[labnetwork] Iron Oxide vs Chrome Mask plates

[Grau, Jeffrey]

Hello Kamal,
                My name is Jeff Grau and I am the Research Engineer at the University of Illinois. I have been involved in Photolithography for over 35 years. The most significant difference between Chrome and Iron Oxide masks is the ability to see through the Iron Oxide. This proves to be most beneficial when aligning the photomask. At extremely high magnification, one might see  sharper edge quality on the Chrome photomask, but taking into account the see-through ability of the Iron Oxide mask, this is a small trade off. You mention chrome masks being more expensive than Iron Oxide. Here in the States, the opposite is true. The cost difference between Iron Oxide and Chrome is approximately double.
                Roughly, 98 percent of all the photomasks being generated here at the University of Illinois are generated on Iron Oxide.
                I hope this helps….Jeff


From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Kamal Yadav
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:17 AM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
Subject: [labnetwork] Iron Oxide vs Chrome Mask plates

Dear All,

Is iron oxide superior or inferior to Chrome mask plates in resolution, sharp edges etc. Chrome mask plates are little more costly. But are Chrome PR coated mask plates in anyway better than PR Iron oxide plates?

Thanks a lot!

--
Thanks,
Kamal Yadav
Sr. Process Technologist
IITBNF, EE Department, Annexe,
IIT Bombay, Powai
Mumbai 400076
Internal: 4435
Cell: 7506144798
Email: kamal.yadav at gmail.com<mailto:kamal.yadav at gmail.com>, kamalyadav at ee.iitb.ac.in<mailto:kamalyadav at ee.iitb.ac.in>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20150210/2d08d034/attachment.html>