[00:00] (0.00s)
- This is a microchip.
[00:01] (1.52s)
When you zoom in, you find
a nanoscopic computing city
[00:05] (5.04s)
skyscrapers, hundreds of
layers tall with hundreds
[00:08] (8.08s)
of kilometers of wires
connecting everything.
[00:10] (10.88s)
And at the very bottom, is this
[00:13] (13.92s)
transistors, billions of them.
[00:17] (17.44s)
They are the ones and
zeros of our computer.
[00:20] (20.40s)
The chip works by whizzing
electrons from transistor
[00:22] (22.72s)
to transistor, and the
smaller you can make those
[00:25] (25.20s)
transistors, the less the
signals have to travel,
[00:27] (27.44s)
so the faster they can compute.
[00:29] (29.36s)
Plus you can fit more
transistors into the same area,
[00:32] (32.56s)
resulting in a much more powerful chip.
[00:35] (35.44s)
So for over 50 years, transistors
got smaller and smaller,
[00:38] (38.96s)
and the number you could
fit on a chip doubled
[00:41] (41.20s)
every two years.
[00:42] (42.72s)
This became known as Moore's Law named
[00:44] (44.88s)
for Intel's co-founder Gordon Moore,
[00:46] (46.88s)
after he noticed the pattern back in 1965,
[00:49] (49.44s)
and it's been one of the main
drivers of the tech industry.
[00:52] (52.64s)
But around 2015, progress
came to a screeching halt,
[00:56] (56.40s)
and we might have never
gotten past it if it wasn't
[00:58] (58.96s)
for a single company that makes
these machines, the machines
[01:03] (63.20s)
that saved Moore's Law.
[01:04] (64.96s)
- Holy. This is a video
about the most complicated
[01:08] (68.56s)
commercial product humanity's ever built.
[01:11] (71.44s)
That's insane.
[01:12] (72.64s)
It costs a whopping $400 million,
[01:15] (75.12s)
and it is so bizarre that I
want to introduce it to you
[01:18] (78.08s)
with a thought experiment.
[01:20] (80.24s)
Imagine you are shrunk
down to the size of an ant,
[01:25] (85.12s)
and you are given a laser
that's strong enough to melt
[01:27] (87.92s)
through metal like butter.
[01:29] (89.76s)
Next, a tiny droplet of
molten tin, roughly the size
[01:32] (92.72s)
of a white blood cell, is
shot out in front of you
[01:35] (95.36s)
around 250 kilometers per hour.
[01:38] (98.00s)
And your task is to hit
this not once, not twice,
[01:41] (101.28s)
but three times in a
row in 20 microseconds
[01:44] (104.00s)
with your little laser.
[01:45] (105.84s)
Well, that is exactly
what this machine does.
[01:48] (108.40s)
It hits one tiny tin droplet
three times in a row,
[01:51] (111.68s)
heating each one up to over 220,000 Kelvin.
[01:55] (115.28s)
That's roughly 40 times hotter
than the surface of the sun.
[01:58] (118.96s)
And it doesn't just hit one droplet,
[02:01] (121.28s)
it hits 50,000 droplets
every single second.
[02:05] (125.28s)
How often do you miss a laser shot?
[02:06] (126.92s)
- We don't miss them.
[02:08] (128.48s)
- What you do 150,000
laser shots a second,
[02:12] (132.88s)
and you don't miss one exactly.
[02:15] (135.68s)
The same machine also contains mirrors
[02:17] (137.68s)
that might just be the smoothest
objects in the universe.
[02:21] (141.28s)
If you scale one up to
the size of the earth,
[02:23] (143.52s)
then the largest bump would be no thicker
[02:25] (145.68s)
than a playing card's.
[02:27] (147.04s)
On top of that, it is
able to overlay one layer
[02:29] (149.44s)
of a chip perfectly on top of another
[02:31] (151.36s)
and never be off by more than five atoms.
[02:34] (154.40s)
And this is all happening
while parts of the machine whip
[02:37] (157.20s)
around at accelerations of
over 20 g's.
[02:40] (160.80s)
For 30 years, almost everyone thought
[02:42] (162.88s)
that actually building this
machine was impossible,
[02:46] (166.16s)
and yet it exists.
[02:48] (168.16s)
There is only one company in
the world that can make it.
[02:51] (171.68s)
So what is this company
[02:53] (173.04s)
and what is this impossible
machine they've built?
[02:56] (176.08s)
This video is sponsored by Brilliant.
[02:58] (178.00s)
More about them at the end of the show.
[03:00] (180.32s)
Now, just as a quick aside, the makers
[03:02] (182.40s)
of this machine didn't
actually sponsor this video.
[03:05] (185.20s)
We just thought that the science
[03:06] (186.64s)
and engineering here
were so cool that we had
[03:09] (189.12s)
to make a video about it.
[03:10] (190.56s)
So let's jump straight in.
[03:12] (192.40s)
- To make a microchip, you start
[03:14] (194.40s)
by taking silicon
dioxide, usually from sand,
[03:16] (196.80s)
and purifying it into ultrapure,
[03:19] (199.20s)
nearly a hundred percent silicon chunks,
[03:22] (202.48s)
which is then melted down
in a special furnace.
[03:25] (205.60s)
Next, you lower a small
seed crystal into the vat.
[03:28] (208.72s)
Silicon atoms attach to the
crystal extending its structure.
[03:32] (212.56s)
Then you slowly raise the seed
crystal while rotating it.
[03:35] (215.76s)
And this results in a large
single crystal silicon ingot.
[03:39] (219.16s)
- This is where the seed
crystal would be. Yeah.
[03:41] (221.36s)
And then you pull it out. Can I touch it?
[03:42] (222.92s)
- Yeah, you can. It seems
like you would not be able
[03:46] (226.00s)
to ho hold this from here.
[03:47] (227.84s)
- Yes.
- It even feels fragile
[03:50] (230.24s)
Like if you kinda.
- Don't snap it.
[03:52] (232.16s)
Yeah, I-I'm scared to break it.
[03:54] (234.08s)
- Yes.
- He's using more force.
[03:56] (236.20s)
- The ingot is then cut into wafers
[03:58] (238.48s)
with diamond wire saws
up to 5,000 of them,
[04:02] (242.00s)
after which each wafer
is carefully polished.
[04:05] (245.04s)
Next, it's coated with a
light sensitive material
[04:07] (247.28s)
called photoresist.
[04:08] (248.72s)
There are different kinds,
[04:09] (249.76s)
but in a positive
photoresist, the areas exposed
[04:12] (252.64s)
to light become weaker and more soluble.
[04:15] (255.12s)
So if you shine light
through a patterned mask,
[04:17] (257.44s)
you can selectively weaken
parts of that coating.
[04:20] (260.16s)
Then you rinse the wafer
with a basic solution
[04:22] (262.40s)
to wash away the exposed photoresist,
[04:24] (264.88s)
leaving the design imprinted.
[04:27] (267.76s)
So now you can actually
turn this pattern into
[04:30] (270.16s)
physical structures.
[04:31] (271.28s)
This is often done by etching
into the uncovered silicon
[04:34] (274.24s)
by using either chemicals or plasma.
[04:36] (276.80s)
And then you deposit a metal like copper
[04:39] (279.04s)
to fill in those etched lines.
[04:41] (281.44s)
As a last step, you wash away
the remaining photoresist,
[04:44] (284.88s)
and now you've made a
single layer of the chip.
[04:48] (288.32s)
We've simplified this cycle
down to the main steps.
[04:50] (290.72s)
Coat, expose, etch, and deposit.
[04:53] (293.12s)
It repeats for every single chip layer,
[04:55] (295.36s)
and depending on the chip,
there could be anywhere from ten
[04:57] (297.92s)
to a hundred layers.
[04:59] (299.44s)
The bottom layer is the transistors.
[05:01] (301.60s)
This is the most complicated
layer requiring hundreds
[05:04] (304.08s)
of steps that all need to be perfect.
[05:06] (306.72s)
The higher layers are a little easier.
[05:09] (309.20s)
These are the metal wires
that carry signals and power.
[05:12] (312.40s)
By the end, the completed wafer
can have hundreds of chips,
[05:15] (315.36s)
which are then cut into
separate pieces, packaged
[05:17] (317.76s)
and put into products.
[05:20] (320.08s)
But by far the hardest
[05:21] (321.28s)
and most crucial step in the process is
[05:23] (323.60s)
where you shine light through
the mask and onto the wafer.
[05:26] (326.64s)
This is photolithography, and that's
[05:28] (328.72s)
because this step determines
[05:30] (330.56s)
how small you can make the features.
[05:32] (332.88s)
- At first, it seems simple light passes
[05:36] (336.00s)
through the openings and it
gets blocked by all the rest.
[05:39] (339.60s)
But as you try to print smaller
[05:41] (341.44s)
and smaller features, the
gaps in the mask start
[05:44] (344.08s)
to approach the wavelength of the light,
[05:46] (346.24s)
and that causes problems.
[05:48] (348.08s)
- And we can actually show it
[05:49] (349.52s)
because I happen to have a,
[05:51] (351.28s)
this is a mask. This is a reticle.
[05:52] (352.84s)
- A reticle or a mask carries
the design of one chip layer.
[05:56] (356.80s)
This redle is filled
with microscopic lines
[05:59] (359.04s)
and gaps around 670 nanometers across.
[06:01] (361.72s)
- And if I take like a laser pointer,
[06:03] (363.76s)
so this is a red laser.
[06:05] (365.04s)
- Yep. - If I shine it through
it, then you see this here,
[06:09] (369.00s)
- The laser has a wavelength
of around 650 nanometers.
[06:13] (373.60s)
When light hits the reticle,
it's wavefronts bend
[06:16] (376.40s)
as they pass through each gap.
[06:18] (378.16s)
So each gap sends out waves
that spread out and overlap.
[06:21] (381.84s)
Now let's just look at the
light from these two gaps.
[06:24] (384.88s)
When the peaks of one wave
line up with the troughs
[06:27] (387.68s)
of the other, we say that
the two waves are out of phase
[06:30] (390.72s)
and they cancel each other out.
[06:32] (392.32s)
So you get dark spots,
[06:33] (393.84s)
and when the peaks line up with the peaks,
[06:35] (395.68s)
the two waves are in phase, they add up
[06:38] (398.16s)
and you get bright spots.
[06:39] (399.76s)
You get interference.
[06:41] (401.19s)
- Yeah. - Right. And you get
a diffraction pattern.
[06:43] (403.00s)
- Now, diffraction is inevitable.
[06:45] (405.92s)
So instead of fighting it,
designers actually use it
[06:48] (408.64s)
to get the patterns they want.
