4 ms·
This descriptions does not sound like it's about something that is "virtually unbreakable" : "The sample looked like an ordinary piece of glass, 4 inches squar
by vincnetas 8y ago
This descriptions does not sound like it's about something that is "virtually unbreakable" :
"The sample looked like an ordinary piece of glass, 4 inches square and transparent on both sides. It’d been packed like the precious specimen its inventor, Adam Khan, believed it to be—placed on wax paper, nestled in a tray lined with silicon gel, enclosed in a plastic case, surrounded by air bags, sealed in a cardboard box—and then sent for testing to a laboratory in San Diego"
- sschueller 8y agoAlso according to the agreement Huawei was not supposed to "break" it. I am not sure how they are supposed to evaluate it without scratching at it.
- sharpneli 8y agoThis one stood out to me too. What benefit it even is to get a sample of protective glass if you are not allowed to test it? ”Here. Look at it. Trust us that it’s super resistant to scratches”.
- eulalila 8y agoThey literally describe Huawei sending a picture to Akhan of a deep scratch in the sample, proving they’re testing it properly. Read the fucking articles people: The first sign of trouble came two months later, in May, when Huawei missed the deadline to return the sample. Shurboff says his emails to Han requesting its immediate return were ignored. The following month, Han wrote that Huawei had been performing “standard” tests on the sample and included a photo showing a big scratch on its surface. Finally, a package from Huawei showed up at Gurnee on Aug. 2.
- dsl 8y agoThere are plenty of "unbreakable" coatings. It sounds like what makes this unique is that is was suitable as a display cover. An initial evaluation would be measuring things like how much light energy of what frequencies is able to penetrate the coating. Is the viewing angle acceptable for a consumer device, etc. Hitting it with a hammer can always come later when they determine that it is a good display glass first.
- RobLach 8y agoScratching it is what was expected of the test since that's the reason you'd want to use diamond, to resist scratching. Breaking it into a number of a pieces with a laser is beyond the scope of testing its ability to resist scratches.
- pergadad 8y agoNo matter what they intended/wanted to do, they signed a contract not to break it. Ain't nothing much to debate there.
- crispyambulance 8y agoIt may very well be "virtually unbreakable" for the use case of something that's supposed to survive the rigors of life as a display for consumer electronics device. Breaking it, of course, would be something that any device designer would do in the course of characterizing or evaluating it as a component for a new product. Whether that would have been done on the first sample is something that's strictly between the AKhan and the evaluator.
- logfromblammo 8y agoBreaking the test material is essential. That's what determines the engineering limits of any applications, and also the failure modes for exceeded tolerances. It's all fine and good if your device can survive a drop from 1m onto a hard floor without cracking or chipping, but if a fall from 2m then results in a cloud of razor-sharp glass flechettes, that shred all flesh in a 5m radius, you're probably not going to want that particular screen treatment in a consumer product. But this test material was not supposed to be used for that, I guess. I'm not sure how they were supposed to evaluate it. Personally, I'd want to do all of the following: Put it in a rock tumbler with a bunch of keys and coins. Scratch it with a steel razor blade. Drive a galvanized deck nail through it with a claw hammer. Drill a hole through it with a SiC drill bit. Heat it up with a propane torch. Put it in a freezer. Drop it from 2m onto a hard floor. Bend it in multiple directions. Pinch it until it cracks. Try to find a resonance frequency with ultrasound. Most of those are potentially destructive. Perhaps this one was more for optical properties? Refractive index, absorption spectra?
- peter_d_sherman 8y agoI wonder if someone were to test all breakable and non-breakable materials with ultrasound to try to find their resonance frequency (as you suggested, but with all materials), if they'd discover that there's some relationship between sound frequency and the "breakableness" or the "non-breakableness" of the material in question... intuition says that there's something there...
- rgbrenner 8y agoWell how would you ship glass to San Diego? It’s suppose to arrive safely to be tested in a lab. Not partly compromised by the time it gets there.
- hevi_jos 8y agoWell, diamond is very easy to break, because being hard also means it is very fragile. In other words, it is very easy for a fracture to propagate. We actually broke low quality diamonds with a hammer. They are also very easy to burn. What is very hard is scratching diamond. If you combine the properties of different materials like diamond on the surface, and something that absorbs impacts inside it could be a wonderful material.