Talk:Immersion lithography

message: I think lithography costs are an appropriate concern. I cannot see a reason they will come down. Guiding light 05:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm not sure why the references aren't clickable, does anyone know how to link them up with the text at the bottom? Paul1337 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were hard printed cites.  I've replaced them with ref tags, but they still need to go into the proper citation templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Saw the note on the article being "too technical". Began work on trying to generalize the content a bit. Guiding light 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accessibility

message: The immersion lithography article is very technical, but based on other sources, it seems unavoidable to use technical terms such as refractive index, numerical aperture (N.A.), photoresist, etc. To keep it simple, I reduced some sections. Further work may still be needed regarding various immersion-specific issues (defects, polarization, high-index, photomask).61.61.254.9 00:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanations in article

message: Immersion Lithography: "For example, for water at 193 nm wavelength, the index is 1.44."
Numerical Aperture: "where n is the index of refraction of the medium in which the lens is working (1.0 for air, 1.33 for pure water, and up to 1.56 for oils)"
Am I just misunderstanding the circumstances of the two examples, or is one incorrect? I admit, this is silly with respect to the article as a whole, but it bothered me enough to mention it. 75.47.122.141 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure Water's Index of Refraction 

message: The second paragraph under "benefits" says: "However, the depth of focus, or tolerance in wafer topography flatness, is reduced compared to the corresponding "dry" tool at the same resolution." But the following paragraph contradicts that previous assertion: "The successful emergence of immersion lithography comes not just from its ability to extend resolution and depth of focus, . . ." The reference article in this case seems to be the German one, and according to a Google translation it agrees with the second assertion--i.e. that immersion improves or increases depth of focus, not the other way around.
Which side of this contradiction is right? I think (also from photography) that depth of focus is reduced when aperture is increased (i.e. when the f-number is decreased--see Depth of field - Effect of lens aperture)?
XavierAP (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake on depth of focus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Immersion lithography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426061856/http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6553758.html to http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6553758.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The  article originally stated that TSMC used 193i @ 90nm. They only ran  test wafers. If you look at https://www.design-reuse.com/news/12662/tsmc-immersion-lithography-nearly-ready.html TSMC only used immersion at 40nm. I believe that IBM  was actually the  first to  use immersion, but cannot find exact dates and references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKanter (talk • contribs) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of immersion lithography