Liquidmetal announces it is now shipping commercial parts to unnamed customers - Page 2

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal#Uses

It depends on the application.

For example, if you're making springs, the advantage is obvious.

For other materials, it changes the relationship between stress and strain which gives engineers an added degree of magnitude. In many cases, it allows for thinner materials because the metal is stronger and less brittle than conventional metals.

As a general rule, it's a good idea to do the thinking before you post.

Not at all. LOTS of companies do not let their suppliers give out their names. In fact, some companies are so strict about it that the supplier risks losing a customer if they tell anyone who is using the product (that's certainly true for several companies I've worked for).

Good suggestion, and one we all should follow don't you think?

In that case, I guess it's a good thing that I also wrote: "though I might very likely be wrong"



That's interesting, I didn't know that. I've never messed with any penny stocks before.


I'm looking to buy some AAPL today if conditions are right, and I guess I'll be using a limit order.

Maybe LQMT is selling it to DoD. I hear the DoD is in the market for terminators!! I'll be back

+1

Just think how far you could skip one across a pond!

glassy metallics are pretty hard. Think way more scratch resistant than Aluminum. Also, you can, in theory, thermoform them, which could save a lot of money compared to the machining they do now.

I still think that it is unlikely they could produce anything but very small and specialized parts for the ipads internal components. Liquidmetal is expensive and not something you are going to be able to produce in bulk like Aluminum.

So does black anodized aluminium before you anodize it.
If, saying if, Apple would use Liquid metal to use for an iPad, there is probably no way they can get the same silver surface as the glass blasted anodized aluminium.

One surface treatment could probably be kind of flat black, like in the invite rendering.

If the iPad 3 does use Liquid Metal then President and CEO Tom Steipp should be punished for leaking secrets ahead of the Apple announcement.

Does it? Do you put the color on before the anodization? Because I have an anodized aluminum Mac Pro sitting here that doesn't look too black.


You underestimate Apple.

Could the extreme bounciness somehow be used to make a better battery?

If I read correctly, LQMT said that Apple has a fully paid worldwide Exclusive license to commercialize this technology in the Electronics space.

And if I understand this correctly, Apple need not pay LQMT any more for using this technology - because it is already fully paid up.

In all likelihood, today's Apple annoucement will not make any money for the company - it will only increase the profile of the company and make them more attractive for other industries.

Might not be a bad idea to take some profits off the table if you got in early!

Every time you drop your iPad, a kinetic energy generator kicks in and charges the battery a little!

Touch feedback. The iPad will give a click-like tactile response to "clicking" buttons. Liquidmetal will be part of the high-efficiency mechanism that will deliver the sensation to your finger tips. Using a softer metal would absorb too much energy to be battery-friendly.

I´m buying in several portions from 0.21 to market, 20% what you else if the company is quoting less than 0.25cents?.

That bouncy ball demo was originally used when liquidmetal was advertising their driver golf clubs. It was meant to give the impression that a liquidmetal driver would be able to hit the ball farther than a titanium driver. A friend of mine had one, and it was a piece of crap. I hope the parts Apple has manufactured are engineered and function much better than liquidmetal's golf clubs.

They don't look black to me.

It really drives me crazy when people who don't understand business keep posting drivel.

Apple has a paid up LICENSE. That means they don't have to pay any more license fees. But who's going to make the product? Obviously, not Apple. Apple still has to buy the product from LQMT, so LQMT would see significant revenues (and, likely, profits) if Apple starts using the product in quantity.


What secret did they leak? Certainly nothing about Apple.

What makes you think that this cannot be done for Apple by Foxconn? This formula itself is not a secret - just that LQMT needs to be paid royalties for using the formula. If Apple has already paid LQMT for perpetual rights, why can't Apple use the formula and have someone like Foxconn make this for them? Where does LQMT make money in such a scenario?

If Foxconn can do unibody machining for Aluminium, this should be a lot easier technologically.

And more importantly, do you really think LQMT has the scale and the resources to satisfy Apple's demands, if Apple starts using this product on a serious scale?

I look at LQMT kind of like a fabless semiconductor design company - they perfect the design, and then let others take care of the grunt work.

And while you are at this, go read up LiquidMetal on Wikipedia. All the formulae for various options are listed there. The science behind this is also there. And do read up about how LiquidMetal can actually be cast and is still strong, stable and has better finish - whereas other metals cannot be cast without a lot of post-processing and finishing to make them usable. Now, consider the unibody Mac. If Apple can cast LiquidMetal to do this, as opposed to machining solid blocks of Aluminium, their overall costs would be much lower - even if Aluminium blocks are lot cheaper than LiquidMetal (because casting is a much cheaper process than machining - making the moulds is the most expensive part of the process - and since Apple makes those in bulk, even that would be cheap for Apple). I would be willing to bet that Johnny Ive's next innovation would be using cast LiquidMetal instead of machined unibody Aluminium.

