From kenney at slac.stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 15:09:58 2005
From: kenney at slac.stanford.edu (Chris Kenney)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Diamond Request
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021502050.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>

Dear SpecMat,

I would like these diamond samples approved as "Semi-clean".

1) Contact info
Chris Kenney
Coral: kenney
Phone: 725-3661

2) Material
Carbon in diamond form
Biocompatible and nonflammable
World's most pure diamond samples. Electronic grade.

3) Vendor
Element Six (De Beers)
King's Ride Park, Ascot, UK
www.e6.com

4) Reasons
Radiation hard, low Z, good thermal conductivity

5) Process
Wet cleans probably at WBGENERAL with personal quartzware.
Annealing up to 700C for now using Tylan 3
Oxygen plasma using Dryteks
Optical Litho using Karl Suss
Metal deposition(Ti, Cr, Au, Pt, Al) using Innotec or Metalica

I would like this classified as "Semi-clean" for now.

The contaminants are:
some hydrogen
10 ppm of Nitrogen
< 1 ppm of Boron
no other significant contaminants
these are special ultra-pure diamonds
stable to over 1100 C - highest meltling point of any material

Once I put metal down it will of course be "Gold" contaminated
and handled accordingly.

Equipment to be used:
wbgeneral
drytek1
drytek2
headway
laurel
tylan3
innotec
metalica
karl suss
STSpecvd
MRC
matrix

6) Amount
Chips with dimensions of about: 5mm x 5mm x 0.3mm (very solid)

7) Storage
I'll remove the material when not processing it.


8) Disposal
When finished I'll remove the diamond from the fab.

Please ask if you have any questions about this.

Thanks for your time,

Chris
~


From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 16:27:12 2005
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri,  2 Dec 2005 16:27:12 -0800
Subject: Diamond Request
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021502050.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021502050.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <1133569632.4390e660a1d9e@webmail.stanford.edu>

Why not "Clean" as a starting material, and cover all bases?

Mary

Quoting Chris Kenney <kenney at slac.stanford.edu>:

> Dear SpecMat,
>
> I would like these diamond samples approved as "Semi-clean".
>
> 1) Contact info
> Chris Kenney
> Coral: kenney
> Phone: 725-3661
>
> 2) Material
> Carbon in diamond form
> Biocompatible and nonflammable
> World's most pure diamond samples. Electronic grade.
>
> 3) Vendor
> Element Six (De Beers)
> King's Ride Park, Ascot, UK
> www.e6.com
>
> 4) Reasons
> Radiation hard, low Z, good thermal conductivity
>
> 5) Process
> Wet cleans probably at WBGENERAL with personal quartzware.
> Annealing up to 700C for now using Tylan 3
> Oxygen plasma using Dryteks
> Optical Litho using Karl Suss
> Metal deposition(Ti, Cr, Au, Pt, Al) using Innotec or Metalica
>
> I would like this classified as "Semi-clean" for now.
>
> The contaminants are:
> some hydrogen
> 10 ppm of Nitrogen
> < 1 ppm of Boron
> no other significant contaminants
> these are special ultra-pure diamonds
> stable to over 1100 C - highest meltling point of any material
>
> Once I put metal down it will of course be "Gold" contaminated
> and handled accordingly.
>
> Equipment to be used:
> wbgeneral
> drytek1
> drytek2
> headway
> laurel
> tylan3
> innotec
> metalica
> karl suss
> STSpecvd
> MRC
> matrix
>
> 6) Amount
> Chips with dimensions of about: 5mm x 5mm x 0.3mm (very solid)
>
> 7) Storage
> I'll remove the material when not processing it.
>
>
> 8) Disposal
> When finished I'll remove the diamond from the fab.
>
> Please ask if you have any questions about this.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Chris
> ~
>




From rissman at stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 16:29:52 2005
From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman)
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:29:52 -0800
Subject: Fwd: Diamond Request
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051202162910.07841678@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu>

it looks fine to me with the usual precautions about material coming from 
outside of the lab.

