I have a carbon fiber road bike, where that material makes sense. I refused to buy plastic Macbook, until the first gen Aluminum one came out.
I think Aluminum is perfect material for computers (sturdy, reasonably scratch resistant and good heat conductivity). The day they start making carbon fiber Macbooks and Mac Pros is the day they loose me as a customer.
Now, I would not mind if fans, or internal parts or power supply cases are made of carbon fiber. But aesthetics do not come into play so much there, whereas the patent filing is all about the finish of the material.
I don't get it-- wasn't one of the purposes of using aluminum in the MacBooks to make them recyclable? Can't imagine it is too easy to recycle carbon fiber laminates! But in something small like an iPod/iPhone it could make sense, were the finished product to be more impact and scratch resistant.
Ahh, carbon fiber composites are not impact or scratch resistant at all. In fact, one of the dangers of carbon fiber bikes is sudden failure from impact (it basically breaks like glass).
I don't know... Aluminum may be a cheaper material, but the machining process certainly isn't. Carbon fiber, like fiberglass, is a pretty simple process in terms of manufacturing.
High quality carbon fiber sheet is very expensive. Most companies with carbon fiber panels are really just using very thin decorative material that isn't structural, and is cheap. They call them carbon fiber cases, but they really aren't.
The manufacturing isn't that cheap either.
Whereas aluminum chips can be recovered, as well as much of the cutting oils, the trim from the carbon fiber/epoxy/polyester can't be, and must be disposed of as slightly toxic materials. Same thing for the rest of the waste esters.
Some claim it can be ground up and reused for other purposes, but I've yet to see a practical one.
So...Apple is patenting a method for forming carbon fiber cases? Does anybody know how these "method" patents work?
Could another company change the composition of the resin or the scrim and claim that it is outside of the patent? Or is Apple attempting to lock up the idea of using a cosmetic glass fiber surface over top of carbon fiber?
I generally understand what Apple want's to do, but I don't understand the scope of the expected/intended patent protection...
These are "process" patents. They describe methods used to produce some product.
Kodak had them for Kodachrome film processing. When we went to them about building a Kodachrome professional production processing line, we had to do a number of things.
We had to sign lots of NDAs. We had to license patents. We then came up with methods to improve the quality of the output so that it would be accepted as a professional film. Kodak then had to sign a lot of NDAs, and cross license from us.
indeed. Given the prices of CF tripods over 'standard' aluminum ones - ouch... Unless someone as large as apple and it's volume can get the process done cheaper...
I have a couple of those tripods. They weigh a lot less than my aluminum ones, but are noticeably less stiff.
hrmph! I wanted to use different there*'s. I don't think you fixed it. I think you ruined it... although perhaps wrong usage in the context of the post would be pretty lame, so OK, a reluctant ... 'thanks'
This may not be for the MacBook/Pro's. My guess is it's for the so called tablet. First - with a laptop, you need the bottom to be heavier than the lid or it'll tip over. But if you're making a very thin tablet or basically larger Touch/iPhone, with an OLED screen, you need a very rigid, light back for it. Imagine a touch that was three times larger, but then you'd immediately lose rigidity at that size! Only aluminum unibody would be rigid enough if using aluminum, but then the device would be too thick and the aluminum would interfere with the radios. So a form of plastic it is, but carbon fiber is best - but they don't want it to look like typical CF and they don't want to paint it -thus the scrim layer.
What other material would it reinforce if not plastic? Plastics are a huge class of materials that I wonder if any alternative suggestions you would provide would also be a form of plastic.
And if you don't like the shine, it's easy to give it a more matte appearance or other finish or texture. Your response makes me wonder about those people that go orgasmic over Apple's shiny screens.
We have to be careful when using the word "plastic".
That refers specifically to a class of material that can be reformed using heat to soften it again.
Most resins are not plastic. Once they are mixed (for the two part polyesters and epoxies, for example) and the chemical reaction takes place, giving off the heat from the reaction, their form is fixed. They aren't plastics at all, even though they look like plastic.
I have a carbon fiber road bike, where that material makes sense. I refused to buy plastic Macbook, until the first gen Aluminum one came out.
I think Aluminum is perfect material for computers (sturdy, reasonably scratch resistant and good heat conductivity). The day they start making carbon fiber Macbooks and Mac Pros is the day they loose me as a customer.
Now, I would not mind if fans, or internal parts or power supply cases are made of carbon fiber. But aesthetics do not come into play so much there, whereas the patent filing is all about the finish of the material.
