Breakthough Makes Transparent Aluminum Affordable

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breakthough Makes Transparent Aluminum Affordable

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @08:10AM from the hello-computer dept.

frank249 writes: In the Star Trek universe, transparent aluminum is used in various fittings in starships, including exterior ship portals and windows. In real life, Aluminium oxynitride is a form of ceramic whose properties are similar to those of the fictional substance seen in Star Trek. It has a hardness of 7.7 Mohs and was patented in 1980. It has military applications as bullet-resistant armor, but is too expensive for widespread use.

Now, there has been a major breakthrough in materials science. After decades of research and development, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory has created a transparent, bulletproof material that can be molded into virtually any shape. This material, known as Spinel (magnesium aluminate), is made from a synthetic powdered clay that is heated and pressed under vacuum into transparent sheets. Spinel weighs just a fraction of a modern bulletproof pane.

180 of 247 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bullets are OK, but... by houstonbofh · 2015-04-28 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would be happy with a chip proof windshield!
1. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by TWX · 2015-04-28 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Before we ask for this for windshields, we need to see how well it handles regular abrasive friction and small particulates. If it scratches easily then it may require a coating of glass on either side for its hardness (albeit with brittleness) in cases where security needs to go along with aesthetics, like armored car windows and other security windows, such that the owners don't care what happens to the glass layer in an incident but want it to look good before the incident and to remain intact during such incidents.
  
  I doubt that this will be, by itself, a windshield, and if a windshield made out of this stuff still needs a glass layer, then you're right back to where you were before as far as chipping with debris over a certain size is concerned.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re: Bullets are OK, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Spinel has 7.5-8 on the Mohs scale, should it should be *more* scratch resistant than glass.
3. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by viperidaenz · 2015-04-28 08:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's harder than quartz. Says so right in the summary, Mohs scale of 7.7. Glass is in the middle somewhere, depends on the type of glass. Gorilla glass is apparently around 6.5
4. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Me? I want an invisible airplane like Wonderwoman's...
  I just want wonderwoman. You can keep the imaginary airplane.
5. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by pr0fessor · 2015-04-28 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  "The advantage is it's so much tougher, stronger, harder than glass. It provides better protection in more hostile environments—so it can withstand sand and rain erosion."
  TFA says it handle those better than glass and doesn't crack...
  
  Whereas with glass, "A crack that forms on the surface will go all the way through," spinel might chip but it won't crack.
  TFA says a lot of impressive stuff about military applications but the question is if it's cheap enough to replace glass as a windshield in everyday use?
6. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by CanadianMacFan · 2015-04-28 09:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But the question is what happens to it when it does break. You don't want a bunch of extra shards of material being added as projectiles in a collision. One of the features of safety glass is that when it breaks there aren't (or many) pointy edges created.
7. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Gr8Apes · 2015-04-28 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  So it's highly like the iPhone 6S / 7 will be made with this instead of Gorilla glass?
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
8. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Em+Adespoton · 2015-04-28 09:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Indeed -- the last thing I want are shards of something with a hardness of 7.7 and razor sharp edges flying around. Think obsidian arrowheads, and then think of something that'll hold an edge even better.
  What I'd like to know about is how flexible the stuff is. Usually, the harder a material is, the more rigid it is -- which means that it is super hard right up to the point where it can't take the stress, at which point it fractures all over the place.
  Safety glass gets around this by 1) being pretty flexible and 2) being a laminate of hard and soft materials, so that when the hard material shatters, it is still bonded to enough of the soft material to avoid (many) sharp edges.
  I wonder what the behavioral properties of a laminate of spinel and lexan would be....
9. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the safety in safety glass is having 2 sheets of glass with a layer of clear plastic film adhered between them that holds the glass together by being stretchy rather than creating projectiles. Is there any reason that process couldn't be done with this material?
10. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Cramer · 2015-04-28 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  [is it] cheap enough to replace glass
  Not even remotely. Glass is stupid-cheap to make -- and is made from the most abundant stuff on earth.
11. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Tyrannosaur · 2015-04-28 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  And then the iPhone glass REALLY won't break! (haha)
12. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Being cheap enough to replace glass doesn't mean it has to be cheaper than glass, just cheap enough that the extra cost is less than the value of added properties.
13. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by SupRcoW · 2015-04-28 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yesterdays myth became todays religion :)
14. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Wycliffe · 2015-04-28 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Before we ask for this for windshields, we need to see how well it handles regular abrasive friction and small particulates. If it scratches easily then it may require a coating of glass on either side for its hardness
  I doubt that this will be, by itself, a windshield, and if a windshield made out of this stuff still needs a glass layer, then you're right back to where you were before as far as chipping with debris over a certain size is concerned.
  The article says it is harder than glass but even if it was unsuitable for the outside layer, there is no reason it would need an inside layer of glass.
  The outside of a car window needs to withstand the elements but the inside layer doesn't need to be near as weather or abrasion resistance.
  The inside layer of a car could be fairly fragile and it could still do the job quite well assuming it had other desirable properties as the inside
  of the front windshield rarely even gets touched.
15. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Gr8Apes · 2015-04-28 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  Slick.. :)
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
16. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by gumbi+west · 2015-04-28 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, imagine if we could get transparent sapphire (9 Mohs) or even diamond (10 Mohs).
17. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Xenographic · 2015-04-28 12:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  > One of the features of safety glass is that when it breaks there aren't (or many) pointy edges created.
  Which kind of safety glass?
  They were talking about windshields, those are laminated glass. That means you have two sheets of ordinary annealed glass (which DOES break into big, dagger-like sharp pieces) with a plastic sheet in between (which prevents those sharp pieces from going anywhere). Presumably, given an appropriate substrate, you could make laminate out of any glass-like sheet.
  The other kind of safety glass is tempered. This causes the glass to be stressed along the edges so that when it does break, it breaks into a million tiny pieces (all of which are very, very sharp). It may also simultaneously pop, especially if hit along the edges. It's less dangerous because the pieces, while sharp, are simply too small to do any real damage even if, say, a piece explodes while you're holding it.
  Source: I worked for a cut & temper operation, I've dealt with all kinds of glass.
18. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by mrchaotica · 2015-04-28 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Glass... is made from the most abundant stuff on earth.
  Okay, so you're right: silica (SiO2) is made from the #1 (Oxygen) and #2 (Silicon) most common elements in Earth's crust. But spinel (MgAl2O4) is made from #1, #3 (Aluminum) and #8 (Magnesium), which isn't bad either.
  Of course, given that a big sheet of something like Sodium (#6) would probably be pretty damn expensive, I suspect that the abundance of the material's constituent elements is not necessarily the biggest factor in its price.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
19. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by gstoddart · 2015-04-28 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  An iPhone made out of transparent aluminum?
  Where the hell do I sign up for one of those?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
20. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Cramer · 2015-04-28 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Aluminium is not found in a raw state in nature. It's an oxide ore that requires a fantastic amount of power to extract the metal. (i.e. break the O2 away so Mg has somewhere to go.) The sand used for glass, is pretty much right out of the dessert. (very little effort is put into splitting the Si from the O2)
21. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by guises · 2015-04-28 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not for an iPhone 6/7, but possibly for some higher number. That's mostly about marketing though. Hardness effects how easy it is to scratch, but doesn't say much about how likely it is to break. Sapphire is harder than this and was going to be used for iPhones, but as everyone pointed out at the time - that was more about Thinking Different than it was about thinking practical.
22. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by gstoddart · 2015-04-28 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  But the question is what happens to it when it does break.
  
