From mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu Fri Nov 20 18:30:02 2009 From: mcvittie at snf.stanford.edu (Jim McVittie) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:30:02 -0800 Subject: STS2 Funnel Update Message-ID: <4B0750AA.50305@snf.stanford.edu> Hi. The funnel is in and I have some initial results. Overall, the etch Si rate and resist selective are significantly improved. Pressure Increase: For a 40 mT process the funnel causes the pressure to increase about 5 mT so to keep your old pressure you will have to increase the APC %. For the tested process, I increased the APC setting fro 14% to 16% Dep Rate Increase: To measure the dep rate, I used a 300W continuous dep process at 12mT for 3 min. With the addition, of the funnel, the dep rate increases by 17% from 119 to 140 nm/min. Etch Rate Increase: To measure the etch, I used a 2000W continuous etch process at 25 mT for 3 min with a test wafer with 90% open area. With the addition of the funnel the Si etch rate increased 42% from 6.0 to 10.4 um/min. Trench Etch Rate Increase: To measure trench etch rates I used a Chris Kenny mask with trench widths from 1um to 30um wide. The bad issue about this mask is that the exposed area is < 1% so they rates I measure are significantly higher than most users will see with their masks having higher exposed areas. The process I used is a smooth process which I used to qualify STS2 five years ago, when I purchased the tool. It is a 2s/3.5s process run at 2500/2000 W with the electromagnet at 1.5A for the etch step and it is run for 6 min. For the 30 um wide trench, the average Si etch rate increased by 58% from 6.6 to 10.4 um/min ( The depths were 39 and 62 um). At the same time the resist rate decreased by 17% from 0.63 to .052 um/min. This gives a resist selectivity of 199 for the mask and conditions given which is an increase of 79% for the funnel addition. Trench Profile: With the different amounts of increase for the etch and dep rates, I expected the trench profiles to be significantly affected. However, for this initial test I did not see a big change. The initial 30 um trench wall angle was about 88.5 deg while the post funnel angle was about 89 deg. I want to thanks Jason Snapp for the SEM work. We used a low resolution SEM to get quick results so I do not have undercut or wall roughness numbers. I expect to have more and more detailed results next week. For the next month and I want and demand all users of the tool to send me their etch results and their process detials. I will be available to help users with their processes, and I will send out summaries of what I learning the different processes on the tool. If you do not want to share your results, you will have to wait until the tool is fully characterize before using it. Thanks, Jim From mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU Sat Nov 21 10:16:41 2009 From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:16:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: STS2 User Mtg Message-ID: Hi, I have recently gotten several requests for STS2 training. It looks like Mary will be doing the STS2 training but at this point she had not been trained. In the mean time, it might be useful if some of the current users could do some training. Let me know if you can help until Mary comes up to speed. I think we should start having STS2 user mtgs to go over the changes to the tool and to share process info and results. I would also like to get a better feeling of what processes are most important to users. I am thinking of having the first mtg on Tuesday the 1st. I have noticed that some of the users really do understand the tool and more importantly do not understand the process parameters. I am thinking that after the user mtg those who want to know more about the tool or plasma etching can stay for an informal training session. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- James (Jim) P. McVittie, Ph.D. Sr. Research Scientist Paul G. Allen Building Electrical Engineering Stanford Nanofabrication Facility jmcvittie at stanford.edu Stanford University Office: (650) 725-3640 Rm. 336X, 330 Serra Mall Lab: (650) 721-6834 Stanford, CA 94305-4075 Fax: (650) 723-4659 From mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU Fri Nov 27 10:28:30 2009 From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:28:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: STS2 User Meeting Message-ID: Hi, As you recall, I suggested having a User mtg next Tuesday (the 1st) to discuss the recent chnages to the tool and how we can get better results out of the tool. Several users asked for the mtg to be in the afternoon. How is 1 pm for you? Thanks, Jim -- -------------------------------------------------------------- James (Jim) P. McVittie, Ph.D. Sr. Research Scientist Paul G. Allen Building Electrical Engineering Stanford Nanofabrication Facility jmcvittie at stanford.edu Stanford University Office: (650) 725-3640 Rm. 336X, 330 Serra Mall Lab: (650) 721-6834 Stanford, CA 94305-4075 Fax: (650) 723-4659 From mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU Mon Nov 30 09:15:20 2009 From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: STS2 User Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Everyone seems to be ok with meeting tomarrow (Tuesday) at 1pm. We will meet in 338x. Jim On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Jim McVittie wrote: > Hi, > > As you recall, I suggested having a User mtg next Tuesday (the 1st) to > discuss the recent chnages to the tool and how we can get better results > out of the tool. Several users asked for the mtg to be in the afternoon. > How is 1 pm for you? > > Thanks, Jim > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------- James (Jim) P. McVittie, Ph.D. Sr. Research Scientist Paul G. Allen Building Electrical Engineering Stanford Nanofabrication Facility jmcvittie at stanford.edu Stanford University Office: (650) 725-3640 Rm. 336X, 330 Serra Mall Lab: (650) 721-6834 Stanford, CA 94305-4075 Fax: (650) 723-4659