iSkim: Analyzing Apple, Inc.’s “Innovative” Designs -- posted by Alexandra Patterson

With 120 million iOs devices shipped, 275 million iPods sold, 11.7 billion songs downloaded, and over 160 million active accounts across 23 countries, it’s undeniable that Apple, Inc. has set one of the highest bars not only for user-friendly technology, but also for innovative and eco-friendly designs. In a 2011 article entitled “Apple and The Environment,” the high-powered corporation gave consumers an inside look in the manufacturing and production of Apple products. With this constant expectation to design products that are smaller, thinner, and even lighter than its predecessor, Apple has acknowledge that as their products become more powerful, they also require less material to produce. Implementing environmentally conscious materials in their products including recycled plastics, recycled paper, biopolymers, and even vegetable-based inks, Apple has found ways to reengineer secondary materials to maintain their signature products while emphasizing an eco-friendly manufacturing. Acknowledging that “today’s 21.5-inch iMac is more powerful than the first-generation 15-inch iMac,” Apple emphasizes that the newest iMac was designed with 50% less material. Even the iPad which became 33% thinner and up to 15% lighter in just one generation has allowed Apple not only to reduce the amount of money invested in their products, but also to reduce the amount of overall material needed during manufacturing.

While our society welcomes the “smaller, thinner, lighter” Apple products, do you believe that Apple’s design innovation will allow the company to cut corners in the future by manufacturing their signature products with cheaper, less-reliable materials?

INVISIBILITY CLOAKS WITHOUT MAGIC? posted by Adam Peterson

In a world where technology is increasing at an astonishing rate it is becoming more and more obvious that things that used to seem totally impossible and outlandish to us are actually completely realistic. A perfect example of something that once seemed totally implausible but is now a working product is the “invisibility cloak”. The idea is that an invisibility cloak will render the user completely invisible to those around by putting the cloak around one’s body.  Ever since the technology became available in 2003, people all around the world have been hard at work to create working products that can create an “invisibility cloak” type of illusion.  Different ideas are springing up everywhere but one solution that I found particularly interesting was being studied in Japan.

The method being used in Japan uses what is known as retro reflective projection technology. As you might have guessed from the name, the idea is that the image that would be seen if the person wearing the cloak was not present is reflected back at people around the person wearing the cloak making it seem like no one is even there. The coolest part of this concept is the material that is being used in the cloak. The fabric is made up of very tiny glass beads that are only 50 microns wide. These beads make up the whole cloak and are able to have light pass directly through them and reflect back at the source similar to a movie.

Even though an invisibility cloak is a super fun and cool idea, there has to be some practical use to this technology, right? Correct! The scientists in Japan have brought many ideas to the table, but some that really stood out revolved around vehicles and transportation. The idea is that if cars could use this technology we could completely eliminate blind spots. If the material on the side door of a car was made of this fabric instead of the current material it uses, the user of the car could completely see through their wall and eliminate many accidents due to blind spots. If that doesn’t sound like a fantastic idea then what does. If anyone has any other cool ideas for this technology that could make the world a safer and more exciting place, let me know! And if you’re having trouble visualizing this whole idea, here is a video. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD83dqSfC0Y

MATERIALS IN AVIATION: posted by Laura Findlay

The manufacturing of aviation is completely dependent on the materials used.  Materials must have all the correct properties.  The structure of how they are manufactured together must also be completely accurate.  As we all know, airlines do completely everything in their power to engineer and construct the safest aircrafts possible, but in some cases, the materials fail. 

On February 24^th, 1989, United Airlines Flight 811 Boeing 747 was climbing to altitude, there was a manufacturing malfunction.  The cargo door failed and opened after a short period after take off.  Because of the materials of the side of the fuselage being too weak to resist the impact, the passengers were affected and nine people lost their lives.  Fortunately, the remaining passengers landed safely and were barely injured.  The cause of the event has to do with the two step locking system of the cargo doors.  The first step is the c-shaped latches that rotate around pins of the door frame.  Then L shaped arms called locking sectors are locked onto the bottom of the door.  There are also pins that run up and down the sides of the doors.  The doors were meant to be updated to a new system because the FAA noticed their was a malfunction with this system, but the deadline to complete the conversion was not passed yet, so they had not technically done anything wrong. 