You bring up a good point. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor, composites using no metal are not.
It would be harder to cool the internals of a laptop made from this material, as it is using any other resin or plastic.
"Carbon Fiber" refers to the type of fabric used, and by itself is flexible and not suitable for structures such as computer cases or Formula 1 cars. It is generally used as a reinforcement embedded within a plastic resin, much like steel bars in concrete. The full name of the composite material is "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic".
The usual glossy plastic look comes from the fact that the surface is in fact, plastic.
Right! So they're not trying to do away with plastic (iPhone, Touch, Tablet) they are looking for rigidity. More rigidity isn't needed in the iPhone or Touch, but definitely for one that is larger.... such as a tablet.
A google search of CF Vs Alum regarding rigidity - I see lots of references saying CF is more rigid. Of course, there are all sorts of considerations - but think common uses like bikes, tripods, etc - if CF wasn't rigid, brake pads on CF forks would drag, etc. http://tinyurl.com/cgw2jm I'm betting on a "tablet" back.
We have to be careful when using the word "plastic".
That refers specifically to a class of material that can be reformed using heat to soften it again.
Most resins are not plastic. Once they are mixed (for the two part polyesters and epoxies, for example) and the chemical reaction takes place, giving off the heat from the reaction, their form is fixed. They aren't plastics at all, even though they look like plastic.
I'm pretty sure you're fixating on one subclass of plastics. Many thermoset materials are also a class of plastic, epoxies form polymer chains as it sets.
A google search of CF Vs Alum regarding rigidity - I see lots of references saying CF is more rigid. Of course, there are all sorts of considerations - but think common uses like bikes, tripods, etc - if CF wasn't rigid, brake pads on CF forks would drag, etc. http://tinyurl.com/cgw2jm I'm betting on a "tablet" back.
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
Ahh, carbon fiber composites are not impact or scratch resistant at all. In fact, one of the dangers of carbon fiber bikes is sudden failure from impact (it basically breaks like glass).
For it to be brittle, it'd have to be in sub-zero temps for awhile, then be subjected to severe impact. So, don't bring your new tablet snowboarding with you.
I totally agree. This seems much more likely. We should expect to see this
type of enclosure on a new iTablet or iPhone instead of larger products
like the MBA, etc.
I have to agree with this. With the manufacturing process of the laptops changed less than a year ago the most viable option would be the handheld devices with gsm/3G connectivity. The enclosures so far have been imperfect compromises, with the aesthetically less than satisfying black plastic bottom/top and the nicer looking but structurally less sound all-plastic 2nd generation.
If we get lucky we might see this for the third generation already. I for one would welcome this heartily. Handhelds are utilitarian products that tend to see a fair bit of abuse. The battered metal back of my 1st-gen iPhone told me to stay far away from the plastic of the more recent model. (on a side note, it is amazing how well those screens hod up!)
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
Those are really long legs with multiple joints.... either material can be more or less rigid than the other depending on other considerations.
Those are really long legs with multiple joints.... either material can be more or less rigid than the other depending on other considerations.
I've been using Gitzo tripods since about 1970. I have four aluminum models of varying ages, and two of their new CF models. They essentially duplicate two of my aluminum models, but are lighter. They are rated for the same weight load. When I open the aluminum models and push down, they move less than the CF equivalents. This is a common way we get the feel for how rigid a tripod is. These are all well made devices.
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
More often than not it is a matter of tubing diameter. For example, double butted steel tube bicycle frames are typically smaller than aluminum tube frames even though the aluminum frame is lighter. When reshaped from classic round shapes, aluminum and carbon fiber bike frames can have the degree of desired stiffness designed in. Sprint/time trial bikes have different criteria than road bikes or bikes intended for the mountains.
Camera tripods are frequently designed for a specific weight target and many time do not properly take into consideration the need for a larger diameter tube than the corresponding aluminum tripod.
All of the characteristics of a material must be taken into consideration in the design process. (Apple rather botched the Ti books because they did not do their homework.)
Airbus uses an aluminum composite fabrication on some of their aircraft. Boeing is using a CF composite on some of its aircraft. Military aircraft use quite a lot of composite materials.
There are many choices, some of which are simpler than others. Sadly, Apple have a habit of choosing process that add nothing in particular and are simply more expensive without any corresponding benefit. The current manufacturing process for the aluminum laptops, in my opinion, is one example. I believe that the same exact result could be obtained via a more efficient manufacturing process, but Apple chose what they chose.
More often than not it is a matter of tubing diameter. For example, double butted steel tube bicycle frames are typically smaller than aluminum tube frames even though the aluminum frame is lighter. When reshaped from classic round shapes, aluminum and carbon fiber bike frames can have the degree of desired stiffness designed in. Sprint/time trial bikes have different criteria than road bikes or bikes intended for the mountains.
Camera tripods are frequently designed for a specific weight target and many time do not properly take into consideration the need for a larger diameter tube than the corresponding aluminum tripod.
All of the characteristics of a material must be taken into consideration in the design process. (Apple rather botched the Ti books because they did not do their homework.)
Airbus uses an aluminum composite fabrication on some of their aircraft. Boeing is using a CF composite on some of its aircraft. Military aircraft use quite a lot of composite materials.
There are many choices, some of which are simpler than others. Sadly, Apple have a habit of choosing process that add nothing in particular and are simply more expensive without any corresponding benefit. The current manufacturing process for the aluminum laptops, in my opinion, is one example. I believe that the same exact result could be obtained via a more efficient manufacturing process, but Apple chose what they chose.
Cheers
Yes, I know that.
The point to what I was saying about my tripods was that CF isn't necessarily stiffer in an actual product.
For example some aluminum alloys/temper, are stronger than mild steel?when measured by weight. But make the pieces the same thickness, and steel will win every time. The parts have to be redesigned for that, usually using a heavier material thickness which is still lighter, but can be designed differently.
CF is stiffer than SOME aluminum alloys, but not at the same thickness. By weight.
Tripods are a good example of why we sometimes give up one need for some other virtue. Gitzo is one of the oldest, and highest quality tripod manufacturers around. There's no question but that they know exactly what they have to do in their designs.
But there's only so much that can be done. The can't increase the diameters of the legs by more than a small amount. Otherwise they become clumsy. This is obvious, when you understand the constraints they are under.
First of all, tripod leg diameters are almost a standard. people have associated leg diameters with a certain stiffness and carrying capacity.
Second is that CF legs need thicker material for the walls. Aluminum can be thin, but if CF were anywhere as thin, they would collapse!
The thicker materials mean that the room inside for the next leg down is less. That means the second section is thinner, and the third thinner still, etc. This is more of a variation than we get with aluminum legs.
So they size the legs one size up from their aluminum counterparts.
So there are compromises they must make.
So far, we're satisfied with those compromises, but they aren't perfect.
Comments
I think Aluminum is perfect material for computers (sturdy, reasonably scratch resistant and good heat conductivity). The day they start making carbon fiber Macbooks and Mac Pros is the day they loose me as a customer.
Now, I would not mind if fans, or internal parts or power supply cases are made of carbon fiber. But aesthetics do not come into play so much there, whereas the patent filing is all about the finish of the material.
I don't get it-- wasn't one of the purposes of using aluminum in the MacBooks to make them recyclable? Can't imagine it is too easy to recycle carbon fiber laminates! But in something small like an iPod/iPhone it could make sense, were the finished product to be more impact and scratch resistant.
Ahh, carbon fiber composites are not impact or scratch resistant at all. In fact, one of the dangers of carbon fiber bikes is sudden failure from impact (it basically breaks like glass).
I don't know... Aluminum may be a cheaper material, but the machining process certainly isn't. Carbon fiber, like fiberglass, is a pretty simple process in terms of manufacturing.
High quality carbon fiber sheet is very expensive. Most companies with carbon fiber panels are really just using very thin decorative material that isn't structural, and is cheap. They call them carbon fiber cases, but they really aren't.
The manufacturing isn't that cheap either.
Whereas aluminum chips can be recovered, as well as much of the cutting oils, the trim from the carbon fiber/epoxy/polyester can't be, and must be disposed of as slightly toxic materials. Same thing for the rest of the waste esters.
Some claim it can be ground up and reused for other purposes, but I've yet to see a practical one.
So...Apple is patenting a method for forming carbon fiber cases? Does anybody know how these "method" patents work?
Could another company change the composition of the resin or the scrim and claim that it is outside of the patent? Or is Apple attempting to lock up the idea of using a cosmetic glass fiber surface over top of carbon fiber?
I generally understand what Apple want's to do, but I don't understand the scope of the expected/intended patent protection...
