From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  1 08:04:42 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:04:42 -0800
Subject: 3/1/05 Is Scheduled SpecMat Meeting Day
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050301075936.01b8d7a8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

All,

Mike pointed out that today is actually the scheduled SpecMat meeting 
day.  CIS101 is reserved for today's 1:00 to 2:00 meeting.

I've attached the updated SpecMat log sheet.  I've hidden all the closed 
items, leaving only the open items visible.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SpecMat Logsheet.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 41984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050301/5fa6de71/attachment.obj>

From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  1 08:31:05 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:31:05 -0800
Subject: Fwd: RE: New chemical MSDS
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050301083046.01c94dd0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>


>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Reply-To: <xfan at chemistry.ucsc.edu>
>From: "Xiaojuan Fan" <xfan at chemistry.ucsc.edu>
>To: "Ed Myers" <edmyers at stanford.edu>
>Subject: RE: New chemical
>Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:28:37 -0800
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Sorry, I even not realize I didnot attach in file. Now it is here.
>
>Best regards,
>Judy
>________________________
>Dr. Xiaojuan (Judy) Fan
>Research Associate
>Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
>University of California, Santa Cruz
>Santa Cruz, CA 95064
>Tel: (831) 459-4225 (O)
>Fax: (831) 459- 2935
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu]
>Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:14 PM
>To: xfan at chemistry.ucsc.edu
>Subject: Re: New chemical
>
>
>Judy,
>
>Your request has been received, however the MSDS sheet was not part of your
>email as promised.  Could you please resend the MSDS sheet.
>
>Regards,
>Ed
>
>At 03:29 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote:
>
> >Dear Safety Staff,
> >
> >I am new labmember, Xiaojuan (Judy) Fan, I will bring a new chemical
> >1,10-decanedithiol, 10 ml, liquid, in small bottle, its MSDS is attached. I
> >will use it to make 10mM solution in Ethanol in a glass beaker, then put
> >gold film silicon wafer into the solution over night for growing monolayer
> >on gold.  Please advise if the chemical can be used in the lab? How to
>carry
> >it into the lab? Where to store it?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Judy
> >________________________
> >Dr. Xiaojuan (Judy) Fan
> >Research Associate
> >Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
> >University of California, Santa Cruz
> >Santa Cruz, CA 95064
> >Tel: (831) 459-4225 (O)
> >Fax: (831) 459- 2935
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MSDS_decanedithiol.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050301/c257be9d/attachment.pdf>

From mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU  Tue Mar  1 08:37:45 2005
From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: MSSQ Spin-on Oxide into Lam ETcher
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502281851400.16053-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>

I am working with Rohit Shenoy to see how well poly-Methylsilsesquioxane
(MSSQ) holds up in the Lam etch for Si etching. The MSSQ to used is a
semiconductor grade spin-on low-k material. It will applied to SNF wafers
at the IBM Almaden cleanroom.  MSSQ is a C-containing variant of SiO2. My
interest is to see if it can be used as a transfer layer under e-beam
resist since it should have a much higher selectivity than PMMA or Zap.  
For his need Rohit would like to follow the Lam step with the std post
etch 50:1 HF dip in wbnonmetal to remove the deposition from the poly etch
step. This step could be done in the general wet bench if there is a
concern about putting MSSQ in the HF tank.

I do not see any problem putting semiconductor clean MSSQ into the Lam. 
I also do not see a problem in putting it into the HF tank in wbnonmetal. 

	Jim 





From mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Tue Mar  1 09:26:45 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:26:45 -0800
Subject: MSSQ Spin-on Oxide into Lam ETcher
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502281851400.16053-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502281851400.16053-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <4224A5D5.4080203@snf.stanford.edu>

I agree, let's OK this.  This would be a really good resist to have (is 
this expected to perform like HSQ?)  Is there a chance he will be able 
to share any of his data?

Mary

Jim McVittie wrote:

>I am working with Rohit Shenoy to see how well poly-Methylsilsesquioxane
>(MSSQ) holds up in the Lam etch for Si etching. The MSSQ to used is a
>semiconductor grade spin-on low-k material. It will applied to SNF wafers
>at the IBM Almaden cleanroom.  MSSQ is a C-containing variant of SiO2. My
>interest is to see if it can be used as a transfer layer under e-beam
>resist since it should have a much higher selectivity than PMMA or Zap.  
>For his need Rohit would like to follow the Lam step with the std post
>etch 50:1 HF dip in wbnonmetal to remove the deposition from the poly etch
>step. This step could be done in the general wet bench if there is a
>concern about putting MSSQ in the HF tank.
>
>I do not see any problem putting semiconductor clean MSSQ into the Lam. 
>I also do not see a problem in putting it into the HF tank in wbnonmetal. 
>
>	Jim 
>
>
>  
>


-- 
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 mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU  Tue Mar  1 09:53:17 2005
From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: MSSQ Spin-on Oxide into Lam ETcher
In-Reply-To: <4224A5D5.4080203@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503010951440.26945-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>

Mary,

Rohit is looking into how much info he can share on his MSSQ processing.

	Jim  

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Mary Tang wrote:

> I agree, let's OK this.  This would be a really good resist to have (is 
> this expected to perform like HSQ?)  Is there a chance he will be able 
> to share any of his data?
> 
> Mary
> 
> Jim McVittie wrote:
> 
> >I am working with Rohit Shenoy to see how well poly-Methylsilsesquioxane
> >(MSSQ) holds up in the Lam etch for Si etching. The MSSQ to used is a
> >semiconductor grade spin-on low-k material. It will applied to SNF wafers
> >at the IBM Almaden cleanroom.  MSSQ is a C-containing variant of SiO2. My
> >interest is to see if it can be used as a transfer layer under e-beam
> >resist since it should have a much higher selectivity than PMMA or Zap.  
> >For his need Rohit would like to follow the Lam step with the std post
> >etch 50:1 HF dip in wbnonmetal to remove the deposition from the poly etch
> >step. This step could be done in the general wet bench if there is a
> >concern about putting MSSQ in the HF tank.
> >
> >I do not see any problem putting semiconductor clean MSSQ into the Lam. 
> >I also do not see a problem in putting it into the HF tank in wbnonmetal. 
> >
> >	Jim 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McVittie, Ph.D.    			Senior Research Scientist 
Allen Center for Integrated Systems     Electrical Engineering
Stanford University             	jmcvittie at stanford.edu
Rm. 336, 330 Serra Mall			Fax: (650) 723-4659
Stanford, CA 94305-4075			Tel: (650) 725-3640




From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  1 15:40:33 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:40:33 -0800
Subject: RF sputtering of ZnCdS in Metalica
In-Reply-To: <001e01c51dcf$9143c2a0$b36b40ab@zwang01>
References: <001e01c51dcf$9143c2a0$b36b40ab@zwang01>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050301153838.01c8ade8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

Zheng,

Go ahead with your Friday deposition.  Please let Jeannie Perez know of 
your plans.

