| Author |
Message |
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
Iain McClatchie wrote:
| Quote: | Del> Or the idea of immersion optics....
IIUC, nobody has production-level immersion optics yet. The
problem of keeping the fluid clean has not been solved.
And it was practical problems like that that killed off the
Fluorine 157nm lasers... at least so far.
Electronic News has articles that sound like it will happen, and I |
googled up this from a year and a half ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEMATECH News
193 nm Immersion Lithography Rated Suitable for Fab Evaluation,
Participants at International SEMATECH Conference Told
Los Angeles, CA (27 January 2004) – Immersion lithography appears to
have resolved the original technical issues identified just over a year
ago, and looks ready to be evaluated for volume manufacturing, industry
professionals learned here today during the Third Immersion Workshop
sponsored by International SEMATECH (ISMT).
With fresh results on resists, materials, and fluids on hand and
additional data still coming in as the conference began, more than 250
semiconductor industry professionals appeared to have many of their
concerns addressed on whether immersion can be adapted effectively to
existing 193 nm lithography.
“We have seen a tremendous amount of progress here today,” said Walt
Trybula, ISMT Senior Fellow and workshop organizer as the meeting
wrapped up. “We have gone from the science phase to the engineering and
testing phase. And although we now have a lot of knowns, we still have
to migrate them into manufacturing.”
Tuesday’s workshop (at the Hyatt Regency at Macy’s Plaza) was the third
in a pioneering series of meetings that ISMT sponsored at the industry’s
request, beginning in December 2002 and continuing last July. This most
recent session included multiple presentations from academic and
industry researchers who described the previous six months of advances
in fluids, materials and resists. Additionally, key suppliers revealed
their progress in developing 193 nm immersion tools, and provided their
plans for delivering production tools.
During their presentations, the industry’s top three litho tool
suppliers – ASML, Canon, and Nikon – all said they are designing and
planning to ship commercial lithography tools between late 2004 and
2006. ASML and Nikon both said they will develop 193 nm immersion
systems at 0.85 numerical aperture (NA) by the third quarter of this
year, while Canon said it plans to build a 193 nm tool with NA greater
than 1.0 by early 2006.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sander Vesik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
Iain McClatchie <iain-3@truecircuits.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
My guess so far: we do, but we see the fourier transforms
of the quanta effects, across the whole image. But that
leaves me wondering why the quanta effects don't tend to
reinforce at some points and cancel at others, since you'd
think they'd have a lens-surface-wide pattern to them.
|
Do the lens have a large enough aperture that the effects of
the being made from discrete stuff can even theoreticly be seen
resulution wise?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
Iain McClatchie wrote:
| Quote: |
As for negative-index-of-refraction stuff, my understanding
is that the wavelengths used have to be larger than the
repeated units in the metamaterial. The repeated units have
things like wire rings (defined by the transition from
conductive to nonconductive material) in them, so presumably
there is *some* limit to how small wavelengths can be
manipulated.
|
Well, what I know about it, which is almost nothing, the wire loops
were for microwaves. However in a paper
Negative Refraction Makes a Perfect Lens
J. B. Pendry, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 30OCTOBER 2000
http://ceta-p5.mit.edu/metamaterials/papers/external/2000/Pendry_PRL_2000.pdf
it is apparently shown this could be done for optical wavelengths
using a thin slab of silver. (I didn't try to follow the math).
Apparently someone has now built a working superlens
Superlens breaks optical barrier
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/8/4
I would have expected this to create a buzz,
but I guess maybe it is too early.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain McClatchie
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:38 pm Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
EricP> Superlens breaks optical barrier
EricP> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/8/4
Okay, wow. It even sounds like this is something that
could get used: after patterning your mask, you deposit
dielectric and then a layer of silver, and then put the
mask in near-contact with the photoresist, perhaps with
a liquid dielectric between the two. Doesn't sound
that much different than a phase-shift mask (once you
accept immersion optics).
I wonder how flat the top of a layer of photoresist is.
I can't imagine the depth of field for the current
reticles is all that good, but something like this
would require the surface to be about as flat as the
surfaces in the oxide stack.
