Yes, but in the color description the colors mentioned started with the word "including". I don't see a reason why red won't work. The doping methods used for ceramics are similat to the coloring of glass. Selemium makes glass red, as does gold. There are combinations that will come up with a red, though not as good.
It's been awhile since I've worked with lots of ceramics. I always had fun with them but never took it too seriously.
Personally though, I think it's a great idea. But I doubt there will be 100's of colour options, though that'd be freaking cool if there was... :{
It's your post that spewed nonsense. And, yes, I am familiar with materials science. But, one doesn't have to be familiar with it to know that your post was simply erronious in every way.
Flexible cramics have only been around a few years, true, so what? They have already been used.
I said that ceramics can be reinforced, and they are, with whiskers of metal crystals and other materials, if required.
I don't know why you would mention fiberglass. It's far from how a flexable ceramic is made.
Don't post misleading, and incorrect information, and you won't have a problem.
If it's not me, it will be pointed out by someone here with even less restraint.
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
It's been awhile since I've worked with lots of ceramics. I always had fun with them but never took it too seriously.
Personally though, I think it's a great idea. But I doubt there will be 100's of colour options, though that'd be freaking cool if there was... :{
Probably not hundreds. But you would be amazed at just how many they could be. Some will be too expensive to bring to market. Others won't be considered to be attractive.
But, adding elements to the mix can be additive, as in any color process. When I did glasswork, we would add teo or more combinations to get a color, if necessary. The amount of the element would also determine the color.
That'w why I said that pink is a light red, though someone obviously didn't understand what I was saying.
Selenium is used to make both red, and pink, glass, for example.
I'm just using selenium as an example, because it isn't the safest material to use.
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
While you're right that I used a lathe in high school, it was in Stuyvesant H.S. here in New York, which is a science school.
If you read my bio, you'll know something about me. I owned a manufacturing company, among other things, so I suppose you could say I worked in one.
I responded the way I did, because your examples are all totally wrong. There is a lot of that in threads .Generally, if we have to use a bad example because we can't think of something better at the moment, we will say so. You didn't. That can only be thought of as your not understanding the subject. As you said you had a degree in it, that seemed impossible.
Yes, I responded strongly because of that. You could have easily used actual examples of ceramics instead of materials that have little in common with them, other than they are not metal or organic.
I'm familiar with Corning's first composites. But they are not the only ones now, and things have gone beyond that. Besides, composites are a difficult thing to define in an actual material. Usually, when the secondary material is below a specific level, the material is not thought of as a composit. That level depends on the material in question. It isn't like metal, where the percentage of alloying ingredient can be vanishingly small.
just cause pink was not mentioned does not mean it is not possible
"Radio transparency allows the wireless signals to pass through the enclosure and in some cases enhances these transmissions."
i said iPone cause it is possible that the enclosure would amplify signals
ok?
WTFK you need a chill pill, or is that an old term for you?
Geesh! I was just pointing out that other colors are possible. You were the one to say to someone else that pink wasn't mentioned. I realise it was a joke.
Just bcause I'm having a dispute with someone else, doesn't mean I'm having a dispute with you!
I don't understand why so many in the blogosphere are claiming this is iPhone proof. Couldn't it just as easily be proof of an iPod with wireless capabilities for syncing, downloading, and maybe even sharing like the Zune?
I think it would be hillarious if apple introduced an iPod that could share files with the Zune. Think about it; something with astetics in mind, along with a $200 price tag and a 40gig HD. It could have radio and WiFi, and would be smaller than the zune.
Cermacis are used in very expensive watch cases, and bands, as well as many scientific equipment.
Actually, ceramics are not what most people think they are. Sure most people have broken cups, and stoneware dishes. But there are many ceramics that are almost break-proof.
Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?
Many ceramics are even flexable, bending almost as much as plastic.
They are expensive though.
Why do you keep going off on all these tangents? You're saying some ceramics do this, some do that. The article mentions one ceramic: zirconium dioxide. They don't mention any others. If the properties you keep bringing up don't apply to zirconia, then your entire lecture is irrelevant. Especially since advanced engineering ceramics are expensive and unlikely to be used in consumer electronics, which we do know -- something you might consider before trying to patronize everyone here with your condescending tone. I've known about ceramics with superflexible, supertough, superfrangible, electrically conductive, or any of a host of other extreme properties for many decades. But they are not at issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I said that ceramics can be reinforced, and they are, with whiskers of metal crystals and other materials, if required.
