or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DESuserIGN

No personal attack was intended. Few people are familiar with these things. Perhaps you are overly sensitive? I think your just upset because you didn't know gold is commonly alloyed with many non-precious metals. :-) Even Tin is sometimes used for certain purposes. It's all about making the alloy functional as well as beautiful. Pure gold is really nice, but it's not very functional. (Do you consider this a "personal attack?") Apple's patent also mentions using diamond in...
1.) Copper, Nickel, Manganese, and Aluminum are not a semiprecious metals and are commonly used in gold alloys.2.) You probably just have not had any experience dealing with this stuff. It may seem counterintuitive for you, but it's always done by percent mass (since the days of Archimedes) because mass is explicit. 18K gold is always 3/4 gold by mass. If you know the mass, you know the fine weight, and therefore the minimum value in gold.
This type of inductive charging (perfectly aligned and over a super small gap is not particularly inefficient.I imagine the digital crown has something to do with it as well as the speaker/mic.A dog collar is a way easier lift—lower esthetic factors, no crown/complex switch, no speaker/mic to deal with. It can basically be a sealed blockI agree that the speaker/mic is probably unnecessary and is probably the main cause of difficulty. If they'd stuck with the "taptic...
Yes it is.So stop pretending it purports to be more than what it is.
It's still 18K and 75% gold by mass (which is how it's always assayed.) This technique makes it a very light weight gold, but not less pure. OTOH, I didn't know about this. Very smart way to make a more functional "gold" and save a lot of money. I'm sure the watch feels a lot lighter on the wrist (about half as much) than it would have with a conventional alloy.
:-) I misunderstood you as referring to a "standard bath" as if it was part of the spec. As if you were saying,"This item is now rated for 3 standard baths before failure." I was most riled up about your conclusion that you can swim with it because it's certified IPX7 that's a [bad] choice not a recommendation of the standard.)If it could reliably do better than IPX7, I'm sure Apple would be certify it that way. It would obviously be a desirable feature.
  1.) Certification for IPX6 is not a prerequisite for a IPX7 certification.2.) There is nothing preventing use of drain holes in items seeking IPX7 certification (although obviously the design chosen must pass the test.3.) Where you are getting these pressure ratings? Liquid IP is not specified in in that way nor is the test procedure. [But yes, I realize typical atmospheric pressure is 100kPa and that pressure at 1m depth is about 110 kPa.]
 I'm not challenging the metric system. I'mChallenging your sweeping misinterpretations of the Ingress Protection standards and ratings. A certification of IPX7 doesn't simulate, or test suitability for swimming. A single, simple, 1M immersion for 30 minutes is nothing like swimming nor is it meant to certify suitability for swimming use while swimming. Yet you act like it is. Show me anything that says the spec means it's suitable for swimming.
Sounds like you're talking out your ass.I have never seen IPX7 certification characterized in the way you claim here.Share with us your documentation of these "facts" you are proclaiming about IPX7 certified electronics and repeated swimming with them. It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths."
 It's not inclusive. They are different tests. To get a rating certification you just have to pass the test you you want the certification for. IPX7 rating is theoretically more protective than IPX6, but not necessarily. Also if you read the IPX6 spec carefully you will see that the water jets are shot from 3 meters away. The effect at the object is much less than the spec might suggest (the standard for the jet are for near the nozzle of the jet, not at the...
New Posts  All Forums: