From ychliu at snf.stanford.edu Wed Feb 4 17:00:59 2004 From: ychliu at snf.stanford.edu (ychliu at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:00:59 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-04 17:00:58: Leak check failed Message-ID: From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Thu Feb 5 06:30:56 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 06:30:56 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-04 17:00:58: Leak check failed Message-ID: Checked leak rate manually base was 6 microns and leak rate was 14 per minute. possible wet wafers? From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Thu Feb 5 06:31:38 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 06:31:38 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-05 06:31:38: Possible high leak rate Message-ID: Did manual leak check fine-observing From gladys at snf.stanford.edu Thu Feb 5 10:27:45 2004 From: gladys at snf.stanford.edu (gladys at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:27:45 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-05 06:31:38: Possible high leak rate Message-ID: and it was ok. From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 17 06:30:47 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:30:47 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-17 06:30:46: Pull and clean Message-ID: From mdickey at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 17 06:31:16 2004 From: mdickey at snf.stanford.edu (mdickey at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:31:16 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-17 06:31:15: pull and clean Message-ID: Down for pull and clean From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Wed Feb 18 06:29:32 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:29:32 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-17 06:30:46: Pull and clean Message-ID: duplicate entry From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Feb 18 14:58:03 2004 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:03 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg 2004-02-17 06:31:15: pull and clean Message-ID: Tested. With in wafer uniformity ok. Wafer to wafer uniformitynot as good as normal. The front boat had to be replaced after the coating run. So the front boat had not been coated before the test run. Uniformity should get better after a few runs. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Feb 18 15:00:39 2004 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:00:39 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-18 15:00:38: non uniformity wafer to wafer Message-ID: Uniformity should get better after a few runs. Front boat was not coated before test run. From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 24 06:56:54 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:56:54 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-18 15:00:38: non uniformity wafer to wafer Message-ID: From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 24 06:59:01 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:59:01 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-24 06:59:00: NON Uniformity Message-ID: Is non-uniformity still a problem? I accidently cleared the report From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Tue Feb 24 12:54:22 2004 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:54:22 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg 2004-02-24 06:59:00: NON Uniformity Message-ID: ok