or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple may turn to carbon fiber for lighter MacBook Air
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may turn to carbon fiber for lighter MacBook Air - Page 2

post #41 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

As far as I've heard, CF + resin is not recyclable. It has to be burned or dumped.



Carbon fiber is labor intensive, the CF material is expensive, and is not yet well suited for mass production. It is better suited for lower volume high cost items, such as aircraft and exotic cars and such. There are people trying to automate the process but it's not there yet. It's a bit more of an elaborate art/craft than an industrial process.

This is like fiberglass, it's almost impossible to recycle. But with fiberglass thay can grind it down for certain uses.

Also these carbon nanotubes used for some of the newest, most exotic stuff, which is expected to become much cheaper (it's mucho times more expensive than the stuff used for bikes and cases), is considered to be a health hazard.
post #42 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

To make something from CF, the usual practice is to use epoxy resin to bind the fibres together. Epoxy is comprised of two components, a resin and a hardener, which in most cases are mixed in a 2:1 ratio. The resulting liquid then hardens. It gives of some odour and invisible fumes in very small quantities. These should be vented away from workers. But apart from these very slight fumes, essentially all of the two original components go to forming the final plastic, so the environmental effects are negligible.

If Apple really wants to be cutting edge in the weight saving stakes they could look at using Dyneema for large area panels where high stiffness is not required.

Dyneema is also called spectra in some markets. It has a density less than that of water yet is 15 times stronger than steel by weight. It is lighter than CF and is transparent to radio frequencies so that would be a double edged sword. It is not as stiff as CF though.

Here is another option...

Quote:
TEGRIS

"To address the need for affordable materials that are both lightweight and strong, Milliken & Company has produced a composite material branded Tegris, which it markets as an alternative to carbon fiber composite. Tegris has about 70% of the strength of carbon fiber composite, and it is only about 10% of the cost.

Auto racing has a way of driving material innovation. Carbon fiber might be fine for Formula 1 budgets, but what about racings poorer cousins? NASCAR adopted Tegris for use in its splitters. Unlike carbon fiber, it doesnt splinter when it breaks, which prevents having sharp pieces of splitter lying on the track after the typical NASCAR pile up.

Tegris is composed of polypropylene threads fused together in successive layers. The patented process starts with a polypropylene structure co-extruded as a film, which is then slit into tapes and highly drawn to create a stiff, strong core. The tape yarn is woven into a fabric, and successive fabric layers are pressed together to create a single piece using thermoforming. The outside layers fuse together, playing the same role that the epoxy or resin plays in a carbon-fiber composite, while the core provides the structural strength. Layers are stacked and pressed together at very high pressure, then cut using water jets.

According to Milliken, the composite provides two to fifteen times the impact resistance of a typical thermoplastic. While Tegris is not as light or as stiff as carbon fiber composite, it is fully recyclable, unlike carbon fiber. The material returns to standard polypro upon melting during recycling. Also, by avoiding the use of glass for stiffening, Tegris wont wear out molds the way fiberglass does.

The applications beyond motorsports currently include other less motorized vehicles like kayaks and canoes. With its strength and weather resistant properties, one could also imagine outdoor furniture formed from the material."

If Apple is looking for a way to create an strong, lightweight yet affordable NetBook, Tegris might be the answer. I could see a MacBook nano made completely out of Tegris being very lightweight and affordable.
post #43 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderkid View Post

We need a machine that has a 10, 12, or even 13" screen and a full size keyboard. Where Apple totally blew it with all their recent portable releases is not catering for the credit crunch, the mobile professional and those who don't need video gaming power everywhere. All they had to do with the Air to make it perfect was get rid of the wasted space in the bezel and keyboard surround, add two more USB ports and Firewire - and they would have an OS X powered netbook without any real sacrifices.

When you're in an aircraft or train, it is the dept and width of our device that counts.

