Slashdot Mirror


New Alloy Stronger Than Fe And Ti

SoCalChris writes "According to this article on MSNBC.com, researchers at CalTech have discovered a new alloy that is stronger than steel and titanium, can be cast in a mold like plastic, and sharpened like glass. The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers."

435 comments

  1. Another use....... by 1000101 · · Score: 1, Funny

    My girlfriend needs this metal for a new dildo

    1. Re:Another use....... by cliffiecee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Won't work- it loses it's strength when subjected to heat.

      Unless you're hinting that she's frigid...

    2. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cops need this for bashing people

    3. Re:Another use....... by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      I certainly hope she doesn't get up to 750 degrees... would make sex a little painful.

    4. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, i'm not sure i would be announcing this to the world. you will never hear me say my girlfriend needs another form of stimulation other than me. ;)

    5. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's under development. You can be the first test subject.

    6. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what for? you ain't givin' it to her good enough?

    7. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does she smoke after having sex?

    8. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like a hot pussy in the wintertime. Just gently blow on it first, like you would soup.

    9. Re:Another use....... by duck_prime · · Score: 1
      My girlfriend needs this metal for a new dildo


      She'll certainly need it after she reads that post and dumps you...

      ;)
    10. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not, you'd need a girlfriend first to be able to say that truthfully.

    11. Re:Another use....... by big_hairy_mama · · Score: 1

      Why do you think she needs a dildo? She melted my dick!

    12. Re:Another use....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shame the new product will be lost on the geeks here and will mainly benefit the sporting community!

    13. Re:Another use....... by PsychoFurryEwok · · Score: 1

      Even add an ice cube or two if needed...

  2. Sweet! by brad-x · · Score: 1

    Will they make a PowerBook out of it? :)

    --
    // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
    1. Re:Sweet! by Vann_v2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Maybe, you LOSER! HA! Go back to your BSD, Mr. Brad.

    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPANKY SPANKY, WHORE WHORE, CUM ON ME CUM ON ME, MORE MORE!

      And I think this will get rid of the lame no caps filter blah blah blah.

  3. prost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fist my ass.

  4. How do you sharpen glass? (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no text.

    1. Re:How do you sharpen glass? (n/t) by mythr · · Score: 1

      You break it on the corner of a table. I don't see how that works with something harder than titanium, though. :)

  5. gah by Grandpa+Jive · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fe is iron, not steel. Steel is an alloy, not an element.

    1. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hemos, you're quite the grammar king.

      from the stronger-then-any-man dept.

      s/then/than

    2. Re:gah by jeffehobbs · · Score: 2


      "Fe is iron, not steel. Steel is an alloy, not an element."

      All I know is that "FeBook" is even worse than "TiBook".

      ~jeff

    3. Re:gah by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      The headline simply says that the new alloy is stronger than Fe and Ti. I wouldn't infer from that that either was an alloy, only that they were the measure of strength against which the alloy was being measured...

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:gah by mgrant · · Score: 1

      Steel is made of mostly iron with a little bit of carbon mixed in. Different types of steel have different amounts of carbon.

    5. Re:gah by SB5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Steel and Iron are not the same thing, but they are used interchangably. There is a major construction profession called Ironworking, or Ironworkers. They build the steel structures and place the rebar in buildings and weld and bolt the steel together but there name title says they work with Iron, it makes no sense but why do you drive on the parkway, and park in a driveway?

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    6. Re:gah by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Diferent kind of steel... diferent amounts of diferent materials added...

      Steel is made of iron, carbon and some minimal quantities of other materials like thungstenium...

      If you want good tools, for instance, don't search for just steel... but a special kind of steel with some of this elements...

      As someone said... The good tools makes the artisan...

      Cheers...

    7. Re:gah by dattaway · · Score: 2

      it makes no sense but why do you drive on the parkway, and park in a driveway?

      Why then, do they call them buildings, when they are already built?

    8. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, and you'd then appear to be a person without even an elementary background in chemistry. Who doesn't know Fe or Ti, for chrissakes?

    9. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're called ironworkers because that's the historical name of the profession. Before steel was commonplace (which is fairly recent!) iron was used in building construction. It doesn't mean that "steel" and "iron" are interchangeable.

    10. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's not the question here. For 200 and the game: "What element is represented by the symbol Fe?"

      Need a hint? Fe != steel. Sure, steel has Fe in it, but representing steel w/ the symbol for an _element_ is just wrong.

    11. Re:gah by PacoTaco · · Score: 2

      My FeBook's file system keeps getting corrupted. I wonder why...

    12. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he's right. Fe and Ti are not alloys.

    13. Re:gah by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Not just that. "Cast iron" has even more carbon in it that steel. When they first refined steel, the engineering problem was removing enough carbon from cast iron. Not adding carbon to the iron.

    14. Re:gah by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2
      Fe is iron, not steel. Steel is an alloy, not an element.

      True, but the Titanium generally isn't used pure either and we just refer to it as Titanium. Close enough for Slashdot.

      --
      Why?
    15. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steel is not an alloy. It is a combination of iron and carbon. An alloy is a combination of two or more metals. I'm not sure exactly what you would call it, possibly a mixture.

    16. Re:gah by JensChr · · Score: 1

      As someone said... The good tools makes the artisan...
      ... but only the bad artisan blames his tools :)

    17. Re:gah by DoctorGrim · · Score: 1

      A compound I believe. In a compound you cannot discern between the different substances that make it up and the two substances can only be separated through electrolysis. In a mixture, the two or more pure substances are discernable or rather, can be separated through physical means. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    18. Re:gah by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      Steel describes a lot of similar materials, many of them alloys. Chrome steel can contain close to 30% chromium, but that i far from the only metal used in steels.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asteroids and hemroids? The meanings are basackwards

    20. Re:gah by Wierd+Willy · · Score: 1

      Steel IS an alloy, the fact is good quality steel has more than just low carbon iron and chromium, the higher alloys such as 4140 and 4340 have 1% and 3% nickel respectively. The purpose is to slow down the aging process without sacrificing potential hardness. ALL steels have some sulphur to aid in mallability and machinability, but the more sulphur added weakens the metal in terms of low temperature yeild strengths, which is a measure of how brittle a metal is at a standard temperature. Tensile strength is measured at the first measurable point of stretch for a 25mm bar at 65 deg F. The lower alloys such as 1018 and 1020 have lower carbon levels and almost no chromium. Thus they cannot be hardened in a heat treat process the way the 4000 series can. All these metals are easily machined. I wonder what the machinability is of this new alloy. Tensile strength and hardness properties dictate available processes to all metalworking and I would like a few dozen pounds just to play with. Maybe make meself a new cleidheammor.

      --
      Stupid Humans.....
    21. Re:gah by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jeez, what are you, the accuracy police? The guy said "Fe", so he must have a black belt in psuedoscience. Don't interject with actual facts!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    22. Re:gah by nomadic · · Score: 2

      And? Nothing in the story posting is factually inaccurate.

      The headline stated that a new alloy was stronger than iron and titanium. This is true.

      In the story body it was pointed out that the new alloy is stronger than steel and titanium. Also true.

      So what's the problem?

  6. Oooooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what can i say? sw33t....

  7. Fe != Steel by RKloti · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fe is iron, the element, not steel, which is a compound out of iron and trace amounts of carbon.

    1. Re:Fe != Steel by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      Stronger than Fe?

      Iron in its pure form is very malleable and not fit for making anything that needs to be strong. As the poster mentioned, carbon is necessary. Typically you'll see less than 1% by mass of carbon in the iron alloys but if you need something ultra-strong but with a degree of brittleness it is not unheard of to have 2-3% mixtures along with chromium for anti-corrosion properties.

    2. Re:Fe != Steel by axelbaker · · Score: 1

      I am quite fond of chro-molybdenum alloys my self. A bit of chrome and molybdenum makes a world of difference in corrosion resistance and a nice balanceof strength to fatigue resistance.

  8. Atlas Shrugged by Hardwyred · · Score: 2

    Rearden Metal anyone? Better, stronger, lighter, faster, slices, dices, washs the car but held down by The Man.

    --
    www.linux-skunkworks.com
    1. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who make references to Ayn Rand novels will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Just a warning -- I'll let you off the hook for this one.

    2. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about, no nuts? Ayn Rand was brilliant.

    3. Re:Atlas Shrugged by SirKodiak · · Score: 1

      At $10 a pound, who WOULDN'T want to replace all their steel rails with LiquidMetal? Maybe once they get the price down some, as they say they are trying, in a country where rail service is in better demand than the US. They would also need to fix the limitation of only being able to make inch-thick casts.

      Of course, Atlas Shrugged would have been more entertaining if Rearden, like the LiquidMetal people, had first thought of using his metal for golf clubs. A key conflict could have been how most golf club manufacturers wouldn't use the metal, being too conservative, but one gutsy female executive is bold enough to use the new metal for her company's line of golf clubs. Will the government stop this highly influential golf club company from upsetting the balance away from the traditional metal companies towards Rearden Metal? How long will our courageous executive prop up the failing golf club industry, and the well being of the country that depends on it, instead of abandoning it?

    4. Re:Atlas Shrugged by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      At a melting point of 750 deg F, I don't think you'll see many railroad companies replacing their iron-steel track with this stuff. One extended braking maneuver and you've got a derailment on your hands as the track melts out from under the rail cars.

    5. Re:Atlas Shrugged by visualight · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      According to Ayn Rand if all CEO's of the world collectively went on strike we would all starve to death. The premise is that our industry leaders are leaders because it takes a rare and special quality to run an industry and the "common" man just doesn't have what it takes. Kind of like if Bill Gates, Alan Cox, and Steve Jobs quit working the computer industry would self destruct.

      This is brilliant? In real life if the top (define "top" however the hell you want to) 1000 industry leaders (define..."") all went into hiding there would be 2000 people of equal competence scrambling to take their place immediately.

      Ayn Rand's novels are merely an attempt (failed) to prove that the elite are elite because they are more intelligent and capable than anyone else. Being born into a wealthy family or being included in the "good ole boy" network has nothing to do with it. Disgusting.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    6. Re:Atlas Shrugged by alannon · · Score: 2

      I think $10-$15 per pound, the railroads would be more concerned with people pulling up tracks to sell the raw materials. That would lead to derailments pretty quickly, I'd think.

    7. Re:Atlas Shrugged by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Ok, Here is the quote on the alloy:
      They made an alloy of elements that fit very poorly together: titanium, copper, nickel, zirconium and beryllium.

      The titanium is the expensive part, copper nickel, and zirconium are not that expensive. beryllium is just plain nasty, I wouldn't want to machine anything with that in it. The zirconium is interesting, it make me wonder how hard it is to machine. Ive seen high silicon alumnium that was a bitch to machine.

    8. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

    9. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Rand's view of the world was oversimplified and cartoonish, so is yours.

      Populist cant to the contrary, some people =are= more talented than others and directing a huge business enterprise successfully takes unusual talents. This is why John Akers nearly ran IBM in to the ground and it took Lou Gerstner to bring it back.

      This is true of any field of human endeavor and only becomes a point of contention among those who resent great financial wealth and economic power.

      Would you argue that there would be no impact on the field of physics if the top 2000 physicists in the world were to suddenly stop working?

      Certainly there is not equality of opportunity in America and modern capitalism will not guarantee that the best will rise to the top, but that doesn't diminish the fact that skills of certain people have a large impact on the success of the economy.

    10. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find a whole bunch of them in China. Good luck Rambo.

    11. Re:Atlas Shrugged by DoctorGrim · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but supposedly it doesn't have to be machined at all. The properties of the alloy allow it to be cast just like plastics. And they said if they needed a razor blade, they could cast it without any need for refinement because when the metal cools it doesn't shrink. So, they probably don't have to be real worried about that kind of thing.

    12. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can start by DoS-ing websites like this one:

      http://www.freedomroad.org/home.html
      http://www .rwor.org/home-e.htm

      Those are some of the rank-and-file Communists, of the Maoist persuasion, who off and on ally themselves with China.

      Have at it. Their cadre are some pretty nasty street fighters.

    13. Re:Atlas Shrugged by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Well even cast it will need machining. Flashing has to be removed, holes need to be drilled and tapped. The flashing can be ground off, but holes and threads will need special tooling like carbide and maybe diamond. Aside from possiable aerospace use I think it will be overkill for golf clubs, but then so is titanium.

    14. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Titanium, like aluminum, is one of the most common elements of the earth's crust. What makes it expensive is the refining and machining process. Copper, on the other hand, has become more expensive than you may think, partly because it is so damned useful. (Plus, copper and other metals have gradually replaced many of the metallurgical uses of lead, due to it being comparatively toxic.)

  9. Scott by racerx509 · · Score: 1

    So the crew of the Enterprise really did really travel back in time. Scotty must have told someone.

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
    1. Re:Scott by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      why no transparent aluminum then?

    2. Re:Scott by The+Evil+Troll+King · · Score: 1

      why no transparent aluminum then?

      Oh, they made transparent aluminum just like Scotty had showed them. But after Crystal Pepsi flopped, they abandoned the project. It's a shame, really.

      Steve

    3. Re:Scott by iamblades · · Score: 1

      There has always been transparent aluminum.

