Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ?
|
Prev: RISC load-store verses x86 Add from memory.
Next: Call for Papers: International Conference on Circuits and Systems ICCS 2010
From: Archimedes' Lever on 18 Jun 2010 22:53 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:32:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> You failed. Nothing unusual there. > >I enjoy playing with numbers, because I like numbers. You hate and >fear numbers. Get over it and you'll be better off. > >John You're the one that got it wrong, multiple times.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 18 Jun 2010 22:54 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:38:56 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:35:24 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP >><ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote: >> >>>dlzc wrote: >>>> >>>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >>>> energy (the rest is there just for chance). >>> >>>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >>>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg >>> >>>1 megaton = 46.49 grams. >>> >>>Eric >> >>So 46 micrograms == 1 ton of TNT. >> >>46 ng == 2 pounds of TNT >> >>So converting dust to energy might be a little hard on silicon wafers. > >--- >That embedded : "converting dust into energy might be a little hard" >makes the rejection of the proposition pretty much a no-brainer. > >Not a criticism of you John, (for once ;) a criticism of the fancied, >but not really worked out process required to render silicon fissile. > >Johm Fields They were deluded into thinking that they could 'hit' the particle with some undetermined amount of 'anti-matter'.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 19 Jun 2010 08:00 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> writes: > > > MitchAlsup wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 18, 4:48 am, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Would it be possible to "vaporize" any dust particles during the chip > >> > manufacturing ? > >> > >> It is easier to place most of the manufactuing process in a vacuum and > >> eliminate the dust particles. {Hint: dust cannot float in a vacuum to > >> land on the wafers, but drops like a rock to the floor.} > > > > > > Just like Skyduck's ignorant trolling. > > And if people would just quit answering him, I wouldn't see anything > from him at all... I've had Skyduck plonked for a long time. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: George Neuner on 19 Jun 2010 10:06 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:49:49 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:20:51 -0400, George Neuner <gneuner2(a)comcast.net> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:07:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>> Are matter anti-matter annihilations being observed in uni labs on a >>>regular basis? >> >>Yes ... and in (big) hospitals too. Google "PET scan". >> >>George > > Ah... molecular level stuff. Only about one ten millionth of what one >would need to take care of a dust particle. > > Still quite implausible. Sorry, I missed something. What's implausible? George
From: Richard Henry on 19 Jun 2010 11:22
On Jun 18, 8:25 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP > > <ThatWouldBeTell...(a)thevillage.com> wrote: > >dlzc wrote: > > >> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to > >> energy (the rest is there just for chance). > > >1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules > >E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg > > >1 megaton = 46.49 grams. > > >Eric > > Grams? Grams of WHAT? I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield > less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium. > > Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it > does not get "converted", it gets "released". > > The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. > > Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where > they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid. > > Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is >: stupid as well. > > Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. There cannot be any more > than that after stupid statements like the one you made here. Wikipedia say: In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total massenergy is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, into a form which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about 0.1% of its mass, and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% of the total mass appears as energy in the end. |