Please please Apple, make an ultralight narrow and shallow portable. And price is below £600. I am ready to buy. Until then, my Mac Mini is my Mac. Because it's affordable and compact.

What trains do you ride?
post #44 of 155
This is very likely. It is getting cheaper and cheaper. Its very strong, it handles heat very well and can be colored in any color. It is also very flexible under high temperatures, meaning that macbook can be shaped to anything they like. I can see iPhone be made out of it too. Im so not a fan of this plastic back.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #45 of 155
How 'bout they just have all of the components floating in a rich nutrient bath inside a clear bubble?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 155
Carbon fiber is expensive right now, and the price hasn't been going down for 3 or 4 years.

The demand has been so high in so many different industries that suppliers really haven't been able to keep up with demand.

For apple to start introducing CF without increasing prices, it would basically have to build its own CF factory, which I don't see happening if their on a timetable...
post #47 of 155
Oh look! Another laptop thread.
post #48 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Here is another option...



If Apple is looking for a way to create an strong, lightweight yet affordable NetBook, Tegris might be the answer. I could see a MacBook nano made completely out of Tegris being very lightweight and affordable.

I don't know. Impact resistence doesn't equal stiffness which is the chief problem with notebooks.

The use for this material is for body panels, which are just coverings for racecars. The impact resistence is just so they don't have to replace them all the time. The stifness is provided by the steel roll frame.

A laptop needs the panels to be stiff.

Machined aluminum and carbon fiber are stiff.
post #49 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

What trains do you ride?

HO Scale?
post #50 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

The cost. Carbon fiber is extremely expensive.

That and it is not RF transparent, so say goodbye to WiFi and Bluetooth unless you have external antennae.
post #51 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

HO Scale?



Think about the little people in the lockers at the train stations!
post #52 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BisonInTexas View Post

That and it is not RF transparent, so say goodbye to WiFi and Bluetooth unless you have external antennae.

I doubt Boeing's 777 lavish use of Carbon Fiber is keeping it from wifi.

The location of the Wifi point of contact not having it's RF signal from being shielded will be considered highly important for whatever material choices Apple determines the best choice for their business model.
post #53 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hodgkin View Post

CF is used extensively in the pro cycling industry, with frames and most of the structural parts of these high performance frames built out of the stuff. I think there are places on high performance cars that use CF as well. It would not be unreasonable to create the entire LCD panel rear out of CF, though that may give them a design headache figuring out how to get the aesthetics down.

The new Vette's have CF panels in them and everywhere they can stick.

The airlines use CF too. So I am curious to see how much weight loss an really happen with CF. Amazing stuff. It dissipates heat fast too; I have touched some bike exhaust mufflers that were made of CF and I was blown away.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #54 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Look like an exercise in diminishing returns. A 7-8% weight drop? Is that really worth the effort?

Also, what about the environmental aspect of such a switch? I believe you can cut aluminum with environmentally friendly coolants and recycle the shavings easily. On the other hand, forming composites involves some chemical reactions and I don't know how polluting those are.

Maybe someone can fill us in.

Aluminum takes lots of energy to go from Bauxite to the Billet that apple would probs. use for its "brick" machining process.


Don't know if you'd be able to recycle the shavings and get the same alloy rating/type for the new billet made from them. I think there are several hundred or thousand different alloys of Aluminum.
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
post #55 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kultist View Post

Damn, do you people live in a parallel universe with different laws of physics or are you just trying to be funny? How can you even EXPECT to get MORE stuff crammed in LESS space AND a device that weights LESS and cost LESS? Are you even serious? Do you really think you can get USB x 2, FW, full keyboard and screen and at the same time a notebook that's lighter than one that does not have those specs and cost less? You can't get ultraportable without sacrifices. Get real please.

If you want an ultraportable notebook, you have to be prepared to give up some ports and specs and to pay for it. Miniaturization has a price you know.

Well Said.
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
post #56 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I doubt Boeing's 777 lavish use of Carbon Fiber is keeping it from wifi.

