Jump to content

Talk:Next-generation lithography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is immersion still next? Isn't it in fab already, and with ramping volumes?

FindEngine 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems I'd like to see addressed

[edit]

The last time I read anything more than whitepapers on this topic was over a decade ago, so I dropped in for a refresh. But I cannot say I found this particularity illuminating in spite of a number of editors clearly having considerable domain knowledge. This is a bit of a laundry-list, but here goes:

"for the 22 nm and 16 nm nodes, and extending double patterning beyond 10 nm." Now that 14 nm is common, and I believe using these techniques, it appears this needs to be updated.

"The increasing difficulty and cost of extending" This is the caption on a graphic, and I think I understand what it is trying to say... but if I'm correct then I don't think this is a clear representation. At any given vertical column the technologies are the same, so it's not clear what separation is being referred to - I *think* there's a time dimension here? If so, how does that lead to separation? It would seem that someone at the 130nm node today could move to, say, the 22 node for a lot less money than the leaders. No?

"The difficulty of extending optical lithography" Ok, here's a very similar graph which I do understand, but it seems this should be placed directly under the first one?

"Regardless of whether NGL or photolithography is used, etching of polymer (resist) is the last step." Ok this kind of just drops right out of the sky. There's no explanation of any of the process up to this point, or why this is "regardless". I think at least one or two paragraphs on the basics is more than warranted here.

"The above-mentioned competition" There is no above mentioned competition. Or is this referring to the lede? If so, that is bad, it should be explained here.

"The following example would make this clearer." I would disagree. Moreover, I think this entire discussion is in the wrong place, and should occur much further down the article. I suspect the average reader would like to know that what of this topic before what is essentially an aside about why. I know I would. But even then, I'm still a bit mystified by this example. It claims laggers have an advantage because they could use it "all design rules from 130 nm down to 15 nm", but there's no indication of why this might be true, and plenty of discussion of the costs involved suggest the opposite is true, that using NGL for higher nodes would be prohibitively expensive.

"Summary Table" Really? That's it? This is all the discussion of these methods we get? I feel let down. It is also left entirely unexplained what most of these are. I suppose replacing "193i" with "193 nm 1.35 NA (current)" is supposed to improve it, but I still don't know what 1.35 NA refers to (it does not appear anywhere in the article) nor what any of the other columns mean. All of this needs to be explained! Normally this would prompt me to dive in and learn all of this, but with a newborn son and a lot of work on earlier reactors stacked up in front, I'm not sure I would get the chance.

I am, of course, always willing to GR and edit the heck out of this, but I will need a starting point. For now, I suggest that someone who's really up to date on this, Guiding light perhaps, fill out a section discussing the various technologies in a lightweight fashion, which would really get this going.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Next-generation lithography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Next-generation lithography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next-generation_lithography&oldid=1169949096"