Slashdot Mirror


Bizarre Properties of Glass Allow Creation of "Metallic Glass"

VindictivePantz writes to mention that scientists have discovered some bizarre properties of glass and are already applying that knowledge to create what is being called "metallic glass." "The breakthrough involved solving the decades-old problem of just what glass is. It has been known that that despite its solid appearance, glass and gels are actually in a 'jammed' state of matter — somewhere between liquid and solid — that moves very slowly. Like cars in a traffic jam, atoms in a glass are in something like suspended animation, unable to reach their destination because the route is blocked by their neighbors. So even though glass is a hard substance, it never quite becomes a proper solid, according to chemists and materials scientists."

265 comments

  1. Obligatory by sexconker · · Score: 1, Funny

    How bizarre.

  2. LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Funny

    Beam me up, Scotty!

    1. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by lastchance_000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean 'transparent aluminium"

    2. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by wass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, how do you know parent isn't the guy that invented it in the first place?

      --

      make world, not war

    3. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Gut instinct tells me that he didn't, mostly because it was invented as part of a back story for a sci-fi movie. Yet again life mimics Star Trek. Set phasers to time displaced synchronicity!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by jo7hs2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Liquid aluminum? I think you mean Transparent Aluminum. Oh, I see, you are using a keyboard. How quaint.

    5. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Plutonite · · Score: 2, Funny

      High UID, perhaps?

    6. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down: unrespectful.

    7. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Romancer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought this was an urban legend:

      "The deceptively liquid-like behavior of glass can be seen when you look at glass in the windows of an old building. The glass begins to sag and distort internally over the centuries, due to the effect of gravity."

      This was because old glass making techniques used a spinning wheel to flatten and cool the glass so that one edge was slightly thicker when it was cut into the desired pieces. The whole sagging myth was made up. A common citation for rebuffing the myth is egyption glass that has held its form for much longer than the old english buildings.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    8. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by stas1s · · Score: 1

      One(three) word(s)... Glaquisolid.

    9. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too. I'd heard that it was a scientific urban myth so many times that I had to start believing it. It seems it's an urban myth that it's an urban myth.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    10. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by rhyder128k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reading down, it seems that I was taken in. It's an urban myth that it's an urban myth that it's an urban myth.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    11. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why is the glass always thicker at the bottom of the window?

    12. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because glaziers were not stupid and put the thick bits that could handle more load at the bottom.

    13. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      they also placed the glass with the thicker area on the bottom because it was heavier, and it's a better idea to put the heavier part of the glass nearer the bottom of the frame. This led to practically all of those panes being installed thicker-side-down. So I suppose you could say gravity was responsible for the pane thickness variance... indirectly.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    14. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by dissy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then why is the glass always thicker at the bottom of the window? They are load bearing windows
    15. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because the invention came from a plexiglass company in San Francisco in the 80's.

    16. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by zapakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reading down, it seems that I was taken in. It's an urban myth that it's an urban myth that it's an urban myth. It "wants" to be true, but it's composed of these things that are like pentagons, so it gets "jammed" somewhere between fact and fiction.
    17. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because glaziers were not stupid and put the thick bits that could handle more load at the bottom. And sometimes they screwed up. There are tens of examples where the thick part is at the TOP.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    18. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      The techniques used at the time produced glass with a slight taper in thickness.

      to save typing, i'll quote wikipedia:

      The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. The likely source of this unfounded belief is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the Crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk would be thicker because of centripetal force relaxation. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down for the sake of stability and visual sparkle.[24] Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or on either side of the window's edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation.

      Mass production of glass window panes in the early twentieth century caused a similar effect. In glass factories, molten glass was poured onto a large cooling table and allowed to spread. The resulting glass is thicker at the location of the pour, located at the center of the large sheet. These sheets were cut into smaller window panes with nonuniform thickness. Modern glass intended for windows is produced as float glass and is very uniform in thickness.

    19. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      But if you wait for long enough, eventually all urban myths will crystallize into fiction.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    20. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by hey! · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, correct. It is also true that glass is amorphous and thus has properties in common with liquids.

      It just shows how a falsehood travels much farther in the company of a truth, something worth remembering in an election year.

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

      How about quoting an original source, instead of Wikipedia?

      damn kids

    22. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Whoooooosh!

      This is my second whoooosh post today. You're welcome!

    23. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it is metallic then it can't be transparent. You know "sea of electrons" stuff. Electromagnetic fields wont penetrate it due to the skin depth of metallic solids. Unless the conduction is anisotropic, then it would be much more interesting that "transparent aluminium".

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    24. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Thought someone would do that.. I wasn't entirely serious myself in case you hadn't noticed. I don't often use exclamations when I'm being serious.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Though the fact there are plenty of examples left indicates it may not have been that much of a screw up. (barring that it may have been an aesthetic decision in the first place).

    26. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by wttnr · · Score: 1

      Looks like it isn't transparent, from TFA:

      "This stuff [metallic glass] is generally shiny black in color, not transparent, due to having a lot of free electrons (think of mercury in an old thermometer)."

      However, this contradicts the second paragraph of TFA:

      "The finding could lead to aircraft that look like Wonder Woman's plane. Such planes could have wings of glass or something called metallic glass, rather than being totally invisible."

      So... shiny black stuff is not totally invisible... got it.

    27. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Huh? EM fields can penetrate solids. Photons could certainly shoot through a certain thickness. It should be held with some skepticism, but I haven't RTFA'd.

    28. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by rootchick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unlike Windows...

    29. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by tomatensaft · · Score: 1

      Nope, you read it wrong: it "wants" to be true, therefore, unfortunately, if you wait long enough, all urban myths crystallize into truth... :P

    30. Re:LIQUID ALUMINUM??????? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Huh? Sorry I don't think you read what I said? Since when do photons penetrate metals? Non-conducting solids ... of course, glass, silica, even water (ice), and even if it is somewhat conducting. But last I looked at a piece of steel it didn't seem very translucent. Skin depth of EM fields is classical electrodynamics ... been around and used for more than a century. It is actually a pretty interesting part of EM theory in its own right.

      When I watched Star Trek I interpreted Transparent Aluminium as ... lightweight, strong plastic/ceramic suitable for construction. Not transparent version of aluminium.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  3. Aluminium glass by javajawa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this the aluminium glass that Scotty spoke of?

    --

    Meh

    1. Re:Aluminium glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Air Force created a few years ago a translucent aluminum. They want to use it for cockpits and such because it's stronger than glass and doesn't scratch nearly as easily.

      To me, that's the stuff that was predicted in Star Trek.

    2. Re:Aluminium glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're probably thinking of synthetic sapphire (which is aluminum oxide).

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

      The Air Force "created"...

      Wasn't that a Naval contractor Scotty was working with? Having it "created" by the Air Force was a better cover story. :-)

    4. Re:Aluminium glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the stuff from Star Trek is transparent a

    5. Re:Aluminium glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      or this?

    6. Re:Aluminium glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the word was "transparant aluminium"

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

      No, he's thinking of Aluminium oxynitride

      Link shamelessly stolen from a post further up.

    8. Re:Aluminium glass by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

      No.

  4. Get the terminology straight ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not "Metallic Glass", it's Transparent Aluminum ...

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by CMF+Risk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Screw all your Trekkies!

      Transparisteel
      http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Transparisteel

    2. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by clone53421 · · Score: 2

      No, it's Metallic Glass. RTFA, it's not even transparent.

      This stuff is generally shiny black in color, not transparent...
      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      This guy hasn't had enough LDS!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by jack2000 · · Score: 0

      "Transparisteel"? This is crazytalk!

    5. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get YOUR terminology straight, it's called Aluminium!

    6. Re:Get the terminology straight ... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Ah, you beat me to it. I remember reading about transparisteel when reading one of the spinoff books.

  5. So am I by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

    is a hard substance, it never quite becomes a proper solid, according to chemists and materials scientists.

    So am I according to an ex-girlfriend. Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitstaff.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:So am I by RobinH · · Score: 3, Funny

      is a hard substance, it never quite becomes a proper solid, according to chemists and materials scientists. That's what she said.
      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:So am I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is a hard substance, it never quite becomes a proper solid, according to chemists and materials scientists.

      So am I according to an ex-girlfriend. Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitstaff.

      So you're saying glass is flaccid?
    3. Re:So am I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or premature. I'm not sure which one he was referring to.
      - The ex-girlfriend.

