Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

759 comments

Coming soon to a school court near you! (4, Funny)

marsperson (909862) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815116)

The ability to wrap your mother's sandwiches in transparent aluminum and loose your apetite before you even unwrap it!

Unintended joke? (2, Insightful)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815289)

"...loose your apetite before you even unwrap it!"

I guess if you loosed your appetite on an unwrapped sandwich, you'd end up eating the whole thing wrapper and all! An amusing picture, even if you meant to type "lose" and suggest the opposite. :)

A Great Send-Off (5, Interesting)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815119)

Very appropriate to announce this discovery at the same time James Doohan's remains are being sent into space. One wonders if there is a closet Trekker in the military press office. :-)

Cheers,

jIyajbe

Re:A Great Send-Off (4, Funny)

Spock the Baptist (455355) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815153)

What do you want to bet that it was designed on a Macintosh...

Oh would that ever be sweet! :D

Re:A Great Send-Off (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815310)

Is that because he tries talking into the mouse on a mac in Star Trek IV, or are you just another idiot mac troll?

Re:A Great Send-Off (-1, Flamebait)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815169)

One wonders if there is a closet Trekker in the military press office. :-)

I can't wait until the military does away with it's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy so those defending America don't have to keep their love for cock^H^H^H^H Star Trek secret.

Re:A Great Send-Off (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815173)

Very appropriate to announce this discovery at the same time James Doohan's remains are being sent into space.

A dupe more than a year old is still a dupe. . . and more than a year old.

KFG

hmm (4, Insightful)

Gronkers (912221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815122)

Now if we could only arm our military vehicles with convential armor let alone the nifty new stuff..

Re:hmm (5, Funny)

B2382F29 (742174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815238)

Well, that would cost you an arm and a leg ... either way.

Hmm (5, Funny)

psilonaut (756938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815123)

How quaint.

Note to mods: (5, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815213)

The parent isn't offtopic; you just didn't get the Star Trek IV reference:

[after Scotty tries to talk into the mouse]

TECHNICIAN: "Just use the keyboard!"

SCOTTY: "The keyboard? How quaint."

The article is disappointing (5, Funny)

kg_o.O (802342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815125)

No pics :(

Re:The article is disappointing (1)

thevoice99 (881959) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815130)

Agreed. These articles never have pictures. People need pictures next to text. Thats why picture books were created. Give me a photo dammit.

Re:The article is disappointing (5, Funny)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815171)

Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

Re:The article is disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815197)

No pics :(

Wait, you didn't see the picture there? It was right in the article! I know it's transparent... but it's there!

Re:The article is disappointing (1)

Malor (3658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815226)

They used a frame to overlay the graphic over a portion of the article. I bet you couldn't even tell which part.

Re:The article is disappointing (5, Funny)

Erik Hensema (12898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815239)

Using some elite slashdot h4x0ring skillz, I am able to post a picture of transparent aluminum right here for you:








Nice, eh?

Re:The article is disappointing (3, Funny)

kg_o.O (802342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815284)

Think you can fool me by posting a pic of transparent milk chocolate?
Think again!

Super Polish (1)

svvampy (576225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815127)

Double the strength by polishing? Seems a bit strange...maybe some early pork-barrelling or deficiencies in the manufacturing process.

Pity it wasn't around in time for Doohan's final journey into the undiscovered country.

Re:Super Polish (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815179)

Polishing (like case hardening) belongs to a normal metallic property called work hardening. You work a metal it will become harder (but normally also more brittle). In fact it is rarer to have a metal that won't work harden than not. Time to go back to metal shop!!

Re:Super Polish (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815198)

Surface composition is a big factor in penetration resistance- try slashing open steel plate with chromoly when it's polished versus roughly plasmacut- the rough plate will catch batter.
www.vrogy.com/blog [vrogy.com]

Re:Super Polish (5, Funny)

AGMW (594303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815278)

Double the strength by polishing?

