Once again, there are different Liquidmetal alloys. Some are terribly expensive ($1500 per pound) and others are not. They make reasonably priced tennis rackets and golf clubs out of the stuff, so at least some of the alloys are probably priced at a reasonable level for the back of a cell phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I suppose it could be used for the back, but without seeing evidence otherwise, I wonder if this is transparent to the radio frequencies needed. If not, then the phone would need a plastic window as the first phone model had, and as the 3G/LTE model iPads do.
Or make it look like the current iPhone 4S and make the back out of liquidmetal and leave the antennas untouched. Or make the liquidmetal back the antenna.
How would that work since there will still be holes for the 2 mics, speaker headphone jack, Home button and Volumn and Mute buttons that will affect any seal, not to mention the screws that I assume will be still be used to hold the casing components together?
I think waterproofing would be great but what about the spray coating that was demoed at CES this year?
Apple (or technically Crucible, the Apple/Liquidmetal partnership) filed for a patent back in January last year on using the technology for sealing a device like the iPhone against any liquid intrusion.
Provided herein include methods of forming an interfacial layer or seal having amorphous alloys or composites within the supercooled liquid region or around the glass transition temperature of the amorphous alloys. Also provided herein include articles that comprise an interfacial layer made of, or having, the amorphous alloys or composites, the interfacial layer being used as an bonding element to bond at least two parts. Another embodiment provides a seal made of, or having, the amorphous alloys or composites, the seal being used to create an effectively air-tight and/or water-proof seal over a part. The seal can be over the surface of the part on the exterior surface and/or interior surface, particularly when the surface has a recessed surface, such as a cavity or undercut.
I don?t think the point of LiquidMetal is to have a ?surface like liquid.? I could throw a rock and hit polished metal that?s as smooth as ?liquid? whatever that means. For starters, the metal logo on my old iPhone 3G. Anything chrome. Most stainless steel. Aluminum if not bead-blasted or brushed. Brass.
Rather, it?s about the metal being a heat-formable liquid (more like plastic than traditional molten metal) for molding during manufacturing.
I?d be interested to know if LiquidMetal has any unique radio-transparency properties. Probably not.
This is pretty expensive stuff. I suppose it could be used for the back, but without seeing evidence otherwise, I wonder if this is transparent to the radio frequencies needed. If not, then the phone would need a plastic window as the first phone model had, and as the 3G/LTE model iPads do.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Liquidmetal would *not* be radio transparent and as you say is prohibitively expensive.
I could see them doing it if they keep the external antenna as well and to give the new iPhone a back that is reminiscent of the old iPods but won't get scratched like they do. It seems like an awful lot of trouble and expense for just a "look" and a slightly lower incidence of back repairs.
The same report claims Samsung is going to use ceramic in the Galaxy S3. Samsung is expected to announce the phone next month, so we'll get an early indication if DigiTimes has a decent source for once.
It better not be that Zirconia ceramic that Apple has a world-wide exclusive licence for or there will certainly be more legal troubles.
It does, as has been often stated. The frequencies to which it's transparent depend on the composition of each type of liquidmetal.
Please name the type of metal used that becomes "radio-transparent" when it has been doped with small amounts of some other metal.
Liquidmetal is a type metal alloy with interesting physical properties engendered by the way it's alloyed, the materials it's "doped" with and how it's cooled. It's no more radio-transparent than any other metal.
Video is impressive...not sure how it pertains to the iPhone but I think anything would be better than the current "glass" back of the 4s. It's just not comfortable or easy to hold.
It better not be that Zirconia ceramic that Apple has a world-wide exclusive licence for or there will certainly be more legal troubles.
Please don't confuse zirconia with a metal alloy which contains zirconium. There's no relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Liquidmetal would *not* be radio transparent and as you say is prohibitively expensive.
You keep saying this, but you've never provided any evidence. Furthermore, you apparently keep ignoring the fact that 'liquidmetal' is actually a series of alloys. Some contain a lot of platinum and are expensive and others are cheap enough to use in reasonably-priced tennis rackets and golf clubs.
Furthermore, there's no information yet from LQMT on whether any of their alloys are radio transparent. I suspect that none of them are, but please stop stating speculation as fact.
This may be nitpicking. But is it possible to read the wrong implication?
Good question. Does implication refer to the author's implied conclusion, the reader's, or both? Can we differentiate between a conclusion that can be drawn versus one that is drawn?
How will this material improve our mobile devices? Why do we want our metals to retain more energy? What design implications does this have?
(My apologies if all these things are explained in the video, but I am unable to watch it with sound.)
The sound track says "We can use this incredible metal to make phones with backs that don't bloody f*(&*(&ing crack." The speaker has a British accent, so I'm taking him at his word.
Comments
and a copy of Star Trek 4, neither of which you apparently have
OH computer (talks into the mouse).
This is pretty expensive stuff.
Once again, there are different Liquidmetal alloys. Some are terribly expensive ($1500 per pound) and others are not. They make reasonably priced tennis rackets and golf clubs out of the stuff, so at least some of the alloys are probably priced at a reasonable level for the back of a cell phone.
I suppose it could be used for the back, but without seeing evidence otherwise, I wonder if this is transparent to the radio frequencies needed. If not, then the phone would need a plastic window as the first phone model had, and as the 3G/LTE model iPads do.