    4. Re:So am I by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      But not what your mom said.

    5. Re:So am I by Phydaux · · Score: 1

      is a hard substance, it never quite becomes a proper solid, according to chemists and materials scientists.
      That's what she said
      Yes. Yes, it is.
  6. Scotty... by WolverineOfLove · · Score: 5, Informative

    My first thought is transparent aluminum from Star Trek IV. Only to discover we're closer than I'd think...

    1. Re:Scotty... by somersault · · Score: 0

      I think that was actually everyone's first thought :p I was like hey wait a second, then looked down at the tags and predictably enough, there was transparent 'aluminum' heh. I think that other one you link to was covered a couple of years ago on here.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Scotty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if that counts, try sapphire

    3. Re:Scotty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALON is far closer to sapphire than it is to aluminum metal. It is a class of materials called transparent ceramics that has been getting a lot of attention recently. AlON is basically sapphire with a few of the oxygen ions replace with Nitrogen. this replacement causes the crystal structure to shift from rhombohedral to a cubic structure. This new cubic structure allows them to make polycrystalline materials that are transparent. There are a host of other materials that can be made transparent using similar processing routes (minus the nitrogen) including MgAl2O4 and Y3Al5O12.

  7. Transparent Aluminum! by RealGene · · Score: 0, Redundant

    See? That guy in SF did invent it, just like Scotty said.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:Transparent Aluminum! by coren2000 · · Score: 0

      Just 22 years late!

    2. Re:Transparent Aluminum! by BootNinja · · Score: 2, Informative

      try 24 years, and he said at the time that it would take decades to figure out the formula.

    3. Re:Transparent Aluminum! by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the movie released in 1986? thats 22 years.... unless the years is 2010 and Im living in my own dream world.

      Oh look a bunny!

    4. Re:Transparent Aluminum! by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      The movie very well may have come out in 1986, but the plot of the movie is that they travelled back to 1984.

  8. How bizarre. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1, Funny

    How bizarre.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    1. Re:How bizarre. by billcopc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooh baybee.. (ooh baby)
      Yer makin' muh cray-zee.. (you're making me crazy)
      Every time I look around, it's in my face.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  9. Perpetuating old myths by leob · · Score: 5, Informative
    The deceptively liquid-like behavior of glass can be seen when you look at glass in the windows of an old building. The glass begins to sag and distort internally over the centuries, due to the effect of gravity.

    This is crap. There have been windows of old buildings "sagging" upwards. The old technology of making windowpanes resulted in glass of uneven thickness, and it makes sense to install it the thick side down. Sometimes the installers did not care enough.

    1. Re:Perpetuating old myths by ErkDemon · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yeah, when you're assembling irregular-thickness glass for stained glass windows, you put the thicker (heavier) end at the bottom. It makes the glass mounting more stable, and the glass less likely to fall out.

      For larger sheets, you put the thicker (stronger) end of the glass sheet at the bottom, because the bottom of the sheet has to carry the weight.

    2. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And not only that, the nonsense about glass not being solid because it isn't crystalline is another oft repeated chestnut that is incorrect. There are plenty of non-crystalline solids, like wood, bone, cement, and pink and white iced animal cookies. Also pancakes. A soft solid, yes, but solid nonetheless.

      You could even make a case that silicon in its pure, glassy state is already a form of "metallic glass". It certainly looks like it.

    3. Re:Perpetuating old myths by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is crap. Yeah, I can't believe they repeated this little urban myth. The whole article takes a huge credibility hit IMHO.

      Not to mention how the last half is written so poorly that it ventures into incomprehensibility-land.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right, it is crap... except that the effects we observe were due to the liquidity of glass... albeit when the glass was molten :)

      There is another distortion effect that myth attributes to liquid flow of glass... if you observe old architectural glass, you may note "waviness" in the glass. This is cause by how sheet glass was made.

      A leader is dipped into molten glass, then raised slowly. While the glass is pretty much of uniform thickness, there is distortion caused by variations in temperature as the sheet cools.

      If you're looking at old houses, it's interesting to note what kind of distortion is present in the windows -- this can tell you how the glass was made, which in turn can tell you if it's likely that the glass is original to the house. One needs knowledge of the history of window fabrication, which is often regional... but I digress.

      This is yet another example of something making sense, but not being accurate. Yes, glass is technically liquid. But, the flow rate is such that the effects we attribute to the liquidity of glass would take millions and millions of years to occur at STP. Typically any effects in glass that are due to liquid flow occurred during the hardening stage.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Perpetuating old myths by buddhaunderthetree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bingo. If glass flowed at any rate the glass vases found in Egyptian tombs would have been puddles. I can't believe this stuff still gets repeated.

      --
      "Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
    6. Re:Perpetuating old myths by KillerBob · · Score: 1, Funny

      Its not crap. My 5 year old 24 inch LCD has a visible sag in the middle of about a px or so.

      Maybe you've developped an astigmatism.
      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    7. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Maybe you should A) Read the article you quote and B) be a bit more skeptical of the WEAKipedia, which often contradicts itself. From the article you just quoted:

      Some glasses have a glass transition temperature close to or below room temperature. The behaviour of a material that has a glass transition close to room temperature depends upon the timescale during which the material is manipulated. If the material is hit it may break like a solid glass, however if the material is left on a table for a week it may flow like a liquid.

    8. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Karloskar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are lenses in very old telescopes that still function perfectly. If glass flowed at room temperature they would become distorted.

    9. Re:Perpetuating old myths by brunokummel · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is crap. Yeah, I can't believe they repeated this little urban myth. The whole article takes a huge credibility hit IMHO.

      Not to mention how the last half is written so poorly that it ventures into incomprehensibility-land.


      Yeah, I agree ...
      Atoms, scientists, states of matter.. who believes these urbans myths...pfff!
      --
      What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    10. Re:Perpetuating old myths by pjhenley · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a further nit-pick, I'd note that icosahedrons are not made from pentagons. I think they mean dodecahedrons, the faces of which are pentagons:

      An icosahedron is like a 3-D pentagon, and just as you cannot tile a floor with pentagons, you cannot fill 3-D space with icosahedrons, Royall explained. That is, you can't make a lattice out of pentagons.
    11. Re:Perpetuating old myths by xlation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly.

            It's not uncommon for amateur telescopes to have mirrors accurate to within 1/10th of a wavelength. If glass flowed, it wouldn't take it very long to go out of figure.

    12. Re:Perpetuating old myths by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe he's developed astigmatism.

    13. Re:Perpetuating old myths by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yup. That myth has been thoroughly debunked, yet it still gets repeated.

      The article is full of meaningless or incorrect statements. Like:

      Royall is part of a group of scientists who think that if you wait long enough, perhaps billions of years, all glass will eventually crystallize into a true solid. In other words, glass is not in an equilibrium state, (although it appears that way to us during our limited lifetimes).
      As a researcher in the field, I can assure you that this isn't a controversial statement. We all agree that glasses are not at equilibrium. We all agree that the low-energy state for glasses is to crystallize, and that (in principle), if you wait long enough they will crystallize. The questions revolve around details like "how far from equilibrium?", "what are the implications of being non-equilibrium (e.g. on phase transitions)?", "what are the kinetics and dynamics?", "how long would it ~actually~ take for a given amount of change/flow/reconstruction/etc.?"...

      Also, equating "equilibrium" with "being a solid" is total nonsense. (Solids, liquids, and gases can all be at equilibrium or far from equilibrium...)

      In short, don't waste your time with this ridiculously hyped review of some otherwise interesting (but not revolutionary) science.
    14. Re:Perpetuating old myths by somersault · · Score: 1

      You should read that section of the wiki article, it's pretty interesting. I especially like the line To observe window glass flowing as liquid at room temperature we would have to wait a much longer time than the universe exists. Heh. Some glasses do flow more freely at room temperature though, apparently. Probably not so quickly that you'd see it with your eyes though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Perpetuating old myths by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try looking at 80 year-old-glass panes and you'll see the exact same sagging effect. And then you could look at 80-year-old photographs and see that they looked exactly the same when they were brand new.

      Glass does not sag, at least not on a historical scale. Maybe to a geologist it sags.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Perpetuating old myths by leob · · Score: 1
      sagging effect

      Should read "manufacturing defects"

      Seriously, stop deluding yourself. Glass at room temperature is a solid.

    17. Re:Perpetuating old myths by JebusIsLord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, this article had me rolling my eyes... the "journalist" basically strung a bunch of urban legends together, and didn't even bother to use a grammar checker. He should be fired and made into a Fox News anchor.

