Talk:Transparent aluminum

message: Previous ST-IV plot segment was slightly incorrect: 
In the plot of the Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, water tanks made with transparent aluminum were used to transport humpback whales through time, from the 20th century to the 23rd century, inside a Klingon Bird of Prey. Since the crew was temporarily stranded in the past, they had to obtain the material for their tank from a local manufacturer. In a notable scene, Scotty convinces the owner of the Plexicorp company (a fictional manufacturer of Plexiglass) to manufacture the necessary tank by providing them with the chemical formula for transparent aluminum.
In fact, they used the formula as payment for plexiglass of a sufficient thickness to create the tanks they needed, since there was no transparent aluminum (supposedly a common materal in the 23rd century) to be had in 1986 San Francisco.
First, in the time-frame they had to build the tanks ( less than 24hrs or so?), the plexi manufacturer could not have possibily tooled up and created trans. aluminum (it's a plastics factory, not a AL refinery/metalshop).  Second there is the exchange where Scotty asks how thick would the plexi would need to be to support (the weight of the water and whales) and the owner says "Oh that's easy, x inches; I keep that in stock."  Scotty: 'Ah yes, so I noticed.' and they begin the formula barter ending with Scotty saying "Now would that be worth something to ya'?".  Later we see Sulu piloting a helicopter lowering the several-inch thick walls of plexi into the Bird of Prey.  Theoretical trans aluminum would only be a few centimeters thick, no?
Autiger 14:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ST-IV

message: Couldn't elemental aluminum be made transparent, and of any color, by making nanophase materials with varying bead sizes?
It wouldn't be totally fictional then.
IIRC, differently colored transparent copper is made that way.
:Where'd you get that? lysdexia 04:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think fiction is being passed off as fact here.--203.23.17.160 12:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparent metals 

message: An article about aluminum needs a link to Aluminum... --Maian 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to aluminum 

message: Has anyone considered the possibility that the term "transparent aluminum" may actually have been a brand name, and not actually aluminum that's transparent? CFLeon 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand name? 

message: So this article has been moved to "Transparent aluminium".  I understand the reasoning, but it unfortunately completely contradicts the way it was pronounced in Star Trek, which was clearly the American pronounciation.  I started to fix it, but realized that would have left us with two spellings in the same article, which is clearly not acceptable.  Any thoughts?  Powers T 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually two spellings is okay IMO, as we're talking about two different things. I went ahead and moved the article back to aluminum, as the previous move was done based on MoS concerns without a formally Requested Move and not individual ideosyncracies of this article, and has now been contested multiple times. I also moved the ST stuff above the RL entries, but I am not adverse to switching that back around. I just think the St references are still more popular, and the TOC allows people to jump past them if they wish. Thoughts? -- nae'blis 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this.  Powers T 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Just FYI: in the March 2006 issue of SA you'll find an article about transparent aluminum.  It's in that first section with the short articles.  No mention of Star Trek, alas.  Let's hear it for the Wiki method! Soltera 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific American article about this subject 

message: Although transparent aluminum is a fictional material, this article contains mentions of real-life transparent aluminum compounds.  I suggest that the real-life items should be more clearly separated from the fictional discussion, particularly in the introductory paragraph.  Alternatively, since these compounds are not true aluminum, perhaps they should be moved to a "see also" section instead of in the main body.  Either way, I'll make a note to myself to check back later and take a shot at revision when I have more time, unless someone else gets to it first.--CheMechanical (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: inasmuch as the term transparent aluminium is actually a description rather than an actual substance, i agree with your fiction/reality argument. however, i think the segregation into the "in fiction" section is fine....and i'm not sure what you mean by "not true aluminum."--emerson7 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between fiction and reality 

message: I have seriously been trying to bite my lip while Star Trek fans have their fun (I am a huge fan myself !) But regardless of what Scottie may or may not have said in any given episode, this article is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to Wikipedia.
A solid object may be not transparent either because it reflects the incoming light or because it absorbs the incoming light. Of course, almost all solids reflect a part and absorb a part of the incoming light.
For example, when light falls onto a block of metal, it encounters atoms that are tightly packed in a regular lattice and a "sea of electrons" moving randomly between the atoms. These randomly placed electrons move chaotically (and dissipatively) between the ordered  atoms of a typical polycrystalline metallic solid. This is the nature of the metallic bond.
Most of the light is scattered back from this kind of material, which is precisely why we see a shiny metal surface. Metals reflect most of the light because they have free electrons -- and no matter how small you make the "metallic beads" they will still have those free electrons !
These electrons are shaken by the electric field of the light which is an electromagnetic wave, and emit two waves. One wave is in the direction of the incoming wave, which is visible as the reflected wave. The other wave is similar in amplitude and in the same direction as the incoming wave. But since they are not traveling in phase, the deconstructive interference gives rise to a zero amplitude wave. Thus no light is transmitted through liquid or solid metals.
This is NOT a Star Trek episode. 
This is the physical reality of Transparent materials.
-- logger9 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For me as a chemist the article does not make any chemical sense. Aluminum or aluminium is an element, and not a compound. Of course, aluminum containing compounds exist that are transparent, but the coumpounds are not termed aluminum any longer, but for example alumina or aluminium oxynitride or similar. As I do not see any scientific content, I would leave the article to Star Trek fans and delete the pseudo-science part.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embarrassment to Wikipedia 

message: Transparent aluminum already exists in List of Star Trek materials; this could easily be merged there. This page has no sourcing, and minimal notability to remain an independent article. -- Aatrek / TALK 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: The current official Wikipedia position on the Aluminium/Aluminum debate is that the spelling is Aluminium (see Talk:Aluminium/Spelling for all the gory details). However this fictional Star Trek material is named "Transparent aluminum" and NOT "Transparent aluminium". I have edited the article to preserve the spelling of the fictional item, but use the (ahem) "official" spelling elsewhere. Manning (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling standardisation