Slashdot Mirror


Dry Ice Made into Super-tough Glass

janus zeal writes "A form of solid carbon dioxide that could be used to make ultra-hard glass or coatings for microelectronic devices has been discovered. The material, named amorphous carbonia, was created by scientists from the University of Florence in Italy. Writing in the journal Nature, the team says the material was theoretically possible but had never been created. It was made by squeezing dry ice, a form of carbon dioxide used to create smoke in stage shows, at huge pressure. Scientists are interested in the new material because of the potential applications. Also, they believe it could give them clues to the processes that happen in the center of huge gas giant planets such as Jupiter."

197 comments

  1. How do we know he didn't invent the stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't see this stuff replacing transparent aluminum anytime soon.

  2. Just needs Stability, by klik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a hell of a thing if hey manage to find a way of making it stable at room teperature and pressure - a glass that has a similar strength to diamond made from a highly available source material? I can see a ridiculous number of uses for this!

    --
    open your mind too much and your brain falls out!
    1. Re:Just needs Stability, by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      . . . if hey manage to find a way of making it stable at room teperature and pressure. . .

      Easy enough. Simply apply the Congressional Model of engineering; redefine room temperature and pressure.

      KFG

    2. Re:Just needs Stability, by RsG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if this is similar to Aerogel?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

      From the description in TFA it seems similar, but I don't have the background in chemistry to make an educated guess. Anyone with credentials care to enlighten me?

      And if this stuff is just a new aerogel varient, what's the advantage to it? I was under the impression that we'd need to make aerogel in space if we wanted it in quantity, this new stuff seems to have been made on earth, but requires pressure and/or cold to stay stable.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Just needs Stability, by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um, diamond is made from a highly available source material. Under much the same conditions actually. It also has the minor advantage of not evaporating at room temperature and pressure.

    4. Re:Just needs Stability, by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

      That, or we use the NASA model and swap the units of measurement. Kelvin you say? Well let's just assume they meant Celsius!

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Just needs Stability, by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it's like glass, except with carbon replacing the silicon.

    6. Re:Just needs Stability, by ottothecow · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, this is nothing like aerogel

      Aerogel is pretty fricking sweet though. (and for other reasons than the fact that it can float and carry things)
      its a great insulator and there are some (carbon?) aeogel's that are conductive of electricity...pretty cool stuff, quite expensive though

      --
      Bottles.
    7. Re:Just needs Stability, by McBainLives · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey- not every member of Congress is that dumb. Don't ask me to name 'em, of course...

      But I digress.

      I think you're on to something here- but instead of redefining the temperature and pressure, re-define the room. Maybe this stuff could be used for constructing deep-sea exploration vehicles and habitats. That'll shave off a few degrees / add a few atmospheres to the temperature and pressure targets.

      Remember:
      Up on the shore they work all day
      Out in the sun they slave away
      While we devotin'
      Full time to floatin'
      Under the sea...

      --
      I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
    8. Re:Just needs Stability, by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's also extremely brittle. I have a little bit that an aerogel manufacturing company sent to me after a polite request based on curiosity. It was just an irregular scrap piece from the machineroom floor, about an inch thick, two inches wide, and four inches long, and the gentleman was kind enough to mail it to me free of charge (I offered to pay for it). Within two minutes of taking it out of the plastic case, it had become two pieces, and in the years since has become about seven pieces.

      The MSDS enclosed with it said that it had no known toxic effects, so a friend ate a small piece, just a few millimeters on a side, before I could stop him. It didn't hurt him, but it left his mouth feeling weird. He is a bit of an eccentric, though.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    9. Re:Just needs Stability, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, too bad dry ice sublimes much faster in water...

    10. Re:Just needs Stability, by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      It needs a bit more than stability to gain popular use. It has to be cheap enough to manufature, and the current manufacturing process doesn't sound cheap. Why can't you buy a cooler or a thermos that's insulated with aerogel? Because it would be ridiculously expensive. ;-)

    11. Re:Just needs Stability, by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 3, Informative

      but it left his mouth feeling weird

      You probably already know this, but that was probably an effect of aerogel being extremely absorbant. If it wasn't so expensive to manufacture, it would probably make an ideal replacement for kitty litter for cleaning up oil spills and the like.

      It can be treated to become extremely hydrophobic, though, allowing it to be cut with precision water jet cutters and such.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    12. Re:Just needs Stability, by svtdragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      At the right temperature and pressure, a ring made from dry ice leads to frostbite and ring made from diamonds leads to sex. That's another advantage.

    13. Re:Just needs Stability, by HaMMeReD3 · · Score: 1

      I guess the point being, compressed carbon at room temperature = diamond,

      lol.

    14. Re:Just needs Stability, by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0
      I'd buy a cooler insulated with aerogel, but not a thermos, since a thermos uses a much better insulator - a vaccuum.

      -----

      Sig Sauer

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    15. Re:Just needs Stability, by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      This isn't compressed carbon its compressed carbon and oxygen molecules. Either way creating a diamond currently is difficult process and yeilds small products as they have to be "grown" from a seed diamond. If you could create entire large sheets of this in a quick manor it would have a huge advantage for commercial use over diamond.

    16. Re:Just needs Stability, by Conan+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1

      klick et al - hey, there's already an alternative to this (and CVD diamond) - it's a new polymer called 'poly(hydridocarbyne)'. Upon heating to 100 C to 800 C in an argon atmosphere it decomposes into hexagonal diamond (a tad different from the more common cubic diamond). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(hydridocarbyne). I can imagine quite a few things I'd make from it - like ... uh ... diamond fiber for Space Elevators (cough).

    17. Re:Just needs Stability, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I wouldn't mind having a diamond manor.

    18. Re:Just needs Stability, by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't a diamond ring the beginning of the end of sex?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Just needs Stability, by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way they describe making this stuff -- compressing and heating in a diamond anvil -- is the way they used to make diamond. Then they figured out how to make vapour deposition work well, which is what's scaring DeBeers now.

      So the way they're making this stuff is they way they used to make diamonds before they discovered the more practical CVD method. The summary (and the article's) suggestion that they're going to make skyscraper windows out of this stuff is... optimistic. Plus the problem that it sublimates as soon as you take it OUT of the diamond anvil.

    20. Re:Just needs Stability, by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Carbon sequestration comes to mind.

      --
      A-Bomb
    21. Re:Just needs Stability, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ring made from diamonds leads to sex.

      I think you got something bass ackwards here buddy.

    22. Re:Just needs Stability, by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fostbite can be cured. Eventually that sex is going to take half your stuff.

    23. Re:Just needs Stability, by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      It isn't toxic, but its extremely absorbant. This means it can damage your skin if you handle it too much by absorbing all the moisture from it.