Regards,


At 11:56 AM 2/28/2005, Zheng Wang wrote:
>Dear Specmat Committee,
>
>To minimize the cross contamination of ZnCdS sputtering to the Metalica 
>system, we have tried the TXRF analysis once by hanging two pieces of 
>wafers in-situ. These two pieces of wafers were from Jeanine. One had gold 
>stripes from Innotec, the other was taken from the stock room.
>The TXRF result gives a wide range of contaminations, which is more than 
>we expected. After consulting with Jim McVittie, we think it might be 
>worth to re-test the system with a pre-diffusion level cleaned wafer NOT a 
>dirty wafer or a wafer directly from the stock room.
>
>At the same time we are making efforts to surround our dedicated wafer 
>holder with a aluminum skirt and reconfigure the plasma igniter.
>
>I tentatively make a reservation on Metalica this Friday 9-1 pm.
>
>Please give me the permission.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-zheng




From akamath at kovio.com  Tue Mar  1 16:58:06 2005
From: akamath at kovio.com (Arvind Kamath)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:58:06 -0800
Subject: Spec mat status
Message-ID: <17AB8DED04002F4E803EE9A3E29ECFA8476549@koviomail.print-this.com>

Hi Ed,Paul 

     Thanks very much for a quick review and decision. 

a) With our application we did provide SIMS data showing the cleanliness
level of the wafers (re-attached). This should prove both surface/bulk
cleanliness levels. Do we still need TXRF? 

b)With the SIMS data  we hoped to show that we were clean enough to use
the metal side of the LTO with the silicon wafers. Could specmat see if
this meets your cleanliness requirement? 

     Regarding the Stainless steel substrates and process flows - we
will certainly come up with a detailed flow showing sequence of specific
equipment sets we would like to use.

            Regards,
		                   Arvind

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:56 PM
To: Arvind Kamath
Cc: rissman at stanford.edu
Subject: RE: Spec mat status

Arvind,

SpecMat reviewed both your request.  Unfortunately each raised a 
significant number of questions.  Your request were very large in scope 
(Variants of typical CMOS process flow) and appear to cross the 
contamination group equipment sets.  As a result, SpecMat needs a much 
clearer idea of your process flow before either request can be 
approved.  Please provide a detailed process flow.

With that being said, we understand you have material you want to 
move.  This is what was approved:
1) Since the cleanliness of your material is unknown, you can process 
within the gold contaminated equipment set.  This will allow you in
Tylan4, 
but gold contaminated wafers are not allowed in LTO.

An alternative is to prove your films and substrates are clean through
TXRF 
analysis.  This will be possible for your silicon based substrates, but
not 
for the stainless steel substrates.  If your silicon based wafers are
shown 
to be clean through TXRF analysis, they will be allowed in the clean 
equipment set.

I will be out of town for the remainder of the week.  Any immediate
follow 
up needs to be done through the SpecMat committee.

Regards,


At 04:57 PM 2/25/2005, you wrote:
>Thanks Ed- Arvind
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu]
>Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:49 PM
>To: Arvind Kamath
>Subject: Re: Spec mat status
>
>Arvind,
>
>The next specMat meeting is scheduled for Tuesday from 1 till 2 pm.
>
>Ed
>
>At 03:25 PM 2/25/2005, you wrote:
> >Ed,
> >
> >       We had submitted two new materials for Specmat to review. The
>one
> > regarding our Poly wafers is rather crucial as we have lots reaching
>that
> > stage next Wednesday. Could you let us know if we could use the Gold
> > contaminated oxidation tube and the metal side of the LTO dep
>furnaces?
> > The wafers will not see both.
> >
> >        Please let us know approximately when we can expect a
decision.
> >
> >                Thanks very much,
> >
> >                                        Arvind Kamath


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: silane.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 441446 bytes
Desc: silane.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050301/faf27272/attachment.obj>

From mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Thu Mar  3 09:42:09 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:42:09 -0800
Subject: Laser Annealing outside SNF
In-Reply-To: <028f01c5146b$43d62110$42b20c80@supernova>
References: <028f01c5146b$43d62110$42b20c80@supernova>
Message-ID: <42274C71.50702@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Bipin is really anxious to get going on this and would like an answer, 
as he is trying to determine whether he can send his wafers out for 
processing.... I am not sure how, but I think we missed this in our 
meeting on Tuesday (at least this wasn't discussed while I was there...) 
Was this covered afterward? Mahnaz does not have any notes on this.

My feeling on this is that the risk of cross-contamination in the 
gryphon, P5000 and FGA anneal is very low. The only possible risk is at 
any of the wet station cleans prior to any of these steps. My suggestion 
is that we ask that all cleans be done at wbgeneral in dedicated labware 
or at wbsilicide, provided all acids are drained/changed. Does anyone 
else have any strong opinions on this?

Thanks,

Mary

Bipin Rajendran wrote:

> Dear Specmat Members,
> I am trying to do a modified 410 process, that use laser annealing for 
> activating the source drain regions. I am planning to send my wafers 
> out to a company called AMBP Tech, and below is an email from them 
> telling me about their laser machine.
> My question is this: After I do the annealing, will I be allowed to 
> come back to the lab and continue with the remaining 410 processing 
> ie. Al deposition in gryphon, P5000 etch and FGA anneal? Or will I 
> have to look for alternate set of non-semi-clean equipments to do these?
> AMBP Tech?s core discipline is in thin film equipment and services and 
> we have used our thin film equipment, located in the same lab as the 
> excimer laser, to deposit various thin films that have been 
> subsequently processed in a clean room to yield working devices.
> Our applications laboratory environment is relatively clean (no 
> industrial processes are ongoing to produce large amounts of 
> particles), but it is not clean room controlled and the processing 
> will be done under normal conditions. We have not had any customers 
> that have wished to do further processing on the wafers after the 
> laser annealing, only material analysis.
> We have laser processed partially gold coated die previously, the 
> presence of the gold will not affect our ability to process the 
> wafers, though the gold coated part will not absorb many of the 248nm 
> photons and phase transformations of the gold or underlying layers of 
> the gold will have a phase change affected.
> Thanks very much,
> Bipin



-- 
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 bipin at stanford.edu  Thu Mar  3 09:45:08 2005
From: bipin at stanford.edu (Bipin Rajendran)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:45:08 -0800
Subject: Fw: Laser Annealing outside SNF
Message-ID: <023a01c52018$be73a100$fc6140ab@supernova>

Dear Specmat Members,
I am forwarding you again, an earlier email from February 16, 2005, requesting permission for doing Laser Annealing outside SNF, and bringing them back to SNF. It seems like this request was not discussed in the Specmat meeting last tuesday. I request you to kindly consider my request and let me know if I can go ahead, as I have been waiting to get your permission before I commit my wafers to this process.
Thanks,
Bipin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bipin Rajendran 
To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:05 PM
Subject: Laser Annealing outside SNF


Dear Specmat Members,
I am trying to do a modified 410 process, that use laser annealing for activating the source drain regions. I am planning to send my wafers out to a company called AMBP Tech, and below is an email from them telling me about their laser machine. 

My question is this: After I do the annealing, will I be allowed to come back to the lab and continue with the remaining 410 processing ie. Al deposition in gryphon, P5000 etch and FGA anneal? Or will I have to look for alternate set of non-semi-clean equipments to do these?

AMBP Tech's core discipline is in thin film equipment and services and we have used our thin film equipment, located in the same lab as the excimer laser, to deposit various thin films that have been subsequently processed in a clean room to yield working devices.   
Our applications laboratory environment is relatively clean (no industrial processes are ongoing to produce large amounts of particles), but it is not clean room controlled and the processing will be done under normal conditions.  We have not had any customers that have wished to do further processing on the wafers after the laser annealing, only material analysis.  
We have laser processed partially gold coated die previously, the presence of the gold will not affect our ability to process the wafers, though the gold coated part will not absorb many of the 248nm photons and phase transformations of the gold or underlying layers of the gold will have a phase change affected.  

