Slashdot Mirror


Transparent Aluminum a Reality

TuballoyThunder writes "Many of us remember the scene from Star Trek IV where Scotty barters the formula for transparent aluminum for a small run. It now appears that we can now add transparent aluminum to the science fact column."

759 comments

  1. Coming soon to a school court near you! by marsperson · · Score: 4, Funny

    The ability to wrap your mother's sandwiches in transparent aluminum and loose your apetite before you even unwrap it!

    1. Re:Coming soon to a school court near you! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      "... While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration. ..."

      I can't help but wonder if the D.O.D. Designers are now hiring wifes with 20 years experience?

    2. Re:Coming soon to a school court near you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I just need some invisible tin foil for my hat.

  2. A Great Send-Off by jIyajbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Very appropriate to announce this discovery at the same time James Doohan's remains are being sent into space. One wonders if there is a closet Trekker in the military press office. :-)

    Cheers,

    jIyajbe

    --
    "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    1. Re:A Great Send-Off by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do you want to bet that it was designed on a Macintosh...

      Oh would that ever be sweet! :D

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    2. Re:A Great Send-Off by kfg · · Score: 1

      Very appropriate to announce this discovery at the same time James Doohan's remains are being sent into space.

      A dupe more than a year old is still a dupe. . . and more than a year old.

      KFG

    3. Re:A Great Send-Off by metricmusic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I KNEW it! Scotty didn't die. He just went back in the Bird of Prey.

      Everyone, check your local marine park for missing Whales now!!

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    4. Re:A Great Send-Off by SteveAyre · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry but no, you must be wrong.

      I just checked and I can't find any missing whales anywhere.

    5. Re:A Great Send-Off by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Well if you could find them, they wouldn't be "missing" now would they?

    6. Re:A Great Send-Off by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      That would be the joke.

    7. Re:A Great Send-Off by ObitMan · · Score: 1

      Check for missing Humpback People.

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    8. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      actually, it should be pretty easy to check the marine parks, like he said. Go to Seaworld, look in the tanks that are supposed to have them. If they're not there....viola'!

    9. Re:A Great Send-Off by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      This story is starting to become almost a yearly tradition on Slashdot.

      Transparent Aluminum a Reality
      On October 18th, 2005 with 231 comments
      TuballoyThunder writes "Many of us remember the scene from Star Trek IV where Scotty barters the formula for transparent aluminum for a small run. It now...

      Transparent Aluminum Is Here
      On August 23rd, 2004 with 625 comments
      Alien54 writes "Scientists in the US have developed a novel technique to make bulk quantities of glass from alumina for the first time. (link includes a...

      Transparent Aluminium
      On February 20th, 2002 with 368 comments
      Lynx writes "As the german magazine Spiegel reports, scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies have developed a transparent tile made...

      And that was from the first page of the search screen ordered by rank.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:A Great Send-Off by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair this is a different material than the previous two articles, the first two describe an alumina glass, whereas this article describes an aluminum oxynitride ceramic.

    11. Re:A Great Send-Off by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be even fairer, alumina isn't alumin{i}um and neither is alumin{i}um oxynitride, but all the headlines imply that it is.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:A Great Send-Off by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Funny
      Is that because he tries talking into the mouse on a mac in Star Trek IV, or are you just another idiot mac troll?

      Both.

    13. Re:A Great Send-Off by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      True, I guess I'm just more accepting of than I am of dupes.

    14. Re:A Great Send-Off by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are quite a few Star Trek fans in the military.
      I'll never forget a Halloween when a Air Force captain came to work dressed in a perfect replica of Captain Kirk's uniform (insignia and all).
      We were all giving him the Vulcan salute all day! \\//

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    15. Re:A Great Send-Off by AndersOSU · · Score: 1
      damn preview button
      True, I guess I'm just more accepting of sensationalism than I am of dupes.
    16. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      some of us neither know, not care, where the mappings to special characters are. "à" (copied from your response) isn't on my keyboard. Thanks for your cheerful response, though! It's good to know who the intelligent, positive minds are out there...even if they have to be found through a process of elimination.

    17. Re:A Great Send-Off by CaptDeuce · · Score: 4, Funny
      ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better durability and protection against armor piercing threats, at roughly half the weight and half the thickness of traditional glass transparent armor, said the lieutenant.

      [time warp]

      Tuesday, October 13, 2009

      Cupertino CA -- Apple Computer faces rising complaints of "scratches" that reportedly developed on the cases of their iPod Angstrom virtual reality player. The device, which feeds audio, video, and olfactory images directly to the brain, is implanted under the skin behind the ear, remaining there for up to three days. It is this repeated insertion and extraction of the device which causes scratches on the iPod's case.

      "The scratches are obvious," say disgruntled user Mitch Burnsome, "I can see them clearly under my microscope, at maginications as low as 20 times. Apple's quality control is dreadful."

      Apple responded that the iPod Angstrom case is very durable. "The case is made of ALONtm which is used as armor on tanks and Humvees; it's virtually scratch resistant," said Apple spokesperson Anton Natale. "Steve Jobs has been using a prototype for the past six months and declares that it works so well with his brain that it's 'sanely great'."

      Since the release of the iPod Angstrom four hours ago, Apple has sold 7 million units. The price of Apple stock dropped 7% after analysts complained that sales were projected to be 7.1 million units by this time.

      --
      "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
    18. Re:A Great Send-Off by borg007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other news, a man ,Homeland Security believes to be a Chechen rebel, was seen wandering the streets of nearby towns looking for nuclear wessels.Is it a coincidence he has shown up just as transparent aluminum has become a reality? He was accompanied by a dark skinned woman of possible Somalian origin. They are just people of interest at this point.

    19. Re:A Great Send-Off by Merk · · Score: 1

      Hrm, so was Rita actually a hurricane, or was it a huge alien ship trying to talk to whales? I seem to recall a whole lot of dolphins going missing during that whole event... maybe they didn't mention the whales?

    20. Re:A Great Send-Off by ender- · · Score: 1

      So am I the only person who caught the phrase "virtually scratch resistant" in the article? Which sounds to me like it can ALMOST resist scratches, but not quite, so be careful!

      Maybe they could have said 'virtually scratch-proof'. That would be something to be proud of.

      As for the iPod nano, it sounds like it's screen is already 'virtually scratch resistant'.

    21. Re:A Great Send-Off by kyouteki · · Score: 1

      He wasn't berating you for the lack of accent, but the fact that you mentioned a stringed instrument.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:A Great Send-Off by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is even old news. I've seen references in manufacturing trade magazines about aluminum oxides used to make transparent aluminum for helmet face plates over five years ago.

    23. Re:A Great Send-Off by haraldm · · Score: 1
      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    24. Re:A Great Send-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This story is starting to become almost a yearly tradition on Slashdot.

      It's worse than that: since each repost occurs at half the previous interval, we'll see the same story in January and March, with a singularity arising in October 2006.

    25. Re:A Great Send-Off by neo0983 · · Score: 1

      Tune in next week for yet another story on Transparent Aluminum. PS there was also an article about a month or two ago on this. I think we might be on the for front of this wonderous new technolegy. Now I am off to rescue a whale in a Klingon battleship.

    26. Re:A Great Send-Off by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Nope, I caught that, too.

      So, I guess what they mean is that it scratches about as easily as cold butter, rather than warm? Or something...

    27. Re:A Great Send-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dolphins are gone? Fuck, I guess that means the Vogons are on their way.

    28. Re:A Great Send-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..yeah, and without using the mouse!

    29. Re:A Great Send-Off by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've seen references in manufacturing trade magazines about aluminum oxides used to make transparent aluminum
      Write out 100 times: "X oxide is not X".

      You too, ScuttleMonkey. And TuballoyThunder. That's 100 each, yes.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:A Great Send-Off by theFool · · Score: 1

      I'll help:

      for( int i=0; i<100; ++i ) cout << "X oxide is not X" << endl;

      --
      LINK : LNK6004: Sig not found or not built by the last incremental link; performing full link
    31. Re:A Great Send-Off by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      I still think Gene Rodenberry was actually from the future and gave us a glimpse of what is to come.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    32. Re:A Great Send-Off by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      I just checked and I can't find any missing whales anywhere.

      If you could FIND them, they wouldn't be MISSING, would they?

    33. Re:A Great Send-Off by usrusr · · Score: 1

      all he is saying is that "alumina" is not yet another dumbed down spelling for aluminium, in this context it makes a lot of sense to remind of what is already there.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    34. Re:A Great Send-Off by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      There's always the lost welshman! He needs you to fix the Lighthouse and give him a compass.

    35. Re:A Great Send-Off by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      As I explained to the other guy, that was the joke... I phrased it that way deliberately.

      Oh well... it can no longer be funny:
      The Far Side Uncertainty Principle

    36. Re:A Great Send-Off by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      If they're not there....viola'!

      I'm confused. What does a musical instrument have to do with missing whales?

    37. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      read again.

      viola'

      That tic at the end there is the poor-man's way of putting the accent on.

      I think I just found 3 people that need to get laid for the first times in their lives. Why would a viola have that tic at the end? Isn't there enough angst and tension in the world already such that your adding to it is unnecessary?

      Violà. Voila'. One has to be copy/pasted, or done with special keyboard mappings. The other can be easily read and understood (as evident by the fact that he, and even you, knew what I was saying). As the second option is easier...

      I do speak a little french, and simply transposing the "o" and "i" is not that big of a deal. Not enough to merit correcting in a medium like this, imo.

      To the real point - "some of us neither know, not care" should obviously have been "some of us neither know, nor care" - yet that typo didn't get corrected. Gosh, wonder why? Something called self-importance, where 3 "ignorant fuckwit[s]" decide that since they know some silly little thing, that if they see an error, they must insult people. probably stems from being picked on in high school, and/or not having ever been laid.

      Now...you were saying? Oh, you're saying you're trolling, with no intention to actually add to the conversation. Well, don't let me stop you...

    38. Re:A Great Send-Off by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was going to post a link to last year's story. Looks like you've beat me to it, and added in an older one that I'd forgotten, as well!

    39. Re:A Great Send-Off by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Actually, the point your missing is not the accent.

      Viola - A stringed instrument.

      Voila - French for "There it is."

      Notice the positioning of the "o" and the "i" with respect to each other.

    40. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      wow...I'm going to just cut and paste. Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but maybe the second time around you'll see it...

      I do speak a little french, and simply transposing the "o" and "i" is not that big of a deal. Not enough to merit correcting in a medium like this, imo.

    41. Re:A Great Send-Off by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Err... its the difference between "There it is" and a musical instrument.

      Essentially, it changed the meaning of what you said. That's a big deal. You might have a point that it doesn't warrant correcting, particularly among the vastly uneducated masses of the internet, but saying that it's correct is very false.

    42. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      Look again at the original response to my criminally negligent post.

      Oh for the love of God... it's * Voilà *, you ignorant fuckwit!

      I didn't say it was correct, I said you all needed to find better things to do. All I did was make a silly typo (of the sort not uncommon for dyslexics like myself), and use a poor-man's tic. It is truly not a big deal - certainly not enough to get all angsty over, or enough to become insulting.

      I'm not the one trying to justify something here, or say I'm in the right.

    43. Re:A Great Send-Off by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      I did it to look smart but since I confused BNF with regular expressions, I fail it!!!!!

      Not that writing a curly bracket requires herculean effort anyway...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:A Great Send-Off by the+original+m0nk · · Score: 1

      i want to know when they'll develop ADMANtm, which could be surgically grafted to your skeleton.

      that would be awesome.

    45. Re:A Great Send-Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please you two...

      just DIE!

    46. Re:A Great Send-Off by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      wow, you came back to this old thread, just to post that AC?

      Slow day for ya?

  3. hmm by Gronkers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if we could only arm our military vehicles with convential armor let alone the nifty new stuff..

    --
    - Gronk!
    1. Re:hmm by B2382F29 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that would cost you an arm and a leg ... either way.

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to make your slaughterings even more efficient. Great.

    3. Re:hmm by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Interesting idea that one, now if you consider the original humvee as a general transport vehicle admittedly a hugely expensive piece of gas guzzling pork and the armoring it for yet another rather cunning and expensive piece of additional pork. Stop and think about all those existing armored cars which where in fact designed to do that job (still far more effectively armored) and those cheap fuel efficient jeeps that used to used to provide general non-combat transport. Of course soldiers are cheaper and they don't generate a profit, like the continual replacement of a sort of armoured car rather than the survivability an actual armoured car (sarcasm folks, I used to be one).

      Back to the story, will vivendi universal claim the idea of transparent aluminium and sue for patent rights, hmm?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:hmm by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
      Well, that would cost you an arm and a leg ... either way.

      Because we don't have a mod-option 'Sick humor' the parent post should be modded 'Insightful' :( .

    5. Re:hmm by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever seen The Pentagon Wars , particularly the scenes involving "sheep specs?" You don't want to use aluminum as armor, as it has the nasty tendancy of catching fire and giving off extremely toxic fumes.

    6. Re:hmm by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Of course soldiers are cheaper and they don't generate a profit, like the continual replacement of a sort of armoured car rather than the survivability an actual armoured car (sarcasm folks, I used to be one).

      You used to be an armored car?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:hmm by hyc · · Score: 1

      It's too late for them to claim a patent, unless they filed for it within a year of the first release of the movie. Interestingly, one could make a case that because of the movie, nobody can patent it now, because the concept was already published in 1986. I.e., publishing without a patent by definition puts the idea in the public domain.

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
  4. Hmm by psilonaut · · Score: 5, Funny

    How quaint.

  5. The article is disappointing by kg_o.O · · Score: 5, Funny

    No pics :(

    1. Re:The article is disappointing by thevoice99 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. These articles never have pictures. People need pictures next to text. Thats why picture books were created. Give me a photo dammit.

    2. Re:The article is disappointing by GroeFaZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    3. Re:The article is disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No pics :(

      Wait, you didn't see the picture there? It was right in the article! I know it's transparent... but it's there!

    4. Re:The article is disappointing by Malor · · Score: 1

      They used a frame to overlay the graphic over a portion of the article. I bet you couldn't even tell which part.

    5. Re:The article is disappointing by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 5, Funny

      Using some elite slashdot h4x0ring skillz, I am able to post a picture of transparent aluminum right here for you:








      Nice, eh?

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    6. Re:The article is disappointing by kg_o.O · · Score: 3, Funny

      Think you can fool me by posting a pic of transparent milk chocolate?
      Think again!

    7. Re:The article is disappointing by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      No pics :(

      Of what?

      It's transparent .. what's to see?

      ;-)

    8. Re:The article is disappointing by grimJester · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Omg, even the jokes are dupes !

    9. Re:The article is disappointing by lazlo · · Score: 1

      That's OK, the original did have pics in the linked article.

      (Granted, this story has more focus on the actual use, not the original discovery, but you wouldn't know that from the slashdot article)

      And I found myself amused by the sentence:
      "tests focusing on multiple hits from .50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the works. "
      So just how long does it take our military to Improvise some Explosive Devices? Or scare up more than 1 .50 cal round? You'd think when they were testing out that one, they might have brought a whole box full.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    10. Re:The article is disappointing by Hugh+Manatee · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it when I see it!

    11. Re:The article is disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask and ye shall receive. And apparently the oldest dupe yet.

    12. Re:The article is disappointing by lambkabobwithfeta · · Score: 0

      Pics:
      http://www.surmet.com/alon.html
      Click on the four "Applications" links at upper left for more pics.

    13. Re:The article is disappointing by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      People are going to be able to tell that I'm paranoid and having a bad hair day.

    14. Re:The article is disappointing by rderr · · Score: 1
    15. Re:The article is disappointing by Zemrec · · Score: 1
      Think you can fool me by posting a pic of transparent milk chocolate? Think again!

      ...Mayor West is that you?

  6. Super Polish by svvampy · · Score: 1

    Double the strength by polishing? Seems a bit strange...maybe some early pork-barrelling or deficiencies in the manufacturing process.

    Pity it wasn't around in time for Doohan's final journey into the undiscovered country.

    1. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Polishing (like case hardening) belongs to a normal metallic property called work hardening. You work a metal it will become harder (but normally also more brittle). In fact it is rarer to have a metal that won't work harden than not. Time to go back to metal shop!!

    2. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Surface composition is a big factor in penetration resistance- try slashing open steel plate with chromoly when it's polished versus roughly plasmacut- the rough plate will catch batter.
      www.vrogy.com/blog

    3. Re:Super Polish by AGMW · · Score: 5, Funny
      Double the strength by polishing?

      This isn't that strange, and certainly here on SlashDot I'd expect the readership to be well aware how things can get harder if they are rubbed the right way.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    4. Re:Super Polish by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, strength from polishing is a pretty basic idea in material science. It comes down to the fact that materials break due to initial cracks that grow bigger under stress. If the cracks are initially larger, the material is more fragile.

      For example, a glass bottle can be broken by putting a little sand into it and shaking vigorously. It's mainly the scraping action, not the weight of the sand, that causes the glass to break.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:Super Polish by tankenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not unusual for metals to be increased in strength after polishing or grinding, as a method of stress relief. Ceramics, while beyond my experience, are likely similiar.

    6. Re:Super Polish by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It comes down to the fact that materials break due to initial cracks that grow bigger under stress.

      Back in the late 70s early 80s I used to polish my bike components, particuarly brake calipers, for that very reason. It was in that era that there was a massive increase in technical and manufacturing sophistication from the Japanese makers, as a result of which anybody can now get well finished, non-pot-metal bike parts without having to spend a fortune for Campagnolo.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Super Polish by mikael · · Score: 1

      And if you read a couple of bless scrolls of enchant armor, that will also reduce the amount of damage that any foe can inflict. But remember to wear a blindfold when entering Medusa's room.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Super Polish by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      It's not a metal, it's a ceramic.

      You can't work harden ceramics.

      Polishing a metal and case hardening are not work hardening. Polishing removes surface imperfections, reducing the depth and width of micro fissures, which can propagate and lead to various (usually fatigue related) failure modes. Case hardening is a chemical process that deposits additional carbon near the surface of the part making it ... harder.

      Work hardening operations are things like cold rolling, peening, and extruding. They harden the surface by pre-straining it, increasing the effective yield strength.

      A demonstration of this is if you try to bend a spoon several times, each time it becomes harder and harder to bend it at the same spot. This is particularly dramatic if you can find a piece of annealed 1/2'' copper rod. Bending it the first time is extremely easy, bending it back is, well, a challenge.

    9. Re:Super Polish by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Time to go back to chemistry 101. It's not a metal.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Super Polish by iq+in+binary · · Score: 4, Informative

      Polishing (like case hardening) belongs to a normal metallic property called work hardening. You work a metal it will become harder (but normally also more brittle). In fact it is rarer to have a metal that won't work harden than not. Time to go back to metal shop!!

      Go back? Ok, I'm in one every day.

      While you're right about metals work hardening, you're wrong about how often it happens. Quite frankly, it doesn't unless you're either extremely stupid or even more so insane. Even soft magnetics like Cast Iron don't work harden until extremely high temperatures are reached. Something to the tune of 650-1100F, depending on the hardness rating you wish to achieve. If you're reaching temperatures that high before the part is finished, well, you're either cutting it off at the foundry or you're about to be fired. The methods used to actually harden materials in a noticeable fashion are specifically designed to superheat the part. Magnetics such as steel and any iron based material will be heated until red, blue or white hot to achieve hardening. This process is called annealing. Other metals are generally coated with a harder metal, not more than a thousand of an inch or two in thickness; this generally achieves the same affect.

      Polishing however, is not generally meant to harden, and rarely does. When a part or surface is polished, part of that surface is actually worn away while polish is deposited. This is the only way to achieve mirror finish, if the part has been turned or faced the surface will have markings on it from the tools used to cut it. Polishing is the process of actually wearing away material to relieve the markings, and depositing polish to increase shine. People should note that the more reflective a metal surface is, the finer the finish. Mirror finish generally denotes a "256 dp finish", required often by aerospace or military applications. The dumbass of a parent knows nothing of what he's talking about, and needs himself to open up a machinist's handbook.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    11. Re:Super Polish by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      ...and remember to read at least one of said scrolls while confused.

    12. Re:Super Polish by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Informative

      While you're right about metals work hardening, you're wrong about how often it happens. Quite frankly, it doesn't unless you're either extremely stupid or even more so insane.

      Or you're working a part by hand. Or the part does duty in a high vibration environment (copper fuel line are verboten on small airplanes for just this reason). Or you bend a heat treated nose gear on a hard landing and then try to bend it back into place.

      It doesn't happen often in a machine shop, unless the machinist is explicity trying to do it, but metalsmiths all over the world take advantage/try to avoid work hardening in various situations.

      BTW, a technical definition used in a machine shop may not be the common usage in the rest of the world. To the general world that I've been exposed to, work hardening is any increase in the hardness/brittleness derived from the stretching and shrinking involved in getting the metal to the desired shape. In this aspect, the gp is not necessarily off base. A stainless steel slapper is often used to 'polish' aluminum fairings, and the aluminum is harder after the process.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    13. Re:Super Polish by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      Okay, as a blacksmith, I'll bite here.

      Annealing is the process of softening the metal, not hardening it. For magnetics such as steel, you anneal the metal to soften it for working, then harden by taking it up the critical temp (point at which it looses magnetism) and then cool it abruptly. This hardens and embrittles the steel. To keep the steel from then breaking, you temper it. Tempering adds softness to the metal at a controled rate.

      As to heating the metal to high temps...I do that all the time. Above a white heat though, the carbon begins to burn out of steel, so we try to avoid using that high a heat. I work all day at between bright red heat and bright yellow and I do this to soften the metal for use.

      Interestingly, I worked brass for the first time in my forge this week for a project. I had read that I should anneal it, then work it cold until it hardens from the hammering and anneal again. Its true. As I worked the metal over my anvil, I could feel it hardening (it also generated its own heat, which was hot to touch, but not the temps I see in Blacksmithing). After a brief period in my forge, cooled down, and it was back to normal...until I started hitting it again.

      You are right that as far as I know, polishing doesn't harden most metals. I will often "pack" a knife blade when done with it hammering it at a low heat. This supposedly tightens the grain. Ah well. A machinist and a blacksmith enter a bar....

      --
      Huh?
    14. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember someone saying something once about annealing...that it was using a cool flame on the metal to soften it up so it could be worked easier by hand (this was in reference to sheet metal). Here is what Wikipedia had to say about it:

      In metallurgy and materials science annealing is a heat treatment wherein the microstructure of a material is altered, causing changes in its properties such as strength and hardness. Typically, this results in softening of the metal through removal of crystal defects and the internal stresses which they cause. In the semiconductor industry, silicon wafers are annealed, so that dopant atoms (usually, boron, phosphorus, or arsenic) can be incorporated into substitutional positions in the crystal lattice, resulting in drastic changes in the electrical properties of the semiconducting material.

      So while Annealing could mean the case-hardening you're describing, more often than not it seems to mean Softening through application of heat. Not that you're wrong about any of the mechanics of what you've said, i just thought i'd point it out :)

    15. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had modpoints, you deserve a higher score.
        I have some experience of metalworking in the old ways (hammer, etc), so I couldn't believe the previous poster, who seemed to have technical knowledge, didn't think work hardening was a real issue. I never thought modern metalworkers were ignorant of past techniques.

    16. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +4 and you're mostly wrong, sorry. You may have a lot of practical experience, but if so your terminology is all screwed up. Then again, it's been a while since I studied any of this, so I might be wrong on some of the details.

      Work hardening happens at low temperatures, and is quite common. Ever bend something one way, and have it snap when you try to bend it back the other way? Often work hardening is a big part of that. It is pretty easy to see on a stress-strain curve for a given metal, basically after bending past the yield stress you will have residual strains in the part even when all bending forces are removed. The curve essentially shifts to the right, and eats up some of your ductility. That gives you a higher yield strength (harder), but lower ductility (brittle). Work hardening can be a problem, because it makes it harder to work with the part (think stainless). It is used intentially sometimes (forging) to save a seperate hardening step.

      Annealing is used to remove hardness, to allow further work on the part. It is often done after cold working to remove the work-hardining. It does involve raising the temperature of the part significantly, to allow the crystal structure to relax. IIRC, annealing then cools it slowly, so that the crystal structure remains even and the part is consistent throughout. You can also harden the part by heating it, if you quench it (again, IIRC). The outer part of the part takes on a different structure than the inside, giving a hard outside and a ductile inside, which makes for a good tool. This process is called case hardening.

      Your description of polishing is just fine, although the dumbass bit seems to apply all around. You should be careful criticizing people if you might be wrong yourself. (I say this fully expecting somebody to point out my own mistakes.)

    17. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While you're right about metals work hardening, you're wrong about how often it happens.

      First off, you're wrong. Anybody who has ever bent a paperclip (hello, cd tray!) knows that it won't bend in the same place twice: the original bend site work hardens and becomes much stiffer and somewhat stronger, and subsequent bends will happen in a softer region (i.e., somewhere else). I'm actually guessing that every single Slashdotter has probably done this experiment at some point, so it can't be that uncommon.

      The mechanism by which it happens is fairly complicated, and has to do with migration of grain boundaries and dislocations in the crystalline latice of the grains. For a reasonable explanation of this process, go here. This process is a property of polycrystalline materials in general, and thus happens to all metals. Normally, heating metal past a particular temperature (annealing) allows the grains to rearrange themselves, resulting in a more ductile,

      What you may be thinking of is tempering, in which the steel is heated to annealing temperatures, then cooled very quickly by quenching in oil. What happens here is substantially more complicated, and is for the purposes of this discussion a special property of steels. A description of the process is found here, but in short, higher levels of carbon are trapped in solution in the steel than would be there at room temperature.

