From amf at amfitzgerald.com Tue Jan 3 11:50:09 2006 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:50:09 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000 Message-ID: <004001c6109e$e760dd40$0600a8c0@minicat> Hello SpecMat, I would like to request permission to put wafers with a layer of PDMS in the P5000 in order to do aluminum etch. We need to etch 0.5um of aluminum that has been deposited over a 500um layer of cured PDMS. We need to use the P5000 to satisfy the requirements of our customer (Applied Materials); wet etch of the metal will not be acceptable, lift-off techniques are not acceptable either. Our ability to perform this project at the SNF is contingent on our being able to use the P5000. The proposed process is as follows: Deposit and cure 500um thick layer of PDMS Deposit 0.5um of Aluminum using Gryphon Apply photoresist Expose using Nikon stepper (CD = 0.7 um) Develop Timed etch of aluminum in P5000, down to PDMS layer Resist strip Please let me know if you have any questions. Please also let me know how soon I could expect a response (either yes/no) as we need to make some time-critical decisions. Best regards, Alissa Alissa M. Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Managing Member A.M. Fitzgerald & Associates, LLC Technical Consulting Services MEMS | Materials | Sensor Systems 655 Skyway Suite 118 San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 592-6100 tel/fax www.amfitzgerald.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 3 13:59:21 2006 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:59:21 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000 References: <004001c6109e$e760dd40$0600a8c0@minicat> Message-ID: <43BAF3B9.31812548@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Alissa, During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important question what is in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. My concern is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity analysis for PDMS? Thanks, Jim "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: 7bit From mtang at stanford.edu Wed Jan 4 07:47:15 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:47:15 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000 In-Reply-To: <43BAF3B9.31812548@snf.stanford.edu> References: <004001c6109e$e760dd40$0600a8c0@minicat> <43BAF3B9.31812548@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43BBEE03.4080404@stanford.edu> Hi Alissa, Jim -- I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous request. As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) is based on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is actually present. Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually pretty clean -- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, it's cleaner than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check with her. Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the potential contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, perhaps you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 microns of PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS in our lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon for Al deposition? Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch rates and profiles may be very different than they would be on silicon due to differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't expand as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll drop a note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to Claudia (or whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. Mary Jim McVittie wrote: >Hi Alissa, > >During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the >decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important question what is in >PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. My concern is >what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity analysis >for PDMS? > > Thanks, Jim > >"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > > >> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >> Encoding: 7bit >> >> > > > -- 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 snf.stanford.edu Wed Jan 4 13:24:23 2006 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:24:23 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000 References: <004001c6109e$e760dd40$0600a8c0@minicat> <43BAF3B9.31812548@snf.stanford.edu> <43BBEE03.4080404@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43BC3D07.A3B9F330@snf.stanford.edu> Mary, I guess I did not notice that she had 500um of PDMS. You are correct. This thickness will affect the etching characrtistics. If Pt is the only metal of significance, then metal contamination will not be a big issue. Jim Mary Tang wrote: > Hi Alissa, Jim -- > > I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous request. As > I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) is based on a > Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is actually present. > Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually pretty clean -- > although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, it's cleaner than > your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I think that > Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check with her. > > Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the potential > contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, perhaps you've got > experience or references on this already.) 500 microns of PDMS is > pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm > not entirely sure that you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without > having it peel off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion > layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or > Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS in our > lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon for Al > deposition? > > Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch rates and > profiles may be very different than they would be on silicon due to > differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on silicon.) > I would suggest that if you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of > microns -- you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. > Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't expand as > much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > > Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll drop a > note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to Claudia (or > whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > > Mary > > Jim McVittie wrote: > > >Hi Alissa, > > > >During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the > >decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important question what is in > >PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. My concern is > >what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity analysis > >for PDMS? > > > > Thanks, Jim > > > >"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > > > > > > >> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > >> Encoding: 7bit > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > 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 amf at amfitzgerald.com Wed Jan 4 14:13:50 2006 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:13:50 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <43BBEE03.4080404@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <002001c6117c$24c7ab40$6400a8c0@minicat> Hi Mary, Jim, Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, as a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this material. I think it's an important material that is gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not sure this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need to use aluminum. Regards, Alissa > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:47 AM > To: Jim McVittie > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > > Hi Alissa, Jim -- > > I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > request. As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 > or 184) is based on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very > little Pt is actually present. > Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > pretty clean -- although perhaps not by electronics-grade > standards, it's cleaner than your ordinary plastics. I'll > see if I can find the info. I think that Claudia Richter > provided it, so I'll also check with her. > > Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > potential contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, > perhaps you've got experience or references on this already.) > 500 microns of PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high > thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that > you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without having it peel > off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion > layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or > Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on > PDMS in our lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have > used metalica or > innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon > for Al deposition? > > Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > rates and profiles may be very different than they would be > on silicon due to differences in plasma behavior (at least, I > understand that P5000 etching of films on quartz is very > different from etching on silicon.) I would suggest that if > you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of microns -- > you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. > Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't > expand as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > > Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll > drop a note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info > to Claudia (or whomever it was who gave it to me) so you > might try asking them. > > Mary > > Jim McVittie wrote: > > >Hi Alissa, > > > >During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the > >decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > question what is > >in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > My concern > >is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity > >analysis for PDMS? > > > > Thanks, Jim > > > >"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > > > > > > >> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > >> Encoding: 7bit > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 stanford.edu Wed Jan 4 15:37:40 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:37:40 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <002001c6117c$24c7ab40$6400a8c0@minicat> References: <002001c6117c$24c7ab40$6400a8c0@minicat> Message-ID: <43BC5C44.6000202@stanford.edu> Hi Alissa -- I'd be reluctant to approve it, basing the call on my often-faulty memory. I'm poring through my files, but can't seem to find the info that I thought I'd had. I've emailed Claudia, on the off-chance she was the person who provided the info. I'm a little concerned that I might be actually thinking of one of the other silicone elastomers which are made for electronic purposes (there are lots of them -- even UV curable varieties)... Silicone elastomers are potting materials -- some are used in intimate contact with die, and so are ion-free. Check out the Dow website at: http://www.dowcorning.com/content/etronics. I would suggest calling up Dow Corning and asking them (I can't seem to retrieve datasheets - I get an error message.) As for PDMS -- yes, a do's-and-don't's for PDMS has been in the works for ages. I'm hoping to post it some day (a how-to-use-PDMS in our lab). It's my favorite stuff. There are actually a couple of websites that have already done a really good job of this -- just do a google search and you'll see for yourself. By the way, I think PDMS decomposes at high temperature. For the monomer, it's about 150C, according to the MSDS (you get formaldehyde.) Intuitively, it seems to me that the polymer would have a higher decomposition temperature, but I don't know what it is. This could be a concern for the P5000 etch, if substrate surface temperatures get high (for thick PDMS). My suggestion is that we hold off on approving things, just yet -- let's see what we can do in terms of finding purity information for PDMS or other silicone elastomers. Meanwhile, I would suggest building into your project plan (if PDMS or other silicone elastomer is approved for use in the P5000 metal etch chamber) some considerable margin to accomodate plasma etch characterization work. Mary Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: >Hi Mary, Jim, > >Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent >email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, as a side >note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, SpecMat may >want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this >material. I think it's an important material that is gaining popularity in >MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) > >The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not sure this it >is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. We may >need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. > >We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need to use >aluminum. > >Regards, >Alissa > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] >>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:47 AM >>To: Jim McVittie >>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >> >>Hi Alissa, Jim -- >> >>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous >>request. As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 >>or 184) is based on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very >>little Pt is actually present. >>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually >>pretty clean -- although perhaps not by electronics-grade >>standards, it's cleaner than your ordinary plastics. I'll >>see if I can find the info. I think that Claudia Richter >>provided it, so I'll also check with her. >> >>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the >>potential contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, >>perhaps you've got experience or references on this already.) >> 500 microns of PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high >>thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that >>you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without having it peel >>off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion >>layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or >>Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on >>PDMS in our lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have >>used metalica or >>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon >>for Al deposition? >> >>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch >>rates and profiles may be very different than they would be >>on silicon due to differences in plasma behavior (at least, I >>understand that P5000 etching of films on quartz is very >>different from etching on silicon.) I would suggest that if >>you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of microns -- >>you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. >>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't >>expand as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >> >>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll >>drop a note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info >>to Claudia (or whomever it was who gave it to me) so you >>might try asking them. >> >>Mary >> >>Jim McVittie wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Alissa, >>> >>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the >>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >>> >>> >>question what is >> >> >>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >>> >>> >>My concern >> >> >>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity >>>analysis for PDMS? >>> >>> Thanks, Jim >>> >>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >>>> Encoding: 7bit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>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 stanford.edu Wed Jan 4 15:40:22 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:40:22 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <002001c6117c$24c7ab40$6400a8c0@minicat> References: <002001c6117c$24c7ab40$6400a8c0@minicat> Message-ID: <43BC5CE6.1090102@stanford.edu> Hello SpecMat'ers -- I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that outgassing is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the purity, but I think the data exists somewhere... Mary Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: >Hi Mary, Jim, > >Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent >email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, as a side >note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, SpecMat may >want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this >material. I think it's an important material that is gaining popularity in >MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) > >The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not sure this it >is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. We may >need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. > >We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need to use >aluminum. > >Regards, >Alissa > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] >>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:47 AM >>To: Jim McVittie >>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >> >>Hi Alissa, Jim -- >> >>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous >>request. As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 >>or 184) is based on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very >>little Pt is actually present. >>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually >>pretty clean -- although perhaps not by electronics-grade >>standards, it's cleaner than your ordinary plastics. I'll >>see if I can find the info. I think that Claudia Richter >>provided it, so I'll also check with her. >> >>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the >>potential contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, >>perhaps you've got experience or references on this already.) >> 500 microns of PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high >>thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that >>you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without having it peel >>off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion >>layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or >>Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on >>PDMS in our lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have >>used metalica or >>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon >>for Al deposition? >> >>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch >>rates and profiles may be very different than they would be >>on silicon due to differences in plasma behavior (at least, I >>understand that P5000 etching of films on quartz is very >>different from etching on silicon.) I would suggest that if >>you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of microns -- >>you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. >>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't >>expand as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >> >>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll >>drop a note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info >>to Claudia (or whomever it was who gave it to me) so you >>might try asking them. >> >>Mary >> >>Jim McVittie wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Alissa, >>> >>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the >>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >>> >>> >>question what is >> >> >>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >>> >>> >>My concern >> >> >>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity >>>analysis for PDMS? >>> >>> Thanks, Jim >>> >>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >>>> Encoding: 7bit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>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 edmyers at stanford.edu Thu Jan 5 10:16:36 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:16:36 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> All, A number of good points have been made during the discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our contamination classifications. The question being if it needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is appropriate. We will need to understand the differences between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS casting and lithographic process development. I would recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the PDMS in to the Gryphon. Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve the request this week. Ed >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that outgassing is >likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or polyimide >tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS has been >sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the purity, but I think the >data exists somewhere... > >Mary > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > >>Hi Mary, Jim, >> >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, as a side >>note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, SpecMat may >>want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this >>material. I think it's an important material that is gaining popularity in >>MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) >> >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not sure this it >>is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. We may >>need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need to use >>aluminum. >> >>Regards, >>Alissa >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, >>>2006 7:47 AM >>>To: Jim McVittie >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >>> >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- >>> >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous request. As >>>I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) is based on a >>>Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is actually present. >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually pretty clean -- >>>although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, it's cleaner than >>>your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I think that >>>Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check with her. >>> >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the potential >>>contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, perhaps you've got >>>experience or references on this already.) 500 microns of PDMS is pretty >>>thick... It's got a high thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm not >>>entirely sure that you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without having >>>it peel off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion layer >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or Neville >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS in our lab >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon for Al >>>deposition? >>> >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch rates and >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on silicon due to >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on silicon.) I >>>would suggest that if you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens of >>>microns -- you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't expand as >>>much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >>> >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll drop a >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to Claudia (or >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. >>> >>>Mary >>> >>>Jim McVittie wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi Alissa, >>>> >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >>>question what is >>> >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >>>My concern >>> >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity >>>>analysis for PDMS? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Jim >>>> >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >>>>> Encoding: 7bit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>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 rissman at stanford.edu Thu Jan 5 10:24:43 2006 From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:24:43 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.e du> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105102142.0323a0b8@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> I would say that if Alissa takes responsibility for cleanup of any flaking and rework of any processes that are a problem, e.g. etch, then we should approve the request based on a consistent determination on the material contaminants. Can we get Alissa to obtain the specification for contamination? At 10:16 AM 1/5/2006, Ed Myers wrote: >All, > >A number of good points have been made during the discussions. Alissa is >correct in her recognition of increased requests for PDMS. It would >benefit our community if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our >contamination classifications. The question being if it needs to be gold >contaminated or we can place it in either Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I >don't think Clean is appropriate. We will need to understand the >differences between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work with >Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace elements and the >chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > >The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. From trace >element contamination, Mary's memory seems to indicate Alissa's requests >are reasonable. I am very concerned about whether the process is >manufacturable. Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the >process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose 0.7um >features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, adhesion of the Al to the >PDMS and the potential for the Al to peel at numerous locations including >the Gryphon deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence >of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > >As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS casting and >lithographic process development. I would recommend starting with Al >deposition from the Innotec. The Innotec should be the most compatible >deposition tool, since the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is >able to get satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we >either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the PDMS in to the >Gryphon. > >Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve the request >this week. > >Ed > > > > >>Hello SpecMat'ers -- >> >>I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that outgassing >>is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or >>polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS has >>been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the purity, but I think >>the data exists somewhere... >> >>Mary >> >>Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: >> >>>Hi Mary, Jim, >>> >>>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent >>>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, as a side >>>note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, SpecMat may >>>want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this >>>material. I think it's an important material that is gaining popularity in >>>MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) >>> >>>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not sure this it >>>is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. We may >>>need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. >>>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need to use >>>aluminum. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January >>>>04, 2006 7:47 AM >>>>To: Jim McVittie >>>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >>>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >>>> >>>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- >>>> >>>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous request. As >>>>I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) is based on a >>>>Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is actually present. >>>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >>>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually pretty clean >>>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, it's cleaner >>>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I think >>>>that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check with her. >>>> >>>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the potential >>>>contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, perhaps you've got >>>>experience or references on this already.) 500 microns of PDMS is >>>>pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion coefficient, so I'm >>>>not entirely sure that you could put 0.5 microns of Al on it without >>>>having it peel off due to stress differences, even with an adhesion >>>>layer (although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia or >>>>Neville Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS in our >>>>lab (although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or >>>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon for Al >>>>deposition? >>>> >>>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch rates and >>>>profiles may be very different than they would be on silicon due to >>>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 >>>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on silicon.) >>>>I would suggest that if you have problems, a thinner PDMS layer (tens >>>>of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin coat) might help. >>>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't expand as >>>>much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >>>> >>>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll drop a >>>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to Claudia (or >>>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. >>>> >>>>Mary >>>> >>>>Jim McVittie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi Alissa, >>>>> >>>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by the >>>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >>>>question what is >>>> >>>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >>>>My concern >>>> >>>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a purity >>>>>analysis for PDMS? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Jim >>>>> >>>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >>>>>> Encoding: 7bit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 amf at amfitzgerald.com Thu Jan 5 14:49:42 2006 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:49:42 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <000301c6124a$519cfac0$6400a8c0@minicat> Hi Ed, Thanks for your comments and I appreciate your responsiveness. I don't think it makes sense to couple the decision to allow PDMS into the Gryphon and P5000 based on my process success. The major issue is that I can not start racking up the SNF bills, get the PDMS processes worked out, and then tell the client that I can't finish the project because I can't get into the P5000. We need to be assured we can use the equipment we need, or it doesn't make sense to start the project at SNF. Given your collective concerns and feedback, I am pushing back on the client's requirements, but I am not sure how much they can relax given the overall objective. Regards, Alissa > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > All, > > A number of good points have been made during the > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our > contamination classifications. The question being if it > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS > casting and lithographic process development. I would > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the > PDMS in to the Gryphon. > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve > the request this week. > > Ed > > > > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that > outgassing > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the > purity, but I > >think the data exists somewhere... > > > >Mary > > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, > >> > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's > most recent > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? > (Also, as > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important > material that is > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical > and biotech > >>applications.) > >> > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am > not sure > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in > trying it > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, > bigger CD's, etc. > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. > We need to > >>use aluminum. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Alissa > >> > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: > Wednesday, January > >>>04, > >>>2006 7:47 AM > >>>To: Jim McVittie > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > >>> > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- > >>> > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > request. > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) > is based > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is > actually present. > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > pretty clean > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, > it's cleaner > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check > with her. > >>> > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself > (Alissa, perhaps > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 > microns of > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put > 0.5 microns > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress > differences, even with an adhesion layer > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia > or Neville > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS > in our lab > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using > gryphon for Al > >>>deposition? > >>> > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > rates and > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on > silicon due to > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a > thinner PDMS > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin > coat) might help. > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) > won't expand > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > >>> > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, > I'll drop a > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to > Claudia (or > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > >>> > >>>Mary > >>> > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hi Alissa, > >>>> > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be > contaminated by the > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > >>>question what is > >>> > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > >>>My concern > >>> > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find > a purity > >>>>analysis for PDMS? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, Jim > >>>> > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>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 stanford.edu Thu Jan 5 15:00:45 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:00:45 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105102142.0323a0b8@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> <6.2.1.2.2.20060105102142.0323a0b8@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43BDA51D.3090604@stanford.edu> I agree with Ed, in that we could work on approving semiclean use of PDMS, but it may take a little while to collect info and understand the issues. This should not gate Alissa's ability to get started on the project, which seems to pose several process concerns other than the P5000 etch. If I were doing this project, I would, as Ed suggests, put Al on PDMS and do wet etch to characterize adhesion and peel, as a quick test. I do think, however, that Alissa will bring up an objection to using the innotec, based on the perceived difficulty in acquiring reservations. Mary Paul Rissman wrote: > I would say that if Alissa takes responsibility for cleanup of any > flaking and rework of any processes that are a problem, e.g. etch, > then we should approve the request based on a consistent determination > on the material contaminants. > > Can we get Alissa to obtain the specification for contamination? > > At 10:16 AM 1/5/2006, Ed Myers wrote: > >> All, >> >> A number of good points have been made during the discussions. >> Alissa is correct in her recognition of increased requests for PDMS. >> It would benefit our community if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in >> to one of our contamination classifications. The question being if >> it needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either >> Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is appropriate. >> We will need to understand the differences between the many different >> variations of PDMS. I'll work with Mary and see what we can find >> with regards to trace elements and the chemical and thermal stability >> of the PDMS. >> >> The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. From >> trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to indicate Alissa's >> requests are reasonable. I am very concerned about whether the >> process is manufacturable. Various concerns have been expressed over >> a number of the process steps. These concerns include the ability to >> expose 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, >> adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al to peel >> at numerous locations including the Gryphon deposition chamber, P5000 >> and resist strip and the influence of the PDMS on the etch process in >> the P5000. >> >> As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS casting >> and lithographic process development. I would recommend starting >> with Al deposition from the Innotec. The Innotec should be the most >> compatible deposition tool, since the wafer heating will be the >> lowest. If she is able to get satisfactory patterns, we will be at a >> decision node where we either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or >> we allow the PDMS in to the Gryphon. >> >> Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve the >> request this week. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >>> Hello SpecMat'ers -- >>> >>> I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that >>> outgassing is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for >>> photoresist or polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- >>> and if the PDMS has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of >>> the purity, but I think the data exists somewhere... >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mary, Jim, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's most recent >>>> email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? (Also, >>>> as a side >>>> note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, >>>> SpecMat may >>>> want to consider and publicize a general policy with regards to this >>>> material. I think it's an important material that is gaining >>>> popularity in >>>> MEMS, esp. with regards to medical and biotech applications.) >>>> >>>> The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am not >>>> sure this it >>>> is going to work, but the customer is interested in trying it out. >>>> We may >>>> need to start with different PDMS thickness, bigger CD's, etc. >>>> We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. We need >>>> to use >>>> aluminum. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, >>>>> January 04, 2006 7:47 AM >>>>> To: Jim McVittie >>>>> Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >>>>> Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alissa, Jim -- >>>>> >>>>> I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous >>>>> request. As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or >>>>> 184) is based on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt >>>>> is actually present. >>>>> Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >>>>> polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually pretty >>>>> clean -- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, it's >>>>> cleaner than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the >>>>> info. I think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also >>>>> check with her. >>>>> >>>>> Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the >>>>> potential contamination than the process flow itself (Alissa, >>>>> perhaps you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 >>>>> microns of PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal >>>>> expansion coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put >>>>> 0.5 microns of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress >>>>> differences, even with an adhesion layer (although having thin >>>>> lines might help). I think Claudia or Neville Mehenti may have >>>>> experience in depositing metals on PDMS in our lab (although I'm >>>>> pretty sure they would have used metalica or >>>>> innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using gryphon for >>>>> Al deposition? >>>>> >>>>> Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch rates >>>>> and profiles may be very different than they would be on silicon >>>>> due to differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that >>>>> P5000 etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on >>>>> silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a thinner >>>>> PDMS layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin >>>>> coat) might help. >>>>> Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) won't >>>>> expand as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >>>>> >>>>> Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, I'll drop >>>>> a note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to Claudia >>>>> (or whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. >>>>> >>>>> Mary >>>>> >>>>> Jim McVittie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alissa, >>>>>> >>>>>> During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be contaminated by >>>>>> the decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >>>>> >>>>> question what is >>>>> >>>>>> in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >>>>> >>>>> My concern >>>>> >>>>>> is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find a >>>>>> purity analysis for PDMS? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >>>>>>> Encoding: 7bit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >> >> >> > -- 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 eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU Thu Jan 5 18:55:12 2006 From: eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:55:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Surface SIMS an acceptable alternative to TXRF? Message-ID: Hi All, Happy New year! I have a request from a company that would like to etch some samples here. I spoke briefly with Ed and Jim last year, and they suggested that we'd need to get TXRF done. The film is a SiN layer deposited outside of SNF. The issue is that Evans claims they cannot do TXRF on a sample this small (~1 cm), and suggested surface (TOF) SIMS to them. The question is, would this analysis technique be ok for the qualification (IE: would it be treated the same as TXRF for SpecMAt purposes)? Thanks, -Eric From mdeal at stanford.edu Thu Jan 5 18:59:47 2006 From: mdeal at stanford.edu (Michael Deal) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:59:47 -0800 Subject: Is Surface SIMS an acceptable alternative to TXRF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060105185649.01f65ce0@mdeal.pobox.stanford.edu> TOF SIMS should be fine. In fact, it has a better background level for most elements. (Make sure the result is in dose (cm-2) and not in concentration (cm-3)). -mike At 06:55 PM 1/5/2006, Eric Perozziello wrote: >Hi All, > >Happy New year! > >I have a request from a company that would like to >etch some samples here. I spoke briefly with Ed and Jim >last year, and they suggested that we'd need to get TXRF >done. The film is a SiN layer deposited outside of SNF. > >The issue is that Evans claims they cannot do TXRF on a >sample this small (~1 cm), and suggested surface (TOF) SIMS >to them. > >The question is, would this analysis technique be ok >for the qualification (IE: would it be treated the same >as TXRF for SpecMAt purposes)? > >Thanks, >-Eric From amorrill at chem.ucsb.edu Fri Jan 6 09:33:16 2006 From: amorrill at chem.ucsb.edu (Andrew Morrill) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:33:16 -0800 Subject: Growing SiON on Si Message-ID: <43BEA9DC.8050709@chem.ucsb.edu> Aloha, My name is Andrew Morrill and I am a graduate researcher in the Moskovits' lab at UCSB. I tried contacting you by phone but didn't reach anyone. I am interested in growing SiON on Si and was wondering if you had this capability. The details of the process I need are: Substrate: six 4" P-type(0.01 Ohm-cm) Si wafers Thickness: 1 micron Stoichiometry: O:N = O(.5):N(.5) TO O(.2):N(.8) No stress or other requirements. If you could also give me some idea of the cost to have this done if I sent or brought you the samples. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. Mahalo and Aloha, Andrew Morrill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: amorrill.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 267 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lizhb at stanford.edu Fri Jan 6 12:38:44 2006 From: lizhb at stanford.edu (Elizabeth Ann Hager-Barnard) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:38:44 -0800 Subject: Etching equipment for devices containing platinum Message-ID: Hello, My name is Lizzie Hager-Barnard and I'm a first year graduate student in Materials Sci. and Eng., working for Prof. Nick Melosh. (My SNF username is lizhb.) I am trying to find an appropriate procedure for making trenches in my devices, which are layered silicon devices. Specifically, my devices consist of SiO2, platinum, and SU-8 layers on silicon wafers. (The trenches need to go through all of these materials.) Since my devices contain platinum, I understand that they cannot be processed on any equipment classified as clean or semi-clean. This poses a problem for me, as my advisor believes that a chlorine-based gas would be best for etching platinum, and all etching equipment using this type of gas is classified as clean or semi-clean, as far as I'm aware. I spoke to Ms. Nancy Latta yesterday and she advised that I used the MRC etcher. However she also suggested that I contact SpecMat to confirm the acceptability and effectiveness of this equipment for my device. If you could advise me as to what etcher would be best in my situation, and let me know any steps that I need to take to make sure my procedure is acceptable, I would appreciate it. If you have further questions about my produce, please feel free to contact me. I may be contacted at lizhb at stanford.edu or at (650)326-3844. Thank you for your help, Lizzie Hager-Barnard From mtang at stanford.edu Fri Jan 6 16:13:47 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:13:47 -0800 Subject: Etching equipment for devices containing platinum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43BF07BB.3080006@stanford.edu> Hi Lizzie -- Nancy is right -- the MRC etcher could be used for physical/sputter etching of metals using Argon. It would be helpful to know what films are on your wafers -- their order and thicknesses (is it SU8 on top of Pt on top of SiO2? Does the SU8 contain the pattern to be etched into Pt and SiO2?) It would also be helpful to know what kind of structure size you require and your device toleratnces (uniformity, sidewall profile, etc.) These factors will help determine if there are etch tools or etching methods in our lab that could be used. Thanks! Mary Elizabeth Ann Hager-Barnard wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Lizzie Hager-Barnard and I'm a first year graduate > student in Materials Sci. and Eng., working for Prof. Nick Melosh. > (My SNF username is lizhb.) I am trying to find an appropriate > procedure for making trenches in my devices, which are layered > silicon devices. Specifically, my devices consist of SiO2, platinum, > and SU-8 layers on silicon wafers. (The trenches need to go through > all of these materials.) Since my devices contain platinum, I > understand that they cannot be processed on any equipment classified > as clean or semi-clean. This poses a problem for me, as my advisor > believes that a chlorine-based gas would be best for etching > platinum, and all etching equipment using this type of gas is > classified as clean or semi-clean, as far as I'm aware. > I spoke to Ms. Nancy Latta yesterday and she advised that I used > the MRC etcher. However she also suggested that I contact SpecMat > to confirm the acceptability and effectiveness of this equipment for > my device. If you could advise me as to what etcher would be best in > my situation, and let me know any steps that I need to take to make > sure my procedure is acceptable, I would appreciate it. If you have > further questions about my produce, please feel free to contact me. > I may be contacted at lizhb at stanford.edu or at (650)326-3844. > > Thank you for your help, > > Lizzie Hager-Barnard -- 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 talkous at gillmanins.com Sat Jan 7 04:55:39 2006 From: talkous at gillmanins.com (Son Hampton) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 07:55:39 -0500 Subject: Amazing, Raymond In-Reply-To: <081388848144046799524851@gillmanins.com> References: <5282318343921120305684@gillmanins.com> Message-ID: <5859499482556295754286@gillmanins.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Sharron-> http://nrknnd.farangboy.info/?fuwgblxwpqqyefarrezpoqgctfk From mtang at stanford.edu Mon Jan 9 10:25:53 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:25:53 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: e-copies of MSDSs] Message-ID: <43C2AAB1.4050002@stanford.edu> Hi everyone -- John Wasserbauer submitted this request on 12/14 and we asked for electronic MSDS's, which he provided on 12/19. He's asking for an answer today. Looking over the MSDS info, it looks like two of these etchants are not compatible with oxidizing chemicals and some organics. However, ethylene diamine-based etchants are an industry standard (although most people use KOH now) and I would suggest that we come up with procedures (i.e., very limited volumes, local collection of waste, ban other users at the station, etc.) to allow use. What do you think? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "John Wasserbauer" Subject: e-copies of MSDSs Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:29:56 -0800 Size: 356624 URL: From ccreese at stanford.edu Mon Jan 9 12:54:50 2006 From: ccreese at stanford.edu (Colin Reese) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:54:50 -0800 Subject: poly(dimethylsiloxane) Message-ID: <43C2CD9A.4040101@stanford.edu> Hello. I am : Colin Reese ccreese 650 725 3144 ccreese at stanford.edu PI: Zhenan Bao (chemical engineering) Chemical: common name: PDMS Chemical name: poly(dimethylsiloxane) MSDS attached. Storage group identifier: G Main hazard class: 11 Vendor: Dow Corning http://www.dowcorning.com/ Reason for request: There is not an aligner outside of SNF that is of reasonable quality to use. Process flow: Thin PDMS films (~1um) will be spun onto doped Si wafers, which will then be cured into its elastomer form. This will be followed by photoresist. The resist will then be exposed and dissolved. The aligner will therefore never be directly exposed to the PDMS. Although it is preferred to spincoat the PDMS in SNF, this is not absolutely necessary, and therefore the PDMS would only be present in cured form. Form: PDMS is formed by adding a base of monomers to a palladium catalyst mixture is a 10:1 w/w mixture. This is then mixed 1:4 w/w in tri chloroethylene solvent for spin-coating. Less than 10mL at a time will be necessary to bring into SNF. (If PDMS spincoating is done outside of lab, PDMS would only be present in solid, cured form). Storage: I will not require SNF storage. Disposal: This product is highly inert, and will be transported out of SNF and disposed of elsewhere using standard EH&S procedures. Thank you, Colin Reese -- ***************************************** Colin Reese PhD Candidate Stanford University Department of Chemical Engineering Office: 650 725 3144 Mobile: 503 888 6154 email: ccreese at stanford.edu ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdms-msds.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtang at stanford.edu Mon Jan 9 13:32:16 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:32:16 -0800 Subject: poly(dimethylsiloxane) In-Reply-To: <43C2CD9A.4040101@stanford.edu> References: <43C2CD9A.4040101@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43C2D660.20706@stanford.edu> Hi Colin -- Sorry, I've been meaning to post this info on our website for quite some time... We generally do allow Dow Corning Sylgard 182 and 184 into the lab, provided the polymer is mixed and degassed outside the lab. We don't allow uncured monomer into the lab because it acts like silicon oil and a spill or mess could potentially cause resist lifting problems throughout the lab. Other silicone elastomers have been approved as well, but we still do ask that the MSDS and information about each new formulation be submitted to SpecMat so that we can keep a record of this. Sygard PDMS can be spun up on the headway2 coater (no other, right now) and cured on adjacent hot plates or ovens. Cured PDMS can processed in gold-contaminated equipment (you can coat with resist or metals and dry or wet etch). Sylgard PDMS contains Pt catalyst, I believe (the elastomer you are using may be different.) We generally really don't like having TCE in the lab and try to discourage its use. If you have an alternative solvent you could use, it would make us feel better. Most people seem to use toluene to dilute Sylgard PDMS, up to 50% w/w. Like TCE, toluene is a suspected carcinogen, so it's not good stuff, but the maximum recommended OSHA exposure levels are about 2X those of TCE... So... Let us know which formulation you are using. If Sylgard 182 or 184, then it's already approved as per the description you have provided. If not, then please provide us with a description and MSDS. If you choose to spin coat your PDMS here, please note that toluene has been approved for this purpose, but TCE has not. If you wish to use TCE or other solvent, please do write SpecMat back again with your request. If you'd like to mix up and degas your PDMS, we have a little area outside the lab to do this. Let me know if you would like to use this and I can show you what we've got. Thanks! Mary Colin Reese wrote: > Hello. > > I am : > Colin Reese > ccreese > 650 725 3144 > ccreese at stanford.edu > > PI: Zhenan Bao (chemical engineering) > > Chemical: > common name: PDMS > Chemical name: poly(dimethylsiloxane) > > MSDS attached. > > Storage group identifier: G > Main hazard class: 11 > > Vendor: > Dow Corning > http://www.dowcorning.com/ > > Reason for request: > There is not an aligner outside of SNF that is of reasonable quality > to use. > > Process flow: > Thin PDMS films (~1um) will be spun onto doped Si wafers, which will > then be cured into its elastomer form. This will be followed by > photoresist. The resist will then be exposed and dissolved. The > aligner will therefore never be directly exposed to the PDMS. Although > it is preferred to spincoat the PDMS in SNF, this is not absolutely > necessary, and therefore the PDMS would only be present in cured form. > > Form: > PDMS is formed by adding a base of monomers to a palladium catalyst > mixture is a 10:1 w/w mixture. This is then mixed 1:4 w/w in tri > chloroethylene solvent for spin-coating. Less than 10mL at a time will > be necessary to bring into SNF. (If PDMS spincoating is done outside > of lab, PDMS would only be present in solid, cured form). > > Storage: > I will not require SNF storage. > > Disposal: > This product is highly inert, and will be transported out of SNF and > disposed of elsewhere using standard EH&S procedures. > > Thank you, > Colin Reese > -- 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 stanford.edu Mon Jan 9 13:34:54 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:34:54 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Etching equipment for devices containing platinum] Message-ID: <43C2D6FE.8060002@stanford.edu> Hi all -- This, from Lizzie's earlier request. What do you think? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Lizzie Ann Hager Subject: Re: Etching equipment for devices containing platinum Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:27:42 -0800 Size: 42403 URL: From crichter at collinear.com Mon Jan 9 20:37:21 2006 From: crichter at collinear.com (Richter, Claudia) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:37:21 -0500 Subject: Request to bring in Futurrex Negative Resist And Developer Message-ID: <7DBB1E23E1E1FA46994AF9E005D972620191959A@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms> Dear Specmat committee, We'd like to bring in negative resist (Futurrex NR1-3000PY & NR7-1500PY) and developer (RD6) to SNF. These chemicals were approved before for another labuser under the coral name of sergei. The resists that Sergei had were old with expiration dates as far back as 2002-2003. We would like to begin using these chemicals starting this week. Attached are the MSDS sheets for these chemicals. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, Sincerely, Claudia (crichter) ________________________________ From: Kerri P. Leto [mailto:kpleto at futurrex.com] Sent: Mon 1/9/2006 4:32 PM To: Richter, Claudia Subject: MSDS request Hi Claudia, Attached are MSDS's you requested. If I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, Kerri P. Leto Futurrex, Inc. 12 Cork Hill Road Franklin, NJ 07416 Tel: 973-209-1563 Fax: 973-209-1567 kpleto at futurrex.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NR1-3000PY MSDS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 38912 bytes Desc: NR1-3000PY MSDS.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NR7-1500PY MSDS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 38400 bytes Desc: NR7-1500PY MSDS.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RD6 MSDS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 31232 bytes Desc: RD6 MSDS.xls URL: From rissman at stanford.edu Tue Jan 10 08:56:06 2006 From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:56:06 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Request to bring in Futurrex Negative Resist And Developer Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060110085520.03080cc8@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> sounds fine >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: >List-Help: >List-Unsubscribe: >List-Subscribe: >Delivered-To: mailing list specmat at snf.stanford.edu >Subject: Request to bring in Futurrex Negative Resist And Developer >Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:37:21 -0500 >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: Request to bring in Futurrex Negative Resist And Developer >Thread-Index: AcYVZDQCkmZgiPq4Rhq9NpVg885iPQANygaD >From: "Richter, Claudia" >To: >Cc: "Lan Zhang" , > >Dear Specmat committee, > >We'd like to bring in negative resist (Futurrex NR1-3000PY & NR7-1500PY) >and developer (RD6) to SNF. These chemicals were approved before for >another labuser under the coral name of sergei. The resists that Sergei >had were old with expiration dates as far back as 2002-2003. > >We would like to begin using these chemicals starting this week. Attached >are the MSDS sheets for these chemicals. > >Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, > >Sincerely, >Claudia >(crichter) > > >---------- >From: Kerri P. Leto [mailto:kpleto at futurrex.com] >Sent: Mon 1/9/2006 4:32 PM >To: Richter, Claudia >Subject: MSDS request > >Hi Claudia, > >Attached are MSDS's you requested. If I can be of any further assistance >to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. > >Best Regards, > >Kerri P. Leto >Futurrex, Inc. >12 Cork Hill Road >Franklin, NJ 07416 >Tel: 973-209-1563 >Fax: 973-209-1567 >kpleto at futurrex.com > > From puilethr at han.com Tue Jan 10 08:24:52 2006 From: puilethr at han.com (Wilfredo Courtney) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:24:52 -0500 Subject: Amazing, Garrett Message-ID: <1832850859886696482661275.44318@han.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Carolyn-> http://fadufs.sweetpeper.info/?qoqekexwpqqyebsbkhzpouocjsm From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jan 10 09:53:30 2006 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:53:30 -0800 Subject: Etching equipment for devices containing platinum References: Message-ID: <43C3F49A.F44675EE@snf.stanford.edu> Lizzie, Pt is a tough material to plasma etch. It does not form any volatile byproducts at room temperature. One approach is to do the etch high temperature ( > 250 C). See http://www.tegal.com/pdfs/whitepapers/Etch_ISIF_2004_HTESC.pdf. Another approach is to basically sputter etch it with Ar plus Cl2 and O2 at room temp. There are a number of papers using this later approach with more modern etchers than the MRC. See papers by Kwag-Ho Kwon from Korea Yes, Kwon work does show Cl2 and O2 additives to Ar give some improvement in etch rate but there main effect is in improved selectivity to an oxide mask. Kwon's increase in etch rate up to 150 nm/m is mainly from running at very high plasma densities. While we have done some high temp (200C) etching in the PQuest, it is a pain to do and I do not think we can go to a high temp to get a good Pt process. I question whether Your SU-8 can take the temp. The PQuest is a III-V dedicated etcher and I doubt the III-V users would be hot on you trying to develop a high temp Pt process in the PQuest. We have 3 high plasma density etchers (Lam, STS1 and STS2) but they are all dedicated to Si etching. Note that the plasma density is important since it determines the ion bombardment flux (ion current density Ji) and sputter rate increases linearly with Ji. We have 2 medium density etchers (P5000 and PlasmaQuest). The P5000 is a "clean" tool and we are not kean on putting Pt into it. There is no fundamental problem with trying to develop your process in the PQuest. The III-V users let non-III-V users into the tool as long as the process does not affect the existing processes. They are mostly not concerned with metal contamination. However, the PQuest does have a limited bias voltage capability (150 v range). This bias may be enought since Kwon's 1998 Ar + Cl2 paper claims a bias of only 125V. Note sputter rate increases with the sq root of ion energy, which is determined by bias voltage. The MRC and Dryteks are low density etchers. The MRC and Drytek4 have a RIE configuration, which means they can develop high bias voltages. The Drytek 1 and 2 have a plasma mode configuration which means they are not good for sputter etching., I f you want, we can meet and talk about using the PQuest for your needs. Note that the PQuest is a "dirty" tool and so you would be restricted in what tool you can use following it use. Jim Elizabeth Ann Hager-Barnard wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Lizzie Hager-Barnard and I'm a first year graduate > student in Materials Sci. and Eng., working for Prof. Nick Melosh. > (My SNF username is lizhb.) I am trying to find an appropriate > procedure for making trenches in my devices, which are layered > silicon devices. Specifically, my devices consist of SiO2, platinum, > and SU-8 layers on silicon wafers. (The trenches need to go through > all of these materials.) Since my devices contain platinum, I > understand that they cannot be processed on any equipment classified > as clean or semi-clean. This poses a problem for me, as my advisor > believes that a chlorine-based gas would be best for etching > platinum, and all etching equipment using this type of gas is > classified as clean or semi-clean, as far as I'm aware. > I spoke to Ms. Nancy Latta yesterday and she advised that I used the > MRC etcher. However she also suggested that I contact SpecMat to > confirm the acceptability and effectiveness of this equipment for my > device. If you could advise me as to what etcher would be best in my > situation, and let me know any steps that I need to take to make sure > my procedure is acceptable, I would appreciate it. If you have > further questions about my produce, please feel free to contact me. > I may be contacted at lizhb at stanford.edu or at (650)326-3844. > > Thank you for your help, > > Lizzie Hager-Barnard From arguicha at stanford.edu Thu Jan 12 11:51:12 2006 From: arguicha at stanford.edu (Alex Guichard) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:51:12 -0800 Subject: new chemical: silver nitrate in water Message-ID: Name: Alex Guichard Coral login: arguicha ph#: 3-6352 PI: Mark Brongersma Chemical: Silver Nitrate (AgNO3), aqueous solution (less than 1M) Vendor: VWR, www.vwr.com Reason for request: Chemical fabrication of dense Si nanowire arrays (see attached .pdf paper) Process Flow: cleaning of virgin, uncontaminated prime wafers at wbdiff (AgNO3 will not be brought to wbdiff), chemical processing with AgNO3 (mixed with ~20ml of 49%HF) carried out at wbgeneral-ctb (for temperature control) for roughly 1 hour. Amount: ~ 200ml, liquid Storage: Chemical will not be stored at SNF Disposal: chemical will be disposed of into waste bottles and labelled with proper tag. Waste bottle will be put in waste area in chemical pass-through Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Alex -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Peng.denseSiNW.chemsynth.