Groups > alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > #44356

Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??

From	Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, alt.engineering.electrical, sci.electronics.basics
Subject	Re: Are chips ... electronics runs on magic smoke??
Date	2026-06-22 01:53 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<111aikk$1a4fu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <1115um3$1i5a$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> <1116lb0$8vp7$1@dont-email.me> <1117hll$g6f5$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> <1118en8$nqdq$1@dont-email.me> <1118i8n$optb$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

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