This isn't that strange, and certainly here on SlashDot I'd expect the readership to be well aware how things can get harder if they are rubbed the right way.

transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal (5, Interesting)

Muhammar (659468) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815129)

when you read the article, you find out that the material is not aluminum metal. It is just a transparent corund-like substance. Al203 alone is pretty hard (and easy to make - including gem colored versions) and the mixed oxide-nitride is probably harder.

Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal (2, Interesting)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815166)

I imagine this stuff would be used as a replacement for what is currently used as the windows. I wonder how this would compare to the rest of the armoured vehicle strength wise. Are we going to suddenly see completely transparent vehicles driving around?

Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal (4, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815251)

I hope not, then I'd have to start wearing pants!

Re:transparent oxide-nitride, not a metal (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815292)

Are we going to suddenly see completely transparent vehicles driving around?

I doubt it. After all, you probably don't want the enemy seeing all the actions you do in the vehicle ("Oh, they are loading the weapon now, maybe this would be a good time to attack ...")

Other things realizable by R-ing TFA (4, Informative)

Atario (673917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815257)

  • Either someone doesn't know how to make a proper trademark symbol, or else the Air Force has a wierder marketing department that one would imagine ("'ALONtm'? Alontum? With odd capitalization? Wha? Is this like that whole Sony Wega/Vega nonsense?").
  • Ceramic can be transparent
  • It's possible for something to be "virtually scratch resistant" -- practically, but not technically, offering some resistance to being scratched

And virtually scratch resistant too! (1)

kt0157 (830611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815378)

Oh yes, most definitely maybe able to possible resist scratches. Unlike glass, which only possibly could be able to resist scratches.

Did the midget mind who wrote this glowing pap even read their own article back before submitting it?

K.

soda (5, Funny)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815131)

Does anyone remember being told when they were a child, not to leave your can of drink open while outside for fear of a wasp/bee getting inside and consequently a painful next sip?

Perhaps with this technology we can have see-through cans and this will no longer be a problem :)

Re:soda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815183)

No, but maybe that's just because my parents weren't paranoid "omg there are germs in the pillows"-type neurotic wackos.

Re:soda (1)

-brazil- (111867) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815261)

If you think that only paranoid neurotics worry about that, you are an ignorant idiot. Wasps and bees like sugar, so it's pretty likely to happen. And a wasp or bee sting in the throat is severely life-threatening to people allergic to the poison - a pretty common allergy. And even if you're not allergic, it still pretty damn painful. Not wanting your kids to suffer that is just common sense.

Re:soda (1)

hplasm (576983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815311)

Sugar-free drinks in cans? No wasps.

Re:soda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815326)

Yeah, and there are germs in the pillows, and germs cause infections and diseases that are potentially lethal. Better disinfect everything and never let your kids play outside lest they have to face the real world and maybe even feel pain once in their lives.

That said, I used to drink soda with my friends outside all the time as a kid and I never heard of anyone getting a wasp sting in their mouths. Urban legends don't count as proof of something being "likely to happen"

Armored soda (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815185)

"Coke, now with added armor for these explosive fieldtrips."

Re:soda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815194)

No, nobody told me bullshit like that when I was a child.

DUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815196)

Plastic bottles???

iPod Nano screen (5, Funny)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815135)

Sound just what Apple need to make some scratch resistant screens for the iPod Nano :)

IPOD nano needs this stuff (5, Insightful)

blackomegax (807080) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815138)

seriously. give the nano a nice coat of this and i think apple's little scratching post will turn into something nice and...well...scratchless

Re:IPOD nano needs this stuff (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815277)

Manufactured diamond coatings might be doable soon enough too.

Beanie (4, Funny)

svvampy (576225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815139)

Does this mean that I can get a new beanie that will protect me from the mind-controlling probes of the government, but not make me look more like a freak?

I don't think that'll catch on.

Re:Beanie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815208)

But then they can just see right into your head.... Tinfoil hats prevent stray mind control waves AND nosey onlookers.

Re:Beanie (2, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815340)

Dude, just do what I do and line your existing hats and headware with aluminum.

Aluminium! (3, Informative)

paulhar (652995) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815148)

Grr...

Re:Aluminium! (0, Troll)

Big-mad-Gregor (634918) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815181)

mod parent up! pesky Americans and their strange spelling....

Re:Aluminium! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815319)

You know both are officially allowed in the US, right?

Re:Aluminium! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815363)

Yeah, but what color?

Finally! (4, Funny)

Moe Napoli (826364) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815149)

I can now order my Wonder Woman jet! Now's where's my Golden Lasso and Amazon Bangles? Soon I hope. Now, if only surgery took well, I'd be all set...

For people with fear of heights (2, Interesting)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815220)

Transparant aluminium bottom in an airplane (-; (Only usefull if the airplane travels without cargo)

Humvee Windshields (4, Insightful)

deathcow (455995) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815150)


IIRC the windshield of a Humveee is about 72" x 23"... thats 1656 square inches. The article quotes $10 - $15 a sq. inch, so the windshield would be worth $16,560 to $24,840.... I guess they wont be protecting fleets of vehicles with them?

Re:Humvee Windshields (1)

Zen Programmer (518532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815249)

Umm, I don't such a price tag would really be a deterrent to the military, considering that DoD's annual budget is in the hundreds of billions range [cdi.org] .

Re:Humvee Windshields (2, Interesting)

sqeaky (874667) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815372)

It's not just any windsheild but a windshield that can stand up to repeated .50 caliber rounds. I think $24,000 is fine price to improve our fighting mens chances at coming home safely. That and it will probably get cheaper when they start mass manufacturing it.

Re:Humvee Windshields (2, Informative)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815342)

1656 square inches. The article quotes $10 - $15 a sq. inch, so the windshield would be worth $16,560 to $24,840....

That's DoD prices, they always seem to have a zero more than seems reasonable, sometimes more. (there's been a few $500 toilet-seats and $300 hammers)

The current prices for similar glass-armor are quite high too, at $3 or so a square inch that Hummer windshield is still going to cost around $5000.

no doubt patented already... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815158)

The Air Force Research Laboratory's materials and manufacturing directorate is testing aluminum oxynitride -- ALONtm

And look.. the trademark is built right in as well!

So the questions is, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815160)

Has anyone seen a pointy eared hippy in San Fransisco. And are any sperm whales missing ?

Re:So the questions is, (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815240)

Don't you mean humpback whales? Turn in your pocket protector. :p

Re:So the questions is, (2, Funny)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815368)

I think he did a little too much LDS.

Re:So the questions is, (1)

mibus (26291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815264)

Has anyone seen a pointy eared hippy in San Fransisco. And are any sperm whales missing ?

I don't know, but I've heard plenty of people use colourful metaphors today...

In a related story: (4, Funny)

dummyname12 (886454) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815162)

The military is planning to test this new material on its nuclear wessels.

Ooooh. (4, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815163)

What'll be really nice is when prices get down to be viable for use in consumer-grade products. Say goodbye to broken windows from baseballs, cracked screens on dropped iPods, chipped windshields from rocks, and all sorts of other fun uses.

It should open up some cool architectural possibilities as well.

Re:Ooooh. (1)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815178)

I imagine there are already much cheaper alternative available that withstand those sorts of forces. Take for instance, the glass at the back of a squash court. Have you ever tried kicking it? Running really fast, before throwing your body into it? Its quite surprisingly strong and doesn't break. Well it didn't when I tried these kind of antics.

Re:Ooooh. (4, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815234)

Say goodbye to broken windows from baseballs,

And say hello to the fire from which you can't escape from because the "glass" is unbreakable.

Every advantage has its disadvantage!

Re:Ooooh. (-1, Troll)

mboverload (657893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815263)

I don't think they want this in civilian hands any any large quantity.

Imagine a house protected with this stuff and a SWAT team trying to save a child from being killed by his mentally-disturbed dad.

I know, "protect the children", but anything that can stop multiple rounds of .50 cal defeats police snipers.

What you want is diamond... (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815299)

For coatings, you want CVD diamond. Here's [bris.ac.uk] a little overview.

finally! (1, Funny)

rootedgimp (523254) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815170)

now i can wear my tinfoil hat without people looking at me weird. technology++

"Computer. Computer? Hello, computer." (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815172)


          Dr. Nichols:

"Just use the keyboard."

              Scotty:

"Keyboard. How quaint. "

Old News is new again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815176)

It's an aluminum-based ceramic, not really aluminum...

We covered this last year (and probably the year before that, but I can't find it):

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/2 3/1141217&tid=14 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/2 0/0358206&tid=126&tid=14 [slashdot.org]

Or as the brits say... (1)

dirtsurfer (595452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815186)

transparent aluminium.
What is with that, anyway?

Re:Or as the brits say... (3, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815211)

transparent aluminium.
What is with that, anyway?

Aluminium is the 'correct' and internationally recommended way of writing it, with aluminum being a local variant. Personally, even as a Brit I think the second sounds more correct, but there you go.

As ever, Wikipedia reveals all [wikipedia.org] .

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Or as the brits say... (1)

leenoble_uk (698539) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815320)

The way I heard it was, it was originally called Alumium. Then some American added an extra n to make it Aluminum, and then some Brit added the extra i to make it more like the rest of the element names: Aluminium. So technically the Yanks are more correct if you're talking about which came first.

But since I'm a Brit and Aluminum always sounds so stupid I call shenanigans. It's Aluminium, you yanks are so stupid, it's got an extra i in it now, jeezus wouldja catch up already.

Transparent Alumin(i)um (3, Informative)

slittle (4150) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815188)

See also here [slashdot.org] for earlier developments in this area.

Adn as a little dream.. (1)

Strenoth (587478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815193)

Perhaps in 20-30 years, this will be standard in all new vehicales and buildings as a safety feature, the begining of a total phase out of glass excepting where metal in any form would be bad (beakers for holding chemicals such as Acid for example)

Well, I can Dream at least.

virtually scratch resistant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815199)

ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant,

Does that actually mean anything? It's almost harder to scratch, but not quite?

Re:virtually scratch resistant? (4, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815270)

It means it'll resists anything except a bunch of bored teenage
scratch-taggers armed with screwdrivers at 3am on a sunday morning.

Whales (2, Funny)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815209)

Hmmmm....Has anyone noticed a pair of humpback whales going missing recently?

Re:Whales (1)

DumbparameciuM (772788) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815383)

Or a tall guy with a bad haircut wearing a bandanna? [Ha-ha! Thinly veiled references!]

Pretty impressive! (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815216)

"In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets."

I don't care if it's see through or not. Stopping a .50 armour piercing round from a browning pretty damn impressive. I wonder if the compound suffers from the same degradation due to exposure to sunlight as some types of bullet proof glass.

I want a pair of glasses made of this stuff!

Re:Pretty impressive! (1)

Xochi77 (629021) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815273)

uhhuh, because glasses lenses now moving at 2500 feet per second aint gunna hurt at all.....

Err, I thought it was called (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815228)

Aluminium. Look it up, it's in all the science books.

Sapphire (5, Informative)

obender (546976) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815232)

Sapphire which is basically a crystal of aluminium oxide has been synthetised almost 100 years ago and is commonly used nowadays. Some non-scratch watches use that instead of glass.

Re:Sapphire (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815290)

Also, IIRC, the transparent plates on checkout scanners are made out of sapphire.