      Also, from US Steel's web page, referring to cold-rolled steel:
      The cold reduction operation induces very high strains (work hardening) into the sheet; thus, the sheet not only becomes thinner, but also becomes much harder, less ductile, and very difficult to form. However, after the cold-reduced product is annealed (heated to high temperatures), it becomes very soft and formable. In fact, the combination of cold reduction and annealing lead to a refinement of the steel that provides very desirable and unique forming properties for subsequent use by the customer.

      Hey, I wonder if those folks over at US Steel know something about steel, eh?
    18. Re:Super Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You SO do not know what you re talking about.

      Annealing is the opposite of hardening (i.e. to make softer through a slow reduction in temperature) - also known as normalising

      Hardening is done by rapidly cooling an appropriate metal from high temperature. This effects the grain structure by freezing it in place.

      Work hardening is a by product of performing work on a material and is a general sympton associated with fatiguing. (for example take a paper clip and straighten it - then bend it repeatedly in one place - first it wil work harden, then snap due to brittleness - this is a "fatigue failure")

      Polishing is normally done to reduce the potential for a "crack initiator"

      You don't need a machinists manual - you need an Engineering Degree. (Ahem)

    19. Re:Super Polish by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you'll read this, but my experience is that modern machinist are clueless to things that were taken for granted even 50yrs ago. Hell, to hear them tell it, you wouldn't think there's any way to join aluminum except with TIG. My uncle tries to argue that there is no way to weld with gas ("You're just brazing," he says). Then there's this dolt that couldn't be bothered to pick up a machinist's handbook from the turn of the century.

      A seasoned technician knows intuitively that a new tool does not necessarily obsolete the old. A new technique does not rule out the old techniques. Anyone that doesn't grasp this is an obvious newbie. I would say this guy is more likely a button pusher than a machinist.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  7. transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by Muhammar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    when you read the article, you find out that the material is not aluminum metal. It is just a transparent corund-like substance. Al203 alone is pretty hard (and easy to make - including gem colored versions) and the mixed oxide-nitride is probably harder.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by Cave_Monster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I imagine this stuff would be used as a replacement for what is currently used as the windows. I wonder how this would compare to the rest of the armoured vehicle strength wise. Are we going to suddenly see completely transparent vehicles driving around?

    2. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hope not, then I'd have to start wearing pants!

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Are we going to suddenly see completely transparent vehicles driving around?

      I doubt it. After all, you probably don't want the enemy seeing all the actions you do in the vehicle ("Oh, they are loading the weapon now, maybe this would be a good time to attack ...")
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by frozen_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      I found the "transparent" aluminium description quite annoying as well!

      Sapphire/Alumina ( Al2O3 ) is very hard, and _very_ temperature resistant, but also likely to be quite brittle. Hardness is not the whole story. To withstand 20mm cannon rounds or worse, there needs to be a degree of elasticity/flexibility just to spread the load out a bit, otherwise it will not protect against impacts.

      A thought experiment: Take a piece of ceramic ( any sort ) place it on a surface and hit it hard with a hammer.

      Presumably ALON's special qualities lie specifically in its impact strength not just its hardness.
      Perhaps this stuff is laminated, or coated as well - hence polishing seems to be so important (?)

    5. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Are we going to suddenly see completely transparent vehicles driving around?

      And what about transparent planes? The development of invisible stealth fighter technology results in UFO sightings of a flying hooker.

    6. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by ajs · · Score: 1

      If you want a slightly crunchier text, try:

      http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl ?ACCT=683194&TICK=RTN4&STORY=/www/story/07-25-2002 /0001771721&EDATE=Jul+25,+2002

      It seems as if other posters are correct. This is just a ceramic with the usual sorts of ceramic properties, just much harder than most. It's not a useful builing material.

    7. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Informative
      That shouldn't be very surprising, though. Admittedly, I'm no material physicist, but AFAIK metals cannot be transparent, since the conduction band simply responds to too many EM frequencies. Conversely, if something is transparent, then it cannot be a metal.

      I would think that some compound containing aluminium is as close to transparent aluminium that we'll ever get.

    8. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anything is transparent if you make it thin enough. Weren't the early space helmet visors gilded?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      No kidding.

      In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration.

      NO penetration? None? This is either hyperbole or a near-miracle substance.

      According to US Army FM23-65, Browning Machine Gun Caliber .50 HB, M2 (June 1991), Chapter 1, Table1-6, "Maximum penetration for ball cartridge.": "(.50 Cal Ball Ammunition) can penetrate one inch of concrete, six inches of sand, or 21 inches of clay at a range of 1,640 yards."
      According to the USMC (Department of the Navy) Warfaring Publication 3-35.3, Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain, Appendix B, "Employment and Effects of Weapons", B-8:"...the Raufoss multi-purpose round can penetrate an inch of steel at 2000 yards."

      I find it credible (and impressive) that it didn't penetrate completely. I find it extremely unlikely that there was no penetration - i.e. the surface wasn't penetrated at ALL.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. The materials from which rubies and sapphires are composed are an aluminum (aluminium) oxide, but one wouldn't call them "transparent aluminum". Just one thing to add is that a metal can never be transparent to optical light. Using Maxwell's equations, it can be shown that for a conductor (a fundamental property of metal), incoming EM waves drop off exponentially within a wavelength. So, for optical light, any metal layer thicker than about half a micron will be opaque. It's one of those fundamental properties you can't get around.

  8. soda by Cave_Monster · · Score: 5, Funny
    Does anyone remember being told when they were a child, not to leave your can of drink open while outside for fear of a wasp/bee getting inside and consequently a painful next sip?

    Perhaps with this technology we can have see-through cans and this will no longer be a problem :)

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

      No, but maybe that's just because my parents weren't paranoid "omg there are germs in the pillows"-type neurotic wackos.

    2. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nobody told me bullshit like that when I was a child.

    3. Re:soda by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      If you think that only paranoid neurotics worry about that, you are an ignorant idiot. Wasps and bees like sugar, so it's pretty likely to happen. And a wasp or bee sting in the throat is severely life-threatening to people allergic to the poison - a pretty common allergy. And even if you're not allergic, it still pretty damn painful. Not wanting your kids to suffer that is just common sense.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    4. Re:soda by hplasm · · Score: 0

      Sugar-free drinks in cans? No wasps.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, and there are germs in the pillows, and germs cause infections and diseases that are potentially lethal. Better disinfect everything and never let your kids play outside lest they have to face the real world and maybe even feel pain once in their lives.

      That said, I used to drink soda with my friends outside all the time as a kid and I never heard of anyone getting a wasp sting in their mouths. Urban legends don't count as proof of something being "likely to happen"

    6. Re:soda by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Bee stings are acid, wasp stings are alkaline. So if ever you get stung by a bee or a wasp, just try to get stung in the same place by the other one; and the acid and alkali will annihilate one another.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    7. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once watched a bee climb into my can of soda. That was years ago, but I still take a little peek in my can if I'm drinking it outside.

    8. Re:soda by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      I once got a wasp in my mouth after it had been in my soda. Spit it out the moment I felt it though and it didn't sting me. Must have been a bit dazed by all the sugar goodness I guess. :-)

    9. Re:soda by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      OK... Imagine a scenario:

      A bee (or wasp) lands on your can of soda, and crawls in (I've seen it plenty of times). What do you do?

      If you'd drink it, I'd laugh at you when you get stung.

      It's not at all like the "germs in the pillows" (never even fscking HEARD of that...)

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

      When i was younger i took a trip to the sea side with a youth club.One of the girls that came with us must of left her can on the side for a minute and picked it up and took a sip from it.
      Turned out there was a wasp in side of there.It stung her in her throat. Her throat started to swell because she was allergic to wasp stings.
      She almost died because of it.

      This made me always becareful with my cans of coke. This is very differnt to being paronoid about germs.
      Ive always been the type to not worrie about germs because i know most of what dont kill me will make me stronger. I say most because something can weaken your immune system.

    11. Re:soda by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1

      Ummm, someone does/did make a soda in a clear can. I cant remember the brand, but it had a clear, thicker and harder shell than a soft drink bottle, but it still had an opaque aluminium top. The drink was also clear, but had brightly coloured beads in it, like bubble tea, but not...

      This wasnt it, but you get the idea...

    12. Re:soda by somegeekgirl · · Score: 1

      I left a soda outside once as a child and was greeted by a swig of Coke full of tiny ants. Not a pleasant experience.

      --
      http://angel.merseine.nu - Stuff for the poet, diva, geek, romantic and angel in all of us.
    13. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the entire 16 years of my being a child, I never once witnessed a wasp or bee crawl into a can while I was drinking from it. So it's not "pretty likely to happen" at all.

    14. Re:soda by mblase · · Score: 1

      Perhaps with this technology we can have see-through cans and this will no longer be a problem

      Finally, something to replace that inconvenient glass bottle they used to use all the time!

    15. Re:soda by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      I believe we already have the technology - it's called "bottles".

    16. Re:soda by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Was the can smaller diameter than a standard one? And did the beads just sort of hover, neither sinking to the bottom nor floating to the top? I remember something along those lines, but I think the drink was more a thin jelly than a true liquid.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:soda by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I think it's called "Obits," as I saw a similar beverage with beads once in the international foods section of a Dominick's supermarket in the Chicago area.

    19. Re:soda by FireIron · · Score: 1

      Instead of inventing a new material, the Soviet space program just poured the soda into a glass.

    20. Re:soda by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Actually, the primary active substance in bee venom is mellitin, a highly basic cytotoxic peptid. Wasp venom is similiar in composition, it also contains mellitin. So both are probably basic, not acidic.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    21. Re:soda by fuzznutz · · Score: 1
      Does anyone remember being told when they were a child, not to leave your can of drink open while outside for fear of a wasp/bee getting inside and consequently a painful next sip?

      Not bee, wasp. Bees usually don't enter soft drink cans. People erroneously mistake Yellow Jackets (a social wasp, with beelike markings) for bees. Bees are generally cool.

      By the way, if you are stung and can find no stinger embedded in your wound, you were not stung by a bee, especially a honeybee.
    22. Re:soda by orim · · Score: 1

      You do understand it's just going to tip off the bees where the soda actually is?

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    23. Re:soda by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Does anyone remember being told when they were a child, not to leave your can of drink open while outside for fear of a wasp/bee getting inside and consequently a painful next sip?

      No, but I do remember leaving my can of drink open outside and actually experiencing that "painful next sip". Ouch. My upper lip was very badly swollen for about a week.

    24. Re:soda by Peldor · · Score: 1

      But that would encourage Mother Nature to come up with transparent bees! The horror!

    25. Re:soda by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I witnessed wasps investigating sodas plenty of times, crawling it, poking around a bit, and crawling back out again.

      In fact, once I left a can of soda out and a roach crawled into it. I didn't know this. Until I drank the soda, and felt something moving around in my mouth.

      I swallowed. 'Cause I'm a Man.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    26. Re:soda by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1
      An AC posted "Was it Orbitz?? http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/orbitz/ [bevnet.com]"

      Although it appears this stuff is noxious:
      "The liquid part of the beverage has a barely acceptable berry-like flavor. The addition of the balls, however, make this a completely unpalatable beverage... It tastes like water that came out of a vase used for flowers....the balls make it even worse."... This beverage makes us sick... Stay away from this beverage... We suggest straining out the balls if you are daring enough to try this beverage..."

      I dont recall it being in bottles or being that bad...
    27. Re:soda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened to me, but I got stung on the tougn

  9. iPod Nano screen by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sound just what Apple need to make some scratch resistant screens for the iPod Nano :)

    1. Re:iPod Nano screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on being the first Apple whore to post to a story completely unrelated to Apple.

      Whore.

  10. IPOD nano needs this stuff by blackomegax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    seriously. give the nano a nice coat of this and i think apple's little scratching post will turn into something nice and...well...scratchless

    1. Re:IPOD nano needs this stuff by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Manufactured diamond coatings might be doable soon enough too.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:IPOD nano needs this stuff by failure-man · · Score: 1

      Or maybe not. According to TFA this stuff is "virtually scratch resistant." Whatever that means . . .. . .

    3. Re:IPOD nano needs this stuff by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      It resists virtual scratches?

  11. Beanie by svvampy · · Score: 4, Funny
    Does this mean that I can get a new beanie that will protect me from the mind-controlling probes of the government, but not make me look more like a freak?

    I don't think that'll catch on.

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

      But then they can just see right into your head.... Tinfoil hats prevent stray mind control waves AND nosey onlookers.

    2. Re:Beanie by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, just do what I do and line your existing hats and headware with aluminum.

    3. Re:Beanie by HAMgeek · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... reminds me of the hat worm by Gary Oldman as "Zorg" in "The Fifth Element." Movie from the late 90's if my memory serves.

      --
      "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." --Pericles
  12. Aluminium! by paulhar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Grr...

    1. Re:Aluminium! by Big-mad-Gregor · · Score: 0, Troll

      mod parent up! pesky Americans and their strange spelling....

      --
      Error: sig not found, Please reboot Universe and contact your local system administrator.
    2. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You know both are officially allowed in the US, right?

    3. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what color?

    4. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      yeah, they lower the high jump bar in the special olympics too

      Americans.... i guess they're doing the best they can

    5. Re:Aluminium! by HugePedlar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interestingly (or not, as the case may be) the discoverer of "aluminium" decided to call it "aluminum" but the British Chemical Naming Commission (or whatever they're called) insisted that all metals end in "ium" so they overrode him.

      --
      Argh.
    6. Re:Aluminium! by johnw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually he called it "Alumium", in line with the convention of ending metals in "ium". Then he added the extra "n" to make "Aliminum" and then the extra "i" was added to bring it back into line with the convention.

    7. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled 'aloominum'.

      Seriously, every time people spell it that way, I associate it with saying 'nuculur' instead of 'nuclear'. The latter is seen as ignorant, so why isn't the former? Yeah, the US might officially allow this spelling but it doesn't make it right.

    8. Re:Aluminium! by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Interestingly (or not, as the case may be) the discoverer of "aluminium" decided to call it "aluminum" but the British Chemical Naming Commission (or whatever they're called) insisted that all metals end in "ium" so they overrode him.

      Speaking as an Englishman myself, that makes sense. So what's going on with platinum then, apart from the fact that 'platinium' sounds lame...

    9. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not just insightfull, but tragically funny!

    10. Re:Aluminium! by Megane · · Score: 1
      So what's going on with platinum then, apart from the fact that 'platinium' sounds lame...

      ...and Aurum, and Ferrum, and, uh, Nickel, and Cobalt and Zinc and Tungsten and...

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    11. Re:Aluminium! by grimJester · · Score: 0

      Like "nuclear" and "nucular"?

    12. Re:Aluminium! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You know your post on slashdot is uninformative if you can be replaced by a bot:

      psuedocode:

      do while true
      if slashdot post contains "aluminum","color","honor"
      post message subject = "aluminium", "colour", "honour" body = "Grr..."
      endif
      end while
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Aluminium! by Slashdolt · · Score: 1

      Give us Americans a few minutes to "reorientate" ourselves to this new spelling..

    14. Re:Aluminium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I can say that aluminium sounds just as lame to us. I guess it just depends on what you were raised hearing.

    15. Re:Aluminium! by localhost00 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was alyooMINium. At least that is how I heard the British version.

      --

      Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

  13. Finally! by Moe+Napoli · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can now order my Wonder Woman jet! Now's where's my Golden Lasso and Amazon Bangles? Soon I hope. Now, if only surgery took well, I'd be all set...

    1. Re:Finally! by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping you're female... I know the chances are pretty slim here on /. but the alternative makes me uncomfortable ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  14. Humvee Windshields by deathcow · · Score: 4, Insightful


    IIRC the windshield of a Humveee is about 72" x 23"... thats 1656 square inches. The article quotes $10 - $15 a sq. inch, so the windshield would be worth $16,560 to $24,840.... I guess they wont be protecting fleets of vehicles with them?

    1. Re:Humvee Windshields by Zen+Programmer · · Score: 1

      Umm, I don't such a price tag would really be a deterrent to the military, considering that DoD's annual budget is in the hundreds of billions range.

    2. Re:Humvee Windshields by Eivind · · Score: 2, Informative
      1656 square inches. The article quotes $10 - $15 a sq. inch, so the windshield would be worth $16,560 to $24,840....

      That's DoD prices, they always seem to have a zero more than seems reasonable, sometimes more. (there's been a few $500 toilet-seats and $300 hammers)

      The current prices for similar glass-armor are quite high too, at $3 or so a square inch that Hummer windshield is still going to cost around $5000.

    3. Re:Humvee Windshields by sqeaky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not just any windsheild but a windshield that can stand up to repeated .50 caliber rounds. I think $24,000 is fine price to improve our fighting mens chances at coming home safely. That and it will probably get cheaper when they start mass manufacturing it.

    4. Re:Humvee Windshields by hidispenser · · Score: 5, Informative

      Humvees normally cost the military about $125,000 each. Installing Level I (the highest) armor costs an additional $125,000. http://www.reflector.com/news/content/shared/news/ world/stories/08/11TROOPS_ARMOR.html/ The article in the link states that the military's goal is to get every Humvee in the fleet to that state of armor. So $16,560 to $24,840 is therefore reasonable for an entire fleet to have.

    5. Re:Humvee Windshields by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cheaper than training a replacement soldier.

    6. Re:Humvee Windshields by WoodieR · · Score: 2, Funny

      sure, they will, it's only your tax dollars, you gots lots of those ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    7. Re:Humvee Windshields by angulion · · Score: 1

      Question:
      Why go pick a fight in the first place?

      Anyways, TA seems like a 3y old dupe:
      Transparent Aluminium

    8. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, You should ask Sadaam Hussein or Usama Ben Ladin since they picked the fight(s).

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    9. Re:Humvee Windshields by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well sure it's expensive now. How is the inventor going to get "rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice" otherwise?

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    10. Re:Humvee Windshields by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      The telling factor will be "does anyone who has interests in this technology also have access to the whitehouse?". If they "donate" enough money to the politicians then the whole army gets it and everyone is rich^H^H^H^Hhappy.

    11. Re:Humvee Windshields by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yea, Saddam shoulda known better than to rule a country with all that oil...Man he was asking for it!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    12. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you don't remember how this war started. Let me refresh you memory. He invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. From there, he proceeded for 10 years to violate the terms of the temporary cease fire by failing to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs and by firing on Allied aircraft patrolling the border areas.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    13. Re:Humvee Windshields by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "...by failing to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs"

      Uhhh, riiiiiight.

      After we called it off prematurely the last time, we had no justification for going in this time. We should have done it right the first time, or stayed the hell out.

      I got no problem with war. But when someone trumps up a reason to do it, it pisses me off.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    14. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      We didn't call it off, we put it on hold. When the justification for keeping it on hold wore thin, we picked it back up.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    15. Re:Humvee Windshields by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Well, the article also says that the traditional multi layer glass armored windows are $3/sq in, so they're already spending $5000. This stuff is stronger, lighter, and, importantly, less prone to scratching so needs to be replaced less often. Since costs are likely to drop as they figure out how to make these windows on a large scale, it sounds totally reasonable to me. And for the guys in the Humvees, the fact that they are stronger is probably enough ;o)

    16. Re:Humvee Windshields by xutopia · · Score: 1

      no it isn't reasonable. Military pays outreageous prices for stuff. I can't believe tax money is spent on stuff like this.

    17. Re:Humvee Windshields by Zey · · Score: 1
      Let me refresh you memory. He invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia.

      Pfft. Lets refresh your memory a bit here: the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was originally provoked by Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraq's oil fields. The Iraqis sent a memo beforehand to US diplomats to get their okay, which was given.

      From there, he proceeded for 10 years to violate the terms of the temporary cease fire by failing to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs

      I'd now like you to prove that you have gotten rid of your photos of Condoleeza Rice humping a horse.

    18. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Search everywhere I own control or have access to I'll provide you keys and pay for an independant observer to make sure you don't make off with my MP3s.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    19. Re:Humvee Windshields by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      $10-$15 per square inch? Yikes! I guess that nixes the idea of using the stuff on my house so wardrivers can't access my network.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    20. Re:Humvee Windshields by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the old FASA Mechwarrior quote:

      "Life is cheap. Mechs cost money"

      Which only makes sense until you see how much it costs to train a pilot :)

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    21. Re:Humvee Windshields by demachina · · Score: 1

      Of course it would have been cheaper still to not have sent them to a place like Iraq in the first place, a couple thousand Americans wouldn't be dead now, and thousands more wouldn't be burned or missing limbs. The problem with the calculus you are engaged in is you could always spend a few more billion and make the soldiers just a little safer, or hey build robotic soldiers and let the soldiers sit at their base playing Halo but in real life. Problem is it would bankrupt the U.S. .... oh wait. Military spending is great when it produces technology that can be spun off to peaceful uses, otherwise its a giant hole in the ground and the U.S. is pouring money in to that hole at a furious pace while the rest of the U.S. economy is in near collapse thanks to China (reference a $700 billion trade deficit and a current account deficit approachign a trillion). The U.S. as a whole is doing the same thing to many American's do now, staying prosperous using charge cards, which is a practice that eventually ends in bankruptcy.

      Military spending has only two forms of economic value:

      A. You need enough to dissuade another power from attacking you, the U.S. has both more than enough to do that, and will never have enough to stop insurgent attacks

      B. You use your military power to invade and intimidate other countries to acquire control of their economic assets, oil for instance. The U.S. increasingly seems to being doing that, the only flaw is when it reaches the point of invastion the occupations are costing vastly more than any economic benefit and insurgent attacks have decimated things like Iraqi oil production, so there was little economic benefit from the increasing fondness of the U.S. for aggressive warfare .... except for all the contractors who are making windfall profits on war profiteering, something that has been a hallmark and prime motivator of wars since the dawn of civilization.

      As an aside if you've been following the Judith Miller case, the reporter for the New York Times, its starting to look like she was a propaganda tool of Dick Cheney's office who went to extraordinary lengths to whip up WMD fears about Iraq at the behest of the White House while posing as a journalist with supposed integrity, independence and dedication to the truth. It kind of appears the White House manipulated the supposedly free press in to fabricating and propagandizing their case for a war based on lies.

      --
      @de_machina
    22. Re:Humvee Windshields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the right-wing politians still pumping out excuses for going to war? Face it, they wanted Iraq's oil, the cover was that Iraq had hordes of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical missiles ready to shoot at everyone but as the United Natinos weapons inspectors had already proved, Iraq had none.

      America then said the UN inspectors just won't good enough at their job. ...Turns out the UN inspectors were dead on correct. But that doesn't matter because as I said the reason was to get the oil.

      Politians can come up with all the excuses the want, Hitler also had a whole heap of bullsh*t excuses for invading Europe. The wider world believes the politians excuses about as much as they believed Hitlers!

    23. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      IF this war was about oil(and it isn't) our oil costs and prices would be lower today than 2 years ago at this time.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    24. Re:Humvee Windshields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper than training a replacement? I doubt it.

    25. Re:Humvee Windshields by Zey · · Score: 1
      You'll just keep cunningly moving your Rice horse pr0n around behind our backs while we search... until we have no option but to take over your house. We all know that ;-).

      Point is: nobody can prove a negative. That was why the US took that line. Saddam could never prove to the US/UN that his country had no WMD, though he did a damned good job trying. (Thus the complete lack of support from every country in the world apart from US vassal states.)

    26. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      And the truck convoys that he moved from restricted areas just prior to making them unrestricted were just a coincidence? Or was he perhaps running a giant bluff and making his words appear to be lies? We know today that he almost certainly didn't have WMDs anymore, but if I have a hand behind my back, and tell you I don't have a knife, but always keep at least one hand behind my back the reasonable determination is that you still have the knife.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    27. Re:Humvee Windshields by Zey · · Score: 1
      And the truck convoys that he moved from restricted areas just prior to making them unrestricted were just a coincidence? Or was he perhaps running a giant bluff and making his words appear to be lies?

      Heh. The only ones making those claims was the now discredited UNMOVIC headed by serial liar, Richard Butler. UNMOVIC was disbanded entirely when it was demonstrated beyond doubt that their so-called independent UN authority was riddled with US agents ;-).

    28. Re:Humvee Windshields by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, the US government is also riddled with these US agents you speak of. Perhaps they were sharing information.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    29. Re:Humvee Windshields by usrusr · · Score: 2, Informative

      so you are saying it all worked out as planned?

      i don't think they'd need better homvee windshields if it did.

      and why would the corporations bombed into control of the oil fields be that much interested in lower oil prices? besides, the oil business is a very slow one, you don't just drive by with a tank and take away all the oil, even rebuilding previously existing infrastructure takes many years, more if you have to deal with partisan activity.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    30. Re:Humvee Windshields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no it isn't reasonable. Military pays outreageous prices for stuff. I can't believe tax money is spent on stuff like this.

      I'll bet you wouldn't feel that way if your butt was parked behind the wheel of a Humvee in Baghdad right now.
  15. no doubt patented already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Air Force Research Laboratory's materials and manufacturing directorate is testing aluminum oxynitride -- ALONtm

    And look.. the trademark is built right in as well!

  16. So the questions is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone seen a pointy eared hippy in San Fransisco. And are any sperm whales missing ?

    1. Re:So the questions is, by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean humpback whales? Turn in your pocket protector. :p

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:So the questions is, by mibus · · Score: 1

      Has anyone seen a pointy eared hippy in San Fransisco. And are any sperm whales missing ?

      I don't know, but I've heard plenty of people use colourful metaphors today...

    3. Re:So the questions is, by Chicane-UK · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think he did a little too much LDS.

      --
      "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  17. In a related story: by dummyname12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The military is planning to test this new material on its nuclear wessels.

    1. Re:In a related story: by ClippyHater · · Score: 1

      I can see it now, a nuclear submarine made of this stuff. See the pretty whales getting confused and beaching themselves, see the big sharks bonk their heads on the stuff as they try to eat the crew, see the pretty canisters floating down towards you and then exploding. Hey, is that Hoffa!?!?

