An Apple MacBook Air-based Netbook with smaller screen--yes. A smaller screen could cut weight. Yes, maybe lose something else but a Mac portable that is usable when sitting in coach and the person ahead of you reclines the seat all the way without warning is worth more than a Eee PC to me. Less expensive than the MacBook Air is reasonable but not essential.
However, carbon fiber composite may be a mistake. I work in high-tech manufacturing and I was shocked when I saw my first F-16 in the factory. It has wings and other parts that are carbon fiber composite and they urged us to not touch these parts.
When I asked why, the General Dynamics supervisor said the composites were very susceptible to impact. I then asked if one could be shot down with a low tech bow and arrow and they said yes but they did not intend to fly that low!
If the US Air Force has to worry about carbon fiber composite impact, then how would laptops survive abuse?
What are talking about? The impact resistance of CF is much greater then on other materials. I know as I have worked on CF for the last 25 years and the in fact I am currently employed at Boeing. I have worked with CF from the C-141 to the F15, F16, 747, 767, 777, 737 and some on the 787.
The main reason one is not to touch a unfinished (not painted) CF surface is the oils in your hand will cause fisheye in the finish (painted surface)
I have seen engineers from the Air Force and even at Boeing take hammers to test pieces of CF and hit them as hard as they caould and there was no damage from the strike after X-ray testing.
Sounds awfully empty to me, because I would think that posting to a community where everybody thinks you're just crazy wrong would be just a total waste of time. Why do you post? Just to waste a little time while at work?
You didn't give a decent reason for why you don't think Apple has any ME personnel. I would like to see a bit of reasoning or clues that could lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. I'm not asking for proof that would stand up in court, just something that can give me better insight as to why you would say that.
Sounds awfully empty to me. Why do you post? Just to waste a little time while at work?
You didn't give a decent reason for why you don't think Apple has any ME personnel. I would like to see a bit of reasoning or clues that could lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion.
I provided SME knowledge. This is the internets, you should be able to read through that closing comment.
Read this again. IMHO. I never claimed that it was an objective opinion, an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. What don't you understand about someone's opinion?
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
Making something look pretty, isn't the same as a good design and built from a structural standpoint. When you place pretty in front of a well built design from an ME first standpoint you're bound to have design flaws.
I'll take something structurally designed by an engineer any day versus something structurally designed by an architect/artist.
Fortunately, Apple makes only small dimensional things relative to most ME or CE designs, the structural aspects of all Apple products, by this very nature is an afterthought, if even that, IMHO.
Cutting something from a block of metal? That's been around as long as there have been machinists and machining tools. That's real innovation or out of the box thinking on Apple's part?
The PowerBook G4 12" has a smaller footprint than the MacBook Air and it offered EVERYTHING!
Apple is already shipping an aluminum notebook at 13". It's called a MacBook. As such you're not going to get a 12" machine. Not enough differentiation.
I suspect that instead of a "netbook" we're soon going to see an iPad. An oversized iPod Touch.
Read this again. IMHO. I never claimed that it was an objective opinion, an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. What don't you understand about someone's opinion?
There is a difference between "I like red" and "I don't think Apple really has mechanical engineers" (paraphrasing there, sorry). The first, subjectivity is all there is to it. The second, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to explain why or give a decent objective example or two, to show that you're not just trying to cause a controversy. I don't see how it is unfair to apply such a standard here, after all, you are saying you do have some form of credentials here, it shouldn't be hard to apply a bit of objectivity if you do actually have such credentials.
Quote:
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
What specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws do you remember?
I don't think Apple is out to make Toughbooks. Even then, Toughbooks aren't necessarily all that either, the only ones that are are the ones that look like a rubberized tank. That said, Apple's notebooks are pretty tough in my experience. A toddler walked across my MBP keyboard and it's not been hurt it at all that I can tell. I've even dropped it, about a meter or so onto hardwood, no dings, scratches or apparent or functional damage. Not a lot of consumer electronics can take that. Not necessarily high standards, but then, I didn't expect combat standard here, did pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
Apple is already shipping an aluminum notebook at 13". It's called a MacBook. As such you're not going to get a 12" machine. Not enough differentiation.
I suspect that instead of a "netbook" we're soon going to see an iPad. An oversized iPod Touch.
2 things.
