<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intel to Protect Microchips from Cosmic Rays</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/</link>
	<description>Space and astronomy news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:07:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill Trautman</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-18067</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Trautman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-18067</guid>
		<description>Funny that we are talking about this now for intel devices.  IBM had had ECC (Error Correcting Code,  extra bits to allow you to detect and repair bit errors) built into their mainframe processors and its memory for years.   this is nothing new.  Early PC&#039;s also had parity memory bits that allowed them to detect (but not correct errors.  They were eventually removed because folks got more upset with the machine stopping than having an error or two in the data, it was also an extra piece of hardware to break)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny that we are talking about this now for intel devices.  IBM had had ECC (Error Correcting Code,  extra bits to allow you to detect and repair bit errors) built into their mainframe processors and its memory for years.   this is nothing new.  Early PC&#039;s also had parity memory bits that allowed them to detect (but not correct errors.  They were eventually removed because folks got more upset with the machine stopping than having an error or two in the data, it was also an extra piece of hardware to break)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Wilkinson</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17738</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Wilkinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17738</guid>
		<description>Soft errors from alpha particles were well described in 1978 (May &amp; Woods), from cosmic rays (JF Ziegler) in 1979, and thermal neutrons (R Baumann) in 1995. This has been a constant design issue for electronics in terrestrial and space applications. Each new generation of devices brings new challenges. The Intel news release is one more in a long series of engineering efforts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Soft errors from alpha particles were well described in 1978 (May &amp; Woods), from cosmic rays (JF Ziegler) in 1979, and thermal neutrons (R Baumann) in 1995. This has been a constant design issue for electronics in terrestrial and space applications. Each new generation of devices brings new challenges. The Intel news release is one more in a long series of engineering efforts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17732</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17732</guid>
		<description>I have no doubt that this problem will be solved (both for chips and for people).

Note, however, that at least one well-known manufacturer of HD camcorders currently does not ship their product by air (surface/ship transportation only) specifically because of cosmic ray damage to the CCD and CMOS image chips while in transit. NASA has announced similar cosmic ray problems with their HD camcorders on the International Space Station. Source: IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics 2007.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no doubt that this problem will be solved (both for chips and for people).</p>
<p>Note, however, that at least one well-known manufacturer of HD camcorders currently does not ship their product by air (surface/ship transportation only) specifically because of cosmic ray damage to the CCD and CMOS image chips while in transit. NASA has announced similar cosmic ray problems with their HD camcorders on the International Space Station. Source: IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics 2007.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank Glover</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17726</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank Glover</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17726</guid>
		<description>&quot;Okâ€¦.so a trip to the moon is riskyâ€¦and a trip to mars is a death sentence. Is that correct?&quot;

No, it says what&#039;s been known for some time: solid-state electronics aren&#039;t that much better at tolerating ionizing radiation than living things are. The faster the components, the more sensitive.

BOTH will require adequate shielding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#034;Okâ€¦.so a trip to the moon is riskyâ€¦and a trip to mars is a death sentence. Is that correct?&#034;</p>
<p>No, it says what&#039;s been known for some time: solid-state electronics aren&#039;t that much better at tolerating ionizing radiation than living things are. The faster the components, the more sensitive.</p>
<p>BOTH will require adequate shielding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Zeldes</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17714</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Zeldes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17714</guid>
		<description>SOme Intel old timers must be having a deja vu... in the early days of solid state memory  technology (early 70&#039;s) Intel had to cope with &quot;Soft Errors&quot; affecting random DRAM cells. These turned out to involve alpha particles from decaying radioactive atoms present in trace quantities in the chip packaging materials. Took them a while to discover what was causing it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SOme Intel old timers must be having a deja vu&#8230; in the early days of solid state memory  technology (early 70&#039;s) Intel had to cope with &#034;Soft Errors&#034; affecting random DRAM cells. These turned out to involve alpha particles from decaying radioactive atoms present in trace quantities in the chip packaging materials. Took them a while to discover what was causing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Sheets</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17712</link>
		<dc:creator>James Sheets</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17712</guid>
		<description>How about writing more efficient software so we don&#039;t have to put bleeding edge processors in things as mundane as antilock braking systems?  It&#039;s not like we needed dual-core processors to get to the moon.  Oh, but that would decrease Intel&#039;s sales...  Sorry.  Silly thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about writing more efficient software so we don&#039;t have to put bleeding edge processors in things as mundane as antilock braking systems?  It&#039;s not like we needed dual-core processors to get to the moon.  Oh, but that would decrease Intel&#039;s sales&#8230;  Sorry.  Silly thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alphonso richardson</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17703</link>
		<dc:creator>alphonso richardson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17703</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll reserve judgement until they actually DO something AND get results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;ll reserve judgement until they actually DO something AND get results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian O'Neill</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17701</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian O'Neill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17701</guid>
		<description>I think the main thing we need to remember that the identification of future problems - either the health risks, or computer faults - associated with cosmic rays is a good thing. Yes, some articles can be sensational (recent examples include scientists declairing that we should give up hope on Mars colonization, as radiation will be too high), but we&#039;ve always risen to challenges and found answers. 

