On 9/21/2021 10:01 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 10:42 AM, EricP wrote:
>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 1:52 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> But, yeah, I was more imagining a chip fab for short runs of
>>>> low-density parts, rather than necessarily a "someones' garage" chip
>>>> fab...
>>>
>>> You have a choice of lots of fabs for short runs through MOSIS.
>>>
>>> https://www.themosisservice.com/
>>
>> If I understand correctly they organize ride-shares on others fabs.
>> They indicate
>>    Global Foundries 180-7 nm
>>    TSMC 350-12 nm
>>
>> Since you are sharing a wafer with others, in the same boat,
>> the processing would have to be mostly compatible.
>> I don't know if they allow add and remove wafers to a boat for
>> certain steps but all die on the same wafer must have the same steps.
>> i.e. everyone gets the same layers of metal.
>>
>> Also those fabs are likely state of the art, class 1, robots galore.
>> You are going to pay for bleeding edge equipment even if you don't
>> need it.
>
>
> Yeah. My idea was to try to make it cheap.

Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure that paying a large portion
of some not heavily used process is any cheaper than paying a tiny
portion of of a process developed for the cost effective production of a
huge number of chips. I.E. a tiny portion of a large number may be less
than a larger portion of a smaller number. Or, yet another way, you are
gaining the advantages of the lowest cost facilities developed for high
volumes without the requirement for high volumes.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

Anton Ertl wrote:
> EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> writes:
> [old processes with big feature sizes]
>> And since this utilizes fab equipment has been depreciated to zero,
>> and you are only paying the marginal fabrication cost,
>> those dozens of chips should individually cost less than the thousands.
>
> If you mean that each old-process dies costs less, that is unlikely.
> It's not just the equipment that costs, but the processing as well.

Yes, that is part of the marginal cost I referred to.
There would be fixed, per wafer, per step, and kind of step costs.
These usually go down as volume increases.

Equipment costs would be depreciation and overhead,
plus per-run or per-wafer variable costs for input supplies, people, etc.
Different companies can charge these out different ways.

> And much of that processing is per wafer. Admittedly, younger
> processes tend to use more steps than older processes, but not by as
> much a factor as the increase in die output.

There are many cost factors that do not scale linearly.
For example, to reach higher transistor densities it is reasonable
to assume it requires better quality wafers, chemicals,
more processing steps on more expensive equipment.

This is after the higher R&D costs which must also be recovered.

> Remember that Moore's law is about the number of transistors in
> *lowest-cost-per-transistor* chips. If that lowest cost was at
> 2000nm, Moore's law would have stopped many years ago. And, e.g.,
> Intel CPUs or memory chips with their exponentially increasing number
> of transistors would have become similarly more expensive (unless you
> suggest that the cost of the old process drops exponentially).

I think it is safe to assume that if these fabs are still in business
that they have worked out how to remain competitive and profitable.

We would send out our R2000 design for competitive bid from fabs.

By targeting our lower end design at an older process that we give
yourselves the opportunity to take advantage of the largest possible
number of supplier fabs competing for out business.
We can go for a high resolution if that is lowest cost.

> Old processes drop in cost, true, but at some point newer processes
> tend to be cheaper per-transistor; my impression is that that point
> has been relatively soon. E.g., at some point I read that Intel tends
> to use older processes for making chipsets, because the performance
> and power benefits of newer processes are not that important for
> chipsets. But Intel has been making chipsets in 14nm for a few years,
> so apparently their 14nm process can make cheaper transistors than
> their older processes.
>
>>>> Stanford MIPS circa 1981-82 was mostly designed by 3 guys without software
>>>> tools over 18 months. (The tools they mostly developed themselves.)
>>>> Transistor sizing was done by intuition.
>>>> Core design team time took 2.3 person-years.
>>>> Total design team size was 15 people providing specialty skills
>>>> at various points totaling 6.1 person-years.
>>> <
>>> So what you are saying is that modern tools SLOW DOWN the implementation process !?!
>
> Or one could point out that it took until 1986 until the R2000 was
> released. My guess is that it took quite a bit more effort to get
> from an academic proof-of-concept to a commercial product, not only on
> the business side, but also on the technical side.
>
> - anton

There are architectural differences between Stanford MIPS and R2000.
Stanford was 16 registers, 32-bit load/store only.
They discovered that rewriting all software for 32-bit load/store
was not practical so R2000 had 32 registers and byte & word LD/ST.
There were some other changes, those were the biggies.