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162006 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Alex R. Guichard Ph.D Candidate Dept. of Mat. Sci. and Eng. Stanford University (m)919-434-6906 (h)650-968-1575 (l)650-723-6352 http://www.stanford.edu/group/brongersmagroup/ From mtang at stanford.edu Thu Jan 12 17:50:55 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:50:55 -0800 Subject: new chemical: silver nitrate in water In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43C7077F.3070006@stanford.edu> Hi Alex -- Could you provide an MSDS for the solution you plan to use? It would be helpful for our records if you have an electronic version, as we are building our electronic database. Also, exactly how do you plan to setup your system at this bench? I'm afraid I'm having a little difficulty envisioning how this will be setup at the CTB. And I'm curious as to why an autoclave was used (I wonder if it's because temperature control of teflon labware is difficult or if pressure was required to prevent evaporation, as you probably couldn't use an ordinary reflux unit...) Do you end up with silver onto everything? (If so, it would be nice if you could provide your own labware.) Thanks, Mary Alex Guichard wrote: > Name: Alex Guichard > Coral login: arguicha > ph#: 3-6352 > PI: Mark Brongersma > Chemical: Silver Nitrate (AgNO3), aqueous solution (less than 1M) > Vendor: VWR, www.vwr.com > Reason for request: Chemical fabrication of dense Si nanowire arrays > (see attached .pdf paper) > Process Flow: cleaning of virgin, uncontaminated prime wafers at > wbdiff (AgNO3 will not be brought to wbdiff), chemical processing > with AgNO3 (mixed with ~20ml of 49%HF) carried out at wbgeneral-ctb > (for temperature control) for roughly 1 hour. > Amount: ~ 200ml, liquid > Storage: Chemical will not be stored at SNF > Disposal: chemical will be disposed of into waste bottles and > labelled with proper tag. Waste bottle will be put in waste area in > chemical pass-through > > > Please let me know if you need any additional information. > > Sincerely, > Alex > > > > > > > Alex R. Guichard > Ph.D Candidate > Dept. of Mat. Sci. and Eng. > Stanford University > (m)919-434-6906 (h)650-968-1575 > (l)650-723-6352 > http://www.stanford.edu/group/brongersmagroup/ -- 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 buchanan at fto.de Fri Jan 13 08:52:43 2006 From: buchanan at fto.de (Craig Cobb) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:52:43 -0500 Subject: Amazing, Colby Message-ID: <4834798-081162-4218098.polemic-grosbeak-assign@fto.de> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Natasha-> http://wpvavj.costwatch.info/?aprqrvxwpqqycgejsnzponwpsat From mtang at stanford.edu Fri Jan 13 17:02:01 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:02:01 -0800 Subject: new chemical: silver nitrate in water In-Reply-To: <09D9D9B7-117F-4BFC-A6FA-1AFB872E080F@stanford.edu> References: <43C7077F.3070006@stanford.edu> <09D9D9B7-117F-4BFC-A6FA-1AFB872E080F@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43C84D89.4010804@stanford.edu> Hi Alex -- Could you provide the MSDS for the formulation you plan to use? I take that you will be using a pre-mix formulation? (We don't allow mixing of powders in the cleanroom -- it you want to mix, you would have to do it outside the lab -- we do have some limited bench space for this, for we'd ask for your procedures.) If you are using a fairly dilute silver nitrate, it would certainly make us happier (in addition to you providing your own labware.) One suggestion: I would suspect that pyrex or quartz lab ware might not work for this because it would tie up a lot of your HF (or you'd have to change your solution to accomodate.) I would suspect that teflon or other plastic labware might not be ideal because it doesn't conduct heat very well, so you might have a hard time controlling temperature (depending on whether your reaction generates or sucks up heat.) And if you're running for an hour at 50C, you might have a lot of evaporation, unless you put a teflon cover over your beaker. Mary Alex Guichard wrote: > Hi Mary: > Thanks for the quick response. Here is the MSDS. I was planning on > using the ctb just to get the solution to 50C, I was not planning on > incorporating the autoclave. I think they use the autoclave because > in previous papers, they tried processing at temperatures above 100C > (whereas in this paper the process T is 50C). Basically, I was just > planning on processing with covered labware in the ctb, instead of > doing it in an autoclave. If you would prefer, I can definitely > supply my own labware. Let me know if you need any more information > from me! > > Thanks, > Alex > > > > Alex R. Guichard > Ph.D Candidate > Dept. of Mat. Sci. and Eng. > Stanford University > (m)919-434-6906 (h)650-968-1575 > (l)650-723-6352 > http://www.stanford.edu/group/brongersmagroup/ > > On Jan 12, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Mary Tang wrote: > >> Hi Alex -- >> >> Could you provide an MSDS for the solution you plan to use? It >> would be helpful for our records if you have an electronic version, >> as we are building our electronic database. Also, exactly how do >> you plan to setup your system at this bench? I'm afraid I'm having >> a little difficulty envisioning how this will be setup at the CTB. >> And I'm curious as to why an autoclave was used (I wonder if it's >> because temperature control of teflon labware is difficult or if >> pressure was required to prevent evaporation, as you probably >> couldn't use an ordinary reflux unit...) Do you end up with silver >> onto everything? (If so, it would be nice if you could provide your >> own labware.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mary >> >> Alex Guichard wrote: >> >>> Name: Alex Guichard >>> Coral login: arguicha >>> ph#: 3-6352 >>> PI: Mark Brongersma >>> Chemical: Silver Nitrate (AgNO3), aqueous solution (less than 1M) >>> Vendor: VWR, www.vwr.com >>> Reason for request: Chemical fabrication of dense Si nanowire >>> arrays (see attached .pdf paper) >>> Process Flow: cleaning of virgin, uncontaminated prime wafers at >>> wbdiff (AgNO3 will not be brought to wbdiff), chemical processing >>> with AgNO3 (mixed with ~20ml of 49%HF) carried out at wbgeneral- >>> ctb (for temperature control) for roughly 1 hour. >>> Amount: ~ 200ml, liquid >>> Storage: Chemical will not be stored at SNF >>> Disposal: chemical will be disposed of into waste bottles and >>> labelled with proper tag. Waste bottle will be put in waste area >>> in chemical pass-through >>> >>> >>> Please let me know if you need any additional information. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> Alex R. Guichard >>> Ph.D Candidate >>> Dept. of Mat. Sci. and Eng. >>> Stanford University >>> (m)919-434-6906 (h)650-968-1575 >>> (l)650-723-6352 >>> http://www.stanford.edu/group/brongersmagroup/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Jan 13 17:11:28 2006 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:11:28 -0800 Subject: Transene etchants request (PSE300SF, PSE200, PSE300) Message-ID: <43C84FC0.8020308@snf.stanford.edu> Hi all -- This is just a note to let everyone know that Ed, Mahnaz, Uli, and I approved the use of the PSE300 and PSE300SF Transene etchants at wbgeneral and wbgaas, with the following provisions: 1. PSE300SF and PSE300 contain ethylene diamine, so any possible contact with concentrated sulfuric, nitric, or other oxidizing acids must be avoided. 2. When planning to use these etchants, the entire bench must be reserved for the period of use, so that no other labmembers will plan to share the bench. 3. When using these etchants, yellow Hazard tape should be attached across the front of the bench, with a note, to warn others from sharing the bench. The bench must be enabled. 4. Used etchant and first rinse should be collected locally in chemically compatible waste containers and labeled appropriately as hazardous waste. They should be placed in the appropriate area of the chemicals pass-through for disposal. As PSE200 is a KOH formulation, it is approved as per standard KOH procedures. Thanks, 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 From amf at amfitzgerald.com Fri Jan 13 17:33:39 2006 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:33:39 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060105095703.03d603e0@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <006801c618aa$8c8dfba0$6401a8c0@minicat> Hello SpecMat, Regarding my requests, I need to understand what further information is required to help move this decision process forward. I am going to acquire data sheets from Dow on chemical composition as requested by Mary. It seems that the main concern is not PDMS cleanliness, but the possibility of metal peeling off the PDMS in the chamber and creating particles that are hard to clean out. Is this a concern for both the P5000 and the Gryphon? Our priority is for approval to go into the P5000. As far as the Gryphon, one option would be for us to do metallization at an outside vendor and then provide TXRF data to demonstrate it is clean enough to come back in to the lab. That way we can dodge the need to get approval for PDMS in Gryphon. What other information is needed to help you make the decision? How shall we best gather that information? Do preliminary tests need to be done?? If so, what are they? Would it help for me to hunt around for literature examples, or get testimonials from other fabs working with this material? Would you prefer to constrain the thickness of the PDMS allowed in the chamber to address metal peeling concerns? I need to emphasize that we need a decision on whether PDMS can go in the P5000 *before* we start processing. I can not start to burn the client's budget on a certain process path and then be unable to finish that path because Spec Mat eventually decided to deny the request. Please let me know your thoughts. Best regards, Alissa > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > All, > > A number of good points have been made during the > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our > contamination classifications. The question being if it > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS > casting and lithographic process development. I would > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the > PDMS in to the Gryphon. > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve > the request this week. > > Ed > > > > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that > outgassing > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the > purity, but I > >think the data exists somewhere... > > > >Mary > > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, > >> > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's > most recent > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? > (Also, as > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important > material that is > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical > and biotech > >>applications.) > >> > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am > not sure > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in > trying it > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, > bigger CD's, etc. > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. > We need to > >>use aluminum. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Alissa > >> > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: > Wednesday, January > >>>04, > >>>2006 7:47 AM > >>>To: Jim McVittie > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > >>> > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- > >>> > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > request. > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) > is based > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is > actually present. > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > pretty clean > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, > it's cleaner > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check > with her. > >>> > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself > (Alissa, perhaps > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 > microns of > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put > 0.5 microns > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress > differences, even with an adhesion layer > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia > or Neville > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS > in our lab > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using > gryphon for Al > >>>deposition? > >>> > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > rates and > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on > silicon due to > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a > thinner PDMS > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin > coat) might help. > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) > won't expand > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > >>> > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, > I'll drop a > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to > Claudia (or > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > >>> > >>>Mary > >>> > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hi Alissa, > >>>> > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be > contaminated by the > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > >>>question what is > >>> > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > >>>My concern > >>> > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find > a purity > >>>>analysis for PDMS? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, Jim > >>>> > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>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 stanford.edu Sat Jan 14 23:13:34 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:13:34 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <006801c618aa$8c8dfba0$6401a8c0@minicat> References: <006801c618aa$8c8dfba0$6401a8c0@minicat> Message-ID: <1137309214.43c9f61e5c25a@webmail.stanford.edu> Hi Alissa -- Apologies for the many emails. What would be extremely helpful is a reasonably detailed process flow, from the point your devices diverge from "normal" or "accepted" processing through to the point where it becomes normal/accepted again. The standard request form appears on the website (http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html). In addition, we do expect a certain degree of "due diligence" on the part of the requestor to provide information and insight as to how the process proposed may affect equipment or the work of others, since the requestor is generally in a better position to understand these issues than SpecMat. (Please understand, although it may feel like it, the aim of SpecMat is not to make things difficult, but to ask the obvious questions to help ensure that someone's new process doesn't end up messing up someone else's work.) Thus, some general idea of the kinds of experiments or precautions you might take (or would like help with from staff) would be appreciated. Certainly, SpecMat will have all sorts of suggestions and questions to add -- but it's like an IRS audit -- although it sounds intidimating, with documents in order and a clear rationale, there shouldn't be any problem, especially for experienced, knowledgeable labmembers such as you and your staff. So, in short, the information requested is: 1. detailed process flow, with a list of equipment to be used (is there any equipment after P5000 Al etch?), including wet benches. 2. Purity information, if available. If not, SpecMat may be able to suggest either alternative formulations that are electronic grade or methods of analysis. 3. Suggestions, comments, concerns you may have for the process flow. I hope this helps... Mary Quoting "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" : > Hello SpecMat, > > Regarding my requests, I need to understand what further information is > required to help move this decision process forward. > > I am going to acquire data sheets from Dow on chemical composition as > requested by Mary. > > It seems that the main concern is not PDMS cleanliness, but the > possibility > of metal peeling off the PDMS in the chamber and creating particles that > are > hard to clean out. Is this a concern for both the P5000 and the Gryphon? > > Our priority is for approval to go into the P5000. As far as the > Gryphon, > one option would be for us to do metallization at an outside vendor and > then > provide TXRF data to demonstrate it is clean enough to come back in to > the > lab. That way we can dodge the need to get approval for PDMS in Gryphon. > > What other information is needed to help you make the decision? How > shall > we best gather that information? Do preliminary tests need to be done?? > If > so, what are they? Would it help for me to hunt around for literature > examples, or get testimonials from other fabs working with this material? > Would you prefer to constrain the thickness of the PDMS allowed in the > chamber to address metal peeling concerns? > > I need to emphasize that we need a decision on whether PDMS can go in the > P5000 *before* we start processing. I can not start to burn the client's > budget on a certain process path and then be unable to finish that path > because Spec Mat eventually decided to deny the request. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Best regards, > Alissa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM > > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu > > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald > > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > > > All, > > > > A number of good points have been made during the > > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of > > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community > > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our > > contamination classifications. The question being if it > > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either > > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is > > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences > > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work > > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace > > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > > > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. > > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to > > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very > > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. > > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the > > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose > > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, > > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al > > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon > > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence > > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > > > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS > > casting and lithographic process development. I would > > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The > > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since > > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get > > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we > > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the > > PDMS in to the Gryphon. > > > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve > > the request this week. > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > > > > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that > > outgassing > > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or > > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS > > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the > > purity, but I > > >think the data exists somewhere... > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, > > >> > > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's > > most recent > > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? > > (Also, as > > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, > > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with > > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important > > material that is > > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical > > and biotech > > >>applications.) > > >> > > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am > > not sure > > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in > > trying it > > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, > > bigger CD's, etc. > > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. > > We need to > > >>use aluminum. > > >> > > >>Regards, > > >>Alissa > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: > > Wednesday, January > > >>>04, > > >>>2006 7:47 AM > > >>>To: Jim McVittie > > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > > >>> > > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- > > >>> > > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > > request. > > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) > > is based > > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is > > actually present. > > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > > pretty clean > > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, > > it's cleaner > > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I > > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check > > with her. > > >>> > > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself > > (Alissa, perhaps > > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 > > microns of > > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion > > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put > > 0.5 microns > > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress > > differences, even with an adhesion layer > > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia > > or Neville > > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS > > in our lab > > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using > > gryphon for Al > > >>>deposition? > > >>> > > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > > rates and > > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on > > silicon due to > > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on > > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a > > thinner PDMS > > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin > > coat) might help. > > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) > > won't expand > > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > > >>> > > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, > > I'll drop a > > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to > > Claudia (or > > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > > >>> > > >>>Mary > > >>> > > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Hi Alissa, > > >>>> > > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be > > contaminated by the > > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > > >>>question what is > > >>> > > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > > >>>My concern > > >>> > > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find > > a purity > > >>>>analysis for PDMS? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, Jim > > >>>> > > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>-- > > >>>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 psecurity at paypal.com Sun Jan 15 22:18:37 2006 From: psecurity at paypal.com (PayPal) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:18:37 +0200 Subject: Security Update Message-ID: <200601160625.k0G6P3s5011714@localhost.localdomain> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cryten at earthlink.net Mon Jan 16 01:23:53 2006 From: cryten at earthlink.net (Clarissa Ash) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:23:53 -0500 Subject: Amazing, Bobby Message-ID: <29194-09020368-2500649.blinn-speedboat-hiss@earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Virgil-> http://gherme.mareword.info/?orpcbkxwpqqyttkjoezpooecrml From David_Eaglesham at amat.com Mon Jan 16 09:25:26 2006 From: David_Eaglesham at amat.com (David_Eaglesham at amat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:25:26 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <1137309214.43c9f61e5c25a@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Mary, thanks for this response. Applied Materials is the end customer. Fitzgerald Associates are under NDA with us wrt the process flow. I would like you to assume that you are bound by the same confidentiality clause, but I would also like to minimise the amount of unneccessary circulation of confidential information around the system. If the full flow needs to be disclosed do I assume that you can sign off an NDA making Stanford liable for subsequent leakage of IP? In the meantime, I would like to proceed down a path of addressing the sources of concern for your other users. I think you have two sources of concern with any proposed process: cross-contamination and particulate generation. For contamination purposes Alissa should be able to provide you with a data-sheet. As your earlier emails hint, the particulate issue is harder to judge. Can you give us a baseline D0 that your users are expecting so that we can measure particle-adders before and after the process and ensure that we re-establish baseline defectivity before we release it back to your other users? Can we do the same for the metal-dep step? David Eaglesham Managing Director, Advanced Technologies, Applied Materials The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Mary Tang 01/14/2006 11:13 PM To "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" cc specmat at snf.stanford.edu, David Eaglesham/APPLIED MATERIALS at AMAT Subject RE: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon Hi Alissa -- Apologies for the many emails. What would be extremely helpful is a reasonably detailed process flow, from the point your devices diverge from "normal" or "accepted" processing through to the point where it becomes normal/accepted again. The standard request form appears on the website (http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html). In addition, we do expect a certain degree of "due diligence" on the part of the requestor to provide information and insight as to how the process proposed may affect equipment or the work of others, since the requestor is generally in a better position to understand these issues than SpecMat. (Please understand, although it may feel like it, the aim of SpecMat is not to make things difficult, but to ask the obvious questions to help ensure that someone's new process doesn't end up messing up someone else's work.) Thus, some general idea of the kinds of experiments or precautions you might take (or would like help with from staff) would be appreciated. Certainly, SpecMat will have all sorts of suggestions and questions to add -- but it's like an IRS audit -- although it sounds intidimating, with documents in order and a clear rationale, there shouldn't be any problem, especially for experienced, knowledgeable labmembers such as you and your staff. So, in short, the information requested is: 1. detailed process flow, with a list of equipment to be used (is there any equipment after P5000 Al etch?), including wet benches. 2. Purity information, if available. If not, SpecMat may be able to suggest either alternative formulations that are electronic grade or methods of analysis. 3. Suggestions, comments, concerns you may have for the process flow. I hope this helps... Mary Quoting "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" : > Hello SpecMat, > > Regarding my requests, I need to understand what further information is > required to help move this decision process forward. > > I am going to acquire data sheets from Dow on chemical composition as > requested by Mary. > > It seems that the main concern is not PDMS cleanliness, but the > possibility > of metal peeling off the PDMS in the chamber and creating particles that > are > hard to clean out. Is this a concern for both the P5000 and the Gryphon? > > Our priority is for approval to go into the P5000. As far as the > Gryphon, > one option would be for us to do metallization at an outside vendor and > then > provide TXRF data to demonstrate it is clean enough to come back in to > the > lab. That way we can dodge the need to get approval for PDMS in Gryphon. > > What other information is needed to help you make the decision? How > shall > we best gather that information? Do preliminary tests need to be done?? > If > so, what are they? Would it help for me to hunt around for literature > examples, or get testimonials from other fabs working with this material? > Would you prefer to constrain the thickness of the PDMS allowed in the > chamber to address metal peeling concerns? > > I need to emphasize that we need a decision on whether PDMS can go in the > P5000 *before* we start processing. I can not start to burn the client's > budget on a certain process path and then be unable to finish that path > because Spec Mat eventually decided to deny the request. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Best regards, > Alissa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM > > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu > > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald > > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > > > All, > > > > A number of good points have been made during the > > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of > > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community > > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our > > contamination classifications. The question being if it > > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either > > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is > > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences > > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work > > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace > > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > > > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. > > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to > > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very > > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. > > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the > > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose > > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, > > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al > > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon > > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence > > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > > > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS > > casting and lithographic process development. I would > > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The > > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since > > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get > > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we > > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the > > PDMS in to the Gryphon. > > > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve > > the request this week. > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > > > > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that > > outgassing > > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or > > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS > > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the > > purity, but I > > >think the data exists somewhere... > > > > > >Mary > > > > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, > > >> > > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's > > most recent > > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? > > (Also, as > > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, > > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with > > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important > > material that is > > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical > > and biotech > > >>applications.) > > >> > > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am > > not sure > > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in > > trying it > > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, > > bigger CD's, etc. > > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. > > We need to > > >>use aluminum. > > >> > > >>Regards, > > >>Alissa > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: > > Wednesday, January > > >>>04, > > >>>2006 7:47 AM > > >>>To: Jim McVittie > > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > > >>> > > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- > > >>> > > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > > request. > > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) > > is based > > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is > > actually present. > > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > > pretty clean > > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, > > it's cleaner > > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I > > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check > > with her. > > >>> > > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself > > (Alissa, perhaps > > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 > > microns of > > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion > > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put > > 0.5 microns > > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress > > differences, even with an adhesion layer > > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia > > or Neville > > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS > > in our lab > > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using > > gryphon for Al > > >>>deposition? > > >>> > > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > > rates and > > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on > > silicon due to > > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on > > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a > > thinner PDMS > > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin > > coat) might help. > > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) > > won't expand > > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > > >>> > > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, > > I'll drop a > > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to > > Claudia (or > > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > > >>> > > >>>Mary > > >>> > > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Hi Alissa, > > >>>> > > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be > > contaminated by the > > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > > >>>question what is > > >>> > > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > > >>>My concern > > >>> > > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find > > a purity > > >>>>analysis for PDMS? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, Jim > > >>>> > > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>-- > > >>>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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mtang at stanford.edu Mon Jan 16 10:19:03 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:19:03 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CBE397.5040107@stanford.edu> Hi SpecMat'ers -- First, I think this fellow doesn't understand the intellectual property policies at SNF (it appears on the Agreement Form which I presume he signed or is thinking of signing.) Second, I can't help but think that there must be a few sketchy issues with their process flow, or they wouldn't want this done here (maybe I'm naive, but don't they have P5000 Al etchers at Applied?) Sorry, this whole thing annoys me, because I can't help but think that Alissa and her crew should know this (although, admittedly, I don't think I've ever seen a SpecMat request from AMF & Assoc., so perhaps not?) Also, we've already provided lots of information about processing PDMS to AMF so it might be nice if they read it through and thought about it. I'd like craft a polite response, and will send it around for your approval/disapproval, OK? Thanks, Mary David_Eaglesham at amat.com wrote: > > Mary, > > thanks for this response. Applied Materials is the end customer. > Fitzgerald Associates are under NDA with us wrt the process flow. I > would like you to assume that you are bound by the same > confidentiality clause, but I would also like to minimise the amount > of unneccessary circulation of confidential information around the > system. If the full flow needs to be disclosed do I assume that you > can sign off an NDA making Stanford liable for subsequent leakage of > IP? > > In the meantime, I would like to proceed down a path of addressing the > sources of concern for your other users. I think you have two sources > of concern with any proposed process: cross-contamination and > particulate generation. For contamination purposes Alissa should be > able to provide you with a data-sheet. As your earlier emails hint, > the particulate issue is harder to judge. Can you give us a baseline > D0 that your users are expecting so that we can measure > particle-adders before and after the process and ensure that we > re-establish baseline defectivity before we release it back to your > other users? Can we do the same for the metal-dep step? > > > David Eaglesham > Managing Director, Advanced Technologies, > Applied Materials > > The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If you > are not the intended recipient and have received this message in > error, any use or distribution is prohibited. > > > > > > > *Mary Tang * > > 01/14/2006 11:13 PM > > > To > "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" > cc > specmat at snf.stanford.edu, David Eaglesham/APPLIED MATERIALS at AMAT > Subject > RE: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alissa -- > > Apologies for the many emails. What would be extremely helpful is a > reasonably detailed process flow, from the point your devices diverge from > "normal" or "accepted" processing through to the point where it becomes > normal/accepted again. The standard request form appears on the website > (http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html). > > In addition, we do expect a certain degree of "due diligence" on the > part of > the requestor to provide information and insight as to how the process > proposed may affect equipment or the work of others, since the > requestor is > generally in a better position to understand these issues than SpecMat. > (Please understand, although it may feel like it, the aim of SpecMat > is not > to make things difficult, but to ask the obvious questions to help ensure > that someone's new process doesn't end up messing up someone else's work.) > > Thus, some general idea of the kinds of experiments or precautions you > might > take (or would like help with from staff) would be appreciated. > Certainly, > SpecMat will have all sorts of suggestions and questions to add -- but > it's like an IRS audit -- although it sounds intidimating, with documents > in order and a clear rationale, there shouldn't be any problem, especially > for experienced, knowledgeable labmembers such as you and your staff. > > So, in short, the information requested is: > 1. detailed process flow, with a list of equipment to be used (is > there any > equipment after P5000 Al etch?), including wet benches. > 2. Purity information, if available. If not, SpecMat may be able to > suggest either alternative formulations that are electronic grade or > methods of analysis. > 3. Suggestions, comments, concerns you may have for the process flow. > > I hope this helps... > > Mary > > Quoting "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" : > > > Hello SpecMat, > > > > Regarding my requests, I need to understand what further information is > > required to help move this decision process forward. > > > > I am going to acquire data sheets from Dow on chemical composition as > > requested by Mary. > > > > It seems that the main concern is not PDMS cleanliness, but the > > possibility > > of metal peeling off the PDMS in the chamber and creating particles that > > are > > hard to clean out. Is this a concern for both the P5000 and the > Gryphon? > > > > Our priority is for approval to go into the P5000. As far as the > > Gryphon, > > one option would be for us to do metallization at an outside vendor and > > then > > provide TXRF data to demonstrate it is clean enough to come back in to > > the > > lab. That way we can dodge the need to get approval for PDMS in > Gryphon. > > > > What other information is needed to help you make the decision? How > > shall > > we best gather that information? Do preliminary tests need to be done?? > > If > > so, what are they? Would it help for me to hunt around for literature > > examples, or get testimonials from other fabs working with this > material? > > Would you prefer to constrain the thickness of the PDMS allowed in the > > chamber to address metal peeling concerns? > > > > I need to emphasize that we need a decision on whether PDMS can go > in the > > P5000 *before* we start processing. I can not start to burn the > client's > > budget on a certain process path and then be unable to finish that path > > because Spec Mat eventually decided to deny the request. > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > > > Best regards, > > Alissa > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM > > > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu > > > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald > > > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon > > > > > > All, > > > > > > A number of good points have been made during the > > > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of > > > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community > > > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our > > > contamination classifications. The question being if it > > > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either > > > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is > > > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences > > > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work > > > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace > > > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. > > > > > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. > > > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to > > > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very > > > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. > > > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the > > > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose > > > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, > > > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al > > > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon > > > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence > > > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. > > > > > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS > > > casting and lithographic process development. I would > > > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The > > > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since > > > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get > > > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we > > > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the > > > PDMS in to the Gryphon. > > > > > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve > > > the request this week. > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- > > > > > > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that > > > outgassing > > > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or > > > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the PDMS > > > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the > > > purity, but I > > > >think the data exists somewhere... > > > > > > > >Mary > > > > > > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, > > > >> > > > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's > > > most recent > > > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? > > > (Also, as > > > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding PDMS, > > > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with > > > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important > > > material that is > > > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical > > > and biotech > > > >>applications.) > > > >> > > > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am > > > not sure > > > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in > > > trying it > > > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, > > > bigger CD's, etc. > > > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. > > > We need to > > > >>use aluminum. > > > >> > > > >>Regards, > > > >>Alissa > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: > > > Wednesday, January > > > >>>04, > > > >>>2006 7:47 AM > > > >>>To: Jim McVittie > > > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu > > > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 > > > >>> > > > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- > > > >>> > > > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous > > > request. > > > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) > > > is based > > > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is > > > actually present. > > > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent > > > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually > > > pretty clean > > > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, > > > it's cleaner > > > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I > > > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check > > > with her. > > > >>> > > > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the > > > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself > > > (Alissa, perhaps > > > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 > > > microns of > > > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion > > > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put > > > 0.5 microns > > > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress > > > differences, even with an adhesion layer > > > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia > > > or Neville > > > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS > > > in our lab > > > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or > > > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using > > > gryphon for Al > > > >>>deposition? > > > >>> > > > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch > > > rates and > > > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on > > > silicon due to > > > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 > > > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on > > > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a > > > thinner PDMS > > > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin > > > coat) might help. > > > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) > > > won't expand > > > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. > > > >>> > > > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, > > > I'll drop a > > > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to > > > Claudia (or > > > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. > > > >>> > > > >>>Mary > > > >>> > > > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>Hi Alissa, > > > >>>> > > > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be > > > contaminated by the > > > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important > > > >>>question what is > > > >>> > > > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. > > > >>>My concern > > > >>> > > > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find > > > a purity > > > >>>>analysis for PDMS? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, Jim > > > >>>> > > > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>-- > > > >>>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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 stanford.edu Mon Jan 16 11:52:01 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:52:01 -0800 Subject: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon In-Reply-To: <43CBE397.5040107@stanford.edu> References: <43CBE397.5040107@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43CBF961.1080309@stanford.edu> Hi again -- After thinking a bit more, I think I'll email Alissa directly with my concerns and let her handle it with her client. I do believe we should respect that contractor-client relationship... M Mary Tang wrote: > Hi SpecMat'ers -- > > First, I think this fellow doesn't understand the intellectual > property policies at SNF (it appears on the Agreement Form which I > presume he signed or is thinking of signing.) Second, I can't help > but think that there must be a few sketchy issues with their process > flow, or they wouldn't want this done here (maybe I'm naive, but don't > they have P5000 Al etchers at Applied?) > > Sorry, this whole thing annoys me, because I can't help but think that > Alissa and her crew should know this (although, admittedly, I don't > think I've ever seen a SpecMat request from AMF & Assoc., so perhaps > not?) Also, we've already provided lots of information about > processing PDMS to AMF so it might be nice if they read it through and > thought about it. I'd like craft a polite response, and will send it > around for your approval/disapproval, OK? > > Thanks, > > Mary > > David_Eaglesham at amat.com wrote: > >> >> Mary, >> >> thanks for this response. Applied Materials is the end customer. >> Fitzgerald Associates are under NDA with us wrt the process flow. I >> would like you to assume that you are bound by the same >> confidentiality clause, but I would also like to minimise the amount >> of unneccessary circulation of confidential information around the >> system. If the full flow needs to be disclosed do I assume that you >> can sign off an NDA making Stanford liable for subsequent leakage of >> IP? >> In the meantime, I would like to proceed down a path of addressing >> the sources of concern for your other users. I think you have two >> sources of concern with any proposed process: cross-contamination and >> particulate generation. For contamination purposes Alissa should be >> able to provide you with a data-sheet. As your earlier emails hint, >> the particulate issue is harder to judge. Can you give us a baseline >> D0 that your users are expecting so that we can measure >> particle-adders before and after the process and ensure that we >> re-establish baseline defectivity before we release it back to your >> other users? Can we do the same for the metal-dep step? >> >> >> David Eaglesham >> Managing Director, Advanced Technologies, >> Applied Materials >> >> The content of this message is Applied Materials Confidential. If >> you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in >> error, any use or distribution is prohibited. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Mary Tang * >> >> 01/14/2006 11:13 PM >> >> >> To >> "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" >> cc >> specmat at snf.stanford.edu, David Eaglesham/APPLIED MATERIALS at AMAT >> Subject >> RE: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Alissa -- >> >> Apologies for the many emails. What would be extremely helpful is a >> reasonably detailed process flow, from the point your devices diverge >> from >> "normal" or "accepted" processing through to the point where it becomes >> normal/accepted again. The standard request form appears on the website >> (http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html). >> >> In addition, we do expect a certain degree of "due diligence" on the >> part of >> the requestor to provide information and insight as to how the process >> proposed may affect equipment or the work of others, since the >> requestor is >> generally in a better position to understand these issues than SpecMat. >> (Please understand, although it may feel like it, the aim of SpecMat >> is not >> to make things difficult, but to ask the obvious questions to help >> ensure >> that someone's new process doesn't end up messing up someone else's >> work.) >> >> Thus, some general idea of the kinds of experiments or precautions >> you might >> take (or would like help with from staff) would be appreciated. >> Certainly, >> SpecMat will have all sorts of suggestions and questions to add -- but >> it's like an IRS audit -- although it sounds intidimating, with >> documents >> in order and a clear rationale, there shouldn't be any problem, >> especially >> for experienced, knowledgeable labmembers such as you and your staff. >> >> So, in short, the information requested is: >> 1. detailed process flow, with a list of equipment to be used (is >> there any >> equipment after P5000 Al etch?), including wet benches. >> 2. Purity information, if available. If not, SpecMat may be able to >> suggest either alternative formulations that are electronic grade or >> methods of analysis. >> 3. Suggestions, comments, concerns you may have for the process flow. >> >> I hope this helps... >> >> Mary >> >> Quoting "Alissa M. Fitzgerald" : >> >> > Hello SpecMat, >> > >> > Regarding my requests, I need to understand what further >> information is >> > required to help move this decision process forward. >> > >> > I am going to acquire data sheets from Dow on chemical composition as >> > requested by Mary. >> > >> > It seems that the main concern is not PDMS cleanliness, but the >> > possibility >> > of metal peeling off the PDMS in the chamber and creating particles >> that >> > are >> > hard to clean out. Is this a concern for both the P5000 and the >> Gryphon? >> > >> > Our priority is for approval to go into the P5000. As far as the >> > Gryphon, >> > one option would be for us to do metallization at an outside vendor >> and >> > then >> > provide TXRF data to demonstrate it is clean enough to come back in to >> > the >> > lab. That way we can dodge the need to get approval for PDMS in >> Gryphon. >> > >> > What other information is needed to help you make the decision? How >> > shall >> > we best gather that information? Do preliminary tests need to be >> done?? >> > If >> > so, what are they? Would it help for me to hunt around for literature >> > examples, or get testimonials from other fabs working with this >> material? >> > Would you prefer to constrain the thickness of the PDMS allowed in the >> > chamber to address metal peeling concerns? >> > >> > I need to emphasize that we need a decision on whether PDMS can go >> in the >> > P5000 *before* we start processing. I can not start to burn the >> client's >> > budget on a certain process path and then be unable to finish that >> path >> > because Spec Mat eventually decided to deny the request. >> > >> > Please let me know your thoughts. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Alissa >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] >> > > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:17 AM >> > > To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu >> > > Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald >> > > Subject: Fwd: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000/gryphon >> > > >> > > All, >> > > >> > > A number of good points have been made during the >> > > discussions. Alissa is correct in her recognition of >> > > increased requests for PDMS. It would benefit our community >> > > if SpecMat could categorized PDMS in to one of our >> > > contamination classifications. The question being if it >> > > needs to be gold contaminated or we can place it in either >> > > Semiclean or SemicleanB, since I don't think Clean is >> > > appropriate. We will need to understand the differences >> > > between the many different variations of PDMS. I'll work >> > > with Mary and see what we can find with regards to trace >> > > elements and the chemical and thermal stability of the PDMS. >> > > >> > > The more pressing mater is to respond to Alissa's request. >> > > From trace element contamination, Mary's memory seems to >> > > indicate Alissa's requests are reasonable. I am very >> > > concerned about whether the process is manufacturable. >> > > Various concerns have been expressed over a number of the >> > > process steps. These concerns include the ability to expose >> > > 0.7um features due to surface undulations in the PDMS, >> > > adhesion of the Al to the PDMS and the potential for the Al >> > > to peel at numerous locations including the Gryphon >> > > deposition chamber, P5000 and resist strip and the influence >> > > of the PDMS on the etch process in the P5000. >> > > >> > > As a proposal why don't we let Alissa get started on her PDMS >> > > casting and lithographic process development. I would >> > > recommend starting with Al deposition from the Innotec. The >> > > Innotec should be the most compatible deposition tool, since >> > > the wafer heating will be the lowest. If she is able to get >> > > satisfactory patterns, we will be at a decision node where we >> > > either let the Innotec film in to the P5000 or we allow the >> > > PDMS in to the Gryphon. >> > > >> > > Let's get another iteration of comments and try to resolve >> > > the request this week. >> > > >> > > Ed >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >Hello SpecMat'ers -- >> > > > >> > > >I don't know how hot the gryphon can get, but do think that >> > > outgassing >> > > >is likely lot less of a problem for PDMS than for photoresist or >> > > >polyimide tape, if temperatures remain fairly low -- and if the >> PDMS >> > > >has been sufficiently cured. Again, I'm not sure of the >> > > purity, but I >> > > >think the data exists somewhere... >> > > > >> > > >Mary >> > > > >> > > >Alissa M. Fitzgerald wrote: >> > > > >> > > >>Hi Mary, Jim, >> > > >> >> > > >>Thanks for the info. Based on your information, and Jim's >> > > most recent >> > > >>email, does this mean it is approved for use in the P5000? >> > > (Also, as >> > > >>a side note, based on the number of inquiries I get regarding >> PDMS, >> > > >>SpecMat may want to consider and publicize a general policy with >> > > >>regards to this material. I think it's an important >> > > material that is >> > > >>gaining popularity in MEMS, esp. with regards to medical >> > > and biotech >> > > >>applications.) >> > > >> >> > > >>The process is aggressive and experimental. Honestly, I am >> > > not sure >> > > >>this it is going to work, but the customer is interested in >> > > trying it >> > > >>out. We may need to start with different PDMS thickness, >> > > bigger CD's, etc. >> > > >>We will need permission to put PDMS in the gryphon, too. >> > > We need to >> > > >>use aluminum. >> > > >> >> > > >>Regards, >> > > >>Alissa >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>>-----Original Message----- >> > > >>>From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] Sent: >> > > Wednesday, January >> > > >>>04, >> > > >>>2006 7:47 AM >> > > >>>To: Jim McVittie >> > > >>>Cc: Alissa M. Fitzgerald; SpecMat at snf.stanford.edu >> > > >>>Subject: Re: request to use PDMS in P5000 >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Hi Alissa, Jim -- >> > > >>> >> > > >>>I think I have this information somewhere, from a previous >> > > request. >> > > >>>As I vageuly recall, PDMS (Dow Corning Sylgard 182 or 184) >> > > is based >> > > >>>on a Pt-catalyzed reaction, although very little Pt is >> > > actually present. >> > > >>>Other metals and impurities, such as sulfur, will prevent >> > > >>>polymerization. So, other than the Pt, PDMS is actually >> > > pretty clean >> > > >>>-- although perhaps not by electronics-grade standards, >> > > it's cleaner >> > > >>>than your ordinary plastics. I'll see if I can find the info. I >> > > >>>think that Claudia Richter provided it, so I'll also check >> > > with her. >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Just on a side note, I'm personally less concerned about the >> > > >>>potential contamination than the process flow itself >> > > (Alissa, perhaps >> > > >>>you've got experience or references on this already.) 500 >> > > microns of >> > > >>>PDMS is pretty thick... It's got a high thermal expansion >> > > >>>coefficient, so I'm not entirely sure that you could put >> > > 0.5 microns >> > > >>>of Al on it without having it peel off due to stress >> > > differences, even with an adhesion layer >> > > >>>(although having thin lines might help). I think Claudia >> > > or Neville >> > > >>>Mehenti may have experience in depositing metals on PDMS >> > > in our lab >> > > >>>(although I'm pretty sure they would have used metalica or >> > > >>>innotec.) By the way, does your request entail using >> > > gryphon for Al >> > > >>>deposition? >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Also, PDMS is a darn good insulator -- I think the Al etch >> > > rates and >> > > >>>profiles may be very different than they would be on >> > > silicon due to >> > > >>>differences in plasma behavior (at least, I understand that P5000 >> > > >>>etching of films on quartz is very different from etching on >> > > >>>silicon.) I would suggest that if you have problems, a >> > > thinner PDMS >> > > >>>layer (tens of microns -- you may have to dilute and spin >> > > coat) might help. >> > > >>>Constrained PDMS (by adhesion at the Si/PDMS interface) >> > > won't expand >> > > >>>as much and electronic effects on plasma *might* be reduced. >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Again, I'll if I still have the purity info, and if not, >> > > I'll drop a >> > > >>>note to Claudia. I think that Dow provided this info to >> > > Claudia (or >> > > >>>whomever it was who gave it to me) so you might try asking them. >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Mary >> > > >>> >> > > >>>Jim McVittie wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>>>Hi Alissa, >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>During the overetch, the Al etch chamber will be >> > > contaminated by the >> > > >>>>decomposition products of the PDMS. So the important >> > > >>>question what is >> > > >>> >> > > >>>>in PDMS and is it a problem to other users of the chamber. >> > > >>>My concern >> > > >>> >> > > >>>>is what metals at in PDMS and at what level. Can you find >> > > a purity >> > > >>>>analysis for PDMS? >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Thanks, Jim >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>"Alissa M. Fitzgerald" wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) >> > > >>>>> Encoding: 7bit >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>-- >> > > >>>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 >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > -- 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 edmyers at stanford.edu Tue Jan 17 07:43:19 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:43:19 -0800 Subject: Meeting Today, 1/17/06 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060117074134.03941738@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> SpecMat Members, Today is our regularly scheduled meeting day (1:30pm in CIS101). We have a number of items we should resolve. I will work on the spreadsheet over lunch and bring everyone a copy. Ed From rissman at stanford.edu Tue Jan 17 08:33:37 2006 From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:33:37 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Re: ald Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060117083252.030dd348@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi Ed, If the use of the ald by Agilent is NOT on the list, let's discuss it today. Paul >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:36:14 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim McVittie >To: Paul Rissman >Cc: "'Michael Deal'" , , > John Shott , , > Mary Tang >Subject: Re: ald > >Paul, > >There is an issue about what Phil wants to do. The system is a "clean" >tool. We put in a big effort to get all the metal contamination down to a >low level so it can be used in front end processing (ALD gate dielectric). >Phil wants to deposit Al2O3 on Pt. I do not think Pt contamination will >hurt us, and I doubt there will be much metal transfer at a depostion >temperature of 250C. If this use will impact where other users can bring >their ALD wafers, there is a problem. > > Jim > >On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Paul Rissman wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We just met with Phil Barth from Agilent Labs. He wants to get started > > using the ALD system. Jim McVittie also said that Krishna's student is > > using the system (and there may be some others). Can we ensure that we > are > > able to collect Coral data (and income) for it? Ed - Jim is going to > train > > Phil and/or his technician on the system. Do you want to tag along so you > > can support it? > > > > Paul > > > > > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------- >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 mtang at stanford.edu Tue Jan 17 09:34:56 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:34:56 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: new chemical: silver nitrate in water] Message-ID: <43CD2AC0.70909@stanford.edu> Hi all -- More info for the AgNO3 request... 