Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

That "Unbreakable" Glass That's "As Strong As Steel" Isn't Either

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-keep-using-that-word dept.

TheAlexKnapp writes: A number of stories about a new paper in Scientific Reports claim that it describes an "unbreakable" glass that's as "strong as steel." In a report about the paper for Forbes, Carmen Drahl notes that these claims are exaggerated. But that doesn't mean that the researchers haven't produced a promising material. From Carmen's story: "According to their calculations, this glass performed about as well as a heavy duty commercial glass. What this report describes isn't some miracle material, but a well-above-average performing glass that seems promising on a tiny scale."

11 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Well, was it stronger than steel? by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was the glass stronger than steel? Here, the question is what strength means, and what was actually measured. In this case, the researchers measured the glass’s rigidity and its resistance to being pushed on by something else. In both cases, the new glass outperformed most other types of glass, but it wasn’t exactly indestructible.

    She never answered the question. Steel isn't "indestructible" either.

    1. Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? by Holi · · Score: 2

      Amorphous metal is not glass, it has glass-like properties but that does not make it a glass.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Harken not unto this man, for he knoweth naught of glass nor steel.

    3. Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, was it stronger than steel?

      Very likely yes, but that doesn't matter because nearly every glass is stronger than nearly every steel under ideal conditions. What usually matters is toughness since most glasses can't take much of an impact.

      If it's just pure load and the surface of the glass is perfectly smooth with not much in the way of internal defects then you can sit something on top of a block of glass that would damage a block of steel. In tension it's often stronger as well - unless a tiny scratch opens up into a crack and then it's going to break at a low load.
      That's why glass is used as reinforcing in "fibreglass" plastics - strong and the brittleness doesn't matter so much when the fibre diameter is about the size of a critical crack and the plastic is there to absorb the energy of impacts.

    4. Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? by coldsalmon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glass was always "stronger" than steel in that it will take more stress without bending. Glass will just shatter, whereas steel will bend but not break. Glass has more "strength," but steel has more "toughness." An article at Popular Science explores this distinction: "Strength refers to how much force a material can take before it deforms. Toughness explains the energy required to fracture or break something." The article is from 2011, and is entitled "NEW METALLIC GLASS BEATS STEEL AS THE TOUGHEST, STRONGEST MATERIAL YET."

    5. Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Strength is generally taken to mean tensile strength, the force/area in tension required to rupture a material, or required to permanently deform it. Stiffness is the ratio strain/stress, usually quantified as Young's modulus. Neither is the same as toughness, nor as hardness

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  2. Puffery ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bah, pretty much any time a company says something isn't "un-anythingable" it's lying.

    Unsinkable. Unbreakable. Unbendable. Un-non-inflammable (because those of us old enough don't know what it means).

    I usually assume these claims are marketing crap, and therefore fairly meaningless.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Puffery ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Flammable" and "non-flammable" are HORSESHIT with backwards and incorrect derivations that have only added confusion.

      Oh, bullshit. When I was a kid things were flammable, and inflammable. That's what was taught in school. Then some whiny people said in deference to other languages it was less confusing if we changed to match them. Mostly it's caused confusion since.

      Backwards and incorrect derivations are the fucking mean and potatoes of English. It's all backwards and incorrect.

      We discuss Flammability as a property, not inflammability. Something is said to be aflame, and not inflamed. Moe from the Simpsons made a flaming Moe, not an inflaming Moe.

      (In)destructible, (in)secure, (in)visible, (in)controvetible, (in)sane, (in)correct, (in)capable. These are examples of why inflammable was a perfectly valid derivation which meant "doesn't burn", and was in fact in widespread use for a VERY long time.

      Don't give me crap about wrong derivations and that this word comes from this or that and is therefore conjugated thusly

      The entire rest of the grammar in English around fire, do NOT lead you to "inflammable" to mean "does burn".

      Do you know why? Because English is a horribly screwed up language, full of bizarre exceptions and corner cases, piled on top of stupid rules which only mostly work, and in some cases require some really arcane knowledge about the word.

      Flammable has been in use for a very long time. Inflammable for even longer, apparently.

      But let's not pretend that the word hasn't seen active use in society for a LONG time. It's not a few random people who are confused, it's everybody over a certain age in an English speaking country.

      You can't talk about "flammable" things and then tell me I should be saying "inflammable" means it burns; that doesn't match the rest of the English language on this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Puffery ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      (In)destructible, (in)secure, (in)visible, (in)controvetible, (in)sane, (in)correct, (in)capable. These are examples of why inflammable was a perfectly valid derivation which meant "doesn't burn", and was in fact in widespread use for a VERY long time.

      I don't mean to incriminate you, but you seem to incarnate an indoctrination that might incite people to form inquiry into seeming incandescent thoughts to only find they are not ingenious.

  3. Re:What are the actual test results? by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The glass cracked on an impact tester. Steel dents.

    That depends on the steel. High strength steels have yield strengths very close to their ultimate strengths and tend to crack and not dent.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  4. Claims aligned with fabrication and measurement by DavidMZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    According to TFA:

    "In this work, we report a 54Al2O3-46Ta2O5 glass fabricated by aerodynamic levitation"

    "Analysis made using 27Al Magic Angle Spinning Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (MAS NMR) spectroscopy"

    And that's just in the first paragraph! Made by levitation, tested by Magic, it can be "as strong as steel"!