These are "process" patents. They describe methods used to produce some product.
Kodak had them for Kodachrome film processing. When we went to them about building a Kodachrome professional production processing line, we had to do a number of things.
We had to sign lots of NDAs. We had to license patents. We then came up with methods to improve the quality of the output so that it would be accepted as a professional film. Kodak then had to sign a lot of NDAs, and cross license from us.
A lot of fun all around.
indeed. Given the prices of CF tripods over 'standard' aluminum ones - ouch... Unless someone as large as apple and it's volume can get the process done cheaper...
I have a couple of those tripods. They weigh a lot less than my aluminum ones, but are noticeably less stiff.
ftfy
hrmph! I wanted to use different there*'s. I don't think you fixed it. I think you ruined it... although perhaps wrong usage in the context of the post would be pretty lame, so OK, a reluctant ... 'thanks'
What other material would it reinforce if not plastic? Plastics are a huge class of materials that I wonder if any alternative suggestions you would provide would also be a form of plastic.
And if you don't like the shine, it's easy to give it a more matte appearance or other finish or texture. Your response makes me wonder about those people that go orgasmic over Apple's shiny screens.
We have to be careful when using the word "plastic".
That refers specifically to a class of material that can be reformed using heat to soften it again.
Most resins are not plastic. Once they are mixed (for the two part polyesters and epoxies, for example) and the chemical reaction takes place, giving off the heat from the reaction, their form is fixed. They aren't plastics at all, even though they look like plastic.
I have a carbon fiber road bike, where that material makes sense. I refused to buy plastic Macbook, until the first gen Aluminum one came out.
I think Aluminum is perfect material for computers (sturdy, reasonably scratch resistant and good heat conductivity). The day they start making carbon fiber Macbooks and Mac Pros is the day they loose me as a customer.
Now, I would not mind if fans, or internal parts or power supply cases are made of carbon fiber. But aesthetics do not come into play so much there, whereas the patent filing is all about the finish of the material.
You bring up a good point. Aluminum is a very good heat conductor, composites using no metal are not.
It would be harder to cool the internals of a laptop made from this material, as it is using any other resin or plastic.
"Carbon Fiber" refers to the type of fabric used, and by itself is flexible and not suitable for structures such as computer cases or Formula 1 cars. It is generally used as a reinforcement embedded within a plastic resin, much like steel bars in concrete. The full name of the composite material is "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic".
The usual glossy plastic look comes from the fact that the surface is in fact, plastic.
Right! So they're not trying to do away with plastic (iPhone, Touch, Tablet) they are looking for rigidity. More rigidity isn't needed in the iPhone or Touch, but definitely for one that is larger.... such as a tablet.
We have to be careful when using the word "plastic".
That refers specifically to a class of material that can be reformed using heat to soften it again.
Most resins are not plastic. Once they are mixed (for the two part polyesters and epoxies, for example) and the chemical reaction takes place, giving off the heat from the reaction, their form is fixed. They aren't plastics at all, even though they look like plastic.
I'm pretty sure you're fixating on one subclass of plastics. Many thermoset materials are also a class of plastic, epoxies form polymer chains as it sets.
A google search of CF Vs Alum regarding rigidity - I see lots of references saying CF is more rigid. Of course, there are all sorts of considerations - but think common uses like bikes, tripods, etc - if CF wasn't rigid, brake pads on CF forks would drag, etc. http://tinyurl.com/cgw2jm I'm betting on a "tablet" back.
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
Ahh, carbon fiber composites are not impact or scratch resistant at all. In fact, one of the dangers of carbon fiber bikes is sudden failure from impact (it basically breaks like glass).
http://tinyurl.com/de2o5d
For it to be brittle, it'd have to be in sub-zero temps for awhile, then be subjected to severe impact. So, don't bring your new tablet snowboarding with you.
I totally agree. This seems much more likely. We should expect to see this
type of enclosure on a new iTablet or iPhone instead of larger products
like the MBA, etc.
I have to agree with this. With the manufacturing process of the laptops changed less than a year ago the most viable option would be the handheld devices with gsm/3G connectivity. The enclosures so far have been imperfect compromises, with the aesthetically less than satisfying black plastic bottom/top and the nicer looking but structurally less sound all-plastic 2nd generation.
If we get lucky we might see this for the third generation already. I for one would welcome this heartily. Handhelds are utilitarian products that tend to see a fair bit of abuse. The battered metal back of my 1st-gen iPhone told me to stay far away from the plastic of the more recent model. (on a side note, it is amazing how well those screens hod up!)