    2. Re:In a related story: by coolGuyZak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hold on, wouldn't this be the first time we can make new clear wessels?

    3. Re:In a related story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One damn minute, Admiral....

  18. Ooooh. by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What'll be really nice is when prices get down to be viable for use in consumer-grade products. Say goodbye to broken windows from baseballs, cracked screens on dropped iPods, chipped windshields from rocks, and all sorts of other fun uses.

    It should open up some cool architectural possibilities as well.

    1. Re:Ooooh. by Cave_Monster · · Score: 1

      I imagine there are already much cheaper alternative available that withstand those sorts of forces. Take for instance, the glass at the back of a squash court. Have you ever tried kicking it? Running really fast, before throwing your body into it? Its quite surprisingly strong and doesn't break. Well it didn't when I tried these kind of antics.

    2. Re:Ooooh. by MavEtJu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say goodbye to broken windows from baseballs,

      And say hello to the fire from which you can't escape from because the "glass" is unbreakable.

      Every advantage has its disadvantage!

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    3. Re:Ooooh. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      That's a poor reason to restrict it. Are we going to ban opaque curtains? There are plenty of ways for a SWAT team to enter a building or to remove a window.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Ooooh. by erlorad · · Score: 1

      The glass in buildings where braking it would be your only option of escape is unbreakable anyway.

    5. Re:Ooooh. by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeuch. You disgust me! How brainwashed and nihilistic does a human have to be, to strap a gun pointing to their head with a dangling tag saying "for police use"? Or, how utterly sick, to insist others do so?

      I do not view the government as a thing with the legitimate right to kill me. If that stymies their plans, fuck 'em. I'll take all the armor I can get!

    6. Re:Ooooh. by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      You do realize that most windows open, don't you?

    7. Re:Ooooh. by DilbertLand · · Score: 1

      There are already cheaper alternatives on the market that work almost as well. If iPod's (and other consumer products) aren't already using the alternatives, I doubt they will be using this in the near future. Economics just can't justify replacing a $0.03 part with a $5-10 part (even if you can eventually bring the price down to $1).

    8. Re:Ooooh. by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      You're at the 58th floor of a building.
      There is a fire. You can't use the stairs or elevators.
      A)You break the glass, jump out and fall to your death.
      B)You don't break the glass and suffocated because of the smoke.

      Either way, you're toast.

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

      Maybe because its FUCKING PLASTIC? You hopeless retard, plexiglas GETS scratched.

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

      The material is not ductile but brittle. It is not a metal, but more like sapphire. Strong, yes, but it breaks, and doesn't bend.

    11. Re:Ooooh. by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Not those by Microsoft.

    12. Re:Ooooh. by RFC959 · · Score: 1

      Police snipers don't generally use .50 BMG. Too much potential for overpenetration. (This is not to say that no police department has them - the NYPD does.) And "bulletproof" glass is already available anyway. Not to mention this new technology called "walls".

    13. Re:Ooooh. by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Properly arranged, you could have it in such a way that bracing yourself against something else, and kicking outwards, you push out the entire window.

      I think this procedure is sometimes used with vehicle windows if you don't have a break-glass hammer or similar implement handy.

      In fact, if your double-glazing is good, you'll have enough difficulty right now breaking your windows.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    14. Re:Ooooh. by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1
      They're actually talking about a composite material with three layers.

      Ceramic (high compressive strength)
      glass
      polymer (high tensile strength)

      This will be highy resistant to pressure and projectiles coming from one side (the side with high compressive strength). Applying force in the opposite direction will compress the polymer layer and put tension on the ceramic layer, and much less force will be required for breaking the window (or at least popping it out of place).

    15. Re:Ooooh. by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      And say hello to the fire from which you can't escape from because the "glass" is unbreakable.

      I understand that DARPA is working on new technology that would allow one to open a window instead of having to crash through it.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    16. Re:Ooooh. by skubeedooo · · Score: 1
      You're at the 1st floor of a building.

      There is a fire. You can't use the stairs or elevators.

      A)You break the glass, step out and walk away.

      B)You don't break the glass and suffocated because of the smoke.

    17. Re:Ooooh. by crabpeople · · Score: 1

        "In fact, if your double-glazing is good, you'll have enough difficulty right now breaking your windows."

      desk, meet window. window, desk.
       

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    18. Re:Ooooh. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That's how the front windows of modern cars are made. You can't break the front window easily, as it has a polymer layer so that in case of a crash you don't have huge shards of glass flying around. If you need to get out of a crashed car, you can kick out the entire front window as it's made to withstand force from the outside but be removable from the inside.
      If firemen need to rescue someone from a car they usually a) take a pickaxe, make a hole in the front window and pull it out or b) get a huge hydraulic cutter and cut off the roof.

      If the window was made of this transparent armor, you'd still be able to kick it out. The firemen would probably need special equipnemt to pull the window out, but then again they can probably use the cutter.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    19. Re:Ooooh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a house protected with this stuff and a SWAT team trying to save a child from being killed by his mentally-disturbed dad.

      I bet this guy sure wished he had an armored house when the police snipers you're so enamored with dropped by to murder his family.

    20. Re:Ooooh. by haaz · · Score: 1

      True. I thought of it from the perspective of, If my Honda Civic had this sort of windshield, I wouldn't have lost much of the use of my left eye when a drunk driver hit me. In that case, I'd be happy to have such armor. But then, what would have happened when my head hit it? Would that have worsened the brain injury, or not? Hmm. Rhetorical questions at this point. :)

      --
      -- haaz.
  19. finally! by rootedgimp · · Score: 1, Funny

    now i can wear my tinfoil hat without people looking at me weird. technology++

  20. "Computer. Computer? Hello, computer." by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1


              Dr. Nichols:

    "Just use the keyboard."

                  Scotty:

    "Keyboard. How quaint. "

    1. Re:"Computer. Computer? Hello, computer." by Thyrsus · · Score: 1

      Then the absurd thing is that Scotty, who hasn't used a keyboard in decades, is instantly an 80wpm typist. And is completely familiar with the centuries old molecular modeling software. Ah, to be a superhero.

  21. Old News is new again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an aluminum-based ceramic, not really aluminum...

    We covered this last year (and probably the year before that, but I can't find it):

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/2 3/1141217&tid=14
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/2 0/0358206&tid=126&tid=14

  22. Armored soda by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    "Coke, now with added armor for these explosive fieldtrips."

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  23. Or as the brits say... by dirtsurfer · · Score: 0

    transparent aluminium.
    What is with that, anyway?

    1. Re:Or as the brits say... by mccalli · · Score: 3, Interesting
      transparent aluminium.
      What is with that, anyway?

      Aluminium is the 'correct' and internationally recommended way of writing it, with aluminum being a local variant. Personally, even as a Brit I think the second sounds more correct, but there you go.

      As ever, Wikipedia reveals all.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    2. Re:Or as the brits say... by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      The way I heard it was, it was originally called Alumium. Then some American added an extra n to make it Aluminum, and then some Brit added the extra i to make it more like the rest of the element names: Aluminium. So technically the Yanks are more correct if you're talking about which came first.

      But since I'm a Brit and Aluminum always sounds so stupid I call shenanigans. It's Aluminium, you yanks are so stupid, it's got an extra i in it now, jeezus wouldja catch up already.

    3. Re:Or as the brits say... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I especially liked this part:

      The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium.

      All this pointless bickering because of a troll who posted as an Anonymous Coward... in 1812. I guess he must have gotten modded up.

    4. Re:Or as the brits say... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      Actually, the 'correct' spelling is (that's & # 3 8 1 0 9 ; for those who are font-impaired.) Unless you're using a different language or something.

    5. Re:Or as the brits say... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      note: slashdot strips unicode entities from the text output to the browser so even those who have the fonts won't see your character

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  24. Transparent Alumin(i)um by slittle · · Score: 3, Informative

    See also here for earlier developments in this area.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  25. Adn as a little dream.. by Strenoth · · Score: 1

    Perhaps in 20-30 years, this will be standard in all new vehicales and buildings as a safety feature, the begining of a total phase out of glass excepting where metal in any form would be bad (beakers for holding chemicals such as Acid for example)

    Well, I can Dream at least.

    --

    "It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'

    1. Re:Adn as a little dream.. by hey! · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the optical properties are. I can imagine lenses that you don't need a cover for.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  26. DUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plastic bottles???

  27. virtually scratch resistant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant,

    Does that actually mean anything? It's almost harder to scratch, but not quite?

    1. Re:virtually scratch resistant? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It means it'll resists anything except a bunch of bored teenage
      scratch-taggers armed with screwdrivers at 3am on a sunday morning.

  28. Whales by thelonestranger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmmmm....Has anyone noticed a pair of humpback whales going missing recently?

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
    1. Re:Whales by DumbparameciuM · · Score: 1

      Or a tall guy with a bad haircut wearing a bandanna? [Ha-ha! Thinly veiled references!]

      --
      "We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
  29. Note to mods: by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative
    The parent isn't offtopic; you just didn't get the Star Trek IV reference:

    [after Scotty tries to talk into the mouse]

    TECHNICIAN: "Just use the keyboard!"

    SCOTTY: "The keyboard? How quaint."
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Note to mods: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it isn't off-topic, it IS a repeat of the story's "department" line. So I'd say it qualifies as redundant.

    2. Re:Note to mods: by JackDW · · Score: 0
      It did surprise me that Scotty could use a centuries-old computer system so easily. We're supposed to believe that he was confused by the user interface, but was still able to use the machine almost immediately? Hmm. Had it been a punch-card machine, would he have instinctively known how to use it?

      Of course the rest of Star Trek IV is completely believable!

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    3. Re:Note to mods: by hode · · Score: 1

      It was a user friendly mac. :)

    4. Re:Note to mods: by DJ_Perl · · Score: 1

      Keyboards are quaint. So how could Scotty type really fast on a Qwerty keyboard?

      --
      -- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
    5. Re:Note to mods: by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Obviously, Scotty was a retrocomputing buff.

      -- John.

    6. Re:Note to mods: by Kelson · · Score: 1

      That always bothered me as well. He can't figure out the mouse, but he can use a 300-year-old keyboard design without resorting to hunt-and-peck?

  30. Pretty impressive! by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    "In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets."

    I don't care if it's see through or not. Stopping a .50 armour piercing round from a browning pretty damn impressive. I wonder if the compound suffers from the same degradation due to exposure to sunlight as some types of bullet proof glass.

    I want a pair of glasses made of this stuff!

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    1. Re:Pretty impressive! by Xochi77 · · Score: 1

      uhhuh, because glasses lenses now moving at 2500 feet per second aint gunna hurt at all.....

    2. Re:Pretty impressive! by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      I don't care if it's see through or not. Stopping a .50 armour piercing round from a browning pretty damn impressive. I wonder if the compound suffers from the same degradation due to exposure to sunlight as some types of bullet proof glass.

      Keep in mind this is not the .50 cal Browning machine gun they are talking about, that would be impressive enough all on it's own, this thing is a super heavy sniper rifle (M107?). The achievement is especially impressive in view of the fact that the AP rounds form these rifles proved capable of piercing the armor of some of the APC's fielded by the Iraqi army during the Bush-wars in the Gulf.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Pretty impressive! by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      yup, it's the sniper rifle i meant - it's a scary, scary device in the right kind of way. I hadn't specifically heard about it piercing the Iraqi APC armour, but i did know it could pierce the glass on attack choppers etc.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    4. Re:Pretty impressive! by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      well acually i want a pair that won't scratch every time i look at them ( which is about 16 hours a day!!)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    5. Re:Pretty impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .50cal browning is the ammunition fired, from descendants of the m2 browning machine gun (eg: some 12.7mm machine gun mounts on humvees), and sniper rifles similar to the Barret m82a1 and m95 rifles.) ie the m82a1 and m95 fire amunition suitable for use in a M2, just one at a time. So it would be more impressive if it stood up to a m2 firing armour piercing rounds (many vs one).

    6. Re:Pretty impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, now we know Scott Summers' slashdot username.

    7. Re:Pretty impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The barret model 82A3 AKA M82A1M (M107) is chambered to fire the same ammunition as a M2HB browning heavy machine gun, hence the reason the ammunition is called .50 BMG (12.7 x 99mm) (Actually the longest recorded sniper kill was performed using a single shot from a stripped M2).

      Obviously the M107 ammunition is assembled by hand, and more care is taken, not to mention the use of rounds other than ball (eg: API, Raufoss M213). If you think a M107 is impressive you need to take a look at the XM109 from the same company. 25mm vs 12.7mm (.50cal), both weapons are intended as anti-material weapons, ie: they are not primarily intended for use against human targets.

      For human targets much smaller calibres are more than sufficent. The M24 is still used for this purpose, this has the added benefit of reducing the sniper team to just the shooter and the spotter. The M107 requires a team of 3, 2 carry the broken down weapon, and 1 carries the ammunition, etc

  31. For people with fear of heights by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Transparant aluminium bottom in an airplane (-; (Only usefull if the airplane travels without cargo)

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  32. Err, I thought it was called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aluminium. Look it up, it's in all the science books.

    1. Re:Err, I thought it was called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aluminium. Look it up, it's in all the science books.


      but not in the movie :o) - It's a bit like yoghurt/yogurt or tomaRto/tomaYto (sort of).

      This http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.ht ml may help.

  33. Sapphire by obender · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sapphire which is basically a crystal of aluminium oxide has been synthetised almost 100 years ago and is commonly used nowadays. Some non-scratch watches use that instead of glass.

    1. Re:Sapphire by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Also, IIRC, the transparent plates on checkout scanners are made out of sapphire.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  34. Case mod! by gobbledok · · Score: 3, Funny

    A transparent case made of aluminium...Mmmmm, aluminium..

    --
    47 Meelion Dollars!?! I'm the cat!
  35. Other things realizable by R-ing TFA by Atario · · Score: 4, Informative
    • Either someone doesn't know how to make a proper trademark symbol, or else the Air Force has a wierder marketing department that one would imagine ("'ALONtm'? Alontum? With odd capitalization? Wha? Is this like that whole Sony Wega/Vega nonsense?").
    • Ceramic can be transparent
    • It's possible for something to be "virtually scratch resistant" -- practically, but not technically, offering some resistance to being scratched
    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Other things realizable by R-ing TFA by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Cant you see Greta Garbo saying "I vant to be ALONtm"?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Other things realizable by R-ing TFA by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      Right on the first try. ALON is trademarked by Raytheon Company, for 'optical glass' among other things.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
  36. How's it pronounced? by Jaruzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is aluminium pronounced:

    a) AL-LEW-MIN-NEE-UM

    or

    b) AL-LUMIN-UM

    Personally, I go with 'a' coz I'm a Brit, is it just U.S. peeps who pronounce it 'b' ?

    (I'd submit this as a /. poll, but everything I submit gets rejected... I wish there were _at the very least_, proforma reasons as why things get rejected so you know where you went wrong...)

    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    1. Re:How's it pronounced? by miknight · · Score: 1

      It's spelt and pronounced differently by our US brethren.

    2. Re:How's it pronounced? by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 5, Informative
      Either, really. It can be pronounced and spelled either aluminum or aluminium. Typically, Americans and Canadians pronounce and spell it "aluminum." I can't speak for other countries...

      Here's the history behind the difference (from the Wikipedia article):
      In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812 he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root. The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium.

      "Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound. (Q. Review VIII. 72, 1812. Cited in OED.)"

      This had the advantage of conforming to the -ium suffix precedent set by other newly discovered elements of the period: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy had isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time: platinum, which had been known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, which was discovered in 1778, and tantalum, which was discovered in 1802, all have spellings ending in -um. For the thirty years following its discovery, both the -um and -ium endings were used interchangeably in the scientific literature.

      Curiously, the United States adopted the -ium for most of the 19th century with aluminium appearing in Webster's Dictionary of 1828. However Charles Martin Hall selected the -um spelling in an advertising handbill for his new efficient electrolytic method for the production of aluminium, four years after he had patented the process in 1888. Although this spelling may have been an accident, Hall's domination of production of the metal ensured that the spelling aluminum became the standard in North America, even though the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 continued to use the -ium version.

      In 1926, the American Chemical Society officially decided to use aluminum in its publications, and American dictionaries typically label the spelling aluminium as a British variant.
    3. Re:How's it pronounced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.ht ml

      Derived from the Latin ALUMEN for ALUM (Potassium aluminium sulphate). In 1761 French Chemist Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau proposed that ALUMINE for the base material of ALUM. De Morveau was instrumental in setting up a standardised system for chemical nomenclature and often collaborated with Antoine Lavoisier, who in 1787, suggested that ALUMINE was the oxide of a previously undiscovered metal.

      In 1808 Sir Humphrey Davy proposed the name ALUMIUM for the metal. This rather unwieldy name was soon replaced by ALUMINUM and later the word ALUMINIUM was adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists in order to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements. By the mid-1800s both spellings were in use, indeed Charles Dickens commented at the time that he felt both names were too difficult for the masses to pronounce!

      The patents of both Hall and Héroult refer to ALUMINIUM and the company Hall helped set up was originally called the Pittsburgh ALUMINIUM Company. It was shortly renamed the Pittsburgh Reduction Company and in the USA the metal gradually began to be known only as ALUMINUM (in 1907 Hall's company finally became the ALUMINUM Company of America). In 1925 the American Chemical Society decided to use the name ALUMINUM in their official publications. Most of the world have kept the I in ALUMINIUM but it is interesting to note that the name for the metal's oxide, ALUMINA has been universally accepted over its more convoluted alternatives, ALUMINE and ALUMINIA.

      Both ALUMINIUM and ALUMINUM have an equal claim to etymological and historical justification, and it seems that the difference in both pronunciation and spelling is likely to stay with us for the foreseeable future!

    4. Re:How's it pronounced? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      Canadians will also say "a-LUM-inum" rather than "alu-MINI-um" - one of the few times we side with the Yankees on both spelling and pronunciation over our British chums.

      As for the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll have to ask them yourself. But I suspect they'll go with the British version.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    5. Re:How's it pronounced? by Famanoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we use the British version here in NZ..

    6. Re:How's it pronounced? by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      As for the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll have to ask them yourself. But I suspect they'll go with the British version.

      Yup, I've just done a straw poll around the office, and as is common in London based IT depts, there are plenty Aussies, Kiwis, and South Africans. They all pronounce it the 'british' way.

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    7. Re:How's it pronounced? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      I say whoever invented or discovered it gets the name. We'll pronounce it "Aluminium", as long as you stop calling flashlights "torches". It's bloody confusing. Who ever heard of chasing Frankenstein into a windmill with flashlights?

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    8. Re:How's it pronounced? by Maian · · Score: 1
    9. Re:How's it pronounced? by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      Ugh, that page is a mess - a fine example of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. I'd go and clean it up, but tbh, I know that within a day it'll just be back to the state it's currently in. :(

      -Jar.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    10. Re:How's it pronounced? by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Equally, since when is flashing the common use of torches? Usually they are used to see in the dark, which is what flaming torches tend to be used for too.

    11. Re:How's it pronounced? by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

      It's understandable that words you use are going to seem more appropriate than words others do, but how's the word 'flashlight' any better? It's even a little misleading, the only time it flashes is when you rapidly flick the switch on and off.

      A battery powered torch has basically the same function as an oil/gas lantern or a burning soaked rag wrapped around a stick. If I were to tell someone to "go fetch me a torch", that person could get anything that lights stuff up and I'd be a happy camper. By using the word 'torch' I'm only telling them "I need something to light stuff up", because most of the time that'd be the case. If it weren't I could easily go into detail. Asking for a flashlight on the other hand, that person might come back empty handed because they can't find something with a lightbulb. All because the only word I have to describe what I need is too specific.

      Being general is sometimes better.

      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
    12. Re:How's it pronounced? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      'cause it's a Talk page, not an Article page. People are free to make mess off it to keep the article clean. Dubious ideas, NPOV, personal biases, requests, all that kind of junk gets stored there. Once something important emerges and becomes clear, it makes its way to the main article. It's not something that's wrong with Wikipedia. It's what's wrong with the general state of knowledge.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    13. Re:How's it pronounced? by Maian · · Score: 1
      Ugh, that page is a mess
      which is the point. 95% of that page is devoted to silly arguments about the spelling of aluminum - oh my bad, aluminium. My god, it's amazing how much time people can waste over trivialities...
    14. Re:How's it pronounced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, let me make this very clear: Brits lost the right to demand anything of Americans about 230 years ago. I don't want to hear how the Brits think Aluminum should be spelled or pronounced, about tea, fish & chips, torches, driving on the left hand side of the road or doubledecker busses. All those things just make the Brits sound heterosexually challenged. ;-)

      In the USA, a "torch" is something that burns (e.g. oil-soaked rag or propane cutting torch), and a "light" is something that provides *gasp* light. While a torch can be used as a light source, a flashlight generally cannot be used to set my trash heap on fire. One possible exception: my 1,000,000 candlepower spotlight might actually do the trick with enough time and/or a magnifying glass.

    15. Re:How's it pronounced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First of all, let me make this very clear: Brits lost the right to demand anything of Americans about 230 years ago.


      Erm... fine. Nobody here's demanding anything of you. And let me make the following very clear: it's bad to eat the yellow snow.

    16. Re:How's it pronounced? by robotoverflow · · Score: 1
      In the USA, a "torch" is something that burns (e.g. oil-soaked rag or propane cutting torch), and a "light" is something that provides *gasp* light.
      I'll admit that things like propane cutting torches skipped my mind, but they're still cutting torches. The fact that they cut isn't implicit unless you're in a situation where you're already talking about cutting something. In most cases being able to set things on fire with a torch is more a nifty side-effect than a primary use.

      Something that might be related to this is the way that you guys tend to name things after what they do instead of what they are. For example you call thongs 'flip-flops', presumably because of the sound they make, and fringes 'bangs', which I imagine is because they bare a passing reseblance to a fireworks explosion or something. This might be why you think of torches only as burning tools, because they should only be able to 'torch' things.
      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
    17. Re:How's it pronounced? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      I was attempting to make a joke. Your Humourchip may be out of date. Please upgrade to Humourchip 2.0 or higher today. Thank you.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    18. Re:How's it pronounced? by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

      I knew something was fishy when I saw the box was labelled "Humeurchip". Last time I buy off the back of a truck, that's for sure.

      --
      % mkdir :
      % ls -dF :
      :/
  37. Hey! by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm 40% aluminium! Bender

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Hey! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      What are you waiting for... Go sell your body then. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Hey! by Viperlin · · Score: 0

      Yeh, now we just need Dolomite so we can make boats to sail the lava under the earth!

    3. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, Bender's made of titanium, dolomite, iron, zinc, and a small nickel impurity. He may be 150% robot, but there's no aluminum in there.

    4. Re:Hey! by dangitman · · Score: 1
      and a small nickel impurity.

      It's what makes me, me. But I want to be 40% aluminium, I goddamn will be. What do you think my eyes are made of? Tranparent aluminium, you meatbag!

      Bender

      P.S: Wanna go get drunk?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  38. Star treck Ipods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, scrach-resistance for my Ipod Nano!

  39. Is this really the way to go? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder if this stuff isn't going to be pushed into fairly niche applications, even in the military. These days it seems far more likely that the military uses some variety of remote sensing. You put some cameras up, and you look at the picture on a screen. Even if you have to bring a lot of spare cameras -- because they keep getting shot off -- it could still be cheaper than trying to make a thoroughly bulletproof window through which to look with your own eyes.

    And, of course, the camera plus display is not limited to human eyeball capabilities. It can easily show you the scene in infrared, or, soon, maybe, millimeter and submillimeter radar. Or it can be magnified, or presented fisheye wraparound, or your intelligence info can be nicely superimposed --- say, all your friends lightly shaded green, all your enemies in red, with a bright cross on your target, et cetera.

    So will the future really belong to superduper armor? Maybe not. Maybe it will belong to, say, exceedingly small cameras that can be deployed all over the outside of your craft, or on tiny drones nearby.

  40. Unintended joke? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...loose your apetite before you even unwrap it!"

    I guess if you loosed your appetite on an unwrapped sandwich, you'd end up eating the whole thing wrapper and all! An amusing picture, even if you meant to type "lose" and suggest the opposite. :)

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    1. Re:Unintended joke? by moro_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      a) cost of a sandwich :
        about 1$

      b) cost of a research to invent invisible aluminium :
        about 1 zillion $

      c) the face of your boss when he takes a bite of
      his lunch and appears to have mouth full of cutting metal :
        priceless

      ----
      it would be cool to "see" a pc case made out of it thou (obviously you cant see it but you can pretend it's there :p)

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    2. Re:Unintended joke? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      An amusing picture, even if you meant to type "lose" and suggest the opposite. :)

      Now what's the point of starting a spelling flame here. We use language to communicate, and as long as the poster's meaning is communicated, then why does it matter if their spelling's a little off.

      Let's face it, it's not like there's any doubt that the OP simply miss-spelled "apatite" and was using the term "loosing the apatite" as a witty new term for mudslinging...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though. All those lil kids and wikipedians online these days are so impressionable you know, and the more instances that slide through, the more the problem will propagate. Capital punishment seems to be the way to go.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Unintended joke? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Funny

      it would be cool to "see" a pc case made out of it thou (obviously you cant see it but you can pretend it's there :p)

      You mean the way uoi can't see a case made oud of acrylic?

      Damn, I had a drinking glass full of water on the table somewhere, if only it weren't invisible I could find it....oh yeah, clear != invisible.

    5. Re:Unintended joke? by Eq+7-2521 · · Score: 3, Funny

      But that does beg the question, what are we going to do with all those bodies?

