Slashdot Mirror


Amorphous Steel

pfdietz writes "Researchers at Oak Ridge have achieved a holy grail of materials science: they have figured out how to produce amorphous (glassy) steel. The material is reported to be twice as hard and have twice the tensile strength of the strongest ultra-high tensile strength steel alloy."

110 comments

  1. Transparent steel-w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    Somebody make a theme for Linux with it before Apple patents it and starts sending DMCA threats!!!

    Posting anonymously to protect my karma from Apple zealots.

  2. Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by jbarr · · Score: 1

    ...when they build themselves with this stuff?!?

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll just get the cast from Star Trek (TOS) to act stupidly illogical to confuse and overload the robots.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who needs the cast from Star Trek (TOS) to act stupidly illogical when you've got slashdot?

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    3. Re:Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Or fight them off with the mom from Seventh Heaven and a humpback whale. Take that evil robot (attack with low frequency humming noise)!!

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    4. Re:Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by TwP · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm too busy calculating the last digit of pi to post a relevant response.

    5. Re:Great. Now how will we fight the Robots... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      tuning forks.

  3. First post! by Uplore · · Score: 0

    Now all they need to do is figure out how to produce commercial amounts at a reasonable cost. However it is the same with all new materials due to the cost of reasearch in these areas.

    --
    I couldn't think of a sig.
    1. Re:First post! by Uplore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well it was first when i was typing :(

      --
      I couldn't think of a sig.
    2. Re:First post! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Instead of ninth posting, you might want to read.

      "The researchers have produced centimeter-sized pieces of the amorphous steel, and they feel that structural steel in bulk metallic glass form can be produced economically with traditional drop-casting methods, in which metallic glasses are made by pouring the hot liquid into a cold copper mold."

  4. How Long Will It Be ... by tilleyrw · · Score: 3, Funny

    before the nanotechnologists are able to reproduce this material an the atomic scale and essentially "grow" amorphous-steel items?

    I want my +5 Broadsword of Nerdly Might!

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  5. One step away... by mshiltonj · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that amorphous steel is a reality, we are only one step away from transparent aluminum.

    1. Re:One step away... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Whew! I read that as transparent tin.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  6. Somebody explain this to me? by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the linked article: Steel, an alloy of mostly iron atoms with varying amounts of carbon and other elements, is ordinarily a crystal, with an internal structure consisting of neat rows of atoms. If produced quickly from a liquid phase, however, a disordered solid can result.

    Ok, somebody who understands materials science explain this to me, please: is the amorphous steel's hardness and strength greater because the non-amorphous, crystalline steel breaks easily along a row of atoms, as if along a perforation, while the amorphous steel, lacking such an orderly structure, lacks long runs of bonds along which breaks can be easily made?

    Pictorially, is it like this?
    Fe-Fe-Fe-Fe regular, non-amorphous steel
    |..|..|..| <--- break along this line
    Fe-Fe-Fe-Fe

    Fe-..-Fe-.-Fe amorphous steel
    |.\-Fe-Fe/.| <--- no natural breaking line
    Fe-Fe-Fe..-Fe
    1. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by iwadasn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That should be more or less correct. If it's like other amorphous things though it should be harder, right up until you reach the point of catastrophic failure where it will shatter.

    2. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by mprinkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      In any crystal, there are potential imperfection. The MatSci term for them is dislocations. These are holes in the crystal lattice. These holes can move around (think of piles of marbles). In single crystals, these dislocations lead to stress risers at the hole (try tearing a sheet of paper by just pulling at opposite ends...then tear a small notch in the middle of one edge and try again). So these dislocations can move around and basically "unzip" the whole crystal. The failure mode leads to "cleaving" planes along different directions in the crystal and makes the bulk strength much lower.

      High strength alloys generally try to put extra chemicals in the metal mixture to block the movements of the dislocations. Also, you tend to "quench" the formed metal so that the crystals that it forms (called "grains") are small. Smaller grains usually means stronger metals because they can only "unzip" a short distance before they hit a different grain with a different orientation.

      These guys at ORNL have basically taken the tiny grain idea to the ultimate limit. Each grain basically only has one or a few atoms in it. FYI, IAA Mech. Engineeer.

    3. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by furry_marmot · · Score: 5, Interesting
      There was an article in Discover magazine just a couple of months ago about this very thing. Not sure if it's online, but you can definitely find it at your local library.

      One thing worth noting: While the tensile strength is increased greatly, it is also glass-like in that if you hit it with a baseball bat, it explodes in lots of little shards. It has to do with the lack of a lattice structure keeping it together.

      Another thing I thought was interesting: steel knives sort of shed molecules and become deformed at the knife-edge when you use them, requiring you to sharpen them. Glassy steel knives wouldn't do this. You could literally pour yourself a knife in a mold and have a never-dulling knife -- assuming you don't drop it. :-)

    4. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was about to say this new steel would make a huge advance in bicycle frames --- but never mind that now :-)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    5. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      There is no problem with bicycle frames that carbon fiber can't fix. You might have to cover it in something to protect it from sudden, sharp shocks, like a closed-cell foam, and then skin that with something for appearance purposes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
      Glassy steel knives wouldn't do this. You could literally pour yourself a knife in a mold and have a never-dulling knife -- assuming you don't drop it. :-)

      My dad has owned a ceramic kitchen knife for about 18 years now. It took a long time, but it's definitely not as sharp now as it was when he got it (in fact it's more like a ceramic letter opener at this point).