  Well, since I know nothing about the material properties of transparent aluminum ....
  Is it a rigid/bendy metal, or is it a rigid/brittle metal? (Those are technical terms I just made up.)
  A rigid/bendy material won't necessarily break, so maybe shards of shattered transparent aluminum isn't an issue?
  But by all means, in loving memory of James Doohan, let us all rejoice in transparent aluminum being a real thing. =)
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
23. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Neil+Boekend · 2015-04-28 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Next step is transparent electronics and batteries
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
24. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Neil+Boekend · 2015-04-28 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  To decrease shards you only really need a film coating of something elastic. Simple 3mm glass coated in that way won't stop a bullet but the film will keep the glass shards in the frame and not flying in your face. That doesn't matter much if the bullet kills you but in this case a 1mm thick coating could probably prevent shards effectively while the Spinel stops the bullet.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
25. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by ldobehardcore · 2015-04-28 22:19 · Score: 2
  
  Transparent aluminum like this stuff is basically sapphire/aluminosilicate glass. So it's a lot like pyrex except especially scratch resistant and hard. It's no more bendy than any other kind of strong glass material, and will shatter into big stabby pieces if stressed enough, although in their vacuum powder-sintering process, it looks like it might be more prone to chipping and ablating than outright shattering, since it's basically a wad of microscopic granules of glass melted together at the edges instead of a single piece of glass that was formed from continuous liquid.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
26. Re: Bullets are OK, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-29 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the true Honor would be to call Transparent Aluminum;
  Doohan Glass !
27. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by DarthVain · 2015-04-29 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  "imaginary airplane"
  I always liked the version of the Avengers that had everyone think Thor was nuts. That he was just some "normal" superhero, with the delusion that he was a God. Suuuurrrreeee you're the god of thunder there guy... going off to, where was that again, Azguard?
  I like to think of Wonderwoman as a bit unstable, and just a superhero that can fly. I don't really know the canon, but wtf did she get an invisible airplane anyway? Did they have a lot of invisible aerospace engineers on the Amazon island that built swords and spears in their off hours? Anyway I like to think the other superheros were like; Yeeeaaahhh, you just get into your invisible plane there Dianne if that makes you feel better about flying and everything... You got some invisible engineers maintaining that thing, I hope all that invisible fuel is topped up...
28. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by siliconsmiley · 2015-04-29 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  For me the question is what happens to my head when it hits this stuff in a collision.
29. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Em+Adespoton · 2015-04-29 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Other questions around this issue are:
  1) Will the Spinel stop the second bullet?
  2) is the Spinel still transparent enough to navigate through after the first hit?
30. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  But the question is what happens to it when it does break. You don't want a bunch of extra shards of material being added as projectiles in a collision. One of the features of safety glass is that when it breaks there aren't (or many) pointy edges created.
  but that's why windshields, which aren't tempered, have that plastic layer to keep shards from flying. much like those screen protectors they sell now which are gorilla glass laminated on plastic. Boy, when those shatter and you peel the shards off the plastic, those are mighty sharp.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
31. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by Neil+Boekend · 2015-04-29 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  1) Depends on the thickness.
  2) Probably not. Neither is this the case with normal bullet proof glas
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
32. Re:Bullets are OK, but... by delt0r · 2015-04-30 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  well the lots of small peices of glass do you give lots and lots and lots of small cuts. I had well over 100 cuts to my face and arms. But yea it healed. i didn't die.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
33. Re: Bullets are OK, but... by jfeldredge · 2015-04-30 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Diamonds are hard but brittle. I have heard stories of people shattering diamonds by accidentally striking a ring against a hard surface. So, it wouldn't be particularly well-suited to windshields unless you made a thin layer of diamond over other materials.
34. Re: Bullets are OK, but... by gumbi+west · 2015-05-02 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  The point was it's not like a 7.7 Mohs and transparent material is unheard of. It's the price that is interesting.
But will it blend? by theendlessnow · 2015-04-28 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Who cares... does it blend? Waiting...
1. Re:But will it blend? by Gizan · 2015-04-28 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Bullet proof" typically means the bullet does not pass through it.
2. Re:But will it blend? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Also it is not "bullet proof" it is "bullet resistant".
3. Re:But will it blend? by TWX · 2015-04-28 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's because nothing is really rated as bulletproof, as reasonably common rounds can be found as small .17 from tiny pistols and as large as 30mm from the A-10 Thunderbolt II. Obviously it takes an awful lot to stop the latter.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re: But will it blend? by Saltheart_Foamfollow · 2015-04-28 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. It might deform enough to diffuse the the force of impact away from the impact. Like rubber.
  
