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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When the author of the original blog entry wrote this above:
"Carbon fiber is an extremely lightweight material comprised of very thin fibers about 0.005?0.010 millimeters in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms. The atoms bond together in microscopic crystals that are aligned parallel to the long axis of the fiber and can thus be used to form exceptionally strong composites without requiring more material.
The high strength-to-weight ratio of carbon fiber has made it a popular choice for the aerospace, sporting, and racing industries, where it's used for aircraft parts, bicycle frames, and performance car bodies."
"Carbon fiber or carbon fibre[1] (alternately called graphite fiber, graphite fibre or carbon graphite) is a material consisting of extremely thin fibers about 0.0002?0.0004 inches (0.005?0.010 mm) in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms. The carbon atoms are bonded together in microscopic crystals that are more or less aligned parallel to the long axis of the fiber. The crystal alignment makes the fiber incredibly strong for its size. Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric.[2] Carbon fiber has many different weave patterns and can be combined with a plastic resin and wound or molded to form composite materials such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic (also referenced as carbon fiber) to provide a high strength-to-weight ratio material. The density of carbon fiber is also considerably lower than the density of steel, making it ideal for applications requiring low weight.[3] The properties of carbon fiber such as high tensile strength, low weight, and low thermal expansion make it very popular in aerospace, civil engineering, military, and motorsports, along with other competition sports."
then the writer has plagiarized and paraphrased Wikipedia without citing them.
That is unfair. Please be careful next time. ALWAYS cite your sources, even if they are General Open License, etc. etc. Otherwise you are claiming those ideas as your own, which they are not.
Comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought he uses several different ways to say the same thing...
This is done to get higher rankings by Google etc.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"Carbon fiber is an extremely lightweight material comprised of very thin fibers about 0.005?0.010 millimeters in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms. The atoms bond together in microscopic crystals that are aligned parallel to the long axis of the fiber and can thus be used to form exceptionally strong composites without requiring more material.
The high strength-to-weight ratio of carbon fiber has made it a popular choice for the aerospace, sporting, and racing industries, where it's used for aircraft parts, bicycle frames, and performance car bodies."
whose origins are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber :
"Carbon fiber or carbon fibre[1] (alternately called graphite fiber, graphite fibre or carbon graphite) is a material consisting of extremely thin fibers about 0.0002?0.0004 inches (0.005?0.010 mm) in diameter and composed mostly of carbon atoms. The carbon atoms are bonded together in microscopic crystals that are more or less aligned parallel to the long axis of the fiber. The crystal alignment makes the fiber incredibly strong for its size. Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric.[2] Carbon fiber has many different weave patterns and can be combined with a plastic resin and wound or molded to form composite materials such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic (also referenced as carbon fiber) to provide a high strength-to-weight ratio material. The density of carbon fiber is also considerably lower than the density of steel, making it ideal for applications requiring low weight.[3] The properties of carbon fiber such as high tensile strength, low weight, and low thermal expansion make it very popular in aerospace, civil engineering, military, and motorsports, along with other competition sports."
then the writer has plagiarized and paraphrased Wikipedia without citing them.
That is unfair. Please be careful next time. ALWAYS cite your sources, even if they are General Open License, etc. etc. Otherwise you are claiming those ideas as your own, which they are not.
Rich