Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
resistion   7/5/2011 2:16:36 AM
NO RATINGS
The only thing I was impressed by was they could use few keV electrons, but the lithographic result is still too familiar, very rough lines and non-uniform dots in very thin resist. It is not a fault of the technique but a natural consequence of electrons being free to move after being released or injected in a film.

markhahn0
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
markhahn0   7/5/2011 2:54:24 AM
NO RATINGS
I love the idea of "Extreme Ultraviolent UV" :)

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
resistion   7/5/2011 4:04:16 AM
NO RATINGS
@markhahn: lol, good catch ;)

yalanand
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
yalanand   7/5/2011 4:41:25 AM
NO RATINGS
Is resolution of 9nm possible from other other technologies like Photomask ? If answer is no then inspite of throughput issues e-beam resolution will become attractive.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
resistion   7/5/2011 5:33:07 AM
NO RATINGS
The abstract read that all structures with 15 nm hp and above were fully resolved, but smaller ones had some resist residues. 15 nm hp is also about the limit current demonstrated by spacer etching.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
resistion   7/6/2011 2:44:30 PM
NO RATINGS
The HSQ thickness was also 15 nm. Such thinness has a lot of issues outside the lithography, like pinholes, etch resistance, underlayer damage, etc.

ebmfuser
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
ebmfuser   7/8/2011 8:02:18 PM
NO RATINGS
Even with reduction lithography, the CD of the mask patterns for 9mn litho will need to be 90nm (for 10X reduction systems) or 45nm (for 5x reduction systems), very unlikely! It's becoming increasing clearer that E-BEAM is the NGL (Next Generation Lithography). Considering the cost differential of a good E-BEAM system (~$5M) vs. a proposed EUV system ($50M to $100M), why not simply commit to buying multiple E-BEAM systems to make up the offset in volume? The savings in masks alone will be substantial, and the advantage in system redundancy alone would be enormous!!!

agk
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
agk   7/5/2011 8:13:46 AM
NO RATINGS
To speed up the e-beam and make it more shaper reaching 9nm is excellent research and the scanning method instead of integral method made this win for the researchers.

double-o-nothing
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
double-o-nothing   7/5/2011 1:05:10 PM
NO RATINGS
I think they will have problem with positive charging of the surface.

ebmfuser
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
ebmfuser   7/8/2011 7:52:29 PM
NO RATINGS
Charging is a well known issue, and easily eliminated. Spin_on conductive layers or a thin layer of evaporated metal is generally used with the film shunted to ground.

anon7584804
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
anon7584804   7/5/2011 3:34:15 PM
NO RATINGS
go beam go.. thanks for opening doors for future & further

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
goafrit   7/5/2011 9:16:34 PM
NO RATINGS
I have no doubt provided it is from MIT. Those guys are awesome.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
resistion   7/6/2011 11:04:06 AM
NO RATINGS
Now it makes me wonder, why not use a SEM and low-k as resist?

ebmfuser
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
ebmfuser   7/8/2011 7:49:46 PM
NO RATINGS
E-Beam is in theory a modified SEM, but with heavily modified scan and beam_placement electronics. Most lowK materials are not sensitive to electron-beam bombardment.

ebmfuser
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
ebmfuser   7/8/2011 8:06:59 PM
NO RATINGS
Even with reduction lithography, the CD of the mask patterns for 9mn lithography will need to be 90nm (for 10X reduction systems) or 45nm (for 5x reduction systems), very unlikely to be achievable, and very costly! At 1X (for EUV or X-RAY systems), it will be prohibitive. It's becoming increasing clearer that E-BEAM is the NGL (Next Generation Lithography). Considering the cost differential of a good E-BEAM system (~$5M) vs. a proposed EUV system ($50M to $100M), why not simply commit to buying multiple E-BEAM systems to make up the offset in volume? The savings in masks alone will be substantial, and the advantage in system redundancy alone would be enormous!!! Add to that, the technology exists right now, and has (in one form or another) for over 30 years!

ebmfuser
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
ebmfuser   7/8/2011 8:19:38 PM
NO RATINGS
As a followup, I have seen (published) evidence of E-BEAM written structures as small as 100Ang (10nm) in thick resist as far back as 1990. Check out the abstracts of the EIPBN conferences at http://eipbn.org.

Diogenes53
User Rank
Rookie
re: MIT scientists claim 9-nm e-beam resolution
Diogenes53   7/9/2011 12:43:49 PM
NO RATINGS
I've watched e-beam and x-ray/EUV (let us keep reminding ourselves that despite the name change, e-beam's birth name was SXPL: soft x-ray projection lithography, and it remains SOFT X-RAY) developments for ~40 years. X-ray has proven to be too difficult, and remains so in its EUV disguise. All e-beam developers have made the classic mistake of pursuing silicon first (where there is no real suction) and mask making in desperation (because direct write on silicon has several key non-ebeam issues) too late. E-beam developers would be wise to pursue mask making first (make masks faster, more precise and cheaper) and silicon as an adjunct.



Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Book Review: Deadly Odds by Allen Wyler
Max Maxfield
10 comments
Generally speaking, when it comes to settling down with a good book, I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and science fantasy. Having said this, I do spend a lot of time reading ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).