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Delivered-To: rissman at snf.stanford.edu
>Mailing-List: contact specmat-help at snf.stanford.edu; run by ezmlm
>X-No-Archive: yes
>List-Post: <mailto:specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
>List-Help: <mailto:specmat-help at snf.stanford.edu>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:specmat-unsubscribe at snf.stanford.edu>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:specmat-subscribe at snf.stanford.edu>
>Delivered-To: mailing list specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>X-Authentication-Warning: flora05.slac.stanford.edu: kenney owned process 
>doing -bs
>Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:09:58 -0800 (PST)
>From: Chris Kenney <kenney at slac.stanford.edu>
>To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>Cc: kenney at slac.stanford.edu, drckenney at yahoo.com
>Subject: Diamond Request
>
>Dear SpecMat,
>
>I would like these diamond samples approved as "Semi-clean".
>
>1) Contact info
>Chris Kenney
>Coral: kenney
>Phone: 725-3661
>
>2) Material
>Carbon in diamond form
>Biocompatible and nonflammable
>World's most pure diamond samples. Electronic grade.
>
>3) Vendor
>Element Six (De Beers)
>King's Ride Park, Ascot, UK
>www.e6.com
>
>4) Reasons
>Radiation hard, low Z, good thermal conductivity
>
>5) Process
>Wet cleans probably at WBGENERAL with personal quartzware.
>Annealing up to 700C for now using Tylan 3
>Oxygen plasma using Dryteks
>Optical Litho using Karl Suss
>Metal deposition(Ti, Cr, Au, Pt, Al) using Innotec or Metalica
>
>I would like this classified as "Semi-clean" for now.
>
>The contaminants are:
>some hydrogen
>10 ppm of Nitrogen
>< 1 ppm of Boron
>no other significant contaminants
>these are special ultra-pure diamonds
>stable to over 1100 C - highest meltling point of any material
>
>Once I put metal down it will of course be "Gold" contaminated
>and handled accordingly.
>
>Equipment to be used:
>wbgeneral
>drytek1
>drytek2
>headway
>laurel
>tylan3
>innotec
>metalica
>karl suss
>STSpecvd
>MRC
>matrix
>
>6) Amount
>Chips with dimensions of about: 5mm x 5mm x 0.3mm (very solid)
>
>7) Storage
>I'll remove the material when not processing it.
>
>
>8) Disposal
>When finished I'll remove the diamond from the fab.
>
>Please ask if you have any questions about this.
>
>Thanks for your time,
>
>Chris
>~



From kenney at slac.stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 16:40:07 2005
From: kenney at slac.stanford.edu (Chris Kenney)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: STSETCH2 holder
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021638560.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>

Request to use an aluminum holder similar to the one
used in the old stsetcher for the past five or more years.

Between 25 and 50 percent of the wafers etched in the old
machine use th holder.

Allowing a holder in the new machine would increase the number
of processes and people who could use it substantially.


1) Contact info
Chris Kenney and Jasmine hasi
Coral: kenney or jasmine
Phone: 725-3661 or 3655

2) Material
Aluminum or aluminum oxide

3) Vendor
Machined at Stanford

4) Reasons
Many processes in the STS DRIE systems involve multi-hour
etches.

Given the lower loading near the wafer edge, the etch tends
to proceed faster at and near the wafer's outer radius.

When coating a wafer with resist, the few millimeters near the
wafer edge develop a standing wave pattern with local variations
in the film thickness. In particular at a radial distance about
2 mm from the edge there is a significant minimum in the resist
thickness.

During long etches the resist in this local minimum tends to
be etched away and the silicon etched to significant depths.
This is especially true when the features being intentionally etched are
small
as this allows for most of the wafer thickness to be etched through
if a large area (~100 microns) is exposed near the edge.

Also the very side of a wafer, which is typically curved to
reduce stress, is etched quite badly during long etches.

Any damage near the edge of a wafer greatly increases its likelihood
of breaking either within the STS process chamber or in another
machine later in the process flow.

A second reason for a holder is that many etches make the
wafer more fragile. Most users feel more comfortable using
the holder in such cases as a safety feature incase the wafer
breaks in the process chamber. I have had wafers
break in the STSETCH1, but be caught by the holder and
unload normally without affecting other users.

Potential objections involve thermal issues and sputtering
of the aluminum.

Thermal issues will depend on the exact recipe and how it
is used. I believe thermal issues are best resolved by trial
and error by users as this will basically affect individual users
by damaging their resist and wafers.

The ion energies in the old and new STSETCHERS are very similar
given the essentially identical process pressures. Since there
is now significant problem with this in the old STSETCH
it is unlikely to be a problem in the new one.

Again a straightforward experiment can resolve this issue by looking
for excess grass when using the holder.

5) Process
Indentical use as in the original STSETCH.

6) Amount
Potentially identical to the existing STSETCH holder.

Please ask if you have any questions about this.

Thanks for your time,

Chris and Jasmine



From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 18:00:23 2005
From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie)
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:00:23 -0800
Subject: STSETCH2 holder
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021638560.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4390FC37.DE6C7F90@snf.stanford.edu>

Chris,

Let me make some coments about the holder and STS2.

0. The present holder has a top Al ring exposed to the plasma during
etching.

1. Some years ago when we did contamination tests for all the etchers, we
ran wafers with and with the holder in STS1. We found a large Al
contamination level on wafers etched with the holder.

2. Over the years many users have reported grass problems when using the
holder. Grass or microtrenched is often associated with metal contamation,
especially Al contamination in F based Si etching. As you well know, the
holder does not always cause grass in the STS1. It appears to be an
contributing factor to grass formation.

3. STS2 runs at about 3X the rf power level than STS1 run, This means the
ion flux to the wafer is about 3X higher in STS2,

4. Sputter rates increase linearly with ion flux. Therefore, one expects 3X
the Al sputter rate for the present holder design in STS2. Thus, grass is
likely be a much worth problem with the holder in STS2.

5. The holder increases the thermal resistance between the wafer and the
chuck. With 3X the power heating is more of a problem in STS2.

6. I believe Elmer did try running the STS1 holder in STS2 while the STS2
startup engineer was here last year. My understanding in that the wafer
overheated.

7. The Al sputtering problem can be reduced by coating the exposede Al with
a polymer such as resist but it does not last long.

    Jim

Chris Kenney wrote:

> Request to use an aluminum holder similar to the one
> used in the old stsetcher for the past five or more years.
>
> Between 25 and 50 percent of the wafers etched in the old
> machine use th holder.
>
> Allowing a holder in the new machine would increase the number
> of processes and people who could use it substantially.
>
> 1) Contact info
> Chris Kenney and Jasmine hasi
> Coral: kenney or jasmine
> Phone: 725-3661 or 3655
>
> 2) Material
> Aluminum or aluminum oxide
>
> 3) Vendor
> Machined at Stanford
>
> 4) Reasons
> Many processes in the STS DRIE systems involve multi-hour
> etches.
>
> Given the lower loading near the wafer edge, the etch tends
> to proceed faster at and near the wafer's outer radius.
>
> When coating a wafer with resist, the few millimeters near the
> wafer edge develop a standing wave pattern with local variations
> in the film thickness. In particular at a radial distance about
> 2 mm from the edge there is a significant minimum in the resist
> thickness.
>
> During long etches the resist in this local minimum tends to
> be etched away and the silicon etched to significant depths.
> This is especially true when the features being intentionally etched are
> small
> as this allows for most of the wafer thickness to be etched through
> if a large area (~100 microns) is exposed near the edge.
>
> Also the very side of a wafer, which is typically curved to
> reduce stress, is etched quite badly during long etches.
>
> Any damage near the edge of a wafer greatly increases its likelihood
> of breaking either within the STS process chamber or in another
> machine later in the process flow.
>
> A second reason for a holder is that many etches make the
> wafer more fragile. Most users feel more comfortable using
> the holder in such cases as a safety feature incase the wafer
> breaks in the process chamber. I have had wafers
> break in the STSETCH1, but be caught by the holder and
> unload normally without affecting other users.
>
> Potential objections involve thermal issues and sputtering
> of the aluminum.
>
> Thermal issues will depend on the exact recipe and how it
> is used. I believe thermal issues are best resolved by trial
> and error by users as this will basically affect individual users
> by damaging their resist and wafers.
>
> The ion energies in the old and new STSETCHERS are very similar
> given the essentially identical process pressures. Since there
> is now significant problem with this in the old STSETCH
> it is unlikely to be a problem in the new one.
>
> Again a straightforward experiment can resolve this issue by looking
> for excess grass when using the holder.
>
> 5) Process
> Indentical use as in the original STSETCH.
>
> 6) Amount
> Potentially identical to the existing STSETCH holder.
>
> Please ask if you have any questions about this.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Chris and Jasmine



From kenney at slac.stanford.edu  Fri Dec  2 21:16:07 2005
From: kenney at slac.stanford.edu (Chris Kenney)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: STSETCH2 holder
In-Reply-To: <4390FC37.DE6C7F90@snf.stanford.edu>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021638560.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
 <4390FC37.DE6C7F90@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512022057000.19761@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your comments. I most certianly agree that the present
holder is not ideal. However, a significant fraction of the
work done in the etchers can't be done without it.

