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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fp_scientist who wrote (21326)	12/1/2000 3:44:10 PM
From: redbird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

OT-ISON: I could have interpreted the statement wrong. The statement was that using Si28 would pay for itself in productivity. My guess was that meant a higher % chips per wafer. The ISON website with their products is: isonics.com This is my last OT - ISON post. I will be checking the ISON board for further comments. Redbird

To: fp_scientist who wrote (21326)	12/2/2000 7:34:57 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

fp: Why would using Si28 result in less defects? It wouldn't. The chemical properties of isotopes are identical. The lattice structure is identical. Only the dynamics (phonons etc.) differ and these effects are completely negligible in the wafer processing stage. As I read it, the "ISON seemed to indicate using Si28 would pay for itself in productivity" refers to the increased operating frequency that the parts would be able to attain. Paying $10 a chip for a 30degC temperature decrease (or whatever Isonics claimed that a major chip manufacturer had measured for their 1GHz part - sorry, couldn't find the source) is minimal. And that $10 is for bulk 28Si wafers. Isonics claim that epitaxially grown wafers would only add $0.10 - $1 per chip. -fyo