Process proposal and TXRF data

Paul Rissman rissman at stanford.edu
Tue Apr 26 13:16:25 PDT 2005


Hi Rhett,

The committee is NOT meeting today due to several people being out.  If it 
is urgent that you get a response, please check with Jim McVittie for an ok 
to proceed.

Paul

At 03:33 PM 4/19/2005 -0700, you wrote:

>I agree with both of your comments (I don t know how the negative sign 
>snuck in there).  Thank you for taking a look.  I will await your and the 
>committee s decision.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Rhett
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Michael Deal [mailto:mdeal at stanford.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:08 PM
>To: Brewer, Rhett T; specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>Cc: mcvittie at cis.stanford.edu
>Subject: Re: Process proposal and TXRF data
>
>
>
>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.
>                                         -mike
>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:
>
>Specmat,
>
>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 
>scheduling needs.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rhett
>
>
>Rhett Brewer
>Intel Corporation
>work: 408-765-8254
>cell: 408-655-3448
><mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com>rhett.t.brewer at intel.com
>





More information about the specmat mailing list