I do not know about the situation at Intel, but I know that not that long
ago, wafers were habitually called 8, 12 etc. inch wafers. Yes, why would
any computer magazine convert inch sizes to metric? I think that the industy
has gone metric in these fields.
BTW, is the computer industry changing from 0.1 inch to 2.5 mm spacing for
chips? And what about clean rooms, where they measure(d) dust particles per
cubic foot?
Han
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:12608] Bill Roland again
> 2001-05-04
>
>
> 1.) A couple of Imperial only people: Boeing Corporation, the Unites
States
> Military (even though some gun sizes are measured in metric, they have
> imperial equivalents commonly used),
>
> How metric is the military compared to FFU? Does anyone know?
>
>
> 2.) NASA (they claim to be metric, but everything is designed and built
in
> imperial, and flight plans are also being converted back to imperial).
>
> What does he mean by flight plans are being converted back? Is any part
of
> NASA reverting?
>
>
> 3.) Also of interest, Intel Corporation, who I'm sure you've all heard of,
> is more imperial than is commonly known. The press loves to mention 0.18
> micron and 300 mm wafers, but Intel itself uses "mils," or 1,000 of an
inch,
> far more commonly than any metric measurements.
>
> If Intel and others used FFU, why would the trade journals convert to SI?
A
> few years back on this list server, someone mentioned processing a 200 mm
> wafer. And stated it was 200 mm and not 8 inch. Who was that and can
> anyone verify what system these companies use internally?
>
>
>
> John
>
> Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
> frei zu sein.
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe
they
> are free!
>
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
>
>
>
>
>
>
