Slashdot Mirror


DoE Develops Flexible Glass Stronger Than Steel

An anonymous reader writes "The Department of Energy Office of Science recently collaborated with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology to develop a resilient yet malleable new type of glass that is stronger than steel. The material can also be molded, and it bends when subjected to stress instead of shattering. The glass is actually a microalloy and features metallic elements such as palladium. This metal has a high 'bulk-to-shear' stiffness ratio that counteracts the intrinsic brittleness of glassy materials. The team that developed the material believes that by changing various ratios, they could make it even stronger."

242 comments

  1. Scottie's here! by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Awesome!

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Scottie's here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Transparent Aluminium!!!

    2. Re:Scottie's here! by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It's been compared to steel....

      So is this more a case of Star Trek winning (transparent aluminum) or Star Wars winning (transparisteel)?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:Scottie's here! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had a guy here who could explain just how this stuff worked, but he just couldn't handle using the mouse, and his accent was just too bad for my voice recognization software to handle.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:Scottie's here! by nomorecwrd · · Score: 2

      I think, the reference to Transparent Aluminum is at least specified in ST:IV. while Transparisteel cannot be considered canon as is not referenced in any movie. Or is it?

      Anyway, Transparent Aluminium is almost a reality, as we've already seen.

      Maybe this discovery will give some credibility to the Star Wars Universe.

    5. Re:Scottie's here! by IgnacioB · · Score: 2

      Seems like a perfect material to build a REALLY big fish tank. Anybody know the trajectory to slingshot around the sun really fast?

    6. Re:Scottie's here! by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      You use a keyboard? How quaint.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    7. Re:Scottie's here! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I was thinking the same thing when reading that.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    8. Re:Scottie's here! by theillien · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be in the movies to be canon. There are several books, comic books, cartoons, games, etc that establish the canon as well, if not more so.

    9. Re:Scottie's here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a geek, I never understood the desire of my fellow geeks to fight over what's canon (or the time-line for that matter). I don't really care if something is canonical or not.

    10. Re:Scottie's here! by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      The problem with Star Wars is that damn near anything in any way related to Star Wars seems to be canon, even when it makes absolutely no sense (like ordinary laser cannons with enough power to destroy planets because someone made up some numbers and someone else declared those numbers canon. Or, well, all of the xmas special). As contrast in the Trek universe they are a bit more conservative about what is canon. Not to mention that they at least try for suspension of disbelief to some degree while Star Wars is more "Suspension of what? Here, have some explosions and lightsaber fights!").

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    11. Re:Scottie's here! by EdZ · · Score: 2

      Seems like a perfect material to build a REALLY big fish tank.

      Only if you don't want to see your fish*. This stuff, like most other metallic glasses, is just as opaque and reflective as regular crystalline metal.


      *Yes, I am aware that you were making a Star Trek joke. However, whales are not fish, they are mammals. So there. Pbhrrrbt!

    12. Re:Scottie's here! by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 2

      As a geek, I never understood the desire of my fellow geeks to fight over what's canon (or the time-line for that matter). I don't really care if something is canonical or not.

      lol, I think that might be under the definition of geek.. no?

      Turn in your geek pin sir.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    13. Re:Scottie's here! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Can I finally have my glass sword then....?

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Scottie's here! by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obsidian glass blades are far sharper than steel blades, and are sometimes used for scalpels. Some cultures did make swords out of them.

    15. Re:Scottie's here! by arisvega · · Score: 2

      *Yes, I am aware that you were making a Star Trek joke. However, whales are not fish, they are mammals.

      Are you also aware that there is no thing called "whaletank" ?

      So there, and 'Pbhrrrbt' right back at you.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    16. Re:Scottie's here! by RedACE7500 · · Score: 1

      I came here looking for this post and now I can leave satisfied.

    17. Re:Scottie's here! by Rudolf · · Score: 1

      Are you also aware that there is no thing called "whaletank"

      So what do they call the thing at Sea World that they keep the whales in?

    18. Re:Scottie's here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you also aware that there is no thing called "whaletank"

      So what do they call the thing at Sea World that they keep the whales in?

      Are you also aware that there is no thing called "whaletank"

      So what do they call the thing at Sea World that they keep the whales in?

      a REALLY big fish tank?

    19. Re:Scottie's here! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      a REALLY big fish tank?

      A logical place to keep a REALLY big mammal.

    20. Re:Scottie's here! by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

      Are you also aware that there is no thing called "whaletank"

      So what do they call the thing at Sea World that they keep the whales in?

      a REALLY big fish tank?

      Ummm, an aquarium?

      --
      "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
    21. Re:Scottie's here! by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, his name was Scot. really bad accent and he kept muttering about aluminum

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    22. Re:Scottie's here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may. I also hate Anime, which other geeks seem to love. I don't think I could be anything but a geek, though. I hate sports, love Trek. In the late 70s, I was hand coding machine language "for fun." Of course, I never hung out with other geeks. I liked girls. Those guys seems to drive them away.

    23. Re:Scottie's here! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Not much good for bashing at other swords/shields with though...

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:Scottie's here! by arisvega · · Score: 1

      So what do they call the thing at Sea World that they keep the whales in?

      I don't know, Desmond? Alfred?

      There is no such word in dictionaries, how can I stress that more?

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    25. Re:Scottie's here! by IgnacioB · · Score: 1

      However, whales are not fish, they are mammals. So there. Pbhrrrbt!

      Sorry Fraser but it seemed a bit more pragmatic than calling it a "Megaptera novaeangliae vessel". Are going to tell me next that hammerhead sharks aren't really hammers? Pbhrrrbt redux!

  2. Obligatory... by drumcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Transparent Aluminum!?!

    1. Re:Obligatory... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Better
      Transparent Palladium

      next up Palladium arc reactors

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Obligatory... by Solar+Granulation · · Score: 1

      Aw, you beat me to it!

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

      If I recall, transparent aluminum was developed a few years ago....

      Yup: "(PhysOrg.com) -- Oxford scientists have created a transparent form of aluminium by bombarding the metal with the world’s most powerful soft X-ray laser. 'Transparent aluminium' previously only existed in science fiction, featuring in the movie Star Trek IV, but the real material is an exotic new state of matter with implications for planetary science and nuclear fusion."

    4. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the story is "from the whale-tested,-scotsman-approved dept.", so Soulskill beat you both to it.

    5. Re:Obligatory... by Zediker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Transparent aluminum is called sapphire, its existed for millenia.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    6. Re:Obligatory... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly what I was thinking, heh, Sci-Fi comes up with the idea, engineers make it happen. I love that combination.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Obligatory... by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because hydrogen and water are the same.

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

      Thought that was velcrome?

    9. Re:Obligatory... by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      Who cares? Wake me up when I can talk into my mouse, dammit!

    10. Re:Obligatory... by MouseR · · Score: 2

      Screw that. I`m waiting for transparent mythril.

    11. Re:Obligatory... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can talk to it now. DOesn't mean anything is going to happen though.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    12. Re:Obligatory... by mseeger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my favorite slashdot story zombie

    13. Re:Obligatory... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      Transparent Aluminum!?!

      Raise your hand if you saw this one coming...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:Obligatory... by GF678 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Transparent aluminum is called sapphire, its existed for millenia.

