SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 37.81-4.3%Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Yousef who wrote (162587)3/20/2002 5:05:41 PM
From: Ali Chen   of 186894
 
"The edge of the wafer will almost always yield more poorly than due to film/polish/litho non-uniformities at the edge."

You Yousef, that part of article was explicitly talking
about _particles_ falling to the surface. Particles in
a big chamber do not know where the edge nor center is.
And if the tool is the same, the _density_ must be the
same. Actually, the guy said that "mechanisms are the
same", so if the 300mm chambers are much bigger, then
it could be true that the density of particles is smaller
for the 300mm tools. But again, the processing time is
longer due to longer stabilization periods, and the
litho scan must take 2x longer, so the wafers must
accumulate more dust. Longer traveling distances
on photo tools are not helping either.

BTW, best 300mm vs. worst 200mm wafer samples from
your Intel's technology paper are not very convincing
too.

- Ali
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext