That "Unbreakable" Glass That's "As Strong As Steel" Isn't Either 74
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."
Re: "Unbreakable" combs ain't, either (Score:1)
Probably people who still have hair, cueball.
Well, was it stronger than steel? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"Scientifically, the term "glass" is often defined in a broader sense, encompassing every solid that possesses a non-crystalline (that is, amorphous) structure at the atomic scale and that exhibits a glass transition when heated towards the liquid state." ( Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]).
Seems like it depends on who you're talking to and how they're used to the words being used. Apparently, some branches of science would call amorphous metal a "glass".
Re: (Score:3)
Harken not unto this man, for he knoweth naught of glass nor steel.
Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What the article I read described was that the glass had a high modulus of elasticity. There was absolutely no reference to strength, or ductility, both properties that would make me call the glass "strong" or "impact resistant". It's just stiff glass. Period. By the way, almost all grades of steel have about the same modulus of elasticity, even when their strength is vastly different, so the one does not imply the other.
Re:Well, was it stronger than steel? (Score:4, 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 [popsci.com] 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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea i am being slop
Re: (Score:2)
Yes well that's another issue. Are we talking weight for weight or volume for volume?
Unbreakable, eh? (Score:1)
I remember the day a kid came to school with an "unbreakable" mirror (some kind of foil backed clear plastic).
He was soon proved wrong about his mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We prefer to think of it as scientifically curious, literally precise, and prone to debunking hyperbole.
Apparently everyone else says that means we have some traits in common with autism [slashdot.org].
My wife just sticks with calling me a dork.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Throw some thought at the scenario and you don't care if someone's lying, an idiot, or telling the truth. The universe has abundant routes, with varying levels of creativity and morality.
https://xkcd.com/670/
Re: (Score:2)
Kill the motherfucker and chop his legs off!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my "unbreakable" combs never seem to last very long either for some reason...
They're not supposed to be used THAT way.... (grin)
Sorry, Scotty (Score:2)
Puffery ... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't necessarily say that any use of the term would be necessarily true, I only suggested that even in marketing speak, the term can used entirely truthfully, at least at the time of publication (it may get verified later, invalidating the claim).
Of course, it's not really an "un-something-able" word, either.
"Unprovable" can also sometimes be true. There are numerous things that literally cannot ever be proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflammable means it can be set ablaze.
Non-inflammable means it can't (easily).
"Flammable" and "non-flammable" are HORSESHIT with backwards and incorrect derivations that have only added confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, pretty much any time a company says something it's lying.
FTFY
"It's not lying!" (Score:2)
It's not false advertising!
It's puffery! [wikipedia.org] That makes it totes legit!
What are the actual test results? (Score:2)
Re:What are the actual test results? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, really? (Score:2)
They exaggerated the strength of their glass? That's a new one.
If steel glass did exist... (Score:2)
Don't we already have transparent aluminum? (Score:1)
Transparent aluminum? (Score:1)
(This glass is made out of alumina, not silica. So, not really "glass" is the usual sense of the word.)
Claims aligned with fabrication and measurement (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"!
Re: (Score:2)
beautiful concept for a troll, but the execution is still a bit copypasta. 7/10.