[06:50] (410.64s)
They kind of work backwards
from the eventual pattern they
[06:53] (413.36s)
want on the wafer,
[06:54] (414.48s)
and they design the slits so
[06:56] (416.32s)
that diffraction will occur in such a way
[06:58] (418.32s)
that it creates the
pattern that they want.
[07:00] (420.64s)
- You see three dots, the middle
[07:02] (422.96s)
dot, that's the original one.
[07:04] (424.56s)
That's the zero order.
[07:05] (425.84s)
And then on the left
[07:06] (426.88s)
and the right, you can see
the first and the minus first.
[07:10] (430.16s)
Now, in order for us
[07:11] (431.84s)
to have this image resolved
on the wafer, you need
[07:15] (435.68s)
to capture the zero and the
first and the minus first order.
[07:19] (439.28s)
- The smaller you make the features,
[07:20] (440.96s)
the larger this angle
alpha between the zero
[07:23] (443.28s)
and first orders becomes.
[07:25] (445.12s)
So the larger your lens needs
to be to capture the light.
[07:28] (448.88s)
The size of the lens is described
by the numerical aperture
[07:32] (452.48s)
or na for short, which is
just the sine of this angle.
[07:36] (456.40s)
So the larger that is,
[07:37] (457.76s)
the smaller the features you can print.
[07:40] (460.24s)
But there is a hard limit to
[07:41] (461.84s)
how large your lens system
can be, when this angle is 90
[07:44] (464.92s)
degrees and your numerical aperture is one
[07:47] (467.28s)
well your lens would have to be infinite.
[07:49] (469.60s)
Fortunately, there is one
other thing we can change.
[07:52] (472.96s)
- This is a red laser. Yeah.
[07:55] (475.52s)
And a red laser has a wavelength
[07:57] (477.20s)
of 650 nanometers, I would say.
[08:00] (480.63s)
- Yeah.
- And if I take a green laser
[08:03] (483.44s)
and this one has a wavelength
of 532, then you can see
[08:07] (487.84s)
that the green dots are closer
spaced than the red dots.
[08:12] (492.96s)
- That's because the light
from the two different gaps
[08:15] (495.84s)
doesn't have to travel as far
to match up in phase again.
[08:19] (499.20s)
So the orders end up closer together.
[08:21] (501.52s)
So with a smaller wavelength,
[08:22] (502.80s)
you can print smaller
patterns using the same lens.
[08:26] (506.32s)
All of this is captured
by the Rayleigh equation,
[08:28] (508.80s)
which determines the
smallest feature, size
[08:30] (510.80s)
or critical dimension.
[08:32] (512.64s)
- But since there's a limit to
[08:35] (515.04s)
how much you can increase
the numerical aperture, I mean to one.
[08:38] (518.48s)
Over time, the only
way to keep making smaller
[08:40] (520.80s)
and smaller features is
[08:42] (522.48s)
by using shorter and shorter wavelengths.
[08:44] (524.72s)
So this is exactly what happened up
[08:46] (526.64s)
until the late 1990s when
the industry settled on 193
[08:50] (530.64s)
nanometer deep UV light, this
was the light that was used
[08:54] (534.40s)
to make all of the most
advanced chips right until
[08:57] (537.12s)
around 2015.
[08:58] (538.80s)
But by that point, scientists
had reached a limit to
[09:01] (541.68s)
how small they could make the features.
[09:03] (543.36s)
And Moore's law was about
to run into a brick wall.
[09:06] (546.80s)
So a radical change was needed, a change
[09:09] (549.68s)
that had been brewing for around 30 years.
[09:14] (554.24s)
All the way back in the 1980s.
[09:16] (556.08s)
Japanese scientist, Hiroo Kinoshita,
came up with a crazy idea.
[09:20] (560.72s)
Why not use much shorter
wavelengths like x-rays of
[09:23] (563.68s)
around 10 nanometers?
[09:25] (565.12s)
In theory, that should allow you
[09:26] (566.48s)
to print much smaller features,
[09:28] (568.64s)
but you quickly run into a problem.
[09:30] (570.72s)
X-rays at these wavelengths
have enough energy
[09:32] (572.96s)
to eject electrons from their atoms,
[09:35] (575.20s)
so most materials absorb them.
[09:37] (577.84s)
But unlike medical X-rays
which have wavelengths shorter
[09:41] (581.04s)
than one nanometer, these
are still long enough
[09:43] (583.44s)
to interact with air
[09:44] (584.88s)
So air absorbs them too.
[09:46] (586.96s)
That meant that Kinoshita's
setup had to be in a vacuum,
[09:50] (590.48s)
but even worse, he couldn't
use lenses to focus the light
[09:53] (593.68s)
because the lenses would absorb it too.
[09:57] (597.20s)
So it seemed like this idea would never work.
[10:01] (601.20s)
But around 1983, Kinoshita
stumbled on a paper
[10:04] (604.08s)
by Jim Underwood and Troy Barbee.
[10:06] (606.16s)
Their work focused on special mirrors
[10:08] (608.08s)
that could reflect
x-rays with a wavelength
[10:10] (610.08s)
of 4.48 nanometers.
[10:12] (612.40s)
So Kinoshita was intrigued.
[10:14] (614.56s)
Curved mirrors can focus
light just like lenses do.
[10:17] (617.28s)
If he could figure out how
to make these special mirrors
[10:19] (619.28s)
for the wavelength he was using,
[10:20] (620.96s)
then this could be another
way to do photolithography.
[10:24] (624.00s)
The mirrors work something like this.
[10:27] (627.68s)
When light crosses from one
medium to another, say from air
[10:30] (630.80s)
to glass, it bends or refracts.
[10:33] (633.20s)
Some of it goes through
and part reflects back.
[10:36] (636.00s)
How much gets reflected depends
on things like the angle,
[10:38] (638.72s)
the light's polarization.
[10:40] (640.32s)
And most importantly
for us, the difference
[10:42] (642.72s)
between the refractive
indices of the two media.
[10:45] (645.28s)
The larger that difference,
the more light is reflected.
[10:48] (648.48s)
And Underwood and Barbee
used that principle.
[10:51] (651.28s)
They made a super thin layer of tungsten,
[10:53] (653.52s)
less than one nanometer,
thick, thin enough
[10:55] (655.92s)
that x-rays could pass
[10:57] (657.20s)
through without
immediately being absorbed.
[10:59] (659.44s)
When x-rays hit the layer
at a specific angle,
[11:02] (662.16s)
the tungsten reflected less than 1%.
[11:04] (664.96s)
Then they carefully tuned
the layer thickness.
[11:07] (667.36s)
So the path length of the
transmitted x-rays was only one
[11:10] (670.64s)
quarter of its wavelength.
[11:12] (672.56s)
Then they added another layer.
[11:14] (674.24s)
This time out of carbon,
[11:15] (675.76s)
it has a higher refractive
index than tungsten
[11:17] (677.92s)
for wavelengths of 4.48 nanometers.
[11:20] (680.56s)
The x-rays hit the boundary
and a little bit more reflects,
[11:24] (684.48s)
but this time the phase is inverted
[11:26] (686.48s)
or it's changed by half a wavelength.
[11:28] (688.96s)
This happens when any light
moves from a lower refractive
[11:31] (691.76s)
index to a higher one.
[11:33] (693.76s)
Now, by the time this new
reflected wave reaches the
[11:36] (696.24s)
tungsten boundary, it has
traveled another quarter
[11:38] (698.56s)
of its wavelength for a
half wavelength in total.
[11:41] (701.60s)
So the two phases line up
[11:43] (703.20s)
and the waves interfere constructively.
[11:45] (705.44s)
Underwood and Barbee kept
doing this trick for a total
[11:47] (707.92s)
of 76 alternating layers, so
[11:50] (710.24s)
that in total they could reflect back much
[11:52] (712.56s)
more of the x-rays.
[11:55] (715.44s)
Now, they only managed to
reflect around 6% of the light,
[11:58] (718.48s)
but it was a proof of principle
[12:00] (720.08s)
that you could reflect x-rays.
[12:02] (722.24s)
- So Kinoshita saw the possibilities.
[12:05] (725.68s)
He got to work, and
[12:06] (726.96s)
after around two years, his team designed
[12:08] (728.88s)
and built three tungsten carbon
curved multi-layer mirrors
[12:12] (732.48s)
to reflect 11 nanometer light.
[12:14] (734.96s)
And with it, he managed to
print lines four microns
[12:17] (737.84s)
or 4,000 nanometers thick,
proving that at least in theory,
[12:22] (742.24s)
x-ray lithography was possible.
[12:25] (745.28s)
A year later in 1986, he
went to present his findings
[12:28] (748.64s)
to the Japanese Society
[12:30] (750.00s)
of Applied Physics.
[12:31] (751.36s)
Proud and excited, he explained his setup
and showed his image.
[12:34] (754.88s)
But to his horror, the
audience refused to believe it.
[12:38] (758.32s)
Unfortunately, the audience
[12:41] (761.12s)
was highly skeptical of my talk.
[12:44] (764.72s)
Kinoshita was devastated.
[12:46] (766.64s)
He later said, people
seemed unwilling to believe
[12:49] (769.52s)
that we had actually made
an image by bending x-rays,
[12:52] (772.72s)
and they tended to regard the whole thing
[12:54] (774.56s)
as a big fish story.
[12:56] (776.40s)
- Nobody believed that this
was a viable way forward,
[13:00] (780.48s)
and unfortunately,
[13:01] (781.76s)
the reaction was at
least somewhat justified.
[13:05] (785.12s)
First, this light isn't naturally produced
[13:07] (787.20s)
by anything on earth.
[13:08] (788.64s)
The closest natural source is the sun.
[13:12] (792.40s)
We had to basically build an
artificial sun here on Earth.
[13:17] (797.44s)
Most scientists, including Kinoshita,
[13:19] (799.36s)
produced x-ray light using a particle
[13:21] (801.20s)
accelerator or a synchrotron.
[13:22] (802.64s)
- It gives an enormous amount of power.
[13:25] (805.20s)
It's as big as a soccer field.
You can fuel the whole fab.
[13:28] (808.48s)
The problem is if the light goes out, the
[13:30] (810.16s)
whole fab goes out.
[13:31] (811.28s)
- So each machine needed
its own power source.
[13:35] (815.20s)
But even if you could
produce the light, you'd need
[13:37] (817.44s)
to make incredibly smooth
mirrors to actually focus
[13:40] (820.80s)
and print those tiny features.
[13:42] (822.72s)
You would need the smoothest
objects in the universe.
[13:46] (826.12s)
- Okay, so I got a football
and I've got a bouncy ball
[13:49] (829.28s)
and a cobblestone street.
