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 : General Lithography -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (1151)	2/10/2000 7:53:00 PM
From: Bilberry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1305

Robgera, you have posted some interesting posts. I have been told that the one factor keeping x-ray from being big is that you need a huge synchrotron to run these things. Aside from taking up a room, they are expensive, give off dangerous radiation, and require a staff to run. My question is, if a company developed an inexpensive point source x-ray (using lasers), would this change the debate about x-ray? The reason I ask that question is that I have been following the progress of a small San Diego company called JMAR Technologies (JMAR) that has been developing such a device (A table top synchrotron). Please give me your opinion of this device: Here is a link to a CNN article about it: cnn.com Here is a master link list for JMAR: ragingbull.com

To: Qualified Opinion who wrote (1151)	2/11/2000 9:25:00 AM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1305

>>The industry seems to be leaning towards EUV then X-RAY for next generation lithography.<< Do you have a source for this opinion? Everything I've heard suggests that EUV is expected to take us to the End of CMOS. The wavelength difference between EUV and X-ray is minimal, and proximity x-ray will only get harder, not easier, as devices shrink. >>Sematech is leaning towards EUV because of its higher throughput. Even though Scalpel has a lower mask cost, it probably will not be enough to offset a lower throughput. << The Scalpel vs. EUV tradeoff depends strongly on the particular fab and especially on the number of wafers per mask. The most recent public statements from Sematech suggest that both approaches have merit. semiconductoronline.com{570CD227-B4DC-11D3-9A7B-00A0C9C83AFB} Katherine