Just in case some of you are wondering why these batteries explode. A scientific summary would be: They become overcharged.
And if you are wondering how overcharging can create an explosion. Another scientific summary would be: If you put more energy into an environment which cannot handle it. It becomes unstable.
If you are wondering why an environment becomes unstable when too much energy is involved: It comes down to atomic science.
Wondering why it comes down to atomic science? You might want to think about going back to school, we need more scientific minds like you.
As the subject states, there is no need to increase power reserves of mars rovers. If you had even spend five minutes reading about the current state of the rovers you'd see that clearly other components fail before solar power fails. Also remember that nuclear type batteries were used for long missions which stray very far from solar energy. It is still the case that nuclear power would only be good when a device would be out of line of sight from the sun for a long period, or far enough that it cannot convert enough solar energy.
It seems this has become a discussion about BIG vs Small systems.
Yes I agree that it is very expensive. However in some cases a high-end solution can be cheaper than buying multiple x86 boxes. Don't forget to factor in switches, routers, firewalls, cabling, disks, support, and software costs. On a mainframe system such as the z900 much of this is virtualized. Also don't forget that most distributed products--including Oracle--are licensed per processor/socket. This can be as high as $40,000 (Oracle). VM (and probably VMWare) work around this.
There IS a bias about mainframe and mainframe software these days. It consequently appears people are taking a full circle backwards and rallying behind the workstation model. Although an x86 workstation cluster model may initially be cheaper, the cost of support, power, maintenance, and room that they need sometimes outweigh the cost of a single mainframe running VM.
Now I'm not trying to demonize workstations. All suitable systems should be considered and their total costs compared. A lot of people just don't consider anything but the MCSE and CISCO solution.
In reply to the previous poster, VMWare is an excellent solution for the workstation/PC server. I just wanted to remind people there are many other virtual hardware and software systems out there simply by pointing out one, which happends to be one of the first.
In this case someone has made a mistake, as the IBM VM does not run Windows. You probably want to find out who purchased the IBM Server, and deal with them. Obviously it was an amateur purchase descision since you aim to run Windows. VM is a high-end server technology. It is best used for running enterprise-scale mixed workloads.
IBM's Virtual Machine (VM) is decades ahead of VMWare. It was first available in 1966. It's reliability, scalability, features, and more; have been enhanced since its beginnings, it is trusted by the most data and reliability sensitive companies and corporations in the world. It isn't just a hypervisor like VMWare or Microsoft's Virtual Suite--it's a full fledged operating system.
It bothers me to watch those whom praise this or that without knowing more about it. Yes, VMWare is good, especially for the PC. However, don't lose sight of superior advancements we've already made in the name of hype and evangelism.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case some of you are wondering why these batteries explode. A scientific summary would be: They become overcharged.
And if you are wondering how overcharging can create an explosion. Another scientific summary would be: If you put more energy into an environment which cannot handle it. It becomes unstable.
If you are wondering why an environment becomes unstable when too much energy is involved: It comes down to atomic science.
Wondering why it comes down to atomic science? You might want to think about going back to school, we need more scientific minds like you.
As the subject states, there is no need to increase power reserves of mars rovers. If you had even spend five minutes reading about the current state of the rovers you'd see that clearly other components fail before solar power fails. Also remember that nuclear type batteries were used for long missions which stray very far from solar energy. It is still the case that nuclear power would only be good when a device would be out of line of sight from the sun for a long period, or far enough that it cannot convert enough solar energy.
This is a dumb question.
It seems this has become a discussion about BIG vs Small systems.
Yes I agree that it is very expensive. However in some cases a high-end solution can be cheaper than buying multiple x86 boxes. Don't forget to factor in switches, routers, firewalls, cabling, disks, support, and software costs. On a mainframe system such as the z900 much of this is virtualized. Also don't forget that most distributed products--including Oracle--are licensed per processor/socket. This can be as high as $40,000 (Oracle). VM (and probably VMWare) work around this.
There IS a bias about mainframe and mainframe software these days. It consequently appears people are taking a full circle backwards and rallying behind the workstation model. Although an x86 workstation cluster model may initially be cheaper, the cost of support, power, maintenance, and room that they need sometimes outweigh the cost of a single mainframe running VM.
Now I'm not trying to demonize workstations. All suitable systems should be considered and their total costs compared. A lot of people just don't consider anything but the MCSE and CISCO solution.
In reply to the previous poster, VMWare is an excellent solution for the workstation/PC server. I just wanted to remind people there are many other virtual hardware and software systems out there simply by pointing out one, which happends to be one of the first.
In this case someone has made a mistake, as the IBM VM does not run Windows. You probably want to find out who purchased the IBM Server, and deal with them. Obviously it was an amateur purchase descision since you aim to run Windows. VM is a high-end server technology. It is best used for running enterprise-scale mixed workloads.
The only time I ever see MacOS and Windows alternatives being used by the average person is in the movies.
IBM's Virtual Machine (VM) is decades ahead of VMWare. It was first available in 1966. It's reliability, scalability, features, and more; have been enhanced since its beginnings, it is trusted by the most data and reliability sensitive companies and corporations in the world. It isn't just a hypervisor like VMWare or Microsoft's Virtual Suite--it's a full fledged operating system.
It bothers me to watch those whom praise this or that without knowing more about it. Yes, VMWare is good, especially for the PC. However, don't lose sight of superior advancements we've already made in the name of hype and evangelism.