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 : JMAR Technologies(JMAR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anaxagoras who wrote (7080)	12/1/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Dave Swanson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9695

new prez/COO ....sounds like Brite-lite not ready ======================= biz.yahoo.com

To: Anaxagoras who wrote (7080)	12/1/1998 1:08:00 PM
From: Falstaff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9695

An opinion: definitive narrowing of lithographic techniques leaving X-Ray as a perceived viable technique will be very good for JMAR. Conversely, elimination of X-Ray or emphasis of one of the other techniques will be very bad for JMAR. Elizabeth: I don't know where JMAR would really stand vis a vis EUV. As indicated on the JMAR page cited by Tim (http://www.jmar.com/co451.html), the scientists at JMAR Research may have had some experience in the past with this, but there would be a ramp up if they switched emphasis. Right now, JMAR is concentrating on the production of "hard" X-rays from laser plasma. What they have been able to do in the past with "soft" X-rays is unclear, but probably was not beyond lab equipment for R&D. The wavelengths are much different, and I would think the delivery systems for these two techniques would be quite different (collimators, mirror materials, etc). Even if the PXS produces EUV wavelengths, it is not clear to me that it would be an optimum source or that JMAR has done anything with this other than "produce" EUV radiation in the lab. I don't think JMAR would be considered a serious contender for EUV at this time, and I believe it would take some time and effort for them to be so considered. I seriously doubt that Semitech/SIA/SEMI would advocate dropping X-ray this early, but we should look at the results of the workshop very carefully. If any technique other than X-ray seems to be favored, especially anything optical, then I will take that as a sign that the REAL cost of converting to X-ray is much more significant than we realize (though I can't imagine it being more than converting to e-beam or ion beam).