ThermcoPoly1 going gold

Eric Perozziello eap at gloworm.Stanford.EDU
Wed Mar 10 01:57:12 PST 2010

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.


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

More information about the thermcopoly1 mailing list