An absolute ceiling. Where it's not possible. One might be able to create a theory that 0.01 might be possible but the absolute limit is 0.0 without affecting physics. We'll need TARDIS technology to put something bigger into something smaller. I welcome it but I'm not holding my breath… or blinking. Don't blink. Blink and you're dead.
Then maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. But with current chip technology we need many atoms to constitute a transistor, and that will remain true. The same thing for the chip wiring. There is no known way to make a real, working transistor out of one atom. It's a complex device.
So the test involves a height of one meter (about three feet)? Two meters (six feet) would be more true to life, since it would simulate falling from a phone being held up to the head. Does Corning think that most smartphone users are little children?
A friend working for a paper company was once given a task. Food aid overseas often went in bags they made, but the federal government was thinking of shifting to something stronger. His job was to experiment until he came up with an impressive-looking test that his company's bags would pass but their competitors would fail.
I wonder if something similar is going on here. Corning may have experimented and settled on a one meter fall because the results look far better than that from two meters.
Also, keep in mind that hardness is linked to scratch resistance. That's not the same as not shattering in a fall. Hard can mean brittle and thus breaking easily. Think of diamonds.
Glass can also be very strange at times. Once, when I was moving, the glass plate I was using to cover a table top broke off when I attempted to lift it by one corner. It went into the pile intended for the city waste facility.
At the waste facility I thought, This is going to be fun. I'll get to hurl that large glass plate whose corner had broken off so easily, onto bare concrete 20 feet below. It'll shatter into a thousand pieces.
It not only didn't shatter, it didn't even break at all. Just a loud clunk.
1 meter is probably a good real world test that is easily replicable. I think many phones slip out of hands while walking (think where your hands are) and while pulling it out from a pocket. Sure, some people may lose it while they're talking, but I'm sure many more drop them while typing.
Then maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. But with current chip technology we need many atoms to constitute a transistor, and that will remain true. The same thing for the chip wiring. There is no known way to make a real, working transistor out of one atom. It's a complex device.
So far that's the reality and I don't expect that to change. Maybe we'll discover smaller atoms.
BENDER
Yo, old guy. Why do we need to use those tiny microdroids? Can't you just shrink us?
PROFESSOR HUBERT FARNSWORTH
Oh, my, no. That would require extremely tiny atoms, and have you priced those lately? I'm not made of money. Leave me alone!
Wow, i wonder what rocket scientist at corning figure out dropping glass on a hard rough surface was worse case scenario, Just ask people where they drop their phone and you got the answer.
Honesty, there is more to the product than the surface that is dropped on. This is my personal observation after seen many broken display especially on phone in position of young females. Most all them put them in their back pocket in doing so the phone bend a bit, not enough to break the display, but doing enough time and stresses build up in the glass, once you have stressed the glass it does not take much of an impact to cause the glass to crack. I personally witness 2 displays break with little to no impact on the phone. Once was dropped from chair height on to the padded carpeted follow and when the phone was turned over the glass as the small crack in it. The other the person turn around with phone in their hand bumped it into wooden counter top and it cracked.
Other than someone dropping the phone on to the hard ground with some significant force, I believe most of the phone are breaking the glass due to the fact the glass is building up stresses over time from all the handling and bending of the surface. I personally had phone which have hit the ground pretty hard and left some nasty dings in the plastic and metal and the glass never broke, but I do not put my phone in back pants pockets and when I sit the phone is always removed and sitting on a flat surface.
...falling from a phone being held up to the head...
An uninterrupted 2m drop strikes me as an edge case. For me, there would surely be at least one "interaction" with a shoulder, etc., likely slowing velocity a bit, and introducing random pitch/yaw.
Also, if we were talking about, say, air bags instead of mere phones, your argument for more stringent testing would be appropriate. But it's just a phone... take care of it.
0.0 is the ceiling? Nothing over nothing? The ceiling is much bigger than nothing. The argument in the industry is exactly where that ceiling is.
Intel is not just claiming that 10nm will be next, they're claiming 7nm after that, and even 5nm! But the experts in that field aren't too sure that even 7nm is possible, much less 5.
After we get to the end, that's it! New science and technology will be required. The best bet now is carbon nanotubes. Both IBM and Hp have been investigating that for close to a decade. It's hoped that by the time Moore's law is done, it will become available. But we still don't know. We have to about 2020.