Of course commercial version had to have native software, OS, compilers,
linkers, editors, so higher R&D costs.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 1:11:10 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 10:01 AM, BGB wrote:
> > On 9/21/2021 10:42 AM, EricP wrote:
> >> Stephen Fuld wrote:
> >>> On 9/21/2021 1:52 AM, BGB wrote:
> >>>
> >>> snip
> >>>
> >>>> But, yeah, I was more imagining a chip fab for short runs of
> >>>> low-density parts, rather than necessarily a "someones' garage" chip
> >>>> fab...
> >>>
> >>> You have a choice of lots of fabs for short runs through MOSIS.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.themosisservice.com/
> >>
> >> If I understand correctly they organize ride-shares on others fabs.
> >> They indicate
> >> Global Foundries 180-7 nm
> >> TSMC 350-12 nm
> >>
> >> Since you are sharing a wafer with others, in the same boat,
> >> the processing would have to be mostly compatible.
> >> I don't know if they allow add and remove wafers to a boat for
> >> certain steps but all die on the same wafer must have the same steps.
> >> i.e. everyone gets the same layers of metal.
> >>
> >> Also those fabs are likely state of the art, class 1, robots galore.
> >> You are going to pay for bleeding edge equipment even if you don't
> >> need it.
> >
> >
> > Yeah. My idea was to try to make it cheap.
<
> Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure that paying a large portion
> of some not heavily used process is any cheaper than paying a tiny
> portion of of a process developed for the cost effective production of a
> huge number of chips. I.E. a tiny portion of a large number may be less
> than a larger portion of a smaller number. Or, yet another way, you are
> gaining the advantages of the lowest cost facilities developed for high
> volumes without the requirement for high volumes.
<
Back in my days at Motorola (pre 1992) I was told that every handling of the
masks incurred risk. So a DRAM fab might run 1 mask set for several weeks
(~100,000 wafers) and then change the masks for a different set and run that
for several weeks. This was back in the days where a mask set was only $1M
<
Modern mask sets are even more expensive, more delicate, I think it would
end up costing more than you are expecting the change mask sets between
wafers in a single boat.
> --
> - Stephen Fuld
> (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 9/21/2021 2:17 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 1:11:10 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 10:01 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 10:42 AM, EricP wrote:
>>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 1:52 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, yeah, I was more imagining a chip fab for short runs of
>>>>>> low-density parts, rather than necessarily a "someones' garage" chip
>>>>>> fab...
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a choice of lots of fabs for short runs through MOSIS.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.themosisservice.com/
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly they organize ride-shares on others fabs.
>>>> They indicate
>>>> Global Foundries 180-7 nm
>>>> TSMC 350-12 nm
>>>>
>>>> Since you are sharing a wafer with others, in the same boat,
>>>> the processing would have to be mostly compatible.
>>>> I don't know if they allow add and remove wafers to a boat for
>>>> certain steps but all die on the same wafer must have the same steps.
>>>> i.e. everyone gets the same layers of metal.
>>>>
>>>> Also those fabs are likely state of the art, class 1, robots galore.
>>>> You are going to pay for bleeding edge equipment even if you don't
>>>> need it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. My idea was to try to make it cheap.
> <
>> Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure that paying a large portion
>> of some not heavily used process is any cheaper than paying a tiny
>> portion of of a process developed for the cost effective production of a
>> huge number of chips. I.E. a tiny portion of a large number may be less
>> than a larger portion of a smaller number. Or, yet another way, you are
>> gaining the advantages of the lowest cost facilities developed for high
>> volumes without the requirement for high volumes.
> <
> Back in my days at Motorola (pre 1992) I was told that every handling of the
> masks incurred risk. So a DRAM fab might run 1 mask set for several weeks
> (~100,000 wafers) and then change the masks for a different set and run that
> for several weeks. This was back in the days where a mask set was only $1M
> <
> Modern mask sets are even more expensive, more delicate, I think it would
> end up costing more than you are expecting the change mask sets between
> wafers in a single boat.

