Dry Ice Made into Super-tough Glass 197
janus zeal writes "A form of solid carbon dioxide that could be used to make ultra-hard glass or coatings for microelectronic devices has been discovered.
The material, named amorphous carbonia, was created by scientists from the University of Florence in Italy.
Writing in the journal Nature, the team says the material was theoretically possible but had never been created.
It was made by squeezing dry ice, a form of carbon dioxide used to create smoke in stage shows, at huge pressure.
Scientists are interested in the new material because of the potential applications. Also, they believe it could give them clues to the processes that happen in the center of huge gas giant planets such as Jupiter."
How do we know he didn't invent the stuff? (Score:3, Funny)
Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough. Simply apply the Congressional Model of engineering; redefine room temperature and pressure.
KFG
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Interesting)
But I digress.
I think you're on to something here- but instead of redefining the temperature and pressure, re-define the room. Maybe this stuff could be used for constructing deep-sea exploration vehicles and habitats. That'll shave off a few degrees / add a few atmospheres to the temperature and pressure targets.
Remember:
Up on the shore they work all day
Out in the sun they slave away
While we devotin'
Full time to floatin'
U
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel [wikipedia.org]
From the description in TFA it seems similar, but I don't have the background in chemistry to make an educated guess. Anyone with credentials care to enlighten me?
And if this stuff is just a new aerogel varient, what's the advantage to it? I was under the impression that we'd need to make aerogel in space if we wanted it in quantity, this new stuff seems to have been made on earth, but requires pressure and/or cold to stay stable.
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:4, Informative)
Aerogel is pretty fricking sweet though. (and for other reasons than the fact that it can float and carry things)
its a great insulator and there are some (carbon?) aeogel's that are conductive of electricity...pretty cool stuff, quite expensive though
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:4, Funny)
The MSDS enclosed with it said that it had no known toxic effects, so a friend ate a small piece, just a few millimeters on a side, before I could stop him. It didn't hurt him, but it left his mouth feeling weird. He is a bit of an eccentric, though.
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:4, Informative)
You probably already know this, but that was probably an effect of aerogel being extremely absorbant. If it wasn't so expensive to manufacture, it would probably make an ideal replacement for kitty litter for cleaning up oil spills and the like.
It can be treated to become extremely hydrophobic, though, allowing it to be cut with precision water jet cutters and such.
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Sure, with your wife. But the sex with your girlfriends only gets better!
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Informative)
So the way they're making this stuff is they way they used to make diamonds before they discovered the more practical CVD method. The summary (and the article's) suggestion that they're going to make skyscraper windows out of this stuff is... optimistic. Plus the problem that it sub
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
almost as hard as diamonds,
almost as strong as diamonds,
more difficult to make than Diamonds,
and unlike diamonds is unstable at temeratures and preasure where it's properties might be usefull!
Which brings use to the stupid question; Why don't we just use diamonds?
In case you can't tell, I really love stupid questions.
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Because De Beers has them all locked up.
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:2)
Yeah! We could use it as a cheap alternative for diamonds in rings, and it'll even cut glass so nobody will be able to tell it's fake!
Re:Just needs Stability, (Score:3, Funny)
Hexagonal diamond? (Score:2)
Well, Duh... (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the cartoon of the scientist at the blackboard with a series of equations on one side and concluding equation on the other with "And then a miracle happens." in between.
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have that cartoon?
It would come in very handy next time I have enough free time to go argue with Creation Scientists.
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's why I used initial capital letters.
It's just a name. A symbol. A mere designation (disclaimer: average Creation Scientist may not prove to be either so hot or so cool as 7 of 9).
It doesn't really have to mean what it says.
Just check all the United, People's and Democratic Republics of whatever throughout history.
P.S. If you want a laugh, go here [objectiveministries.org]. Check the projects. Try the veal. You have been warned.
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Side note - I love the part about a project that put the building blocks of life into a jar and watched them not evolve. You'd think they'd at least try to replicate these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:3, Informative)
And I felt bad for the poor little kids - they'll never understand even basic level science if the adults in their life encourage them to use faulty logic and reasoning.
Just to be sure: You did realize that whole web site is satire, right?
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Unless of course it is all just another layer in the web of satire...
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
I wondered if it might be. If it is, it's incredibly sophisticated and subtle.
And I can still feel bad for the kids - wanna bet that if I don't realize it's a big parody, then neither will the kids who get sent there by clueless adults to learn about creationism?
The problem with doing satire of something that's already silly (like creationism, new age religions, conspiracy theories, or folks like Jack Thompson) is that unless the satire
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
it's incredibly sophisticated and subtle.
What's interesting to me is that, in fact, it's not all that subtle -- if you really know anything about what creationists are like and what they believe. It's only believable if your perception of creationists is a caricature of reality to begin with. Yes, they do twist logic into knots, because they presume the result, and then go about looking for the evidence, but their reasoning is much more believable that what is presented at this site. The errors tend t
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
One particular gem is the banner ad, done in Flash, at the bottom of the page. "Convert the Beatnik Atheist and Get a FREE Bible!" it says. The object is to thump him the atheist, who dodges from side to side, wi
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Then I followed the links. Are these also satire? Or are the authors of O:M linking to genuine Christian web sites in order to, very subtly, make fun of them?
Yes, most (if not all) of the links go to genuine sites. Whether it's to make fun of them, or to lend credibility to O:M, or both, I don't know.
One particular gem is the banner ad, done in Flash, at the bottom of the page. "Convert the Beatnik Atheist and Get a FREE Bible!"
This is a good example. usa-bibles.com is probably a real site, and yo
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Brilliant guy. I have loved his cartoons since I was a kid. Have most of his collections. If you want a true belly laugh, get a copy.
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:4, Funny)
We mixed it with a bit of room temperature and pressure gaseous diamond. Unfortunately this only works so long as we keep it immersed in room temperature and pressure molten gold.
If we can just work out how to. . .
I find it interesting that one of the things this company is pushing is that it would be a solution to binding excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I thought the solution to that was simple and obvious:
Take your carbon dioxide and some plain water. Crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Crack the carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. You're left with a lot of . .
Now you've got carbon and a hydrogen. Combine the two and you'll get a sort of brown-black goo which will be a bit of a disposal problem, since you'll eventually end up with billions of barrels of the stuff, but really, all you have to do is inject it under pressure into underground sand and shale deposits and it can sit there safe for millions of years.
Problem solved.
Of course you have to be careful. There's a certain risk that when the hydrogen and carbon combine you'll just end up with billions of barrels of vodka instead of brown-black goo and lord only knows how we'd manage to dispose of that.
KFG
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
That's easy - just remove the oxygen from the lattice!
I have some training documentation (on Ericsson AXE node switches) from my ex-employer with a diagram including that exact phrase. For all intents and purposes, it
Most important use (Score:5, Funny)
Scratch-proof iPod screens of course!
Re:Most important use (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Most important use (Score:2)
Re:Most important use (Score:4, Informative)
It is either sputtered on or PECVD, applied under vacuum.
It _is_ carbon glass.
It exists already, just not made using the high pressure method the article blathers on about.
Stable at room temp? (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I spent the last two years working on computational study of spin glasses, and am working on my PhD in soft condensed matter, of which glasses are a huge part.
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
This material is only stable at a 1/2 million PSI (or atmospheres, I forget which.)
They are trying to combine it with silica to form a stable compound that is harder than regular glass, but that's a long way off, and I'm not sure how hard the resulting material will be - you'd assume that it would be harder than glass, but softer than this new substance.
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
BBC makes it sound like they want to magically make CO2 form a stable amorphous solid at room temperature, even though the molecules would have WAY too much kinetic energy to stay togethe
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
You know, I had to read that twice to understand what you meant... (or at least what it seems you meant - I doubt you're trying to tell us that you do your PhD work while immersed in a puddle of goo.
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
Hmm... we could bury them up to their necks in a shear-thickening fluid. If they try to thrash around and rip themselves out, it will be very difficult. If they move slowly and deliberately, they will get out easily. Both a valuable lesson and entertaining to watch!
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
Re:Stable at room temp? (Score:2)
You've obviously never been to our emergency room...
Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:5, Interesting)
Though sometimes you'll use dry ice to cool the resulting fog. The hot fog gives you a smoky, atmospheric effect. If you want ground-hugging fog, you've got to cool it down, and dry ice is a pretty good way to chill it quickly.
Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:2)
Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:2)
I have no idea what the long-term effects are. And God knows the dry ice is more fun to play with. But if you want fog right in a particular place at a particular time, nothing beats a fog machine.
I do theatrical work, not concert work. Concerts usually just crank up the fog and let it go, the more fog the better. In a play there are scenes with fog and scenes without fog, and it's really nice to be able to control that with a guy in the light booth rather than dumping pellets into
Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:2)
Fog machine fog isn't toxic, but can be a problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
We train using fog machines frequently, because if something goes wrong you can remove your SCBA and breath normally.
In a training event for "Explorers" not too long ago, we used this fake smoke on a hot day. We had to cancel the use of it because several of the kids has asthma attacks. After investigating, the only explanation we could find, was that the appearance of smoke creates the expectation that it will be difficult to breathe. That expectation can be self fulfilling -- especially in young people who have had bad reactions to actual smoke in the past.
Oh well.
Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:2, Interesting)
I use both regularly at work, for as much an expert that does or doesn't make me. Refrigerated heavy fog machines are great, but both are still used. In my experience at least, when used properly dry ice has a much richer, heavier effect then the machines like Jem (which we have) or Le Maitre makes. Of course, from a practical standpoint the heavy foggers are much more convenient. But for a good, one shot effect, we still often go with a large dry ice mac
Re:Not so much with the dry ice any more (Score:3, Funny)
Carbonia is lovely this time of year (Score:4, Funny)
Finally! A solution to global warming! (Score:4, Funny)
Hate to break it to you, but (Score:2)
Re:Hate to break it to you, but (Score:2)
Re:Finally! A solution to global warming! (Score:2)
Quoth the article:
> Their discovery could lead to a way of storing or disposing of carbon dioxide gas,
> a major contributor to global warming, deep in the Earth's interior.
