Process proposal and TXRF data
mdeal at stanford.edu
Tue Apr 19 12:08:15 PDT 2005
I just took a quck look at the document and want to make this comment. In
your reason #1 at the bottom, I think you got it backwards. The
contamination numbers are in doses (atoms/cm2), like in implant
doses. That number IS the total contamination number per square area. The
fact that it came from a very thin layer does not mean it has less total
contaminants - if anything the contamination concentration (in atoms/cm3)
can be even higher than in a 1 micron layer, depending on the capture
thickness. We can argue about what units our limits should be in, but the
fact that most contamination analysis is done in doses (and assumes most
contaminants are at or near the surface), and not concentrations, leads us
to use that as the most efficient method. Your other reasons may argue
for letting you use these films, but the first reason is not acceptable as is.
p.s. the contamination levels should be 1e12 cm-2, not 1e-12 cm-2, etc.
At 11:43 AM 4/19/2005, Brewer, Rhett T wrote:
>I have attached the TXRF data from the Pd, Si, O film we had discussed
>previously that I would like to process at Stanford. I have also included
>the process flow which was reviewed and accepted by specmat (provided the
>material meets contamination specs) for your reference.
>Finally, there is data for an Al2O3 layer that we would like to use to cap
>the Pd, Si,O. This would be deposited by an outside vendor.
>Please review this document and don't hesitate to ask questions. A
>decision during the next committee meeting (04/26) would meet my
><mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com>rhett.t.brewer at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the specmat