I wasn't suggesting that. It was BGB. From reading the MOSIS web
pages, their volumes may be as low as about 40 chips. Given your number
of chips per boat, that works fine with say 3-4 copies of any particular
chip per wafer. (reminder - the big thing that makes MOSIS work is that
they support multiple different chips on a single wafer.)

You know far more about fabs than I do, but somehow MOSIS makes small
volumes on advanced fabs work.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:
> I respond: The problem is a temporary shortage in manufacturing capacity. Being temporary, the problem should resolve itself.

Oh, indeed. I just saw a YouTube video quoting a report from an industry
body estimating that by 2023, we could have an oversupply of chips.

However, if we have an oversupply of, say, 3nm chips in 2023, what
will _really_ happen is that we will have a shortage of 2nm chips...
in other words, I fear that any oversupply situation would be
corrected by accelerating the movement to new process nodes.

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7:58:29 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:
> > I respond: The problem is a temporary shortage in manufacturing capacity. Being temporary, the problem should resolve itself.
>
> Oh, indeed. I just saw a YouTube video quoting a report from an industry
> body estimating that by 2023, we could have an oversupply of chips.
<
The shortage was the consumers of chips (auto, computer) decided the lockdown
would end up selling fewer product, and thus CANCELLED chips that had been
on order for months.
<
In high volume (>1M/month) the lead time for "chips" is 9-months for packaged
tested, burned in parts. The cancellation of those chips is on the heads of the
bean counters.
<
The FABs took the cancellations in stride, and scrapped the wafers.
<
If the bean counters were smart, they would have simply put a DELAY on the
wafers and this in and of itself would have taken 6-months out of the under
supply situation.
<
So, 3-5 months into the pandemic, the orders were put back "IN" and those
take the 9-month latency of mass production.
<
This is not a FAB problem it is a fundamental problem of "just in time" procurement.
>
> However, if we have an oversupply of, say, 3nm chips in 2023, what
<
The majority of the shortages are in 60-35nm parts (Automotive does not
use parts within 3 generations of bleeding edge.)
<
Note Intel is/was still stuck at 14nm (at least until recently).
<
> will _really_ happen is that we will have a shortage of 2nm chips...
> in other words, I fear that any oversupply situation would be
> corrected by accelerating the movement to new process nodes.
>
> John Savard