[13:50] (830.72s)
Now what do you think is
gonna happen when I drop them?
[13:54] (834.48s)
The football basically
bounces straight up,
[13:56] (836.48s)
but for the bouncy ball, it
just shoots off to the side.
[13:59] (839.68s)
And it's because the
surface is relatively flat
[14:02] (842.16s)
for the football, which is much larger,
[14:03] (843.92s)
but it's super rough for the bouncy ball.
[14:06] (846.56s)
And a similar thing happens with mirrors.
[14:08] (848.80s)
If the surface is super
rough compared to the size
[14:11] (851.36s)
of the wavelength, then the
light scatters randomly.
[14:14] (854.64s)
Now it might look smooth,
[14:15] (855.92s)
but if you zoom into a
mirror, you find something
[14:18] (858.00s)
that looks like this, you
find all these crazy bumps.
[14:22] (862.16s)
And now to measure the roughness,
[14:23] (863.52s)
what you do is you take
the average of these bumps
[14:26] (866.32s)
and that will give you your mean line.
[14:28] (868.24s)
Now, for a normal household mirror,
[14:30] (870.24s)
the average height is
about 4,000 silicon atoms.
[14:34] (874.24s)
But for Kinoshita's
mirrors, which not only needed
[14:37] (877.04s)
to reflect x-ray light,
[14:38] (878.16s)
which has a hundred
times shorter wavelength,
[14:40] (880.32s)
but also needed to minimize
scattering, you know, so
[14:42] (882.72s)
that all the photons make
it onto the wafer, it needed
[14:45] (885.44s)
to be way more smooth.
[14:47] (887.12s)
It needed to be atomically smooth.
[14:49] (889.20s)
In fact, the average bump could only about
[14:51] (891.52s)
2.3 silicon atoms thick.
[14:53] (893.96s)
- If one mirror would
be the size of Germany,
[14:56] (896.72s)
the biggest bump would be
about a millimeter high.
[14:58] (898.96s)
- But Kinoshita refused to give up.
[15:01] (901.36s)
- However, my belief did not change.
[15:03] (903.68s)
- And soon help would come
from an unlikely place.
[15:07] (907.52s)
- Across the Pacific
around 70 kilometers east
[15:10] (910.48s)
of San Francisco is Lawrence
Livermore National Lab, a lab
[15:13] (913.84s)
that was born outta the
Cold War, heavily funded
[15:16] (916.40s)
by the US government, and built
[15:17] (917.92s)
for one purpose and one purpose only.
[15:20] (920.40s)
Nuclear weapons.
[15:22] (922.08s)
The lab was founded by the
inventor of the cyclotron,
[15:24] (924.88s)
Ernest Lawrence, and the father
[15:26] (926.48s)
of the hydrogen bomb Edward Teller.
[15:28] (928.72s)
And over its lifetime,
[15:29] (929.84s)
they designed over 10 fusion
type nuclear warheads.
[15:33] (933.28s)
So part of their research
focused on what happens
[15:35] (935.68s)
inside nuclear fusion reactions.
[15:38] (938.48s)
Fusion reactions released
a lot of x-ray light, light
[15:41] (941.44s)
that they had never been
able to capture and analyze.
[15:44] (944.64s)
But now, using those
special multilayer mirrors,
[15:47] (947.68s)
there was a chance
[15:48] (948.80s)
- One of the scientists tasked
[15:50] (950.88s)
with making this work was Andrew Hawryluk.
[15:53] (953.36s)
And within a few years, he
[15:54] (954.96s)
and his team used multilayer mirrors
[15:56] (956.80s)
to reflect some X-ray light.
[15:59] (959.28s)
But then in 1987,
[16:00] (960.96s)
Andy got a visit from a
professor from Cornell.
[16:03] (963.76s)
- He was very impressed with the
[16:05] (965.36s)
technologies that we developed.
[16:06] (966.56s)
And he looked at me at the end of the day
[16:08] (968.08s)
and said, this is all very interesting
[16:09] (969.84s)
and very neat and stuff.
[16:11] (971.04s)
But his words,
[16:12] (972.88s)
that I'll remember it
to the day I die, was,
[16:14] (974.80s)
can you do anything
useful with this stuff?
[16:17] (977.16s)
And this was the day before
a Christmas shutdown in 1987.
[16:22] (982.24s)
And I was so inflamed by that,
that comment that I went home
[16:26] (986.96s)
and for the next 10 days,
[16:28] (988.16s)
I wrote up a multi-page white paper.
[16:30] (990.56s)
- He applied these mirrors to lithography,
[16:33] (993.04s)
to print chips using x-rays
around five months later.
[16:36] (996.64s)
And he presented his
findings at a conference.
[16:39] (999.60s)
But like Kinoshita, it was not
the response he was hoping for.
[16:43] (1003.44s)
- It was extremely negative.
[16:47] (1007.04s)
That was the low point in my career.
[16:49] (1009.84s)
I was literally laughed off the stage.
[16:52] (1012.24s)
And I kid you not every
person who I looked up
[16:56] (1016.08s)
to in the field, they
were listening to my talk
[16:58] (1018.56s)
and they came up to the microphone
[17:00] (1020.64s)
and told me basically
why it wouldn't work,
[17:04] (1024.24s)
how stupid an idea it was.
[17:06] (1026.88s)
Later that week, I flew back
[17:08] (1028.24s)
and the following Monday, my
boss asked me, how did it go?
[17:12] (1032.64s)
And I looked at him
[17:13] (1033.60s)
and I said, I will
never speak of it again.
[17:18] (1038.56s)
- But then three days later,
[17:20] (1040.40s)
he gets a phone call from
someone named Bill Brinkman
[17:23] (1043.68s)
from Bell Labs.
[17:24] (1044.95s)
- And so I walked over to my boss
[17:26] (1046.08s)
and I said, just got this phone call
[17:28] (1048.16s)
from a guy named Bill Brinkman,
[17:29] (1049.36s)
do you know who he is?
And my boss's eyes popped open
[17:32] (1052.24s)
and said, of, yeah, and
he's the executive vice
[17:34] (1054.40s)
president of AT&T.
[17:35] (1055.84s)
And I said, well, he just called me
[17:37] (1057.52s)
and asked me to fly out to
New Jersey and give a talk.
[17:41] (1061.12s)
The response from my boss said it all.
[17:44] (1064.96s)
He basically said,
well, you, you gotta go.
[17:47] (1067.68s)
- At Bell Labs found fellow believers
[17:50] (1070.72s)
and it couldn't have
come at a better time.
[17:53] (1073.12s)
Over the past 30 years,
[17:54] (1074.40s)
the US government had invested billions
[17:56] (1076.48s)
of dollars into national labs
[17:58] (1078.08s)
to maintain the country's
technological edge
[18:00] (1080.40s)
during the Cold War.
[18:02] (1082.32s)
But by the late 1980s, the
Cold War was slowing down
[18:05] (1085.92s)
and all these labs were
sitting on research
[18:08] (1088.00s)
that had commercial potential.
[18:09] (1089.92s)
So the government encouraged
the labs to partner
[18:12] (1092.32s)
with US companies to turn
that research into products
[18:15] (1095.76s)
and to stimulate the economy.
[18:17] (1097.60s)
And the government would
then supply seed money.
[18:20] (1100.24s)
And so Bell Labs partnered
with Andy's labs
[18:22] (1102.72s)
and two others to keep
developing x-ray lithography.
[18:27] (1107.12s)
And by 1993, the first
international conference
[18:30] (1110.08s)
for x-ray lithography was
held in Japan near Mount Fuji.
[18:34] (1114.72s)
In the opening address,
Kinoshita said that as long
[18:38] (1118.00s)
as we do not lose the desire
that has sprung from within us,
[18:41] (1121.12s)
technology will steadily advance from the
[18:43] (1123.36s)
micro to the nano to the pico.
[18:46] (1126.48s)
They even gave the technology a new name,
[18:48] (1128.80s)
extreme ultraviolet lithography or just
[18:51] (1131.84s)
- EUV.
[18:53] (1133.84s)
But then in 1996,
[18:55] (1135.36s)
the US government cut
funding for the project.
[18:58] (1138.40s)
This spelled disaster for the
big chip companies like Intel,
[19:02] (1142.08s)
the industry estimated
[19:03] (1143.20s)
that the 193 nanometer
lithography tools would fall
[19:06] (1146.24s)
behind Moore's Law by 2005,
[19:09] (1149.36s)
but there were no other alternatives.
[19:13] (1153.44s)
So Intel, Motorola, AMD and
other companies got together
[19:16] (1156.80s)
and invested $250
million to keep it going,
[19:20] (1160.00s)
making it the largest investment ever
[19:21] (1161.92s)
by private industry in a Department
[19:23] (1163.84s)
of Energy research project.
[19:26] (1166.00s)
By the year 2000, the
labs had produced this,
[19:28] (1168.56s)
the engineering test stand.
[19:30] (1170.40s)
It was the first fully
functioning EUV prototype.
[19:33] (1173.68s)
It produced 9.8 watts of
13.4 nanometer EUV light,
[19:38] (1178.08s)
which was then reflected by
eight mirrors from the source
[19:40] (1180.80s)
to the mask to the wafer.
[19:42] (1182.48s)
It could print 70 nanometer features
[19:44] (1184.64s)
and it proved that EUV could work.
[19:47] (1187.36s)
- It was a milestone to get the
[19:49] (1189.20s)
engineering test stand to work.
[19:50] (1190.64s)
It demonstrated to people
like Intel that, you know,
[19:54] (1194.24s)
good engineering will get us there.
[19:55] (1195.76s)
- And then it seems like
you've got the prototype
[19:58] (1198.96s)
shouldn't be too hard to
then commercialize it.
[20:02] (1202.32s)
- That's what they thought.
- But the prototype had
[20:06] (1206.48s)
a major flaw.
[20:07] (1207.60s)
It could only print about
10 wafers per hour.
[20:10] (1210.24s)
And to make EUV economically
viable, it would have
[20:12] (1212.96s)
to print hundreds of wafers per hour
[20:15] (1215.20s)
24/7, 365 days a year.
[20:18] (1218.56s)
The main reason output was so slow was
[20:20] (1220.88s)
because the light reflected
off of eight mirrors
[20:23] (1223.12s)
and the reticle, which
is also a mirror just
[20:25] (1225.60s)
with the design imprinted.
Traditional masks that allow light
[20:29] (1229.20s)
to pass through don't work
[20:30] (1230.48s)
because well, they absorb all the light.