  --
  Digitronically yours, Saltheart Foamfollower
5. Re:But will it blend? by XxtraLarGe · 2015-04-28 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's because nothing is really rated as bulletproof...
  What if the bullets are made out of Aluminium oxynitride too?
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
6. Re:But will it blend? by Teun · 2015-04-28 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Mass is more important than hardness.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
7. Re:But will it blend? by itzly · 2015-04-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  They'll just bounce off, and then you can use them again.
8. Re:But will it blend? by blue9steel · 2015-04-28 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  When they call something "bullet proof" they're usually discussing handgun rounds and smaller sizes of rifle ammunition like 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
9. Re:But will it blend? by StikyPad · 2015-04-28 09:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  BLEND, not bend. 20 replies and nobody noticed?
  And besides, Kevlar bends just fine.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
10. Re:But will it blend? by bondsbw · 2015-04-28 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think the question is, what does it blend? You know, when you make some blender blades out of this stuff.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
11. Re:But will it blend? by budgenator · 2015-04-28 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which round? the new Eco-Bullets that the Army was using would often bounce off a truck windshield
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
12. Re:But will it blend? by Noah+Haders · 2015-04-28 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares... does it blend? Waiting...
  Yes, it blended. Sapphire and most other semiprecious stones are AlO3 (add some impurities to get the desired color). So sapphire is basically transparent aluminum, used for scratch-proof purposes like protecting my brand new smart watch. Even so, it blended quite nicely.
13. Re:But will it blend? by Kythe · 2015-04-29 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  According to what's available on material properties, it has stiffness and strength characteristics (if it's made using fine-grained processing) on the order of some steels. And it's a lot lighter.
  
  --
  
  Kythe
14. Re:But will it blend? by dl_sledding · 2015-04-29 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, water will stop the latter much more easily than the former... Larger rounds hit the surface tension of a body of water with so much force that they typically disintegrate, whereas smaller rounds, moving more slowly, will penetrate deeper into the water. Either way, a couple of feet of water between you and the bullet will protect you pretty well. Now, the shockwave from that 30mm round hitting the water may be something to contend with...
  Also, I haven't seen this type of test performed with depleted uranium shells either. That would be a cool test...
Gemstone by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:14 · Score: 1

Spinel is also a gemstone.....makes me wonder why synthetic sapphire, which is harder, is not used.
1. Re:Gemstone by killkillkill · 2015-04-28 08:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Bulletproof and hardness are different things. Glass is much harder than polycarbonate, for instance.
2. Re:Gemstone by Defenestrar · 2015-04-28 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah - single crystal aluminum oxide (sapphire) is also used on tank windows, missile radar domes, satellite parts, etc... Basically anything actually worth enough to pay for it. Smartphones and tablets may actually drive production of sapphire into "reasonable" price ranges for consumers. Spinnel is too soft to be "scratch proof" - resistant maybe, but proof? No. Lots of other good uses though.
3. Re:Gemstone by TWX · 2015-04-28 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Too brittle maybe? The harder a substance, generally the more brittle it is.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Gemstone by viperidaenz · 2015-04-28 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Apple tried it, they couldn't even make a piece big enough to cover an iPhone without it shattering under the same conditions where glass survives.
5. Re:Gemstone by boristdog · 2015-04-28 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  It was named in honor of Brent Spinel, who played a popular ST:TNG character.
  One of the researchers was from China.
6. Re:Gemstone by Coren22 · 2015-04-28 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  My Brigadier has a sapphire display. I don't think it was technical problems that stopped Apple from using them.
  http://www.verizonwireless.com...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
7. Re:Gemstone by lgw · 2015-04-28 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  because as of now nobody is capable to produce synthetic sapphire in large sheets. not to talk about reasonable price.
  Supermarket scanners have often used synthetic sapphire for some time now (decades?).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
8. Re:Gemstone by afidel · 2015-04-28 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  The problem Apple had is they wanted the entire front to be sapphire, but with holes for the buttons and such, your phone has the screen protected but nothing protruding through the crystal which makes it almost infinitely easier than what Apple was trying.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
9. Re:Gemstone by Coren22 · 2015-04-28 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  So form over function again? Seems silly to ask a material to do what it is poor at just to make it teh pretty.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
10. Re:Gemstone by firewrought · 2015-04-28 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  So form over function again? Seems silly... just to make it teh pretty
  Silly, silly Apple with their billions and billions of dollars made by paying extremely close attention to teh pretties.
  
  --
  -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
11. Re:Gemstone by rahvin112 · 2015-04-28 10:53 · Score: 2
  
  Bulletproof and hardness are different things. One exists the other doesn't.
  Nothing is "Bulletproof". The proper term is bullet resistant, as in it can resist small arms fire. About the only thing you could even consider bullet proof is multiple feet of reinforced concrete buried underground. Remember, no matter how resistant it is, there is always a bigger bullet. Most of the bullet resistant armoring sold to heads of state or light military armoring can't even stop high power 50 caliber rounds. It is my understanding the presidential limo has armoring and windows that can stop a 50 caliber round, it also weigh like 12 tons. And just about nothing short of a tank can stop 2 inch or larger rounds.
  Once you get up to the 6-12 inch rounds there isn't much of anything that can stop them but the solution I mentioned above. Once you are up to that size the energy that needs to be stopped is just beyond what most materials can withstand.
  Armoring is constantly evolving to increase resistance but nothing is bulletproof. Not the vest the cop is wearing nor the cars sold to heads of state.
12. Re:Gemstone by Rei · 2015-04-28 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard enough to be scratchproof to the vast majority of things we encounter in our daily lives. Once you're harder than quartz and tool steel, there's not much you'll encounter in normal circumstances that can scratch you.
  It's really not the spinel aspect that I find neat. It's the blurb about their process. They say they got it to work by two things: one, extreme purity (no surprise there), and two, mixing. No matter how well you try to mix fine powders together by any normal means such as shaking, you're never going to get a perfect mixture where all of the particles pack down together to their optimally dense arrangement. Apparently they've come up with a process that allows just that (they don't go into details).
  Well, that's worth far more than spinel. Cheap and scalable production of materials comprised of perfectly arranged microstructures? It seems like such a thing could things in every field of materials science, from batteries to superconductors.
  If, that is, it lives up to how the article makes it sound. TFA is rather high on hype and short on details.
  
