Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:39 12/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 1999 at 00:43:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 03, 1999 at 00:31:22, David Blackman wrote: > >>On December 02, 1999 at 22:01:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>But a factor of 1000 is probably way high, as I don't think anyone could >>>(at present) make a transistor that much smaller, since current technology >>>uses a photographic process... a transistor that small is such a small fraction >>>of the wavelength of light that it would be impossible to produce... at least >>>today... >> >>I don't think they use photographic etching anymore, at least for state of the >>art stuff. These days the design rules vary from about 0.11 micron to 0.35 >>micron. The minimum light wavelength you can use for this is about 0.4 micron >>otherwise you get lots of secondary electrons messing things up at etch time. >> >>I haven't been following it much lately, but it suspect it's mostly electron >>beam etching now. Anyone know? >I thought it was x-rays, but I have not been paying attention. I "think" you are correct. Still photographic in nature, just using a shorter wavelength. But not 1000 time shorter. Nor even 100 times shorter. There is also another issue here... getting the gates to superconducting temperature. If they are 2-3 atoms thick, which they would be to be significantly smaller... the thermal stress would probably wipe out the gate before it was ever powered up... Hence the search for higher temp superconductors. I think they are up to around -170C or somewhere now. There is a guy about 75 miles north of me in Huntsville that is working on this and he holds the current 'record' I believe...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.