On 9/21/2021 5:42 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 2:17 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 1:11:10 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 10:01 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2021 10:42 AM, EricP wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/21/2021 1:52 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, yeah, I was more imagining a chip fab for short runs of
>>>>>>> low-density parts, rather than necessarily a "someones' garage" chip
>>>>>>> fab...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a choice of lots of fabs for short runs through MOSIS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.themosisservice.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> If I understand correctly they organize ride-shares on others fabs.
>>>>> They indicate
>>>>> Global Foundries 180-7 nm
>>>>> TSMC 350-12 nm
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you are sharing a wafer with others, in the same boat,
>>>>> the processing would have to be mostly compatible.
>>>>> I don't know if they allow add and remove wafers to a boat for
>>>>> certain steps but all die on the same wafer must have the same steps.
>>>>> i.e. everyone gets the same layers of metal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also those fabs are likely state of the art, class 1, robots galore.
>>>>> You are going to pay for bleeding edge equipment even if you don't
>>>>> need it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. My idea was to try to make it cheap.
>> <
>>> Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure that paying a large portion
>>> of some not heavily used process is any cheaper than paying a tiny
>>> portion of of a process developed for the cost effective production of a
>>> huge number of chips. I.E. a tiny portion of a large number may be less
>>> than a larger portion of a smaller number. Or, yet another way, you are
>>> gaining the advantages of the lowest cost facilities developed for high
>>> volumes without the requirement for high volumes.
>> <
>> Back in my days at Motorola (pre 1992) I was told that every handling
>> of the
>> masks incurred risk. So a DRAM fab might run 1 mask set for several weeks
>> (~100,000 wafers) and then change the masks for a different set and
>> run that
>> for several weeks. This was back in the days where a mask set was only
>> $1M
>> <
>> Modern mask sets are even more expensive, more delicate, I think it would
>> end up costing more than you are expecting the change mask sets between
>> wafers in a single boat.
>
> I wasn't suggesting that.  It was BGB.  From reading the MOSIS web
> pages, their volumes may be as low as about 40 chips.  Given your number
> of chips per boat, that works fine with say 3-4 copies of any particular
> chip per wafer.  (reminder - the big thing that makes MOSIS work is that
> they support multiple different chips on a single wafer.)
>
> You know far more about fabs than I do, but somehow MOSIS makes small
> volumes on advanced fabs work.
>

I was suggesting the possibility of eliminating physical masks from the
process and having this part be handled in software...

Granted, there is still all the costs associated with making the wafers,
...., unless this part could be outsourced somehow. But, AFAIK, most of
the fabs make their own wafers.

Then again, even DLP projector resolution would still be a lot better
than what most people have access to here: nothing at all.

Eg: most people, in their whole lifetime, will not have enough money to
afford even a single shot at having a fab make custom chips for them.

If you can get it cheap enough to where individuals can at least get
chips run, even if they are not economically competitive with mainline
chips, would be nifty.

Granted, unless it can be made competitive with FPGAs (in terms of cost,
clock-speeds, and density), the practical viability is still fairly low.

From what I can gather, this likely means needing to be able to pull off:
* ~ 500k transistors for under $100 per chip;
* Ability to clock upwards of 50MHz;
* ...

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/2021 5:42 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 2:17 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 1:11:10 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2021 10:01 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 10:42 AM, EricP wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/21/2021 1:52 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, yeah, I was more imagining a chip fab for short runs of
>>>>>>>> low-density parts, rather than necessarily a "someones' garage" chip
>>>>>>>> fab...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have a choice of lots of fabs for short runs through MOSIS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.themosisservice.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I understand correctly they organize ride-shares on others fabs.
>>>>>> They indicate
>>>>>> Global Foundries 180-7 nm
>>>>>> TSMC 350-12 nm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you are sharing a wafer with others, in the same boat,
>>>>>> the processing would have to be mostly compatible.
>>>>>> I don't know if they allow add and remove wafers to a boat for
>>>>>> certain steps but all die on the same wafer must have the same steps.
>>>>>> i.e. everyone gets the same layers of metal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also those fabs are likely state of the art, class 1, robots galore.
>>>>>> You are going to pay for bleeding edge equipment even if you don't
>>>>>> need it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. My idea was to try to make it cheap.
>>> <
>>>> Not my area of expertise, but I am not sure that paying a large portion
>>>> of some not heavily used process is any cheaper than paying a tiny
>>>> portion of of a process developed for the cost effective production of a
>>>> huge number of chips. I.E. a tiny portion of a large number may be less
>>>> than a larger portion of a smaller number. Or, yet another way, you are
>>>> gaining the advantages of the lowest cost facilities developed for high
>>>> volumes without the requirement for high volumes.
>>> <
>>> Back in my days at Motorola (pre 1992) I was told that every handling
>>> of the
>>> masks incurred risk. So a DRAM fab might run 1 mask set for several weeks
>>> (~100,000 wafers) and then change the masks for a different set and
>>> run that
>>> for several weeks. This was back in the days where a mask set was only
>>> $1M
>>> <
>>> Modern mask sets are even more expensive, more delicate, I think it would
>>> end up costing more than you are expecting the change mask sets between
>>> wafers in a single boat.
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting that.  It was BGB.  From reading the MOSIS web
>> pages, their volumes may be as low as about 40 chips.  Given your number
>> of chips per boat, that works fine with say 3-4 copies of any particular
>> chip per wafer.  (reminder - the big thing that makes MOSIS work is that
>> they support multiple different chips on a single wafer.)
>>
>> You know far more about fabs than I do, but somehow MOSIS makes small
>> volumes on advanced fabs work.
>>
>
> I was suggesting the possibility of eliminating physical masks from the
> process and having this part be handled in software...
>
> Granted, there is still all the costs associated with making the wafers,
> ..., unless this part could be outsourced somehow. But, AFAIK, most of
> the fabs make their own wafers.
>
>
> Then again, even DLP projector resolution would still be a lot better
> than what most people have access to here: nothing at all.

