Apple could water-proof future devices with HzO technology

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 81
    Maybe Apple should just buy the Company and Patents then Apply would be the only company with waterproof phones/tablets..



    Let's see Samsung copy that...
  • Reply 22 of 81
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    This is one of those things that needs to be tested well for a company with as much mindshare as Apple and their iDevices. They say it's organic and non-toxic. Great! But organic compounds can still be dangerous even if they aren't poisonous. Have they tested it for carcinogens? Imagine what would happen to Apple's stock if one day Hz0 was linked to cancer and they were selling hundreds of millions of devices a year with it.



    The mention of "organic" seems to be provoking more concerns than perhaps it should. We are surrounded by natural and man-made organic compounds already. Most plastics and common waterproof coatings fall into this category.



    Additionally, to be hazardous to health they have to be ingested or absorbed, which requires a mechanism of exposure. This looks like a molecular coating applied to the internal components. It has to have a negligible vapor pressure or it would disappear quickly, and the user is not going to be touching it, so likely not hazardous even if the chemical itself is unsuitable for human consumption.



    More interesting, IMO, is that presumably it has to be a dielectric material with a substantial breakdown threshold to prevent internal shorting (since it is such a thin layer), and that also means there cannot be any simple electrical contact points (such as contact battery terminals) in the device.
  • Reply 23 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    There were plenty of Apple staff at CES that I'm sure they had "discussions" with.



    Yes, but the legitimate ones generally don't talk the event of being in talks with Apple, with the press or general public.
  • Reply 24 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It strikes me as a bad idea to say you're in discussions with Apple. I call BS, because Apple generally doesn't seem to want its suppliers talking about deals, even prospective deals.



    Absolutely. One of the things Apple is very secretive of are the companies they talk to. They won't even acknowledge that, say, Corning's Gorilla Glass is on the iPhone, or that Microsoft and Amazon supply technology used in iCloud (as is the rumor). Apple is notorious about not co-branding their stuff. No "intel inside" stickers.
  • Reply 25 of 81
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    The mention of "organic" seems to be provoking more concerns than perhaps it should. We are surrounded by natural and man-made organic compounds already. Most plastics and common waterproof coatings fall into this category.



    Additionally, to be hazardous to health they have to be ingested or absorbed, which requires a mechanism of exposure. This looks like a molecular coating applied to the internal components. It has to have a negligible vapor pressure or it would disappear quickly, and the user is not going to be touching it, so likely not hazardous even if the chemical itself is unsuitable for human consumption.



    More interesting, IMO, is that presumably it has to be a dielectric material with a substantial breakdown threshold to prevent internal shorting (since it is such a thin layer), and that also means there cannot be any simple electrical contact points (such as contact battery terminals) in the device.



    Here's an example of why such things need to be vetted.
    "In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began an investigation into the class of chemicals used in Scotchgard, after receiving information on the global distribution and toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). the "key ingredient" of Scotchgard. The compound perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA), a PFOS precursor, was an ingredient and also has been described as the "key ingredient" of Scotchgard. Under USEPA pressure, in May 2000 3M announced the phaseout of the production of PFOA, PFOS, and PFOS-related products.



    3M reformulated Scotchgard and since June 2003 has replaced PFOS with perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). PFBS has a much shorter half-life in people than PFOS (a little over one month vs. 5.4 years). In May 2009 PFOS was determined to be a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the Stockholm Convention."
    That isn't to say that HzO hasn't done everything possible to make sure their tech isn't in any way harmful to people as they continuously use their fingers to press and drag repeatedly across their iDevices, or create any environmentally unfriendly results at the factories.
  • Reply 26 of 81
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tk2x View Post


    There is no quicker way to kill a deal that is in discussion, than to desperately leak it to the press. So assume that this WON'T happen.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It strikes me as a bad idea to say you're in discussions with Apple. I call BS, because Apple generally doesn't seem to want its suppliers talking about deals, even prospective deals.



    Well maybe they're negotiating with Samsung so they leaked this rumor about Apple because Samsung wouldn't buy it unless Apple did it first.
  • Reply 27 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It strikes me as a bad idea to say you're in discussions with Apple. I call BS, because Apple generally doesn't seem to want its suppliers talking about deals, even prospective deals.