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
Those are really long legs with multiple joints.... either material can be more or less rigid than the other depending on other considerations.
Those are really long legs with multiple joints.... either material can be more or less rigid than the other depending on other considerations.
I've been using Gitzo tripods since about 1970. I have four aluminum models of varying ages, and two of their new CF models. They essentially duplicate two of my aluminum models, but are lighter. They are rated for the same weight load. When I open the aluminum models and push down, they move less than the CF equivalents. This is a common way we get the feel for how rigid a tripod is. These are all well made devices.
It isn't always more rigid though. My aluminum tripods are noticeably more rigid than my CF ones, though the CF ones are much lighter. Possibly, if they used more fiber layers, and it weighed as much as the aluminum, it would be more rigid.
More often than not it is a matter of tubing diameter. For example, double butted steel tube bicycle frames are typically smaller than aluminum tube frames even though the aluminum frame is lighter. When reshaped from classic round shapes, aluminum and carbon fiber bike frames can have the degree of desired stiffness designed in. Sprint/time trial bikes have different criteria than road bikes or bikes intended for the mountains.
Camera tripods are frequently designed for a specific weight target and many time do not properly take into consideration the need for a larger diameter tube than the corresponding aluminum tripod.
All of the characteristics of a material must be taken into consideration in the design process. (Apple rather botched the Ti books because they did not do their homework.)
Airbus uses an aluminum composite fabrication on some of their aircraft. Boeing is using a CF composite on some of its aircraft. Military aircraft use quite a lot of composite materials.
There are many choices, some of which are simpler than others. Sadly, Apple have a habit of choosing process that add nothing in particular and are simply more expensive without any corresponding benefit. The current manufacturing process for the aluminum laptops, in my opinion, is one example. I believe that the same exact result could be obtained via a more efficient manufacturing process, but Apple chose what they chose.
Cheers
More often than not it is a matter of tubing diameter. For example, double butted steel tube bicycle frames are typically smaller than aluminum tube frames even though the aluminum frame is lighter. When reshaped from classic round shapes, aluminum and carbon fiber bike frames can have the degree of desired stiffness designed in. Sprint/time trial bikes have different criteria than road bikes or bikes intended for the mountains.
Camera tripods are frequently designed for a specific weight target and many time do not properly take into consideration the need for a larger diameter tube than the corresponding aluminum tripod.
All of the characteristics of a material must be taken into consideration in the design process. (Apple rather botched the Ti books because they did not do their homework.)
Airbus uses an aluminum composite fabrication on some of their aircraft. Boeing is using a CF composite on some of its aircraft. Military aircraft use quite a lot of composite materials.
There are many choices, some of which are simpler than others. Sadly, Apple have a habit of choosing process that add nothing in particular and are simply more expensive without any corresponding benefit. The current manufacturing process for the aluminum laptops, in my opinion, is one example. I believe that the same exact result could be obtained via a more efficient manufacturing process, but Apple chose what they chose.
Cheers
Yes, I know that.
The point to what I was saying about my tripods was that CF isn't necessarily stiffer in an actual product.
For example some aluminum alloys/temper, are stronger than mild steel?when measured by weight. But make the pieces the same thickness, and steel will win every time. The parts have to be redesigned for that, usually using a heavier material thickness which is still lighter, but can be designed differently.
CF is stiffer than SOME aluminum alloys, but not at the same thickness. By weight.
Tripods are a good example of why we sometimes give up one need for some other virtue. Gitzo is one of the oldest, and highest quality tripod manufacturers around. There's no question but that they know exactly what they have to do in their designs.
But there's only so much that can be done. The can't increase the diameters of the legs by more than a small amount. Otherwise they become clumsy. This is obvious, when you understand the constraints they are under.
First of all, tripod leg diameters are almost a standard. people have associated leg diameters with a certain stiffness and carrying capacity.
Second is that CF legs need thicker material for the walls. Aluminum can be thin, but if CF were anywhere as thin, they would collapse!
The thicker materials mean that the room inside for the next leg down is less. That means the second section is thinner, and the third thinner still, etc. This is more of a variation than we get with aluminum legs.
So they size the legs one size up from their aluminum counterparts.
So there are compromises they must make.
So far, we're satisfied with those compromises, but they aren't perfect.
I'm holding out for nano-tubes.