mtang at stanford.edu
Tue Oct 24 08:58:14 PDT 2006
Hi Ed, et al -
#190: Given that Rohit and IBM are not entirely happy with us these
days, what can we do to somehow involve them in the SpecMat process of
this request? I think it is way to easy for them to say that we are
stonewalling them on this, even though we believe the ball is in their
#218: I think he is doing a modification of a standard photography
process. Ammonium Chromate is toxic and strong oxidizer. It should be
collected locally, and should not be used anywhere solvents and resists
are likely to be used. He should indicate where he's getting his
chemicals and include an MSDS. I think you can buy commercially
available, pre-mixed, dilute solutions (like 1%) which are then not
likely to pose any mixing hazards in our lab. This would be preferred.
By the way, I'm not sure why this chemical is considered a sensitizer --
I'm no chemist, but I think it's more of an inhibitor or developer of
some sort... It would be good to see his protocol.
#219/#220: These seem to be OK to me....
#221: I think we may need to do a little better on our clean
documentation (and you'd know that Kevin would ask this...) One of us
should sit down with him and explain to him what contamination
means.... By the way, Nancy and/or Jim probably have a much clearer
memory of this... We used have tylanpoly as a semiclean tube. And we
have operated it as a clean tube, but would allow semiclean processing,
provided a doped poly capping layer was run subsequent to the semiclean
run. I don't believe we ever ran with metal-film-containing wafers,
however; just wafers which had been exposed to metals (and then removed)
or semiclean equipment. (This was Randy True did, I think....) So, I
don't recall that we ever ran poly dep on top of pure metals (though
Ed Myers wrote:
> We have a couple of items on this weeks agenda. I propose we go ahead
> and hold our meeting at 1:30 today in CIS101. It should be quick.
More information about the specmat