New MacBook Air Battery!?
marcha...@hotmail.com
replaceable battery! You need to send it back to Apple with an
estimated 5-day turnaround.
http://www.apple.com/support/macbookair/service/battery/
I can just barely stomach this type of thing in my iPods and iPhone...
but in a notebook computer?!
-hh
Amazing that you should mention that ... the battery in my MacBook Air
just failed! Dead! Kaput! Good thing that I have a complete backup
via Time Machine. :-)
-hh
Steve Hix
<b83f6242-f645-48ad...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
marcha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Engineering is a thing of tradeoffs. Always has been, always will be.
I'd risk it in this case for the Air's other features.
Trevor Smithson
wrote:
The thing is tiny with extreme engineering tolerances. Laptops
generally are difficult to work on and especially to reassemble, I
imagine the Air would be well beyond a big majority of its owners.
Snit
sehix-E6B6F5....@news.speakeasy.net on 1/15/08 6:15 PM:
Ah... I did not know Apple would replace them like that... I mistakenly
figured it was non-replaceable (in any supported way). Not sure where I got
that... my concerns on that front are reduced... not that I am planning on
buying one. :)
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
ZnU
Trevor Smithson <trevor_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One component of this is the issue of structural integrity. Having a
door with a battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for
the bottom would weaken the case a fair bit. It probably matters for a
machine that thin, where Apple is, I would guess, pushing the limits
already.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
ed
news:znu-F2F5C4.0...@news.individual.net...<snip>
>> The thing is tiny with extreme engineering tolerances. Laptops
>> generally are difficult to work on and especially to reassemble, I
>> imagine the Air would be well beyond a big majority of its owners.
>
> One component of this is the issue of structural integrity. Having a
> door with a battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for
> the bottom would weaken the case a fair bit. It probably matters for a
> machine that thin, where Apple is, I would guess, pushing the limits
> already.
people made this same argument w/ the ipod and the iphone, and it's crap
now, like it was then. having a door w/ a battery in it would mean having a
bump in on the case for the battery, then the battery, then the door for the
battery. the bump inwards on the main case would create a box section,
which would be STRONGER. (yes, i AM an engineer).
Snit
a6hjj.156$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 1/15/08 11:01 PM:
Not an engineer and just guessing, but if you have a box section isn't there
a risk of a bang to the bottom transferring the shock to the top... where it
might do damage?
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
ed
news:C3B2EDB4.A20DB%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
depends where you put it, but very unlikely to make any noticeable
difference regardless.
Snit
What about creating a leverage point where it is more likely to bend? Seems
like there could be structural considerations that would have to be tested
and looked at - and that our guesses, even if yours is admittedly more
educated than mine, might not really mean that much.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
ed
uhh, no, not really.
Snit
>>>> Not an engineer and just guessing, but if you have a box section isn't
>>>> there a risk of a bang to the bottom transferring the shock to the top...
>>>> where it might do damage?
>>>>
>>> depends where you put it, but very unlikely to make any noticeable
>>> difference regardless.
>>>
>> What about creating a leverage point where it is more likely to bend?
>>
> uhh, no, not really.
Hmmm, if I get time I might play with some empty cereal boxes and test... or
not. Not really that important to me. :)
>
>> Seems like there could be structural considerations that would have to be
>> tested and looked at - and that our guesses, even if yours is admittedly more
>> educated than mine, might not really mean that much.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
ed
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> 7zhjj.172$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net on 1/15/08 11:33 PM:
>
>>>>> Not an engineer and just guessing, but if you have a box section isn't
>>>>> there a risk of a bang to the bottom transferring the shock to the
>>>>> top...
>>>>> where it might do damage?
>>>>>
>>>> depends where you put it, but very unlikely to make any noticeable
>>>> difference regardless.
>>>>
>>> What about creating a leverage point where it is more likely to bend?
>>>
>> uhh, no, not really.
>
> Hmmm, if I get time I might play with some empty cereal boxes and test...
> or
> not. Not really that important to me. :)
knock yourself out.
<snip>
Snit
With a cereal box? Seems like that is unlikely! :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
ZnU
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Assuming you bent the outer shell in to become the interior of the
battery compartment, sure. But with, for instance, my MacBook Pro's
case, it doesn't work that way. The out shell isn't bent in, there's
just a hole cut into it. The battery drops into that hole, such that the
bottom of the battery (which is aluminum to match the computer's shell)
sits flush with the bottom of the computer.
This pretty clearly reduces the strength of the case. I would guess
Apple does it to gain a little extra space, which would be even more
important with the MacBook Air.