      Wow, I bet you're a BIG hit at (Star Trek) parties...

    15. Re:Obligatory... by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      The stuff is neither aluminum nor transparent, so no, not at all.

    16. Re:Obligatory... by contrapunctus · · Score: 1

      impossible, lack of band gap required to be a conductor makes it not transparent and shiny.

    17. Re:Obligatory... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's only useful for rhodomagnetics.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    18. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sapphire's aluminum oxide, n00b. that's as dumb as saying quartz is transparent silicon.

    19. Re:Obligatory... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Screw your transparent mythril. I'm waiting for transparent babydoll t's.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    20. Re:Obligatory... by Faizdog · · Score: 1

      That's what ran through my mind as well. And to (attempt to ) correct the poster below, I don't think that what they were getting for the BOP was transparent aluminum. That was a brand new formula, and it would take years of research to produce it. I think what they got was the normal 5 inch thick glass, and in order to compensate the vendor for it, gave them the FORMULA for transparent aluminum.

      Coincidentally, ST 4 was on TV just a few days ago, and in one of life's interesting independent coincidences, I thought through that whole exchange while watching the movie. Whether they had gotten transparent aluminum, or just exchanged the formula.

      --
      -"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
    21. Re:Obligatory... by sbjornda · · Score: 1
      You can talk to it now. DOesn't mean anything is going to happen though.

      Just like in the movie.

      --
      .nosig

    22. Re:Obligatory... by snookums · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well sapphire (corundum) is a form of alumina. Perhaps the GP was making a kind of pun on the Latin declensions -um and -a, representing the singular and the plural, playing on the American spelling "aluminum" (which sounds like the singular form of alumina) as opposed to the Commonwealth "aluminium".

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    23. Re:Obligatory... by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Citation please... er wait... visual citation please.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    24. Re:Obligatory... by dakameleon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those are here already. Just add water!

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    25. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who said transparent aluminum was composed entirely of aluminum?

    26. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! Seethrough beer kegs!

    27. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know he didn't invent the thing? :)

    28. Re:Obligatory... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      And who said transparent aluminum was composed entirely of aluminum?

      Certainly not Scotty:

      http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4a/MacintoshPlus.jpg

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    29. Re:Obligatory... by Matrix14 · · Score: 1

      Mithril totally is aluminum., Light, strong, shiny and more valuable than gold until the modern age.

    30. Re:Obligatory... by MrWin2kMan · · Score: 1

      Computer?...Computer...Oh, how quaint...

      --
      Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
    31. Re:Obligatory... by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      No, you misunderstand.

      I want transparent aluminum which I can beat into a thin foil, and then wrap a potato in and pop in the oven!

      Then I want to be able to crumple this aluminum into a ball, and use it as substitute fuse. :)

    32. Re:Obligatory... by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone gets it!

    33. Re:Obligatory... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Alumina is an aluminum oxide (just as water is a .hydrogen oxide). Which is what I think the was being said, but calling sapphire "transparent aluminum" is like calling water "liquid hydrogen", which was what I was trying to express.

  3. "Transparent aluminum!?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's the ticket, laddie!"

  4. I was hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That it would be made with Aluminum. You see, I've got these whales I need to transport....

    1. Re:I was hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear sir, that's hardly an appropriate way to address your in-laws.

  5. Mr. Scott by buzzsport · · Score: 1

    That's nothing. It's transparent aluminum we're all waiting for.

    1. Re:Mr. Scott by zrbyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Would everyone just stop for a moment. If something is a glass (is in a glassy, amorphous state) it only means that it lacks long range crystallographic order. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT TO BE A GLASS!! For example glassy metals.

    2. Re:Mr. Scott by RJHelms · · Score: 4, Funny

      Buzzkill.

    3. Re:Mr. Scott by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      That's too bad. I was really hoping to be able to get a see-thru scuba tank.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Mr. Scott by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      So the remake of Barbararella...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Mr. Scott by somersault · · Score: 1
      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Mr. Scott by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      That's too bad. I was really hoping to be able to get a see-thru scuba tank.

      That would be different.

      Of course, what you really need is a double-walled one with fake fish in between the layers or something like a snowglobe. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Mr. Scott by zrbyte · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the shouting.

    8. Re:Mr. Scott by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your sentiment, but it's a press release, not a scientific paper. It's meant to drum up interest in those who don't have a grand education (forced or self-taught) in these areas. Sometimes we just have to leave our high-dork-horse at home and appreciate the coolness of the development.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    9. Re:Mr. Scott by WGFCrafty · · Score: 5, Funny

      This would be useful for visually seeing how much air is left.

    10. Re:Mr. Scott by Bengie · · Score: 2

      I've already read about transparent Aluminum glass many years ago. Problem is it requires being taken from molten hot to frozen before certain internal structures can form.

      If enough money was put into it, we already have the tech to make a car's wind shield out of aluminum, but it would be crazy expensive right now.

      But yes, the current talked about glass is opaque, but makes for great support.

    11. Re:Mr. Scott by espiesp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that in HPA tanks (such as SCUBA), there is no liquid state of the gas in the tank so it wouldn't look any different at 3000 psi than at 500psi. Now for Carbon Dioxide this could be useful, if it were transparent that is.

    12. Re:Mr. Scott by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Woosh.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Mr. Scott by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      whooosh!

        (or would that be pshhhhh) :)

    14. Re:Mr. Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only by seeing how much the tank bulges. Air cannot be liquefied at room temperature, the tanks contain high pressure gas.

    15. Re:Mr. Scott by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      One too many "ar"s, matey!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:Mr. Scott by vmaldia · · Score: 1

      It would have been cool if it were transparent. but it looks like it isnt necessarilty transparent. Oh well, if its tough maybe we can make lighter armor and tougher cellphonecases

    17. Re:Mr. Scott by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Was trying to sneak in comment while boss kept walking through room.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    18. Re:Mr. Scott by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      woosh

      --
      Changa hates change.
    19. Re:Mr. Scott by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      It is well-deserved

    20. Re:Mr. Scott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you colored the air? Could you see it then?

      PS: Whoooooooooooooooosh!

  6. I was excited at first by Aerorae · · Score: 1

    for the iPhone 5, and then I saw how much it costs. (Palladium turns out to be rather expensive)

    1. Re:I was excited at first by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      High costs in no way should discourage Apple customers by now.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I was excited at first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but high raw materials costs would discourage Apple, Inc.

    3. Re:I was excited at first by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High cost encourages Apple customers.

    4. Re:I was excited at first by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but: should I sell my Apple shares tomorrow? (Steve is taking medical leave of absence...)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  7. Captain Obvious Says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be great for skyscrapers.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious Says by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      for the very rich, if it takes much Pa

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    2. Re:Captain Obvious Says by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      This would be great for skyscrapers.

      Apartment buildings. Full of supermodels.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  8. Will it rust? by intellitech · · Score: 1

    If it didn't, that would be great encouragement to find a faster, cheaper manufacturing method.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Will it rust? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Only if there's iron in it.

    2. Re:Will it rust? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I just wonder how heavy it is, the article doesn't seem to mention anything about that. Though of course even if it's very heavy it would probably be good for armour plating.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Will it rust? by Lashat · · Score: 1

      Weight doesn't matter in space, only problem is getting it there. Moonbase anyone?

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    4. Re:Will it rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine a transparent tank? Imagine, the enemy fires at you with his rifle and then you can laugh and give them the finger.

    5. Re:Will it rust? by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      All metals rust. Iron rust just has that distinctive red/orange colour.

      Or are you being pedantic, and just going by the most common usage of the term "rust"? If so, I guess it would be more correct to say that "all metals corrode/oxidize", but the result is the same.

    6. Re:Will it rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it will just bloat the already out of control defense budget to the point where the nation is bankrupted.

    7. Re:Will it rust? by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Weight might not matter in space, but mass does.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Will it rust? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      All metals rust. Iron rust just has that distinctive red/orange colour.

      Or are you being pedantic, and just going by the most common usage of the term "rust"? If so, I guess it would be more correct to say that "all metals corrode/oxidize", but the result is the same.

      "All metals rust." Really what about gold? (Checked your heat of formations recently?)

    9. Re:Will it rust? by mlong · · Score: 1

      Then they pull out their laser or their microwave emitter...

      --
      //m
    10. Re:Will it rust? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, only ferric metals 'rust', but there the rust is oxidation along with an expansion caused by oxidation, resulting in exposing more material to oxidation. And that's why iron objects rust away. You could say that "only iron rusts but all metals oxidize", but you would still be wrong since, no, not all metals oxidize. Gold, platinum and palladium do not oxidize under normal conditions.

      Further, metals like aluminum, titanium, and zinc, along with stainless steel (steel combined with chromium) do not oxidize very much at all or only oxidize in a very thin layer on the surface, protecting the metal below. So, for all practical purposes, they don't rust either.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    11. Re:Will it rust? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It's not really pedantry.

      If you ask for the salt at dinner and I hand you a bottle of potassium cyanide I can say "ha, it's a salt, you should have specified".

      Metal oxides other than iron are *not* called "rust" in common usage - that is specifically a term for iron oxide, or is that bag of quicklime also called "rust", or uranium oxide.

      Also, not all metals rust - gold and platinum, while you can oxidise them, really don't do so to any appreciable degree at STP.

    12. Re:Will it rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Size matters not -oblig

    13. Re:Will it rust? by trapnest · · Score: 1

      I believe quicklime is CaO, calcium oxide (not a metal oxide). You're thinking of yellowcake.

    14. Re:Will it rust? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      expansion caused by oxidation, resulting in exposing more material to oxidation.

      Oxygen migrates in rust. Aluminum, titanium, and chromium don't allow oxygen migration. Zinc forms a carbonate layer.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    15. Re:Will it rust? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's not really pedantry.

      If you ask for the salt at dinner and I hand you a bottle of potassium cyanide I can say "ha, it's a salt, you should have specified".

      Eh. I still think it's pedantic, but your analogy was clever and made me laugh, so I'll cease my objections :)

      Also, not all metals rust - gold and platinum, while you can oxidise them, really don't do so to any appreciable degree at STP.

      Yeah, I know. About 10 seconds after I hit "submit", I thought to myself .... "maybe I should have said 'most'" ....

    16. Re:Will it rust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calcium is a metal, FWIW, so the GP was right (and I expect you're proving his point, to some extent!)

    17. Re:Will it rust? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Glass already is pretty heavy. Palladium has about twice the atomic weight of iron, and steel is already much lighter than raw iron.

      Glass is the variable in that though, especially given that it's the dominant component.

      --
      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...
  9. "Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the scheme of things with modern alloys, etc, is "Stronger Than Steel" that much of a claim these days? Sure for "glass" its impressive, but overall, is the phrase overused?

    1. Re:"Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the scheme of things with modern alloys, etc, is "Stronger Than Steel" that much of a claim these days? Sure for "glass" its impressive, but overall, is the phrase overused?

      As a metalworker, I can assure you it is a meaningless marketing phrase due to the extreme range of commercially available steel.

      Looking just at yield strength, cheapest crappiest low carbon hotroll from China (with embedded spark plugs and chunks of furnace slag included at no extra charge) maybe 20 or so kpsi on a really good day. Lets just say for man-rating purposes you design with Chinese steel around 5 kpsi, and even then you have nervous sleeping. Relatively exotic Northern European specialty steel mill product maybe mid 200s kpsi. So way over one order of magnitude.

      Complicating it more, do you mean strength like per unit mass, where exotic non-iron alloys have beaten steels for decades, or per unit volume, where very little even approaches steel?

      Standard slashdot car analogy... Steel strength varies like engine size, you know, from 50 cc mopeds up to 12 liter sports car engines. Steel strength does not vary like commuter car MPG, all of which are about 30 MPG.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:"Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about this myself. I'm guessing that since they don't qualify their statement, their glass alloy must be strong under tensile, compressive, and shearing stresses at all temperatures and pressures when compared with any commercially available steel or steel alloy.

      Impressive stuff.

    3. Re:"Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I was taught in a materials science-type class years ago that glass used for ordinary bottles and jars and such has always had superior tensile strength to that of steel. So yeah, that particular bit of marketing isn't really that impressive. I guess if they made it stronger in other ways as well, maybe it's something.

      Still, the only reason this made Slashdot is because people like their Star Trek references.

    4. Re:"Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "standard slashdot car analogy" you meant it to be horribly wrong, then you nailed it.

      Sports cars don't have 12 liter engines -- that would be (depending on the rest of the vehicle) a muscle car, GT, or supercar.

      A sports car is distinguished by small engine displacement, good handling, and light enough vehicle weight to allow good performance despite the small engine. They originated in Europe where several countries taxed ownership of cars by engine displacement, so non-wealthy enthusiasts couldn't afford a large engine car.

      GT (grand touring) also came out of Europe for the well-off, who could afford to own whatever they liked; they're roomy and luxuriously appointed (= big and heavy), but the performance is maintained by throwing a big old engine under the hood. They won't handle the twisties as well as a sports car, but they're not that bad, and great for screaming down the Autobahn.

      Muscle cars are an American phenomenon -- in a land of cheap gas, open country, and no engine taxes, there was no reason relatively low end cars fitted with big engines wouldn't sell. These have engines more-or-less inline with GTs, but don't necessarily come with amenities. They're also notorious for being completely worthless.in curves, though this reputation's not really deserved by all of them.

    5. Re:"Stronger Than Steel" overrated? by Thelasko · · Score: 1
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  10. Alas... by Solar+Granulation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is NOT transparent.

    1. Re:Alas... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      It is NOT transparent.

      And, that's what makes Transparent Aluminum so special!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Alas... by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      What most people miss is that glasses need not be transparent. Being a glass only means it's amorphous, without an ordered crystalline structure, that confers unique properties. It does NOT mean, however, that the material passes light in any way.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  11. So... by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    Archologies or "mini-archologies", anyone?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  12. The beasties seem happy to see you, Doctor.... by DanCentury · · Score: 1

    I hope you like our little aquarium.
     

    1. Re:The beasties seem happy to see you, Doctor.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet another Star Trek reference. A half a dozen Star Trek references later on this thread and I'm wishing to go back in time and assassinate Gene Roddenberry.

      Yeah, yeah, I'll highjack an Klingon bird of prey, zip around the Sun while experiencing a space induced acid trip: seeing whales and hearing whale songs, and appearing in 1963 and shooting him him screaming in a guttural voice, "Kapla!"

    2. Re:The beasties seem happy to see you, Doctor.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain, I'm sensing an incredible amount of hypocrisy, perhaps a latent self-loathing...

  13. Prior art by Simon+Rowe · · Score: 1

    Glasssteel spell, see PHB.

    1. Re:Prior art by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      When cast by alchemists has the ability to also turn money into less money.

  14. Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just asking.

    1. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Can I throw stones in a house made of this? Just asking.

      You always could (for specific versions of 'could').

      The adage is that "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" -- it pertains to hypocrisy.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Not to mention your stuff inside is likely to be somewhat breakable.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but if you throw like a girl your neighbors will see.

    4. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Lashat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You CAN, but you SHOULDn't.

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    5. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you should still change in the basement.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure. you don't need DoD-SuperGlass(tm) for that.

    7. Re:Can I throw stones in a house made of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not transparent, so you probably would want to attempt to make a hole or two so you can actually see out.

  15. People who live in glass houses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can apparently throw as many stones as they'd like!

  16. Starwars here we go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anybody say Glasteel http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Glasteel !!
    Fantastic - first step's first...
    Now we only need mutating genes to mime Wookies like tourettes guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VazvsPT66s
    God I love the Internet. /Richo

  17. DoE, Berkeley? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't we overdue for another edition of "US Science and Research is falling behind!!1"? Been a while since the last one. Weeks, at least.

  18. Transparent Alumnium: "How do we know he didn't... by DontScotty · · Score: 0

    "How do we know he didn't invent the thing?"

  19. This happened 4 years ago by tyrione · · Score: 4, Informative
    The real mystery was uncovered at John Hopkins University:

    Remember? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126190325.htm

    The metallic glass research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Along with Sheng and Ma, the authors of the Nature article included Weikun Luo, a Johns Hopkins doctoral student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering; F. M Alamgir of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and J. M. Bai of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    This news today is the next step in bringing these realities to market. Bravo to them all.

    1. Re:This happened 4 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a long way from market still - if anyone cares to RTFA.

    2. Re:This happened 4 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the market for this is ... ???

    3. Re:This happened 4 years ago by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the next step is finding a cheaper substitute for palladium. That might be a bit tricky. (Not the cheap part. Most things are cheaper. The substitute part.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:This happened 4 years ago by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Surely you just look up the periodic table? Vandium, Niobium, Tantallum?

      (Though from all reports some of these are "conflict minerals" found in abundance in sub-Saharan Africa)

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    5. Re:This happened 4 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Johns", dammit.

  20. They only needed the aluminim transparent... by starglider29a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...for the cameras. The whales wouldn't care. They spend lots of time in the dark. And besides, which would make you feel better? magically appearing in a black void? Or looking out and seeing the insides of a Bird of Prey?

    1. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would bet no fish (yeah...mammal, I know) wants to see the inside of a Pird of Prey.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2

      They also needed something to trade to the guy in order to get the tank walls.

    3. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The tank walls were not transparent aluminum. They were plexiglass or the like (the movie specified thickness and all). The transparent aluminum was delivered to the "past" via a formula on the computer. It would have taken them years to go from that to huge sheets of the stuff.

    4. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by arisvega · · Score: 3, Funny

      And besides, which would make you feel better? magically appearing in a black void? Or looking out and seeing the insides of a Bird of Prey?

      I would prefer either, especially if the alternative was to be suddenly called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet, against all probability.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    5. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      I would prefer either, especially if the alternative was to be suddenly called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet, against all probability.

      Uh, not all probability. Just likely ones. "I wonder if it will be my friend?"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's only now that we've managed to decode that formula.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    7. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by addsalt · · Score: 1

      ...for the cameras. The whales wouldn't care. They spend lots of time in the dark. And besides, which would make you feel better? magically appearing in a black void? Or looking out and seeing the insides of a Bird of Prey?

      Indeed. They would have no time to consider the cameras. After the whale magically appeares it has very little time to come to terms with its identity as a whale before it then has to come to terms with not being a whale any more. The bowl of petunias is a whole different story

    8. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Know your quotes. It is against all probability, not against "likely" ones.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    9. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      oh, no. not again

    10. Re:They only needed the aluminim transparent... by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      ... And besides, which would make you feel better? magically appearing in a black void? Or looking out and seeing the insides of a Bird of Prey?

      or perhaps a pot of petunias.

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  21. What does stronger than steel actually mean? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does stronger than steel actually mean? A spider web is stronger than steel, but I walk through them all the time. A diamond is stronger than steel, but I can hit it with a hammer and it smashes. Stronger than steel sounds good, but just like foods that say they are all natural, doesn't mean anything.

    1. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Diamond ranks high on hardness, not strength (diamond used to be high point of hardness scale, but I think they have since discovered harder substances) What we usually refer to as strength is tensile strength, the point at which it breaks when you try to stretch it. Spider webs have a very high tensile strength for their cross sectional area. You "walk though them all the time" because the strands have a very small cross sectional area -- you could also walk through strands of steel of the same diameter. So all they are saying is that a strand of this new "glass" will withstand greater force than a strand of steel of the same diameter.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diamonds are harder than steel, not stronger. Spider silk is stronger than steel, but not nearly as hard. (And incredibly thin.) This implies that a cable made of spider silk should be able to withstand more strain than a steel cable of the same size. On the other hand, a bridge supported by spider silk trusses will be far less sturdy than one made from steel trusses.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does stronger than steel actually mean? A spider web is stronger than steel, but I walk through them all the time. A diamond is stronger than steel, but I can hit it with a hammer and it smashes. Stronger than steel sounds good, but just like foods that say they are all natural, doesn't mean anything.

      Bullshit... there are different types of strength.
      A spider web has a higher bulk tensile strength than steel, but it's so flexible that when one walks through it it will tear. Furthermore, spider silk is incredibly thin, and a wire the diameter of a strand of spider silk made out of steel would likely have similar tensile strength to the strand of spider silk.
      A diamond is not stronger than steel, it is harder than steel. In other words, a diamond will scratch a piece of steel when they are put in contact with one another. Also, diamonds are brittle, so they aren't very good on the compressive strength front.

    4. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      What does stronger than steel actually mean?

      Depends on your industry, but often, tensile strength per unit area. In the us that would be thousands of pounds pulling apart a chunk of steel of one square inch cross section. This is kind of important in the wire rope and chain industries, on the other hand piston makers or knife makers might have an alternative opinion. Anyway tensile KPSI values 20 and under is junk tier like Walmart China products, 50 is the good stuff, and over 200 is strange Swedish alloys made by gnomes in a secretive process that costs about as much per pound as sterling silver and only .mil can afford it.

      For marketing / PR purposes, yes it means nothing. Just like calling machined parts "billet" means absolutely nothing. A billet used to be a slight step up from an ingot that you'd smoosh in a forge press before machining. Now all it means is its overpriced and probably shiny.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It's not a meaningless statement. Spider silk is stronger then steel... it's also remarkably thin. A spider web made of steel strands that were only 3 microns thick would also be easy to walk through. Strength is also different from toughness. Things like diamonds which can not withstand sharp impacts are not tough, but they can still be strong.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      What does stronger than steel actually mean? A spider web is stronger than steel, but I walk through them all the time. A diamond is stronger than steel, but I can hit it with a hammer and it smashes. Stronger than steel sounds good, but just like foods that say they are all natural, doesn't mean anything.