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
    4. Re:Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be aluminum OXIDE, jackass. How about transparent, METALLIC, aluminum (Al)?

    5. Re:Scott by iamblades · · Score: 1

      Well, the parent said nothing about metallic aluminum..

      And if you couldn't tell, my post was sarcastic.. ;P

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
  10. I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers.

    What a great country!

    1. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Talisman · · Score: 2

      ""The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers.""

      "What a great country!"


      Yeah, it would be best used to feed the poor...

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    2. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers.
      What a great country!



      Feh, if those are the only uses planned for it in the near future I won't be seeing it at all for awhile, except maybe outside of some sort of exhibit or such, then again the types of places that 'exhibit' new golf clubs are not exactly the types of places that I would /want/ to go to either. . . .

      (baseball bats? WTF? WHY?)

      Hmm, the cell phone cover thing /does/ sound halfway decent though, maybe somebody will FINALLY make a no-none sense cell-phone that is damn nearly bullet proof, water proof, and can take a beating like an APPLIANCE should be able to.

      I am getting sick and tired of plastic. :(
    3. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not leaving that table until you finish your Titanium! There are starving kids in china!

    4. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Crusty+Oldman · · Score: 1

      ...and Ginsu knives!

    5. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great Idea! I can see it now! The lines of poor people to looking to get their alloy to eat! Do we force them to eat it? or even better do we give them butter with it?

      This could be a revolution in dealing with the poor... feeding them a metal alloy!

    6. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For baseball bats light + strong = good. Faster swing. More power. However, it also requires a bit of engineering; Al bats have a nice trampoline effect at the "sweet spot". If this material may be strong, but if it's to brittle it'll make a crappy bat. Also, I hate it when Al bats get dented in cold weather.

    7. Re:I'm glad we got our priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i want my ninja sword replication. yes i do.

  11. Wow, how revolutionary by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As they say in the article it isn't anything new. They just make it a bit thicker, why is this even news?

    1. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by mberman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because the difference between "less than a millimetre thick" and "arbitrarily thick, and castable without needing to be machined afterwards" is huge. Also, the science behind the "making it a bit thicker" is nontrivial. The process behind the old-style, which produces films, is totally different than the process behind this new one. It's not like making a golf club is anything like making a really thick film. This is old news in that the research was done in 1992, but it's new news because it's finally beginning to be pushed in the industry, where we'll actually see any benefits from it.

      --

      This is a self-referential sig

    2. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Phrogz · · Score: 2

      They make 'it' a bit thicker? I think you need to read the article again. Metals traditionally have been able to be strengthened via compression after cooling (forcing the atoms out of alignment) as in cold-pressed steel, or via cooling the metal quickly (as the article states, not allowing the crystalline matrix to form). This is new because the alloy inherently cools in a 'jumbled' state. Yes, it's thicker than before, but it's not the same alloy that is thicker, it's an entirely new alloy.

    3. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2

      I had not heard of it before.

      Therefore, it was news to me, and I can now go read about it, whereas before, I would not have.

      Justification enough.

    4. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is this even news?"

      Shut up, you stupid obese fuck. Nobody wants to hear you whine like a little girl.

    5. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by mosch · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes, and in other news Ford has made a new mustang that can go 3000mph while getting 400mpg. It's not news, because it's just a bit faster, and a bit more efficient than last year's mustang.

    6. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes, and in other news Ford has made a new mustang that can go 3000mph while getting 400mpg. It's not news, because it's just a bit faster, and a bit more efficient than last year's mustang.
      Do you have a link for this article? I tried a google search and couldn't find it. I would be interested in reading it.
    7. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but it can only go for 30 sec before needing service.

      Fix Or Repair Daily is now Fix or Repair Constantly ;P

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    8. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son has a poopy diaper. This time it's thicker than usual--arbitrarily think. You did not know this until I told you. Welcome to the revolution.

    9. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Com2Kid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah yes, but it can only go for 30 sec before needing service.

      So Ford's project of integrating the Windows 95 OSR1 kernal with a vehicle is finally finished?

      Damnit I told them to stick with DOS.

    10. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      Because one day it will be used in a car frame in which you will be sitting in, and will not only make the car more fuel efficient, due to weight, it will enable you to survive an accident you would not otherwise.

    11. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing against you personally nuggz, but the moderation of your post shows just how far the average Slashdot IQ level has dropped. "So someone discovered a better faster way to alter electron flow? Are transistors really any better than tubes, and how is this news?" Hmm, what's happening over at K5?

    12. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Kibo · · Score: 2

      Steel isn't used because it's strong. In the scope of things it's not. It and other metals are used because they are tough. Very tough. I have a suspicion from whats written in the article that this super-metal isn't. That combined with the beryllium and a bunch of people whacking golf balls would make me wonder if you're going to get a lot of very small metal flakes dusting gold courses. And beryllium isn't a happy thing to get in organisms.

      No one wants to drive a car that shatters into a cloud of possibly toxic dust. Well except maybe palestinians.

      And to beat out DU it'll have to be self-sharpening. Which it may well be.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    13. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1
      Hmm, what's happening over at K5?

      With as much sincerity as I can possibly purvey I hereby state the following: absolutely nothing is going on at K5.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    14. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not new. Your sons parent has a head filled with the stuff.

    15. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the difference between "less than a millimetre thick" and "arbitrarily thick...

      The article states "pieces up to an inch thick could now be made." If "arbitrarily thick" means "no more than an inch thick" you are correct, but that would be a peculiar definition of the word arbitrarily.

    16. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by jspey · · Score: 2

      And to beat out DU it'll have to be self-sharpening. Which it may well be.

      Ideally it is self sharpening. Because it's amorphous it has no preferential shear planes, so it always shears at 45 degrees, making it effectively self sharpening. At least in theory that's what it does. I work with a guy working on it and he explained to me that this "self sharpening" stuff is really theoretical because they can't really make large enough samples easily to test with.

      Mr. Spey

      --
      Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.
    17. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by mselmeci · · Score: 1

      As my driver's ed teacher repeatedly told us, cars are designed to break on impact to absorb the kinetic energy of it, so we wouldn't get knocked around as much. If we made cars from stronger materials, they would survive impacts but the passengers inside wouldn't.

    18. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

      The interesting bit is that this material is so strong that it's incredibly brittle, like glass...

      So it will shatter on impact. If paired with the proper components, it may be a very interesting crush-zone type frame.

    19. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, bullshit, or the guy was an idiot. They have made these materials cast in multiple cubic foot sizes for years now, and already made test shells (as a depleted uranium replacement). It is tested, regularly.

      Todd Hufnagle's group at Johns Hopkins is working on that aspect (and there are many others, as well)

    20. Re:Wow, how revolutionary by jspey · · Score: 2

      My info on how it doesn't always really self-sharpen comes from one fo Todd Hufnagle's grad students who works two doors down from my lab. The problem is they can't get it amorphous enough at the sizes they need with the strenths they need. Or at least they think that's it. All they really know is it isn't self-sharpening enough.

      Mr. Spey

      --
      Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.
  12. to be pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nonetheless, the post is accurate-- if the new metal is stronger than both titanium and steel, it's stronger than Fe.

    1. Re:to be pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and it's stronger than soggy lettuce!

  13. Cars by superx22x · · Score: 1

    Maybe this could be applied to the automotive design industry to design stronger. lighter cars. And they would be able to withstand head on collisions!

    1. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car makers already avoid aluminum because of cost, so I doubt we'll be seeing any major assemblies of liquidmetal anytime soon.

    2. Re:Cars by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You don't want a car to withstand a front end collision. Even if cars could be made indestructible, they wouldn't be. Havn't you ever heard of a crumple zone? You want the car to decelerate as slowly as possible, which mean crushing as much as possible.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Cars by BinxBolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The big deal in auto safety isn't in getting the vehicle to withstand a violent impact. It's in making it more likely that the passengers will survive such an impact. Ever hear of 'crumple zones'? The idea there is to sacrifice the vehicle, getting it to absorb much of the energy of the impact, in order to improve the passenger's chances of survival.

      Would you want to buy a car that would come away from a head-on collision with only minor damage to the vehicle itself, but that would leave the driver splattered all over the interior?

    4. Re:Cars by Com2Kid · · Score: 5, Funny
      • You don't want a car to withstand a front end collision. Even if cars could be made indestructible, they wouldn't be. Havn't you ever heard of a crumple zone? You want the car to decelerate as slowly as possible, which mean crushing as much as possible.
      Bull Fucking Shit

      You know those commercials where the car hits the brick wall and they show how well the car 'crumples' up as a safety feature?

      I hate those.

      If I hit a brick wall, I WANT TO KEEP ON GOING RIGHT ON THROUGH fuck the brick wall and fuck crumpling up like a wuss, the *brick wall* can /move/ and crumple up like a little wimp.
    5. Re:Cars by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      The idea there is to sacrifice the vehicle, getting it to absorb much of the energy of the impact, in order to improve the passenger's chances of survival.

      Why not just bowl right on over whatever is in the way and keep on going?

      Think tank running into geo metro. People in tank ain't gonna be worrying about whiplash.

    6. Re:Cars by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      s/brick wall/highway divider/g;

      Get it now?

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    7. Re:Cars by t · · Score: 1
      I've actually thought of this, it is easier to redirect the energy rather than to absorb it. Thus I want a car with a ultra strong scoop and reinforced cabin. That way when joe dipshit with his cell phone and suv hit me, they will go sailing through the air while I will be laughing. The only work I'll need to do is to wash the tire tracks off my hood.

      t.

    8. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remember:
      F = MA
      The car might survive but the occupants wouldn't. Unless, maybe the cars acted like billard balls ...
    9. Re:Cars by crayz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, real smart. Now what happens when everyone gets a car made out of this stuff? And you hit another car head on?

      Well you aren't both gonna go straight though each other with no problem. So if the material is unbreakable you're going to just smash into each other and bounce off.

      I hope you have fun when your car goes from 80mph to -20mph in a 10th of a second.

    10. Re:Cars by spudnic · · Score: 1

      So who wins when it's another car that gets in the way?

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    11. Re:Cars by Matthaeus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cars don't withstand head-on collisions for a reason. They crumple to soften the blow for passengers. Here's why:

      Let's take a 60 mph head-on collision with something massive enough that it doesn't move when the car hits it. Assuming that the car doesn't deform at all, the passengers will have to go from 60 mph to 0 in the distance of about an inch (liberal estimate for seat belt play and expansion).

      'scuse me while I whip this [physics book] out:

      v^2 = v0^2 + 2*a (x - x0)

      Solve for a:

      (v0^2-v^2)/(2*(x-x0))

      v0 = 60 mph -> 26.8224 m/s
      v = 0 mph -> 0 m/s
      x = 0 in -> 0 m
      x0 = i in -> .0254 m

      (26.8224 m/s ^ 2 - 0) / (2*(0 m - .0254 m) = -14162 m/s^2

      (14162 m/s^2) / (9.8 m/s^2) = 1445 G's.

      If you were unlucky enough to be in this car, you wouldn't just die. You would splash. I friend of mine just informed me that the tensile strength of a seatbelt is 15 tons, and a 150 lb person would exert 108 tons on the seatbelt and splash into the dashboard or steering wheel.

      Moral of the story: if they ever do make a car that stiff, don't ever get in it.

    12. Re:Cars by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not something he's going to have to worry about, since there is no such thing as 'negative distance'.

    13. Re:Cars by Skyshadow · · Score: 3
      Yeah, real smart. Now what happens when everyone gets a car made out of this stuff? And you hit another car head on?

      They're called SUVs.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    14. Re:Cars by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      So you can continue into the building killing people sitting at their desks while you drive straight through the office?

      I'd rather visit you in the hospital, while you consider your driving skills, thanks.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    15. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, "mph" was a unit of velocity, not distance. Dumbass...

    16. Re:Cars by NeoCode · · Score: 1

      ya.. now you think they would make an el dorado where the bumper don't fall off.

      Hate those puny little things.

    17. Re:Cars by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Actually, crumple zones are good for high impact, but for little fender benders, a crumpled car is a high cost to the person. Fenders are not even fenders any more, they are cheap pieces of plastic, that scratch and dent, and costs too much money to replace. Something about an old truck with re-enforced steel tubing makes more sense in this pass the buck, let insurance handle it world..
      -
      lets remove all the warning labels, and let nature weed out the idiots.

    18. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back ta physics 101, byte-boyz. The momentum transfer (shock) if you crash thru will still be at least half that of bouncing back (ie) snapped neck !! Since the original auto speed will needs be larger, to break thru you're still dead meat.

    19. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed, not velocity.

    20. Re:Cars by znu · · Score: 1

      Would you want to buy a car that would come away from a head-on collision with only minor damage to the vehicle itself, but that would leave the driver splattered all over the interior?

      Sell it to rental agencies....

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    21. Re:Cars by Digypro · · Score: 1

      Yeah all this math is well and good..but you are overlooking something..how often do you crash into something that won't move? Even cars today smash through the brick walls your talking about. And nobody crashes directly head on to each other so a lof of the motion is deflected. The real dangers are trees and guard rails but mostly other cars..and believe i would rather get rear ended in a car made out of this stuff.

    22. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      lol. dumbass after dumbass was corrected. :)

      hope somebody learned something today.

    23. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late. Too many SUV drivers on the road already. Those things have inflexible truck bodies, no crumple zones. When one SUV hits anotehr SUV thats what happens (60mph + 60mph) to 0 in almost 0 time = dead ocupants.

    24. Re:Cars by mythr · · Score: 1

      Units of speed become units of velocity as soon as a direction is assigned to them, as the previous post did, by negating the quantity. Neither of you is wrong, except in the assertion that the other is.

    25. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try shaped explosive charges in your bumper. That should help you get through the brick wall.

    26. Re:Cars by JPriest · · Score: 1

      A tree, you answered your own question. Out here in the sticks there are few places you can put it off the road and not hit a tree.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    27. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you want is basically an unbreakable cell, surrounded by energy absorbing material on the outside AND the inside.
      So, the crumple sones should crumple, not the whole car, witch is usually the case sadly.

    28. Re:Cars by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      Actually, the idea of crumple zones on passenger automobiles came from racing cars.

      I'm sure you've seen the spectacular wrecks on Indy cars or NASCAR racers; the spectacular ripping away of body parts on the current IRL or CART racer or the heavy crumpling of metal on a NASCAR racer during a wreck essentially dissipates energy away from the driver. This is why the owner of Lowe's Motor Speedway in Concord, NC proposed the idea of the Humpy Bumper--a structure on front of a NASCAR racer that provides extra energy dissipation in addition to the entire front hood crumpling in case the car runs into the wall at high speed.

    29. Re:Cars by nuOpus · · Score: 0

      This guy obviously does not know that just because the car stops ... all people inside WILL not. They still have the momentum. If you go head on with something and you dont plow through it. It will stop you. Lets say you were going 50mph. When the thing hits YOU will still be going 50mph. I hope your head still feels fine after you hit. If you find it.

    30. Re:Cars by Matthaeus · · Score: 2

      How 'bout crashing into something of the same mass but opposite velocity? You come to a complete stop, and so does it.

      With regard to getting rear ended...it depends on how fast the car is going and various other factors, but to give you an idea, here are a couple of pictures from a 45 mph rear ending. I was stationary at the beginning of this, the other driver was a moron.

      Pic 1
      Pic 2

      My seat was twisted about 30 degrees on the Y axis and my headrest was twisted about 45 degrees on the X axis. I suffered pretty major spinal injuries from this wreck. Just think how fun it would have been if the back of the car hadn't crumpled so much.

      My car's original position was behind the white car in the second picture. The crumpling of my car gave the rest of the car time enough to accelerate and not snap my neck like a twig. That was a good car.

    31. Re:Cars by Grab · · Score: 2

      Sure, but for that you need to be in something with a *shitload* of inertia. Say, a Challenger tank. It's not impossible, and you can get a license to drive one on the road, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the fuel bills! (I believe it's measured in gallons per mile!)

      And even then, you're not guaranteed to make it. Tank vs car, tank wins. Tank vs low wall, tank wins. Tank vs bridge support, bridge support wins, everyone inside the tank is plated round the walls. Oops. Bottom line is that most accidents out of metro areas involve one vehicle stacking it into the scenery, and the scenery (cliffs, large trees, big rocks, rivers) is usually pretty immovable, regardless of the size of the vehicle.

      Grab.

    32. Re:Cars by Grab · · Score: 2

      How often? Umm, *very* often!

      Getting rear-ended is about the worst scenario in compact cars, and even more so in one made of some ultimately stiff material. Compact cars don't have much of a rear area to crumple, so they don't collapse much from the rear so that the main compartment stays intact. The result is that in a rear-end collision, a large part of the push goes into propelling the front car forward. Your head isn't pushed directly, so it stays around a bit whilst the rest of your body shoots forward. Result - your neck bends backwards over your seatback, causing whiplash injuries (most ppl don't have their headrests set properly, and headrests aren't that successful anyway). My mom still has neck pains 30 years after a rear-end collision.

      Now imagine what would happen if you got rear-ended in a car which put 100% of the impact into propelling your car forward, instead of only maybe 50%. Maybe your car would be intact with minor scratches, but your neck would be snapped like a twig. Good call man...

      Grab.

    33. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point, not everyone would have a car like that, just me. The next time someone cut me off, or double parked, I'd just plow right through them without getting so much as a blemish on my auto.

    34. Re:Cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with crumple zone cars (ie. Volvo) is the mentality of the drivers. Volvo owners are some of the worst drivers in the world, probably because they think they are immune to car crashes in some subconscious way.

  14. Uhh, planned usage? by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

    What are they licensing this material? How do they say what the planned usages are if anyone can make anything? Or are they limiting the usages somehow?

  15. Weight savings... by Vought+28 · · Score: 1

    A great use for this is in aircraft construction. By reducing weight the planes will fly farther on less fuel, and fighters will turn sharper since they will have a lower wing loading. I'm wondering, if other countries try to produce this new metal, if that will be an infringement on someone's intellectual property ?

    1. Re:Weight savings... by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      >I'm wondering, if other countries try to produce this new metal, if that will be an infringement on someone's intellectual property ?

      No, not really. If some american company can licence it, so can some foreign one.(Duh!)

      Btw. A figher plane's turn rate is mostly limited by the pilot already.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    2. Re:Weight savings... by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't trust it for aircraft.... The metal starts to weaken at only 750 degrees F. I'm not sure how hot the exterior of a plane gets from the air friction, but I wouldn't want to push my luck.

    3. Re:Weight savings... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It might be useful for structural parts of a subsonic airliner that is not near the jet engines, like the fuselage.

      Hmmm--imagine a 777 weighing 10-15% less than now--we could get a lot more range out of a 777.

    4. Re:Weight savings... by loply · · Score: 1

      Fighters can allready tollerate huge G-Forces, the pilot is the limiting factor. No pilot can safely pull a 15g turn, but it would be trivial to make a plane which can withstand that using modern materials.

    5. Re:Weight savings... by Vought+28 · · Score: 1

      A fighter's turn rate is only limited by the pilot at certain speeds. At low speed, it can be hard to do 9 gees, even impossible. Do your homework first.

    6. Re:Weight savings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but what if the pilot is a robot, hmmm? Betcha didn't think of that!

    7. Re:Weight savings... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's flexible enough for most parts of the aircraft, nor is it heat-resistant enough for the engines.

      It would maybe be useful in seat mounts, or cockpit construction (levers and stuff.)
      The real savings would be if you could make the fuselage and wings out of lighter material, but I bet this material doesn't have the right elastic properties to take up the role.

      The website claims (via graphs) that it can, though.

      It's way expensive if it can.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:Weight savings... by EaTiN+cOfFeE+bEaNs · · Score: 1

      Don't give the people in Formula 1 yet another exotic alloy to use in their cars.

      --
      No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
    9. Re:Weight savings... by Seska · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think Americans are compensating by becoming 15% heavier themselves.

    10. Re:Weight savings... by Grab · · Score: 2

      Yes, and those "certain speeds" are fighting speeds. On average, the pilot flying the best-reacting plane wins. Except that now planes don't have to be aerodynamically stable any more (eg. Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22) the pilot is becoming more and more the limiting factor, hence the drive for remote-piloted planes. The first remote-piloted plane will kick everything else's butt, simply bcos the remote pilot can send it into manoevers which no conventional pilot could withstand.

      Grab.

  16. web site by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
    There's more info at their website

    And scientific information here

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:web site by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Wait, if this is the same metal as the "liquid metal golf" clubs, I remember seeing this advertised quite a while ago. I suppose that wouldn't make it a "new" alloy.

      Still interesting, as I had blown off those clubs as another marketing gimmick.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  17. only time ... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
    It is only a matter of time now before we see some army start using bullets made out of this stuff. If the bullets are that sharp then they will have amazing piercing potential.

    I am no combat expert (nor have I ever been in combat or weapons design) but I would expect that snipers would love these things. A non-explosive but very pointy bullet could be very useful for piercing armoured vehicles with hand-held weapons.

    1. Re:only time ... by Mahtar · · Score: 1

      Pointy bullets exist now (cop killers, as they're called). They're very innaccurate, and have a very low range. Bullets are they shape they are for a reason.

    2. Re:only time ... by peteypooh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've studied some ballisitics... these days, most armored vehicles would not be affected by the 'sharpness' of a bullet (assuming a kinetic-energy based round). Rather, factors like it's length-to-width ratio and material density play a much bigger role. Under the velocities we are talking about for a kinetic-energy round, the round 'melts' as it hits the armor and effectively tries to bore through it (and spew molten metal to the inside, injuring occupants and equipment, and maybe setting some ammo or fuel ablaze.)

    3. Re:only time ... by Kajin_X · · Score: 1

      Well, if you read the article, you might have noticed that it said the alloy was particularly heat sensitive. Hence, very unsuitable for that particular application.

      --
      Beatings will commence if towels continue to be eaten...
    4. Re:only time ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Well, if you read the article, you might have noticed that it said the alloy was particularly heat sensitive. Hence, very unsuitable for that particular application."

      I guess the women slashdot readers will be dissapointed, since that rules out vibrators made out of this stuff.

    5. Re:only time ... by mosch · · Score: 2
      actually, snipers like soft and squishy bullets, because while they make a small hole on one side of the target, they make a very large hole on the other side.

      Additionally, the article states that the metal doesn't do well with exposure to heat, so use in firearms seems less than ideal.

    6. Re:only time ... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Well, if you read the article, you might have noticed that it said the alloy was particularly heat sensitive. Hence, very unsuitable for that particular application."

      Quotation from article:

      "Liquidmetal Technologies chief executive John Kang stands with a sample of an armor-piercing shell made of Liquidmetal -- which could one day replace depleted uranium in tank shells."

      I think weapons design is still in.

    7. Re:only time ... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "Additionally, the article states that the metal doesn't do well with exposure to heat, so use in firearms seems less than ideal."

      Um, the article says that these could replace uranium tank shells.

    8. Re:only time ... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They actually call teflon tipped bullets cop killers. They aren't particularly pointy, more more than any other bullet.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:only time ... by mosch · · Score: 0, Troll

      yes, it does, however that's clearly in error because low-uid users can never be wrong, and everything you read on slashdot must be true.

    10. Re:only time ... by dattaway · · Score: 2

      They use uranium, due to its large mass. The weight /size ratio of a bullet is very important if you want it to go far. You'd be much better off shooting an ounce of lead than an ounce of feathers.

      And the softer the bullet is, the better for maximum damage. Hardness will give you maximum penetration, but it will only make a tiny hole. If snipers used a hardened steel bullet, they might as well toss syringes at the victim.

    11. Re:only time ... by iamblades · · Score: 1

      I doubt they will though..

      The reason they use depleted uranium is very simple, it is heavy as hell. This allo is supposedly really light, so it wouldn't make a good antitank shell, no matter how hard it is.

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
    12. Re:only time ... by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Are you referring to the Tokarev, or to the new line of 5.7mm pistols/submachine guns (ie, the P90)? Both were specifically designed to defeat body armor, and are illegal to posess by civilians in the US. The 5.7mm pistol is definitely not inaccurate. And how low-range is low-range? Low-range compared to normal pistols or rifles? Or are you referring to rifle bullets, many of which have been "pointy", and are perfectly capable of defeating body armor due to the smaller size of the bullet an higher velocity?

      Of course, the most effective weapon against the typical pistol/rifle body armor is an icepick.

      Cop-killer bullets. The only time I've heard that term mentioned was in the sensationalist media (right after they started doing the chicken little over "plastic guns", when they started selling Glocks), and in Lethal Weapon.

    13. Re:only time ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This potential use is nothing more than marketing hype. Heat is a major problem, which is why golf clubs, baseball bats, scalpels, etc. are the current proposed applications. They won't "melt in your hands". Alloys that are designed to be highly amorphous will always have to deal with the melting problem, and that is especially true when it comes to ballistic projectiles.

    14. Re:only time ... by Fixer · · Score: 1
      DOH!

      "Pointy" bullets are referred to as Spitzer rounds.

      If you shave the corners off the back of a bullet, so it looks like \_/, it's referred to as a Boat-tailed round.

      And yes, you can mix these two, to have a "Boat-tailed Spitzer round". Gets you %5 less wind resistance, that's about it.

      --
      "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
    15. Re:only time ... by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 1
      Actually, they're not called cop-killer bullets, and neither are teflon coated bullets. The bullets that are actually referred to by that name are "armor-piercing" rounds, the kind designed to defeat a bullet-proof vest. This type of bullet is generally a lead bullet with a small steel core in the center. The steel core has a high cross-sectional density and does not deform the way lead does.

      "Pointy" is good for aerodynamics. Not really piercing armor.

      --

      "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

    16. Re:only time ... by dattaway · · Score: 2

      The teflon has an unusually low coefficent of friction, allowing it to slip past plastic fibered (ballistic kevlar and nylon fabrics) materials. For piercing metal armor, teflon would be a very poor choice. Using teflon against steel armor would be like throwing tomatoes at a brick wall. Something very massive would work better. Softness of the material will allow maximum damage from its mass, hardness will promote penetration.

    17. Re:only time ... by red_gnom · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I always thought that hardness promotes penetration. ;-)

    18. Re:only time ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'pointy' causes cavitation.
      Not good for aerodynamics but good for dragging large parts of the target out when the round exits.

    19. Re:only time ... by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Cops labeled the armor piercing bullets "cop killers", not the "media".

      Since cops are the ones wearing body armor in the U.S. as a matter of daily habit, they understandably think the bullets are primarily purchased in the hopes of killing them.

  18. and right now... by ohzero · · Score: 1, Funny

    Some battlebots guy is creaming his jeans.

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
  19. First uses?! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Funny
    The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers
    Truly a magnificent discovery that will bring untold benefits to the human race!

    But seriously, this looks very interesting, I imagine car and aircraft manufacturers could use a metal such as this. A lot depend on the cost to make and machine it though.
    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:First uses?! by mosch · · Score: 2

      If you had read the article, you'd have learned that this new alloy can be cast like plastic. It doesn't shrink on cooling, so you can cast any shape with up to 1 micron of accuracy, thus removing the need for machining.

  20. I work as a materials scientist for an aerospace.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    company, and we are currently working on some very impressive stuff. One material is based on a matrix of chromium nano filaments and boron. We estimate a tensile strength 250 times better than the very best steels.

  21. Fatigue strength? by peteypooh · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article mentions 'twice as strong as steel and titanium', yet does not quote which 'strength' this refers to (or gives any real objective data). I suspect it might have high tensile strength (hard to break by pulling it apart)...

    But materials like this tend also to be brittle, and do not do well in other kinds of loading. Take 'fatigue' loading, for instance. This measures how well it holds up to repeated loads, such as crankshaft in a car. Materials with uncrystalline structures not only tend to fail quickly under repeated loads, but also tend to fell catastrophically (breaking in two, instead of gradually bending).

    The article doesn't give enough info to verify this - just my thoughts. In material science, you generally have to make a compromise - in this case, tensile strength against fatigue life.

    1. Re:Fatigue strength? by t · · Score: 2
      I was thinking of this too, generally the harder something is, the more brittle it becomes. Glass e.g. is really hard but obviously brittle. I think the catch is that this relation only holds in cyrstalline materials. Imagine those fancy bricks which have interlocks and such to allow easy assembly without mortar. Now if the internal structure of this alloy is such that you have all of these irregular fragments all intertwined then it would be nearly impossible to shear the piece apart. It would be more akin to paper where when you rip it, you end with a jagged edge since there is no crystalline faults in the material.

      I guess what would be the decisive factor for this alloy is what happens to those fragments as they break. Do they rejoin? Does the low melting temperature aid in this aspect by making it easier to rejoin? Or does it worsen the effect exponentially?

      Personally I wonder what would happen if you made a skelton for your desired object using casting techniques with good steel, and then cast this liquid metal alloy around it.

      t.

    2. Re:Fatigue strength? by Ondo · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone else already pointed out, www.liquidmetal.com/technology/ has more info - it states that it is yield strength that is twice as high as conventional titanium alloys, and mentions fatigue resistance as one thing that an alloy can be tailored for.

    3. Re:Fatigue strength? by Alceste · · Score: 1

      Excellent point.
      However, because it lacks a crystal structure, think of it as a concrete on an atomic scale. Like concrete, it has excellent compressive stregnth (until the yield strength where it shatters) but very poor tensile strength (cracking is almost always favored over deformatation, it's extremely flaw and void sensitive)

    4. Re:Fatigue strength? by Strange · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check our the technology section of their website. Towards the bottom they site excellent fatigue resistance. And the material is more elastic than Ti. At first glance of the properties I would have thought it was a metal-plastic matrix.

    5. Re:Fatigue strength? by zenyu · · Score: 2

      The article mentions 'twice as strong as steel and titanium', yet does not quote which 'strength' this refers to (or gives any real objective data). I suspect it might have high tensile strength (hard to break by pulling it apart)...

      I would guess this is what they are talking about, but it sounded like a press release to me. From the talk it sounded as if they were comparing it to the strength of multicrystaline cast steel, which isn't the strongest steel. Is it less ductile and/or stronger than single crystal steel object, does it cost less to produce?

      Steel already has a low melting point, I'm guessing you wouldn't want to make a frying pan out of this stuff...

      Is it toxic?

      Not that I expect any research in "technical journalism" but it really seems like an entirely hollow piece.

    6. Re:Fatigue strength? by peteypooh · · Score: 1

      You are correct - wish I woulda seen that 'tech' page first. Thanks

    7. Re:Fatigue strength? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously it doesn't only hold in crystalline materials, because the example you chose of a hard but brittle material - glass - is not crystalline, it's amorphous, just like this "Liquidmetal".

    8. Re:Fatigue strength? by kevinvee · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is true, but I dont think you should jump to defend it. After all, the initial uses are golf clubs (repeated small force), baseball bats (repeated large force) and cel phone covers (how many times have you dropped YOUR cel phone)

    9. Re:Fatigue strength? by t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This link talks about glass. I was not referring to the technical definition of crystalline vs amorphous. To be a crystalline solid it would need long-range order. That does not mean that glass does not have short-range cyrstalline like fragments. Glass does not have the odd shaped, interlocking fragments to which I was referring to. Graphite would be a better example in that it is structured in the form of sheets, making it very brittle.This link has pictures and explanations.

  22. I want armor! by Wee · · Score: 2
    Golf might be cool, I guess, but I want armor! No rust, strong, light weight, easily castable. Sounds like a great way to make armor plating, like in a Stormtrooper suit for real life or something. That Colonial Marine armor was cool too. I got to see a set at a Planet Hollywood once. I always wanted a set of that, for no real good reason at all. But I digress...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:I want armor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... why?

      Perhaps to protect yourself from highwaymen? Errant knights with nothing better to do than randomly attack people? That guy next door with a longsword?

      I can understand the appeal of weapons, but a full suit of armor? Why?? It's not like you'd ever use it, so who gives a hoot what it's made out of?

    2. Re:I want armor! by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      armor plating, like in a Stormtrooper suit

      Stoormtroopers wear plastic armor, duh. :-)

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:I want armor! by juju2112 · · Score: 1

      Because, man. It's cool.

    4. Re:I want armor! by primus_sucks · · Score: 1

      a sword would be cool too.

    5. Re:I want armor! by d2002xx · · Score: 0

      Because, man. It's cool. So why not replace your skin with it?

  23. Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by loucura! · · Score: 1

    They use rifles because the rifled barrel enables the bullet to travel farther than a hand-gun would. It would suck, rather much, to be a sniper and have to get up close and personal...

    (This spoken as a shameless Q3 sniper. :P)

    --
    Black and grey are both shades of white.
    1. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "They use rifles because the rifled barrel enables the bullet to travel farther than a hand-gun would. It would suck, rather much, to be a sniper and have to get up close and personal..."

      In my mind this is still a hand weapon ... i.e. it is a non-motorised weapon that is carried and operated by a single individual.

    2. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      well, you're wrong. ;)

    3. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handguns always refer to weapons that can be shot with one hand. Rifles never fall into the handgun category and are just called rifles. Snipers use rifles. Particularlly a nice bolt action .308!

    4. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Thr3shold · · Score: 1

      He said hand HELD, not hand gun

    5. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are such a moron, the dictionary just isn't your thing is it? Must be a Canadian thing.

      Main Entry: handgun
      Pronunciation: -"g&n
      Function: noun
      Date: 15th century
      : a firearm (as a revolver or pistol) designed to be held and fired with one hand

      Main Entry: rifle
      Function: noun
      Date: 1770
      1 a : a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore b : a rifled artillery piece
      2 plural : soldiers armed with rifles

      Main Entry: America
      Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&
      Usage: geographical name
      1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
      2 or the Americas /-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
      3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      0 for 3 bitch.

    6. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by ViMaster · · Score: 1

      In general, pistol barrels are rifled also.

    7. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      You deserve to be modded up for setting ignorance straight. Thanks

    8. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      "rilfes" are not the only guns with rifling. Most handguns have it as well.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    9. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by modecx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nothing works quite as well as getting up-close-and-personal with your target then throwing your sidearm at them. Gun-hurling has quite a devistating psychological effect, to be sure.
      (most notably the belly laughing that follows almost immediately after)

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    10. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "well, you're wrong. ;)"

      In this case I stand corrected.

      hand weapons != rifles

      Not that I have ever seen a real firearm in my life except in the holster of a police officer ... I am not in the United States* or in the Middle East or hundreds of other countries where people have to carry firearms around for personal safety. In that respect I consider myself highly fortunate.

      *N.B. I am aware that in the USA the right to bear arms is a right provided for protection of the principles of the constitution, not protection of one self.

    11. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 1
      He said "hand-held", not "hand-gun".

      In addition, nearly all handguns (as nearly all rifles) have rifled barrels. The only common small arm that doesn't usually have a rifled barrel is a shotgun (smoothbore).

      This is what happens when people get their firearm knowledge from video games.

      --

      "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

    12. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, people use their hands to fire rifles there chief.

    13. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      This is what happens when people get their firearm knowledge from video games.

      Or from the liberal media, public education, or any other source that doesn't have a clue about firearms.

      Oh, some mortars (60 mm and smaller) are generally considered "small arms" by the military. (I was an armorer in the U.S. Army). Mortars, of course, have smooth bores as well.

      No man-portable howitzers, though. A shame, really. Well, the M2 .50 cal. machine gun has firing tables and can be indirectly fired, so maybe that could count. :)

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    14. Re:Snipers don't use hand-guns weapons... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      I meant to add: It takes at least two people to carry a full M2 setup (with tripod) around, though.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  24. Cheif Executive Kang... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is planning on joining forces with old friend Kodos to develope applications for new metal. First will be nails in boards. Eventually a board with a nail so big it will distroy the earth.

    1. Re:Cheif Executive Kang... by bsane · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me- I voted for Kodos!

  25. read the article by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
    It's almost expected for posters to not read the article, but do the article submitter or editors even read it?

    "The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers."

    From the article:
    "Liquidmetal Technologies' first product was golf club heads..."

    From their website:
    "Taking advantage of a revolutionary class of a next generation super alloy that was originally launched in golf clubs in 1998, ..."

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:read the article by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I also found this interesting:

      "

      Currently, NASA's Genesis spacecraft, the first mission to collect and return samples of the solar wind, is continuing its trek toward the sun. Liquidmetal alloy based solar wind collector tiles, about the size of a coffee cup lid, will play a key role in the collection process. The mission is designed to measure the composition of isotopes in solar matter. The spacecraft, with its onboard experiments, is scheduled to return to earth in 2003. "

      So it's already being used in spacecraft. Definitely not "new" then, but still interesting nonetheless.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  26. Liquidmetal IPO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many shares of newly minted LQMT stock the reporters received for their stories.

  27. Golf clubs and cell covers... by cyphixation · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Whew!

    thank god we're not looking into using it to make dumb shit like, medical intruments, space applications, etc.

    --
    odium|||nunquam|||obticesco
  28. The "t" isn't capitalized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an undergrad at Caltech from 93-97 I know it bugs all of us when people *incorrectly* capitalize the "t" in Caltech.

    1. Re:The "t" isn't capitalized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be pretty expensive to fix this upper case T.

    2. Re:The "t" isn't capitalized! by Furry+Ice · · Score: 1

      No, he's right. Everyone who went to Caltech (including myself) hates to see it spelled CalTech. I was about to post the exact same thing, but I decided I'd best search to see if someone beat me to it, which they did.

    3. Re:The "t" isn't capitalized! by Furry+Ice · · Score: 1

      Not quite as expensive as all the "V"s on every HOVSE, but since no one actually wants to fix those, it's a non-issue.

    4. Re:The "t" isn't capitalized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is too funny - "Grammer" is not a word - you have misspelled "Grammar." Grammer is a city in Indiana, zip code 47236. Even us Caltech people can spell "Grammar" :)

    5. Re:The "t" isn't capitalized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you notice, the whole word is capitalized in that link. try harder, moron.

  29. Here's a great idea for the stuff by Vought+28 · · Score: 1

    Arched and domed ceilings should be made of this new metal -- they will have a much lower wieght, exert less pressure on walls and supports, lower building costs, and be less likely to fall. Also, making a sky scraper that won't collapse if hit by an airplane will be eaiser if the internal skeleton of the tower is built from this stuff.

    1. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it would've collapsed much faster, since this material doesn't do well at temperatures > 750F.

    2. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with it's heat sensitivity, it would have fallen faster than the WTC.

    3. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      The WTC didn't collapse either. The steel columns in the center melted in the fire, weakening the above floors and causing them to collapse - thus the floor-by-floor collapse everyone's seen on TV.

      This stuff melts at less than 1/2 the temperature - the WTC would have gone down in minutes, not hours.

    4. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by jakobk · · Score: 1

      I thought the steel columns were outside?

    5. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a collapse. And what happened was as the steel melted, the floors seperated from the concrete shell and everythign just dropped straight down. That was lucky because if it had fallen over the damage would have been so much more.

    6. Re:Here's a great idea for the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the bit about temperature sensitivity ?
      One of the main contributing factors in the WTC collapse was that the jet fuel fire was so hot that the internal skeleton became too malleable to support the mass of the upper stories a problem that would be even more pronounced with this material.