    24. Re:Just needs Stability, by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So we now have this really neat-o material that's
      almost as hard as diamonds,
      almost as strong as diamonds,
      more difficult to make than Diamonds,
      and unlike diamonds is unstable at temeratures and preasure where it's properties might be usefull!
      Which brings use to the stupid question; Why don't we just use diamonds?

      In case you can't tell, I really love stupid questions.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:Just needs Stability, by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      Isn't a diamond ring the beginning of the end of sex?

      Sure, with your wife. But the sex with your girlfriends only gets better!
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    26. Re:Just needs Stability, by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      a glass that has a similar strength to diamond made from a highly available source material? I can see a ridiculous number of uses for this!

      Yeah! We could use it as a cheap alternative for diamonds in rings, and it'll even cut glass so nobody will be able to tell it's fake!
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    27. Re:Just needs Stability, by shogun · · Score: 1

      Which brings use to the stupid question; Why don't we just use diamonds?

      Because De Beers has them all locked up.

    28. Re:Just needs Stability, by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy -- it already remained stable after being cooled to room temperature. Just increase room pressure to 5.7M PSI and you're all set. (Don't forget to swallow or yawn to equalize the pressure!)

    29. Re:Just needs Stability, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the new material will be more resistant to fracturing? I guess we'll have to wait and find out.

    30. Re:Just needs Stability, by budgenator · · Score: 1

      with CVD a diamond 2m x 4m would be insanely expense and take what would seem like forever to make; with De Beers it's unavailable at any price. Also those dirt-dug diamonds have flaws, not something you want when you're trying to make 10GHz CPU chips.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by hector_uk · · Score: 1

    yeah, ice is pretty damn hard at -270 degrees i hear too.

  4. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by ronz0o · · Score: 3, Funny

    At room temperature, dry ice vaporizes. The only way for it to maintain its structure is under pressure. All we need to do is find some way to lower the global temperature and increase pressure...

  5. Well, Duh... by Baldrson · · Score: 5, Funny
    The next stage of the research is to work out how to make the glass stable at room temperature and pressure.

    Reminds me of the cartoon of the scientist at the blackboard with a series of equations on one side and concluding equation on the other with "And then a miracle happens." in between.

    1. Re:Well, Duh... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Funny
      the cartoon of the scientist at the blackboard with a series of equations on one side and concluding equation on the other with "And then a miracle happens." in between.

      Do you have that cartoon?

      It would come in very handy next time I have enough free time to go argue with Creation Scientists.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Well, Duh... by fermion · · Score: 1
      s. harris

      Brilliant guy. I have loved his cartoons since I was a kid. Have most of his collections. If you want a true belly laugh, get a copy.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Well, Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Creation Scientists.

      I understood the first word and the second one. But put together like that? It doesn't parse.
    4. Re:Well, Duh... by rcjhawk · · Score: 1

      > Do you have that cartoon?

      Well, not personally, until now, but a quick search finds:

      http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3 .gif

    5. Re:Well, Duh... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Much obliged!

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:Well, Duh... by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      "And then a miracle happens" . . .

      We mixed it with a bit of room temperature and pressure gaseous diamond. Unfortunately this only works so long as we keep it immersed in room temperature and pressure molten gold.

      If we can just work out how to. . .

      I find it interesting that one of the things this company is pushing is that it would be a solution to binding excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I thought the solution to that was simple and obvious:

      Take your carbon dioxide and some plain water. Crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Crack the carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. You're left with a lot of . . .oxygen. Hurray! Let it go in the air and breath deep.

      Now you've got carbon and a hydrogen. Combine the two and you'll get a sort of brown-black goo which will be a bit of a disposal problem, since you'll eventually end up with billions of barrels of the stuff, but really, all you have to do is inject it under pressure into underground sand and shale deposits and it can sit there safe for millions of years.

      Problem solved.

      Of course you have to be careful. There's a certain risk that when the hydrogen and carbon combine you'll just end up with billions of barrels of vodka instead of brown-black goo and lord only knows how we'd manage to dispose of that.

      KFG

    7. Re:Well, Duh... by cp.tar · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      It doesn't parse.

      That's why I used initial capital letters.

      It's just a name. A symbol. A mere designation (disclaimer: average Creation Scientist may not prove to be either so hot or so cool as 7 of 9).

      It doesn't really have to mean what it says.
      Just check all the United, People's and Democratic Republics of whatever throughout history.

      P.S. If you want a laugh, go here. Check the projects. Try the veal. You have been warned.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    8. Re:Well, Duh... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      Wow, that would be really hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic:

      1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life": Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

      What an astounding piece of deductive reasoning! Give the girl a Nobel prize!

      2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking": Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

      WTF? I wonder what Patricia thought of the second place getter?

      The high school prizes are just scary. 1st Place: "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria". Huh?

    9. Re:Well, Duh... by RsG · · Score: 1

      I was able to hold a straight face up until this little gem "Honorable mention: Thermodynamics of Hellfire"... then I cracked up. And I felt bad for the poor little kids - they'll never understand even basic level science if the adults in their life encourage them to use faulty logic and reasoning.

      Side note - I love the part about a project that put the building blocks of life into a jar and watched them not evolve. You'd think they'd at least try to replicate these guys:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:Well, Duh... by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      I particularly love the honorable mention from middle school: "Dinosaur & Man Walked Together" - Donny Findlay (grade 6) *facepalm*

    11. Re:Well, Duh... by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      Of course you have to be careful. There's a certain risk that when the hydrogen and carbon combine you'll just end up with billions of barrels of vodka instead of brown-black goo and lord only knows how we'd manage to dispose of that. College students!

    12. Re:Well, Duh... by kfg · · Score: 1

      And as a side effect this will help with our college student disposal problem.

      KFG

    13. Re:Well, Duh... by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      And I felt bad for the poor little kids - they'll never understand even basic level science if the adults in their life encourage them to use faulty logic and reasoning.

      Just to be sure: You did realize that whole web site is satire, right?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Well, Duh... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, objectiveministries.org is not satire. Did you mean landoverbaptist.org or whitehouse.org instead?

    15. Re:Well, Duh... by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      It's a joke site. Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

    16. Re:Well, Duh... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Hmm, at least Wikipedia claims its a hoax. If so, it is rather elaborate.

    17. Re:Well, Duh... by thevil · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Well, Duh... by swillden · · Score: 1

      It is satire. It's just more subtle than landover. Still, if you read it carefully, it quickly becomes obvious that it is satirical.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Well, Duh... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      Yes, it is obvious now. But all the links (including some that look like paid advertising?) go to apparantly genuine Christian sites.

      Unless of course it is all just another layer in the web of satire...

    20. Re:Well, Duh... by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      P.S. If you want a laugh, go here. Check the projects. Try the veal. You have been warned.

      Thank you for restoring my lack of faith in humanity.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    21. Re:Well, Duh... by NoMaster · · Score: 1
      The next stage of the research is to work out how to make the glass stable at room temperature and pressure.
      That's easy - just remove the oxygen from the lattice!