The question is not, is 5nm possible. The question is, is 5nm economically viable! That's the real question. I have no doubt that they could do it in the lab. But, making money out of a 25B factory is a lot harder!
Wow, i wonder what rocket scientist at corning figure out dropping glass on a hard rough surface was worse case scenario, Just ask people where they drop their phone and you got the answer.
Honesty, there is more to the product than the surface that is dropped on. This is my personal observation after seen many broken display especially on phone in position of young females. Most all them put them in their back pocket in doing so the phone bend a bit, not enough to break the display, but doing enough time and stresses build up in the glass, once you have stressed the glass it does not take much of an impact to cause the glass to crack. I personally witness 2 displays break with little to no impact on the phone. Once was dropped from chair height on to the padded carpeted follow and when the phone was turned over the glass as the small crack in it. The other the person turn around with phone in their hand bumped it into wooden counter top and it cracked.
Other than someone dropping the phone on to the hard ground with some significant force, I believe most of the phone are breaking the glass due to the fact the glass is building up stresses over time from all the handling and bending of the surface. I personally had phone which have hit the ground pretty hard and left some nasty dings in the plastic and metal and the glass never broke, but I do not put my phone in back pants pockets and when I sit the phone is always removed and sitting on a flat surface.
The problem with industry standard tests of all kinds, is that they are standard. That means something that manufacturers of test equipment can make for everyone to buy so that they can do the same tests, under the same conditions. That normally means laboratory tests. It can be difficult to come up with tests that every manufacturer can agree on. If someone uses a non standard test, everyone gets upset, because there's no way to compare those results with those from anyone else.
So we don't know exactly what Corning is doing here. How rough is the surface? What constitutes that surface? How is the item being dropped? Are air currents moving the item as it falls? What's the temperature the test is being done under?
I can come up with a whole load of these questions. If another manufacturer decides to do these tests too, how close to what Corning is doing will theirs be? So if the results don't match, who is correct? Is either correct?
That's why it takes manufacturers time come up with more real world tests. The tests have to be well controlled. An item in free fall can twist and flutter as it falls, never hitting the same way. It becomes very difficult to quantify what those results mean.The industry comes up with tests that it believes indicates performance. Sometimes they aren't as useful as thought.
The question is not, is 5nm possible. The question is, is 5nm economically viable! That's the real question. I have no doubt that they could do it in the lab. But, making money out of a 25B factory is a lot harder!
No the question has been whether 5nm is electronically possible. There's a lot of theorizing that 5nm may have so much leakage (and other problems) that a reliable circuit may not be possible. 5nm wiring is just a bit over 10 atoms wide. Quantum effects become such a large percentage of the overall performance package, that a transistor may not work at all.
While, in the lab, individual transistors have been made, they have not been able to figure out how to make millions and billions in a real world device. And some think it may not be possible. I'm not stating that is definately isn't, but there is a considerable amount of thought out there that thinks it may not be.
The advertise that it is harder than before. Why should I care about how hard the class is? The tennis balls are not that hard, but I have never seen them break when dropped on the asphalt.
The problem with industry standard tests of all kinds, is that they are standard. That means something that manufacturers of test equipment can make for everyone to buy so that they can do the same tests, under the same conditions. That normally means laboratory tests. It can be difficult to come up with tests that every manufacturer can agree on. If someone uses a non standard test, everyone gets upset, because there's no way to compare those results with those from anyone else.
So we don't know exactly what Corning is doing here. How rough is the surface? What constitutes that surface? How is the item being dropped? Are air currents moving the item as it falls? What's the temperature the test is being done under?
I can come up with a whole load of these questions. If another manufacturer decides to do these tests too, how close to what Corning is doing will theirs be? So if the results don't match, who is correct? Is either correct?
That's why it takes manufacturers time come up with more real world tests. The tests have to be well controlled. An item in free fall can twist and flutter as it falls, never hitting the same way. It becomes very difficult to quantify what those results mean.The industry comes up with tests that it believes indicates performance. Sometimes they aren't as useful as thought.
trust me, I know this all too well in a past life I use to design product "torture" tests and the biggest issue does the test match the real world. I use to have a saying I can design a test ever product will fail and one that every product passes, but in less they represent how the product is used it all meaning less. Engineer tent to test to make products fail but many time the failures are meaningless.
As I pointed out, I believe the real issue why display break has more to due with the stresses the display was put under before it was impacted. We use to do cumulative tests, individual products which have gone through a series of tests one right after the other and those products usually failed in different ways than the ones which only saw a single test (stress) condition.
