News on China's scientific and technological development.

manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
China was ahead. in the 80s.


1)You have no understanding of the history.
China history of semiconductor dated back to the 50s and in the early days they got their own litho equipment and were self sufficient. They were not behind. And later they fell behind.

2)during the 90s China chose the easier tech to work with and purposely avoid the difficult ones. It was obvious.

As long as you optimistic about indians and huawei altogether. I am good at that i just want to point out.

Focus laser method is not comparable to industry standard in terms of speed.
Click to expand...
1. You said that China was high on its 5G, AI, big data, maglev, etc... and related that to China's falling behind on lithography. That implies that mistakes were recent. China made many mistakes in its history of 5,000 years, no doubt and the 1950's were a total mess as the CCP was still learning the reigns; it's pointless to discuss that here.

2. I understand that China had made some early forays into lithography prior but I thought they were never ahead, ran into numerous issues and basically failed like China's first passenger jet. I would like you to show me some evidence that China was ahead in lithography to prove your point.

3. You said laser focus cannot be used for mass production. You should have qualified that statement saying that current methods known to you are not usable for mass production. I gave examples of what lasers can be capable of as well as how they can be much slower than traditional methods but still emerge a superior, comparable, or acceptable means of mass production. Your continuous attempts to move the goalpost here are pointless and everyone sees through it already.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
Lol. Come on. No companies can afford have employees doing monitoring equipments daily basis.
Without their employees monitoring the machines wont work?
Wow come on. Be real.
Click to expand...
You are truly ignorant. When an institute employs Illumina for its genetic sequencing needs, we have a team onsite everyday for the room of sequencers that are always running. They are there constantly monitoring the machines and trouble-shooting those with problems. They set up a local office right in your building and they can afford to do so because each run costs over $20,000 and machines are millions, a pittance compared to what ASML charges. Now we have confirmed that you are the type of person who confidently asserts things the are outside of his knowledge. Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about.
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
You are truly ignorant. When an institute employs Illumina for its genetic sequencing needs, we have a team onsite everyday for the room of sequencers that are always running. They are there constantly monitoring the machines and trouble-shooting those with problems. They set up a local office right in your building and they can afford to do so because each run costs over $20,000 and machines are millions, a pittance compared to what ASML charges. Now we have confirmed that you are the type of person who confidently asserts things the are outside of his knowledge. Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
That called on site support and trouble shooting when needed
Not daily basis operations.
Common sense
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
That called on site support and trouble shooting when needed
Not daily basis operations.
Common sense
Click to expand...
I don't know if you know you are wrong but are trying to not admit it or your reading comprehension is really that bad. They are there every day, looking at every machine and servicing those that need it. If they quit, you can count your days before all your machines are screwed. And also, you are trying to move the goalpost again; you said that no company can afford to have employees monitor all their machines and I just proved you wrong. Reread that post; common English. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
S

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
nastya1 said:
Laser generated light yes with traditional litho but when that light entering the wafer they were spread out not focused unlike the one in research paper. The reason they focus the laser at the research paper is so they can do cutting and shaping the wafer. One point at a time.
Click to expand...
wrong you must be imagining things
they use photoresist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“For the inorganic titanium film photoresist, they employed a dual laser beam cross-stacking technique.”
 
E

emblem21

Major
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
You are truly ignorant. When an institute employs Illumina for its genetic sequencing needs, we have a team onsite everyday for the room of sequencers that are always running. They are there constantly monitoring the machines and trouble-shooting those with problems. They set up a local office right in your building and they can afford to do so because each run costs over $20,000 and machines are millions, a pittance compared to what ASML charges. Now we have confirmed that you are the type of person who confidently asserts things the are outside of his knowledge. Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
China still have room to grow in the super conductor industry and this period of time has given China the boost in terms of moral and will to develop these technologies. As mentioned earlier, they have been doing development and even though things aren't easy, progress has been made. I am interested to see how China tackles this situation, but like with the nuclear weapons, super computer and satellites, its not a matter of if, but when
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
1. You said that China was high on its 5G, AI, big data, maglev, etc... and related that to China's falling behind on lithography. That implies that mistakes were recent. China made many mistakes in its history of 5,000 years, no doubt and the 1950's were a total mess as the CCP was still learning the reigns; it's pointless to discuss that here.

2. I understand that China had made some early forays into lithography prior but I thought they were never ahead, ran into numerous issues and basically failed like China's first passenger jet. I would like you to show me some evidence that China was ahead in lithography to prove your point.

3. You said laser focus cannot be used for mass production. You should have qualified that statement saying that current methods known to you are not usable for mass production. I gave examples of what lasers can be capable of as well as how they can be much slower than traditional methods but still emerge a superior, comparable, or acceptable means of mass production. Your continuous attempts to move the goalpost here are pointless and everyone sees through it already.
Click to expand...
China made 2 mistakes.
1)they were self sufficient at semiconductor at early days . But gave up when opened up to US in early 80s just the passenger plane. They were strategic mistakes.

2)In the late 90s or even early 2000s China start to have monies and they should reinvest in semiconductor but they didnt because people think they can make easier money doing something else.

So, they screwed up twice big time.

Yeah, you believe focused laser can do mass manufacturing but companies with EUV can blow you off the water. Not even in the same league.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
China made 2 mistakes.
1)they were self sufficient at semiconductor at early days . But gave up when opened up to US in early 80s just the passenger plane. They were strategic mistakes.

2)In the late 90s or even early 2000s China start to have monies and they should reinvest in semiconductor but they didnt because people think they can make easier money doing something else.

So, they screwed up twice big time.
Click to expand...
I said show your evidence, NOT tell me a story. Where are the linked articles? I want to see just how strong China was and whether they blew it or it was just not feasible to continue to invest in a badly backwards industry against global competitors given the economic status back then.
nastya1 said:
Yeah, you believe focused laser can do mass manufacturing but companies with EUV can blow you off the water. Not even in the same league.
Click to expand...
Going in circles; a one vs. one speed comparison against a modern EUV machine that is $180 million and the size of a house is not the only way to go about things. Your repeated attempts to move the goalpost fail to cover the fact that you said focused lasers cannot do mass work but they can.
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sleepyjam said:
wrong you must be imagining things
they use photoresist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“For the inorganic titanium film photoresist, they employed a dual laser beam cross-stacking technique.”
Click to expand...
As you continue to read it says for large scale processing it use direct write method which means directly write on wafer without the resist.
So it doesnt matter they use dual beam with resist or single beam how can compete with millions rays of light litho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top