Specific Process Knowledge/Thin film deposition/Deposition of Vanadium Silicide/V3Si RF-DC Co-Sputtering in Cluster Lesker PC3: Difference between revisions
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
This page documents an <b>early</b>, <b>non-systematic attempt</b> to deposit vanadium silicide by simultaneous RF sputtering of a 4-inch Si target and DC sputtering of a 3-inch V target in the <i>Cluster Lesker PC3</i> chamber. Two otherwise nominally identical depositions were compared: one without RF substrate bias and one with 30 W RF substrate bias. | This page documents an <b>early</b>, <b>non-systematic attempt</b> to deposit vanadium silicide by simultaneous RF sputtering of a 4-inch Si target and DC sputtering of a 3-inch V target in the <i>Cluster Lesker PC3</i> chamber. Two otherwise nominally identical depositions were compared: one without RF substrate bias and one with 30 W RF substrate bias. | ||
We achieved the expected results for the V<sub>3</sub>Si process in PC1 and describe them | We achieved the expected results for the V<sub>3</sub>Si process in PC1 and describe them [[Specific Process Knowledge/Thin film deposition/Deposition of Vanadium Silicide/V3Si RF-DC Co-Sputtering in Cluster Lesker PC1|in dedicated page]]. | ||
The experiment gave a striking result. In the measured 30–80° GiXRD range, the unbiased sample showed only reflections assigned to cubic A15 V<sub>3</sub>Si, whereas the sample deposited with 30 W RF substrate bias showed only reflections assigned to hexagonal C40 VSi<sub>2</sub>. The two samples also had very different surface morphologies and sheet resistances. | The experiment gave a striking result. In the measured 30–80° GiXRD range, the unbiased sample showed only reflections assigned to cubic A15 V<sub>3</sub>Si, whereas the sample deposited with 30 W RF substrate bias showed only reflections assigned to hexagonal C40 VSi<sub>2</sub>. The two samples also had very different surface morphologies and sheet resistances. | ||