(Incidentally, I just slept and flipped over my MacBook Pro to
double-check how the battery compartment was built, and I managed to
knock the power cord out while the battery was removed. These things
suspend to RAM so they'll wake up fast, but apparently they also save
state to disk, so even if power is completely removed you can pick up
right were you left off, after 20 seconds of loading. I knew the
hardware supported suspend-to-disk, but I hadn't heard anywhere that
Apple was using it this way.)
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Then you're an awfully poor one, if you think you can make s blanket
statement like that...
What kind of engineer are you?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
-hh
>
> > people made this same argument w/ the ipod and the iphone, and it's crap
> > now, like it was then. having a door w/ a battery in it would mean having a
> > bump in on the case for the battery, then the battery, then the door for the
> > battery. the bump inwards on the main case would create a box section,
> > which would be STRONGER. (yes, i AM an engineer).
>
> Assuming you bent the outer shell in to become the interior of the
> battery compartment, sure. But with, for instance, my MacBook Pro's
> case, it doesn't work that way. The out shell isn't bent in, there's
> just a hole cut into it.
Hole vs Bend: easier to manufacture & no stress riser. Hole wins.
And while some arguments can be made for improved rigidity by adding a
box section, it is coming via the design trade-off, of adding two
extra thicknesses of case material when one is trying to save weight/
volume. Plus when one considers that the the interior is filled, it
is expected that there's dozens of opportunities for 'mini-boxes' to
be created by the internal components to increase rigidity of the
monocote shell. Overall, disrupting a monocote section with a cutout
or severe bend isn't a particularly appealing design trade-off.
Besides, just because its not very blatantly serviceable through the
bottom doesn't mean that there's no other way to skin the cat. For
example, the RAM is probably accessed by removing the keyboard...can
you think of any reason why service access to the battery can't also
be done in the same fashion?
Or has someone already seen a complete dissection to know exactly what
the constraints are?
-hh
ed
> In article <a6hjj.156$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:znu-F2F5C4.0...@news.individual.net...
> > > Trevor Smithson <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >> The thing is tiny with extreme engineering tolerances. Laptops
> > >> generally are difficult to work on and especially to reassemble, I
> > >> imagine the Air would be well beyond a big majority of its owners.
>
> > > One component of this is the issue of structural integrity. Having a
> > > door with a battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for
> > > the bottom would weaken the case a fair bit. It probably matters for a
> > > machine that thin, where Apple is, I would guess, pushing the limits
> > > already.
>
> > people made this same argument w/ the ipod and the iphone, and it's crap
> > now, like it was then. having a door w/ a battery in it would mean having a
> > bump in on the case for the battery, then the battery, then the door for the
> > battery. the bump inwards on the main case would create a box section,
> > which would be STRONGER. (yes, i AM an engineer).
>
> Then you're an awfully poor one, if you think you can make s blanket
> statement like that...
no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
> What kind of engineer are you?
aerospace.
ed
> In article <a6hjj.156$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:znu-F2F5C4.0...@news.individual.net...
> > > Trevor Smithson <trevor_smith...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >> The thing is tiny with extreme engineering tolerances. Laptops
> > >> generally are difficult to work on and especially to reassemble, I
> > >> imagine the Air would be well beyond a big majority of its owners.
>
> > > One component of this is the issue of structural integrity. Having a
> > > door with a battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for
> > > the bottom would weaken the case a fair bit. It probably matters for a
> > > machine that thin, where Apple is, I would guess, pushing the limits
> > > already.
>
> > people made this same argument w/ the ipod and the iphone, and it's crap
> > now, like it was then. having a door w/ a battery in it would mean having a
> > bump in on the case for the battery, then the battery, then the door for the
> > battery. the bump inwards on the main case would create a box section,
> > which would be STRONGER. (yes, i AM an engineer).
>
> Assuming you bent the outer shell in to become the interior of the
> battery compartment, sure. But with, for instance, my MacBook Pro's
> case, it doesn't work that way. The out shell isn't bent in, there's
> just a hole cut into it. The battery drops into that hole, such that the
> bottom of the battery (which is aluminum to match the computer's shell)
> sits flush with the bottom of the computer.
that's... horrible... ;D
<snip>
-hh
But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
> > What kind of engineer are you?
>
> aerospace.
Mechanical, now with a multidisciplinary sub-specialization.
-hh
Steve de Mena
To bad Apple doesn't have any qualified designers like you guys.
Steve
y_p_w
> Besides, just because its not very blatantly serviceable through the
> bottom doesn't mean that there's no other way to skin the cat. For
> example, the RAM is probably accessed by removing the keyboard...can
> you think of any reason why service access to the battery can't also
> be done in the same fashion?
On the MacBook Air - no.
The pictures show the new Apple style keyboard that doesn't lift up.
There are no build to order memory options. Sounds like the 2GB on
the logic board is it.
ed
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
>
> But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
-hh
>
> The pictures show the new Apple style keyboard that doesn't lift up.
