Talk:Immersion lithography

I think lithography costs are an appropriate concern. I cannot see a reason they will come down. Guiding light 05:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No. 8 at Google (search under Immersion lithography)...not bad!Guiding light 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure why the references aren't clickable, does anyone know how to link them up with the text at the bottom? Paul1337 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Those were hard printed cites. I've replaced them with ref tags, but they still need to go into the proper citation templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility

Saw the note on the article being "too technical". Began work on trying to generalize the content a bit. Guiding light 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have finished a first round of revision. I hope the content is satisfactory. If anyone wants their content reinstated, please place notice here.Guiding light 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the technical and citation headers since I actually found them distracting. 220.136.224.42 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanations in article

The immersion lithography article is very technical, but based on other sources, it seems unavoidable to use technical terms such as refractive index, numerical aperture (N.A.), photoresist, etc. To keep it simple, I reduced some sections. Further work may still be needed regarding various immersion-specific issues (defects, polarization, high-index, photomask).61.61.254.9 00:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Immersion lithography as of 2007 is in a pretty mature state. It is definitely going to use water as the medium and defect issues are being controlled to the point that immersion tools are big business for ASML and Nikon. While not directly related, double patterning has come up as a way to do 32 nm node (since there is nothing else ready). So the article needs a major update. Initially, there were all these directions from different contributors, but it's finally panning out.Guiding light 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pure Water's Index of Refraction

Immersion Lithography: "For example, for water at 193 nm wavelength, the index is 1.44."

Numerical Aperture: "where n is the index of refraction of the medium in which the lens is working (1.0 for air, 1.33 for pure water, and up to 1.56 for oils)"

Am I just misunderstanding the circumstances of the two examples, or is one incorrect? I admit, this is silly with respect to the article as a whole, but it bothered me enough to mention it. 75.47.122.141 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! The 1.33 is most likely for water at a longer wavelength than 193 nm. Unfortunately it is not specified. As soon as it can be cited, the wavelength should be mentioned.218.168.208.160 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake on depth of focus

The second paragraph under "benefits" says: "However, the depth of focus, or tolerance in wafer topography flatness, is reduced compared to the corresponding "dry" tool at the same resolution." But the following paragraph contradicts that previous assertion: "The successful emergence of immersion lithography comes not just from its ability to extend resolution and depth of focus, . . ." The reference article in this case seems to be the German one, and according to a Google translation it agrees with the second assertion--i.e. that immersion improves or increases depth of focus, not the other way around.

Which side of this contradiction is right? I think (also from photography) that depth of focus is reduced when aperture is increased (i.e. when the f-number is decreased--see Depth of field - Effect of lens aperture)?

XavierAP (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immersion lithography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426061856/http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6553758.html to http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6553758.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)