New Photolithography Process 81
dragons_flight writes "Motorola has announced a new photolithography process capable of making chip features smaller than 100 nm, with the aim of eventually going as low as 13 nm. For reference, the current next-generation standard is 157 nm."
Interesting links (Score:3, Informative)
developing photolithography [ieee.org]
More of the above [ieee.org]
Process description [infras.com]
A summer photolithography project [doe.gov]
Re:Bad reporting (Score:2, Informative)
They are talking about using an EUV (13nm) light source to illuminate the photomask's that transfer the 'chip' image onto the photoresist that is then etched off and the exsposed silcone is then doped to create the electronic components that make up the chip.
As far as wavelengths go
~253 nm (UV) is what everyone is currently using.
193nm (VUV) is what everyone is moving to (state of the art).
157nm (VUV) is what is currently under development, but all the hurdles have not been overcome.
The big issue is the shorter the wavelength, the harder it is to find materials that can support the photomasks. Glass stops light at less than 300nm, CaFl at less than 120 (what they us instead of glass), water vapor at less than 200nm, O2 at less than 193nm, N2 at less than 120nm. That's air (N2,02,H2O) boys and girls.
The 'plan' for the 13nm stuff is instead of etching the samples by passing the light through the photomask in an N2 purged enviroment is to reflect the image off of a photomask in a High Vacuum (less than 10^-5 Torr).
I think the road map calls for 13nm in 2010?
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
EUV, X-Ray lithography (Score:2, Informative)
Hint: Check facts (Score:1, Informative)
Motorola is claiming they can produce a 100nm feature size, with 13nm possible in the (presumably distant) future.
The quote about the "next generation standard" being 157nm is in reference to the light wavelength, not the resulting feature size.
If you intend slashdot to be respected as a technical resource (see disucssions from yesterday), then you need to do some BASIC FACT CHECKING before you blindly post a reference to an article that contains such flaws in its technical facts.