Nanotech discovery could have radical implications

Physorg.com | Princeton University ^ | November 30, 2005

[Dark Knight]

Ahh,yes there is no aluminum in Al2O3. Gee, the DOD is interested in this compound as a replacement for glass. It survives a .50 cal AP shell better than glass.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/air_force_testing_new_transparent_armor_9113

Glad you aren't a DOD person, it's going to save lives.

But I was only replying to the humorous remark of BipolarBob in kind.

Make a windshield with ruby or saphire that can withstand .50 cal AP round at $4-$10 per square inch and you have a point.

You don't.

DK

[takebackaustin]

Oh you didnt get my point? My point was that alumina is a compound of aluminum, not some fancy shmantsy European way of saying aluminum, or a typo, or whatever, so it isn't surprising in the least that it is transparent. This really wasn't directed at you in particular or this particular posting, so sorry if I stepped on your sensitive toes. There have been a spate of postings on FR lately confusing aluminum with alumina, and reacting as if it was a sci-fi or nanotech material : "transparent aluminum".

Why does it matter? Because I dont want freepers to look like Emily Latilla. Oh alumina - never mind! Because Rathergate showed how technically astute the Free Republic community is. The collective technical wisdom of groups of gainfully employed conservatives and so forth. So I hate to see us look like we are ignorant of the first few lectures of high school chemistry, where you learn that the properties of a compound are totally different from its constituent elements. Or that we choose to read what we think we see, or what we want to see, not what is there. Letting technical baloney stand fuels mockery and denial by our political opponent.

DS, that stuff about armor and cost, etc are straw man arguments. I didn't say there's no aluminum in alumina, alumina is not useful, or would be expensive, or was soft. You are arguing against statements that you made up yourself out of thin air. That stuff about what I do for a living is ad hominem, and protecting the troops etc is a feeble attempt to use "the last refuge of scoundrels".

You sure have a thin skin, resorting to ad hominem and straw men, and waving the bloody shirt, against a fellow freeper who simply points out that clear alumina is not surprising because he doesn't want our community to look like we jump to conclusions and let them hang there for days without anyone noticing.

Perhaps you also misunderstood that my no-big-deal comment was not directed at you, it was directed at the article that started the thread: Nanotech Discovery could have radical implications It's just grandstanding in the publicity racket that is (most of) academic science.

And if you were just joking about the alumina, and knew better, then I apologize. If so, your humour is so dry its anhydrous, which is my favorite kind.