Energy Conversion Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Energy Conversion Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Krowbar who started this subject	12/11/2003 4:44:32 PM
From: mred5x5	Read Replies (1) of 8393

Summary and/or comments on slides presented at 2003 IEDM Slide pg. 21 Retention can fall short of capability with non-optimized processes -- but they have identified the problem areas and have 'optimized' them. Slide pg. 22 Capability: Stable window beyond 10^12 cycles -- 'beyond' is the operative word. Slide pg. 23 Capability: Stable programming characteristics Slides pgs. 24-27 Shows the results from non-optimized processes and/or electrode/dielectric interface materials -- but they do know how to optimize the process. Slide pg. 28 Accelerated Endurance Testing -- extrapolated endurance in the 10^14 to 10^15th cycles range for two of the three devices tested -- if /when the RESET power requirement is in the range of 5E-10 joules. The 10^14th should be demonstrable in future scaling (=< 35 nm technology) in conjunction with further process/cell structure refinements IMO. Pg. 29 Disturb Immunity -- validates worse case adjacent cell disturb immunity, i.e. no problem. Pg. 34 Disturb Immunity with Scaling -- no problem as contact area is scaled in conjunction with radial separation distance between cells. Pgs. 35-37 Other scaling information presented. Conclusion and Summary -- very positive outlook -- no identified, unsolvable problem areas placing limits on scaling. Pg. 46 SUMMARY Only a NEAR-TERM caveat -- 'Projected COST is high compared to NOR/NAND FLASH'. IMO the high COST is possibly a single-bit defect density issue lowering 'good die' yields. It's very likely a major challenge re acquiring composite GeSeTe composite sputtering targets (if indeed they use this system) with the requisite integrity/purity. Even with pure targets it's a separate problem guaranteeing the exact ratios of the three elements after sputtering. Variability in the silicon substrate and associated typography may also be contributing to yield reduction. I speculate on the above as the number of required masks/processes for OUM has been touted to be relatively low cost -- especially for embedded OUM. Whatever the cost issue they do refer to it as NEAR-TERM. Ed

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next