -0700 Subject: drop gauge References: <3F3AD044.5C9D5D79@snf.stanford.edu> <3F3C173D.D889175@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F3C7020.E9F6C7FB@snf.stanford.edu> All, 1. What happened to the drop gauge that Bob Wheeler got 2 or 3 years ago. The last I saw of it, it was aon Nancy's desk. waiting for a part. 2. I see no problem with using the one rudy tip for both clean and seniclean material. All the clean material has to go through a clean before going into the furnaces where contamination is really important. I think we will cause more contamination problems if we have user changing the tip. For one, I see a lot of users and staff touching the faces in their groves so I suspect anything that get touch by groves. Keeping users hands off the tip is the cleanest thing we can do. Jim Mary Tang wrote: > Specmatters -- > > What do you think? I think I agree with Uli -- it's simpler to just have > one system for gold/KOH-contaminated wafers and another for clean/semiclean > wafers. The risk is the same for the drop gage as for the dektak, where > this policy exists -- like the dektak, there is only a single point contact > with a probe, but the backside of the wafer contacts a chuck. > > Unless we hear otherwise, can I assume this is a "go"? > > Mary > > Uli Thumser wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > since the non contact SonoGage thickness measurement tool is not > > functional right now, I asked Charley to buy a drop gauge. We have now > > one drop gauge with a Ruby tip, but three equipment groups. Charley does > > not recommend to buy more tips and let users change the tips, the tool > > might not measure correctly anymore. In the lab, users already are > > allowed to use Eric P's "gold contaminated" drop gauge. So, my question > > is, should we declare the one Ruby tip we have as a clean and semiclean > > tip ( like we do at the clean Dektak)? Or should we buy a second drop > > gauge, the price is around $300. > > > > Uli > > > > -- > > Uli Thumser > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > Center for Integrated Systems > > 420 Via Palou Mall, CIS Room 146 > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > (650)725-3694 > > uli at snf.stanford.edu > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 14 22:46:08 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:46:08 -0700 Subject: Leksoltm References: <3F3A817E.59A4FF04@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F3C73A0.7098068D@snf.stanford.edu> All, I have a list of several TCA replacements that can be used for removing wax. If I have time next week, I send out the list with some info on each so that we can have a discussion. We need to settle on a single chemical for wax removal. Jim Mahnaz wrote: > Hello all, > > I have ok the use of this chemical, once for Uma and patrick due to some > problems in their lab. Chemical was used to clean off some wax of the > wafer and was collected due to being carcinogen. > The bottle came to our lab and left the same day. > The case # is 106-94-5 > > mahnaz -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 15 07:07:30 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:07:30 -0700 Subject: Leksoltm References: <3F3A817E.59A4FF04@snf.stanford.edu> <3F3C73A0.7098068D@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F3CE922.353BA510@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Jim -- I quite agree. Borothene is what most people use and it is available in Physics Stores (or used to be.) However, historically, this has not been approved for use at SNF. It's bromochloromethane, basically, which makes it a chlorinated solvent. I did not know until recently that this also reacts badly with many metals, which makes this stuff much less useful than any users would want anyway, so it would be good to be able to recommend a better substitute. Mary Jim McVittie wrote: > All, > > I have a list of several TCA replacements that can be used for removing wax. > If I have time next week, I send out the list with some info on each so that > we can have a discussion. We need to settle on a single chemical for wax > removal. > > Jim > > Mahnaz wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I have ok the use of this chemical, once for Uma and patrick due to some > > problems in their lab. Chemical was used to clean off some wax of the > > wafer and was collected due to being carcinogen. > > The bottle came to our lab and left the same day. > > The case # is 106-94-5 > > > > mahnaz -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From true at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 18 14:56:57 2003 From: true at snf.stanford.edu (Randy True) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:56:57 -0700 Subject: SpecMat request - oxygen plasma Polyimide etching in STS etcher Message-ID: <3F414BA9.2030501@snf.stanford.edu> I would like to etch a polyimide film with an oxygen plasma in the STS etcher. The wafer consists of a metal hard mask (Al/Ti bilayer) on an 8um thick layer of cured polyimide (PI2611). The wafers will be coming from the metal chamber of the P5000 and are non-gold contaminated. Currently, I am doing the etch in the PQuest with a mixture of Ar and O2. I have also done this etch successfully on an Alcatel deep silicon etcher, the 601E, at their Boston demonstration facility. Thanks, Randy True From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 08:28:32 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:28:32 -0700 Subject: Polyimide? Message-ID: <3F424220.F4F9FD7F@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- I just received an email from Randy requesting to use the laurel for polyimide... I know that plans are underway to dedicate a laurel system for polyimide and to have it placed in a proper solvent hood (when is your best guess that this will be done?) I was wondering what Randy and any others interested in polyimide could do in the meantime... I really think that we ought to offer him (and other users) a viable, temporary solution (to be used until the dedicated laurel is up and running). Or, just simple ban all use of polyimide in the lab, upon penalty of lifetime banishment from the lab (tempting, I know.) The thing is, polyimide is an important fabrication material and people are going to use it. We can't ignore it. If we don't offer them a reasonable, workable solution, they will do it behind our backs (and although it's tempting to engage in the "don't ask, don't tell" approach, it is not good lab policy.) Some of the options previously discussed (other than the dedicated teflon laurel): 1. Run polyimide on the svgcoat. Schedule in advance with Mike & Mario to ensure appropriate clean up is done. This was Randy's initial proposal (and he's still in favor of this.) We objected because it requires M&M to intervene, and also because the svgcoat is a busy system. Use/cleaning of polyimide could lead to both tracks being down at once. 2. Run on the current laurel. We had told Randy that he should use a liner to catch the excess polyimide -- however, this is turning out to be a nightmare, as foil prevents the interlock from hitting, and plastic wrap is hard to use and doesn't really help the problem.... I brought up the idea of using NMP to remove polyimide (it is considered a "safe" stripper -- it is the primary component of PRX-127 -- polyimide is already dissolved in it and NMP is soluble in acetone), but Mike pointed out that it is oily, difficult to work with, and doesn't smell very nice. So, what do you think? (Please keep in mind that what we're proposing is a temporary solution, until the dedicated laurel can be brought up....) Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 08:53:37 2003 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:53:37 -0700 Subject: Polyimide? References: <3F424220.F4F9FD7F@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F424801.452B60DD@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all, As of last Friday, the Laurell is on temporary fix. Due to some polyimide and PMMA the system went down. Mike opened up the system and worked on it. He still needs to get the part. We are not in any condition to run polyimide on the system especially as of right now which many users with small pieces heavily relay on Laurell. Polyimide always has been spun at Headway before I join Stanford and I like to keep it in one place, for these reason: Controlling contamination Damage to chucks ( Many chucks at Head way gone bad and requires many hours of Mario's time for cleaning which is not his job to do that and I have not been able to pursue people to buy their own chuck). Laurell station ( not enough exhaust draw) All I can offer at this time is my old Laurell, the one with no rpm read out to be used. mahnaz Mary Tang wrote: > Hi all -- > > I just received an email from Randy requesting to use the laurel for > polyimide... I know that plans are underway to dedicate a laurel system > for polyimide and to have it placed in a proper solvent hood (when is > your best guess that this will be done?) I was wondering what Randy and > any others interested in polyimide could do in the meantime... > > I really think that we ought to offer him (and other users) a viable, > temporary solution (to be used until the dedicated laurel is up and > running). Or, just simple ban all use of polyimide in the lab, upon > penalty of lifetime banishment from the lab (tempting, I know.) The > thing is, polyimide is an important fabrication material and people are > going to use it. We can't ignore it. If we don't offer them a > reasonable, workable solution, they will do it behind our backs (and > although it's tempting to engage in the "don't ask, don't tell" > approach, it is not good lab policy.) > > Some of the options previously discussed (other than the dedicated > teflon laurel): > > 1. Run polyimide on the svgcoat. Schedule in advance with Mike & Mario > to ensure appropriate clean up is done. This was Randy's initial > proposal (and he's still in favor of this.) We objected because it > requires M&M to intervene, and also because the svgcoat is a busy > system. Use/cleaning of polyimide could lead to both tracks being down > at once. > > 2. Run on the current laurel. We had told Randy that he should use a > liner to catch the excess polyimide -- however, this is turning out to > be a nightmare, as foil prevents the interlock from hitting, and plastic > wrap is hard to use and doesn't really help the problem.... I brought > up the idea of using NMP to remove polyimide (it is considered a "safe" > stripper -- it is the primary component of PRX-127 -- polyimide is > already dissolved in it and NMP is soluble in acetone), but Mike pointed > out that it is oily, difficult to work with, and doesn't smell very > nice. > > So, what do you think? (Please keep in mind that what we're proposing > is a temporary solution, until the dedicated laurel can be brought > up....) > > Mary > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu From martinez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 10:06:39 2003 From: martinez at snf.stanford.edu (Mike Martinez) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:06:39 -0700 Subject: Polyimide? References: <3F424220.F4F9FD7F@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F42591F.89B32531@snf.stanford.edu> I think we should let Randy use the current laurel because we will be trading it in for a brand spankin new laurel in the near future. This will give us an idea of what we're in for as far as the cleaning up and maintenance of the unit as more users run their polyimide wafers. mm Mary Tang wrote: > Hi all -- > > I just received an email from Randy requesting to use the laurel for > polyimide... I know that plans are underway to dedicate a laurel system > for polyimide and to have it placed in a proper solvent hood (when is > your best guess that this will be done?) I was wondering what Randy and > any others interested in polyimide could do in the meantime... > > I really think that we ought to offer him (and other users) a viable, > temporary solution (to be used until the dedicated laurel is up and > running). Or, just simple ban all use of polyimide in the lab, upon > penalty of lifetime banishment from the lab (tempting, I know.) The > thing is, polyimide is an important fabrication material and people are > going to use it. We can't ignore it. If we don't offer them a > reasonable, workable solution, they will do it behind our backs (and > although it's tempting to engage in the "don't ask, don't tell" > approach, it is not good lab policy.) > > Some of the options previously discussed (other than the dedicated > teflon laurel): > > 1. Run polyimide on the svgcoat. Schedule in advance with Mike & Mario > to ensure appropriate clean up is done. This was Randy's initial > proposal (and he's still in favor of this.) We objected because it > requires M&M to intervene, and also because the svgcoat is a busy > system. Use/cleaning of polyimide could lead to both tracks being down > at once. > > 2. Run on the current laurel. We had told Randy that he should use a > liner to catch the excess polyimide -- however, this is turning out to > be a nightmare, as foil prevents the interlock from hitting, and plastic > wrap is hard to use and doesn't really help the problem.... I brought > up the idea of using NMP to remove polyimide (it is considered a "safe" > stripper -- it is the primary component of PRX-127 -- polyimide is > already dissolved in it and NMP is soluble in acetone), but Mike pointed > out that it is oily, difficult to work with, and doesn't smell very > nice. > > So, what do you think? (Please keep in mind that what we're proposing > is a temporary solution, until the dedicated laurel can be brought > up....) > > Mary > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 12:03:22 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:03:22 -0700 Subject: Polyimide? References: <3F424220.F4F9FD7F@snf.stanford.edu> <3F42591F.89B32531@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F42747A.D34CC7DB@snf.stanford.edu> Cool. Thanks Mike. Is there anything you would recommend in terms of how to use the system (procedures, materials, etc) which would both make your life easier? Mary Mike Martinez wrote: > I think we should let Randy use the current laurel because we will be > trading it in for a brand spankin new laurel in the near future. > This will give us an idea of what we're in for as far as the cleaning up > and maintenance of the unit as more users run their polyimide wafers. > > mm > > Mary Tang wrote: > > > Hi all -- > > > > I just received an email from Randy requesting to use the laurel for > > polyimide... I know that plans are underway to dedicate a laurel system > > for polyimide and to have it placed in a proper solvent hood (when is > > your best guess that this will be done?) I was wondering what Randy and > > any others interested in polyimide could do in the meantime... > > > > I really think that we ought to offer him (and other users) a viable, > > temporary solution (to be used until the dedicated laurel is up and > > running). Or, just simple ban all use of polyimide in the lab, upon > > penalty of lifetime banishment from the lab (tempting, I know.) The > > thing is, polyimide is an important fabrication material and people are > > going to use it. We can't ignore it. If we don't offer them a > > reasonable, workable solution, they will do it behind our backs (and > > although it's tempting to engage in the "don't ask, don't tell" > > approach, it is not good lab policy.) > > > > Some of the options previously discussed (other than the dedicated > > teflon laurel): > > > > 1. Run polyimide on the svgcoat. Schedule in advance with Mike & Mario > > to ensure appropriate clean up is done. This was Randy's initial > > proposal (and he's still in favor of this.) We objected because it > > requires M&M to intervene, and also because the svgcoat is a busy > > system. Use/cleaning of polyimide could lead to both tracks being down > > at once. > > > > 2. Run on the current laurel. We had told Randy that he should use a > > liner to catch the excess polyimide -- however, this is turning out to > > be a nightmare, as foil prevents the interlock from hitting, and plastic > > wrap is hard to use and doesn't really help the problem.... I brought > > up the idea of using NMP to remove polyimide (it is considered a "safe" > > stripper -- it is the primary component of PRX-127 -- polyimide is > > already dissolved in it and NMP is soluble in acetone), but Mike pointed > > out that it is oily, difficult to work with, and doesn't smell very > > nice. > > > > So, what do you think? (Please keep in mind that what we're proposing > > is a temporary solution, until the dedicated laurel can be brought > > up....) > > > > Mary > > > > -- > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > (650)723-9980 > > mtang at stanford.edu > > http://snf.stanford.edu -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 14:41:59 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:41:59 -0700 Subject: Wax Removers Message-ID: <3F4299A7.A7DD0AFA@snf.stanford.edu> All, Here is what I have on TCA replacements for removing wax. Some of this info is from Tom Carver. Look carefully at the last product which is Shipley/SVC-28. Maybe Mahnez can look into getting us a sample to evaluate. Jim ***Borothane*** -- The company that was manufacturing that stopped iot production.. ***Leksol*** -- Hydrocarbon-Based Degreaser Major component n-Propyl Bromide Contains Butylene Oxide n-propyl bromide is considered practically non-toxic to test animals Manufacturer: Amity International Inc. Application: Aerospace components, electrical contacts, marine and automotive parts. This is not meant for semiconductors. ***EnSolv*** "The environmentally freindly non-flammable solvent" designed as a direct replacement for 1, 1, 1- tricloroethane and HCFC-141b Removal of dried greases and oils Removal of solder flux Cleaning of copper and aluminum Cleaning of semiconductive cable and insultation Again this is not meant for semiconductors. Tom Caver uses this and thinks it works better than TCA. He switched from Leksol. He usually rinses things with the Ensolv first, then goes to acetone, then alcohol, then water, then acids or detergents if needed. Price --- $50/gallon See www.ensolv.com/PDF/2015_Cleaning_Capability.pdf ***Shipley/SVC-28*** Wax and wafer adhesive remover SVC is a solvent, engineered to quickly strip waxes and wafer adhesives, such as WaferGrip, while not affecting semiconductor substrates and devices. SVC is a high efficiency stripper and cleaner. It is uniquely formulated to give optimal stripping results on WaferGrip and other adhesives when they are used for temporary bonding in the semiconductor or magnetic head manufacturing industry. SVC will leave surfaces free of detectable organic residue when process directions are strictly followed. SVC is a nontoxic, low hazard, non-allergenic material with a very mild odor. If the price is not too high, this looks like a winner. See www.dynatex.com/products/WBS/solvents.html#procedure WWW.chester.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 19 15:41:45 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:41:45 -0700 Subject: SpecMat request - oxygen plasma Polyimide etching in STS etcher References: <3F414BA9.2030501@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F42A7A9.84DC6BF6@snf.stanford.edu> Randy, My question is how is your proposed process going affect the current STS etch processes. Your process will tend to strip off any polymer on the chamber walls and thus could change the equilibrium gas concentration is subsequent Si etching for some unknown number of wafers. Can you propose how we might be able to determine that this is not happening or how you could guarantee that the chamber is back to the equilibrium wall chemistry after your etch. Your process and post etch chamber seasoning must be such that the next user gets the same results as if you had been doing a standard deep Si etch. Jim Randy True wrote: > I would like to etch a polyimide film with an oxygen plasma in the STS > etcher. The wafer consists of a metal hard mask (Al/Ti bilayer) on an > 8um thick layer of cured polyimide (PI2611). The wafers will be coming > from the metal chamber of the P5000 and are non-gold contaminated. > Currently, I am doing the etch in the PQuest with a mixture of Ar and > O2. I have also done this etch successfully on an Alcatel deep silicon > etcher, the 601E, at their Boston demonstration facility. > > Thanks, > Randy True -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From latta at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 20 14:47:00 2003 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (Nancy Latta) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:47:00 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F43EC54.7020406@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Ben, We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have selectivity data, see Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem may be with the spin on glass. To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials committee on this conversation. Nancy Benjamin Chui wrote: > Hi Nancy, > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its new > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can take > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would likely > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, e.g. > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually used for > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always covered > with resist when they enter the machine, and the engineer > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > If you could give me any info about what's required to > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be great. > Thanks a lot! > > Ben Chui -- Nancy Latta Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 145 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4070 (650) 725-6727 latta at snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 20 15:30:17 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:30:17 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing References: <3F43EC54.7020406@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F43F679.2CEC53C5@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Nancy, Ben, and fellow SpecMat'ers -- I'm not a lampoly person, so may be off-base here... But I would think that this would not be a problem if the SOG were electronics-grade, as most are... Mary Nancy Latta wrote: > Hi Ben, > > We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have selectivity data, see > Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem may be with the > spin on glass. > > To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials committee on this > conversation. > > Nancy > > Benjamin Chui wrote: > > Hi Nancy, > > > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its new > > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can take > > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would likely > > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, e.g. > > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually used for > > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always covered > > with resist when they enter the machine, and the engineer > > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > > > If you could give me any info about what's required to > > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be great. > > Thanks a lot! > > > > Ben Chui > > -- > Nancy Latta > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 145 > 420 Via Palou Mall > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > (650) 725-6727 > latta at snf.stanford.edu -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 21 07:25:17 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:25:17 -0700 Subject: Polyimide? References: <3F424220.F4F9FD7F@snf.stanford.edu> <3F42591F.89B32531@snf.stanford.edu> <3F42747A.D34CC7DB@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F44D64D.9F776714@snf.stanford.edu> Hi everyone -- I spoke with Mahnaz who had spoken with Mike. So... I guess the decision is to go ahead and let Randy (and whoever else) use polyimide on the laurel, with a firm (very firm) reminder to rinse extremely well with acetone. Longer term, we'll have the dedicated laurel and be able to try different approaches to dealing with the polyimide. So, if I don't hear otherwise, then I'm assuming it's a "go", and will inform our friend... OK? Thanks, Mary Mary Tang wrote: > Cool. Thanks Mike. Is there anything you would recommend in terms of how to > use the system (procedures, materials, etc) which would both make your life > easier? > > Mary > > Mike Martinez wrote: > > > I think we should let Randy use the current laurel because we will be > > trading it in for a brand spankin new laurel in the near future. > > This will give us an idea of what we're in for as far as the cleaning up > > and maintenance of the unit as more users run their polyimide wafers. > > > > mm > > > > Mary Tang wrote: > > > > > Hi all -- > > > > > > I just received an email from Randy requesting to use the laurel for > > > polyimide... I know that plans are underway to dedicate a laurel system > > > for polyimide and to have it placed in a proper solvent hood (when is > > > your best guess that this will be done?) I was wondering what Randy and > > > any others interested in polyimide could do in the meantime... > > > > > > I really think that we ought to offer him (and other users) a viable, > > > temporary solution (to be used until the dedicated laurel is up and > > > running). Or, just simple ban all use of polyimide in the lab, upon > > > penalty of lifetime banishment from the lab (tempting, I know.) The > > > thing is, polyimide is an important fabrication material and people are > > > going to use it. We can't ignore it. If we don't offer them a > > > reasonable, workable solution, they will do it behind our backs (and > > > although it's tempting to engage in the "don't ask, don't tell" > > > approach, it is not good lab policy.) > > > > > > Some of the options previously discussed (other than the dedicated > > > teflon laurel): > > > > > > 1. Run polyimide on the svgcoat. Schedule in advance with Mike & Mario > > > to ensure appropriate clean up is done. This was Randy's initial > > > proposal (and he's still in favor of this.) We objected because it > > > requires M&M to intervene, and also because the svgcoat is a busy > > > system. Use/cleaning of polyimide could lead to both tracks being down > > > at once. > > > > > > 2. Run on the current laurel. We had told Randy that he should use a > > > liner to catch the excess polyimide -- however, this is turning out to > > > be a nightmare, as foil prevents the interlock from hitting, and plastic > > > wrap is hard to use and doesn't really help the problem.... I brought > > > up the idea of using NMP to remove polyimide (it is considered a "safe" > > > stripper -- it is the primary component of PRX-127 -- polyimide is > > > already dissolved in it and NMP is soluble in acetone), but Mike pointed > > > out that it is oily, difficult to work with, and doesn't smell very > > > nice. > > > > > > So, what do you think? (Please keep in mind that what we're proposing > > > is a temporary solution, until the dedicated laurel can be brought > > > up....) > > > > > > Mary > > > > > > -- > > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > > (650)723-9980 > > > mtang at stanford.edu > > > http://snf.stanford.edu > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From bchui at california.com Thu Aug 21 12:06:45 2003 From: bchui at california.com (Benjamin Chui) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:06:45 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing In-Reply-To: <3F43F679.2CEC53C5@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi Mary, Thanks for your reply. If we use SOG, can we put a layer of duramide underneath it? If not, we can probably use PMMA.... Thanks, Ben On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:30:17 -0700 Mary Tang wrote: > Hi Nancy, Ben, and fellow SpecMat'ers -- > > I'm not a lampoly person, so may be off-base here... But > I would think that > this would not be a problem if the SOG were > electronics-grade, as most > are... > > Mary > > Nancy Latta wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have > selectivity data, see > > Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem > may be with the > > spin on glass. > > > > To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials > committee on this > > conversation. > > > > Nancy > > > > Benjamin Chui wrote: > > > Hi Nancy, > > > > > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its > new > > > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can > take > > > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > > > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would > likely > > > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, > e.g. > > > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually > used for > > > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always > covered > > > with resist when they enter the machine, and the > engineer > > > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > > > > > If you could give me any info about what's > required to > > > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be > great. > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > Ben Chui > > > > -- > > Nancy Latta > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 145 > > 420 Via Palou Mall > > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > > (650) 725-6727 > > latta at snf.stanford.edu > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu > > From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 21 12:19:31 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:19:31 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing References: Message-ID: <3F451B43.983323CC@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Ben -- What's duramide? If you can provide MSDS and all the usual SpecMat info, we can go through the approval loop... (http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html) Thanks, Mary Benjamin Chui wrote: > Hi Mary, > > Thanks for your reply. If we use SOG, can we put a > layer of duramide underneath it? If not, we can probably > use PMMA.... > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:30:17 -0700 > Mary Tang wrote: > > Hi Nancy, Ben, and fellow SpecMat'ers -- > > > > I'm not a lampoly person, so may be off-base here... But > > I would think that > > this would not be a problem if the SOG were > > electronics-grade, as most > > are... > > > > Mary > > > > Nancy Latta wrote: > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have > > selectivity data, see > > > Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem > > may be with the > > > spin on glass. > > > > > > To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials > > committee on this > > > conversation. > > > > > > Nancy > > > > > > Benjamin Chui wrote: > > > > Hi Nancy, > > > > > > > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its > > new > > > > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can > > take > > > > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > > > > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would > > likely > > > > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, > > e.g. > > > > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually > > used for > > > > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always > > covered > > > > with resist when they enter the machine, and the > > engineer > > > > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > > > > > > > If you could give me any info about what's > > required to > > > > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be > > great. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > > > Ben Chui > > > > > > -- > > > Nancy Latta > > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > > CIS Room 145 > > > 420 Via Palou Mall > > > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > > > (650) 725-6727 > > > latta at snf.stanford.edu > > > > -- > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > (650)723-9980 > > mtang at stanford.edu > > http://snf.stanford.edu > > > > -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 21 12:21:24 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:21:24 -0700 Subject: Hydrazine Message-ID: <3F451BB4.4AD8181A@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- Baylor Triplet is asking if he can use an aqueous solution of hydrazine in the lab -- he says it's used to remove edge damage in silicon. I'm clueless about this, but do know that hydrazine can be extremely nasty... Has this been approved before? And is there a standard procedure? Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From shott at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 21 13:58:12 2003 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:58:12 -0700 Subject: Hydrazine In-Reply-To: <3F451BB4.4AD8181A@snf.stanford.edu> References: <3F451BB4.4AD8181A@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F453264.8020302@snf.stanford.edu> Mary: Having used hydrazine myself in my dim, dark youth, I would be opposed to using it now ... certainly its instability and its extreme reactivity with oxidizers such as nitric acid make it, I think, a poor candidate for use at wbgeneneral .... which I'm guessing is where it would be used. While I'm not certain what characteristics Baylor needs of his etch, my guess is that it can be replicated by an alternative, less reactive chemical and would propose that we look at that route. To me this is sort of like the request to use HBr that Jim didn't allow several months ago ... I believe that there are chemicals that can be safely used in a "private" lab where one has control of everything going on around them that should not be use in our open/shared facility. I would argue that hydrazine is one of those chemicals. Thanks, John From true at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 21 14:32:57 2003 From: true at snf.stanford.edu (Randy True) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:32:57 -0700 Subject: SpecMat request - oxygen plasma Polyimide etching in STS etcher References: <3F414BA9.2030501@snf.stanford.edu> <3F42A7A9.84DC6BF6@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F453A89.50506@snf.stanford.edu> Jim, Thanks for the quick response. My polyimide etch process will have a similar effect to an oxygen plasma clean so I'd propose to do the same conditioning as what is done after an oxygen clean step, namely a 20min deep silicon etch on a photoresist patterned Si wafer. To test this protocol, I would run and additional patterned Si wafer after the conditioning wafer and measure the etch rate. How does that sound? --Randy Jim McVittie wrote: >Randy, > >My question is how is your proposed process going affect the current STS >etch processes. >Your process will tend to strip off any polymer on the chamber walls and >thus could change the >equilibrium gas concentration is subsequent Si etching for some unknown >number of wafers. Can you propose how we might be able to determine that >this is not happening or how you could guarantee that the chamber is back >to the equilibrium wall chemistry after your etch. Your process and post >etch chamber seasoning must be such that the next user gets the same >results as if you had been doing a standard deep Si etch. > > Jim > > >Randy True wrote: > > > >>I would like to etch a polyimide film with an oxygen plasma in the STS >>etcher. The wafer consists of a metal hard mask (Al/Ti bilayer) on an >>8um thick layer of cured polyimide (PI2611). The wafers will be coming >>from the metal chamber of the P5000 and are non-gold contaminated. >>Currently, I am doing the etch in the PQuest with a mixture of Ar and >>O2. I have also done this etch successfully on an Alcatel deep silicon >>etcher, the 601E, at their Boston demonstration facility. >> >>Thanks, >>Randy True >> >> From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 22 15:27:34 2003 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (Nancy Latta) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:27:34 -0700 Subject: NH3 in tylanfga? Message-ID: <3F4698D6.2010706@snf.stanford.edu> Dear Committee, I have a request from an remote international other university user for anneals in NH3 at varying temps fro 850-1100C. I have checked and tylanfga still has NH3 plumbed to it, but I am wondering about issues with the elevated temps. Can you provide me with advice? Thanks, Nancy -- Nancy Latta Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 145 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4070 (650) 725-6727 latta at snf.stanford.edu From krscanstvo at inet.hr Sun Aug 24 07:20:26 2003 From: krscanstvo at inet.hr (krscanstvo at inet.hr) Date: 24 Aug 2003 16:20:26 +0200 Subject: Your details Message-ID: <20030824142026.14351.qmail@pop.iskon.hr> Zahvaljujem ?to ste posjetili Kr??anske Web Stranice. ?elim Vam Bo?ji mir i blagoslov! Thank you for the visiting Christian Web Site. Peace and blessing! -- http://www.inet.hr/krscanstvo From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 25 11:43:38 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:43:38 -0700 Subject: NH3 in tylanfga? References: <3F4698D6.2010706@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F4A58DA.1BAE062@snf.stanford.edu> Nancy, I do not remember anything about tylanfga having NH3 plumbed to it. Apparently, there is a 550C NH3/N2 process (NH3_550 ) written by Margaret for the tube. Neither John nor Mike remember anything about this process. My reservation about using it for 850 to 1100 C anneals is that the tube is metal contaminated so running the tube up that high will likely cause metal contamination to the wafers being annealed for the user and to the non-metal boat. Note that some of the NH3 will discompose into H2 and N2. If NH3 is a small percentage ( < 10%) of the total flow, H2 generation should not be a problem for this tube. I am inclined to say no for contamination reason stated above. Jim Nancy Latta wrote: > Dear Committee, > > I have a request from an remote international other university user for > anneals in NH3 at varying temps fro 850-1100C. > > I have checked and tylanfga still has NH3 plumbed to it, but I am > wondering about issues with the elevated temps. > > Can you provide me with advice? Thanks, > > Nancy > > -- > Nancy Latta > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 145 > 420 Via Palou Mall > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > (650) 725-6727 > latta at snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 25 14:42:46 2003 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:42:46 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: MSDS sheet for JSR NFR 107 photoresist] Message-ID: <3F4A82D6.6C5CD264@snf.stanford.edu> Hello I have ok for her to use the resist, she can dispense it at SVG in manual mode or headway/laurell. I believe we will try to use the Shipley LDD26 w developer. mahnaz -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Jamora, Aleta" Subject: MSDS sheet for JSR NFR 107 photoresist Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:26:23 -0700 Size: 107345 URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 25 16:27:55 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:27:55 -0700 Subject: Polyimide on Laurel Message-ID: <3F4A9B7A.D098DB3@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Randy -- After much discussion, it's official. Until the dedicated laurel process is set up, you have express authority to run polyimide on the laurel in the lab. Please make sure to try to rinse the polyimide as much as possible from the system after using it. Please also drop off an email to Mike & Mario, so they can check on the system as needed to be sure things don't clog up. Once the dedicated laurel is in place, your input as to how to run this in a way to minimize the gooping problem is greatly appreciated. Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From latta at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 26 11:00:59 2003 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (Nancy Latta) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:00:59 -0700 Subject: NH3 in tylanfga? In-Reply-To: <3F4A58DA.1BAE062@snf.stanford.edu> References: <3F4698D6.2010706@snf.stanford.edu> <3F4A58DA.1BAE062@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F4BA05B.8070905@snf.stanford.edu> Jim and Committee, I spoke with the fellow (an ex-SNF labmembers as it turns out) and he will look elsewhere for a facility to do his project. FYI, NH3 is plumbed to tylanfga. I think the program written by Margaret was for either Ant Ural or Peter Griffin. Peter does have a memory of this work, but was unclear as to which tube it was done in. Mike Dickey has verified the gas line to the fga tube. In any case, thanks for the fast response to the request, Nancy Jim McVittie wrote: > Nancy, > > I do not remember anything about tylanfga having NH3 plumbed to it. > Apparently, there is a 550C NH3/N2 process (NH3_550 ) written by Margaret > for the tube. Neither John nor Mike remember anything about this process. > My reservation about using it for 850 to 1100 C anneals is that the tube is > metal contaminated so running the tube up that high will likely cause metal > contamination to the wafers being annealed for the user and to the > non-metal boat. Note that some of the NH3 will discompose into H2 and N2. > If NH3 is a small percentage ( < 10%) of the total flow, H2 generation > should not be a problem for this tube. > > I am inclined to say no for contamination reason stated above. > > Jim > > > > > Nancy Latta wrote: > > >>Dear Committee, >> >>I have a request from an remote international other university user for >>anneals in NH3 at varying temps fro 850-1100C. >> >>I have checked and tylanfga still has NH3 plumbed to it, but I am >>wondering about issues with the elevated temps. >> >>Can you provide me with advice? Thanks, >> >> Nancy >> >>-- >>Nancy Latta >>Stanford Nanofabrication Facility >>CIS Room 145 >>420 Via Palou Mall >>Stanford, CA 94305-4070 >>(650) 725-6727 >>latta at snf.stanford.edu -- Nancy Latta Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 145 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford, CA 94305-4070 (650) 725-6727 latta at snf.stanford.edu From liux at usc.edu Tue Aug 26 14:04:27 2003 From: liux at usc.edu (xiaolei liu) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:04:27 -0700 Subject: Nb in Innotec Message-ID: Hi, I plan to evaporize Nb by using Innotec. However, seems it will be a new material to it. So could you please consider it and tell me whether I can use Nb in innotec? Thanks a lot! Regards, Reigh (loral: liux) From bchui at california.com Tue Aug 26 15:46:06 2003 From: bchui at california.com (Benjamin Chui) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:46:06 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing In-Reply-To: <3F43F679.2CEC53C5@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Mary, Nancy et al, Would NEB (a negative ebeam resist) be allowed in SNF? Here's a link to Cornell's CNF page that mentions it: http://www.cnf.cornell.edu/ebeam/resist.html#NEB I'm trying to get the formal MSDS and chemical data for it. Will let you know as soon as I get more info. Thanks, Ben On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:30:17 -0700 Mary Tang wrote: > Hi Nancy, Ben, and fellow SpecMat'ers -- > > I'm not a lampoly person, so may be off-base here... But > I would think that > this would not be a problem if the SOG were > electronics-grade, as most > are... > > Mary > > Nancy Latta wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have > selectivity data, see > > Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem > may be with the > > spin on glass. > > > > To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials > committee on this > > conversation. > > > > Nancy > > > > Benjamin Chui wrote: > > > Hi Nancy, > > > > > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its > new > > > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can > take > > > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > > > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would > likely > > > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, > e.g. > > > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually > used for > > > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always > covered > > > with resist when they enter the machine, and the > engineer > > > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > > > > > If you could give me any info about what's > required to > > > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be > great. > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > Ben Chui > > > > -- > > Nancy Latta > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 145 > > 420 Via Palou Mall > > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > > (650) 725-6727 > > latta at snf.stanford.edu > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu > > From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 26 16:04:08 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:04:08 -0700 Subject: Nb in Innotec References: Message-ID: <3F4BE768.75199F14@snf.stanford.edu> All, I do not see any problems with Nb in the Innotec. It has a low pressure and according the Sloan Notebook, it is excellent for E-beam deposition. It is pretty stable stuff in that it does not reactive with air or water. However, it does etch in mixtures of HF and nitric and desoved in HF. See general properties below. It toxicity is simular to other metals used in the Innotec. Jim Toxicological information: Acute toxicity: Primary irritant effect: on the skin: Generally the product does not irritate the skin. on the eye: No irritating effect. Sensitization: No sensitizing effects known. Subacute to chronic toxicity: Niobium compounds have caused liver damage in animal studies. Niobium metal has caused kidney damage in experimental animals and fibrogenic effects on the lungs of experimental animals. Additional toxicological information: To the best of our knowledge the acute and chronic toxicity of this substance is not fully known. No classification data on carcinogenic properties of this material is available from the EPA, IARC, NTP, OSHA or ACGIH. Jim xiaolei liu wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to evaporize Nb by using Innotec. However, seems it will be a new material to > > it. So could you please consider it and tell me whether I can use Nb in innotec? Thanks > > a lot! > > Regards, > > Reigh (loral: liux) Here is a brief description of niobium from http://www.webelements.com Name: niobium Symbol: Nb Atomic number: 41 Atomic weight: 92.90638 (2) CAS Registry ID: 7440-03-1 Standard state: solid at 298 K Colour: grey metallic Classification: Metallic Availability: niobium is available in many forms including foil, sheet, wire, insulated wire, powder, rod, turnings, and tube. Small and large samples of niobium wire like this, as well as foil, sheet, insulated wire and tube, can be purchased from Advent Research Materials via their web catalogue. The name niobium was adopted officially by IUPAC in 1950, but a few commercial producers still like to refer to it as columbium. Niobium is a shiny, white, soft, and ductile metal, and takes on a bluish tinge when exposed to air at room temperatures for a long time. The metal starts to oxidize in air at high temperatures, and when handled hot must be done so under a protective atmosphere so as to minimize oxide production. Isolation Here is a brief summary of the isolation of niobium. Isolation of niobium appears to be complicated. Niobium minerals usually contain both niobium and tantalum. Since they are so similar chemically, it is difficult to separate them. Niobium can be extracted from the ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then extracting the resultant mixture into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves the separation of tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid-liquid extraction technique. In this process tantalum salts are extracted into the ketone MIBK (methyl isobutyl ketone, 4-methyl pentan-2-one). The niobium remains in the HF solution. Acidification of the HF solution followed by further extraction in MIBK gives an organic solution containing niobium. After conversion to the oxide, metallic niobium can be made by reduction with sodium or carbon. Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 26 16:48:42 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:48:42 -0700 Subject: external ebeam processing References: Message-ID: <3F4BF1D9.81F26274@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Ben, Thank for the web site. I had not been looking at the Cornell. Any other app note info on NEB would be useful. I collect all litho relates app-notes that I can get my hands on. The big problem with negative resists is that they do not come off very well in polar (water based) solvents. This is why Cornell is recommanding an overnight soak in Shipley (NMP) 1165 to strip it off. Negative resists can be quite useful but they tend to be a pain to deal with. Jim Benjamin Chui wrote: > Mary, Nancy et al, > > Would NEB (a negative ebeam resist) be allowed in SNF? > Here's a link to Cornell's CNF page that mentions it: > > http://www.cnf.cornell.edu/ebeam/resist.html#NEB > > I'm trying to get the formal MSDS and chemical data > for it. Will let you know as soon as I get more info. > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:30:17 -0700 > Mary Tang wrote: > > Hi Nancy, Ben, and fellow SpecMat'ers -- > > > > I'm not a lampoly person, so may be off-base here... But > > I would think that > > this would not be a problem if the SOG were > > electronics-grade, as most > > are... > > > > Mary > > > > Nancy Latta wrote: > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > We have recently etched wafers with PMMA (and have > > selectivity data, see > > > Henry) in lampoly, so I thin that is ok. The problem > > may be with the > > > spin on glass. > > > > > > To answer this, I have cc'd our Special Materials > > committee on this > > > conversation. > > > > > > Nancy > > > > > > Benjamin Chui wrote: > > > > Hi Nancy, > > > > > > > > My boss at IBM Almaden wants me to try out its > > new > > > > in-house ebeam machine, and I was wondering if I can > > take > > > > test wafers exposed in that machine back into SNF for > > > > silicon etching in LamPoly. (The test wafers would > > likely > > > > be blank silicon wafers with ebeam-compatible resist, > > e.g. > > > > PMMA or spin-on-glass.) The IBM machine is usually > > used for > > > > patterning magnetic films, but the films are always > > covered > > > > with resist when they enter the machine, and the > > engineer > > > > assured me there's no chance of cross-contamination. > > > > > > > > If you could give me any info about what's > > required to > > > > be able to bring the wafers back into SNF that'd be > > great. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > > > Ben Chui > > > > > > -- > > > Nancy Latta > > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > > CIS Room 145 > > > 420 Via Palou Mall > > > Stanford, CA 94305-4070 > > > (650) 725-6727 > > > latta at snf.stanford.edu > > > > -- > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 27 07:58:35 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:58:35 -0700 Subject: Nb in Innotec References: <3F4BE768.75199F14@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F4CC71B.BAF3E270@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- So, it's official then and I'll put it on the list -- Nb is OK in the Innotec. I take it that the requestor has to provide their own target. Jeannie/Maurice -- Are there any special requirements you can think of? (Target type? Additional precautions? Process info that you'd like Reigh to collect and share? Should Reigh let you know just before processing?) Reigh -- Do you plan to process anywhere else at SNF following evaporation? Thanks, M Jim McVittie wrote: > All, > > I do not see any problems with Nb in the Innotec. It has a low pressure and according the > Sloan Notebook, it is excellent for E-beam deposition. It is pretty stable stuff in that it > does not reactive with air or water. However, it does etch in mixtures of HF and nitric and > desoved in HF. > See general properties below. It toxicity is simular to other metals used in the Innotec. > > Jim > > Toxicological information: > > Acute toxicity: > > Primary irritant effect: > on the skin: Generally the product does not irritate the skin. > on the eye: No irritating effect. > Sensitization: No sensitizing effects known. > Subacute to chronic toxicity: > Niobium compounds have caused liver damage in animal studies. Niobium metal has caused > kidney damage in experimental animals and fibrogenic effects on the lungs of experimental > animals. > > Additional toxicological information: > To the best of our knowledge the acute and chronic toxicity of this substance is not > fully known. > No classification data on carcinogenic properties of this material is available from > the EPA, IARC, NTP, OSHA or ACGIH. > > Jim > > xiaolei liu wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I plan to evaporize Nb by using Innotec. However, seems it will be a new material to > > > > it. So could you please consider it and tell me whether I can use Nb in innotec? Thanks > > > > a lot! > > > > Regards, > > > > Reigh (loral: liux) > > Here is a brief description of niobium from http://www.webelements.com > > Name: niobium > Symbol: Nb > Atomic number: 41 > Atomic weight: 92.90638 (2) > CAS Registry ID: 7440-03-1 > > Standard state: solid at 298 K > Colour: grey metallic > Classification: Metallic > Availability: niobium is available in many forms including foil, sheet, wire, insulated > wire, powder, rod, turnings, and tube. > > Small and large samples of niobium wire like this, as well as foil, sheet, insulated wire > and tube, can be purchased from Advent Research Materials via their web catalogue. > > The name niobium was adopted officially by IUPAC in 1950, but a few commercial producers > still like to refer to it as columbium. Niobium is a shiny, white, soft, and ductile metal, > and takes on a bluish tinge when exposed to air at room temperatures for a long time. The > metal starts to oxidize in air at high temperatures, and when handled hot must be done so > under a protective atmosphere so as to minimize oxide production. > > Isolation > Here is a brief summary of the isolation of niobium. > Isolation of niobium appears to be complicated. Niobium minerals usually contain both > niobium and tantalum. Since they are so similar chemically, it is difficult to separate > them. Niobium can be extracted from the ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then > extracting the resultant mixture into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves > the separation of tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid-liquid extraction > technique. In this process tantalum salts are extracted into the ketone MIBK (methyl > isobutyl ketone, 4-methyl pentan-2-one). The niobium remains in the HF solution. > Acidification of the HF solution followed by further extraction in MIBK gives an organic > solution containing niobium. > > After conversion to the oxide, metallic niobium can be made by reduction with sodium or > carbon. Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used. -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu From mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 27 08:54:12 2003 From: mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu (Mahnaz) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:54:12 -0700 Subject: Negative resist Message-ID: <3F4CD424.41A37767@snf.stanford.edu> Hello all, I just received bunch of email regarding negative resist for Ben. I had a computer problem and I think I lost the e-mail ...any how I have ok the use of NEB-31 in past to be used here at SNF and we have experiment with MA-N2400 negative ebeam tone as well. Please pass it on to Ben and if he needs more info we should be able to provide that as well. mahnaz From jperez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 27 16:29:06 2003 From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:29:06 -0700 Subject: Nb in Innotec References: <3F4BE768.75199F14@snf.stanford.edu> <3F4CC71B.BAF3E270@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F4D3EC1.82AE3B7C@snf.stanford.edu> Good Morning, It would help to know when this would take place. I could have a monitor wafer travel with his wafer (as long as the dep rate is greater then a 1000?.) This would help evaluate the program for a more accurate thickness. Regards, Jeannie Mary Tang wrote: > Hi all -- > > So, it's official then and I'll put it on the list -- Nb is OK in the Innotec. I take it that > the requestor has to provide their own target. > > Jeannie/Maurice -- Are there any special requirements you can think of? (Target type? > Additional precautions? Process info that you'd like Reigh to collect and share? Should Reigh > let you know just before processing?) > > Reigh -- Do you plan to process anywhere else at SNF following evaporation? > > Thanks, > > M > > Jim McVittie wrote: > > > All, > > > > I do not see any problems with Nb in the Innotec. It has a low pressure and according the > > Sloan Notebook, it is excellent for E-beam deposition. It is pretty stable stuff in that it > > does not reactive with air or water. However, it does etch in mixtures of HF and nitric and > > desoved in HF. > > See general properties below. It toxicity is simular to other metals used in the Innotec. > > > > Jim > > > > Toxicological information: > > > > Acute toxicity: > > > > Primary irritant effect: > > on the skin: Generally the product does not irritate the skin. > > on the eye: No irritating effect. > > Sensitization: No sensitizing effects known. > > Subacute to chronic toxicity: > > Niobium compounds have caused liver damage in animal studies. Niobium metal has caused > > kidney damage in experimental animals and fibrogenic effects on the lungs of experimental > > animals. > > > > Additional toxicological information: > > To the best of our knowledge the acute and chronic toxicity of this substance is not > > fully known. > > No classification data on carcinogenic properties of this material is available from > > the EPA, IARC, NTP, OSHA or ACGIH. > > > > Jim > > > > xiaolei liu wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I plan to evaporize Nb by using Innotec. However, seems it will be a new material to > > > > > > it. So could you please consider it and tell me whether I can use Nb in innotec? Thanks > > > > > > a lot! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Reigh (loral: liux) > > > > Here is a brief description of niobium from http://www.webelements.com > > > > Name: niobium > > Symbol: Nb > > Atomic number: 41 > > Atomic weight: 92.90638 (2) > > CAS Registry ID: 7440-03-1 > > > > Standard state: solid at 298 K > > Colour: grey metallic > > Classification: Metallic > > Availability: niobium is available in many forms including foil, sheet, wire, insulated > > wire, powder, rod, turnings, and tube. > > > > Small and large samples of niobium wire like this, as well as foil, sheet, insulated wire > > and tube, can be purchased from Advent Research Materials via their web catalogue. > > > > The name niobium was adopted officially by IUPAC in 1950, but a few commercial producers > > still like to refer to it as columbium. Niobium is a shiny, white, soft, and ductile metal, > > and takes on a bluish tinge when exposed to air at room temperatures for a long time. The > > metal starts to oxidize in air at high temperatures, and when handled hot must be done so > > under a protective atmosphere so as to minimize oxide production. > > > > Isolation > > Here is a brief summary of the isolation of niobium. > > Isolation of niobium appears to be complicated. Niobium minerals usually contain both > > niobium and tantalum. Since they are so similar chemically, it is difficult to separate > > them. Niobium can be extracted from the ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then > > extracting the resultant mixture into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves > > the separation of tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid-liquid extraction > > technique. In this process tantalum salts are extracted into the ketone MIBK (methyl > > isobutyl ketone, 4-methyl pentan-2-one). The niobium remains in the HF solution. > > Acidification of the HF solution followed by further extraction in MIBK gives an organic > > solution containing niobium. > > > > After conversion to the oxide, metallic niobium can be made by reduction with sodium or > > carbon. Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used. > > -- > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650)723-9980 > mtang at stanford.edu > http://snf.stanford.edu -- Jeannie Perez Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 146, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 723-7997 jperez at snf.stanford.edu From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 27 19:28:12 2003 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:28:12 -0700 Subject: Nb in Innotec References: <3F4BE768.75199F14@snf.stanford.edu> <3F4CC71B.BAF3E270@snf.stanford.edu> <3F4D3EC1.82AE3B7C@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <3F4D68BC.1BE33255@snf.stanford.edu> Jeannie, Why don't you contact Xiaolei Liu and work out what you want with him. I am not sure anyone has contacted him and the decision for Nb in the Innotec. Jim Jeannie Perez wrote: > Good Morning, > It would help to know when this would take place. I could have a monitor wafer travel with his > wafer (as long as the dep rate is greater then a 1000?.) This would help evaluate the program for a > more accurate thickness. > Regards, > Jeannie > > Mary Tang wrote: > > > Hi all -- > > > > So, it's official then and I'll put it on the list -- Nb is OK in the Innotec. I take it that > > the requestor has to provide their own target. > > > > Jeannie/Maurice -- Are there any special requirements you can think of? (Target type? > > Additional precautions? Process info that you'd like Reigh to collect and share? Should Reigh > > let you know just before processing?) > > > > Reigh -- Do you plan to process anywhere else at SNF following evaporation? > > > > Thanks, > > > > M > > > > Jim McVittie wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > > I do not see any problems with Nb in the Innotec. It has a low pressure and according the > > > Sloan Notebook, it is excellent for E-beam deposition. It is pretty stable stuff in that it > > > does not reactive with air or water. However, it does etch in mixtures of HF and nitric and > > > desoved in HF. > > > See general properties below. It toxicity is simular to other metals used in the Innotec. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > Toxicological information: > > > > > > Acute toxicity: > > > > > > Primary irritant effect: > > > on the skin: Generally the product does not irritate the skin. > > > on the eye: No irritating effect. > > > Sensitization: No sensitizing effects known. > > > Subacute to chronic toxicity: > > > Niobium compounds have caused liver damage in animal studies. Niobium metal has caused > > > kidney damage in experimental animals and fibrogenic effects on the lungs of experimental > > > animals. > > > > > > Additional toxicological information: > > > To the best of our knowledge the acute and chronic toxicity of this substance is not > > > fully known. > > > No classification data on carcinogenic properties of this material is available from > > > the EPA, IARC, NTP, OSHA or ACGIH. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > xiaolei liu wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I plan to evaporize Nb by using Innotec. However, seems it will be a new material to > > > > > > > > it. So could you please consider it and tell me whether I can use Nb in innotec? Thanks > > > > > > > > a lot! > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Reigh (loral: liux) > > > > > > Here is a brief description of niobium from http://www.webelements.com > > > > > > Name: niobium > > > Symbol: Nb > > > Atomic number: 41 > > > Atomic weight: 92.90638 (2) > > > CAS Registry ID: 7440-03-1 > > > > > > Standard state: solid at 298 K > > > Colour: grey metallic > > > Classification: Metallic > > > Availability: niobium is available in many forms including foil, sheet, wire, insulated > > > wire, powder, rod, turnings, and tube. > > > > > > Small and large samples of niobium wire like this, as well as foil, sheet, insulated wire > > > and tube, can be purchased from Advent Research Materials via their web catalogue. > > > > > > The name niobium was adopted officially by IUPAC in 1950, but a few commercial producers > > > still like to refer to it as columbium. Niobium is a shiny, white, soft, and ductile metal, > > > and takes on a bluish tinge when exposed to air at room temperatures for a long time. The > > > metal starts to oxidize in air at high temperatures, and when handled hot must be done so > > > under a protective atmosphere so as to minimize oxide production. > > > > > > Isolation > > > Here is a brief summary of the isolation of niobium. > > > Isolation of niobium appears to be complicated. Niobium minerals usually contain both > > > niobium and tantalum. Since they are so similar chemically, it is difficult to separate > > > them. Niobium can be extracted from the ores by first fusing the ore with alkali, and then > > > extracting the resultant mixture into hydrofluoric acid, HF. Current methodology involves > > > the separation of tantalum from these acid solutions using a liquid-liquid extraction > > > technique. In this process tantalum salts are extracted into the ketone MIBK (methyl > > > isobutyl ketone, 4-methyl pentan-2-one). The niobium remains in the HF solution. > > > Acidification of the HF solution followed by further extraction in MIBK gives an organic > > > solution containing niobium. > > > > > > After conversion to the oxide, metallic niobium can be made by reduction with sodium or > > > carbon. Electrolysis of molten fluorides is also used. > > > > -- > > Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. > > National Nanofabrication Users' Network > > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > > CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 > > Stanford, CA 94305 > > (650)723-9980 > > mtang at stanford.edu > > http://snf.stanford.edu > > -- > Jeannie Perez > Stanford Nanofabrication Facility > CIS Room 146, Mail Code 4070 > Stanford, CA 94305 > (650) 723-7997 > jperez at snf.stanford.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mcvittie.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 422 bytes Desc: Card for Jim McVittie URL: From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 28 15:57:46 2003 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:57:46 -0700 Subject: Alex Freeman's request Message-ID: <3F4E88EA.558A8620@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- A while ago, Alex made a request (through SpecMat) to use various solutions of: 1. cholesterol 2. alpha-tocopherol dissolved in hexane and mineral oil. The amounts he uses will be quite small (a few ml, right Alex?) All are organic materials. Cholesterol and alpha-tocopherol are solid organic materials, but will be dissolved in solution outside the lab. He will use these only at wbsolvent. Any waste can be placed in the solvent carboy (it should be compatible, I think -- it's really not different from photoresist -- a mixture of long-chain organics.) I think this is low risk and should be OK to use in this way. Is there any objection? (And if not, can we consider this "approved"?) Thanks, Mary -- Mary X. Tang, Ph.D. National Nanofabrication Users' Network Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070 Stanford, CA 94305 (650)723-9980 mtang at stanford.edu http://snf.stanford.edu