From fumin at stanford.edu Tue Feb 3 22:11:03 2004 From: fumin at stanford.edu (Fu-Min Wang) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:11:03 -0800 Subject: available from 11pm to 6:30am Message-ID: <001701c3eae5$ab6a32e0$1aa540ab@mozart> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xzhuang at stanford.edu Wed Feb 4 10:08:33 2004 From: xzhuang at stanford.edu (Steve Zhuang) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:08:33 -0800 Subject: available from 11pm to 6:30am References: <001701c3eae5$ab6a32e0$1aa540ab@mozart> Message-ID: <002401c3eb49$e6f1eba0$bb5640ab@pky7> I'll take it. Thanks! Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Fu-Min Wang To: stsetch at snf.stanford.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: available from 11pm to 6:30am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Spotworthy at aol.com Wed Feb 4 12:24:19 2004 From: Spotworthy at aol.com (Spotworthy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:24:19 -0500 Subject: free today from 12:30pm -1:30 pm Message-ID: <3B217029.090B7496.0CEC25E7@aol.com> I got done early. Sorry for short notice. Linda W. From Spotworthy at aol.com Thu Feb 5 04:12:02 2004 From: Spotworthy at aol.com (Spotworthy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 07:12:02 EST Subject: Available 5 am to 9 am Thurs. 2/5/04 Message-ID: <107.2ba1cf04.2d538d12@aol.com> I am unable to use my reservation as wafers are not ready due to AMTetch shutdown last night. Very sorry for the late notice, but I just found out this morning that wafers would not be ready. Happy etching! I removed my reservation, so if you want, please use coral to reserve and don't send a reply to this email that you want the slot, as it is no longer mine to give. Thanks! Linda W. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Spotworthy at aol.com Thu Feb 5 04:19:46 2004 From: Spotworthy at aol.com (Spotworthy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 07:19:46 EST Subject: Fwd: Available 5 am to 9 am Thurs. 2/5/04 Message-ID: <8c.29d0063.2d538ee2@aol.com> Forgot to mention the reservation that is open from 5-9 am this morning is for the STSetch. Sorry, for the double email. Is much too early to think clearly. Lindaw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Spotworthy at aol.com Subject: Available 5 am to 9 am Thurs. 2/5/04 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 07:12:02 EST Size: 1609 URL: From tkramer at stanford.edu Fri Feb 6 11:26:41 2004 From: tkramer at stanford.edu (Theresa Kramer) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:26:41 -0800 Subject: stsetch time available today at 14:00 and 15:00 Message-ID: <000301c3ece7$2612e980$0301a8c0@TKRAMER> From jocelyn.nee at lightconnect.com Fri Feb 6 13:14:45 2004 From: jocelyn.nee at lightconnect.com (Jocelyn Nee) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:14:45 -0800 Subject: stsetch available NOW (Friday 2/6 1:15pm) through 3:30pm Message-ID: <2963ADCF008F5F4BA05BCD4B1720A96D8D0B9E@lcpo.lightconnect.com> Started early and done early. JN From aageraci at stanford.edu Fri Feb 6 13:44:09 2004 From: aageraci at stanford.edu (Andrew Albert Geraci) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:44:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: stsetch available NOW (Friday 2/6 1:15pm) through 3:30pm In-Reply-To: <2963ADCF008F5F4BA05BCD4B1720A96D8D0B9E@lcpo.lightconnect.com> Message-ID: ok i'll take it. Thanks, Andy Geraci On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Jocelyn Nee wrote: > Started early and done early. JN > From amf at amfitzgerald.com Fri Feb 6 16:37:02 2004 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:37:02 -0800 Subject: any info on thick resist performance? Message-ID: <02ae01c3ed12$812cd8a0$0300a8c0@snowcat> Hi STS users, I was wondering if you have any comments or observations about the performance of the thick resist lately. I've heard it's non-uniform, but wondering if there has been any additional weirdness, such as burning, bubbling, etc. in the STS. My pattern can tolerate non-uniformity in the resist thickness, but I'm just wondering if there have been other issues too. Basically trying to decide whether to keep going or wait for the svgcoat problems to be resolved. If you've got any insights you're willing to share, I'd really appreciate hearing them. Thanks, Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cheng1 at stanford.edu Fri Feb 6 20:05:21 2004 From: cheng1 at stanford.edu (Ching-Hsiang Cheng) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:05:21 -0800 Subject: Remove Reservation Sunday 3:00am-8:30am Message-ID: <1076126721.402464012925a@webmail.stanford.edu> Dear STSetch users, I have removed my reservation on Sunday 3:00am-8:30am. Ching-Hsiang From xzhuang at stanford.edu Fri Feb 6 20:09:02 2004 From: xzhuang at stanford.edu (Xuefeng Zhuang) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:09:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: free Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm, 3:30pm-5:00pm In-Reply-To: <1076126721.402464012925a@webmail.