Thanks very much,
Bipin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050303/a6d8248e/attachment.html>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Thu Mar  3 09:44:37 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:44:37 -0800
Subject: Laser Annealing outside SNF
In-Reply-To: <42274C71.50702@snf.stanford.edu>
References: <028f01c5146b$43d62110$42b20c80@supernova>
 <42274C71.50702@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050303094406.01f42548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>

Mary's recommendation sounds fine to me.    -mike

At 09:42 AM 3/3/2005, Mary Tang wrote:
>Hi all --
>
>Bipin is really anxious to get going on this and would like an answer, as 
>he is trying to determine whether he can send his wafers out for 
>processing.... I am not sure how, but I think we missed this in our 
>meeting on Tuesday (at least this wasn't discussed while I was there...) 
>Was this covered afterward? Mahnaz does not have any notes on this.
>
>My feeling on this is that the risk of cross-contamination in the gryphon, 
>P5000 and FGA anneal is very low. The only possible risk is at any of the 
>wet station cleans prior to any of these steps. My suggestion is that we 
>ask that all cleans be done at wbgeneral in dedicated labware or at 
>wbsilicide, provided all acids are drained/changed. Does anyone else have 
>any strong opinions on this?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mary
>
>Bipin Rajendran wrote:
>
>>Dear Specmat Members,
>>I am trying to do a modified 410 process, that use laser annealing for 
>>activating the source drain regions. I am planning to send my wafers out 
>>to a company called AMBP Tech, and below is an email from them telling me 
>>about their laser machine.
>>My question is this: After I do the annealing, will I be allowed to come 
>>back to the lab and continue with the remaining 410 processing ie. Al 
>>deposition in gryphon, P5000 etch and FGA anneal? Or will I have to look 
>>for alternate set of non-semi-clean equipments to do these?
>>AMBP Tech's core discipline is in thin film equipment and services and we 
>>have used our thin film equipment, located in the same lab as the excimer 
>>laser, to deposit various thin films that have been subsequently 
>>processed in a clean room to yield working devices.
>>Our applications laboratory environment is relatively clean (no 
>>industrial processes are ongoing to produce large amounts of particles), 
>>but it is not clean room controlled and the processing will be done under 
>>normal conditions. We have not had any customers that have wished to do 
>>further processing on the wafers after the laser annealing, only material 
>>analysis.
>>We have laser processed partially gold coated die previously, the 
>>presence of the gold will not affect our ability to process the wafers, 
>>though the gold coated part will not absorb many of the 248nm photons and 
>>phase transformations of the gold or underlying layers of the gold will 
>>have a phase change affected.
>>Thanks very much,
>>Bipin
>
>
>
>--
>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 mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Thu Mar  3 09:55:23 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:55:23 -0800
Subject: Laser Annealing outside SNF
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050303094406.01f42548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
References: <028f01c5146b$43d62110$42b20c80@supernova> <42274C71.50702@snf.stanford.edu> <6.1.1.1.2.20050303094406.01f42548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <42274F8B.5060104@snf.stanford.edu>

Thanks Mike --

Since Ed isn't here, I am going to take the liberty of letting Bipin 
know that this is OK, with those caveats.

Mary

Michael Deal wrote:

> Mary's recommendation sounds fine to me.    -mike
>
> At 09:42 AM 3/3/2005, Mary Tang wrote:
>
>> Hi all --
>>
>> Bipin is really anxious to get going on this and would like an 
>> answer, as he is trying to determine whether he can send his wafers 
>> out for processing.... I am not sure how, but I think we missed this 
>> in our meeting on Tuesday (at least this wasn't discussed while I was 
>> there...) Was this covered afterward? Mahnaz does not have any notes 
>> on this.
>>
>> My feeling on this is that the risk of cross-contamination in the 
>> gryphon, P5000 and FGA anneal is very low. The only possible risk is 
>> at any of the wet station cleans prior to any of these steps. My 
>> suggestion is that we ask that all cleans be done at wbgeneral in 
>> dedicated labware or at wbsilicide, provided all acids are 
>> drained/changed. Does anyone else have any strong opinions on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Bipin Rajendran wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Specmat Members,
>>> I am trying to do a modified 410 process, that use laser annealing 
>>> for activating the source drain regions. I am planning to send my 
>>> wafers out to a company called AMBP Tech, and below is an email from 
>>> them telling me about their laser machine.
>>> My question is this: After I do the annealing, will I be allowed to 
>>> come back to the lab and continue with the remaining 410 processing 
>>> ie. Al deposition in gryphon, P5000 etch and FGA anneal? Or will I 
>>> have to look for alternate set of non-semi-clean equipments to do 
>>> these?
>>> AMBP Tech's core discipline is in thin film equipment and services 
>>> and we have used our thin film equipment, located in the same lab as 
>>> the excimer laser, to deposit various thin films that have been 
>>> subsequently processed in a clean room to yield working devices.
>>> Our applications laboratory environment is relatively clean (no 
>>> industrial processes are ongoing to produce large amounts of 
>>> particles), but it is not clean room controlled and the processing 
>>> will be done under normal conditions. We have not had any customers 
>>> that have wished to do further processing on the wafers after the 
>>> laser annealing, only material analysis.
>>> We have laser processed partially gold coated die previously, the 
>>> presence of the gold will not affect our ability to process the 
>>> wafers, though the gold coated part will not absorb many of the 
>>> 248nm photons and phase transformations of the gold or underlying 
>>> layers of the gold will have a phase change affected.
>>> Thanks very much,
>>> Bipin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>


-- 
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 mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Thu Mar  3 09:57:30 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:57:30 -0800
Subject: Laser Annealing outside SNF
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050303094406.01f42548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
References: <028f01c5146b$43d62110$42b20c80@supernova> <42274C71.50702@snf.stanford.edu> <6.1.1.1.2.20050303094406.01f42548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4227500A.4010503@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi Bipin --

Your request is approved.  Please do keep all wet processing 
(prefurnace/predep cleans and PRS/resist cleans) separate from the 
"clean" and "semiclean" wet stations.

Thanks,

Mary

Michael Deal wrote:

> Mary's recommendation sounds fine to me.    -mike
>
> At 09:42 AM 3/3/2005, Mary Tang wrote:
>
>> Hi all --
>>
>> Bipin is really anxious to get going on this and would like an 
>> answer, as he is trying to determine whether he can send his wafers 
>> out for processing.... I am not sure how, but I think we missed this 
>> in our meeting on Tuesday (at least this wasn't discussed while I was 
>> there...) Was this covered afterward? Mahnaz does not have any notes 
>> on this.
>>
>> My feeling on this is that the risk of cross-contamination in the 
>> gryphon, P5000 and FGA anneal is very low. The only possible risk is 
>> at any of the wet station cleans prior to any of these steps. My 
>> suggestion is that we ask that all cleans be done at wbgeneral in 
>> dedicated labware or at wbsilicide, provided all acids are 
>> drained/changed. Does anyone else have any strong opinions on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Bipin Rajendran wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Specmat Members,
>>> I am trying to do a modified 410 process, that use laser annealing 
>>> for activating the source drain regions. I am planning to send my 
>>> wafers out to a company called AMBP Tech, and below is an email from 
>>> them telling me about their laser machine.
>>> My question is this: After I do the annealing, will I be allowed to 
>>> come back to the lab and continue with the remaining 410 processing 
>>> ie. Al deposition in gryphon, P5000 etch and FGA anneal? Or will I 
>>> have to look for alternate set of non-semi-clean equipments to do 
>>> these?
>>> AMBP Tech's core discipline is in thin film equipment and services 
>>> and we have used our thin film equipment, located in the same lab as 
>>> the excimer laser, to deposit various thin films that have been 
>>> subsequently processed in a clean room to yield working devices.
>>> Our applications laboratory environment is relatively clean (no 
>>> industrial processes are ongoing to produce large amounts of 
>>> particles), but it is not clean room controlled and the processing 
>>> will be done under normal conditions. We have not had any customers 
>>> that have wished to do further processing on the wafers after the 
>>> laser annealing, only material analysis.
>>> We have laser processed partially gold coated die previously, the 
>>> presence of the gold will not affect our ability to process the 
>>> wafers, though the gold coated part will not absorb many of the 
>>> 248nm photons and phase transformations of the gold or underlying 
>>> layers of the gold will have a phase change affected.
>>> Thanks very much,
>>> Bipin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>


-- 
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 mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Fri Mar  4 13:26:19 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:26:19 -0800
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Ankur's request...]
Message-ID: <4228D27B.4040803@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi Ankur --

Here's Jim's response.  I presume this means that you will have to 
coordinate with him to show him your wafers before and after your etch.  
Could you get in touch with him to schedule?