There was a company looking to replace masks with a grid of lasers, paint
the chips like a CRT screen does. Must have been before 150nm. Could still
work below that by using simple slit masks and setting the minimum wire
length at 150nm. You can make the slit masks shorter than 150nm and do more
passes to connect segments.

The big market for this is test chips, so you don’t have to commit to $10
million in masks until you know the chip will work.

> Eg: most people, in their whole lifetime, will not have enough money to
> afford even a single shot at having a fab make custom chips for them.
>
> If you can get it cheap enough to where individuals can at least get
> chips run, even if they are not economically competitive with mainline
> chips, would be nifty.
>
>
> Granted, unless it can be made competitive with FPGAs (in terms of cost,
> clock-speeds, and density), the practical viability is still fairly low.
>
> From what I can gather, this likely means needing to be able to pull off:
> * ~ 500k transistors for under $100 per chip;
> * Ability to clock upwards of 50MHz;
> * ...
>
>

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 9/21/2021 7:36 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> A few decades ago, I interned at the R&D division of company
>>> which made wafers for silicon chips.  They had 10% of their
>>> production capacity in R&D, which I found astonishing.  Anyway,
>>> the hydrofluroic acid I was handling there to etch the wafers is
>>> a most unpleasant chemical, a powerful, slow-acting contact poison.
>>
>> HF has the highest possible chemical valence (?) gap, of 4.0 from what
>> little I remember of my high school chemistry.
>>
>> I saw a note yesterday about the semi industry promising to turn a bit
>> greener, including reducing both water and dangerous chemical use.
>>
>
> Not entirely sure off-hand what some substitutes would be; not a whole
> lot of stuff capable of dissolving silicon.

It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.

And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.

In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:

> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>
> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.

Actually, there are even worse things that get used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry

John

John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> schrieb:
> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>
>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>
>> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.
>
> Actually, there are even worse things that get used:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry

I _love_ that. "IGNITION!" has a lot on that compound.

Now, anybody who hasn't read "IGNITION!" by John D. Clarke should
do so immediately, if only for the forword by Isaac Asimov, who
was a friend of the author. To quote two paragraphs:

# Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is
# outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a
# merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of
# far-out insanity.
# There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly,
# some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some
# that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I
# know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful
# properties combined into one delectable whole.

On 23/09/2021 21:40, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> schrieb:
>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>
>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>
>>> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.
>>
>> Actually, there are even worse things that get used:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry
>
> I _love_ that. "IGNITION!" has a lot on that compound.
>
> Now, anybody who hasn't read "IGNITION!" by John D. Clarke should
> do so immediately, if only for the forword by Isaac Asimov, who
> was a friend of the author. To quote two paragraphs:
>
> # Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is
> # outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a
> # merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of
> # far-out insanity.
>
> # There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly,
> # some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some
> # that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I
> # know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful
> # properties combined into one delectable whole.
>

I like the quotation on the Wikipedia page:

"""
It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that
no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with
such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers...
"""

John Dallman wrote:
> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>
>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.

