Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (22288)	6/18/1999 9:37:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Zeev, I believe this conversation was held about 1.00µ feature sizes about a decade ago. Scientists have a habit of making the impossible look practical then easy. I subscribe to the theory that if one person can imagine something then the scientists can build it. Sooner or later. With Copper mine, the problem could be with: 1. the chip design 2. the circuit design on the chip 3. any of the processes / process tools in making the chip 4. packaging 5. the laws of physics 6. none of the above 7. some of the above 8. all of the above. ;-) I believe that in the early posts on this specific thread, you'll find some one who claimed that the laws of physics precluded transistors with feature sizes smaller than 0.10µ ever being built. Yet that impossibility has already happened. Right now, fabs are making chips with feature sizes smaller than the 248nm wavelength of the light being used. Until we get down to single atom transistors, I wouldn't count out the ingenuity of the scientists to continue to evolve the technology. But I really don't expect single atom transistors in my life time. (I can't even conceive what that could possibly look like. electrons skewed to the left of the atom to indicate "on" or the right to indicate "off". ????? And how could that possibly be detected, even if it could be set??? Perhaps, Katherine could add some intelligent discussion. I failed. <g> Ian.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (22288)	6/21/1999 5:41:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Respond to of 25960

By the way, it occurred to me that as features become smaller and smaller the importance of ionizing effects post production may become more and more important, and i wonder if the march to smaller features might not be halted by such stupid things like "cosmic radiation". Hi Zeev, This is true, but it's not even just post-production effects that are important. As feature sizes get smaller, things like discharges of charge buildups on insulators during plasma etching can end up destroying devices. Process steps like Reactive Ion Etching may have to be modified or replaced before much smaller feature sizes can be successfully manufactured. ==John Cuthbertson