I don't know why you would mention fiberglass. It's far from how a flexable ceramic is made.
I believe he brought up Fiberglas precisely because metal whiskers would eliminate one major function Apple is striving for here: transparency to radio waves. Once you start building a Faraday cage with metal whiskers, you might as well just return to a metal case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk
If they tried to construct an iPod out of an entirely ceramic case, and you forgot it in your pocket and sat on it--you'd probably destroy it. You do that with the current iPod, it might not be pretty afterward, but it probably wouldn't be destroyed (the screen--made of ceramics, of course--would likely fail if it got the brunt of the force.)
Ceramic screen? The iPod screen uses plastic and glass. Glass is not a ceramic. It's an amorphous solid, just the opposite of crystalline solids like ceramics.
Geesh! I was just pointing out that other colors are possible. You were the one to say to someone else that pink wasn't mentioned. I realise it was a joke.
Just bcause I'm having a dispute with someone else, doesn't mean I'm having a dispute with you!
Why do you keep going off on all these tangents? You're saying some ceramics do this, some do that. The article mentions one ceramic: zirconium dioxide. They don't mention any others. If the properties you keep bringing up don't apply to zirconia, then your entire lecture is irrelevant. Especially since advanced engineering ceramics are expensive and unlikely to be used in consumer electronics, which we do know -- something you might consider before trying to patronize everyone here with your condescending tone. I've known about ceramics with superflexible, supertough, superfrangible, electrically conductive, or any of a host of other extreme properties for many decades. But they are not at issue.
Ok, you're right. Zirconium based ceramics do this. Better?
I'm not talking about super flexible ceramics, just those that can rebound when impacted.
I'm sorry of you feel patronized. But, that's your feeling. It isn't my intention. There are people in this thread that don't believe there are ceramics that can be used in this way. I'm simply letting them know that it can be.
Do you despise information relevant to the article, and the posting afterwards? If so, why?
I didn't write this article. Apple is the one considering this. Perhaps you should acknowledge that before razing my information. Yell at them.
Quote:
I believe he brought up Fiberglas precisely because metal whiskers would eliminate one major function Apple is striving for here: transparency to radio waves. Once you start building a Faraday cage with metal whiskers, you might as well just return to a metal case.
He was mentioning composites, And so did I. I didn't say that this particular material would be used for Apple's purpose. I doubt, in the context of his statement that he was responding with fiberglass for that reason. It least it didn't seem so to me. It just looked to be another example of a non-ceramic that he was using, as in his first post. Would you comment on that? He wouldn't agree with you statement either.
Quote:
Ceramic screen? The iPod screen uses plastic and glass. Glass is not a ceramic. It's an amorphous solid, just the opposite of crystalline solids like ceramics.
I agree. But, there are flexible glasses as well, and they aren't that expensive, though more expensive than more normal glasses. They use them for windows.
Ok, you're right. Zirconium based ceramics do this. Better?
So zirconia bends almost as much as plastic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm sorry of you feel patronized. But, that's your feeling. It isn't my intention. There are people in this thread that don't believe there are ceramics that can be used in this way. I'm simply letting them know that it can be.
Do you despise information relevant to the article, and the posting afterwards? If so, why?
You desperately need to work on your interaction skills. Just look at the way you present your argument. You talk down to people, in this case assuming they think ceramics are nothing more than what mugs are made of. Give the people here more credit. You apparently don't understand how condescending you sound when you write "Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?" Aware? I came within a hair's breadth of becoming an aerospace engineer. Luckily, I'd switched and wasn't there when the field more or less collapsed in the 80s and early 1990s thanks to massive corporate consolidations with a couple of big companies swallowing almost everything else. No more McDonnell-Douglas, Martin-Marietta, Grumman, Rockwell International or Northrop. I remember when directional solidification and single crystal blades were brand spanking new manufacturing techniques. I'm quite aware of superalloys and thermal barrier coatings on all modern turbofans, not just "most US military fighter jets," thank you very much. I mean, really, do you honestly believe that Apple can fabricate cheap housings from Milspec ceramics? Before you bring up that Apple used "exotic" titanium in the original PB G4, that was CP titanium, a far cry from say, a good 6-4 aerospace-grade alloy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I didn't write this article. Apple is the one considering this. Perhaps you should acknowledge that before razing my information. Yell at them.
