SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sam Citron who wrote (53416)9/28/2001 9:04:40 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Respond to of 70976
 
Chipmakers make smooth shift to copper
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 28, 2001, 12:00 p.m. PT
The semiconductor industry is in the midst of a massive technological change, converting to mass-producing chips with copper, rather than aluminum, wires. The weird part: Almost no one seems to be having major problems.

Copper, which conducts electricity better than aluminum, gives designers an avenue to break through looming physical barriers that could prevent further boosts in chip performance. The first copper Pentium 4's will come out in the fourth quarter of this year at 2.2GHz, for instance, and hit 3.5GHz next year.

Working with copper poses several challenges, however. "Sputtering," a process for applying metal to silicon, doesn't work with copper, for example. Neither do traditional techniques for etching circuits. And errant, minute traces of copper rubbed on a wafer can destroy a batch of chips.
Analysts predicted that production hiccups could result in annoyances for medium-sized producers or in financial disasters for larger ones.

"It was pretty scary, frankly, at the beginning," said Mark Bohr, an Intel fellow and director of architecture and integration.

Nonetheless, the conversion has been unnaturally quiet. IBM, which released the first copper chips in 1998, is almost all copper now, and Advanced Micro Devices started churning out copper Athlons last year without incident. Intel, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Via and Sun Microsystems, among others, have all launched their first copper wares in recent months, with volume production to follow soon.

Speed, or lack of it, was a huge factor in the change. IBM started performing copper experiments in the mid-1980s. IBM and Intel also coordinated efforts with equipment makers such as Novellus to ease the transition to mass manufacturing.

"Because most of the companies implemented it very slowly, the equipment industry kept up and had a solution in place," said Jim Ryan, an IBM distinguished engineer and manager of the company's interconnect technologies. "It wasn't available in 1998, when we went to full-scale manufacturing, but it is now."

Noted Dean McCarron, principal analyst at Mercury Research, "The transition has gone much smoother than anticipated."

Just as important, companies rethought their manufacturing processes to completely isolate the metal and get around the contamination issue.

"There are whole bays in the (chip plant) where signs say 'No Copper Allowed Past This Point,'" said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst with Insight 64. "It completely screws up the semiconductor operation of silicon. Aluminum is relatively inert."

Why copper?
The switch to copper became a necessary consequence of chip engineering. Under Moore's Law, the number of transistors on a given semiconductor doubles roughly every 24 months. The doubling occurs largely because the transistors are continually being shrunk. Smaller transistors improve performance by allowing designers to cram more features onto a single chip. In addition, signals travel faster because electrons don't have as much real estate to cross.

For years, designers primarily could improve performance by reducing the distance between transistors. The shrinking size of wires, however, began to create problems. Smaller wires carry less current and are more resistant to electricity.

In the chip generation before going to copper, Intel partly ameliorated the problem by changing the "aspect ratio," or horizontal-to-vertical shape, of its aluminum interconnects. Still, a change in materials was inevitable. Copper has greater current density than aluminum, and its resistance is 30 percent to 40 percent lower.

"The amount of the total delay that was due to the interconnect system was getting larger," IBM's Ryan said. "Copper really was the only real choice. Silver and gold were more expensive than you wanted to deal with."

Copper is also less prone to electromigration, added Intel's Bohr. A dense, constant flow of electrons across an aluminum wire can dislocate the metallic atoms and create a void, which results in chip failure.

Unfortunately, aluminum and copper don't behave the same way. Aluminum can be applied to chips through a chemical vapor. Not so with copper.

"You could sputter it, but that kind of spewed the copper all over the place," said Ryan. Eventually, IBM centered in on electroplating, in which metal is adhered to a surface through an electronic charge.

Etching, the process of laying circuits on wafers, also had to be altered. With aluminum, metal gets sprayed across the entire surface of a wafer. Metal is then etched away until only the wires that form the circuit pattern remain.

Dig that process
For copper chips, designers went to the "dual damocene" process. Originally developed for tungsten chips in the early 1990s, the dual damocene process requires that manufacturers dig the circuit pattern in trenches onto the wafer. Copper is then electroplated across the entire surface. After etching, the metal left in the trenches forms the circuits.

Another problem: contamination. "If any copper gets on a wafer, it will quickly diffuse through it," Bohr said. "Aluminum will not diffuse rapidly. You could get minute traces on the back of a wafer" and still produce chips with it, he added.

Designers came up with adhesive, insulating layers, usually made out of tantalum, to separate the silicon oxide and the wires but keep them stuck together. Factory floors also were rearranged.

"With aluminum, all the process steps could be intermingled," Bohr said. "We solved this by putting different tools in different parts of the clean room...There were no big 'gotchas,' but for about a year or so there were lots of little problems."

The first chip to use copper, a 400MHz Power PC from IBM, came out in September 1998. Except for a few occasional glitches, the conversion has largely succeeded across the industry.

"It's actually less expensive to work with copper. You can eliminate a few steps," Insight 64's Brookwood said.

Added Kevin Krewell, an analyst at Microprocessor Report: "When you change materials, it can be scary, but copper is not esoteric. If you handle it right, you do OK. Guys like IBM knew their stuff, and they got it right."

The next generation of problems, though, is already looming. Further shrinkage will require more and better insulating techniques. Advanced semiconductor manufacturing techniques will also have to be applied to chip packaging, which contains the wires, which connect a semiconductor to other components.

Ryan, among others, is optimistic. "The key ingredient is the determination to make a change," he said.



To: Sam Citron who wrote (53416)9/28/2001 10:18:20 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 70976
 
That's got to be bad data, a self-selecting sample group, a small sample size, something like that. Sentiment is most definitely NOT improving, among individual (or professional) investors. They got more bullish and sold stocks??????



To: Sam Citron who wrote (53416)9/29/2001 12:52:32 AM
From: StanX Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
I'm glad to hear this. I know I have become more bullish.

Stan



To: Sam Citron who wrote (53416)9/30/2001 11:33:45 AM
From: Sam Citron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
what happens domestically and internationally in combating terrorism will have a greater impact on our economy than anything we do now in the economic arena

New York Times Op-Ed September 30, 2001

A Post-Disaster Economy in Need of Repair
By ROBERT E. RUBIN

I live and work in New York City, and the terrible tragedy on Sept. 11 has had a tremendous impact on the lives of so many people I know. There has been, however, from the very first moment, a remarkable response to the crisis that shows how powerful the American spirit is.

In the days after the attacks, it has also become clear that our economic situation has become more complex. For quite some time now, after eight remarkable years, our economy has been experiencing difficulty. Powerful positives, including a series of Federal Reserve rate cuts and the budget surplus, have been competing with powerful negatives, like excessive corporate and consumer debt, overinvestment in some industries and the troubled economic situation in Europe, Japan and the emerging markets.

Prior to Sept. 11, I felt that the economic situation could well remain troubled for considerably longer than forecasters generally expected. To this complex picture, the attacks added uncertainty and reduced consumer and investor confidence. But the catastrophe will also add stimulus to the economy in the form of substantial new spending by the federal government for security, defense and rebuilding.

The likelihood now that economic difficulty will last for a considerable period is increased, but overreaction is a mistake. It is important to make our economic decisions with an awareness that the great underlying strengths and very favorable long-run prospects of the American economy have not been materially altered by what occurred on Sept. 11, even with the cost of permanent changes in transportation and security.

As to economic policy, we must first make estimates about the increase in spending over the shorter term that will occur because of Sept. 11 — probably a very large number — which constitutes fiscal stimulus just as surely as any proactive stimulus program. Many estimate that a total stimulus package should amount to $100 billion to $125 billion. Probably $75 billion will be spent directly as a result of the attacks — leaving a need for another $25 billion to $50 billion in spending, tax cuts or a combination of the two.

Each measure in a stimulus package must have a substantial effect in the short term, the greatest impact for the money spent and no cost in the later years.

The third criterion is crucial. While our strategy needs to be geared to the changed economic situation at hand, the laws of economics have not changed, and the fiscal discipline that was so enormously important over the last eight years is still extremely important now. Since the short-term fiscal position has changed dramatically, it is all the more important to preserve our already diminished long- term fiscal health. Market interest rates affect business investment and, more important, mortgage rates, which in turn affect housing prices and mortgage refinancing, and hence consumption. And market rates now — as well as general confidence — can be significantly influenced by expectations about our longer-term fiscal strength. Despite eight federal rate cuts, longer-term bond market interest rates have come down very little, which many ascribe, in part, to our diminished long-term fiscal condition following the passage of last spring's tax cut.

I believe all these considerations should guide our work going forward on specific stimulus measures. Ever since the softening began, consumption and housing have been the strong point in our economy. Business investment has declined because of great excess production capacity. For most companies, low levels of investment now are not the result of cash positions or financing capacity, but an absence of demand.

To increase demand, the most effective measures would be tax rebates to low- and middle-income working people — including those who pay Social Security taxes but not income taxes — who have the highest propensity to spend. The propensity may be even greater in the runup to Christmas. Another option is to extend unemployment insurance payments temporarily. Money put into this program would almost surely be spent immediately. The most effective business components — though less effective than consumption measures — would be temporarily allowing purchases of computer hardware and software to be treated as deductible business expenses or allowing some type of accelerated depreciation.

It is also clear what we should not do. A capital gains tax cut, according to a 1998 Congressional Budget Office study, would have nearly zero effect on the economy in the short term. I think the effect could actually be negative in that a capital gains tax cut could induce increased stock sales.


Another widely discussed measure, a permanent corporate income tax rate cut, would have exceedingly little short-term stimulus benefit relative to the cost. For example, cutting the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would cost roughly $850 billion, including debt service, over 10 years. But the short-term stimulus from that cut would be a very small fraction of that cost.

The trouble is that a corporate tax cut would not be targeted to encourage new incremental investment. It would apply to profits from investments made in prior years, from new investments that would have occurred anyway and from profits on all other expenditures. A permanent cut would also carry great costs in the later years and thus exacerbate our fiscal problems, with likely adverse impact on current interest rates.

Any positive effect on the stock market from corporate rate cuts would probably be offset, in some measure, by the negative impact on the stock market from increased interest rates. In any event, the increase in consumption from the wealth effect derived from rising stock prices could be far less expensively obtained by other means. A temporary corporate tax rate cut would be even less effective.

Lawmakers and the public are understandably looking for fiscal ways to address the economic difficulties. But looking more broadly, I believe that what happens domestically and internationally in combating terrorism will have a greater impact on our economy than anything we do now in the economic arena. In this regard, the visibility of our leaders in providing sensible and thoughtful discussion of these issues can contribute significantly to building confidence. The long-term strength of our economy gives us the short-term capacity to respond effectively to the events of Sept. 11.

Robert E. Rubin was secretary of the treasury from 1995 to 1999.

[emphasis mine]
nytimes.com