      Reminds me of the cartoon of the scientist at the blackboard with a series of equations on one side and concluding equation on the other with "And then a miracle happens." in between.
      I have some training documentation (on Ericsson AXE node switches) from my ex-employer with a diagram including that exact phrase. For all intents and purposes, it's a pretty good explanation of what goes on at that stage...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    22. Re:Well, Duh... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the process you just described is what will land Iceland on the map as an energy producer. They have tons of geothermal power that could be used to power the cracking needed, and they will get oil and/or hydrogen out of it. The benefit is that if we can do this, than the resulting oil would be carbon neutral--if you burn it you are just putting it back where it started from. Most of the "energy" issues isn't that the world doesn't have the energy, it is in the wrong places.

    23. Re:Well, Duh... by kfg · · Score: 1

      I have been sitting here for hours dreading the moment that someone said, "Oh. Heeeeeeeeeey!"

      Fortunately I like Iceland, although I wish the odds of summer falling on a weekend were a bit better.

      KFG

    24. Re:Well, Duh... by gwhenning · · Score: 1

      It can be found here.

      Ah... The power of Google.

    25. Re:Well, Duh... by Hawkxor · · Score: 1

      :D at this very moment I'm wearing the t-shirt with that cartoon on it

    26. Re:Well, Duh... by RsG · · Score: 1
      Just to be sure: You did realize that whole web site is satire, right?


      I wondered if it might be. If it is, it's incredibly sophisticated and subtle.

      And I can still feel bad for the kids - wanna bet that if I don't realize it's a big parody, then neither will the kids who get sent there by clueless adults to learn about creationism?

      The problem with doing satire of something that's already silly (like creationism, new age religions, conspiracy theories, or folks like Jack Thompson) is that unless the satire isn't subtle, it's almost impossible to tell the satirical material from the real thing.

      You can't parody a tabloid conspiracy theory for example without it looking like the real thing; "Elvis found alive at area 51, complaining of rectal probe rash" - I'd laugh if that were serious or not, but it's no less crazy than your typical tabloid story. Or how about: "Jack Thompson implicates UT2004 in horrific clown rampage" - does that seem any crazier than what Jack spouts off normally? The only way to guess that's a parody is the inclusion of a clown...

      Same thing happens here. Some of the more obviously funny stuff, like "thermodynamics of hellfire", might just as easily have been some student's idea of a joke project. And the "serious" entries are a little to close to actual creationist reasoning, so it isn't hard to imagine that little kids would make stuff like that if they grew up on it.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    27. Re:Well, Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooooh, looky here...

      Seems like we have a Creti^H^Hation Scientist here...

      Anyone step on your poor little feelings?

    28. Re:Well, Duh... by jimbolaya · · Score: 1
      The satire is very subtle (as others have noted), but after reading for a bit, the satire became more and more apparent. Then I followed the links. Are these also satire? Or are the authors of O:M linking to genuine Christian web sites in order to, very subtly, make fun of them? It's hard to tell.

      One particular gem is the banner ad, done in Flash, at the bottom of the page. "Convert the Beatnik Atheist and Get a FREE Bible!" it says. The object is to thump him the atheist, who dodges from side to side, with a bible. Do this, and up pops a web page for usa-bibles.com. Is that page also a joke? Would I actually get a free bible if I filled in my address?

      If the linked sites are real, it's scary (Creation Illustrated and Creation magazines?). If they're also a hoax, what an elaborate hoax it is.

      --

      There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.

    29. Re:Well, Duh... by swillden · · Score: 1

      it's incredibly sophisticated and subtle.

      What's interesting to me is that, in fact, it's not all that subtle -- if you really know anything about what creationists are like and what they believe. It's only believable if your perception of creationists is a caricature of reality to begin with. Yes, they do twist logic into knots, because they presume the result, and then go about looking for the evidence, but their reasoning is much more believable that what is presented at this site. The errors tend to be omission of inconvenient facts, not the sort of completely bizarre thinking you find on this hoax site.

      wanna bet that if I don't realize it's a big parody, then neither will the kids who get sent there by clueless adults to learn about creationism?

      My point is that adult believers in creationism aren't going to send any kids there, because creationists would instantly recognize the site as a hoax and be very annoyed at the misrepresentation of their ideas.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    30. Re:Well, Duh... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Then I followed the links. Are these also satire? Or are the authors of O:M linking to genuine Christian web sites in order to, very subtly, make fun of them?

      Yes, most (if not all) of the links go to genuine sites. Whether it's to make fun of them, or to lend credibility to O:M, or both, I don't know.

      One particular gem is the banner ad, done in Flash, at the bottom of the page. "Convert the Beatnik Atheist and Get a FREE Bible!"

      This is a good example. usa-bibles.com is probably a real site, and you would probably get a free Bible if you filled out their form. But if it is a real site, they wouldn't make a weird whack-an-atheist banner ad. Even though their site doesn't have anything all that strange on it, people who assume O:M is legit will assume that usa-bibles.com did create that flash game.

      O:M is a very well-done hoax. Just over the top enough that anyone who knows anything about fundamentalist christians and creationists will know it's fake, but just believable enough to fool those who think badly of fundies into thinking worse of them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    31. Re:Well, Duh... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, when satire becomes that subtle, it is just as dangerous as a serious site. Just look at Scientology. Total satire. Just look at the name! Yet today, the comedians have forgotten that they were joking.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    32. Re:Well, Duh... by etrnl · · Score: 1

      http://www.cafepress.com/objectivemin.29369752

      If they look around long enough they'll realize it's satire.

  6. Most important use by chiller2 · · Score: 5, Funny


    Scratch-proof iPod screens of course! ;)

    --
    --- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6 :)
    1. Re:Most important use by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it might crack, it's glass afterall... :-p

    2. Re:Most important use by cbuskirk · · Score: 1

      Then Apple would get sued because some kid drew on it with permanent marker and Apple failed to provide adequate protection against markers.

    3. Re:Most important use by waferhead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Diamond-like-carbon (DLC) has been used to make scratch resistant plastic for years.

      It is either sputtered on or PECVD, applied under vacuum.

      It _is_ carbon glass.

      It exists already, just not made using the high pressure method the article blathers on about.

  7. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, we could suck all the Co2 out of the atmosphere. This would remove the greenhouse effect, both the manmade one and the naturally occuring one, and drop the planetary temperature. And we get our Co2 for making this stuff in the bargin! It's a win-win situation (well, except for the living - they'll be royally screwed - but they were just taking up space anyways).

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  8. Ouch by saskboy · · Score: 0

    As if getting crushed by atmospheric pressure wasn't bad enough on the Jovian aliens, now they are getting pelted with hard glass when they venture into th Giant Red Spot storm too?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  9. Um... a bit too intricate? by Heavyporker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be easier to just fund more research into making current diamond-producing processes better at forming larger pieces of diamond which could be used to make plate glass or such? I mean, geez, carbon dioxide a solid at room temperature...

