From rshyam at stanford.edu  Mon Mar  1 18:51:17 2010
From: rshyam at stanford.edu (Shyam Raghunathan)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:51:17 -0800
Subject: Status update?
Message-ID: <e77e906c1003011851j254037c2jae76c06686526bbe@mail.gmail.com>

Is there an update on thermcopoly1?


From maurice at stanford.edu  Wed Mar  3 12:19:44 2010
From: maurice at stanford.edu (maurice stevens)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:19:44 -0800
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
Message-ID: <4B8EC460.4070508@stanford.edu>

ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold contaminated 
furnace March 15th. 

All clean doped poly with move over to Thermcopoly2.  The tubes operate 
exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has not had any boat 
calibration issues).  All the standard recipes are on both.

We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts finished by that time. 

You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have already added 
many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification list.  If you didn't get a 
qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary) know and we will add you.

Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly tubes can deposited 
doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed with Ge.  It is our only 
"clean" doped Ge tube so it could not become the "gold" tube.

If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me know.

-m

-- 
maurice at stanford.edu

Maurice Stevens
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
P. (650)725-3660
F. (650)725.6278



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  9 10:34:02 2010
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:34:02 -0800
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
In-Reply-To: <4B8EC460.4070508@stanford.edu>
References: <4B8EC460.4070508@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100309103231.051f8f68@stanford.edu>

All,

I want to remind everyone that ThermcoPoly1 will transition over to 
gold contaminated on Monday, March 15th.

Since Maurice is out of the office, please let Nancy or Ed know if 
you have any concerns.

Regards,


At 12:19 PM 3/3/2010, maurice stevens wrote:
>ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold contaminated 
>furnace March 15th.
>All clean doped poly with move over to Thermcopoly2.  The tubes 
>operate exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has not had any 
>boat calibration issues).  All the standard recipes are on both.
>
>We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts finished by that time.
>You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have already 
>added many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification list.  If you 
>didn't get a qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary) know and we will add you.
>
>Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly tubes can 
>deposited doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed with Ge.  It 
>is our only "clean" doped Ge tube so it could not become the "gold" tube.
>
>If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me know.
>
>-m
>
>--
>maurice at stanford.edu
>
>Maurice Stevens
>Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
>CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
>Stanford, CA  94305
>P. (650)725-3660
>F. (650)725.6278




From robinhmb at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  9 11:38:40 2010
From: robinhmb at yahoo.com (Robin King)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold - results from Thermcopoly 2?
Message-ID: <228628.71677.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

We've always been told that the transition date was not actually fixed, but dependent on the performance of the tool slated to replace it, and Maurice assured us last week that Thermcopoly1 will NOT become gold contaminated until Thermcopoly2 has thickness and dopant results acceptable to the users.

Hopefully all is well in that regard but we haven't seen any data to that effect.  I propose we all meet to review it ala quality circle.  In the meantime could we see the results so far?

Thanks,
Robin King
IBM/Almaden Research Center


--- On Tue, 3/9/10, Ed Myers <edmyers at stanford.edu> wrote:

> From: Ed Myers <edmyers at stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
> To: thermcopoly1 at snf.stanford.edu, thermcopoly2 at snf.stanford.edu
> Cc: "Nancy Latta" <latta at snf.stanford.edu>, "Mary Tang" <mtang at stanford.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 10:34 AM
> All,
> 
> I want to remind everyone that ThermcoPoly1 will transition
> over to 
> gold contaminated on Monday, March 15th.
> 
> Since Maurice is out of the office, please let Nancy or Ed
> know if 
> you have any concerns.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> At 12:19 PM 3/3/2010, maurice stevens wrote:
> >ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold
> contaminated 
> >furnace March 15th.
> >All clean doped poly with move over to
> Thermcopoly2.? The tubes 
> >operate exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has
> not had any 
> >boat calibration issues).? All the standard
> recipes are on both.
> >
> >We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts
> finished by that time.
> >You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have
> already 
> >added many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification
> list.? If you 
> >didn't get a qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary)
> know and we will add you.
> >
> >Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly
> tubes can 
> >deposited doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed
> with Ge.? It 
> >is our only "clean" doped Ge tube so it could not
> become the "gold" tube.
> >
> >If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me
> know.
> >
> >-m
> >
> >--
> >maurice at stanford.edu
> >
> >Maurice Stevens
> >Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> >CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
> >Stanford, CA? 94305
> >P. (650)725-3660
> >F. (650)725.6278
> 
> 
>



From rshyam at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  9 14:17:14 2010
From: rshyam at stanford.edu (Shyam Raghunathan)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:17:14 -0800
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold - results from Thermcopoly 2?
In-Reply-To: <228628.71677.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <228628.71677.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e77e906c1003091417ocf80be4ye79658b18b99eacc@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

I agree with Robin. Until thermcopoly2 is characterized as well as
thermopoly1 has been with respect to all its recipes/doping/growth
rates/sheet resistances, and until a quality circle meets and reviews
it, the switch should not take place.