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I removed my reservation from 8:00am-12:00pm and 3:30pm-5:00pm this Saturday. Steve Zhuang From aageraci at stanford.edu Sat Feb 7 11:03:23 2004 From: aageraci at stanford.edu (Andrew Albert Geraci) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 11:03:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: free now thru 14:00 Message-ID: started early, done early. From cheng1 at stanford.edu Sat Feb 7 18:19:28 2004 From: cheng1 at stanford.edu (Ching-Hsiang Cheng) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:19:28 -0800 Subject: Remove Reservation Sunday 10:00am - 1:30pm Message-ID: <1076206768.40259cb066ddb@webmail.stanford.edu> Dear STSetch users, Done Early. Ching-Hsiang From kenney at SLAC.Stanford.EDU Sun Feb 8 20:51:17 2004 From: kenney at SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Chris Kenney) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:51:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free 5:00am to 7:30am Monday Message-ID: My wafer should finish by 5:00 am, so the time up to 7:30 is free. From harshal at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 10 13:35:47 2004 From: harshal at snf.stanford.edu (Harshal Surangalikar) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:35:47 -0800 Subject: STS time policy. Message-ID: <40294EB3.60004@snf.stanford.edu> dear STS users, i wanted to make a few comments about the new reservation policy for the STS users. 1) if i am not wrong, (and please correct me if i am!) the "advance" time period has now been increased from 7 days to 10 days, and 2) the limit on the reservation slot has been removed, so that a user can now reserve the machine for as much time as he wants. i dont see how these two changes will make the situation better. on the contrary these two changes are like a double-blow and counter productive, not even, lets say, balancing each other. earlier, the advance time was 7 days and one would plan his work for 7 days so that he is able to use the time slot he has reserved. now the user has to plan his work for 10 days which is difficult than planning for 7 days since its easier to follow the plans in the near future than far. so if something goes wrong in processing, and the user is not ready for his precious time slot, he has to wait another 10 days instead of 7. secondly, now that a user can book as much as he wants, he is always going to give himself a degree of freedom to block a fat time slot. that means if i am a fraction of a second late in making the reservation, i am "out of competition" for an indefinite period of time. earlier , with the 30 min. limit on the reservation slot, i knew that i have another chance after 30 min. this also means that now for the next available time slot, there will be even more number of users fighting for 'their" big slot, compared to a fewer number of users fighting for smaller 30 min time slots at a given point of time. what can be done is: 1) we reduce the "advance" time period for reservation from 10 to 3 or 4 days so that that users are better able to plan and finish their work so as to be ready for their time slot, since its much easier to see 4 days ahead than 10 days, and 2) increase the time slot limit from 30 min to 1 hr. or 1.5 hrs. or lets say, 2 hrs. because thats the time in which a user can get something done on his current wafer comfortably and will require less rearrangements with other users. hope this makes sense and any and every input will be helpful. harshal. From mike.daneman at arrayedfiberoptics.com Tue Feb 10 15:39:44 2004 From: mike.daneman at arrayedfiberoptics.com (Mike Daneman) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:39:44 -0800 Subject: STS time policy. In-Reply-To: <40294EB3.60004@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I'd like to completely agree with what Harshal is proposing. Planning 7 days ahead is hard enough, planning 10 days is really difficult and it will make people grab time just in case, even if they're not sure they'll use it. I like the 3-4 day window suggestion, and I would suggest having the maximum time slot limit be ~1-2 hours. -Mike. -----Original Message----- From: Harshal Surangalikar [mailto:harshal at snf.stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:36 PM To: stsetch at snf.stanford.edu Subject: STS time policy. dear STS users, i wanted to make a few comments about the new reservation policy for the STS users. 