> There are no build to order memory options. Sounds like the 2GB on
> the logic board is it.
You're right: I read somewhere that the 2GB of RAM is soldered on.
In looking through some of the photos now online, it looks like
there's 10 screws on the back (maybe 2 more hidden) that keep the
clamshell secured. Given how talented the aftermarket has been in
taking apart iPods, I'd be inclined to give them ~6 months to get
ahold of some hardware to tear apart and figure out how (im)practical
a DIY battery replacement kit might be.
In the meantime, simply buy a 3 year Applecare. Its plausibly within
the targeted customer demographic.
-hh
Alan Baker
<5e367501-c654-43ff...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
So:
A. Why don't you see "box sections" let into the sides of aircraft
fuselages.
B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
How does something which reduces the cross section of a structure going
to strengthen it? Yes, the sides of a battery bay might add some
resistance to outer skin of an aluminum shell like the MacBook Air's
bottom case, but how do you know there aren't equivalent or even
superior ribs inside the case anyway? Why should moving the skin from on
side of those ribs to the other make it stronger?
Would an I-beam be stronger if you removed a section of the top or
bottom flange plus some of the web and replaced it with a new section of
flange closer to the centreline?
Side view:
________________ __________________
| |
-------------------
_____________________________________________________
Does that configuration really make it stronger?
>
> > What kind of engineer are you?
>
> aerospace.
That's vague. What do you actually do?
Alan Baker
<e978c681-ee4c-435e...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
> >
> > But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> > into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
>
> of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
You're suggesting that a three-sided box must be stronger than what the
MacBook Air has there now...
...without knowing what it *has*.
>
> > > > What kind of engineer are you?
> >
> > > aerospace.
> >
> > Mechanical, now with a multidisciplinary sub-specialization.
--
Steve de Mena
Yes, the 2GB is soldered to the motherboard.
Steve
Mitch
<b83f6242-f645-48ad...@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
<marcha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just discovered that the new MacBook Air does *not* have a user
> replaceable battery! You need to send it back to Apple with an
> estimated 5-day turnaround.
>
> http://www.apple.com/support/macbookair/service/battery/
>
> I can just barely stomach this type of thing in my iPods and iPhone...
> but in a notebook computer?!
So, this wouldn't be the choice you would want in a laptop.
Good God, man, no one ever promised you they would put in everything
exactly as each user wants it.
There are always trade-offs in engineering. You know why it hasn't got
the very fastest processor in the world, even though it's the very
newest laptop?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <9PWdnecp2fG9yRPa...@giganews.com>):
Well, at least people won't be blaming everything on bad RAM
anymore. :)
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
y_p_w
> There are always trade-offs in engineering. You know why it hasn't got
> the very fastest processor in the world, even though it's the very
> newest laptop?
Sort of reminds me of Sanyo's Eneloop series of NiMH batteries. What
they've been desperately trying to market is that they hold the large
majority of their charge after a year of storage, and should be ready
to use out of the package. What they have to contend with is that
their capacity is 2000-2100 mAh. The state of the art in NiMH
batteries that don't have that kind of charge retention is maybe
2600-2700 mAh.
Of course this new processor was designed with space and power
consumption in mind. It should still be plenty fast.
ed
>
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
>
> > > But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> > > into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
>
> > of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
>
> You're suggesting that a three-sided box must be stronger than what the
> MacBook Air has there now...
hey alan, a box section wouldn't be a 3 sided box.
> ...without knowing what it *has*.
i simply said a box section- what you would logically use- would be
stronger than the simple scenario given ('having a door with a
battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for the bottom
would weaken the case a fair bit').
<snip>
Alan Baker
<7fa8b025-7bfe-4511...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 10:32 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e978c681-ee4c-435e-a02c-1a4702aad...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
> >
> > > > But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> > > > into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
> >
> > > of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
> >
> > You're suggesting that a three-sided box must be stronger than what the
> > MacBook Air has there now...
>
> hey alan, a box section wouldn't be a 3 sided box.
No. But an opening in the bottom of a laptop for a battery would be.
Or are you suggesting that the lid of the box is attached by enough
screws to let it provide structural support?
>
> > ...without knowing what it *has*.
>
> i simply said a box section- what you would logically use- would be
> stronger than the simple scenario given ('having a door with a
> battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for the bottom
> would weaken the case a fair bit').
And thus you declared that a hole would be a box section, because you
neglected the fact that the box was incomplete.
>
> <snip>
ed
depending on exactly what you mean (since it's pretty clear that you
don't really know what a box section is):
1- yeah, you never see anything like a box section going into a
fuselage... never... not even in a wing box, eh? ;D
or:
1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
a lot better.
2- it's more aerodynamic.