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
The bezel size has nothing to do with diagonal display size. You can make the bezel as wide or as thin as you wish. Apple's bezels seem to have gotten slightly wider, but since they are lessening out out the lid thickness, it stands to reason that this is to increase strength and rigidity of the lid.
Furthermore, the 12" model doesn't work anymore since we've shifted from a 4:3 ration to 16:10 ratio. The 13" MB and MBA displays are actually slightly shorter than the old 12" PB displays. Since widescreen is in, moving to a 12" display would make the viewing of text pages even more difficult as the vertical height would now be a inch less than before.
12" @ 4:3
• Width: 9.59"
• Height: 7.21"
• Image area: 69.14 sq. in.
13" @ 16:10
• Width: 11.02"
• Height: 6.89"
• Image area: 75.93 sq. in.
Quote:
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
You'll have to supply evidence of both of those for me to buy it. In the nearly 4 years since the last 12" PB was released Apple's PC marketshare has increased so much that I would wager than even the niche MBA is better unit-to-unit seller than the 12" PB ever was.
How about Firewire? Apples has been recommended this connecting system to hard wares. I also have some machines have to be connected with a firewire. In future, can this lightest machine get a firewire to connect any other machines? How should I do for upgrade to the lightest one?
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
That is true. A Macbook Air would be noticably smaller if it didn't have those edges either. I've been saying this since it first came out. The difference wouldn't be that much different, except that new notebooks have the 16/10 screens rather than the older 4/3 screens.
Quote:
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
THAT'S not true. The 12'vs sold well when they first came out, because they were different, but sales slowed down considerably.
Believe what you want, but it is better. Aluminum production is well understood. Recovery of almost 100% of the initial metal, and cutting fluids, is possible, at a far lower cost in energy than the initial production. Other savings include the lack of molds, and stamping. That has large energy requirements. A simplification of manufacturing. That saves energy all around. Even if the computer case is thrown away in a landfill, the aluminum has no toxic effect as plastic can, as it breaks down.
Not quite. Plastic has environmental consequences beyond that of initial energy use. You can't burn plastic as fuel, or for any other purpose. burning most all plastics results in various toxic chemicals, and carcinogens, being released. Carbon sequestering would be required as well, because the largest part of any plastic is carbon. We can all guess as to what the most important component to carbon fiber sheets would be. Under high temperatures, it breaks down into soot, and other carbon compounds such as carbon monoxide, etc. Depending on the exact nature of the plastic, and there are many kinds of blended materials, you could get dioxin, which is produced from plastics that contain chlorine (hence the removal of PVC). Quite a few other toxic chemicals, really too numerous to list, are produced.
So no, plastic is NOT a better material environmentally.
Mel I tend to agree with you here but I think there are other things to be considered
before declaring aluminium to be the new saviour of the environment.
Aluminium, while abundent in the earths crust is unfortunately distributed over large areas,
which makes it very environmentally damaging to recover (almost exclusively by strip mining)
which mostly involves knocking down forests digging up the topsoil, then removing 2-3m of bauxite beneath
before trying to replace the topsoil and vegetation (with varying degrees of success wrt to flora & fauna).
Add to that the toxic chemicals (mostly hot caustic) used to recover the alumina from the bauxite
the tailings dams required to dispose of the spent caustic (not to mention the resources required to produce the caustic).
...and then there's the 50 MJ/kg of energy required to smelt the alumina powder into aluminium
energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants (at worst brown coal)
which put very toxic chemicals into the environment (just like the ones you're talking about in the CF - if it was ever burnt)
and all this doesn't include the cost of manufacture
(ie how much energy is required to cut the new unibodies vs that required to form a CF body).
what you've mentioned above is only the recycling / disposal part
which I agree is very much in favour of aluminium
and doesn't bode well for carbon fibre.
My opinion: if Apple want to portray themselves as environ friendly
they'd source all their aluminium from recycled sources (which is slightly better than new)
and start talking about full product cycle, not just from Apple's point of manufacture until disposal.
Apple has laptop anorexia. I'd take a heavier laptop with a smaller footprint (10"-11"), any day of the week! C'mon Apple where's my small net book? I'll gladly pay the "Tax"
There is a difference between "I like red" and "I don't think Apple really has mechanical engineers" (paraphrasing there, sorry). The first, subjectivity is all there is to it. The second, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to explain why or give a decent objective example or two, to show that you're not just trying to cause a controversy. I don't see how it is unfair to apply such a standard here, after all, you are saying you do have some form of credentials here, it shouldn't be hard to apply a bit of objectivity if you do actually have such credentials.
What specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws do you remember?
I don't think Apple is out to make Toughbooks. Even then, Toughbooks aren't necessarily all that either, the only ones that are are the ones that look like a rubberized tank. That said, Apple's notebooks are pretty tough in my experience. A toddler walked across my MBP keyboard and it's not been hurt it at all that I can tell. I've even dropped it, about a meter or so onto hardwood, no dings, scratches or apparent or functional damage. Not a lot of consumer electronics can take that. Not necessarily high standards, but then, I didn't expect combat standard here, did pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
Huh? Still trolling for an answer or two or eleventeen?
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
Want to build it tougher? Easy. Make everything twice as thick. D'oh! If you want to call that ME, then fine. I don't consider that ME, IMHO.
Mel I tend to agree with you here but I think there are other things to be considered
before declaring aluminium to be the new saviour of the environment.
Aluminium, while abundent in the earths crust is unfortunately distributed over large areas,
which makes it very environmentally damaging to recover (almost exclusively by strip mining)
which mostly involves knocking down forests digging up the topsoil, then removing 2-3m of bauxite beneath
before trying to replace the topsoil and vegetation (with varying degrees of success wrt to flora & fauna).
Add to that the toxic chemicals (mostly hot caustic) used to recover the alumina from the bauxite
the tailings dams required to dispose of the spent caustic (not to mention the resources required to produce the caustic).
...and then there's the 50 MJ/kg of energy required to smelt the alumina powder into aluminium
energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants (at worst brown coal)
which put very toxic chemicals into the environment (just like the ones you're talking about in the CF - if it was ever burnt)
and all this doesn't include the cost of manufacture
(ie how much energy is required to cut the new unibodies vs that required to form a CF body).
what you've mentioned above is only the recycling / disposal part
which I agree is very much in favour of aluminium
and doesn't bode well for carbon fibre.
My opinion: if Apple want to portray themselves as environ friendly
they'd source all their aluminium from recycled sources (which is slightly better than new)
and start talking about full product cycle, not just from Apple's point of manufacture until disposal.
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
Overall, I'd rather see aluminum than some plastics, which, by the way, for people who don't know this, DO break down.
Huh? Still trolling for an answer or two or eleventeen?
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
Want to build it tougher? Easy. Make everything twice as thick. D'oh! If you want to call that ME, then fine. I don't consider that ME, IMHO.
Excuse me but you seem to be trolling for something yourself.
Strength and rigidity are important numbers but are not the total story - carbon fibre is desirable because of the way it distributes forces - it doesn't dent and is quite abrasion resistant which would seem to me to be highly valued qualities in this application. the fact that Apple would look at carbon fibre suggest that there are some mechanical engineers in their midst.
Apple is a big company with a long history as a leader in industrial design - I would say they are by and large on the better side by any accounting. They have more than enough money to higher the best and brightest in any field - including plastics engineering.
To say that carbon fibre cannot be mass produced is bollocks - there are lots of carbon fibre briefcases out there which are produced in significant numbers. How many parts does an airbus have? Prepregs and vacuum bagging can be adapted to fairly high production levels. The fact that apple did the cube which is a large lucite casting says they can finesse difficult processes.
Yes hogging the chassis out of billet is not really as novel approach as Apple is trumpeting but who else is going to that length to make a lightweight and rigid computer? Any thinking engineer should salivate at the thought of such a sturdy elegant object.
The other advantage of carbon fibre is that you can sculpt the shape to a complex form derived from FEA (or practical experience - look at the DC3 if you want an example of what good engineers can do without a computer) and provide the lightest and most rigid form possible.
As to carbon fibre being opaque to RF - so is aluminum. In either case you have to design an antenna outside of the case - not that hard to do.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
Overall, I'd rather see aluminum than some plastics, which, by the way, for people who don't know this, DO break down.
totally agree on aluminium being perfect for recycle - and i wish more of it was
i'd like to see your sources on how much of the MB aluminium comes from recycled stock
no wait, i'd like to see apple's sources - the MB carbon costs (comparison to total costs only) are here
coming from a country which is the number 1 exporter of alumina in the world
and where mining is one of the biggest industries (and having worked in an alumina refinery as a student)
I can assure you that there are not many (in my experience none) places where bauxite is not mined without serious environmental impact
since it is invariably found on the tops of hills under trees in forests - not in the desert plains
again i'd love to see your figures for the quantity of aluminium from recycled sources
if only to reassure myself that the world isn't crazy enough to dig, refine, smelt, use, bury then dig again.
it's totally possible that aluminium can be sourced from recycled stock
but until that day it remains a very environmentally dubious material
whether or not plastic / CF is a more environmentally friendly material than aluminium
is a debate i'd love to see held in public - because it's important and i'd like to know the answer.
(however it's clear that Al is the winner from a purely recycling viewpoint)
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
How about some specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws in Apple products that you allude to?
Quote:
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
Excuse me but you seem to be trolling for something yourself.
Strength and rigidity are important numbers but are not the total story - carbon fibre is not desirable because of the way it distributes forces - it doesn't dent and is quite abrasion resistant which would seem to me to be highly valued qualities in this application. the fact that Apple would look at carbon fibre suggest that there are some artists in their midst.
Apple is a big company with a long history as a leader in industrial design - I would say they are by and large on the better side by any accounting. They have more than enough money to hire the best and brightest in any field - including polymer engineering.
To say that SWNT can be mass produced today is bollocks - there are lots of carbon fibre briefcases out there which are produced in significant numbers. How many parts does an airbus have? Prepregs and vacuum bagging can be adapted to fairly high production levels. The fact that apple did the cube which is a large lucite casting says they can finesse difficult processes.
Yes hogging the chassis out of billet is not really as novel approach as Apple is trumpeting but who else is going to that length to make a lightweight and rigid computer? Any thinking engineer should salivate at the thought of such a sturdy elegant object.
The other advantage of carbon fibre is that you can sculpt the shape to a complex form derived from FEA (or practical experience - look at the DC3 if you want an example of what good engineers can do without a computer) and provide the lightest and most rigid form possible.
As to carbon fibre being opaque to RF - so is aluminum. In either case you have to design an antenna outside of the case - not that hard to do.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
You're in way over your head sonny boy.
There is nothing wrong with carbon fiber per se, I never said otherwise. I am well aware of the many current uses of carbon fiber. My critique was mainly aimed at one poster and the mention of the use of Dyneema in an FRP. Not going to happen, ever.
Also, a general lack of understanding amongst you all about in situ specific strength and modulus of high modulus fibers which are bound together through weaving and resins (most often) which reduces the strength to weight advantage by a factor of five (or more).
There is no structural design challange in making things small and light.
Apple makes pretty things, if that's what you mean by a leader in industrial design.
On the other hand, making something large and light, now that's a real structural design challange.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
on second thoughts these statements are just a pile of crap - and since it's about the environment that annoys me.
get your facts straight Mel - or just spare us if you can't be bothered.
aluminium smelters run on electricity not on gas. wiki it if you don't know...
sometimes they may be located next to a gas powered power station but that's not the same thing
and what are you saying about coal - that because it's abundant or frequently used it's good for the environment?
coal has about 5 times the carbon load of oil (which is obviously worse than gas) without mentioning the toxic releases from most coals
and "much aluminum" is so NOT mined "where deforestation is not much of a problem"
so much aluminium kills so much forest - and if you've ever been to a reforested bauxite mine you would not have the opinion that replanting comes anywhere close to making up for the damage
plus while you're at it please check those tailings damns
oh and the outputs of heavy metals from the smelters
and if you really want to give us your environmental cred - the please tell us the last apple product you recycled.
recycling is such a small part of the environmental picture
honestly - you're the first to ask people for verification of their facts
Comments
An Apple MacBook Air-based Netbook with smaller screen--yes. A smaller screen could cut weight. Yes, maybe lose something else but a Mac portable that is usable when sitting in coach and the person ahead of you reclines the seat all the way without warning is worth more than a Eee PC to me. Less expensive than the MacBook Air is reasonable but not essential.
However, carbon fiber composite may be a mistake. I work in high-tech manufacturing and I was shocked when I saw my first F-16 in the factory. It has wings and other parts that are carbon fiber composite and they urged us to not touch these parts.