I remember a story when the first automobiles were engineered, there were serious concerns that going over 30 miles/hr would cause the driver to pass out due to lack of oxygen! They based this on the fact that turbulent eddies and pockets of vacuum will be created inside the cab. Yes, we have turbulent eddies, but they are far from dangerous, and besides, car designs are now highly aerodynamic, reducing the drag caused by eddies.

So it goes to show that the initial fear of a potential problem is often sensationalised, only to find the problem isn&#039;t that great a risk in reality. And besides, should there be a problem, we often find a solution very quickly. There is very little between *problem* and *solution* when us humans stand to gain from *progress*.

Cheers, Ian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the main thing we need to remember that the identification of future problems &#8211; either the health risks, or computer faults &#8211; associated with cosmic rays is a good thing. Yes, some articles can be sensational (recent examples include scientists declairing that we should give up hope on Mars colonization, as radiation will be too high), but we&#039;ve always risen to challenges and found answers. </p>
<p>I remember a story when the first automobiles were engineered, there were serious concerns that going over 30 miles/hr would cause the driver to pass out due to lack of oxygen! They based this on the fact that turbulent eddies and pockets of vacuum will be created inside the cab. Yes, we have turbulent eddies, but they are far from dangerous, and besides, car designs are now highly aerodynamic, reducing the drag caused by eddies.</p>
<p>So it goes to show that the initial fear of a potential problem is often sensationalised, only to find the problem isn&#039;t that great a risk in reality. And besides, should there be a problem, we often find a solution very quickly. There is very little between *problem* and *solution* when us humans stand to gain from *progress*.</p>
<p>Cheers, Ian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter K</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17699</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17699</guid>
		<description>Why, according to the article and even your blog entry, Undistinguished, are some interstellar rays humourous? I haven&#039;t ever laughed at a comic ray! Some are serious to be sure. But I think this is an issue we should be earnest about. Cosmic rays should be laughed at no more!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why, according to the article and even your blog entry, Undistinguished, are some interstellar rays humourous? I haven&#039;t ever laughed at a comic ray! Some are serious to be sure. But I think this is an issue we should be earnest about. Cosmic rays should be laughed at no more!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UNdistinguished</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17697</link>
		<dc:creator>UNdistinguished</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17697</guid>
		<description>One way to deal with this error problem is to use many computers rather than depend on one. As cosmic rays are rather small, a single ray striking atoms as it passes through only affects those, not the entire computer.  If an error is generated it is limited to that chip or computer.  With several computers doing the same work and cross-checking each others work, errors can be eliminated.  In fact that&#039;s how NASA is doing it now.  Getting an error free computer is a case of chasing clouds anyway.  Stray electrons (not comic ray generated) exist in computer chips caused from impurities in  manufacturing materials used in making chips.  Errors are generated.  Computer programs are lead astray.  Maybe thats why the government is wrong so often?  Maybe the IRS is wrong and you really don&#039;t owe that much in taxes.  After all, your computer ran that tax program and it couldn&#039;t be wrong - right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One way to deal with this error problem is to use many computers rather than depend on one. As cosmic rays are rather small, a single ray striking atoms as it passes through only affects those, not the entire computer.  If an error is generated it is limited to that chip or computer.  With several computers doing the same work and cross-checking each others work, errors can be eliminated.  In fact that&#039;s how NASA is doing it now.  Getting an error free computer is a case of chasing clouds anyway.  Stray electrons (not comic ray generated) exist in computer chips caused from impurities in  manufacturing materials used in making chips.  Errors are generated.  Computer programs are lead astray.  Maybe thats why the government is wrong so often?  Maybe the IRS is wrong and you really don&#039;t owe that much in taxes.  After all, your computer ran that tax program and it couldn&#039;t be wrong &#8211; right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gunjan</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17677</link>
		<dc:creator>Gunjan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17677</guid>
		<description>You put it well, Yael.

The comments and the article above also reminds of another rediculous scenario that Bob Zubrin likes to talk about- when airplanes first started taking passengers, people suffered the problem of altitude sickness. Naysayers started talking about how fast and high-flying airplanes will never be practical because humans cannot be comfortable in high-flying planes.

A whole lobby of researches doing research on altitude sickness wanted their funding by the government for developing antidote for this problem kept harping about for decades about the relevance of their work for aeroplane companies and why the government should keep funding them- they will one day develop medicines which people flying planes could then take, ameliorating the low-pressure problem.

