Looks like an interesting material. I wonder how it compares to lucite or other plastics…

“Scientists have designed ‘transparent wood’ that could replace conventional glass in windows.

The innovation was developed using wood from the balsa tree, which is native to South and Central America, and claims to be five times more thermally efficient than glass.

The team treated balsa wood in an oxidizing bath that bleaches it of nearly all visibility and then penetrated it with a synthetic polymer called polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) - creating a product that is virtually transparent.

Unlike traditional glass, the transparent wood can withstand much stronger impacts and will bend or splinter when damaged, instead of shattering…”

https://mol.im/a/8807515

Cool. Now if they can get the transparent aluminum figured out, we’ll really be set.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Cool. Now if they can get the transparent aluminum figured out, we’ll really be set.

-Rob

Its already been done.

They do indeed have transparent aluminum ("Alon"), it's just 3-5x more expensive than glass.

They're hinting that transparent wood may be more cost-effective in certain applications.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Cool. Now if they can get the transparent aluminum figured out, we’ll really be set.

-Rob

Its already been done.

Just find the nuclear wessels.

Oh great.....now every drunk drver will have an excuse for hitting the tree.

"but ofasir (slurring)....reeealy I din't see no
damned tree"

Okay, so I vaguely remember reading about that back when, but it doesn't really count until they build something cool and space-y out of it. Or at least a whale tank.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
"Unlike traditional glass, the transparent wood can withstand much stronger impacts and will bend or splinter when damaged, instead of shattering…"

It's not particularly relevant to windows, but interestingly, wood has about the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any common engineering material.

If you need to build a structure to support a specific load, and you build one structure out of balsa wood and one out of steel, the balsa wood structure takes up much more volume than the steel one, but is also much lighter.

Of course, you can't really build a wood skyscraper, because the strength requirements are such that the wood would take up so much room there wouldn't be any space left in the building.

I have a BS in mechanical engineering, but I didn't learn about this then - wood is almost completely ignored as a building material.

I learned about it as a result of my interest in boats and boatbuilding. The traditionally hand-made cold-molded wood hull offshore fishing boats built all along the Atlantic coast, but especially in the Carolinas, are FAR lighter and stronger (and thus need smaller engines and/or go faster and/or get better fuel usage) than any fiberglass boat.

About the only things that can beat wood for strength-to-weight ratio are high end carbon fiber or kevlar composites, which is what gets used where ultimate performance is the goal and price is no object, for example America's Cup racing sailboats.

Let's build a floating staircase out of this and see if a dog will go up it. Or my wife!

I keep saying, “What will they come up with next?” Well now that that’s invented, What will they come up with next?

Well, that is all well and good, but the REAL question:

Is it inflammable-proof, non-flammable-proof, flammable-proof, or bullet-proof?

We'll finally get a good look at Linda Carter flying around in that jet.

My degree is in MSE - Materials Science and Engineering (GO HOKIES). The Material Selection class we took frequently ended up with bamboo being one of the best materials (cost, strength, rigidity) until the specification included fire resistance. I'd be curious if the PVA they impregnate into the balsa is somewhat flame resistant.

Transparent wood, eh?

I can't wait to have my Tudor-style wooden aquarium installed.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
They do indeed have transparent aluminum ("Alon"), it's just 3-5x more expensive than glass.
<snip>

ALON is an aluminum compound, not aluminum:

“Aluminium oxynitride or ALON is a ceramic composed of aluminium, oxygen and nitrogen. It is marketed under the name ALON by Surmet Corporation…”
–Wikipedia

I doubt that aluminum can be transparent, except possibly in nano thin layers that are unsuitable for windows.

Yes, I know, I used to work with technical ceramics. I was using the term "transparent aluminum" in a general way, as everyone remembers that scene from Star Trek IV.

I know that wood is strong, but can you explain why wood planes are overly heavy? WW2 Mosquito was designed to be produced by woodworkers in small workshop. However it was quite heavy compared to aluminum planes. Mostly it was used as a night fighter.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
I know that wood is strong, but can you explain why wood planes are overly heavy? WW2 Mosquito was designed to be produced by woodworkers in small workshop. However it was quite heavy compared to aluminum planes. Mostly it was used as a night fighter.

That's a bit like asking why a brick house is so big. Which house?

Wood offers light construction, and it's strong, and most importantly, it flexes and does not fatigue. One that that cannot be guaranteed in a wood aircraft structure is integrity, which is one of the damgers of being the guy that signs off on an inspection of a wood spar. There's no way to tell with certainty that there's no dry rot inside the spar, or loss of glue joint integrity. Wood wings were long been favored for competition aerobatic aircraft, however, because they do have a very high strength to weight ratio, and because they don't fatigue.

The Mosquito carried a four thousand pound bomb load, up to six thousand over its gross weight, for a takeoff weight of twenty five thousand pounds. It had a max speed in excess of four hundred mph. Compare that to the B-17, which was aluminum, weighed sixty five thousand pounds, required four engines, and carried just over 4000 lbs of bombs on a long range mission, at only 180 mph.

The DeHavilland Mosquito was known for it's speed and light weight, repairability, ability to sustain battle damage, and flight characteristics. Even Herman Goring expressed admiration (and jealousy) of the Mosquito. While radar was fledgling in development, the Germans also believed that the Mosquito had a lesser radar signature, making it harder to detect and track; wood is less reflective.

Wood continues to be used today for some aircraft structures (indeed, I have one under construction myself). Spruce is a great choice, as is finish birch ply. Covered with fabric, it makes for a light, strong structure.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
I know that wood is strong, but can you explain why wood planes are overly heavy? WW2 Mosquito was designed to be produced by woodworkers in small workshop. However it was quite heavy compared to aluminum planes. Mostly it was used as a night fighter.

That kind of question almost always comes down to specific design decisions.

In contrast, take a look at the Spruce Goose (which is actually made of birch). It is much lighter than modern aluminum passenger and cargo planes of similar size.

The Spruce Goose has an empty weight of 250,000 pounds. The C-5 Galaxy is pretty close in size but weighs 380,000 pounds empty.

A comparison between the C-5 and the Birch Bitch (as the H-4 "Spruce Goose" was called in the day) isn't a very good one.

The H-4 made one flight, reaching a cruise altitude of 70', and remained airborne for a distance of less than a mile. It never flew again.

The C-5 does a bit better.

It does fly nose-low over corn fields, though.