13 ms·

Not to mention the people who design many of the machines that TSMC use in their plants: ASML. "The mirrors guiding this light, made of sandwiched layers of si

by grlass 5y ago

Not to mention the people who design many of the machines that TSMC use in their plants: ASML. "The mirrors guiding this light, made of sandwiched layers of silicon and molybdenum, are ground so precisely that, if scaled to the size of Germany, they would have no bumps bigger than a millimetre" <https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/29/how-asml-became-chipmakings-biggest-monopoly https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/29/how-asml-becam...>

NicoJuicy 5y ago
You forget Imec in Belgium, which does a lot of the R&D in semiconductors. I suspect lot of the production facilities would want to be near them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-13/u-s-and-china-fix-their-sights-on-world-s-top-chip-research-center https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-13/u-s-and-c...
bschne 5y ago
Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision — intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. Or is it a matter of manufacturing it, testing it, and rejecting some percentage of things that don't fit your requirements due to imprecisions? Are there any good background resources on how some of these things are done?
- rosetremiere 5y ago
  Look at the «Whitworth three plate method». As far as I understand, it should allow a «gain» in precision.
- nudgeee 5y ago
  On a very high level, a good place to start is on Metrology — the science of measurement [0]. Test, measurement and calibration equipment for new technologies (think 5G/UWB, mmWave, even up to CERN LHC) can be right on the cutting edge of technology. Companies who specialize in these areas tend to have large budgets on research and commercialization. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology
- Lev1a 5y ago
  From what I've seen as an amateur that is yet fascinated by mechanical engineering: iteratively work up to the precision limits with your current methods then try to find/research a (slightly) better way of measuring and/or manufacturing. Since humanity has worked up to this point over centuries/millenia, you wouldn't need to "bootstrap" it from the beginning anymore, just choose the appropriate level of (manufacturing/measuring) precision for your usecase. Otherwise start with a surface plate. Nice summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 ("Origins of Precision" by "Machine Thinking")
  - _pmf_ 5y ago
    This is a beautiful video!
- ashergill 5y ago
  You might enjoy this video, 'Origins of Precision'. https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58 https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
- symmetricsaurus 5y ago
  Take three somewhat flat stones to start out. Alternate rubbing the surfaces together in a random fashion. As you continue the high spots of the stones will be ground down and the surfaces will become flatter and flatter. In the end you can get very precise flat surfaces. Two stones is not enough, you can then end up with two spherical surfaces. With three this isn't possible (imagine two of them are convex, when you rub them together they will grind eachother down and become less convex).
  - DougBTX 5y ago
    With images: https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-thre...
    - was_a_dev 5y ago
      That is, one plate remains stationary while the other is lapped against it, and then the opposite is performed Is it a strict requirement that one plate remains stationary?
      - totalZero 5y ago
        In relative terms, one of the two plates remains stationary even if both are moving.
  - Akronymus 5y ago
    Obligatory machine thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 Altough, I disagree with the "random fashion". Alternating the pairs AB -> BC -> CA seems more logical to me.
    - reportingsjr 5y ago
      It is necessary to grind in a random fashion (OP is talking about the method of grinding, not the order), or you will end up with imperfections. Lots of info about this if you look in to grinding mirrors for telescopes. Also, the order being random wouldn't effect the end result.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. Very reasonable assumption that I used to have too. (Un?)fortunately it's also wrong, or at best, incomplete. :-) e.g., maybe you don't have the technology to make precisely straight lines, but if you can make a flat surface (like paper), then you can fold it in half and get a straight line. Then fold that in half and get a pretty-close-to-90-degree angle. I also vaguely recall that feedback can increase precision in a system... like you can get 2% accuracy with a circuit that has only 5%-accurate resistors by using feedback (or something along those lines). Unfortunately I no longer recall how this is done. I just remember my mind was blown when I learned it.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision — intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. You can build a machine like that and most machines are built like that because simply reproducing the precision that is already in the machine is cheaper than building a complex intelligent system that knows how to compensate for flaws in precision. Think about how many 3d printers do auto leveling in software rather than simply make the bed perpendicular to the print head by hand. Those old manual milling machines and lathes didn't have all that fancy software so they simply reproduced their own flaws. Well, given a smart enough human he can compensate for the flaws in the tools and get to a higher degree of precision.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision Scraping https://www.toyoda.com/news-events/rpd-blog-the-importance-of-hand-scraping https://www.toyoda.com/news-events/rpd-blog-the-importance-o...
