No, IBM is not silly. However, they may be just riding a horse that is relatively available now, with no intention to commit to it for the longer run. Please do not misunderstand. I don't know how this is going to come out. I am simply cautious. I am only trying to make sure I have all the important blips on the screen. I can't tell which of them is headed inbound right now.
JMAR is on the XRL bandwagon, but I recognize that it is just that: a bandwagon. There are others out there on other bandwagons. I could ask you, Do your really think Intel would be investing in EUV if they thought XRL was the answer to all their future needs? The same goes for the European consortium and the Japanese. Why does Lucent think it has the answer? Many avenues are being investigated at this time. I am not saying that XRL will not emerge the favored technique, but only that it is not a foregone conclusion that this will be so. I have also cautioned that JMAR's technique of producing X-rays may not emerge as the most favored.
I have gone over your previous post, and done a little more research. It was an excellent piece of direction to see what SAL had to say. If point source X-ray can be made as compatible as JMAR and SAL are targeting, with a small source coupled to a stepper in a fashion similar to a light source, then much of the cost of conversion to X-ray is mitigated. However, there are many assumptions that need verification. I am cautiously optimistic that X-ray may be the next step, but only cautiously. Innovation is a fascinating phenomenon, breaking out where least likely, in forms that surprise and confound all the pundits and prophets.
Let's watch what comes of the NGL workshop closely, then expect someone to surprise them. That, I believe, will get us closer to reality. |
