News Intel Charts Course to Trillion-Transistor Chips: 2D Transistor Materials, 3D Packaging Research

Geef

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2006
574
47
19,190
75
Hearing things like this is great but I'm hoping there are places with actual printed paper data of how to do all this. I'd hate for an EMP blast to happen and wipe the entire planet out and we lose XX years of top tech like this.
 

TechieTwo

Upstanding
Oct 12, 2022
104
104
260
0
Hearing things like this is great but I'm hoping there are places with actual printed paper data of how to do all this. I'd hate for an EMP blast to happen and wipe the entire planet out and we lose XX years of top tech like this.
The paperless office ended 40 years ago... or at least it was suppose too.
 
Hearing things like this is great but I'm hoping there are places with actual printed paper data of how to do all this. I'd hate for an EMP blast to happen and wipe the entire planet out and we lose XX years of top tech like this.
The kind of EMP blast you’re talking about would bring about way worse problems than this

in other words, it would be cataclysmic, and you would have other things to worry about than this nonsense. like basic survival
 
Reactions: bit_user
The kind of EMP blast you’re talking about would bring about way worse problems than this

in other words, it would be cataclysmic, and you would have other things to worry about than this nonsense. like basic survival
No place on earth would be safe even in a limited war. Even if you could disregard nuclear winter, and ground + water contaminated with cesium and strontium, you would have to deal with likely dozens of nuclear power plants that likely melted down and had core failures because all methods of cooling them would also be destroyed. The cooling services are external to the containment building. Imagine Chernobyl except no emergency services left because infrastructure has been destroyed and entire area is a hot zone.

It's not MAD. It's everyone and every creature suffers destruction.
 
Reactions: bit_user
A pretty bold claim for a company that has struggled for years just to make 7nm work for them ......
The only thing intel struggled with was making 14nm stop being profitable...

They made so much money off the old tech that it would be crazy to come out with something new.
Intel 7 isn't 7nm, it's 10nm, and even that they halve down and supplement with crappy small cpus and they still make all of the money.
 
Pretty much this.
See: IEDM 2018: Intel’s 10nm Standard Cell Library and Power Delivery
3 Main Library Offerings
Through considerable analysis, Intel arrived at three main logic library offerings – a high-density cell, a high-performance cell, and an ultra-high performance cell. All three libraries are 6T libraries, each with a custom-designed BEOL.
  • Short Library – HD Cells – cells can accommodate 2 fins per cell height, 2p+[2+1]n
  • Mid-Height Library – HP Cells – cells can accommodate 3 fins per cell height, 3p+[3+1]n
  • Tall Library – UHP Cells – cells can accommodate 4 fins per cell height, 4p+[4+1]n
A pretty bold claim for a company that has struggled for years just to make 7nm work for them ......
 

Endymio

Respectable
Aug 3, 2020
631
212
2,270
2
This paper outlines incredible interconnect densities of hundreds of thousands of connections per square millimeter and power consumption (measured in picojoules per bit - Pj/b)
Pj/b is a measure of energy consumption per bit, not power.


No place on earth would be safe even in a limited war. Even if you could disregard nuclear winter...
Nuclear winter is an entirely discredited theory.

...you would have to deal with likely dozens of nuclear power plants that likely melted down....
And? All modern plants have multiple power backup facilities. Even if those were taken out (which a limited war would NOT do) the plants also have concrete containment sarcophagi. The results would be not like Chernobyl, but like Japan's Fukushima, an accident that caused zero deaths from acute radiation sickness. There were a total of 160 workers at Fukushima would receivedwhole-body doses of around 100 mSv, or around what the average person already receives every 15 years just from natural background sources.
 
Reactions: coolitic and jp7189
Pj/b is a measure of energy consumption per bit, not power.


Nuclear winter is an entirely discredited theory.

And? All modern plants have multiple power backup facilities. Even if those were taken out (which a limited war would NOT do) the plants also have concrete containment sarcophagi. The results would be not like Chernobyl, but like Japan's Fukushima, an accident that caused zero deaths from acute radiation sickness. There were a total of 160 workers at Fukushima would receivedwhole-body doses of around 100 mSv, or around what the average person already receives every 15 years just from natural background sources.
I would educate you but I don't think you would listen. Dunning Kruger is in effect here.
 
Reactions: bit_user
Feb 4, 2022
4
0
10
0
More MIND CANDY used to keep the INTEL logo in the spotlight. Sweet treats to hype a company FAMOUS for promising more than they can ever deliver. They are a fading cloud hoping for rain before realizing they are in DROUGHT. The SWAN SONG continues!
 
