81–90 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of systematic naming is predictability through consistency, not appealing to the lowest common denominator. But Sweden isn’t exactly known for its stellar educational system, so it doesn’t surprise me that their chemists don’t learn Greek.
Ancient Greece wasn't known for its great chemical industry.
Is single atom thick gold somewhat optically transparent?
Definitely yes. Gold is surprisingly transparent for a metal. Famously, gold plating is used on astronaut helmet visors, at 200 nm thickness - i.e. ~1200 atoms thick.
Is single atom thick gold somewhat optically transparent?
Definitely yes. Gold is surprisingly transparent for a metal. Famously, gold plating is used on astronaut helmet visors, at 200 nm thickness - i.e. ~1200 atoms thick.
For those who are curious: it fends off harmful EM radiation
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1997/hm2.html#:~:text=A%20th....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely yes. Gold is surprisingly transparent for a metal. Famously, gold plating is used on astronaut helmet visors, at 200 nm thickness - i.e. ~1200 atoms thick.
Is it more transparent than other metals? How transparent is a 200 nm film of iron or aluminium?
If it weren’t for the captions, I would assume that every single photo in this article was stock photography: “Scientists doing sciencey things.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you really distort the definitions. The "empty space" you are thinking about is the matter. You can't just put other stuff there. There's a similar wrong meme about how you never really "touch" anything.
> There's a similar wrong meme about how you never really "touch" anything. Ok, what is the exact moment you touch something? How close do the atoms need to be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How quick do you expect a material science innovation to land in commercial products? E.g. if the superior quality of material X is proven in one study today, it might take at least a decade for material X to make it into a first run of a prototype chip series — maybe — if there have been a hundred follow-up studies that showed promise as well. Then how long does it take for that prototype chip series to feel like a…
Graphene was insanely hyped close to two decades ago though. Every other month you'd hear stories of things that could be disrupted by it. That was my recollection, though could be biased and me misremembering. But it feels like a valid question, especially since it has been two decades. Relevant section from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene : > In 2004, the material was rediscovered, isolated and i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article puts nuclear in a "list of technologies that failed to make the grade". So I question everything else in the article. I agree that nuclear is underutilized, but putting it on the same list as an electric bike that flopped is.... I don't even have words
Whatever your feelings about nuclear power, you can't really argue with the reason they think it has "failed to make the grade": > “Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter” – Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.