      I imagine a glass steel knife would perform similarly, but IANA mechanical engineer.

    8. Re:Somebody explain this to me? by furry_marmot · · Score: 1

      I hadn't made the connection to ceramic knives earlier, but now I do seem to remember rather mixed reviews on ceramic knives. Really sharp and stay that way for a long time, but also really expensive to sharpen, and you have to send them somewhere to get it done. I also hear that, while they're not fragile, they are more brittle than metal and can be broken. I've been curious to try one, but they're also expensive and we don't have any shortage of knives around here.

  7. Some metals they might find next (?) by xmas2003 · · Score: 5, Informative
    From this page (mirrored here so they don't get /'ed) ... no mention of Unobtainium! ;-)

    BTW, if you can't get a gmail invite from the poster above, they are giving one away periodically from the bottom of this Google Compute page.

    There are several special metals in the Marvel universe that can have a place in the World of Darkness. These metals are usually very hard; much harder than mere steel, and they are not very ablative. They are also very rare, in general. One or two of them have special properties.

    Adamantium

    Adamantium is the hardest metal known to man, though it has not been made clear how dense it is. One would suspect that its density is roughly the same as that of normal steel, though a Storyteller can rule that it is as heavy as lead or as light as magnesium. At any rate, it would appear that no force on earth is sufficient to break or bend adamantium when it is at a normal temperature. Wolverine has used his adamantium-coated claws in Arctic climes as well as steamy jungles, so there is no reason to suppose that the metal becomes brittle at low temperatures. Judging from the number of times Wolverine's flesh has been roasted or vaporized right off of his skeleton in the comics, with no visible effect on the metal, we must assume that adamantium has a relatively high melting point. In any case, to be nice to Logan, it also seems likely that it has a fairly high specific heat capacity, at least for a metal. It may or may not be one of the magnetic metals- as seen in X-Men 25- because Magneto has enough raw power to reach down and repel protons in the raw, if he wants to.

    There is a special process that allows adamantium in ionic (salt) form to be bonded to human bones- as in Wolverine's skeleton- or even human skin- as in Cyber's case. This process was developed by a Japanese scientist and villain called Dark Wind, and stolen (or sold) for the benefit of Department H, a branch of the Canadian Ministry of Defense. The following characters have some sort of connection to the metal, or are actually running around wearing it: Wolverine, Cyber, Dark Wind, Apocalypse, the Professor (not Xavier), Ultron, Lady Deathstrike.

    Carbonadium

    Carbonadium is a resilient, unstable metal that is much tougher than steel but more flexible than adamantium. It would seem as though it is a difficult and extremely expensive process to make carbonadium, which is probably an alloy of some kind, since there is apparently only one carbonadium synthesizer in the entire world. Carbonadium, like its more resilient counterpart adamantium, would appear to have a high specific heat capacity and melting point.

    Carbonadium may or may not have one unique property: it may serve to stabilize a life-force vampire's condition, which would keep the mutant from having to drain the life force of others to survive. This may be a simple fact of Omega Red's condition, rather than something general to life-force vampirism.

    Omega Red's tentacles are composed of carbonadium, and it is possible that his skeleton is also laced with the stuff. Other characters with a link to carbonadium include Wolverine, Sabretooth, Maverick, and John Wraith.

    Omnium

    Omnium is an extremely hard, extremely rigid metal that is likely to be second in resilience only to adamantium. In any case, it would seem that it is even less likely to bend without snapping than that metal. Omnium is not a commonly used or mentioned metal, but it has appeared on rare occasion in Marvel comics.

    There was an acolyte of Magneto that had the power to change either himself or another person into an aware omnium statue. Other characters that have been seen using or testing the metal include Penance and the White

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by blankmange · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot terbinium, from Mars, which is mined using essentially slave labor and the resistance leader (Kuato) was murdered several years ago...

      --
      ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
    2. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      Here's a metal you might find particularly useful, xmas2003:

      Lithium carbonate

      Remember what the nice doctor said? "Comics are not reality." You don't want to have to go back to the hospital, do you?

      Say it to yourself a few times: "Comics are not reality. Comics are not reality." That's a good boy, we're all friends here, no one's going to hurt you. Just put the comic down and lets go for a walk outside in the fresh air, OK?

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by txmadman · · Score: 1

      That's all fine for now. But in a couple hundred years, Mr. Spock will tell the Enterprise crew that Castrodinium is "the hardest metal known to our science". Unfortunately, the Romulan plasma weapon renders it unstable, which allows a Warbird to wipe out several defense outposts along the Federation-Romulan neutral zone. The good news is that Constitution-class photon torpedoes can take out a Warbird without too much fuss.

    4. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please allow me contribute some missing entries, frequently found in tabletop arenas:

      Unobtainium

      Unobtainium is the preferred material of fantasy weaponsmiths for creating arms and armor capable of great feats otherwise impossible by any other means or craft. Many a spell is also said to be enhanced just by the mere possession of the substance. In the far-flung future, it is used in every sector of industry from composing and fueling spacecraft, anti-gravity devices, matter-teleportation machines, polymorphing robots, slashdot-effect-proof web servers, faster-than-lightspeed engines, time travel, to making the construction of 100m tall walking war machines possible.

      There is even a rumor that a crash-proof version of Windows exists that requires a special CPU made of pure unobtainium.