From the article:
In some cases, Apple said it may be necessary to applying a protective coating or protective features to the outside of the ceramic enclosure. "The coatings or features may for example be formed from deformable materials such as silicon, foam or rubber materials," the company said. "The coatings or protective features are typically positioned on the exterior surface to prevent cracking and protect the ceramic shell from undesirable forces as for example when the ceramic shell is dropped."
Sounds to me like an admission that it will not handle impact well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
He was mentioning composites, And so did I. I didn't say that this particular material would be used for Apple's purpose. I doubt, in the context of his statement that he was responding with fiberglass for that reason. It least it didn't seem so to me. It just looked to be another example of a non-ceramic that he was using, as in his first post. Would you comment on that? He wouldn't agree with you statement either.
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
You desperately need to work on your interaction skills. Just look at the way you present your argument. You talk down to people, in this case assuming they think ceramics are nothing more than what mugs are made of. Give the people here more credit. You apparently don't understand how condescending you sound when you write "Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?" Aware? I came within a hair's breadth of becoming an aerospace engineer. Luckily, I'd switched and wasn't there when the field more or less collapsed in the 80s and early 1990s thanks to massive corporate consolidations with a couple of big companies swallowing almost everything else. No more McDonnell-Douglas, Martin-Marietta, Grumman, Rockwell International or Northrop. I remember when directional solidification and single crystal blades were brand spanking new manufacturing techniques. I'm quite aware of superalloys and thermal barrier coatings on all modern turbofans, not just "most US military fighter jets," thank you very much.
What are you talking about? Why are you taking this personally? I've has a problem with someone else here, who you should be on top of. So, I can't make statements now? I can't ask you a question?
I wasn't fighting with you.
Quote:
From the article:
In some cases, Apple said it may be necessary to applying a protective coating or protective features to the outside of the ceramic enclosure. "The coatings or features may for example be formed from deformable materials such as silicon, foam or rubber materials," the company said. "The coatings or protective features are typically positioned on the exterior surface to prevent cracking and protect the ceramic shell from undesirable forces as for example when the ceramic shell is dropped."
Sounds to me like an admission that it will not handle impact well.
Yes, I read that. They also said in it that they 'may' have to coat them. It depends on which material they finally use, if any.
Quote:
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
This is the reference I was referring to:
"So-called "flexible" ceramics are a recent discovery, and are not PURE ceramics. They're composites--as I stated. Look at fiberglass. "
As I said, fiberglass is not a ceramic. That was the proper response.
I'm surprised you haven't responded to all of his incorrect examples.
I don't understand why so many in the blogosphere are claiming this is iPhone proof. Couldn't it just as easily be proof of an iPod with wireless capabilities for syncing, downloading, and maybe even sharing like the Zune?
"In one embodiment, the device is or includes functionality for supporting cellular or mobile phone usage,"
Comments
And you're an idiot troll.
Another moronic post. You're doing well for a beginner.
Yes, but in the color description the colors mentioned started with the word "including". I don't see a reason why red won't work. The doping methods used for ceramics are similat to the coloring of glass. Selemium makes glass red, as does gold. There are combinations that will come up with a red, though not as good.
It's been awhile since I've worked with lots of ceramics. I always had fun with them but never took it too seriously.
Personally though, I think it's a great idea. But I doubt there will be 100's of colour options, though that'd be freaking cool if there was... :{
Another moronic post. You're doing well for a beginner.
You started with the ad hominem attack old man.
It's your post that spewed nonsense. And, yes, I am familiar with materials science. But, one doesn't have to be familiar with it to know that your post was simply erronious in every way.
Flexible cramics have only been around a few years, true, so what? They have already been used.
I said that ceramics can be reinforced, and they are, with whiskers of metal crystals and other materials, if required.
