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

Groups > alt.engineering.electrical > #18186 > unrolled thread

Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?

Back to article view | Back to alt.engineering.electrical

Contents

  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
            Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? pitter_smith <70620b9261c622c2c6443cb36988dd78336be458fd9f13499dd358523b105d91@example.com> - 2026-07-05 04:30 +0000
              Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-05 13:00 +0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18186 — Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?

Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft as they got thinner and narrower?

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18187

On Fri, 6/19/2026 10:00 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> 
> Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft as they got thinner and narrower?
> 

They're generally scale-invariant.

The scribbling on them is smaller, but then we put more of the
scribbling, so they end up having the same X-Y dimensions for the price.

If the dimensions X-Y were to be made too small, it would make
the devices too hard to cool. It helps to make them a "decent size"
in the X-Y, so the heat sink works for us.

You cannot make them too much thinner or they would snap from
mechanical stresses.

The chips convert electricity into heat, and as a side effect,
they do your taxes. And yes, they are pretty amazing.

At one time, the scribbling was so large inside, a guy with a
graphite pencil at the fab, added some missing connections to
a chip, by using his pencil to leave conductive marks on the
chip, causing the chip to work. The guy who did it, was on
my soccer team :-) The chip in that case, the "lid" was held
on with cello tape on one edge, and you could flip the lid up
and look inside for the pencil marks. And the chip, it then worked.
The chip was not very complex, but I think the developer was
pretty proud of being the first one of its type, at our fab.
It's possible there wasn't any "simulation" done for that chip,
and that's why the missing traces were not noticed. We didn't
even have a design review for that chip -- if we had reviewed it,
I have a suspicion we would have caught that mistake.

Today, the scribblings inside are quite small, even for a
microscope to look at. At one analysis place, they use an
electron microscope, to examine the scribblings and reverse
engineer things (check for patent violations).

It's long hours of work to make them. It would take too long
to design them, if it weren't for the repetitive nature
of some of the structures (you just make xerox copies of
some of the items and lay them down side by side). The RAM
chips in your computer are like that. Very uniform patterns.

When the things they do, are closer to being software
subroutines (adhoc state machines and so on), it's a lot
easier to make mistakes. One chip had 4096 registers in
the interface, and we would make a software program to
"watch" the register contents. There were some "defined"
parts of the registers, we could understand what those
were doing. But you would see some other addresses where
the detail of the chip was "undefined" and these were observation
points and stuff was flashing on and off. That's what the
more "random" functions look like. The people at the other
company who made the chip, knew what they did, but they
don't have to document those observation points for other
to use. It took about four tries, to get the function of
that chip, closer to correctness. Even though it was
fully simulated, had test benches, if the design intent
isn't right, you have to do it over again.

And the thing was, the management at the other company,
thought they were using "smart" techniques to make the chip,
but it still took four tries.

But it's a living. People make good money doing that.
You should try it some time. It's just like designing
software. You can be sitting in a CAD room, working on
your scribblings at midnight, when others are asleep.
You don't have to worry about what was on TV at 8PM,
as you're still at work :-)

   # What fun :-) Yawn. Getting sleepy now.
   # Only a million more of these to make...

   https://cmosedu.com/jbaker/courses/ee421L/f21/students/wolak/Lab%205/lab5.html

  Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18188

Paul wrote:
> When the things they do, are closer to being software
> subroutines (adhoc state machines and so on), it's a lot
> easier to make mistakes. One chip had 4096 registers in
> the interface, and we would make a software program to
> "watch" the register contents. There were some "defined"
> parts of the registers, we could understand what those
> were doing. But you would see some other addresses where
> the detail of the chip was "undefined" and these were observation
> points and stuff was flashing on and off. That's what the
> more "random" functions look like. The people at the other
> company who made the chip, knew what they did, but they
> don't have to document those observation points for other
> to use. It took about four tries,

You made a grand spelling error in that sentence. It should say, "for 
others to use." What I see is that you are irresponsible and probably 
going to electrocute yourself to death. Don't play with electricity. Bad 
juju all around.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18190

On Fri, 6/19/2026 8:40 PM, phoenix wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> When the things they do, are closer to being software
>> subroutines (adhoc state machines and so on), it's a lot
>> easier to make mistakes. One chip had 4096 registers in
>> the interface, and we would make a software program to
>> "watch" the register contents. There were some "defined"
>> parts of the registers, we could understand what those
>> were doing. But you would see some other addresses where
>> the detail of the chip was "undefined" and these were observation
>> points and stuff was flashing on and off. That's what the
>> more "random" functions look like. The people at the other
>> company who made the chip, knew what they did, but they
>> don't have to document those observation points for other
>> to use. It took about four tries,
> 
> You made a grand spelling error in that sentence. It should say, "for others to use." What I see is that you are irresponsible and probably going to electrocute yourself to death. Don't play with electricity. Bad juju all around.
> 

This is a CMOS chip, likely running at 3.3V, and we're watching
the interface using a display program written for the OS. The
prototype chip is mounted on a card, for these first runs. It's
an I/O type chip full of state machines and junk. It's hard to get
a handle on what it's doing when it has 4096 registers.

