Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ?
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 19 Jun 2010 01:13 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 06:43:17 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFuture(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >"MitchAlsup" <MitchAlsup(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:92e653e6-ce86-4b47-983b-608354c68df9(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >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.} >" > >According to my physics class in high school a perfect vacuum cannot be >created and there will always be some air left over... > >Concerning issue's with damage to chips by vaporization: > >1. First create a vacuum. > >2. Then convert any floating(?)/remaining dust particles to energy. > >3. Then place wafers inside it and start vacuuming. > >Alternatively plan: > >Slowly turn dust into energy to prevent nuclear explosion ;) :) > >Another crazy idea would be to use water and produce the chip in water... > >Somehow purifieing water and maybe water better than air ? But I doubt it ;) > >I just had another idea: > >1. First create a vacuum as good as possible. > >2. Then highly charge the surroundings of the vacuum with static >electricity. > >Hopefully this will attract all remaining floating dust particles. > >3. Perhaps keep it like that... and start producing the chip. > >4. Otherwise if the static charge is to be disabled, first vaporize the dust >particles on the side or wipe them off ?!? > >Bye, > Skybuck. > Sure, dumbfuck. There are folks in all the clean rooms around the world wandering around with rags, wiping things free of their accumulated dust. Jeez, dude. Do the world a favor. Spend the next week locating a gun, and then release the world from your utter stupidity by using it on yourself.
From: BlindBaby on 19 Jun 2010 01:15 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:54:49 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> writes: > >> 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. > >And if people would just quit answering him, I wouldn't see anything >from him at all... That should tell you something, you retarded ditz! We do not filter your news for you. Nor do we cater to your stupid requests that we follow your posting criteria. YOU need to LEARN how to filter your own news, cretin.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 19 Jun 2010 08:00 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> writes: > > > 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. > > And if people would just quit answering him, I wouldn't see anything > from him at all... I've had Skyduck plonked for a long time. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: George Neuner on 19 Jun 2010 10:06 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:49:49 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:20:51 -0400, George Neuner <gneuner2(a)comcast.net> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:07:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>> Are matter anti-matter annihilations being observed in uni labs on a >>>regular basis? >> >>Yes ... and in (big) hospitals too. Google "PET scan". >> >>George > > Ah... molecular level stuff. Only about one ten millionth of what one >would need to take care of a dust particle. > > Still quite implausible. Sorry, I missed something. What's implausible? George
From: Richard Henry on 19 Jun 2010 11:22
On Jun 18, 8:25 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP > > <ThatWouldBeTell...(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. > > Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it > does not get "converted", it gets "released". > > The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. > > Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where > they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid. > > 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. Wikipedia say: In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total massenergy is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, into a form which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about 0.1% of its mass, and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% of the total mass appears as energy in the end. |