> B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
> How does something which reduces the cross section of a
> structure going to strengthen it?
by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
> Yes, the sides of a battery bay might add some
> resistance to outer skin of an aluminum shell like the MacBook Air's
> bottom case, but how do you know there aren't equivalent or even
> superior ribs inside the case anyway?
we don't alan- we're talking in the general case, regarding the
initial generalizations made (not by me). funny how you didn't have
problems w/ those, eh? ;D
> Why should moving the skin from on
> side of those ribs to the other make it stronger?
well, given that we don't know anything about these hypothetical ribs,
it's hard to say, eh? ;D
> Would an I-beam be stronger if you removed a section of the top or
> bottom flange plus some of the web and replaced it with a new section of
> flange closer to the centreline?
>
> Side view:
>
> ________________ __________________
> | |
> -------------------
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Does that configuration really make it stronger?
i'm not sure what your picture is trying to get across, but i suspect
it's not analagous to the situation we're describing.
> > > What kind of engineer are you?
>
> > aerospace.
>
> That's vague. What do you actually do?
i design aircraft (you know, largely made of thin skinned
aluminum :P ).
ed
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 10:32 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e978c681-ee4c-435e-a02c-1a4702aad...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 16, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > > > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
>
> > > > > But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> > > > > into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
>
> > > > of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
>
> > > You're suggesting that a three-sided box must be stronger than what the
> > > MacBook Air has there now...
>
> > hey alan, a box section wouldn't be a 3 sided box.
(that should have read '*the* box section' (described))
> No. But an opening in the bottom of a laptop for a battery would be.
no, what i described would be 5 sided, not 3 sided, eh? (i was poking
fun at you for not knowing that a box section doesn't have to be
enclosed, rather than correcting you, but it's no fun when you don't
know what's going on) ;D
> Or are you suggesting that the lid of the box is attached by enough
> screws to let it provide structural support?
the lid has to provide very neglible support of any sort.
> > > ...without knowing what it *has*.
>
> > i simply said a box section- what you would logically use- would be
> > stronger than the simple scenario given ('having a door with a
> > battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for the bottom
> > would weaken the case a fair bit').
>
> And thus you declared that a hole would be a box section, because you
> neglected the fact that the box was incomplete.
you don't need an enclosed cube to have a box section.
Alan Baker
<4293d6f5-ca95-42b6...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
A wing box doesn't have an open side.
> or:
> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
> a lot better.
> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
>
> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
>
> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
Gee...
And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
>
> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
> > structure going to strengthen it?
>
> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre of
the structure.
>
> > Yes, the sides of a battery bay might add some
> > resistance to outer skin of an aluminum shell like the MacBook Air's
> > bottom case, but how do you know there aren't equivalent or even
> > superior ribs inside the case anyway?
>
> we don't alan- we're talking in the general case, regarding the
> initial generalizations made (not by me). funny how you didn't have
> problems w/ those, eh? ;D
>
> > Why should moving the skin from on
> > side of those ribs to the other make it stronger?
>
> well, given that we don't know anything about these hypothetical ribs,
> it's hard to say, eh? ;D
>
> > Would an I-beam be stronger if you removed a section of the top or
> > bottom flange plus some of the web and replaced it with a new section of
> > flange closer to the centreline?
> >
> > Side view:
> >
> > ________________ __________________
> > | |
> > -------------------
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> >
> > Does that configuration really make it stronger?
>
> i'm not sure what your picture is trying to get across, but i suspect
> it's not analagous to the situation we're describing.
You're looking at an crude representation of an i-beam with the
horizontal lines representing the top and bottom webs complete with a
segment of the top web displaced downward just as a battery bay would
displace the outer shell of a laptop inward.
You're suggesting that such a structure is stronger than one with a
continuous shell.
>
> > > > What kind of engineer are you?
> >
> > > aerospace.
> >
> > That's vague. What do you actually do?
>
> i design aircraft (you know, largely made of thin skinned
> aluminum :P ).
And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you? And claim that
it's stronger to do so?
Snit
b968a975-900c-4a40...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com on 1/16/08
6:05 PM:
Sigh... do I need to knock myself out with a cereal box?
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Phoon Hencman
> Just discovered that the new MacBook Air does *not* have a user
> replaceable battery! You need to send it back to Apple with an
> estimated 5-day turnaround.
>
> http://www.apple.com/support/macbookair/service/battery/
>
> I can just barely stomach this type of thing in my iPods and iPhone...
> but in a notebook computer?!
This new laptop is too expensive and this doesn't help matters any. Bad
move IMHO. I'll stick with my Macbook and eeepc....