    Ya, I always thought that the first rule of being in talks with apple was the same as the first rule of fight club. maybe that means apple isn't very interested and they're trying to generate interest from other companies.

    I love the idea.
  • Reply 28 of 81
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Here's an example of why such things need to be vetted.
    "In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began an investigation into the class of chemicals used in Scotchgard, after receiving information on the global distribution and toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). the "key ingredient" of Scotchgard. The compound perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA), a PFOS precursor, was an ingredient and also has been described as the "key ingredient" of Scotchgard. Under USEPA pressure, in May 2000 3M announced the phaseout of the production of PFOA, PFOS, and PFOS-related products.



    3M reformulated Scotchgard and since June 2003 has replaced PFOS with perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). PFBS has a much shorter half-life in people than PFOS (a little over one month vs. 5.4 years). In May 2009 PFOS was determined to be a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the Stockholm Convention."
    That isn't to say that HzO hasn't done everything possible to make sure their tech isn't in any way harmful to people as they continuously use their fingers to press and drag repeatedly across their iDevices, or create any environmentally unfriendly results at the factories.



    Fair point about the PFOS, and I wasn't trying to imply that all organics are safe, just that we encounter new ones all the time and don't typically question their safety like that. Or I don't, anyway.



    It looks like you are thinking that the material would also be on the external surfaces of the device. Maybe I missed something, but I took from the article that it was an internal coating. I can't see why you would want it on the outside, which is glass and metal, or how it would survive if it were there.
  • Reply 29 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kymcha View Post


    Apple should just stretch a condom over the iPhone and tie a knot in the end. Jonathan Ive would have to approve the ascetics of course.



    Did you mean to say "aesthetics"? Because something like an iPhone wouldn't really fit into the lifestyle of an "ascetic".
  • Reply 30 of 81
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Fair point about the PFOS, and I wasn't trying to imply that all organics are safe, just that we encounter new ones all the time and don't typically question their safety like that. Or I don't, anyway.



    My point was that the larger the mindshare you have the more you have to take extra precautions. I don't for a second think Apple is "green" because they care about the environment when there "greening" does nearly nothing in the grand scheme of things and they are still using plenty of things that do pollute the planet. I'm sure the lights they use in their stores aren't low-power florescence, because it would make the products look bad.



    Quote:

    It looks like you are thinking that the material would also be on the external surfaces of the device. Maybe I missed something, but I took from the article that it was an internal coating. I can't see why you would want it on the outside, which is glass and metal, or how it would survive if it were there.



    An ionized gas plasma is pushed into a vacuum chamber that will coat any surface it comes in contact with, inside and out.
  • Reply 31 of 81
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    My point was that the larger the mindshare you have the more you have to take extra precautions. I don't for a second think Apple is "green" because they care about the environment when there "greening" does nearly nothing in the grand scheme of things and they are still using plenty of things that do pollute the planet. I'm sure the lights they use in their stores aren't low-power florescence, because it would make the products look bad.



    Agreed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    An ionized gas plasma is pushed into a vacuum chamber that will coat any surface it comes in contact with, inside and out.



    But surely you wouldn't manufacture like that - coating the finished unit - would you? It would be really difficult to get the coating to the inside surfaces, which is where you need it. I would expect them to coat the internal components before assembly.
  • Reply 32 of 81
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Enjoy your cancers.



    Thats all I'm going to say.



    Also, dont stand in front of laser printers' paper output slot.



    You'll inhale something you dont want in your lungs.



    I'm glad they've finally gotten rid of CRT monitors.



    One less fumes you have to worry about.
  • Reply 33 of 81
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    But surely you wouldn't manufacture like that - coating the finished unit - would you? It would be really difficult to get the coating to the inside surfaces, which is where you need it. I would expect them to coat the internal components before assembly.



    I hadn't thought of that. I guess coating the logic boards and other internal components makes sense if it doesn't impede any performance or longevity of use. For instance, does this cause heat to build up or cause electrical signals to impede more readily? I'm assuming it's neither in my examples but bringing up some questions I might ask if this was being presented to me.
  • Reply 34 of 81
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ppartekim View Post


    Maybe Apple should just buy the Company and Patents then Apply would be the only company with waterproof phones/tablets..



    Let's see Samsung copy that...



    Immature. You are.



    There are other technology companies that have the same nanotech to water proof devices. Liquipel is one example.



