ASTM F2086/F1761
ASTM F2086/F1761
(OP)
anyone in the society is aware of/familiar with this method for PTF of magnetron sputter targets?
in 9.2, "Magnetically condition the target by rotating it counterclockwise on the target support table five complete turns", what is the purpose of "magnetically condition"? in the note it claims it is to achieve stable, repeatable PTF value. but why? Does not the original status (i.e. not magnetized) represent better the target material?
why need two methods, one circumferentially magnetize, the other radially? the horseshoe magnet pole face gap is only 1 inch, the magnetized area is very local with respective to the big target (normally >5'' dia)
why not use a straight magnet (vs horseshore) (so the flux directly goes through the thickness of target, better representative to the magnetic circle in magnetron sputtering system) and why not use a magnet with high coercivity (vs AlNico 5) and so not easy to be de-mag?
it seems to me there are quite a few things to improve with this standard method.
any comment/suggestions?
in 9.2, "Magnetically condition the target by rotating it counterclockwise on the target support table five complete turns", what is the purpose of "magnetically condition"? in the note it claims it is to achieve stable, repeatable PTF value. but why? Does not the original status (i.e. not magnetized) represent better the target material?
why need two methods, one circumferentially magnetize, the other radially? the horseshoe magnet pole face gap is only 1 inch, the magnetized area is very local with respective to the big target (normally >5'' dia)
why not use a straight magnet (vs horseshore) (so the flux directly goes through the thickness of target, better representative to the magnetic circle in magnetron sputtering system) and why not use a magnet with high coercivity (vs AlNico 5) and so not easy to be de-mag?
it seems to me there are quite a few things to improve with this standard method.
any comment/suggestions?
Talk To Other Members
RE: ASTM F2086/F1761
I'm not on the committee that developed those standards so I'm just speculating that 'magnetic conditioning' was done because the target will be magnetized during sputtering. They may have wanted to simulate or mimic operating conditions as close as possible while the target was outside the vacuum chamber.
There are probably two methods since sometimes the magnetron is stationary, other times it is rotating under the target.
RE: ASTM F2086/F1761
I seem to recall that there was one provider involved initially in writing this.
As time went by others got involved, and that is when the issues arose.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
RE: ASTM F2086/F1761
More advanced deposition methods are used these days. Consult the literature, and get busy!
RE: ASTM F2086/F1761
PTF (pass through flux) is still an important characteristic to evaluate the magnetic performance during DC magnetron sputtering. I think we should create a new standard to catch up the advanced technology. PTF distribution (mapping) on a sputter target is useful info. for example.
RE: ASTM F2086/F1761
I remember conducting Pass Through Tests on targets maybe 10 years ago. While it may not have been the best test, it was all the customer had available at the time and it did provide some quantifiable data. Nowadays, with 3D magnetic field mapping systems, your suggestion of mapping a target with a magnetron is a good one.