[20:33] (1233.44s)
Each mirror had a reflectivity
of around 70%, which is close
[20:36] (1236.88s)
to the max, but
[20:38] (1238.16s)
after nine bounces, you are
only left with 4% of the light,
[20:42] (1242.40s)
which means that out of every 100 photons,
[20:45] (1245.20s)
only four make it to the wafer.
[20:48] (1248.16s)
So you might think just
use way fewer mirrors,
[20:51] (1251.52s)
but that only works up to a point.
[20:53] (1253.60s)
When you focus light
with any optical system,
[20:56] (1256.08s)
you always get some distortion.
[20:58] (1258.16s)
For example, ray's that pass
[20:59] (1259.52s)
through the outer edges of most lenses.
[21:01] (1261.28s)
Focus light slightly different
from those near the center.
[21:04] (1264.08s)
This is called spherical aberration.
[21:06] (1266.08s)
And normal cameras correct for this
[21:07] (1267.84s)
and other aberrations by
using multiple lenses.
[21:10] (1270.72s)
And a mirror system is no different.
[21:12] (1272.72s)
- You need to have a
certain amount of mirrors
[21:16] (1276.08s)
before you can say, I have
my aberrations under control.
[21:20] (1280.48s)
In reality, the systems of today have,
[21:22] (1282.84s)
have, have six mirrors
[21:24] (1284.12s)
- That helps a little.
[21:25] (1285.76s)
But after reflecting off six mirrors
[21:28] (1288.16s)
and the reticle, you
are still only left with
[21:30] (1290.32s)
around 8% of your light.
[21:32] (1292.16s)
So they needed to drastically
increase the source power
[21:34] (1294.80s)
to at least a hundred watts.
[21:36] (1296.80s)
Now to most companies,
[21:38] (1298.40s)
that tenfold increase seemed impossible.
[21:41] (1301.04s)
Even people who worked on
the engineering test noted
[21:43] (1303.68s)
that while EUV technology
itself is a done deal,
[21:47] (1307.28s)
there were six zillion
engineering challenges
[21:50] (1310.16s)
to make it a fab line reality.
[21:52] (1312.72s)
And so one by one American
companies walked away from
[21:56] (1316.32s)
developing a full UV lithography machine
[21:59] (1319.12s)
that left just one
company, ASML.
[22:03] (1323.12s)
ASML, which used to stand for advanced
semiconductor materials lithography,
[22:07] (1327.12s)
is located in a small nondescript town
in the Netherlands.
[22:10] (1330.32s)
It spun off from Philips
back in the eighties
[22:12] (1332.48s)
with little more than a shed
[22:13] (1333.76s)
and a barely working
wafer stepper to its name.
[22:16] (1336.72s)
But Phillips also gave them
people, Jos Benschop,
[22:19] (1339.68s)
ASML's first researcher
[22:21] (1341.20s)
and Martin van den Brink, who would
eventually become ASML's CTO,
[22:25] (1345.12s)
and EUV's greatest champion.
[22:27] (1347.16s)
- And he is really like the
Steve Jobs of lithography.
[22:30] (1350.16s)
And he saw EUV coming
[22:31] (1351.92s)
- A ML had joined the US
EUV consortium earlier
[22:35] (1355.04s)
and now it became their task to find a way
[22:37] (1357.92s)
to commercialize EUV.
[22:39] (1359.44s)
They would work together with
their German partner Zeiss,
[22:42] (1362.08s)
where Zeiss would take
care of the mirrors,
[22:43] (1363.76s)
and ASML would focus on the light source.
[22:47] (1367.20s)
One of the first decisions
when making any lithography
[22:49] (1369.92s)
system is deciding
which wavelength to use.
[22:52] (1372.56s)
- In the early days, anything between five
[22:54] (1374.72s)
and 14 nanometers was, was explored.
[22:58] (1378.08s)
The thing is
you need to find a source
[23:00] (1380.56s)
and you need to find
optics that reflect the wavelengths.
[23:03] (1383.00s)
- Right. - So you have to
look for the combination.
[23:05] (1385.12s)
- Underwood and Barbee
had already made mirrors
[23:07] (1387.36s)
that could reflect light
of around four nanometers.
[23:10] (1390.00s)
And since that wavelength is so small,
[23:11] (1391.92s)
it seems like the obvious choice,
[23:14] (1394.24s)
but the maximum reflectivity
[23:15] (1395.76s)
for those mirrors was only around 20%.
[23:18] (1398.24s)
So after hitting six mirrors
[23:20] (1400.32s)
and the reticle, you are just left
[23:22] (1402.08s)
with 0.00128% of the light,
[23:26] (1406.72s)
which is way too low.
[23:28] (1408.80s)
Fortunately, further researchers
also looked at two other
[23:31] (1411.76s)
pairs, silicon
[23:33] (1413.12s)
and molybdenum, which had a
theoretical maximum reflectivity
[23:36] (1416.48s)
of 70% for wavelengths around
13 nanometers and molybdenum
[23:41] (1421.44s)
and beryllium with a theoretical
maximum reflectivity of 80%
[23:46] (1426.00s)
for wavelengths around 11 nanometers.
[23:48] (1428.32s)
So the choice seemed obvious, right?
[23:50] (1430.56s)
I mean, pick the shorter wavelength
[23:52] (1432.16s)
and the higher reflectivity,
[23:53] (1433.84s)
but it turns out that
beryllium is extremely toxic
[23:57] (1437.28s)
and it's also difficult to handle.
[23:59] (1439.44s)
So scientists focused on silicon
[24:01] (1441.68s)
and molybdenum instead
[24:03] (1443.68s)
To make the mirrors,
Zeiss used a process called sputtering.
[24:07] (1447.12s)
A target of coating material
is bombarded with either plasma
[24:10] (1450.64s)
or ions causing atoms
to be ejected, fly off
[24:14] (1454.16s)
and stick to the mirror.
[24:16] (1456.00s)
This is a messy process,
[24:17] (1457.52s)
so the layers end up
having bumps and gaps.
[24:20] (1460.16s)
- There was a nice trick
[24:21] (1461.68s)
that actually the team in
the Netherlands perfected
[24:25] (1465.28s)
with ion beam.
[24:26] (1466.56s)
You just shake it a little bit
[24:28] (1468.24s)
until the atoms falls in the
hole where it needs to be
[24:30] (1470.56s)
and then it's all flat
[24:31] (1471.96s)
- With the mirror design locked
in ASML needed a source for
[24:36] (1476.00s)
that specific wavelength.
[24:37] (1477.12s)
- So it was 13 point x. Yeah. Okay.
[24:40] (1480.00s)
Now the next good
question is what's the X?
[24:42] (1482.56s)
Now you look for the, now
you look for the source.
[24:45] (1485.44s)
So there are basically
three ways to generate EUV
[24:48] (1488.64s)
to build a sun on Earth.
[24:51] (1491.60s)
The first method,
[24:52] (1492.48s)
which early researchers
used was the synchrotron,
[24:55] (1495.12s)
but it was quickly rolled out
[24:56] (1496.64s)
because each machine
needed its own source.
[24:59] (1499.68s)
The other two methods are
based on the same principle.
[25:02] (1502.32s)
When an electron recombines
with an ion, the ion drops
[25:05] (1505.76s)
to a lower energy level
[25:07] (1507.20s)
and it releases that
excess energy as a photon.
[25:10] (1510.16s)
And if you choose the ion just right, then
[25:12] (1512.88s)
that photon will have exactly
the wavelength you need.
[25:16] (1516.32s)
Now, there are two ways
you can create those ions.
[25:19] (1519.12s)
The first is you take a metal, heat it up
[25:21] (1521.12s)
until you get a metal vapor,
[25:22] (1522.40s)
and then you apply a strong
electric field across it.
[25:25] (1525.92s)
This causes free electrons
to knock into nearby atoms
[25:28] (1528.80s)
and ionize them.
[25:30] (1530.88s)
If you then turn off the electric field,
[25:32] (1532.88s)
the electrons recombine with
the ions and produce light.
[25:36] (1536.64s)
This is discharge produced plasma.
[25:38] (1538.80s)
- That's the concept we use first.
[25:41] (1541.28s)
Because of its
relative simplicity.
[25:43] (1543.60s)
And we quickly got into a few watts.
[25:46] (1546.16s)
We wanted to get a hundred
watts and we struggled forever.
[25:49] (1549.56s)
- So you couldn't scale it.
- We could not scale it.
[25:52] (1552.24s)
They needed a drastic change.
[25:54] (1554.40s)
So they switched to the second method.
[25:56] (1556.56s)
This method uses a high powered laser
[25:58] (1558.48s)
to hit a target material creating a plasma
[26:01] (1561.12s)
that's more than 220,000
degrees Celsius hot.
[26:04] (1564.88s)
The electrons have so much energy
[26:06] (1566.64s)
that the nucleus can't
hold onto them anymore,
[26:09] (1569.20s)
and up to 14 electrons escape their orbits
[26:12] (1572.64s)
after the laser shuts off the electrons
[26:14] (1574.64s)
and ions recombine to produce light.
[26:17] (1577.68s)
This is laser produced plasma
[26:19] (1579.44s)
and it was the only method
that seemed scalable.
[26:23] (1583.68s)
In fact, this was the same method
[26:25] (1585.20s)
that the engineering test stand used.
A 1700 watt laser fired into
[26:29] (1589.36s)
a stream of seen on gas to
produce 13.4 nanometer lights.
[26:34] (1594.32s)
But Xenon had a big problem.
[26:36] (1596.56s)
The conversion efficiency that
is the ratio of usable lights
[26:40] (1600.00s)
to the amount of power
you put in was terrible.
[26:42] (1602.64s)
It was only around 0.5%.
[26:45] (1605.04s)
That's because Xenon
does emit light in the 13
[26:47] (1607.84s)
to 14 nanometer range.
[26:49] (1609.60s)
There's much more light
released around 11 nanometers.
[26:52] (1612.72s)
So most of the energy
went into making light
[26:54] (1614.88s)
that the mirrors couldn't reflect.
[26:57] (1617.04s)
Plus the laser didn't
ionize all the atoms.
[26:59] (1619.60s)
So leftover neutral, Xenon atoms
would strongly reabsorb some
[27:03] (1623.44s)
of that 13.4 nanometer light.
[27:06] (1626.56s)
So ASML started looking
at another material, tin.
[27:10] (1630.48s)
Now tin has a much higher emission peak
[27:12] (1632.64s)
around 13.5 nanometers,
which results in a five
[27:15] (1635.92s)
to 10 times higher conversion
efficiency than Xenon.
[27:19] (1639.12s)
But just like Xenon neutral tin
atoms also absorb EUV light.
[27:22] (1642.96s)
So they came up with a crazy idea
[27:25] (1645.44s)
to shoot one tiny tin droplet at a time.