      Umm, what? Strength is usually "Tensile Strength", which is expressed in relation to the cross sectional area. Spider webs are extremely thin, so they're not that strong. I think just about everyone knows that smaller thinner things are weaker. That's why we can crumble aluminum foil in our hands, but Audi can still make car frames out of aluminum, or why bridges are made of steel but I can bend a paper-clip with my fingers...

      What world do you live in where it isn't perfectly obvious why something that is extremely thin, even if made from a strong material, would be weak?
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    7. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by vinng86 · · Score: 2

      The article summary, as usual, is incorrect. The article itself is much MUCH more accurate because the summary fails to make the distincting between strength and toughness.

      Strength generally refers to the yield strength which is the highest point on the elastic portion of a stress strain curve. Beyond that stress the material undergoes plastic deformation which means it'll be deformed even when the stress is removed. Toughness refers to the amount of energy that can be absorbed by the material before it breaks completely (i.e. tugging on a rope till it breaks). This is the entire area under the stress-strain curve. The two are NOT the same.

      Most materials are either high strength or high toughness. Glass for example has very high strength but very little toughness. As such when it yields it simply shatters. Strength on the other hand has lower strength but more toughness - it absorbs a great deal more energy before fracture which makes it ideal for buildings (you want to have enough of a warning before your building collapses!).

      So to answer your question, yes a lot of materials are stronger than steel but they are often brittle which is NOT ideal for building bridges out of them. This article summary fails to mention it because the OP thinks strength is the same as toughness but he/she is completely wrong. The material in question has both strength AND toughness (due, I think to the way it handles crack propogation) that makes it have a strength and toughness ratio that is better than steel. That'll make it a much better building material. Steel will probably still be used however, since it doesn't require palladium o_o

    8. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by afidel · · Score: 1

      FTFA demonstrating a strength and toughness beyond that of any known material meaning it is both rigid and non-brittle.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 2

      What does stronger than steel actually mean?

      Depends on your industry, but often, tensile strength per unit area. In the us that would be thousands of pounds pulling apart a chunk of steel of one square inch cross section. This is kind of important in the wire rope and chain industries, on the other hand piston makers or knife makers might have an alternative opinion. Anyway tensile KPSI values 20 and under is junk tier like Walmart China products, 50 is the good stuff, and over 200 is strange Swedish alloys made by gnomes in a secretive process that costs about as much per pound as sterling silver and only .mil can afford it.

      For marketing / PR purposes, yes it means nothing. Just like calling machined parts "billet" means absolutely nothing. A billet used to be a slight step up from an ingot that you'd smoosh in a forge press before machining. Now all it means is its overpriced and probably shiny.

      And for the really exotic stuff try plain old piano wire at ~360 ksi tensile strength. (I think this is the bar, if their glass has better than 360 ksi tensile strength I would think it fair to call it stronger than steel.)

    10. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, having seen a hummingbird get caught in a spider web (I had to free it after a few minutes as it wasn't going to get itself unwrapped), that stuff is pretty strong when it gets wound up into a thicker cord, which is what the hummingbird in-advertantly did while trying to escape it.

    11. Re:What does stronger than steel actually mean? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      Hello,

          There may be two harder substances---though I think it is theoretical?

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material.html

          One is "wurtzite boron nitride" and the other is another carbon crystal, lonsdaleite, which apparently has a hexagonal structure rather than the diamond structure.

      Best,

      --PM

  22. useful for cars...? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Might be good for windshields for cars in case of crashes, where they would not break....or could they still break if the impact was big enough???

    1. Re:useful for cars...? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      or could they still break if the impact was big enough???

      I'm sure given a big enough impact, anything would break. (Short of a #2 General Dynamics hull that is.)

      I think for cars it's a combination of not sending shards all over the place, and allowing for some give to absorb the impact. I suspect if everything was too rigid, much more force gets transferred to the occupants.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:useful for cars...? by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      I think you mean General Products hull.
      General Dynamics would be like... Eureka.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
    3. Re:useful for cars...? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You sir, are correct. I did in fact mean a General Products hull. :-P

      Thanks.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:useful for cars...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Products hull, General Products!

      I sure hope that you aren't buying the spaceship for your next epic adventure. If you can't even get the hull right, what else are you missing?

  23. Scotty was wrong! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    It's been compared to steel....

    So is this more a case of Star Trek winning (transparent aluminum) or Star Wars winning (transparisteel)?

    They both lose.

    The initial samples of the new metallic glass were microalloys of palladium with phosphorous, silicon and germanium that yielded glass rods approximately one millimeter in diameter. Adding silver to the mix enabled the Cal Tech researchers to expand the thickness of the glass rods to six millimeters.

    No steel/iron or aluminum at all in the mixture, at least according to the article.. :-)

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:Scotty was wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are transparent aluminums: Aluminium oxynitride is one. It just happens to be a ceramic.

      Sapphires (also a ceramic) are also made of aluminum (Aluminum oxide - Al2O3)

      Transparent alumina are one of the most mature transparent ceramics that we can produce.

    2. Re:Scotty was wrong! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Let me clarify this for you and all the idiots who don't know anything about chemistry - an element and a compound thereof are not the same thing.

      Alumina is NOT aluminum, or even aluminium.

      Is iron the same thing as rust? Are those bubbles in your beer made of "soluble charcoal"?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Scotty was wrong! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      So by your logic crystal is transparent lead?

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  24. DoE interest? by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    I'm curious, does anyone have links to any resources which might explain the Department of Energy's involvement? Not that DoE can't be involved in basic materials research, but I suppose that they must have some sort of energy-related application in mind for such a material. I'm curious how this might advance energy?

    I can imagine a LOT of potential uses for it, but a lot of those uses also would rely on other properties (not just strength), from structural, to piping, to casting boilers/reactors/turbines out of the material, to creating energy storage flywheels, storage containers for used nuclear fuel, etc, which all seem like a stronger material might be useful, but I honestly don't know enough to evaluate whether those would actually be potential uses for such a material? Is there some *particular* need for which steel is currently used, but steel is considered not as good a material as they actually need?

    1. Re:DoE interest? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they invested to find a material that could be used for energy, but found one that had structural benefit. I don't find it surprising really, advances in science happen across a broad range of fields and uses (ie: Radar -> Kitchen cooking tool)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:DoE interest? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, does anyone have links to any resources which might explain the Department of Energy's involvement? ... Is there some *particular* need for which steel is currently used, but steel is considered not as good a material as they actually need?

      If its tensile strength is unimaginably higher than anything else ever manufactured etc etc as the article claims, it would make an awesome uranium centrifuge rotor. The DoE really likes those and their overall efficiency scales as something ridiculous like the fifth power of the rotor tensile strength per unit volume or something like that. Think about it... its one of those rare apps where the cost pretty much doesn't matter because of the dollar value of the product.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:DoE interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, does anyone have links to any resources which might explain the Department of Energy's involvement? Not that DoE can't be involved in basic materials research, but I suppose that they must have some sort of energy-related application in mind for such a material.