      --
      Jeremy
    18. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not crap. I've seen an experiment where a sheet of 1/4" glass was placed between sawhorses in a garage with a bowling ball positioned on top to test idea. Add the 40 years it's been going on and the glass bending is obvious.

    19. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Some glasses have a glass transition temperature close to or below room temperature. None of those glasses were used in making old church windows.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    20. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Khyber · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Not true. At room temp it would take MILLIONS of years for the glass to distort, not a mere few thousand. This can be tested by checking the viscosity of glass at different temperatures.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's comments like these that make Slashdot great. -cromar

    22. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Khyber · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Glass does flow at room temperature. It would just take millions of years instead of a thousand years for you to notice. Glass at room temperature has a viscosity so high you can't perceive the flow without an electron microscope. Get that glass to about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit and you can mold it like slightly-hard silly putty.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    23. Re:Perpetuating old myths by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Glass does not sag, at least not on a historical scale. Sweet! When can we start using glass in breast enhancements?
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    24. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take 40 years to bend a sheet of glass, pick up a full length mirror in the middle and you will see an obviously bending sheet of glass, you can bend glass back and forward easily if its a big sheet and you are carefully.

    25. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Karloskar · · Score: 1

      Silly putty? So glass is shear-thickening? Cool...

    26. Re:Perpetuating old myths by karnal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Get that glass to about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit and you can mold it like slightly-hard silly putty.

      Great, now my hands are all burnt up. But I've got this really cool glass to .... hold with my feet!

      --
      Karnal
    27. Re:Perpetuating old myths by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But alas, it would still not please geologists :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Fool, go to a pipe shop - most blowers don't wear gloves.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Perpetuating old myths by dissy · · Score: 1

      Get that glass to about 1300 degrees Fahrenheit and you can mold it like slightly-hard silly putty. Apparently so will a lot of solids

      Such as sulfur, tin, lead, you know, slightly hard silly putty ;}

    30. Re:Perpetuating old myths by gillbates · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't believe this stuff still gets repeated.

      It gets repeated because this particular tidbit of misinformation happened to make it into a very popular undergrad chemistry textbook:

      Glass is a complex mixture of silicates and is classified as an undercooled liquid.

      College Chemistry with Qualitative Analysis, Sixth Edition, Nebergall, Holtzclaw, Robinson. p743, section 27.12

      It didn't take much of a stretch, no pun intended, for the explanation of thickening of the bottom of cathedral windows to include this little tidbit.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    31. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Socguy · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I've mistaken your intent here, but what does that prove? You can do the same thing with a sheet of steel or a wooden plank or a slab of concrete...

    32. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're refracting telescopes. I have a recent reflecting telescope and the main mirror has flowed into some parabolic dish.

    33. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When humans become silicon-based.

    34. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Porsche917K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also pancakes. A soft solid, yes, but solid nonetheless.

      Pancakes a solid? They're a foam, surely. Which IIRC puts them in with the colloids.

    35. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      My intent is that the GP's experiment is a bunch of bull crap that doesn't prove anything at all, and whoever set it up has wasted 40 years.

      For a real experiment on something that actually is a liquid so viscous it appears solid, check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment

    36. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a couple of asides. There are plenty of cases where obsidian aka volcanic glass has been found with sharp undeformed splinters in geological settings, where it cannot have been disturbed for many millions of years hence the inference is no significant flow occured. There is also the Pitch Drop experiment, showing what a proper fluid will do.. http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/pitchdrop/pitchdrop.shtml I presume since it's not mentioned there has been no deformation and flow of the glass funnel...

    37. Re:Perpetuating old myths by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, for most normal types of glass that we use ourselves it would appear to be a moot point if you'd have to wait for longer than the length of the universe to get any noticeable change in the glass, so it should be regarded as a solid. Just because one type of glass is very stable at room temperature doesn't mean that another won't be. I would think it also depends on the ambient pressure. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that glass is a weird substance and scientists are obviously still confused as to some of its properties :P

      --
      which is totally what she said
    38. Re:Perpetuating old myths by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ...and if you heat iron to 2800 F it will flow like a liquid... but that's because it's a liquid ....

      Glass is NOT a liquid
      Glass is an amorphous *solid*, it just acts differently than a crystalline solid, but it not "weird" when compared with other amorphous solids ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    39. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative? What?

      Parent is saying glass should be solid because other non-crystaline solids are solid... (a weak inference)... then goes on to mention wood (which I understand is made of cellulose, a crystaline polymer).

      This seems like a case of a layman trying to apply "common" sense understanding to scientific language and failing.

      +2 Funny maybe, but +5 Informative? Slashdot deserves its decline.

    40. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'll nitpick just a touch here. Aren't silicon wafers a pure silicon lattice? And so, non-amorphous? And so, not in fact, glass?

    41. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Guignol · · Score: 1

      This is not nit-picking IMO and furthers the doubts on the article's validity
      Or maybe they are just geosoccermetricaly challenged and got a bit confused about a truncated icosahedron having some (twelve) pentagons :)

    42. Re:Perpetuating old myths by ozphx · · Score: 1

      One that only works on glass and not the bezel ;)

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    43. Re:Perpetuating old myths by MaterialsMan · · Score: 1

      You are quite right. Window glass is a solid and non-crystalline. Crystallinity is defined by long-range atomic order. Glasses are amorphous, meaning they have no or only short-range atomic order. On your second point however, you are a little off. Bulk pure silicon is crystalline (google the "diamond cubic" crystal structure to see silicon's structure). Amorphous silicon is used for high speed transistors, but there it is a thin film. The primary component of window glass is SiOx, silica. I'm kind of surprised metallic glasses are being touted here as a "new" advancement. Research into metallic glasses has been ongoing for quite some time.

    44. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Enoxice · · Score: 1

      Also pancakes. A soft solid, yes, but solid nonetheless.

      Also a delicious solid.

      I guess now I have to go to IHOP on my lunch hour...

      --
      Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
    45. Re:Perpetuating old myths by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Well..we're actually headed toward silicone-based- with all the breast implants going on.

    46. Re:Perpetuating old myths by Kentari · · Score: 1

      Pff, nonsense. Everyone who owns a telescope knows he should flip it or the optics in it at least daily. Certainly if you have a larger telescope, like my 14" Newtonian. Even little ones benefit from a daily flip. I've seen no degradation in any of my telescopes.

      At least that's what they told me at my first Star Party.

      At 6AM

      After way too much beer...

      You mean I may have been fooled? That I spent 8 years of flipping 30 kgs of tube for nothing?? I barely dared to go on holiday!!! Wait till I get my hands on that guy and I'll show him how much his 20" deforms when I shove it where the sun doesn't shine. And I don't mean the tube it sits in!!!!

  10. misleading by retech · · Score: 3, Informative

    The term glass refers to the structure/lattice. Not to the substance we commonly refer to as glass.

    1. Re:misleading by MaterialsMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right. Glass just refers to an amorphous solid, inorganic in the cases discussed here. Metallic glasses are just metals that were cooled so quickly (or under otherwise extreme conditions) that they were unable to crystallize into their normal equilibrium structure. The stuff we commonly call glass is silica (SiOx) and some other elements in an amorphous form. When it does manage to crystallize we get SiO2, quartz.

  11. New band names. by Digestromath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Either way, be prepared to see them as band names any minute now. Or perhaps the band name is "Metallic Glass", thier first album is "Transparent Aluminum"

    1. Re:New band names. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      There's a band called Air Liquide, apparently...

    2. Re:New band names. by Llamalarity · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Air Liquide" Never heard of them. Let me guess - Too much LDS in the 60s?

    3. Re:New band names. by Entropius · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you mean too much LSD.

      The LDS are those scary people with nametags that act vaguely robotic that keep knocking on your door.

    4. Re:New band names. by graphicsguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoosh!

    5. Re:New band names. by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Then someone else will have a similar sounding band name and they'll be forced to switch the album title and the band name on the first album. Flowers is a stupid name for a band anyhow.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    6. Re:New band names. by Walkingshark · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a former Mormon, I can tell you that ANY amount of LDS is often too much LDS... (and yes I know its a movie quote)

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    7. Re:New band names. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also a company called Air Liquide that deals with cryogenic liquids and gases.

    8. Re:New band names. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those of you who don't know, that use of the LDS acronym is a refrence to Star Trek IV (the source of all this transparent aluminum talk).

