> And good plastics are plastic in the traditional sense of the word: if you drop them, they'll absorb the force by deforming and then spring back into place.
That's not what I was taught plastic meant. I was taught both plastic and elastic materials deform under force, but the elastic ones (not the plastic ones) return to their original form once the force is gone …
> Less plastic. More metal (or carbon fiber or whatever).
I'm intrigued by why you feel plastic is a drawback. Especially as metal has IMO very few advatnages in this case (heavier, lower radio transparency, bends under shock etc.)
Their only other real option is plastic (because of the wireless charging, and to a lesser extent blocking cellular/wifi signals) since metal can't really be used. Glass feels better, feels more premium, and so that's what they use.
>That said, polymers (soft matter) doesn't do well in heat (or light), so applications are (and will forever be) restricted to low-cost throw-away devices IMO.
since I have no knowledge in this area I will ask a question that probably doesn't make sense - would these be useful in objects that were very sturdy and shielded from variations in heat and light - or will shielding cause other problem? I'm pretty much considering high cost outdoors equipment. Or given that it's probably high cost the cost of actually using metal ones would be negligible so it wouldn't make sense to skimp?
Why not? If you can machine it from metal, it is easier to machine it from plastic. I fabricate plastic replacements often with a drill, files, and saw.
I don't get why this is significant. How is this a better substrate than any other flexible plastic? Isn't the issue with flexible electronics the robustness of the circuits and components?
> …And that it wouldn’t be possible without plastics. No other type of material could ever achieve such durability, flexibility and precision; and that’s not even considering costs – no other materials _period_.
Mokulock may not be identical or cost the same, but it's basically the same product without plastic. They don't snap together or come apart as easily, but I like the idea of it. I'd love to see LEGO done in metal too.
As pretty as aluminum is, it's way too soft. I have a CNC milled android device and it's got some nasty bumps from me dropping it on the ground. Plastic, while not as shiny and fancy, is much better suited and more resilient if you value material strength and usability over looks. It's cheaper too.
> These things are nigh indestructible in my experience.
Not in my experience. When new the plastic has enough flex to tolerate some abuse, but that doesn't last very long - especially if exposed to UV. Polypropylene does not like being exposed to direct sunlight.
Most used examples I've encountered are brittle and break easily if not already cracked. They're disposable plastic garbage.
There's also the metal equivalent of plastic: cast pot metal. Tends to have flaws, very poor resistance to fatigue if it's used in moving parts, pretty much impossible to repair when it inevitably cracks or crumbles.
What's wrong with plastic? People seem to hate it in laptops and phones, but it has several advantages and only few disadvantages compared to glass and metal. It's lighter, cheaper, and usually protects innards better. I used to have Lumia phones with plastic cases for years, and they survived many drops - usually landed on an edge, which ended up with a dent, but not much more. The only advantages I see in other materials are aesthetics, heat conductivity (metal only) and scratch resistance (glass only).
That's the benefit of plastic for portable, droppable, devices.
reply