[27:29] (1649.04s)
But to get the required
power, you would have to make
[27:31] (1651.20s)
and hit thousands of
droplets every second, all
[27:34] (1654.72s)
of which have to be the
exact same shape and size.
[27:39] (1659.04s)
But it turns out that you
can't instantly make thousands
[27:41] (1661.84s)
of tin droplets that are the exact same.
[27:44] (1664.48s)
So they found a workaround.
[27:46] (1666.72s)
To make the droplets, extremely pure
[27:48] (1668.96s)
tin is melted and pushed
through a microscopic nole
[27:51] (1671.92s)
by high pressure nitrogen.
[27:53] (1673.52s)
This nozzle vibrates at a high frequency,
[27:55] (1675.84s)
breaking the stream into tiny droplets.
[27:58] (1678.32s)
These droplets are irregular
in size, shape, velocity,
[28:01] (1681.60s)
and distance, and the
whole process is chaotic.
[28:04] (1684.24s)
- That's like our magic sauce is
[28:07] (1687.44s)
how do you modulate that tin jet?
[28:10] (1690.00s)
So that forms the droplets we
want and that they're stable.
[28:12] (1692.04s)
- I think we found some paper
that describe this process
[28:16] (1696.56s)
and it was sort of eyeopening to me
[28:19] (1699.04s)
that it seems like all the
droplets actually come out
[28:21] (1701.92s)
irregular out of the nozzle, but then
[28:24] (1704.32s)
before they reach the side
where they get hit by the laser,
[28:27] (1707.44s)
like the little irregular
droplets come together
[28:29] (1709.92s)
to form these perfectly spaced,
perfectly regular droplets
[28:33] (1713.60s)
that are about the same size and shape
[28:36] (1716.16s)
and all traveling at the same velocity.
[28:38] (1718.72s)
That feels like magic to me, Jason.
[28:40] (1720.40s)
- Yeah, it's, it's exactly that.
[28:42] (1722.24s)
It's how do you take a long
stream of a tin jet that wants
[28:46] (1726.72s)
to break up into all
these irregular droplets
[28:49] (1729.20s)
and like force onto it
[28:51] (1731.60s)
that is gonna collapse
into a single droplet
[28:53] (1733.76s)
and then happen again and again and again.
[28:55] (1735.84s)
- You also don't have that
many variables to play with.
[28:58] (1738.64s)
You've got the pressure with
which you push out the tin
[29:01] (1741.28s)
and at the frequency of the nozzle.
[29:03] (1743.44s)
Yeah, it seems like a
hard problem to solve.
[29:05] (1745.44s)
- There's not a whole lot
of variables to play with.
[29:07] (1747.92s)
And so mastering that
modulation of the jet is,
[29:12] (1752.40s)
is how we make the droplets.
[29:14] (1754.16s)
- But these droplets not
only have to be identical,
[29:17] (1757.92s)
they have to be moving incredibly fast.
[29:20] (1760.80s)
- What will happen is if the next droplet
[29:24] (1764.00s)
that's coming down the line is too close,
[29:26] (1766.32s)
then it'll actually get like disturbed
[29:28] (1768.80s)
and mess up the next plasma event.
[29:31] (1771.68s)
So we have a requirement which is both
[29:34] (1774.16s)
that we make 50,000 droplets per second,
[29:36] (1776.16s)
but also that they're
traveling extremely fast.
[29:39] (1779.24s)
- By 2011,
[29:40] (1780.88s)
their laser produced plasma
source reached 11 watts,
[29:44] (1784.32s)
which was more than
double what they managed
[29:46] (1786.24s)
with their previous source.
[29:47] (1787.92s)
But they were still limited
to just five wafers per hour.
[29:51] (1791.12s)
So they needed to increase
the power and fast
[29:54] (1794.16s)
because they promised they'd
hit 60 wafers per hour
[29:56] (1796.80s)
by the end of 2011.
[29:59] (1799.28s)
Unfortunately, this new method had a major flaw.
[30:02] (1802.72s)
Now the problem with the tin
issue, you hit the droplet,
[30:05] (1805.12s)
you generate EUV,
[30:06] (1806.48s)
with a very decent conversion efficiency.
[30:08] (1808.88s)
Where does the tin go?
[30:10] (1810.16s)
Because like, you know,
30 centimeters away.
[30:13] (1813.04s)
You have this atomically
flat, very beautiful,
[30:16] (1816.80s)
very expensive, mirror from our friends at ZEISS
[30:20] (1820.00s)
And in the early
days we would coat the thing
[30:22] (1822.72s)
within like this.
[30:24] (1824.28s)
- These machines need to run for a year.
[30:26] (1826.72s)
You're putting liters of tin
through this plasma event
[30:31] (1831.76s)
and a single nanometer of tin.
[30:33] (1833.60s)
If it was to land on that
collector mirror, you'd have
[30:36] (1836.00s)
to take a collector outta commission.
[30:37] (1837.68s)
We need to keep it almost
perfectly clean for, for a year.
[30:41] (1841.68s)
- Yeah. How do you even approach that?
[30:43] (1843.44s)
- So our, our, our main tool here is the
[30:45] (1845.68s)
hydrogen gas actually.
[30:46] (1846.96s)
- They fill the chamber
with low pressure hydrogen.
[30:50] (1850.32s)
This slows and cools
the tin particles down.
[30:53] (1853.12s)
And even if some tin
makes it to the collector,
[30:55] (1855.36s)
the hydrogen pulls it off
to form a gas called stannane.
[30:59] (1859.04s)
This way the machine cleans
the collectors while it's running.
[31:02] (1862.56s)
But that hydrogen gas also gets hot from all
[31:04] (1864.96s)
those tin explosions.
[31:06] (1866.40s)
So they need to keep flushing
new, cooler hydrogen into the
[31:09] (1869.68s)
system while flushing out
the stannane and hotter gas.
[31:13] (1873.36s)
But they have to get the pressure
[31:14] (1874.56s)
and the flow rate just right.
[31:16] (1876.32s)
I mean too little hydrogen
[31:17] (1877.92s)
and the mirrors would get too dirty,
[31:19] (1879.76s)
but too much hydrogen would
not only absorb too much EUV
[31:22] (1882.80s)
light, but it would also
cause the system to overheat.
[31:25] (1885.60s)
- But the question is
how much heat is there?
[31:28] (1888.64s)
How much energy is being
deposited into the gas?
[31:31] (1891.60s)
And we were stumped for quite some time.
[31:33] (1893.60s)
If you look at a EUV light
source, what you'll see is
[31:36] (1896.24s)
that it's, it's kinda like a globe
[31:39] (1899.04s)
of like purple-ish red light
[31:41] (1901.36s)
and you kinda ask yourself
like, why is that happening?
[31:43] (1903.92s)
So we bought an ultra fast camera.
[31:46] (1906.56s)
What we realized is that
after every plasma event,
[31:49] (1909.20s)
there's a shockwave
[31:51] (1911.36s)
that goes propagating
out into the hydrogen gas
[31:54] (1914.56s)
and it's extremely repeatable.
[31:57] (1917.20s)
And you think to yourself, there must be
[31:58] (1918.64s)
like an explanation for this.
[32:00] (1920.48s)
And there's this formula,
the Taylor–von Neumann–Sedov formula
[32:04] (1924.88s)
that explains point source
explosions in an environment
[32:07] (1927.84s)
and like say a nuclear
blast out to like supernova.
[32:11] (1931.44s)
So I took this formula, it like
exactly describes the data.
[32:14] (1934.96s)
It's just fantastic that
[32:16] (1936.96s)
we're seeing these like
little tiny little supernovas
[32:19] (1939.68s)
happening in our vessel
50,000 times a second.
[32:22] (1942.04s)
- And is that a fair
way to think about this,
[32:24] (1944.40s)
like creating mini supernova?
[32:26] (1946.48s)
- Yeah, it's actually pretty similar.
[32:28] (1948.64s)
It's almost like very similar to a,
[32:30] (1950.24s)
like a type one A supernova.
[32:31] (1951.60s)
It turns out where you
kind of have an object
[32:33] (1953.44s)
that just fully evaporates
and explodes apart.
[32:36] (1956.16s)
And when all that energy
goes into the hydrogen gas,
[32:39] (1959.36s)
it produces a a shock wave, a blast wave
[32:41] (1961.52s)
that comes flying out, which
is basically the same thing.
[32:44] (1964.24s)
If you look up in the night sky,
[32:45] (1965.52s)
there are these like remnants supernovas
[32:47] (1967.28s)
that you can see coming from space.
[32:48] (1968.92s)
- Using those energy calculations,
[32:51] (1971.04s)
they discovered they needed
[32:52] (1972.16s)
to flush the hydrogen at
incredibly high speeds
[32:54] (1974.88s)
around 360 kilometers per hour.
[32:57] (1977.52s)
That's more than a
category five hurricane,
[32:59] (1979.60s)
even if you know those
speeds are at low density.
[33:02] (1982.72s)
But 2012 came and went
[33:04] (1984.48s)
and they still didn't have enough power.
[33:06] (1986.88s)
In fact, by 2013, ASML
just reached 50 watts
[33:10] (1990.32s)
by shooting 50,000 tin droplets per second.
[33:13] (1993.28s)
But this increased power came at a price
[33:15] (1995.60s)
because more power means more heat.
[33:18] (1998.32s)
Heat that ends up slightly
shifting the mirrors resulting in
[33:21] (2001.92s)
misaligned light and
misaligned chip layers.
[33:25] (2005.12s)
So ZEISS built a nervous system
directly into the optics
[33:29] (2009.12s)
robot guided sensors
[33:30] (2010.40s)
that constantly measure the exact position
[33:32] (2012.64s)
and angle of each mirror down
[33:34] (2014.64s)
to the nanometer at the pico radian,
[33:37] (2017.12s)
which is absolutely insane.
[33:39] (2019.00s)
- So how accurate do we
need to control this mirror?
[33:42] (2022.64s)
Now one of the things you
can do a thought experiment.
[33:45] (2025.76s)
And I can place a
little laser on the side
[33:50] (2030.16s)
of this mirror, then we
go all the way to the moon
[33:53] (2033.68s)
and we put a dime here.
[33:56] (2036.40s)
So then this light
travels all the way here
[33:59] (2039.44s)
and then with the accuracy,
I can control this mirror.
[34:02] (2042.60s)
- Yes - I can decide
whether I point to this side
[34:06] (2046.72s)
of the dime or whether I point
to this side of the dime.
[34:10] (2050.16s)
- What? That's crazy.
[34:12] (2052.40s)
- So you can see that
the pointing accuracy is
[34:16] (2056.40s)
that's also in in pico radians.