The location of the Wifi point of contact not having it's RF signal from being shielded will be considered highly important for whatever material choices Apple determines the best choice for their business model.

I didn't realize that the 777 was receiving wifi from outside the fuselage while in flight, nor is the entire fuselage made out of Carbon Fiber (actually only portions of the tail, control surfaces and engine nacelles are composed of CF, the majority of the airframe is aluminum).

My point was to the original poster that suggested making the entire laptop out of CF, which would pose problems for RF reception. Some CF would be fine, but not the whole thing.
post #57 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This is like fiberglass, it's almost impossible to recycle. But with fiberglass thay can grind it down for certain uses.

Also these carbon nanotubes used for some of the newest, most exotic stuff, which is expected to become much cheaper (it's mucho times more expensive than the stuff used for bikes and cases), is considered to be a health hazard.

That's why it's called FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic).

There is no such thing as production SWNT (Single Walled Nano Tubes).

Carbon fibers themselves have the worst compressive properties due to kink banding. That's why you don't see high modulus ropes made from carbon fibers, the carbon fibers break quite easily relative to Zylon (PBO), Kevlar/Twaron, Dyneema/Spectra, Technora, or Vectran. DuPont has yet to produce production quantities of their M5 fibers, and if so, will first be used exclusively in military applications.

Carbon fibers, or Kevlar make excellent structural panels once bonded with resin, however the specific strength and specific modulus are reduced significantly due to the resin and woven fabrics to less that a factor of two strength wise and will never be as stiff pound for pound as existing high strength metals. No existing high strength woven fibers can currently match steel with a modulus of 29,000 ksi, or aluminum with a modulus of 10,000 ksi, or titanium with a modulus of 16,000 ksi.

Some basics are in order, EI is the product of modulus and moment of inertia (bending), this produces the inherent bending stiffness of any material, similarly EA/L produces the inherent axial stiffness (or K). While high modulus fibers have high strength to weight ratios relative to metals, this is reduced significantly as noted above due to the necessary addition of resins and to woven fabrics with warp and weft fill components (the fibers no longer lie in a straight line, although unidirectional multiply laminates are always possible, say 6 plies at 60 degrees each).

For instance, structural panels use a very light weight foam core (PE, PU, PET, or PVC) bonded to high strength metals such as 7075-T6 or 6061-T6 aluminum or FRP panels. Also see the Airbus A-380 which used such a material patented as Glare (can't remember at this very moment if it's a foam core or an FRP core though).

Dyneema is a very poor material due to it's linear creep properties inherent in it's low temperature limitations (70 C max, 50 C for long lifetime). Dyneema is not 15 times stronger than high strength metals (A factor of 10 is the most I've ever seen the Dyneema literature claim), stainless steels can easily exceed ~250 ksi yield stress, aluminum ~80 ksi, and titanium ~200 ksi.

Apple has zero direct experience with FRP, the SME's would all be from other private sector industries. Anyone with half a brain can do metals, apparently Apple has at least half a brain (the Asians).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 155
Okay Apple, you guys are crazy, but hey, that what makes Apple...Apple

Lets hope Apple will continue this way as a company who always improve it current products to make it better. Maybe at the same time they can get the MBP lighter again cause unibody MBP is slightly heavier then previous gen MBP (although the weight increase is very small)
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #59 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BisonInTexas View Post

I didn't realize that the 777 was receiving wifi from outside the fuselage while in flight, nor is the entire fuselage made out of Carbon Fiber (actually only portions of the tail, control surfaces and engine nacelles are composed of CF, the majority of the airframe is aluminum).

My point was to the original poster that suggested making the entire laptop out of CF, which would pose problems for RF reception. Some CF would be fine, but not the whole thing.

You're only reinforcing my point that the point of presence for the Wifi antenna will not be shielded in CF.
post #60 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That's why it's called FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic).

There is no such thing as production SWNT (Single Walled Nano Tubes).

