Specific Process Knowledge/Thin film deposition/Deposition of Silicon Oxide/SiO2 disk and granule source tests in Temescal October 2026: Difference between revisions
| Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
Four solid SiO<sub>2</sub> disks alone, used with a small circular sweep, developed a cavity through the full source stack during the nominal 600 nm test. The recording captures strong early rate excursions and a late transient. The heating-timer pauses are a separate operational issue and are not evidence of source instability. The liner was reported undamaged. | Four solid SiO<sub>2</sub> disks alone, used with a small circular sweep, developed a cavity through the full source stack during the nominal 600 nm test. The recording captures strong early rate excursions and a late transient. The heating-timer pauses are a separate operational issue and are not evidence of source instability. The liner was reported undamaged. | ||
The combination of disks, surrounding granules and a horizontal figure-eight sweep gave more stable operation in the second test and left the fourth disk unpenetrated. Both configurations produced transparent SiO<sub>2</sub> films with Cauchy-model ellipsometry thicknesses close to 0.67 µm. The combined configuration is a reasonable starting point for further source optimization. | <em>The combination of disks, surrounding granules, and a horizontal figure-eight sweep gave more stable operation in the second test and left the fourth disk unpenetrated.</em> Both configurations produced transparent SiO<sub>2</sub> films with Cauchy-model ellipsometry thicknesses close to 0.67 µm. The combined configuration is a reasonable starting point for further source optimization. | ||
The strongest evidence supports improved deposition stability and reduced penetration depth in Run 2. Lower mass consumption was not quantified because the second charge was not weighed before and after deposition. A reliable maximum thickness requires further testing. | The strongest evidence supports improved deposition stability and reduced penetration depth in Run 2. Lower mass consumption was not quantified because the second charge was not weighed before and after deposition. A reliable maximum thickness requires further testing. | ||
| Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
'''Note.''' This report records exploratory tests rather than an operating instruction. Source coverage must be assessed during deposition; the absence of damage in one run does not establish that continued operation after breakthrough is acceptable. Use the current local operating procedures and tool-responsible guidance [2, 3]. | '''Note.''' This report records exploratory tests rather than an operating instruction. Source coverage must be assessed during deposition; the absence of damage in one run does not establish that continued operation after breakthrough is acceptable. Use the current local operating procedures and tool-responsible guidance [2, 3]. | ||
=== Related local documentation === | === Related local documentation === | ||