[34:19] (2059.20s)
That is something very extreme.
[34:21] (2061.36s)
- This allowed them to control
the light even when the
[34:24] (2064.48s)
power increased.
[34:26] (2066.00s)
While Zeiss was doing a
stellar job with the optics,
[34:28] (2068.48s)
ASML was still struggling
with the power source.
[34:31] (2071.68s)
The problem was that the
tin droplets were too dense,
[34:34] (2074.80s)
meaning that most of the emitted
EUV light was still getting
[34:38] (2078.24s)
reabsorbed by the neutral atoms
[34:40] (2080.16s)
before it could ever reach
the collector mirror.
[34:42] (2082.28s)
- The way we blasted the droplet was
[34:44] (2084.80s)
so not enough light, too much debris.
[34:47] (2087.28s)
- To make matters worse.
[34:48] (2088.88s)
They could see that
about 10 years from now,
[34:51] (2091.20s)
they would need a new
generation of machine, a high
[34:54] (2094.24s)
NA EUV machine, essentially one
[34:56] (2096.40s)
with a larger optic system
[34:58] (2098.08s)
that could print smaller features.
[35:00] (2100.00s)
So what did they do?
[35:02] (2102.08s)
They decided to double down
[35:03] (2103.92s)
and invest in the next generation
[35:06] (2106.32s)
before they even got
the current one to work.
[35:08] (2108.64s)
- The most doubtful period
was in the beginning.
[35:11] (2111.20s)
So I started to work on this in 2012.
[35:14] (2114.08s)
By that time EUV was not working
[35:16] (2116.56s)
and there was this crazy
idiot working on the next
[35:20] (2120.32s)
generation where we could
not even make the EUV
[35:24] (2124.32s)
light in the first place.
[35:25] (2125.24s)
- Not only are you all in on
EUV, you're doubling down even
[35:28] (2128.72s)
before you know if EUV is gonna work.
[35:30] (2130.48s)
- Yes. - But to keep funding the
development, they needed money
[35:34] (2134.32s)
and lots of it.
[35:35] (2135.68s)
So they turned to the very,
who needed this technology
[35:38] (2138.80s)
- ASML reached out to its main customers.
[35:42] (2142.08s)
Okay, you want this technology
[35:44] (2144.56s)
for the next generation of chips?
[35:46] (2146.48s)
Well, you need to make
us able to invest more
[35:50] (2150.24s)
by investing in us.
[35:51] (2151.80s)
- Intel invested around
$4.1 billion and Samsung
[35:56] (2156.08s)
and TSMC in invested another
1.3 billion combined.
[36:00] (2160.08s)
So they can keep the research going,
[36:02] (2162.00s)
but with no product
[36:03] (2163.36s)
to show customers were
running out of patience.
[36:05] (2165.92s)
- We were crucified at every conference
[36:09] (2169.44s)
that the promises we
made last year we we were
[36:12] (2172.32s)
unable to live up to.
[36:13] (2173.76s)
Yeah. And they said, this is
what you showed two years ago.
[36:16] (2176.00s)
This is what you showed last year
[36:17] (2177.12s)
and this is what you're
telling me this year.
[36:18] (2178.64s)
So why would I believe you?
[36:19] (2179.92s)
- They were getting desperate.
[36:21] (2181.64s)
- But this was, I think about 2012 or
[36:25] (2185.76s)
or 13, we were struggling
to get the EUV power up
[36:29] (2189.52s)
and Kenoshita visited us.
[36:31] (2191.20s)
I took him to dinner
in a small town nearby
[36:33] (2193.68s)
and across from the
restaurant was a Maria Chapel.
[36:37] (2197.44s)
And now you know, science, we have come
[36:39] (2199.84s)
to the limits of science.
[36:41] (2201.44s)
Hey, let's go for divine intervention.
[36:43] (2203.36s)
So we went to the chapel so Kenoshita just
[36:46] (2206.40s)
to be safe lit three candles
for the three suppliers
[36:50] (2210.40s)
that were pursuing EUV
technology at the time.
[36:53] (2213.04s)
And lo and behold,
[36:54] (2214.72s)
and I have the data to prove it,
[36:56] (2216.48s)
there is a very strong correlation
[36:58] (2218.40s)
between us lighting the candle.
[37:00] (2220.56s)
- Okay. - And power going up.
[37:03] (2223.84s)
It's not causal effect, but
there is a strong correlation.
[37:07] (2227.00s)
- The big idea was instead
of hitting the droplet once,
[37:10] (2230.24s)
hit it twice,
[37:11] (2231.16s)
- One shot to hit the droplet
[37:14] (2234.00s)
and it expands in like a pancake shape.
[37:16] (2236.56s)
- Yep.
- And then only then have the second shot,
[37:19] (2239.84s)
the more powerful main pulse
where you evaporate the pancake
[37:23] (2243.76s)
and turn it into a plasma.
[37:25] (2245.36s)
This was a major breakthrough
[37:27] (2247.12s)
- By changing the target
from a droplet to a pancake.
[37:30] (2250.48s)
You got a larger surface area
for the laser to vaporize,
[37:33] (2253.68s)
but without the cost of adding
more debris or neutral atoms,
[37:37] (2257.20s)
because now the tin is
vaporized all at once.
[37:40] (2260.64s)
By 2014, they finally managed to hit
[37:43] (2263.44s)
that coveted 100 watts mark.
[37:45] (2265.68s)
But improvements in multi patterning
[37:47] (2267.52s)
with 193 nanometers now meant
[37:49] (2269.84s)
that EUV would only be useful
if the source reached at least
[37:53] (2273.36s)
200 watts and made 125 wafers per hour.
[37:56] (2276.52s)
- The source went from a hundred to 200,
[37:58] (2278.64s)
but as the industry moved
on, nobody waits for you.
[38:01] (2281.20s)
You know, they find other
solutions. We had to catch up.
[38:04] (2284.88s)
So it was a moving goalpost.
[38:06] (2286.40s)
- One of the problems was
how do you perfectly time the
[38:09] (2289.36s)
laser so you hit each of these droplets.
[38:11] (2291.68s)
- So the, the analogy is
a bit like a golf ball
[38:14] (2294.80s)
that you need to land in
the hole 200 meters away,
[38:18] (2298.96s)
not like laying on the green, not bouncing
[38:20] (2300.64s)
and getting the hole, but like
land in the hole every time.
[38:23] (2303.60s)
That's the level of precision
that we need to deliver the droplets.
[38:26] (2306.76s)
Those droplets are traveling through this like maelstrom of hydrogen flow.
[38:30] (2310.72s)
The speeds are tremendously
high, like shoot golf balls
[38:33] (2313.52s)
through a tornado and then
right when it lands at the hole,
[38:36] (2316.80s)
that's when it needs to
get hit by the laser.
[38:38] (2318.48s)
So in order to basically
track the droplets for that,
[38:41] (2321.60s)
we use laser curtains
[38:43] (2323.12s)
and we can sort of look
at when does the droplet
[38:45] (2325.44s)
pass through a laser curtain.
[38:46] (2326.64s)
Those scattered photons
tell us basically when
[38:49] (2329.28s)
and where is the droplet.
[38:50] (2330.80s)
And then importantly tells
us when to fire the laser.
[38:53] (2333.12s)
So we actually have to take into account
[38:54] (2334.80s)
how long will it take for the
light pulse to hit the droplet
[38:57] (2337.52s)
after we send the pulse.
[38:59] (2339.52s)
- Now by 2015, they were getting closer
[39:02] (2342.40s)
and closer to that coveted
200 watt mark when all
[39:05] (2345.92s)
of a sudden the ASML board
members got summoned.
[39:09] (2349.24s)
- This was one of these decisive moments
[39:11] (2351.92s)
where our customers were really
thin on patience and Martin
[39:15] (2355.76s)
and all the board members
were summoned to Korea
[39:18] (2358.40s)
to show 200 watt and they
were really fed up with it.
[39:22] (2362.40s)
You know, you either show
it now or you you go away.
[39:26] (2366.48s)
And when they entered the plane,
[39:27] (2367.92s)
the experiment was still running.
[39:30] (2370.00s)
- Okay? - When they exited the plane,
[39:32] (2372.64s)
they had the first result
demonstrating to all about,
[39:35] (2375.36s)
this is how close we came
[39:36] (2376.56s)
- With the source power up,
[39:38] (2378.24s)
there was one final problem
that had to be solved
[39:41] (2381.36s)
before they could begin
manufacturing their machine.
[39:44] (2384.24s)
See, while the hydrogen gas did
protect the collector mirror
[39:47] (2387.12s)
from debris, it wasn't perfect.
[39:49] (2389.68s)
All the intense high energy photons
[39:51] (2391.84s)
and hydrogen ions zipping around,
[39:54] (2394.00s)
deteriorated a very special
top coating on the collector.
[39:57] (2397.92s)
So they still had to clean
the mirrors every 10 hours,
[40:01] (2401.36s)
which you know is
terrible for productivity.
[40:04] (2404.00s)
Martin van den Brink asked
[40:05] (2405.12s)
for updates every day on their progress.
[40:07] (2407.44s)
But then one of the engineers noticed
[40:09] (2409.28s)
that every time they
opened up the machine,
[40:11] (2411.68s)
the mirrors suddenly seemed cleaner
[40:13] (2413.92s)
- Then he kind of chimed in
and said, oh wait a second.
[40:18] (2418.08s)
Whenever we opened up the
machine, oxygen comes in
[40:21] (2421.28s)
and our problem is solved.
[40:22] (2422.88s)
Couldn't we think of a way
to add just a little oxygen
[40:26] (2426.32s)
to our system and make sure
[40:28] (2428.24s)
that the collector stays clean longer?
[40:31] (2431.36s)
And so they started experimenting
with the amount of oxygen
[40:35] (2435.60s)
that was needed in the vacuum
[40:37] (2437.68s)
and then finally got to
this point, okay, if we add
[40:40] (2440.08s)
so much oxygen, we'll keep the
collector clean for longer.
[40:42] (2442.96s)
- With this fix ASML's
machine could run continuously
[40:46] (2446.32s)
for much longer and it finally
became commercially viable.
[40:50] (2450.64s)
By 2016, orders started pouring in
[40:53] (2453.12s)
and now all of the most advanced
chips need ASML's machine
[40:56] (2456.96s)
making them perhaps
the most important tech
[40:59] (2459.44s)
company in the world.
[41:01] (2461.04s)
ASML's first commercial machines
had a numerical aperture
[41:04] (2464.00s)
of 0.33 and could print
13 nanometer lines.
[41:08] (2468.00s)
These are called the low NA machines
[41:10] (2470.08s)
and a ML still makes them.
[41:11] (2471.84s)
But the machine that Jan's
team started working on back in
[41:14] (2474.80s)
2012 was the next generation
which had a larger optic system
[41:18] (2478.88s)
so they could print even smaller features.
[41:21] (2481.20s)
This is the high NA machine
with a numerical aperture
[41:24] (2484.40s)
of 0.55, and we get to see
their latest version up close.
[41:29] (2489.60s)
- How much is the machine?
[41:32] (2492.00s)
We always say north of 350 million euros.
[41:35] (2495.84s)
And you can actually buy it, right?
[41:37] (2497.28s)
You can if you want yeah.
[41:38] (2498.40s)
- If I had the money I could buy it.
[41:40] (2500.32s)
Yes you could.
- How many people have seen this before?
[41:43] (2503.32s)
- We really limit the amount of people
[41:45] (2505.76s)
- That get to go inside the clean room.
[41:47] (2507.68s)
ASML's machines are built in
a super strict clean room in
[41:51] (2511.12s)
any cubic meter, there can
be no more than 10 particles,
[41:53] (2513.84s)
only 0.1 microns large, and
nothing bigger than that.
[41:57] (2517.36s)
A spec of pollen is around 20 microns
[41:59] (2519.52s)
and extremely fine sand
is around 10 microns.
[42:02] (2522.64s)
To put all of this in perspective,
hospital operating rooms,
[42:05] (2525.68s)
which have to be extremely
clean, only allow a maximum
[42:08] (2528.88s)
of 10,000 particles per cubic meter
[42:10] (2530.96s)
that are 0.1 microns wide.
[42:13] (2533.76s)
It's so unfair
[42:14] (2534.88s)
how much better Marc looks
though in his white suit.
[42:18] (2538.32s)
I feel like a little smurf.
[42:21] (2541.28s)
- Okay, so we're gonna go
through the air showers,
[42:24] (2544.64s)
so you're gonna have to do as I do.
[42:26] (2546.80s)
- Okay, so this is washing down all the
[42:29] (2549.28s)
particles that are still on us.
[42:30] (2550.32s)
- Yes. So this is like
super clean air blowing
[42:32] (2552.88s)
as clean.
- This place is huge.
[42:36] (2556.26s)
- It's huge.
- It's insane.
[42:38] (2558.08s)
I've been in a clean room
a couple times before,
[42:40] (2560.72s)
but it's nothing compared to this.
[42:42] (2562.48s)
Are there any secret areas here
[42:44] (2564.32s)
where almost no one has access to?
[42:46] (2566.44s)
- I can't tell you.
- Great answer.
[42:50] (2570.00s)
- Okay. So this is the total system.
[42:52] (2572.08s)
- This is it. That's crazy.
Look how big it is.
[42:57] (2577.84s)
This is the most advanced
machine humanity's ever built.
[43:01] (2581.28s)
It's taken many, many years,
decades of development,
[43:04] (2584.96s)
many billions of dollars all
to get this humongous beauty.
[43:10] (2590.08s)
So this is the first high NA machine. - Yes.
[43:12] (2592.44s)
So if you saw pictures on
the internet or whatever.
[43:16] (2596.24s)
- Yeah.
- That's this machine.
[43:17] (2597.76s)
So the very first line's ever printed at
[43:19] (2599.76s)
eight nanometers and stuff.
[43:21] (2601.28s)
That was this machine.
- The smoothest object on earth.
[43:24] (2604.64s)
- Yeah, it's all in here.
- Yeah.
[43:26] (2606.12s)
- Wait, so let me see if I
can figure this out. - Yeah.
[43:29] (2609.28s)
- This is the light source.
[43:31] (2611.76s)
It's where they make the
extreme ultraviolet. - Yes.
[43:35] (2615.44s)
And then the laser must
come in from there.
[43:37] (2617.92s)
- Let's take a look at the laser.
[43:39] (2619.60s)
In fact, we got to see just
[43:40] (2620.88s)
how the laser and light source work.
[43:43] (2623.04s)
I think we're entering the
laser system here Mark's just
[43:45] (2625.92s)
making sure, I think that
we can actually film here
[43:48] (2628.00s)
that we're not catching anything.
[43:49] (2629.44s)
We're not supposed to. Oh
wow. This looks dangerous.
[43:53] (2633.52s)
Now the laser system is covered by all
[43:55] (2635.36s)
of these brown cabinets,
but here is a model version.
[43:58] (2638.48s)
A carbon dioxide laser
[43:59] (2639.76s)
of just a few watts enters
this amplifier where it bounces
[44:03] (2643.28s)
around until it's roughly
five times its original power.
[44:06] (2646.56s)
It then goes through a total
of four different amplifiers
[44:09] (2649.44s)
to bring the final laser
up to 20,000 watts,
[44:12] (2652.72s)
which is four times stronger than
[44:14] (2654.32s)
lasers that cut through steel.
[44:15] (2655.92s)
- Over here we have the amplifiers. - Yeah.
[44:19] (2659.04s)
That generates this. This
powerful laser beam. - Yeah.
[44:22] (2662.00s)
- And then it basically comes out
[44:23] (2663.76s)
and this is part of the
beam transport system.
[44:26] (2666.32s)
Where it's brought
to the machine.
[44:29] (2669.12s)
So this pipe here has
the big laser beam.
[44:31] (2671.92s)
- And this has a mirror?
[44:33] (2673.68s)
- Yes. - Then the pulses travel
to the light source module.
[44:36] (2676.96s)
It kind of looks like a transformer
[44:38] (2678.64s)
or like a, I don't know, like a spaceship.
[44:41] (2681.52s)
There's so many wires going
everywhere. - Don't touch this.
[44:47] (2687.48s)
- Holy crap. - This is pretty
big, huh? - This is insane.
[44:52] (2692.48s)
- And this is just a light source?
[44:53] (2693.84s)
- This is just a light source.
[44:54] (2694.96s)
Are you getting this comparison shot?
[44:56] (2696.48s)
And so you need all of this.
[44:58] (2698.12s)
- Just to make EUV light. Yeah.
[45:00] (2700.32s)
- Just to make the light.
Yes. That's incredible.
[45:02] (2702.40s)
Can we do a little walk around?
[45:03] (2703.32s)
- We can do a little walk. - Let's go.
[45:07] (2707.60s)
- So basically this is
the heart of the source.
[45:10] (2710.64s)
- Can I stand on here? - If
you are below 137, you can.
[45:15] (2715.28s)
- I don't - I think I am.
[45:21] (2721.36s)
Woo. And so the tin droplets
are coming in from the left.
[45:24] (2724.48s)
- Yes.
- Then we're shooting the laser from here.
[45:28] (2728.08s)
- Yeah.
- Okay.
[45:29] (2729.36s)
It explodes and then the light,
the light goes out there.
[45:34] (2734.64s)
One improvement from
ASML's first EUV machine
[45:37] (2737.20s)
to their newest one is the number
[45:39] (2739.12s)
of pulses that hit the droplet.
[45:41] (2741.52s)
The first pre pulse still
flattens the droplet into a
[45:44] (2744.24s)
pancake, but now there's
also a second pre pulse
[45:47] (2747.44s)
that further reduces the density.
[45:49] (2749.04s)
It basically turns it
into a low density gas,
[45:51] (2751.92s)
it rarefies it.
[45:53] (2753.52s)
And then the final pulse
essentially ionizes all of it.
[45:57] (2757.20s)
So for basically the same power
coming from the drive laser,
[46:00] (2760.56s)
they get even more EUV light.
[46:02] (2762.96s)
Now if they want even more
light, then the only way to do
[46:05] (2765.36s)
that is by hitting more droplets.
[46:07] (2767.28s)
And that's exactly what they did.
[46:09] (2769.04s)
- Our most recent EUV light sources
[46:11] (2771.68s)
that we're shipping right now, which are
[46:13] (2773.20s)
around the 500 watt level,
we increased the rep rate up
[46:16] (2776.48s)
to 60,000 times per second.
[46:18] (2778.48s)
And then we have a roadmap that's gonna go
[46:20] (2780.48s)
to a hundred thousand droplets per second.
[46:22] (2782.88s)
We've actually now already
demonstrated this hundred
[46:25] (2785.27s)
thousand droplets per second in the lab.
[46:26] (2786.72s)
So it's not an if but a when.
[46:28] (2788.48s)
- Crazy. - The three pulses
that we use to make the pancake
[46:32] (2792.56s)
to blow up the pancake a little bit
[46:34] (2794.00s)
and then to evaporate the pancake.
[46:36] (2796.04s)
- Yeah. - The first two
pulses, they would be coming in
[46:39] (2799.92s)
through this pipe here
[46:41] (2801.84s)
and then the main pulse
with the big laser,
[46:45] (2805.04s)
the laser beam would be
delivered through this pipe here.
[46:47] (2807.60s)
- Both the high and low NA
machine shipping out right now
[46:50] (2810.80s)
use three pulses
[46:51] (2811.84s)
and eventually they will hit
more droplets per second.
[46:55] (2815.20s)
But the light source is just one small
[46:57] (2817.04s)
part of the full machine.
[46:58] (2818.40s)
After bouncing off the collector mirror,
[47:00] (2820.24s)
the EUV light moves to the illuminator.
[47:02] (2822.88s)
A set of mirrors shape and focus the light
[47:05] (2825.28s)
before it hits the reticle.
[47:06] (2826.80s)
The reticle is the top half
[47:08] (2828.16s)
and this module is built
in a separate facility
[47:10] (2830.32s)
and installed later.
[47:11] (2831.92s)
Next the light goes into
the projection optics box,
[47:14] (2834.72s)
which is a set of mirrors
[47:15] (2835.92s)
that shrink the light down.
[47:17] (2837.07s)
The high NA machine can shrink the pattern
eight times in the vertical
[47:20] (2840.64s)
direction and four times in
the horizontal direction.
[47:23] (2843.92s)
The mirrors are also much smoother still.
[47:26] (2846.40s)
If the low NA mirrors
were the size of Germany,
[47:28] (2848.88s)
the tallest bump would
be about a millimeter.
[47:31] (2851.04s)
But if the high NA mirrors
were the size of the world,
[47:33] (2853.60s)
the tallest bump would be about the
[47:35] (2855.20s)
thickness of a playing card.
[47:36] (2856.88s)
By the combination of both
of these improvements,
[47:39] (2859.12s)
ASML was able to increase the
numerical aperture from 0.33
[47:42] (2862.96s)
to zero point 55.
[47:45] (2865.12s)
And finally the light hits
the wafer. In order to print
[47:48] (2868.48s)
around 185 wafers per
hour, the reticle whips back
[47:52] (2872.24s)
and forth at accelerations of over 20 g's.