      I know these posts are not serous, but the term metallic glass does not refer to transparent metals, but rather metals with an amorphus structure. Metallic glass lacks the fracture points associated with the crystal lattice of metals. This means that metallic glass does not fagigue over time as normal metals would. I believe that metallic glasses were first discovered by rapidally cooling laminants of titanium (I think I read somewhere that a WW2 nazi scientist fisrt discovered them).

    9. Re:New band names. by imstanny · · Score: 1

      For those of you who don't know, that use of the LDS acronym is a refrence to Star Trek IV (the source of all this transparent aluminum talk). LDS is not an acronym, it's an abbreviation. An acronym is pronounced as a word like PETA, NASA, and MILF.
    10. Re:New band names. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Funny I don't find them scary.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:New band names. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think they are scary, you have real problems. Do you spend all day hiding under a blanket and posting on Slashdot?

    12. Re:New band names. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Well aren't you fancy! I guess I meant to say initialism then. I hope my dastardly misuse of the English language has not offended any of you grammar nazis.

  12. 3 years already! by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There seems a transparent aluminum story every couple of years

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:3 years already! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Except that this stuff isn't transparent at all and, surprisingly, supposed to be tougher than regular metal. Not all glass is of the window pane variety.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:3 years already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this is the year of the transparent aluminum desktop.

  13. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Glass does not "flow". Perhaps you've read such articles, and they are assuredly all bullshit.

    Materials scientists call glass an amorphous solid.

  14. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, actually we've known that to be an untrue myth for a while, what's happened here is that we've suddenly forgotten it!

  15. An illustration of thermodynamics by edwebdev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the interesting aspects of this article is how it highlights the usual thermodynamic balance between entropy and free energy. States of matter in the equilibrium phase attempt to simultaneously maximize entropy, a measure of the statistical likelihood of a given state, and minimize the amount of energy "stored" in the given arrangement of molecules.

    The most favorable condition is often a compromise between maximum entropy and minimum energy as highly ordered states, such as tetrahedral or other crystalline arrangements, often act to reduce the amount of stored energy due to minimized interatomic and/or intermolecular interactions and related factors. Pure crystals of substances will often form because the energetic "advantage" of the highly ordered crystalline state is often great enough to overcome entropic barriers.

    The model that the researchers propose is interesting because the crystalline state itself introduces a degree of energetic disadvantage due to what is described as "cramming" of the individual crystalline unit cells. I wonder what models they used to form their hypothesis that the glass would eventually form a perfectly crystalline state.

    1. Re:An illustration of thermodynamics by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm, I usually see that as a typical case of kinetic over thermodynamic control. The material hardens faster in the higher energy state instead of slowly rearranging to the lower minimum.
      The article has a serious flaw so in claiming that glass formation helps with fatigue; the main reason that you get metal fatigues is loss of ductility. Most glasses are brittle to begin with, and even if not, the same forces that allow crystal growth leading to embrittlement are active in the glass too.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    2. Re:An illustration of thermodynamics by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Most glasses are brittle to begin with, and even if not, the same forces that allow crystal growth leading to embrittlement are active in the glass too.
      Hruh? That's not true at all, from what I recall. Glass is by definition uncrystallized... I mean, there's a bonding structure, but it's disorderly...

      Am I missing something? It's been a while, but I think that still holds.

      As for glass formation helping with fatigue, it's a matter of the disordered state being stable enough that it requires more energy (stress) in order to disrupt the structure enough to reform as a more brittle crystalline structure.

      Then again, it's been a long time... so maybe someone with a current education in materials science can elucidate (pardon the pun).
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:An illustration of thermodynamics by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      My class on material science has been a while too, but if I remember correctly, the small grains of the metal is what allows ductile deformation. Fatigue happens when you start depositing energy into the material (via stress cycles) and the grains start growing. At some point the grains are so large, they don't slide past one another anymore. That's when the material become brittle, you get crack growth, and ultimately failure.
      The glass doesn't have that ductile movement to begin with, it's "naturally brittle". So yes, it's stable against fatigue in the classic sense as long as it doesn't form crystals; but if you keep dumping energy into it it will start doing just that.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  16. Re:Don't we already know this? by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    I certainly don't want to nit-pick, but isn't this already widely known? I've read dozens of articles about how glass panes in very old buildings have settled to the point where the top is so thin it breaks at the barest touch, while the bottom of the panes have thickened to near-translucence. Even in high school (many moons ago) we were taught that glass is technically a liquid.

    It's widely known and widely taught, but it's not so. Glass does not flow at any measurable rate at room temperature. Glass at room temperature is an amorphous solid, not a liquid.

  17. Screw Transparent Aluminum, Transparisteel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. Scientists should write about the science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This reporter does not know what they are talking about. The comet failed due to stress risers at the corners of the windows, not because of grain boundaries. Let the materials scientists do the writing. Don't let journalists do science writing. Morons.

  19. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  20. Re:Don't we already know this? by Grond · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except, as noted above, that's not true at all. You learned it in high school because you had a bad science teacher, and shame on "livescience.com" for perpetuating such nonsense. Glass is an amorphous solid, not a 'slow liquid.' It shares one or two characteristics with supercooled liquids, but it is different in several important ways.

  21. terrible summary of not great science by anmida · · Score: 5, Informative

    First of all, we've known about metallic glasses for years. There's a melt-spinner in the basement of my matsci building that we use to make metallic glasses. Their properties have been fairly well-studied.

    Second of all, I don't really like the experiment that these people conducted. They simulated atoms during solidification, but they used microspheres within ANOTHER medium. With glasses, during there is no matrix material within which other molecules are moving. I find their model and extrapolation to be questionable. We are still trying to thermodynamically understand the glass transition and the solid amorphous state compared to the solid crystalline state.

    1. Re:terrible summary of not great science by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's so hard to understand?

      Quantum physics tells us that electrons prefer certain geometric arrangements about a nucleus.

      Due to this, atoms prefer certain geometric arrangements that take advantage of this atomic-orbital energy function. If this allows for a repeating pattern, and the mechanical noise in the system is high enough to disrupt any non-optimal bonds, a repeating pattern will most likely form.

      But if the gross arrangement of several atoms is stable to thermodynamic perturbation even though some bonds are non-optimally aligned, the whole structure will be maintained. Cooling a substance faster than it can rearrange itself into a lattice structure would be one way to leave it in this condition.

      Meaning that amorphous glasses are simply substances that crystallize without forming a lattice geometry.

    2. Re:terrible summary of not great science by anmida · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, dear. I know that. However, there's some weird shit with the glass transition, in that it looks like a second-order thermodynamic transition, but it isn't. The volume and enthalpy of glass goes from that of it's kindred solid to that of a liquid, with the smooth glass transition joining the two regions. I think a big issue that needs to be discussed is, what exactly is a solid? The glass guys have an easy way of determining a solid: viscosity. If it has enough resistance to flow, they define it as a solid.

    3. Re:terrible summary of not great science by MaterialsMan · · Score: 1

      I'll have to agree with anmida here. The glass transition is poorly understood, whether in inorganics or polymers. The scientific community has yet to reach a final definition on what a solid is in all cases, exactly when melting occurs, when a non-crystalline solid becomes a viscous liquid, etc. I think you've confused your use of the word crystallize as well. Amorphous solids, though they solidify, do not crystallize. No long-range order (lattice geometry as you've put it) means the material is non-crystalline.

  22. tap..tap..tap.. is this thing on?? by arbies · · Score: 2, Funny

    In my very best Canadian/pseudo-Scottish accent, "Hello computer..."

    1. Re:tap..tap..tap.. is this thing on?? by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 2, Funny

      A keyboard? How quaint.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
  23. Its been around for a while by hAckz0r · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Look at the plate on the front of those those golf club drivers that they won't let you use, or even this patent:
    http://www.google.com/patents?id=Kq4yAAAAEBAJ&dq=4256039 Filing date: Jan 2, 1979


    Its also been used in large transformers for years. The "technology advance" here worth noting is in being able to produce it while casting/moulding objects that are not thin and flat. It had been done as sheets for years, but casting a part that is something like 7 times the strength of titanium is much more useful. Unfortunately, the problem to solve is its brittleness. Things that shatter are much less useful.

    1. Re:Its been around for a while by MaterialsMan · · Score: 1

      There's also the nasty problem that if you heat a metallic glass up too much (thinking high temp aerospace application here) you may very well drive crystallization, eliminating your property benefit and producing a microstructure you have no control over. If they do figure out a way to cast really big, complex parts of metallic glass, it will still be really cool.