      --
      At my age I find coming up with a witty signature too exhausting.
    6. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'd chargrill them and build a magnificent library out of the skeletons. It may be a little draughty, but man would it look cool

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Unintended joke? by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Funny

      While you're spending your $1z on research, can you find out if transparent aluminum foil protects from government mind control rays as well as regular aluminum foil? Not that I'll believe your government-funded 'research'.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    8. Re:Unintended joke? by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      They'll get there just desserts.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    9. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You guys forgot to mention the morons who mix up "there" and "their"

    10. Re:Unintended joke? by Blapto · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you could make this really thin and well polished though. If you could work out a way to make it relatively seamless it would look really cool.

    11. Re:Unintended joke? by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      can you find out if transparent aluminum foil protects from government mind control rays as well as regular aluminum foil?

      Yes, it does. It is even much, much better, so change your regular with the transparent one.

      Not that I'll believe your government-funded 'research'.

      Oh, in that case: The transparent version does NOT protect you. The regular one is much better.

      Now that I wrote that, you rpobably think the regular one is better. See? We are already in your head.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Unintended joke? by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      I don't get your question... Of course turn them into biofuel, what else!?

    13. Re:Unintended joke? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      And "they're".

      All the correct usages put together in a sentence would look like: "There going over their to play with they'reselves."

      Or something.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    14. Re:Unintended joke? by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      you could make the boards out of clear acrylic and the conductors out of transparent aluminum. i don't know how well that would work, but it would look pretty cool- your computer could look like a bunch of chips, resistors, and other little electronic components floating in clear plastic/aluminum...

    15. Re:Unintended joke? by lowrydr310 · · Score: 3, Funny
      From TFA: "The substance itself is light years ahead of glass"

      So this new transparent aluminum is roughly 9.46 × 10^12 kilometres ahead of glass?

    16. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      An unspecified amount of light years.. who knows how many :S maybe as a side effect of the 'transparent aluminum' creation process they discovered the secret to interstellar travel?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Unintended joke? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      It does not beg the question. Stop misusing language, you fool! And if you bring up that old saw about "modern usage", you're just towing the party line.

    18. Re:Unintended joke? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though.

      Yeah, what loosers!

    19. Re:Unintended joke? by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Beekuzitt mayckes iht diphihcullttu umderztand ezpechilley for none naytiv riedres.

    20. Re:Unintended joke? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      I could care less about your opinion. (I know, I know...that's the point)

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    21. Re:Unintended joke? by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      Errr...I think you meant toeing the party line!

    22. Re:Unintended joke? by IbeUID0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may very well beg the question. It is not misusing language. The definition of "begs the question" that you are using is a misuse of language - specifically a mistranslation of Aristotle that dates from the 16th century. So, you are defending a 500 year old mistake.

      Congratulations. You have just won the "ironic idiot" award for this story for decrying something as a mistake using an argument that is, in fact, a mistake.

    23. Re:Unintended joke? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though. All those lil kids and wikipedians online these days are so impressionable you know, and the more instances that slide through, the more the problem will propagate. Capital punishment seems to be the way to go.

      Misuse of "lose" and "loose" I can live with. The people who deserve to die are the morons that use "women" as a singular noun.

    24. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I suggest you never visit Glasgow, Scotland, eg. place of my birth. I've lost the accent myself but.. just dont go there, you'd have a heart attack.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:Unintended joke? by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Say goodbye to scratched up iPods.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    26. Re:Unintended joke? by maird · · Score: 1

      Er, OK, irresistable language comment. Since there is only one Glasgow in Scotland (at least there was when I grew up there) and you were only born in one place (I hope) surely you should have used i.e. (id est, or that is) rather than e.g. (exempli gratia, or for example), e.g.:

      I suggest you never visit Glasgow, Scotland, that is the place of my birth

      Rather than

      I suggest you never visit Glasgow, Scotland, for example the place of my birth

    27. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Point well taken, ie thankyou (almost used eg again there but I will refrain) *salute*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    28. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse yet are the ones that claim every event "impacts" something. Unless it's a train wreck, a comet hitting earth, or my fist vs. their nose, nothing was impacted. Maybe something had an impact on something else (meaning it affected it), but nothing was impacted. Except maybe a tooth. Those can get impacted. Worse yet is when they make up words like "impactful" or "stuponfucious."

    29. Re:Unintended joke? by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1

      You just owned him as easy as kiss my hand!

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    30. Re:Unintended joke? by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Darn! If it's that far ahead and that fast how do we catch it?

      I suggest to all the Distinguished Gentlemen and /. Senators that we propose
      a new line item in the budget to create a committee that will establish a subcommittee
      who will appropriate the funds to create a NASA research team to create a technology to
      deliver us to this transparent aluminum. What? Transparent aluminum is needed to get there?!

    31. Re:Unintended joke? by mforbes · · Score: 1

      No, I disagree. The irony was in his saying that the GPP was "towing the line". I now have this image of someone in a big greene & yellow tractor, with a rope attached to the hitch, and nothing attached to the other end of the rope.

      Perhaps he meant "toeing the line"?

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    32. Re:Unintended joke? by Static-MT · · Score: 1

      I thought it was 100z0rZ.

    33. Re:Unintended joke? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Irregardless of you're misunderstanding me, your making the write decision, as you can loose alot of time caring about opinions on /.

    34. Re:Unintended joke? by steveness · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is Slashdot, man! We get confused just thinking about the existence of women, let alone the correct usage in a sentence.

    35. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though.

      It's also crazy how many people can't start a sentence with a capital letter. Seriously, if so many people have trouble with lose/loose, maybe the problem isn't that everyone is stupid. Maybe that word pair is stupid.

    36. Re:Unintended joke? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1
      Also from TFA: The new substance is "...virtually scratch resistant".

      Like soap then?

    37. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say hello to really heavy ipods... :)

    38. Re:Unintended joke? by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      You got the obvious one.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    39. Re:Unintended joke? by Jennasaurus · · Score: 1

      There was a website that i visited the other day and all throughout the pages was the word "loose" instead of "lose"! it made me very upset that the tax dollars that are taken from us are not used wisely in an educational setting! Maybe if the teachers payed more attention to the spellings of their students then we wouldn't be in this now would we? And with this Aol crap and internet chats for teens and kids, who knows where grammar is going these days! If our futures ly in the hands of those who can't spell well and have no idea about what is going on around them our country is basically going to hell!

      --
      "They stole my lie"
    40. Re:Unintended joke? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Damn, I had a drinking glass full of water on the table somewhere, if only it weren't invisible

      From what I recall is that if the object has the same refraction as air it can become invisible. There are some liquids if you put glass in it appears to be insibile because the glass has the same refraction as the liquid.

      However, I think it is nigh impossible to make a solid that has the same refraction as air.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    41. Re:Unintended joke? by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      since it is kind of a ceramic i'm not sure the 'conductors' would conduct!

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    42. Re:Unintended joke? by Mage+Inq. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is quite true - try this with pyrex and vegetable oil. The pyrex will "disappear" when submerged into the oil.

    43. Re:Unintended joke? by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      Nah, aluminum's pretty light. MUCH lighter than steel. My powerbook as an aluminum/magnesium case, and aside from the battery, doesn't weigh much at all.

    44. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest that "sepErate" instead of "sepArate" gets you fried in the electric chair.

      "untracked" instead of "on track" gets the noose.

    45. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pyrex will "disappear" when submerged into the oil.

      And they both disappear when submerged in Florence Henderson!

        / Wesson

    46. Re:Unintended joke? by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can't scratch it by looking at it.....unlike an iPod....

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    47. Re:Unintended joke? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      " don't know how well that would work, but it would look pretty cool"

      Yeah, along with being very expensive, with the article saying "10 to $15 per square inch".

      That's not a misprint, that's per square inch. So $1440 to $2160 per square foot.

      A case made from this stuff would be more expensive than a brand new sports car.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    48. Re:Unintended joke? by Eq+7-2521 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source for this? Beyond being curious, this thread is now so confusing that I honestly don't know which side you are defending and think that reading source material may aid my understanding.

      --
      At my age I find coming up with a witty signature too exhausting.
    49. Re:Unintended joke? by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1

      Aerogel seems to come close.

      --
      We apologize for the inconvenience.
    50. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderestimate the power of a made up word.

    51. Re:Unintended joke? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that someone's going to be able to make the Kessel Run in less than 37 pieces of ALON?

      (12 parsecs * 3.26 ly/parsec * 1 piece of ALON/ly)

      Something about that isn't quite right. No, wait... it'll come to me...

      Regards,
      Ross

    52. Re:Unintended joke? by marsperson · · Score: 0

      I gotta tell you... I can't help but worry when someone calls for me to be put to death and gets modded "insightful" rather than "funny"! :o)

    53. Re:Unintended joke? by saskboy · · Score: 1

      My specially designed Pet Foil Hat Technology is 100% non-government funded [unless you count me getting most of my paycheques from the government?]. I highly encourage you to check it out soon, even though it doesn't have transparent aluminum in it.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    54. Re:Unintended joke? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Don't transparent materials tend not to be very good conductors? Conductors tend to be shiny, since if they can conduct current, then when EM waves like light hit them, the fields induce opposite currents. These alternating currents emit their own waves, which propagate in the opposite direction to be reflections -- right?

      ...in which case, the transparent aluminum foil wouldn't protect as well!

    55. Re:Unintended joke? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      For all intensive purposes, your right.

    56. Re:Unintended joke? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that ly was on purpose >_> And it's AOL.. hopefuly Aol isnt a word *screams*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    57. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have loose bowels.

    58. Re:Unintended joke? by Jennasaurus · · Score: 0

      yes indeed it was! hehe! well... sorry about the AOL thing.. school and had to type fast you know!I'd absolutly DIE if AOL was a word!

      --
      "They stole my lie"
    59. Re:Unintended joke? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Right.. That'll be much funner than when he bites into his sandwich and gets saran wrap all over his mouth. And I still want to know who came up with the idea of putting glass doors on the office.. Brilliant! You'd think people would learn when the person in front of them bounces off of the glass, but they just keep walking into it, over and over.

    60. Re:Unintended joke? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      We'll just arrange for them to get loost.

    61. Re:Unintended joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "'Payed', a nautical term that means 'to let out a line or cable by slackening'. Not to be confused with 'paid'." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payed)

    62. Re:Unintended joke? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      I thought it was 100z0rZ.

      No. I think you're thinking about "Lusers".

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
  41. What you want is diamond... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    For coatings, you want CVD diamond. Here's a little overview.

    1. Re:What you want is diamond... by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1
      For coatings, you want CVD diamond.

      Not always.

      In making composite materials, you need good adhesion. I know people who have done research on artificial joints, and one of the major problems with coating some substrates is that the coating peels or chips off too easily.

      You also need to match coefficients of thermal expansion. It's no good having an ultra-strong composite material if it delaminates (or even bends out of shape) when you increase the temperature a few dozen degrees.

  42. Bad Trek Trivia by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scotty doesn't trade the formula for transparent aluminium for a small run of the stuff. He trades for a quantity of perspex.

    Dr. Nichols says it'll take him "years to even calculate the matrix". Besides that, the stuff they delivered and installed was clearly perspex - it would have been much thinner had it been transparent aluminium.

    1. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No this is wrong, because Dr.Nichols also says that Perspex would be about a metre in depth to meet the strength requirements... so Scotty tells him how to make aluminium because he wants thinner sheets...

    2. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nope. Watch it again.

      When Scotty asks how thick the wall would have to be to hold back $somenumber metric tons - he gets the reply:

      "That's easy. Six inches. We carry stuff that big in stock."

      To which Scotty replies something to the effect of

      "What would you say if I could build you all wall to do the same thing, but be only one inch thick. Would that be worth something to ya?"

      --

      When they're loading the walls into the bird of prey, they're NOT 1 inch (2.54 cm), they're quite thick.

    3. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Scotty doesn't trade the formula for transparent aluminium for a small run of the stuff. He trades for a quantity of perspex.

      OK, but WHY did they have to get perspex? Why not just get, oh, I don't know, REGULAR ALUMINUM? Or plate steel, which would be even thinner and cheaper than either? They go through this huge effort of screwing around with the space-time continuum and everything to get something transparent, but apparently nobody has even considered the possibility of making the tank, I dunno, NON-TRANSPARENT!? Or maybe with just a couple little viewing windows? If the tank is opaque, are the whales really going to freak out any more than they already do after being transported into the belly of freakin' Klingon attack ship???

      Sorry to go ballistic. I mean, I did enjoy the movie, but that part has always bugged me. Damn it, it's so... well, illogical.

    4. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      OK, but WHY did they have to get perspex?

      Easy. Because it wouldn't have looked as cool. :-)

    5. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      So in the future, people will have forgotten how to interact with computers via mice, and yet they can still understand some bizarre system of measurements based on a random king's body parts?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    6. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by Senzei · · Score: 1

      There is always the possibility that scotty, being the only person on the ship with a good deal of engineering/materials experience, knew that the guy he was giving it to was supposed to invent transparent alumin(i)um in a few weeks/months. I think he actually made a reference to this in the movie. Really I think what we are seeing is not illogical mucking around with the space-time continuum, but a not-so-well-orchestrated attempt at suggesting that mucking around with the space-time continuum was necessary to get the invention in the first place.

      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    7. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      Uhm, dude? The entire idea of the holding tank is illogical. Whales are mammals, they breathe air. We transport them out of water in trucks and aircraft. Put them in a sling, keep them wet and comfortable, and they're fine for short term transportation.

    8. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by joto · · Score: 1
      Uhm, dude? The entire idea of the holding tank is illogical. Whales are mammals, they breathe air. We transport them out of water in trucks and aircraft. Put them in a sling, keep them wet and comfortable, and they're fine for short term transportation.

      I'm sure that works for a small whale, and I know Keiko was transported that way. But Keiko was an orca, and orcas weigh up to 6 tons. A humpback whale weighs approximately 36 tons. That's a fairly beefy difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if a humpback can't survive out of water, as the body isn't strong enough to carry its own weight without the support of the surrounding water.

      But then again, what do I know about humpback whale transportation aside from what I've learned from Star Trek ;-)

    9. Re:Bad Trek Trivia by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      A humpback whale weighs approximately 36 tons. That's a fairly beefy difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if a humpback can't survive out of water, as the body isn't strong enough to carry its own weight without the support of the surrounding water.

      Good point. I actually had no idea how much various whales weigh.

      But then again, what do I know about humpback whale transportation aside from what I've learned from Star Trek ;-)

      Well, you know how much they weigh, so you're ahead of me on your whale trivia. ;)

  43. This is cool stuff here by KylePflug · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration.
    OK, I'm not exactly a gun nut, but that's damn impressive. .50 cal snipers are designed to take out the engine blocks of vehicles. A window stopping them is just plain cool.

    The uses go way beyond windshields. How about full-length transparent SWAT shields? If it'll take a .50-cal, should be more than safe enough. How about implrementing some of this in monitor screens? Watch faces? Heck, light fixtures in gymnasiums.

    What about airplanes? Make much of the body out of this, making maintenance that much easier.

    ... in retrospect, that last is a horrible idea. But the others remain good ;)
    1. Re:This is cool stuff here by spagetti_code · · Score: 1
      What about airplanes? Make much of the body out of this, making maintenance that much easier.
      Nah - its already been done.
    2. Re:This is cool stuff here by Petra · · Score: 1

      Full length swat shields? What a clever sounding idiotic idea.

      Even if you STOP the .50 cal bullet with your shield you still have to deal with the kinetic energy of the bullet. One hit and the officer would be down with multiple fractures, not to mention it'd probably knock them back into last week. Those swat shields aren't there to stop bullets so much as they are to stop cans, and sticks and baseball bats. Things with not near the kinetic energy of a .50 cal bullet. Using this material to make a swat shield would be overkill, expensive and fairly useless.

      --
      "The clay can become a bear, but not while it lays cold and wet on the riverbank." -Orson Scott Card, Children of the m
    3. Re:This is cool stuff here by Atragon · · Score: 1

      Of course, which is better?

      1) Officer down with multiple fractures but alive.
      2) Officer down with a .50 cal round lodged in the bulletproof vest of the next guy in the stack

    4. Re:This is cool stuff here by Kredal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My watch face (Tissot T-Touch) already has a sapphire (Aluminium Oxide) face... the steel bezel around it is scratched all to heck, but there is not a single scratch on the face. Pretty cool, IMHO. Oh, and it's a touch screen!

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    5. Re:This is cool stuff here by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm not exactly a gun nut, but that's damn impressive. .50 cal snipers are designed to take out the engine blocks of vehicles. A window stopping them is just plain cool.

      Mythbusters just gave me an idea here. In the episode where they tested the "bulletproof water" myth, they showed that even those .50 cal rounds only penetrate the water a few of inches or so.

      So, just put on one of them quarantine suites a couple of sizes too large, fill it up with water, and voila: a cheap, mobile, full body armor capable of withstanding a .50 cal round!

    6. Re:This is cool stuff here by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on the round as much as the rifle. I was told by the officer running the heavy caliber firing range, that a Berret Light 50 will kill a man standing behind two APC even if they shoot through both engine blocks first. He didn't sound like he was joking.

      If that's true, I seriously doubt you'll see anyone get away with a round simply lodged in a bulletproof vest.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    7. Re:This is cool stuff here by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on the round as much as the rifle. I was told by the officer running the heavy caliber firing range, that a Berret Light 50 will kill a man standing behind two APC even if they shoot through both engine blocks first. He didn't sound like he was joking.

      You ever seen Tremors 2? Here's a quick thing I found online about what one rifle bullet does over:
      Although My favorite Barrett 82 publicity has to be Tremors 2. The AP bullet kills a pre-cambrian walker (messily), goes through the corrugated steel warehouse wall, thought the 55gallon drum full of water, the cinder block wall behind that, through the toolshed, and finally stops in the engine block of their escape truck

      There was quite a distance between the rifle and the truck. I don't know if it is possible or not, but it sure gives an example. The Berret 82 is a .50 caliber rifle.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    8. Re:This is cool stuff here by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      "So, just put on one of them quarantine suites a couple of sizes too large, fill it up with water, and voila: a cheap, mobile, full body armor capable of withstanding a .50 cal round!"

      Except of course after the first shot it would immediately start to leak and the second shot would be fatal.

    9. Re:This is cool stuff here by pclminion · · Score: 1
      The uses go way beyond windshields. How about full-length transparent SWAT shields? If it'll take a .50-cal, should be more than safe enough.

      As long as you consider a crushed wrist to be "safe"... The force of the bullet doesn't just disappear when it hits the shield. It will be transferred into whatever is holding the shield -- in this case, somebody's hand. Bye bye hand.

    10. Re:This is cool stuff here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the recoil crush your hand when you fire it? If not, it won't crush your hand when the shield absorbs it. I know sniper rifles are normally not held in one hand while firing but I find it hard to believe that doing so would result in a broken wrist. Furthermore the momentum would not be transferred directly to the hand; a lot would go into rotation of the shield around the hand, which would be absorbed later when the shield hit something else, perhaps your body.

    11. Re:This is cool stuff here by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      OK, but then think of it this way; how often are cops shot at by .50 cal? Most small arms don't have kinetic energy that immediately dangerous. Again, I'm no expert, but couldn't you quite feasibly block, say, handgun and submachingun fire without too much immediate "omg my wrist" concern?

      And what about other applications -- say, motorcycle helmets (or, for that matter, military helmets/goggles)? I'm not saying any of these are definately realistic applications, but it's certainly something that has a lot of potential.

  44. Transparent Tin Foil Hats by wangotango · · Score: 5, Funny

    How will the rest of the world recognize us if our tinfoils hats are transparent?

    1. Re:Transparent Tin Foil Hats by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it won't make smells transparent. ;-)

  45. God dammit! by PhotoBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Scotty's been messing with the timeline again! What next, Mr. Scott? Warp drive in the Victorian era?

    1. Re:God dammit! by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Unless a new victorian era is yet to come, wouldn't it be more appropriate if you said:
      "What's previous Mr. Scott? Warp drive in the Victorian era?"

      Or is there a future past tense that I do not know of?

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    2. Re:God dammit! by Cili · · Score: 1

      a new victorian era?

      what's this world coming to?!

  46. the air force apologizes... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    ..for taking so long. Apparently the lack of good voice recognition technology held up the discovery significantly.

    1. Re:the air force apologizes... by Baricom · · Score: 1

      I don't really blame them. The kind of technological revolutions that truly cause radical shifts in the direction of modern society only arrive once in a lifetime.

  47. Oh, *that*! by Ecyrd · · Score: 1

    Now that explains why that guy was asking a few months back about "nuclear vessels". *slaps forehead*

    1. Re:Oh, *that*! by hughk · · Score: 1

      Nah, it was "nuclear wessels"!!!

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Oh, *that*! by williamhb · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nah, it was "nuclear wessels"!!!
      Blast, I thought he said "nuclear whistles" and sent him down to the toy store. Oh well, there goes the earth in the 23rd century. Talk about careless talk costing lives...
  48. where's the mpaa? by sdnoob · · Score: 1

    how long will it take the mpaa to claim prior art and sue?

  49. And virtually scratch resistant too! by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, most definitely maybe able to possible resist scratches. Unlike glass, which only possibly could be able to resist scratches.

    Did the midget mind who wrote this glowing pap even read their own article back before submitting it?

    K.

    1. Re:And virtually scratch resistant too! by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1

      Yea I saw that too. "ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant" Kind of like virtually almost pregnant. It could be scratch resistant or virtally scratch free but both in the same sentence is like so much jello. So if I kind of pretended to scratch it but didn't it might now show anything... maybe.

      --
      TT
  50. Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by spineboy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Aluminum has been used in ceramics for many years, and is a very common substance in many transparent products such as gems (rubys, emeralds, etc)! This is really nothing new about aluminum, but news in that this is a really tough!! bullet-proof glass, able to withstand multiple! rounds from 30 cal armor peircing bullets and 50 cal sniper rounds. Typical body armor is good for one! shot from a high power slug because it shatters.

    Expect to see this to enter the consumer market for things like - IPod nano screens, watch faces, scratch reistant coverings on eyeglasses,etc. The expensive weapons grade version is supposedly not much diferent from the much cheaper non-weapons grade version, so expect the $10-$/sq inch!!! price to vastly drop. I give it one year before we start to commonly see this in the high cost items at first (Rolex and Tag watches, etc)

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  51. nearly, but not quite... by williamhb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unfortunately, from the article it seems ALONtm is noted for it's high compressive strength, whereas to build the sides of a whale-sized bath you need high tensile strength. Unless of course it's a particularly aggressive whale and keeps shooting armour-piercing rounds at the side of the bath, but then the bigger question would be "how did it pull the trigger"?

    1. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With its FINger?

    2. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      That was a friggin shark...

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    3. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC, the whale enclosure was made of plexiglass. They bought it with the formula for transparent Al, but the manufacturer wouldn't have had time to tool up to make the new material.

    4. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the whale behind the grassy knoll...

    5. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Maybe this stuff was developed to contain those navy dolohins?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:nearly, but not quite... by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      wouldn't something that needs to survive the impact of a bullet need good compressive and tensile strengths?
      ala a concrete beam full of steal rods, weight makes it bend so need compressive strength up the top and tensile strength down the bottom.

    7. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would it pull the trigger? With its penis, of course.

      The real question is: How did it hold the gun?

    8. Re:nearly, but not quite... by ElNotto · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's related to the armed military attack dolphins?

    9. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, if you domed it, it would be compression and not tension, (if it was concave, and dimpled into the water from the supports...)

    10. Re:nearly, but not quite... by nemik · · Score: 1

      one of the dolphins taught it to shoot.

    11. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just ask the sharks with the friggin laser beams attached to their heads.

    12. Re:nearly, but not quite... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thaqt kind of got me. I would've thought high tensile strength would've been important as well, as otherwise I'd think it'd be pretty easy to crack the stuff, even with "mere" bullets.

      Concrete has high compressive strength and low tensile strength. A mere 7.62x39mm round (what the AK variants use) can shoot through such a cinderblock in one or two shots. Concrete has a similar effect. However, they can both support quite a few pounds per square inch.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    13. Re:nearly, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You forgot about the whale behind the grassy knoll...
      Glassy knoll.
    14. Re:nearly, but not quite... by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Unfortunately, from the article it seems ALONtm is noted for it's high compressive strength, whereas to build the sides of a whale-sized bath you need high tensile strength.

      No problem - when you build the tub, make sure the walls curve slightly inward. That way, the water pressure will compress the material.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    15. Re:nearly, but not quite... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Scotty provided them with the formulae for transparent aluminium and they provided him with material for his whale enclosure. IIRC they didn't make if it was plexiglass or the new transparent aluminium but the timescales would indeed imply the former.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  52. Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by kt0157 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then there's Helum, that noble gas. And Kurchatovum, that incredibly unstable element. And Lithum, of which batteries are made. Not forgetting Valum, for people too depressed to worry about spelling.

    Yes, yes, I know, a whole continent of people can't spell that metal's name. It's just like the English who wrote "cocoa" when they should have written "cacao". Amazing how an illiterate in the wrong place at the wrong time can screw up a dictionary.

    K.

    1. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it screwing up the dictionary? How is it possible to have a 'right' way to spell anything? The whole spelling game is a bout interpretation, and dictionaries are meant to standardise our interpretations. Therefore, it's just as valid a spelling as any other.

    2. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by TIMxPx · · Score: 1

      Well, while the RAF is worrying about pronouncing the extra "i" syllable that they have found so crucial to the continuation of western civilisation, Americans are installing in vehicles. Amazing how a bunch of illiterates can develop and implement robust new materials in military vehicles. The truth is, "aluminium" is an antiquated form in American English. Using that would be like using thee, thy, and thine. Sure they're correct, but unnecessary. Not that we should be looking to the English for the archetype of language usage anyway. In my experience, most of them think that they're incredibly eloquent, but a good many can't get through a sentence without stumbling about 12 times.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
    3. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The truth is, "aluminium" is an antiquated form in American English.
      Yeah, right. And so are sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium etc. You could at least be consistent.
      Not that we should be looking to the English for the archetype of language usage anyway.
      When you can work out that a clause containing a transitive verb requires an object (that would be "Americans are installing in vehicles", if you don't know what a clause is), you can criticise other people.

      Sigh. Bloody colonials.

    4. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Then there's Helum, that noble gas.

      I prefer Platinium, the noble metal :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we aren't a continent of ex-cons like those damn Australians!

    6. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      When you can work out that a clause containing a transitive verb requires an object (that would be "Americans are installing in vehicles", if you don't know what a clause is), you can criticise other people.

      Perhaps he meant to say "investing", not "installing" ? That would actually make more sense in this context, since it would imply that they are buying new vehicles made from this new material or upgrading old vehicles to make use of it, while it doesn't make much sense to be installing something made of transparent aluminium into vechiles made from nontransparent materials (unless they're replacing the cockpit glass with this new material).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Chops+II · · Score: 2, Funny

      G'day As being 8th or so generations from a convict on the second fleet, i take offense to that! Shuttup before i steal your bread. And it's spelled colour. COLOUR!!!! not to mention mum etc.... Now, excuse me while i tend to my kangaroos and e-moos.

    8. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Bling Bling!

      --
      I got nothin'
    9. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditionally, "bling" is Goldium.

    10. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by azav · · Score: 1

      Kurchatovum or Kurchatovium? Which is it?

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    11. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by kt0157 · · Score: 1

      Element 105, named after Igor Kurchatov, father of the hyrdogen bomb. In the Soviet Union. Actually, there were some whiny types that didn't agree with the naming and it's now called Rutherfordium. Or Rutherfordum.

      K.

    12. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps he meant to say "investing", not "installing" ? [...] it doesn't make much sense to be installing something made of transparent aluminium into vechiles made from nontransparent materials (unless they're replacing the cockpit glass with this new material).
      RTFA. The first frickin' sentence says it's for "vehicle windows", numbnunts. The other prat clearly just missed out a word "installing it in vehicles".
    13. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the funny thing about language - it changes. Sometimes for a good reason, sometimes for a bad reason. Resisting that will doom you to a life of, well, posting frustrated comments on slashdot complaining about how people spell aluminum. In particular, this "mispronunciation" is about 100 years old, and no amount of slashdot posting is going to change that. Move on.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we left an "i" out of "aluminum". That's not all we've done, though. We left the "u" out of "color", "armor", and a whole slew of other words, too. We drive on the wrong side of the road, we don't have a king, and we totally fucked with cricket.

      Shh! Don't tell the British! They're already upset enough about the aluminum thing...

    15. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      Kurnikova?

    16. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      The Elements Song by Tom Lehrer

    17. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Also, you're not funny.

    18. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The tyres on my car have been worn out for several months, but because I didn't hae a job I couldn't afford to replace them.

      Fortunately a company just hyred me to work and now I have money for new tyres.

    19. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget platinium, consistency is of utmost importance.

    20. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      You guys get to work on "chili" and "defense", and maybe we'll get cracking on "aluminium," OK?

    21. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by phlinn · · Score: 1

      After examining your examples, I think I see why aluminium got shortened, but i'm really just guessing.

      Note that aluminium has the most syllables of all the examples given. Magnesium and potassium have 4, but the sounds seem to be a bit more distinct than they are in aluminium. If it had been alumium to begin with, I don't think it would have been an issue.

      BTW, I'm not saying that shortening the word when spoken was a good thing, just that I can see one reason it might happen.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    22. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, I know, a whole continent of people can't spell that metal's name.

      This may be the case, but the "misspelling" predates the "correct" version. Even IUPAC, the authority on element names, lists "aluminum" as a variant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Spelling

    23. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Ugmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I once read a nice article by Isaac Asimov about this spelling thing.I do not remember which of the hundreds of books he wrote the article was in but it is out there somewhere. I am doing this from memory but the story goes like this:
      It seems the roots of most metals are like this:
      magnesia.....so magnesium
      potassia.....so potassium

      But the root of aluminum is alumina, no 'i'. The British stuck one in anyway for consistency because all the other metals have it. The American English version is more correct, according to Asimov but he was an American citizen so he might be biased.

    24. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by jonthegm · · Score: 1

      How, in every visible way, you shine As if the stars in your wake align Almost impossible to malign But just below where you shine, you burn Although I know it, I never learn Just goes to show that I can't discern Aluminum to me Aluminium to some You can shine like silver all you want But you're just Aluminum

    25. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      From alt.english.usage
      A widespread false belief among those who spell the word "aluminium" is that theirs is the original spelling, from which the American version is a later development, perhaps resulting from a typographical error. The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (63rd ed., p. B-5) gives this bit of history:
      The ancient Greeks and Romans used alum in medicine as an astringent, and as a mordant in dyeing. In 1761 [Baron Louis- Bernard Guyton] de Morveau proposed the name alumine for the base in alum, and [Antoine] Lavoisier, in 1787, thought this to be the oxide of a still undiscovered metal. [...] In 1807, [Sir Humphrey] Davy proposed the name alumium for the metal, undiscovered at that time, and later agreed to change it to aluminum. Shortly thereafter, the name aluminium was adopted to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements, and this spelling is now in use elsewhere in the world. Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications.
    26. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      How about Plumbium = Lead or is it Plumbum.

    27. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just a quick question: Is the spelling "aluminum" in the OED? I don't have one handy, but I'd imagine that it is in every modern English dictionary, even those that cover "proper" English, if there is such a thing.

    28. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you can work out that a clause containing a transitive verb requires an object...you can criticise other people.

      Sigh.

      For about 250 years now, eddykatid idjits have been trying to convince the world that correct english grammar is the grammar of the dead latin language. They would try to surgically insert a skeleton into an octopus, then when the poor dead thing can't be posed in some natural way, they would assert that such a pose is in poor taste, and simply not done by the better octopusses. Gack.

      English is not latin. True, there are some superficial resemblances, like the indisputable fact that in both, the spoken words are emitted from the caudal orifices of the speakers. But the concepts of "transitive verbs", "objects", "indirect objects", "clauses", and the like are ideas of latin that have been imposed upon english by people with small minds who can't accept that english grammar is a fuzzy thing. When they see other languages that have crystalline grammars with smashing hard facets and oh so sharp edges, they want english to be the same way.

      Ya wanna larn to speke english right? Then realize that the game of english is the Calvin Ball of languages.

      "Don't criticize what you can't understand" --B.D.

    29. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      "I cannot respect any man who can only think of a single way to spell a word"
      U.S. President Andrew Jackson

    30. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Yes, yes, I know, a whole continent of people can't spell that metal's name. It's just like the English who wrote "cocoa" when they should have written "cacao". Amazing how an illiterate in the wrong place at the wrong time can screw up a dictionary."
      Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
      The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
      And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
      Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
      Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
      Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
      The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
      Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
      And smale foweles maken melodye,
      That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
      (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
      Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
      And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
      To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
      And specially from every shires ende
      Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
      The hooly blisful martir for to seke
      That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
      --Someone writing in perfect English.
    31. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      PRECISELY. You know that old "rule" about sentences not ending in propositions? It was made up by an English-speaking grammarian because in Latin, sentences CAN'T end in prepositions. This despite the fact that native speakers of the English language had been ending sentences with prepositions for hundreds of years. (Read Chaucer sometime.)

      Many of the "rules" of English grammar are actually rules of Latin grammar, incorrectly imposed. This is something up with which I shall not put!

    32. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      It's a nice rant and all, but I think the thing he was criticising really was incorrect, in any way you want to look at it. I assumed there was a missing word or some other typo in the clause mentioned, because I was unable to parse it into anything that makes sense.

      While there ARE many rules stupidly imposed on English grammar, many other rules are more like descriptions of how to make a readible sentence in English. A transitive verb DOES need an object, or it gets parsed as an intransitive verb.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    33. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by graxrmelg · · Score: 1

      I suppose you also write "molybdenium" and "tantalium"?

    34. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, I know, a whole continent of people can't spell that metal's name.

      I wish there was an option to mod that as -1, Elitist.

      Like it or not, on this continent "aluminum" is the correct spelling.

    35. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also tantalum and molybdenum, so what's your point? Whining Limey wanker...

    36. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      While there ARE many rules stupidly imposed on English grammar, many other rules are more like descriptions of how to make a readible sentence in English. A transitive verb DOES need an object, or it gets parsed as an intransitive verb.

      That seems a reasonable assertion...but I'm not certain that it's true in any non-tautological sense. You can say that that's the definition of a transitive verb, in which case one can't really argue. But there are, or at least appear to be, verbs that are frequently, or even usually, transitive, but which are occasionally used in a non-transitive manne. And I'm trying to think of an example right now! I must admit, however, that what I'm currently coming up with are examples of nouning verbs (and verbing nouns [i.e., "In English you can verb any noun in the language."]).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    37. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Yes, yes, I know, a whole continent of people can't spell that metal's name.

      Aluminum to me, aluminium to some
      You can shine like silver all you want
      But you're just aluminum. -- Barenaked Ladies, 2003

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    38. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr... WRONG.

      The names of all elements are assigned by an international body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) that DOES NOT recognise the "aluminum" mis-spelling that Americans use.

      The correct (and ONLY correct) spelling is "aluminium".

    39. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by atomico · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quote: in both [English and Latin], the spoken words are emitted from the caudal orifices of the speakers

      Have you stopped to think what a caudal orifice is, or where is it located?

      Now I understand why I always have this funny accent when speaking English... in my mother language, the spoken words are just emitted from the mouth of the speakers. So many years attending language courses, and nobody ever told me!

    40. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Oooh, my bad. "Cephalic orifice", of course.

      I should stay with english english and not mess with polysyllabic latin imports. And besides, there's a very good english term I could have used: the "pie hole".

    41. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Verbing wierds language."

      --Calvin

    42. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Tirno · · Score: 1

      Superficial resemblances? You're overlooking the fact that English, though ultimately Germanic, has great Latin lineage. After the conquest of England almost a thousand years ago, many Latinate concepts and words were grafted into English by the Norman French, not by those of us living today. Though that still doesn't it make it perfectly comparable to Latin, it can be easily seen that these terms often are applicable to English grammar.

    43. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Superficial resemblances? You're overlooking the fact that English, though ultimately Germanic, has great Latin lineage.

      No, I am not overlooking latin's direct and indirect influences on english. Quite a bit of vocabulary is directly descended from latin through the centuries of Roman settlements, and quite a bit more has been imported either directly or through other romance languages. But very little of english syntax or grammar can be traced to latin influences. English doesn't work anything like latin.

      After the conquest of England almost a thousand years ago, many Latinate concepts and words were grafted into English by the Norman French, not by those of us living today.

      The Normans came to England several hundred years after the Romans; the first latin influence on the proto-english tongues was already well established by then. BTW, the Normans were of northern stock, hence their name. You can't call them French, since the earliest French identity was still 200 - 400 years in the future-- the Normans were one of the ancestral sources of the French in the same way they were an ancestor of the English.

      The Normans imposed a strong class hierarchy on England. A big part of the differential between upper and lower class was in literacy, which at that time meant reading and writing in latin. An early part of class snobbery was to use latin words instead of english ones: hence the serfs raised "pigs" but the meat that came to the nobles' tables was called "pork". The periodic attempts to inflict latin grammar upon english are rooted in this class snobbery.

      But a language like the english language does not grow from the upper crust downward; it rises up from the streets and the servants' quarters where people negotiate trades and agreements, where the language is used daily in its most fundamental ways. A language grows from people having to interact with each other, and because of its very success, the Normanic upper crust was relatively insulated from the kinds of activities that built english syntax and grammar.

      Though that still doesn't it make it perfectly comparable to Latin, it can be easily seen that these terms often are applicable to English grammar.

      Well, you could apply the terminology of object oriented programming to HTML, and if you were careful about it, you'd have a way of teaching noobies how to build some types of web sites. But that doesn't mean that OOP is the best way to analyze or design web pages. We've got the same thing happening in english with imposed concepts of latin grammar. Better to go with Noam Chomsky, reduce all of english to the basic NV, NVN, NVNN patterns. Then work out from there what the inherent patterns of the grammar are.

      If you are in a situation where it is important to you to be identified with the british upper crust, then by all means limit your use of english to that subset that fits the latin grammar imposed all so long ago by the early class snobs. But if your goal is to communicate to the huge english speaking audience that is out there now, then perhaps it would make sense to use english to its full advantage. After all, there are more Chinese now learning english as a second tongue than there are native english speakers in North America-- and I'm pretty sure that the chinese are more interested in talking about technological ideas than in trying to sound like they belong in the House of Lords.

    44. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Tirno · · Score: 1

      It's not about using the English of the so-called upper crust of Britain, but I wanted to point out that it was overkill to jump on somebody for using Latin-based words inherited from [among others] the Normans (who spoke a dialect of Old French, right?) to describe what was clearly an error in most subsets of English.

    45. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh. Yum. A multilevel chemical/language/anti-American troll.

      Nobody lept to the defense of Rutherfordium.

    46. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In truth, it was lengthened. With Platinum rooted from Platina as proof of the hypocricy, Aluminium is clearly a schoolboy affectation. While (or is it whilst) colour is as consistent with usage and pronunciation as color, these same individuals who would scold for not breaking the rules of latin-root word construction would undoubtedly scold you for splitting an infinitive, an operation that is impossible in latin, but required in certain circumstances in English. , not merely for form or melifluosity, but in certain circumstances to properly convey the meaning.

      In other words we should use latinate sentence construction and grammar in a language where it does not belong, but ignore latin-root word construction rules when borrowing a word from a dead language that cannot construct the new one among native speakers naturally.

    47. Re:Aluminium Reality or Aluminum Realty? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      Amazing how an illiterate in the wrong place at the wrong time can screw up a dictionary.

      Dord was never a word. Aluminum is.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  53. Call Apple by beest · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like a hell of a nice screen protector for the nano

  54. c) by robotoverflow · · Score: 1

    COW-BOY-NEAL-IUM

    --
    % mkdir :
    % ls -dF :
    :/
  55. No news here by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thinnish coating of aluminum oxide on glass/plastic multilayer laminate improves its strength and scratch resistance.

    News for non chemical nerds, maybe. A bit ho hum for anybody familiar with the AMAZING see through properties of things like aluminumium oxide, aka rubies and saphires.

  56. It's perfect! by Auraiken · · Score: 1

    How will the rest of the world recognize us if our tinfoils hats are transparent?

    That's just it! They won't recognize us! We'll finally be able to stop worrying about them reading our thoughts and knowing we're not with them! At last! We can now peak into the minds of our enemies... Oh no! How will we know who is one of us or not?!

  57. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're at the 58th floor of a building.
    There is a fire. You can't use the stairs or elevators.
    A)You break the glass, jump out and fall to your death.
    B)You don't break the glass and suffocated because of the smoke.

    Either way, you're toast.

    Wrong...
    A) You're jam
    B) You're toast

    The difference isn't subtle.

  58. Windshield Wipers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we just need bombproof windshield wipers and we can ignore all the guys and gals with bombs strapped to their chests while we roll over their children in our super-Humvees.

  59. See-through cans? by Steendor · · Score: 1

    1 - We already have plastic bottles, and those have screw-on caps.
    2 - One of the reasons cans are popular is that they're not transparent - beverages in the dark generally last longer.
    3 - How impressive would it really be to crush a see-through can on your forehead?

    1. Re:See-through cans? by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      bugger it, i was going to mod in this discussion, but i have to respond...

      3 - How impressive would it really be to crush a see-through ARMOUR PLATED, BULLET PROOF can on your forehead?

      ...pretty impressive i would have to say.

  60. Metal naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about lead? It's been a while since I studied any chemistry but I seem to recall the official name as "plumbum".

    Or am I being incredibly thick?

    1. Re:Metal naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium.

    2. Re:Metal naming scheme by lc_overlord · · Score: 1

      no, it is.
      Only, lead is such an old metal that it got named well before they started with the whole -ium thing.
      other metals that is like this are.
      Ferrum - iron.
      Aurum - gold.
      Stannum - tin.
      Cuprum - copper.

      --
      - "There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem"
    3. Re:Metal naming scheme by lc_overlord · · Score: 1

      interesting sidenote is that together with silver(argentum), these are the first five minerals you can mine in WoW.

      --
      - "There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem"
    4. Re:Metal naming scheme by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0

      Not necessary official names, just Latin ones. All of those would have been known to the Romans. Copper & tin even earlier, hence the bronze age was before the iron age.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  61. Pictures by pev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google finds some pics as expected (Sorry, PDF) :
        http://www.surmet.com/docs/Processing_ALON.pdf

    I'm not 100% certain if they're genuine or mock ups though...

    ~Pev

    1. Re:Pictures by CBob · · Score: 1

      Looks like it's a few years old, but still interesting stuff. http://www.surmet.com/docs/ALON%20Press%20Release_ August%202003.pdf/

    2. Re:Pictures by tedeo · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Pictures by penpendisarapen · · Score: 1

      Yet another application for this technology -- breast implants!

    4. Re:Pictures by CBob · · Score: 1
  62. Re:soda - not a god idea by Dave21212 · · Score: 1


    Every good chem student should try to remember, the product of an acid and a base is a salt... and we don't want to be rubbing/injecting salt into a wound now do we ???

    ;)

    --
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
  63. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

    i would pay 10$-30$ more for a near scratch proof watch/ipod....

  64. That happened to me.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

    A wasp sting inside the lip sucks, but it's certainly not the end of the world.

    BTW, no, my parents didn't warn me, now I'm scarred for life and never drink from cans...

      because beer tastes better from a bottle mainly.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:That happened to me.. by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      Not to mention electric fences...

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    2. Re:That happened to me.. by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      and poison oak...

  65. Old news? by kimptoc · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the same thing from last year?

    http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/8/9

  66. Remember that scene from Slashdot? by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

    Heck, it's even in the title too: http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/08/23/11412 17.shtml?tid=14

    Transparent Aluminum Is Here
    Posted by Hemos on Mon Aug 23, '04 10:09 AM

    We've been duped! Though I guess this might be different transparent aluminum.

    Either way, we see through their ploy.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  67. Corrosion Resistance by N8F8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder thet the corrosion resistance is of this stuff. Most aluminum materials don't do well in the weather and I imagine even minor pitting would impact transparency.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Corrosion Resistance by rjw57 · · Score: 1

      It's not going to be terribly easy to oxidise. Aluminium in its pure state handles exposure quite well (by forming an oxide on the surface that protects the underlying metal).

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:Corrosion Resistance by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the problem. That layer would reduce visabiliy.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    3. Re:Corrosion Resistance by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Except that this is already an aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxynitride

    4. Re:Corrosion Resistance by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      By "aluminum materials" I Imagine you mean "aluminum". Which this isn't, if you RTFA. If the substance mentioned in the article is an "aluminum material" then so are sapphires, and last time I looked those are pretty resistant.

      Metamods note - parent is not remotely insightful. Ignorant is closer to the mark.

      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    5. Re:Corrosion Resistance by rjw57 · · Score: 1

      Except that the layer is only generated on pure aluminium (as I did say). The 'it is going to be hard to oxidise' bit was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact it already is :).

      --
      Rich
    6. Re:Corrosion Resistance by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Since this material is sort of an oxide it's not going to be subject to the same pitting as aluminum metal.

      Regular aluminum oxide is attacked by either strong acid or strong base (don't try to clean your ruby with oven cleaner or chromerge), so you might suspect that it could have a long term problem with acid rain. I'm sure this has been tested for though and I expect it is not a problem.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  68. M-44 sniper rifle? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 4, Informative

    "In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle [...]"

    Never trust a journalist to get gun facts straight.

    The M44 is a carbine version of the Mosin-Nagant, very short, easy to carry, but with nothing better than iron sights. It is about as far from a "sniper rifle" as anything you can see.

    It has the coolest integral bayonet, though.

    On the upside, the M-44 uses the same cartridge as the current Romanian "sniper" rifle, the PSL. The M44 has a short barrel so a steel-cored 7.62x54R projectile won't reach the same sort of velocities as it would out of a PSL rifle but it should be a pretty effective test against the sort of "armor piercing" light arms that any terrorist not carrying an RPG would be likely to have handy.

    1. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Never trust a journalist to get ... facts straight.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. :-)

      It bothered me to no end every time the "Assault Weapons Ban" issue came up in the media that they would just regurgitate the same crap that the pro-ban senators were vomiting up without actually checking the facts and realizing that the crap that these senators were talking about was ALREADY BANNED (and still is) and the legislation they were trying to pass was for something completely different than what they were telling reporters. But the reporters didn't bother to check. So here we are, a year later, and I have yet to see blood in the streets or machine guns at the local gun shop (at least for under $10,000 anyway). The reporters completely goofed it for the most part.

      There is so much intrigue around the role of a sniper that sometimes I think reporters are a little eager to use the word when it really doesn't make sense. This article was one example.

      Compare and contrast...
      Russian Mosin-Nagant M-44 - Does this look remotely like a sniper rifle?

      Savage 10FP-LE2 "sniper" rifle - This is what the professionals in law enforcement often turn to.

      I've got both of these in my collection. I love the M44 but the idea of sharpshooting with it, let alone sniping, is laughable.

    3. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting comment. Note, however, that the article was written by Laura Lundin who works for the PUBLIC AFFAIRS office of the AIR FORCE.

      As most journalists will say, PR people are not "real journalists"....

      Also consider, is the PR office of the Air Force Labs staffed by actual service men/women? If so, you got to wonder if our military isn't teaching our soldiers enough about enemy weapons?

    4. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      the most famous sniper of all time used a mosin-nagant m28

      http://www.snipersparadise.com/History/hayha.htm

      A mosin nagant was also the first military rifle with scope. Although article is off, it wasn't off by much

      http://www.snipercentral.com/mosin.htm

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      the most famous sniper of all time used a mosin-nagant m28

      Actually, no, he used a Russian Mosin-Nagant M91/30 which is far and away better than its little brother, the M44.

      As for Simo Häyhä, he's virtually unknown, even in sniper circles (although it is pretty well accepted that the Finnish Mosin Nagants were far superior to the Russian models).

    6. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Wikepedia is 100% correct about everything. Did you RTFA I posted?
      There were a number of interesting facts that we passed on to the group in a short question and answer period. Mr. Häyhä stated that he used the Mosin Nagant M28 rifle as his "sniping" rifle.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    7. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      I RTFA. I was taking issue with your choice of most well known sniper (most of his kills were taken with a machine gun, by his own admission). An excellent rifleman? Maybe. But a sniper? Sometimes, but usually not.

    8. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Ignore all the facts that I proved you dead wrong about and move on to new assertions. You're a slashdot pro!

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    9. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      Facts you proved me wrong about?

      Sorry, Mr. Penis Cleaver, I didn't get your telepathic message. Perhaps you were thinking with the little head again.

    10. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      Also consider, is the PR office of the Air Force Labs staffed by actual service men/women? If so, you got to wonder if our military isn't teaching our soldiers enough about enemy weapons?

      Well, let me set you straight on that one. It's the Air Force. Most Air Force members get training only on M-16s and that only annually. So, in short, the majority of Air Force members have the same amount of knowledge about foreign firearms as your typical civilian.

    11. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahah, mister Flamebait. Usually you don't find those with score 2.

    12. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 1

      Never trust a journalist to get gun facts straight.

      Never trust a journalist to get computing, military, scientific, sociological, yada, yada, yada facts straight, with only a handful of honorable exceptions.

      Most journalist value "shock" and "sensational" over anything else.

    13. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      I think he's serious. Now he can go home and tell his mom that he taught 'P3NIS_CLEAVER' a lesson.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    14. Re:M-44 sniper rifle? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The muzzle velocity difference isn't probably going to be too significant. IIRC, surplus 54R has a pretty fast burn.

      THey also called the .50 cal a "Browning Sniper Rifle" (IIRC), but I'd be willing to bet it was actually a Barrett rifle, not Browning.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  69. You spell like George W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Aluminium. It's also not Nucular, but Nuclear.

    1. Re:You spell like George W by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      Not in America, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  70. Nice! This obviously prooves... by massimiliano · · Score: 1

    This obviously prooves that Scotty *did* reveal the formula :-)

  71. metal glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading an article about glass making, and they did mention it's technically possible (while difficult) to make a "glass" out of just about any substance as it's simply a way of coalescing the particles to form a liquid/solid hybrid. Although I don't recall if this would always form a transparent product, but certainly steel and aluminum "glass" has existed for some time. I presume this form of glass would be prohibitively expensive for non-military applications...

  72. Computer....computer? by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Scotty: Computer. Computer?

    [Bones hands him a mouse and he speaks into it]

    Scotty: Hello, computer.

    Dr. Nichols: Just use the keyboard.

    Scotty: Keyboard. How quaint.

    I see a multitude of uses for transparent aluminum including semi-transparent road signs, reinforced windows and cool computer cases. Scotty lives!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  73. When will they put some on the iPod Nano...? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it's just what Apple needs.

    --
    No sig today...
  74. this is old news... by pointbeing · · Score: 1
    Saw an article with pictures last year - I don't understand why this is news now, unless it's just that Uncle Sam's Flying Circus is finally testing transparent aluminum in applications.

    http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/8/9

    Nice clickable picture of transparent aluminum here - dated August 2004.

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
  75. Transparent Silicon?! by TangoCharlie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This stuff is transparent Aluminium, in the same way that "normal" glass is
    transparent Silicon. Indeed, using this criteria, we already had transparent
    Aluminium in the form of Saphire. Saphire is also rather hard and makes a good
    optical material. While the invention of a suitably hard and tough transparent
    material is obviously news-worthy it would be wise to steer clear of the same
    mistakes that sci-fi writers make when they don't understand the "sci" bit.

    However, going back to the Star Trek film in question, I always liked the way
    that Scotty was able to create a new material and presumably the method for making
    it on a tiny Apple Mac Plus! Was he using MacDraw I wonder?