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Simon Winchester's book "The Perfectionists" [1] is a good popular level intro to Maudsley, Whitworth et al. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Exactly-Precision-Engineers-Created-Modern/dp/0008241783/ https://www.amazon.com/Exactly-Precision-Engineers-Created-M...
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    NB: I guess he changed the title to Exactly for the paperback release.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Are there any good background resources on how some of these things are done? For a cultural history of precision see The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World by Simon Winchester: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-perfectionists https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-perfectioni... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOEcyYsiHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOEcyYsiHc
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Yup, seconded. I was going to recommend that book.
- magicalhippo 5y ago
  On a related note, there's the powerful technique of doing things in a way where the factor(s) that are difficult to measure or control cancel out. Examples of this is the device[1] used for the redefined kilogram[2], LIGO[3] and many others. [1]: https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units#Kilogram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_ba... [3]: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/faq https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/faq (first question)
- samus 5y ago
  You mention it already - bootstrapping. Always optimising, always correcting for yet another flaw in materials, processing, environmental conditions, quality control and usage procedures. Usually, it is helpful that there are multiple ways to do a particular thing that can be used to calibrate each other. Also, there are physical processes that can produce high-quality surface finishes that can be used for calibration tasks, for example by splitting crystals. The resulting shapes are dependent on the crystal lattice, and improvements in material purity reduce any irregularities. A more general approach is to understand measurement as a process where a minute signal has to be amplified to be more easily evaluated. There are many such methods. In the case of surface metrology, Coherence scanning interferometry is such a method which uses the properties of interfering light waves to directly visualize surface anomalies as bands of lights. Another, more direct method is to drag a stylus across the surface and to amplify variations in position. Sort of like a turntable does.
lispm 5y ago
and ASML works together with Trumpf (lasers) and Zeiss (optics).
- quakeguy 5y ago
  And the silicon ingots come from Wacker-Chemie.
vijayr02 5y ago
Looks like countries are the intuitive units to capture deviations at this level of scale. From NASA's web page about the mirrors in the James Webb telescope [0]: "That means if the continental United States was polished smooth to the same tolerances, the entire country – from Maine to California – would not vary in thickness by just over two inches!" Given the US is roughly 27 times the area of Germany, looks like semiconductor manufacturing requires roughly double the accuracy of space telescopes (1 mm * 27 is slightly more than 1 inch) [0] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb-craft.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb-craft.h...
- apendleton 5y ago
  Hm, I think the magnitude in the z direction would scale with the magnitude in the x direction or the y direction, rather than with the area (x*y), right?
sveme 5y ago
Those mirrors (like all of ASML's optics) are actually developed and made by Carl Zeiss. And the lasers come from Trumpf.
ineedasername 5y ago
That's a good start, but ASML may want to call in Rick [0] on this one to go a little further [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQoRfieZJxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQoRfieZJxI
sdiepend 5y ago
And don't forget to mention imec in Leuven where lot's research and development gets done for ASML: https://www.imec-int.com/en/about-us https://www.imec-int.com/en/about-us https://www.imec-int.com/en/infrastructure https://www.imec-int.com/en/infrastructure
cma 5y ago
Don't forget DARPA, DoE, and US semiconductor industry funding EUV LLC in the 90s: https://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/1997/CN091197.HTM https://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/1997/CN0911...
arwhatever 5y ago
How big would the bumps be if the layers were scaled to the size of Texas? :-)
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Don't know about TX, but somewhere there was a comparison like that if the mirror would be laid over Germany. Was under a mm IIRC.
Animats 5y ago
Nobody has yet come up with a better approach to generating focused soft X-rays than that tin plasma nightmare. The "light source" today is the size of a 3-story house to get 250W on target. One of the main reasons wafer fabs now cost so much. There must be a better way.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > The "light source" today is the size of a 3-story house to get 250W on target. One of the main reasons wafer fabs now cost so much. Yes, EUV machines are said to increase fab electricity consumption few times over, over regular UV steppers. > There must be a better way. The better way may well be worse. The alternative proposal is to build the whole fab around a synchrotron.
  - Animats 5y ago
    There are several "tabletop synchrotron" projects, but as yet none with the right output for an IC fab. Hopefully someone will solve this problem.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      Synchrotrons would not be better by much. Efficiencies will still be just above single digits, which still means multimegawatt light sources. That's still better than tens of megawatt light sources.