  24. BMG by Composite_Armor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am a materials engineer at the University of British Columbia in Canada. I recently did a technical presentation on 'Bulk Metallic Alloys' which seems to be the category of materials this 'glass' falls into. BMG's are very exiting materials, their main advantage over traditional alloys is their ability to store energy in elastic deformation. Esentially, they are the worlds best spring material. However; Be careful with your application in using these materials, they may have properties of strong alloys, but they have failure characteristics simmilar to ceramics. Usually they can fail with little to no warning, and catastrophically at that. Crack formation cannot be tolerated. I would not be comfortable with using this material for plane wings. Possibly the landing gear. This material has its niche in underplating for bodyarmor. Send the bullets back. For more information, a good website is http://www.liquidmetal.com/

    1. Re:BMG by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      BMG's are very exiting materials

      They leave with extra flourish?

      Sorry, I couldn't resist.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:BMG by chill · · Score: 1

      Do these guys actually sell a product, yet?

      I remember reading something about golf clubs made of this stuff years ago, but their stock isn't exactly doing well.

      http://ir.liquidmetal.com/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=LQMT&script=300&layout=-6

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:BMG by mmyrfield · · Score: 1

      Go MMAT! (or has the abbreviation changed again?)

      While you may be comfortable with using such materials for landing gear, the problems definitely lie in the failure modes as you pointed out. We have lots of materials that are stronger than titanium, but their stress/strain graphs tend to look like a vertical cliff at the break end. That's why we reinforce concrete with steel re-bar - not only does it make the resulting structure stronger, but when the concrete fails the whole structure doesn't come crashing to the ground.

      In most engineering disciplines (if not all), things are not designed simply to not break - that would be unrealistic. Instead, they are designed to fail gracefully; things are designed so that it is easy to tell through maintenance checks when parts need to be replaced and so that when something does break, the damage and danger is minimized.

    4. Re:BMG by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Fiberglass and carbon composites also have low tolerance for cracks and sudden failure modes, and they enjoy great success in airplane wings.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    5. Re:BMG by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      I recall somebody selling a usb-flash drive with a liquid metal shell a year or two back. Can't recall who, but a well known brand.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    6. Re:BMG by karnal · · Score: 1

      Sandisk Cruzer Titanium (I own two)

      http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1167)-SanDisk_Cruzer_Titanium_USB_Flash_Drive.aspx

      This drive is the only one that can truly withstand being on my keychain and not breaking.

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:BMG by Composite_Armor · · Score: 1

      Fiberglass and carbon composites also have low tolerance for cracks and sudden failure modes,...

      I'm sorry, that is not correct. Composite materials have quite adequate tolerances for cracking during failure. Separate laminations of carbon or glass fiber take load when one layer is compromised. This is similar to the natural structure of wood. Composite materials are also relatively repairable, by epoxy pressure treating, or overlaying of additional re-enforcing fiber. Composites are ideal in aviation because of their light weight, saving fuel costs. BMG's cannot be mended or repaired, they must be melted and re-solidified.
    8. Re:BMG by brendank310 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the USGA (and likely other golf governing bodies) banned any drivers that are able to deform in, then shoot the ball out. Allowing this would make a lot of golf courses obsolete.

    9. Re:BMG by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you have some insight into this, Composite Armor! That's reassuring. I'd sure hate my Easton Carbon Fiber road forks to fail at 90kph...

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

      I had one of those, until I plugged it in and it randomly crapped out on me. It was still relatively new, too. Then I had another one, since the first one was still under warranty, until the second one randomly crapped out like the first one did... and no, the same computer didn't kill both of them...

    11. Re:BMG by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I've heard about this as well. The plastic versions don't have that issue.

      In any case, this isn't made of liquid metal. Just ordinary titanium.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:BMG by karnal · · Score: 1

      My 1GB drive has writing on the back of it that says "LIQUIDMETAL" - and I've read in the past on their site that they've licensed this tech.

      The new drives just say "titanium" on their site though.

      --
      Karnal
  25. Let's Make Chips! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Silicon is a metalloid, which has some properties of a metal (or some degree of those properties), and some properties that nonmetals have instead. That's why it can be made into a semiconductor.

    That isn't news. This is the big story of 20th Century technology. Exploiting the glass properties of this metalloid is the real news.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  26. Is this "Digg" or Slashdot? by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    wow, just confusing... glass slow liquid... just confusing...

    Thanks, No-Child-Left-Behind!! LOLz

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  27. Gel by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Additionally, I am wondering why the summary compares glass to gel. Gel is a colloidal solution.

    1. Re:Gel by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you discount the medium gel could be considered a, -for lack of a better term- jammed precipitate. The whole point of TFA was that gel can be used to model the particle-interaction that takes place in glass because both can't settle into a more stable state.

  28. Re:Don't we already know this? by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    but it is different in several important ways.

    ...

    ...

    Still waiting for you to put us out of our misery.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  29. Transparent Aluminum... by topham · · Score: 3, Informative


    Transparent Aluminum isn't fiction and never was.
    Al(2)O(3) is sapphire. Personally I wear a watch made of Titanium and Sapphire.

    1. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Supposedly transparent aluminum is highly scratch resistant. I'd like to see it used in PDA, cellphone, and Gameboy screens.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    2. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by dhovis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please, no.

      Single crystals of alumina (Al2O3) are transparent. They are known as sapphire if clear or blue. With slight chromium impurities, they are known as ruby. They are a ceramic, not a metal. There are three oxygen atoms for every two aluminum atoms, which makes it 60%at oxygen. It is not aluminum. It would make more sense to say your watch is made of oxygen, but not by much.

      Just saying "aluminum" implies the metallic structure, which will never be transparent despite the fervent hopes of many a Star Trek fan. The inherent availability of free electrons in the conduction band of metallic aluminum will ensure that is will not be transparent in any thickness greater than a few hundred nanometers. Truly transparent, metallic aluminum would be a breakthrough on par with a working transporter.

      IAAPhDMS (I Am A PhD in Materials Science), and this has been your Pedantic Slashdot Rant from a Expert(TM) for today.

      Back on topic. These metallic glasses (Vitraloy and the like) have been around for a decade now and have very interesting properties. They are not, however, transparent. Not even a little bit.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    3. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by dhovis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Supposedly transparent aluminum is highly scratch resistant. I'd like to see it used in PDA, cellphone, and Gameboy screens.

      Sure, if you don't mind paying thousands of dollars for your PDA, cellphone or Gameboy. Sapphire (not transparent aluminum, see above rant) is much more expensive to produce than ordinary (silica) glass. That is why it gets used in high end watches (glass is hard to scratch, but sapphire is even harder still). The other major use is in supermarket barcode scanners. In that application, glass would get scratched up way too quickly by cans, glass bottles, etc. So they use sapphire plates on top of glass because they require little to no maintenance.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    4. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by ulash · · Score: 1

      Actually what you are wearing is the much more expensive alternative. Since 2002, Raytheon seems to be working on a cheaper "version" called Aluminum Oxynitride. You can also read about it on Wikipedia.

    5. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Capitalist+Piggy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see iPhones come with a removable/replaceable battery before going into this expensive stuff.

      Oh wait, all these things are intentionally designed to wear out in a couple of years to make you buy another, newer, fancier model.

    6. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Adoxographer · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      and this has been your Pedantic Slashdot Rant from a Expert(TM) for today.

      I can play the pedant game as well. You meant "an Expert(TM)".

      Seriously, if I had a choice I'd go for the working transporter. Better yet, a Holodeck.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by weicco · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if I had a choice I'd go for the working transporter. Better yet, a Holodeck.

      I'd go for Uhura.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    9. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The inherent availability of free electrons in the conduction band of metallic aluminum will ensure that is will not be transparent in any thickness greater than a few hundred nanometers."
        Does this mean that a high positive static electric charge will make it transparent?

    10. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any color aluminum oxide, not just blue or clear, is known as sapphire, with the exception of the pink to red shades which are referred to as ruby.

    11. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's not aluminum, but an aluminum oxide. Among other things, almost half by mass is oxygen not aluminum.

    12. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this Aluminum you speak of? Clearly you must mean aluminium!

      Spelling of Aluminium

    13. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAPhDMS... god i hope that's the title of your resume. Might be enough to make a headhunters head asplode.

    14. Re:Transparent Aluminum... by mc_secular · · Score: 1

      Also, there has been recent progress towards creating aluminum salts that may yield another pathway to transparent aluminum (in addition to the Aluminum oxynitride and Al(2)O(3) pathways already mentioned.)