  30. How come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come when I hit the parent link I don't get the parent comment? I just get more comments that are unrelated to the original comment.

  31. I don't care how strong it is... by C+A+S+S+I+E+L · · Score: 1

    ...I only want to know when I'll be able to buy a PowerBook made from it.

  32. Whats the new name? by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 2

    adamantium?

    1. Re:Whats the new name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mithril.

    2. Re:Whats the new name? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > adamantium?

      Funny you should mention that. I've been saying for some time
      that mithril is actually just the old name for titanium steel,
      and that adamantium would be something strong but more flexible,
      like an alloy that includes organic matter (plasteel, anyone?),
      but maybe this liquid metal stuff could be it.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  33. bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Melt around you? Bleh, You'd be dead at that temp before anything around you started to melt.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. This is news for the sake of the company by HEbGb · · Score: 2

    The company attempting to commercialize this needs as much hype as they can get, since they don't seem to have any substantial sales, and are very likely funded by (or will be funded by) VC's and other investors.

    Getting an article like this in the press is really just fodder for investors, and possibly future customers. Objective news, it's not - this is just an advertisement for the commercial outfit.

  36. Practicality of use...? by KILNA · · Score: 2

    It may be stong, and it seems to be able to be tooled razor thin straight from the mold, but how practical is it to work with? You don't see many scalpels or tools being made from titanium currently, or even cell phone cases for that matter. The costs seems to be the prohibiting factor, but is that really it? I mean, if you could make the same strength/quality object for 1/10 the material, then you can have up to 10x the materials cost and still be doing well.

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    1. Re:Practicality of use...? by inputsprocket · · Score: 1

      You will never see metals as their elements being used as surgical equipment because all metals rust.
      To quote a misnomer from the original article:
      ...it's where cracks can form and rust starts, for instance.
      No. Rust forms on ALL metals, just that for many metals, the metals' oxide has very similar properties to their original element.

      Surgical steel is used for surgery because it is a composite of stainless steal and can hold its own in an autoclave. This magical metal will never make it to the operating table, since it becomes maliable at low tempatures, hence can never be sterilised by the conventional, cheap method of autoclaving.
      That's not to say that single-use scalpels will never make it, since these can be sterilised using radiation et al.

    2. Re:Practicality of use...? by KILNA · · Score: 1

      But I thought it was only about 200 deg. faren. to kill most all pathogens, this stuff melts at 750. Rust is indeed another factor though... I wonder what this material's oxidation properties are.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    3. Re:Practicality of use...? by inputsprocket · · Score: 1

      fair point - most surgical autoclaves go at 220oC for 40 mins, although 140oC for 20 mins is sufficient to gurantee sterility.

      After consulting a converter, 220oC==428oF
      I take back the sterility issue.

    4. Re:Practicality of use...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see them made from Ti-6Al-4V, which is the standard medical grade titanium alloy. It's stronger and harder than pure Titanium. It's also a bitch to machine, even compared to pure Ti, which isn't great.

    5. Re:Practicality of use...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of surgical instruments are made from platinum. The corrosive effective of human body fluids makes it necessary to have somethign that will resist a lot of damaging things.

    6. Re:Practicality of use...? by KILNA · · Score: 2

      Bah, no worries, we were equally incorrect... you get the score for actually looking it up. :)

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    7. Re:Practicality of use...? by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      The reason you don't see scalpels being made from titanium is because scalpels need to be _sharp_, and titanium can't hold an edge.
      Titanium as a good metal for blades of any kind is a strange misconception fostered by comics and hollywood movies. Titanium may be "twice as strong as steel" per unit of wheight, but not per unit of _volume_, since it does not have half the density of steel, meaning that a blade of the same size and shape made of titanium will be considerably weaker if its made of titanium rather than steel.
      Add to this the fact that titanium cannot be heat-treated like steel, and hence there is no way to give the edge the higher hardness it needs.
      In short words, in general titanium sucks as a material for blades, although there may be specific situations, like diving knives, where its strengths (light wheight, "stainless") may matter more than its weaknesses.

  37. Re:Atlas Shrugged QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, she might have been brilliant, but her novels are almost entirely unreadable. I dare anyone to read through the entire single-paragraph 30-page rant when Roarke did his radio speech.

  38. Discovery source by naoursla · · Score: 2, Funny

    Researchers reverse engineered the alloy from a mysterious robotic arm found in a manufacturing plant.

    1. Re:Discovery source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But by your standards, skynet would have already gone online in 1997 like they said in the movie.

    2. Re:Discovery source by Ziviyr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Researchers reverse engineered the alloy from a mysterious robotic arm found in a manufacturing plant.

      Also, in unrelated news. Bill Gates had a chip implanted in his head. On his way to surgery he was heard saying "I'll be back".

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:Discovery source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they don't want anybody to find out about them building large numbers of robots that can shoot guns.

  39. the down sides by Ubi_UK · · Score: 2

    because nobody ever reads the articles anyway:

    "Much like glass, Liquidmetal softens when heated -- the earliest alloy at about 750 degrees Fahrenheit. By comparison, steel becomes malleable at about 2,100 degrees.
    Cost also limits Liquidmetal. The raw materials run at $10 to $15 a pound, about as much as titanium, while aluminum costs about 50 cents a pound.

    The heat-resistance property might make it not such a good replacement for titanium in space industry.

    1. Re:the down sides by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Yes, still, it might be a replacement for aluminum in some aerospace usages. After all, aluminum loses temper at ~750 F too, and this alloy is supposed to be stronger below that- mind you they didn't quote its strength/weight ratio which is the most critical issue in aerospace; I'm assuming it isn't 3x heavier or something.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:the down sides by t · · Score: 1

      Ah but if it is stronger then they'll use less material. If they use less material, it may heat up quicker then Al under the same conditions.

  40. First uses... by DeepZenPill · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that baseball bats are seriously considered as a first use for the substance. You never even see titanium bats these days because of league regulations. Bats are expensive as it is.

  41. Hazardous? by jhines · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The alloy contains beryllium, a particularly toxic metal, requiring special handling.

    Does this make this alloy hazardous as well?

    1. Re:Hazardous? by Kredal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, just like salt (sodium and chlorine) will kill you if you breathe it, and water (hydrogen and oxygen) is highly flammable.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget those toxic fillings in teeth with mercury in them!

    3. Re:Hazardous? by Meerkat299 · · Score: 1

      Yes sodium and chlorine ions make up table salt, and hydrogen and oxygen ions make up water; but sodium metal and chlorine, oxygen, and hydrogen gases do not have the same properties as their ions do. Being ionic means they behave differently.

      Even when Beryllium (non-ionic) is in an alloy, it still has many of the same properties as pure Beryllium metal(also non-ionic). Hence, it still maybe toxic. However, the concentration of Berryllium in the alloy is probably so small that its toxicity will likely be negligible.

      This last part brings up a peave of mine: resent anti-smoking commercials in the USA. I am talking about all the ones where some guy is talking about all these chemicals in cigarettes are highly toxic--when highly concentrated. Most of these chemicals, when found in the concentration that are in cigarettes are not toxic! Although I support there purpose, I hate the misinformation they are using to do it.

    4. Re:Hazardous? by Seabass55 · · Score: 1

      I use beryllium tools at work around klystrons....am I gonna die soon?

    5. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all these chemicals in cigarettes are highly toxic--when highly concentrated. Most of these chemicals, when found in the concentration that are in cigarettes are not toxic!

      So you won't drink 1 mg of toxic material diluted in one glass of water, but you'll happily drink the same 1 mg of toxic material diluted in *three* glasses of water because your chart now says the concentration is below the toxicity threshold?

    6. Re:Hazardous? by Qwerpafw · · Score: 1
      heh. I'd like to see you breathe in cloud of salt and stay just fine :)

      If the salt didn't choke you outright, the dessication of your lungs would probably be not so good for your prolonged existence.

      And water? ever dropped sodium into it? Or ever run a big current through it, and lit a match?

      Okay, so the water part is cheating, as you'd be just re-separating it. And your point really is valid.

      Perhaps it would better to phrase it this way:
      Many substances are quite corrosive, explosive, or dangerous, due to inherent reactivity, stability, or other such atomic properties. However, making them into compounds often can bind them in a form which is much less harmful.
      Actually, now that I think of it, there is a flaw in your point. Alloys are usually mixtures, not compounds. Here is the difference:
      Water is a compound. You take hydrogen and oxygen, mix them together, and light a match. Boom. You get H2O. Many molecules of H2O replace many molecules of H and many molecules of O.

      Steel is an alloy. This, given that I remember correctly, is a mixture. You melt iron. You mix in stuff, like carbon and trace elements. You let it cool. No chemical change occurs.
      So it would seem that in an alloy, any inherently dangerous property of the original substances are retained.
    7. Re:Hazardous? by PacoTaco · · Score: 2

      Would you pour Clorox on your french fries?

    8. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... I mean really. The picture of the guy in the article has him standing by an armour piercing bullet. Think about it.

    9. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that table salt and water are not metallic alloys, but chemical compounds. try again!

    10. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad water is not an ionic compound.

    11. Re:Hazardous? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      You can dissassemble them into their component elements. It's real easy, you just need energy specifically that of the electrical persuasion. You can even do it in your garage if you like, I did when I was in highschool (not the smartest thing in the world to do).

      Get a large source of DC power, a car battery charger works nicely. Get two carbon rods, you can order them from chemistry supply houses, or just buy some dry cell battires (not alkalines) and rip them apart and get the rod form the centre. Take a container full of water and add a little sulfric acid (battrey acid). Drop the rods in the water and apply current. You'll see bubbles. One rod is producing hydrogen, one oxygen.

      A similar process is actually how we get pure sodium and chlorine as neither occuse in nature in any great quantity. Table salt (NaCl) is melted and electrolicized. Sodium comes off one end, chlorine gas off the other.

      Combine the two tricks to make more stuff. Take salt water and electrolocize that to get sodium hydroxide (NaOH, also know as Lye), or caprute the chlorine and stir it back in to get NaOCl (Bleach).

      Ions are just atoms that have an irregular number of electrons.

    12. Re:Hazardous? by Meerkat299 · · Score: 1

      If I need a drink of water, and that is the best that can be done. Yes. This is the same stuff that water treatment plants do for treating tap water. The EPA sets the acceptible levels of toxic chemicals in the water and the treatment plants do their best to keep their toxic concentrations below the maximums. You will find toxic chemicals in all sources of water: city water, well water, even most bottled water (albeit, typically at smaller amounts than the former two).

      So yes, I drink low concentrations of toxic stuff every day.

    13. Re:Hazardous? by jhines · · Score: 2

      For information on the health hazards, see http://www.dimensional.com/~mhj/#Top

    14. Re:Hazardous? by sapgau · · Score: 1

      Well some people claim of putting vinegar on their fries! ;-)

    15. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suspect its a problem if its eaten. ;P

    16. Re:Hazardous? by KFK+-+Wildcat · · Score: 1

      I sure hope that you know the difference between an alloy and a chemical compound. Refer to that grade school manual you have lying around somewhere...

    17. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because they can't get decent BBQ sauce

    18. Re:Hazardous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once I visited a celery stick packaging plant in Southern California. (The sticks were destined to go to Japan on a ship - quite amazing). Before putting the sticks into refrigeration units the sticks were trounced in ice cold Clorox water to kill of fungi, and yes I did saw the Clorox bottles ...

    19. Re:Hazardous? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      Of course, ketsup contains vinegar. So does salad dressing (Ranch, for example). So does BBQ sauce. All the popular french fry toppings contain vinegar.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  42. plasteel !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frank Herbert already invented that years ago. It's called plasteel.

  43. Sharpened like ... what? by Brainchild · · Score: 0, Troll
    can be cast in a mold like plastic, [...]

    Or like alumin[i]um? "Hey, now we can pour metal into a mold and cast it! This new technology is great!" Newsflash: Humans have been casting metal---in molds---for thousands of years.

    Oh, you mean it doesn't have to be machined after it's cast? Oh, well that's totally different ... that is something new.

    [...] and sharpened like glass.

    Hey, that's great! Glass is really easy to sharpen. So all you have to do is throw this metal on the ground and watch it shatter, right?

    What's that? Oh, you mean it can become as sharp as glass? Hey, that makes a lot more sense.

    Was Hemos smoking something before he posted?

    --

    :: "I am non-refutable." --Enik the Altrusian ::

    1. Re:Sharpened like ... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the write up wasn't perfectly accurate. Big fucking deal. That's why you should read the article, you fucking moron.

  44. Biosteel by Unreal+One · · Score: 1

    Dude, if it's armor you want, check out Biosteel. It's as thin as a t-shirt, yet stronger than kevlar. The best part is it's made from a genetic blend of a goat and a spider. Pretty damn sweet if you ask me...

    http://www.nexiabiotech.com/HTML/technology/bios te el.shtml

    1. Re:Biosteel by visualight · · Score: 2

      I thought the address you posted was a joke, but Google produces too many results so I guess it's true. However it does sound like the plot for a horror novel. Ever seen what spiders do to each other?

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    2. Re:Biosteel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ever seen what spiders do to each other?