    1. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      With my experience in scientific publications (especially physics!) there is usually a paragraph at the beginning of every paper trying to find some practical application. Probably 50% of these applications are pure horseshit thought up at the last minute. A lot of us do things for the sake of better understanding the world around us, and don't really know if there will be a practical application. And, if there DOES turn out to be an application, it's sometimes something we certainly didn't predict.

      I haven't read the Nature article yet, but I have a feeling the "understand a planet and coat lenses" bit was thrown in as fluff to justify the research. It's pretty much accepted practice, and I know I'm not the only one who barely glances at the first paragraph in most papers.

    2. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      sometimes something we certainly didn't predict.

      Don't bother, grammar nazis... I realize this sentence is awful. Wow... I should really proofread my posts.

    3. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt you just do that?

    4. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      But you would agree if it were known apriori there could be NO application to a research avenue, there isn't much use for the research.

      It's not as if taxpayers want to subsidize your interest in understanding the world: that's your business. In the agreggate, taxpayers want something back for their investment..

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    5. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But you would agree if it were known apriori there could be NO application to a research avenue, there isn't much use for the research.

      You can confidently say there is no application (this millenium at least) for at least half of physics research, most astronomical or maths research, not to mention the Arts, where people would be highly offended if you even asked them for a practical application.

    6. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I know what you mean about the application section. It seems that sometimes researchers just look around the room and figure out an application for the first thing they see.

      In this case the lens thing may not be so crackpot. SiO2, quartz, is the lens and glass material used in certain situations. Single crystal is just in the more demanding cases, but amorphous is used where possible. The size of a single crystal quartz stone is limited due to growth constraints. Chemicaly CO2 and SiO2 might bind well enough to allow the amorphous glass to be used in more situations. Don't know, been a while since I worked with eitherbut it seems like on of the first things that might be tried as soon as they get the process working.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      No I would not agree.

      It's safe to say that most cosmology research will never have a practical application, yet I am glad my tax dollars support such research. Some taxpayers, especially those in the parts of the country where science is seen as a tool of the devil, don't support science for the sake of science. I'd like to think that the more enlightened ones do.

    8. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      no, because while diamond is hard, in certain directions it is considerably more fracile and therefore not at all suited to making a glass replacement, as cost will always be prohbitive when compared to sticking some sand into a furnace for a few minutes for any standard application. The potential for either bit of research, though, is super-scratch resistant coastings (in the case of artificial diamonds) and high-strength and density glasses for specialized applications, such as in heavy industry or aerospace, and then only in instances where performance under stress is the defining factor, not cost. Barring a huge revolution in nanotech in the next 50 years, we're never going to see either in daily applications such as IPod screens and car windshields.

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    9. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      It's safe to say that most cosmology research will never have a practical application, yet I am glad my tax dollars support such research.

      Then you ought to support it, but don't ask me to. If there is no application (value) to the public, what's the point of doing the research? What's the point of putting money into a sinkhole? It isn't as if science is going to send us for heaven for paying it lip service.

      where science is seen as a tool of the devil, don't support science for the sake of science

      Science for the sake of science? That sounds a lot like worshipping. Science doen't have feelings. People do science because they want to. Should taxpayers subsidize every hobby?

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    10. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Any synthesis process that requires 400KBar is just about guaranteed to be too expensive to use for mass markets. An example is diamond synthesis using the high pressure high temperature process - while you can make single crystal diamonds this way, they're not economic (i.e., they're more costly than natural gem-grade material) for esthetic or industrial apps that need big (>5mm diameter) chunks. There is a big market for diamond abrasives made with the HPHT processes, but even so, diamond grit is a lot more expensive than silicon carbide. The cost has mostly to do with the extreme pressure needed. It's expensive to get to those pressures, expecially if you want to make more than a milligram or so, which is what the Italian researchers did.

    11. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It isn't as if science is going to send us for heaven for paying it lip service.

      True, but it does consistently reward us for methodically searching for interesting things in unusual places.

      Think of it as a form of assay: You assay every square mile of territory, not because you like assaying, or you think there's something worth mining in every square mile of territory, but to find out which square miles have something worth mining.

      I'm not paying for science for the sake of science. I'm paying for a thorough assay of the territory.
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    12. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Parent has it dead on.

      For exmaple, from the article: "Scientists are interested in the new material because of the potential applications.

      Translation: Please give us more funding.

    13. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1
      True, but it does consistently reward us for methodically searching for interesting things in unusual places.


      right, the poster is arguing (I think) that we ought to fund things that have zero probability of return. I disagree with that. We ought to fund things in decreasing order of value/investment ratio.
      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    14. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      First off - there is no such thing as "zero probability". The great thing about science is, there aren't really any certainties.

      Second off - even if such a thing DID exist, I'd still support exploration for the sake of knowledge. Learning about the Big Bang doesn't save anyone's life, but it sure makes us more enlightened. The fact that we, as a species, crave knowledge is what sets us apart from lower animals. I feel truly sad for you that you have no interest in funding things that won't return something tangible. You probably support cutting funding for the arts, too. I bet you'd love them to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to teach music in school.

    15. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      I feel truly sad for you that you have no interest in funding things that won't return something tangible

      If there is probably no value to people, then yeah, I think it ought not be funded by taxpayer $. What probably is depends on a lot of factors, including the potential payoff, etc.

      You know, I like contemplating my navel, and I need a great electron microscope to do it. Gee, mind if I take some of your $ to do it?

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    16. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      The fact that you compare "contemplating your navel" to understanding the cosmos shows how ignorant you are.

      You seem to judge "value to me" to be the same as "value to people". To me, personally, a lot of art has no value, but I'm not going to tell the government to stop funding it because I personally don't get anything out of it. You have a mighty selfish world view.

    17. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1
      You seem to judge "value to me" to be the same as "value to people"


      No, actually I think the point is that you do. You value whatever non productive science branch you value, and then say I ought to fund it. I on the other hand point out there is no difference between the cosmos and navel contemplation, and you end up calling me selfish. You are the selfish one, wanting to take people's money for something they find zero value in. I on the other hand dont' really want people to pay me to contemplate my navel. that was just sarcasm.
      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    18. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Actually my research has practical applications. You've shown your self-centered view again, by automatically assuming just because I support funding things, I must be working on them. I work in neither cosmology nor art, yet I support funding both - and I honestly don't really care about art. Some of us ARE, in fact, willing to use our own money to fund things that may never benefit us directly. And some of us are willing to use the money of selfish jackasses like you, whether you like it or not, to do the same. If you don't like it, voice your opinion with your vote, or find somewhere else to live.