Is this US English?

In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?

It isn't too surprising that quartz glass need strong solvents.

>>
>> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.
>
> Actually, there are even worse things that get used:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry

Ouch! When just one F atom won't do: Take three of them!

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:01:58 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/2021 21:40, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > John Dallman <j...@cix.co.uk> schrieb:
> >> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >> tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
> >>>
> >>> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.
> >>
> >> Actually, there are even worse things that get used:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry
> >
> > I _love_ that. "IGNITION!" has a lot on that compound.
> >
> > Now, anybody who hasn't read "IGNITION!" by John D. Clarke should
> > do so immediately, if only for the forword by Isaac Asimov, who
> > was a friend of the author. To quote two paragraphs:
> >
> > # Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is
> > # outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a
> > # merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of
> > # far-out insanity.
> >
> > # There are, after all, some chemicals that explode shatteringly,
> > # some that flame ravenously, some that corrode hellishly, some
> > # that poison sneakily, and some that stink stenchily. As far as I
> > # know, though, only liquid rocket fuels have all these delightful
> > # properties combined into one delectable whole.
> >
> I like the quotation on the Wikipedia page:
>
> """
> It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that
> no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with
> such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers...
> """
I wonder how many test engineers became ignited ????
<
And then there is silane: when exposed to air, it rains silicon dioxide particles
(in an exothermic reaction BTW) that as so small they can remain suspended
for days. Lungs have no ability to remove these particles and they can cause
silicosis.
<
Silane is how layers of silicon-dioxide are built up on silicon wafers (inter
metallic layers), gate oxide, ...
<
Probably not as immediately dangerous as ClF3 but there is a never ending
list of bad chemical used in semiconductor processing.

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:39:31 PM UTC-5, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> John Dallman wrote:
> > In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> > tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
> >
> >> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
> Is this US English?
>
> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
<
In days gone by, silicone was uses to enhance woman's breasts.
>
> It isn't too surprising that quartz glass need strong solvents.
> >>
> >> And for this, hydrofluoric acid is about the only game in town.
> >
> > Actually, there are even worse things that get used:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Semiconductor_industry
> Ouch! When just one F atom won't do: Take three of them!
> Terje
>
> --
> - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> John Dallman wrote:
>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>
>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>
> Is this US English?

It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)

>
> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?

The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
"s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
"Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
basically made of the same stuff.

The Norwegian language makes a bigger distinction. This in turn causes
confusion when non-native speakers are trying to talk about
semiconductors, and all the Norwegians are distracted by thinking of big
boobs.

In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
/efficient/ solutions.

>
> It isn't too surprising that quartz glass need strong solvents.
>

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 5:12:47 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-6, Dingbat wrote:
> > The world is running out of microchips – here’s the solution | New Scientist
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133510-800-the-world-is-running-out-of-microchips-heres-the-solution/
>
> > I respond: The problem is a temporary shortage in manufacturing capacity. Being temporary, the problem should resolve itself.
>
> > This article proposes a nonsensical solution to a non-problem.
> It's certainly true that our dependence on a few companies - TSMC, Samsung, and Intel - that can
> put chip designs on silicon...
>
> isn't going to be solved by having an open-source model democratize the production of
> more chip designs.
>
> Instead, for the article to be about something that would even *address* the problem,
> it would have to be about some new technology that would let everyone and his
> uncle practice EUV lithography in his or her basement. That does not appear to be
> forthcoming any time soon.
>
>
The problem is stated as a shortage of microchips. That can be solved by, say, TSMC increasing its manufacturing capacity manyfold. That would pose a different problem from the one stated in the article's title. As you have noted; it would give TSMC an even greater monopoly on manufacturing microchips.
>
>
>
> However, with all but the first part of the article being behind a paywall, perhaps I
> am being unfair to it.
>
> If chip *design* is democratized, suddenly there are more and smaller customers
> for chip foundries. So perhaps the writer envisaged that this would create a
> market environment that would foster the emergence of more and smaller
> chip foundries.
>
>
The writer doesn't seem to be aware that free chip designs are already available and little can be done to make them more freely available. Your scenario ought to be able to play out with currently available free designs.
>
>
> And the chips needed for automobiles, for example, aren't on the latest process
> nodes. So *they* could already come from other companies, like GlobalFoundries.
>
> John Savard

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>
>Is this US English?
>
>In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?