      Have you ever seen what they can do to us??!? Watch the Science Fiction / Horror masterpiece "Kingdom of the Spiders" some time. It has William Shatner in it, so you know it's good SF.

    3. Re:Biosteel by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      It's not a joke, quite widely publicized. All it does is make the goats' udders produce silk proteins in their milk, it's not like they grow fangs and start spinning webs. The milk still has to be processed and the proteins spun, and the goats look and act exactly like regular ones.

    4. Re:Biosteel by CorporateProgrammerD · · Score: 1

      That's why they use goats. They tried spiders, but raising large quantities of spiders to harvest the silk was...somewhat difficult. The spiders kept eating each other, among other things.

      --
      To email, do the obvious.
  45. No properties by BobandMax · · Score: 1

    I noticed that no tensile or yield properties were listed for this material. When they refer to twice as strong as steel or titanium, that could mean tensile as low as ~30 ksi. Given the very low heat tolerance, this alloy has some interesting properties, but limited application. The desity could also be a limiting factor.

    By contrast, some of the nickel maraging alloys exceed 350 ksi tensile and will tolerate more than 2000 F.

    --

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
    -- Pablo Picasso
  46. sharpened like glass? by catbutt · · Score: 1

    That's a wierd way of saying that it can be molded to have an edge as sharp as glass. I don't think glass is normally sharpened per se.

    1. Re:sharpened like glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, but yesterday I cut my thumb badly while opening a cardboard box of Hostess Donuts. Cardboard can be nasty, and sharp as glass.

  47. The current uses present a low chance of Lawsuit.. by LordZardoz · · Score: 2

    As it is mentioned in the article, the first (Bats, Golf Clubs, Cell Phones) are uses that pose no real risks to anyone. As they say in the article, if they screw up a golf club, a customer gets a refund. If they screw up an airplane however, someone is dead, and the company will quite probably be held liable.

    Being sued for the failure of a critical airplane part is not going to enhance shareholder value.

    END COMMUNICATION

  48. Too brittle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the properties they did list, it seems that material would be brittle. Since they didn't mention how brittle it was in the article, (which reads like a sales brochure), I'm guessing that is a major shortcoming of the material.

    And saying they can cast scalpels already sharp seems a little far fetched. How thin is the edge of a scalpel, a couple molecules?

    This article reads like a company willing to say anything to get investors.

  49. Great... by xinit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now people will be able to sharpen their cellphones and use them as weapons directly, rather than having to use them as only part of the main weapon that is their SUV...

    --
    --- http://foo.ca
  50. Sharpened like glass by iamavirus · · Score: 1

    Methinks knife. Will this show up in security (airport metal detectors)?

    1. Re:Sharpened like glass by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      Likely so -- it's metal. Of course a real glass object such as a broken wine bottle woudn't. Hmmmmm.

    2. Re:Sharpened like glass by Kedyn's+Crow · · Score: 1

      Likely so -- it's metal.

      What does it's being a metal have to do with it? Metal detectors only detect iron and iron derived alloys like steel. According to the article "Liquidmetal" is composed of titanium, copper, nickel, zirconium and beryllium. There's nothing here to set off a metal detector.

      --
      "The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
  51. Re:I work as a materials scientist for an aerospac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what are the drawbacks ?
    got any values ?

  52. First plasteel troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent down!

  53. casting by s4m7 · · Score: 1

    "What happens with Liquidmetal, in essence, is that you can form parts sort of the way you form plastics,"

    Yeah except for a little (500 deg. Farenheit) difference in the temperatures required.

    Other than that, just about the same way.

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  54. Nothing really new by RomGrr · · Score: 1

    Liquidmetal introduced their first golf club back in 1998. You can now find it in the bargain bin at most golf shops. The club was mediocre, nothing really great. I dont see what the big fuss is about.

    1. Re:Nothing really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      That's probably what the PR is all about. They couldn't make money in golf clubs, so they're trying to find something else to do with their product.

  55. Battlebot anyone? by cprice · · Score: 1

    How long till some guy with unlimted funds builds a battlebot out of one of these...

  56. 2 in one day... by tapped_spine · · Score: 3, Funny

    Liquid metal and random walkers in one day... kinda like Terminator2? or maybe Cartman's trapper keeper...

  57. Liquid metal will not replace DU by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    I think they're full of crap about the shell. The reason that Depleted Uranium in tank shells, A-10 bullets, and Tank armor is not because it's particularly strong (it might be, but it's not terribly relevant).

    It's because it's the most dense material known to man. Shells made of DU have ridiculous amounts of kinetic energy, and armor made of DU have an unprecidented ability to stop it. Hence, stories like this happen. (link contains general information about the use of DU in M1A1 tanks)

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Liquid metal will not replace DU by kryptobiotic · · Score: 2, Informative
      DU is not the most dense material known to man. Osmium, for example, is a metal with a density of 22.6 g/cc versus 18.5 g/cc for DU.

      Although the density of DU makes it good for armor, I believe the reason it is often used for armor piercing shells is its self sharpening property. Unlike lead bullets that mushroom out on impact, DU cleaves off at a certain degree, thus retaining a tip as it travels through the armor. A sharp tip of course concentrates the force, easing pentration. This is illustrated in the same domain as your link

    2. Re:Liquid metal will not replace DU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your periodic table.

      Iridium is much denser. In fact, if I remember right, it's the densest.

      You might want to say, "Densest readily available material."

      Jason

    3. Re:Liquid metal will not replace DU by kryptobiotic · · Score: 1

      I know, bad form replying to myself but after reading all the posts in hear about DU being used because it is so dense, I just wanted to point out that there are a number of materials more dense than uranium. In the link above, A DU shell was compared to a tungsten shell for use as an armor piercer. Tungsten is a more dense material (19.35 g/cc for pure W) but does not perform nearly as well.

    4. Re:Liquid metal will not replace DU by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      There's also the fact that depleted uranium is also more readily available.

  58. Re:The current uses present a low chance of Lawsui by bsane · · Score: 1

    someone is dead, and the company will quite probably be held liable.

    No problem... They just need to get someone to click through a EULA before they order it from their website.

  59. Re:Sweeet by inputsprocket · · Score: 1

    I have to reply to this crap parent, as I can't post re: the article (how do I do that? missed many a 1st post from that :(

    I've searched around the caltech site on this, but found nothing. Without rooting back to the original papers, does anyone know how this alloy performs at low temp? Many light metals and alloys become brittle at ultra low temps, so maybe the achilles heel of this metal becoming maliable at high temps, could become its hercules by outperforming the others at ultra-low temps.

    Not thinking space crafts, but more in the line of super-conductors....

  60. So, try this idea out: by Fixer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A Foundry in every kitchen combined with this new metal which can be formed and cast at low tempratures.

    So, I can now make highly accurate metal parts in my home with zero machining or finishing stages.

    Combine that with a computer controlled mill to make the wax images for the ceramic molds, and I can now build anything that the properties of the metal will support.

    Technology kicks so much ass. And marketing-speak sucks donkey nuts.. what ARE the properties of this metal? How thick does it have to be to be used as a gun-barrel? Rigidity? mmm.. sigh.

    --
    "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
  61. Actually tested this stuff out by Alceste · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't going to replace structural metals any time soon. How do I know? I did dynamic planar compressive strain experiments and ABAQUS on this stuff and composites with this as the matrix for my senior thesis.

    Being a metallic glass, it has all sorts of crazy properites, as mentioned in the articles, but when it reaches the yeild strength it shatters (at least in non-composite form).

    Also, because it is a metallic glass, it is inherently a meta-stable solid.... metals usually have relatively simple crystal structures, and thusly crystalize quickly with relatively small undercooling. The clever trick with this stuff is that it's a mix of four or five metallic elements that have a large span of atomic radii (this stuff is Zr-Ni-Cu-Ti-Be, various weightings of each, usually the Ni=Cu=Ti). Anyhow, when it finally does crystallize, whether due to heat, fatigue or constant strain, it forms a pretty complex crystal structure (I don't recall which one offhand) that allows very little motion of dislocations. Thus, it's super brittle when in it's thermodynamically stable state. Moreover, even with this clever alloying, it still requires high cooling rates to avoid crystallization from the melt, and is thusly hard to cast into large ingots.

    Thus, whether it takes too hard an impact (can never be a tooling metal or knife, in pure form) or is under strain for too long (can never ever be a structural metal - too flaw sensitive in pure form and too expensive to process and machine in composite form) it will fail catastrophically.

    Basically, this means it's pretty useless for most applications metals are required for (due to lack of crystal structure it's also a poor heat conductor - sorry overclockers). And because it is opaque, it can't be used for traditional glass applications. Liquid Metal has been around for a while trying to push the golf clubs, for at least three years, more like four or five, so I'm not sure what the sudden attention is for. We ran a back of the evelope calculation in my research group: Say you're on the links, and you mis-strike the ball, and hit a large rock in the ground with a non-composite liquidmetal club... basically you'll shatter the face of the head (only the face is amorphous due to process/cost/strength issues), sending shrapnel flying into your ankle. Yum.

    Still, from a physics perspective, this stuff is really interesting due to its completely artificial nature (you'll never find anything close to this in nature) and odd mechanical properties (it's the metallic version of flubber). Commericially, in bulk form, I'd say they should shy away from structural applications and perhaps try transformers, where the thin film versions of amorphous metals have significant gains over silicon.

    1. Re:Actually tested this stuff out by gosand · · Score: 2
      Liquid Metal has been around for a while ...so I'm not sure what the sudden attention is for.

      Are you kidding man!?? All it takes is someone to program it to kill, and WHAM - we have a mess of T2000s on our hands.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  62. Russan's can use this by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

    for their planned mission to mars if the boys and girls at Caltech can get the heat issue straight. Although space is pretty cold they could use it for a Travel Space craft and use something else for Landing and Take-offs.

    --

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    1. Re:Russan's can use this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way we gonna use this for space. The aliens' heat weapons would cut right through it.

  63. Another use by WiggyWack · · Score: 2, Informative

    And don't forget Apple's gonna make their next laptop out of it!

    --
    Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
  64. So many questions... by BlueFall · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are so many questions being asked here about details... The company website has much more information than this article. Go to the source.

  65. Don't let Smith & Wesson get a hold of this by krisguy · · Score: 1

    Smith and Wesson has used Titanium and Scantium blends for revolvers for five or so years. If they got this, a .357 Magnum could be weighing next to nothing.

    --
    I'm a hamker. Hams, hackers, same ethos, different medium. == 73 de KB0STG
    1. Re:Don't let Smith & Wesson get a hold of this by Alceste · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's far too brittle to be a pistol material...
      as a Materials Scientist I flinch when it is said a material is stronger than another simply because strength can be measured in so many ways, and physical strength has components which are often inversely proportinal - e.g. toughness (ability to remain useful through fatigue and past the yeild strength) v.s. hardness.

      this is harder than most metals, and has a higher yield strength, but zero ductility and probably really poor fatigue properties. Imagine a glass pistol... *shivers*

    2. Re:Don't let Smith & Wesson get a hold of this by Kymermosst · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What about firearms that are made from ceramics? Ceramics have similar properties, and even some barrels have been made from ceramics (and are not easily detected in X-ray devices or metal detectors)

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Don't let Smith & Wesson get a hold of this by NiGHTSFTP · · Score: 1

      "It's super brittle when in it's thermodynamically stable state."

      And

      "Whether it takes too hard an impact [or] is under strain for too long... it will fail catastrophically."

      You can have your super-1337 handgun. I'd stick with a normal one... ya know, one that _wont_ blow up in your hand when you first fire it.

      --
      http://www.angryburrito.com/ The best, completely unfinished software review site ever.
    4. Re:Don't let Smith & Wesson get a hold of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ceramics can be toughened--zirconia is particulrly tough, though others can be porcessed to behave well. Toughening these materials is very, very difficult, and the techniques aren't well established. There may not be any. Hydrogen charging shows some promise, but the area is quite difficult. Thoughening is really, really difficult without being able to manipulate grain boundaries or dislocation motion.

  66. Mod parent down by qurob · · Score: 1

    Insightful?

    You ever see a Formula 1 car hit the wall at 200mph?

    The car literally disintegrates. What's left? The cage around the driver, who's still living. All that dissapation of energy helps. Hit that wall at 200mph in your non-crumpling 1962 Biscayne, and you and the dash will be one.

    1. Re:Mod parent down by ftobin · · Score: 2

      Just remember, this drivers rarely hit walls straight on; if they did, the driver would very likely die from his brain sloshing about in his skull, among other nasty things that happen at extremely high G's. Saying that they hit the walls at 200 mph is a little misleading, since the their velocity in the direction perpendicular to the wall is much less.

    2. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      True.

      If you're moving 200mph and you hit a wall at a 45 degree angle, the wall gets 45 of the energy..... and the rest gets reflected.. or something

    3. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, i've seen a formula 1 car hit a wall.

      What i haven't seen is one of those cages around the driver in anything other than a race car.

      So, until i can get a custom formed carbon fibre cockpit in a 2003 Dodge Neon i'll take stronger and more rigid over a crumple zone that ends in my chest cavity any day.

