• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    It looks like China’s approach is going to be to us a particle accelerator instead. A lot of the complexity in ASML machines comes from the fact that they need them to be portable in order to ship them to clients around the world. Since China’s goal is to produce chips domestically, this isn’t a constraint. The accelerator approach also has several advantages over ASML approach:

    Compared with current ASML EUV technology, SSMB is a more ideal light source. It has a higher average power and higher chip production output with lower unit cost.

    ASML creates an EUV source from laser-produced plasma, where strong laser pulses are projected to liquid microdroplets of tin. The laser crushes the droplets and produces EUV pulse light during the impact. After complex filtering and focusing, an EUV light source with a power of about 250W is produced.

    Before reaching the chip, the EUV beam undergoes reflection from 11 mirrors, each causing about a 30 per cent energy loss. As a result, the power of the beam is less than 5W when reaching the wafer. This can become an issue when manufacturing turns to 3nm or 2nm.

    SSMB technology avoids such concerns. SSMB beams achieve a higher output power of 1000W, and due to its narrow bandwidth, fewer reflecting mirrors are needed, which naturally generates higher terminal power.

    https://archive.ph/NrC6B

    • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      An EUV laser blasting at 1 kW is gonna absolutely chew through optical components. I hope they’re making some serious advances in materials science. Contemporary components like mirrors, attenuators, filters, etc start degrading when you blast them with more than 1W of DUV.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess it could just be written up as cost of operation, but yeah would be curious to see if components can be made that withstand this much abuse without degradation for long periods.

        • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, as-is with much lower power lasers, it’s written up as a cost of operation. What used to be parts that were installed once and then never touched are now regular maintenance tasks.

          I don’t think the mirrors and prisms will be the expensive part in the grand scheme of things, but the downtime to shift spots and replace components will be expensive.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Makes sense yeah, presumably this stuff has to be incredibly finely tuned to work right.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Possible they’re leveraging reduced complexity and their local manufacturing and vertical integration to just replace ad hoc. Component breaks just slot in a new one.

        • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          As I just posted to Yogthos, it’s the downtime that will be costly here. The mirrors and prisms can be made cheaply enough when you take China’s supply chain and large scale manufacturing into account, but the loss of production will have to be reduced somehow. Lasers require incredible precision; the difference between just barely touching the allen wrench and not can make the beam go from centered on target to completely off the detector. This translates to hours of tedious adjustments to get the beam back on target, even with alignment pins.