      The difference between me and you is, I am capable of seeing human lives enriched by more than just tangible objects. I see art as capable of inspiring, I see study of the cosmos as capable of bringing enjoyment and satisfaction to the lives of not just those who do the studying, but those they share the knowledge with.

      If no one ever paid taxes for things they didn't see value in - the country would be unable to function. I see zero value in programs to build a soccer park for kids, because I don't have kids and don't like soccer. I'm not going to bitch and moan if the government decides to support soccer parks, though. I am frankly appalled at the ignorance that would cause one to claim there's no value in scientific exploration beyond material returns.

    19. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by edbarbar · · Score: 1


      I just went back over each and every post I made, and it seems pretty clear what I'm saying. If you don't return value to the donors, then what's the point of funding the research. It's pretty simple. No one owes anyone else a living doing what they want to do because they want to do it.

      I don't understand your anger and why you need to be so insulting. I think you really should examine your own motives. I suspect, no I don't know, that you have an axe to grind. That's unfortunate, but I'm glad to see you are at least passionate about what you are doing. That's great.

      No one owes you grants for your research. The original post, ironically moded up, was something to the effect that having to show a potential value to research was lip service. Lip service to the people making the decisions to fund the research with someone elses hard earned money. Obviously the grantors are too lowly to actually comprehend the beauty, whatever of the research, of science itself, so they have to be appeased by slopping together loosely connected applications to the pure science.

      While I agree that connecting science to an application can be difficult, I think that the only reason to fund science is to gain the benefits for mankind, particularly for the donors. I don't see what's so contentious about that, and I don't understand your anger in this regards.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    20. Re:Um... a bit too intricate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huhuhuhuhuh.... you said 'ass'

  10. Stable at room temp? by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not on campus (it's saturday, wee!), so I can't access the original Nature article, but I have a feeling the "stable at room temp" bit was misinterpreted by the BBC writers. I really don't see any practical way to keep the molecules together at room temp and atmospheric pressure - there's a reason CO2 is a gas. Silicon glass is a sort of weird case - most materials that show a glassy transition do it at a much lower temperature, or are largely temperature independent. When people try to run simulations to describe glassy behavior, they generally assume zero-temperature and quenched disorder.

    FWIW, I spent the last two years working on computational study of spin glasses, and am working on my PhD in soft condensed matter, of which glasses are a huge part.

    1. Re:Stable at room temp? by espressojim · · Score: 1

      NPR (or quirks and quarks, or nature podcast, I forget) covered this.

      This material is only stable at a 1/2 million PSI (or atmospheres, I forget which.)

      They are trying to combine it with silica to form a stable compound that is harder than regular glass, but that's a long way off, and I'm not sure how hard the resulting material will be - you'd assume that it would be harder than glass, but softer than this new substance.

    2. Re:Stable at room temp? by Sky+Cry · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA: "The next stage of the research is to work out how to make the glass stable at room temperature and pressure." BBC got it right - it's not stable at the room temperature yet.

    3. Re:Stable at room temp? by schon · · Score: 1

      working on my PhD in soft condensed matter

      You know, I had to read that twice to understand what you meant... (or at least what it seems you meant - I doubt you're trying to tell us that you do your PhD work while immersed in a puddle of goo. :o)

    4. Re:Stable at room temp? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      I think you just gave me an idea for an initiation rite for new undergrads working in the lab :-D

      Hmm... we could bury them up to their necks in a shear-thickening fluid. If they try to thrash around and rip themselves out, it will be very difficult. If they move slowly and deliberately, they will get out easily. Both a valuable lesson and entertaining to watch!

    5. Re:Stable at room temp? by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not stable at room temp. Nor will it ever be. I've found this article on a few other news sources, and it seems the goal of the researchers is to COMBINE CO2 with other compounds (like silica) to make a material harder than glass. I will confirm this on Monday when I can access the Nature article directly.

      BBC makes it sound like they want to magically make CO2 form a stable amorphous solid at room temperature, even though the molecules would have WAY too much kinetic energy to stay together. BBS got it wrong.

    6. Re:Stable at room temp? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I doubt you're trying to tell us that you do your PhD work while immersed in a puddle of goo. :o)

            You've obviously never been to our emergency room...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Stable at room temp? by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what sort of pussy lab do you work in where you don't regularly immerse your undergrads in custard?

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    8. Re:Stable at room temp? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Got any openings coming up?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    9. Re:Stable at room temp? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      would a cornstartch-water mixture do?

    10. Re:Stable at room temp? by treeves · · Score: 1

      I really don't see any practical way to keep the molecules together at room temp and atmospheric pressure. . . Well, couldn't you have a slight excess of carbon rather than straight CO2, like an amorphous diamond structure with a lot of substituted oxygen atoms, maybe even allow some silicon, to form a network?
      I know the semiconductor industry uses CDO (carbon doped oxide) which is a SiO2 glass loaded up with carbon, formed by vapor deposition - so just change the ratio so you've got mostly carbon and oxygen. Just a thought.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  11. Not so much with the dry ice any more by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For stage shows, fog machines are far more controllable and produce better results than dropping dry ice in water. They use "fog juice" rather than dry ice.

    Though sometimes you'll use dry ice to cool the resulting fog. The hot fog gives you a smoky, atmospheric effect. If you want ground-hugging fog, you've got to cool it down, and dry ice is a pretty good way to chill it quickly.

    1. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by Secrity · · Score: 1

      But dry ice / carbon dioxide doesn't make your clothes smell. I hate going to performances that use fog juice type fog machines because of the smell. I also wonder what the physiological effects of vaporized glycols are.

    2. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and mixing carbon dioxide (about 1.5 times as dense as air) into the fog will also be a great help in keeping it hugging the ground.

    3. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I suffer for my art.

      I have no idea what the long-term effects are. And God knows the dry ice is more fun to play with. But if you want fog right in a particular place at a particular time, nothing beats a fog machine.

      I do theatrical work, not concert work. Concerts usually just crank up the fog and let it go, the more fog the better. In a play there are scenes with fog and scenes without fog, and it's really nice to be able to control that with a guy in the light booth rather than dumping pellets into a bucket. Not to mention the ability to pump fog wherever you want it.

      But it sure do stink.

    4. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't quite correct. The type of fog used depends on the the effect needed, and although one can pump hot smoke through an ice box to create a low laying for, wil still rise as it warms up. Dry ice foggers are still the best for low laying fog, although liquid nitrogen is becoming popular as well, it is best saved for bursts or jets of smoke. There are also systems using liquid CO2 again for the bursting effect. For the most part chemical fogs are used only when a light haze is required, or when the cheapest option available is required.

    5. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by radish · · Score: 1

      I (and several friends) spent an evening in hospital on oxygen after an accidental "over-fogging" at a local laser tag arena a few years ago. We were holding a small room in a complex made from an old bank vault when the fog machine went crazy and filled the whole space with fog. Of course sensible people would have left when the breathing became hard but we had a position to defend :) Cue collapse, paramedics and aformentioned hospital stay. Fortunatly the match was a team training event not a public game so there were no small kids about, otherwise it could have been much nastier.