[47:55] (2875.28s)
That's over five times the acceleration
[47:57] (2877.12s)
of a Formula one car.
[47:58] (2878.88s)
And this is some actual footage of what
[48:01] (2881.12s)
that's like inside this machine.
[48:02] (2882.64s)
And notice that this is not sped up,
[48:06] (2886.24s)
but the crazy thing to me
about this machine isn't
[48:08] (2888.56s)
how fast the reticle moves or
even how small it can print,
[48:12] (2892.80s)
but it's just how insanely
accurate it needs to be.
[48:15] (2895.92s)
The most any two layers can be off,
[48:18] (2898.08s)
which is called the
overlay is one nanometer.
[48:21] (2901.52s)
That's five freaking silicon atoms
[48:23] (2903.60s)
of precision. That's insane.
[48:25] (2905.52s)
- So typically what we
do as system engineers is
[48:29] (2909.04s)
that we make a budget.
[48:30] (2910.24s)
So we say, hey, you
get, let's say a nanometer and
[48:34] (2914.96s)
and we divide then the nanometers to
[48:38] (2918.88s)
to smaller fractions.
[48:39] (2919.84s)
- The nanometers total.
[48:41] (2921.28s)
It's not like you, you group gets an er...
[48:43] (2923.12s)
- You get a nanometer, you get, no, no.
[48:44] (2924.80s)
You get a nanometer in total. Yes.
[48:48] (2928.24s)
So you have to, to fight for the,
[48:50] (2930.64s)
for your part of the nanometer.
[48:52] (2932.40s)
- It's kind of cool to realize
[48:53] (2933.92s)
that like every smartphone
nowadays has has a chip
[48:57] (2937.20s)
that is made with the machine
[48:58] (2938.64s)
that was actually put together here.
[49:01] (2941.04s)
So that's a cool thought.
[49:02] (2942.92s)
- Take a look at this.
- It's pretty massive, eh?
[49:07] (2947.68s)
- So big.
- So do you cover it up? Yes.
[49:11] (2951.36s)
At a customer fab, it will be
looking like a big white box.
[49:17] (2957.12s)
I like it better like this. Yeah, me too.
[49:19] (2959.88s)
- It's funny. You need such a big machine,
[49:23] (2963.76s)
so much infrastructure to
make the tiniest things
[49:27] (2967.92s)
we can make at scale.
[49:29] (2969.20s)
- It's inversely proportional.
[49:30] (2970.92s)
- Yeah. Smaller. You want
to go the larger everything
[49:33] (2973.76s)
around it becomes.
[49:35] (2975.72s)
After the machines are assembled, tested and approved,
they are disassembled
[49:39] (2979.12s)
to ship all around the world.
[49:41] (2981.28s)
5,000 companies supply
100,000 parts, 3000 cables,
[49:45] (2985.60s)
40,000 bolts and two kilometers of hosing.
[49:48] (2988.64s)
ASML ships their high NA
[49:49] (2989.84s)
machine in 250 containers
spread out over 25 trucks
[49:53] (2993.68s)
and seven Boeing 747s.
[49:57] (2997.52s)
Despite all the doubt
[49:58] (2998.56s)
and setback, EUV finally made it
[50:00] (3000.64s)
to manufacturing level three decades
[50:02] (3002.88s)
after Kenoshita's first images.
[50:05] (3005.12s)
But even when almost the
entire world didn't believe it
[50:08] (3008.00s)
would work, there were some
people at ASML who knew
[50:11] (3011.28s)
that it was going to work
all the way back in 2010,
[50:14] (3014.28s)
- Around 2001 we said
let's, let's, let's do EUV.
[50:18] (3018.96s)
And then we run into many challenges.
[50:21] (3021.20s)
2010 we installed the first
system at a, at a customer.
[50:24] (3024.08s)
So it was installed in Korea.
[50:25] (3025.68s)
There it was this thing I had
been pursuing for, you know,
[50:29] (3029.52s)
13 years was now standing at
a customer producing wafers.
[50:34] (3034.40s)
This for me was a moment I realized,
[50:37] (3037.12s)
yes, we made the right bet.
[50:38] (3038.88s)
- Years later, Jos ran into the man
[50:41] (3041.20s)
who helped install the first machine.
[50:43] (3043.20s)
- He's now a professor
at a renowned institute.
[50:45] (3045.76s)
And I shared the story about my relief
[50:48] (3048.08s)
and how, how, how great
we made the decision.
[50:50] (3050.24s)
Hanku said, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[50:51] (3051.76s)
He said, when you left and you flew out
[50:53] (3053.84s)
after Christmas, the thing broke down
[50:56] (3056.40s)
and it took two months
to get back up again.
[50:58] (3058.80s)
And they almost fired me for
making the wrong decision
[51:01] (3061.84s)
that we had some ups
and downs along the way.
[51:04] (3064.95s)
- Yeah.
- But again,
[51:05] (3065.76s)
once I saw the system
installed at a customer
[51:08] (3068.40s)
in a customer fab, yeah.
[51:10] (3070.00s)
I knew we had done the
right thing. This was 2010.
[51:12] (3072.72s)
The first phone that came out was 2019.
[51:14] (3074.88s)
So we still had some hurdles to resolve,
[51:16] (3076.80s)
- Right.
[51:17] (3077.32s)
- But we kept going.
[51:20] (3080.36s)
- Now I have spent several
months working on this video
[51:25] (3085.20s)
and thinking about it
[51:26] (3086.72s)
and it still feels absolutely impossible.
[51:30] (3090.24s)
And the more I think about it,
[51:32] (3092.24s)
the more I think you know
those people 40 years ago
[51:35] (3095.12s)
that said it was impossible,
they had a point.
[51:38] (3098.16s)
It's completely unreasonable to think
[51:40] (3100.64s)
that you could make this
artificial sun in a lab,
[51:42] (3102.96s)
that you could make these
mirrors that are this smooth
[51:45] (3105.28s)
and that you could get the
required overlay accuracy.
[51:49] (3109.52s)
The reasonable thing is
to think that none of
[51:51] (3111.44s)
that is possible and
[51:52] (3112.48s)
to point out all the
problems with each of them.
[51:55] (3115.28s)
Which reminds me of this quote,
[51:57] (3117.52s)
the reasonable man adapts
himself to the world;
[52:00] (3120.40s)
the unreasonable one persists in trying
[52:02] (3122.96s)
to adapt the world to himself.
[52:05] (3125.44s)
Therefore, all progress depends
on the unreasonable map.
[52:09] (3129.60s)
Imagine if Andy and Kinoshita
[52:11] (3131.76s)
and all the others had been reasonable,
[52:14] (3134.32s)
we would have none of this.
[52:16] (3136.40s)
In fact, imagine what the world
would be like if everyone on
[52:19] (3139.68s)
it was reasonable.
[52:21] (3141.12s)
It would probably be extremely boring.
[52:23] (3143.20s)
Probably most of the technology, most
[52:24] (3144.96s)
of the things you enjoy on a
daily basis wouldn't be here.
[52:28] (3148.56s)
In fact, you probably wouldn't
be watching this video
[52:31] (3151.12s)
because just about all the
technology we have nowadays would
[52:34] (3154.32s)
seem completely unreasonable
even just 200 years ago.
[52:39] (3159.04s)
And so I really think
that to a large extent,
[52:42] (3162.08s)
we owe our lives to those
unreasonable people.
[52:45] (3165.12s)
And maybe at least to me,
it's a reminder that it's good
[52:48] (3168.40s)
to be a little unreasonable,
at least in some
[52:51] (3171.12s)
of the big parts of life.
[52:57] (3177.20s)
Changing the world is difficult.
[52:58] (3178.64s)
It took overcoming thousands of obstacles
[53:00] (3180.64s)
and over 30 years to get EUV to work.
[53:03] (3183.20s)
But big breakthroughs usually
start in the same way.
[53:06] (3186.00s)
That is you learn, you explore
some related ideas, you try
[53:10] (3190.00s)
to apply them in some new ways,
[53:11] (3191.36s)
and then you build
skills to take on bigger
[53:13] (3193.60s)
and bigger challenges.
[53:15] (3195.12s)
Bit by bit you gain knowledge
[53:17] (3197.44s)
and that's where today's video
sponsor Brilliant comes in.
[53:20] (3200.88s)
Brilliant helps you
excel in math, science,
[53:23] (3203.36s)
and computer science with
visual interactive learning
[53:26] (3206.48s)
that's personalized for you.
[53:28] (3208.56s)
It's an incredibly powerful way
to reach big learning goals,
[53:32] (3212.24s)
mastering math for class
[53:33] (3213.60s)
or contributing to the
next big technological
[53:36] (3216.32s)
breakthrough.
On Brilliant,
[53:38] (3218.08s)
you learn by doing, a method
that research has shown
[53:40] (3220.96s)
to be far more effective
than just passive learning.
[53:43] (3223.36s)
It starts you at the right
level based on your background
[53:46] (3226.32s)
designs, practice sets and
reviews customized for you.
[53:49] (3229.52s)
And then it helps you
advance at your ideal pace.
[53:52] (3232.56s)
There is always something new
to discover on Brilliant.
[53:55] (3235.28s)
Want to better understand optics
after watching this video?
[53:58] (3238.08s)
Well there Scientific Thinking Course is a
[54:00] (3240.72s)
great place to start.
[54:02] (3242.32s)
It helps you think like an
engineer by showing you how
[54:05] (3245.20s)
to break down large concepts into smaller,
[54:08] (3248.00s)
more understandable pieces.
[54:10] (3250.00s)
Whether you are conquering
fundamental math, algebra,
[54:13] (3253.12s)
or calculus, diving deep into
algorithms, exploring materials
[54:16] (3256.88s)
science or understanding the
physics that will take us
[54:20] (3260.08s)
beyond EUV, Brilliant
will help you get there.
[54:23] (3263.20s)
And if like me, you've resolved
[54:24] (3264.88s)
to learn more in the new year,
then brilliant is a great way
[54:28] (3268.16s)
to actually make that resolution stick.
[54:30] (3270.40s)
So to learn for free, go to
brilliant.org/veritasium,
[54:34] (3274.56s)
scan the QR code on screen,
[54:36] (3276.32s)
or click the link in the description.
[54:38] (3278.48s)
Brilliants also given our
viewers 20% off an annual premium
[54:42] (3282.32s)
subscription, which gives
you unlimited daily access
[54:45] (3285.20s)
to everything on Brilliant.
[54:47] (3287.02s)
So I want to thank Brilliant for sponsoring this video
[54:49] (3289.84s)
and I want to thank you for watching.