I love this most characteristic of phrases, it’s something English lacks. That last morsel of the shared slice of cake, the semi-sip of wine left in the bottle… the remnant of politeness?
The author ignored one of the most interesting parts of the Quora post, the patent that Apple filed about a manufacturing process that casts ceramic parts and silicon/rubber parts at the same time to make a single object that has both hard ceramic structure and soft rubber. That would let them unify parts like gaskets and bits that hold other bits into one single process.
So maybe even if the ceramic part of the process takes longer, they might be able to make up for lost time but cutting out steps that are further down the assembly process. To quote the patent:
"As one specific example, ceramic materials have numerous qualities that make them particularly useful for use in electronic device housings. For example, they may be highly scratch resistant, making them particularly well suited for electronic devices that are frequently subject to bumps, scrapes, and scratches, such as wearable electronic devices (e.g., smart watches, glasses and the like), mechanical watches, and other consumer products (including, but not limited to, media players, mobile computers, tablet computing devices, and so on). As a specific example, the high hardness and optical clarity of sapphire crystal (a crystalline ceramic material) may be very well suited as the cover glass for a touch-screen of a wearable electronic device. Ceramic materials may also be relatively light, making handheld or wearable electronic devices easier to carry, wear, and use. Moreover, ceramic materials may be able to achieve a high degree of surface polish making them particularly aesthetically pleasing.
However, ceramic materials typically are more difficult to form into complex geometries than plastics, and, thus, manufacturing housing components from ceramic materials can be more difficult than for other materials. Accordingly, described herein are housing components where a polymer material is co-molded with a ceramic component to form a housing component that includes ceramic and polymer material portions. (As used herein, the terms "polymer" and/or "polymer material" encompass natural and synthetic polymers, plastics, rubbers, and the like.) For example, a ceramic housing portion may be co-molded with a polymer material to form a polymer clip that is directly coupled to the ceramic material and can be used to retain the ceramic component with another housing component. As another example, a polymer material may be co-molded with a ceramic component to form a plastic coating on a portion of the ceramic component
As described herein, a polymer material forming a polymer feature may be coupled to a ceramic component by a co-molding process whereby the polymer material is molded against the ceramic component. By co-molding the polymer material directly onto the ceramic component, the polymer feature may be bonded to the ceramic material without the use of an intervening adhesive or other bonding agent between the ceramic and the polymer feature. For example, instead of separately forming the ceramic component and the polymer feature, and then adhering the polymer feature to the ceramic with glue, pressure sensitive adhesive, heat activated films, epoxy, or the like, the polymer may be molded directly against the ceramic material.
Thus, parts that include both ceramic and polymer components can be manufactured more quickly and with higher precision than would be achieved if the components had to be manufactured separately and thereafter coupled together with adhesive. In some embodiments, the polymer material is injection molded onto the ceramic component. In some embodiments, the polymer material is molded onto the ceramic component using techniques other than injection molding, such as gravity casting, or any other appropriate co-molding process. Where the present discussion refers to injection molding, it will be understood that other molding techniques may be used in such instances instead of or in addition to injection molding."
Thanks! There's also another variant that I created that we are using for our beta testing "Special Ops" team signup page: http://www.learnenough.com/special-ops
It is all custom, and the Learn Enough series is using a variation on our web book layout that we created for the parent platform http://www.softcover.io - which is what is hosting the Rails Tutorial.
No it is because the Chinese test dumped kilowatts of energy into the test item but the NASA test used only miniscule power. The guy you replied to presented the facts in a misleading way.
I'm slightly more skeptical about EmDrive than optimistic, however, you are right: if someone has to distort the truth in order to make a point it might be time that they question their standpoint on a matter. This looks like a lot of opinions about science. Which is a logical contradiction. An opinion has absolutely no sway in determining whether or not the device works. Opinions have nothing to do with science.
The device will either be shown to work or not to work with additional experiments and nothing anyone says regarding how it can or can't work will change that.
The new test was at slightly lower power but within an order of magnitude of the original test: 700 W versus 2.5 kW. The measured effect, on the other hand, has decreased by more than four orders of magnitude.
I haven't studied the theory behind the device, but it's hardly a distortion to characterize such a disproportionate drop as a declining effect size in the face of additional testing.
Like you, I don't claim to have any idea whether this ultimately pans out. As I said, the ultimate test is to put one in space and see what it does. Until that (or at least a more promising lab test) happens, all we have is speculation. But my point is that more skepticism is warranted than was implied by the Wired headline and by some of the comments in this thread.
The difference in measure thrust is due to different test articles and testing done in different labs. The 720 mN result was from China and they dumped a ton of energy into it. The smaller 20 μN result was from NASA's testing which used far less power, so the resulting thrust measure was also smaller.
Sure, if you're considering all the suburbs/metro area surrounding NYC. If you're really looking at the city, then it's 26k people/square mile, not 5000. Kind of a huge difference.
This would be amazing. I use Screenhero all the time for work, but every so often I need to help my mother with something on her computer and there is no free solution available that is better than Screenhero.
I'm just not going to pay for another subscription just to help my mother out with tech support once a quarter...