Snit
478eabe8$0$18425$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 1/16/08 6:13 PM:
From what I have read it is actually cheaper than other similar devices:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/technology/personaltech/17pogue.html>
-----
It零 hard to compare the MacBook Air with Windows
ultraportables, since every company plays the compromises
differently. Toshiba, Sony and Fujitsu all make
near-three-pounders with built-in CD/DVD drives and more
jacks. But they generally have smaller screens, slower chips,
thicker bodies and half the memory (1 gigabyte instead of 2).
And they all cost more.
-----
I have not checked prices myself...
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Alan Baker
<b968a975-900c-4a40...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 1:20 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7fa8b025-7bfe-4511-8871-60177203c...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 10:32 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <e978c681-ee4c-435e-a02c-1a4702aad...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 16, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > > > > ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > no alan, a box section WILL increase the strength.
> >
> > > > > > But at an increase in size & weight, which means that it got thrown
> > > > > > into the system trade-offs meatgrinder.
> >
> > > > > of course, but that wasn't what alan was bitchin' about, eh? ;D
> >
> > > > You're suggesting that a three-sided box must be stronger than what the
> > > > MacBook Air has there now...
> >
> > > hey alan, a box section wouldn't be a 3 sided box.
>
> (that should have read '*the* box section' (described))
>
> > No. But an opening in the bottom of a laptop for a battery would be.
>
> no, what i described would be 5 sided, not 3 sided, eh? (i was poking
> fun at you for not knowing that a box section doesn't have to be
> enclosed, rather than correcting you, but it's no fun when you don't
> know what's going on) ;D
It has to be closed on the sides. The ends can be open but they're not
loaded.
>
> > Or are you suggesting that the lid of the box is attached by enough
> > screws to let it provide structural support?
>
> the lid has to provide very neglible support of any sort.
LOL
>
> > > > ...without knowing what it *has*.
> >
> > > i simply said a box section- what you would logically use- would be
> > > stronger than the simple scenario given ('having a door with a
> > > battery under it vs. having a solid piece of aluminum for the bottom
> > > would weaken the case a fair bit').
> >
> > And thus you declared that a hole would be a box section, because you
> > neglected the fact that the box was incomplete.
>
> you don't need an enclosed cube to have a box section.
You need the side that's carry load to be closed.
Again with the horizontal lines representing the top and bottom flanges
(the white space between them being the web of the i-beam):
Is this i-beam:
| |
\ / \ /
_________ __________
| |
-----
________________________
^
|
Stronger than this one:
| |
\ / \ /
________________________
________________________
^
|
Even with the lowered section "boxed in"?
In the bottom skin of a wing box, would you just let in a 5 side
depression in order to strengthen it?
ed
news:alangbaker-512AB8.17052916012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
yeah, a wing box has TWO open sides. :P
>> or:
>> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
>> a lot better.
>> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
ignoring these reasons? ;D
>> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
>>
>> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
>> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
>
> Gee...
>
> And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
>
> Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
sorry alan, a box section doesn't need to be an enclosed cube.
>> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
>> > structure going to strengthen it?
>>
>> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
>
> The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
> removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre of
> the structure.
1- there's multiple load paths, eh?
2- the battery itself, and the cover, would provide way more than adequate
reinforcement- i'm trying to think of a situation where i'd be an issue, and
i really can't. maybe you can help me out here, eh?
no, i'm saying this would be stronger- think modded from an enclosed cube,
where the top enclosed cube is the battery / cover.
---------------------
| |_________| |
| |
---------------------
>> > > > What kind of engineer are you?
>> >
>> > > aerospace.
>> >
>> > That's vague. What do you actually do?
>>
>> i design aircraft (you know, largely made of thin skinned
>> aluminum :P ).
>
> And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you?
> And claim that it's stronger to do so?
yeah- like in the wing box. :P
ed
alan, you're simply wrong. you challenged me on my credentials, which i
provided- what's your credentials?
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Some might. But where are then in relation to the loads?
>
> >> or:
> >> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
> >> a lot better.
> >> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
>
> ignoring these reasons? ;D
>
> >> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
> >>
> >> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
> >> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
> >
> > Gee...
> >
> > And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
> >
> > Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
>
> sorry alan, a box section doesn't need to be an enclosed cube.
Give some concrete examples...
>
> >> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
> >> > structure going to strengthen it?
> >>
> >> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
> >
> > The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
> > removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre of
> > the structure.
>
> 1- there's multiple load paths, eh?
> 2- the battery itself, and the cover, would provide way more than adequate
> reinforcement- i'm trying to think of a situation where i'd be an issue, and
> i really can't. maybe you can help me out here, eh?
The battery would provide reinforcement in tension?
How about the fact that you don't really want a battery to fit so tight
that it *could* provide any reinforcement in compression?
The same problems apply to the lid.
And how do you handle the points I already raised?
Or do your designs (assuming they exist) normally include structural
components that are free floating?