Thanks,
Shyam.

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robin King <robinhmb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We've always been told that the transition date was not actually fixed, but dependent on the performance of the tool slated to replace it, and Maurice assured us last week that Thermcopoly1 will NOT become gold contaminated until Thermcopoly2 has thickness and dopant results acceptable to the users.
>
> Hopefully all is well in that regard but we haven't seen any data to that effect. ?I propose we all meet to review it ala quality circle. ?In the meantime could we see the results so far?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin King
> IBM/Almaden Research Center
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/9/10, Ed Myers <edmyers at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> From: Ed Myers <edmyers at stanford.edu>
>> Subject: Re: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
>> To: thermcopoly1 at snf.stanford.edu, thermcopoly2 at snf.stanford.edu
>> Cc: "Nancy Latta" <latta at snf.stanford.edu>, "Mary Tang" <mtang at stanford.edu>
>> Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 10:34 AM
>> All,
>>
>> I want to remind everyone that ThermcoPoly1 will transition
>> over to
>> gold contaminated on Monday, March 15th.
>>
>> Since Maurice is out of the office, please let Nancy or Ed
>> know if
>> you have any concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> At 12:19 PM 3/3/2010, maurice stevens wrote:
>> >ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold
>> contaminated
>> >furnace March 15th.
>> >All clean doped poly with move over to
>> Thermcopoly2.? The tubes
>> >operate exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has
>> not had any
>> >boat calibration issues).? All the standard
>> recipes are on both.
>> >
>> >We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts
>> finished by that time.
>> >You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have
>> already
>> >added many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification
>> list.? If you
>> >didn't get a qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary)
>> know and we will add you.
>> >
>> >Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly
>> tubes can
>> >deposited doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed
>> with Ge.? It
>> >is our only "clean" doped Ge tube so it could not
>> become the "gold" tube.
>> >
>> >If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me
>> know.
>> >
>> >-m
>> >
>> >--
>> >maurice at stanford.edu
>> >
>> >Maurice Stevens
>> >Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
>> >CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
>> >Stanford, CA? 94305
>> >P. (650)725-3660
>> >F. (650)725.6278
>>
>>
>>
>
>


From edmyers at stanford.edu  Tue Mar  9 16:49:37 2010
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:49:37 -0800
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100309103231.051f8f68@stanford.edu>
References: <4B8EC460.4070508@stanford.edu>
 <6.2.5.6.2.20100309103231.051f8f68@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100309160609.051bc630@stanford.edu>

All,

I am receiving your emails and I hear your concerns.  I know 
transitions like this are difficult and how impossible it is to find 
the perfect time.  We are not out to jeopardize your work, but we are 
trying to support the lab members who for years have been asking for 
more capability in processing substrates in the gold contaminated category.

The intention of the earlier email was to remind everyone one the 
change is coming.  Maurice has been working on gathering data on 
Thermcopoly2.  We must get a complete set of data, have it published 
and have it reviewed by the lab member community before the 
change.  I will be gathering the data out of Thermcopoly2 and will 
monitor the progress in Maurice's absence.  But be clear, the 
objective is to provide poly processing support for non-clean or gold 
contaminated substrates.  This means one of the poly tubes has to 
change.  From the emails, it seems like the end of March should be 
the target for the conversion if we meet the criteria mentioned 
above.  Out of fairness to the projects which are waiting for the 
conversion, we do need to set a target date.  The number of current 
Thermcopoly1 users who are impacted by this change is similar to the 
number of lab members who are waiting.