When I asked why, the General Dynamics supervisor said the composites were very susceptible to impact. I then asked if one could be shot down with a low tech bow and arrow and they said yes but they did not intend to fly that low!
If the US Air Force has to worry about carbon fiber composite impact, then how would laptops survive abuse?
What are talking about? The impact resistance of CF is much greater then on other materials. I know as I have worked on CF for the last 25 years and the in fact I am currently employed at Boeing. I have worked with CF from the C-141 to the F15, F16, 747, 767, 777, 737 and some on the 787.
The main reason one is not to touch a unfinished (not painted) CF surface is the oils in your hand will cause fisheye in the finish (painted surface)
I have seen engineers from the Air Force and even at Boeing take hammers to test pieces of CF and hit them as hard as they caould and there was no damage from the strike after X-ray testing.
Tell me another story.....
I don't need or care if anyone believes me.
Sounds awfully empty to me, because I would think that posting to a community where everybody thinks you're just crazy wrong would be just a total waste of time. Why do you post? Just to waste a little time while at work?
You didn't give a decent reason for why you don't think Apple has any ME personnel. I would like to see a bit of reasoning or clues that could lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. I'm not asking for proof that would stand up in court, just something that can give me better insight as to why you would say that.
Sounds awfully empty to me. Why do you post? Just to waste a little time while at work?
You didn't give a decent reason for why you don't think Apple has any ME personnel. I would like to see a bit of reasoning or clues that could lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion.
I provided SME knowledge. This is the internets, you should be able to read through that closing comment.
Read this again. IMHO. I never claimed that it was an objective opinion, an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. What don't you understand about someone's opinion?
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
Making something look pretty, isn't the same as a good design and built from a structural standpoint. When you place pretty in front of a well built design from an ME first standpoint you're bound to have design flaws.
I'll take something structurally designed by an engineer any day versus something structurally designed by an architect/artist.
Fortunately, Apple makes only small dimensional things relative to most ME or CE designs, the structural aspects of all Apple products, by this very nature is an afterthought, if even that, IMHO.
Cutting something from a block of metal? That's been around as long as there have been machinists and machining tools. That's real innovation or out of the box thinking on Apple's part?
TYVM.
I don't need or care if anyone believes me.
We don't believe that.
We don't believe you.
The PowerBook G4 12" has a smaller footprint than the MacBook Air and it offered EVERYTHING!
Apple is already shipping an aluminum notebook at 13". It's called a MacBook. As such you're not going to get a 12" machine. Not enough differentiation.
I suspect that instead of a "netbook" we're soon going to see an iPad. An oversized iPod Touch.
iPad. An oversized iPod Touch.
too confusing a name for Boston residents
Read this again. IMHO. I never claimed that it was an objective opinion, an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. What don't you understand about someone's opinion?
There is a difference between "I like red" and "I don't think Apple really has mechanical engineers" (paraphrasing there, sorry). The first, subjectivity is all there is to it. The second, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to explain why or give a decent objective example or two, to show that you're not just trying to cause a controversy. I don't see how it is unfair to apply such a standard here, after all, you are saying you do have some form of credentials here, it shouldn't be hard to apply a bit of objectivity if you do actually have such credentials.
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
What specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws do you remember?
I don't think Apple is out to make Toughbooks. Even then, Toughbooks aren't necessarily all that either, the only ones that are are the ones that look like a rubberized tank. That said, Apple's notebooks are pretty tough in my experience. A toddler walked across my MBP keyboard and it's not been hurt it at all that I can tell. I've even dropped it, about a meter or so onto hardwood, no dings, scratches or apparent or functional damage. Not a lot of consumer electronics can take that. Not necessarily high standards, but then, I didn't expect combat standard here, did pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
Apple is already shipping an aluminum notebook at 13". It's called a MacBook. As such you're not going to get a 12" machine. Not enough differentiation.
I suspect that instead of a "netbook" we're soon going to see an iPad. An oversized iPod Touch.
2 things.
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
The bezel size has nothing to do with diagonal display size. You can make the bezel as wide or as thin as you wish. Apple's bezels seem to have gotten slightly wider, but since they are lessening out out the lid thickness, it stands to reason that this is to increase strength and rigidity of the lid.