I don't know why you would mention fiberglass. It's far from how a flexable ceramic is made.
Don't post misleading, and incorrect information, and you won't have a problem.
If it's not me, it will be pointed out by someone here with even less restraint.
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
It's been awhile since I've worked with lots of ceramics. I always had fun with them but never took it too seriously.
Personally though, I think it's a great idea. But I doubt there will be 100's of colour options, though that'd be freaking cool if there was... :{
Probably not hundreds. But you would be amazed at just how many they could be. Some will be too expensive to bring to market. Others won't be considered to be attractive.
But, adding elements to the mix can be additive, as in any color process. When I did glasswork, we would add teo or more combinations to get a color, if necessary. The amount of the element would also determine the color.
That'w why I said that pink is a light red, though someone obviously didn't understand what I was saying.
Selenium is used to make both red, and pink, glass, for example.
I'm just using selenium as an example, because it isn't the safest material to use.
You started with the ad hominem attack old man.
By saying that pink is a light red? You've parsed that well.
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
Snap! Snap!
"can be made into a wide variety of colors"
just cause pink was not mentioned does not mean it is not possible
"Radio transparency allows the wireless signals to pass through the enclosure and in some cases enhances these transmissions."
i said iPone cause it is possible that the enclosure would amplify signals
ok?
WTFK you need a chill pill, or is that an old term for you?
1) So-called flexible ceramics aren't pure ceramics--so they're actually composites, not ceramics.
2) You're the one that started parsing about ceramics being reinforced--I put it in my original message.
3) I didn't post anything misleading. You simply started spewing garbage.
You're probably one of those old bastards who started working a lathe when he was in high school and dropped out to work in manufacturing for the rest of your life, so you hate people who actually HAVE an education. That's why you're so bitter about materials science courses and claim I didn't take them.
I won't bother refuting any more of your silly attacks. You are not worth it--just like any other troll.
While you're right that I used a lathe in high school, it was in Stuyvesant H.S. here in New York, which is a science school.
If you read my bio, you'll know something about me. I owned a manufacturing company, among other things, so I suppose you could say I worked in one.
I responded the way I did, because your examples are all totally wrong. There is a lot of that in threads .Generally, if we have to use a bad example because we can't think of something better at the moment, we will say so. You didn't. That can only be thought of as your not understanding the subject. As you said you had a degree in it, that seemed impossible.
Yes, I responded strongly because of that. You could have easily used actual examples of ceramics instead of materials that have little in common with them, other than they are not metal or organic.
I'm familiar with Corning's first composites. But they are not the only ones now, and things have gone beyond that. Besides, composites are a difficult thing to define in an actual material. Usually, when the secondary material is below a specific level, the material is not thought of as a composit. That level depends on the material in question. It isn't like metal, where the percentage of alloying ingredient can be vanishingly small.
Perhaps we can start again.
so much miss understanding
"can be made into a wide variety of colors"
just cause pink was not mentioned does not mean it is not possible
"Radio transparency allows the wireless signals to pass through the enclosure and in some cases enhances these transmissions."
i said iPone cause it is possible that the enclosure would amplify signals
ok?
WTFK you need a chill pill, or is that an old term for you?
Geesh! I was just pointing out that other colors are possible. You were the one to say to someone else that pink wasn't mentioned. I realise it was a joke.
Just bcause I'm having a dispute with someone else, doesn't mean I'm having a dispute with you!
I don't understand why so many in the blogosphere are claiming this is iPhone proof. Couldn't it just as easily be proof of an iPod with wireless capabilities for syncing, downloading, and maybe even sharing like the Zune?
I think it would be hillarious if apple introduced an iPod that could share files with the Zune. Think about it; something with astetics in mind, along with a $200 price tag and a 40gig HD. It could have radio and WiFi, and would be smaller than the zune.
Cermacis are used in very expensive watch cases, and bands, as well as many scientific equipment.
Actually, ceramics are not what most people think they are. Sure most people have broken cups, and stoneware dishes. But there are many ceramics that are almost break-proof.
Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?
Many ceramics are even flexable, bending almost as much as plastic.
They are expensive though.