    --
    return 0; }
    1. Re:Transparent Silicon?! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Cool business idea. Who'll want to buy glass if they can buy our transparent silicon.

    2. Re:Transparent Silicon?! by Dausha · · Score: 1

      "However, going back to the Star Trek film in question, I always liked the way that Scotty was able to create a new material and presumably the method for making it on a tiny Apple Mac Plus! Was he using MacDraw I wonder?"

      You know, I never thought about this until I read your message. I suppose we now know that Apple beats MS in the end, because Scotty was immediately familiar with the interface.

      Naturally, this must be so. Could you imagine Clippy popping up when the reactor core is about to breach?

      "Hello! I noticed you're trying to restart the containment field."

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    3. Re:Transparent Silicon?! by NinjaFarmer · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or does anyone else try to read messages formatted this way to some tune.

    4. Re:Transparent Silicon?! by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      Well it all comes back to the fact that he's Scottish - a fact which had been hinted at throughout the TV show, in numerous and subtle ways. So obviously his ability to work with a Macintosh (McIntosh) would be rather enhanced.

      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  76. Not quite correct by ViXX0r · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scotty didn't exchange the formula for a small run of transparent aluminum, it would have taken years for the plant to study the formula and tool up their factory to produce the stuff. He traded the formula for a large, thick sheet of plexiglass or similar that the company would have had on hand or actually be able to manufacture at that time.

    --
    University - a box of academia nuts.
  77. If anybody cares.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    the website of the TM and Patent holder

    http://www.surmet.com/alon.html

  78. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    the odds of surviving the fall are better than the odds of surviving the fire when things are that far gone... If you jump, you may get lucky and land on something soft... or indeed, you may even miss the ground altogether al la hitch-hikers guide flying stylee...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  79. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by grimJester · · Score: 0

    I give it one year before we start to commonly see this in the high cost items at first (Rolex and Tag watches, etc)

    It's likely cheaper, but is it any more scratch resistant than the sapphire used now? Ten dollars per square inch is peanuts, though. Mobile phones and iPods could very well use it.

  80. Has Anyone Seen Dr. McCoy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mom could use a new kidney.

    'Dialysis? What, are we in the Dark Ages?'

    1. Re:Has Anyone Seen Dr. McCoy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's dead, Jim.

  81. NOW they release it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about in 1986, when Scotty introduced the formula for it. Granted, it takes time to develop and market it, but 19 years?? Sheesh!

  82. Refractive index? by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what the refractive index of this material is? For those of us who look through tank windshield all day (figuratively speaking), if this material can be reduced in price and has a refractive index significantly greater than 1.66, then it would make our lenses much thinner, as well as being much more scratch resistant than polycarbonate.

    Given that sapphire has a refractive index over 1.75, this *could* be a great breakthrough - if Big Green starts to consume large quantities of this, then the amortized NRE will be greatly reduced.

    1. Re:Refractive index? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ask and you shall recieve.

      ALON

      Density (g/cc) 3.688
      Lattice Constant (Å) 7.946
      Structure Cubic Spinel; Al(64+x)/3O32-xNx (2.75 x 5 )
      Typical Grain Size (m) 250
      Young's Modulus (GPa) 334
      Shear Modulus (GPa) 135
      Knoop Hardness (kg/mm2) 1800±74 @200 g load
      Poisson's Ratio 0.239
      Transmission Range (mm) 0.2 to 6.0
      Fracture Toughness (MPa-m½) 2.0
      Flexural Strength (MPa) 380 ± 34
      Specific Heat (cal/g-C) 0.22
      Compressive Strength (MPa) 2677
      Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) 9.62 @75C; 7.11@270C 6.3@540C and 7.11@830C Thermal Expansion Coefficient /C 30-200C: 5.65x10-6; 30-400C: 6.40x10-6 30-600C: 6.93x10-6; 30-900C: 7.50x10-6
      Index of Refraction (n, ) 1.790 @ 0 .633 m, 1.777 @ 1.06 m 1.722 @ 3.39 m, 1.653 @ 5 m (Note: Refractive Index is composition dependent)
      Dielectric Constant and Loss Factor (@1GHz) k = 9.19, tan = 31x10-5

    2. Re:Refractive index? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW

      i too often wonder about the reflective index of things! thanks for pointing out that delightful fact for us!

      I must draw attention to an error i have found in your post however. It apears that you believe efax to be spammers. Efax is a reputable organization that helps thousands of fortune 500 busineses every day! how does it help them? not by buying them hookers and cars! no, it helps then by enabling their business to use a universal fax number. gone are the days of beowulf fax machine clusters! now they can all be replaced by efaxes sophisticated magic system. basically, efax gives you a fax number which you can give to all your friends and clients! they then send you a fax, and efax takes it, sprinkles some magic dust on in and POOF! it becomes and email, to be recieved by you or perhaps a small shell script of your choosing.

      Efax is the affordable way to recieve faxes. As the ceo of a large fortune 500 company, i can assure you that efax are NOT spammers.

  83. PopSci by Big+Bad+Hoss · · Score: 1

    I saw something similar (may be the same) to this in Popular Science maybe a year ago. Still cool though.

  84. But the sapphire breaks easily by panic_smooth · · Score: 1

    the sapphire crystal you refer to is used for watches, but is quite brittle and much more expensive than the material referred to in TFA. i recently broke my watch face by walking into a door handle - sapphire, flat crystal not the even more expensive curved stuff - and it was about 150 quid to replace. (90% of which was material cost.)

    --
    1. Re:But the sapphire breaks easily by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      well, i guess you are just ripped off, as my saphire glass cracked, too (which was sad, it survived the whole time crawling through the forrests in the army without a scratch), and the replacement did cost about 25$, including the work to set it in.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:But the sapphire breaks easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've dropped my Tag Heuer onto tile floors, smashed it into concrete bollards and into door handles. It's still perfect. Sapphire crystal faces rock.

      Anyway, back to TFA. Stupid fucking submitter and editor! It's not fucking aluminium you bloody fucktards. I guess anything goes as long it makes for a good title! Screw you, you dumb little attention whoring bitches.

  85. How is this different from LTA? by jkind · · Score: 1

    Seen here:
    http://www.worldwidearmor.com/#transparentArmor
    GE Advanced Materials also make some form of transparent armor.

    --
    ~jennifer.k~
  86. Re:soda - not a god idea by areve · · Score: 1

    Most of those salts were quite nasty anyway, this has strayed offtopic now... but what salt would it be?

  87. In other news, Apple announces new PowerBooks by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not to be outdone by the Air Force, Steve Jobs just announced that the forthcoming PowerBook G5 will feature a bulletproof transparent aluminum case. This follows Apple's longstanding tradition of using expensive metals for G4 laptop cases: first titanium, now airplane aluminum, soon transparent aluminum. Apple designer Jonathan Ives expressed some disappointment that they had not yet been able to create a commercially viable uranium shell, but was optimistic that the transparent aluminum would still be sexy.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  88. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by fabs64 · · Score: 1

    dicky period key? or just love that exclamation point so much?

  89. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    You can already buy a watch with a synthetic diamond face for $5 - the Rado V10K. Rado is the leader in scratch-proof watches.

    I wear a watch with a sapphire face and a nitrogen-hardened titanium body. I don't know the physics, but the metal is as hard as sapphire - I can scratch glass with it! So far, five years old and not a single scratch. But I do have a small dent in it from an emergency landing in a hang glider... ah, good times.

  90. A small run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought he bartered it for some plexiglass? What does "a small run" mean anyway?

    1. Re:A small run? by irving47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He did. The big piece of plexi, and the use of the Plexicorp helicopter. Lots of people assumed it was transparent aluminum because they weren't listening to Dr. Nichols when he said, "It'd take years just to figure out the dynamics of these matrices..."

      Ugh. I shouldn't have known that part verbatim.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:A small run? by Devil's+Advocate · · Score: 0
      Ugh. I shouldn't have known that part verbatim.


      Don't you mean verbatium.
    3. Re:A small run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. Scotty need a certain strength of plastic to work, and it wasn't available. Thats why he gave the formula away. He supposedly DID get transparent aluminum.

      Remember that although the Dr. said it would take year to figure it out, Scotty said that he would be richer than .... in the meantime.

      That seems to imply that he would be able to produce it without knowing how it works..

  91. scratchless by Skeptical1 · · Score: 1

    They should use this on the iPod nano :-)

  92. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  93. Wasn't this covered in... by echomancer · · Score: 1

    2002?

    I wonder how the British are feeling today, as there was no mention of transparent aluminium...

    --
    And I lift my glass to the awful truth which you can't reveal to the ears of youth except to say it isn't worth a dime.
    1. Re:Wasn't this covered in... by foxhound01 · · Score: 0

      and 2004? here

      --


      Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
  94. Finally...my dreams of becoming Wonder Woman... by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    ...come true, what with the ability to construct a transparent jet.

    The only remaining obstacle is telling my wife of my plans.

    IronChefMorimoto

  95. Humpbacks? by Helmholtz · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that we'd better check up on the Humpback whale situation before the cylinder with the glowing phallic communication rod heads this way to destroy us all?

    --
    RFC2119
  96. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by Secrity · · Score: 1

    Few watches would need much more than a square inch of this material to make a watch crystal. Even $10/sq inch is reasonable for a highly scratch and break resistant watch crystal in a moderately priced (few hundred US dollars) watch.

  97. Factual error in story by ari_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scotty didn't exchange the formula for a small run of transparent aluminum. The exchange was the formula for a run of plexiglass panels. You are hereby ordered to watch Star Trek IV three times before Sunday.

  98. Was he by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    singing the ballad of bilbo baggins with a bunch of bimbos?

  99. Why did the tank have to be transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing i never got, is why the tank holding the whale had to be transparent? Couldn't they have used normal aluminium?

    1. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the tank onboard the Bird of Prey? That's regular plexiglass, not transparent aluminium. Scott bartered the formula for transparent aluminium for a batch of regular plexiglass. There's no way that the folks in 20th century could have cranked out sheets of transparent aluminium the same day they received the formula.

      What I want to know is how Sulu got a hold of a Huey chopper so easily. Rent-a-Whirly? :)

      Tom

    2. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tanks was transparent so the people watching the historical document (see: Film) could see the whale.

    3. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, aside from the impossible logistics... plot-wise it *was* transparent aluminum they were installing in the bird of prey. Regular plexiglass was going to be too thick, you remember the whole thickness discussion?

    4. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      What I want to know is how Sulu got a hold of a Huey chopper so easily.
      Don't you remember the scene where he was talking to the other pilot? Sulu just conned the guy into letting him borrow it:

      Sulu: "Hi!"
      Pilot: "Hi!"
      Sulu: "Good looking ship! Huey 204, isn't it?"
      Pilot: "Right on! You fly?"
      Sulu: "Oh, here and there."
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Actually, yeah, it could have been. But if they'd done that, you wouldn't get to see the whales get beamed in, and Scotty wouldn't have been able to say "Captain! There be whales here!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Why did the tank have to be transparent? by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      Too thick? Hardly; 6 inches thick is all you'd need. You've never been to SeaWorld? :) Here's the dialog from the movie. I think it's safe to assume that they swapped the formula for several sheets of 6in plexi.

      SCOTTY: I notice you're still working with polymers.

      NICHOLS (mystified): Still? What else would I be working with?

      SCOTTY: Ah, what else indeed? Let me put it another way: how thick would a piece of your plexiglass need to be at 60 feet by 10 feet to withstand the pressure of 18,000 cubic feet of water?

      NICHOLS: That's easy: 6 inches. We carry stuff that big in stock.

      SCOTTY: Yes, I noticed. Now suppose -- just suppose -- I could show you a way to manufacture a wall that would do the same job but was only an inch thick. would that be worth something to you, eh?

      NICHOLS: ... Are you joking?

      BONES: He never jokes... Perhaps the professor could use your computer.

      NICHOLS: Please...

        He gestures, and Scotty sits at a nearby Macintosh. He surveys the machine quizzically, clears his throat, and in a loud voice says:

      SCOTTY: Computer --

        Bones steps in quickly, picks up the "Mouse" and shoves it into Scotty's hand. Scotty looks at the mouse, baffled, then puts it to his lips like a mike.

      SCOTTY: (continuing) Hello? Computer...?

      NICHOLS (bewildered): Just use the keyboard...

      SCOTTY: The keyboard... How quaint.

        Then, preparing his fingers like a concert pianist, he plunges to work furiously. An awesome series of figures and graphics are appearing. PULL BACK to reveal Scotty, now master of the keyboard, while Nichols watches in awe, next to Bones. with a flourish, Scotty hits a last command, and a wondrous three dimensional graphic appears.

      NICHOLS (wide-eyed): Transparent aluminum?

      SCOTTY: That's the ticket, laddie.

      NICHOLS: ... But it would take years just to figure out the dynamics of this matrix...!

      BONES: You'll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

      SCOTTY: So, is it worth something? Or should I just punch "clear"...

      NICHOLS: No! (then) No... What did you have in mind...?

      BONES: A moment alone, please. (continuing) You know, if we give him the formula, we'll be altering the future.

      SCOTTY: Why? how do you know he didn't invent the thing!

      http://www.geocities.com/ussmunchkin7/Star_Trek_IV .htm

  100. Windshield by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    I want this for my windshield.

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:Windshield by FullCircle · · Score: 1

      There is a reason for safety glass.

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  101. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
    Expect to see this to enter the consumer market for things like - IPod nano screens, watch faces, scratch reistant coverings on eyeglasses,etc.

    These things have been available for years already and they aren't expensive to make. I've got a cheap fake watch that I've worn for 10 years, I'm always banging it into things, not a single scratch on the face. Consumers seem to be happy with disposable (easilly damaged) stuff, as are the companies that make it.

  102. A10 Tank Killer by PromANJ · · Score: 1

    Apparently the front window of an A10 'Tank Killer' can survive a 23mm projectile (1" =25.4mm). Not sure here though, because many web pages are very confused about the projectile and the hit location (window, armour, cockpit bathtub). I think the bathtub can handle 37mm projectiles with AP or explosive payloads.

    I read in an old Swedish military manual that in general (rule of thumb), armour penetration is (speed_in_meters_per_sec/300)*caliber. It seems sort of correct looking at older figures atleast. A 80mm tank projectile travelling at 600m/s would penetrate 160mm of (steel) armour. A 5mm FMJ going at 900m/s would penetrate 15mm armour.

    Of course nowdays we have kevlar, explosive armour and self sharpening DU bullets. Hit angle means a lot too.

  103. Don't you guys read slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Transparent aluminum isn't new. Infact, it was posted here over a year ago.
    I guess having eidetic memory isn't a bad thing after all, huh.
    ps. this has pics if anyone wants them
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/2 3/1141217&tid=14

  104. Transparent aluminum not used in Star Trek IV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scotty may have bartered the forumula for transparent aluminum in Star Trek IV, but he bartered it for materials they had in stock. It was admitted in the movie that it would take years to develop. Just a minior nit pick with the headline.

  105. Al.u.min.i.um or A.lu.mi.num? by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know somebody who has a hard time pronouncing the North American version of this (being from NA). It's always comes out 'A.lu.ni.um' on them. It's a real speech impediment which they don't like showcasing. So I encourage them to say it the British way because it's like saying an entirely different word which gets around the bad wiring that has burned A.lu.ni.um into their head.

    So I don't see a great need to pick one pronunciation. It's not like we need to communicate to get along and not start wars or anything. Sometimes I'll watch Coronation Street just to laugh at the incomprehensible characters. Namely that chubby lady who sold the kid's dog to buy boots. Har! great stuff!

    In the case of transparent alumin[...] I remember Scotty saying it the North American way despite being a Scotsman. So there's your proof right there. In the future the NA version wins out as the new standard. If you think I'm being silly to base knowledge of the future on STAR TREK just where do you think the formula for this stuff came from?

    1. Re:Al.u.min.i.um or A.lu.mi.num? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember Scotty saying it the North American way despite being a Scotsman.


      Except for the fact that James Doohan was Canadian, and Star Trek was created by someone from Texas.
    2. Re:Al.u.min.i.um or A.lu.mi.num? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      In the case of transparent alumin[...] I remember Scotty saying it the North American way despite being a Scotsman.

      Not surprising since he wasn't a Scotsman, he played one on TV.

      Two Canadians on Star Trek. My apologies to the world.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    3. Re:Al.u.min.i.um or A.lu.mi.num? by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Good work.. now you can concentrate on 'nukular' and 'veehickle'

  106. Can't change the laws of physics, yet again by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
    It's not really aluminum, it's an aluminum compound. Probably much ther same thing as what gets made when you anodize aluminum. Been done for over 120 years.

    Due to the laws of physics, anything that is transparent isnt going to be very aluminum-like

    • It won't conduct heat or electricity too well.
    • It won't be very strong in tension.
    • It will be more like glass than aluminum.
    So it's quite misleading to claim it's "transparent aluminum".
  107. How many times are we going to announce this? by halivar · · Score: 1

    We have seen stories on transparent aluminum before:
    Transparent Aluminum posted February 20th, 2002 by Hemos
    Transparent Aluminum is Here posted August 23rd, 2004 by Hemos

    It's around. We get it. It's not news anymore.

  108. We don't need this..look at the Pentagon by SumDog · · Score: 1

    We really don't need this material you know. The pentagon on 9/11/01 was hit by a comercial jetliner and the windows all around the impact point were still intact. The Pentagon said they were blast resistant. If they can withstand the impact of a plane, it will be simply amazing how strong this material is. See for yourself:

    http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/770706.php

    1. Re:We don't need this..look at the Pentagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The pentagon on 9/11/01 was hit by a comercial jetliner and the windows all around the impact point were still intact. The Pentagon said they were blast resistant.

      Uh, those aren't garden-variety windows that just happen to be blast resistant, you know-- they are two inches thick and weigh 2500 pounds each. They're basically only blast resistant because of "brute force" design. The point of this new material is to be able to make windows that are not ridiculously thick but still provide equal or better protection than the ridiculously thick windows did.

  109. NOT Al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff is not Aluminium but a compound containing Aluminium. It is widely known that Corundum (a mineral that is esssentially Al2O3) is second only to diamond in hardness.

    This looks more like serendipity to me (to add an N atom and get something that is hard AND transparent).

    1. Re:NOT Al by http101 · · Score: 1

      So why don't they just use diamond? I mean, really, that piece of glass is worth about $250,000 by government standards. Now just imagine if they break the smaller window behind the passenger door... sheesh, that'll cost ya...

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  110. No more polish jokes! by scovetta · · Score: 1

    Ok I don't get the joke.. Double the strength by Polishing? Is it also doubled by Italianing? (It's probably made happier by Frenching, but that's a different issue altogether).

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  111. Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Really---the IUPAC says "Aluminium". "Aluminum" is the deviant mangled spelling/pronunciation.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It IS deviant. But so is every word in the English language - that's how languages form. English is the bastardization of, what, some Germanic language? Throw in some Romance languages for good measure? Should we all be speaking "Grunt", the one true language, spoken properly by our Chimp forefathers?

      Since you mentioned it, I went to the IUPAC website and searched for "Aluminum". You know what came up? Hundreds of IUPAC journals with the word spelled that way. Clearly they don't find it mangled or deviant enough to edit in their publications. Dude.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      English doesn't just borrow words from other languages. It sometimes stalks other languages, drags them into a back alley, beats them senseless, and rifles through their pockets for new words. Sometimes, the words get a bit spindled in the process, but English doesn't care, it just likes new words.

    3. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      I learned to spell it "Aluminum" in the real world... off a box of Reynolds Wrap "Aluminum Foil".

    4. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man who first created the name spelled it without the extra 'i', and he was an Englishman. Later on somebody else in England changed the spelling. Of course this doesn't extablish which is correct.

    5. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      I'm a dyed in the wool grammar and spelling Nazi, so I have to thank this person for giving me the correct spelling. Now I can shout from the rooftops at people who are making this mistake.

      --
      I don't get it.
    6. Re:Dude, 'Aluminium' *is* the correct one. by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      And lately English has been running some of it's own words through a home-built ENAIC with half of the punch cards missing, resulting in the commonly known "1337 $P34K".

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
  112. Pictures and more information by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

    Available: here and here

    --
    Sigs are for the weak.
  113. $5000 V10K by bobbuck · · Score: 1

    Your link says the Rado V10K is $5000.

    1. Re:$5000 V10K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoops! :-) my bad.

      - M

  114. Aluminum, what aluminum? by testadicazzo · · Score: 1
    I read the article and it says:

    "ALONtm is a ceramic compound with a high compressive strength and durability"

    Now, a ceramic compound (whether or not it contains aluminum) is a pretty far cry from aluminum. This isn't just a semantic difference. For example, ceramics tend to have vastly different properties than metals. Conductivity for example. Geez.

  115. What about birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA mentioned ground vehicles and low flying aircraft, but bullets aren't the only battlefield hazard to an aircraft.

    When I was in teh USAF a problem was bird strikes. One bloody C-5 came in one evening with a headless co-pilot. The aircraft had a head on collision with a duck, which went right through the windshield and took the man's head completely off!

    If the windshield had been made of this material, would the duck have penetrated it? Would the airman have survived?

  116. Nuclear warhead made to withstand attack by gimme00 · · Score: 1

    Hey - maybe we should use this new material to create nuclear warheads that withstand anti-nuclear warhead weapons. Only one flaw - on arrival at the destination where it should explode, it just gets real bright and hot and sits in the field like an abandoned soccer ball! At least we give the enemy a sun tan. :)

  117. Wonder Woman by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    At last, we can make her invisible jet! All we need is the magic lasso and a milf in red white and blue spandex and we can all live happily ever after.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  118. Intersting. How much does it weigh? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    If it weighs as much as conventional "level I" armor, it's going to slow down the hmmmvs. At which point, a new fast unarmored jeep-like vehicle will be needed to fill certain roles. When the public finds out they'll want to armor the new vehicle, ad infinitum.

    Some Hmmvs should be armored. All of them is rediculous.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Intersting. How much does it weigh? by MrDRwin · · Score: 1

      It's not rediculous considering modern warfare. In the old days of WWII it would be acceptable to only armor our "front line" vehicles. Now however, there is no "front line". In a gurrella war, which is what Iraq has basicly become, the front can break out anywhere at anytime, especially in an urban enviroment. Hence the need for all vehicles to be armored.

    2. Re:Intersting. How much does it weigh? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The front lines are more vague however the premise is still the same. Some forces must be more mobile than others. The sacrifice is durability. A hmmv is not an APC, even if it is up-armored. For those roles, we have APCs and the bradley. When people say that we should be armoring hmmvs, I think what they really mean is that we should be buying more bradleys and fewer hmmvs. At least, when I hear that there is a shortage of armored transports, I think, "we should buy more 'Armored Personnel Carriers'" not "We should glue iron plates to jeeps"

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Intersting. How much does it weigh? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        If it weighs as much as conventional "level I" armor, it's going to slow down the hmmmvs. At which point, a new fast unarmored jeep-like vehicle will be needed to fill certain roles.

      Why not put more powerful engines in the armored Humvees? As I recall, the existing ones are kinda wimpy (originally 150 hp, 250 lb-ft, newer ones 170 hp, 290 lb-ft).

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  119. Old News by Gumpy · · Score: 1

    Transparent Aluminum has been around for quite some time now. The public knew about it even before the military published a report about it.

  120. Images of armor by rderr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A link to a press report showing an image of ALONtm.

    http://www.surmet.com/docs/ALON%20Press%20Release_ August%202003.pdf

    -Rob

  121. He may have actually meant "loose" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As in losing your lunch on purpose.

    I blame Mozilla; "caution - you may loose data"

    1. Re:He may have actually meant "loose" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it amazing that at the bottom of a half-dozen message making fun of the fact that "loose" (loos) and "lose" (looz) mean two different things, here is a poster saying, "I think he really meant 'loose' as in lose your lunch." Talk about, "dude, you just don't get it."

  122. Huh? by olympus_coder · · Score: 1

    "ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant"

    So, it isn't scratch resistant?

    --
    Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
  123. Tough !!!= Scratchproof by el_benito · · Score: 1

    Toughness!!! doesn't equal Scratchproofing!!!! See recent /.!!! on iPod Nano screens http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163335&c id=13643920

    --
    http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
  124. Two words by ildon · · Score: 1

    Soylent cola.

  125. You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it's funny to watch all these people try to find a practical application for this invention that cannot already be done better and cheaper with pre-existing technology, in order to justify the research expense (probably paid by you and me out of our wages). And that's before you even divide the research cost by the success rate!

    What will they think of next?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    1. Re:You joke, but... by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A transparent ceramic that's lighter and stronger than glass and the various plastics now used, and you think it doesn't have a practical application? It doesn't even take much of an imagination to find tons. Armor, obviously. Better windows on aircraft and spacecraft (where weight matters much more than on a ground vehicle). Child-proof computer monitors (OK, that one's a stretch...)

    2. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      A transparent ceramic that's lighter and stronger than glass and the various plastics now used, and you think it doesn't have a practical application?

      Of course it does. But that's not enough. A diamond-bladed lawnmower has practical application. It has to be more cost effective than current alternatives, even amortizing the research costs divided by success rate. Can you justify this development that way? Sure, I supposed, but has any Slashdotter even tried?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    3. Re:You joke, but... by jotok · · Score: 1
      A diamond-bladed lawnmower has practical application. It has to be more cost effective than current alternatives
      No argument here. But doesn't this seem like an area where someone needed to cut some really tough grass, and then realized that only a diamond-bladed lawnmower would do the trick? Here comes the $1b prototype, and next year the cost is down to $100 because someone responded to the demand for a cost-effective solution and came up with cheap diamonds.

      All I'm saying is, yes, it is less cost-effective, but I think typically making it cheaper is a secondary innovation following inventing the thing in the first place (I can imagine exceptions to this too).
    4. Re:You joke, but... by portforward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, according to the article, the aluminum took armor piercing rounds from a 50 cal Browning Sniper rifle without breaking like the glass armor did. Also it weighs less, it doesn't scratch as much, (providing better visibility), it has a longer lifetime so it doesn't have to be replaced as often and therfore may be cheaper in the long run. Read the article next time - it answers a lot of your questions.

    5. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      No argument here. But doesn't this seem like an area where someone needed to cut some really tough grass, and then realized that only a diamond-bladed lawnmower would do the trick? Here comes the $1b prototype, and next year the cost is down to $100 because someone responded to the demand for a cost-effective solution and came up with cheap diamonds.

      Right, my explanation accounted for this. You can't just say "oh, we had a one-time cost of $1e9 and now are costs are $1e4 less on each application, so it's 100% certain it wasn't a waste of time." You have to amortize the research costs (spread it over all the uses, discounting for time value). So, for example, if you were only going to use the diamondbladed lawnmower five times, it didn't make up its cost. Or if it saved $1e9, but that came all at once, 20 years later, it was a waste of time because $1e9 20 years from now is less than $1e9 right now, through the miracles of interest.

      But that's not all: you have to divide the research cost by the success rate. Sure, the research on this innovation was $1e9, but your research program in aggregate may be $1e10. If this was the only success, your success rate is 10%, so you could only justify the research if it saved $1e9/10% = $1e10. (I know, you could avoid the math and just say "you have to look at the whole research program's cost", but using the success-rate method lets you analyze each innovation in isolation.)

      And I know, the research may not "just save money" but "also save lives". But you can include those benefits as part of the cost saving, so the cost-effectiveness calculation covers everything.

      (Small digression: "What? Human life has a finite value? You *#*$*)(!" Well, in a sense, yes. If you have a statistical certainty of saving a life through $800,000, you know that you wasted money if your technology saved a life at a cost of $1e6.)

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    6. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      O RLY? The article explained the dollar value of each of these benefits relative to existing technology? And the present value of all of these benefits? And the cost of the research? And the cost of all research? (All necessary to justify the research, as explained in my post.)

      In fact, the article listed none of these, providing no cost-effectiveness justifcation whatsoever. You need to understand that it's not enough simply to say "Invention X does cool thing Y" ... you have to know what you're missing by getting it. A diamond-bladed lawnmower could do new things, like cut grass with a much slower depreciation rate. That doesn't mean making one isn't a waste of time.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    7. Re:You joke, but... by matzebrei · · Score: 1
      Seriously, it's funny to watch all these people try to find a practical application for this invention that cannot already be done better and cheaper with pre-existing technology, in order to justify the research expense

      That's not always the point in R&D. Now that we have this thing, it might make something completely unexpected possible (ask yourself, who would have thought of putting a camera in a cell phone when they came out in the early 1980's?) or better (child-proof CDs & DVDs? maybe...)

      Research like this is the only way we get to have new toys in 20-30 years. Otherwise, it's just refinements on the same old stuff, and frankly, the current set of technologies are wasting too many resources.

    8. Re:You joke, but... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      You have to amortize the research costs (spread it over all the uses

      You can completely discount the R&D costs for downstream products, if they are justified by the first products to come out of the gate. An F-14 fighter is about $35 million. The pilot and RIO each cost about $1m (that's replacement cost to the Navy, not a value on human life). If the cost of the R&D can be completely justified by using this armor for F-14 canopies, then you don't have to include any of that R&D cost when you calculate the 'cost' of ALONtm razor blades.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    9. Re:You joke, but... by usrusr · · Score: 1

      So did the internet.

      At least this invention won't wast so much of my time.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    10. Re:You joke, but... by russotto · · Score: 1

      You'd were the guy who told Bell Labs "...and sure this transistor has practical uses, but nothing a vacuum tube can't do cheaper, when you consider the cost of research", right?

    11. Re:You joke, but... by idontgno · · Score: 1
      A diamond-bladed lawnmower could do new things.... That doesn't mean making one isn't a waste of time.

      If the grass had to be cut, and the odds of successfully cutting the grass were already low, and cutting grass was an inherently hazardous mission, and the diamond blade substantially increased the likelihood of mission accomplishment...then making the diamond-bladed lawnmower is absolutely not a waste of time or resources.

      Look again at the original site. It's the US Air Force. In principle, at least, that means that the first criteria is "How does this technology further mission accomplishment?" It's a military technology, so the criteria involve platform survivability under hostile opposition. Yes, dollars and cents figure in, but less so if the difference between transparent armor and glass-plastic composite is the difference between a successful airstrike and a failed one.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Sure, those are all important things to consider, and things the Air Force should consider: does the technology actually save us money. If we had spent the research on beefing up existing methods (i.e., buying more F-whatevers, buying more pilot training), would we be more effective in battle? , etc.

      But the point of the GP you responded to was that the article does not give such an analysis. That post was in response to someone claiming my questions were answered by the article "if I bothered to read it". I did bother to read it. And it simply doesn't give enough info to say if the research was worthwhile. That was all I was trying to say in the post.

      Remember, it's not enough to say "technology X can do Y"; you must show it was preferable to the other uses of the resources used in developing and building it. A diamond-bladed lawnmower could be cost justified at some point for some use; I just use that as an example that's currently not, yet deceptively does "cool" things.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    13. Re:You joke, but... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Assuming, of course, that there are no licensing fees (unlikely, as the orignal investors would no doubt like some of their money back), and that, somehow, the R&D costs of developing ALONtm razor blades are also zero. (i.e. that you spent no R&D money of your own in design, testing, tooling, and so on)

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    14. Re:You joke, but... by joto · · Score: 1
      But the point of the GP you responded to was that the article does not give such an analysis. That post was in response to someone claiming my questions were answered by the article "if I bothered to read it". I did bother to read it. And it simply doesn't give enough info to say if the research was worthwhile. That was all I was trying to say in the post.

      Remember, it's not enough to say "technology X can do Y"; you must show it was preferable to the other uses of the resources used in developing and building it. A diamond-bladed lawnmower could be cost justified at some point for some use; I just use that as an example that's currently not, yet deceptively does "cool" things.

      Well, then. Obviously you are an idiot, because your questions are wrong.

      Obviously something that's stronger, faster, better, etc..., will be of use to someone. It means something that wasn't feasible before, is now possible.

      Just because you are perfectly happy with glass in your frontshield window in your car, and don't need ALON, it doesn't mean that everybody is perfectly happy. Even if the army was perfectly happy using layers upon layers of bulletproof glass (which they obviously aren't since they're paying for this), doesn't mean that other applications don't exist. It could be used in submarines, airplaines, or spaceships, or who the hell cares! Applications will obviously come that can utilize it and justify its costs, and once into production, it will become cheaper, and eventually, you'll find it on the cover of your cellphone, and on your wristwatch!

      If you carry out this kind of cost-analysis on all research, almost no research will be done. To take the diamond-bladed lawnmower example. While completely silly, once you have the ability to make diamond blades for lawnmowers, you also have the ability to make diamond-blades (and probably other surfaces) for other stuff. For one thing, I'm sure the oil-industry would be happy, and they can afford it! And so would, and could, a lot of other industries!

      If you have trouble imagining uses for something that's so obviously an improvement in material science, I really hope you will never be in a position to influence that kind of decisions. Now, if this was purely applied research just for the purpose of creating a better bulletproof glass, the money could conceivably be wasted, but that's only if the beancounters at the airforce were so stupid as to keep it a secret. By licensing it to other commercial venues, they can get back their costs tenfold.

      And we still haven't covered the value of the basic research done, which most likely will lead to other, related breakthroughs in material science (just as the Kroll-process for manufacturing titanium, could also be used for manufacturing zirconium (used in nuclear reactors, chemical plants, etc..))

    15. Re:You joke, but... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      This is just another example of picking the wrong materials for the job. It would be way more cost effective to eliminate the problems which occur with lawnmower blades...namely coming in contact with rocks, dirt , or other substances other than grass. Hence eliminate the spinning blades! how you ask? simple just put a 2kw CO2 laser under there and you can cut/burn a much wider swath than with the current multi blade setups. This method would also be quieter, less cuttings as most would be turned to ash... thus fertilizing the area too! This method would be many times safer too... no more throwing rocks at nearby people, cars, windows... there are so many benefits listing them all would take years! So somebody out there get busy and make one of these, I would do it myself but I can't afford the laser or the power supply.

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
    16. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay. Step back a second. At the point where you entered the thread, I wasn't denying the existence of applications. I was claiming that the article, which I "didn't read", does not provide enough information to know that the research is cost-justified. This is because there are a number of considerations in determining whether the research was a good use of scarce resources. The article did not answer any of those questions. To determine that the research was cost justified, you have to check off a number of things:

      -Are users willing to pay the amortized cost of the research in its applications? Crude example: if the research has an amortized cost of $10 on each unit, but users are willing to pay only $1 for the feature, the research already didn't pay for itself. This may sound obvious, but keep in mind, inventions can do many "cool" things and still fail this test! Similar example: let's say (for simplicity) that the invention can just be used by the Air Force. Let's say that currently, the Air Force can double its combat effectiveness with $1e9. Then say the invention allows the Air Force to double its combat effectiveness for $2e9. In that case, the research was a waste. If instead, the research can double the combat effectiveness for $5e8, that is a gain of $5e8, which can then apply against the cost of the research to see if it paid for itself.

      -Summing up all those cost savings must then be greater than the research costs, discounting for forgone opportunities, aka interest. If the research cost $1e9 and saves $1e9 20 years later, that's a loss, because you could have just put the $1e9 in a bank and let the interest accrue.

      -That's not all. You have to then divide by the success rate of the research. The research gains must pay for all research costs; you can't just just count the winners and ignore the losers. The winners must also recoup the cost of the losers.

      If it meets all those tests, then the research was justified. AGAIN, I don't deny that there are many uses of the research, but the article I "didn't read" gives no information about whether it met any part of the above. Contrary to what you claim, it would help if there were more people like me giving reality checks: "Can't we use a memory thermometer for the same purpose?" (referring to the memory metal discussed in an earlier article) Too often people count the benefits and ignore the costs. Even if the benefits do ultimately outweight the costs, you should still consider them. Getting it right through luck is a bad policy.

      So, just to clarify, when you count ALL benefits, the research could be justified; the article just doesn't show that, and people rarely make this calculation.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    17. Re:You joke, but... by joto · · Score: 1
      And my point was that this kind of calculation is in practice not possible, and not desirable. Because you can't determine in advance how much it costs to find a "winner". In the end, the budget that research gets, is a combination of how much cash you have to spare, how much research has paid off in the past, and how much your competition is spending on research. The budget that a particular research project gets, is a combination of current fads in the budget committee, how well-written the grant-proposal was, how famous the researchers are, and various other more-or-less-random factors.

      Let's say that currently, the Air Force can double its combat effectiveness with $1e9. Then say the invention allows the Air Force to double its combat effectiveness for $2e9.

      Let's think the same way about developing, say, the jet engine. With enough propeller airplanes, we can double the airforce combat effectiveness. In fact, with enough stone-axes, we can probably win the war even without airplanes.

      The modern western civilization is built on the idea, that research will eventually pay for itself. That it does, is not obvious at all, but if it weren't so, it wouldn't have been Europe that conquered all the other continents a few hundred years ago.

      But research is also a drain on other resources. How much you spend on research should be determined by how much you can afford, not by how much it is going to gain you, because you simply can't calculate that. We can't give forecasts for future research, but we can expect that it will continue to give us advantages, as it has in the past.

      If the research cost $1e9 and saves $1e9 20 years later, that's a loss, because you could have just put the $1e9 in a bank and let the interest accrue

      That's assuming that a particular project like this can be isolated in this way, and that you have perfect ability to predict how small or large your savings will be in 20 years. If you do this for all projects that have a 20 year lifespan (which seems reasonable given your presumption), then no useful basic research will ever get done. This is not economically desirable (see above).

      That's not all. You have to then divide by the success rate of the research. The research gains must pay for all research costs; you can't just just count the winners and ignore the losers. The winners must also recoup the cost of the losers.

      Which is about the only thing I agree with you about ;-)

    18. Re:You joke, but... by k31bang · · Score: 1

      Finally, a good solution to the ipod scratching problem.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    19. Re:You joke, but... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I dont actually think that diamond blades would be much use to the oil industry, since we already use tungsten-carbide in the manufacture of drill bits. Also you could use that in your lawnmower =P But I agree on your principle, if the army is willing to pay for it - and let's face it, they spend a LOT of money on researching technology that sometimes (or usually?) never even sees the light of day - then let them pay for it. Also if we want to keep advancing technology we have to pay for it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Responding to the general point you're making: It's a common for people to remark, "Well, no one can really know X." Now, if this means no one can know X with absolute certainty, it's probably true, but uninteresting. If it means no one can have any certainty about anything, it's false.

      In a lot of what you were saying in your post, you mention the difficulties in tabulating the beneficiaries of all this. And it is difficult, you're right. But I'm not assuming, as you claim, perfect knowledge, just reasonable estimates. My examples no doubt heavily simplified things because, for example, amortized costs are a function of the number of buyers and thus the price you charge, making the calculation complicated. Also, you would have to calculate the value of doubling combat effectiveness against non-military uses of funds, and indeed it does get messy.

      But even rough calculations are several orders of magnitude better than what you seem to want, which is "fund all basic research irrespective of alternatives or possible uses for it" (yes, I know that's a simplification). I agree that the fruits of basic research are better than the absence of the fruits of basic research. I do not agree that the fruits of basic research are necessarily better than what alternate uses of scarce resources would have yielded, which is a more difficult yet more important question.

      Finding out that today's kinds of research are losing propositions in the aggregate does not mean we should fund no research, just that we should focus it more on existing problems, less risky venues, and sooner returns. I know you're probably livid at the idea of doing that to research, but it makes sense once you consider the very real costs of research. When I see a professor try to justify multi-million dollar research into something whose uses are limited to replacing already-cheap memory thermometers, I have to say ... are we really researching to make people live longer, better lives, or to give over-educated people make-work jobs?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    21. Re:You joke, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really this stupid, or are you looking to get a rise out of people? Research *never* makes money for the corporation; that's why all research labs, from Bell to Microsoft, are LOSS centers, not PROFIT centers.

      Duh.

      And yet still they do research. That Bill Gates may be the richest guy in the world, but clearly he's too dumb to understand that he's flushing his money away with the research nonsense.

      Btw, Leon, it's both easier and clearer to write "one billion" or "a billion" or "1 billion" or even "$1b" as opposed to exponential notation. All that writing "1e09" and "1e04" instead of "1b" and "10000" does is to make you look like a hopeless wannabe Poindexter, which is far more pathetic than a real, honest-to-goodness Poindexter. Just a friendly hint from your buddy AC.

    22. Re:You joke, but... by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      I use $1e9 (no leading zeros btw) because "billion" has different meanings in different parts of the world: I have to clarify it's nine zeros. Go look it up on Wikipedia, I'm not wasting any more time on this.

      Now, corporations do generally make money on the research they do, or else corporations that engaged in it would get outcompeted by ones that didn't. Really.

      And yes, research should return a profit by the method I described here:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165623&cid=138 20378

      If it doesn't, we were better off just sticking all research funds in an interest bearing account. Research should be for satisfying human problems, not mental masturbation for over-educated good-ol'-boys. If it's better than the alternatives, it will show a profit by my method (even if the actual organizations engaging in it do not make a profit through IP theft, etc.).

      You need to remember: research has costs. And it's cost is not $1e9. Its cost is "the best alternative (known at the time) we could have taken with that $1e9". If the research is worse than the obvious alternatives *it was a waste*, no matter how many warm fuzzies you get from hearing about it.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
  126. Two words... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1

    Soylent green!

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
  127. English is by Smallest · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html#Engl ish

    Written English is essentially a variety of Old French invented by somebody who spoke only Saxon and read only Latin.
    --Basilius

    English is essentially an imprecise dialect of Java, without the object orientation.
    --Julian Morrison

    English is essentially bad Dutch with outrageously pronounced French and Latin vocabulary.
    --Eugene Holman

    English is essentially Norse as spoken by a gang of French thugs.
    --Benct Philip Jonsson

    English is essentially a bizarre dialect of Chinese, pronounced entirely in the first tone.
    --John Cowan

    English is essentially Low German plus even lower French minus any sense of culture.
    --Danny Weir

    English is essentially Anglo-Saxon with all the cool bits taken out.
    --Thomas Leigh

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  128. Tank Armor. by UseTheSource · · Score: 1

    Now, all they need to do is invent duranium for the structure and plating on the solid vehicle parts, and we'd be all set!

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  129. Trademark ALONtm fast! by dk90406 · · Score: 1

    > Unfortunately, from the article it seems ALONtm

    What I think is weird is that the journalist keeps writing ALONtm as the name.
    It should obviously be ALON, as AlON is the chemical formula. The tm is just a misunderstood Trademark..

  130. Things It's Good For... by http101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) http://www.xoxide.com/clearacatxca.html
    2) Eyeglasses.
    3) Pipes.
    4) Soda cans. (Pepsi could have used this during their Crystal Pepsi phase.)
    5) Windshields.
    6) Engines.
    7) Bicycles. (Used with carbon-fiber, Lance Armstrong would be deliriously happy.)
    8) Hurricane windows.
    9) Decorative and durable lawn furniture.
    10) Utensils.

    I have a feeling someone might find a way to swirl dyed mixtures into the clear part to make some sort of swirlie colored "glass" for vases that won't break. Eh... I'm bored...

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  131. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by RevRigel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, no. Current ceramic rifle plate technology for human-worn body armor does not shatter when hit with a single round. See here.

  132. Transparent aluminum by howard_coward · · Score: 1

    For the record... It's not really "transparent aluminum" any more than glass is transparent silicon. "AlON" is aluminum oxide-nitride, an aluminum salt, just as glass is (roughly) a silicon salt. But it's still amazingly tough looking material.

  133. It's not an issue by jcorno · · Score: 1

    It's already oxidized. That would be like asking if rust was going to corrode or if water was going to burn. Aluminum metal corrodes because it bonds easily to oxygen (just like iron and hydrogen).

  134. Wonder Woman... by fitten · · Score: 1

    Maybe we can build Wonder Woman's invisible plane now!

    I hope James Doohan knew about this stuff in the works.

  135. This is not transparent aluminum by rabtech · · Score: 1

    This is not transparent aluminum... it is just another transparent aluminum oxide. We've been through this before with transparent alumina (another oxide of aluminum).

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  136. Interesting. by linforcer · · Score: 1

    From the article: "The substance itself is light years ahead of glass," Guess we have to travel pretty far to mine it then.

  137. Scotty's Autobiography by Kobun · · Score: 1

    I posted this in the article thread dedicated to his send off, it seems to fit here as well. James Doohan had an autobiography, which I found to be quite interesting. Mine was hardcover, and I hope that local libraries for those interested have a copy. Here is an Amazon link to the thing.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671 520563/qid=1129645719/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2949 821-4630339?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

  138. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

    Dammit, you had me all excited thinking I could get one for 5 bucks! :-P

  139. Standards compliance by SkippyTPE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing to me how many in the Slashdot crowd will jump up and down screaming about standards compliance until it comes to written English, whereupon the rules (i.e. - standards) are apparently taken as meaningless.

    1. Re:Standards compliance by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Well, you may speak and write IEEE -52 English, but I speak and write ANSI -12 English.

      The problems with standards compliance become apparent at the points where the standards overlap. Support for reading and understanding every standard for a given format are then required. For example, Openoffice can read and understand many, many dialects of "document".

      Interestingly enough, my computer can print a variety of "standard" latin alphabets, including versions such as "Times New Roman" and "Bitstream Vera Sans".

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    2. Re:Standards compliance by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      Even a school child can recognize "Aluminum" as a corruption of "Aluminium". If you think this is an important standards compliance issue, then you will really hate that the British call potato chips "crisps", and cookies are "biscuits". Not to mention that they then call fries "chips"! Oh, the humanity! :)

      Seriously, you are doomed to a very frustrated life if you think that human languages can be frozen to certain specs - like we'll all speak English79 until they release the spec to English2006 sometime next year. This would only be a standards issue if the English called it Aluminium and the Americans said "Plutonium". THEN we'd have a problem. As of right now, this is a single-letter misspelling that causes not one whit of confusion, and is in fact a lot closer than the Spanish "aluminio". The "standard" is the "Al" symbol on the periodic table, which is universal.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Standards compliance by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Actually you have it backwards. Aluminum was the second name given to the element Aluminium was given later on. see here: http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.h tm

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Standards compliance by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do the Brits call the small lumps of dough or batter that bake up into what USians call biscuits?

    5. Re:Standards compliance by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      "...you will really hate that the British call potato chips "crisps", and cookies are "biscuits". Not to mention that they then call fries "chips"! Oh, the humanity! :)"

      Well, what can you expect from a 'race' that thinks warm beer, and jellied eels constitute a treat.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    6. Re:Standards compliance by ghqman · · Score: 1

      They call dough or batter dough or batter.

    7. Re:Standards compliance by Bigboote66 · · Score: 1

      I think the grandparent poster meant what do you call the finished product, after it has been baked - i.e., what word do people from the UK use to describe what those in the US call "biscuits". Or is it, in fact, "dough"?

      -BbT

    8. Re:Standards compliance by SkippyTPE · · Score: 1

      While you raise an interesting point, there is a published standard for the English language that has been recognized as such for the last seventy-seven or so years: the Oxford English Dictionary.

      It recognizes that there are dialectical differences (such as this silly aluminum v. aluminium business), but also lays down some very firm syntactical rules (e.g. - the proper form of possessives). It is also, rather famously, always changing, thus rendering specious the argument "I can spel howevr I want 'cuz language is always changing, man."

    9. Re:Standards compliance by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      We are complying with standards, just a different standard set. Oxford vs. Webster is like VHS vs. Betamax, to use a loose analogy. The Oxford standard may be more widely accepted over a geographical area (though perhaps not a larger population), but Webster has a technical advantage with somewhat more rigid spelling rules, especially where extraneous vowels are dropped from the catalogue^H^H.

      Now, it just so happens there is a great deal of cross-compatability between the two standards, but that doesn't mean that one is "more correct" than the other. If the author really wanted to reach the widest audience, the title would have just been left at "Transparent Al," but then people would wonder who this Al person is and we'd see a whole lot of posts involving quotes from UHF.

    10. Re:Standards compliance by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Scones.

      And no, don't ask what they call what USians call scones, we could be here all day.

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:Standards compliance by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      English has rules. It's just that these rules have little to do with what most people's notion of "rules" are for a language. Aluminum is a word because people use it. Why else would it be a word? Does the way you move your tongue around in your mouth have anything to do with the properties of the element? Do the frequencies of the sounds produced by saying one form or the other somehow bear more resemblance to the material? Do the lines and curves of the written letters look more or less metallic?

      The real way to say it is the way people really say it. This may sound tautological, but it is the only sensical explanation. The rules aren't meaningless--in fact they're rather strict. "Aluminium ain't no good way to say it," follows the rules even though you might say it doesn't. But anything that doesn't follow the rules isn't "bad" English--it's not English at all. Aluminum is a metal. Aluminium is a metal. Xyzzy is not.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    12. Re:Standards compliance by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't lay down any rules: it describes rules that already exist. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. Besides, while possessives are usually quite regular, there still exist forms like "yourn" or "mines."

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  140. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by khallow · · Score: 1
    the odds of surviving the fall are better than the odds of surviving the fire when things are that far gone... If you jump, you may get lucky and land on something soft... or indeed, you may even miss the ground altogether al la hitch-hikers guide flying stylee...

    Funny, I thought it was the other way around. If you jump you have to shed 53 stories worth of kinetic energy without dying. Guess the building owner should have invested in an escape system.

  141. pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find your lack of pants... disturbing

    Whoops, wrong universe.

  142. No, you're wrong by ifwm · · Score: 4, Informative

    "In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812 he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root. The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium."

    So aluminum was the first spelling, which was later change by language nazis because it didn't sound right.

    Don't blame us Americans for trying to be historically accurate.

    1. Re:No, you're wrong by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      So your history only takes into account the facts that you like and leaves out the bits you don't agree with? That's not accuracy.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    2. Re:No, you're wrong by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 3, Funny

      "So aluminum was the first spelling, which was later change by language nazis because it didn't sound right."

      If you see someone with an adhesive label on their lapel or shoulder with a upside-down lower case e on it then you'll know that they're a member of the language nazis.

      By their schwas-stickers ye shall know them....

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    3. Re:No, you're wrong by ifwm · · Score: 1

      So, what did I leave out then? My description of the events are accurate, as far as I know, so what the hell are you trolling about?

    4. Re:No, you're wrong by idontgno · · Score: 1
      By their schwas-stickers ye shall know them....

      That's evil. That's horrible. You should be pun-ished for that.

      And I already commented upthread a bit, so I can't give you the mod pointing you deserve.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:No, you're wrong by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      I think he was refering to other things, like the Battle of 1912, which, when you do remember, you all seem to think you won.

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
  143. Nearly scratch resistant. by KFury · · Score: 0

    TFA: "ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant"

    Really? Virtually resistant to scratches? Is that like saying WMDs in Iraq are a virtual probability?

  144. Sorry. Wrong. by MichailS · · Score: 1

    The material is aluminium oxynitride, a ceramic compound as it says clearly in the text. It is not a transparent metal we are talking about here!

    Metals commonly make compounds with non-metals creating ceramics, such as for example porcelain (aluminium oxide) or table salt (sodium chloride), not to forget almost every pebble benetah your shoe. Some are transparent, some are opaque.

    That aluminium oxynitrate is transparent doesn't in itself make it more exotic than the vast array of other ceramics out there. It's about as fantastic as stating that silicon componds can be transparent.