by grlass 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago

You forget Imec in Belgium, which does a lot of the R&D in semiconductors. I suspect lot of the production facilities would want to be near them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-13/u-s-and-china-fix-their-sights-on-world-s-top-chip-research-center https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-13/u-s-and-c...

bschne 5y ago

Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision — intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. Or is it a matter of manufacturing it, testing it, and rejecting some percentage of things that don't fit your requirements due to imprecisions? Are there any good background resources on how some of these things are done?

rosetremiere 5y ago
Look at the «Whitworth three plate method». As far as I understand, it should allow a «gain» in precision.
nudgeee 5y ago
On a very high level, a good place to start is on Metrology — the science of measurement [0]. Test, measurement and calibration equipment for new technologies (think 5G/UWB, mmWave, even up to CERN LHC) can be right on the cutting edge of technology. Companies who specialize in these areas tend to have large budgets on research and commercialization. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology
Lev1a 5y ago
From what I've seen as an amateur that is yet fascinated by mechanical engineering: iteratively work up to the precision limits with your current methods then try to find/research a (slightly) better way of measuring and/or manufacturing. Since humanity has worked up to this point over centuries/millenia, you wouldn't need to "bootstrap" it from the beginning anymore, just choose the appropriate level of (manufacturing/measuring) precision for your usecase. Otherwise start with a surface plate. Nice summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 ("Origins of Precision" by "Machine Thinking")
- _pmf_ 5y ago
  This is a beautiful video!
ashergill 5y ago
You might enjoy this video, 'Origins of Precision'. https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58 https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
symmetricsaurus 5y ago
Take three somewhat flat stones to start out. Alternate rubbing the surfaces together in a random fashion. As you continue the high spots of the stones will be ground down and the surfaces will become flatter and flatter. In the end you can get very precise flat surfaces. Two stones is not enough, you can then end up with two spherical surfaces. With three this isn't possible (imagine two of them are convex, when you rub them together they will grind eachother down and become less convex).
- DougBTX 5y ago
  With images: https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-thre...
  - was_a_dev 5y ago
    That is, one plate remains stationary while the other is lapped against it, and then the opposite is performed Is it a strict requirement that one plate remains stationary?
    - totalZero 5y ago
      In relative terms, one of the two plates remains stationary even if both are moving.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  Obligatory machine thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58 Altough, I disagree with the "random fashion". Alternating the pairs AB -> BC -> CA seems more logical to me.
  - reportingsjr 5y ago
    It is necessary to grind in a random fashion (OP is talking about the method of grinding, not the order), or you will end up with imperfections. Lots of info about this if you look in to grinding mirrors for telescopes. Also, the order being random wouldn't effect the end result.
dataflow 5y ago
> intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. Very reasonable assumption that I used to have too. (Un?)fortunately it's also wrong, or at best, incomplete. :-) e.g., maybe you don't have the technology to make precisely straight lines, but if you can make a flat surface (like paper), then you can fold it in half and get a straight line. Then fold that in half and get a pretty-close-to-90-degree angle. I also vaguely recall that feedback can increase precision in a system... like you can get 2% accuracy with a circuit that has only 5%-accurate resistors by using feedback (or something along those lines). Unfortunately I no longer recall how this is done. I just remember my mind was blown when I learned it.
imtringued 5y ago
>Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision — intuitively for something to be this precise, the tools and equipment that "create" it should also have to be more or less equally precise. You can build a machine like that and most machines are built like that because simply reproducing the precision that is already in the machine is cheaper than building a complex intelligent system that knows how to compensate for flaws in precision. Think about how many 3d printers do auto leveling in software rather than simply make the bed perpendicular to the print head by hand. Those old manual milling machines and lathes didn't have all that fancy software so they simply reproduced their own flaws. Well, given a smart enough human he can compensate for the flaws in the tools and get to a higher degree of precision.
baybal2 5y ago
> Extremely naive question, but I always wonder how you can "bootstrap" this kind of precision Scraping https://www.toyoda.com/news-events/rpd-blog-the-importance-of-hand-scraping https://www.toyoda.com/news-events/rpd-blog-the-importance-o...
selimthegrim 5y ago
Simon Winchester's book "The Perfectionists" [1] is a good popular level intro to Maudsley, Whitworth et al. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Exactly-Precision-Engineers-Created-Modern/dp/0008241783/ https://www.amazon.com/Exactly-Precision-Engineers-Created-M...
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  NB: I guess he changed the title to Exactly for the paperback release.
throw0101a 5y ago
> Are there any good background resources on how some of these things are done? For a cultural history of precision see The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World by Simon Winchester: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-perfectionists https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35068671-the-perfectioni... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOEcyYsiHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOEcyYsiHc
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Yup, seconded. I was going to recommend that book.
magicalhippo 5y ago
On a related note, there's the powerful technique of doing things in a way where the factor(s) that are difficult to measure or control cancel out. Examples of this is the device[1] used for the redefined kilogram[2], LIGO[3] and many others. [1]: https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units#Kilogram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_ba... [3]: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/faq https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/faq (first question)
samus 5y ago
You mention it already - bootstrapping. Always optimising, always correcting for yet another flaw in materials, processing, environmental conditions, quality control and usage procedures. Usually, it is helpful that there are multiple ways to do a particular thing that can be used to calibrate each other. Also, there are physical processes that can produce high-quality surface finishes that can be used for calibration tasks, for example by splitting crystals. The resulting shapes are dependent on the crystal lattice, and improvements in material purity reduce any irregularities. A more general approach is to understand measurement as a process where a minute signal has to be amplified to be more easily evaluated. There are many such methods. In the case of surface metrology, Coherence scanning interferometry is such a method which uses the properties of interfering light waves to directly visualize surface anomalies as bands of lights. Another, more direct method is to drag a stylus across the surface and to amplify variations in position. Sort of like a turntable does.