    4. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this would be true if F1 raced on ovals. They dont. So sometimes they do hit "the wall" straight on. This is why tyrewalls are used. To reduce the impact Gs for the driver.

    5. Re:Mod parent down by qurob · · Score: 1

      Okay...well hitting a wall at 200mph, and then spinning out at 180, 170, 150, 120 (you slow down QUICK) and hitting more walls/cars/flipping isn't fun

  67. And....? by jrwillis · · Score: 1

    Outside of the fact that the gun would absorb less energy and kick a lot more, why would a lighter .357 be a bad thing?

    --
    Keep Austin Weird!
    1. Re:And....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The metal needs to be very hard, remember your forcing a pice of lead and copper down a tube with rifiling that bites into the copper to cause spin. this meatal seems to be too flexible to be of any use. Lets not forget the very low melting temprature and howmutch pressure a .357 puts out. No, this metal is a bad idea for use in the chambers/cylander and the barrel. Although you could use some in the frame...

  68. duh by inputsprocket · · Score: 0, Troll

    i declare
    i am a blind dumbass
    --
    not related to the topic, but i am

    1. Re:duh by inputsprocket · · Score: 0

      How can I be a troll by taking the pish out of myself?
      I am a blinf dumbass since I just descovered how to reply to an article (re: my previous post)
      cheers for giving a newbie neg karma
      damn moderators - moderate with moderation will ya

  69. Actually.... by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 2, Informative

    The real reason is that not only is DU extremely dense, it is also pyrophoric. Get it hot enough (let's say by slamming it through the armor plating of a tank) and it'll combust in air. Nothing is worse inside a tank than to raise the temperature so high that the tank's ammo magazine (full of gun powder) spontaneously combusts. This is why the turret will pop off a tank hit by a fin-stabilized DU penetrator.... the unfired rounds explode in the intense heat, blowing the top right off the tank.

    --

    "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

  70. Commercial Use.... High End Apple Laptop Case by stixnpics · · Score: 1

    Commercial Use.... a High-End Apple Laptop Case "It just works... but some people like fixing code."

  71. No need for a dildo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were a male and had a girlfriend, I'd probably just use my penis!

    Oh damn, wait a minute, I am a male. Nevermind...

  72. Wolverine's Claws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said. ;-)

  73. MSNBC: Popunder ads and casino ads by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Wow, pop under ads and casino ads. Is MSNBC going out of business?

    And IBM and Unisys bought a pop under ad. What could they be thinking? Has their marketing department lost what little brainpower it had?

  74. Re:The current uses present a low chance of Lawsui by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

    Mod parent down, it's inane... this company is at no more risk than any other company that provides parts for aircraft etc. Anyways, contracts and lawyers manage to keep down liability when something does go wrong.

  75. FINALLY!! SOMEONE INVETED TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And to think I was wating for Mr. Scott to travel back in time to show us how to make this...

    http://digital-views.com/startrek/movies/04/

  76. Um... more info, please. by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " a new alloy that is stronger than steel and titanium"

    By mass or by volume? Stronger with reguards to tension, compression, or shear? Or some combination?

    Heck, I can think of a building material that is more easily molded than either of those two metals and is actually stronger in many ways. It's called concrete. Just don't try to put it under tension or shear...

    1. Re:Um... more info, please. by fuali · · Score: 1, Informative

      In the material world, Strength is related to what is also known a tensil strength. Which means how does it resisit against tension. Something concrete is terrible at. That is why they reinforce it with steel.

      Tool steel(usually precipated hardened) and titanium are some of the strongest (not hardest like concrete, diamonds, or carbide) material available. They take stress very well, and that is why they are used in machines for cutting and what not.

      Another strong material is Inkanel. Not as strong as titanium, but alot easier to machine.

  77. Powerbook for sale by fizzychicken · · Score: 1

    Brilliant. £2750 for a new powerbook and now it's as good as tin.

    --
    'Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.' - George Gordon
  78. From the article: by balthan · · Score: 1

    "For all its promise, Liquidmetal is still largely untried, which is why the company is concentrating on industries where there is a readiness to explore the new."

  79. If This Were Fark.com: by Phybersyk0 · · Score: 1

    Attention Trekkies: Mr. Scott's "Transparent Aluminum" A Reality. [cool]

  80. OT: Reply to sig by kwishot · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    America - a landmass often mistaken for a country

    According to whom?
    Someone from the United States, when abroad and asked where they're from, will reply "The United States"
    Someone from a country other than the United States (European and African countries most notably), when confirming someones nationality, will ask if they're "From America", referring to the United States.
    Don't even try to pull that crap, I've seen it enough to know.

    1. Re:OT: Reply to sig by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

      So why do you guys keep calling yourselves 'Americans'? Technically you are, but hey.. The United States can't be used as an adjective or an adverb, so you're screwed. Either pick a new name for your part of the American land mass and call it "Microsoft", or just shut up already. ;-)

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    2. Re:OT: Reply to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People from the United States of America can call themselves Americans with just as much justification as that given to people from Los Estados Unidos de Mexico [United States of Mexico] who refer to themselves as Mexicans.

    3. Re:OT: Reply to sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling myself American is synonymous with someone from England calling themselves British. If you want to get more technical, I'd call myself a Californian, while the person from England would call himself English.

  81. +1 Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll? The what are you moderators smoking and where can I get some?
    That was damn funny!

  82. Steel is an alloy by magic · · Score: 1

    Fe is the symbol for iron (Ferrium), which isn't particularly "strong" by itself. Steel is much stronger and is a mix of iron with other metals.

    Titanium (Ti) is a single-element metal, however.

    -m

    1. Re:Steel is an alloy by Knobby · · Score: 2

      Titanium (Ti) is a single-element metal, however.

      Alloying titanium with vanadium and aluminum will dramatically increase it's strength.

    2. Re:Steel is an alloy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fe is the symbol for iron (Ferrium), which isn't particularly "strong" by itself. Steel is much stronger and is a mix of iron with other metals.

      No, you are wrong. Iron and steel have almost identical 'strengths' (i.e. amount of force they can withstand before deformation). The reason that steel is more commonly used is because of its superior malleability and elasticity.

      In other words, hit a rod of iron with a sledgehammer and it will BREAK, whereas the steel will be more apt to bend under the strain a bit before it breaks.

      This is due to the greater freedom of awesome bond angles that the 4-electron valence shell of carbon will allow. Obviously, one example of this being a big advantage is that if your steel-framed building is hit by an earthquake or something, then your girders will bend a bit before they snap and bring the bulding down.

    3. Re:Steel is an alloy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, hit by an earthquake or "something". Just say 'hijacked 747' you terrorist. Fuck off.

  83. Car weight by nuggz · · Score: 2

    We could also make the car out of carbon fiber.

    Big downside to this is cost, and they already use the flakes or ribbons of "liquid metal" in composite materials.

  84. Re: Clorox on french fries? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2

    Would you pour Clorox on your french fries?

    I thought that's how they made poutine.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  85. Holy smokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An informed, intelligent, on-topic post. Who the hell let you in?

  86. cell case? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    "Liquidmetal Technologies' first product was golf club heads, because of another exotic property of the metal: it transfers more of the club's energy to the ball than steel or titanium, at least in theory.
    transfers energy well? as in kenetic energy?? the same kind a cell phone gains as it is dropped? and they want to make CELL PHONE CASES out of the stuff??

    what good is this for cell phone cases if it doesn't break when you drop it, but garuntees the death of the LC Display inside it???

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  87. Darn. by bobdole34 · · Score: 0

    That link is dead to me as I have
    msID.msn.com in my hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1.

    I think you should too. They have linked you to your passport, ebay, etc account.

    --
    "Failure of Windows operating systems is extremely rare. If it happens, it is usually due to operating system file c
  88. you and the rock by Lewis+Mettler,+Esq. · · Score: 1

    It is nice to think you want you vehicle or frame to bust right through the rock or brick wall you hit. But, it is not going to happen.

    If you want a "frame" tough enough to not "give and take" then you are as good as hitting the rock or brick wall with you birthday suit.

    You are dead.

    All you have done is changed the color hue of the object you have hit.

    --
    NexuSys - Linux support by the best
  89. Cool Man!! by seeleung · · Score: 1

    This will finally solve my problem of break all my cell phones like once a month habbit.. you know those crappy face plate causes a fortune if you chance it as frequenly as i do??

  90. But is it stronger than Spamium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously doubt it.

  91. Re:Atlas Shrugged QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I guess Neil Stephenson is in trouble, too, then.

  92. Re:The current uses present a low chance of Lawsui by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    Materials which are used in critical applications, surgical stainless steel for example, come with certs. If an instrument breaks off inside a patient due to flawed material, the company which provided the cert would be at least partially liable.

    And just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it inane.

  93. MSNBC: always had a pile of ads by Indy1 · · Score: 2

    on the bright side, my hosts file blocks virtually of it. Then, a hosts file with almost 15k entries should block damn near everything ad related. :) See www.smartin-designs.com/hosts_info.htm for more info

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  94. Tempers? Alloys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steel = Alloy, but comes from iron, Fe, if I remember right.

    Ti = Element.

    I've seen steel that's stronger than "titanium", and I've seen "titanium" that's stronger than steel. (I've seen "aluminum" stronger than instances of both.)

    Alloys, alloys, alloys. Notice the quotes? That's because rarely are pure forms of the elements used. Everything's alloyed. Once you get your alloy, total strength also depends on such things as temper.. (Soft, half hard, hard, spring?)

    If they can develop and release a new *cheap* alloy (steel's damnably cheap, aluminum already is, and titanium, while ridiculous compared to steel, isn't *that* expensive..), great. Don't expect to see steel and aluminum/ti alloys disappearing any time soon though. There'll never be one 'supermetal' used for everything. :)

    (As for piercing and bullets, erm, most damage of bullets is caused by a) tearing and b) the force of impact. Piercing? Might be nice for armor, but then, so are crossbows, and we don't see them used very often, eh?)

  95. Re:Atlas Shrugged QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would put the whole Captain Crunch thing in Cryptonomicon in the same class. That is actually painful to read. It just goes on and on and on AND FREAKING ON SHUT THE FUCK UP WE GET IT ALREADY

  96. Metglass by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Metallic glasses (trademark MetGlass) were invented over 30 years ago by AlliedSignal researchers and have been used for a wide range of industrial applications since. It is particularly important because of magnetic properties in transformers etc. I was with Allied when they first looked at the razor blade application - the razor companies didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole because the blades were so durable that you would only need one a year.

    BTW, the original patents have long ago expired so that anyone can work with metallic glasses.

    What this guy did was develop an alloy that could be cooled into parts of thicker cross section than was previously possible.

    1. Re:Metglass by CySurflex · · Score: 1
      the razor companies didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole because the blades were so durable that you would only need one a year.

      Speaking of which..
      I'm really sick of my Gillette razors becoming dull after 3 shaves! I tried the "VONS generic brand" ones and they seem to last MUCH longer, but then I get more cuts & nicks. Maybe this new metal is the answer? Any high-tech suggestions out there? (Maybe this should be posted as an "Ask Slashdot"...)

      -CySurflex

    2. Re:Metglass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it sounds like a perfect material for disposable cutter blade.

  97. Metal up your ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't make the poor eat the stuff; give 'em LiquidMetal enemas instead. They deserve it for being so fucking worthless that they can't get out of poverty.

  98. Bicycle Frame by Robert+Frazier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This would be great for bicycle frames, especially if it can be more easily handled than titanium.

    My hope is that it means that I can go really fast without losing weight. Because, as we all know, getting a really light bicycle means that one can be as fat as one likes and go fast.

    Best wishes, Bob
  99. Reardon Steel... by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    ... is what I'm waiting for.

    Don't ask questions, just go to your local library. Love this and then read this

    1. Re:Reardon Steel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffff.

  100. This is wonderfull and all, but... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Does it make pancakes?

  101. Ballistics say: don't worry [was: only time ..] by srussell · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually, probably not.

    Armor piercing is great for some applications. Most anti-personell weapons, however, don't want armor piercing. An armor piercing round from even a moderate velocity weapon will go all the way through a human, doing relatively minimal damage. If you want to cause damage, what you want are soft bullets that expand when they hit soft stuff. If they expand, they do more damage, and cavitation effects are worse. This is why hollow points exist. This is why bullets are made of lead, not steel. You're better off if you're hit with an armor piercing round.

    Nato 5.56mm rounds (M-16 rounds, .22 cal) are designed to tumble very early. They do a massive amount of damage for a small round, because they are designed to tumble very early upon hitting the body, split in two, and produce some massive cavitation. Despite this, the 5.56 doesn't kill as fast as the 7.62 used by the M1 Garand or the AK-47. This is on purpose. The US small arms tactic is to prefer wounding over killing. This isn't because of some noble humanitarian ideal; the military figured out that one wounded soldier takes three other soldiers out of combat just to take care of the 1 wounded person. Wounded people are much more expensive to take care of than dead people.

    In any case, all other things being equal, you'd be better off getting hit by a Liquid Metal bullet than most of the other options. You'd have a better chance of surviving, if you got to a hospital.

    1. Re:Ballistics say: don't worry [was: only time ..] by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      Wow, I did not know there were so many combat/ballistics experts on slashdot!!