      Despite its extreme usefulness, there is no known location in the universe where the substance can be mined or produced. Furthermore, there have yet to be any published studies regarding anything about the substance itself; yet there are thousands of studies and papers regarding its many applications.

      Deaminite (n. dee-em'-in-ite)

      Deaminite is typically found in the construction of mundane objects that are, for reasons unexplained, immobile, impossibly heavy, or otherwise indestructible. There are many a legend involving bands of heroes, who's quest came to halt all because of unlockable and unbreakable doors composed of deaminite. Known artifacts composed of deaminite include: the impossibly heavy weapons of the gods, armor worn by 40th level death knights, Jackie Chan's head, The outer hull of the starship Enterprise, and NYC cockroaches.

      Typically encounters with an object made from deaminite result in a loud booming voice, seemingly from nowhere, uttering phrases like "You cannot pick that up", "You cannot do that", "Its too heavy", "No, because I said so", and "You see a grue".

      Ironically, unlike unobtaininum, Deaminite has never actually be obtained for any purpose whatsoever, so its composition and properties are completely unkown.

    5. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comic books?

      To get more serious, you left out naquada, a large ring of which (well, a compound of which) was discovered in an Egyptian archeaological did in the 1920s, although its unique properties (largely involving energy production) were not discovered until much later.

      Then there's naquada's less stable (and more energy dense) cousin, naquadria.

    6. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Vibranium

      Vibranium is a special metal with unique properties. When electrical current is passed through it, it begins vibrating erratically.

      Characters seen using or "testing" (for periods of several hours) vibranium include Sybia and Eccentrica Gallumbits.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by xmas2003 · · Score: 1

      There is no hope for me "The Fun Guy" ... heck, I even have a Nigritude Ultramarine Hulk ;-)

      --
      Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    8. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day, surgeons may be able to implant a sense of humor in poor victims such as this one.

    9. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In SG-1 there's also...

      Trinium: An incredibly strong and lightweight alloy. Trinium is rather rare and not found on Earth, though the S.G.C. has secured its own off-world trinium mine. Unrefined, it is extremely brittle, and unsuitable for manufacturing purposes. When refined, however, the metal is approximately 100 times lighter and stronger than steel.

    10. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unobtainium is a real substance, its name having been coined by the great race car engineer and driver Mark Donohue.

      In his book "The Unfair Advantage" he mentioned parts he and Roger Penske got from Chevrolet that were unavailable to their competitors, hence the term.

      This was back in the 60's.

    11. Re:Some metals they might find next (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "unobtainium" actually goes back many years, and was often used to refer to the substances spare parts from which British motorcycles were made.

  8. Further reading... by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article was a little thin, so I mosied on down to Wikipedia. I always get confused when I hear glassy, but it appears to be related to the material structure, not any transparency/translucency of the material.

    Apparently amorphous metals are considered by some scientists to be a type of liquid rather than a solid. Kind of like glass, if you look at an old house you can see that the windows have slowly flowed downward.

    --

    Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    1. Re:Further reading... by Coos · · Score: 5, Informative
      Apparently amorphous metals are considered by some scientists to be a type of liquid rather than a solid. Kind of like glass, if you look at an old house you can see that the windows have slowly flowed downward.

      Urban Legend, or at least most of the way to being one. The observed thickness variation is due to the Crown glass process of making glass sheets in that period: it involved spinning out a 5ft diameter disc of glass, thick in the centre and thin at the edges, and cutting the rectangles from that. There are apparently as many panes thicker at the top or the sides as at the bottom, although possibly some glaziers did have a preference for putting 'thick edge down'.

      If glass did flow, extremely ancient (Myr) naturally occuring glasses like obsidian, fulgurites or tektites would have flowed into puddles! (they havent). Or if that doesnt convince you: the tolerances on the optical components of large telescopes are so fine that flow of the glass at the claimed rates would distort the image within days.

      See, for example, "Do Cathedral Glasses Flow?", Am. J. Phys. v66, pp 392-396, May, 1998

      NB. Glass can creep under loading, however - but thats for another thread.

    2. Re:Further reading... by Jahf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Glass flowing is a myth.

      Old glass manufacturing technics were VERY imprecise. You might end up with a pane that had a thicker edge, in which case you would naturally put it on the bottom for balance.

      Or you might end up with fairly uniform edges but have an irregular surface that looked like it was "flowing" but was static. I have picture windows in my house that are about 70 years old that have this "flow" pattern and have had people remark that the liquid must be pooling ... it's simply irregular hand-made glass.

      Even if glass -does- flow (see the "a" link at the beginning), math shows it would take millions of years to complete the process, meaning no glass made by man would yet show visible signs of deterioration.

      And you're right, "glassy" in this case is about the physical structure of the metal, not the light transmitting/absorbing aspects though those are probably mildly affected (I imagine a glassy steel will hold a shiny polish better than a crystal steel).

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    3. Re:Further reading... by megan_of_wutai · · Score: 1

      My god teachers are shit, or at least mine were.

      We were taught this "fact" in, I think, the first year of secondary school by our science teacher.

      Horrible.

    4. Re:Further reading... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article was a little thin, so I mosied on down to Wikipedia.

      You can also find an abstract and a PDF of the whole article on the physical review letters site (a few links in from the article Slashdot linked).

