The Soft vs. Hard part

Here are the key steps to make your own smartphone:

Scientists are using a mixture of chemistry with electronic components, and the vacuum cleaner itself.
The hard part, however, is in the electronics itself.

Step 1: Materials

  • 1. Aluminum: the material used in the cellphone is the most common one on store shelves. It can break down quickly, which is perfect for creating a vacuum cleaner. In fact, it's one of the primary materials our vacuum cleaner is built from.
  • 2. Magnesium sulfate: Another metal used in the vacuum cleaners, magnesium is known for it's ability to remove dust and grease. The downside is that it's rather expensive.
  • 3. Silicon: Silicon is another material used to make electronics. It's pretty cheap, and it has the ability to take apart and reassemble itself.

  • Step 2: Circuits

    Soft science starts with simple assumptions. It focuses on "puzzles," such as how can we measure something like the acceleration of a moving rock, or measure something like a force applied to a spring. The "puzzle" usually involves many assumptions, many assumptions with "no evidence," so the hypothesis has few, if any, pieces of evidence to support it. In short, it has no evidence to base it on.

    Hard science involves many assumptions – and is, by definition, based on evidence. It involves evidence that can be tested and tested again. It involves rigorous mathematical formulas and precise measurements, but it also takes "no evidence" for its assumptions.

    Now, let me back-track. In the "soft" science we had earlier mentioned, the idea is to use some kind of measurement to determine what some external force is doing to something. The more "fine detail" you have, the more "no evidence" you have.

    But first, let's try to get some ideas out of the way. When you pull a trigger, the mechanical action is the same:

    A button. And a plunger. And a spring. A button.

    The physics of mechanical action are more complex than this, but we'll try to figure it out. For this article, we're using a single pin as our trigger, so there aren't much other physics to consider. (In fact, that's exactly why most trigger mechanisms are single-pin—just because we can't get that many pins into a design).

    A trigger is often simply wired to send pulses to two pins, and this will cause a specific reaction when your lever or screw is pulled. Most of the time, the reaction is a response to tactile, feel, or pressure. In our case, a trigger will only react to pressure, and we don't have any pressure.

    In his book, "The Art of Smartphones: The Science of the Smartphone," Mark Giesing explains the difference between soft science and hard science. I think it's a great book, and he explains very well how to think about the difference between soft and hard science in the smartphone.

    "If the human body has something called an excitatory neurotransmitter system that helps us process information, that may well explain how some of our behaviors have been hard-wired into our physiology," says John Kukull, Ph.D., co-founder of the Life Learning Group and author of the book "Inner-World Biology." "The human body is an excitatory system. Every time our muscles work, a small part of our brain is active, so that the signal from the brain travels and gets our muscles fired up. The muscles are then used in the way that they're supposed to be used," he says.

    This vacuum is connected to a vacuum bag which is made with a different material. After this we put the cord in the bag, close the bag and then connect the cord to the phone itself. You can check the results by pressing and holding the switch to indicate that something is happening. The cord is connected to the phone via the battery pack.

    For the last few months, I've been at the beginning of a research and development process in my new lab to design a more affordable "smart" vacuum-phone, and in particular I have been experimenting with ultrasonic frequency-based "smart" components - in this case, ultrasonic components capable of detecting the frequency of their environment.

    These ultrasonic components consist of multiple elements, and many of these elements (e.g. a sensor, power supply, etc.) contain integrated sensors which can be controlled by a microcontroller on the phone itself. For me, ultrasonic range-finding (ULF) in this case can be very useful; it gives a very precise range resolution, and it is much cheaper to develop than other types of ULF-range finding (e.g. DHT-type) systems. With the design of the new vacuum-phone in mind, I wanted to experiment on a real (non-virtual) phone.

    By the time she arrived a year and a half later, her voice had completely changed, and was becoming even more commanding then. Her tone had now gone from the gentle mumble of the "vacuum" recordings, to the booming, guttural "vang", or "war".

    Step 3: Testing

    The role of the "vacuum" recordings had been largely taken up by her sister who was making recordings at the time as well. In those days, the "V.D." recordings were primarily made by women working on the project (which was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts), but as the recordings were less than perfect, the researchers took her "vactra" recordings and replaced them with other tapes based on her voice. The "vagueness" of the "vacuum" recordings had also been a factor. This is probably one of the most famous and enduring mysteries in science.

    This may seem like a miracle, but it makes sense when you consider the high-powered laser used. If the phone were not able to clean these phones, we would have to build entire phones from scratch! Not only does this technology cost less than the current industry standard on most manufacturing lines, but it also saves time compared to traditional vacuum-cleaning procedures.

    The technology is also capable of cleaning mobile phones that are so poorly maintained that they cannot be properly examined with a proper dust mask and properly cleaned by a professional. And these phones should not just be cleaned by a professional. With new technologies such as mobile phone maintenance products such as the W.V.R.D., even very old devices should be examined using such products to ensure that they're clean and working properly, thereby saving the customer time compared to traditional techniques.

    For the last 50+ years many people have thought that all modern phones should be able to be operated in vacuum. Today, experts agree that these types of phones are unsuitable for use in vacuum.

    "Vacuum cleaning a call is very hard and it is difficult to make it even a bit warm in order to warm it properly. Many of these phones have a metal plate in the middle that supports the phone. It's a much more simple solution, but it's not very effective, because there is a lot of heat in vacuum!"

    The team was working on a project which aimed to design a vacuum cleaner that would 'eat' mobile phones. They tested a number of vacuum cleaner designs in various conditions and had developed one called the Dolmets.

    The second paper is very interesting: a piece titled "The evolution of the vacuum cleaner from the 1950s to the 1970s: An anthropological approach" by David M. Stalnaker-Peters, James P. Farrar, and John S. M. Jones, published in "Skeptical Inquirer" on November 20, 2016.

    The authors say:
    We use an ethnographic approach to reconstruct the history of the vacuum cleaner industry that started after WWII to create the original vacuum cleaner. Our hypothesis is that the evolution of the vacuum cleaner industry began with the design of a soft vacuum cleaner but developed very quickly into a hard vacuum cleaner, with many early makers using hand tools. Although it is true that many products of the 1930s and 1940s had low energy efficiencies, we find that all of them had a hard vacuum cleaner by at least the late 1950s. The reasons for this trend are, we suggest, partly the evolution of the vacuum cleaner and partly the growing use of automation to manufacture items that could also be used as regular phones.

    For example, the researchers compared the "soft" science of vacuum-cleaning phones with the vacuum-cleaning-phones made from a hard material, such as stainless steel, to a soft material, such as plastic. And for comparison, they compared vacuum-cleaning phones made of a metal and plastic. To verify that the soft- and hard-science of vacuum-cleaning phones was uniform, the researchers made similar vacuum-cleaning-phones made from different materials, such as stainless steel and plastic. The differences in the "soft- and hard-science" of vacuum-cleaning phones, said the scientists, were as striking as those in the scientific and engineering discipline of physics.

    The researchers found, however, that the "soft" science of vacuum-cleaning phones was not uniform across the various materials (see graph at left). "It appears that the soft science is more like water than the solid science," they said, "and that there are some features that make the soft science seem more robust than the standard physics."

    In the past, researchers have suggested that vacuum-cleaning phones could be a boon to the environment—that they could remove contaminants, for example, without leaving damaging chemicals behind. "We do know from previous research that the devices were polluting the environment from the beginning," Burdick said.

    Indeed, the scientists say their new research supports other work by other researchers on whether this type of vacuum cleaning can eliminate soot from cellphone screens or reduce other contaminants. (In a separate study, Burdick and his colleagues found that the "soft" vacuum technology they tested wiped the screens of some phones clean, but on others they left soot behind.)

    Please follow us on Twitter and like our page on Facebook for current news and updates.