Then one day, the private industry decided to just get rid of this rubbish- and decided to pressurize the cabins. Problem solved!

The same is happeing today with the naysayers for manned space flight. It&#039;s all about protecting the funding of people and groups who want to keep NASA flying in circles around Earth- and who want the money to keep coming in- for all sorts of frivolous reasons- researching effect of zero-gravity on humans and how to develop medicine for the same, effect of radiation on humans and computer chips and how to develop antidotes for those too.

Soon, if companies such as Space-X succeed- they are literally going to suck the life out on such wastefulness and circus that has existed over the past 50 years and has hijacked humanity&#039;s destiny beyond Earth. With a spinning spacecraft in space, and a spinning colony on Mars and Moon, they will get the gravity back, rather than support useless medicine-men, and put sheilding around spacecrafts and chips where needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You put it well, Yael.</p>
<p>The comments and the article above also reminds of another rediculous scenario that Bob Zubrin likes to talk about- when airplanes first started taking passengers, people suffered the problem of altitude sickness. Naysayers started talking about how fast and high-flying airplanes will never be practical because humans cannot be comfortable in high-flying planes.</p>
<p>A whole lobby of researches doing research on altitude sickness wanted their funding by the government for developing antidote for this problem kept harping about for decades about the relevance of their work for aeroplane companies and why the government should keep funding them- they will one day develop medicines which people flying planes could then take, ameliorating the low-pressure problem.</p>
<p>Then one day, the private industry decided to just get rid of this rubbish- and decided to pressurize the cabins. Problem solved!</p>
<p>The same is happeing today with the naysayers for manned space flight. It&#039;s all about protecting the funding of people and groups who want to keep NASA flying in circles around Earth- and who want the money to keep coming in- for all sorts of frivolous reasons- researching effect of zero-gravity on humans and how to develop medicine for the same, effect of radiation on humans and computer chips and how to develop antidotes for those too.</p>
<p>Soon, if companies such as Space-X succeed- they are literally going to suck the life out on such wastefulness and circus that has existed over the past 50 years and has hijacked humanity&#039;s destiny beyond Earth. With a spinning spacecraft in space, and a spinning colony on Mars and Moon, they will get the gravity back, rather than support useless medicine-men, and put sheilding around spacecrafts and chips where needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yael Dragwyla</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17676</link>
		<dc:creator>Yael Dragwyla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17676</guid>
		<description>The discussion about health issues in this article remind me of declarations in the 19th century that &quot;everything that can be invented *has* been invented, so let&#039;s close up the patent office and do other things.&quot;  Who knows what the future will bring, and what advances may be made that will allow Areonauts to travel to and live on Mars safely?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The discussion about health issues in this article remind me of declarations in the 19th century that &#034;everything that can be invented *has* been invented, so let&#039;s close up the patent office and do other things.&#034;  Who knows what the future will bring, and what advances may be made that will allow Areonauts to travel to and live on Mars safely?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Astrofiend (Syd, Aust)</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17674</link>
		<dc:creator>Astrofiend (Syd, Aust)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17674</guid>
		<description>It is worthwhile pointing out that the processors and other computer equipment that spacecraft use are already radiation hardened, so that these issues, although highly important in spaceflight, have been engineered against already: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

The issues talked about in this article are generally only valid for Earth-based computers that do not make design allowances for the fact that radiation strikes can occur and mess with computational equipment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is worthwhile pointing out that the processors and other computer equipment that spacecraft use are already radiation hardened, so that these issues, although highly important in spaceflight, have been engineered against already: </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening</a></p>
<p>The issues talked about in this article are generally only valid for Earth-based computers that do not make design allowances for the fact that radiation strikes can occur and mess with computational equipment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Byson</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17671</link>
		<dc:creator>Byson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17671</guid>
		<description>Would the power requirements for generating a magnetic field around spacecraft be infeasible? if so how thick a sheet of water would suffice to protect astronauts from cosmic rays?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would the power requirements for generating a magnetic field around spacecraft be infeasible? if so how thick a sheet of water would suffice to protect astronauts from cosmic rays?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/08/intel-to-protect-microchips-from-cosmic-rays/comment-page-1/#comment-17664</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universetoday.com/?p=13531#comment-17664</guid>
		<description>Ok....so a trip to the moon is risky...and a trip to mars is a death sentence.  Is that correct?
If...and a very BIG if...this is true....it seems that space exploration truly is a future only for robots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok&#8230;.so a trip to the moon is risky&#8230;and a trip to mars is a death sentence.  Is that correct?<br />
If&#8230;and a very BIG if&#8230;this is true&#8230;.it seems that space exploration truly is a future only for robots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