    "Oh snap" - You





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Absolutely. One of the things Apple is very secretive of are the companies they talk to. They won't even acknowledge that, say, Corning's Gorilla Glass is on the iPhone, or that Microsoft and Amazon supply technology used in iCloud (as is the rumor). Apple is notorious about not co-branding their stuff. No "intel inside" stickers.



    Apple doesnt have Corning's Gorilla Glass on their devices. They have iShield.
  • Reply 35 of 81
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I hadn't thought of that. I guess coating the logic boards and other internal components makes sense if it doesn't impede any performance or longevity of use. For instance, does this cause heat to build up or cause electrical signals to impede more readily? I'm assuming it's neither in my examples but bringing up some questions I might ask if this was being presented to me.



    I think that is what the thinness of the coating buys you. Even though, as an organic compound, it is likely to have a relatively low thermal diffusivity, it's so thin it doesn't matter from a heat flow point of view. As a dielectric coating it shouldn't have any significant effect on the signal paths.
  • Reply 36 of 81
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    But surely you wouldn't manufacture like that - coating the finished unit - would you? It would be really difficult to get the coating to the inside surfaces, which is where you need it. I would expect them to coat the internal components before assembly.



    Perhaps both before and after. I would imagine that soldering components to a circuit board would destroy the coating or even prevent / contaminate the solder joint. The most vulnerable part of the iPhone is shorting the battery. I think you have to dip the whole thing in a vat once all the electrical parts are assembled before you put it in the case. Then you probably need to do some other stuff after it is in the case.
  • Reply 37 of 81
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Perhaps both before and after. I would imagine that soldering components to a circuit board would destroy the coating or even prevent / contaminate the solder joint. The most vulnerable part of the iPhone is shorting the battery. I think you have to dip the whole thing in a vat once all the electrical parts are assembled before you put it in the case. Then you probably need to do some other stuff after it is in the case.



    Yes. Actually I didn't say what I meant very clearly - which was to coat the complete internal assembly, not the individual components, before putting the case on. I agree, as I mentioned earlier, that the battery looks like the biggest challenge as it would have to be soldered. But maybe it already is.
  • Reply 38 of 81
    sounds like p2i's nanotech, which is motorola's splash guard, used on the razr and other devices...



    http://www.p2i.com/tv/public/categor...dion/video/152



    curiously, hzo's website lists the razr, and also the ipad, ipods, iphone4, etc. etc., to me that's clearly implying that its own special stuff is used on them...



    http://hzo.me/oem/



    ...and yet it's only "in talks with Apple about using its material in future devices, including the iPhone."



    there're three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and marketing
  • Reply 39 of 81
    Recently my iPhone and I were caught in a torrential downpour soaking me to the core, and the iPhone was drenched. The phone was in a bag, but the bag got soaked through.



    Naturally the water-damage repair was not covered by AppleCare. The Apple Genius confirmed that the iPhone has sensors that detect whether there has been water ingress - presumably so Apple knows whether to cover it with AppleCare, or whether to make us pay extra money.



    I suggest to Apple that - rather than spending engineering effort to put water sensors to detect if we've got the phone wet (so they don't have to provide AppleCare - they should channel their engineering efforts to provide the iPhone with a degree of water resistance.



    But purely looking at this from a money-hungry, greed viewpoint, it'd save Apple more money by just having water-sensors so they don't have to cover water damage repairs under AppleCare. Also, making it waterproof would loose Apple some revenue from forcing customers to buy replacement iPhones that they've gotten wet. So, given that Apple consistently takes the route that brings in more money, I'd say we're not going to see a waterproof/water resistant iPhone any time soon.



    Since the technology exists to make iPhones waterproof or water resistant, I would not be surprised if there are such hawks in Apple's corporate tower that sit there and say - no, rather than making the iPhone waterproof, we'll instead include water sensors, so we can make more money.
  • Reply 40 of 81
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Enjoy your cancers.



    Thats all I'm going to say.



    Also, dont stand in front of laser printers' paper output slot.



    You'll inhale something you dont want in your lungs.



    I'm glad they've finally gotten rid of CRT monitors.



    One less fumes you have to worry about.



    You forgot to mention "chem-trails" to really make yourself sound silly.
Sign In or Register to comment.