So, yes, I dislike the holder at least a much as anyone for contamination
and other reasons.

> 0. The present holder has a top Al ring exposed to the plasma during
> etching.

Is there an alternative material that the top rign can be made from?
Al2O3? Quartz? Any other suggestions? What are the STS fingers
made from?

> 1. Some years ago when we did contamination tests for all the etchers, we
> ran wafers with and with the holder in STS1. We found a large Al
> contamination level on wafers etched with the holder.

How bad was the contamination? Was it possible to remove the Al?

> 2. Over the years many users have reported grass problems when using the
> holder. Grass or microtrenched is often associated with metal contamation,
> especially Al contamination in F based Si etching. As you well know, the
> holder does not always cause grass in the STS1. It appears to be an
> contributing factor to grass formation.

Yes, grass is a problem.

> 3. STS2 runs at about 3X the rf power level than STS1 run, This means the
> ion flux to the wafer is about 3X higher in STS2,
>
> 4. Sputter rates increase linearly with ion flux. Therefore, one expects 3X
> the Al sputter rate for the present holder design in STS2. Thus, grass is
> likely be a much worth problem with the holder in STS2.

Given that the silicon etch rate should also scale with ion flux
to first order, it is unclear that the grass problem would be
worse for a similar etch in the new etcher than in the old one.

It would seem to scale with etch depth in both cases.

The use of the magnet in the new etcher to turn-off the ion
flux for part of the cycle may reduce any grass caused by ion bombardment
of the aluminum ring.

Granted there could well be non-linear effects and it may be
very sensitive to the chamber environment, so it is unclear to
me in which etcher the grass problem would be worse in.

> 5. The holder increases the thermal resistance between the wafer and the
> chuck. With 3X the power heating is more of a problem in STS2.
>
> 6. I believe Elmer did try running the STS1 holder in STS2 while the STS2
> startup engineer was here last year. My understanding in that the wafer
> overheated.

I agree that thermal issues will be more important in the STS2.

A redesign of the holder with lower thermal impedance as
a goal might solve this.

Bottom line some sort of holder is very important to the full
utilization of both STS etchers and the current one is far from ideal.

Can we come up with a better one?

Chris

> 7. The Al dduttering problem can be reduced by coating the exposede Al
with
> a polymer such as resist but it does not last long.
>
>     Jim
>
> Chris Kenney wrote:
>
> > Request to use an aluminum holder similar to the one
> > used in the old stsetcher for the past five or more years.
> >
> > Between 25 and 50 percent of the wafers etched in the old
> > machine use th holder.
> >
> > Allowing a holder in the new machine would increase the number
> > of processes and people who could use it substantially.
> >
> > 1) Contact info
> > Chris Kenney and Jasmine hasi
> > Coral: kenney or jasmine
> > Phone: 725-3661 or 3655
> >
> > 2) Material
> > Aluminum or aluminum oxide
> >
> > 3) Vendor
> > Machined at Stanford
> >
> > 4) Reasons
> > Many processes in the STS DRIE systems involve multi-hour
> > etches.
> >
> > Given the lower loading near the wafer edge, the etch tends
> > to proceed faster at and near the wafer's outer radius.
> >
> > When coating a wafer with resist, the few millimeters near the
> > wafer edge develop a standing wave pattern with local variations
> > in the film thickness. In particular at a radial distance about
> > 2 mm from the edge there is a significant minimum in the resist
> > thickness.
> >
> > During long etches the resist in this local minimum tends to
> > be etched away and the silicon etched to significant depths.
> > This is especially true when the features being intentionally etched are
> > small
> > as this allows for most of the wafer thickness to be etched through
> > if a large area (~100 microns) is exposed near the edge.
> >
> > Also the very side of a wafer, which is typically curved to
> > reduce stress, is etched quite badly during long etches.
> >
> > Any damage near the edge of a wafer greatly increases its likelihood
> > of breaking either within the STS process chamber or in another
> > machine later in the process flow.
> >
> > A second reason for a holder is that many etches make the
> > wafer more fragile. Most users feel more comfortable using
> > the holder in such cases as a safety feature incase the wafer
> > breaks in the process chamber. I have had wafers
> > break in the STSETCH1, but be caught by the holder and
> > unload normally without affecting other users.
> >
> > Potential objections involve thermal issues and sputtering
> > of the aluminum.
> >
> > Thermal issues will depend on the exact recipe and how it
> > is used. I believe thermal issues are best resolved by trial
> > and error by users as this will basically affect individual users
> > by damaging their resist and wafers.
> >
> > The ion energies in the old and new STSETCHERS are very similar
> > given the essentially identical process pressures. Since there
> > is now significant problem with this in the old STSETCH
> > it is unlikely to be a problem in the new one.
> >
> > Again a straightforward experiment can resolve this issue by looking
> > for excess grass when using the holder.
> >
> > 5) Process
> > Indentical use as in the original STSETCH.
> >
> > 6) Amount
> > Potentially identical to the existing STSETCH holder.
> >
> > Please ask if you have any questions about this.
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> >
> > Chris and Jasmine
>
>


