It's not regarded as a chemical treatment because it does not involve a chemical reaction per se, just physical bombardment.
A chemical treatment does not require a reaction. That would be a chemical modification.
The distinction is somewhat semantic. Chemical treatment usually implies reaction, since any material addition otherwise must count as a chemical treatment, but I'm not sure that there is an accepted, standard definition.
The article says "published", which I took to mean it was granted.
That's incorrect. The USPTO publishes patent applications publicly 18 months after they are filed. The article's author was a bit remiss when he wrote, "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published an Apple patent..." He should have said the Office published an Apple patent application...
The article says "published", which I took to mean it was granted.
That's incorrect. The USPTO publishes patent applications publicly 18 months after they are filed. The article's author was a bit remiss when he wrote, "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published an Apple patent..." He should have said the Office published an Apple patent application...
There is no such thing as sapphire glass. Just sapphire.
Supposedly if iPhone 6 is saphire it will be saphire glass as they invented method of hybrid technology that makes it mostly saphire but partly glass to cut cost.
This is compelling news. I predict the iWatch will use a Sapphire crystal cover, and possibly feature extensive use of Liquid Metal. Not so sure about the liquid metal being near production, but we have reports of Apple investing in collossal Sapphire production capacity, so if they've solved the brittleness problem, it's likely destined for more than camera lens covers and touch ID buttons.
An iWatch contructed with Liquid Metal and Sapphire will not only be indestructable, it will be impossible for Apple's rivals to copy for many years. Charge the battery wirelessly and the only problem left is how to replace the battery. Apple probably doesn't want the battery replaceable anyways, just make the watch disposable like some of the other iDevices with nearly impossible to service batteries, and the consumers are forced to upgrade on a subscription basis.
It's not a game I want to play, but I'm still fascinated by Apple's endlessly cunning devices.
Apple's R&D is so much more meticulous than everyone else's. Most other manufacturers simply source from suppliers and pick out their best products rather than engage in material science themselves
Comments
The distinction is somewhat semantic. Chemical treatment usually implies reaction, since any material addition otherwise must count as a chemical treatment, but I'm not sure that there is an accepted, standard definition.
The article says "published", which I took to mean it was granted.
That's incorrect. The USPTO publishes patent applications publicly 18 months after they are filed. The article's author was a bit remiss when he wrote, "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published an Apple patent..." He should have said the Office published an Apple patent application...
Thanks for the clarification.
An iWatch contructed with Liquid Metal and Sapphire will not only be indestructable, it will be impossible for Apple's rivals to copy for many years. Charge the battery wirelessly and the only problem left is how to replace the battery. Apple probably doesn't want the battery replaceable anyways, just make the watch disposable like some of the other iDevices with nearly impossible to service batteries, and the consumers are forced to upgrade on a subscription basis.
It's not a game I want to play, but I'm still fascinated by Apple's endlessly cunning devices.