      Most basic research tends to be application-agnostic: the rationale being that many important scientific discoveries became useful for purposes that weren't even imagined at the time. Bringing actual products to market also tends to happen on a far longer timescale than would be feasible in the private sector. (This is true for any non-profit research organization, not just the DOE.) This naturally results in some mission creep as new applications are realized for technology that the DOE specializes in. Big examples of this would be supercomputing and particle accelerators, which were originally applied to nuclear physics/weapons/energy research, but have both proven to be excellent tools for biology, for example. I'm not sure what the historical reason for the DOE employing so many materials scientists is, but again, science is unpredictable.

      (Disclaimer: DOE employee, but speaking only for myself.)

    4. Re:DoE interest? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      The US Department of Energy funds a lot of stuff that is only tangentially related to 'energy'. For example, the Human Genome Project was largely funded by the DOE, because DOE is in charge of studying the effect of energy and production of energy on people, and so needs to understand people and how they work and develop. Bit of a stretch if you ask me, but I'm all for science, so I'm happy they did it. Similarly, DOE fund lots and lots of other basic science. See: http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/index.htm. One of those things is basic research in materials. They want to know how to make really strong things (like for flywheels and reactor vessels) or light things (for windmills), or things that do not fall apart when exposed to various kinds of radiation, etc.

      US DOE also runs most of the big government labs that you have heard of (Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, etc.) See their page at http://www.energy.gov/organization/labs-techcenters.htm . People don't realize just how big DOE is; it's huge.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    5. Re:DoE interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name DOE is a misnomer. They are the department of nuking shit and calling them department of energy was just a pr stunt. Until quite recently everything they did was weapons testing for the army, now they are finding a non-cold war role. They have always done a lot of basic research and materials research, eg. looking at metal fatigue under neutron bombardment (getting hit with a nuke).

    6. Re:DoE interest? by 1729 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, does anyone have links to any resources which might explain the Department of Energy's involvement?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

  25. How can you tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive the stupid question, but how can you tell? I don't see any mention of opacity/transparency in the articles, and the only picture of the stuff is a micrograph.

    Captcha was "shatters."

    1. Re:How can you tell? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      This is a metallic glass, also known as an amorphous metal. Metals are not transparent.

  26. Remember Aerogel? by snsh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Twenty years ago, we though NASA's aerogel was going to be everywhere today. It promised the light-transmission and strength of regular glass, while being literally light as a feather and the best thermal insulator known to man. It seemed like eventually you could build entire houses out of this stuff.

    Today, aerogel is nowhere to be found as a structural material, probably because it's so expensive. They do put pulverized aerogel into shoe insoles as insulation for mountain climbing, and you can buy a gumball-sized chunk of aerogel on eBay for USD$20 or so. I still wonder why nobody ever managed to get the cost down.

    1. Re:Remember Aerogel? by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Twenty years ago, we though NASA's aerogel was going to be everywhere today. It promised the light-transmission and strength of regular glass, while being literally light as a feather and the best thermal insulator known to man. It seemed like eventually you could build entire houses out of this stuff.

      First of all its a general class of materials, its a gel (think jello) with the bulk substrate removed (think dehydrated jello). So its like talking about making stuff out of "metal" as opposed to "SAE 316L certified steel".

      The second thing is its been around in some form or another for about 80 years now, not 20.

      The third thing is all the manufacturing processes (as far as I know) involve replacing the substrate with supercritical solvent and venting out the solvent. Which, given typical supercritical vapor pressures, usually means the manufacturing plant occasionally blows up. An easy thing to remember is supercritical CO2 needs equipment built to a hundred bar. The actual number is closer to 70, but whatever, "a hundred" is easier to remember...

      Standard slashdot car analogy, your car tires run about 2 bar, and mechanics at tire shops regularly get killed when they're inflated and they blow apart, tire cages or not. So to make an aerogel the size of a car tire, you need to inflate / deflate a tank running about 50 or so times the pressure. Your average greasemonkey would probably not retire with a pension from an aerogel factory.

      I believe the sweeds blew a factory completely up in the 80s. Pressure vessel failures are such a PITA.

      Also the process is inherently batch. Every modern industry relies on constant process, from steel to ipod assembly lines. Not gonna have widespread aerogel until someone figures out a continuous flow process.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Remember Aerogel? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I thought a vacuum was the best thermal insulator known to man?

    3. Re:Remember Aerogel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twenty years ago, we though NASA's aerogel was going to be everywhere today

      A. E. Van Vogt wrote science fiction stories in the early 1940s that portrayed a future where aerogels were being used for all sorts of things.

      There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

      Now get off my lawn, whippersnapper.

    4. Re:Remember Aerogel? by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      While aerogel might not be ubiquitous, it is certainly available commercially. Take for example: this company. They sell aerogel insulation for housing. My research on it suggests to me that it's not exactly cost-effective compared to traditional insulation, but its thinness makes it valuable for certain situations such as behind masonry.

    5. Re:Remember Aerogel? by DirtySouthAfrican · · Score: 1

      Aeroloft is apparently quite widely used and is derived from aerogel.

    6. Re:Remember Aerogel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually mechanics at tire shops rarely get killed when they're inflating tyres, though it happens from time to time. You'd expect that what with so many millions of tyres being changed each year.

      Also it's Swedes, not sweeds.

      Bring on the anti-spelling nazis.

    7. Re:Remember Aerogel? by danhaas · · Score: 4, Informative
      I work in the oil industry, and I'm currently working with steam at that pressure level; miles of tubing and a dozen flow control bases. You gotta be very careful with anything that might leak, like valves and connections, don't try to mess with anything while it's pressured, etc

      Nothing has happened here yet, but from accident reports with that pressure level, I can say it is enough to bend steel tubes like a fireman's hose bends when no one is holding it (of course the tubes rip open more easily, but the mechanics is the same). And when the big pressure vessels explode, the radius of the debris is in the order of kilometers (think ballistic style) and the sound radius is in the order of dozens of kilometers.

    8. Re:Remember Aerogel? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I used to work in power stations. A few times we had steel tubes with ~5mm wall 50mm diameter burst and thrash around like a fire hose inside a boiler causing a lot of secondary damage. Scary stuff.

    9. Re:Remember Aerogel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an episode of This New House, they talked about a company that was producing an aerogel-type insulator for buildings

      http://www.diynetwork.com/this-new-house/why-passive-houses-rock/

      I think it is one of the companies in this CNET article:

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10445362-54.html

    10. Re:Remember Aerogel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also useful in building ships with deep freezes - large delta T, size is inherently critical, and a finite amount of energy on board...

  27. Go, Scotty! by seanmcelroy · · Score: 1

    Heck yeah, I see someone went back in time to give us the formula for transparent aluminum! :)

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
  28. So, people in glass houses by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    ... CAN throw rocks?

  29. Gorilla Glass beaten by unbreakable Godzilla Glass by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately its ingredients also make it an almost unaffordable unobtainium for now, with the first applications expected small enough to crown ... neither your house nor your next iPhone, but (according to Technology Review) probably your teeth for a lifetime.

  30. hmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I thought the Slashdot Consensus(tm) was that the government never invents anything ever as an absolute rule with no deviation.