This was all the issue I had with Apple on the whole voiding the warranty of the phone if they got wet. All the engineers live in Calif and never experience something we on the east cost experience ever winter. Many building are heated with Steam or Hot water so they tend to be hot and moist. If you are outside in the very cold and walk into the building and you electronics are still cool from being outside as so as they hit the warm moist air they are soaking wet, this is real world condition Apple never considered and most manufacturers never consider.
So the test involves a height of one meter (about three feet)? Two meters (six feet) would be more true to life, since it would simulate falling from a phone being held up to the head.
I would posit that that is far from the most common scenario. I think the vast majority of drops occur when someone is removing a device from their pocket or a bag.
Comments
Then maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. But with current chip technology we need many atoms to constitute a transistor, and that will remain true. The same thing for the chip wiring. There is no known way to make a real, working transistor out of one atom. It's a complex device.
This whole Gorilla branding theme reminds me of this :
So the test involves a height of one meter (about three feet)? Two meters (six feet) would be more true to life, since it would simulate falling from a phone being held up to the head. Does Corning think that most smartphone users are little children?
A friend working for a paper company was once given a task. Food aid overseas often went in bags they made, but the federal government was thinking of shifting to something stronger. His job was to experiment until he came up with an impressive-looking test that his company's bags would pass but their competitors would fail.
I wonder if something similar is going on here. Corning may have experimented and settled on a one meter fall because the results look far better than that from two meters.
Also, keep in mind that hardness is linked to scratch resistance. That's not the same as not shattering in a fall. Hard can mean brittle and thus breaking easily. Think of diamonds.
Glass can also be very strange at times. Once, when I was moving, the glass plate I was using to cover a table top broke off when I attempted to lift it by one corner. It went into the pile intended for the city waste facility.
At the waste facility I thought, This is going to be fun. I'll get to hurl that large glass plate whose corner had broken off so easily, onto bare concrete 20 feet below. It'll shatter into a thousand pieces.
It not only didn't shatter, it didn't even break at all. Just a loud clunk.
1 meter is probably a good real world test that is easily replicable. I think many phones slip out of hands while walking (think where your hands are) and while pulling it out from a pocket. Sure, some people may lose it while they're talking, but I'm sure many more drop them while typing.
So far that's the reality and I don't expect that to change. Maybe we'll discover smaller atoms.
Wow, i wonder what rocket scientist at corning figure out dropping glass on a hard rough surface was worse case scenario, Just ask people where they drop their phone and you got the answer.
Honesty, there is more to the product than the surface that is dropped on. This is my personal observation after seen many broken display especially on phone in position of young females. Most all them put them in their back pocket in doing so the phone bend a bit, not enough to break the display, but doing enough time and stresses build up in the glass, once you have stressed the glass it does not take much of an impact to cause the glass to crack. I personally witness 2 displays break with little to no impact on the phone. Once was dropped from chair height on to the padded carpeted follow and when the phone was turned over the glass as the small crack in it. The other the person turn around with phone in their hand bumped it into wooden counter top and it cracked.
Other than someone dropping the phone on to the hard ground with some significant force, I believe most of the phone are breaking the glass due to the fact the glass is building up stresses over time from all the handling and bending of the surface. I personally had phone which have hit the ground pretty hard and left some nasty dings in the plastic and metal and the glass never broke, but I do not put my phone in back pants pockets and when I sit the phone is always removed and sitting on a flat surface.
...falling from a phone being held up to the head...
An uninterrupted 2m drop strikes me as an edge case. For me, there would surely be at least one "interaction" with a shoulder, etc., likely slowing velocity a bit, and introducing random pitch/yaw.
Also, if we were talking about, say, air bags instead of mere phones, your argument for more stringent testing would be appropriate. But it's just a phone... take care of it.
(OT: RTR
)
In the end isn't that what Sapphire is?
Discontinue use if in less than 2 years it's twice as hard again.
Ask your doctor how much longer until it's invincible.
Tee hee. Fixed that for ya
0.0 is the ceiling? Nothing over nothing? The ceiling is much bigger than nothing. The argument in the industry is exactly where that ceiling is.
Intel is not just claiming that 10nm will be next, they're claiming 7nm after that, and even 5nm! But the experts in that field aren't too sure that even 7nm is possible, much less 5.