      These are letters, so they haven't been through rigorous peer review, but the authors take great pains to cite related work and describe their experiment in excruciating detail, so their results are almost certainly perfectly valid.

      Capsule summary: Adding about 1.5% ytterbium to steel alloys makes it *far* easier to get amorphous phases of them, which is normally a royal PITA for metals (you tend to get very fine grains instead). This has been shown before, but they map out a range of alloy compositions and show where alloys with good properties lie within that range, and do a large number of tests to a) prove that they really have produced amorphous steel and b) measure the materials properties of the steel they've produced.

    5. Re:Further reading... by Repran · · Score: 1

      Glas is not liquid - pitch is...

      --

      -- Contradictions only exist in thought - not in reality.

    6. Re:Further reading... by Mad+Alchemist · · Score: 1
      I always get confused when I hear glassy, but it appears to be related to the material structure, not any transparency/translucency of the material.

      Right. "Glassy" is just another word for "amorphous"; that is, noncrystalline. Glassy materials are solids, but they aren't arranged in any sort of pattern. In crystalline materials, the atoms are all lined up nicely in a repeating pattern. In an amorphous, or glassy, material, the atoms are arranged randomly. Window glass is simply amorphous silicon dioxide; crystalline silicon dioxide is quartz (or opal, jasper, or a few other semi-precious stones). Whether a material is crystalline or glassy doesn't have any effect on its transparency (or lack thereof), like you said.

      A good way to get your hands on a piece of amorphous metal is to find one of those little white plastic anti-theft thingies they stick in CDs and some books. (Hopefully they haven't changed them in the past few years since I last did this.) Cut it open on one end and pull out the two little pieces of metal inside. One is regular old crystalline metal, and the other is amorphous metal. The amorphous metal can be bent and played with, and won't deform unless you pretty much fold and crease it like a piece of paper. Neat stuff.

    7. Re:Further reading... by EaterOfDog · · Score: 0

      If glass is so hard to get perfectly flat how do they make these perfect panes of glass? They pour the molten glass onto a bath of molten tin, the glass floats on the surface and cools. The glass is therefore as flat as the curvature of the earth. Neat idea.

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    8. Re:Further reading... by Wardish · · Score: 1

      Actually glass is a liquid, and yes it does flow. But the time scale is rather long.

      To see the effect in window glass would take many many thousands of years. Not sure about obsidian or what the flow rate would be.

      And yes as you mentioned, the apparent flowing of old glass is for 2 reasons. As you stated it's due to the production method, also the myth has been encouraged by the glass being normally installed with the thicker side down.

      Ward

      --
      Ward

      . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
  9. Two words... by berck · · Score: 5, Funny

    TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM!

    "Hello? computer?"

    "Just use the keyboard!"

    1. Re:Two words... by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh! How quaint! [cracks knuckles]

      --
      assert(birth_date<time-86400)
    2. Re:Two words... by varuul · · Score: 1

      Hey I saw that at the movies... when it first came out! oh yeah, where is my red shirt?

    3. Re:Two words... by dickeya · · Score: 0

      I knew this post would be on here somewhere, it just took me awhile to find it. It's good to know that we've made progress on the ellusive process of flying whales into outspace..........

    4. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then once he used the keyboard, he typed fast enough to write a BS college paper, but apparently accurate enough to use some sort of molecular modeling software, which he happened to find...

      Yeah, I can code in Python and type 70 words per minute, so, put me in front of an Eniac, and I will ROCK! I'll run around, running cable, replacing tubes and get that thing running SETI@HOME in no time!

      feh.

  10. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you work that out on your own Mac user?

    I think I may have to upgrade your classification to "Mostly Harmless".

  11. cool video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.liquidmetal.com/news/dsp.multimedia.asp

  12. Navy by corporate+trinket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This could be good news to the Navy, especially in application to submarines. Using this metal they should be able to achieve the same hull strength with less material. That leaves more room to stuff electronics on the inside. This may also help subs go deeper/stay there longer.

    1. Re:Navy by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Maybe but maybe not. You would still have to weld the stuff. It would next to impossible to cast a hull for a sub. I could be wrong but this stuff seems like it would be hard to weld.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Navy by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
      You would still have to weld the stuff. It would next to impossible to cast a hull for a sub.
      Grind, plasma-cut or EDM-machine notches in the edges for finger joints and glue them together (brazing will work just as well if you won't get crystallization). Another method would be to plasma-spray more of the same alloy into the cold joint and roll smooth between applications; this way the joint would be composed of the same glass as the bulk plate.

      If the bulk material has low shatter resistance it might not be a good choice for hulls required to resist impacts, depth charges and other insults.

    3. Re:Navy by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That might work. What about for overhaul? What if you need to replace a steam turbine or such.
      Glueing seems kind of scary. Overall not likley to happen. The Navy is having a hard time getting any new subs much less one with a new tech hull. Since the fall of the USSR subs have a low priority. Heck the have even retired the S-3. Still a nice idea though. How about a carbon fiber hull :)

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Navy by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
      For overhaul, you could melt a thermoplastic glue or just cut through a plasma-welded hull. To close up afterwards you'd just reverse the process. I expect that a plasma-welding process would be quite a bit slower than conventional welding and would therefore be more expensive.
      The Navy is having a hard time getting any new subs much less one with a new tech hull. Since the fall of the USSR subs have a low priority.
      Indeed. Without an enemy armed with ICBMs, SLBMs or a serious navy, submarines don't have many jobs left. A sensible nation would direct resources where they can do more good, and that's what appears to have been done.
    5. Re:Navy by Kirruth · · Score: 1
      I wonder whether it might also find an application in armored vehicles. To drop out of the back of a C130, a vehicle has to be 17 or 18 metric tonnes, whereas a typical main battle tank presently weighs in at 60 tonnes.

