HOLY CRAP! TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM ID REAL!!!

[CaptainHawk1]

I was watching Discovery Channel and they had a whole show on aluminum and there was this part about transparent aluminum (ALON) being used for armored glass!

How cool is that!

If you folks already knew about this, I'm sorry I'm late to the party.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transparent-aluminum-armor.htm

-Shawn

 

[Timo]

Umm, "transparent aluminum" has always been real, in this sense. It's probably the most common transparent material besides transparent silicon.

That is, aluminum OXIDE (the material of many jewels, and known for its hardness) is transparent, just like silicon OXIDE (the material of window class, and known for its malleability) is. Those are ceramic materials, not pure metals. A link within the above link explains why ceramics are good for transparency while metals are not.

One wonders why the material in Star Trek is considered so special, so worthy of the attention of a person working in 1980s plastics industry. Apparently, it's not the ordinary Al2O3 that is e.g. the main constituent of rubies, nor the only slightly more complex (and by no means novel) oxynitrile that is used in the application mentioned in the link. The molecule that Scotty creates on the industrialist's Mac is more complex than that. But essentially, it's just one more variant of transparent, aluminum-containing materials which are so common in nature and industry.

So perhaps the material that Scotty demonstrated is even stronger than the ones currently known? Possibly. We do see a window or two in Star Trek crack under pressure or impact, but we don't know the forces involved. So the material could be stronger than today's transparent aluminum materials, but it could also be roughly on par with them. Certainly it does seem to break into shards, which is highly undesirable of "transparent aluminum armor"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vance]

Actually, Timo, industrial use 'Transparent Aluminum', in the Trek sense of the word, is a fairly new innovation. (Dating to the early 1990s, actualy). So, yes, a plastics man of the time of TVH would be extremely interested in it, but it was something 'in the works' at the time, and found in some scientific journals. And to defend Trek a little bit, you'll notice that Scotty never says that it's a 23rd century material, just that it's ahead of its time. Whatever is used during Kirk's voyages may be something completely different.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, not this rubbish again. Every few months, some reporter posts a story about this as if it were some miraculous new breakthrough, and they always have to use the "transparent aluminum" reference, the "gee whiz, it's just like that sci-fi movin' pitcher thingy!" hook that reporters can never resist even when it's a totally wrong and misleading analogy (which it usually is), and you get a new flurry of website posts saying "Hey, look, transparent aluminum is real now!" from people who don't remember the previous dozen times this "news" came out.

Here's the real scoop: It isn't "transparent aluminum." It's transparent alumina. Alumina is a compound containing aluminum, but it isn't aluminum any more than water is hydrogen or table salt is chlorine. It's a substance also known as corundum or emery (yes, it's the stuff coating an emery board). It's what rubies and sapphires are made of, so its transparency is nothing remarkable at all.

So this stuff isn't some miraculous transparent metal. It's a kind of glass, that's all. It's a strong kind of glass, but it's still just glass. Calling it "transparent aluminum" is misleading, pretentious, and wrong. It's as stupid as calling water "liquid hydrogen." You wouldn't call window glass "transparent silicon" -- you'd call it "glass," because that's what it is. And that's what this is. Alumina glass.

 

[Vance]

You ARE talking about a class of people, though, that actually tried to ban dihydrogen-oxide because it was found in all polluted water.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I've heard of this stuff awhile ago, actually.


CuttingEdge100

 

[B.J.]

You ARE talking about a class of people, though, that actually tried to ban dihydrogen-oxide because it was found in all polluted water.

I believe you mean dihydrogen monoxide. Still funny as hell, though!

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Oh, not this rubbish again. Every few months, some reporter posts a story about this as if it were some miraculous new breakthrough, and they always have to use the "transparent aluminum" reference, the "gee whiz, it's just like that sci-fi movin' pitcher thingy!" hook that reporters can never resist even when it's a totally wrong and misleading analogy (which it usually is), and you get a new flurry of website posts saying "Hey, look, transparent aluminum is real now!" from people who don't remember the previous dozen times this "news" came out.

Here's the real scoop: It isn't "transparent aluminum." It's transparent alumina. Alumina is a compound containing aluminum, but it isn't aluminum any more than water is hydrogen or table salt is chlorine. It's a substance also known as corundum or emery (yes, it's the stuff coating an emery board). It's what rubies and sapphires are made of, so its transparency is nothing remarkable at all.

So this stuff isn't some miraculous transparent metal. It's a kind of glass, that's all. It's a strong kind of glass, but it's still just glass. Calling it "transparent aluminum" is misleading, pretentious, and wrong. It's as stupid as calling water "liquid hydrogen." You wouldn't call window glass "transparent silicon" -- you'd call it "glass," because that's what it is. And that's what this is. Alumina glass.

I saw the whole show, I got the scoop on it, I got what was going on.

I just thought it was kind of cool. Why are you getting so worked up? This is why women won't have sex with Star trek fans. Chill the fuck out, already.

-Shawn

 

[Vance]

I just thought it was kind of cool. Why are you getting so worked up? This is why women won't have sex with Star trek fans. Chill the fuck out, already.

Well, that and your sombrero is tiny...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I just thought it was kind of cool. Why are you getting so worked up? This is why women won't have sex with Star trek fans. Chill the fuck out, already.

Well, that and your sombrero is tiny...

While Christopher's reaction is more strident than mine would have been (THIS time), I agree 100% with his post.

It's really, really frustrating. The concept of "transparent aluminum" as portrayed in ST-IV was obviously written by someone who had not even a basic high-school chemistry class in their background.