>
> >> > > > What kind of engineer are you?
> >> >
> >> > > aerospace.
> >> >
> >> > That's vague. What do you actually do?
> >>
> >> i design aircraft (you know, largely made of thin skinned
> >> aluminum :P ).
> >
> > And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you?
> > And claim that it's stronger to do so?
>
> yeah- like in the wing box. :P
Wing boxes have open-topped boxes let in to the load bearing sides to
strengthen them do they?
What aircraft to you claim to have designed? I'd like to know which ones
to avoid in the future.
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Ignoring this, huh?
I notice you've avoided answering my question?
And you've provided no credentials. You've merely made claims.
ed
> In article <vVBjj.233$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> > A wing box doesn't have an open side.
>>
>> yeah, a wing box has TWO open sides. :P
>
> Some might. But where are then in relation to the loads?
hold on to that thought for a minute...
>> >> or:
>> >> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
>> >> a lot better.
>> >> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
>>
>> ignoring these reasons? ;D
apparently. :P keep holding on to that thought from above...
>> >> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
>> >>
>> >> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
>> >> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
>> >
>> > Gee...
>> >
>> > And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
>> >
>> > Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
>>
>> sorry alan, a box section doesn't need to be an enclosed cube.
>
> Give some concrete examples...
A WING BOX alan, a WING BOX. but keep holding on to that thought from
above...
>> >> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
>> >> > structure going to strengthen it?
>> >>
>> >> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
>> >
>> > The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
>> > removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre
>> > of
>> > the structure.
>>
>> 1- there's multiple load paths, eh?
>> 2- the battery itself, and the cover, would provide way more than
>> adequate
>> reinforcement- i'm trying to think of a situation where i'd be an issue,
>> and
>> i really can't. maybe you can help me out here, eh?
>
> The battery would provide reinforcement in tension?
ok, back to that thought from above- what sort of tension are you going to
be designing for on the bottom of a laptop that wouldn't be provided for
that wouldn't be accounted for by the rest of the laptop? i think you're
thinking about loads you simply would care relatively little about.
> How about the fact that you don't really want a battery to fit so tight
> that it *could* provide any reinforcement in compression?
> The same problems apply to the lid.
there's no DOUBT that the battery in my laptop could provide substantial
reinforcement in compression. it also doesn't need to fit super tight to
support such. same goes for he tlid.
<snip>
>> no, i'm saying this would be stronger- think modded from an enclosed
>> cube,
>> where the top enclosed cube is the battery / cover.
>> ---------------------
>> | |_________| |
>> | |
>> ---------------------
>
> And how do you handle the points I already raised?
refer to the comments regarding the thoughts from above...
> Or do your designs (assuming they exist) normally include structural
> components that are free floating?
heh, you must think apple has serious qc issues if you're worried about free
floating batteries.
<snip>
>> > And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you?
>> > And claim that it's stronger to do so?
>>
>> yeah- like in the wing box. :P
>
> Wing boxes have open-topped boxes let in to the load bearing sides to
> strengthen them do they?
no alan, but the open ends are no in the load paths (still holding on to the
thought from above? :P ), and just as a reminder, they're not fully
enclosed. :P
<snip>
ed
<snip>
>> alan, you're simply wrong. you challenged me on my credentials, which i
>> provided- what's your credentials?
>
> I notice you've avoided answering my question?
i've largely addressed the direct questions in the other posts- no need
going round and round and round.
> And you've provided no credentials. You've merely made claims.
what would you like- i'd be happy to provide it. so again, what are your
credentials?
Steve Hix
<e6d608e9-aa78-4d8c...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
y_p_w <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That, and the memory is surface mounted on the motherboard. No space for
connectors to permit swapping out memory.
Steve Hix
<6c705c11-1097-41ff...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> y_p_w <y_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The pictures show the new Apple style keyboard that doesn't lift up.
> > There are no build to order memory options. Sounds like the 2GB on
> > the logic board is it.
>
> You're right: I read somewhere that the 2GB of RAM is soldered on.
It's shown in the keynote.
Steve Hix
Phoon Hencman <He...@ican.net> wrote:
Exactly; you're not the target demographic.
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-EF2023.21501016012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > In article <vVBjj.233$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> > A wing box doesn't have an open side.
> >>
> >> yeah, a wing box has TWO open sides. :P
> >
> > Some might. But where are then in relation to the loads?
>
> hold on to that thought for a minute...
Why don't you answer the question.
>
> >> >> or:
> >> >> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
> >> >> a lot better.
> >> >> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
> >>
> >> ignoring these reasons? ;D
>
> apparently. :P keep holding on to that thought from above...
Since a laptop is neither a pressure vessel nor does it need to be
aerodynamic, I correctly understood those "reasons" to be facetious.