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 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Alex Guichard Subject: Re: new chemical: silver nitrate in water Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:48:04 -0800 Size: 173035 URL: From crossconsulting at adelphia.net Tue Jan 17 20:33:33 2006 From: crossconsulting at adelphia.net (Ken Cross) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:33:33 -0800 Subject: Breakthrough Nano-structure Immobilization Technology Scheduled for Catalysis Trials at Cal Tech Message-ID: Dear Dr. Nishi et. al., Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ken Cross. I am a chemical engineer and consultant with ~20 yrs experience in the development of various chemical reaction and separation processes. Recently, I've invented and developed a new micro- and nano-particle/structure immobilization technology which operates by virtue of a completely unique set of (physical) principles, creating new development and applications possibilities for several nanotechnologies, including but not limited to the acceleration and significant increase in the operational efficiency of research efforts in the area of micro- and nano-chemistry and materials, including physisorption, chemisorption, and micro- / nano-catalysis. Moreover, this technology solves the problems associated with 'catalyst particle retention' within and without the lab (i.e. on any scale), thereby facilitating, for the first time, the commercial deployment of many effective micro- and nanocatalysis schema which would otherwise be (or have so far been) confined to laboratory/small-scale use due solely to the severe engineering limitations of currently-used micro-nano-structure fixation/immobilization techniques. Based, then, on my limited knowledge of your research facility, I suspect your institution may be interested in using this technology for various novel applications. The technology is called HENCI, for High Efficiency Nano-Catalyst Immobilization, yet it works just as well in non-catalytic applications, immobilizing nano-structures regardless of their shape or morphology (including nano-tubes). For any scenario in which one wishes to expose nano-sized particles or structures to a fluid matrix then, in addition to providing ultra-high fluid dynamic and mass-transport efficiencies, HENCI allows researchers to expose micro- and nano-sized particles, structures, and catalysts to any contact/reactant fluid-matrix (e.g. for sorption studies, surface characterization and phenomena study, determination of reaction yield, selectivity, conversion, etc.) with all the benefits of in-situ exposure, but without the need for any (expensive and time-consuming) post-reaction separation (RO/NF/etc.) of the nano-structures/particles from the 'product' matrix solution (for reaction cessation, protecting expensive analytical equipment, or other requirements). With HENCI, the product matrix is always 100% nano-structure/particle free because in a HENCI system, the nano-structures/particles/catalysts are never actually introduced into the reactant matrix solution. Conversely, HENCI renders all conventional immobilization techniques obsolete by allowing most micro- and nano-sized particles (including most micro- & nano-sorption agents or catalysts) to be very homogeneously and densely immobilized within nearly any size vessel (batch, or continuous/flow-through packed-bed type) without the technical drawbacks which render common techniques impractical: (1) Low loading density - HENCI easily achieves particle/catalyst "loading densities" orders of magnitude greater than other techniques (loading densities express 'available catalytic surface area per unit reactor volume'; this quantity, designated '(' in Ch.E. circles, then has units of area/volume, or length-1. Without even attempting to maximize this parameter (100% absolute immobilization, and mass & momentum transport efficiencies were our first concerns), HENCI systems have achieved ( = 12.98 x 106 m-1 (= 3.3 x 105 in-1) or nearly 13 million square meters of catalytic surface area per cubic meter of HENCI reactor volume (= 330,000 square inches or about 213 square meters per cubic inch reactor volume) when immobilizing spherical nanoparticles with a median diameter of ~60 nm. [1] [2] (2) Significant micro-/nano-particle surface coverage - Regardless of the loading density at which one operates a HENCI reactor, there are never any chemical/material species introduced: no binders or adhesion agents of any type are employed, yet over 98% of the surface area of each nano-structure, -particle or -catalyst is in direct contact with the reactant matrix. (3) Wide exposure distributions - With HENCI, each nano-structure, -particle or -catalyst receives equal exposure to the matrix. While these new capabilities are quite valuable from a process engineering perspective (detailed information on website - link below), for many nanocatalysis research programs, it is the two practical advantages below that seem to be most beneficial: A. For any catalyst being studied, relatively high conversions are attainable in very short exposure/residence times. The mass transport coefficients (and hence observable reaction kinetics) realized with HENCI are the same or better than those achieved when these micro- and nano-catalysts are studied in-situ by introducing them into solution and agitating, as is often done in laboratory treatability and kinetics studies. [2] [3] [4] B. HENCI eliminates any need for any post-reaction separation of the catalyst particles from the reaction product matrix itself. After exposure, when the product matrix is sampled (or emerges) from the HENCI vessel, it is particle-free, so one can safely perform all post-exposure analyses without having to perform, say, RO/NF or magnetic-separation of the catalytic particles from the reaction matrix because the catalyst particles never entered the reaction matrix phase to begin with. Moreover, a 'charge' of catalyst can be quickly removed and replaced, or simply held in place as the reaction vessel is flushed for ensuing experimental run(s). HENCI is NOT a membrane-immobilization technology, nor does it employ expensive nano-cages, zeolites, binders or chemical adhesion of any kind. In fact, it is in part because HENCI is free of these conventional modalities that it performs so uniquely and efficiently, easily out-performing existing immobilization schemes without any of their technical (and resulting financial) drawbacks. Incidentally, as such, HENCI-facilitated nanocatalysis is the key to the transfer of successful R&D efforts (in micro- and nano-catalytic processes) from the lab to the outside world. For instance, the attributes of HENCI combine to make possible for the first time [5] an entirely new groundwater remediation option for many of the (often Superfund-site) groundwaters polluted with little but ppm / ppb levels of EPA-Hotlist CHC's: Cost-effective on-line, on-demand point-of-distribution nano-catalytic breakdown of the CHC's into benign species is now feasible, often rendering the waters directly potable! [2] [3]. While this is nothing less than revolutionary to the advent of nano- and micro-catalysis, (the potential savings in water costs and EPA non-compliance fees alone is in the billions monthly), I have decided, for several reasons beyond the scope of this letter, to introduce this technology to society largely by way of the academic 'sector', marketing HENCI for now solely on it's ability to streamline and speed-up the R&D of nanocatalysts themselves in the lab. To wit, HENCI reactors are very inexpensive, require no chemicals, very little power, space, or maintenance, operate at ambient pressure & temperature, can be used for unlimited experimental runs with most any nanocatalyst, have an indefinite lifespan, can be scaled and configured for any application (even modularly if desired), can be quickly disassembled and reassembled, and even transported easily if need be. A plethora of information on HENCI technology and it's capabilities, including downloadable video footage of live nano- and micro-catalyst immobilization demonstrations conducted at my facility in San Diego, is available at the ever-evolving http://www.henci.com/. My full Curriculum Vitae (and that of the few with whom I am now collaborating) are also included, that any interested parties might review our backgrounds & previous client lists, and contact us at their leisure. It is my hope that your institution will soon join the likes of Cal Tech and others in reaping the benefits of HENCI to facilitate and accelerate your research. More importantly however, with HENCI, together we might more quickly and adroitly avail the world of some of the unique benefits of nanocatalysis now being developed in (and confined-to for the reasons cited above) academia. We now have the final piece in the puzzle of 'unleashing the true potential of nanocatalysis and other nano-applications for benevolent field use', and it is my sincere hope that the venerable SNF will join in as our R&D community ushers in a new era of real-world applications for nanocatalysis, nano-sorption, and related unit operations. To wit, I would be happy to discuss any type of arrangement that allows your members to avail themselves of HENCI at your facility in the course of their R&D efforts. Please feel free to contact me (info below or on the website) at your convenience. I have much respect for SNF and I look forward to working with you in the near future! References: [1] Video Taped Demonstrations of December 2005, HENCI Systems, Cardiff, CA [2] Zhang, Lien - Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 323-332, 2003 [3] Cross, Kenneth W., HENCI Initial Trials Report to NWRI, December 2004 [4] Schrick, Blough, et. al., Chem. Mater. 14: 5140-5147, 2002 [5] Cross, Kenneth W., "The Five Engineering Attributes necessary for Commercial Viability of Ex-Situ Nanocatalyst Immobilization", http://www.henci.com/TechDocs/FiveAtributes.html Sincerely, Kenneth W. Cross Cross Consulting 1220 Caminito Septimo Cardiff, CA 92007 (760) 944-9778 crossconsulting at adelphia.net From edmyers at stanford.edu Wed Jan 18 13:31:44 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:31:44 -0800 Subject: SpecMat Response to PDMS Module Devlopment Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060118114747.0451ac88@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Prof. Nishi, The question about running AFM Associates PDMS process in the facility was discussed at yesterday's SpecMat meeting. SpecMat came to the following conclusions. If the PDMS starting components are electronic grade, the process is approved from a chemical contamination point. However, we are very reluctant to approve the process due to the concerns over mechanical contamination of the equipment set and from concern over process capability of the Nikon to resolve the 0.7um feature size. The request process flow is: Deposit and cure 500um thick layer of PDMS Deposit 0.5um of Aluminum using Gryphon Apply photoresist Expose using Nikon stepper (CD = 0.7 um) Develop Timed etch of aluminum in P5000, down to PDMS layer Resist strip SpecMat's specific process concerns are as follows: 1) The PDMS must be electronic grade and must be mixed and out gassed outside of the fab. 2) The ability to dispense and cure the PDMS layer with sufficient flatness to resolve 0.7um features. 3) Complete backside PDMS edge bead removal, compatible with resolving 0.7um features. 4) Deposition of the Al without any peeling. There is concern the deposition could provide sufficient energy to the substrate which will result in flaking of the Al in the Gryphon deposition chamber. If this occurs we will be looking at significant downtime (days) to clean and qualify the deposition chamber. 5) The ability of the Nikon to focus on the thick, transparent PDMS layer. Someone skilled with the Nikon will most likely need to run the samples to adjust the focus depth outside of standard tolerances. Subsequent to running the PDMS samples, the Nikon's focus will need to be calibrated to standard silicon substrate thickness. 6) The P5000 has a high density plasma which can significantly heat the substrate. There is concern the heating will cause a delamination problem between the Al and PDMS. If the wafers flake in the etch chamber we will lose a day to clean the chamber. Hopefully, any particulation will not be carried in to the transfer module or load locks. There has been a number of emails exchanged recommending alternative approaches to process development such as metal deposition in the Innotec to minimize substrate heating during metal deposition (and easier cleaning if the wafer peels and test the exposure) and starting with thinner PDMS. Continued discussion on an approach to the process development is necessary to reach a comfort zone where we can minimize our equipment exposure. Regards, Ed From eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU Wed Jan 18 15:26:10 2006 From: eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Request for Outside sample in P5000 Ch A Message-ID: Dear Specmat A company (WOSTEC) has requested to run a small, 1 cm square piece in the P5000 Ch A (Metal etch). The piece is produced outside, but in a CMOS-type laboratory in Russia. They have completed the TOF SIMS analysis on this sample (attached). The SIMS was performed on three spots on the sample. As you'll see, two of the spots looks quite good, and one spot (#2) looks marginal. Had the analysis been done with TXRF, an average would be measured over the 1cm area. Also, the piece will only be about 1/75th of the total wafer area. The remainder of the area would be a clean silicon dummy wafer (probably oxidized). As usual, they are in a big hurry to get something, or to find out if this is going to be possible here. Many thanks for the consideration, -Eric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ReportC06L0009TO.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 149504 bytes Desc: URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jan 18 16:30:04 2006 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:30:04 -0800 Subject: Request for Outside sample in P5000 Ch A References: Message-ID: <43CEDD8C.D8BD5B32@snf.stanford.edu> Hi Eric, The biggest issue for pieces in the P5000 is how to hold them onto a carrier wafer. In the past, using resist to attach pieces has not worked well in the P5000. Using doubleside Carbon tape with resist on the edges has worked but it is a real pain to get off all the residue from the carbon tape. I believe one of the students worked out a process using doubleside tape adhersive without the tape. Let me check on the details for this last method. Polymide tape over the edges is possible but I am trilled with using it since I have no spec onj how clean it is. Jim Eric Perozziello wrote: > Dear Specmat > > A company (WOSTEC) has requested to run a small, 1 cm square > piece in the P5000 Ch A (Metal etch). The piece is produced outside, > but in a CMOS-type laboratory in Russia. > > They have completed the TOF SIMS analysis on this sample > (attached). > > The SIMS was performed on three spots on the sample. > As you'll see, two of the spots looks quite good, > and one spot (#2) looks marginal. > > Had the analysis been done with TXRF, an average would be > measured over the 1cm area. Also, the piece will only be > about 1/75th of the total wafer area. The remainder of the > area would be a clean silicon dummy wafer (probably oxidized). > > As usual, they are in a big hurry to get something, or > to find out if this is going to be possible here. > > Many thanks for the consideration, > -Eric > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: ReportC06L0009TO.doc > ReportC06L0009TO.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword) > Encoding: BASE64 > Download Status: Not downloaded with message From eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU Wed Jan 18 16:57:14 2006 From: eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:57:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Request for Outside sample in P5000 Ch A In-Reply-To: <43CEDD8C.D8BD5B32@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jim, We're fine with the Carbon (SEM) tape, fully concealed under the sample. Post cleaning should not be an issue (at least at this point) as they plan to take the samples out of the lab after this. Thanks, -Eric From rissman at stanford.edu Thu Jan 19 08:39:49 2006 From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:39:49 -0800 Subject: Fwd: ALD deposition on Pt Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060119083312.02feb280@rissman.pobox.stanford.edu> Hi Phil, We have a meeting (specmat) which focuses on ensuring cleanliness in the appropriate tools. The ald is classified as a "clean" tool since people want to do gate dielectric work in the tool. I raised your process since there was some concern about the platinum in the tool. One issue that came up (you can see below) is that they would like you to get TXRF on the incoming film. We don't want to delay your processing - can you get that done? Thanks, Paul >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 >Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:29:40 -0800 >To: rissman at stanford.edu >From: Ed Myers >Subject: ALD deposition on Pt > >Paul, > >An issue was raised at our last SpecMat meeting I was hoping you could >help us with. There is a request from Phil Barth from Agilent Labs to >deposit Al2O3 on a Pt coated wafer in our ALD system. The ALD tool is >classified as a clean tool, since it's primary use is for gate dielectric >stacks. Pt is classified as a SemiClean B material, which is from a lower >cleanliness category and should not be processed in our clean >equipment. The second question is, what is the history of the wafer. In >order for a wafer from the outside to be processed in our clean equipment >set the wafer either must come from an approved CMOS compatible facility >or have TXRF data to substantiate the level of metallic contaminates. > >I don't have an email address for Phil and I was hoping you could forward >this email to him. I would like to discuss with Phil the concerns raised >during the SpecMat meeting. > >Thanks, >Ed > From service at secondbank.com Thu Jan 19 13:26:46 2006 From: service at secondbank.com (service at secondbank.com) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:26:46 +0900 (JST) Subject: Account Security Measures Message-ID: <20060119212646.00C7B579D212@xserveg5.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cearhart at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 18:34:39 2006 From: cearhart at gmail.com (Chris Earhart) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:34:39 -0800 Subject: SpecMat Proposal: Polystyrene Microspheres Message-ID: <131c1bff0601201834v718508cu22899df565aac85a@mail.gmail.com> Dear SpecMat Committee, Attached please find a proposal for the use of polystyrene microspheres in the form of a deposited monolayer on a Si substrate. I have followed the format suggested on the SNF website. Also, attached are a Certificate of Analysis, Materials Safety Data Sheet, and four references of similar methods used in literature. Please let me know when you have reviewed the proposal. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Chris Earhart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SpecMat Proposal - Polystyrene Microspheres- Earhart, C.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65411 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CofA.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 404767 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MSDS-PS-latex.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 784695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Reference 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 693200 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Reference 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 284204 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Reference 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 780075 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Reference 4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 398449 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robert.candler at rtc.bosch.com Mon Jan 23 13:34:10 2006 From: robert.candler at rtc.bosch.com (Rob Candler (RTC)) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:34:10 -0800 Subject: new material request - silicon carbide Message-ID: Hello, I am interested in processing a wafer with a thin (< 100 nm) silicon carbide film in 'clean' equipment groups in SNF. The film will be deposited at the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center. I understand that chemical analyses need to be performed to assess any level of contamination during the process. To get things going I am arranging for a VPD-ICP-MS test to be performed, and I have a few questions: 1) What is the general process for getting wafers with thin-film coatings into the lab? Is there a general 'clean' certification that can be attained, or is it more machine specific? 2) Is there a preferred vendor for the contamination test? 3) What are the threshold levels for contamination for each of the elements of interest 4) My current vendor offers two tests which give concentrations of different sets of elements Test 1: analyzes concentration of Al, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Na, Ni, Mg, and Zn Test 2: analyzes ocncentration of Ca, K, Na, Al, Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Li, Be, Mg, V, Mn, Co, Ga, Sr, Zr, Mo, Cd, Sn, Sb, Ba, Ti, Rb, In Ce, Th, Y, and U. Is test 1 sufficient, or is test 2 preferred? Thanks! Rob Rob Candler Robert Bosch Research and Technology Center 4009 Miranda Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Fax: (650)320-2999 Phone: (650)320-2992 From rissman at stanford.edu Wed Jan 25 14:21:50 2006 From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:21:50 -0800 Subject: FW: TXRF on 100 mm wafers Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20060125142037.02734200@stanford.edu> Hi All, I want to have a decision on whether we are going to let Phil into the ALD system. Can we get a consensus? Do we have a standard response to his questions? Paul >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Subject: FW: TXRF on 100 mm wafers >Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:19:55 -0700 >X-MS-Has-Attach: >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: TXRF on 100 mm wafers >thread-index: AcYdTh+CxOsgXznbTQuFlfdAaIUtpgAAV7nAAANR8RAALKQokADy+dMw >From: >To: >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2006 18:19:56.0236 (UTC) >FILETIME=[F1A5B0C0:01C621DB] > >Hi Paul. > >Evans Analytical is quoting $400 per wafer for TXRF as per below and >would like an unpatterned wafer rather than the patterned wafers >which we want to use for ALD. Will an unpatterned platinum layer >deposited in the same chamber as our patterned wafer do the job? Or >do you need TXRF on each wafer which goes through the ALD system? >What elements do you want to check for? > >Best regards, >Phil > > > >---------- >From: Operations Desk at EAG [mailto:Operations.Desk at eaglabs.com] >Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:20 PM >To: phil_barth at agilent.com >Subject: RE: TXRF on 100 mm wafers > >Are you looking for the usual transition metals? The detection limits >are going to be poor because we have to reduce power and incident >angle to deal >with the patterning. Generally blanket films with no pattern are >appropriate for this technique. > >The turnaround time is going to be 3-4 working days from receipt of >the sample. > >Jim > > >James C. Norberg >Operations Coordinator, SIMS - OEM Services >Evans Analytical Group LLC >810 Kifer Road >Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5203 >Phone: 408 530 3758 >Fax: 408-530-3501 >info at eaglabs.com >operations.desk at eaglabs.com > > > >---------- >From: phil_barth at agilent.com [mailto:phil_barth at agilent.