12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
9:58 a.m.
On 2012-08-12, at 11:18 AM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that the document does not take the effects of leaving it idle into
account. The turned off vs. turned on state have to be compared. You can take some
details, but it has to be considered as an entire system. Unanticipated reactions are
entirely possible. Look at galvanic corrosion. The behavior of the two metals in contact
differs greatly from them being separate. There can be many factors involved in the entire
system that invalidate conservation data on the individual components.
That I think is a matter of debate. A reboot can undo many changes. It remains to
be seen the effects on the hardware in their totality.
There's a
lot to that report. It is also only dealing with semiconductor devices. While
semiconductors are a crucial component, they are not the only one.
Yes, but it is basically the first thing I found (and being tired
after going to the Kagan memorial, I was not about to make a big
project about it). The point is that Ian wanted a citation, so I gave
him one, in less than a minute's worth of Google.
Yes, we need more data on this. But, one way to certainly taint that
data is to keep using the materials (keep running the machines).
How else are you to compare the effects of running the machine vs. leaving it off?
If nothing else, the machine still has mechanical parts. When not run, these parts seize
and corrode.
For the time
being, until we can
have our perfect virtual reality simulators, having a running
machine
in a raised floor room is the best we can do, but it uses the artifact
and changes what it is (I am not sure I want to get into a "historic
fabric" fight with anyone at this point). Those changes can not be
reversed, no matter what anyone says.
This is why it is good to have machines that are in
museums, preserved
and not run at all. Everyone, please do not hate on the museums that
preserve the machines by not running them - they have a point for
doing so.
I'm not hating them. I think both approaches are important. My main point is that this
isn't an easy question to answer. Mistakes are going to be made, it's an
impossibility to avoid them. We have more than a century of conserving ancient artifacts
under our belts, and we're still learning how best to preserve them - computers are no
different.
I just think that we can't afford to cut ourselves off from the software component of
a system. Emulators are helpful, but emulators have to come from somewhere. They come from
studying running machines, not static displays.
--------
Paul Anderson -- VE3HOP