From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu  Mon Dec  5 10:45:11 2005
From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:45:11 -0800
Subject: STSETCH2 holder
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512021638560.20424@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
	 <4390FC37.DE6C7F90@snf.stanford.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0512022057000.19761@flora05.slac.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <43948AB6.D1904557@snf.stanford.edu>

Chris,

See my replies to your replies below.

> Is there an alternative material that the top rign can be made from?
> Al2O3? Quartz? Any other suggestions? What are the STS fingers
> made from?

Quartz would be great but hard to fabrication and easily broken. Al2O3 would be
better than Al since it has a much lower sputter rate (7 x less), but Al2O3 may
still be a problem. Al2O3 is used for the clamp in the Lam and is why the SF6/O2
process can;t be used for deep Si etching in that tool. The Al2O3 clamp caused
grass problems in the Lam with F based etch chemistries. It is not a problem with
Cl and Br based chemistries. An engineer at Lam told me, we would have to go to a
quartz clamp to get around the grass problem. I believe the STS clamp fingers are
Al2O3.

>
> > 1. Some years ago when we did contamination tests for all the etchers, we
> > ran wafers with and with the holder in STS1. We found a large Al
> > contamination level on wafers etched with the holder.
>
> How bad was the contamination? Was it possible to remove the Al?

TXRF with using a W source has a threshold/noise level for Al, which is around
4E13 atoms/cm2.
Process                  Al(no clean)      Al(with clean)
                            (10E10 at/cm2)  (10E10 at/cm2)
STS(no holder)      13000+/-4000   < 7000
STS(w holder)      16000+/-4000    10000 +/- 4000

The Lam also showed lots of Al but it went below the noise level after cleaning.

> > 4. Sputter rates increase linearly with ion flux. Therefore, one expects 3X
> > the Al sputter rate for the present holder design in STS2. Thus, grass is
> > likely be a much worth problem with the holder in STS2.
>
> Given that the silicon etch rate should also scale with ion flux
> to first order, it is unclear that the grass problem would be
> worse for a similar etch in the new etcher than in the old one.
>
> It would seem to scale with etch depth in both cases.

Yes, the grass problem may scale with rate, so grass with the holder may not be
worst in
STS2.

> The use of the magnet in the new etcher to turn-off the ion
> flux for part of the cycle may reduce any grass caused by ion bombardment
> of the aluminum ring.

Yes, after the magnet turns on the Al sputter rate is likely reduced. The resist
etch rate goes down by 2 X when the magnet is used.

> Granted there could well be non-linear effects and it may be
> very sensitive to the chamber environment, so it is unclear to
> me in which etcher the grass problem would be worse in.

I agree with you.

>  5. The holder increases the thermal resistance between the wafer and the
> > chuck. With 3X the power heating is more of a problem in STS2.
> >
> > 6. I believe Elmer did try running the STS1 holder in STS2 while the STS2
> > startup engineer was here last year. My understanding in that the wafer
> > overheated.
>
> I agree that thermal issues will be more important in the STS2.
>
> A redesign of the holder with lower thermal impedance as
> a goal might solve this.
>
> Bottom line some sort of holder is very important to the full
> utilization of both STS etchers and the current one is far from ideal.
>
> Can we come up with a better one?