These malfunctions can easily be avoided with the correct information of materials, manufacturing, and maintenance.  Luckily, the error of the locking system on all the aircrafts has now been updated and there will be no longer the c-shaped latches or L arms used.  The material of the fuselage is also being updated for a safer, more efficient aircraft construction.  When the fuselage of planes was originally constructed of wood frames covered in fabric, but then monoplanes became popular, and metal frames improved strength, so now the aircrafts are all metal with metal covering all surfaces.  There is still advancements going on to this day with composite materials being used for the fuselage on the Boeing 787.  The weight of the composite materials is lower so the operating costs of the plane are lower.  The advancements of the materials of aviation has definitely improved the safety of all air travel and will continue to become a great asset to understand and appreciate the importance of materials in the manufacturing of aviation. 

NANOTECHNOLOGY AND NANOMATERIALS -- post by Thomas Ponikowski

Nanotechnology  is a relatively new technology that uses properties of elements that are exposed at nanoscale. Engineers are able to manipulate the structure of the elements at nanoscale to create new materials. When sheet-like atomic structure of graphite, for example, is rolled into a tube, it exhibits new properties. This tiny carbon nanotube, unlike graphite, becomes about 100 times stronger than steel and is extremely light, flexible, and able to transmit electricity almost without resistance.

With nanotechnology, new materials for construction with, for example, desired strength, elasticity, and ability to reflect or absorb light and heat could be developed. Some nanomaterials are already being used in treating diseases, reducing waste, environmental clean-up, and even to improve the taste of food and drinks. Nanotechnology allows production of extremely small in size devices, for example heat sensors, cameras, and microphones that are helpful in manufacturing processes, rescue operations, and communications.

Although the use of materials and devices created with the aid of nanotechnology is without doubt beneficial, use of many of them generates controversies too. Nano cameras, for example, are very beneficial during medical procedures. Nano cameras and tiny microphones might be also used for unwanted monitoring or surveillance, invading people’s privacy. Carbon nanotubes are used, for example, as coating on military equipment, weapons, and soldiers’ 

protective gear because they are radar-absorbent. The coating prevents the equipment from being detected by radars and metal detectors of the enemy. Unfortunately, terrorists might use this technology too to sneak through security gates at airports with their weapons undetected. Consequently, for security reasons, we all might become subjects of very extensive personal search, the procedure that, as many already argue, disagrees with our rights of privacy.

Every revolutionary discovery is associated with controversies and the discovery of nanomaterials seems to follow the pattern. The use of nanomaterials and nanotechnology has pros and cons. The question is: 

should we continue with research and development of new nanomaterials knowing that there are also unwanted consequences associated with it? 

What do you think?

OLD vs. NEW Materials - post by Elizabeth Reilly

One topic that is a main focus in today’s world is the environment and green technology. I think that this is an extremely important thing that should be concentrated on, but is making everything green a good idea or does it cause more controversy?

Old elements and materials that are used and seen everywhere, such as copper, tin, and iron are now being replaced by things like zirconium and tellurium. They are also being made of elements that are classified as “rare earths”. This change in materials makes a huge step towards helping out the environment, but what happens when these rare materials grow scarce. In order to obtain these materials will more have to be sacrificed?

 Modified lifestyles and change in some things are easily done, but trying to make our world sustainable might be more harming. Getting rid of our everyday materials and switching them for new ones could be unpredictable and end up costing more money due to experimentation.

On the other side of things, I think that changes materials overall beautifies and helps us move one step closer to a healthier lifestyle. There are some current materials that are toxic and endanger wildlife and so in cases like this I fully support thinking of new materials to take the place of old ones.

It is hard to try to advance and improve our society and lifestyles, when most people are set with the things they know. Experimenting with new things can be a risky process and has both disadvantages and advantages. I am actually torn between what is the absolute best solution. I currently believe that a balance of both new and old material uses should be utilized, but there are so many details about various materials that this is a difficult topic.

Is going green with materials the best solution to improve our world, or is remaining with the majority of our basic materials actually more beneficial in terms of cost and safety?

