Breakthough Makes Transparent Aluminum Affordable 247
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.
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.
Bullets are OK, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Bullets are OK, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Spinel has 7.5-8 on the Mohs scale, should it should be *more* scratch resistant than glass.
what about temperature? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will it shatter easily at low (think -30) or high (think 120+) temperature?
Re:what about temperature? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (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
Re: (Score:2)
And then the iPhone glass REALLY won't break! (haha)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (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....
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Bullets are OK, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Me? I want an invisible airplane like Wonderwoman's...
I just want wonderwoman. You can keep the imaginary airplane.
But will it blend? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the question is, what does it blend? You know, when you make some blender blades out of this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares... does it blend? Waiting...
Yes, it blended [geekologie.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BLEND, not bend. 20 replies and nobody noticed?
And besides, Kevlar bends just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because nothing is really rated as bulletproof...
What if the bullets are made out of Aluminium oxynitride too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll just bounce off, and then you can use them again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which round? the new Eco-Bullets that the Army was using would often bounce off a truck windshield
ST only needed transparent aluminum for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... how do you follow up on The Wrath of Kahn without disappointment?
You know they made several Home Alone sequels right?
Re: (Score:2)
So would this be the time for a colorful metaphor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I just delete all movies directed by Nimoy too.. He was OK as an actor, but it didn't translate well into direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, like Shatner was so much better as a director - that wonderful ST5.
Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... (Score:4, 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.
he did a little too much LDS in the 60's... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have a problem believing mankind being embarrassed when SPACE WHALES drop by to check in on their far distant relatives?!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not finest hour....
That much is certain.
Re: (Score:2)
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 hav
Re: (Score:2)
and Time Travel ... can't forget that part of the scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you slingshot around the sun, pick up enough speed - you're in time warp. If you don't, you're fried.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
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? Ye
Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... (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).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Replicator, generate me some Earth cash. USA. Early 1980's, mixed denominations. Oh, and some tea, Earl Grey, hot."
Re:ST only needed transparent aluminum for... (Score:5, 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?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like talking into a computer mouse wasn't suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hello Computer... (Score:5, Funny)
Hello Computer... [no response] oh how quaint [begins rapidly using keyboard]
I still greet my computer this way sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Morris code
I wasn't aware that Morris dancers [wikipedia.org] had a code.
Oh wait ... do you mean Morse code?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Hello Computer... (Score:5, Funny)
A Morse once bit my sister....
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the next iphone case? (Score:3, Interesting)
who will be the first to make a phone case from this?
Re:the next iphone case? (Score:4, Interesting)
why would u build a phone case from this when you could just build the phone from it?
SeaWorld (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It shrinks during polymerization, leading to porosity problems, especially in large pieces.
Well written (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Why did it take so long ? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Why did it take so long ? (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.
See Through (Score:2)
Bullet proof, maybe not machine gun proof (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is kevlar transparent?
Re: (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 aft
Darn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Enough with the low-hanging Eden fruit (Score:3)
Where is my transporter, dammit?
Re:Gemstone (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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 u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
My Brigadier has a sapphire display. I don't think it was technical problems that stopped Apple from using them.
http://www.verizonwireless.com... [verizonwireless.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So form over function again? Seems silly to ask a material to do what it is poor at just to make it teh pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
It was named in honor of Brent Spinel, who played a popular ST:TNG character.
One of the researchers was from China.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 ev
Re: (Score:2)
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?).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.verizonwireless.com... [verizonwireless.com]
Yes it is. Apple just chose not to make it, others don't mind doing it first.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The fraction in your example being 1/10
Re: (Score:3)
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 foo