Thanks,

Mary

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Ankur's request...
Date: 	Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:35:28 -0800
From: 	Jim McVittie <mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu>
Organization: 	Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
To: 	Mary Tang <mtang at snf.stanford.edu>
CC: 	Mike Deal <deal at ee.stanford.edu>
References: 	<42278BBC.4010006 at snf.stanford.edu>



Mary,

We agreed to let him do it on a one time if I can see the wafers before and
after the etch.

    Jim

Mary Tang wrote:

> By the way, Ankur's patterns expose 3.2% of the surface area to etching
> in the STS.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
> Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
> Stanford, CA  94305
> (650)723-9980
> mtang at stanford.edu
> http://snf.stanford.edu



-- 
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 pethe at stanford.edu  Mon Mar  7 17:31:19 2005
From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:31:19 -0800
Subject: Ammonium Sulfide at wbgen
Message-ID: <000201c5237e$87a95480$296440ab@flash>

Hello,

 

I would like to study the effect of S-passivation on surfaces. For this
reason I want to use Ammonium Sulfide solution as a reagent. Typical
processing includes 20min dip in aqueous Ammonium Sulfide solution ((NH4)2S)
@ 50C followed by a water rinse. I would then like to load these samples
into the Innotec e-gun evaporator. I have attached a MSDS for Ammonium
Sulfide from Alfa Aesar with this email for your reference.

 

Please let me know if this can be done and if there are any precautions I
need to follow.

 

Thanks

Abhijit

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050307/d215fffd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ammonium_sulfide_alfa_aesar_msds.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 107008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050307/d215fffd/attachment.doc>

From mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Tue Mar  8 07:17:18 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:17:18 -0800
Subject: Ammonium Sulfide at wbgen
In-Reply-To: <000201c5237e$87a95480$296440ab@flash>
References: <000201c5237e$87a95480$296440ab@flash>
Message-ID: <422DC1FE.9040309@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi Abhijit:

A few questions:

Do you plan on storing this at SNF?  How much do you plan to bring in?  
And how concentrated is the solution you plan to use (will you dilute 
it?)  And how much solution would you like to use?

Thanks,

Mary


Abhijit Pethe wrote:

> Hello,
>
>  
>
> I would like to study the effect of S-passivation on surfaces. For 
> this reason I want to use Ammonium Sulfide solution as a reagent. 
> Typical processing includes 20min dip in aqueous Ammonium Sulfide 
> solution ((NH4)2S) @ 50C followed by a water rinse. I would then like 
> to load these samples into the Innotec e-gun evaporator. I have 
> attached a MSDS for Ammonium Sulfide from Alfa Aesar with this email 
> for your reference.
>
>  
>
> Please let me know if this can be done and if there are any 
> precautions I need to follow.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhijit
>
>  
>


-- 
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 mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Tue Mar  8 07:17:55 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:17:55 -0800
Subject: Ammonium Sulfide at wbgen
In-Reply-To: <000201c5237e$87a95480$296440ab@flash>
References: <000201c5237e$87a95480$296440ab@flash>
Message-ID: <422DC223.4060800@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi All --

 From what I glean from the MSDS, this is pretty handle-able stuff.  
However, contact with acid liberates gas (probably ammonia and H2S -- 
not nice) and is pretty flammable. 

Depending on what Abhijit says about his usage/process, I suggest we 
recommend the following:

1.  If he plans to store at SNF, he should not bring in more than a 500 
ml bottle.  This should be registered with a chemical inventory tag 
(Mahnaz and Ed have these) and should be stored in the Flammables 
cabinet with other compatible personal chemicals.

2.  This dip should be done at wbgeneral.  If the solution is dilute and 
there is not much of it (say, less than 1% ammonium sulfide, no more 
than 100 ml), then it can be aspirated.  If more concentrated and larger 
volume, then waste should be collected locally.

This stuff will stink badly, so a warning to make sure that there are no 
drips or spills, and make sure there is no inadvertent contact, is 
important.

What do you all think?

Mary


Abhijit Pethe wrote:

> Hello,
>
>  
>
> I would like to study the effect of S-passivation on surfaces. For 
> this reason I want to use Ammonium Sulfide solution as a reagent. 
> Typical processing includes 20min dip in aqueous Ammonium Sulfide 
> solution ((NH4)2S) @ 50C followed by a water rinse. I would then like 
> to load these samples into the Innotec e-gun evaporator. I have 
> attached a MSDS for Ammonium Sulfide from Alfa Aesar with this email 
> for your reference.
>
>  
>
> Please let me know if this can be done and if there are any 
> precautions I need to follow.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhijit
>
>  
>


-- 
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 pethe at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  8 13:19:31 2005
From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:19:31 -0800
Subject: Ammonium Sulfide at wbgen
In-Reply-To: <422DC1FE.9040309@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <000d01c52424$8553c750$296440ab@flash>


Hi Mary,

I plan on storing the material at SNF? I would probably bring in around
500ml of (NH4)2S solution which is typically available in aqueous
solution of 20-24% by wt. 

Abhijit

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at snf.stanford.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:17 AM
To: Abhijit Pethe
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Ammonium Sulfide at wbgen

Hi Abhijit:

A few questions:

Do you plan on storing this at SNF?  How much do you plan to bring in?  
And how concentrated is the solution you plan to use (will you dilute 
it?)  And how much solution would you like to use?

Thanks,

Mary


Abhijit Pethe wrote:

> Hello,
>
>  
>
> I would like to study the effect of S-passivation on surfaces. For 
> this reason I want to use Ammonium Sulfide solution as a reagent. 
> Typical processing includes 20min dip in aqueous Ammonium Sulfide 
> solution ((NH4)2S) @ 50C followed by a water rinse. I would then like 
> to load these samples into the Innotec e-gun evaporator. I have 
> attached a MSDS for Ammonium Sulfide from Alfa Aesar with this email 
> for your reference.
>
>  
>
> Please let me know if this can be done and if there are any 
> precautions I need to follow.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Abhijit
>
>  
>


-- 
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 pethe at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  8 16:12:26 2005
From: pethe at stanford.edu (Abhijit Pethe)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:12:26 -0800
Subject: Yb in Innotec/wbgen
Message-ID: <000e01c5243c$adffb020$296440ab@flash>

Hi,

 

I want to request the use of Yb target in the Innotec. Yb is a low
workfunction metal and I am investigating its use to form low barrier on
Si/Ge. This would be followed with a cap of either Ti or W. Typical
dimensions of the thin films are

Yb-10-20nm

Ti-100nm

 This would be followed by resist coat, expose and strip all using standard
3612 resist. I plan to pattern the metal stack using an etch in HF (or BOE)
at the wbgen. Yb had been approved on the Innotec a couple of years back. I
have attached an Yb MSDS with this email.

