Talk:Wafer (electronics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Electronics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Grammar question[edit]

In the context of electronics, is it permissible to use "wafer" as an uncountable noun? For instance, "we examined the effects of various slurry components on silicon wafer." Just curious... -- Visviva 04:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it used in that context. If I saw that written, I would assume it was written by a non-native English speaker. --Phil Holmes 11:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A web search shows plenty of usage in both forms. I think it is ok as quoted above - they're examining effects on a material (silicon wafer), not on some specific wafers or on silicon in general.Lisamh 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed merges[edit]

I think the Wafer prober article could best be merged into Wafer testing.Lisamh 22:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:32, 30 October 2006

Vote for merge. DFH 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! m:Voting is evil.  :) (It's better to reach concensus through discussion.) I think Wafer prober and Wafer testing should both be merged into the Wafer (electronics). They're all about the same thing (wafers), so it makes sense to have them in one article. Since they're so closely related, they share a lot of the same terminology, and the articles will benefit from integrated context. They're all currently stubs or near-stubs, so putting them together yields one article of a better length, rather than three too-short articles. If, over time, it gets fleshed out to the point where it gets unwieldy, then we can do a split into sub-articles or whatever, as needed. If people think the articles shoukd not be merged, please explain why. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. A prober is a distinct piece of equipment, like an electron microscope, and fully deserves its own article. -- Atlant 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Wafer probing and wafer testing would be better suited under microfabrication or Semiconductor_manufacturing. The wafers article is about the wafers themselves, not about all the processes used to make circuits. Wafer probing/testing is a bit of a misnomer because its not the wafers being probed/tested but the circuits that were built from the wafers. Dspark76 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly dated information[edit]

The article mentions the following: "This wafermap is then sent by a network or floppy disk to the die attachment process" Is that current? because I can't imagine floppies being used. Perhaps someone that has more recent familiarity to production could correct this if needed. Wwhat (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's gone now - but I'm working in wafer testing, and (very occasionally) companies will send you wafer sort (testing) data in text files on a floppy. User:ItaniuMatrix10:38, 25 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Standard Wafer Sizes[edit]

Many modern fabs have moved to 300mm wafers; this should be added to the list of wafer sizes. Many of the smaller sizes shown may not be considered standard anymore! -- Gretchenpatti (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the size given as a diameter or an area? it is stated both ways in the article. This may be confusing to an outsider. It says 200mm square in the Formation section. I'm assuming this is a diameter. Wmcleod (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

450mm tools have already been developed and are being installed; the 450mm size is not a standard yet for chip manufacturers, but it is for tool makers, due to the lead time required, and I've updated the page. Scutigera (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"In the future"[edit]

The "in the future" citation is ambiguous and unknowingly dated. Why add a comment like this? The reference offers no further information, except a 2008 copyright. A better citation for this standard is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposing merger of Wafer dicing into this article[edit]

The article Wafer dicing has been unreferenced since December 2007. It has received almost no non-automated changes in the past year. My recommendation is that we move over some of that information here and redirect that article. This article is not so long and it already has a brief section on wafer dicing. More importantly, my hope is that since this page is a little more active, people here will be more motivated to get it referenced. Should a merge not be approved, I will have to nominate Wafer dicing for deletion, as it has been unsourced for too long, and I personally have no idea how to find relevant sources (as I'm guessing the relevant sources will be in print, not on the internet). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --ANDROBETA 15:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is more appropriate to merge Wafer dicing into Semiconductor device fabrication --GianniG46 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow...I totally forgot about my merger proposal. If either of you would like to perform the merge, feel free to do so. I personally don't really have enough knowledge of the subject itself to determine what the better merge target is. GianniG46, do you think you can merge the relevant info into Semiconductor device fabrication? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I just know that wafer dicing is a necessary step in IC fabrication, but have no idea of its technology, so I cannot help. Perhaps one can simply copy the material into "Semiconductor device fabrication", leave on "Wafer dicing" just a few words to explain what is it and to redirect to the main article, and hope that other editors will be able to review and quote it. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Reading this as a layperson, this article can use a section on uses. It mentions lithography as using 50% of all wafers... but why? Justin15w (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the article says: it says that 50% of the cost of wafer processing is due to lithography.
Most steps in wafer processing operate only a whole wafer at once (e.g. wafer etch, wet chemical cleans, chemical-mechanical polishing, etc.). However, photolithography cannot pattern a whole wafer at once (at least not at modern wafer sizes), so instead a stepper exposes an identical pattern multiple times across the same wafer.
Because of this scaling, whole-wafer steps tend to get cheaper per unit area as the wafer size increases, but lithography-related costs will not benefit in the same way.
Does that clarify the issue?
Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely - just misinterpreted it. Thanks for the detailed answer - much appreciated. Justin15w (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Epi wafers[edit]

Here are thousands of sources for epi wafers aka epitaxial wafers, in addition to the source(s) in the Epiwafer article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

I'm pretty familiar with epi wafers, just not "epiwafers". I moved the article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived link for "Capability for 300 nm" - Exists in, not in[edit]

The source ("Capability for 300 nm..") isn't valid anymore. It appears to be archived at ([13]), but doesn't seem to exist in But the page says the page was gathered from, from What is the current consensus on what to do with archived pages? Jimw338 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jimw338: There is an RfC at RFC 4 with the proposal "Remove from the Spam blacklist and permit adding new links (Oppose/Support)".