In English the polymer is silicone, and the element silicon.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon> says right at the start:
|Not to be confused with the silicon-containing synthetic polymer Silicone.

- anton
--
'Anyone trying for "industrial quality" ISA should avoid undefined behavior.'
Mitch Alsup, <c17fcd89-f024-40e7-a594-88a85ac10d20o@googlegroups.com>

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> John Dallman wrote:
>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>
>> Is this US English?
>
> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)

Actually, it should be "silicon dioxide", of which one modification
is quartz. Silicon monoxide also exists. It is a by product
of wafer production from dissolution of the crucibles of the
Czochralski process, and can lead to dust explosions.

>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?

> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
> typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
> basically made of the same stuff.

In German, it is 'Silikon' vs. 'Silizium'.

There is a is an unintentionally funny line in a 1985 German song
("Monopoly" by Klaus Lage). In this, the singer states that this
father's job has been taken over by "ein Stück Silikon" (i.e.
a piece of the soft polymer Silicone).

It is hard to imagine what his job was.

It is just SAND, it is everywhere on planet. I really don't know
what they want by makeing artificial shortage?

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

On 2021-09-24, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>
>>> Is this US English?
>>
>> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>
> Actually, it should be "silicon dioxide", of which one modification
> is quartz. Silicon monoxide also exists. It is a by product
> of wafer production from dissolution of the crucibles of the
> Czochralski process, and can lead to dust explosions.
>
>>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>
>> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
>> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
>> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
>> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
>> typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
>> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
>> basically made of the same stuff.
>
> In German, it is 'Silikon' vs. 'Silizium'.
>
> There is a is an unintentionally funny line in a 1985 German song
> ("Monopoly" by Klaus Lage). In this, the singer states that this
> father's job has been taken over by "ein Stück Silikon" (i.e.
> a piece of the soft polymer Silicone).
>
> It is hard to imagine what his job was.

--
Evil Sinner!

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:03:49 AM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> > On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> >> John Dallman wrote:
> >>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >>> tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
> >>
> >> Is this US English?
> >
> > It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> > such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
<
> Actually, it should be "silicon dioxide", of which one modification
> is quartz. Silicon monoxide also exists. It is a by product
> of wafer production from dissolution of the crucibles of the
> Czochralski process, and can lead to dust explosions.
<
Silicon dioxide can be found in the amorphous form or in the
crystalline form (quartz). Si-O2 forms readily when 10^-5 Tor of
oxygen is available to a pure Si surface. Pounding on the Si-O1
with an atomic maser can convert this into Si-O2 in the quartz
form.
<
> >> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
> >> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>
> > The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
> > "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
> > "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
> > people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
> > typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
> > English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
> > basically made of the same stuff.
> In German, it is 'Silikon' vs. 'Silizium'.
>
> There is a is an unintentionally funny line in a 1985 German song
> ("Monopoly" by Klaus Lage). In this, the singer states that this
> father's job has been taken over by "ein Stück Silikon" (i.e.
> a piece of the soft polymer Silicone).
>
> It is hard to imagine what his job was.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:09:00 AM UTC-5, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> It is just SAND, it is everywhere on planet. I really don't know
> what they want by makeing artificial shortage?
<
The sand that is everywhere takes a lot of processing in order to be pure
enough to make wafers.
>
> --
> 7-77-777
> \|/
> ---
> /|\
> On 2021-09-24, Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
> > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> >> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> >>> John Dallman wrote:
> >>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >>>> tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
> >>>
> >>> Is this US English?
> >>
> >> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> >> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
> >
> > Actually, it should be "silicon dioxide", of which one modification
> > is quartz. Silicon monoxide also exists. It is a by product
> > of wafer production from dissolution of the crucibles of the
> > Czochralski process, and can lead to dust explosions.
> >
> >>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
> >>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
> >
> >> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
> >> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
> >> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
> >> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
> >> typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
> >> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
> >> basically made of the same stuff.
> >
> > In German, it is 'Silikon' vs. 'Silizium'.
> >
> > There is a is an unintentionally funny line in a 1985 German song
> > ("Monopoly" by Klaus Lage). In this, the singer states that this
> > father's job has been taken over by "ein Stück Silikon" (i.e.
> > a piece of the soft polymer Silicone).
> >
> > It is hard to imagine what his job was.
> --
> Evil Sinner!

