From gthareja at stanford.edu  Wed Oct 14 14:46:42 2009
From: gthareja at stanford.edu (Gaurav Thareja)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: tylanbpsg free 3p-6p
Message-ID: <2010986115.4024271255556802743.JavaMail.root@zm06.stanford.edu>

sorry for the short notice, wafers not ready. 

-- 
Gaurav Thareja
Ph.D candidate, Nishi group
Electrical Engineering
Stanford University
420 Via Palou Mall, CISX 128
Stanford, CA 94305
Tel: 650-704-1029
Email: gthareja at stanford.edu


From wessmith at stanford.edu  Wed Oct 14 15:57:20 2009
From: wessmith at stanford.edu (Wes Smith)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:57:20 -0700
Subject: Res Released 1-4:30 10/15/09
Message-ID: <57A47B26-8DCD-49B4-8BEE-225638653010@stanford.edu>

Wafers won't be ready.


From envy at ee.ucla.edu  Thu Oct 15 06:33:42 2009
From: envy at ee.ucla.edu (envy at ee.ucla.edu)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Reservation released from 3-8pm today
Message-ID: <2626.171.66.49.222.1255613622.squirrel@171.66.49.222>





From fanpy839 at stanford.edu  Tue Oct 20 00:37:29 2009
From: fanpy839 at stanford.edu (fanpy839)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:37:29 -0800
Subject: about LTO recipes
Message-ID: <200910192337199345960@stanford.edu>

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me what do the recipes that end with "PC" differ from those without "PC"? Do they give better deposition quality or something?

Thank you so much!

Best,
Pengyu

2009-10-19 



fanpy839 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/tylanbpsg/attachments/20091019/e942931f/attachment.html>

From robinhmb at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 20 01:32:25 2009
From: robinhmb at yahoo.com (Robin King)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: about LTO recipes
In-Reply-To: <200910192337199345960@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <925549.44884.qm@web111515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

PC = Pressure Controlled.  
It servos the pressure to a specific value rather than letting the pressure float, or vary, with the speed of the pump. 
 
This should make the results more repeatable. 


Robin King
IBM Almaden research center



--- On Tue, 10/20/09, fanpy839 <fanpy839 at stanford.edu> wrote:

> From: fanpy839 <fanpy839 at stanford.edu>
> Subject: about LTO recipes
> To: "tylanbpsg" <tylanbpsg at snf.stanford.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 12:37 AM
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Hi All,
>  
> Can anyone tell me what do the recipes that end
> with "PC" differ from 
> those without "PC"? Do they give better
> deposition quality or something?
>  
> Thank you so much!
>  
> Best,
> Pengyu
>  
> 2009-10-19 
> 
> 
> 
> fanpy839 
>  
> 


From nlatta at stanford.edu  Thu Oct 29 12:41:16 2009
From: nlatta at stanford.edu (Nancy Latta)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:41:16 -0700
Subject: Please fill out the logsheet
Message-ID: <4AE9EFDC.5090704@stanford.edu>

Hi LTO'ers,

Please remember to fill out the logsheet.  We look at the running total 
accumulated oxide and gauge the timing of the tube pull and cleans from 
what you enter on the sheets.

So, please help us in providing you with high quality oxides.

Thanks,

Team LTO



From cmcg at stanford.edu  Thu Oct 29 16:25:35 2009
From: cmcg at stanford.edu (Chris McGuinness)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: max oxide thickness?
Message-ID: <612871167.7732751256858735949.JavaMail.root@zm02.stanford.edu>

Hi all,
What is the maximum oxide thickness that can be deposited using LTO400 or LTO300?  Does the film begin to crack under stress from the oxide at this point?  Has anyone tried to increase this maximum film thickness by annealing or doing other tricks?
Thanks,
Chris McGuinness