In software land, you have "public" and "private" parts of
code, in declarations. The "public" part is what
you give people as your specification. The "private"
part is hidden, or at least is not accessible for any usage.
It's the same with chip specs. The registers are documented,
but they don't tell you how they're making coleslaw inside
the chip, as that is a Trade Secret.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18189

On 6/20/2026 4:00 AM, Paul wrote:
> 
> They're generally scale-invariant.
> 
> The scribbling on them is smaller, but then we put more of the
> scribbling, so they end up having the same X-Y dimensions for the price.


Master Paul, I was talking about affecting nano-thin electronics using 
magical power, like those Jedi mind tricks. The thinner the chip, the 
easier to use the Force on it, I suppose. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18191

On Fri, 6/19/2026 11:49 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 4:00 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> They're generally scale-invariant.
>>
>> The scribbling on them is smaller, but then we put more of the
>> scribbling, so they end up having the same X-Y dimensions for the price.
> 
> 
> Master Paul, I was talking about affecting nano-thin electronics using 
> magical power, like those Jedi mind tricks. The thinner the chip, the 
> easier to use the Force on it, I suppose. :)

Silicon chips are relatively inanimate objects, at least at the moment.

If light gets to the die, they respond to that. You might remember
back in the days of Byte Magazine, they were attempting to get
a DRAM chip to work as a webcam (imager). And that's by focusing
an image onto the DRAM cells.

  https://hackaday.com/2014/04/05/taking-pictures-with-a-dram-chip/

Articles on this sort of thing, might have started around 1980.
The images do not look good, and you would not expect them
to look good.

When you do that, you have to know the tiling pattern of cells
on the chip surface. A silicon chip may not have an orderly X*Y
array on the surface, so first you have to map the address of a pixel
by shining a tiny dot of light on various parts of the chip, and
see what responds.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18192

On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> Silicon chips are relatively inanimate objects, at least at the moment.
> .....
> When you do that, you have to know the tiling pattern of cells
> on the chip surface. A silicon chip may not have an orderly X*Y
> array on the surface, so first you have to map the address of a pixel
> by shining a tiny dot of light on various parts of the chip, and
> see what responds.

Jedi witchcraft does not need to know the tilling pattern of brain cells 
when you use the Force to alter the mind of a human, Master. As computer 
chips get thinner and narrower, they become more and more like a human 
brain, thus making their tilling pattern to look the same. So... maybe 
you don't need to use a light saber at all to slaughter drones. :)

BTW, I was talking about integrated circuits aka I.C. Are old, black 
I.C.s less vulnerable to wireless exploit than modern chips? Sorry, Master.

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18193 — Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals?

On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> When you do that, you have to know the tiling pattern of cells
> on the chip surface. A silicon chip may not have an ....

I Google-ed a bit about what you said about "tiling pattern of cells
on the chip surface". So all chips are just drawing nano-fine lines on 
some special surfaces using special materia and light-etching machines? 
It's not the same as integrated circuits???

What you said is not very much from magicians drawing seals using 
magical wands!!! :)

魔動王 - YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdU8PHV5LF4>

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18195 — Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals?

On Sat, 6/20/2026 7:48 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> When you do that, you have to know the tiling pattern of cells
>> on the chip surface. A silicon chip may not have an ....
> 
> I Google-ed a bit about what you said about "tiling pattern of cells
> on the chip surface". So all chips are just drawing nano-fine lines on some special surfaces using special materia and light-etching machines? It's not the same as integrated circuits???
> 
> What you said is not very much from magicians drawing seals using magical wands!!! :)
> 
> 魔動王 - YouTube
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdU8PHV5LF4>
> 

When you make DRAM or NAND flash, the elements have
to be laid down in the X,Y direction. And they are
not put in order. They're arranged to reduce
electrical interference.

They don't go like this.

     1 2 3 4 5
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5

It's a repeating pattern. After a small patch of x,y dots, the
pattern should repeat.

When you run memtest, it has some "pattern sensitivity" things
it tries to do. The layout of those DRAM cells, attempts to
prevent simple minded tests from finding the "sensitive" patterns.

And NAND flash does something like that too.

These things are orderly patterns, but they're arranged according
to estimates of electric fields around elements, and how best
to avoid spots where there would be too much interference. I have
not seen any pictures presented, to demonstrate exactly what the
patterns look like.

There are a number of patterns in electronics, that aren't power-of-two
any more. A lot of the former concepts of "what is easy to do",
have been thrown out the window.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18200 — Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals?

On 6/20/2026 10:48 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> When you make DRAM or NAND flash, the elements have
> to be laid down in the X,Y direction. And they are
> not put in order. They're arranged to reduce
> electrical interference.
> .....
> There are a number of patterns in electronics, that aren't power-of-two
> any more. A lot of the former concepts of "what is easy to do",
> have been thrown out the window.

I think you were talking about circuit boards (e.g. motherboard), not 
fabrication of chips.