Well, just needs more effort to make, it's just detail :P
But ones you have machines and all that it is really not a problem :P
It's just *initial* investment...

--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
On 2021-09-24, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:09:00 AM UTC-5, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>> It is just SAND, it is everywhere on planet. I really don't know
>> what they want by makeing artificial shortage?
><
> The sand that is everywhere takes a lot of processing in order to be pure
> enough to make wafers.
>>
>> --
>> 7-77-777
>> \|/
>> ---
>> /|\
>> On 2021-09-24, Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
>> >> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> >>> John Dallman wrote:
>> >>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>> >>>> tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is this US English?
>> >>
>> >> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
>> >> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>> >
>> > Actually, it should be "silicon dioxide", of which one modification
>> > is quartz. Silicon monoxide also exists. It is a by product
>> > of wafer production from dissolution of the crucibles of the
>> > Czochralski process, and can lead to dust explosions.
>> >
>> >>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>> >>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>> >
>> >> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
>> >> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
>> >> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
>> >> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
>> >> typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
>> >> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
>> >> basically made of the same stuff.
>> >
>> > In German, it is 'Silikon' vs. 'Silizium'.
>> >
>> > There is a is an unintentionally funny line in a 1985 German song
>> > ("Monopoly" by Klaus Lage). In this, the singer states that this
>> > father's job has been taken over by "ein Stück Silikon" (i.e.
>> > a piece of the soft polymer Silicone).
>> >
>> > It is hard to imagine what his job was.
>> --
>> Evil Sinner!

--
Evil Sinner!

David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> John Dallman wrote:
>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>
>> Is this US English?
>
> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>
>>
>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>
> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).

Sorry, I sometimes type out the English word even when I try to use a
Norwegian word in the middle of an English message.

I have far more issues with tunnels...

> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian). But many
> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
> typically in the context of artificial boobs. This leads a lot of
> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
> basically made of the same stuff.
>
> The Norwegian language makes a bigger distinction. This in turn causes
> confusion when non-native speakers are trying to talk about
> semiconductors, and all the Norwegians are distracted by thinking of big
> boobs.
>
>
> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
> /efficient/ solutions.

Because both are "effektive"?
:-)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>
>>> Is this US English?
>>
>> It is also real English.  (American English gets some elements wrong,
>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>>
>>>
>>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>>
>> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
>> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
>
> Sorry, I sometimes type out the English word even when I try to use a
> Norwegian word in the middle of an English message.

As a Scot with a Norwegian wife, and kids brought up with both
languages, we can mix Norwegian and English within a single word!

>
> I have far more issues with tunnels...
>
>> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian).  But many
>> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
>> typically in the context of artificial boobs.  This leads a lot of
>> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
>> basically made of the same stuff.
>>
>> The Norwegian language makes a bigger distinction.  This in turn causes
>> confusion when non-native speakers are trying to talk about
>> semiconductors, and all the Norwegians are distracted by thinking of big
>> boobs.
>>
>>
>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>> /efficient/ solutions.
>
> Because both are "effektive"?
> :-)
>

Indeed.

There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.