1) if i am not wrong, (and please correct me if i am!) the "advance" time period has now been increased from 7 days to 10 days, and 2) the limit on the reservation slot has been removed, so that a user can now reserve the machine for as much time as he wants. i dont see how these two changes will make the situation better. on the contrary these two changes are like a double-blow and counter productive, not even, lets say, balancing each other. earlier, the advance time was 7 days and one would plan his work for 7 days so that he is able to use the time slot he has reserved. now the user has to plan his work for 10 days which is difficult than planning for 7 days since its easier to follow the plans in the near future than far. so if something goes wrong in processing, and the user is not ready for his precious time slot, he has to wait another 10 days instead of 7. secondly, now that a user can book as much as he wants, he is always going to give himself a degree of freedom to block a fat time slot. that means if i am a fraction of a second late in making the reservation, i am "out of competition" for an indefinite period of time. earlier , with the 30 min. limit on the reservation slot, i knew that i have another chance after 30 min. this also means that now for the next available time slot, there will be even more number of users fighting for 'their" big slot, compared to a fewer number of users fighting for smaller 30 min time slots at a given point of time. what can be done is: 1) we reduce the "advance" time period for reservation from 10 to 3 or 4 days so that that users are better able to plan and finish their work so as to be ready for their time slot, since its much easier to see 4 days ahead than 10 days, and 2) increase the time slot limit from 30 min to 1 hr. or 1.5 hrs. or lets say, 2 hrs. because thats the time in which a user can get something done on his current wafer comfortably and will require less rearrangements with other users. hope this makes sense and any and every input will be helpful. harshal. From bchui at california.com Tue Feb 10 16:22:19 2004 From: bchui at california.com (Benjamin Chui) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:22:19 -0800 Subject: STS time policy. In-Reply-To: <40295216.5040009@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: I am fine with the 7-day horizon; I do plan out my process well in advance so 7 days is not too far in the future. I agree that the half-hour time slot is too short for the STS; for users trying to reserve several hours of time in a contiguous block, it means sitting at the computer all day not being able to go anywhere (and even that doesn't guarantee success!). Let me suggest a short-term fix that might be easy to code from the software guy's point of view: keep the new rule that allows long reservations to START on the 7-day or 10-day horizon, but limit the total reservable time to say 2 hours (i.e if the user selects anything more than 4 continous slots, the program will bounce). Assuming that users are naturally greedy and tend to reserve the maximum amount of time possible, this would naturally lead to a 2-hours-at-a-time reservation pattern. Ben Chui PS I have to admit I did take advantage of the extended horizon and grabbed a lot of time for next week--allow me to explain that I do really need to finish my process by the end of the month, and once I'm done with this round of etching I'll be out of the clean room for a looooong time so I won't be competing with you folks anymore. ========================================================= On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:50:14 -0800 Harshal Surangalikar wrote: > dear STS users, > > i wanted to make a few comments about the new reservation > policy for the STS users. > > 1) if i am not wrong, (and please correct me if i am!) > the "advance" time period has now been increased from 7 > days to 10 days, and > 2) the limit on the reservation slot has been removed, so > that a user can now reserve the machine for as much time > as he wants. > > i dont see how these two changes will make the situation > better. on the contrary these two changes are like a > double-blow and counter productive, not even, lets say, > balancing each other. earlier, the advance time was 7 > days and one would plan his work for 7 days so that he is > able to use the time slot he has reserved. now the user > has to plan his work for 10 days which is difficult than > planning for 7 days since its easier to follow the plans > in the near future than far. so if something goes wrong > in processing, and the user is not ready for his > precious time slot, he has to wait another 10 days > instead of 7. > > secondly, now that a user can book as much as he wants, > he is always going to give himself a degree of freedom to > block a fat time slot. that means if i am a fraction of a > second late in making the reservation, i am "out of > competition" for an indefinite period of time. earlier , > with the 30 min. limit on the reservation slot, i knew > that i have another chance after 30 min. this also means > that now for the next available time slot, there will be > even more number of users fighting for 'their" big slot, > compared to a fewer number of users fighting for smaller > 30 min time slots at a given point of time. > > what can be done is: > 1) we reduce the "advance" time period for reservation > from 10 to 3 or 4 