Case mod! (3, Funny)

gobbledok (201300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815233)

A transparent case made of aluminium...Mmmmm, aluminium..

So what? (-1, Troll)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815247)

Do you think I give a shit about anything that does not have pictures? Why do people think its perfectly ok to post stories that are useless without pics, without pics!? And no, I'm not going to go through the comments looking for a link, why should I? it should damn well be updated in the story at the top of the page.

How's it pronounced? (2, Interesting)

Jaruzel (804522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815260)

Is aluminium pronounced:

a) AL-LEW-MIN-NEE-UM

or

b) AL-LUMIN-UM

Personally, I go with 'a' coz I'm a Brit, is it just U.S. peeps who pronounce it 'b' ?

(I'd submit this as a /. poll, but everything I submit gets rejected... I wish there were _at the very least_, proforma reasons as why things get rejected so you know where you went wrong...)

Re:How's it pronounced? (1)

miknight (642270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815287)

It's spelt and pronounced differently by our US brethren.

Re:How's it pronounced? (5, Informative)

Tidal Flame (658452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815295)

Either, really. It can be pronounced and spelled either aluminum or aluminium. Typically, Americans and Canadians pronounce and spell it "aluminum." I can't speak for other countries...

Here's the history behind the difference (from the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] ):
In 1808, Humphry Davy originally proposed the name alumium while trying to isolate the new metal electrolytically from the mineral alumina. In 1812 he changed the name to aluminum to match its Latin root. The same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum, and proposed the name aluminium.

"Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound. (Q. Review VIII. 72, 1812. Cited in OED.)"

This had the advantage of conforming to the -ium suffix precedent set by other newly discovered elements of the period: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy had isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time: platinum, which had been known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, which was discovered in 1778, and tantalum, which was discovered in 1802, all have spellings ending in -um. For the thirty years following its discovery, both the -um and -ium endings were used interchangeably in the scientific literature.

Curiously, the United States adopted the -ium for most of the 19th century with aluminium appearing in Webster's Dictionary of 1828. However Charles Martin Hall selected the -um spelling in an advertising handbill for his new efficient electrolytic method for the production of aluminium, four years after he had patented the process in 1888. Although this spelling may have been an accident, Hall's domination of production of the metal ensured that the spelling aluminum became the standard in North America, even though the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 continued to use the -ium version.

In 1926, the American Chemical Society officially decided to use aluminum in its publications, and American dictionaries typically label the spelling aluminium as a British variant.

Re:How's it pronounced? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815305)

From http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.ht ml [world-aluminium.org]

Derived from the Latin ALUMEN for ALUM (Potassium aluminium sulphate). In 1761 French Chemist Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau proposed that ALUMINE for the base material of ALUM. De Morveau was instrumental in setting up a standardised system for chemical nomenclature and often collaborated with Antoine Lavoisier, who in 1787, suggested that ALUMINE was the oxide of a previously undiscovered metal.

In 1808 Sir Humphrey Davy proposed the name ALUMIUM for the metal. This rather unwieldy name was soon replaced by ALUMINUM and later the word ALUMINIUM was adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists in order to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements. By the mid-1800s both spellings were in use, indeed Charles Dickens commented at the time that he felt both names were too difficult for the masses to pronounce!

The patents of both Hall and Héroult refer to ALUMINIUM and the company Hall helped set up was originally called the Pittsburgh ALUMINIUM Company. It was shortly renamed the Pittsburgh Reduction Company and in the USA the metal gradually began to be known only as ALUMINUM (in 1907 Hall's company finally became the ALUMINUM Company of America). In 1925 the American Chemical Society decided to use the name ALUMINUM in their official publications. Most of the world have kept the I in ALUMINIUM but it is interesting to note that the name for the metal's oxide, ALUMINA has been universally accepted over its more convoluted alternatives, ALUMINE and ALUMINIA.