Furthermore, the 12" model doesn't work anymore since we've shifted from a 4:3 ration to 16:10 ratio. The 13" MB and MBA displays are actually slightly shorter than the old 12" PB displays. Since widescreen is in, moving to a 12" display would make the viewing of text pages even more difficult as the vertical height would now be a inch less than before.
12" @ 4:3
• Width: 9.59"
• Height: 7.21"
• Image area: 69.14 sq. in.
13" @ 16:10
• Width: 11.02"
• Height: 6.89"
• Image area: 75.93 sq. in.
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
You'll have to supply evidence of both of those for me to buy it. In the nearly 4 years since the last 12" PB was released Apple's PC marketshare has increased so much that I would wager than even the niche MBA is better unit-to-unit seller than the 12" PB ever was.
2 things.
1. A 12" notebook that has a very little bezel and edge to edge keyboard has a significantly smaller footprint than a 13" macbbok or Air.
That is true. A Macbook Air would be noticably smaller if it didn't have those edges either. I've been saying this since it first came out. The difference wouldn't be that much different, except that new notebooks have the 16/10 screens rather than the older 4/3 screens.
2. The old 12" powerbooks were great sellers for Apple, while the macbook air is a complete dud.
THAT'S not true. The 12'vs sold well when they first came out, because they were different, but sales slowed down considerably.
The MBA is supposedly selling well to business.
Believe what you want, but it is better. Aluminum production is well understood. Recovery of almost 100% of the initial metal, and cutting fluids, is possible, at a far lower cost in energy than the initial production. Other savings include the lack of molds, and stamping. That has large energy requirements. A simplification of manufacturing. That saves energy all around. Even if the computer case is thrown away in a landfill, the aluminum has no toxic effect as plastic can, as it breaks down.
Not quite. Plastic has environmental consequences beyond that of initial energy use. You can't burn plastic as fuel, or for any other purpose. burning most all plastics results in various toxic chemicals, and carcinogens, being released. Carbon sequestering would be required as well, because the largest part of any plastic is carbon. We can all guess as to what the most important component to carbon fiber sheets would be. Under high temperatures, it breaks down into soot, and other carbon compounds such as carbon monoxide, etc. Depending on the exact nature of the plastic, and there are many kinds of blended materials, you could get dioxin, which is produced from plastics that contain chlorine (hence the removal of PVC). Quite a few other toxic chemicals, really too numerous to list, are produced.
So no, plastic is NOT a better material environmentally.
Mel I tend to agree with you here but I think there are other things to be considered
before declaring aluminium to be the new saviour of the environment.
Aluminium, while abundent in the earths crust is unfortunately distributed over large areas,
which makes it very environmentally damaging to recover (almost exclusively by strip mining)
which mostly involves knocking down forests digging up the topsoil, then removing 2-3m of bauxite beneath
before trying to replace the topsoil and vegetation (with varying degrees of success wrt to flora & fauna).
Add to that the toxic chemicals (mostly hot caustic) used to recover the alumina from the bauxite
the tailings dams required to dispose of the spent caustic (not to mention the resources required to produce the caustic).
...and then there's the 50 MJ/kg of energy required to smelt the alumina powder into aluminium
energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants (at worst brown coal)
which put very toxic chemicals into the environment (just like the ones you're talking about in the CF - if it was ever burnt)
and all this doesn't include the cost of manufacture
(ie how much energy is required to cut the new unibodies vs that required to form a CF body).
what you've mentioned above is only the recycling / disposal part
which I agree is very much in favour of aluminium
and doesn't bode well for carbon fibre.
My opinion: if Apple want to portray themselves as environ friendly
they'd source all their aluminium from recycled sources (which is slightly better than new)
and start talking about full product cycle, not just from Apple's point of manufacture until disposal.
Apple has laptop anorexia. I'd take a heavier laptop with a smaller footprint (10"-11"), any day of the week! C'mon Apple where's my small net book? I'll gladly pay the "Tax"
There is a difference between "I like red" and "I don't think Apple really has mechanical engineers" (paraphrasing there, sorry). The first, subjectivity is all there is to it. The second, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to explain why or give a decent objective example or two, to show that you're not just trying to cause a controversy. I don't see how it is unfair to apply such a standard here, after all, you are saying you do have some form of credentials here, it shouldn't be hard to apply a bit of objectivity if you do actually have such credentials.
What specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws do you remember?
I don't think Apple is out to make Toughbooks. Even then, Toughbooks aren't necessarily all that either, the only ones that are are the ones that look like a rubberized tank. That said, Apple's notebooks are pretty tough in my experience. A toddler walked across my MBP keyboard and it's not been hurt it at all that I can tell. I've even dropped it, about a meter or so onto hardwood, no dings, scratches or apparent or functional damage. Not a lot of consumer electronics can take that. Not necessarily high standards, but then, I didn't expect combat standard here, did pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
Huh? Still trolling for an answer or two or eleventeen?
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
Want to build it tougher? Easy. Make everything twice as thick. D'oh! If you want to call that ME, then fine. I don't consider that ME, IMHO.
Mel I tend to agree with you here but I think there are other things to be considered
before declaring aluminium to be the new saviour of the environment.
Aluminium, while abundent in the earths crust is unfortunately distributed over large areas,
which makes it very environmentally damaging to recover (almost exclusively by strip mining)
which mostly involves knocking down forests digging up the topsoil, then removing 2-3m of bauxite beneath
before trying to replace the topsoil and vegetation (with varying degrees of success wrt to flora & fauna).
Add to that the toxic chemicals (mostly hot caustic) used to recover the alumina from the bauxite
the tailings dams required to dispose of the spent caustic (not to mention the resources required to produce the caustic).
...and then there's the 50 MJ/kg of energy required to smelt the alumina powder into aluminium
energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants (at worst brown coal)
which put very toxic chemicals into the environment (just like the ones you're talking about in the CF - if it was ever burnt)
and all this doesn't include the cost of manufacture
(ie how much energy is required to cut the new unibodies vs that required to form a CF body).
what you've mentioned above is only the recycling / disposal part
which I agree is very much in favour of aluminium
and doesn't bode well for carbon fibre.
My opinion: if Apple want to portray themselves as environ friendly
they'd source all their aluminium from recycled sources (which is slightly better than new)
and start talking about full product cycle, not just from Apple's point of manufacture until disposal.
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
Overall, I'd rather see aluminum than some plastics, which, by the way, for people who don't know this, DO break down.
Huh? Still trolling for an answer or two or eleventeen?
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
Want to build it tougher? Easy. Make everything twice as thick. D'oh! If you want to call that ME, then fine. I don't consider that ME, IMHO.
Excuse me but you seem to be trolling for something yourself.
Strength and rigidity are important numbers but are not the total story - carbon fibre is desirable because of the way it distributes forces - it doesn't dent and is quite abrasion resistant which would seem to me to be highly valued qualities in this application. the fact that Apple would look at carbon fibre suggest that there are some mechanical engineers in their midst.
Apple is a big company with a long history as a leader in industrial design - I would say they are by and large on the better side by any accounting. They have more than enough money to higher the best and brightest in any field - including plastics engineering.
To say that carbon fibre cannot be mass produced is bollocks - there are lots of carbon fibre briefcases out there which are produced in significant numbers. How many parts does an airbus have? Prepregs and vacuum bagging can be adapted to fairly high production levels. The fact that apple did the cube which is a large lucite casting says they can finesse difficult processes.
Yes hogging the chassis out of billet is not really as novel approach as Apple is trumpeting but who else is going to that length to make a lightweight and rigid computer? Any thinking engineer should salivate at the thought of such a sturdy elegant object.
The other advantage of carbon fibre is that you can sculpt the shape to a complex form derived from FEA (or practical experience - look at the DC3 if you want an example of what good engineers can do without a computer) and provide the lightest and most rigid form possible.
As to carbon fibre being opaque to RF - so is aluminum. In either case you have to design an antenna outside of the case - not that hard to do.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
Overall, I'd rather see aluminum than some plastics, which, by the way, for people who don't know this, DO break down.
totally agree on aluminium being perfect for recycle - and i wish more of it was
i'd like to see your sources on how much of the MB aluminium comes from recycled stock
no wait, i'd like to see apple's sources - the MB carbon costs (comparison to total costs only) are here
coming from a country which is the number 1 exporter of alumina in the world
and where mining is one of the biggest industries (and having worked in an alumina refinery as a student)
I can assure you that there are not many (in my experience none) places where bauxite is not mined without serious environmental impact
since it is invariably found on the tops of hills under trees in forests - not in the desert plains
again i'd love to see your figures for the quantity of aluminium from recycled sources
if only to reassure myself that the world isn't crazy enough to dig, refine, smelt, use, bury then dig again.
it's totally possible that aluminium can be sourced from recycled stock
but until that day it remains a very environmentally dubious material
whether or not plastic / CF is a more environmentally friendly material than aluminium
is a debate i'd love to see held in public - because it's important and i'd like to know the answer.
