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: Crossy who wrote (1297)	8/12/2002 11:04:22 AM
From: Bilberry	Respond to of 1305

JMAR Announces Collaboration With MIT Professor Henry I. Smith, Leading Pioneer in Nanotechnology/Advanced Lithography e-insite.net biz.yahoo.com

To: Crossy who wrote (1297)	8/16/2002 12:49:13 PM
From: Andrew Vance	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1305

I read the article with great interest and it makes a great deal of sense. The same people in Europe that are working on this are also credited with X-ray stroage rings I believe. While the technology appears to be viable, there are a few concerns (rather questions) I would like to get answers too. IPL becomes analogous to Ion Implantation in that ion are driven into the resist instead of the substrate itself. This "particle" accelerator would have to be as big as an implanter, taking up valuable space within the fab. Therefore, I would like to know some throughput numbers to see if they are anywhere near the throughput of an ion implanter. The high degree of vacuum use requires some load locks within the system that could affect throughput as chambers are pumped down. I would like to know how these pump downs affect resist thickness. Since the article says you can control penetration of the ions to minimize ion damage to the surface of the wafer (which we agree can usually be annealed out), I wonder how controlled the resist thickness needs to be and whether resist coating systems are currently up to the task. The mask (reticle or stencil) making process appears to be quite similar to that of conventional reticles for optical lithography, with all of its inherent issues. This means there is no competitive advantage in that arena. They have been working on this fro 15 years, much like X-ray lithography. It has been a long time and hopefully all of the technical bugs are worked out. I just quickly posed a few questions and comments, and given time, there is more I would like to know about this as an alternative to X-ray. However, before doing so, I would like to take the time to gather more materials on the subject. Do not mis-interpret anything above as negative, since I find this quite fascinating. I just have a great deal of questions about cost of ownership, throughput, and floorspace requirements. I would like to know if the resist is conventional PMMA, which I am quite familiar with, or whether other resists are involved. I am quite interested in the depth of focus and lack of reflective notching relative to this technology, since it would be a great competitive advantage. Actually, the depth of focus and lack of reflective notching becomes a great advantage at the metal and poly layers. Please keep us informed on this subject. Thanks again AV