# Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ?

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

John

It was stupid of you for even considering it.

you claimed you and your associates used to do, you should be able to
make this determination within ten seconds.

You failed. Nothing unusual there.

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
---
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'.

S

#### Skybuck Flying

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.}
"

According to my physics class in high school a perfect vacuum cannot be
created and there will always be some air left over...

Concerning issue's with damage to chips by vaporization:

1. First create a vacuum.

2. Then convert any floating(?)/remaining dust particles to energy.

3. Then place wafers inside it and start vacuuming.

Alternatively plan:

Slowly turn dust into energy to prevent nuclear explosion

Another crazy idea would be to use water and produce the chip in water...

Somehow purifieing water and maybe water better than air ? But I doubt it

1. First create a vacuum as good as possible.

2. Then highly charge the surroundings of the vacuum with static
electricity.

Hopefully this will attract all remaining floating dust particles.

3. Perhaps keep it like that... and start producing the chip.

4. Otherwise if the static charge is to be disabled, first vaporize the dust
particles on the side or wipe them off ?!?

Bye,
Skybuck.

J

#### Joe Pfeiffer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. Terrell said:
Just like Skyduck's ignorant trolling.

And if people would just quit answering him, I wouldn't see anything
from him at all...

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
According to my physics class in high school a perfect vacuum cannot be
created and there will always be some air left over...

None that would keep a dust particle lofted though you ZERO
common sense dumbfucktard!

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
"
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.}
"

According to my physics class in high school a perfect vacuum cannot be
created and there will always be some air left over...

Concerning issue's with damage to chips by vaporization:

1. First create a vacuum.

2. Then convert any floating(?)/remaining dust particles to energy.

3. Then place wafers inside it and start vacuuming.

Alternatively plan:

Slowly turn dust into energy to prevent nuclear explosion

Another crazy idea would be to use water and produce the chip in water...

Somehow purifieing water and maybe water better than air ? But I doubt it

1. First create a vacuum as good as possible.

2. Then highly charge the surroundings of the vacuum with static
electricity.

Hopefully this will attract all remaining floating dust particles.

3. Perhaps keep it like that... and start producing the chip.

4. Otherwise if the static charge is to be disabled, first vaporize the dust
particles on the side or wipe them off ?!?

Bye,
Skybuck.

Sure, dumbfuck. There are folks in all the clean rooms around the world
wandering around with rags, wiping things free of their accumulated dust.

Jeez, dude. Do the world a favor. Spend the next week locating a gun,
and then release the world from your utter stupidity by using it on
yourself.

B

#### BlindBaby

Jan 1, 1970
0
And if people would just quit answering him, I wouldn't see anything
from him at all...

That should tell you something, you retarded ditz!

We do not filter your news for you. Nor do we cater to your stupid

YOU need to LEARN how to filter your own news, cretin.

G

#### George Neuner

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Wikipedia say:

In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total
mass–energy 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.

So FORTY POUNDSm was in fission. So "the rest is just there for chance"
is total bullshit. It would not go critical without it, and the part
that gets converted could never do so unless the atoms that ARE releasing
the energy were not completely surrounded by similar material.

There must be enough media there for the collisions to get going.

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dear George Neuner:

Using antimatter to destroy dust particles in situ in semiconductor
manufacture.

David A. Smith

Amazing world full of TV educated, (not the learning channels) sci fi
idiots, eh?

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you know what "goes critical" means? The total mass, shape and
density of the fissile material, convolved with the material's neutron
cross section and the presence of neutron moderating and reflecting
materials, affect the "chance" of an efficient fission occurring.

The idiot said that only a few nanogra,s get converted, and that the
rest was "just there".

He ain't real bright. He epitomizes the lay view.

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
YOU COXNET FREAK

Are you having a bad day, troll boy?
KEEP TROLLING AND HARRASING MSN CUSTOMERS

Neither the person I responded to, nor the person he was referring to
are MSN customers, you bent brained, deluded dumbfucktard.
YOU WILL HAVE TO EAT YOUR CABLE BOX AND MODEM

In a right world, you would have to eat a nice big .50 cal hunk of my
favorite breakfast food for trolls... LEAD.

K

#### Ken Hagan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Unfortunately that Wikipedia value of 17.975e16 J/kg is wrong.

In SI units, a joule = newton*meter = (kg*m/s^2)*m = kg*m^2/s^2 =
kg*(m/s)^2

E = MC^2 ~= 1.0 kg *(3e8 m/s)^2 = 9e16 J

But the WP figure is for 1kg matter plus 1kg antimatter, not half a kilo
of each. I think they are entitled to regard the latter as "the explosive
ingredient" and assume that unlimited amounts of the former are available

Oh, and by the the way...

"Well trolled, Skybuck! You've dragged them *all* out this time and no
mistake."

J

#### JW

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's it, ya fuckin' retard, pat the fuckin' trolls on the back.

*pat pat pat*

Settle down, AlwaysWrong.

A

#### Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:23:15 -0700 Bart!
| <[email protected]>:
|
| > That's it, ya fuckin' retard, pat the fuckin' trolls on the back.
|
| *pat pat pat*
|
| Settle down, AlwaysWrong.
|
You can **** off, too.

J

#### JW

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:23:15 -0700 Bart!
| <[email protected]>:
|
| > That's it, ya fuckin' retard, pat the fuckin' trolls on the back.
|
| *pat pat pat*
|
| Settle down, AlwaysWrong.
|
You can **** off, too.

I can, but I'm not going to.

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes, absolutely trophy troll! And of course nobody noticed (and told
skybuck) that there is no need to turn matter to energy, (not to
mention of the expense of the LHC to do it) when all one needs to do
is just charge the particles and create an electric field to sweep
them out of the way. Oh my! I think we've just invented the
electrostatic air cleaner. DUH!

Yes, I repeat. EXCELLENT troll!

You are stupid too. The platen that the dies sit on hold them in place
electrostatically, idiot.

The plain and simple rule is that there can be NO dust in the mfg
environment. NONE.

It really is just that simple.

J

#### JW

Jan 1, 1970
0
Maybe astreweb will differ, after they find out that you repost SPAM.

What on Earth are you gibbering about now, Dum-dum?

A

#### Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
So your idea is to "clean" the air by attracting the dust to the
wafers?

I never said anything at all about it, idiot.

I said that NO dust can be there, so I never proposed ANY 'cleaning'
method because it CANNOT be there to begin with, you stupid ****.

Sure that's gonna work...NOT.

I'm sure the difference
between an air filter and a die holder is more that your pitiful brain
can comprehend.

I have made the HV supplies for both, so I think you are going to find
that proving your claim will be an uphill climb.

Replies
2
Views
905
S
Replies
21
Views
2K
A
Replies
0
Views
383
Replies
8
Views
2K
O
Replies
9
Views
4K
F