ZMacZ Furreh

Thermal Expansion Coefficient: Copper expands @ 17E-6/K Resin mainboard expands @ 4E-6/K Difference in expansion 13E-6/K So, yes, the copper expands more than the mainboard's resin.. And thus the part that 'glues' the two together will have to give as reaction to this expansion. Over time it will settle at the new length of the copper, and then rapid cooling will break the copper circuit. It's fact, not supposition. The circuit was repaired later by bridging the connection alternately.. (And it was truly broken, with this error mechanism being the cause..) (And yes, the 'fix' can help alleviate such breakage, since chance for breakage is directly linked to the length of the circuit, in a straight line, across the mainboard.) (The longer the circuit the greater the sensitivity for rapid temp fluctuations..) (It's already being tested and has already shown appreciable alleviation of the error mechanism..) Laterz.. Note: I will not be watching this any longer.. @ hoola: It's not visible to the naked eye, the amount of stretch/shrink required to sever the circuit is in the order of microns. Re-examine the figure, and you'll figure the reason why.. You'll also see why the zig-zag will prevent a circuit from beraking when it's cooling rapidly, or at least you oughta be able to.. Also, the srinking of the resin happens very slowly over time as it tends to dry out still more, thus shrinking..but that's a 'permanent' shrinkage, which doesn't involve the cooling 'cycle'.. In engineering for circuitboards meant for use in space, the 'zig-zag' may prevent many repairs.. In space things heat rapidly, while being on the nightside, it will cool also rapidly.. The only alleviation of heat in space is heat emision, through light, not heat transfer, like atmospheric, and yet, sunlight or no sunlight will still rapidly heat or cool.. Anyways, it's usefull, even in Earthly settings, where the temp delta is well in the range of 60K, specially with stuff like fans around.. I also believe that this error mechanism may also occur on Si-SiO processor types, but in a different way, more like contributory to electron migration. (electron migration can be mitigated this way, and thus also processing equipment for use in outer space may be 'hardened' a little that way, albeit at a cost of a tiny bit of processing power, in the order of 2-3%.. But THAT right now for me is just a calculated guess.. For those who are interested: A very long circuitboard (1 meter long with a single circuit, in a straight line, and one more with the 'zig-zag'heated to 363K, over a month, then rapidly cooled..) The straight one failed, the zig-zag held.. Each circuit was 0.5 mm wide.. The stretch was visible to the naked eye on the test subject.(I didn't measure it though, I was more interested in the result of the rapid cooling..)

Most people involved in electronics already know that metal expands when it's heated. They also know that it happens on a circuitboard, and that under normal circumstances this is normal and won't cause breakage. But... When a circuit is being heated a very long time (without pause), and itself is relatively long, the metal will force the cohesive layer which attaches it to the circuitboard to comply with it's lengthening.. Then, when the device is shut off, the metal circuit will cool down, and will try and force the cohesive layer to comply again.. The cohesive layer will not comply this time, and tension increases, until the circuit breaks.. This happened to me yesterday when I switched off my monitor yesterday after having been in continuous operation for several months/years. Since it's systematic failure, albeit a slow one, I decided to post here.. Think of it what you will, I won't monitor, since my interest in the replies is not high.. I also added the solution (fix) for this, which is a simple one, and will try a situational explanation of it as well.. Laterz, ZMacZ Furreh.. Keep in mind, that the the longer the duration of the heating effect (power supply, processor, or whichever raises the local temperature), the greater the effect, as well as the length of the circuit. Also, fast cooling down amplifies this even further.. basically Effect = diff Temp x length circuit x duration of operation x (r)coolrate.. (since it takes months for the cohesive layer to comply, the effect of the fast cooling will amplify but not as much as the diff Temp, length circuit, or duration of operation..hence the modifier (r)..) What I persoanlly learned from this is that devices may heat up quite a bit over long durations, np, but the problem is with the cooling down.. In order to completely nullify the effect I'd say roughly a cooldown of equal measure, if at all, or no cooling down at all.. Other solutions may involve less sticky cohesive layers that allow for 'drift'..(albeit minute drift..) (You don't want ur circuits floating off into the horizon..which could be fun to watch once though..) Alternately, you can employ S shaped 'breaks' in the straight lined circuits..which looks snakey.. (- does not like snakes nor cucumbers..except for the latter finely chopped..) (NOTE: I reversed the importance of the rate of cooling and the duration in the picture..sowwies.. '^^'..)

plz do read thoroughly plz.. It's about the change in applied acceleration, not on which type of field.. I'm talking about a similar one to CERN, which propels protons.. FYI CERN uses RF cavities for the proton propulsion..

Not electron LINAC's a proton one...can it do that too, in such a small length ? I'm talking CERN here.. https://home.cern/about/accelerators/linear-accelerator-2 Which is considerably longer than that..

Well, like I said it's not about the means of moving the field, but about the difference that would make.. And although the CERN gets near speed of light, I think a 200 meter long LINAC would never be able to do so, not unless a moving cavity was used anyways.. I'm only interested in the theoretical differences between the static generation of timed cavities, in opposition of a moving cavity.. I'm really uncertain of this, but I think a moving cavity would be able to apply more force over the length of the LINAC, while timed cavities can only do so while in existencem, and thus, over length create less acceleration.. But then the question would be how much less ? My incling would say less than 50%, since the creation of the newer cavity must be at least the length of two single cavity's lengths..

I feel nekkid without my avi..

QUESTION: Given that proton-LINAC's use static magnetic systems to propel a proton to higher speeds, what theoretical difference would a non-static magnetic system provide in terms of acceleration or power usage or efficiency ? The question here is not on the difference between electrostatics or electromagnets or whichever form of field is applied to accelerate the proton. The question is about the ability to actually move the cavities at the required speed (matching that of the proton), instead of using fixed pulsing of the magnets to re-create new cavities at wanted times. I think the principle is about the proton moving into the cavity or rather moving out of the non-cavity into the cavity by applying force by a field. So, if the field itself would change position, along the proton's path, it could have a better result on accelerating said proton. Now, would this be true ? (ignoring the scope of what type of field is used to accelerate said proton, and all other considerations in this case..) (Static fields vs. mobile fields, more like so..) Any usefull inputs would be nice.. (if this topic is for the wrong section then plz do move it to the more appropriate one thx..)