      I'm sure the problem was mainly due to a lack of oxygen rather than any toxic effects of the fog itself, but it does sting your eyes and throat at high concentrations.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suppose this is a bit off topic, but what the heck.

      I use both regularly at work, for as much an expert that does or doesn't make me. Refrigerated heavy fog machines are great, but both are still used. In my experience at least, when used properly dry ice has a much richer, heavier effect then the machines like Jem (which we have) or Le Maitre makes. Of course, from a practical standpoint the heavy foggers are much more convenient. But for a good, one shot effect, we still often go with a large dry ice machine.

    7. Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more by falconfighter · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's other reasons - such as the fact that fogging oil condenses on the optics for the lights - you don't know real joy until you've cleaned 200+ stagelights.

      --
      "Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day, set a man on fire, he's warm for life."
  12. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So are nipples. But you don't see those used in construction, do ya?

    (Well, actually you do. But on the workers, not the buildings. And let's face it, those aren't nipples most of us want to see.)

  13. Carbonite?!?! by coldPhage · · Score: 0

    All I want to know is ... can I capture and transport my bounties in it????

    --
    DELETED!
  14. Carbonia is lovely this time of year by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cheap flights into Elbonia often connect through the Amorphous, Carbonia international airport. Unfortunately the town's not very stable when it's warm out.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Carbonia is lovely this time of year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not know Carbonia had an airport, let alone an international one. Time to update the wikipedia entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonia/

  15. Finally! A solution to global warming! by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Funny

    All we have to do is start sucking up all the carbon dioxide out of the air, and convert it into little waste cubes that can be dumped in landfills or baby seal breeding grounds. It's foolproof!

    1. Re:Finally! A solution to global warming! by Neptune0z · · Score: 1

      So whats the problem here? CO2 in solid form, would be pretty much inert, and with a little work; probally would make a great building material...Whats wrong with putting what would normally just be waste to good use...Stop being such a tree hugging hippie!

    2. Re:Finally! A solution to global warming! by Goldenhawk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure.

      Quoth the article:
      > Their discovery could lead to a way of storing or disposing of carbon dioxide gas,
      > a major contributor to global warming, deep in the Earth's interior.
      >
      > To create the glassy amorphous carbonia, the team led by Professors Mario Santoro
      > and Federico Gorelli of the University of Florence heated solid carbon dioxide
      > between diamond teeth at pressures over 400,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure.

      And I suppose this process would require less energy, and thus release less NEW CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere, than it would safely tie up in the earth's interior.

      Somehow I doubt this is a good tradeoff. Instead, I think this is some journalist with a global-warming bone to pick, trying desperately to work it into a completely unrelated story.

      --
      --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  16. hehehehehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hehehehehehehe...Carbonia...

  17. I think this takes ... by AstronomicUID · · Score: 5, Funny


    the term Vaporware Windows to a whole new level!

    --
    You must write The Book, and then tear away belief. Only you can save the light of man --Gary Numan
    1. Re:I think this takes ... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. You have just won the KFG Prize for this article.

      Your baby sister can collect it from me at the Hotel Emporio, Tiujuana.

      KFG

    2. Re:I think this takes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every once in a while, KFG makes a comment that makes me think the username has been hijacked.

    3. Re:I think this takes ... by kfg · · Score: 1

      I'm just a human being. I make mistakes. I have "moods."

      I don't worry about it overmuch. A foolish consistency and all that.

      KFG

  18. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by hador_nyc · · Score: 1
    From the BBC article, The next stage of the research is to work out how to make the glass stable at room temperature and pressure. LOL!
    Obligatory reference to the movie Real Genius "... now if we can just keep it from exploding!"
    --
    - Mike
    Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
  19. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by CoolVibe · · Score: 1

    > Well, we could suck all the Co2 out of the atmosphere. That would kill all the plants and also our main source of Oxygen, which we need to be able to breathe. Great going! :)

  20. Stability - by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 1

    If it's not stable at room temperature or pressure, I wonder what happens when it breaks. As for that jazz about understanding the inner workings of the planet Jupiter...

    I for one welcome our new exploding glass overlords.

    1. Re:Stability - by Alamar3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're misunderstanding the use of the word 'stability'. All glasses are thermodynamically unstable. A glass is, essentially, a liquid that has been cooled really quickly past the melting point to a temperature at which the atoms do not have enough energy to re-arrange themselves into the thermodynamically preferred crystalline ordering. This leaves you with a thermodynamically unstable - but kinetically stable - solid that has an amorphous structure (one with no long-range atomic order).

      Since this glass is also kinetically unstable, it won't remain a solid at RTP. However, it probably won't explode: it will simply crystallise, melt and evaporate as you heat it up. I suppose if you did this fast enough it might explode, but I think at 'normal' heating rates it's likely to just crack along flaws in the material to relieve internal pressure.

      Of course, since you mentioned what would happen when it 'breaks'... this would require it to be at whatever conditions the glass is kinetically stable (from the article) - as I've explained above, the material won't exist as a solid at RTP and therefore cannot be broken. If it's kinetically stable, when it breaks it will just behave like a normal glass: it will fragment.

      (And, yes, I am a glass scientist!)

  21. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aye, and transparent aluminum will be next.

  22. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by reklusband · · Score: 1

    Humor nazi mode engaged. IT WAS A JOKE. TO the showers with you. End Humor nazi mode.

  23. PA1+PA2...=NA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A form of solid carbon dioxide that could be used to make ultra-hard glass or coatings for microelectronic devices has been discovered. The material, named amorphous carbonia, was created by scientists from the University of Florence in Italy [CC] [MD] [GC]."

    So how much prior art will go into the upcoming patent?

    BTW "That is plain wrong. Every single claim is a granted monopoly, regardless of the number of the claim and of whether it's an independent or dependent claim."

    If your going to play slashlawyer then your going to have to back this up. Sorry but we have a reputation to maintain.

    1. Re:PA1+PA2...=NA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If your going to play slashlawyer then your going to have to back this up. Sorry but we have a reputation to maintain." You're doing your part by not knowing the difference between YOUR (it belongs to YOU) and YOU'RE (contraction of YOU ARE).

  24. Big question: Does it flow? by mpaulsen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This could be really big for space travel if it overcomes the main shortfall of common glass windows: sagging and ultimately flowing right out of the window frames over time. This is a huge barrier to the long-term space travel needed to get to other solar systems. Just imagine how fast normal glass would deform if they spun the space ship to maintain 1G! Does anyone know if this new glass is more flow-resistant?

    It's also worth noting that this stuff doesn't do so well under normal temperature and pressure. It seems like it would be great for space travel since there's almost none of either out there.