This is like saying "wow, we've found a new form of steel. It's red, crumbly, and extremely weak." (And yes, I said steel rather than iron intentionally... wanted to point that out before someone tries to "correct" that. )

Oh, and for the record, there are lots of women who really like men who have real brains and real knowledge (and, typically, six-figure incomes... though hopefully the correlation between "like" and "income" isn't the major factor there!). And men who have brains and knowledge will always cringe when this sort of thing gets pulled out yet again.

Side note: I LOOOOOVE that "dihydrogen monoxide" page... I know a few folks I'm gonna send that to, just to see if they'll run off thinking it's some new pollutant they need to start watching!

 

[Christopher]

Why are you getting so worked up? This is why women won't have sex with Star trek fans. Chill the fuck out, already.

You know, you're right. It really shouldn't make any difference whether you refer to a substance by its actual chemical identity or by merely one elemental component of it. Here, would you like some sodium on your french fries before you dive into that pool filled with oxygen? Oh, and there's elemental carbon in your soda pop, so it might be a little gritty.

 

[Vance]

Chris, you're getting cranky... the ponytail's too tight again.

 

[Ronald Held]

Whether we like it or now, it is bound to come every so often. It also reflects on the porr scientific knwoledge of the ordinary citizen.

 

[Vance]

Whether we like it or now, it is bound to come every so often. It also reflects on the porr scientific knwoledge of the ordinary citizen.

Sometimes, it just writes itself.

I think, though, this is really one of those cases where sugar works more than vinegar. If you decide that the proper response is to fire into the breach, don't be too surprised when the guy you're trying to 'educate' dismisses you outright as nothing but a pompous asshole.

 

[Timo]

Of course, Scotty's molecule is complex enough that its chemical formula won't make for a snappy trade name. "Transparent aluminum" should sell pretty well if it conveys the idea that the product is transparent yet has some of the key properties of aluminum metal, which it apparently does if it's intended to be the future equivalent of plexiglass. That is, it's likely to have some tensile strength to write home about, be easy to manufacture and easier to recycle, and respond well to efforts at bending and cutting to exotic forms. It's transparent, and it's pretty much like aluminum, and contains aluminum to boot!

Few things out there go by their IUPAC names anyway. Which is why I'd very much like to think that dilithium falls in the general category as well: it's something that contains two lithium atoms in its structure, but the name isn't the end-all of its chemical structure, and probably reflects more the industrial history of the substance than its chemical nature.

Hell, "alumina" is guilty of the same sin: there's no "chemical basis" or systematic justification for adding an "-a" at the end of a truncated metal name to create the name of the dominant oxide form. Calling Al2O3 "alumina" is just as chemically impolite as calling it "aluminum", except that IUPAC tolerates it while gritting their teeth because they don't really have the power to change such things.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Whether we like it or now, it is bound to come every so often. It also reflects on the porr scientific knwoledge of the ordinary citizen.

Sometimes, it just writes itself.

I think, though, this is really one of those cases where sugar works more than vinegar. If you decide that the proper response is to fire into the breach, don't be too surprised when the guy you're trying to 'educate' dismisses you outright as nothing but a pompous asshole.

Since I know that Ronald can spell quite adequately... I think he's making a point there, don't you?

Either that, or he was typing under the influence. Either way... his point is well-made.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Of course, Scotty's molecule is complex enough that its chemical formula won't make for a snappy trade name. "Transparent aluminum" should sell pretty well if it conveys the idea that the product is transparent yet has some of the key properties of aluminum metal, which it apparently does if it's intended to be the future equivalent of plexiglass. That is, it's likely to have some tensile strength to write home about, be easy to manufacture and easier to recycle, and respond well to efforts at bending and cutting to exotic forms. It's transparent, and it's pretty much like aluminum, and contains aluminum to boot!

Few things out there go by their IUPAC names anyway. Which is why I'd very much like to think that dilithium falls in the general category as well: it's something that contains two lithium atoms in its structure, but the name isn't the end-all of its chemical structure, and probably reflects more the industrial history of the substance than its chemical nature.

Hell, "alumina" is guilty of the same sin: there's no "chemical basis" or systematic justification for adding an "-a" at the end of a truncated metal name to create the name of the dominant oxide form. Calling Al2O3 "alumina" is just as chemically impolite as calling it "aluminum", except that IUPAC tolerates it while gritting their teeth because they don't really have the power to change such things.

Timo Saloniemi

Well, this is largely because the name was developed long before chemistry was well-understood.

It's sort of like "saltpeter"... which all of us here (even the none-technical, non-scientific types) ought to know, if only from having seen a particular episode of TOS.

 

[Patrickivan]

Not everyone is fully versed in chemistry or the basic sciences in general. People forget most of the stuff they learned in secondary school because they don't use it.

They shouldn't be blamed for it, treated poorly, or be talked down too. That being said, there's nothing wrong with explaining something, or correcting someone. It's how it's done that matters.

 

[Plecostomus]

And if you are going to "explain" something to people be sure you use what those of in the technical communities refer to as facts not politically-motivated bullshit designed to further your agenda. (yes anti-nuclear wankers I am looking DIRECTLY at you.)


(further clarification: anti-nuclear wanker = someone who makes stuff up about nuclear reactors "exploding" or being able to be controlled remotely by terrorists or giving off huge unending amounts of radioactive substances that the owners dump everywhere while chortling about profits.)

 

[Vance]

It's a bit like bitching that most people call 'salt'.. just 'salt'...