shouldn’t that be a piece of gorilla glass with a competitor’s protective film screen on the left?
Rhino Shield? Finally, a good excuse to go big game hunting.
“Leaving sticky”? Is that a spinoff series from Breaking Bad?
To be perfectly honest I can’t even picture a rhinoceros wearing a piece of this.
I thought that the standard test was an eyedropper full of blue water.
Very close.
they’re missing a huge merch tie-in opportunity
http://agentsofshield.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/image-140x140.jpg
also
Clear coating five times more impact-resistant than Gorilla Glass
this is one of those headlines that is full of parsing pitfalls due to headlines’ convention of omitting articles and “to be”'s conjugations, and that “coat” is both a noun and a verb. It is supposed to read
“**A **(presumably new type of) clear coating IS five times more impact-resistant than Gorilla Glass”
but it reads (to me, anyway) as
“Applying five layers of a special new clear coat (as in polyurethane etc.) over your phone’s screen makes it five times stronger than the proprietary glass known as Gorilla Glass that you may not have on your phone to start with.”
Ain’t English a delightful little language?
Leaving aside that the linked article is basically a press release, I take issue with the ball bearing drop test. The test greatly overstates the fragility of the gorilla glass by placing it outside a device or holder. In the test, it’s just a sheet of glass on a hard backing with no lateral support. Of course it will shatter. Place it in a frame, or in a frame and on top of silicon internals, and you’ll significantly increase the amount of force necessary to shatter. I suspect almost any of the plastic shields available on amazon would have a significant effect in the same testing environment (perhaps not FIVE TIMES the distance however)
I think the problem is more the LCD underneath cracking than the front glass itself. Unless manufacturers are going to use gorilla glass as the substrate.
Why not use some type of plastic as a substrate in the first place? LCD TVs do, as does my touch-screen GPS.
Because their goal for the last 10 years was to finally get to a $99 iPhone, not an indestructible $999 iPhone.
TV from which manufacturer? All the info I came across points to glass as being the substrate.
Because I’m a total klutz, and have an irritating habit of sneezing during this allegy season, my ipad is in a protective case (a survivor, by griffin technology). Aside from the decreased tolerances on the 30 pin port, which makes it difficult to plug in anything besides the sync cable, it’s mechanically sound.
The raised bezel makes it difficult to use the “swipe” gesture, and it is heavy. But from a Jobsian point of view, the screen protector is probably the worst element. The Ipad has an absolutely beautiful screen. The thin layer of protective plastic is dull, and not as transparent. As a result, the ipad’s graphics are muted.
Glass has an optical advantage over plastic. Moreover, the right kind of glass is used, it doesn’t scratch like plastics do. It does, however, shatter. Gorilla Glass, and the various alternatives are an attempt to get all the desirable advantages of glass and of plastic (aside from price), and incorporate them into a single material.
As for LCD TV’s, they vary widely in quality. Supposedly, Plasma (which uses glass) can have a substantial advantage over LCDs under certain conditions. I’m not sure what my LCD TV uses, but I know my Imac uses a glass screen.
My bad, I guess - I was assuming an LCD TV was plastic due to the weight and the front surface is plastic. My old 42" plasma weighed 90 pounds.Three layers of glass (I took it apart when it died).
A drop from 5 times the height is way more than 5 times the energy. Assuming it has not reached terminal velocity, K=1/2 m v^2, so a fall from 5 times the height should be 5 times the velocity and therefore 25 times the energy.
WHAT? Are you against programmed obsolescense? COMMUNISTS
Err I think you got your physics wrong.
change in speed due to gravitational accelleration varies with the square roort of the distance travelled.
v^2-u^2=2as after all. So if dropped from stationary speed u=0 so v^2=2as or v=sqrt(2as) given a is constant.
Therefore energy is proportional to the height dropped from.
So no if dropped from 5 times higher the energy is five times more.
Derp, yes, I’m wrong. I was thinking falling 5 times as long, not from 5 times as high. Just not thinking right that day.