>
> >> >> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
> >> >>
> >> >> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
> >> >> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
> >> >
> >> > Gee...
> >> >
> >> > And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
> >> >
> >> > Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
> >>
> >> sorry alan, a box section doesn't need to be an enclosed cube.
> >
> > Give some concrete examples...
>
> A WING BOX alan, a WING BOX. but keep holding on to that thought from
> above...
YES, Ed. *Which* wing box is actually built with open ends?
Give an actual example of such a wing box...
>
> >> >> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
> >> >> > structure going to strengthen it?
> >> >>
> >> >> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
> >> >
> >> > The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
> >> > removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre
> >> > of
> >> > the structure.
> >>
> >> 1- there's multiple load paths, eh?
> >> 2- the battery itself, and the cover, would provide way more than
> >> adequate
> >> reinforcement- i'm trying to think of a situation where i'd be an issue,
> >> and
> >> i really can't. maybe you can help me out here, eh?
> >
> > The battery would provide reinforcement in tension?
>
> ok, back to that thought from above- what sort of tension are you going to
> be designing for on the bottom of a laptop that wouldn't be provided for
> that wouldn't be accounted for by the rest of the laptop? i think you're
> thinking about loads you simply would care relatively little about.
A bending load from accidentally putting weight on the top of the laptop
wouldn't put the bottom of the case in tension?
Buckling loads from the laptop being dropped on edge wouldn't be better
met by a straight structure supported by internal webs? Or why do you
suppose they put indentations into structures *designed* to crush.
>
> > How about the fact that you don't really want a battery to fit so tight
> > that it *could* provide any reinforcement in compression?
> > The same problems apply to the lid.
>
> there's no DOUBT that the battery in my laptop could provide substantial
> reinforcement in compression. it also doesn't need to fit super tight to
> support such. same goes for he tlid.
If it doesn't have a super tight fit. It will not provide *any* support
in compression until the whole structure has deflected enough to close
the gap. Same goes for the lid.
>
> <snip>
> >> no, i'm saying this would be stronger- think modded from an enclosed
> >> cube,
> >> where the top enclosed cube is the battery / cover.
> >> ---------------------
> >> | |_________| |
> >> | |
> >> ---------------------
> >
> > And how do you handle the points I already raised?
>
> refer to the comments regarding the thoughts from above...
>
> > Or do your designs (assuming they exist) normally include structural
> > components that are free floating?
>
> heh, you must think apple has serious qc issues if you're worried about free
> floating batteries.
From a structural point of view, pretty much every laptop ever made has
batteries that are free floating.
>
> <snip>
> >> > And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you?
> >> > And claim that it's stronger to do so?
> >>
> >> yeah- like in the wing box. :P
> >
> > Wing boxes have open-topped boxes let in to the load bearing sides to
> > strengthen them do they?
>
> no alan, but the open ends are no in the load paths (still holding on to the
> thought from above? :P ), and just as a reminder, they're not fully
> enclosed. :P
I note you snipped the question:
What aircraft do you claim to have designed?
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-CBB3A5.21523916012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> <snip>
> >> alan, you're simply wrong. you challenged me on my credentials, which i
> >> provided- what's your credentials?
> >
> > I notice you've avoided answering my question?
>
> i've largely addressed the direct questions in the other posts- no need
> going round and round and round.
Nope. You've consistently avoided it, so I'll restate it in two parts:
1. What structure have you seen has a open box let into a load bearing
skin?
2. If you claim that the bottom shell of a laptop bears no loads, what
loads is the battery box going to be bearing?
>
> > And you've provided no credentials. You've merely made claims.
>
> what would you like- i'd be happy to provide it. so again, what are your
> credentials?
Yes, I'd like. But I've claimed no particular credentials.
ed
> In article <UqCjj.241$uE....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-EF2023.21501016012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> > > In article <vVBjj.233$uE...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > >> > A wing box doesn't have an open side.
>
> > >> yeah, a wing box has TWO open sides. :P
>
> > > Some might. But where are then in relation to the loads?
>
> > hold on to that thought for a minute...
>
> Why don't you answer the question.
d'uh, dude, i did below- that's why i told you to hold on to that
thought!
> > >> >> or:
> > >> >> 1- it's a pressure vessel, and circular shapes distribute the pressure
> > >> >> a lot better.
> > >> >> 2- it's more aerodynamic.
>
> > >> ignoring these reasons? ;D
>
> > apparently. :P keep holding on to that thought from above...
>
> Since a laptop is neither a pressure vessel nor does it need to be
> aerodynamic, I correctly understood those "reasons" to be facetious.
hahahahaaaa, you're showing how ignorant you are- they are real
answers to the question you asked- but since you don't know anything
about the topic, you think they're facetious answers!
