
That’s a Big Microscope - etiam
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4937
======
mgibbs63
Synchrotron lightsources are a dime a dozen. For real power, you want a free
electron laser. The Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC (right in Silicon
Valley's back yard) pumps out an X-ray beam with about 750,000 times as many
photons per second, and in pulses that are about 200 times faster.

[https://portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/aboutlcls...](https://portal.slac.stanford.edu/sites/lcls_public/aboutlcls/Pages/default.aspx)

~~~
kuschku
If you want even larger systems, you should check out the European XFEL, which
was just opened, and is now the most powerful free electron laser in
existence. [http://www.xfel.eu/](http://www.xfel.eu/)

It’s quite a sight.

~~~
mgibbs63
As a die hard LCLS supporter, I have to say: XFEL has the more powerful
electron beam, but LCLS is still in the lead in terms of X-rays right now (if
pulse intensity/peak power is the measure).

XFEL is really an amazing machine, though, and once it is fully commissioned,
it will take the X-ray crown as well.

------
ChuckMcM
That is pretty intense. I wonder sometimes if it is a deterrent to nation
states to put 'secret' back doors into silicon because a device like this
would be able to prove that the device had a back door.

That said, converting a 3D image of a microprocessor level into a Minecraft
world would be pretty awesome!

~~~
Avshalom
TFA says it's only good to 14 nm but fabs are already down to 10 nm so I mean
_this_ isn't a deterrent. I don't know how STEM are for looking at chips or if
we've got even more powerful microscopes but this particular one isn't good
enough to stop a dedicated state level actor.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer)

~~~
rsfern
TEM really isn't the right tool for reversing large integrated circuits. The
sample prep is too finicky and involves slicing out a razor-thin sliver of
material to image. You'd use it to get atomic resolution images of say a
single transistor, maybe.

SEM with serial sectioning is the way to go. I'm sure people are using
conventional SEMs for this already, but you could conceivably map entire
circuits at high resolution (4nm) pretty quickly with one of the new multi-
beam systems. Check out the SRAM cells on slide 17 o this SANDIA report (pdf
warning) [0].

[0]:
[https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1296536](https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1296536)

------
mrob
If you're interested in synchrotrons, you might want to watch Dave Jones's
EEVblog 1 hour long tour video of the Australian Synchrotron, which is a
similar size to the Swiss Light Source:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27KRtJ-2sVY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27KRtJ-2sVY)

------
Animats
That's the other approach to extreme ultraviolet lithography - a synchrotron.
If you don't like the two-story machine that vaporizes tin droplets with
lasers to make soft X-rays, one of these is an option. It's been tried
experimentally.[1]

[1] [http://www.lightsource.ca/](http://www.lightsource.ca/)

------
logicallee
"chips down to a resolution of 14.6nm" so does that mean that that whole giant
stadium of a microscope _can 't_ image at the resolution that ships in chips
today?

(e.g.
[https://www.extremetech.com/computing/237781-samsungs-10nm-n...](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/237781-samsungs-10nm-
node-socs-now-in-mass-production) ).

please correct me if I've gotten it wrong!

~~~
kuschku
That’s actually correct. If you want to go further, you’ll need to use
Stanford’s Linac (0.15nm) or the just opened European XFEL (0.05nm)

------
quickthrower
Makes me sad working in an open plan office when I could be working in an
inspiring building like that baby.

~~~
amluto
Having visited the old light source building at SLAC, the inside is not an
inspiring workspace. It was never intended to be a light source, so the
beamlines (i.e. the business end) were crammed under the struts and widgets
that kept the synchrotron working. Not an economic win. Also, no windows.

The newer buildings are probably nicer. I bet they have foosball tables, too.

------
jszymborski
a little OT, but does anyone have some insight on the liability an author has
to linking to an article on sci-hub like OP did?

~~~
mherdeg
Huh yeah whatever did happen to Judge Kaplan's ruling restricting certain
speech that contained hyperlinks? (See
[http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/07/technology/assessing-
linki...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/07/technology/assessing-linking-
liability.html) and [https://www.wired.com/2000/08/only-news-thats-fit-to-
link](https://www.wired.com/2000/08/only-news-thats-fit-to-link) .)

------
Koshkin
I find it sad that the reverse-engineering of microchips is considered a
worthwhile activity, to the point of being the first (if not the only) thing
that the poster thinks of as a potential application of this formidable
device.

~~~
mickronome
I don't really get this attitude, what's wrong with reverse engineering?

I would really like to get opportunity to work with reverse engineering
microchips using some reasonably good tools, and I really have zero reason to
do it except that I think it would be super-fun! You can also bet a pretty
penny that the first thought that pops into my mind when I see 14nm and 3D
X-ray in the same sentence is: That would be awesome to reverse engineer some
chips with! Not that I have the skills, not the time.

Figuring out how things work is just fascinating to bothe me, and a lot of
other people. Doing it (nostly) without the plans is the only way it can be
that real, and fun challenge for me. It's similar in character and as
subversive as solving crosswords, or riddles at it's core. Since we don't go
about complaining about people solving crosswords, why do reverse engineering
always get so much flak?

It's almost literally the engineer version of crosswords or sudokus.

~~~
munin
It's the difference between learning what someone else did and learning new,
previously undiscovered truths of the natural universe.

Intel 14nm chips are not products of the natural universe. Understanding them
does not lead to undiscovered truths. You could get this understanding by
going to work at Intel. Or asking the Intel engineers nicely. Or whatever.

It's like saying "I will be the first human to chart my neighborhoods
roadways." These charts already exist. Why not chart something that doesn't
exist, instead?

~~~
fooker
If you do not learn what others have learnt, you are likely going to end up
reinventing the wheel or worse continue making mistakes that lead nowhere.
There is a reason academic papers have pages full of references.

~~~
Koshkin
We were talking about reverse-engineering someone else's design, which is in
99% cases amounts to stealing someone's secrets.