I wonder how this lens compares to contact lithography
for resolution and practicality? Is the liquid
dielectric spacing noticeably cleaner than just direct
contact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
Iain McClatchie wrote:
| Quote: |
EricP> Superlens breaks optical barrier
EricP> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/8/4
Okay, wow. It even sounds like this is something that
could get used: after patterning your mask, you deposit
dielectric and then a layer of silver, and then put the
mask in near-contact with the photoresist, perhaps with
a liquid dielectric between the two. Doesn't sound
that much different than a phase-shift mask (once you
accept immersion optics).
I wonder how flat the top of a layer of photoresist is.
I can't imagine the depth of field for the current
reticles is all that good, but something like this
would require the surface to be about as flat as the
surfaces in the oxide stack.
I wonder how this lens compares to contact lithography
for resolution and practicality? Is the liquid
dielectric spacing noticeably cleaner than just direct
contact?
|
I don't know enought about lithography to answer.
I'm at the 'See Spot. See Spot mask chips' level.
However that page does link to a quite readable PDF on the
experiment available online
Super-resolution imaging through a planar silver layer
David O. S. Melville and Richard J. Blaikie, University of Canterbury
http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-13-6-2127
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
Sander Vesik wrote:
| Quote: | Do the lens have a large enough aperture that the effects of
the being made from discrete stuff can even theoreticly be seen
resulution wise?
|
Optical theory is based upon (not necesarily aberated) waves of light
interaction with a surface where the refractive index changes. So the
surfaces that manipulate the light from one point to another treat the
surface are a continum. The surfaces are described as spheres of known
radii and (typically) aspherical shapes imposed upon the spherical
surface. See Sidel Equations.
With such a formulation, you only get quantum (e.g. diffraction)
effects when near a point of focus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:22 am Post subject:
Re: On-current, voltage and GHz |
|
|
"Iain McClatchie" <iain-3@truecircuits.com> wrote in message
news:1128101900.440994.65830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | EricP> Superlens breaks optical barrier
EricP> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/8/4
Okay, wow. It even sounds like this is something that
could get used: after patterning your mask, you deposit
dielectric and then a layer of silver, and then put the
mask in near-contact with the photoresist, perhaps with
a liquid dielectric between the two. Doesn't sound
that much different than a phase-shift mask (once you
accept immersion optics).
I wonder how flat the top of a layer of photoresist is.
I can't imagine the depth of field for the current
reticles is all that good, but something like this
would require the surface to be about as flat as the
surfaces in the oxide stack.
I wonder how this lens compares to contact lithography
for resolution and practicality? Is the liquid
dielectric spacing noticeably cleaner than just direct
contact?
I don't think anyone is doing contact or proximity printing. |
4x is the agreed value
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6262007
The existing lithography mask standard of 4x magnification with a 26mm
field size is likely resilient enough to take the semiconductor industry
to the 32 nm half-pitch generation, Sematech said Thursday.
Advertisement
That was the conclusion from a lithography workshop sponsored by the
Austin-based R&D consortium held in Belgium earlier this month.
Participants at 2005 Mask Magnification/Field Size Workshop also reached
consensus that moving to new mask ratios, fields, and reticle sizes is
not likely to be needed, according to Sematech. Attendees expressed
confidence that mask suppliers would be ready for 32nm half-pitch
lithography by 2010.
Held in conjunction with the 2nd International Symposium on Immersion
Lithography, the workshop included about 50 litho professionals
representing exposure tool companies, subsystem suppliers, Sematech
members, and other microchip-makers, according to the R&D consortium..
"The workshop allowed both tool companies and IC manufacturers to gain
clarity on the challenges and opportunities involved in deciding whether
a change in lithography magnification or field size would be needed for
the 32 nm half-pitch," Michael Lercel, Sematech's associate director of
lithography and workshop organizer, said in a statement. "The consensus
is that we can get there without any major changes in the current
magnification ratio and field size for either 193nm immersion or extreme
ultraviolet lithography (EUVL)."
Participants however did identify a list of critical issues that could
necessitate a change in magnification, field size or photomask standards,
if the underlying assumptions on the industry's progress of these
critical issues aren't met, Sematech acknowledged. These critical issues
included mask fabrication readiness for 32nm, control of polarization
effects for optical lithography, optical proximity correction (OPC)
accuracy, and EUVL mask defect requirements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in