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18198 — Re: Are chips ... tilling pattern? magical seals?

On 6/20/26 13:48, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> When you do that, you have to know the tiling pattern of cells
>> on the chip surface. A silicon chip may not have an ....
> 
> I Google-ed a bit about what you said about "tiling pattern of cells
> on the chip surface". So all chips are just drawing nano-fine lines on 
> some special surfaces using special materia and light-etching machines? 
> It's not the same as integrated circuits???
> 
> What you said is not very much from magicians drawing seals using 
> magical wands!!! :)
> 
> 魔動王 - YouTube
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdU8PHV5LF4>
> 

It is a well-known fact that all electronics runs on magic smoke.
The proof is that when the smoke leaks out, it stops working.

Jeroen Belleman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18199 — Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??

On 6/21/2026 2:14 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> 
> It is a well-known fact that all electronics runs on magic smoke.
> The proof is that when the smoke leaks out, it stops working.


1. What did you mean by "magic smoke"? Electronic components
    are usually sealed completely. They cannot smoke
    like human! They don't even breathe.

2. When you said electronics, did you mean all electronic
    components or just chips?

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18202 — Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??

On Sat, 6/20/2026 10:18 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/21/2026 2:14 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>
>> It is a well-known fact that all electronics runs on magic smoke.
>> The proof is that when the smoke leaks out, it stops working.
> 
> 
> 1. What did you mean by "magic smoke"? Electronic components
>    are usually sealed completely. They cannot smoke
>    like human! They don't even breathe.
> 
> 2. When you said electronics, did you mean all electronic
>    components or just chips?
> 

Electronic devices are allowed to smoke, under failure
conditions, but they're not supposed to support an open flame.

There was one report on USENET, of an ATX supply, where a live
flame shot out of the fan hole on the back of the ATX supply
(the supply was running of course and the fan spinning). If
the computer had been near curtains on that particular day, it
could have lit the curtains on fire. For the most part, other
ATX supplies do not fail exactly that way, so that one is an
"anomaly".

So if I tell you "don't put the back of your PC against the curtains",
that is the incident I am referring to.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18203 — Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??

On 6/21/2026 6:34 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> There was one report on USENET, of an ATX supply, where a live
> flame shot out of the fan hole on the back of the ATX supply
> (the supply was running of course and the fan spinning). If
> the computer had been near curtains on that particular day, it
> could have lit the curtains on fire. For the most part, other
> ATX supplies do not fail exactly that way, so that one is an
> "anomaly".

Those are real, non-magical smoke, NOT "magic smnoke", as mentioned by 
"Jeroen Belleman"! :)

> So if I tell you "don't put the back of your PC against the curtains",
> that is the incident I am referring to.
To be correct, do NOT block exhaust vent or the chimney of anything 
burning or heating up!! :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18204 — Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??

On Sun, 6/21/2026 7:34 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 6/21/2026 6:34 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> There was one report on USENET, of an ATX supply, where a live
>> flame shot out of the fan hole on the back of the ATX supply
>> (the supply was running of course and the fan spinning). If
>> the computer had been near curtains on that particular day, it
>> could have lit the curtains on fire. For the most part, other
>> ATX supplies do not fail exactly that way, so that one is an
>> "anomaly".
> 
> Those are real, non-magical smoke, NOT "magic smnoke", as mentioned by "Jeroen Belleman"! :)
> 

If you've seen the smoke from failed chip(s), it's not exactly
like other smoke. If two bus drivers (from the days of jelly bean chips)
are accidentally enabled at the same time, enough power is dissipated to crack at
least one of the two packages open, the die inside is piping-hot,
and a thin stream of black smoke emerges.

And that counts as the magic smoke. Once the smoke escapes, the
life cycle is complete. Into the waste bin they go :-)

And it is magic smoke, because the visual appearance of
the smoke, is different than how other materials smoke and burn.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18205 — Re: Are chips ... electronics dies & releaas "magic smoke"??

On 6/22/2026 1:53 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> If you've seen the smoke from failed chip(s), it's not exactly
> like other smoke. If two bus drivers (from the days of jelly bean chips)
> are accidentally enabled at the same time, enough power is dissipated to crack at
> least one of the two packages open, the die inside is piping-hot,
> and a thin stream of black smoke emerges.
> 
> And that counts as the magic smoke. Once the smoke escapes, the
> life cycle is complete. Into the waste bin they go :-)
> 
> And it is magic smoke, because the visual appearance of
> the smoke, is different than how other materials smoke and burn.
That's not magic smoke, just a burnt fuse made from special metal 
composites.

I do NOT wanna waste time & money doing burn/fry/sacred test on 
different chips. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18201

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18206

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? ;)


-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18207

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18208 — Re: Are chips more vulnerable to ... the Force?

On 6/24/2026 12:20 AM, phoenix wrote:
> ... this is nothing shocking. Look elsewhere for magic, 
> young Jedi. You will find it in the summer of 2026.
> 
Affirmative, Master. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.engineering.electrical

csiph-web