Carbon fibers themselves have the worst compressive properties due to kink banding. That's why you don't see high modulus ropes made from carbon fibers, the carbon fibers break quite easily relative to Zylon (PBO), Kevlar/Twaron, Dyneema/Spectra, Technora, or Vectran. DuPont has yet to produce production quantities of their M5 fibers, and if so, will first be used exclusively in military applications.

Carbon fibers, or Kevlar make excellent structural panels once bonded with resin, however the specific strength and specific modulus are reduced significantly due to the resin and woven fabrics to less that a factor of two strength wise and will never be as stiff pound for pound as existing high strength metals. No existing high strength woven fibers can currently match steel with a modulus of 29,000 ksi, or aluminum with a modulus of 10,000 ksi, or titanium with a modulus of 16,000 ksi.

Some basics are in order, EI is the product of modulus and moment of inertia (bending), this produces the inherent bending stiffness of any material, similarly EA/L produces the inherent axial stiffness (or K). While high modulus fibers have high strength to weight ratios relative to metals, this is reduced significantly as noted above due to the necessary addition of resins and to woven fabrics with warp and weft fill components (the fibers no longer lie in a straight line, although unidirectional multiply laminates are always possible, say 6 plies at 60 degrees each).

For instance, structural panels use a very light weight foam core (PE, PU, PET, or PVC) bonded to high strength metals such as 7075-T6 or 6061-T6 aluminum or FRP panels. Also see the Airbus A-380 which used such a material patented as Glare (can't remember at this very moment if it's a foam core or an FRP core though).

Dyneema is a very poor material due to it's linear creep properties inherent in it's low temperature limitations (70 C max, 50 C for long lifetime). Dyneema is not 15 times stronger than high strength metals (A factor of 10 is the most I've ever seen the Dyneema literature claim), stainless steels can easily exceed ~250 ksi yield stress, aluminum ~80 ksi, and titanium ~200 ksi.

Apple has zero direct experience with FRP, the SME's would all be from other private sector industries. Anyone with half a brain can do metals, apparently Apple has at least half a brain (the Asians).

I know this as a Mechanical Engineer but what's the point of discussing Young's Modulus, fracture mechanics, creep, tensile strengths and more to someone who doesn't have the background to truly grasp it?
post #61 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I know this as a Mechanical Engineer but what's the point of discussing Young's Modulus, fracture mechanics, creep, tensile strengths and more to someone who doesn't have the background to truly grasp it?

A lot of amateur night chirping from the peanut gallery.

Oh, and the fact that Apple has never had the requisite ME skills in house IMHO.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BisonInTexas View Post

That and it is not RF transparent, so say goodbye to WiFi and Bluetooth unless you have external antennae.

Yes, but it makes a great reflector antennae dish.
post #63 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSA View Post

I will agree with you that ultraportable notebooks require sacrifices, but a single USB port that is recessed so that you need an extension cable of some type to even use the USB port is an absolutely unneccesary sacrifice.

There are plenty of netbooks(<10") that have a smaller chassis that have >1 USB port. Heck, many of them still offer ethernet as well and a few like the HP mini managed to get more USB ports, ethernet, AND an expresscard/34 slot into a 9" laptop. If HP stuffed all that into a 9" how is it that Apple can't get half of that into a 13"? Weight certainly isn't a big factor. After you subtract the weight of hole in the body and add a USB connector and a little solder on the logic board how much weight does a USB port add? 2-3 grams maybe? USB connectors are only a few grams so after you subtract the weight of the hole adding USB ports shouldn't add much mass to the laptop.

