Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.engineering.electrical > #18207

Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/21/2026 5:49 PM, Woozy Song wrote:
>> Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft as they got thinner and 
>>> narrower?
>>>
>>
>> more vulnerable to cosmic rays, so chips used in outer space are still
>> running lithography of 100 nm or so
> 
> 
> Space objects usually have shielding against all kinds of radiations, 
> unless... UNLESS.... you just can't. The farther away from the Earth, 
> the lower the sheilding effect??? But BUT....
> 
> I wanna talk about witchcraft against wafers. Can tin foil do it? ;)
> 
> 
It's not really witchcraft like made out to be. Lasting technology uses 
closer to 200nm today. You can even fit a toad's eye in between it, so 
this is nothing shocking. Look elsewhere for magic, young Jedi. You will 
find it in the summer of 2026.

-- 
We eat the night, we drink the time
Make our dreams come true
And hungry eyes are passing by
On streets we call the zoo

Back to alt.engineering.electrical | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:00 +0800
  Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-19 16:00 -0400
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:40 -0600
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:40 -0400
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:49 +0800
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:48 -0400
        Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 18:17 +0800
        Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0800
          Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-20 10:48 -0400
            Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:24 +0800
          Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals? Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-06-20 20:14 +0200
            Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 10:18 +0800
              Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-21 06:34 -0400
                Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:34 +0800
                Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-22 01:53 -0400
                Re: Are chips ... electronics dies & releaas "magic smoke"?? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:09 +0800
  Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-06-21 17:49 +0800
    Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 20:59 +0800
      Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters? phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:20 -0600
        Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 00:28 +0800

csiph-web