Hacker Neue

Preferences
syntaxing parent
Titanium for electronics isn’t much of a problem (look at Apple Watch and a bunch of Apple product). The issue is that it’s a considerably more expensive material (every cents count when you scale to consumer electronics) and a bit harder to work with.
kube-system
We were talking about weight -- you don't hang those devices on your face.

Titanium glasses are lightweight because a very minimal amount of material is used. This is possible for regular glasses because you can make them with a ~1mm cross-section. When you want to put electronics inside of them, you need much more material.

diggan
Although parent asking for titanium for the feeling, so maybe something in-between would be fine? Lightweight material inside and structurally, but titanium or something else as the "skin".
kube-system
I don't think a titanium coating over something else is going to deliver that.

I think the reason titanium glasses feel nice is primarily because they have minimal contact with your skin and very low mass.

My frames weigh 6 grams, with lenses they're 14 grams. The Meta Ray Bans are 50 grams. If you could make the frames from pure helium they still wouldn't feel close.

saltcured
Like a surfboard, or a toucan's beak.

I assume the poster above imagined the something inside could just be voids, like a tiny aircraft. But yes, some kind of low density filler could also add some stability in areas you don't want mass metal but also don't have electronics or battery "cargo".

LtdJorge
Does sheet titanium not exist? I know it’s a tough metal, I don’t know if it would be feasible to make it out of folded sheet titanium.

Edit: Just checked, it does exist.

kube-system
The weight is the issue. The guy above said he doesn't like the weight of acetate glasses. Acetate frames for traditional glasses are 10-20 grams. Titanium frames for traditional glasses are 5-10 grams.

Between the weight of material and the electronics, I don't really see anything approaching the feel that someone that discerning would want.

LtdJorge
Yep, but seems like the discussion was around solid titanium, that's why I mentioned sheet titanium. I can't see how making the fame out of thin titanium with hard bends (like how computer cases are made of steel sheets, but on a small scale) would make it weigh more than the solid acetate version. Should also be much stronger.
kube-system
The "solid" frame titanium glasses I'm wearing right now are 0.5mm thick. If you were to put a housing the same thickness around a 60x10mm cylinder you've got something about the weight of an acetate frame, with zero electronics inside. Add the electronics and you've got something heavier, just with titanium as the material.

I mean, the material is nice, but you're not making it light weight that way.

saltcured
You may be right, but I think they are imagining a tubular frame construction. It would contain a volume of battery or electronics inside the hollow skin.

I guess the problem is can you extrude and form something so small with the precision and metallurgical properties you want to maintain. You probably don't want to just cast it in the final shape, right?

andoando
The point being made was, the weight saving from titanitum isn't going to be noticeable when the bulky of the weight is the electronics.
LtdJorge
In that case, the savings would be little.
LtdJorge
Ah, didn't see this comment. Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking, a hollow structure.
isatty
Why? If 1mm cross section titanium is just as or stronger why does it need to be thicker? For anchors?
kube-system
Because the electronics used in smart glasses go inside of the frames. It's not a structural problem, it's a packaging problem.
LtdJorge
Even if it’s an order of magnitude more expensive, they would make money on the glasses. Oakley (and every brand controlled by the Luxotica monopoly) glasses have extreme margins. On the order of, could be sold for under $20 making a profit but are sold for $300+. I don’t think the titanium work and the electronics can offset that.
woleium
The material is not the majority of the expense. The cost comes from the difficulty encountered when working the metal using standard tooling. It is difficult to work, low tolerance and high failure rates made it impractical prior to modern (very expensive) machines.

This item has no comments currently.