After we get to the end, that's it! New science and technology will be required. The best bet now is carbon nanotubes. Both IBM and Hp have been investigating that for close to a decade. It's hoped that by the time Moore's law is done, it will become available. But we still don't know. We have to about 2020.
The question is not, is 5nm possible. The question is, is 5nm economically viable! That's the real question. I have no doubt that they could do it in the lab. But, making money out of a 25B factory is a lot harder!
Next year we’ll see Gorilla Glass 6, of course.
A "drop" of more than 10 feet ?? (for us Brits and Americans) ... that seems a bit absurd.
Sigh. Conversion error.
The problem with industry standard tests of all kinds, is that they are standard. That means something that manufacturers of test equipment can make for everyone to buy so that they can do the same tests, under the same conditions. That normally means laboratory tests. It can be difficult to come up with tests that every manufacturer can agree on. If someone uses a non standard test, everyone gets upset, because there's no way to compare those results with those from anyone else.
So we don't know exactly what Corning is doing here. How rough is the surface? What constitutes that surface? How is the item being dropped? Are air currents moving the item as it falls? What's the temperature the test is being done under?
I can come up with a whole load of these questions. If another manufacturer decides to do these tests too, how close to what Corning is doing will theirs be? So if the results don't match, who is correct? Is either correct?
That's why it takes manufacturers time come up with more real world tests. The tests have to be well controlled. An item in free fall can twist and flutter as it falls, never hitting the same way. It becomes very difficult to quantify what those results mean.The industry comes up with tests that it believes indicates performance. Sometimes they aren't as useful as thought.
It's easier just not to let your gorillas play on the stairs, really...
No the question has been whether 5nm is electronically possible. There's a lot of theorizing that 5nm may have so much leakage (and other problems) that a reliable circuit may not be possible. 5nm wiring is just a bit over 10 atoms wide. Quantum effects become such a large percentage of the overall performance package, that a transistor may not work at all.
While, in the lab, individual transistors have been made, they have not been able to figure out how to make millions and billions in a real world device. And some think it may not be possible. I'm not stating that is definately isn't, but there is a considerable amount of thought out there that thinks it may not be.
Why should I care about how hard the class is?
The tennis balls are not that hard, but I have never seen them break when dropped on the asphalt.
Yes, Sapphire is aluminum oxide.
The problem with industry standard tests of all kinds, is that they are standard. That means something that manufacturers of test equipment can make for everyone to buy so that they can do the same tests, under the same conditions. That normally means laboratory tests. It can be difficult to come up with tests that every manufacturer can agree on. If someone uses a non standard test, everyone gets upset, because there's no way to compare those results with those from anyone else.
So we don't know exactly what Corning is doing here. How rough is the surface? What constitutes that surface? How is the item being dropped? Are air currents moving the item as it falls? What's the temperature the test is being done under?
I can come up with a whole load of these questions. If another manufacturer decides to do these tests too, how close to what Corning is doing will theirs be? So if the results don't match, who is correct? Is either correct?
That's why it takes manufacturers time come up with more real world tests. The tests have to be well controlled. An item in free fall can twist and flutter as it falls, never hitting the same way. It becomes very difficult to quantify what those results mean.The industry comes up with tests that it believes indicates performance. Sometimes they aren't as useful as thought.
trust me, I know this all too well in a past life I use to design product "torture" tests and the biggest issue does the test match the real world. I use to have a saying I can design a test ever product will fail and one that every product passes, but in less they represent how the product is used it all meaning less. Engineer tent to test to make products fail but many time the failures are meaningless.
As I pointed out, I believe the real issue why display break has more to due with the stresses the display was put under before it was impacted. We use to do cumulative tests, individual products which have gone through a series of tests one right after the other and those products usually failed in different ways than the ones which only saw a single test (stress) condition.
This was all the issue I had with Apple on the whole voiding the warranty of the phone if they got wet. All the engineers live in Calif and never experience something we on the east cost experience ever winter. Many building are heated with Steam or Hot water so they tend to be hot and moist. If you are outside in the very cold and walk into the building and you electronics are still cool from being outside as so as they hit the warm moist air they are soaking wet, this is real world condition Apple never considered and most manufacturers never consider.
So the test involves a height of one meter (about three feet)? Two meters (six feet) would be more true to life, since it would simulate falling from a phone being held up to the head.
I would posit that that is far from the most common scenario. I think the vast majority of drops occur when someone is removing a device from their pocket or a bag.
When they have the strength to tear your arm off then they can play wherever they want.