(however it's clear that Al is the winner from a purely recycling viewpoint)
Apple is no better or no worse than all the other major computer manufacturers.
They all design small things that require little to no structural engineering analyses such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Heck cars, trains, ships, buildings, and etceteras were all built long before computers and without the now existing FEA codes.
Now Apple might use something like SolidWorks, to make sure there are no mechanical moving/fixed parts conflicts. But that isn't considered to be a full on structural analysis. For that you need design loads and stress analyses. By the very nature of these very small things, the design loads are obviously ill defined.
How about some specific examples of mechanical engineering flaws in Apple products that you allude to?
Numerous design flaws across Apple's product line throughout it's history, strongly suggests that Apple has little interest in true industrial strength design.
Excuse me but you seem to be trolling for something yourself.
Strength and rigidity are important numbers but are not the total story - carbon fibre is not desirable because of the way it distributes forces - it doesn't dent and is quite abrasion resistant which would seem to me to be highly valued qualities in this application. the fact that Apple would look at carbon fibre suggest that there are some artists in their midst.
Apple is a big company with a long history as a leader in industrial design - I would say they are by and large on the better side by any accounting. They have more than enough money to hire the best and brightest in any field - including polymer engineering.
To say that SWNT can be mass produced today is bollocks - there are lots of carbon fibre briefcases out there which are produced in significant numbers. How many parts does an airbus have? Prepregs and vacuum bagging can be adapted to fairly high production levels. The fact that apple did the cube which is a large lucite casting says they can finesse difficult processes.
Yes hogging the chassis out of billet is not really as novel approach as Apple is trumpeting but who else is going to that length to make a lightweight and rigid computer? Any thinking engineer should salivate at the thought of such a sturdy elegant object.
The other advantage of carbon fibre is that you can sculpt the shape to a complex form derived from FEA (or practical experience - look at the DC3 if you want an example of what good engineers can do without a computer) and provide the lightest and most rigid form possible.
As to carbon fibre being opaque to RF - so is aluminum. In either case you have to design an antenna outside of the case - not that hard to do.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
You're in way over your head sonny boy.
There is nothing wrong with carbon fiber per se, I never said otherwise. I am well aware of the many current uses of carbon fiber. My critique was mainly aimed at one poster and the mention of the use of Dyneema in an FRP. Not going to happen, ever.
Also, a general lack of understanding amongst you all about in situ specific strength and modulus of high modulus fibers which are bound together through weaving and resins (most often) which reduces the strength to weight advantage by a factor of five (or more).
There is no structural design challange in making things small and light.
Apple makes pretty things, if that's what you mean by a leader in industrial design.
On the other hand, making something large and light, now that's a real structural design challange.
Much aluminum is also mined in areas where deforesttion is not much of a problem, and laws in many areas require renewal of the area with replanting. While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now. A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas.
on second thoughts these statements are just a pile of crap - and since it's about the environment that annoys me.
get your facts straight Mel - or just spare us if you can't be bothered.
aluminium smelters run on electricity not on gas. wiki it if you don't know...
sometimes they may be located next to a gas powered power station but that's not the same thing
and what are you saying about coal - that because it's abundant or frequently used it's good for the environment?
coal has about 5 times the carbon load of oil (which is obviously worse than gas) without mentioning the toxic releases from most coals
and "much aluminum" is so NOT mined "where deforestation is not much of a problem"
so much aluminium kills so much forest - and if you've ever been to a reforested bauxite mine you would not have the opinion that replanting comes anywhere close to making up for the damage
plus while you're at it please check those tailings damns
oh and the outputs of heavy metals from the smelters
and if you really want to give us your environmental cred - the please tell us the last apple product you recycled.
recycling is such a small part of the environmental picture
honestly - you're the first to ask people for verification of their facts
and then you come up with this.