  30. TFA is sensationalistic by breem42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Aside from repeating the old myth that glass can actually sag over hundreds of years, the article says very little. Perhaps a bad summary.

    The jist of linked the story is:

    A group of scientists in Bristol, Canberra and Tokyo used a material (doesn't say what) analogous to glass, not glass. This material is easier to study. Using this material they claim they were able to understand better what happens on the atomic level as it solidifies, and why it never really becomes a crystal. Nowhere in the article does it explain why this will lead to "metallic glass"

    Here is an abstract for the original article. Pretty complex wording, but nothing about metallic glass.

    --
    If the answer is war, you are asking the wrong question
    1. Re:TFA is sensationalistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The jist of linked the story

      I think you mean "the gist of the linked story." Now, Firefox can't help you with your grammatical problems, Martian, but it will at least flag your spelling errors. Try it some time.

  31. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... residents of glass houses may now throw stones.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Re:Yawnnnnnn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    /p.s. this will get modded -1 Troll Unlikely since most moderators DO NOT browse at -1. Disappointing, very disappointing.
  33. Through-glass antennas? by Jadware · · Score: 0

    Through-glass antennas are on millions of cars. Don't they exploit this kind of property?

  34. Jammed State... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more important thing here is that they found, through their simulation, that glass is in the jammed state. The relationship between jammed granular materials and glasses is, at this time, uncertain, and is very closely related to research that I am currently performing in the local Physics Dept.

  35. Tiger Woods would live this. by phoenix0783 · · Score: 1

    Back in college I knew a prof who made a golf club driver out of metallic glass and it could hit a ball further than a titanium driver or whatever they use now.

    1. Re:Tiger Woods would live this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The only reason it can is because all metal drivers have to conform to a specific standard set by the Golfing industry in order to be qualified for use in tournaments.

      He probably made it without regards to this standard, so obviously yes it probably did hit it farther.

  36. they need a geologist on the research team by phrostie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Royall is part of a group of scientists who think that if you wait long enough, perhaps billions of years, all glass will eventually crystallize into a true solid."

    tell me a decent geologist cant locate some billion year old glass from a meteor impact, a volcanic eruption or something.
    if you can find a sample you should be able to test this.

    1. Re:they need a geologist on the research team by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      I thought crystallized glass was called quartz..?
      There's certainly plenty to be found.

    2. Re:they need a geologist on the research team by hypomorph · · Score: 1

      The article in Wikipedia: The Physics of Glass States that the relaxation time for glass is estimated to be on the order of 10^32 years -- that's more than a quadrillion quadrillion years, which also happens to be (what is thought to be) the expected life-span of a proton.

      BTW The relaxation time for glass is to be interpreted as "...the average ... time for the solid in a metastable supercooled liquid or glass to approach the molecular motion characteristic of a crystal." -from Relaxation Time

      Therefore, any hope of experimentally verifying this hypothesis is off. It's only test would be in the utility of the theory.

      --
      Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something. --Thomas A. Edison
  37. Mmmm by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    I was reading the article...

    For example, the world's first jetliner, the British built De Havilland Comet, fell out of the sky due to metal failure. When metals are be made to cool with...

    ...and now I'm thinkin' Arby's

  38. This is new? by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I thought we already had transparent aluminum? Hell, even Scotty used it to save the future way back when!

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  39. Re:Don't we already know this? by NobodyElse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thank you!! I was going to write something very much like this. Having earned two degrees in science, one a M.S. which largely dealt with material physics, I can say that all materials flow, given enough time. In fact, the term 'rheology' (the study of properties and deformation of materials) comes from the Greek verb rheo, meaning "flow." There's even a Plato quote in there: "All things flow." That being said, the ability of glass to flow is NOT what makes it special. Instead, it is that glass does not posses a crystalline structure, rather, it is an amorphous material. The chemical constituents that make up glass have not combined to form an orderly and repetetive atomic structure of regular, well defined chemical composition. This (at least in part) is what lends glass its special properties. I too had a public school teacher that tried passing on that same misconception, and yes, it is a shameful thing that it continues to get passed along, even by such "reputable" sites as livescience.

  40. Old Window Melting Myth by SirusTV · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Warning that article contains anti-science! Room temperature glass has a viscosity of 10^22 poise. The viscosity of a liquid controls how fast it flows under gravity. (SAE 30 motor oil has a viscosity of about 1 poise, water is 0.01 poise.) The viscosity of glass is so high that you could wait the entire age of the universe and see no measurable thickening of the glass under earth gravity. Don't believe the "Old Window" myth! Just because glass is a liquid doesn't mean all of our windows will melt out in only a few hundred/thousand/million/billion years

  41. Re:Don't we already know this? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

    From the page you linked to on wikipedia I found this quote:

    "In the technical sense, glass is an inorganic product of fusion which has been cooled to a rigid condition without crystallising."

    That is why glass is recognised among physicists as being a liquid, because it has not crystallized. Maybe you should have read the whole page before you linked to it. This is actually a contentions subject but since not enough people here have a phd in crystallography or thermodynamics we are not going to resolve it.

    --
    I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  42. Some more to add by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Metallic glass is interesting but was probably predates most people reading this. I got a free sample of an iron based metallic glass that was manufactured on an industrial scale in 1986. I think the name of the manufacturer was "Allied Metals" and the material was intended for transformer cores. To make such stuff you need cooling rates of several hundred degrees per second. That sounds difficult unless you consider something like pouring molten metal onto a water cooled spinning copper cylinder to make a thin foil. The foil can then be put down in layers and squashed flat to make the transformer core.

    Conventional silica glass will flow with enough time and temperature; however the temperature you'd need before anything is noticable in a few hundred years is still a few hundred degrees. Lead is a different story due to the lower melting point and lead church organ pipes have been observed to change shape over hundreds of years. The mechanism is refered to as "creep", and happens under the right conditions whether you have a crystalline structure or a disordered structure like a glass.

    1. Re:Some more to add by tombeard · · Score: 1

      The material you remember was "Metglass" and was made by Allied Chemical Corp. ,which became Allied Signal Corp. I don't know if it was ever produced commercially. The process as I recall was to quench thin sheets of molten metal in liquid nitrogen. to "freeze" it in an amorphic state. I was an engineer at one of their chemical plants at the time, not a materials scientist, so what I remember is from the in house announcements and literature.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  43. Icosahedron has triangular faces by judecn · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA:

    An icosahedron is like a 3-D pentagon, and just as you cannot tile a floor with pentagons, you cannot fill 3-D space with icosahedrons, Royall explained. That is, you can't make a lattice out of pentagons.

    An icosahedron has triangular faces. You were thinking of a dodecahedron, perhaps, which has pentagonal faces? The icosahedron's only relation to anything pentagonal (that I'm aware of) is that its dual polyhedron happens to be a dodecahedron.

    1. Re:Icosahedron has triangular faces by parkrrrr · · Score: 1

      Also, as any fool knows, you can tile a floor with pentagons.

    2. Re:Icosahedron has triangular faces by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      I assume the author meant equilateral/regular pentagons, but that's really not hard to specify. I don't think I've ever seen /. this unanimous in its proclamation of TFA suckitude.

    3. Re:Icosahedron has triangular faces by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Don't be too hard on the original author on this one... yes, it's made up of triangles, but any 5 of those triangles sharing a common vertex form a pyramid with a pentagonal base.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Icosahedron has triangular faces by BrunoUsesBBEdit · · Score: 1

      I was about to say that tiling with pentagons is possible thanks to grout. However, I was thinking, as I would assume the author was, of equiangular equilateral pentagons. Cool find though on the tiles.

  44. Glass is not "technically" liquid. by gr3y · · Score: 5, Informative

    Glass is not a liquid of any kind, "technically" or otherwise.

    Glass is a solid.

    Glass is not a crystalline solid.

    Glass is an amorphous solid.

    Yes, I am a materials engineer.

    --
    Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
    1. Re:Glass is not "technically" liquid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen! Finally someone else that knows the truth about glass.

    2. Re:Glass is not "technically" liquid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For your job it is. That doesn't mean it's physically correct description.

  45. Re:Don't we already know this? by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

    but it is different in several important ways. It doesn't have to be supercooled?
    --
    This space up for sale.
  46. The most interesting line from TFA by TechForensics · · Score: 0

    "...glass is not in an equilibrium state, (although it appears that way to us during our limited lifetimes)..."