  --
  "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
13. Re:Gemstone by ender06 · 2015-04-28 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree with your statements. But regarding the 6-12 inch rounds, most battleship armoring was capable of withstanding hits from 16 inch rounds. There's always tradeoffs, but it can be done.
14. Re:Gemstone by Defenestrar · 2015-04-28 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I have a feeling that the mixing strategies are part of that IP talked about (or rather not talked about).
15. Re:Gemstone by Noah+Haders · 2015-04-28 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  laaaame. That stereotype has been out of date for at least 30 years, and is perpetuated primarily by people who have never been to china or met a Chinese national.
16. Re:Gemstone by gumbi+west · 2015-04-28 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't be so sure. I managed to scratch the sapphire crystal on a watch when i nicked a wall I walked too close too. Expensive mistake.
17. Re:Gemstone by Garfong · 2015-04-28 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  For bullet resistance you generally need high toughness, not hardeness. In a technical context toughness is the ability of a material to absorb energy without breaking, whereas hardness is the ability of a material to withstand denting, scratching, etc.
  Frequently hard materials are not very tough, and visa-versa.
18. Re:Gemstone by Rei · 2015-04-28 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  You might have chipped it, but you didn't scratch it, unless your walls are made of diamond or something.
  Having a high Mohs hardness does nothing to prevent breaks; all it does is prevent scratches from softer materials. A substance can have an incredibly high hardness but still be very brittle. You can scratch steel with a piece of chert, but if you drop a big piece of chert and a big piece of steel out a second story window, only the former is going to shatter into dozens of fragments on impact.
  
  --
  "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
19. Re:Gemstone by Dr_Barnowl · 2015-04-28 22:02 · Score: 2
  
  It's harder (7.7) than Gorilla Glass (6.5), and much more shatter resistant than sapphire crystal, as well as sounding much cheaper to manufacture (no finicky crystal growth, can be made in the shape you require, no need to cut AND polish, maybe just polish).
  Gorilla Glass is pretty darn good. I've had a Nexus 4 for some years and it has one tiny, almost imperceptible scratch on the screen (as in : I know it's there, I have to tilt the screen to reflect light and actively look for it to see it). Something even harder, that's still shatter resistant? Sign me up.
20. Re:Gemstone by david_thornley · 2015-04-29 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Most modern (as of WWII) battleships could stop 16" shells at some ranges. US battleships were designed to have an "immune zone" - a range of ranges where the shell would not penetrate, and I think one battleship had 18K-30K yards as a designed immune zone. (For shorter ranges, the shells would have the penetrating power to get through the side armor. For longer ranges, the shells would be coming down sufficiently close to vertical to penetrate the deck armor, which could not be as thick as the side armor.)
  I've read that there were precisely six pieces of armor afloat that a 16" shell couldn't penetrate at any range: the front turret armor of the Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi. These were about two feet thick (which a 16" shell could get through at close range if the shell hit the armor at a right angle), and sloped at about a 45-degree angle.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
21. Re:Gemstone by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Explosive reactive armor bulletproof vests. An idea whose time has come.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
22. Re:Gemstone by minhhoang84 · 2015-05-01 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  thanks ..i like it ..This information is useful..
23. Re:Gemstone by gumbi+west · 2015-05-02 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  I scratched it. There are construction materials with inclusions that have hardness above sapphire.
ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by starglider29a · 2015-04-28 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

...the audience to see the whales. I'm sure the whales were comforted seeing the inside of a Klingon Bird-of-Prey~
1. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MondoGordo · 2015-04-28 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I wish i had mod points. That is a damned insightful observation. But don't do it again ... you just ruined STIV:TVH for me., !
2. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Also so the crew taking care of them could see them and make sure that they arrive still living. But don't let common sense reign in a scenario involving a crew piloting a stolen alien starship in poor condition.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
3. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Burdell · 2015-04-28 08:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I thought they didn't MAKE transparent aluminum in Star Trek IV, Scotty provided the formula as an incentive to provide plexiglass panels for free (since they had no 1980s cash).
4. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by pushing-robot · 2015-04-28 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The tank wasn't made from transparent alumin(i)um. Scotty traded the formula for enough polycarbonate sheets to build the tank. IIRC they even say it will take years of research to manufacture the stuff.
  </pedant>
  (mind you, they still could have done the job more cheaply with steel, or welded some deck plates together, or simply filled a cargo bay with water. But it made for a good scene, and who cares?)
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
5. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by powerlord · 2015-04-28 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Also so the crew taking care of them could see them and make sure that they arrive still living. But don't let common sense reign in a scenario involving a crew piloting a stolen alien starship in poor condition.
  and Time Travel ... can't forget that part of the scenario.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
6. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-04-28 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  So would this be the time for a colorful metaphor?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
7. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-04-28 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I just delete all movies directed by Nimoy too.. He was OK as an actor, but it didn't translate well into direction.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
8. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Akaihiryuu · 2015-04-28 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Except they didn't use transparent aluminum in the bird of prey. They used ordinary 6-inch thick plexiglass. The plexiglass was given to them in return for the molecular formula for transparent aluminum. The guy that Scotty gave the formula to said it would take *years* to make use of it. It was a long term investment.
9. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-04-28 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I wish i had mod points. That is a damned insightful observation. But don't do it again ... you just ruined STIV:TVH for me., !
  Nimoy (as director) ruined it for me... It had it's funny moments but the whole pretext of the story was pretty lame... But how do you follow up on The Wrath of Kahn without disappointment?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by gurps_npc · 2015-04-28 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  They could not afford the steel. Trying to sell a billion dollar secret for cash is tough - if you ask for too little, they think you are a con man. So they asked for poly carbonate, which Scotty wisely figured out was just enough to avoid suspicion.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
11. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by lgw · 2015-04-28 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, right, like Shatner was so much better as a director - that wonderful ST5.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
12. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  And it did. Scotty gave him the formula in 1986. We're only getting transparent aluminum now, 29 years later.
13. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by OakDragon · 2015-04-28 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  ...the audience to see the whales. I'm sure the whales were comforted seeing the inside of a Klingon Bird-of-Prey~
  That was just so Scotty could observe, "There be whales here!"
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
14. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Tablizer · 2015-04-28 10:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  since they had no 1980s cash
  "Replicator, generate me some Earth cash. USA. Early 1980's, mixed denominations. Oh, and some tea, Earl Grey, hot."
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
15. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by khallow · 2015-04-28 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  But don't let common sense reign in a scenario involving a crew piloting a stolen alien starship in poor condition.
  You can't possibly reign in that scenario especially once it involves time travel and space whales.
16. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by SternisheFan · 2015-04-28 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, LDS, obviously...
17. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Tablizer · 2015-04-28 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because they can simply use Klingon trionically charged transverse matrix converters to reverse the entropy polarization angles using the crystal alignment plentifier.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
18. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  You most certainly can. It makes sense from a "show the audience what's happening" point of view AND it makes sense from a "if I'm responsible for the safety of the beasties then I need to be able to see them" point of view. If you have a problem with the time travel element or the origin of the probe then you are, pardon the expression, lightyears away from judging the quality of the movie based on the mistaken impression that Klingon sensors negate the need for a transparent tank.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
19. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by kit_triforce · 2015-04-28 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Plot wise, transparency wasn't the issue (although it was a selling point to get the stuff made), it was to reduce the material thickness required to hold the water from 6" thick to 1" thick, and to barter the knowledge of it's creation for the requisite material.
  Here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
20. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by budgenator · 2015-04-28 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Since the Whales could see out of the tank, and the tank was moving, without visual cues matching, it seems like the Whales might get sea-sick! Sea-sick Whales, now that would be strange.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
21. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by budgenator · 2015-04-28 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Like talking into a computer mouse wasn't suspicious.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
22. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Defenestrar · 2015-04-28 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  How do you follow up on "The Motion Picture" without vast improvement?
23. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected, thank you.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
24. Re: ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Stormwatch · 2015-04-28 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, you slingshot around the sun, pick up enough speed - you're in time warp. If you don't, you're fried.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
25. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by sunwukong · 2015-04-28 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  ... how do you follow up on The Wrath of Kahn without disappointment?
  You know they made several Home Alone sequels right?
26. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  They need windows to watch whales, but not windows to see where they are flying?
  