There are some genuine sacrifices that need to be made in an ultraportable(smaller keyboards, lower power CPUs/GPUs, etc.), but any Apple apologist that claims that there wasn't enough space for an ethernet jack or another USB port or an Expresscard/34 slot clearly hasn't looked around much. Heck, at about the same weight, Apple could have included an optical drive, 3 USB ports, and an ethernet port like Lenovo did with the X300. Dropping the optical drive, the ethernet port, and the USB ports didn't make the MBA much lighter, but took away quite a bit of functionality in the process. For a machine without an optical drive the MBA should really be a lot lighter than it is! Not moving to a carbon fiber body like many of Apple's competitors have done with machines to cut down on weight seems like a serious oversight for a machine that is supposed to be really light. The MBA should really be closer to 2.5lbs than 3.0lbs if they really wanted to gloat about it being light.

Good industrial design follows the mantra that form follows function, but at Apple it seems that form must limit function in order to meet Steve Jobs visions(eg. Apple III, Mac Cube, Macbook Air, etc.). Jonathan Ives and his industrial design team have made some nice designs, but the MacBook Air isn't one of them.

Just shut up will you. What do you know about industrial design.
post #64 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I know this is off topic and I will try my hardest not to ever bring it up again but is it possible to refrain from calling Apple a 'Cupertino based firm', or worse still- a 'Cupertino based technology firm'? I know it is hard to write good copy that's just plain lazy. It's like me calling my neighbor 'the person residing next door' because I have already called him by his name - John - in a previous sentence. The company is Apple but it can equally be referred to as 'the company', 'the firm' or even 'Job's and co', but pleeeeze - we all know where Apple HQ is and that the company is involved in electronics.

OK.... sorry...

Seconded. A few weeks ago the phrase "...the Cupertino Calf.-based phone maker..." annoyed me so much I stayed away for a few days!
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #65 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

It is pretty obvious that the Air is not selling well. Jobs himself said the MacBook is the best selling of all the portables. Pro would be next, then the Air. You don't need to work at Apple to figure that one out.

So because its not selling more than the macbook and pro it means its not selling well, wow you must be some sort of genius to be able to come to that conclusion.
post #66 of 155
I thought one of the major points about moving all the macs to aluminum was the recyclable nature of the case. Aluminum obviously offers good cost to weight/strength ratio whereas CF certainly does not.

I won't argue with anyone contending a CF Air would be cool looking but past that, it would expensive, not wear as well and not be recyclable. So what's the point?

I'm not saying it couldn't happen but it would be complete reversal of the current version of The Law Of The Jobs. I don't see it happening.

Anyway, if you're going to do it to the bottom there's little reason not to do it to the top (well, other than even higher cost).
post #67 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

Seconded. A few weeks ago the phrase "...the Cupertino Calf.-based phone maker..." annoyed me so much I stayed away for a few days!

It's been a complaint on occasion, but I think Kasper explained it saying that just writing "Apple, Inc." got too boring.

It certainly doesn't help identification, it's not as if there is another Apple consumer electronics company in another city or state that could reasonably be confused with this Apple company.
post #68 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's been a complaint on occasion, but I think Kasper explained it saying that just writing "Apple, Inc." got too boring.

It certainly doesn't help identification, it's not as if there is another Apple consumer electronics company in another city or state that could reasonably be confused with this Apple company.

And writing "the Cupertino based Electronics company" is less boring? If Kaspar is bored Kaspar should try and have more fun by thinking up a better and/or more creative way to construct his sentences. I'm not dissing his writing generally speaking, don't get me wrong. Just that.
post #69 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That's why it's called FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic).

There is no such thing as production SWNT (Single Walled Nano Tubes).

Carbon fibers themselves have the worst compressive properties due to kink banding. That's why you don't see high modulus ropes made from carbon fibers, the carbon fibers break quite easily relative to Zylon (PBO), Kevlar/Twaron, Dyneema/Spectra, Technora, or Vectran. DuPont has yet to produce production quantities of their M5 fibers, and if so, will first be used exclusively in military applications.

