Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ?
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 18 Jun 2010 20:12 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:25:41 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP ><ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote: > >>dlzc wrote: >>> >>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >>> energy (the rest is there just for chance). >> >>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg >> >>1 megaton = 46.49 grams. >> >>Eric > > Grams? Grams of WHAT? I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield >less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium. AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong. How _do_ you do it? Mass is mass (didn't we just have that discussion, Dimmie?). > Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it >does not get "converted", it gets "released". Nope. It gets converted from mass to energy. E=MC^2, ya' (don't) know. > The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. Irrelevant. It ended up 46ish grams short. > Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where >they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid. More irrelevance (your middle name). > Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is >stupid as well. > > Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. There cannot be any more >than that after stupid statements like the one you made here. AlwaysWrong, *HOW* can you be so wrong? Always!
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 Jun 2010 20:16 MitchAlsup wrote: > > On Jun 18, 4:48 am, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Would it be possible to "vaporize" any dust particles during the chip > > manufacturing ? > > It is easier to place most of the manufactuing process in a vacuum and > eliminate the dust particles. {Hint: dust cannot float in a vacuum to > land on the wafers, but drops like a rock to the floor.} Just like Skyduck's ignorant trolling. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: John Larkin on 18 Jun 2010 20:35 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote: >dlzc wrote: >> >> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >> energy (the rest is there just for chance). > >1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg > >1 megaton = 46.49 grams. > >Eric So 46 micrograms == 1 ton of TNT. 46 ng == 2 pounds of TNT So converting dust to energy might be a little hard on silicon wafers. John
From: John Fields on 18 Jun 2010 21:38 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:35:24 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP ><ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote: > >>dlzc wrote: >>> >>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >>> energy (the rest is there just for chance). >> >>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg >> >>1 megaton = 46.49 grams. >> >>Eric > >So 46 micrograms == 1 ton of TNT. > >46 ng == 2 pounds of TNT > >So converting dust to energy might be a little hard on silicon wafers. --- That embedded : "converting dust into energy might be a little hard" makes the rejection of the proposition pretty much a no-brainer. Not a criticism of you John, (for once ;) a criticism of the fancied, but not really worked out process required to render silicon fissile. Johm Fields
From: Archimedes' Lever on 18 Jun 2010 22:53
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:32:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> You failed. Nothing unusual there. > >I enjoy playing with numbers, because I like numbers. You hate and >fear numbers. Get over it and you'll be better off. > >John You're the one that got it wrong, multiple times. |