UPPER BIG BRANCH IDEAS - posted by Alex Bulk

We all remember the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that occurred a few years ago in West Virginia in which many miners died in that terrible tragedy.  A lot of us responded in anger, denouncing the mining industry and demanding a new source of energy as an alternative to  coal to become our leading producer of electricity in this country.   Few want our nation's energy source to come from such a dangerous practice that seems to treat their employees so terribly as to risk their lives each and every day.

As a previous mining engineering major and former miner myself, I can speak for the mining industry and say that yes, mining is an extremely dangerous occupation.  But coal is extremely important for our country today.  I of course do believe that we as a nation need to develop a new source of energy that can be an effective alternative to coal and slowly and easily transition into it.  Specialists predict that we have around 700 years left of coal to mine in our country, which is not a lot of time.  700 years however is definitely more than enough time to develop a new source of energy rather than to jump in to ineffective sources such as solar and wind, which rely on a windy or sunny day so they are not consistent, they don't produce much energy, and really who wants a wind turbine in everyone's backyard?

So right now we really need coal in this country, but like I said, coal mining is extremely dangerous.  Coal miners understand the dangers, and are paid a very high salary due to the risks of it, but that isn't a justifiable reason to keep things the way they are.  Coal mining has improved drastically over the last 40 years.  If anyone has seen the show on Spike TV, "COAL," that is exactly the way coal mining was done back then.  Today coal mining is not like that.  Roofs and  Ribs (walls) are completely bolted and supported by wire mesh.  

Ventilation is well organized and methane readers are located at every coal face.  Problems still always happen that can risk the lives of miners though.  In the case of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, methane levels were known to be high, which mainly due to poor safety regulations by the owning company, Massey Energy.  High methane itself though does not cause an explosion.  Something caused a spark, and the gas pressure in the mine caused a massive explosion which spread down the breaks of the mine.

Despite the corruption within Massey and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, disasters like this can potentially be prevented by newer technologies, rather than just simple regulations, and that is where materials engineering can come into play.  No one knows what caused the spark in the Upper Big Branch Mine, but what I believe it was was probably a broken cable.  In underground mines, machinery does not run on gas, because that would be far too dangerous.  The continuous miner, the shuttle cars, the roof bolters, and all other various machinery in the mine move around while automatically reeling in and out an electric cable that runs back to a single power source in the mine that is connected to a generator outside the mine.  While the machinery is moving around the mine, sometimes these cables get twisted or hooked on something and break.  Not only are these dangerous to the miners who have to hang the cable from the roof, (I've seen quite a few get badly shocked from grabbing them) but if there were ever to be unsafe methane levels in the mine, these broken cables are the likeliest cause of an explosion.  I personally believe that the number one thing needed to be developed for better mine safety is a material that insulates these cables and can stretch, bend, and withstand massive compressive and shearing forces (From machines running over them) much more easily than they can now.  If there is one thing that I think can improve mine safety the most, it is a new material engineered to do this.

Well, finally, here we go!

The cool thing about running your own blog is that you can pretty much say what you want and get away with it. Well, that’s over! If you disagree, don’t let me get away with it! You can’t learn if you aren’t challenged and, guess what, neither can I!

I’m pretty much an over the edge animal lover. Yes, I know I’m a carnivore, but I keep thinking that the problem is a general lack of respect; respect for the life that is given up so we can have our tasty tailgate, yes; but more, a lack of respect for the sentience of these creatures that we steward. So a couple of years ago, I’m sitting in Dr. Mike Ellerbrock’s class on life science ethics and they start talking about a new type of chicken that is “being developed.” It has no nervous system (so no pain?), no head (so no brain, thus no fear?). It’s basically a sack of edible “chicken.”  As you can imagine, the discussion as to the ethics of such a move got pretty interesting!

As the class contemplated whether this approach was right or wrong, I began drifting into my materials engineering life. Couldn’t we create a true simulant to mimic the behavior of disease, tumors, whatever, in the human body? Couldn’t we be the ones who challenge the strong and mighty “animal sacrifice” industry that lobbies strongly in Washington for the experimentation and destruction of life for the sake of medical advancement?  Especially when that advancement doesn't seem to need the type of data that is being generated.

Why must we force sentient being to undergo torture, or even just neglect, so we can feel better, live longer, wear nicer make-up, play football in a better helmet, etc.? We’re pretty clever. Why not come up with a simulant for our body parts and love our fellow creatures? Is “sacrifice” worth the cost?