From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Fri Nov 6 08:41:01 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:41:01 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-06 08:41:01: oil changed Message-ID: level glass cleaned. pump checked for base pressure From gyama at snf.stanford.edu Fri Nov 6 16:28:00 2009 From: gyama at snf.stanford.edu (gyama at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:28:00 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-06 16:27:59: LTO450, SiH4 100, 03:00:00 Message-ID: target 3.0um got 0.4um stripped metal & non-metal dummies From alsune at snf.stanford.edu Sun Nov 8 02:16:08 2009 From: alsune at snf.stanford.edu (alsune at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 02:16:08 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-08 02:16:07: Low deposition rate Message-ID: Ran LTO300PC for 5min expecting 28~30nm LTO deposition. Turns out it only deposited 14~15nm, half the usual thickness From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 9 08:53:55 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:53:55 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 08:53:54: checked system gas flows Message-ID: The tube is pumping ok, good base and leak rate. I set O2 at 136 and Silane at 100 the same flows used in lto450 above. Flows were at setpoint. I put the tube back in pump11. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 9 09:42:25 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:42:25 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 09:42:24: Running test Message-ID: Two users have gotten low dep rates. System has been checked for pressure and flows and seems ok. We will run a test to see what we get. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 9 14:58:54 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:58:54 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector Message-ID: From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 10:35:38 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:35:38 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-10 10:35:38: replaced broken injector Message-ID: broken quartz has been replaced. cold base pressure is good. Rate of rise is good. T/C is installed and element breaker is on. Tube heating up at this time. Will need a test after it reaches temp. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 15:40:47 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:40:47 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-10 10:35:38: replaced broken injector Message-ID: test complete From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 15:41:12 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:41:12 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 09:42:24: Running test Message-ID: logged From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 15:44:46 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:44:46 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector Message-ID: test complete LTO400PC 00:20:00 Exprcted~2800ang Actual= 2716Ang uniformity = 14.6% this is higher than nornal From shott at stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 15:56:04 2009 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:56:04 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector In-Reply-To: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> Maurice: Is the higher-than-expected non uniformity primarily wafer-to-wafer along the length of the tube or across each individual wafer? Or a little of both? Ted/Ray: How confident are we that the cantilever has the boats well centered in the tube? Thanks, John From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 17:01:53 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:01:53 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector In-Reply-To: <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> Good question. The uniformity across the boat actually looks better than normal. The uniformity across each individual wafer is worse. John Shott wrote: > Maurice: > > Is the higher-than-expected non uniformity primarily wafer-to-wafer > along the length of the tube or across each individual wafer? Or a > little of both? > > Ted/Ray: > > How confident are we that the cantilever has the boats well centered > in the tube? > > Thanks, > > John > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tylanbpsg_qual.png Type: image/png Size: 18512 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shott at stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 17:21:51 2009 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:21:51 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector In-Reply-To: <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA11AF.301@stanford.edu> Maurice, Ted, and Ray: > The uniformity across the boat actually looks better than normal. > The uniformity across each individual wafer is worse. OK, one explanation for that (I think) is that our positioning of the direction in which each of the injectors is facing is not correct. Ray, are our injectors pointing in the standard direction? Alternatively, it could also mean that our centering of the boat within the tube isn't so good. By rights, this shouldn't have been a problem because if it was correct before disassembly, it should be fine now if we took the cantilever off the fancy new boat loader and put it back properly. Or we should have used our fancy new cantilever laser alignment tool to make sure that the wafers were as well centered as possible. Ted and Ray, do you have an estimate as to how good out alignment is? Of course, if we were seeing significant bulls-eying, that could be due to a pressure problem .... but given the fact that I saw that this was one of the pressure controlled recipes, that would seem to be less likely. Maurice, I'm sure that you're working on distributing that data so that we can take a look to see if the non-uniformity on each wafer suggests a cause. Thanks, John From shott at stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 17:24:26 2009 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:24:26 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 14:58:53: broken injector In-Reply-To: <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA124A.50504@stanford.edu> Maurice: Oops .... I just realized that I could extract the data myself using the Coral tools. I forgot that we were now collecting this data in Coral on these tubes .... Thanks, John From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 17:46:35 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:46:35 -0800 Subject: BPSG uniformity In-Reply-To: <4AFA124A.50504@stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> <4AFA124A.50504@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA177B.90800@snf.stanford.edu> Attached is a screen capture from coral of the data entered for the middle wafer in the front boat...the sweet spot for non metal users. (Is there an easy way to pull the data once it is typed in?) All six wafers are similar in the their deposition pattern...thicker at the bottom right half. Sorry guys, I didn't notice if the boat looked centered. John Shott wrote: > Maurice: > > Oops .... I just realized that I could extract the data myself using > the Coral tools. I forgot that we were now collecting this data in > Coral on these tubes .... > > Thanks, > > John > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bpsg_11_10_09_wafer2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 144513 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shott at stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 18:23:19 2009 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:23:19 -0800 Subject: BPSG uniformity In-Reply-To: <4AFA177B.90800@snf.stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> <4AFA124A.50504@stanford.edu> <4AFA177B.90800@snf.stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA2017.8080604@stanford.edu> Maurice: Thanks for sending that data .... While I haven't plotted everything, I have extracted the data and loaded it into the attached Excel file. There is one number that looks a little inconsistent: Wafer number 6, position 9 is only 2239 and it looks as if it should be noticeably thicker. But, even with that data point, the biggest pattern that I notice is thin on the top and thick on the bottom .... with something of a dish (thicker at the edges and thinner at the center) from side-to-side. Injector position or boat too high in the tube? I don't know, but I think that something is amiss .... When I'm looking into the open LTO tube, are the shiny surfaces of the wafer facing me or facing the jungle? And, whichever of the above is true, is position 6 on the left as I'm looking down the furnace, or on the left as I'm looking at the wafer once is out of the tube with the flat down? Thanks, John -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LTO_Qual_11_10_2009.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 13824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 10 18:30:31 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:30:31 -0800 Subject: BPSG uniformity In-Reply-To: <4AFA2017.8080604@stanford.edu> References: <20091110234446.C038E18FDFC@smtp.stanford.edu> <4AF9FD94.6020204@stanford.edu> <4AFA0D01.8020009@snf.stanford.edu> <4AFA124A.50504@stanford.edu> <4AFA177B.90800@snf.stanford.edu> <4AFA2017.8080604@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4AFA21C7.2030208@snf.stanford.edu> When I'm looking into the open LTO tube, are the shiny surfaces of the wafer facing me or facing the jungle? *Facing you. *And, whichever of the above is true, is position 6 on the left as I'm looking down the furnace, or on the left as I'm looking at the wafer once is out of the tube with the flat down? *Position 6 is on the left as you look into the tube with the flat up (the is up on the Woolam also). -m * John Shott wrote: > Maurice: > > Thanks for sending that data .... > > While I haven't plotted everything, I have extracted the data and > loaded it into the attached Excel file. There is one number that > looks a little inconsistent: Wafer number 6, position 9 is only 2239 > and it looks as if it should be noticeably thicker. But, even with > that data point, the biggest pattern that I notice is thin on the top > and thick on the bottom .... with something of a dish (thicker at the > edges and thinner at the center) from side-to-side. > > Injector position or boat too high in the tube? I don't know, but I > think that something is amiss .... > > When I'm looking into the open LTO tube, are the shiny surfaces of the > wafer facing me or facing the jungle? > > And, whichever of the above is true, is position 6 on the left as I'm > looking down the furnace, or on the left as I'm looking at the wafer > once is out of the tube with the flat down? > > Thanks, > > John > From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 11 11:24:33 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:24:33 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-06 16:27:59: LTO450, SiH4 100, 03:00:00 Message-ID: found inject broken...it has been replaced From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 11 11:24:57 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:24:57 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-08 02:16:07: Low deposition rate Message-ID: replaced broken injector From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 11 11:25:33 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:25:33 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-09 08:53:54: checked system gas flows Message-ID: logged From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 11 11:25:41 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:25:41 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-09-09 15:25:30: oil and filter changed Message-ID: logged From cursive at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 16 17:26:17 2009 From: cursive at snf.stanford.edu (cursive at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:26:17 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-16 17:26:16: temperature too high at L side Message-ID: Set poit is at 400'C, but the TCU at "L" keep supply the power. The temperature is above490'C. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 18 14:39:33 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:39:33 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-16 17:26:16: temperature too high at L side Message-ID: Ray reset system From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Thu Nov 19 14:15:00 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:15:00 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-19 14:15:00: oil changed Message-ID: level glass cleaned From tberg at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 23 06:03:41 2009 From: tberg at snf.stanford.edu (tberg at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:03:41 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-23 06:03:40: Pull and clean Message-ID: From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 23 15:15:23 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:15:23 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-23 15:15:21: tube pulled and cleaned Message-ID: I have reassembled the tube and started a coat cycle. System will need a test when this has completed. From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 24 14:35:52 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:35:52 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-23 15:15:21: tube pulled and cleaned Message-ID: Test complete LTO400pc 00:20:00 expected 2700ang actually= 2721 ang From maurice at snf.stanford.edu Tue Nov 24 15:01:17 2009 From: maurice at snf.stanford.edu (maurice at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:01:17 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-23 06:03:40: Pull and clean Message-ID: Test complete...results on coral From gyama at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 25 08:53:45 2009 From: gyama at snf.stanford.edu (gyama at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:53:45 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-25 08:53:45: strip the spare dummy wafers in the cart Message-ID: both metal & non-metal From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Wed Nov 25 11:17:19 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:17:19 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-25 11:17:19: oil changed Message-ID: level glass clean From kokab at snf.stanford.edu Sat Nov 28 19:41:02 2009 From: kokab at snf.stanford.edu (kokab at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:41:02 -0800 Subject: Problem tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-28 19:41:01: doesn't pump down Message-ID: From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 30 11:08:33 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:08:33 -0800 Subject: Shutdown tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-30 11:08:32: pump bad Message-ID: replacing pump with a rebuilt one. From seymour at snf.stanford.edu Mon Nov 30 14:04:35 2009 From: seymour at snf.stanford.edu (seymour at snf.stanford.edu) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:04:35 -0800 Subject: Comment tylanbpsg SNF 2009-11-30 14:04:35: hooking up rebuilt pump at this time. Message-ID: