From jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu Sun Aug 1 11:16:44 2010 From: jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu (jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:16:44 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-01 11:16:44: lock pumpdown alarm Message-ID: lock excessive pump down time alarm, trouble loading wafer From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:35:09 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:35:09 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-31 07:39:03: transfer chamber pump slow Message-ID: No problem found. Cycled a wafer in and out of the chamber 2x and timed the load and vent cycles. Time from pressing the Load button to Ready for process = 1.92 min and 1.97 min . Chamber door opens after about 1 min of the Load cycle. Time from pressing vent to lid open = 1.42 min and 1.25 min From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:35:21 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:35:21 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-07-31 07:42:55: transfer chamber leak rate Message-ID: No problem found. Cycled a wafer in and out of the chamber 2x and timed the load and vent cycles. Time from pressing the Load button to Ready for process = 1.92 min and 1.97 min . Chamber door opens after about 1 min of the Load cycle. Time from pressing vent to lid open = 1.42 min and 1.25 min From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:35:25 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:35:25 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-01 11:16:44: lock pumpdown alarm Message-ID: No problem found. Cycled a wafer in and out of the chamber 2x and timed the load and vent cycles. Time from pressing the Load button to Ready for process = 1.92 min and 1.97 min . Chamber door opens after about 1 min of the Load cycle. Time from pressing vent to lid open = 1.42 min and 1.25 min From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:35:44 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:35:44 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-07-29 09:23:33: Tested OK after power outtage Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:36:32 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:36:32 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-28 18:37:11: software issue again Message-ID: Tightened loose connection inside the Coral box From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:40:15 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:15 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-07-23 07:48:01: Update cover interlock Message-ID: Tightened loose connection inside the Coral box From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:40:24 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:24 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-21 18:33:45: Cover interlock occasionally misreads OPEN Message-ID: Tightened loose connection inside the Coral box From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:40:31 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:31 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-07-21 09:47:14: He flow check Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:40:42 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:42 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-19 01:06:44: cover door issues again Message-ID: Tightened loose connection inside the Coral box From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:40:56 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:40:56 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-07-13 15:33:57: Update He flow Message-ID: Archived From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:42:29 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:42:29 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-03 09:13:40: Communication error Message-ID: Rebooted the software From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 2 09:44:11 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:44:11 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-07-02 23:06:58: He flow very unstable Message-ID: Adjusted the He bypas flow and also adjusted the He flow restriction valve to the chamber From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 11 12:27:49 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:27:49 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-11 12:27:48: Monthly PM completed Message-ID: From jpadovani at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 10:25:45 2010 From: jpadovani at snf.stanford.edu (jpadovani at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:25:45 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-17 10:25:45: eating resist, not silicon! Message-ID: We are releasing cantilevers with through-wafer etches from the backside stopping on buried oxide. Our wafers are 450 um thick and 7 um of standard resist typically works fine. We have released 3 wafers in the last 2 weeks and the resist etch rate has increased progressively while the Silicon etch rate has decreased... Here is our data: 8/4 - 7 um resist, through wafer in 4:02, resist survived fine 8/9 - 7 um resist, through wafer in 4:22, resist lost at ~4 hrs on part of wafer 8/16 - 10 um resist, resist totally gone by 3:30, wafer not near done after 4:15 etching. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 17 13:52:56 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:52:56 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-17 13:52:55: Update eating resist Message-ID: Helium leak rate has increased from 0.5 (5 sccm) to 1.0 (10 sccm). We will replace the lip seal tomorrow after we obtain some process data. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Aug 18 18:54:57 2010 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:54:57 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-18 18:54:56: Update eating resist Message-ID: Replaced lip seall. Leak rate now is 1 sccm. was at 10 sccm. Nancy ran quals before and after the seal change. From latta at snf.stanford.edu Thu Aug 19 14:45:09 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:45:09 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-19 14:45:08: Resist is etching faster during long runs Message-ID: We ran a test wafer for an hour and found the resist etch rate to be 863A/min. For short etches (10 mins or so) the PR etch rate is fine, 192 A/min. Please use caution with long etches until we sort this out. From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 15:39:10 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:39:10 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-19 14:45:08: Resist is etching faster during long runs Message-ID: This is incorrect. Calculation error. New information posted.... From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 15:40:07 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:40:07 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-17 10:25:45: eating resist, not silicon! Message-ID: After several tests at 10 and 60 mins we are not able to replicate the problem. Proceed with caution. From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 15:58:34 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:58:34 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-20 15:58:34: Quals before and after lip seal replacement Message-ID: Before; Si er = 1.93um/min PR = 140A/min Si : PR = 138 : 1 After; Si er = 1.98um/min PR = 119A/min Si : PR = 166 : 1 Based on DEEP recipe 00:10:00 From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 15:59:44 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:59:44 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-17 13:52:55: Update eating resist Message-ID: Lip seal replaced and pre/post quals posted in comments. From latta at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 20 16:17:00 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:17:00 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-20 16:17:00: Results for PR etch rate tests Message-ID: Several wafers were run this week in an effort to track down the report of increased resist etch rates. Here are the er's, selectivities and etch times; 8/18 10 mins, Si = 1.93um, PR = 140A, 138 : 1 8/18 10 mins, Si = 1.98um, PR = 119A, 166 : 1 8/19 10 mins, Si = 1.68um, PR 192A, 88 : 1 8/19 60 mins, Si = 1.7um, PR = 144A, 118 : 1 8/19 10 mins, Si = 1.57um, PR = 145A, 108 : 1 8/20 60 mins, Si = 1.48um, PR = 151A, 98 : 1 We need to figure out why the Si er's are decreasing. From mtang at snf.stanford.edu Mon Aug 23 16:53:52 2010 From: mtang at snf.stanford.edu (mtang at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:53:52 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-23 16:53:52: Check Etch Rates Message-ID: See Nancy's comment from 8/20. Elmer replaced the lip seal and backside He flow is better controlled. However, Nancy's results still seem to show inconsistent etch rates. We will continue to monitor and troubleshoot. In the meantime, be aware of this concern and please report your results and observations. Thanks. From nharjee at snf.stanford.edu Fri Aug 27 09:19:41 2010 From: nharjee at snf.stanford.edu (nharjee at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:19:41 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-27 09:19:41: Test wafer results Message-ID: I etched a bulk-Si test wafer for 120 min using the DEEP recipe and Al holder. SPR220 thickness (avg. of 5 points): Start: 69879 A End: 55869 A Etch rate: 117 A/min Within expected range. Backside Helium (sccm?): Start: 1.62 End: 1.52 Etch step: SF6: 129.2 sccm Pressure: 32 mT Dep step: C4F8: 84.5 sccm Pressure: 19 mT Si trench depths: Right: 249.8 um Middle: 235.5 um Left: 230.2 um Locations on wafer when facing tool. Uniformity is poor. Trench profiles are W shaped (faster etching at the sidewalls). Minimum trench width is 150 um. SEMs available if needed. Reflected power was always 0-1 W, except when switching where it jumped to as high as 180 W for a couple seconds. Mary, Nancy or Elmer will take my time slot today (10a-2p) to continue assessing tool performance. From nharjee at snf.stanford.edu Sat Aug 28 10:04:06 2010 From: nharjee at snf.stanford.edu (nharjee at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:04:06 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-28 10:04:05: Update? Message-ID: Staff, please provide an update on the latest experiments and results. From nharjee at snf.stanford.edu Sat Aug 28 18:14:51 2010 From: nharjee at snf.stanford.edu (nharjee at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:14:51 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-28 18:14:50: APC setpoint for DEEP recipe Message-ID: I noticed that the APC setpoint in the DEEP recipe has been changed (by staff?) from 69% to 66% presumably to address the slightly higher process pressures that users were seeing. No note was made in Coral, so users that ran DEEP recently may want to check their etch results. Pressures are now ~16 mT in dep and ~27 mT in etch. From ericp at snf.stanford.edu Sun Aug 29 22:15:04 2010 From: ericp at snf.stanford.edu (ericp at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:15:04 -0700 Subject: Problem stsetch SNF 2010-08-29 22:15:03: DO NOT CHANGE STANDARD RECIPES! Message-ID: Again, someone has changed a STANDARD recipe. This is really, really bad practice, even if (maybe ESPECIALLY if) used to mask an underlying machine problem. If you really feel the need to change something, RENAME it to DEEP_HACK or something similarly appropriate. From latta at snf.stanford.edu Tue Aug 31 15:26:52 2010 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (latta at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:26:52 -0700 Subject: Comment stsetch SNF 2010-08-31 15:26:52: Check Your Recipes! Message-ID: Please protect your work and check your recipe before committing valuable wafers to the etch. As noted by several stsetch users someone has been changing recipe parameters, in the latest case the position of the turbo throttle. We staffers did not make the change. Ericp is correct; if you want to change recipe conditions please copy the recipe and change all the parameters you like.