Both ALUMINIUM and ALUMINUM have an equal claim to etymological and historical justification, and it seems that the difference in both pronunciation and spelling is likely to stay with us for the foreseeable future!

Re:How's it pronounced? (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815307)

Canadians will also say "a-LUM-inum" rather than "alu-MINI-um" - one of the few times we side with the Yankees on both spelling and pronunciation over our British chums.

As for the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll have to ask them yourself. But I suspect they'll go with the British version.

Re:How's it pronounced? (1)

Famanoran (568910) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815323)

Yeah, we use the British version here in NZ..

Re:How's it pronounced? (1)

Jaruzel (804522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815337)

As for the Aussies and Kiwis, you'll have to ask them yourself. But I suspect they'll go with the British version.

Yup, I've just done a straw poll around the office, and as is common in London based IT depts, there are plenty Aussies, Kiwis, and South Africans. They all pronounce it the 'british' way.

-Jar.

Re:How's it pronounced? (1)

NeuroManson (214835) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815357)

I say whoever invented or discovered it gets the name. We'll pronounce it "Aluminium", as long as you stop calling flashlights "torches". It's bloody confusing. Who ever heard of chasing Frankenstein into a windmill with flashlights?

Hey! (3, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815267)

I'm 40% aluminium! Bender

Star treck Ipods (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815269)

Finally, scrach-resistance for my Ipod Nano!

Is this really the way to go? (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815276)

I have to wonder if this stuff isn't going to be pushed into fairly niche applications, even in the military. These days it seems far more likely that the military uses some variety of remote sensing. You put some cameras up, and you look at the picture on a screen. Even if you have to bring a lot of spare cameras -- because they keep getting shot off -- it could still be cheaper than trying to make a thoroughly bulletproof window through which to look with your own eyes.

And, of course, the camera plus display is not limited to human eyeball capabilities. It can easily show you the scene in infrared, or, soon, maybe, millimeter and submillimeter radar. Or it can be magnified, or presented fisheye wraparound, or your intelligence info can be nicely superimposed --- say, all your friends lightly shaded green, all your enemies in red, with a bright cross on your target, et cetera.

So will the future really belong to superduper armor? Maybe not. Maybe it will belong to, say, exceedingly small cameras that can be deployed all over the outside of your craft, or on tiny drones nearby.

Bad Trek Trivia (3, Informative)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815304)

Scotty doesn't trade the formula for transparent aluminium for a small run of the stuff. He trades for a quantity of perspex.

Dr. Nichols says it'll take him "years to even calculate the matrix". Besides that, the stuff they delivered and installed was clearly perspex - it would have been much thinner had it been transparent aluminium.

This is cool stuff here (3, Interesting)

KylePflug (898555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815313)

In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration.
OK, I'm not exactly a gun nut, but that's damn impressive. .50 cal snipers are designed to take out the engine blocks of vehicles. A window stopping them is just plain cool.

The uses go way beyond windshields. How about full-length transparent SWAT shields? If it'll take a .50-cal, should be more than safe enough. How about implrementing some of this in monitor screens? Watch faces? Heck, light fixtures in gymnasiums.

What about airplanes? Make much of the body out of this, making maintenance that much easier.

... in retrospect, that last is a horrible idea. But the others remain good ;)

Transparent Tin Foil Hats (5, Funny)

wangotango (711037) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815322)

How will the rest of the world recognize us if our tinfoils hats are transparent?

God dammit! (2, Funny)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815343)

Scotty's been messing with the timeline again! What next, Mr. Scott? Warp drive in the Victorian era?

the air force apologizes... (1)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815344)

..for taking so long. Apparently the lack of good voice recognition technology held up the discovery significantly.

Oh, *that*! (1)

Ecyrd (51952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815350)

Now that explains why that guy was asking a few months back about "nuclear vessels". *slaps forehead*

where's the mpaa? (1)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815375)

how long will it take the mpaa to claim prior art and sue?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...