>
> To create the glassy amorphous carbonia, the team led by Professors Mario Santoro
> and Federico Gorelli of the University of Florence heated solid carbon dioxide
> between diamond teeth at pressures over 400,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure.
And I suppose this process would require less energy, and
I think this takes ... (Score:5, Funny)
the term Vaporware Windows to a whole new level!
Stability - (Score:2)
I for one welcome our new exploding glass overlords.
Re:Stability - (Score:3, Informative)
You're misunderstanding the use of the word 'stability'. All glasses are thermodynamically unstable. A glass is, essentially, a liquid that has been cooled really quickly past the melting point to a temperature at which the atoms do not have enough energy to re-arrange themselves into the thermodynamically preferred crystalline ordering. This leaves you with a thermodynamically unstable - but kinetically stable - solid that has an amorphous structure (one with no long-range atomic order).
Since this gla
solve global warming (Score:2)
special effect smoke? (Score:2)
Not stable at room temperature/pressure (Score:2)
This stuff only exists under huge pressure; it's not stable under ordinary conditions.
Compare xenon hexafluoride [wikipedia.org], a compound of an inert element, something once thought to be impossible. It is also created under high pressure, but it remains a crystalline solid at room temperature and pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:2)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:2)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:2, Funny)
(Well, actually you do. But on the workers, not the buildings. And let's face it, those aren't nipples most of us want to see.)
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least I read the article!
Re:Needs a bit more work first though.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That, or not enough people are meta-modding.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't read the Nature article yet, but I have a feeling the "understand a planet and coat lenses" bit was thrown in as fluff to justify the research. It's pretty much accepted practice, and I know I'm not the only one who barely glances at the first paragraph in most papers.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
Don't bother, grammar nazis... I realize this sentence is awful. Wow... I should really proofread my posts.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case the lens thing may not be so crackpot. SiO2, quartz, is the lens and glass material used in certain situations. Single crystal is just in the more demanding cases, but amorphous is used where possible. The size of a single crystal quartz stone is limited due to growth constraints. Chemicaly CO2 and SiO2 might bind wel
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
For exmaple, from the article: "Scientists are interested in the new material because of the potential applications.
Translation: Please give us more funding.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can confidently say there is no application (this millenium at least) for at least half of physics research, most astronomical or maths research, not to mention the Arts, where people would be highly offended if you even asked them for a practical application.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
It's safe to say that most cosmology research will never have a practical application, yet I am glad my tax dollars support such research. Some taxpayers, especially those in the parts of the country where science is seen as a tool of the devil, don't support science for the sake of science. I'd like to think that the more enlightened ones do.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but it does consistently reward us for methodically searching for interesting things in unusual places.
Think of it as a form of assay: You assay every square mile of territory, not because you like assaying, or you think there's something worth mining in every square mile of territory, but to find out which square miles have something worth mining.
I'm not paying for science for the sake of science. I'm paying for a thorough assay of the territory.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
Second off - even if such a thing DID exist, I'd still support exploration for the sake of knowledge. Learning about the Big Bang doesn't save anyone's life, but it sure makes us more enlightened. The fact that we, as a species, crave knowledge is what sets us apart from lower animals. I feel truly sad for you that you have no interest in funding things that won't return someth
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
You seem to judge "value to me" to be the same as "value to people". To me, personally, a lot of art has no value, but I'm not going to tell the government to stop funding it because I personally don't get anything out of it. You have a mighty selfish world view.
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
No, actually I think the point is that you do. You value whatever non productive science branch you value, and then say I ought to fund it. I on the other hand point out there is no difference between the cosmos and navel contemplation, and you end up calling me selfish. You are the selfish one, wanting to take people's money for something they find zero value in. I on the other hand dont' really want people to pay me to contemplate my n
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
Re:Um... a bit too intricate? (Score:2)
I just went back over each and every post I made, and it seems pretty clear what I'm saying. If you don't return value to the donors, then what's the point of funding the research. It's pretty simple. No one owes anyone else a living doing what they want to do because they want to do it.
I don't understand your anger and why you need to be so insulting. I think you really should examine your own motives. I suspect, no I don't know, that you have an axe to grind. That's unfortunate, but I'm glad to see
Re:Big question: Does it flow? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Big question: Does it flow? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Big question: Does it flow? (Score:2)
What ever happened to the 'transparent aluminum' that dude from San Francisco was working on in the 80's?
Does normal glass flow? (Score:2)
Here's the surprise, though. The old windows were uneven when they were new. Before the float glass process, windows were produced by glass blowers. A flat even sheet would have been a miracle.
I've heard of big refracting telescopes being disabled by glass flowing.