[ExI] Why space tech isn't cutting edge

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From what I understand, the cosmic particle goes all the way through the
> shield, then the spray (we used to call it a spall cone) is ionized material
> from the back surface of the shield.  The front surface is nearly irrelevant
> because the shield itself stops the secondary particles that are generated
> from the particle's path, but the back surface gets you.  Of course with
> sufficiently thick shielding, you could physically stop the particle and
> everything it generates.

How thick are we talking, approximately?  Is it correct to interpret that
as, any solid shield less than that might as well not be there, for the
(lack of) protection it provides?  Because if so, then you have to worry
about the spall cone that is generated inside the chip itself - forget
about any shielding, if the cosmic particle itself is not prevented from
intersecting the chip.

Also, is it possible to meaningfully alter the course of the cosmic
particle - say, over the distance of 10 meters, deflect it by millimeters?

> Consider variations, such as a proton-electron pair being part of the spall
> cone, which would be not deflected by a magnetic field, since it is neutral
> as a pair, but ionizes upon impact with the surface of the processor.

Unless you mean basically a high-speed hydrogen atom (and it seems
like the particles would be moving too fast to bond like that before reaching
the chip), the field can pull the pair apart.

> Or
> another problem I can imagine is that the magnetic field would deflect the
> electrons only, since they are light, but not the protons, so that a shower
> of protons only would give your gate a net positive charge.

You'd design the field to deflect the protons too.

> I hope you come up with a solution to that cosmic ray problem.  We are
> cheering wildly for you Adrian.

Yeah, well, only if you help.  :P