      Uber-steel would make a significant contribution to lightening the load. That way our brave boys can drop out of planes to bring death, er, liberty to the evil-doers - and also avoid getting fragged by said evil-doers' RPG-7s.

      --
      "Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
    6. Re:Navy by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if we stop building subs we could loss our ability to build them. Just as we can not make a saturn five anymore. The cost to recreate the industral base to build a nuclear sub could be much greater than to keep building subs at a low prodution rate. The problem is if you are building low numbers the cost per sub is going to very high. If that is what happens then it might make sense to build highly inovative subs since going cheap will not save much money.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Navy by gotih · · Score: 1

      is there really a need for military submarines now that we're friends with russia? it seems that submarines main purpose was to be a stealth attack platform. with long range missiles on ships and bases on every continent submarines are an expensive to maintain cold war era toy.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    8. Re:Navy by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      As long as nuclear missiles exist that are capable of being used against us, the SLBM is the *BEST* offensive/defense we have to deter the enemy. You can find our land based silo's pretty quick, and with planning, put enough land based terror-bombs nearby to render them ineffective. Same with our aircraft based weapons.

      You will *NEVER* find all 15 of our submarines.

  13. Glassy Metal article in Discover by StarWynd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Discover Magazine ran an interesting article on glassy metals back in their April issue, but to see the full article on-line you have to be a subscriber. However, if you can find someone who has a copy, it's a good read.

  14. Transparent? by justanyone · · Score: 1

    Yes, but is it TRANSPARENT? I want Transparent steel! I want an invisible jet! and an Invisible Sword! and an Invisible Toaster so I can see the toast get dark As It Happens! (grin)

    The article doesn't mention if it has superior resistance to rust, though. This just talks about the crystal size.

    QUESTION: It would seem to me that an ordered solid crystal, such as ordinary steel or glass, would have superior strength, due to every atom having the maximum number of molecular bonds with its neighbors.

    Why, then, is a disordered solid superior in the tensile strength department? Are there any web links that show this effect?

    -- Kevin J. Rice

    1. Re:Transparent? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Metals have different bond types, that is what really makes them a metal. Basically they share all their electrons freely, so they are always "bonded" to the other nereby atoms.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Transparent? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's two aspects to the "strength" of steel, strength and toughness. Toughness describes the material's ability to withstand shock without permanent deformation, work hardening, et cetera. Strength describes the tensile strength, or how much weight it can hold.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Transparent? by dutky · · Score: 2, Funny
      justanyone wrote:

      Yes, but is it TRANSPARENT? I want Transparent steel! I want an invisible jet! and an Invisible Sword! and an Invisible Toaster so I can see the toast get dark As It Happens! (grin)


      here is your "Invisible Toaster"
    4. Re:Transparent? by SnoBall · · Score: 0

      All they need to do now is make an invisible weapons mod for Quake 3, and then the campers can take their revenge.

      --
      Don't eat me ... *looks at nickname* ... okay, eat me.
    5. Re:Transparent? by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      For Gods sake don't buy that toaster...

      I bought this toaster thinking that it was about time somebody brought the art of toasting bread into the 21st century. It looked like a great idea.

      It turns out that this is a dangerous appliance that never should have been released to the public. Don't turn your back on it for a second.

      I've lost track of the number of times I've run out onto our deck with smoke pouring out of this toaster because the bread had burned so badly. I read the directions and have genuinely attempted to follow them. The design tempts you to put round bread items like bagels and hamburger buns into the machine, but these items often come into direct contact with the heating elements causing them to burn.

      I thought I could work with this toaster because it looked so cool, but today when a small hamburger bun literally caught fire in the unit I decided to retire this incendiary device.

      Buy this toaster at your own risk. Make sure you have a fan in your kitchen to suck out the smoke, and maybe have a few marshmallows handy for roasting.

      I would have thought the ability to toast without cremation would be the primary requirement of a toaster.

      I just have one question, do you want any toast?

      No? Ah, so you're a waffle man....

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    6. Re:Transparent? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is it TRANSPARENT? I want Transparent steel! I want an invisible jet!

      You want to be Wonder Woman?

  15. Drawbacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall that some of these amorphous forms have much lower melting points than non-amorphous material. Does anyone know if this is true?

  16. Just more of the ancient art of hardening. by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    Annealing is letting the metal cool slowly, to maximize the crystal alignments and make the steel as soft as possible. Easy to work into shape.

    Hardening. I heat the steel to its decolessant point, where the atoms are moving so fast they can no longer align in a magnetic field (so magnets don't stick), then quickly cool the steel. It is hardened and at the same time becomes more brittle.

    Tempering is then applied, where the hardened steel is warmed gently to various degrees and again quickly cooled to remove just a bit of the brittleness and add "toughness" to the hard steel.

    These folks merely quenched liquid steel. Woopie.

    This isn't news, folks, it's highschool shop.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
    1. Re:Just more of the ancient art of hardening. by KnightStalker · · Score: 1
      You must be from Livermore. Yeah, everybody knows about your great big rivalry with Oak Ridge, but can't you master scientists just get along? All this sour grapes just makes you look like a jerk who can summarize wikipedia articles.

      (Are you sure you spelled "decolessant" right? You should write to Google and have them add the word to their index.)

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    2. Re:Just more of the ancient art of hardening. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and I'm sure you always remembered to add the yttrium. Oddly enough, I was never taught how to measure crystal size in metal samples in high school shop. You must have had a teacher with a PhD. Or you are clueless.

    3. Re:Just more of the ancient art of hardening. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, Bob, I get the idea there's more going on with those guys than you really understand. It's nice that you want to share your wisdom, but I think it might be inappropriate in this case.

  17. You could use it the same way we use glass by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2, Interesting
    To avoid the shattering problem, you could use lots of metal fibers in a matrix of something else (say, resin). This would give you the possibility of an injection-molded steel-fiber composite bicycle frame. (Why you'd use steel instead of glass or carbon, I don't know - but it would be possible.)

    I can see the glass issue as a problem for some of the proposed uses, though. To retain its strength it would have to avoid crystallizing; if you used it for beams in a building, you would have to guarantee that a fire could not raise the temperature high enough long enough for the material to begin crystallizing. Once that happens, all your wonderful high-strength properties are ruined and you have to replace all that steel (assuming the building survives).

    1. Re:You could use it the same way we use glass by EaterOfDog · · Score: 0

      Actually, they usually add small bits of crystalline metal to form a composite of glassy and crystalline metal. This stops the glassy metal from shattering when compromised. Developing the right composite is the hard part.

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    2. Re:You could use it the same way we use glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not for buildings! steel has a low enough melting point as it is! and from what I've read it's much lower for this, I think it would simply liquify before it started to crystalise.

  18. Navy uses by r00t · · Score: 1

    It's the planes that need this:

    1. landing gear
    2. arrestor hooks

  19. Thank you ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For re-affirming my faith in Slashdot. I was thinking the exact same thing. =)

    However, all kidding aside ....

    By 'glassy', can anyone shed light on this actually infers? I'm thinking more to do with material versus optical properties. (Yes, I R'd TFA, and they certainly don't say anything about optical properties.)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Thank you ... by Jack+Pirate · · Score: 1

      If it refers to optical properties, I imagine this could be the next bullet-proof glass for when you really need to be protected. Could make for some excellent blast shields, a truely bullet-proof helmet w/ face shield, and certainly as windows in the Presidents limo.

    2. Re:Thank you ... by rco3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "glassy", as in "amorphous", as in "non-crystalline". Does NOT mean transparent like window glass. Think obsidian - it's black (or green), opaque, and shatters in totally random directions. That's because it has no crystalline structure and thus no lines or planes of fracture.
      This is non-crystalline steel. It's not transparent aluminum - but then, nothing is.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    3. Re:Thank you ... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      And why is this a "Good Thing" for steel?

    4. Re:Thank you ... by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Beats me. Apparently the metallurgists say that amorphous steel is stronger. [ shrug ] Sounds good to me.

      However, the claim about the amorphous steel being "twice as strong and hard" smells funny to me... twice as hard? On what sort of scale? Isn't steel already about 2/3 as hard as diamond anyway? Does that mean that amorphous steel is 4/3 as hard as diamond? How would they measure that?

      Enquiring minds want to know!

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  20. Already been done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it even appeared here on slashdot

  21. Thank you very much! by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 2


    I've understood the basics for some time, but the way you put it has to be the most clear description of exactly why it works that I've seen.

    Now it makes sense why adding a metal as soft as zinc to aluminum gives you "aircraft grade" (7000 series) alumimum, which is twice the shear and tensile strength of "marine grade" (6000 series) aluminum, which contains the much stronger magnesium instead.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
    1. Re:Thank you very much! by Micro$will · · Score: 1

      6061 T6 is aircraft grade aluminum, but as long as it's rated for the part it's manufactured for, I don't think it matters what kind of grade it is.

    2. Re:Thank you very much! by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 3, Interesting


      I used to work in a machine-shop, both in design and in purchasing (for several years).

      Reynolds and many others consider 6061 and 6063 to be marine-grade.

      They also consider 7075 to be aircraft grade... twice the shear and tensile strength of 6061, but also twice as expensive (cost/lb).

      The T-rating ("-T6") is a hardening that it receives after forming, irrelevant to the alloy.

      As far as what is spec-ed out, I agree... you should be able to use 6k series in an airplane, for example in a coffie-pot-holder.
      Oddly enough, we made a run of those for an airline, and they spec-ed it had to be 7075-T6.
      And people wonder why air-fare is so expensive... bozos are making the decisions.

      The reverse is true too... we made a run of bicycle crank-axles that were spec-ed to be 7075-T9! Hardly an airplane, but those puppies sure were expensive!

      --
      - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  22. I've seen this... by Afbc0m · · Score: 0

    Scotty gave us this technology back in 1986, I could have sworn I saw him entering it into a Mac Plus...

    1. Re:I've seen this... by j_snare · · Score: 1

      Scotty gave us this technology back in 1986, I could have sworn I saw him entering it into a Mac Plus...