lispm 5y ago

and ASML works together with Trumpf (lasers) and Zeiss (optics).

quakeguy 5y ago
And the silicon ingots come from Wacker-Chemie.

vijayr02 5y ago

Looks like countries are the intuitive units to capture deviations at this level of scale. From NASA's web page about the mirrors in the James Webb telescope [0]: "That means if the continental United States was polished smooth to the same tolerances, the entire country – from Maine to California – would not vary in thickness by just over two inches!" Given the US is roughly 27 times the area of Germany, looks like semiconductor manufacturing requires roughly double the accuracy of space telescopes (1 mm * 27 is slightly more than 1 inch) [0] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb-craft.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/webb-craft.h...

apendleton 5y ago
Hm, I think the magnitude in the z direction would scale with the magnitude in the x direction or the y direction, rather than with the area (x*y), right?

sveme 5y ago

Those mirrors (like all of ASML's optics) are actually developed and made by Carl Zeiss. And the lasers come from Trumpf.

ineedasername 5y ago

That's a good start, but ASML may want to call in Rick [0] on this one to go a little further [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQoRfieZJxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQoRfieZJxI

sdiepend 5y ago

And don't forget to mention imec in Leuven where lot's research and development gets done for ASML: https://www.imec-int.com/en/about-us https://www.imec-int.com/en/about-us https://www.imec-int.com/en/infrastructure https://www.imec-int.com/en/infrastructure

cma 5y ago

Don't forget DARPA, DoE, and US semiconductor industry funding EUV LLC in the 90s: https://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/1997/CN091197.HTM https://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/1997/CN0911...

arwhatever 5y ago

How big would the bumps be if the layers were scaled to the size of Texas? :-)

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Don't know about TX, but somewhere there was a comparison like that if the mirror would be laid over Germany. Was under a mm IIRC.

Animats 5y ago

Nobody has yet come up with a better approach to generating focused soft X-rays than that tin plasma nightmare. The "light source" today is the size of a 3-story house to get 250W on target. One of the main reasons wafer fabs now cost so much. There must be a better way.

baybal2 5y ago
> The "light source" today is the size of a 3-story house to get 250W on target. One of the main reasons wafer fabs now cost so much. Yes, EUV machines are said to increase fab electricity consumption few times over, over regular UV steppers. > There must be a better way. The better way may well be worse. The alternative proposal is to build the whole fab around a synchrotron.
- Animats 5y ago
  There are several "tabletop synchrotron" projects, but as yet none with the right output for an IC fab. Hopefully someone will solve this problem.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Synchrotrons would not be better by much. Efficiencies will still be just above single digits, which still means multimegawatt light sources. That's still better than tens of megawatt light sources.