Why do you keep going off on all these tangents? You're saying some ceramics do this, some do that. The article mentions one ceramic: zirconium dioxide. They don't mention any others. If the properties you keep bringing up don't apply to zirconia, then your entire lecture is irrelevant. Especially since advanced engineering ceramics are expensive and unlikely to be used in consumer electronics, which we do know -- something you might consider before trying to patronize everyone here with your condescending tone. I've known about ceramics with superflexible, supertough, superfrangible, electrically conductive, or any of a host of other extreme properties for many decades. But they are not at issue.
I said that ceramics can be reinforced, and they are, with whiskers of metal crystals and other materials, if required.
I don't know why you would mention fiberglass. It's far from how a flexable ceramic is made.
I believe he brought up Fiberglas precisely because metal whiskers would eliminate one major function Apple is striving for here: transparency to radio waves. Once you start building a Faraday cage with metal whiskers, you might as well just return to a metal case.
If they tried to construct an iPod out of an entirely ceramic case, and you forgot it in your pocket and sat on it--you'd probably destroy it. You do that with the current iPod, it might not be pretty afterward, but it probably wouldn't be destroyed (the screen--made of ceramics, of course--would likely fail if it got the brunt of the force.)
Ceramic screen? The iPod screen uses plastic and glass. Glass is not a ceramic. It's an amorphous solid, just the opposite of crystalline solids like ceramics.
Geesh! I was just pointing out that other colors are possible. You were the one to say to someone else that pink wasn't mentioned. I realise it was a joke.
Just bcause I'm having a dispute with someone else, doesn't mean I'm having a dispute with you!
peace,
it was aimed at wtfk
Why do you keep going off on all these tangents? You're saying some ceramics do this, some do that. The article mentions one ceramic: zirconium dioxide. They don't mention any others. If the properties you keep bringing up don't apply to zirconia, then your entire lecture is irrelevant. Especially since advanced engineering ceramics are expensive and unlikely to be used in consumer electronics, which we do know -- something you might consider before trying to patronize everyone here with your condescending tone. I've known about ceramics with superflexible, supertough, superfrangible, electrically conductive, or any of a host of other extreme properties for many decades. But they are not at issue.
Ok, you're right. Zirconium based ceramics do this. Better?
I'm not talking about super flexible ceramics, just those that can rebound when impacted.
I'm sorry of you feel patronized. But, that's your feeling. It isn't my intention. There are people in this thread that don't believe there are ceramics that can be used in this way. I'm simply letting them know that it can be.
Do you despise information relevant to the article, and the posting afterwards? If so, why?
I didn't write this article. Apple is the one considering this. Perhaps you should acknowledge that before razing my information. Yell at them.
I believe he brought up Fiberglas precisely because metal whiskers would eliminate one major function Apple is striving for here: transparency to radio waves. Once you start building a Faraday cage with metal whiskers, you might as well just return to a metal case.
He was mentioning composites, And so did I. I didn't say that this particular material would be used for Apple's purpose. I doubt, in the context of his statement that he was responding with fiberglass for that reason. It least it didn't seem so to me. It just looked to be another example of a non-ceramic that he was using, as in his first post. Would you comment on that? He wouldn't agree with you statement either.
Ceramic screen? The iPod screen uses plastic and glass. Glass is not a ceramic. It's an amorphous solid, just the opposite of crystalline solids like ceramics.
I agree. But, there are flexible glasses as well, and they aren't that expensive, though more expensive than more normal glasses. They use them for windows.
Ok, you're right. Zirconium based ceramics do this. Better?
So zirconia bends almost as much as plastic?
I'm sorry of you feel patronized. But, that's your feeling. It isn't my intention. There are people in this thread that don't believe there are ceramics that can be used in this way. I'm simply letting them know that it can be.
Do you despise information relevant to the article, and the posting afterwards? If so, why?