      Thus why we're just now seeing it come out. :-)

    2. Re:I've seen this... by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Us Mac users have had transparent aluminum since System 7.5.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  23. Liquidmetal mentioned in Discover article by Macross · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the Discover article, one of the companies attempting to capitalize on amorphous metals is LiquidMetal. The stuff has been used in Head tennis rackets, golf clubs, hinges in cell phones, etc. A friend of mine has tested the head racket and he said you can really feel it return the energy better than other rackets.

    Although the Discover article says that knives can be easily cast (e.g., for surgical purposes, disposable knives can be made much more easily), the metal isn't as hard as hand-made knives. This is sort of surprising given its glassy properties -- the ads by Liquidmetal show a steel ball bouncing for minutes on a slab of the stuff.

    See this link http://www.rayrogers.com/lm.htm for one knifemaker's experience in dealing with the stuff (the RC rating is in the mid 50's if I recall). Still very promising technology though. Once the cost comes down I think it will have a very wide range of applications.

  24. Subs can't go any deeper. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Underwater craft have already reached the bottom of the ocean without any need for any "amorphous steel". Mariana trench exploration happened quite a while ago with technology much more primitive.

    1. Re:Subs can't go any deeper. by torpor · · Score: 1

      Sure, vehicles have reached those depths.

      But what about habitats? I'd move to the Mariana Trench Habitat tomorrow, if I could.

      (... long as it had free cable and good gym facilities that is ...)

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  25. Amorphous Metals are Old News by GlassMaster · · Score: 1

    While this amorphous steel is quite an achievement (I do not mean to slight this work), amorphous metals have been around since at least the 60's. A commercial example of this is the amorphous metal golf club head , which has been on the market for a number of years.

    No, amorphous metals are not transparent. So even if we could make amorphous aluminum, you could not see through it. If you want to see through aluminum, you must still combine it with with oxygen to form alumina (or sapphire).

  26. Only niche subs with limited caps can't go deeper by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Underwater craft have already reached the bottom of the ocean without any need for any "amorphous steel". Mariana trench exploration happened quite a while ago with technology much more primitive.

    Only specialized research (niche) subs with very limited capabilities "can't go any deeper". Their designs are not applicable to high performance high capability cost effective combat vessels. That said, those research subs are amazing.

  27. It's likely more brittle than glass too by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

    Should we change that old saying to: 'People who live in amorphous steel houses shouldn't throw stones'?

  28. Transparent aluminium by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can watch Star Trek IV and implement Scotty's specs for creating transparent aluminium....

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  29. The big news is it is now easier by dbIII · · Score: 1
    they feel that structural steel in bulk metallic glass form can be produced economically with traditional drop-casting methods,
    Amorphous iron based alloys have been around for a while, I had a bit that was handed out as a sample well over a decade ago.

    The big news, if this is true is that they are easier to make now. The way to get the disordered iron alloys before was to chill the molten metal at a rate of a few million degrees K per second - ie. solidify the molten metal in a tiny fraction of a second. This involved things like spinning water cooled copper drums for the commercially produced material, and the thickness was limited to a foil. This material has been used for things like transformer cores, just piling a lot of bits of foil on top of another.

    Another thing is we are in the realm of semantics. Steel is what you have with a certain amount of carbon dissolved in iron giving some strength by pushing the iron lattice out of shape - and can be a mix of three different crystal structures. A glass is a fairly disordered structure. This material may be made out of the same stuff as steel, but doesn't have any of the crystal structures that make up steel so has completely different properties (strength, magnetic properties, toughness etc.). It can't be called steel anymore - it is something else that is stronger than steel.

  30. Knives. by will_die · · Score: 1

    They would not be competing with steel knives but with ceramic ones. Cermainc knives also do not need to be sharpened, however they are no good for prying type actions. I would guess that glassy steel knives would be the same way.

    As for loosing thier edge knives loose it from that however you can remove most of that from a sharpening steel. You loose alot of your edge from hitting the cutting surface, which is the main reason(besides costs) cermaic knifes are used for soft stuff as opposed to dicing an onion. Will be interesting to see how much force is needed, and if we don't see a new material for knives.

  31. Well, now we have SilkSteel! by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

    And finally, those Supervillains will stop getting an armor-piercing bonus against me when I alter my physical structure. Thank you, Oak Ridge!

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  32. What about Titanium ? by Genial+Generalist · · Score: 1

    I am curious about the properties of amorphous steal when compared to other high strength materials like titanium. It would seem that the cost to produce this form of steel is high and that is suffer the same problems of associated with other ceramics

  33. Loss of expertise is only one element by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
    The problem goes deeper than what you describe. There is more than enough money in NASA's budget to recreate the Saturn V, but the budget priorities as set by Congress and the institutional culture are so different from what existed during Apollo that the goal is beyond reach despite being easier to do the second time.

    NASA has spent tens of billions on a series of programs to develop Shuttle replacements, and all of them have been total fiascoes. This is what appears likely to happen to a super-cool submarine development program; the political priorities will be to feed the best campaign contributors rather than the best technology, and the production of experimental boats will become an end in itself. That's the nature of Leviathan.

    Turn the question around. The USA is the preeminent military power on the planet, and there is no hostile force that can deliver more than pinpricks (the bombing of the USS Cole was a tragedy, but to the fighting force of the USN it was negligible). Are submarines of any use to fight our current or foreseeable enemies? If not, it makes sense to let them go the way of the battleship.