    Glass is a *very slow* liquid. According to TFA you can note some flow in very old panes which can appear distorted. This is very cool.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  47. Oy gevalt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Unmitigated crap. I hope to god that this was due to the journalist liberally spicing the thing up with his/her own misconceptions. Glass is not a liquid, it does not flow measurably over any reasonable time period, and metallic glass has been around a while. Furthermore, metallic glass does have ceramic properties. Metals are largely useful due to weldability, machinability, ductility, and malleability. Mettalic glass does not generally share these properties. The article is written terribly - "particles called colloids"? Come on, how did this get on slashdot?

  48. I'd like to place an order now... by CBob · · Score: 1

    For a General Products #2 hull please.

  49. Re:Don't we already know this? by jason8 · · Score: 1

    It's widely known and widely taught, but it's not so. Glass does not flow at any measurable rate at room temperature. Glass at room temperature is an amorphous solid, not a liquid.
    Please have this out with my freshman chemistry professor in college. He does a spectacular demo in which he drinks a glass of water, and then proceeds to drink the glass itself.
  50. Metallic Glass Not Equal to Transparent Aluminum by celtic_hackr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Glass is Silcon based,
    Transparent Aluminum is Aluminum based, it is also known as the gemstone White Sapphire and looks much like diamonds. In fact it has been used for diamond like effects, but doesn't have the brilliance of diamonds (due to different reflective indexes).

    Glass MOHS: ~ 5.5
    Transparent Aluminun: MOHS = 9. Much harder, better crystaline structure, denser.

    And as far as the article's claims, all solids move, but glass definitely is an abnormal material.

  51. You're not a materials engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may be very competent at being an Anonymous Coward, but you are not a materials engineer. You making the assertion that a meterials engineer would not know if glass is solid (or liquid for that matter) is like a comic book artist making claims about cosmology.

  52. Lets piss off the materials scientists.. by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

    "Prince Glass, Ceramics's son though crystal-clear Is no wise crystal"- John Updike, Dance of the Solids

    Read Chapter 9, Fundamentals of Ceramics, Michel Barsoum for a discussion of same. And shout out to all my Material's Science homies who got here first! Mat Sci fo life, boyee!

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  53. Just in Case by Pseudojew · · Score: 1

    On the chance that they are right, im gonna go ahead and pre-order some glass armor for the elder scrolls V.

  54. Re:Don't we already know this? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

    There's even a Plato quote in there: "All things flow."

    A minor pernickety correction: that's Herakleitos, not Plato. Plato just quoted it.

  55. You're not an Anonymous Coward by mdenham · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, yes you are. This post may safely be disregarded. We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion of cosmology by Stan Lee.

  56. It's Unobtanium! by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

    It's not Transparent Aluminum, it's "Unobtanium!" That mystical substance the mechanical engineer's are always using for their designs and then they get so darn frustrated when we give them the bad news.

    Bonus points if you know the story about the big three auto company and the PHB who decided he didn't need heat treat. Any heat treaters out there?

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  57. All together "Lightsaber duel!" by phrackwulf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on us, Physics weenie! Embrace the dark side. And yes, the Physics guys do hate us because applied physics isn't as sexy as blasting muons apart in super-colliders.

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  58. And it's even a bad (wrong?) name... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "Metallic Glass" implies glass with metallic properties, not a metal with glass-like properties. Perhaps it is technically correct (and perhaps not... I do not know), but the popular perception would certainly be that this is glass (some variant of silica), not metal.

    At first, I actually thought TFA was going to be about a way to force silica glass to form a crystalline structure. Not transparent aluminum, but glass with properties similar to aluminum.

    But alas, it was not to be.

    How about calling it, say, "amorphous metal" instead? I think that's much more descriptive and perhaps more accurate.

    1. Re:And it's even a bad (wrong?) name... by koolguy442 · · Score: 1
      Actually, in the materials science and condensed matter physics community, the terms "metallic glass" and "amorphous metal" are one in the same and are used interchangeably. In fact, depending on the journal, a scientific paper usually starts out with the words "In this work, we study the [whatever property] of metallic glasses, or amorphous metals, under [whatever conditions]."

      Amorphous materials are materials lacking any long-range order, or crystallinity. This property applies to things like most plastics (think polyethylene sandwich bags) and window glass. The term glass is simply a more lay term for amorphous, with some connotations to the fact that it is a kinetically jammed state and that the material is not at thermal equilibrium in this glassy state. However, as the relaxation times for most glasses are on the order of geologic or astronomical time - millions or billions of years - this effectively does not matter.

      The terms "metal" and "metallic" are much simpler to relate, as one is simply the adjective form of the other. These terms both describe a material in which the atoms sit in a so-called "sea of electrons" and, more pertinently, will freely conduct electrons. Specifically, in a metal, the Fermi energy is in the center of an electron band, allowing for the conduction of electrons with very little excitation, whereas in an insulator (or semiconductor), the Fermi energy sits within forbidden energy levels, also known as the band gap.

      Moving on to matters of a bit more relevancy, this is a bad summary of a wildly inaccurate news article based on a very complicated journal article that has very little relation to either. The original Nature Materials article in question simply talks about a very clever set of experiments in which the investigators, for the first time it seems, were able to view a certain type of local icosohedral ordering within the material during the onset of solidification, something that had been theorized to happen and has been well established in literature through computer modeling, but which is extremely difficult to see with even the most high-powered electron microscopes of today.

      This work may have many implications in future research, but it is of little consequence to the amorphous metals used today in golf clubs or tomorrow in transparent aluminum (which won't happen for reasons listed in previous comments) and airplane wings (which is a very scary thought, because they are very heavy compared to aluminum or carbon fiber and fail catastrophically). The types of bulk metallic glasses used today rely on a different kinetic mechanism to these local energy minimum states to keep from crystallizing, in that the alloys are so complex and have so many different types of constituent elements that the atoms simply would take to long to migrate into any crystal lattice and just freeze in place.

      IAAMS (I am a materials scientist) and yes, I've done experiments on amorphous metallic systems, albeit during undergrad research and via simulations.

  59. Metallic Glass by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Phil, meet Yngwie....

  60. This is far from new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, it's even late for a 50th anniversary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_GlassSee the wikipedia article.

  61. Re:Metallic Glass Not Equal to Transparent Aluminu by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "Glass is Silcon based, ..."
    First off, let me say: Whoooosshhhh

    Now, in our little joke playing off the Star Trek Movie (IV IIRC), Glass isn't the "Aluminumy" part, it is the "Transparenty" part. Aluminum is "metal based", IIRC. Glass is transparent from time to time.
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  62. You're not a comedian by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Burn ;-)

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  63. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's even a Plato quote in there: "All things flow." It was Heraclitus.

  64. Re:Don't we already know this? by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please have this out with my freshman chemistry professor in college. He does a spectacular demo in which he drinks a glass of water, and then proceeds to drink the glass itself. Was he a Balrog ?
    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  65. Metallic glass, huh? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    Say goodbye to your Windows logo Slashdot.

    --
    Here be signatures
  66. Why is it always thicker? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It isn't. I've got a window which is thicker at the top -obviously installed by the apprentice.

    --
    No sig today...
  67. Re:Metallic Glass Not Equal to Transparent Aluminu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, not all glass is Silicon based, there are a wide range of other glasses out there, they just aren't used in windows.

    Second, calling sapphire transparent aluminum is extremely misleading. Sapphire is aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and all the colors of sapphire (ruby, for example) are aluminum oxide with a few impurities like Chromium or titanium. It is transparent because it is a single crystal and the ionic bonds between the Al and O ions cause the electrons to be very tightly bound and not absorb light in optical frequencies.

    Finally, the hardness of sapphire is more due to the bond strength of the Al-O bonds. Crystal structure has very little to do with hardness in most cases. However, hardness is a pretty nebulous property, and depending on the measurement technique (Mohs is by far the worst) crystal structure may play a very small role.

  68. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it does. Just apply heat and see what happens.

  69. I thought by ch33zm0ng3r · · Score: 1

    ...That this was about some sort of skin for Trillian.....

  70. Stuff that should never fail gracefully by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In most engineering disciplines (if not all), things are not designed simply to not break - that would be unrealistic. Instead, they are designed to fail gracefully;...