You desperately need to work on your interaction skills. Just look at the way you present your argument. You talk down to people, in this case assuming they think ceramics are nothing more than what mugs are made of. Give the people here more credit. You apparently don't understand how condescending you sound when you write "Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?" Aware? I came within a hair's breadth of becoming an aerospace engineer. Luckily, I'd switched and wasn't there when the field more or less collapsed in the 80s and early 1990s thanks to massive corporate consolidations with a couple of big companies swallowing almost everything else. No more McDonnell-Douglas, Martin-Marietta, Grumman, Rockwell International or Northrop. I remember when directional solidification and single crystal blades were brand spanking new manufacturing techniques. I'm quite aware of superalloys and thermal barrier coatings on all modern turbofans, not just "most US military fighter jets," thank you very much. I mean, really, do you honestly believe that Apple can fabricate cheap housings from Milspec ceramics? Before you bring up that Apple used "exotic" titanium in the original PB G4, that was CP titanium, a far cry from say, a good 6-4 aerospace-grade alloy.
I didn't write this article. Apple is the one considering this. Perhaps you should acknowledge that before razing my information. Yell at them.
From the article:
In some cases, Apple said it may be necessary to applying a protective coating or protective features to the outside of the ceramic enclosure. "The coatings or features may for example be formed from deformable materials such as silicon, foam or rubber materials," the company said. "The coatings or protective features are typically positioned on the exterior surface to prevent cracking and protect the ceramic shell from undesirable forces as for example when the ceramic shell is dropped."
Sounds to me like an admission that it will not handle impact well.
He was mentioning composites, And so did I. I didn't say that this particular material would be used for Apple's purpose. I doubt, in the context of his statement that he was responding with fiberglass for that reason. It least it didn't seem so to me. It just looked to be another example of a non-ceramic that he was using, as in his first post. Would you comment on that? He wouldn't agree with you statement either.
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
So zirconia bends almost as much as plastic?
You desperately need to work on your interaction skills. Just look at the way you present your argument. You talk down to people, in this case assuming they think ceramics are nothing more than what mugs are made of. Give the people here more credit. You apparently don't understand how condescending you sound when you write "Are you aware that the turbine impellers used in most US millitary fighter jets are grown from advanced "super metals, and ceramics?" Aware? I came within a hair's breadth of becoming an aerospace engineer. Luckily, I'd switched and wasn't there when the field more or less collapsed in the 80s and early 1990s thanks to massive corporate consolidations with a couple of big companies swallowing almost everything else. No more McDonnell-Douglas, Martin-Marietta, Grumman, Rockwell International or Northrop. I remember when directional solidification and single crystal blades were brand spanking new manufacturing techniques. I'm quite aware of superalloys and thermal barrier coatings on all modern turbofans, not just "most US military fighter jets," thank you very much.
What are you talking about? Why are you taking this personally? I've has a problem with someone else here, who you should be on top of. So, I can't make statements now? I can't ask you a question?
I wasn't fighting with you.
From the article:
In some cases, Apple said it may be necessary to applying a protective coating or protective features to the outside of the ceramic enclosure. "The coatings or features may for example be formed from deformable materials such as silicon, foam or rubber materials," the company said. "The coatings or protective features are typically positioned on the exterior surface to prevent cracking and protect the ceramic shell from undesirable forces as for example when the ceramic shell is dropped."
Sounds to me like an admission that it will not handle impact well.
Yes, I read that. They also said in it that they 'may' have to coat them. It depends on which material they finally use, if any.
From his first post bringing up Fiberglas, "IF anyone wanted to use ceramics as structural materials, they'd have to put some kind of a mesh (maybe like a fiberglass matrix) in it. A metal mesh--of course--would defeat the purpose of the material choice." Sounds to me like he was writing exactly that.
This is the reference I was referring to:
"So-called "flexible" ceramics are a recent discovery, and are not PURE ceramics. They're composites--as I stated. Look at fiberglass. "
As I said, fiberglass is not a ceramic. That was the proper response.
I'm surprised you haven't responded to all of his incorrect examples.
Try Zirconia:
What do you say we start showing off some mock ups of future products with ceramics? Anyone? Come on....
Here's your white and black ceramics:
I don't understand why so many in the blogosphere are claiming this is iPhone proof. Couldn't it just as easily be proof of an iPod with wireless capabilities for syncing, downloading, and maybe even sharing like the Zune?
"In one embodiment, the device is or includes functionality for supporting cellular or mobile phone usage,"