    1. Re:Loss of expertise is only one element by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Are submarines of any use to fight our current or foreseeable enemies? If not, it makes sense to let them go the way of the battleship."

      I would say that the potental ASW threat is real. Can you think of a better way to put a commando team "state terrorists" ashore than a sub. Look at North Korea. How about putting ashore bio or chemical agents? The US has a huge amount of cost line. In the 80s drug sugglers used to run across the boarder all the time. That has been pretty well shut down.
      After WWI people thought that subs where useless. The same thing happened right after WWII. The first post war sub was not built until 1949. Also as long as we depend on SLBMs we will want to have SSNs to protect them and to train our ASW crews.
      Not to mention there value as Sigint platforms, special OPs, and Cruise missle platforms. Plus do not forget that India is trying to build an SSN as is Brazil.
      Yea the problem you describe with NASA is pretty accurate. For all of his falts Rickover really seemed to know how to deal with the the Political BS well. Now his obsesion with DC turbo electric drive system was a really pain but no one is perfect.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Loss of expertise is only one element by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
      I would say that the potental ASW threat is real. Can you think of a better way to put a commando team "state terrorists" ashore than a sub. Look at North Korea. How about putting ashore bio or chemical agents?
      Could I do this with a WWII-style diesel/electric sub? Probably. Could I do this with a modern version thereof, powered by off-the-shelf fuel cells burning fuel with liquid oxygen and able to stay underwater for a week? Almost certainly. Do I need a modern nuclear hunter-killer sub or SLBM sub for this? No, they are too big for the job.

      I don't see any need for submarines except to help contain the imperialist ambitions of China, and we already have enough for that.

      After WWI people thought that subs where useless. The same thing happened right after WWII. The first post war sub was not built until 1949.
      (You mean "were" [rhymes with "sure"], not "where" [rhymes with "air"].)

      Hostilities began on the Korean peninsula in 1950. It was the Cold War, and communist imperialists were at work throughout Asia. Our enemies now are very different, and the same weapons cannot be used to fight them. Of what use is a submarine against a terrorist hiding in Kuala Lumpur or the Phillipines?

      Also as long as we depend on SLBMs we will want to have SSNs to protect them and to train our ASW crews.
      SLBMs are only of use against nations. How many SLBM carriers do we need to protect against the national threats of today? Seems to me that one would suffice to protect against both China and N. Korea. That would argue for keeping three active.
      Not to mention there value as Sigint platforms, special OPs, and Cruise missle platforms.
      (You mean "their" value.) Submarines aren't useful for SIGINT unless they are surfaced (unless you mean tapping undersea cables, which requires a specialized boat) and they would appear to be much more expensive per cruise-missile launch than a surface vessel. The kind of threats we've been dealing with of late have been terrorists, who have little capability of tracking ships at sea let alone threatening them; the hiding capacity of the SLCM carrier appears to be wasted in today's environment.
      Plus do not forget that India is trying to build an SSN as is Brazil.
      Since when were those nations hostile to us? (India is trying to counterbalance China, which helps us.) Is there any prospect of either of them becoming remotely equal to the USN in submarine capability, even if we reduce our activity to maintenance level? Seems to me that neither one of them has the money or technology, even if they had the will. The money we're spending on replacement of perfectly good submarines just to keep the production lines going would appear to be better spent on ways to identify and deport Islamic fanatics, and on energy initiatives to reduce the need for oil and help de-fund the Saudi prosyletization of Wahhabism.
    3. Re:Loss of expertise is only one element by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Subs do not have to surface for Sigint. Well not off of the sub anyway.
      I can see no problem with fewer subs but loosing the ability to build them I see as short sited.
      Three SLBMs? Two few by far. The 14 or so that we have now is about the least I would want to have. With three you would have at most two at sea at a time and sometimes only one. Just because right now Russia is not a threat does not mean that they could not become one in the future. I will admit that I feel that India is less of a threat now that the Congress party is back in control but the old goverment should not have given any thinking person a warm safe feeling.
      I worry about the lose of the Industral Base that is required for the construction of new SSNs and SSBNs. Also I am not convinced that with the cost of fuel that there is any real savings with a conventional sub over a the life of the vessel.
      We are not replaceing "perfectly good subs" as it is. We are retireing subs now instead of refueling them. to refuel an SSN costs about 100million. You only do it every 25 years or 35 years with the new subs. So for every 2 or three subs we retire we are building one new one.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  34. Tearing down a "glassy" building? by dolphin558 · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else foresee problems when a skyscraper made of these amorphous materials needs to be brought down in an urban environment. Fortunately with normal steel you can predict how it will react when you hit with a wrecking ball or detonate it but imagine the MESS that will be created when such techniques are used on a 1/5 mile superstructure.

  35. Devitrification by Tycho · · Score: 1

    I have a degree in Geology so forgive me. In volcanic glasses such as obsidian over the course of millions of years start to crystallize in a process called devitrification. IIRC for the most part there are no volcanic glasses that are more than 10 million to 30 million years old. Granted this is a long time, but amorphous steel could devitrify faster than volcanic glass. This could be serious for a building built out of amorphous steel.

    --
    Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  36. Wonder Woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >>Yes, but is it TRANSPARENT? I want Transparent steel! I want an invisible jet!

    >You want to be Wonder Woman?

    No you j'moke, he wants to stalk wonder woman. How else do you suggest he get to 1st base with a female superhero? Poetry? Not bloody likely.