[Libre-silicon-devel] Maskless lithography

[Pavel Nikulin]

Following on the custom microled device idea. One company I have heard
of recently is Hong Kong Beida Jade Bird Display. They still don't
have a selling product, and the last time I saw them on an industry
event, they were still pitching people around
https://www.jb-display.com/projects

Maybe they will be open to the idea of a custom device. 435nm is
achievable with GaN with which they already work. 435nm is not great,
but still better than i-line

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM David Lanzendörfer
<leviathan at libresilicon.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
> So as Staf pointed out, EUV exposure has to be performed at a very very low
> pressure, which is inconvenient to handle.
> So I'd prefer DUV or normal UV light.
> However, it would be of course fantastic, if we could reach feature sizes of
> 50nm or so.
> It occured to me, that we will have an e-beam exposure unit available anyway,
> at the lab, and that we can deposit all of the materials I've come across
> so far, commonly used to build UV LEDs.
> Do we wanna design our own (D)UV microLED matrix, maybe?
> We have the manufacturing equipment anyway, and it might be a cool
> selling point. And it's probably easier to manufacture than MEMs.
>
> As kind of a side quest :-)
>
> -lev
>
> > You can't produce EUV with anything made of solid matter. Even DUV and
> > Fluorine lasers (157nm) get absorbed way too enthusiastically. This is
> > why Fluorine litho sank on arrival, and the industry stayed on 193nm.
> > Switching to 157nm was requiring a change of material technology
> > comparable to EUV, but long term gains were not in 157nm's favour.
> >
> > Both 157nm and EUV can make 25nm feature sizes, but that's only a
> > small increment over 30-35 nm what a typical DUV system can do with
> > immersion. The industry still went EUV because tech transition with it
> > would ease future transition to Xray litho, which would also rely on
> > similar resist chemistry and vacuum.