  Yes. The Klingon Bird of Prey has flight sensors integrated into its design to allow it to fly, it's reasonable to assume it doesn't have whale sensors integrated into its cargo bay.
  
  And how much care tending did they actually do between hauling ass to the Sun and back to Earth?
  Seeing as how they only traveled in time with one round trip, this question is senseless. Instead you should ask what would Mr. Scott want to plan for? Would he want to verify the whales are safe after beamup? Yes. If the sensors inside showed the whale in distress would he want to at least make a visual account of it? Yes. Would the transparent tank be better for them to have if the time travel jump failed and they were stranded? Yep.
  
  Wouldn't an actual hatch into the area be more appropriate...
  Why don't you go into a little more detail here? Produce a diagram for showing that they could have safely cut a hole between decks without, say, cutting through main power lines or something and that it would have been done in roughly the same amount of time. Bonus points if you can show us their parts manifest that shows they had the hatch already pre-fabbed and the metal for the walls ready to be installed for just such a purpose.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
27. Re: ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by mordjah · 2015-04-28 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Did anybody actually watch the movie? Iirc the transparent aluminum tech was payment for the tank.. They got standard big ass plastic panels for the tank..
  
  --
  "A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
28. Re: ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually nobody in this thread said they used transparent aluminum.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
29. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why, so they can watch the whales suffer while still not being able to do anything more about it?
  And how would not seeing them be in any way better? There's no reason to assume an all-or-nothing scenario.
  
  And in glorious panorama instead of a porthole?
  Heh. In other words: "see more." You really kinda made my point for me with that one.
  
  It has less to do with what they have on hand and more because negotiating with a junk yard dealer for common steel plate is less entertaining than an excuse to interact with a 20th century computer.
  What they have on hand they do not have to barter for. Getting steel plating from a junk yard dealer would require just as much effort, possibly more since he wouldn't likely take only information in trade unless it was a sports almanac.
  
  When they are in space this means they become suddenly very resourceful with what they have on hand, but when they need to interact with others, suddenly they are at mercy of having no other options.
  Getting a little ahead of your self, there.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
30. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by mcswell · 2015-04-28 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  But what I want to know is, why was the crew of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65, not the other one) didn't recognize Sulu.
31. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming they had steel or deckplates available or that the cargo bay was useful as-is. Allow me to point a couple of things out for you:
  1. They already had to use a bunch of their resources to fix battle damage to their ship and it's unlikely Vulcan would have re-supplied them with extras since it was a short jaunt to Earth to .. uh.. be arrested. They also couldn't scrounge up anything to barter, thus relying on selling Kirk's glasses, lending credibility to the idea that they didn't have random valuable crap just lying around.
  2. Scotty made a point of having to beam up a lot of water. The less water, the better. Even after shrinking the room he still had uncertainties about whether he'd be able to pull it off.
  I wouldn't mind but the movie did spend a significant amount of time setting this up. "It's not just the whales, it's the water!"
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
32. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  There is no plothole in any movie that can't be creatively rationalized.
  If I went to great extremes to explain it away you would have a point, but I didn't so you don't. If you really want to set the threshold so low that being able to see the whales is intolerable then the movie would have to have been a great deal longer to make you happy.
  Besides that, we both know this is a post-TNG nitpick intended to make a select group of nerds appear fashionably clever.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
33. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by ElderKorean · 2015-04-28 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  What is this Star Trek IV you speak of? On a related note, isn't it weird how they skipped straight from ST II to ST VI, and Spock was suddenly back with no explanation?
  Likewise, I'm still waiting for the release of Star Wars Episodes I, II, & III to be made.
  There was an attempt a few years ago by some George Lucas look-alike, but they were far too silly to really be part of the story:
  Midichlorians and a Jar like character - strange ideas for a semi-decent sci-fi story.
34. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by sconeu · 2015-04-28 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  It was his Scottish eccentricity. He was supposed to be from the University of Edinborough.
  And besides, going back to TFS... How could it be patented in 1980? We all know that it wasn't "discovered" until 1986.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
35. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by khallow · 2015-04-29 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  I see you're already failing to reign in this scenario despiting actually trying to do so. You prove my point more thoroughly than I ever could.
36. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-04-29 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't like the first one, or the second, so we are not comparing apples to apples...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
37. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-04-29 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  There were ST movies AFTER 4?
  Oh, yea, that junk I could only really sit though once... The best of the bunch was #2 and how that was made after the dreadfully made #1 is a testament to the draw of the franchise. After #2 it was down hill, no matter what the director. The stories where junk, the premise of each worse. About the only thing that advanced was the special effects.
  BTW, my complaints about Nimoy are really "tongue in cheek" as is my critique of #4. Where it's not the best effort in the franchise, I actually liked it as a movie. And that's saying something because I was a projectionist at the time and I saw that movie multiple times a week for the bulk of it's time in theaters.
  Shatner can't act OR direct though... But it happened that his single character fit his personality pretty well for the most of his career so he got by.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
38. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by lgw · 2015-04-29 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I really liked ST6 (I also like 3, but I seem to be the only one). And Shatner - he was great IMO as Denny Crane (maybe typecasting as well, but it worked better than Kirk I think).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
39. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-29 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Am I trying to rein it in, or are you trying to make it a valid nitpick? That's the flaw in your rationale, since we both have to bring points of discussion to make out case it ends in stalemate. So, no, I'm not proving your point, in fact you've weakened it. Your nitpick relies on off-screen assumptions, the spirit of those working against the goals of the charactets. No, that's not a valid nitpick, I'm sorry.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
40. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by Zordak · 2015-04-29 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I saw those once. They weren't that bad for cheap fan fiction, and they even had a couple of good ideas, like that the clones were originally fighting for the Republic and then turned on the Jedi. Maybe Disney could use some of those ideas when they make the actual Eps. I -- III (presumably some time after they finish VII -- IX).
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
41. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  since they had no 1980s cash
  "Replicator, generate me some Earth cash. USA. Early 1980's, mixed denominations. Oh, and some tea, Earl Grey, hot."
  Dammit computer, you should know I meant separate containers.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
42. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  They need windows to watch whales, but not windows to see where they are flying?
  Yes. The Klingon Bird of Prey has flight sensors integrated into its design to allow it to fly, it's reasonable to assume it doesn't have whale sensors integrated into its cargo bay.
  