      Clearly my original post about armour piercing technology and snipers and such came to wrong conclusions. Thank you for the in-depth information!!

    2. Re:Ballistics say: don't worry [was: only time ..] by Quixote · · Score: 2
      Wounded people are much more expensive to take care of than dead people.

      Not to mention the fact that a wounded person screaming away nearby is a big morale damper for his/her buddies.

    3. Re:Ballistics say: don't worry [was: only time ..] by clovis · · Score: 1

      Nato 5.56mm rounds (M-16 rounds, .22 cal) are designed to tumble very early. They do a massive amount of damage for a small round, because they are designed to tumble very early upon hitting the body, split in two, and produce some massive cavitation

      The 5.56 mm tumblin' bullet thing is a myth. The cavitation effect is not.
      All bullets tumble when passing through a human body. The rate of tumble depends on the shape of the bullet, its length, mass, velocity and so on. I can't remember the number for the 5.56, but the .308 does a half-turn in about 18 inches when passing through flesh and the 5.56 has a somewhat shorter distance being less massive and shorter. I believe it's about 12 inches for 1/2 turn but it's on the order of a body thickness. One thing for sure - There Is No Wildly Spinning Buzzsaw Effect.

      The military did test in the mid 1960's a 40 grain bullet in the M-16 that tumbled much more rapidly when passing through flesh. This round did cause more tissue destruction than the 55 grain bullet but only at short ranges. Being only 40 grains it lost velocity quickly and had very little energy at longer ranges (over 200 meters). It was dropped as testing showed the 55 grain bullet was more effective at stopping people at a variety of ranges. In 1984 the army went to a 70 grain bullet for much the same reason. Range is more important then the tumbling effect.
      As for cavitation, high velocity rounds make a splash as they pass through soft materials as anyone who has fired a rifle into mud knows. That is, a large (over 10 times the bullet diameter)temporary hole opens up inside the body, a cavity it is called, and this causes much more damage than the tumbling effect anyway. The cavity pulverises organs such as the liver or spleen, but isn't so bad on muscle tissue. Cavitation is almost entirely a function of velocity, and the 5.56 has a lot of that ~3,000 feet per second.
      It does make a big hole out the back sometimes, then again sometimes not.

      The extremely anti-military media of the '60's had a field day with the "tumbling bullet story" even though the short bullet wasn't in use nor was it even effective. The press still prints this stuff from time to time - journalists aren't known for double-checking facts except for "he said she said" kinds of things.

  102. The ultimate test by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Is it strong enough to handle the slash-dot effect?

  103. NATO SS109 by rjh · · Score: 2

    Read Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down for a good account of NATO SS109 ammunition (5.56mm semi-armor-piercing) used against human beings. At short ranges, such as the Rangers had in Mogadishu, the rounds punch very small, clean holes in targets--there were many incidents where an AK-wielding Somali had to be hit five or six times with SS109 before he was incapacitated, compared to the one-shot-anywhere-in-the-body that the Delta Force snipers enjoyed with their 7.62mm rifles.

  104. Field Expedient by rjh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the military, "field expedient" is slang for "ugly hack that works surprisingly well". That said... during WW1 and WW2, the German armed forces didn't have anywhere near enough heavy machineguns to take on tanks. So the infantry made field expedient antitank rifles by taking 8mm ammunition (a very powerful round--at the turn of the century some people used them to hunt elephants), removing the bullet and then reseating the bullet, reversed, so that the blunt face would strike first. It gave the bullet the same effect as a metal die-punch; it punched neat, clean holes in steel.

    Moral of the story: "pointiness" has never been a major issue with armor-piercing ammo. It's all about the sectional density.

  105. History of the Teflon Round by rjh · · Score: 2

    ... In the 70s, cops were beginning to discover that their service revolvers were generally pretty lousy pieces of kit. Most departments issued .38s, which are pretty anemic--many departments were still using .32 revolvers.

    Some cops were complaining that they had pretty much no penetration. This caused some problems--well, hey. The inventor can say it better than I can.

    Dr. Paul Kopsch, in a 1990 interview: "There were a couple gunfights, police versus criminal, here in Lorraine County[, Ohio]. The ordinary .38 Special service bullet would not get through the car door. And with any degree of obliquity, it bounced off the windshield. [Police] Lieutenant Turcus, Don Ward and I thought maybe we could design a bullet which would get through the car door, and get through the windshield and get the crook out of the car ..."

    Those three men--Kopsch, Turcus and Ward--invented an armor-piercing handgun cartridge, which they called the KTW (after their initials). The KTW was a bullet made of steel. When a normal lead bullet hits something, it'll deform and expend a lot of its energy as a result. Steel doesn't deform, and that lets it rip through cover easily.

    Unfortunately, the bullet was so hard that firing it would destroy the barrel of the gun. Lead is soft enough to not damage the barrel; firing steel bullets will ruin a barrel. So in order to protect the barrel from damage, the KTW bullet was then clad in a light Teflon coating.

    I've seen KTWs for sale at gun shows, but I think most of the KTWs on the market today are hoaxes. The KTW was never produced in large quantities and was only sold to military and law-enforcement arsenals--never to private citizens, nor was it ever sold directly to cops. The "KTWs" I've seen have been pretty shabby-looking things that the seller wanted $20 a round for, and promised that "of course it's real, don't you see the Teflon?"

  106. Wow, how useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Golf clubs? Skis? Cellphone covers?

    Well, I sure am glad this new wonder-alloy has such great potential to help out humanity.

    It's nice to see public funding at a public university being spent on R&D for private companies to make money off of.

    It's not fishy or anything. My my, no.

  107. Replacing Depleted Uranium Shells by 2g3-598hX · · Score: 1

    Depleted uranium shells are responsible for environmental damage and health problems for soldiers. Replacing uranium with Liquid Metal would be a very good use for it, and would justify he hype somewhat.

    I assume the reason why liquid metal would be a good replacement for depleted Uranium is that because it has no grains, it is particularly pyrophoric, i.e. will spontaneously burn when exposed to air.

    1. Re:Replacing Depleted Uranium Shells by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the density of this stuff is, but I doubt it's close to depleted uranium. That's why we use depleted uranium in tank/anti-armor shells, because it exerts a maximum amount of force on a minimal space (by the same token, this is why an arrow fired from a compound bow will pierce a kevlar vest but a 9mm round will not.) Depleted uranium is not used because it is hard, but because it is dense (i.e. it weighs a LOT) AND hard. Of course, this shit could be a lot denser than DU and I could be totally wrong. This is slashdot after all.

    2. Re:Replacing Depleted Uranium Shells by 2g3-598hX · · Score: 1

      Because this stuff isn't in grains, it would seem to be particular expansive, rather than dense (does anyone know a good antonym of "dense" other than expansive?). Perhaps it is explosively compressed before firing. But exactly why is it a good replacement for DU?

      You're right; the main reason they use DU is it's density. But the pyrophoric nature of it makes it
      particularly nasty when it pierces the armour of the tank, and also keeps it "sharp". A non-pyrophorical metal of comparable density, tungsten, quickly becomes blunt as it pierces the armour.

    3. Re:Replacing Depleted Uranium Shells by Alceste · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's dead on... my research was funded to do that.... think of this though... tungsten embedded in a matrix of this stuff, then you've got something (I can send you my thesis if you're interested)

    4. Re:Replacing Depleted Uranium Shells by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

      Since it is brittle wouldn't this fe-ti alloy just shatter when hitting a hard surface? It would be like using a ceramic bullet.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  108. Not to worry by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    Actually, given the fact that Liquidmetal does melt at 750 degrees F., I think Formula 1 teams are not interested for the reasons of fire safety and also because the high temperatures from the engine and brakes could seriously weaken the metal.

    This is why F1 cars use mostly carbon fiber composites for the body of the car; it offers very high strength and does not burn until at very high temperatures.

  109. It's Caltech, not CalTech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking cues from Orwell, Caltech changed its nickname about 15 years ago...

  110. Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alloys are generally invented, not discovered, LOL.

    Abdul

  111. You moderation people... by ohzero · · Score: 0, Troll

    take stuff too seriously. This is metal were talking about. In my head, I give myself 5 extra points for being so witty. If you could put it in your head, and then give me some of that head, then I would get 5 extra points in actuality. ThankUDriveThru.

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
  112. DU, Tungsten, et al by olman · · Score: 2

    As far as I know, DU is superior to tungsten in AP rounds because it "shaves" off into a sharp(er) point when it starts to shatter. Tungsten will blunt and form a "mushroom".

    So, high mass is great, pyrophoric quality is something of an overkil.. The fact that the shell point will stay sharp while it's penetrating the armor is really why it's such a good material for ammo.

    I wonder how well would this metallic glass do in this application. The round heats up like crazy when it hits the target.. What's to keep it from behaving like a ice cream cone in a hot day?

  113. New Technology and it's Uses. by Catmeat · · Score: 1
    You know, 30 years ago, if a sexy new alloy came along, people would be going on about the fantastic new uses it would have in the space program, deep sea exploration, more efficient aircraft engines or whatever. Today the fantastic new uses for this stuff are golf clubs and cell phone cases.

    Am I the only person who finds this a bit depressing?

  114. T1000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that it can't form complex machinery, but it can form stabbing weapons. This has all been foretold.

  115. beryllium is toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, just what we need. Another highly toxic metal to pump out into the environment. So, I guess they will be collecting golf clubs at the hazarderous waste collection centers pretty soon.

  116. Mithril! by jaakko · · Score: 1

    Mithril! All folk desired it. It could be beaten like copper, and polished like glass; and the Dwarves could make of it a metal, light and yet harder than tempered steel. Its beauty was like to that of common silver, but the beauty of mithril did not tarnish or grow dim.

    The Fellowship of the Ring, by J.R.R. Tolkien

    1. Re:Mithril! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. You should send them the name suggestion. Probably wouldn't get anything from it, but think of the geek factor... how much would you be willing to drop on mithril jewelry, or to be able to say to folks, "Hand me my cell phone, will you? It's the mithril one."

  117. As sharp as glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you that have read Snow Crash, it seems that this new alloy would make quite the handy pocket knife.

  118. For the record... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
    From a specialist viewpoint: I spent 12 years working as a blacksmith (how many slashdotters are blacksmiths, I wonder?), and I know a fair bit about iron and steel.

    Steels are designed for very specialised purposes. Cr-Mo steels typically make quite good kitchen knives but are lousy where shock/abrasion/heat resistance are required. In fact, there are several steel manufacturers who catalogue their products on varying scales of combinations of hardness, shock/heat/abrasion resistance by the addition of chromium, vanadium, manganese, phosphorus and/or a host of other elements and compounds.

    1. Re:For the record... by Niac · · Score: 1

      (how many slashdotters are blacksmiths, I wonder?)

      I am. :)

      --
      http://gabrielcain.com/
  119. I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys everywhere smashing their cell phones against tables or street lamps whenever they're about to get into a drunken fight with someone else. LOL.

  120. Is Hemos looking for a man? by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


    He says in the byline "stronger then any man" so I guess he wants a stronger man if he can get him but if not then he'll take any man.

    Before you roll out your "Spelling Nazi" replies, this isn't a spelling error. Taco and Hemos always use the word "then" when they mean "than" so it's a grammar error. Hell, everybody makes spelling errors. This is something different. It shows that slashdot is helmed by semiliterate authors who spew crap left and right. I wonder if timothy can stage a coup? I'll back him.

    --
    - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  121. Uses for it? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

    "The first plans for the new alloy are to be used in golf clubs, baseball bats, skis, and cell phone covers."

    Are these the best uses they could think of? What are people doing with their cell phones that require a super-alloy anyway? Reentering the earth's atmosphere while making a call?

    If you feel the need for super-alloy bat/club/skis maybe you should spend the money on lessons instead.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  122. But then... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    She was found to have committed accounting fraud on the company's quarterly revenue report and is now in jail sharing a cell with a woman from Worldcomm.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  123. Handgun barrels are also rifled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rifling is simply a set of grooves cut into the barrel which cause the bullet to rotate axially as it is expelled, thus increasing stability and accuracy.
    Shotguns, mortars and cannons are not rifled, however.

  124. Also known as metallic glass by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    "Liquidmetal" is just a trade name. The stuff is a disordered solid that can be compared to a glass (in structure - not transparency) or a "supercooled liquid". I've seen thin pieces of an iron based alloy of this type, and it has better yeild strength, better corrosion resistance, and better magnetic properties than a polycrystalline material with the same composition. The trick has been to produce an alloy of this type cheaply and in large thicknesses and still have decent strength etc. Various methods have been tried over the last couple of decades (it dates back to well before 1992 - I had a strip of an iron based alloy of this type produced by "Allied" some time around 1990, cheap enough to be handed as free samples to students) like pouring onto water-cooled copper disks to make thin sheets, then laminating the sheets together or forcing peices together with explosives. This advance involves changing the material so a much lower cooling rate is needed, so you can make bigger pieces more easily. This is very important, since once you get this stuff hot and let it cool too slowly it becomes a very ordinary material.

    Just like diamond, however, if you get it hot you lose all of the wonderful properties. The same holds for the aluminium alloys that are used in aircraft, and that hasn't been a problem for nearly a century.