Or make it look like the current iPhone 4S and make the back out of liquidmetal and leave the antennas untouched. Or make the liquidmetal back the antenna.
How will this material improve our mobile devices? Why do we want our metals to retain more energy? What design implications does this have?
(My apologies if all these things are explained in the video, but I am unable to watch it with sound.)
Here's the soundtrack in Closed Caption form for you:
Plink-------Plink-----Plink
Plink---Plink---Plink--Plink
Plink-Plink-Plink-Plink-Plink
You did not miss much.
Oh and I believe this means that when you drop your phone onto a glass surface it will have a 50% chance of bouncing back up so you can catch it.
(I get all my best material from andyapple)
D'oh! softeky just beat me to it.
How would that work since there will still be holes for the 2 mics, speaker headphone jack, Home button and Volumn and Mute buttons that will affect any seal, not to mention the screws that I assume will be still be used to hold the casing components together?
I think waterproofing would be great but what about the spray coating that was demoed at CES this year?
Apple (or technically Crucible, the Apple/Liquidmetal partnership) filed for a patent back in January last year on using the technology for sealing a device like the iPhone against any liquid intrusion.
http://www.patentstorm.us/applicatio...scription.html
From the patent summary:
Provided herein include methods of forming an interfacial layer or seal having amorphous alloys or composites within the supercooled liquid region or around the glass transition temperature of the amorphous alloys. Also provided herein include articles that comprise an interfacial layer made of, or having, the amorphous alloys or composites, the interfacial layer being used as an bonding element to bond at least two parts. Another embodiment provides a seal made of, or having, the amorphous alloys or composites, the seal being used to create an effectively air-tight and/or water-proof seal over a part. The seal can be over the surface of the part on the exterior surface and/or interior surface, particularly when the surface has a recessed surface, such as a cavity or undercut.
I don?t think the point of LiquidMetal is to have a ?surface like liquid.? I could throw a rock and hit polished metal that?s as smooth as ?liquid? whatever that means. For starters, the metal logo on my old iPhone 3G. Anything chrome. Most stainless steel. Aluminum if not bead-blasted or brushed. Brass.
Rather, it?s about the metal being a heat-formable liquid (more like plastic than traditional molten metal) for molding during manufacturing.
I?d be interested to know if LiquidMetal has any unique radio-transparency properties. Probably not.
I’d be interested to know if LiquidMetal has any unique radio-transparency properties. Probably not.
It does, as has been often stated. The frequencies to which it's transparent depend on the composition of each type of liquidmetal.
This is pretty expensive stuff. I suppose it could be used for the back, but without seeing evidence otherwise, I wonder if this is transparent to the radio frequencies needed. If not, then the phone would need a plastic window as the first phone model had, and as the 3G/LTE model iPads do.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Liquidmetal would *not* be radio transparent and as you say is prohibitively expensive.
I could see them doing it if they keep the external antenna as well and to give the new iPhone a back that is reminiscent of the old iPods but won't get scratched like they do. It seems like an awful lot of trouble and expense for just a "look" and a slightly lower incidence of back repairs.
The same report claims Samsung is going to use ceramic in the Galaxy S3. Samsung is expected to announce the phone next month, so we'll get an early indication if DigiTimes has a decent source for once.
It better not be that Zirconia ceramic that Apple has a world-wide exclusive licence for or there will certainly be more legal troubles.
A blue-green, shimmering phone? It'd be great if, in order to activate it, you had to proclaim to Siri, "I swear, by my life and my love of it..."
Nah... The pass phrase would be 'Screw you. I've got mine.'
It does, as has been often stated. The frequencies to which it's transparent depend on the composition of each type of liquidmetal.
Please name the type of metal used that becomes "radio-transparent" when it has been doped with small amounts of some other metal.
Liquidmetal is a type metal alloy with interesting physical properties engendered by the way it's alloyed, the materials it's "doped" with and how it's cooled. It's no more radio-transparent than any other metal.
It's no more radio-transparent than any other metal.
The zirconium-based ones would.
It better not be that Zirconia ceramic that Apple has a world-wide exclusive licence for or there will certainly be more legal troubles.
Please don't confuse zirconia with a metal alloy which contains zirconium. There's no relationship.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Liquidmetal would *not* be radio transparent and as you say is prohibitively expensive.
You keep saying this, but you've never provided any evidence. Furthermore, you apparently keep ignoring the fact that 'liquidmetal' is actually a series of alloys. Some contain a lot of platinum and are expensive and others are cheap enough to use in reasonably-priced tennis rackets and golf clubs.
Furthermore, there's no information yet from LQMT on whether any of their alloys are radio transparent. I suspect that none of them are, but please stop stating speculation as fact.
So what's your point? You're reading the wrong implication.
This may be nitpicking. But is it possible to read the wrong implication?
This may be nitpicking. But is it possible to read the wrong implication?
Good question. Does implication refer to the author's implied conclusion, the reader's, or both? Can we differentiate between a conclusion that can be drawn versus one that is drawn?
/
/
/
How will this material improve our mobile devices? Why do we want our metals to retain more energy? What design implications does this have?
(My apologies if all these things are explained in the video, but I am unable to watch it with sound.)
The sound track says "We can use this incredible metal to make phones with backs that don't bloody f*(&*(&ing crack." The speaker has a British accent, so I'm taking him at his word.