  31. Ahem. Transparent Aluminum has already been done. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry to ruin your trekky fantasies, but we already have transparent aluminum.

    There is an article about it here, and many more if you search.

    Admittedly, it was developed after the movie.

  32. Aerogel as building material? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Aerogel is so light and fluffy, you can easily crush it between two fingers. That's my understanding, anyway (I haven't actually touched the stuff).

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Aerogel as building material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is stiff, not fluffy, and very brittle.

    2. Re:Aerogel as building material? by systemeng · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Aspen Aerogels. They make an apparently cost effective aerogel building insulation. They also make variants for use as high efficiency furnace insulation.

  33. Not SiO2 glass by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

    When most people say the word, "glass," they mean something that's usually clear, usually brittle, usually an electrical insulator, has poor thermal conductivity, and is mostly impervious to solvents. Stuff like what's used to make windowpanes and drinking glasses. The main material in these is silicon dioxide (SiO2), and the "glass" refers to the fact that it is not a crystal, but an unordered solid. SiO2 crystals are called quartz. Note that most glass, using the vernacular meaning, is not microcrystalline, but truly unordered. This is what gives SiO2 glass, using the scientific meaning, some of its interesting properties, like the lack of a fixed melting point. Wax can often (not always, but often) be thought of as a hydrocarbon glass. Many plastics are also glasssy because they are amorphous at the molecular level as well.

    The glass referred to in the article is a metallic glass, and is not transparent. The reason glassy metals are interesting is because of their unusual mechanical properties. The reason they are difficult to make is that when metal cools, it really, really, really likes to form crystals. The only way to get metals to form unordered glassy substances is to cool them extraordinarily quickly, essentially freezing each atom in its location from the liquid modality. Recent research, such as used in the linked article, has developed alloys that don't require extraordinary cooling rates, but still result in an unordered solid.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Not SiO2 glass by John+Saffran · · Score: 2
      Back in the materials engineering classes glass was defined as being "a supercooled liquid of infinite viscosity" .. but looking now it seems that it'd be more accurate to refer to it as an 'amorphous solid'

      Glass, however, is actually neither a liquid—supercooled or otherwise—nor a solid. It is an amorphous solid—a state somewhere between those two states of matter. And yet glass's liquidlike properties are not enough to explain the thicker-bottomed windows, because glass atoms move too slowly for changes to be visible.

      Solids are highly organized structures. They include crystals, like sugar and salt, with their millions of atoms lined up in a row, explains Mark Ediger, a chemistry professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "Liquids and glasses don't have that order," he notes. Glasses, though more organized than liquids, do not attain the rigid order of crystals. "Amorphous means it doesn't have that long-range order," Ediger says. With a "solid—if you grab it, it holds its shape," he adds.

      When glass is made, the material (often containing silica) is quickly cooled from its liquid state but does not solidify when its temperature drops below its melting point. At this stage, the material is a supercooled liquid, an intermediate state between liquid and glass. To become an amorphous solid, the material is cooled further, below the glass-transition temperature. Past this point, the molecular movement of the material's atoms has slowed to nearly a stop and the material is now a glass. This new structure is not as organized as a crystal, because it did not freeze, but it is more organized than a liquid. For practical purposes, such as holding a drink, glass is like a solid, Ediger says, although a disorganized one.

      Like liquids, these disorganized solids can flow, albeit very slowly. Over long periods of time, the molecules making up the glass shift themselves to settle into a more stable, crystallike formation, explains Ediger. The closer the glass is to its glass-transition temperature, the more it shifts; the further away from that changeover point, the slower its molecules move and the more solid it seems.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid

    2. Re:Not SiO2 glass by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      What the fuck? Sorry, not you but the article's date. Amorphous metal or metallic glass that doesn't require rapid cooling has been around for more than a few years and is commercially available. The company is called Liquidmetal and the way they manage to make the stuff is basically using a big mix of many metals so that it cannot form orderly crystalline shapes because the sizes of the atoms vary too much.

      They even mention this was the result of efforts from CalTech like in TFA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal

  34. Airports??? by Gravitas26 · · Score: 2

    Brings up an interesting new concern for Airport Screening! Transparent and Stronger then Steel! Hmmmmm...

    1. Re:Airports??? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      It's not transparent.

  35. Well, I suppose by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    I suppose this explains why the price of palladium has nearly doubled over the past six months. I wonder if this was public knowledge and Slashdot was just behind the curve as usual or not.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    1. Re:Well, I suppose by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      I think many slashdotters will be aware that Palladium prices have been rising a lot recently. Palladium is mainly used in high-tech stuff like cellphones, but the only operating mine rare earth metal mine is in China. USA has some deposits, but these are not being exploited at present. China has imposed export quotas on rare earths, and has recently been using its monopoly on rare earths as a political weapon. This explains recent high prices.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  36. Last week's news again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing here. Subject line says it all.

  37. They can only make thin rods at this point. by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

    The initial samples of the new metallic glass... yielded glass rods approximately one millimeter in diameter. Adding silver to the mix enabled the Cal Tech researchers to expand the thickness of the glass rods to six millimeters.

    So it's not as though they're making windows panes out of this stuff, but it's interesting nonetheless. The way they create an amorphous structure is fascinating:

    The size of the metallic glass is limited by the need to rapidly cool or “quench” the liquid metals for the final amorphous structure. The rule of thumb is that to make a metallic glass we need to have at least five elements so that when we quench the material, it doesn’t know what crystal structure to form and defaults to amorphous.

    It sounds as though innovations in the quenching process might enable larger shapes, or perhaps even sheets, to be produced.

    1. Re:They can only make thin rods at this point. by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

      Considering the paragraph before the one you quoted specifies they are working currently with one millimeter diameter and six millimeter, I think it'll be quite a while before they can create anything larger, especially sheets.

      The initial samples of the new metallic glass were microalloys of palladium with phosphorous, silicon and germanium that yielded glass rods approximately one millimeter in diameter. Adding silver to the mix enabled the Cal Tech researchers to expand the thickness of the glass rods to six millimeters. The size of the metallic glass is limited by the need to rapidly cool or “quench” the liquid metals for the final amorphous structure.

      HEX

  38. Re:Ahem. Transparent Aluminum has already been don by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, it was developed after the movie.

    And you believe that's a coincidence?!?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  39. Oh yes, I will be wanting this right away! by Dee+Ann_1 · · Score: 1

    Kitchenware. Yes please. A full set of pots, pans, plates, the works.
    I do not like cooking in or with metal because it leaves a metallic taste in the foods
    but using glassware, there is always the risk of breaking it and injuring someone.
    And Corningware changed their glass type and they now are prone to EXPLODE at all the wrong times and places.

    I would gladly pay for a kitchen full of this stuff, it would last forever and solve many problems at in one.

    So hurry up and get that stuff to market!

    1. Re:Oh yes, I will be wanting this right away! by Jeng · · Score: 2

      It is a metallic glass, not a silicon glass like drinking glasses.

      Look for cookware that has a titanium ceramic coating. It's no stick and won't contaminate your food with metal flavor.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Oh yes, I will be wanting this right away! by Dee+Ann_1 · · Score: 1

      Oh....
      Ok, thanks! Cool tip!

