From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 1 11:30:30 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:30:30 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-05-31 15:39:39: Interlock tripped error Message-ID: Recovered the user's wafer. Unable to duplicate the problem. I believe that it was cause by a high He leak rate. Please make a note of the He flow rate next time the problem reoccurs. The typical flow is about 2.4 sccm. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 1 11:30:41 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:30:41 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-05-30 01:18:58: Interlock tripped error Message-ID: Recovered the user's wafer. Unable to duplicate the problem. I believe that it was cause by a high He leak rate. Please make a note of the He flow rate next time the problem reoccurs. The typical flow is about 2.4 sccm. From ginel at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 1 15:08:52 2009 From: ginel at snf.stanford.edu (ginel at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:08:52 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-01 15:08:51: machine froze Message-ID: lost communication with ICP... my wafer is inside. From ginel at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 1 18:09:32 2009 From: ginel at snf.stanford.edu (ginel at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:09:32 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-01 18:09:32: Message-ID: From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 14:40:10 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:40:10 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-01 15:08:51: machine froze Message-ID: Rebooted the system and recovered the user's wafer. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 14:40:17 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:40:17 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-01 18:09:32: Message-ID: Rebooted the system and recovered the user's wafer. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 14:40:52 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:40:52 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-05-19 17:08:35: Wafer fragment inside chamber Message-ID: Fragment retrived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 14:40:59 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:40:59 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-05-20 18:50:45: SF6 flow check Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 14:43:16 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:43:16 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-05-26 03:24:20: Re: SF6 adjustment Message-ID: Replaced the SF6 MFC. Now the flow is correct. The flow however is unstable above 140 sccm. Will order another MFC. From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 2 16:50:28 2009 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (mtang at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:50:28 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-02 16:50:28: MFC Replaced - Message-ID: Here's Elmer's message from this afternoon (reposted, to make it more visible): Replaced the SF6 MFC. Now the flow is correct. The flow however is unstable above 140 sccm. Will order another MFC. From till at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 3 13:50:46 2009 From: till at snf.stanford.edu (till at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:50:46 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-03 13:50:45: reflected power is too high Message-ID: recipe deep/smoodeep 600 W. Reflected power in SF6 step is above 100 W. From jprovine at snf.stanford.edu Sat Jun 6 18:02:01 2009 From: jprovine at snf.stanford.edu (jprovine at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:02:01 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-06 18:02:01: DEEP recipe coil reflected power high Message-ID: i did several long (1hour) etches with DEEP today and for each the coil reflected power was really high (>100W) for the first 5-15 minutes then quickly reduced to a few W. i actually got great results (new mfc shows significant grass reduction and etch rate > 2.5um/min), but this could affect users running DEEP for shorter times. other users is the reflected power initially high on other recipes? From jprovine at snf.stanford.edu Sun Jun 7 13:40:08 2009 From: jprovine at snf.stanford.edu (jprovine at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:40:08 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-07 13:40:08: high reflected coil power on other recipes Message-ID: following up on my previous comment about high reflected power on DEEP recipe for the first ~10 minutes... high reflected coil power seen on multiple other recipes during test today (>100W for the first 10 minutes). ISO is probably the best example because there is no switching. initial reflected power is 150W and after 5 minutes it is down to 88W dropping somewhat steadily and roughly linearly. short etches on stsetch need to be aware of this for repeatability and etch profile. no evidence on my large (>100um) features of any problems...just FYI. From jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jun 12 17:19:22 2009 From: jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu (jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:19:22 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-12 17:19:22: grassing solved, selectivity improved, after MFC change Message-ID: same as jprovine, i have also observed highly reduced grassing after MFC change. selectivity to oxide etch stop has also improved, 0.5um oxide now survives more than 20 minutes overetch rather than sub-5 minutes in DEEP. Since tests have also been run before MFC change by compensating SF6 settings to match flow=130, with little improvement, it is reasonable to suspect the previous MFC was not flowing entirely SF6!! The SF6 purity seemed normal at least back in April 08, but of course the flow was likely also high, judging from the logged chamber pressures during etch vs passivation. From till at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 18 16:17:18 2009 From: till at snf.stanford.edu (till at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:17:18 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-18 16:17:18: wafer broke in chamber Message-ID: Needs to be opened. From cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 18 17:52:09 2009 From: cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu (cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:52:09 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-18 16:17:18: wafer broke in chamber Message-ID: Vented chamber and removed wafer chips. Run 30mins o2 clean. From xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 18 20:14:31 2009 From: xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu (xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:14:31 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-18 20:14:30: Message-ID: From cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu Thu Jun 18 20:16:57 2009 From: cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu (cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:16:57 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-18 20:14:30: Message-ID: Tool is ok, problem.... From cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu Sat Jun 20 15:24:21 2009 From: cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu (cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:24:21 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-05-17 09:34:52: chamber may need cleaning Message-ID: Chamber cleaned on 6/17/09 From cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu Sat Jun 20 16:09:07 2009 From: cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu (cbaxter at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:09:07 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-03 13:50:45: reflected power is too high Message-ID: Could not duplicate problem From xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 22 09:10:50 2009 From: xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu (xzhuan1 at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:10:50 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-22 09:10:50: wafer piece in the chamber Message-ID: The wafer from the previous user broke up in the chamber, and there's some pieces remain in the chamber that need to be taken out by the staff. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 22 09:42:50 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:42:50 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-22 09:42:49: Cleaning the electrode Message-ID: Removing wafer pieces from the electrode From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 22 12:40:07 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:40:07 -0700 Subject: Shutdown stsetch SNF 2009-06-22 09:42:49: Cleaning the electrode Message-ID: Cleaned the chamber and ran O2 maintenance clean From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Jun 23 08:13:15 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:13:15 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-22 09:10:50: wafer piece in the chamber Message-ID: Wafer pieces cleaned up yesterday. From till at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 17:50:09 2009 From: till at snf.stanford.edu (till at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:50:09 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-24 17:50:09: wafer not centered Message-ID: seems to load the wafer in the process chamber not centered. Neither with holder nor without. Also there is a increase in the He flow for all my wafers. Without holder it is around 3 and with holder it jumps from 3.20-3.90. Tried it with wafers with different layers and backside contamination. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 19:05:22 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:05:22 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-05-12 15:32:41: SF6 flow questionable Message-ID: Archived. Replaced SF6 MFC. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 19:05:37 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:05:37 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-05-17 20:19:59: broken wafer cleared, fixed lifter pin problem Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 19:05:45 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:05:45 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-05-19 18:31:16: Fragment retrieved Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 19:05:51 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:05:51 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-05-21 09:38:18: reducing SF6 flow did not work Message-ID: Archived. Replaced SF6 MFC. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Jun 24 19:06:27 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:06:27 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-05-14 13:26:09: SF6 flow update Message-ID: Archived From damodei at snf.stanford.edu Fri Jun 26 03:43:51 2009 From: damodei at snf.stanford.edu (damodei at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:43:51 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-26 03:43:50: wafer centering issues worse Message-ID: Wafer centering issues have gotten worse, to the point that the clamps are barely touching the wafer. With holder the He is now above 4. From elvislin at snf.stanford.edu Sun Jun 28 16:38:21 2009 From: elvislin at snf.stanford.edu (elvislin at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:38:21 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-28 16:38:20: idle at "stand by - pump out" step without continuing the following processing step Message-ID: From damodei at snf.stanford.edu Sun Jun 28 20:49:57 2009 From: damodei at snf.stanford.edu (damodei at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:49:57 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2009-06-28 20:49:56: Machine working OK Message-ID: Machine is now working, but helium leakage still high (4-5). From elvislin at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 29 15:03:24 2009 From: elvislin at snf.stanford.edu (elvislin at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:03:24 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-29 15:03:23: again, it idle at "pumping out" step Message-ID: From elvislin at snf.stanford.edu Mon Jun 29 16:20:29 2009 From: elvislin at snf.stanford.edu (elvislin at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:20:29 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2009-06-29 16:20:29: ICP transfer mode failure Message-ID: after the issue of idling, I loaded in one prime wafer for the test to see if the machine can come back from idling as yesterday. Then STS shows "serial communication failure" and then "transfer mode entry failure". Now my prime test wafer is still in the chamber.