First, Foxconn is an assembler, not a metal foundry. They almost certainly do not have the experience to do this.

Second, the fact that Apple has a paid up license to use the product does not mean that they have a license to MAKE the product.

Third, even if Apple has a license to make the product, it doesn't mean that it's transferrable to Foxconn or anyone else.

Fourth, it takes time to build manufacturing capability. Why in the world would Apple go to someone who has no technology, no experience, and no equipment when LQMT is ready to make products for them?

Finally, your last sentence is wrong. LQMT is a manufacturer. They are also a research firm. Now, it's entirely possible that they might license the technology to someone else at some time, but you made a flat statement that LQMT would not profit from Apple using their products - and you were flat out wrong based on what we know.

Foxconn does a whole lot more than just vanilla assembling. Read up on how unibody is made. Yes, machining is not the same as being a metal foundry - but it is a lot closer to foundry than just assembling is.

Read my post - the formula and the process are well known. The only thing stopping someone else from making this themselves is the royalty payments to be paid to LQMT. There is nothing stopping Apple from making this product on their own. And being a contract manufacturer, Foxconn would be able to do this for Apple. Especially since Apple owns all the rights to commercialize this product. Apple's lawyers might have slipped up with Proview - but do you think they would sign an agreement where Apple cannot get a contract manufacturer to make this stuff for them, and have to make it themselves??

Yes - it takes time to build up manufacturing capacity. But pretty much anyone in this forum would agree that Foxconn is easily the best in the world at building up capacity quickly. Do you really think LQMT can match Foxconn in terms of people, labor, land, access to raw materials, and the like? Or in terms of logistical expertise?

Yes - LQMT makes this stuff. But in puny volumes. The volumes they make are like prototype volumes compared to the kind of volumes Apple can absorb. If LQMT has that sort of volumes and capacity, do you think they would be a penny stock?

Don't get me wrong - this is a major boost to LQMT - but it is more a boost in terms of an increase of profile and will possibly open doors for them in other industries. They already made the money they could make from Apple.

The formula is not well known. These are proprietary LQMT formulas and not anyone can make it. Unless Apple's license specifically allows them to sublicense the manufacture of LQMT materials, then LQMT will be the manufacturer. Period.

Oh, and a metal foundry is absolutely nothing like machining - if Foxconn even does machining, that is. Most reports are that Foxconn buys the unibody cases from someone else.


ETA:
I was right. Apple's license is to USE Liquidmetal in consumer electronics devices, not to manufacture it:
http://www.theblogismine.com/2010/08...-technologies/

It would require a different license for Apple to have the right to MAKE the products.

Fascinating. Liquidmetal amorphous metals could have a strength to weight ratio higher than that of steel, while being cheaper to manufacture than composite materials. And because of their flow properties, amorphous metals can be formed into complex shapes without machining. Another cost benefit.

But can Liquidmetal be recycled? How could Apple capture the Liquidmetal in their products for re-use? (Just to keep Greenpeace off their backs.) Maybe some kind of recycling program that gives participants a discount toward newer Apple products?

Liquidmetal can be recycled like any other metal alloy.

As for the rest, it's important to realize that Liquidmetal is a technology, not a product. There are many different liquid metal alloys. Not all of them have the properties you cite. Some are very expensive ($1500 per ounce, for example).

That isnt everything they are introducing this year.

The big announcements will come out in the Summer.

Until then, have a look at this:

http://www.patentbolt.com/2012/03/a-...e-in-2013.html

Talk about a real "revolutionary design".

Just want to put the record straight that those who love to make the argument that Apple used Liquidmetal first on consumer electronics. But this is Apple fans that we are talking of so they will come up with some excuse to say otherwise.

Look, everyone here knows that Apple is rarely first to market with a new tech, but your comments like to ignore and deny the difficult parts of engineering which are coming to market in a large scale and doing it right so that it enhances the user experience. Example, Apple wasn't the first smartphone with a touchscreen or capacitance touchscreen, but they were the first with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen which is needed for natural appliances like two-finger pinch pinch and zoom. Cut/copy/paste is another one. Even today Android still hasn't gotten scrolling or copy/paste down nearly as well.

Really? Where?

Of course, it doesn't matter because Samsung can't use it any more. Too bad.

WATCHED THE VIDEO

man this thing looks as thou if you drop it will bounce back into your hands lol

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/7670.php

Um... Liquid Metal has a plant in South Korea...you know home of Samsung?

OK. Too bad Samsung can't use Liquidmetal any more.