  And how much care tending did they actually do between hauling ass to the Sun and back to Earth?
  Seeing as how they only traveled in time with one round trip, this question is senseless. Instead you should ask what would Mr. Scott want to plan for? Would he want to verify the whales are safe after beamup? Yes. If the sensors inside showed the whale in distress would he want to at least make a visual account of it? Yes. Would the transparent tank be better for them to have if the time travel jump failed and they were stranded? Yep.
  
  Wouldn't an actual hatch into the area be more appropriate...
  Why don't you go into a little more detail here? Produce a diagram for showing that they could have safely cut a hole between decks without, say, cutting through main power lines or something and that it would have been done in roughly the same amount of time. Bonus points if you can show us their parts manifest that shows they had the hatch already pre-fabbed and the metal for the walls ready to be installed for just such a purpose.
  Just use the Jefferies tubes.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
43. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by MondoGordo · 2015-05-04 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well ... at the end of Wrath of Khan I turned to my buddy and said ... OK ... in the next one I bet they save the whales. ... He said NO WAY! If they do ... i'll pay for your ticket! ... So i saw it for free ... it lowers expectations enormously when you aren't paying.
44. Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... by bobbied · 2015-05-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I got paid to see ST4... Yea, really. I was a projectionist at the time. I had pretty high expiations at the time, we actually pre-screened it the Thursday before it opened. I figured it wouldn't do well...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Hello Computer... by captain_nifty · 2015-04-28 08:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Hello Computer... [no response] oh how quaint [begins rapidly using keyboard]
I still greet my computer this way sometimes.
1. Re:Hello Computer... by invid · 2015-04-28 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  While I loved that scene, it always bothered me because you never see standard keyboards in the Star Trek universe, so how did Scotty get so proficient? It's like if someone from the 1800s wrote a science fiction story about someone from the 21st century going back to their time and expecting them to be experts with the slide rule and Morris code.
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
2. Re:Hello Computer... by ClickOnThis · 2015-04-28 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Morris code
  I wasn't aware that Morris dancers had a code.
  Oh wait ... do you mean Morse code?
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
3. Re:Hello Computer... by JaredOfEuropa · 2015-04-28 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Embarrasingly, our then prime minister (mr. Kok) wasn't much better with a computer mouse, picking it up and staring at it nonplussed on national television. Even more embarrasingly, he later told the press that he wasn't really bothered by his computer illiteracy, because "I have people for that".
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4. Re:Hello Computer... by invid · 2015-04-28 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  It's like if someone from the 1800s wrote a science fiction story about someone from the 21st century going back to their time and expecting them to be experts with the slide rule and Morris code.
  Heck, it's like someone from the 21st century being fluent in the name of things like "Morse code". :D
  [face palm] You see how I cleverly proved my own point?
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
5. Re:Hello Computer... by blue9steel · 2015-04-28 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's mostly because the show is mostly about the officers not the daily lives of the enlisted crew. There are a variety of failure modes aboard a starship that would require you to have a physical non-voice activated access for repair activities, and for that I'm sure a keyboard is still the optimal choice. They've probably got a few pads with cable connectors stashed in equipment lockers for oddball cases and extreme emergencies. Additionally, given the touch controls they used in many cases I suspect they're still typing for a variety of activities.
6. Re:Hello Computer... by captain_nifty · 2015-04-28 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I figure keyboards were like the bathrooms on TOS, they were there, just never on camera.
  Voice controls are okay, but in a crowded noisy engine room you don't want everyone trying to talk to the computer at once.
7. Re:Hello Computer... by onkelonkel · 2015-04-28 09:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A Morse once bit my sister....
  
  --
  None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
8. Re:Hello Computer... by budgenator · 2015-04-28 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the "Galaxy Quest" solution was pretty good, only one crewmember could speak to the computer; that way if the bad-guys kill the correct person the whole ship was kaput.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
9. Re:Hello Computer... by currently_awake · 2015-04-28 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Councilor Troy often used a laptop to take notes, it's reasonable to assume scotty made a lot of reports (to explain the crazy stuff he did/got in to).
10. Re:Hello Computer... by mcswell · 2015-04-28 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  But I _am_ fluent in the slide rule. Or at least I was in the 60s and 70s, and I still know how to use the C/D scales. I could probably figure out most of the others if you gave me a few minutes.
  Morse code, not so much, my Boy Scout skills were barely enough to pass. And I've never heard Morris code.
11. Re:Hello Computer... by RivenAleem · 2015-04-28 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the lead engineer on the planet's foremost exploration vessel of today (if one existed), probably would know how to use a slide rule and Morse code.
12. Re:Hello Computer... by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's like if someone from the 1800s wrote a science fiction story about someone from the 21st century going back to their time and expecting them to be experts with the slide rule and Morris code.
  Heck, it's like someone from the 21st century being fluent in the name of things like "Morse code". :D
  This scode is so good I want more scode!
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
13. Re:Hello Computer... by Agripa · 2015-04-29 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I assumed that Scotty (and the others) had transhuman enhancements.
the next iphone case? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

who will be the first to make a phone case from this?
1. Re:the next iphone case? by schlachter · 2015-04-28 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  why would u build a phone case from this when you could just build the phone from it?
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
SeaWorld by Jaborandy · 2015-04-28 08:22 · Score: 1

