Jump to content

Specific Process Knowledge/Thin film deposition/Deposition of Silicon Oxide/SiO2 disk and granule source tests in Temescal October 2026: Difference between revisions

Eves (talk | contribs)
Eves (talk | contribs)
Line 298: Line 298:
No smoothing, outlier removal or thickness rescaling is applied to the remaining points. Original record order and small reversals in the thickness indication are preserved. The package includes the unfiltered wall-clock plots and all records. Cumulative deposition-phase time is about 101.33 min for Run 1 and 99.87 min for Run 2; the separate shutter-open counters are each 3 s shorter.
No smoothing, outlier removal or thickness rescaling is applied to the remaining points. Original record order and small reversals in the thickness indication are preserved. The package includes the unfiltered wall-clock plots and all records. Cumulative deposition-phase time is about 101.33 min for Run 1 and 99.87 min for Run 2; the separate shutter-open counters are each 3 s shorter.


== Conclusions and next experiments ==
== Conclusions ==


=== Conclusions supported by this comparison ===
=== Conclusions supported by this comparison ===
Line 308: Line 308:
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.


=== Focused follow-up work ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"
! Next step !! What it would resolve
|-
| Separate fill and sweep effects || Compare source loadings under matched temperature and a compatible fixed sweep. Then compare sweep patterns for the same loading.
|-
| Document each source loading || Retain the known disk and granulate specifications; add granulate mass, liner geometry, sweep offsets and initial source photographs.
|-
| Measure consumption consistently || Weigh the complete source charge before and after each run and account for loose fragments.
|-
| Retain and synchronize future logs || Continue saving rate, thickness, power, pressure, gas and TC channels. Add timestamps for beam shifts, source photographs and any alarms.
|-
| Repeat and characterize the films || Repeat the chosen configuration, map thickness and retain the Cauchy-model ellipsometry results. Add composition or contamination measurements if those properties determine suitability.
|}
Established practical experience in this Temescal configuration is that a granulate-only charge in a graphite liner forms a chimney - a hole through the source - when a 600 nm thickness setpoint is used, even with a figure-eight sweep. This motivated the use of solid disks together with surrounding granules.


'''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].