Talk:Single-event upset

message: What's the intended relationship between this page and the soft error page? Are they both trying to describe the same thing?
One might describe a single event upset as the causative event which leads to one or more soft errors. Is it useful to have two pages describing the cause and effect in this way? In that case, we should move some of the content of the soft error page to this page. Emrys2 11:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Suggestion:  Have SEU instead of redirecting have a disambiguation page:
* single event upset
* subjective expected utility
-Themusicgod1 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --68.0.120.35 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SEU]] 

message: i've seen references on wp:dram which are ambiguous on the sources of soft errors.  Are there any references for people who want to try to reduce or prevent soft errors?  if one source of same is cosmic neutrons, maybe a shield of boron would help? (yes, i know it would cause alpha particles, but if the shield is outside the chip's plastic packaging, those alphas couldn't get in to do damage.   Bob Emmett (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  preventing soft errors 

message: Saw a reference to SEUs in an article at phys.org "Particles from outer space are wreaking low-grade havoc on personal electronics".  In that article they made reference to a specific instance to a jet that caused injuries.  
Searching around, in one PDF "Neutron-Induced Single Event Upset (SEU) - Microsemi" I found multiple scenarios mentioned:
::15.Are there any widely reported incidents of errors due to charged particles?
:::Several incidents across many industries have been reported in recent years. Among these:
:::*In 2008, a Quantas Airbus A330-303 pitched downward twice in rapid succession, diving first 650 feet and then 400 feet, seriously injuring a flight attendant and 11 passengers. The cause has been traced to errors in an on-board computer suspected to have been induced by cosmic rays. Modifications were undertaken to mitigate such errors in the future.
:::*Canadian-based St. Jude Medical issued an advisory to doctors in 2005, warning that SEUs to the memory of its implantable cardiac defibrillators could cause excessive drain on the unit's battery.
:::*Cisco Systems issued a field notice in 2003 regarding its 1200 series router line cards. The noticed warned of line card resets resulting from SEUs.
The episode is even mentioned in article Qantas Flight 72 here.  Searching with Single event upset quantas 2008 finds many references within air/electronics industries where this incident is mentioned as possibly/likely/the-expected-scenario fitting this kind of cause.
Hmm, I also see mention of the term "Single Event Effect" in another PDF "EFFECTS OF COSMIC RADIATION ON DEVICES AND EMBEDDED SYSTEMS IN AIRCRAFTS", which says "The  Australian  Transport  Safety  Bureau,  in  their accident report, points out the SEE as the most probable reason for the breakage presented."
Somehow these should be mentioned as suspected events or at least fitting the expectations of how these would appear should they happen. Shenme (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instances 

message: I suggest removing the Mario 64 instance as it has been thoroughly discussed and the consensus seems to be that it is extremely unlikely for the glitch to have been caused by an SEU. It was most recently brought up in this YouTube video. Akronos1 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely, but still a non-zero chance for it to have happened. It could be put as alleged, but since people hold opinions that sometimes cause them to flare up and defend it with no real basis, I'll withhold my own comments. GGUltima (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mario 64 glitch