It's time for a kickstarter to buy and donate new underwater viewing windows for the whales at SeaWorld made of this transparent aluminum. How many Trekkies would chip in for that? Lots. Yeah.
1. Re:SeaWorld by Defenestrar · 2015-04-28 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with poly(methyl methacrylate)? That at least may be made from dead plants, dinosaurs, and whales - helps them feel more at home!
2. Re:SeaWorld by budgenator · 2015-04-28 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  It shrinks during polymerization, leading to porosity problems, especially in large pieces.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
3. Re:SeaWorld by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with poly(methyl methacrylate)? That at least may be made from dead plants, dinosaurs, and whales - helps them feel more at home!
  Dissolves in several common solvents, including chloroform. don't ask how i found out.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Well written by myrdos2 · 2015-04-28 08:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

I must say, that was an unusually well-written article. Good information level, not dumbed down, and the writer actually sounded like she knew what she was talking about.
I'm shocked.
1. Re:Well written by HBI · 2015-04-28 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  The funny part is that it was written by a U.S. Navy Public Affairs Office (PAO) writer.
  There are lots of bright people in government. They rarely shine amidst the muddle, though.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:Well written by bobbied · 2015-04-28 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  I must say, that was an unusually well-written article. Good information level, not dumbed down, and the writer actually sounded like she knew what she was talking about.
  I'm shocked.
  And I'm shocked we didn't get this on April 1 instead of the 28th... Would have been a great article on that day.. Is it true, maybe, maybe not?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:Well written by mcswell · 2015-04-28 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  And Spinel is a naturally occurring mineral.
weighs only a fraction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:24 · Score: 1

11/10 is a fraction
1. Re:weighs only a fraction by viperidaenz · 2015-04-28 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  The fraction in your example being 1/10
Social democracy in a nutshell: by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:33 · Score: 1

The government takes money from the poor to invest in research which is commercialised by the rich to make them richer.
Re:Synthetic Sapphire... by Guspaz · 2015-04-28 08:36 · Score: 1

For varying values of "easy", sure. It's still not easy enough to be practical for use as a mass market smartphone screen. Possible, but not practical.
he did a little too much LDS in the 60's... by Thud457 · 2015-04-28 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

holy crap, you're picking at the pointlessness of putting windows in the tanks?!
You don't have a problem believing mankind being embarrassed when SPACE WHALES drop by to check in on their far distant relatives?!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:he did a little too much LDS in the 60's... by bobbied · 2015-04-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's not finest hour....
  That much is certain.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:he did a little too much LDS in the 60's... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  He did too much Mormon?
3. Re:he did a little too much LDS in the 60's... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-04-28 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  holy crap, you're picking at the pointlessness of putting windows in the tanks?!
  No, I'm nitpicking at the nitpicking of the pointlessness of putting the windows in the tanks. It wasn't a valid complaint.
  
  You don't have a problem believing mankind being embarrassed when SPACE WHALES drop by to check in on their far distant relatives?!
  Nope. You see, I went in without missing the point of going to a movie. For example: I can totally buy that the crew of a stolen alien starship decided to spend a few months repairing it so they can fly home cloaked to turn themselves in for blowing up a more valuable ship that they had also stolen only to be side tracked by a time-travel excursion to save the whales. However I have trouble believing that the radiation shielding of a nuclear reactor on board an American aircraft carrier was weak enough jam a Klingon disruptor without affecting the crew aboard. The difference? I wanted to go see a movie about a crew repairing a stolen alien ship returning home to face justice but were side-tracked by a time travel excursion to save the whales along the way, but was not interested in lazy writing about how shitty a weapon from an advanced space-faring warrior civilization is.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Synthetic Sapphire... by Defenestrar · 2015-04-28 08:41 · Score: 1

...is good enough "transparent aluminum" for me. Plus, it's easy to make and nearly as hard as diamond.
If you think it's easy to make (on an industrial scale for optical grade large pieces), I've got some real estate and investing advice to sell you, right after I switch out my polycarbonate lenses.
Why did it take so long ? by itzly · 2015-04-28 08:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Sure took them a long time, when they could have simply gotten a copy of "Star Trek, The Voyage Home", and pause the video when Scotty shows the molecular model on the screen.
1. Re:Why did it take so long ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  That model on the screen is actually polycarbonate, incidentally - which /does/ have the amusing property of a strength to weight ratio of pretty much the same as aluminum, but isn't really what you could call transparent aluminum.
2. Re:Why did it take so long ? by MobyDisk · 2015-04-28 08:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They did, but it took years to figure out the dynamics of the matrix.
  
  NICHOLS: Transparent aluminum?
  SCOTT: That's the ticket, laddie.
  NICHOLS: It would take years just to figure out the dynamics of this matrix.
  McCOY: Yes, but you'd be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Re:Synthetic Sapphire... by Coren22 · 2015-04-28 09:05 · Score: 1

http://www.verizonwireless.com...
Yes it is. Apple just chose not to make it, others don't mind doing it first.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
See Through by Sir_Eptishous · 2015-04-28 09:11 · Score: 1

Tinfoil Hats!

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Bullet proof, maybe not machine gun proof by laughingskeptic · 2015-04-28 09:16 · Score: 2

Like many ceramics they note that it chips rather than breaks. So you could "chip away at it". Also the material very likely has an impact stress point beyond which it will explode when impacted. So it is bullet proof up to a point. They say that it doesn't need to be layered, but in practice I'll bet they layer it with Kevlar or a similar material with complementary properties.
1. Re:Bullet proof, maybe not machine gun proof by Cramer · 2015-04-28 09:36 · Score: 2
  
  Since when is kevlar transparent?
2. Re:Bullet proof, maybe not machine gun proof by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-28 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Great answer, except for the Kevlar part. Safety glass and "bulletproof" glass already work this way, except you don't use Kevlar. You use plastic, not sure what type.
  The plastic creates a discontinuity in the glassy material. If the hard but brittle glass shatters, the shatter lines stop at a plastic layer (in really fancy systems you have multiple layers). The plastic also helps hold the material together under failure conditions, reducing shrapnel wounds at time of impact and danger to bystanders afterwards.
  The layering concept has wide applicability. There are reports of high end tank armour using layered ceramics and steel going back to the 1970's.
3. Re:Bullet proof, maybe not machine gun proof by laughingskeptic · 2015-04-29 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Your right, should have been polyamide.
Darn by andrewa · 2015-04-28 09:20 · Score: 1

Does this mean I have to put off buying my new MacBook Pro yet again....?

