Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/microsoft-backed-start-up-raises-40-million-for-helium-atom-beam-lithography-that-could-print-chips-at-atomic-resolution-%E2%80%94-0-1nm-beam-is-135-times-na.24828/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2030970
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Microsoft-backed start-up raises $40 million for helium atom beam lithography that could print chips at atomic resolution — 0.1nm beam is 135 times na

soAsian

Well-known member
"Lace describes its systems as "BEUV," or Beyond-EUV." :ROFLMAO:

I love it! Maybe China should look beyond EUV.

Lace Lithography, a Norwegian start-up backed by Microsoft, raised $40 million in Series A funding on Monday to develop a chipmaking tool that uses a helium atom beam instead of light to pattern silicon wafers, Reuters reported. The company claims its technology can create chip features 10 times smaller than current lithography systems, with a beam width of just 0.1 nanometers compared to the 13.5nm wavelength used by ASML's EUV scanners. Lace aims to have a test tool running in a pilot fab by 2029.

 
Possibly appropriating the term "BEUV" is a mistake, since the EUV community first used that to mean a wavelength around half the current EUV wavelength, as a target next-generation wavelength.

As I mentioned in my earlier comments here, the details of what they do are still not available.

Does it use focused beams or a mask? If it's a mask, then an immediate concern is how long it can last because of sputtering. There is a mask lifetime issue just like with nanoimprint. If it's focusing beams, how is this done? Charged particle optics is well known, but neutral particles focusing has not been demonstrated.

Is the patterning actually direct etching or sputtering at the wafer? That might be more efficient. If it's still exposing resist, the issue is how does the atom transfer its energy, and how much is transferred. There could still be ionization leading to secondary electrons. There could also be blur from chemical activation (like acid deprotection in CARs and oxygen crosslinking in MORs). And as long as there is a resist dose, counting how many atoms sets up the sensitivity to stochastics.
 
Back
Top