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)