 

Thanks

Abhijit 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050308/e887ae49/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Yb_MSDS.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 94720 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050308/e887ae49/attachment.doc>

From dchi at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  8 19:49:49 2005
From: dchi at stanford.edu (David Chi)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:49:49 -0800
Subject: material approval for tylan4
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050308193949.01d9de40@dchi.pobox.stanford.edu>

To: Special Materials Committee

I would like to use tylan4 to anneal my samples in forming gas. The 
temperatures I would use are between 300 and 500C. My material is HfO2 on 
silicon. I have attached a TXRF report from Charles Evans & Associates for 
this material.

Thank you for your consideration.


David Chi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: C03H0107.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 152576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050308/b01064f3/attachment.doc>

From edmyers at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 14 13:44:33 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:44:33 -0800
Subject: SpecMat Log Sheet, 3/14/05
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050314134311.01b66a88@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

All,

Here are the items I've found for tomorrow's SpecMat meeting.  If I've 
missed anything, let me know.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SpecMat Logsheet.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 49152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050314/05844cff/attachment.obj>

From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Mon Mar 14 16:52:19 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:52:19 -0800
Subject: Bringing in Al2O3 from outside vendor
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D372001730379D5A7@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

I would like to bring in Al2O3 on SiO2 into semi clean equipment in SNF.
These wafers were processed in an Atomic Layer Deposition reactor at
Kokusai.

These machines are regularly used to grow films that go into Intel's fab
in Santa Clara.

 

I have attached recent TXRF data of a film from this chamber.

 

TXRF shows nd (not detected) for Cu, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni.

 

The TXRF counts for K, Co, and Zn are attributed to overlapping peaks
with Hf, which was in the dielectric grown for this experiment.

Time of Flight Simms data (at the bottom of the page) shows no Na, K,
Co, Cu, or Zn.

 

Based on these results, I would like permission to introduce Al2O3 grown
in this chamber (which uses semiconductor grade trimethylaluminum - TMA
as the precursor) into the silicide wet bench for cleaning, followed by
the P5000 for dry etching.

 

I have tool time Tuesday at 3.  If there is an objection, please send an
e-mail.  I will also speak with members of the committee individually
before I start.

 

Thank you.


Rhett

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050314/2b85945f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: K Vendor TXRF 031405.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 19968 bytes
Desc: K Vendor TXRF 031405.xls
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050314/2b85945f/attachment.xls>

From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Fri Mar 18 13:41:36 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:41:36 -0800
Subject: Al2O3 - urgent
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303819BB2@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to
bring into the semi-clean equipment group.  There are actually two
process from separate chambers.

 

This film would go into tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly
etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108
(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al
coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas
anneal (10 min).

 

I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on
hold waiting for the green light - I was only yesterday able to get a
hold of this data.  At the very least please let me know when I might
have a semi-official response.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Rhett

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050318/9944d49d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IntelAl2O3.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 23552 bytes
Desc: IntelAl2O3.xls
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050318/9944d49d/attachment.xls>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Fri Mar 18 13:55:47 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:55:47 -0800
Subject: Al2O3 - urgent
In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303819BB2@scsmsx402.amr.cor
 p.intel.com>
References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303819BB2@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050318135246.01fb3568@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>

Rhett,
    What do Reactor 1 and Reactor 2 refer to?  Two different samples from 
two different sources?  Why is there Ti and Fe in them?    And Hf in one of 
them?    -mike


At 01:41 PM 3/18/2005, Brewer, Rhett T wrote:
>I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to 
>bring into the semi-clean equipment group.  There are actually two process 
>from separate chambers.
>
>This film would go into tystar P-doped poly ? 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly 
>etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108 
>(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al 
>coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas anneal 
>(10 min).
>
>I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on hold 
>waiting for the green light ? I was only yesterday able to get a hold of 
>this data.  At the very least please let me know when I might have a 
>semi-official response.
>
>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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050318/7ab20c27/attachment.html>

From mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Fri Mar 18 13:58:41 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:58:41 -0800
Subject: Al2O3 - urgent
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050318135246.01fb3568@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303819BB2@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com> <6.1.1.1.2.20050318135246.01fb3568@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <423B4F11.5000504@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi Mike --

I just spoke with Rhett. The clean results are from a commercial source 
that provides Al2O3 for electronics. The not-so-clean results are from 
an internal Intel research tool.

Mary

Michael Deal wrote:

> Rhett,
> What do Reactor 1 and Reactor 2 refer to? Two different samples from 
> two different sources? Why is there Ti and Fe in them? And Hf in one 
> of them? -mike
>
>
> At 01:41 PM 3/18/2005, Brewer, Rhett T wrote:
>
>> I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to 
>> bring into the semi-clean equipment group. There are actually two 
>> process from separate chambers.
>>
>> This film would go into tystar P-doped poly ? 580C (3500A), P5000 
>> (poly etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, 
>> RTA 4108 (I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon 
>> for Al coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming 
>> gas anneal (10 min).
>>
>> I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on 
>> hold waiting for the green light ? I was only yesterday able to get a 
>> hold of this data. At the very least please let me know when I might 
>> have a semi-official response.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rhett
>>
>>
>> Rhett Brewer
>> Intel Corporation
>> work: 408-765-8254
>> cell: 408-655-3448
>> rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com>
>>


-- 
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 rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Fri Mar 18 14:14:54 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:14:54 -0800
Subject: Al2O3 - urgent
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173038581D4@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

Mike,

 

These are two different samples from two separate reactors.  Only one,
but not both are necessary, although electrically, the films from
reactor 2 are better.  The wafers are set on a piece of cleaned quartz
or Si regardless of which reactor they use.  The reactors are research
reactors that put down several types of films,  so the Fe, Ti, or Hf may
come from residue from those other processes.  I spoke with Ed and he
indicated that if I could wet clean these first at WBgeneral that could
be a potential solution.  Is there any knowledge about what SC1/SC2 does
to Al2O3?

 

 

Rhett

 

 

________________________________

From: Michael Deal [mailto:mdeal at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:56 PM
To: Brewer, Rhett T; specmat at snf.stanford.edu; Ed Myers;
mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu; shott at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Al2O3 - urgent

 

Rhett,
   What do Reactor 1 and Reactor 2 refer to?  Two different samples from
two different sources?  Why is there Ti and Fe in them?    And Hf in one
of them?    -mike


At 01:41 PM 3/18/2005, Brewer, Rhett T wrote:



I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to
bring into the semi-clean equipment group.  There are actually two
process from separate chambers.
 
This film would go into tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly
etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108
(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al
coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas
anneal (10 min).
 
I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on
hold waiting for the green light - I was only yesterday able to get a
hold of this data.  At the very least please let me know when I might
have a semi-official response.
 
Thank you.
 
Regards,
 
Rhett
 
 
Rhett Brewer
Intel Corporation
work: 408-765-8254
cell: 408-655-3448
rhett.t.brewer at intel.com
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050318/c4393649/attachment.html>

From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Mon Mar 21 17:35:11 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:35:11 -0800
Subject: Al2O3 film - cleaned - need quick yes or no - holding up process - please respond by mid day Tuesday if possible
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173038A02FB@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

Specmat,

 

I have attached data for Al2O3 films that I would like to bring into
SNF.  These films have been cleaned with an H2O2:HCl clean in my
dedicated beakers and would always receive the same process before
introduction to the fabrication tools.