--
:(){ :|:& };:
1. Re:Darn by ColdWetDog · 2015-04-28 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'd suggest getting one before they become impossibly thin and transparent to boot. Then you'd never manage to find the thing once you set it down.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Darn by msobkow · 2015-04-28 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  *LOL*
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:Synthetic Sapphire... by viperidaenz · 2015-04-28 09:25 · Score: 1

Sounds perfect for the screen of a smartphone.
There's a company called GT Advanced Technologies, I hear they're eager to get in to that market. Give them a call. In fact, you could probably buy them. Their share price is currently sitting at $0.29, down from $19.77 back in July
Re:Synthetic Sapphire... by Guspaz · 2015-04-28 09:30 · Score: 1

And how many of those phones have been sold? Making sapphire screens is not impossible, it's just very hard to do in large quantities. When you sell as many phones as Apple does, you can't afford to let one component bottleneck production.
Re:Really? by ewibble · 2015-04-28 09:53 · Score: 2

Of course you can take resources from the poor. Take water from a lake? or pollute the air, oil from there ground, why does this resource belong to anyone in particular. In this case an innovation developed by the government, paid by tax dollars, so it should be communal property.
You are also naive to believe the main reason people get underpaid is because they are stupid, it is because they have little choice, either through force, or they have so little, that they need to take an offer or die, lack of food, ...
what about temperature? by Lead+Butthead · 2015-04-28 10:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Will it shatter easily at low (think -30) or high (think 120+) temperature?

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
1. Re:what about temperature? by Dr_Barnowl · 2015-04-28 20:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It doesn't shatter easily because it's a sintered polycrystalline. Rather than being like the single grown sapphire crystals that Apple rejected for the iPhone which shatter easily along crystal fault lines, it's lots of crystals all jumbled together. Crack propagation doesn't happen so much. According to TFA, it chips, but it doesn't shatter.
not a great comparison by slashmydots · 2015-04-28 11:54 · Score: 1

They're close with some properties but metals and ceramics have COMPLETELY different bonding methods, don't they?
7.7 mohs hardness? by jolyonr · 2015-04-28 13:42 · Score: 1

The Mohs scale of hardness is a relative unitless scale comparing things to ten common minerals. There is no '7.7' on this scale. 7 is Quartz and 8 is Topaz. So all you can say with any accuracy is that it is between 7 and 8. Maybe it is closer to Topaz in hardness than Quartz, but even so, there's no way of calculating a '7.7' so they just pulled that number out of their ass...
Which makes me wonder how accurate the rest of what they say is.

--

Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
1. Re:7.7 mohs hardness? by Mal-2 · 2015-04-29 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is also comparing things to OTHER things that fall between the two points. Something is not just "between 7 and 8", it is also harder than some other materials "between 7 and 8" and softer than others. The number after the decimal allows for them to be rankedrelative to one another. What you're saying is that just because the code base of Software 5.0 and 5.1 are largely the same there is no way to distinguish between them, and that everything in the 5.x line except 5.0 itself is merely "between 5 and 6".
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
2. Re:7.7 mohs hardness? by jolyonr · 2015-04-29 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're wrong in two different ways, which I kind of admire :)
  Firstly, you have something that is between 7 and 8, so for arguments sake you call that '7 and a half' (this is regularly done).
  Then you take another sample, and that scratches the '7 and a half' pieces, and not the 8, so it's between 7 and a half and 8. But that's a completely different scenario to arbitrarily assigning a '7.7'
  There is another method of measuring hardness, the vicker's system which does indeed follow a linear scale, so you could potentially use the vicker's hardness of the specimens to determine an approximate decimal value for the hardness of your chosen sample. But that's completely stupid because the whole POINT of this is to show a relative hardness between two samples, ie to be able to measure it by scratching one piece against another. So my comment stands, the '7.7' value is pulled out of someone's ass and has no scientific merit.
  The second problem is you then compare with software revision numbers... which are of course numbers pulled entirely out of someone's ass. And of course, version 5.9 is usually less than version 5.10 etc. so again you have no way of saying 'version 5.5 is about half way between version 5.0 and version 6.0 in features.'
  
  --
  
  Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
3. Re:7.7 mohs hardness? by Mal-2 · 2015-04-29 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Version numbers are arbitrary, I never said they weren't. Yes, the decimal is a divider and not a mathematical decimal, so 5.10 comes after 5.9 where it can't in the hardness scale. I never said anything about "half the new features". In fact I'd a expect large gap between the last 5.x and 6.0 and not assume the version numbers meant anything in regards to the actual quantity of features, only about their timing. That is, if a feature is introduced in 5.2, it's probably still going to be there in 5.5 (unless it was fundamentally broken and had to be yanked).
  The decimals on the Mohs scale seem arbitrary as well, but that does not make them meaningless. If you have just one substance between 7 and 8, you could justifiably call it 7.5, but what do you do if it turns out that everything else between 7 and 8 scratches it? You downgrade it to 7.1, that's what. These are like old BASIC line numbers where you assign them in the hopes that you don't have to change any later because of things you plug in, but sometimes you're wrong.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
4. Re:7.7 mohs hardness? by jolyonr · 2015-04-29 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying you're wrong about being able to select, say, 7.1 - but that's not how the Mohs system works, even if some people occasionally think that it is.
  
  --
  
  Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Enough with the low-hanging Eden fruit by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-04-28 14:11 · Score: 2

Where is my transporter, dammit?
Chemistry 101 by Hognoxious · 2015-04-28 17:02 · Score: 1

Compound of X != X.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hey, I thoought Scotty wrote the formula.. by doccus · 2015-04-29 05:08 · Score: 1

... On a Mac Plus, no less. WHat happened to it? Somebody donated the mac to a thrift shop and forgot to wipe the harddrive? Seriously, it's yet a OTHER example of Star Trech Tech turning up for real... Now, what about food replicators?
Ohhhh by gzuckier · 2015-04-29 06:52 · Score: 1

That's what they mean by transparent aluminum? Spinel (familiar to all the former rock and lapidary nerd kids)? That's like calling clay "insulating aluminum".

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
1. Re:Ohhhh by RockDoctor · 2015-05-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  It is an extremely shoddy connection to make, even by the technically shoddy standards of slashdot when it come to anything outside computer science.
  (Speaking as a working geologist.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"