• Salamander@mander.xyzM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    28 days ago

    Very cool!

    I also like that they included a device cost analysis. I think they used some aggressively optimistic assumptions (100% yield from the wafer) and large-volume procurement prices that I am skeptical of, but if true it is valuable info.

    • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Now I’m wondering, does the designer bear the cost of wafer yield, or the manufacturer?
      Like do I pay for X amount of wafers and pray it’s got a good yield, or do I pay for Y amount of working chips and the manufacturer prays instead?

      I feel like the manufacturer has the most impact on yield, but probably the contract provides an estimate for a specific process

      • I worked in contract manufacturing for making electronics.

        We had certain contractual yields required. If the yield was below 90% (industry standard), they would pay us for the scrap. The assumption for that being they should have a confidence and reliability in their process that allows it to be higher. If we produced a higher yield than 90%, they got those for free.

        Of course, yield numbers and reimbursement terms can be negotiated as part of the contracts.

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    To answer the why: because it’s a spectrometer and that’s the primary use for it. I hope this helps the journalist writing the headline.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    Wearable continuous glucose monitoring. Not just for type 2 diabetics, but people on the road to becoming diabetic if the don’t put down the Mountain Dew.