 

I would like approval for these wafers (Al2O3 thin film on the surface,
with the given contamination levels) to experience the following
processing at SNF:

 

This film would go into tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly
etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108
(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al
coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas
anneal (10 min).

 

Note all wet cleans could be done in my own beakers if necessary -
although I would prefer to use the benches.

 

I would greatly appreciate a response by just after lunch tomorrow.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rhett

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050321/407d4d52/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Al2O3H2O2HClClean032105.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 20992 bytes
Desc: Al2O3H2O2HClClean032105.xls
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050321/407d4d52/attachment.xls>

From rohank at stanford.edu  Tue Mar 22 01:26:11 2005
From: rohank at stanford.edu (Rohan D. Kekatpure)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:26:11 -0800
Subject: Process for specmat review
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050322012455.01fb0120@rohank.pobox.stanford.edu>

Greetings,

I am submitting a process (run-sheet attached) for review by the SpecMat
members. My request essentially calls for allowing me the processing of
STS-PECVD oxide wafers in AMT etcher. Recently, Dr. Ofer Levi was allowed
to process similar (PECVD nitride) samples in the AMT. My process is almost
the same (except that I deposit oxide instead of nitride) and I have
adopted all the wafer and metal cleaning procedures that specmat
recommended to him prior to allowing his process. Additionally, since I do
not encounter charging during the EBeam exposure, my wafers do not have to
undergo a Cr metallization.

I hope that my request is favorably looked upon by the committee members.

Thank you for your attention.
rohan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: run sheet_March_10_05.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 36864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050322/cdf7004b/attachment.doc>

From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Fri Mar 25 15:56:26 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:56:26 -0800
Subject: Newest data
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303918BD7@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

Specmat,

 

This is the most recent data from my Al2O3 which is on hold.

 

Rhett

 

________________________________

From: Brewer, Rhett T 
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:42 PM
To: 'specmat at snf.stanford.edu'; 'Ed Myers'; 'mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu';
'shott at snf.stanford.edu'
Subject: Al2O3 - urgent

 

I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to
bring into the semi-clean equipment group.  There are actually two
process from separate chambers.

 

This film would go into tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly
etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108
(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al
coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas
anneal (10 min).

 

I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on
hold waiting for the green light - I was only yesterday able to get a
hold of this data.  At the very least please let me know when I might
have a semi-official response.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Rhett

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050325/ce1bcafe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IntelAl2O3032505.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 19456 bytes
Desc: IntelAl2O3032505.xls
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050325/ce1bcafe/attachment.xls>

From mtang at snf.stanford.edu  Sat Mar 26 09:12:48 2005
From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: FW: Materials Approval process at SNF - Urgent matter
In-Reply-To: <4AA12F8337194842A6F00D387813AF1E568CDC@ehost011-7.exch011.intermedia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10503260904320.1667-100000@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi Yoshio --

I'm sorry, I had not realized this situation had gotten to this point for
Rhett.  Quite honestly, SpecMat has been meeting routinely only since the
beginning of the year. And perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, because Mike
Deal, and now Ed, have really been doing an admirable job of running it --
but really, until very recently, we haven't documented our approval
procedure nor had we tracked what had been approved.  I think we are
making excellent progress, but we still have yet to establish consistent
methods and criteria for approval.  

We have, I think, been very responsive to people with straightforward
requests -- we haven't waited for SpecMat meetings to approve them.
They've just been approved with an email notifying other SpecMat members
of the decision.

However, more grey area requests, such as this one, do require convening
of SpecMat members in one room to discuss the various concerns.  Perhaps
we should have another mechanism, by which urgent requests can be decided
upon in a timely fashion if two or three members of SpecMat agree...

Mary

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Yoshio Nishi wrote:

> Hi Paul and all,
> 
> Please read the message below.   I think we have a good checking
> mechanism which raises our users' awareness for avoiding cross
> contamination possibly due to newly introduced materials.   However, if
> the specmat is held only once in two weeks, it is no better than
> unpopular County Fire Department process, in other words "bureaucracy".
> Please consider to accelerate the approval process.   Whenever data are
> available, the specmat must quickly meet and approve or disapprove.
> His proposal makes sense for me.    Please consider whether it is doable
> or not.  
> 
> Yoshio
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brewer, Rhett T [mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:02 PM
> To: Yoshio Nishi
> Subject: Materials Approval process at SNF - Urgent matter
> 
>  
> 
> Professor Nishi,
> 
>  
> 
> I have attached a recent TXRF result for ALD Al2O3 from an internal
> source that I would like to bring into the fab.  I know the correct
> procedure to bring outside material into the fab - submit to specmat and
> wait two weeks - but we are on a tight schedule and I can not afford
> that time.  As I have tried to accelerate the time frame in the past to
> meet my deadlines, I have just wasted my time because I can not get a
> firm answer without the full committee and there is no established,
> acceptable contamination level.  When I speak with different spec mat
> members I get different messages.  
> 
>  
> 
> In this case, I have wafers waiting at an Intel tool for deposition,
> waiting for the approval from SNF.  My project is slipping because I
> don't know what SNF will say and I can not get a straight answer
> quickly.
> 
>  
> 
> What I have gathered is that bad metals like Cu, Au, Na, K must be low
> 1e-10.  That is clear.  Beyond that, the specs that I am shooting for
> are vague.  I have been told for other metals that mid e-11
> contamination is OK, others say it must be mid e-10.  
> 
>  
> 
> It is extremely frustrating that SNF can not give me a target.  Because
> it is fuzzy, every time I get data I have to wander the halls looking
> for people and end up with vague answers anyway.  Kyu asks me if our
> material is acceptable and he does not understand why I can not give him
> a straight answer.  The answer should be yes or no, but to get that
> requires a fortuitously scheduled Spec Mat meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to propose setting a process for the entire lab that could
> streamline this.  If this is not something that could be implemented for
> the entire lab, then I would like to implement it for me.  
> 
>  
> 
> Each process equipment should have a spec for contamination level that
> is acceptable that is automatically approved.  Data could be submitted
> to specmat for verification, but it should be an automatic approval if
> no response comes from specmat in a reasonable time frame (48 hours).
> Anything they don't like the flag and put to the committee.
> 
>  
> 
> In my case, specmat has my process flow.  They should tell me what the
> contamination level target is for this process flow.  If I make the spec
> according to TXRF, I should be able to send them the data and start
> processing without waiting.  The current system is very burdensome.
> 
>  
> 
> One final comment.  The vague standards make me wonder if others are put
> to such scrutiny.  I have literally ran more than 10 TXRF samples.  At
> 375 per sample, plus my time and delay, this is a very expensive
> process.  A real project killer.  I would like some assurance that the
> contamination standards and burden of proof is consistent for all lab
> members.  
> 
> I want to be a good citizen, but I fail to see the advantage to anyone
> by putting extra burden on Intel because we have greater contamination
> detection capabilities than most.  
> 
>  
> 
> Please advise,
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Rhett
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Rhett Brewer
> 
> Intel Corporation
> 
> work: 408-765-8254
> 
> cell: 408-655-3448
> 
> rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 
> 
>  
> 
> 



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 09:17:41 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:17:41 -0800
Subject: Fwd: Newest data
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050328090149.01b5f1b8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

Committee Members,

There was an impromptu hallway meeting concerning Rhett's latest 
request.  The summary of the meeting is as follows.

1) While the contamination level has been reduced a couple of order of 
magnitude it is still 10x higher than the recommended 2-3x the detection 
limits.
2) All cleans need to be done in Rhett's dedicated beakers
3) A 0.5um, 4% phosphors doped coating layer must be put down following the 
product deposition.
4) RTA annealing can be done in the 4108 using the silicide tool configuration.