Regards,
Ed


At 10:34 AM 3/9/2010, Ed Myers wrote:
>All,
>
>I want to remind everyone that ThermcoPoly1 will transition over to 
>gold contaminated on Monday, March 15th.
>
>Since Maurice is out of the office, please let Nancy or Ed know if 
>you have any concerns.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>At 12:19 PM 3/3/2010, maurice stevens wrote:
>>ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold contaminated 
>>furnace March 15th.
>>All clean doped poly with move over to Thermcopoly2.  The tubes 
>>operate exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has not had any 
>>boat calibration issues).  All the standard recipes are on both.
>>
>>We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts finished by that time.
>>You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have already 
>>added many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification list.  If you 
>>didn't get a qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary) know and we will add you.
>>
>>Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly tubes can 
>>deposited doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed with Ge.  It 
>>is our only "clean" doped Ge tube so it could not become the "gold" tube.
>>
>>If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me know.
>>
>>-m
>>
>>--
>>maurice at stanford.edu
>>
>>Maurice Stevens
>>Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
>>CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
>>Stanford, CA  94305
>>P. (650)725-3660
>>F. (650)725.6278
>




From eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU  Wed Mar 10 01:57:12 2010
From: eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ThermcoPoly1 going gold
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100309160609.051bc630@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.1003100117410.9004-100000@gloworm.Stanford.EDU>



I'll add to that:  It very well might be the right
thing to do to convert this tool. But we, the users try to
plan processes, sometimes months in advance, and often
have countless hours in characterization.

What seems wrong here is to make an announcement of
such a change within a month of it actually occuring,
and the lack of input/discussion for it.

The fundamental issue here is that SNF is not responsible
or accountable for working devices as users generally are,
which leads to harmful decisions and poor planning that
can then severely impact users' ability to make working devices.

I would propose that data on thermcopoly2 be collected and
presented by staff, and accepted by the user community before any
official switch is made.  The end work-product of the
lab seems to be lost in the decision-making process.

-Eric


On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ed Myers wrote:

> All,
>
> I am receiving your emails and I hear your concerns.  I know
> transitions like this are difficult and how impossible it is to find
> the perfect time.  We are not out to jeopardize your work, but we are
> trying to support the lab members who for years have been asking for
> more capability in processing substrates in the gold contaminated category.
>
> The intention of the earlier email was to remind everyone one the
> change is coming.  Maurice has been working on gathering data on
> Thermcopoly2.  We must get a complete set of data, have it published
> and have it reviewed by the lab member community before the
> change.  I will be gathering the data out of Thermcopoly2 and will
> monitor the progress in Maurice's absence.  But be clear, the
> objective is to provide poly processing support for non-clean or gold
> contaminated substrates.  This means one of the poly tubes has to
> change.  From the emails, it seems like the end of March should be
> the target for the conversion if we meet the criteria mentioned
> above.  Out of fairness to the projects which are waiting for the
> conversion, we do need to set a target date.  The number of current
> Thermcopoly1 users who are impacted by this change is similar to the
> number of lab members who are waiting.
>
> Regards,
> Ed
>
>
> At 10:34 AM 3/9/2010, Ed Myers wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I want to remind everyone that ThermcoPoly1 will transition over to
> >gold contaminated on Monday, March 15th.
> >
> >Since Maurice is out of the office, please let Nancy or Ed know if
> >you have any concerns.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >
> >At 12:19 PM 3/3/2010, maurice stevens wrote:
> >>ThermcoPoly1 is tentatively scheduled to become a gold contaminated
> >>furnace March 15th.
> >>All clean doped poly with move over to Thermcopoly2.  The tubes
> >>operate exactly the same (except that ThermcoPoly2 has not had any
> >>boat calibration issues).  All the standard recipes are on both.
> >>
> >>We expect to have the doping/growth rate charts finished by that time.
> >>You are free to start using ThermcoPoly2 now and I have already
> >>added many of you to the ThermcoPoly2 qualification list.  If you
> >>didn't get a qualification let me ( or Ed/Nancy/Mary) know and we will add you.
> >>
> >>Why is ThermcoPoly2 the clean tube? Both ThermcoPoly tubes can
> >>deposited doped films but only ThermcoPoly2 is plumbed with Ge.  It
> >>is our only "clean" doped Ge tube so it could not become the "gold" tube.
> >>
> >>If you have comments or concerns or compliments, let me know.
> >>
> >>-m
> >>
> >>--
> >>maurice at stanford.edu
> >>
> >>Maurice Stevens
> >>Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> >>CIS Room 142, Mail Code 4070
> >>Stanford, CA  94305
> >>P. (650)725-3660
> >>F. (650)725.6278
> >
>
>
>




From rshyam at stanford.edu  Tue Mar 30 18:43:53 2010
From: rshyam at stanford.edu (Shyam Raghunathan)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:43:53 -0700
Subject: thermcopoly1 free at midnight tonight
Message-ID: <p2ze77e906c1003301843g8c3d9978t77a44023b32e25b2@mail.gmail.com>