Older term for micrometer. A metric unit of linear measure which equals one millionth of a meter. Symbol: µm
So, is it 0.13m and 0.09m or 0.13µm and 0.09µm ???
Maybe we can get Matsu to start a poll. I'll vote for 130nm and 90nm since it is actually a wavelength we are talking about !
The first is mistaken, either a misprint or a bad special symbol. Micron is µm. m just means meter.
When process dimensions are used they do not refer to wavelengths. These are the minimum written sizes of any features on a particular process, the wavelength of the illumination used is quite different (usually 248nm for 180nm and 130nm processes, with 193nm coming soon).
I think it would be better to use 130nm and 90nm, less confusing.
Please watch your units and terminology. I (and most others) know what you mean, but we shouldn't be required to translate.
0.130 nm is the size of a single atom. Fab sizes are nowhere near that good yet. I believe you mean 0.130 µm, or 130 nm.
You've made two mistakes with 0.90 nm. Again, nm is absurdly small, so you must mean µm. But then, the process size is not 0.90 µm, but 0.090 µm or 90 nm.
Not meaning to pick on you specifically, since there are a number of folks who are playing fast and loose with their units and numbers in these matters. When I see obvious mistakes like this (or spelling and grammatical errors), it tends to lower the poster's credibility with me rather significantly. When I read a post and encounter errors like these, I am forced to assume the author has made a mistake. It causes me to wonder what other mistakes have been made, perhaps not so obvious.
I know it is impossible to catch all mistakes. I make plenty myself. Proofreading and editing go a long way toward maintaining credibility around here, though.
________________________________________________
You're right.
A slip of the decimal point that might be misleading. However, you are also correct that the intended dimensions were 90 nm and 130 nm. If they ever do get down to the 0.0xx level (and there are people working on processes that will take things to the level of a very few atoms) that will be quite remarkable. There's quite a difference!
Comments
Quicksilver Mach 5
Originally posted by Gargoyle
You scientists!!! You really need to make your minds up.
Source: http://rel.intersil.com/docs/lexicon-old/M.html
micron
Older term for micrometer. A metric unit of linear measure which equals one millionth of a meter. Symbol: m
Source: http://rel.intersil.com/docs/lexicon/M.html
micron
Older term for micrometer. A metric unit of linear measure which equals one millionth of a meter. Symbol: µm
So, is it 0.13m and 0.09m or 0.13µm and 0.09µm ???
Maybe we can get Matsu to start a poll. I'll vote for 130nm and 90nm since it is actually a wavelength we are talking about !
The first is mistaken, either a misprint or a bad special symbol. Micron is µm. m just means meter.
When process dimensions are used they do not refer to wavelengths. These are the minimum written sizes of any features on a particular process, the wavelength of the illumination used is quite different (usually 248nm for 180nm and 130nm processes, with 193nm coming soon).
I think it would be better to use 130nm and 90nm, less confusing.
michael
Originally posted by TJM
A Pet Peeve(TM):
Please watch your units and terminology. I (and most others) know what you mean, but we shouldn't be required to translate.
0.130 nm is the size of a single atom. Fab sizes are nowhere near that good yet. I believe you mean 0.130 µm, or 130 nm.
You've made two mistakes with 0.90 nm. Again, nm is absurdly small, so you must mean µm. But then, the process size is not 0.90 µm, but 0.090 µm or 90 nm.
Not meaning to pick on you specifically, since there are a number of folks who are playing fast and loose with their units and numbers in these matters. When I see obvious mistakes like this (or spelling and grammatical errors), it tends to lower the poster's credibility with me rather significantly. When I read a post and encounter errors like these, I am forced to assume the author has made a mistake. It causes me to wonder what other mistakes have been made, perhaps not so obvious.
I know it is impossible to catch all mistakes. I make plenty myself. Proofreading and editing go a long way toward maintaining credibility around here, though.
________________________________________________
You're right.
A slip of the decimal point that might be misleading. However, you are also correct that the intended dimensions were 90 nm and 130 nm. If they ever do get down to the 0.0xx level (and there are people working on processes that will take things to the level of a very few atoms) that will be quite remarkable. There's quite a difference!
Cheers