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:02 PM >To: Operations Desk at EAG >Subject: RE: TXRF on 100 mm wafers >Hi Jim. > >The surface metal is patterned platinum (200 nm) on a titanium >adhesion layer (2 nm). > >I'll check to see if Stanford will be satisfied with one wafer. > >What's your turnaround time? > >Best regards, >Phil Barth >Agilent Labs >3500 Deer Creek Road >Palo Alto, CA 94304 >650-485-5804 > > > >---------- >From: Operations Desk at EAG [mailto:Operations.Desk at eaglabs.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:27 PM >To: phil_barth at agilent.com >Cc: Cynthia Gonsalves >Subject: RE: TXRF on 100 mm wafers > >200mm and smaller wafers are $400 each. What is the surface metal >composition and thickness? Is there a pattern? > >Please reply with your complete address and phone numbers. > >Jim > > >James C. Norberg >Operations Coordinator, SIMS - OEM Services >Evans Analytical Group LLC >810 Kifer Road >Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5203 >Phone: 408 530 3758 >Fax: 408-530-3501 >info at eaglabs.com >operations.desk at eaglabs.com > > > >---------- >From: phil_barth at agilent.com [mailto:phil_barth at agilent.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:15 PM >To: info >Subject: TXRF on 100 mm wafers >Hi folks. > >I'm at Agilent Technologies. I want to do some work in the Stanford >Nanofab Facility with some wafers which we've prepared at Agilent >Labs, and Stanford wants TXRF done on those wafers for cleanliness >assurance before they go into the Stanford facility. > >Can you please quote me price and timing on doing TXRF on 5 each 100 >mm diameter silicon wafers with surface metallization? > >Thanks, >Phil Barth >Agilent Laboratories > From edmyers at stanford.edu Wed Jan 25 15:49:28 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:49:28 -0800 Subject: Pt and ALD Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060125154004.03fd07b8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> SpecMat members, I have done some searching regarding the request from Phil Barth to run Pt through the ALD system. The communications I found do not show Intel running metals through the system. I did find a series of request for running Pd-Si-O in some of our clean equipment. If we do allow Phil to run Pt in the ALD, it most likely will be the first SemicleanB material in the system. I looked up the deep levels for Pt. They are similar to W, which is one of our 3 acceptable metals (Al, Ti and W). The deep levels are: 0.25 and 0.39, acceptors and 0.18 and 0.30, donors Tungsten is: 0.22, 0.30, 0.37, 0.55, acceptors and 0.31 and 0.34, donors. (of course these values depend on which data you use) My recommendation is we allow noble metals such as Pt and Pd (not gold) in to the ALD. Ed From brer at hotmail.com Thu Jan 26 03:17:26 2006 From: brer at hotmail.com (brer at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:17:26 +0800 Subject: free gift for you and to do big business with PROVIEW GROUP ! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jan 26 09:39:25 2006 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:39:25 -0800 Subject: Pt and ALD References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060125154004.03fd07b8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43D9094D.79B26676@snf.stanford.edu> All, The ALD system was put together to deposit gate dielectric materials. As such, it has to be clean enough to allow exiting wafers into tool, such as LPCVD poly Si and the 4108 RTA, without cleaning. Note HF removes Al2O3. A tremendous effort was made by me to clean up the Ald system to the point that it is a clean tool. In particular, every line, valve and surface coming in contact with the process gases where either chemically cleaned or replaced. Since this cleaning, all questionable wafers to be run in the tool have gone through surface analysis so we could see what trace metals were on them. Metals, such as Pt, Pd and W, are not a big concern since they do have deep levels. Trace metals, such as Cu, Na, K, Mn, Au, etc, are of concern. We should have the same rules for the Ald system as we have for other clean tools as to when we require surface analysis for wafers from the outside. Thanks, Jim Ed Myers wrote: > SpecMat members, > > I have done some searching regarding the request from Phil Barth to run Pt > through the ALD system. The communications I found do not show Intel > running metals through the system. I did find a series of request for > running Pd-Si-O in some of our clean equipment. If we do allow Phil to run > Pt in the ALD, it most likely will be the first SemicleanB material in the > system. > > I looked up the deep levels for Pt. They are similar to W, which is one of > our 3 acceptable metals (Al, Ti and W). The deep levels are: > > 0.25 and 0.39, acceptors and 0.18 and 0.30, donors > > Tungsten is: 0.22, 0.30, 0.37, 0.55, acceptors and 0.31 and 0.34, donors. > (of course these values depend on which data you use) > > My recommendation is we allow noble metals such as Pt and Pd (not gold) in > to the ALD. > > Ed From zhangy at stanford.edu Thu Jan 26 15:33:48 2006 From: zhangy at stanford.edu (Yuan Zhang) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0800 Subject: nanoparticles Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060126150102.05209eb0@zhangy.pobox.stanford.edu> Dear community members, Some students in our group are going to work with several kinds of nanoparticles. We are not sure if the materials or processes are safe enough to be allowed inside snf. Here are our processes. 1. FePt nanoparticles (3~4nm or 5~6nm in size) Purpose: make ohmic contact with nanoparticles in between metal and heavily doped Si Chemical include: n.p. are in a oleylamine/oleic acid/hexane solution, where oleylamine/oleic acid act as surfactants that surround each nanoparticle Process: 1. HF clean Si surface 2. ion implantation to form n-type doped Si 3. dilute FePt solution by hexane and spin coat using headway 4. remove hexane using hot plate 5. remove oleic acid under Ne/vacuum heating, use blue oven 6. evaporate or sputter Al, use innotec or metalic 7. lithography: headway2, karlsuss/evaline, develop 8. etch Al 2. Au nanoparticles (~10nm in size) Purpose: form nice ordered Au nanoparticles on Si surface Chemical included: Au nanoparticles in PSP4VP/toluene solution PSP4VP: poly(styrene-b-4-vinylpyridine) Process: 1. clean the Si surface 2. spin coat the solution using headway 3. remove toluene by hot plate 4. remove polymer by annealing under Ar or etching by O2 (drytek1) 5. afm or SEM imaging Please let me know if they are allowed. Thank you very much for your attention and help. Best, Yuan From edmyers at stanford.edu Thu Jan 26 15:53:10 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:53:10 -0800 Subject: SpecMat Response Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060126154027.03ff55e8@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Phil, SpecMat has reviewed your request to run Pt in Stanford's Nanofabrication Facilities Atomic Layer Deposition System (ALD). We are willing to allow you to run your sample in the ALD with the following restrictions. Since the ALD system is used for processing at the gate level, we need verification that your sample is of high cleanliness. As a result we need chemical analysis to show your samples meet our contamination levels. Approved analysis techniques TXRF, TOF-SIMs or IPC-MS. We need to see contamination levels lower than 1E11 cm-2. The analysis does not have to be on your sample, but it must be representative of all the processing your sample will see before it comes in to our facility. We are concerned with contamination coming from both the frontside and backside of your sample. We will also need to work with you to determine a clean, at our facility prior to loading the sample in to the chamber. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me or Paul Rissman. Regards, Ed From mtang at stanford.edu Thu Jan 26 17:10:17 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:10:17 -0800 Subject: nanoparticles In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060126150102.05209eb0@zhangy.pobox.stanford.edu> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060126150102.05209eb0@zhangy.pobox.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43D972F9.3070407@stanford.edu> Hi everyone -- I think I'm a bit concerned about allowing nanoparticle suspensions in the litho area. I really have no data, but it seems to me that when you spin coat a material, you get an aerosol dispersion from the edges. So, it seems to me that you'd probably get floating bits of nanoparticles in the area. These particles are likely to stick really, really well to a surface, once they hit. Therefore, I don't think I could in good conscience recommend allowing this -- particularly when it appears that there is no compelling reason to do this in the litho area. I understand Mahnaz has a spare little laurel spin coater -- maybe we could set this up in another area of the lab (outside the lab?) for nanoparticle work? Along with a programmable hot plate? Again, I have no data -- just this gut feeling that this wouldn't be a good idea. I guess this is based on once working in a lab where we made nanoparticles out of biopolymers and polymers -- these used to get everywhere and stick to everything -- not that you could see them, but you'd see them in the test results, due to cross-contamination. Granted, working in a filtered laminar flow hood improved things, but it appeared to be largely depending on whether the researcher had "good hands". Somehow, I'd feel better if any processes we approved weren't quite so dependent on one's good lab technique... I think after the wafer has been spun dry and then baked dry, that the nanoparticles aren't likely to come off with anything short of a metal etch or RCA clean and that subsequent processing in innotec or metalica wouldn't be a problem. Mary Yuan Zhang wrote: > Dear community members, > > Some students in our group are going to work with several kinds of > nanoparticles. We are not sure if the materials or processes are safe > enough to be allowed inside snf. Here are our processes. > > 1. FePt nanoparticles (3~4nm or 5~6nm in size) > Purpose: make ohmic contact with nanoparticles in between metal > and heavily doped Si > Chemical include: n.p. are in a oleylamine/oleic acid/hexane > solution, where oleylamine/oleic acid act as surfactants that surround > each nanoparticle > Process: 1. HF clean Si surface > 2. ion implantation to form n-type doped Si > 3. dilute FePt solution by hexane and spin coat > using headway > 4. remove hexane using hot plate > 5. remove oleic acid under Ne/vacuum heating, use > blue oven > 6. evaporate or sputter Al, use innotec or metalic > 7. lithography: headway2, karlsuss/evaline, develop > 8. etch Al > > 2. Au nanoparticles (~10nm in size) > Purpose: form nice ordered Au nanoparticles on Si surface > Chemical included: Au nanoparticles in PSP4VP/toluene solution > PSP4VP: poly(styrene-b-4-vinylpyridine) > Process: 1. clean the Si surface > 2. spin coat the solution using headway > 3. remove toluene by hot plate > 4. remove polymer by annealing under Ar or etching > by O2 (drytek1) > 5. afm or SEM imaging > > Please let me know if they are allowed. Thank you very much for your > attention and help. > > Best, > > Yuan > -- 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 pwhhq at freeserve.com Fri Jan 27 05:42:24 2006 From: pwhhq at freeserve.com (Harley Judd) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:42:24 -0600 Subject: Amazing, Evangelina Message-ID: <6230074168847240534218@microsoft.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Rebekah-> http://acwdnr.slysofa.info/?99847792 From ce at fabian.com Fri Jan 27 07:41:40 2006 From: ce at fabian.com (Lucio Dow) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:41:40 -0600 Subject: Amazing, Jacqueline Message-ID: <7842129-02962-58242.amphibology-abraham-ablution@fabian.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Lowell-> http://wqvefp.blumagik.info/?18605140 From lkirbys at geocities.com Fri Jan 27 03:00:31 2006 From: lkirbys at geocities.com (Casandra Brewster) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:00:31 -0600 Subject: Amazing, Damion Message-ID: <413778023349490319013@microsoft.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Pauline-> http://gbshkl.blumagik.info/?70191457 From phil_barth at agilent.com Fri Jan 27 10:36:18 2006 From: phil_barth at agilent.com (phil_barth at agilent.com) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:36:18 -0700 Subject: SpecMat Response Message-ID: <3AFA91338937D644B22A8DCE6C73DC855C6891@wcosmb10.cos.agilent.com> Hi Ed. What elements do you want to look for? Phil -----Original Message----- From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:53 PM To: phil_barth at agilent.com Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu Subject: SpecMat Response Phil, SpecMat has reviewed your request to run Pt in Stanford's Nanofabrication Facilities Atomic Layer Deposition System (ALD). We are willing to allow you to run your sample in the ALD with the following restrictions. Since the ALD system is used for processing at the gate level, we need verification that your sample is of high cleanliness. As a result we need chemical analysis to show your samples meet our contamination levels. Approved analysis techniques TXRF, TOF-SIMs or IPC-MS. We need to see contamination levels lower than 1E11 cm-2. The analysis does not have to be on your sample, but it must be representative of all the processing your sample will see before it comes in to our facility. We are concerned with contamination coming from both the frontside and backside of your sample. We will also need to work with you to determine a clean, at our facility prior to loading the sample in to the chamber. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me or Paul Rissman. Regards, Ed From nmehenti at stanford.edu Fri Jan 27 17:04:01 2006 From: nmehenti at stanford.edu (Neville Mehenti) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:04:01 -0800 Subject: New Chemical Request: Perfluorooctyl-trichloro-silane Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060127163748.032d3408@nmehenti.pobox.stanford.edu> Hello, I would like to make a request to bring a new chemical into the cleanroom for use in a process. Below this email is the requested information for this new chemical request, as outlined on the SNF website. Please let me know if there is a problem or if you would like any more information. Thanks very much and hope to hear from you soon. Regards, Neville 1. Name: Neville Mehenti; Coral: mehenti; Tel: (650)723-1669; Email: nmehenti at stanford.edu, PI: Prof. Stacey F. Bent 2. Full Name: 1H,1H,2H,2H-Perfluorooctyl-trichloro-silane (CAS 78560-45-9) The MSDS is attached with this email as a pdf file. 3. Manufacturer: Sigma-Aldrich 3050 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103; Tel: 314.771.5765; Website: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/ 4. The reason I am requesting to bring this material into the lab is because I am looking to spin thin (10-20 microns) silicone membranes on a silicon-photoresist mold, and then peel them off to serve as components for microfluidic devices. I have been using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) as the membrane material, but the membranes are not strong enough to resist tearing or stretching upon removal from the mold. I have found that treatment of these molds by exposing them to this requested chemical under vacuum allows for easier release of the membrane from the mold with minimal stretching. By silanizing the silicon-photoresist mold with this chemical, the surface of the mold is effectively "teflonized," thus preventing any strong interaction between the PDMS and the mold. I would prefer to do this process at the fab so that my molds remain in a clean environment (since I have had particulate problems when silanizing in my normal lab and this creates several problems with the resulting membranes). 5. I plan on using this chemical only in the desiccator above the Headway. I will place my silicon photoresist molds along with a small volume (~100 microliters) of the chemical in the desiccator and pull house vacuum on it for one hour, thus forming silane vapor which will subsequently react to the native oxide on the mold. I will then spin PDMS on these molds using the Headway, and they will then require no further processing within SNF. 6. For each time I silanize my molds, I will be using ~100 microliters of this chemical, which is in liquid form. Only a small fraction of this volume will be vaporized to properly silanize the surface of my molds. 7. I will carefully bring in the appropriate volume (~100 microliters) of the chemical into SNF each time I need to use it. The chemical will be stored in a labelled 1-ml glass vial, and will be brought in within a larger vial as a secondary container. When placed in the desiccator, I will remove the cap from the vial and place the vial in one of my beakers (in order to stabilize the vial from falling due to a bump or rapid pressure changes). 8. After the silanization process, I will put the cap back on the vial, and place this vial back in the secondary container. These vials will be removed from the fab and I will dispose of it properly within my regular lab as hazardous waste. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1H,1H,2H,2H-PERFLUOROOCTYL-TRICHLORO- SILANE -- Sigma-Aldrich...pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 159969 bytes Desc: not available URL: From halle at epost.de Sun Jan 29 12:04:29 2006 From: halle at epost.de (Dante Curtis) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:04:29 -0500 Subject: Amazing, Nichole Message-ID: <563351.62719@microsoft.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Good morning sir, Amazing, Robbie-> http://dkbasw.eatrtvi.info/?35485001 From edmyers at stanford.edu Mon Jan 30 10:17:49 2006 From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:17:49 -0800 Subject: 1/31/06 Logsheet Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060130101338.04175798@edmyers.pobox.stanford.edu> Members, We don't have may items, but two of them fall under the controversial "processing of nanoparticles." I recommend we meet at 1:30-2:00 in CIS101 and discuss our concerns on Nanoparticle processing. Regards, Ed -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SpecMat Logsheet.xls Type: application/octet-stream Size: 136704 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sroonter at stanford.edu Mon Jan 30 15:27:23 2006 From: sroonter at stanford.edu (Saeroonter Oh) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:27:23 -0800 Subject: [Emulsitone Co. products] Message-ID: <1138663643.43dea0dbd7033@webmail.stanford.edu> Hello, I have two materials from Emulsitone. One is Phosphorosilicafilm 5e20, and the other Borofilm 100. Both of them are used for spin-on dopants. (By the way, is there a way to spin these things on in the fab?) What procedure do I need to go through to bring these chemicals into the lab? Thank you very much, Saeroonter Oh From crichter at collinear.com Mon Jan 30 17:40:50 2006 From: crichter at collinear.com (Richter, Claudia) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:40:50 -0500 Subject: Request to Bring in More Futurrex Negative Resist Message-ID: <7DBB1E23E1E1FA46994AF9E005D9726202220AD5@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms> Dear Specmat Committee, We would like to bring in two new resists from the Futurrex family. These resists are 120ml bottled samples given to us by Futurrex in order help improve our resolution capability for our lithium tantalate substrates. The resists are the NR7-1000PY and NR9-1000PY and have attached the MSDS sheets. As with the Futurrex resists we brought to SNF very recently, these new resists contain cyclohexanone. We would like to begin using these resists as early as this coming Wednesday. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Claudia (crichter) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NR7-1000P MSDS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 37888 bytes Desc: NR7-1000P MSDS.xls URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NR9-1000P MSDS.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 37376 bytes Desc: NR9-1000P MSDS.xls URL: From mtang at stanford.edu Tue Jan 31 06:53:13 2006 From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:53:13 -0800 Subject: [Emulsitone Co. products] In-Reply-To: <1138663643.43dea0dbd7033@webmail.stanford.edu> References: <1138663643.43dea0dbd7033@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <43DF79D9.8000408@stanford.edu> Hi! Please provide the information that is requested here (send as an email to specmat at snf.stanford.edu): http://snf.stanford.edu/Materials/NewMatProc.html You will need to think carefully about how you plan to carry out your experiments. If you need help, contact a staff member or send an email to SpecMat. If at all possible, please provide MSDS info in electronic format as we are trying to assemble an online database. Let us know if you have further questions. Thanks, Mary Saeroonter Oh wrote: >Hello, > >I have two materials from Emulsitone. >One is Phosphorosilicafilm 5e20, and the other Borofilm 100. > >Both of them are used for spin-on dopants. >(By the way, is there a way to spin these things on in the fab?) > >What procedure do I need to go through to bring these chemicals >into the lab? > >Thank you very much, > >Saeroonter Oh > > > -- 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