    Sorry for unmaking your day.

  145. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    Might be, but the real issue is if God considers jumping out of a burning building to be suicide. This may be a serious legal issue to start your afterlife with.

  146. Been around a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Transparent aluminium is also called sapphire or ruby since these materials are Aluminium Oxide with other materials mixed in to produce the color. It is not all that difficult to grow them in the laboratory and they remain flawless.

  147. Transparent aluminum, a boon for AMC??? by geekmonk · · Score: 1

    Since the AMC division is one of the manufacturers of armoured vehicles, and a Armoured Personnel carrier can not stop a .50 cal ap round, does this mean that with this new armour, AMC will bring back the pacer as a armoured vehicle? Look ma, no blind spots???

    --
    From the country where life is "TRUE BLUE" and tech support reigns..
  148. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by DG · · Score: 1

    Actually, you only have to shed about 120 mph (200 kph) worth of kinetic energy, given that the terminal velocity of a human in freefall is roughly 120 mph.

    There's some math you could do to figure out how high up you would have to be to reach terminal velocity. I'll leave that at an exercise for the student.

    Incidently, from terminal velocity, an impact that is spread evenly across the body and that took place over about a metre is completely survivable. Falling into powder snow would result in a metre deep crater and a live subject. If you can land on something that would crush with the impact, you might get away with it.

    I'd also suspect that the single injury most likly to be immediately fatal would be a head impact. The broken bones and other internal trama on the rest of your body is going to be non-trivial, but I suspect that you could survive that if immediate medical attention could be had. That suggests that putting on a motorcycle helmet before jumping might significantly increase your probability of survival.

    It's not the fall - it's the sudden stop at the end. ;)

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  149. Photo available by amros · · Score: 2, Informative

    They have a pic on their photo page at http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp:
    Low-res and high-res.

    Cutline:
    WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio -- This ground-finish transparent armor test piece withstood the impact of a .30 caliber armor-piercing bullet fired from 25 yards away using a Russian M-44 sniper rifle. Shown is the test piece, which demonstrates the armor's ability to stop penetration from armor-piercing threats. (U.S. Air Force photo)

  150. Transparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any material an be made Transparent as long as you can control the cooling process. The trick is over all rate of cooling.
    Glass is the easiest material to make Transparent. I have heard of attempts to make steel transparent but the cooling process of the molten steel is extermly difficult and next to impossible to do, at this time, at any economical level. My memory is a bit rusty but I seem to recall to make steel Transparent you need to very slowly cool the entire molten piece of steel down over the course of a few weeks (changes in temperature with in the molten steel will cause 'darking' of the transparent steel).

    There is no economical gain to spend weeks to make transparent aluminum when you can do the same with glass at most likely 1/1000th the cost. Luckly cost does not appear to be a factor in the US military where they can spend $250 on a hammer or $200 on an ash try. Now it will be $1000 for a 10X10 inch peice of glass (transparent aluminum).

  151. Unscratchable CDs and DVDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better durability and protection against armor piercing threats"

    OK, how soon can we get optical media made with it?

  152. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by Pryon · · Score: 1

    If this is a problem for god, then fuck 'im.

  153. Back in time... by po8 · · Score: 0

    Wow, it's almost like in that Star Trek movie! You can take your transparent aluminum and go back in time to either 2004 or even 2002! It's funny how time travel always makes that "dupdupdup" sound.

  154. oh absolutely by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Quite right! I agree the engineering of appropriate coatings is a complex and demanding art -- I did not mean to imply otherwise! Nor is CVD diamond much more than, at this point, a fascinating research-worthy possibility, so far as I know. I thought it would be interesting to the OP, that's all.

  155. Aluminium/Aluminum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My high school chemistry teacher who was from Nigeria pronounced aluminum but wrote aluminium.

  156. Sapphire is transparent Aluminum by Chuck_McDevitt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Transparent Aliminum has been around for all our lifetimes: Sapphire = Aluminum Oxide. My watch has a sapphire crystal... Yours might too.

    1. Re:Sapphire is transparent Aluminum by CapnGib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sure it is, in the same way water is liquid hydrogen

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
    2. Re:Sapphire is transparent Aluminum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The original poster is a moron.

    3. Re:Sapphire is transparent Aluminum by Chuck_McDevitt · · Score: 1

      Well, it's just a reasonable to call Aluminum oxide "transparent aluminum" as it is to call Aliminum Oxy-Nitride "transparent aluminum". Neither are pure aluminum, neither are metals.

    4. Re:Sapphire is transparent Aluminum by CapnGib · · Score: 1

      Right.

      Anyone who's taken 8th grade chemistry should understand the difference between elements and compounds.

      Al2O3, AlON /= transparent Al
      SiO2 /= transparent Si
      H2O /= liquid H2

      This, like every transparent Al story on here should be under the "laugh its funny" category, not science.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
  157. Comfort in numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, I prefer to just keep quiet and not draw attention to myself. Im pretty sure it would take an expensive super computer and other infrastructure investment to scan all our minds. But maybe if I was them I'd start by tracking down people with tin hats and then sending beautiful women to meet them!

    Wow your handsome big boy

    Tankyou

    Aha thats a nice hat can i see it

    sure

    Aha whisp oscar delta charlie tango ok go back to your moms basement now..

  158. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    $10-$30??? Just buy a swatch guard. http://www.squiggly.com/swatch/p/subcat/s/guard

    Stylish AND protective! Not to mention totally rad...

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  159. Transparent form of sodium metal discovered!!! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    Right on your table, in your shaker: sodium chloride!

  160. what about Aluminum oxide? by forevermore · · Score: 1

    Granted, it sounds like this new stuff may actually be transparent, but please don't take the title away from Aluminum oxide ceramics, which were written about over 3 years ago.

    http://www.rense.com/general20/transparentalum.htm

    --
    Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
  161. It's called plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh.

  162. Orbitz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd guess you're thinking about Orbitz, manufactured by Coca-Cola for a couple years in the 90s, but that came in bottles rather than cans.

    So... no idea.

  163. not really... by compro01 · · Score: 1

    transparent "aluminum" really isn't metal. it's aluminum oxide. it's also known as ruby, sapphire, or corundum(some of the hardest materials on earth short of a diamond). the reason why aluminum is so durable is that a coating of this forms on the surface of aluminum (anodising is basically making the coating thicker).

    one thing you don't want to do is break a thermometer on this stuff. mercury will wipe out aluminum oxide (which leads to the fun effect of making aluminum corrode mysteriously)

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  164. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by robertjw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Expect to see this to enter the consumer market for things like - IPod nano screens, watch faces, scratch reistant coverings on eyeglasses,etc.

    If I read TFA correctly, I would expect to see many more applications than this. One application I would expect to see, as soon as the price drops, is automotive glass. Traditional 'bulletproof' glass has little value in a consumer vehicle, but this material is allegedly lighter, stronger and more scratch resistant (and I would assume chip resistant) than glass. Glass makes up a significant portion of the weight in an automobile. A lighter alternative would decrease the weight and potentially increase fuel efficiency. On top of that durability and safety factors would probably also help adoption of this technology into the automotive industry. The only problem I see is that traditional glass manufacturers will cry foul.

  165. Apple should licence this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And make iPod nano's out of it-

  166. Old Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a 1987 report on this material. Man, this is news?

  167. Try LUMICERA(TM) at 2.08 - Re:Refractive index? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might want to take a look at these (Transparent Ceramic)

    http://www.murata.com/opt/lumicera.html

    They have refractive index of 2.08 and is for optical applications.

  168. Wonder Woman's Jet by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Now we can build Wonder Woman's jet. Then we can clone Linda Carter and make her clone fly it in the nude. Imagine the possibilities.

  169. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by khallow · · Score: 1
    Actually, you only have to shed about 120 mph (200 kph) worth of kinetic energy, given that the terminal velocity of a human in freefall is roughly 120 mph.

    "only" is a big word here. :-) Falling from great heights is notorious for its unsurvivability.

    I think your odds are better if you can find a bunch of water (which you then soak in), punch a hole in that window, and breath whatever is outside (which hopefully isn't as smoky).

  170. Google News by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    Your search - "transparent aluminum" - did not match any documents

    I think we've been misled.

  171. Yeah baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well in all reality if this stuff becomes even close to "reasonable" priced I can think of some nice applications:

    Doors, building matterials, bones, maybe as a leapfrog to something else. TechReview had a short 'primer' blurb on this stuff.

  172. Question on clear conductors and photovoltaic cell by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey all,

    I heard a while back that a thin film of selenium, when exposed to hydrogen gas, would become transparent.

    Would it be possible to make a transparent photovoltaic cell? You know, like a window that could filter out ultraviolet light and turn it into electricity, yet transmit visible light?

    For that matter, would it be possible to add optical brighteners to greenhouse glass to increase the quantity of light that plants can use while reducing the risk of heat damage from noonday sun?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  173. Hey Steve!! by TRRosen · · Score: 1
    I agree this stuff would be great as a front for iPods.

    I can just see Steve introducing the new 6G iPods and talking about how its made of stuff they use to armour tanks.

    of course the next day some manufacturer of screen protectors will complain how Apple's putting them out of business and comparing them to M$.

  174. semi-dupe by jone_stone · · Score: 1

    This has been covered before (way back in aught-2). I'd just like to make one point (which was also covered in the comments on the previous article): it's not really transparent aluminum. It's a compound that happens to have aluminum as one of its component elements, and it happens to be transparent. That isn't actually anything new. Ever heard of ruby? Sapphire? They're both crystaline aluminum oxide.

  175. Nanophase Aluminum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just use Nanophase aluminum? You could make it any color you'd like..., it's hard as a bitch, ....

  176. Finally! I can put windows on my Submarine :-) by KnarfO · · Score: 1
    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
  177. Demonstrable proof of "Aluminum" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it wasn't for people who say "Aluminum", you people would all be speaking German!

  178. Aluminum is right, but you don't have to change by Crook+C-Digital-Art · · Score: 0

    Aluminum fits with more elements - Sodium, Lithium, Magnesium etc. The extra i comes from nowhere as the ore is Alumina, so Aluminum is more correct. Although here in the UK I don't think we'll see any changes just yet. A Chemistry Teacher

  179. Crunchy on the outside, eewy on the inside! by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    Sadly, the credits for discovery of transparent aluminum goes to Mother Nature. It's common name is white Sapphire. Been around for bilions and billions of years. Recently it was rediscovered in the 1950s or so as a synthetic. Also, more recently it has been rediscovered multiple times by /. readers. About once a year for the past several years. I remember I was there.

    It would be pretty hard to use transparent aluminum as a sandwich wrap though, it's quite brittle and extremely dense and hard. Hence it would actually work for Scotty's space aquariums. It's just too darned expensive to make. But it'd sure be great to be the only guy on the block to own a sapphire aquarium!

  180. Good use for transparent aluminum by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Since it's ultra scratch-resistant, why don't we make CDs and DVDs out of this stuff? I hate losing all of my data due to some scratch on the disc or the reflective backing gets damaged by accident.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  181. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But staying in the building would be suicide too. Surely trying your best to survive is the "righteous" thing to do, even if it means jumping.

  182. I call shenanigans! by palapa · · Score: 1

    The post is grossly misleading. Aluminum is a metal, aluminum oxy-nitride isn't. Iron ore isn't steel, either. Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) has also been used as a transparent bullet proof material, and it also isn't aluminum.

    --
    "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence, is indistinguishable from malice." Grey's Law
  183. Did you learn all that from books? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    I learned to work metals in a forge. Two of my close friends are professional blacksmiths.

    You stated "work hardening, you're wrong about how often it happens. Quite frankly, it doesn't unless you're either extremely stupid or even more so insane.". I guess I'm either extremely stupid or insane, then, but I guess I'd be better off believing a slashdot post than my lyin' eyes, right? :^)

    I use a lot of found and recycled metals. Nearly everything experiences changes in hardness in real-world use. Nearly all fabrication processes (except stock removal by low-temperature grinding) will noticeably change the hardness of a piece. There are plenty of polishing, burnishing and stropping techniques which will also work-harden various metals.

    A really good smith can hit a couple of auto rocker-arms with a hammer and tell you the difference between one fresh out of the factory and one that's been used in a real engine. A great smith can tell you simply by the sound they make when struck.

    Maybe you're working with extremely powerful equipment, so you can't distinguish any changes in hardness unless they are very extreme? That's what it sounds like. If you use a hand shear on thick metal, you will notice that the edges of a cut are harder than the uncut metal, for instance, but if you are using a power nibbler you'd never be able to tell.

  184. Aluminum Oxynitride has been around since the 90's by Berkana · · Score: 1

    The first time I read about transparent aluminum being used as armor (face shields) was in popular science, back in the early 1990's. I specifically remembered it being "aluminum oxy nitride". What too them so long?

  185. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by Strenoth · · Score: 1

    consumers woudl push for it with only a little bit of motivation. Any one else ever have to pay $400 to replace a windshield thanks to spreading cracks caused by a flying rock? or $250 for a broken passenger side window when some one decided to break in? (plus havign to make sure every last bit of glass was vacummed up).

    Insurance companies woudl likely offer theft insurance breaks for people who had all windows made out of this stuff.

    --

    "It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'

  186. A machinist and a blacksmith enter a bar... by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    I had a machinist swear to me that brass and bronze are functionally identical. I've even seen a guy come back from a supplier with brass stock that was sold to them as "bronze".

    Be careful with your ventilation when working brasses or bronze. One of my friends hot-forged bronze for years without a fume hood. When he lost his mind, the examining doctors found arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury in near-lethal concentrations all through his system.

    1. Re:A machinist and a blacksmith enter a bar... by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      That's one reason I work the brass cold. I only use the heat to anneal it. I also work in a open air shed, so the air changes out rather quickly.

      There are a lot of metals that are extremely dangerous when heated. I know of at least one death resulting from forging galvanized steel, so this is a very important aspect to keep in mind, thanks for bringing it up.

      --
      Huh?
  187. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by Strenoth · · Score: 1

    actually, the water's nto a good idea if you can't get a continous supply of it. Sure, for a few moment's it's absorb the heat, but it'll then steam-cook you..

    --

    "It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'

  188. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, on the other side of the equation, think of all the accidents where someone goes through a windshield (yes, mostly idiots with no seatbelts). If your windshield could stop a bullet, it could probably stop you too, which means that the your kinetic energy of the accident will be dissipated by your head impacting the windshield. As opposed to current safety-glass where the glass absorbs some energy and the person keeps going straight on through.

    Might not be the best thing. Then again, it could also stop deer going through your windshield, if it could stop you. One would have to look at statistics to determine if it would be a safety boon in non-combat environments.

  189. It's the phone company's fault. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    They're always driving Poles into the ground.

  190. Why transparent aluminum? by Cunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why did Scotty even need transparent aluminum? Plate steel makes a fine whale aquarium.

    --

    I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
  191. Link to datasheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a link to the datasheet! http://www.surmet.com/docs/Product_sheet_ALON.pdf

  192. This is terrible! by saskboy · · Score: 1

    Just think of the number of microwave ovens this invention is going to destroy when people start using it as a food storage container!

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  193. From the Fine Article by loose_cannon_gamer · · Score: 1
    ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better durability and protection against armor piercing threats, at roughly half the weight and half the thickness of traditional glass transparent armor, said the lieutenant.

    Virtually scratch resistant? It *ALMOST* resists scratching! WOW! Now that is astounding.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
  194. Agh! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    You're incorrigible! And amazingly, the mods haven't decided to incorrige you with +1, Funny yet...

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  195. A use for this stuff by tolkienfan · · Score: 1
    They should use as an iPod nano's screen cover:

    "ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant"

  196. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by robertjw · · Score: 1

    Erm, on the other side of the equation, think of all the accidents where someone goes through a windshield

    You bring up a good point. Any accident with enough force to throw someone through a windshield generally results in serious injuries. There are rare occasions when occupants are thrown from the car and clear of additional danger, but often if you hit that hard you are screwed no matter what.

  197. Re:Aluminum Oxynitride has been around since the 9 by be-fan · · Score: 1

    What took them so long is the whole "getting it working" part. Popular Science has the luxury of reporting on ideas. Engineers actually have to actually figure out how to manufacture it efficiently and cheaply before putting it into production.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  198. Maker is Surmet inc. - URL by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

    http://www.surmet.com/alon.html

    From site:
          What is ALON(TM) Optical Ceramic?
          ALON is a patented optical, polycrystalline ceramic with a grain size of 80 m to 250 m.
          ALON has optical, mechanical and physical properties very similar to sapphire.
          ALON can be made in more complex shapes, larger sizes, and at lower costs than sapphire

    Chemical Name: Aluminum Oxynitride
    This is similar to Aluminum Oxide also known as Sapphire (Al2O3) and Alumina which is also Al2O3

    I would imagine a Diamond like Carbon crystal would have an even higher thermal conductivity and at the same time be even more durable and harder.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  199. Work/strain hardening by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    Quite frankly, it doesn't unless you're either extremely stupid or even more so insane. Even soft magnetics like Cast Iron don't work harden until extremely high temperatures are reached.

    Okay, so you work in a metal shop, and I'm working as a developer - it's been ten years since my materials engineering courses in college. Point taken. But I refuse to believe my memory of materials class is as bad as all that. Heating is not the only known method to achieve hardening. Cold work can also harden.

    I clearly remember that applying deformation will cause hardening to most metals, even (especially) at cold temperatures, because crystalline irregularities drop to lower-energy states during deformation. This is the principle behind shot peening, for example, which hardens the surface of an object by repeatedly blasting it with high-velocity ball bearings, causing zillions of little dents.

    I remember cutting a pen cap longitudinally with a diamond say and using a hardness tester to demonstrate that the metal had been hardened by cold work near where the thread had been cut.

    See Shot peening and
    Cold work.

    Now I agree that polishing probably does not harder a surface significantly because it primarily abrades a material rather than deforms it.

    This process only works on materials with metallic properties. You can't peen-harden wood or glass, for example. So I'm very skeptical about it working on this aluminum material, which is an oxide described as a ceramic.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  200. in other news.... by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

    WE LANDED ON THE MOON!

    --
    The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  201. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by rtb144 · · Score: 1

    The man made sapphire face is probably made from crystalized aluminium oxide which is very hard but brittle.

    --
    Sie ist tunbar!
  202. This stuff has been around for at least 20 years ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a quick Google, ALONtm or Aluminum Oxynitride (which is obviously NOT Aluminum Oxide) was first developed by Raytheon pre 1987 Ref. Army Material Tech Lab . That was when the report was made public. Since Star Trek IV was filmed in 1985 and released in 1986 it is reasonable to presume that one of the marvellous Trek writers or Tech consultants was actually aware of the existence of this material and wrote it in expecting it to become a popular material in the future. What has happened here is that Surmet Corp in conjunction with Raytheon has developed a superior method of manufacturing the material which finally seems to make it a viable material for mass production. Since this material is technically a ceramic it's not hard to understand why its so much stronger and harder than glass, which at the molecular level is a liquid. It would also have vastly superior heat resistance which will be a good thing for it's applications in the aerospace industry.

  203. Wow... by Jambon · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...transparent aluminium actually exists? I won't believe it till I see it!

  204. Its evolving, get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why English is such a widely used language is because it evolves with each generation and new words can be created (like "googling") which could not happen in Latin, and with the current generation speaking in "messenger speak"/"sms speak" it won't be long until spelling is about as important as if you use "who" or "whom" - so as you get older you will notice more and more changes happening, you can either resist them or you can evolve as well...

  205. Transparent Silicon by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    If this is transparent aluminum then quartz is transparent silicon.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  206. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believing in god is a serious issue all by itself.

  207. Lexan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lexan is a plastic that is used in place of glass in applications that require being shatterproof (baseball, baseball bat, bullet, etcetera). As a plastic, it can be scratched, as well as can melt if heated enough. While ALONtm sounds like it has far greater scratch resistance, it is also way bloody more expensive (if not unavailable for civilian use.)

    Unfortunately, bullet-proof Lexan is not an upgrade option for "Pela" or "Anderson" replacement windows where I live, so I have been forced to fabricate my own storm windows with this plastic.

  208. Aluminium oxyde by Derf_X · · Score: 1

    Like many others posters have pointed it out, there has been several other stories on slashdot similar to this one. Like the others, it says "transparent aluminium" and like the others, it's not pure aluminium nor an aluminium alloy, it is an aluminium oxyde, which has a different molecular structure, so it is not aluminium anymore. So, in essence, it may be news to materials engineer or chemists, but not news for Start Trek lovers.

  209. I know you are joking but... by rvw14 · · Score: 1

    There are already too many vegetation fires caused by idiots with lawn mowers. (Here is a hint: if it is 110 degrees and 10% humidity, don't go mowing your field.)

    Anyway can you imagine the havoc they could cause with a lawn mower that works by burning the grass? I will pay you not to invent this. :)

  210. Standards by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

    There are really two types of standards:
    Implementation Standards (which say that everyone should do things the exact same way)
    Interoperability Standards (which say that everyone should do things such that others can understand them)

    Most of the slashdot crowd are probably against the former (which creates a monoculture) and in favor of the latter.

  211. Why did it need to be transparent by feelyoda · · Score: 1

    Ok, trekkies, a challenge: Why in God's name did the storage for the whales need to be transparent?

    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
  212. Not a metal by kurtkilgor · · Score: 1

    As another poster has pointed out, this is not a metal, but a ceramic that happens to contain aluminum. Which means it is not suitable for use in structural applications like airplane fuselages, or in foil. Also, metal's opaqueness to light and radio waves bears a direct relationship to its conductivity to electricity; in effect, metal "shorts out" an oncoming electromagnetic wave. There might be some exotic metals that are transparent. Since gold is so soft, it is relatively easy to hammer into sheets of only several atoms thick. It then becomes translucent. This of course was the reason why gold leaves were used to in the famous "plum pudding" experiment that proved the existence of a nucleus in atoms, but that is beside the point.

  213. Re:Ooooh. -- wrong by khallow · · Score: 1
    actually, the water's nto a good idea if you can't get a continous supply of it. Sure, for a few moment's it's absorb the heat, but it'll then steam-cook you..

    Well, maybe you won't get enough heat to get steamcooked. As I said, the odds are better.

  214. Re:Aluminium Reality or wtf ? caudal orfice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Main Entry: caudal
    Pronunciation: 'kod-&l
    Function: adjective
    1 : of, relating to, or being a tail
    2 : situated in or directed toward the hind part of the body --caudally /-&l-E/ adverb

    Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

  215. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    Yep, it is a single crystal of Aluminium oxide, which is pretty much the definition of sapphire. It's grown the same way the semiconductor industry grows silicon crystals - more info.

    It is brittle and will shatter -- because of this, it is not used on many of the "real" military watches. They would rather have a scratched face than shards all over the place (and a broken watch!).

  216. Loosers? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't talk about those Detla Gamma chicks like that!

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  217. Great! Now, no one will know I'm wearing my AFDB! by aqk · · Score: 1

    For some reason, they always laughed at me when I went to the local disco
    wearing my stylish Aluminum-Foil-Deflector-Beanie!

    But NOW, no one will even know!
    Maybe I'll finally pick up a chick after all these years!

  218. Flub-o-rama by gerardrj · · Score: 1

    These military writers aren't too bright. Along with all the other "it's not aluminum" and "virtually scratch proof". here's my found flubs:

    "The new armor combines the transparent ALONtm piece as a strike plate, a middle section of glass and a polymer backing. Each layer is visibly thinner than the traditional layers. "
    If the layers are transparent then how exactly are they visibly thinner?

    "While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration."
    Definitions:
          pierce: go into or through something
          penetrate: making a way into or through something
        **boggle**

    "Tests focusing on multiple hits from .50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the works. "
    Um... stand up a piece of the stuff. Fire large rounds at the stuff perpendicular to its face. Test for penetration. This isn't rocket science. Just pick the largest machine gun anyone makes (one that puts the most energy down range per second) and use it.

    Any the Army is LOWERING its intelligence standards?!?!

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  219. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What actually happens when you go through the windsheild is that the plastic in the safety glass holds it together. If only your head or torso goes through your weight and the rebound tries to pull you back through but the hole in the glass gets smaller and you wind up decapitated or eviscerated. You want to remain inside the vehicle in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

    In a water crash your best bet is usually to get out as soon as possible as the airspaces in a submerged car get purged in less than what it takes to submerge 20-30 feet. Any deeper and the pressure never equalizes anyways until the car stops moving. If you've managed to hold your breath long enough you have to hope you landed wheels down and can make it to the surface before your breath runs out. Punching out the windows is a fools hope. Ever tried to swing a hammer under water?

  220. It's only a story (n/t) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a story (n/t)

  221. Transparent Aluminum by Maechtig · · Score: 1

    Hmm, transparent ALONtm is highly scratchproof. iPod nano in both black and white is easily scratched. Transparent nano, Apple?

    --
    Gee, it's so tough to find a place to park around here!
  222. You probably aren't much fun at parties, are you? by portforward · · Score: 1

    or do you have the hostess do a cost benefit analysis of the bean, cheese and ranch dips? And berate her in front of everyone if she hasn't? Look, the article wasn't a spec requirement, nor a doctoral thesis, nor a request for more funding. It was a public relations, "Hey, this is what cool things we are working on, and we think it will be good for the following reasons. . ." I'm sure that the real decision makers will ask for more information, like a cost benefit analysis. They already said in the article, "just adding more thickness doesn't always help." Remember, while armor protects, speed kills. Or other people in the government or aerospace who may frequent the website have similar interests may read that and think, "hmm, we might be able use that here. . ."

    Settle down Beavis.

  223. it's too bad he died before this happened... by xpyr · · Score: 1

    It's too bad he died and couldn't witness this. I'm sure he would have been proud to see it.

  224. Re:Actually this is a ceramic - nothing really new by pornking · · Score: 1

    Um, that's $5,000.

    --
    pornking