From jjeong1 at snf.stanford.edu Wed Dec 2 11:48:08 2009 From: jjeong1 at snf.stanford.edu (jjeong1 at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:48:08 -0800 Subject: Shutdown stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-02 11:48:08: Leak test failed Message-ID: Doesn't proceed to the etching step. It says that the backside gas leak check result is above the specified alarm level. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Wed Dec 2 15:16:48 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:16:48 -0800 Subject: Shutdown stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-02 11:48:08: Leak test failed Message-ID: No problem found. Ran 2 wafer, He backside cooling leak rate were 2.4 sccm and 1.6 sccm. From jsnapp at snf.stanford.edu Fri Dec 4 23:38:33 2009 From: jsnapp at snf.stanford.edu (jsnapp at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:38:33 -0800 Subject: Problem stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-04 23:38:32: Coil forward power alarm fault Message-ID: I tried running a wafer (another one from prev. same batch) using same previous recipe. Plasma lit, but just a few cycles in alarm fault occurred and process was stopped. "13.56 MHz coil forward power fell below alarm level setpoint was 0W; alarm band setpoint was 500W, value reached was 1407W." Tried re-running (did not remove wafer from chamber) and got same fault after just a cycle again. Value reached was 866W second time. (FYI. Wafer ID: S025509, backside coolant presure 10T, flow 16.6sccm) Didn't try anymore with STS2. It was late and was only running the wafer while I pondered what raindance would make p5000's blade give me back my good wafer. From srikantv at snf.stanford.edu Mon Dec 7 14:11:09 2009 From: srikantv at snf.stanford.edu (srikantv at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:11:09 -0800 Subject: Shutdown stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 14:11:09: Loadlock mapping problem Message-ID: dummy wafer stuck in chamber. Unable to unload because computer thinks loadlock has wafers. Elmer has seen it and asked for machine to be shutdown From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Dec 7 14:58:21 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:58:21 -0800 Subject: Comment stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 14:58:20: Update mapping Message-ID: Re From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Dec 7 15:03:34 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:03:34 -0800 Subject: Comment stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 14:58:20: Update mapping Message-ID: From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Mon Dec 7 15:09:20 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:09:20 -0800 Subject: Comment stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 15:09:20: Update mapping problem Message-ID: Reset the loadlock computer but still has the same problem. It looks like the wafer sensor is too sensitive and seeing non-existant wafers. I will try to adjust the sensor tomorrow. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Dec 8 09:05:01 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:05:01 -0800 Subject: Shutdown stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 14:11:09: Loadlock mapping problem Message-ID: Adjusted the wafer sensor sensitivy. Cycled wafers with no problems. From eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu Tue Dec 8 09:05:17 2009 From: eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu (eenriquez at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:05:17 -0800 Subject: Comment stsetch2 SNF 2009-12-07 15:09:20: Update mapping problem Message-ID: Archived