Due to the push to get agreement, a 12 noon deadline has been 
implemented.  If you have any concerns over this proposed processing, 
please respond by the deadline.

Ed



>From: "Brewer, Rhett T" <rhett.t.brewer at intel.com>
>To: <specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2005 23:56:29.0904 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[439B6500:01C53196]
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44
>
>Specmat,
>
>This is the most recent data from my Al2O3 which is on hold.
>
>Rhett
>
>
>----------
>From: Brewer, Rhett T
>Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:42 PM
>To: 'specmat at snf.stanford.edu'; 'Ed Myers'; 'mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu'; 
>'shott at snf.stanford.edu'
>Subject: Al2O3 - urgent
>
>I have contamination data from another Al2O3 process that I wanted to 
>bring into the semi-clean equipment group.  There are actually two process 
>from separate chambers.
>
>This film would go into tystar P-doped poly ? 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly 
>etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108 
>(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al 
>coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas anneal 
>(10 min).
>
>I apologize for requesting a quick response, but I have a process on hold 
>waiting for the green light ? I was only yesterday able to get a hold of 
>this data.  At the very least please let me know when I might have a 
>semi-official response.
>
>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
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IntelAl2O3032505.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050328/6196ac88/attachment.obj>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 10:58:37 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:58:37 -0800
Subject: contamination limits
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328105315.0202aec0@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>

Jim and I just discussed the metal contamination level issue.  We suggest 
the following limits from TXRF or TOF-SIMS measurements:

For "semiclean":   metal contamination should be less than 1x10^12 cm-2
    This is based on the agreed upon purity of some of the targets used in 
the SCT sputtering system (99.95% pure)

For "clean": metal contamination should be less than 1x10^11 cm-2
     This is based on past results of our cleans, etc.

							-mike



From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Mon Mar 28 11:27:55 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:27:55 -0800
Subject: New Film supplier
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017303968FD9@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

Specmat,

 

Thank you for taking a look at my Al2O3 film.  Unless I am told otherwise, I will begin growing Al2O3 (these films will not hit the fab until ~Friday) and will follow the requirements submitted by Ed Myers for processing the Al2O3 at SNF.

 

I have included below ICPS from another chamber that I would like to use as an Al2O3 film source in the future.  My schedule calls for running wafers in this chamber (Al2O3 growth) is about 2 weeks.  The results below are for an SiO2 film, but the Al2O3 shares gas lines and an electronics grade TMA is the Aluminum precursor source.  I am trying to avoid the urgency that I have had recently.  

 

The films grown in the chamber below will experience the processing proposed before:

 

This film would go into tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly 

>etch, Al etch chambers), wbmetal for cleaning and resist strip, RTA 4108 

>(I think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, gryphon for Al 

>coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga for 400C forming gas anneal 

>(10 min).

 

Because these films are cleaner than the current ones, I would hope to be able to use wbmetal instead of my own beakers.

Thank you for your involvement.

 

Regards,

 

Rhett

 

See the ICP-MS results

 

 

 

 

SURFACE CONCENTRATION ( x 1010 atoms/cm2)

 

 

 

 

Wafer Size = 8 inch

 

 

 

 

 

Method
Detection Limits

120? SiO2
Test Wafer

 

 

 

1.

Aluminum

(Al)

0.3

15

 

 

 

2.

Calcium

(Ca)

0.2

10

 

 

 

3.

Chromium

(Cr)

0.1

63

 

 

 

4.

Copper

(Cu)

0.05

0.55

 

 

 

5.

Iron

(Fe)

0.1

2.3

 

 

 

6.

Magnesium

(Mg)

0.3

4.0

 

 

 

7.

Nickel

(Ni)

0.05

0.70

 

 

 

8.

Potassium

(K )

0.2

6.7

 

 

 

9.

Sodium

(Na)

0.2

9.9

 

 

 

10.

Titanium

(Ti)

0.1

2.8

 

 

 

11.

Zinc

(Zn)

0.06

0.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050328/fb221a9d/attachment.html>

From griffin at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 14:17:46 2005
From: griffin at stanford.edu (Peter Griffin)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328075154.01ee2438@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503281410200.12289-101000@cis.Stanford.EDU>


Hello,

We have performed TXRF for a ZnCdS sputter deposition
in the Metallica. Dedicated target holders, chimmney
and wafer platten with custom designed inner and outer
surrounding "bands" of 1 inch deep aluminium are used
to minimize contamination. The dedicated equipment is
removed after each deposition and can be bead-blasted 
clean at an outside facility as needed. 
Given that the TXRF levels are low-E11, this email is
to request a review of the data and permission to run
ZnCdS on a regular basis as needed. 

Thanks, Peter Griffin


On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Michael Deal wrote:

> Peter,
>        Did you send a request into specmat at snf.stanford.edu regarding your 
> request?  We meet tomorrow at 1 pm (Tuesday) and we'll need a request in 
> order to approve it.  (If you have already sent in a request, can you send 
> me a copy, since I haven't gotten it.)  Thanks.
> 						-mike
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TXRF_Summary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 36864 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050328/597186d0/attachment.doc>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 14:24:15 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:24:15 -0800
Subject: Fwd: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328142224.01f91548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>


Fellow specmat'ers,
     If we're not meeting tomorrow (due to people going to MRS), I think we 
can go ahead and approve this based on the numbers and his precautions.
                                                 -mike

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
>From: Peter Griffin <griffin at stanford.edu>
>To: Michael Deal <mdeal at stanford.edu>
>Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>Subject: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
>
>
>Hello,
>
>We have performed TXRF for a ZnCdS sputter deposition
>in the Metallica. Dedicated target holders, chimmney
>and wafer platten with custom designed inner and outer
>surrounding "bands" of 1 inch deep aluminium are used
>to minimize contamination. The dedicated equipment is
>removed after each deposition and can be bead-blasted
>clean at an outside facility as needed.
>Given that the TXRF levels are low-E11, this email is
>to request a review of the data and permission to run
>ZnCdS on a regular basis as needed.
>
>Thanks, Peter Griffin
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Michael Deal wrote:
>
> > Peter,
> >        Did you send a request into specmat at snf.stanford.edu regarding your
> > request?  We meet tomorrow at 1 pm (Tuesday) and we'll need a request in
> > order to approve it.  (If you have already sent in a request, can you send
> > me a copy, since I haven't gotten it.)  Thanks.
> >                                               -mike
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TXRF_Summary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 36864 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050328/ec53832b/attachment.doc>

From edmyers at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 16:52:03 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:52:03 -0800
Subject: Fwd: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328142224.01f91548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu
 >
References: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328142224.01f91548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050328161704.01cb7550@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

All,

I don't agree.  I feel we still need to control this process.  This is a 
killer for our biological users and their gold substrates.  Sulphur 
contamination of a gold surface inhibits almost all of the biological 
surface attachment projects.  The TXRF data showed the sulphur to 
be >150E14.  The other reason I feel we should control this process is the 
way the system is used.  Typically each deposition is on a single 
chip.  This greatly increases the number of required depositions and the 
amount of sulphur in the system.

If our goal is to keep all materials with vapor pressures less than In out 
of the vacuum system, then we can not provide this project an open 
door.  We should limit the number of depositions allowed per month.  We 
should only need to support this process until the new sputter is available.

Following the process down the line, these samples are also annealed in 
RTAAG, a tool we have been telling users is semi-clean.  We should also 
move their annealing process out of RTAAG, clean the system and get it back 
to the advertised semiclean state.