I agree there is a big need and it is worth looking into finding a solution. An
alternative approach is to use a carrier wafer with a better thermal bonding
material than resist.  A number of groups are using a silicone free heat sink
material from Techsray (1978). One problem with this material is that it is
loaded with ZnO. If it is exposed to the plasma, it will very likely contaminate
the chamber with Zn. My understanding is that AMAT uses it for pieces in tools
where contamination is not an issue. It would be useful to do an experiment with
this material to see if it solves the problem. If it works bonding wafers, we
could focus on finding a cleaner alternative.

    Jim



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Mon Dec  5 15:51:39 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:51:39 -0800
Subject: SpecMat Logsheet, 11/6/05
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051205154946.01e131c0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

All,

I plan on holding the final SpecMat meeting of the year this week.  See you 
at 1:30, Tuesday Nov. 6th.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SpecMat Logsheet.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 121856 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20051205/6f8a006a/attachment.obj>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Dec  8 16:38:15 2005
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:38:15 -0800
Subject: Use of Ether in the Fab
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051208160223.039f7ab0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051208160223.039f7ab0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4398D1F7.5050108@stanford.edu>

Hi Ed, et al --

I believe John said that he heard another chemical involved in thie 
incident was sodium azide. 

Sodium azide is sort of like ether in that people take it for granted -- 
for example, you may use a lot of ether if you're working with lipids 
and self-assembling systems -- sodium azide is commonly added to 
solutions of DNA, for example, to prevent fungal and bacterial growth, 
and is often added just as a matter of course

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sodiumazide/basics/facts.asp.

I don't think that anyone would request this, but we might consider 
adding it to the list, because I do have some concern that someone might 
think it's pretty innocuous (and it is, in the concentrations used as a 
preservative) and decide to mix some up. 


Mary



Ed Myers wrote:

> All,
>
> SpecMat has decide to document a ban on the use of Ether in our fab.  
> This has been an unwritten rule and all request have been rejected.  
> In light of recent events, it was felt the ban on Ether should become 
> a written policy.  As far as we are aware we do not have any users who 
> are working with Ether.  If you happen to see Ether in use, please 
> inform the users and bring it to the attention of the SNF management.
>
> Regards,
>
>


-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu




From update at amazon.com  Thu Dec  8 16:42:11 2005
From: update at amazon.com (update at amazon.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:42:11 +0900
Subject: Please Update Your Amazon Account !
Message-ID: <200512090042.jB90gBD20229@localhost.localdomain>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20051209/121cdafd/attachment.html>

From edmyers at stanford.edu  Fri Dec  9 09:00:38 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:00:38 -0800
Subject: Yb in Innotec
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10512081720040.31577-100000@snf.stanford.edu
 >
References: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10512081720040.31577-100000@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051209085214.03988bc0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

Carl,

As you are aware, we do allow Yb deposition in the Innotec upon 
request.  Thank you for keeping SpecMat informed of your planned 
depositions.  Just make sure you have a sufficient capping layer.

Regards,



At 05:23 PM 12/8/2005, you wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I have two slots in the Innotec next week and if I can develop our process
>on one of the RTAs that is working, I would like to run another Yb
>deposition (NOTE - the YB will not be going into the RTA).  As always, my
>Yb source is in a liner - for my protection (and of course SNF's as well),
>I will be capping with Ti or Al.  All further processing will be done in
>my labware at the general wetbench.
>
>Do you think this might be possible?
>
>Carl





From john.wasserbauer at group4labs.com  Wed Dec 14 14:49:29 2005
From: john.wasserbauer at group4labs.com (John Wasserbauer)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:49:29 -0800
Subject: New silicon etches
Message-ID: <000001c60100$a51ee150$c96240ab@Dexter>

Hi All,
 
I would like to submit the following chemical for possible use in the fab.
Thank you for your consideration.
 
John Wasserbauer
 
Contact Information: John Wasserbauer, Group4Labs, 510-387-2476,
<mailto:john.wasserbauer at group4labs.com> john.wasserbauer at group4labs.com
The Chemical: PSE-200, PSE-300, PSE-300-F
Manufacturer: Transene Company, Inc., Danvers, MA, 978-777-7860,
<http://www.transene.com/> www.transene.com
Reason for Request: Need a more selective and/or higher rate Si etchant.
SNF available etches are not selective to SiO2 or SiNx.
Process Flow:  Heat solution to 100?C. Etch. Rinse. Blow dry. Will need to
use at wbgeneral or wbgaas.
Amount and form: ? 1 Gal. each.
Storage:  Storage Group C.  Would like to store at SNF.
Main Hazard: Corrosive
Waste Disposal: Small quantities - dissolve in water.  Dispose of in
accordance with local & state regulations.
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20051214/4cb4cc9b/attachment.html>

From vrop at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 30 17:39:36 2005
From: vrop at hotmail.com (vrop at hotmail.com)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:39:36 +0800
Subject: Gold at 25 year highs
Message-ID: <mailman.7.1356283127.4564.specmat@snf.stanford.edu>

In the current GOLD market, select small mining deals are flying.  With 
gold
hitting 25 year highs is there a better sector to invest in?

A Huge PR campaign has begun for this week trading Starting Tuesday
thousands of investors will be viewing this very newsletter!

With this in mind, we would like to present a company poised for Big
returns:

EQUITABLE MINING INC.

Symbol: EQBM. PK

Currently trading from 15  cents

2-3 Day Target_Price:    $0.50

Watch this one starting Tuesday!!

***Why we believe EQBM is a Winner***

Recent News.

Equitable Mining Establishes International Acquisition Team Monday 
December
12, 7:00 am ET 


TORONTO, Dec. 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Equitable Mining Corp. is
expanding its search for quality gold properties by establishing an
international acquisition team based in Australia and headed by mining
professional Wayne Reid.

Increased Interest in Properties adjacent to Equitable Mining's Red 
Lake
Properties Tuesday November 29, 7:00 am ET 


TORONTO, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Gold Corp. increases its 
stake in
company that owns property adjacent to Equitable Mining Corp. (EQBM.PK) 
in
Red Lake, Ontario.
Gold Corp. purchased 10% of Wolfden Resources (TSX: WLF - News) for 
$3.60
CDN a share, for a total of $21.6 million CDN (or $18.5 million USD), 
in
part due to its drilling activity on the Bonanza-Follansbee project 
which is
directly adjacent to the properties owned by Equitable Mining Corp.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=eqbm.pk 

The time to get in on this is Now!  Once these small companies start 
moving,
they appreciate rapidly.

Please Watch this one trade all week!


From ikmo at gemme.fr  Thu Dec 15 07:23:12 2005
From: ikmo at gemme.fr (Henry Waters)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:23:12 -0300
Subject: subscription whoosh
Message-ID: <001701c6018c$d626e42d$2f544fc9@qw.kewuqy>


And besides all this I wasmaking preliminary arrangements to leave the P.
In front aragged youth was lying on a pile of mattresses behind a light machine-gun. In Madrid the common danger forced people of almost all kindsinto some sense of comradeship.
Ithorrified people who came to Barcelona from Madrid or even from Valencia.
Up the naked grey hill tothe right of us a string of Fascists are climbing like ants. I did not know how this affair was going to turn out, and I badlywanted a weapon. Apparently onlymale quails were caught, which struck me as unfair. In various places the armed police forces had madeattacks on Anarchist strongholds.
Come on, we must get down to the Hotel Falcon. There were a few boxes of bombs,however, which one of the Anarchist patrol cars had brought us.
It was of course distinctly possible that all thesemurders were committed by agents provocateurs.
At the end of April, justafter I got to Barcelona, Roldan, a prominent member of the U. Everyone said that it was impossible to go up the Ramblas. The smuggling was for the benefit ofwealthy people, and was therefore connived at. It was thekind of shop you see in Bond Street or the Rue de la Paix.
To be in the militia was no longerfashionable. Lucky Strikes and so forth, which gave a grand opportunity forprofiteering.
There were a few boxes of bombs,however, which one of the Anarchist patrol cars had brought us.
In the flooded ditch outside the rats are paddling about, making asmuch noise as otters. There was no sign of Jorge or Hiddlestone, so I creptback.
Behind the line you met peasants wearing wild roses over theirears. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialismquite different from this.
The change in the aspect of the crowds was startling. He was too excited to give a veryclear statement. To be in the militia was no longerfashionable.
In various places the armed police forces had madeattacks on Anarchist strongholds. I said that weshould be all right if we had some cigarettes. I shall notforget this small act of heroism.
Though this was May the night was getting cold. They thoughtthey were Anarchists, but were not quite certain; perhaps they were Communists.
As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked tojoin the Anarchists.
Afterwards we learned that the action had been a success, as such things go. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20051215/e0b128f1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: schizophrenic.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 18821 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20051215/e0b128f1/attachment.gif>