From jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 16 16:53:35 2010 From: jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu (jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:53:35 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-16 16:53:34: please revert recipes Message-ID: if you change a recipe, please remember to revert it when you're done. just went to use recipe #2 (955) and most of the times were doubled. thanks! From jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 16 17:31:31 2010 From: jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu (jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:31:31 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-16 17:31:31: SPR955 1um - incompletely developed Message-ID: about 3 weeks ago i coated 1um of SPR955 on aluminum, exposed on ASML (110 mJ/cm^2) and developed using the standard svgdev recipe (w/ double-checked settings). the results looked good. today for the same conditions there was a bit of residual photoresist around the outer 20mm of the wafer. it was 'speckly' and mainly concentrated around topographical features. running the developer rinse another time removed it and the rest of the features still looked good. the 'ring' pattern was visible just by eye, and the center of the wafer looked good w/o a second rinse. just a heads up for other 1um 955 users. From mahnaz at stanford.edu Wed Nov 17 11:54:37 2010 From: mahnaz at stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:54:37 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-16 17:31:31: SPR955 1um - incompletely developed In-Reply-To: <20101117013131.CF99545619E@smtp-unencrypted.stanford.edu> References: <20101117013131.CF99545619E@smtp-unencrypted.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4CE432FD.4070901@stanford.edu> I think that sounds like you might need a bit longer exposure. Although the lamp change was last week ( so the lamp is new) the E0 shows a little higher exposure. mahnaz On 11/16/2010 5:31 PM, jcdoll at snf.stanford.edu wrote: > about 3 weeks ago i coated 1um of SPR955 on aluminum, exposed on ASML (110 mJ/cm^2) and developed using the standard svgdev recipe (w/ double-checked settings). the results looked good. > today for the same conditions there was a bit of residual photoresist around the outer 20mm of the wafer. it was 'speckly' and mainly concentrated around topographical features. running the developer rinse another time removed it and the rest of the features still looked good. the 'ring' pattern was visible just by eye, and the center of the wafer looked good w/o a second rinse. > just a heads up for other 1um 955 users. > From uli at snf.stanford.edu Thu Nov 18 11:06:58 2010 From: uli at snf.stanford.edu (uli at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:06:58 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-18 11:06:58: resist on hot plate Message-ID: From vilanova at snf.stanford.edu Thu Nov 18 11:15:39 2010 From: vilanova at snf.stanford.edu (vilanova at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:15:39 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-18 11:06:58: resist on hot plate Message-ID: cleaned From simba85 at snf.stanford.edu Fri Nov 19 13:34:37 2010 From: simba85 at snf.stanford.edu (simba85 at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:34:37 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-19 13:34:37: wafer sender is stuck Message-ID: when the two wafer is on the top, the sender cannot send it to spinner. But when they are placed lower. it worked. From vilanova at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 22 07:41:56 2010 From: vilanova at snf.stanford.edu (vilanova at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:41:56 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-19 13:34:37: wafer sender is stuck Message-ID: system working fine, couldnt repeat the user problem. From jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 22 09:41:42 2010 From: jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu (jwpchen at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:41:42 -0800 Subject: Comment svgdev SNF 2010-11-22 09:41:41: centering Message-ID: wafer centering seems a bit off... makes spindle vibrate at higher speeds From xuanwu at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 23 22:05:06 2010 From: xuanwu at snf.stanford.edu (xuanwu at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:05:06 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-23 22:05:06: the rubber bands don't work Message-ID: Powered off and on and still like that From gsosa at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 24 09:45:31 2010 From: gsosa at snf.stanford.edu (gsosa at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:45:31 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-23 22:05:06: the rubber bands don't work Message-ID: Tested track operation. All appears to be OK. From grahamab at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 29 12:06:06 2010 From: grahamab at snf.stanford.edu (grahamab at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:06:06 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-29 12:06:06: input cassette weirdness Message-ID: Seems to not be sensing the second wafer from the top of the cassette. Instead, it tries to go to the last wafer and instead rests the weight of the cassette on the second to last wafer. Happened on two different cassettes and on two different wafers. After removing that wafer, it ran fine. From gsosa at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 29 15:27:40 2010 From: gsosa at snf.stanford.edu (gsosa at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:27:40 -0800 Subject: Problem svgdev SNF 2010-11-29 12:06:06: input cassette weirdness Message-ID: Removed and inspected the indexing comb and found the bottom of the combs teeth blocked. Cleaned the comb with acetone. Re-assembled and tested. All OK.