  40. The reason why steel is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for a steel company for a little while. The reason why steel is great and will always be the greatest structural material is steel has by far the best Strength to $ ratio of any material that is good in both directions on all 9 of the tensor loading methods. Concrete is the best in pure compression. But if you have/could have compression & tension (3 axis), sheer (3 axis), and/or torsion (3 axis). And a variation in the loading at 0.01 to 100 Hz, steel will always offer the best strength to cost ratio. It's cheep, It's strong, It's tough. And for practical objects of practical sizes and costs and working conditions, it generally has the best strength to weight as well. Steel normally beats wood because stiffness is normally the design limit for most objects and hollowed tubes/beams of steel are lighter than solid wood for the same weight. Steel has been #1 and will stay #1 for all your lifetimes. Get used to it.

  41. palladium? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    palladium? Part of the platinum group, and the reason catalytic converters cost so much money? The mining of palladium is so toxic that the primary site that it's mine at, Norilsk Russia is considered to be one of the most polluted places on earth.

    http://www.aboutinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/norilsk-russia.jpg

    Good one guys.

    1. Re:palladium? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Platinum is also the vital catalyst in fuel cells. If those ever really take off, it might be getting expensive. Well, more so than it is now.

  42. Re:Ahem. Transparent Aluminum has already been don by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. Of course, it isn't made anywhere near the same way as the stuff in the movie (I don't seem to remember the molecule being shown on the computer containing a nitride) but maybe it was an inspiration to somebody. Who knows?

  43. It means very little, actually by fnj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Strong as" or "stronger than" steel is a popular and meaningless phrase. Various grades of steel are all over the place in terms of strength.

    In terms of yield strength, annealed 1118 is 41 ksi. "High strength" steel used in submarine hulls is around 80 ksi. Annealed 4340 is 69 ksi; normalized, it's 125 ksi, while heat treated, it can be as high as 243 ksi or as low as 124 ksi, depending on the degree of treatment. You can see why 4130 and 4340 tubes have been used in aircraft structures as long ago as the 1920's or before, and are also good for automobile engine connecting rods. They are also cheap, readily available, and not only made by gnomes in Sweden. Ordinary steel piano wire has a tensile strength over 300 ksi.

    Thus, a particular grade of, for example, high strength precipitation hardening aluminum alloy, say 7075-T6, with a yield strength of 73 ksi, is stronger than some steels and decidedly less strong than other steels.

    Strength alone is never the only consideration in practical terms. Ductility and toughness are also important.

  44. Iron Man by Quantus347 · · Score: 2

    And we all know "Palladium Poisoning in Chest...Painful way to die..."

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  45. memorable movie quotes/subjects? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I don't watch many movies lately, haven't seen any Harry Potter, etc. and I haven't watch the latest TV shows. The Star Trek movies I have seen so I can understand the "Scotsman tested" tagline, but I wonder if I'm missing other nuances. Though I have to ask, are there any new movie or TV memorable moments? Or do they all suck these days (i.e. when Sci-Fi went SyFy)? Another famous quote which practicing engineers and scientists have to occasionally say to their PHB, "I can't violate the laws of physics!"

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:memorable movie quotes/subjects? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Or do they all suck these days

      Ok, this is a matter of opinion, but if you ask me, I cannot think of a current series, which does not suck.

  46. BFD by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Corning has had a similar material for decades, they just didn't know what to do with it .

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  47. Well now, Mister Smarty-Pants.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Hah!
    You are forgetting that since it is transparent, you can see through the tank and count the gas molecules! The Gas Level Inspection area is shaped like a magnifying lens, don't forget.

    Hey, this is fun...almost like Calvin Ball!
    Both Calvin Ball and Pedantry have no bounds, and whomever makes up the best rules...WINS!!!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  48. 2015: scientists develp steel stonger than... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously glass will be the new standard by which strength is measured.

    I can imagine the day will come when Slashdot will report, "Scientists develop steel stronger than glass"

  49. Re:Will it Blend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.willitblend.com

  50. About the Norilsk palladium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/121744-mark-anthony/119284-norilsk-nickel-s-strategic-moves-and-palladium-super-bull the Norilk Nickel mines will no longer be producing palladium due to their new improved chemical process. The change is to reduce cost and pollution, but it no longer extracts Pd & Pt.

  51. Chemistry Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are those bubbles in your beer made of "soluble charcoal"?

    No, they are made of soluble coal obviously! Sheeesh!

  52. This happened 24 years ago and before by dbIII · · Score: 1

    This news today is the next step in bringing these realities to market

    There has been a type of metallic glass in commercial transformer cores for over twenty years. This new alloy is a different story, but the main stumbling block for a lot of these metastable materials is that they are very hard to work into whatever final shape you want. Apply heat and you lose the properties. The transformer cores work because the metallic glass is fabricated as thin sheets. Piling the cut sheets up and clamping them together gets the job done. Other forming techniques like powdering the metallic glass then squashing it together with explosives so that the properties would be retained were investigated in the 1980s but did not seem to be commercially viable.
    It's not a completely new idea. Metallic glass is even mentioned in a 1980s pop song from Iceland FFS. Also in terms of tensile strength ordinary window glass is stronger than steel which is why you can't scratch it with a steel knife. It's just very brittle so you can't put it under much tensile load without smoothing off the surface imperfections with something like hydrofluoric acid (this acid soaks through the skin and preferentially dissolves bone - nasty stuff). A perfectly smooth bit of window glass can support more weight than a very strong steel.

  53. Is this the XO-3 waiting by kentsin · · Score: 1

    But not for manufacture

  54. How do we know by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    he didn't invent the thing?

  55. Oh good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How soon before this is GIVEN to Chinese companies to start manufacturing and then sold back to the USA?

  56. Nothing "new" here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not news. Glass is already much stronger than steel and has a correspondingly higher yield/ultimate stress and young's modulus - this is why high performance

    1) Aircraft
    2) Cars
    3) Structures
    4) Pressure vessels

    and more are made from fiberglass!

  57. Boring. by Byzantine · · Score: 1

    This is nice, but...call me again when it's cheap enough to make buildings out of.

  58. Transparent conducting oxides by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

    Transparent conducting oxides are not new. A form of tin oxide was used to coat windows on high altitude bombers in WWII. An electrical current was sent through the coating which acted as a defroster.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  59. Palladium? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    This is slashdot, don't we hate palladium? http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/02/17/1740211.shtml?tid=109

  60. Opera Corp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In response to flexible glass tanks the Italian army has mobilized its Alto Soprano Opera Corp. Said one General "When fat lady sing, it is over for glass tanks, yes?"

  61. Dangerous by Hildebrandyr · · Score: 1

    This concerns me in the way steel toed boots often concern soldiers. With the strength of steel, it must take a lot of pressure to make the glass bend. Therefore, what does one do when they are pinned down by this glass? It probably takes a strength greater than that of a human to bend, so it could doom someone just as well as it could protect them.

  62. Bring your life savings by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Let's see : Palladium, phosphorus, germanium, silicon and silver? If they need to have all these in the pure state this will be
    quite costly.
        Ingredient Dollars / oz
      Palladium - 800
      Germanium - 85
      Silver - 25
      Phosphorus - 700
      Silicon 100

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body