days so that that users are better able > to plan and finish their work so as to be ready for their > time slot, since its much easier to see 4 days ahead than > 10 days, and > 2) increase the time slot limit from 30 min to 1 hr. or > 1.5 hrs. or lets say, 2 hrs. because thats the time in > which a user can get something done on his current wafer > comfortably and will require less rearrangements with > other users. > > hope this makes sense and any and every input will be > helpful. > > harshal. From kenney at SLAC.Stanford.EDU Tue Feb 10 18:30:07 2004 From: kenney at SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Chris Kenney) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:30:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: STS time policy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I appreciate the thought that the staff put into this change. However, the old system was much better than the new reservation system for the STS community. Remember, there will be two STS etchers in a few months and the situation will completely change. Chris From shott at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 10 19:56:55 2004 From: shott at snf.stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:56:55 -0800 Subject: STS Time policy .... Message-ID: <4029A807.4070606@snf.stanford.edu> STS etch users: I appreciate all of the feedback ... even the negative stuff. Let me clarify a couple of things: 1. At the moment, we DON'T have the ability to change things for one piece of equipment. What we institute applies to all. While we are working on that capability, it is not close to release. 2. It was argued that an increase of the time horizon may improve things if part of the problem is a "feeding frenzy" that causes folks to reserve more time than they need or if some people seem to never get a reservaation during the horizon. We understand, however, that the unpredictable nature of research makes it more difficult to plan far in advance. It is probably also true that increasing the horizon probably doesn't help if it is continually and continuously full .... but that is something that we hope to learn. What would be helpful, for a variety of reasons, is development of a set of mutually agreed upon rules for reservations for the stsetch. What do you think would work? The Raith community, for example, have discussed and adopted some rules related to the maximum duration of a single reservation and the maximum total duration of outstanding reservations in hopes of better sharing that scarce resource. Not only will this help them to better share a scarce resource, but it will give them some experience in defining a set of reservation rules that seem to work for that particular piece of equipment ... that we can define and enforce when that capability is available. What rules do you think will work for the stsetch? While Chris makes a valid point that we will have a second stsetcher operational at some point, even when that happens, I anticipate that BOTH stsetchers will be high-demand tools. Additionally, I don't know when the second etcher will be up and qualified ... but it's been sitting there for quite a while. So, I think that understanding what reservation rules will work is still a valid matter for discussion. We can undo these changes, if the general consensus is that this is a failed experiment ... but it also seems that we really should come up with something better than the prevailing conditions for this very important tool. Thanks, John From chungchu at stanford.edu Wed Feb 11 09:38:42 2004 From: chungchu at stanford.edu (Chung-Chu Chen) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:38:42 -0800 Subject: STSetch Free 4:30am to 7:30am Thu, Feb 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c3f0c5$e442c330$075540ab@SP750> From latta at snf.stanford.edu Thu Feb 12 16:26:35 2004 From: latta at snf.stanford.edu (Nancy Latta) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:26:35 -0800 Subject: Reservation Policy Poll! Message-ID: <402C19BB.5020200@snf.stanford.edu> Fellow Stsetcher?s, As you might have guessed, there have been many heated and enlightening ?hallway? discussions about the 24/7 use of the etcher and the new changes to the coral reservation system. This seems to be a good time to gather everyone?s thoughts about what should or should not be done. Please take a moment and answer the following questions. I?ll be happy to share the results of this survey. Thanks! 1) What are your thoughts on the new coral feature which allows for reservations to be made 10 days in advance? 2) What are your thoughts on the new coral feature which allows for reservations to be made for unlimited amounts of time within a day? 3) We may have to start thinking about establishing time restrictions on reservations. Please think about your use of the tool and answer the following; What is a reasonable maximum time limit for a reservation per day? Per week? Per month? Keep in mind that these limits will need to be self policed and enforced. 4) Should I continue to automatically reserve time to be given to labmembers who are unable to get reservations? Should it be on an other that first-ask-first served basis? -Nancy -- --- Nancy Latta Stanford Nanofabrication Facility CIS Bldg, 145 420 Via Palou Mall Stanford, CA, 94305 - 4070 (650) 725-6727 Fax (650) 725-6278 From tkramer at stanford.edu Thu Feb 12 18:55:41 2004 From: tkramer at stanford.edu (Theresa Anne Kramer) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:55:41 -0800 Subject: stsetch available now to 22:00 (2/12) Message-ID: <1076640941.402c3cad0e6a7@webmail.stanford.edu> Done early! From aageraci at stanford.edu Fri Feb 13 14:35:15 2004 From: aageraci at stanford.edu (Andrew Albert Geraci) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:35:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: free 20:30-22:00 Message-ID: Feeling sick - can't use the time. From Mislam at activeoptical.com Fri Feb 13 17:58:25 2004 From: Mislam at activeoptical.com (Mohammed Islam) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:58:25 -0800 Subject: Hi/lo RF power setting Message-ID: <0C491DC1CDFB1D46807C84050FADA89303BFCD@newton.activeoptical.com> Fellow STSetch users, The RF power was found to be set at 300W this morning instead of 30W that is used for all standard processes. Unfortunately I notice it when my wafer ran out of resist after a short etch. User before me also was not aware of the change and has all his wafers came out bad. Talking to others it seems that many users are not aware of the low/high RF power option, only a few user utilize high power setting and as I understand they are responsible to switch back to low RF power when done. There were few other instances where machine was left at high power and resulted in renuining of sebsequent users work. I wanted to bring this to everybody's attention so that these instances could be avioded. Mohammed From amf at amfitzgerald.com Sat Feb 14 11:51:30 2004 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:51:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: stsetch free now until 1:30pm Message-ID: <20040214195130.70111.qmail@web11901.mail.yahoo.com> finished etch early etch rate ~ 2.2 um/min on DEEP -Alissa From amf at amfitzgerald.com Sat Feb 14 11:52:27 2004 From: amf at amfitzgerald.com (Alissa M. Fitzgerald) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: removed reservation, 2/15, 7-11am Message-ID: <20040214195227.24257.qmail@web11905.mail.yahoo.com> wafer not ready, released my reservation. -alissa From Spotworthy at aol.com Sun Feb 15 09:02:36 2004 From: Spotworthy at aol.com (Spotworthy at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:02:36 -0500 Subject: STS open monday 2/16/04 10-2:30 pm Message-ID: <53F055CC.184139C6.0CEC25E7@aol.com> Got wafers done today. I removed my reservation for monday from 10am to 2:30 pm. Linda W. From aageraci at stanford.edu Mon Feb 16 15:30:37 2004 From: aageraci at stanford.edu (Andrew Albert Geraci) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:30:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: reservation removed 17:30-18:30 Message-ID: will finish early. From mike.daneman at arrayedfiberoptics.com Tue Feb 17 13:31:11 2004 From: mike.daneman at arrayedfiberoptics.com (Mike Daneman) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:31:11 -0800 Subject: STS free Tues (today) 6:30-10pm Message-ID: I won't be able to use my 6:30-10pm reservation today, so I'm releasing it. -Mike. From bwacker at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 22 14:03:08 2004 From: bwacker at sbcglobal.net (Barbara Wacker) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:03:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Can anybody help with STS: serial communications fault Message-ID: <20040222220308.79455.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, It is Sunday afternoon and I am using STS. After I completed etch on one of my wafer and before unload I got STS alarm: "serial communications fault". It seems like some sort of handshake problem. Does anybody know how to clear this alarm? Please help if you know what to do. I would like to continue to use my precious STS time today. Thank you very much! Barbara Wacker From bwacker at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 22 15:26:29 2004 From: bwacker at sbcglobal.net (Barbara Wacker) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:26:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: STS is working fine now 2/22/04 Message-ID: <20040222232629.74655.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> From vossough at snf.stanford.edu Sun Feb 22 18:11:39 2004 From: vossough at snf.stanford.edu (Kris Vossough) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:11:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: releasing time 19:30 today In-Reply-To: <20040222232629.74655.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: not ready.