Ed

At 02:24 PM 3/28/2005, Michael Deal wrote:

>Fellow specmat'ers,
>     If we're not meeting tomorrow (due to people going to MRS), I think 
> we can go ahead and approve this based on the numbers and his precautions.
>                                                 -mike
>
>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Peter Griffin <griffin at stanford.edu>
>>To: Michael Deal <mdeal at stanford.edu>
>>Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>>Subject: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>We have performed TXRF for a ZnCdS sputter deposition
>>in the Metallica. Dedicated target holders, chimmney
>>and wafer platten with custom designed inner and outer
>>surrounding "bands" of 1 inch deep aluminium are used
>>to minimize contamination. The dedicated equipment is
>>removed after each deposition and can be bead-blasted
>>clean at an outside facility as needed.
>>Given that the TXRF levels are low-E11, this email is
>>to request a review of the data and permission to run
>>ZnCdS on a regular basis as needed.
>>
>>Thanks, Peter Griffin
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Michael Deal wrote:
>>
>> > Peter,
>> >        Did you send a request into specmat at snf.stanford.edu regarding your
>> > request?  We meet tomorrow at 1 pm (Tuesday) and we'll need a request in
>> > order to approve it.  (If you have already sent in a request, can you send
>> > me a copy, since I haven't gotten it.)  Thanks.
>> >                                               -mike
>> >
>> >
>
>




From mdeal at stanford.edu  Mon Mar 28 17:20:51 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:20:51 -0800
Subject: Fwd: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050328161704.01cb7550@edmyers.pobox.stanford.e
 du>
References: <6.1.1.1.2.20050328142224.01f91548@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>
 <6.0.1.1.2.20050328161704.01cb7550@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050328171233.01dcfef0@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>


First, the sulphur is 150E10, not 150E14.  Second, we usually have very 
high S on our wafers based on our TXRF measurements due, presumably, to the 
sulfuric/peroxide cleans as well as SO4 in cleanroom atmospheres - see the 
note at the end of Peter's report. (Also check out Rhett's TXRF's from last 
week, with 3000E10 S). Jim can confirm this.     -mike

At 04:52 PM 3/28/2005, Ed Myers wrote:
>All,
>
>I don't agree.  I feel we still need to control this process.  This is a 
>killer for our biological users and their gold substrates.  Sulphur 
>contamination of a gold surface inhibits almost all of the biological 
>surface attachment projects.  The TXRF data showed the sulphur to 
>be >150E14.  The other reason I feel we should control this process is the 
>way the system is used.  Typically each deposition is on a single 
>chip.  This greatly increases the number of required depositions and the 
>amount of sulphur in the system.
>
>If our goal is to keep all materials with vapor pressures less than In out 
>of the vacuum system, then we can not provide this project an open 
>door.  We should limit the number of depositions allowed per month.  We 
>should only need to support this process until the new sputter is available.
>
>Following the process down the line, these samples are also annealed in 
>RTAAG, a tool we have been telling users is semi-clean.  We should also 
>move their annealing process out of RTAAG, clean the system and get it 
>back to the advertised semiclean state.
>
>Ed
>
>At 02:24 PM 3/28/2005, Michael Deal wrote:
>
>>Fellow specmat'ers,
>>     If we're not meeting tomorrow (due to people going to MRS), I think 
>> we can go ahead and approve this based on the numbers and his precautions.
>>                                                 -mike
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
>>>From: Peter Griffin <griffin at stanford.edu>
>>>To: Michael Deal <mdeal at stanford.edu>
>>>Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>>>Subject: Zn, Cd, S TXRF -> ZnCdS in Metallica
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>We have performed TXRF for a ZnCdS sputter deposition
>>>in the Metallica. Dedicated target holders, chimmney
>>>and wafer platten with custom designed inner and outer
>>>surrounding "bands" of 1 inch deep aluminium are used
>>>to minimize contamination. The dedicated equipment is
>>>removed after each deposition and can be bead-blasted
>>>clean at an outside facility as needed.
>>>Given that the TXRF levels are low-E11, this email is
>>>to request a review of the data and permission to run
>>>ZnCdS on a regular basis as needed.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Peter Griffin
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Michael Deal wrote:
>>>
>>> > Peter,
>>> >        Did you send a request into specmat at snf.stanford.edu regarding 
>>> your
>>> > request?  We meet tomorrow at 1 pm (Tuesday) and we'll need a request in
>>> > order to approve it.  (If you have already sent in a request, can you 
>>> send
>>> > me a copy, since I haven't gotten it.)  Thanks.
>>> >                                               -mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>
>



From rhett.t.brewer at intel.com  Mon Mar 28 17:50:34 2005
From: rhett.t.brewer at intel.com (Brewer, Rhett T)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:50:34 -0800
Subject: Materials approval process request
Message-ID: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173039695B9@scsmsx402.amr.corp.intel.com>

Specmat,

 

As you know I am planning to bring a Pd, Si, O layer into SNF, possibly
covered with Al2O3.  My group is working hard to create a reliable,
contamination free process for compatibility with the semi-clean
equipment group at SNF.

 

My recent experience trying to get the Al2O3 into SNF has made it
evident that the current process has a significant negative impact on my
ability to meet my deadlines.  Once my next set of films is ready,
things will have to move very quickly and my project can not afford to
wait in limbo to know if the contamination levels are acceptable.
Additionally, you have other things to do than respond to my project
emergency as I solicit expedited approval. 

 

I would like to propose a solution.  My SNF process is listed below.
Please look at this process, consider the contamination issues, set
contamination levels that I must satisfy to obtain access to my desired
equipment, and send me the specs.

 

Once our process is cleaned up we will run TXRF.  If we meet your specs
then I will send you an e-mail with the TXRF and wait 1 full work day
for any last minute objections before I begin processing at SNF,
assuming specmat is satisfied.  If I don't meet your spec, then I will
know it immediately and work to do better, instead of wasting time
wondering if I need to do better and waiting for a response.

 

This is my proposal.  I would welcome a counter proposal.  For my
situation, the lag in the current materials approval process is a
significant bottle neck that I can not afford.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Rhett

 

Process for incoming film (in addition to lithography steps):

 

tystar P-doped poly - 580C (3500A), P5000 (poly etch, Al etch chambers),
wbgeneral (dedicated quartzware), tylanpsg (LTO at 400C), RTA 4108 (I
think that is the number) for 700C, 2 min anneal, AMT 8100 (oxide etch),
gasonics, gryphon for Al coating, P5000 for etching Al, then tylan fga
for 400C forming gas anneal (10 min).

 

 

 

 

Rhett Brewer

Intel Corporation

work: 408-765-8254

cell: 408-655-3448

rhett.t.brewer at intel.com <mailto:rhett.t.brewer at intel.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050328/1aa0d9bf/attachment.html>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Tue Mar 29 08:29:18 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:29:18 -0800
Subject: meeting today?
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050329082843.01ecb7b0@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>

Are we having a specmat meeting today?    



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar 29 10:07:43 2005
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:07:43 -0800
Subject: SpecMat Lo Sheet 3/28/05
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20050329100456.01b97450@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu>

SpecMat Member,

I've attached the latest version of the SpecMat Tracking Log Sheet.

Since there appears to be a quorum we should plan on holding today's meeting.

Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SpecMat Logsheet.xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 58880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20050329/3ea4e20a/attachment.obj>

From mdeal at stanford.edu  Tue Mar 29 10:07:36 2005
From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:07:36 -0800
Subject: meeting today
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20050329100716.01ff3d48@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu>

I guess we'll have a spec mat meeting today at 1.    -mike