Carbon fibers, or Kevlar make excellent structural panels once bonded with resin, however the specific strength and specific modulus are reduced significantly due to the resin and woven fabrics to less that a factor of two strength wise and will never be as stiff pound for pound as existing high strength metals. No existing high strength woven fibers can currently match steel with a modulus of 29,000 ksi, or aluminum with a modulus of 10,000 ksi, or titanium with a modulus of 16,000 ksi.

Some basics are in order, EI is the product of modulus and moment of inertia (bending), this produces the inherent bending stiffness of any material, similarly EA/L produces the inherent axial stiffness (or K). While high modulus fibers have high strength to weight ratios relative to metals, this is reduced significantly as noted above due to the necessary addition of resins and to woven fabrics with warp and weft fill components (the fibers no longer lie in a straight line, although unidirectional multiply laminates are always possible, say 6 plies at 60 degrees each).

For instance, structural panels use a very light weight foam core (PE, PU, PET, or PVC) bonded to high strength metals such as 7075-T6 or 6061-T6 aluminum or FRP panels. Also see the Airbus A-380 which used such a material patented as Glare (can't remember at this very moment if it's a foam core or an FRP core though).

Dyneema is a very poor material due to it's linear creep properties inherent in it's low temperature limitations (70 C max, 50 C for long lifetime). Dyneema is not 15 times stronger than high strength metals (A factor of 10 is the most I've ever seen the Dyneema literature claim), stainless steels can easily exceed ~250 ksi yield stress, aluminum ~80 ksi, and titanium ~200 ksi.

Apple has zero direct experience with FRP, the SME's would all be from other private sector industries. Anyone with half a brain can do metals, apparently Apple has at least half a brain (the Asians).

Actually there is small production of carbon nanotube composites. It's been around for less than a year, it's used for a few very high value parts, as you say, in military and aerospace products. There have been breakthroughs in carbon nanotube production the past two years, and esp. the past year.

It's thought that in another two years or so, the cost will come down several times from where it is, which is hundreds of times lower than it was several years ago.

I've seen some of their product (interestingly enough, the metal extrusions they are using for their machines are the same ones I use for many of my own projects, from a company called 80/20 inc.):

http://www.dailytech.com/Sheets+of+C...ticle10927.htm

Here is a new one that's getting ready to come out. You likely already know of it. This will be fairly cheap (relatively so):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/10/17/b...ref=newssearch
post #70 of 155
The only way I would ever consider buying a Macbook Air is if it was priced about the same as a mac mini. Which will never happen.

It's a shame because it would pair nicely with an iMac and make for a nice secondary computer for surfing on the couch or curling up in the hammock in the backyard and watching old episodes of survivor on youtube.
post #71 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

The only way I would ever consider buying a Macbook Air is if it was priced about the same as a mac mini. Which will never happen.

It's just not possible. The processor alone is $284 and $316 per 1000 for the 1.60Ghz and 1.86Ghz, respectively. If you want a light, cheap portable you may want to consider an MSi Wind with OS X installed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #72 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Not that I disagree with you, but the Air likely shares the same display as the MacBook, so Apple can benefit from volume pricing and an economy of scale (e.g., simpler quality control and an ability to divert components where they're needed most).

On a side note, 500 GB drives probably aren't offered as an option yet on the MacBook and MacBook Pro because there's currently only a sole source (Samsung), which reduces bargaining power and would wreak havoc on sales if the manufacturer couldn't meet demand.

No, the new MacBook's screen is lower quality and doesn't have as wide of viewing angles. The MacBook Air uses a higher quality screen.
post #73 of 155
As for the CF-stuff many points have already been taken:

The carbon fibers will account for about 95% of the cost, the resin is negligible.
Apple wouldn't use unidirectional fibers but a mesh for biaxial strength. Most probably - as they were bragging about torsional stiffness - they will have to use several layers of mesh with the fibers at an angle of 45° between two different layers.

Producing carbon fibers takes a lot of energy because you have to heat plastic fibers up to 2000°C without the presence of oxygen. Furthermore you can hardly recycle it (you can grind it and use it as a filler for less challenging purposes).

