I think you are misreading JMAR's press release. I read the press release (and the additional information contained in their Web site) as saying that the intensity of their X-rays at the target are of equal intensity and quality to the type and intensity of X-rays which are transmitted by a synchrotron to a given target---not that their single x-ray source could replace all of the ports of a synchrotron. Based on what I have read of synchrotrons, it is highly unlikely that one JMAR "point source" X-ray system would be equivalent to a synchrotron which shoots out a broad enough X-ray beam to supply numerous ports. I don't think that JMAR is saying this. If you read most of JMAR's prior releases and SEC filings, one of the main advantages JMAR claims is that their X-ray source, because of its compact size (relative to a synchrotron), will be preferred by semiconductor manufacturers over those "inflexible" synchrotrons. The big rap against synchrotrons is that they are too big and expensive, and even if they can supply multiple steppers, apparently semiconductor manufacturers do not want to spend the millions (billions) to reconfigure their foundries to accommodate the huge synchrotron. JMAR's point source, on the other hand, has been described as something that can be plugged into existing lines and steppers (with a few relatively small modifications) and replace the currently used optical sources. But someone ought to call the company to confirm this.
I do think it is significant that the X-rays that their single lasers generate are of an intensity and quality to support lithography and non-lithography applications. (Of course, perhaps we all assumed this, but it is nice to hear that confirmed). The other thing of interest is that their x-ray system is comprised of multiple lasers joined together to create a combined, presumably higher power, x-ray source. The 3 watts of x-rays is from a single laser. Alone this doesn't sound like a lot, but in a combination of multiple lasers it appears to be significant. |