    1. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by agrippa_cash · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care enough to come up with any evidence, since you didn't either apparently, but what you said makes absolutely no sense at all. Perhaps you're thinking of the urban legend about cathederal windows?

    3. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by mpaulsen · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Well _I_ though it was funny.

    4. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "This could be really big for space travel if it overcomes the main shortfall of common glass windows: sagging and ultimately flowing right out of the window frames over time. This is a huge barrier to the long-term space travel needed to get to other solar systems. Just imagine how fast normal glass would deform if they spun the space ship to maintain 1G!"

      What ever happened to the 'transparent aluminum' that dude from San Francisco was working on in the 80's?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by Hagnor · · Score: 1

      Why would you need to put windows in a spaceship? I really doubt navigation in spaceships is done by looking at the stars with a sextant and a compass.

      Also, if for some reason you'd need to have windows (instead of e.g. external camera's) why not just use some kind of plastic instead of glass?

      questions questions

    6. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was quite funny. But we're all so inured to people posting the most ridiculous crap around here that we miss the subtlties sometimes. :)

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    7. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by booyadot · · Score: 1

      Glass does flow due to the effects of creep. In some very old buildings you could observe this by measuring the thickness of the top and bottom of a pane of glass and noting the difference.

      --
      the bee's knees
    8. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative
      Either that, or it was standard operating procedure to put the thick edge of the crude glass panes at the bottom of the window. From the links in the ancestral post:

      It is sometimes said that glass in very old churches is thicker at the bottom than at the top because glass is a liquid, and so over several centuries it has flowed towards the bottom. This is not true. In Mediaeval times panes of glass were often made by the Crown glass process. A lump of molten glass was rolled, blown, expanded, flattened and finally spun into a disc before being cut into panes. The sheets were thicker towards the edge of the disc and were usually installed with the heavier side at the bottom.

      In the October 1999 issue of Discover, Yvonne Stokes, a mathematician at the University of Adelaide in Australia, says that it would take a mere ten million years for a windowpane to get 5 percent thicker at the bottom.
      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by booyadot · · Score: 1

      Visocelastic creep is well a well documented mechanical phenomenon. note the second paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)

      --
      the bee's knees
    10. Re:Big question: Does it flow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. solve global warming by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

    put all the excess carbon dioxide into our ipod screens.

  26. super tough glass ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the surprise of the terrorists when they attempted to crash another plane into the brand new skyscraper.

  27. Hate to break it to you, but by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Baby seals don't breed.

    1. Re:Hate to break it to you, but by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Sure they do. After mating, the female baby seal lays a cluster of eggs in the igloo that the male baby seal has built for her. The egg hatches revealing a penguin (the penguin is the puapal stage of the baby seal, not an independant organism as was previously thought), which feeds for approximately 8 weeks and then builds a silken coccoon around itself, attached to the underside of an iceberg, where it metomorphosis into an adult baby seal a further 8 weeks later.

  28. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, except for the living - they'll be royally screwed

  29. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Cheapy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    All he said was "LOL!" and he was modded up as informative? Damn. I'll try it.

    The next stage of the research is to work out how to make the glass stable at room temperature and pressure.

    ROFL!

    --
    Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  30. What should we call it? by gimplar · · Score: 0

    What should we call this incredibly tough transparent material made from dry ice (CO2)? I know , we should call it diamond!

    1. Re:What should we call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except diamonds are pure carbon.

  31. Dry Ice harder than iron by MadMagician · · Score: 1

    This was in science fiction about the outer satellites 40 years ago. When will you people learn to go to the original source??

  32. special effect smoke? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Is this the only this we can say about dry ice that the layman understands? The industrial applications of dry ice are quite numerous, it has far more utility than making magic smoke

    1. Re:special effect smoke? by navyjeff · · Score: 1
      Nope, "magic smoke" is what makes microprocessors work. Trouble is, once you let it out, the device stops working.

      Now if we could find a way to put the magic smoke *back inside* electronic components, then we'd have a useful invention...

  33. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty simple....just remove the oxygen and change it into a crystalline form from amorphous.

  34. Not stable at room temperature/pressure by Animats · · Score: 1

    This stuff only exists under huge pressure; it's not stable under ordinary conditions.

    Compare xenon hexafluoride, a compound of an inert element, something once thought to be impossible. It is also created under high pressure, but it remains a crystalline solid at room temperature and pressure.

  35. A link to an article about glass flow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glass flow, read all about it. For your reading pleasure.

  36. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But instead of increasing the pressure, this will actually lower the pressure!

  37. Sounds like a good way to destroy the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creating a form of carbon dioxide that's solid at room temp - kind of reminds me of ice-nine.

  38. Dictionary Definition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > dry ice, a form of carbon dioxide used to create smoke in stage shows

    I'm pretty sure that's the dictionary definition of dry ice. Yep; just checked. Good to know there's actually a use for it.

  39. Space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else see the temperature req for dry ice and think space? sure, limited demand, but eh, one day itd be good. After all, what sucks more than your window breaking in space? damn kids with a baseball can be lethal.

  40. Process on film. by houghi · · Score: 1

    The whole process can be seen on this video clip

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  41. of course it flows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this was all a joke but here goes anyway...

    "big for space travel if it overcomes the main shortfall of common glass windows: sagging and ultimately flowing right out of the window frames"
    -Glass has no special property that makes it "flow" - EVERYTHING flows - and it's not a shortfall to ANY glass application (not by a long shot)

    "Just imagine how fast normal glass"
    -Normal glass? on the space shuttle?

    "It's also worth noting that this stuff doesn't do so well under normal temperature and pressure. It seems like it would be great for space travel since there's almost none of either out there."
    -There is a LOT of temperature and pressure (heat and gravity) out there - in fact, there is all the temperature and pressure in the universe out there

  42. Postnuclear winter? by Vo0k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...and nuke all the sand-niggers into oblivion at the same time. Just profits!

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  43. 3 easy steps to Gnome World Domination by cfriedel · · Score: 1

    Gnomes 3 easy steps to take over the world

    Step 1: Press dry ice into super tough carbon
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit!

  44. Finally! by corychristison · · Score: 1

    I can upgrade my igloo to a super-strong ice/glassy material! I can't wait to tell my friends!

  45. Hexagonal diamond? by littleghoti · · Score: 1

    Isn't that graphite?

    1. Re:Hexagonal diamond? by Conan+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1

      No, hexagonal diamond is not graphite not at all! Graphite has sp2 hybrid bonds. Diamond (either cubic or hexagonal) has sp3 hybrid bonds; tetrahedral bonds in cubic and hexagonal diamond - but a different crystal structure. Poly(hydridocarbyne) (PHC) polymer thermolizes (decomposes) under heat and inert atmosphere to diamond. It doesn't char to sp3 carbon (graphite), it simply looses the single hydrido substituent (hydrogen) and the suddenly "free" fourth sp3 bond is ready to party ... but since the only "people" at the "party" are just more decomposing PHC molecules, they have no choice but to "hook-up" with another carbon in sp3 bond. Viola! Diamond. Or rather, diamond-like-carbon (DLC) first, then as the temperature increases toward 600 C hexagonal diamond. I cringe to mention this - but give google a spin on "hexagonal diamond". Cheers.

    2. Re:Hexagonal diamond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it simply looses the single hydrido substituent

      "loses".

    3. Re:Hexagonal diamond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it simply looses the single hydrido substituent
      "loses".


      Loose in this case is actually fine, in the sense that it releases the hydrido substituent. Odds are, though, that the initial poster was thinking "lose" and wrote "loose".
  46. old news by tj500 · · Score: 1

    I saw this on Real Genious years ago.

    1. Re:old news by Pants75 · · Score: 0

      Mod Parent Up!

  47. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, just goes to show how useless the slashdot moderation system is.

    At least I read the article!

  48. Perfect for windows on the Earth Core Explorer by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    But I think it'll be a while before they cast a martini glass in the stuff.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  49. Carbonite by gebbeth · · Score: 1

    So, it this the stuff that they used in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back when they encased Han Solo in carbonite?

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  50. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by RobertKozak · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Damn...

    I always seem to get +5 Funny and never anything else so my karma is only good.

    Do Ihave to beg for +1 Insighful?

    --
    Bet this .sig looks familiar.
  51. Does normal glass flow? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Normal glass, like you'd find in a window, looks a lot like a liquid on a molecular scale. It's theoretically possible for it to flow, and a lot of people have figured it did exactly that when they looked at old windows and found them all ripply.

    Here's the surprise, though. The old windows were uneven when they were new. Before the float glass process, windows were produced by glass blowers. A flat even sheet would have been a miracle.

    I've heard of big refracting telescopes being disabled by glass flowing. Is that for real, or is that somebody's scrambled report about elastic distortions with changes in elevation?

  52. super-tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Toughness' refers to the ability to absorb energy, such as impact shatter resistance. It does not mean that the glass is stronger than regular silica glass.

  53. I see this ultraglass as potentially the answer by zullnero · · Score: 1

    To building the big force field around the Earth that we've all wanted since Spaceballs.

  54. hmm by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

    The last thing I want to know is what it's like in the middle of a giants gass.

  55. Fog machine fog isn't toxic, but can be a problem. by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a firefighter. Actually, I'm a Lt. on an Engine company -- one of the volunteer firefighters who protect about 40% of the US population (most people don't realize how much of the US is protected by volunteer firefighters).

    We train using fog machines frequently, because if something goes wrong you can remove your SCBA and breath normally.

    In a training event for "Explorers" not too long ago, we used this fake smoke on a hot day. We had to cancel the use of it because several of the kids has asthma attacks. After investigating, the only explanation we could find, was that the appearance of smoke creates the expectation that it will be difficult to breathe. That expectation can be self fulfilling -- especially in young people who have had bad reactions to actual smoke in the past.

    Oh well.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  56. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by Neoncow · · Score: 1
    I always seem to get +5 Funny and never anything else so my karma is only good.

    Well, GGP is now modded 20% redundant and 50% overrated. Mostly because of what GP posted. Incidentally, GP posted the same thing as GGP. Lets see if this creates some sort of self-fulfilling karmic prophecy. heh
  57. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, just goes to show how useless the slashdot moderation system is.

    That, or not enough people are meta-modding.

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  58. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by pakar · · Score: 1

    Well, imagine the business you could start... "Buy our oxygen-generator or die!" =)

  59. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a competition for shortest post?

  60. You all missed an important point! by x1n933k · · Score: 1
    "Their discovery could lead to a way of storing or disposing of carbon dioxide gas, a major contributor to global warming, deep in the Earth's interior.

    Think of this guys and gals, if we cant use it for glass we create a business to create big blocks of carbon-type and stick it into "garbage-can Earth" thus solving the high carbon levels though we dont need to change.

    This is fantastic...Think of the business!

    [J]

  61. Ah yes... by spankey51 · · Score: 1

    Amorphus Carbonia... Back in the day, we referred to it as "carbonite"

    --
    -ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
  62. STIV by Gay+for+Linux · · Score: 0

    Scotty already made this stuff in Star Trek IV.

  63. Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... by budgenator · · Score: 1

    CO2 is a very usefull industrial solvent and gas, as a liquid solvent it's used for every thing from dry-cleaning clothes to degreasing everything imaginable. It's more common solid form maybe used for a refrigerant or even as a blasting media, sort of like sand-blasting and the sand evaporates away after being used rather than needing to be swept up! Most industrial CO2 is made from decomposing limestone, or from burning natural gas. The interesting thing about extracting CO2 from limestone is the lime byproduct scavenges CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in a closed-loop system!

    If you wanted to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, the best way would be to simply pump air down near the bottom of the ocean! The CO2 at those presures and temeratures liquify and sink, the rest of the air just bubbles to the surface. Don't think of this as practicle, but it is possible.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  64. Er, not much to see here. by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
    If you read the fine article, they just happen to mention in passing that the stuff only stays in that special state when squezzed to aboout 8.8 million PSI.

    *Lots* of elements have interesting properties at that kind of pressure. IIRC Water changes into a different crystalline structure, Ammonia acts like a metal. Problem is, most of these states are unstable. You can't hold a chunk of Ice-X or Metallic Ammonia, not unless you're somewhere near the core of Jupiter. We're talking pressures in the GigaPascal range, not something you can do at home with a good pair of pliers.

  65. The Idea has been on the Internet for years by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

    Here. I ought to know, since I posted it back then.

  66. Government-funded science by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    The great thing about science is, there aren't really any certainties.
    Are you certain about that?
    The fact that we, as a species, crave knowledge is what sets us apart from lower animals.
    Please don't call them "lower animals"; it's speciesist.
    Call them "non-human animals" or "differently-abled animals".

    On a more serious note, many non-human species display curiosity, which is a type of want of knowledge.
    For example, chimp kids watch their parents or others to learn how to use a stick to get termites out of a termite mound.
    One thing that seems to be unique to humans is the desire (of some humans, anyway) to pass knowledge on to others.
    This can be both good (schoolteachers, research labs, the Open Source and Free Software movements, etc.) and bad (televangelists and inquisitioners, Soviet and Red Chinese "education" facilities, some religious "schools", etc.).

    But however good or bad pure research may be, whether or not it might lead to benefits for humanity, it's not any government's place to take my money and give it to others to perform such research.
    And leaving aside the moral reasons of what is and what is not a government's responsibility in such matters, there is also the problem that research can be skewed by a corrupt government, as the U.S. federal government is currently doing with government-funded research into humanity's effect on the environment, for example.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana