Groups > alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > #44333

Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?

From	Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, alt.engineering.electrical, sci.electronics.basics
Subject	Re: Are chips more vulnerable to witchcraft than transisters?
Date	2026-06-20 02:48 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<1115d4r$3rg71$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<1113i2e$3c8no$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> <111474t$3ineh$1@dont-email.me> <11152k5$3p1nm$2@toylet.eternal-september.org>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

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
          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

csiph-web