And I don't believe Apple's statment that the new unibody MB's are enviromentally greener than the old ones, as long as you just look at the body. When you want to make aluminium you are digging bauxite and then invest hugh amounts of energy to melt the whole thing and extract the aluminium. Melting aluminium for recycling costs less money, but still you have to invest hugh amounts of electricity.

Wehreas if you are using injection molded plastic, it takes a significant smaller amount of energy to produce it, and if you burn it under controlled conditions you can get a not to small amount of energy back.

But this doesn't effect the claimed gain in mechanical strength in any way.
post #74 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

And writing "the Cupertino based Electronics company" is less boring? If Kaspar is bored Kaspar should try and have more fun by thinking up a better and/or more creative way to construct his sentences. I'm not dissing his writing generally speaking, don't get me wrong. Just that.

I thought he uses several different ways to say the same thing, which was my point. And the spelling is Kasper, it was in the text you quoted.
post #75 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

As for the CF-stuff many points have already been taken:

The carbon fibers will account for about 95% of the cost, the resin is negligible.
Apple wouldn't use unidirectional fibers but a mesh for biaxial strength. Most probably - as they were bragging about torsional stiffness - they will have to use several layers of mesh with the fibers at an angle of 45° between two different layers.

Producing carbon fibers takes a lot of energy because you have to heat plastic fibers up to 2000°C without the presence of oxygen. Furthermore you can hardly recycle it (you can grind it and use it as a filler for less challenging purposes).

And I don't believe Apple's statment that the new unibody MB's are enviromentally greener than the old ones, as long as you just look at the body. When you want to make aluminium you are digging bauxite and then invest hugh amounts of energy to melt the whole thing and extract the aluminium. Melting aluminium for recycling costs less money, but still you have to invest hugh amounts of electricity.

Wehreas if you are using injection molded plastic, it takes a significant smaller amount of energy to produce it, and if you burn it under controlled conditions you can get a not to small amount of energy back.

But this doesn't effect the claimed gain in mechanical strength in any way.

Everything you generalized varies with the type of carbon fiber tubes and their applications.
post #76 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I thought he uses several different ways to say the same thing...

This is done to get higher rankings by Google etc.
post #77 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oh, and the fact that Apple has never had the requisite ME skills in house IMHO.

Can you provide examples as to why you think this?
post #78 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Can you provide examples as to why you think this?

Can't prove a negative, thus the IMHO.

But have you ever seen Apple explicitly advertise for an ME?

I haven't.

The iPos Shuffle clip, the iPod nano screen, laptop batteries, I could make quite a list simply by going through AI articles, or HW class action lawsuits against Apple.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Can't prove a negative, thus the IMHO.

But have you ever seen Apple explicitly advertise for an ME?

I haven't.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything, I just wanted to know why you have that opinion.

I don't watch their job listings.

I got the impression that maybe you thought there were mechanical problems that suggest they don't have that kind of talent, I was curious to know what they might be.
post #80 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

Maranatha!

Hey, love your "signature"! I just saw a bumper sticker that said "Got Hope?" (like the milk marketing) but underneath it said "Barack Obama". Made me sick and reminded me of the Israelites crying for an earthly king instead of letting God be their King. He, of course, gave them Saul and they eventually regretted putting God second.

Maranatha indeed!!!! I believe His coming is VERY, VERY close. 300-400 prophecies are all fitting together like a gigantic puzzle. Scary, yet exciting at the same time!

Relating to the article, dropping the Air's weight to under 3 lbs. and keeping it as strong or stronger will be a great benefit. However, like another has mentioned, physical dimensions (in width and depth) are the most critical. Thinness is great, but manageability in the average plane seat should be the test bed. Lack of extra connections, however, is fine with me. It's an ultra portable focused on wireless tech. Extra built-in USB or a firewire connection is not necessary.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple may turn to carbon fiber for lighter MacBook Air