Perhaps the response would be similar if he had a design for two headed baby clothes, or superhero outfits.
There is this notion of the 'uncanny valley' where a rendering/expression of a human gets too close to the real thing. There is a similar space in design where dissonance between what is possible and what is shown jars the senses.
Escher used this to great effect, creating scenes that you eyes initially perceived as 'normal' but began to sense a 'wrongness' or 'otherness' which as you looked more closely became apparent.
This would have worked better as an exercise if he had done an advertising type pitch for a tri-corder or what ever the Stargate equivalent is. But by using the next generation of a product that is already out there and known for its design, and adding in features which are currently science fiction (and physically impossible [1]) the designer causes the brain to go "urrrk?" and the whole thing collapses.
[1] For example, iPhones use a touch screen based on capacitance. Graphene is a conductor. A transparent graphene cover would shield the phone from being able to see any change in electric field (it would, at best, be diffuse across the conductor) and render the touch screen inoperable. Try this fun experiment, put a piece of paper over an iPad and watch your gestures go right "thru" it, put a piece of foil over your ipad, and note how you can do anything.
You may be taking this a bit too literally. I saw it as a designer's attempt to build marketing for a fictional device that is fun to imagine. If you've ever read science fiction, there's a certain joy in imagining new devices with capabilities that currently seem impossible. Without this sort of imagination, like the tricorder that you point out, a whole lot of contemporary engineers might have never found this inspiration.
Graphene isn't the best choice, but the point was to illustrate a currently unseen level of tensile strength, not as a blueprint for manufacture. Wouldn't that be a fun device to have?
We tend to ignore humor on HN, but this is one person's imagination at work, and I applaud that.
That is the nature of the uncanny valley, it is where the result is 'real enough' that one part of your brain classifies it as 'real' but it still has enough flaws that another part of your brain yells 'wrong'. That dissonance is uncomfortable.
Per my point about a tri-corder (a clearly fictional device) had he made his project "more clearly fictional" it would have avoided that uncanny valley. Basing it on the iPhone was not a good choice for me. A friend of mine was doing the computer graphics thing and initially all of his "models" were real actresses (he used stills from films to figure out the models) and it was hurting his portfolio because the 'goodness' of his modelling skills was being subverted by the 'wrongness' of the model (people recognized the actress and then saw things "wrong" in the models of them). I suspect that is the case here is well.
We should be thankful for people who venture into uncanny valleys or any gap between safe-and-works the next generation technology. The work that finally crosses over the valley and is widely accepted is built on the work that didn't. We need those attempts and should encourage them.
I think you missed the point (but correct me if I'm wrong) the 'uncanny valley' is an artifact. It can be a positive (Escher's case) or a negative (any number of nearly perfect CGI scenes in films). In this designer's case it distracted me from his goal of presenting his skills as a designer. Had he done the same thing with a clearly non-actual product, my response would have focused on his skill at rendering a good looking device and compelling narrative, rather than thinking "wait, that isn't even possible, this is crazy" which I don't think was his intent given that this was a portfolio project. But I cannot speak for him, only to my reaction to it.
There is this notion of the 'uncanny valley' where a rendering/expression of a human gets too close to the real thing. There is a similar space in design where dissonance between what is possible and what is shown jars the senses.
Escher used this to great effect, creating scenes that you eyes initially perceived as 'normal' but began to sense a 'wrongness' or 'otherness' which as you looked more closely became apparent.
This would have worked better as an exercise if he had done an advertising type pitch for a tri-corder or what ever the Stargate equivalent is. But by using the next generation of a product that is already out there and known for its design, and adding in features which are currently science fiction (and physically impossible [1]) the designer causes the brain to go "urrrk?" and the whole thing collapses.
[1] For example, iPhones use a touch screen based on capacitance. Graphene is a conductor. A transparent graphene cover would shield the phone from being able to see any change in electric field (it would, at best, be diffuse across the conductor) and render the touch screen inoperable. Try this fun experiment, put a piece of paper over an iPad and watch your gestures go right "thru" it, put a piece of foil over your ipad, and note how you can do anything.