For years we've been hearing that EUV will be ready for production use in "just a few more years" and now they're applying nuclear fusion technologies to create the light source? That's almost comical.
A few clarifications:
* Zplasma's design goal is higher power, not higher energy.
* Our core technology is a flow-stabilized Z-pinch. While developed as part of nuclear fusion research, it is not related to nuclear fusion itself.
* Our DPP source does use a plasma Z-pinch, but a flow-stabilized pinch, not the unstable pinch used by others in the past.
* Our source ends without the explosive instabilities of other DPP sources, so it does not produce high-energy debris.
* Optical collection in our design is side-on, not downstream.
CEO, Zplasma, Inc.
Another example of a misguided group/startup. They focus so much on solving a big issue, but neglect to follow up on downstream system consequences. A longer pulse per cycle obviously exposes the downstream mirrors to more ionic bombardment, despite best mitigation efforts. They need to make a positive announcement before actual integration with collection optics. Obviously, they won't get anywhere with it.
In fact, the group uses a Z-pinch plasma, same as Ushio's DPP. They have to use xenon or tin, not hydrogen (deuterium/tritium) as the plasma medium.
It is very impressive these advancements that we are currently having in the area of nuclear fusion research, hopefully soon everything will become reality in order to make a better world.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.