For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays • Hacker News Board

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#121

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 7:41 AM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #120

Dylan16807 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An amplifier doesn't look at voltage and "freshens it up" Sure it does, as long as you set the proper bias and use a definition of "fresh" that makes sense for digital signals. > unlike a DRAM cell requires no clocking Yes, that's why it's 'continuous'. > You need two inverting amplifier You don't need to use that design. It just happens to have reasonable size and leakage characteristics. > more complex and isn't…

I described no DRAM refreshing circuit, I describe a SRAM cell, I don't believe that definition of fresh is suitable for the discussion nor is it fitting when talking about SRAM, I also never said it wasn't continuous, ie linear, I did disagree with the wording that made it sound like there is a refresh process that happens repeatedly.

Oh. I thought "The process is entirely analog, ie, there is no refresh circuit that looks at the voltage and says "that's almost a ON, better fresh up the voltage"." was talking about DRAM as a comparison. Sorry about that.

> I did disagree with the wording that made it sound like there is a refresh process that happens repeatedly.

Repeatedly continuous...? Nevermind though.

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#122

Post by nobrains » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 11:51 AM UTC

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May

May is most noted for having identified the cause of the "alpha particle problem", which was affecting the reliability of integrated circuits as device features reached a critical size where a single alpha particle could change the state of a stored value

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#123

Post by blattimwind » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #117

zaarn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not mansplaining, I don't even know who you are. You don't know who I am. I'm attempting to make the comment digestible for a broader audience and not only for you. You're not alone on this website. I'm sorry for doing that then. Tbh I find that accusation incredibly rude.

The explanation you were replying to was more digestible than yours. Your definition of "refresh" is unhelpfully specific and not particularly correct. The circuit that "looks at a voltage and freshens it up", also known as an amplifier, is just a transistor or pair of transistors.

> The explanation you were replying to was more digestible than yours.

The analogy presented is fairly accurate and easy to understand. GGGGGP talks about loops of inverters and continuous refreshing, the latter of which is invented terminology.

> The circuit is bistable which means that the system has two states in which, once reached, it will remain until some energy is expended to change that.

> Imagine it like two valleys with a hill between. Rolling a ball from the OFF valley to the ON valley requires some energy. If it's not enough the ball rolls back into the valley it's currently in.

Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

#124

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

blattimwind wrote: post #123

Dylan16807 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation you were replying to was more digestible than yours. Your definition of "refresh" is unhelpfully specific and not particularly correct. The circuit that "looks at a voltage and freshens it up", also known as an amplifier, is just a transistor or pair of transistors.

> The explanation you were replying to was more digestible than yours. The analogy presented is fairly accurate and easy to understand. GGGGGP talks about loops of inverters and continuous refreshing, the latter of which is invented terminology. > The circuit is bistable which means that the system has two states in which, once reached, it will remain until some energy is expended to change that. > Imagine it like tw…

The analogy is an okay description of part of what happens, but not why. It also gives a pretty misleading idea of what happens to the voltages. It would be much better if it was combined with a simple explanation of how the inverters actually behave, which would only take a few words. This is why the previous post mentioned them and said to check the wikipedia page.