    There's no heavy engineering here but one of the things I've always wondered about was the reason cast iron is still used for high quality reloading presses. Steel would be stronger and lighter. And when cast iron breaks, it just snaps. Then someone who thinks deeper than me pointed out that for this application (which requires parts be held in perfect alignment), catastrophic failure is preferable. If a press were to bend, even a little, it would appear to be working fine but produce poor-quality output. A press needs to either be perfectly aligned or obviously broken.

    Good presses are heavy. Among the presses I own, a legendary early Hollywood is my favorite (Trust me, the two serious reloaders in the audience are now highly impressed) and weighs over 40 pounds. I wonder if it would be possible to make one of these from a light, strong material that would never bend, only break, under excessive load?

    That would be not just cool but very useful for portable applications.

    1. Re:Stuff that should never fail gracefully by mmyrfield · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like given the context of the application you describe, that failure mode is a graceful fail. Since breaking does not endanger anyone, the damage caused is reduced by preventing the press from functioning poorly.

      I was not saying that these materials are useless (if they were why would there be research in the field?), but simply that for something like landing gear or other things humans rely on to keep them safe, a certain degree of ductility is often preferable.

  71. re Order Sol III by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Would that be with or without a Slaver Stasis field?
    An essential optional at only 5M*.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  72. Re:Metallic Glass Not Equal to Transparent Aluminu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry celtic hackr, but you're a little off. There is no such thing as transparent Aluminum. That I'm afraid we'll have to leave consigned to Star Trek. There is however transparent Alumina, Al2O3, i.e. sapphire. Alumina is a crystalline ceramic, and amongst being other places is one of the components of your toilet bowl. It is not transparent there because it is polycrystalline. Window glass is silica based (SiOx) but may contain a variety of other elements as well. When glass is pure SiOx it tends to be called fused silica or something similar, and has a much higher flow point than household glass.

  73. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except, as noted above, that's not true at all. You learned it in high school because you had a bad science teacher, and shame on "livescience.com" for perpetuating such nonsense. Glass is an amorphous solid, not a 'slow liquid.' It shares one or two characteristics with supercooled liquids, but it is different in several important ways.

    Funny how Wikipedia is outclassing the accuracy of public school teachers. No wonder academics lambast it so much!

  74. Re:Don't we already know this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too had a public school teacher that tried passing on that same misconception, and yes, it is a shameful thing that it continues to get passed along, even by such "reputable" sites as livescience.

    So...Wikipedia can be more accurate than "reputable" sites like livescience and also more accurate than public school teachers. Yet school systems and academics continue to dismiss and condemn Wikipedia as inaccurate tripe comparable to graffiti. Maybe it's more a matter of feeling threatened by its utility than genuine criticism?

  75. Another data point about "sagging glass" by valdis · · Score: 1

    If glass *actually* sagged visibly on 100-year timeframes in windows, how long would it take for a large telescope mirror to deform to useless?

    The 200 inch mirror of the Hale telescope at Palomar is currently 60 years old. That's over 16 feet wide, and some 14 tons of glass.
    Telescope mirrors are usually within a few *millionth* of an inch of "perfect" - even an amateur can easily get within 1/4 wavelengh of perfect,
    and within 1/10 of a wavelenth is achievable.

    http://home.thezone.net/~dbourgeo/feb/foucault.html

    So if a 16 foot wide piece of glass is still within millionths of an inch after 60 years, how long will it take for it to deform a visible amount?

    1. Re:Another data point about "sagging glass" by kesuki · · Score: 1

      well, i have seen some very bad looking windows, that completely distorted the view, as one of those people that 'bought' into the idea that glass can flow, it never occurred to me to think that a brand new window, 40 years age would come with enough distortions to be visible clearly visible... i think i have photos of it, and i know we still have the window, but it has been replaced with a modern, perfect distortion free low-e glass...

      also optical grade glass is made differently from ordinary glass. oh well. but 40 years ago they should have had the technology to make good windows, after all television sets need good optical grade glass, perhaps the people that owned the place used cut rate glass made from older technology and thus it had all the imperfections from day 1...

  76. Re:Mmmm - Jet failures by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall reading that the Comets had windows with square corners, which greatly increased the stress on the skin of the plane. Frequent pressurization and depressurization due to commercial flight caused the metal to fail.

    Square corners in any material, metal, ceramic, or plastic, create points of 'infinite' stress which can then lead to failure. That is one of the reasons why rounded corners are used in modern commercial jets.

  77. Re:Don't we already know this? by silverpig · · Score: 1

    About all materials flowing: I did my undergrad in astrophysics and now work in condensed matter. During my undergrad degree I took some instrumentation classes and apparently the crown glass used to make mirrors in telescopes do in fact "flow" or creep with time as the heavy pieces of glass are tilted for long periods of time. It's nothing you'd be able to see by eye, but even a few hundred nanometers of creep can distort your optical image somewhat and is noticeable. I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems to be what I remember.

  78. Re:Mmmm - Jet failures by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    I was mainly poking fun at the "are be" typo, not at metal failure. Sounds like something to avoid, at least until they come up with metal viagra.

  79. A better explanation by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

    These counter-examples are located in regions where gravity has, for much of the time, been a repulsive force. Simple. Egyptian glass has not sagged because there have been roughly equal periods of attractive and repellant gravity.

    Sorry, I really want to hold on to this urban myth, otherwise Walking On Glass is ruined.

  80. Re:Transparent Aluminum by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia:

    "In 2004, 3M developed a technique for making a ceramic composed of aluminium oxide and rare earth elements to produce a strong glass called transparent alumina."

    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxynitride

    It might not be a metal, but it does contain Aluminum and it is transparent.

    Funny how certain ceramics start conducting electricity really well when you cool em down to 77 kelvin.

    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  81. Not transparent by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    This is about making non-cristalline, amorphous metals, but TFA does mention that the result is NOT transparent (rather shiny black).

  82. Think of the possibilties in aviation. by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

    I know these posts are not serous, but the term metallic glass does not refer to transparent metals, but rather metals with an amorphus structure. Metallic glass lacks the fracture points associated with the crystal lattice of metals. This means that metallic glass does not fagigue over time as normal metals would. I believe that metallic glasses were first discovered by rapidally cooling laminants of titanium (I think I read somewhere that a WW2 nazi scientist fisrt discovered them). While a metallic glass wouldn't fatigue because it doesn't have the fracture points, there is another property of glass that people seem to forget. IT SHATTERS. That would be fantastic. Planes that instead of bits falling off, they shatter into a million pieces . Think of the military applications...Planes that, instead of only having a few holes in them when someone shoots at them, they completely disappear into a rain of small pieces, when hit by a bullet. We could save on all those ejector seats. Pilot thinking.. "Where's my plane going. Ohh! I must have been hit. Well at least I don't have to think about ejecting."....Pilot just pulls ripcord.
    1. Re:Think of the possibilties in aviation. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      There are a number of applications where these materials would be usefull (bearings, armor plating, scratch resistant coatings, springs - anyhwere a metal will be subject fatigue, or where a high yield strength is required). Obviously, they won't ever replace conventional metals in all respects.

      A comparison to glass is not apt, because the yield strength of glass is lower than that of metals. It would be more comperable to ceramics (which are already used in many of the applications I've listed above).

  83. I am aware of this, or most of it. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    My point was, those who are NOT materials scientists will likely misinterpret the term "metallic glass". In common usage, the noun is interpreted as the subject. In fact, this is a rule of the English language. "Glass" is a noun and thus a candidate for the subject of a sentence. "Metallic" is merely an adjective modifying the noun "glass". So if you really want to be technical, "metallic glass", when referring to something that is basically metal and not a silica product, is just plain incorrect English. This is true regardless of whether materials scientists commonly use that phrase.

    Thus in English, "metallic glass" means glass with similarities to metal, but which is not actually metal, whereas an "amorphous metal" must necessarily be some form of metal. (Not an "amorphous" with some properties of metal.) In both examples, the first word is the adjective, the second the noun. This avoids confusion and still constitutes proper English. "Metallic glass", when used to mean a "glass" made of metal, does neither. The proper construction would be something like: glass-like metal.

    I am aware that "glass" can mean amorphous (non-crystalline), but the majority of the public likely does not, and improperly switching the noun and the adjective confuses the issue, even for people who know the language only by "feel" rather than the intellectual intracacies.

    In summary, my comment was not about the industry-speak but about standard terminology and use of English.

  84. Re:Transparent Aluminum by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    Yeah sure. Alumina, I've seen translucent objects made from alumina. And of course sapphires are made from alumina as well. I'm just talking about pure metals, or materials (like graphite) that conduct like metals.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.