Feb 4, 2022
4
0
10
0
Amazing how a little CRITICISM of INTEL, a company that has enjoyed being at the RIGHT place, at RIGHT time for so many of its years, is viewed as untouchable. Should INTEL be considered above comparison. Is it like Microsoft, another untouchable. Competition, along with a challenging business / industry climate has taken its toll on reputations. Learn to take the corporate line with a GRAIN OF SALT. When competition was not a factor, INTEL developed a long-standing reputation for milking the product cycle. Competition has changed all that.
 

Endymio

Respectable
Aug 3, 2020
631
212
2,270
2
Best let them think you an idiot than open your mouth and prove them right.-Mark Twain
You're doing quite well on your own. Nuclear power is, per Kw-hr generated, by far the safest and cleanest form of energy devised by mankind. A half-century of fearmongering by certain fringe lunatics doesn't change that. When you can explain your belief that a limited nuclear exchange would spontaneously cause the world's civilian nuclear plants to all explode, come back and talk.
 
When you can explain your belief that a limited nuclear exchange would...
This whole thing started from this comment:
"I'd hate for an EMP blast to happen and wipe the entire planet out and we lose XX years of top tech like this. "
If we had a world wide EMP blast that could take down all our data storage at the same time then it wouldn't be a limited exchange it would be global nuclear warfare or a supernova going off in our backyard or whatever else could make it happen. It would take down all of the electronics and computers on the planet. You are talking past everybody else.
If you have evidence that all of the nuclear plants have physical safeguards as in no electricity or computers needed at all for them to kick in and protect the world then that is something that you would have to provide proof for.

Also it's not even that important since the thing that would cause a global EMP blast of that strength would be enough to destroy live on this planet anyway.
 
Reactions: Mandark
You're doing quite well on your own. Nuclear power is, per Kw-hr generated, by far the safest and cleanest form of energy devised by mankind. A half-century of fearmongering by certain fringe lunatics doesn't change that. When you can explain your belief that a limited nuclear exchange would spontaneously cause the world's civilian nuclear plants to all explode, come back and talk.
Well then let's see how smart you are without googling. If you Google any of this you need to admit your limitations.

What's a typical nuclear reactor power output. What's a pwr and bwr? How many layers of safety do you need in backups. Where is the last backup level of cooling located, how does it run, and for how long is it mandated to run? What is decay heat? What are the primary decay elements and half life's? Why is Boron useful? What is it's limitation? What's the difference between slow breeders and fast breeders? How long does it take for rods to be safely removed from a reactor once it's been shut down?How long do spent fuel rods need to be cooled? Where are they stored? What happens to concrete when exposed to massive amounts of heat? What is corium and how hot does it get? How close to 3 mile get to leaking through it's containment reactor with full emergency services and full power available to cool it? What parts of the cooling loop sit outside containment. Is it primary or secondary? How many reactors sit near dam control facilities? What do the dam control facilities ordered to do where there is risk of damage?

Your move mister expert.
 
Reactions: bit_user

Endymio

Respectable
Aug 3, 2020
631
212
2,270
2
Also it's not even that important since the thing that would cause a global EMP blast of that strength would be enough to destroy live [sic] on this planet anyway.
EMP doesn't "destroy life", though the actual effects of an EMP burst -- the loss of electrical and electronic systems -- would kill a certain number of people indirectly, but far from "all life on the planet". And in any case, we were talking about limited nuclear exchange, which may not result in any EMP whatsoever, especially if the blasts were limited to surface targets.

Well then let's see how smart you are without googling. [lengthy list of irrelevant questions deleted] ...Your move mister expert.
You debate like a petulant child. None of your (very basic) questions are relevant to the point at hand. If I wished to descend into your "appeal to authority" fallacy, I'd note that I first solved the neutron transport equation in graduate school likely before you were even born. But the nice thing about facts is that they remain true, no matter who expresses them.

I'll repeat that fact. When discussing the effects of a limited nuclear exchange on civilian nuclear plants, Japan's Fukushima accident is a far more representative worst-case scenario than Chernobyl. The Great East Japan earthquake was the strongest ever recorded in the country, and the resultant tsunami directly killed 18,000 people and destroyed the backup power and cooling systems at Fukushima. What then? Zero people died of acute radiation sickness, and only a small handful of workers actually working onsite at the plant itself received radiation doses that significantly raised their long-term chances of contracting cancer.

Chernobyl's reactors were of a type never built in the West: they lacked concrete containment sarcophagi entirely, and all maintained a positive void coefficient. A Chernobyl-style accident simply cannot occur in a Western LWR. Furthermore-- even if it did-- Chernobyl was not nearly as bad as media accounts portrayed it. Had the Soviets not tried to cover up the accident (locals were still fishing in Chernobyl's cooling pond for several days after the meltdown) and simply immediately evacuated residents and issued iodine pills, no one whatsoever would have died, excluding those few workers unlucky enough to have actually been inside the facility. Most people don't realize that, despite the media myth of a hyper-irradiated zone around Chernobyl and the town of Priapyat, the other three reactors at Chernobyl remained in operation -- with workers showing up every day -- for a full decade after the accident.

But again-- that's all irrelevant. A Chernobyl-style meltdown cannot occur in the West. We never built RBMK reactors-- for good reason.
 
EMP doesn't "destroy life", though the actual effects of an EMP burst -- the loss of electrical and electronic systems -- would kill a certain number of people indirectly, but far from "all life on the planet". And in any case, we were talking about limited nuclear exchange, which may not result in any EMP whatsoever, especially if the blasts were limited to surface targets.

You debate like a petulant child. None of your (very basic) questions are relevant to the point at hand. If I wished to descend into your "appeal to authority" fallacy, I'd note that I first solved the neutron transport equation in graduate school likely before you were even born. But the nice thing about facts is that they remain true, no matter who expresses them.

I'll repeat that fact. When discussing the effects of a limited nuclear exchange on civilian nuclear plants, Japan's Fukushima accident is a far more representative worst-case scenario than Chernobyl. The Great East Japan earthquake was the strongest ever recorded in the country, and the resultant tsunami directly killed 18,000 people and destroyed the backup power and cooling systems at Fukushima. What then? Zero people died of acute radiation sickness, and only a small handful of workers actually working onsite at the plant itself received radiation doses that significantly raised their long-term chances of contracting cancer.

Chernobyl's reactors were of a type never built in the West: they lacked concrete containment sarcophagi entirely, and all maintained a positive void coefficient. A Chernobyl-style accident simply cannot occur in a Western LWR. Furthermore-- even if it did-- Chernobyl was not nearly as bad as media accounts portrayed it. Had the Soviets not tried to cover up the accident (locals were still fishing in Chernobyl's cooling pond for several days after the meltdown) and simply immediately evacuated residents and issued iodine pills, no one whatsoever would have died, excluding those few workers unlucky enough to have actually been inside the facility. Most people don't realize that, despite the media myth of a hyper-irradiated zone around Chernobyl and the town of Priapyat, the other three reactors at Chernobyl remained in operation -- with workers showing up every day -- for a full decade after the accident.

But again-- that's all irrelevant. A Chernobyl-style meltdown cannot occur in the West. We never built RBMK reactors-- for good reason.
Then you should be smart enough to realize the following:

I'm older than you think.

72 hours is the amount t of time the 3rd level backup generators are designed to run. That is provided the cooling facilities outside the plant (heat exchangers) or water supply we're not compromised. It takes thousands of gallons of fresh water to cool the reactors. Once the rods are exposed they melt. Corium is super nasty stuff and if you get enough of it will eat through even the best concrete containment.

And a lot of that stuff like the heat exchangers, and the cooling ponds are not under the containment building, including the control center. That means they are subject to exposure from the blast. I realize there are overrides inside the containment building. But it's a real cluster f is a bomb goes off near one.

And Fukushima is a disaster area still. Millions of hallows of contaminated waste and ground water seeping into the ground.

If a bomb does goes off near a plant at a major city there would be no quick response emergency services.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Respectable
Aug 3, 2020
631
212
2,270
2
We were NOT. TALKING about a small exchange. We were talking about the EMP created from a global thermonuclear war, so please stop this nonsense.
Post #6: "No place on earth would be safe even in a limited war. ". Welcome to the debate.

72 hours is the amount t of time the 3rd level backup generators are designed to run...Corium is super nasty stuff and if you get enough of it will eat through even the best concrete containment.
Again: assuming a limited exchange, the reactor itself would still be operational. No need for backup power at all. If the reactor shuts down and the power grid as well, then diesel generators can provide backup power indefinitely. If they go, then battery power gives you a limited amount of time to restore some better alternative.

So let's assume worse than a "limited exchange:", but a disaster that takes out all these layers simultaneously: i.e. Fukushima. What happened there? The corium melted through the reactors pressure vessel and "ate through" (to use your technical term) a full meter into the concrete PCV. But that concrete is 7.6 meters thick ... meaning it only penetrated only about 13% of the way through. And that's simply the primary containment vessel. Secondary containment differs by reactor type and generation, but any modern plant will have it as well. Ergo: no problem.

And Fukushima is a disaster area still
Only if you define "disaster" as "I may have my 30-year cancer risk slightly elevated, if calculated using the unrealistically pessimistic and known-false linear-exposure cancer model". There are places on earth considerably more radioactive than Fukushima's Designated Evacuation Zone. Brazil's Guarapari beaches, for instance, have radiation levels nearly ten TIMES higher than the 20 mSv/yr at Fukuskima. But because it's "natural" radiation, those beaches are always carpeted with human bodies.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY