Comments by "Grak70" (@Grak70) on "Asianometry"
channel.
-
607
-
554
-
311
-
200
-
141
-
87
-
82
-
74
-
67
-
52
-
51
-
48
-
34
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
26
-
@PaulFisher ere are several sources of flare in DMD. 1) the material below the mirror itself does show through a bit since it has to be exposed for a mirror to be free of its adjacent companions. While this is typically coated in a material selected to be as black as possible over the desired wavelength range, it’s not perfect. So even if 100% of light directed at the mirror is diverted, there will be some reflected light from the substrate. 2) the mirror can only tilt so far. Ideally you’d direct all the light onto a light dump orthogonal to the exit pupil, but the mirrors can’t flex 90 degrees, only about 10-12. So some light will be scattered from the mirror edges and the anchor via structure, letting a little light through even in the static full off position. 3) ideally, your light source would have total spatial coherence (or equivalently, be a point source at infinity). Real light sources are only partially coherent and have finite size, so some photons impinge on the mirror at a small angle. When these are reflected in the off state, some small amount of light will still go through the exit pupil. 4) the light dump material is chosen to be as black as possible and actively cooled from behind. However in practice, a true black body does not exist, so there will be a tiny amount of reflection which will bounce around the DMD cavity. Some of this will escape through the pupil.
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DwAboutItManFr I really don’t think so. The jump in resolution is just not that much, even if you assumed x-Ray was fully developed already (if they need it in 15 years, they should have started five years ago and they haven’t, so smarter people than me probably think they don’t need to).
It’s a very similar situation to what happened with immersion ArF and F2. Why go through the enormous pain in the ass of F2 excimer patterning when it’s really only a 1-2 node solution? And when you can develop 1 additional system component (the immersion apparatus) but keep the rest of the ArF infrastructure the same? Why go back and do massive amounts of basic science on synchrotrons, beryllium masks, and unknown-to-science x-Ray transparent materials when you can just slowly improve EUV? It’s less sexy for sure, but most progress in engineering is slow, incremental, and (to most of us anyway) boring. Making big investments in new physics is something companies want to avoid unless they absolutely must. That was the case with EUV: thankfully it worked. But so far there’s no “drop dead” problem clearly visible for EUV: just engineering challenges. Personally I think EUV is the end of the road for patterning tech: it will continue to get better, but never be supplanted by a next gen tech. Increasingly clever designs and integration are going to have to take up the slack from here. This also means that the Moore’s Law component of ever decreasing costs will die. Performance will come at an outrageous cost, so the era of consumer electronics rapid obsolescence and the cutthroat capitalism of fast, continuous improvement will end. Institutional bodies and governments will ironically once again be the only customers for truly state of the art computing, if indeed they need it at all. We left the era of single chip supercomputers behind long ago; networking of smaller compute units and AI optimization will rule from now on.
1
-
1
-
1