> > >> >> > B. How is a battery bay with an opening actually a box section.
>
> > >> >> go reread my initial description- it's the very definition of such.
> > >> >> if you don't get it, you don't get it, eh?
>
> > >> > Gee...
>
> > >> > And I though a box section was -- you know -- boxed in.
>
> > >> > Five sides isn't six sides, ed.
>
> > >> sorry alan, a box section doesn't need to be an enclosed cube.
>
> > > Give some concrete examples...
>
> > A WING BOX alan, a WING BOX. but keep holding on to that thought from
> > above...
>
> YES, Ed. *Which* wing box is actually built with open ends?
a better question would be which wing box is build as a totally
enclosed structure as you apparently envision them to be...
> Give an actual example of such a wing box...
practically all of them alan, practically all of them...
> > >> >> > How does something which reduces the cross section of a
> > >> >> > structure going to strengthen it?
>
> > >> >> by adding reinforcements in the load path of course!
>
> > >> > The load path in bending follows the other shell. Your suggestion
> > >> > removes material from that load path and puts it closer to the centre
> > >> > of
> > >> > the structure.
>
> > >> 1- there's multiple load paths, eh?
> > >> 2- the battery itself, and the cover, would provide way more than
> > >> adequate
> > >> reinforcement- i'm trying to think of a situation where i'd be an issue,
> > >> and
> > >> i really can't. maybe you can help me out here, eh?
>
> > > The battery would provide reinforcement in tension?
>
> > ok, back to that thought from above- what sort of tension are you going to
> > be designing for on the bottom of a laptop that wouldn't be provided for
> > that wouldn't be accounted for by the rest of the laptop? i think you're
> > thinking about loads you simply would care relatively little about.
>
> A bending load from accidentally putting weight on the top of the laptop
> wouldn't put the bottom of the case in tension?
sure- if for some god awful reason you have your laptop suspended in
the air- not a likely scenario, eh?
> Buckling loads from the laptop being dropped on edge wouldn't be better
> met by a straight structure supported by internal webs?
you are, again, comparing to a situation where you're adding
hypothetical structure to the case- NOT what we were discussing.
> Or why do you
> suppose they put indentations into structures *designed* to crush.
crush zones have to be intentionally designed as such alan- an
indentation can also provide support (think corrogated tin).
> > > How about the fact that you don't really want a battery to fit so tight
> > > that it *could* provide any reinforcement in compression?
> > > The same problems apply to the lid.
>
> > there's no DOUBT that the battery in my laptop could provide substantial
> > reinforcement in compression. it also doesn't need to fit super tight to
> > support such. same goes for he tlid.
>
> If it doesn't have a super tight fit. It will not provide *any* support
> in compression until the whole structure has deflected enough
> to close the gap.
yup, and that shouldn't be very much.
> Same goes for the lid.
> > <snip>
> > >> no, i'm saying this would be stronger- think modded from an enclosed
> > >> cube,
> > >> where the top enclosed cube is the battery / cover.
> > >> ---------------------
> > >> | |_________| |
> > >> | |
> > >> ---------------------
>
> > > And how do you handle the points I already raised?
>
> > refer to the comments regarding the thoughts from above...
>
> > > Or do your designs (assuming they exist) normally include structural
> > > components that are free floating?
>
> > heh, you must think apple has serious qc issues if you're worried about free
> > floating batteries.
>
> From a structural point of view, pretty much every laptop ever made has
> batteries that are free floating.
no alan, it isn't the same.
> > <snip>
> > >> > And you let in openings in the load carry skins, do you?
> > >> > And claim that it's stronger to do so?
>
> > >> yeah- like in the wing box. :P
>
> > > Wing boxes have open-topped boxes let in to the load bearing sides to
> > > strengthen them do they?
>
> > no alan, but the open ends are no in the load paths (still holding on to the
> > thought from above? :P ), and just as a reminder, they're not fully
> > enclosed. :P
>
> I note you snipped the question:
i note you ignored the point!
> What aircraft do you claim to have designed?
email me if you want some details (i can't give you very many though).
ed
<snip>
> > > And you've provided no credentials. You've merely made claims.
>
> > what would you like- i'd be happy to provide it. so again, what are your
> > credentials?
>
> Yes, I'd like.
wow, mr. reading comprehension, eh? WHAT would you like- i.e. what
would satisfy you as to the credentials i've claimed?
> But I've claimed no particular credentials.
but what ARE they, that i should continue arguing technical details
with you versus ignoring you because i think you're ignorant?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<1fe9878b-ce76-4247-a0d1-
9d774e...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
That's no fair. He wants to claim you are incompetent from the
armchair, while not telling you anything about himself. I note
that he seems to think that all AE's have designed their own
aircraft, which is somewhat hilarious.