▲ 41 points
back
48 comments
I read the article.
I read the abstract and skimmed the paper. And understood only a little.
I sat, and I thought, and contemplated the duck on my desk...
Now what happens if we do the same thing with not quite "frozen" iron? Carbon? Other materials? What happens if we start mixing cocktails of materials that are known to not easily bind? What happens if we vary the temperature over time? What happens with different numbers of balls? What happens if we shake (a lot), and then stir a little in one direction, and then shake (a lot) and then stir a little in the opposite direction? What happens if we shake and then add another batch and then shake some more at a different frequency? What happens if we don't use balls but dodecahedrons?
__(o)=
\___)
Metallurgy is all about manipulating the crystal structure and microstructure of materials with games of temperature and additions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstructure
In steel it's about wandering around the iron-carbon phase diagram with specific times and temperatures to get a wide range of effects. https://fractory.com/iron-carbon-phase-diagram/
So is chocolaturgy, which was the first example of a "phase transition map" shown in the (surprisingly fun) course on materials science that I took in college.
https://soft-matter.seas.harvard.edu/index.php/The_Science_o...
Say no to clickbait media.
The paper quoted in the article is
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105
In fairness, a reputable newspaper summarising an academic article for a general audience is not "clickbait". For most people, "the compression of MDA at low temperature leads to a sharp increase of its recrystallization enthalpy, highlighting that H2O can be a high-energy geophysical material" (that's just from the abstract) is not really accessible.
In this case, the article isn't even open access.
"Clickbait" as a term is mostly a lazy putdown that needs to die unless it's something in the vein of "5 amazing facts about $X, you won't believe #3."
Newspapers and articles (and book titles) have been using headlines to hook readers since before there were clicks and there's really nothing wrong with wanting to engage an audience. Not everything is "just the facts."
This headline still feels like click bait to me. They've just swapped in "something new" for what might have been "this." At the very least, it doesn't really summarize anything about the conclusion but leaves you unable to decide if the article is interesting enough for your time without further reading. Headlines should generally give you information ("Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg"), and help you decide whether you want to read the full story.
Headline styles vary. Look at a print version of The Economist for example. The subhead/dek does tend to be a summary but the actual hed is often some sort of clever wordplay.
There's another piece of science journalism on the front page right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677306. The headline and the article are laughably far removed from the actual experimental finding. But it sounds so modern and brain-sciencey.
Sure, but you will concede that both the ordinary and the shaking are largely inaccurate , like everyone at home makes ice with liquid nitrogen and then can shake it with steel balls at 20 Hz.
The phrase "transformed it into something never before seen" is pretty sus. They made ice... into more different ice. It's not like they made it into iridescent smoke or something.
A more honest headline would be something like "Researchers succeed in creating a new kind of amorphous ice". Not as exciting? Too bad! That's because it isn't as exciting as the misleading thing.
Having a grad degree in material science I personally understand the distinction between amorphous and crystalline ice and might find that headline intriguing. I suspect it would be a turnoff for the average Times reader.
Same (though, my physics background is much weaker than yours). However, I'm mad about two things in the headline and lay-article. The headline says "shaken hard" and the image caption says "obtained by putting ice in a bowl with steel balls." The article is clear, they put ice in a ball mill. They ground the ice up at low temperature. They didn't just shake it, they didn't just put ice and steel in a bowl. Jeez.
I'll grant that the whole shaken not stirred thing is probably overplayed. But it's all reasonable enough overall for a mainstream newspaper.
Do you find the times article bait and switch? My reading was it is something never seen before, and I found it interesting and exciting and the properties discussed seemed unique (the pressure+heat=lots of energy particularly). But as an expert in the field, is the headline over stating the result to entice clicks?
>Do you find the times article bait and switch?
No.
It's accurate if unspecific. The dek is also a good teaser. "medium-density amorphous ice" is mentioned in the photo caption at the top. And the lede is both clever and summarizes things at a layman's level.
I'm not really an expert on ice. My thesis advisor is but I actually worked on Nickel Aluminides though that branch of my thesis advisor's work never ended up really going anywhere. But this seems like a very reasonable (and readable) article for a mainstream audience on the topic.
Sure. I might like to see some phase diagrams, etc. but I don't expect that in a newspaper.
General audience summary by a university involved in this research from last week, posted 3 days ago:
>a high-energy geophysical material
Is there some heat of fusion delta from "regular" ice that means this can store a large amount of energy?
From article:
"But compressing MDA and then releasing the pressure and heating it released a large burst of energy.
That energy, released as the amorphous ice recrystallizes, could set off icequakes, for example."
Probably not large, but enough to melt some surrounding normal ice? Or causes material to expand rapidly by several percent?
>a reputable newspaper
Hardly.
Wait, are implying to say no to the venerable New York Times? Did you not know that this is a "newspaper of record" with "all news that fit to print"?
As someone who loves eating ice (and who loves eating snow even more, I'll leave out a cup while it's snowing and then eat the contents with a spoon), the only thing I could think of while reading this was "I wonder what it would taste like."
Eating ice is a symptom of iron deficiency, it warrants mentioning
I was skeptical, but it's a thing:
In case anyone else was getting nervous: “If you occasionally enjoy crunching on leftover ice cubes, such as when you finish a fountain drink, that isn’t pagophagia. Chewing on ice only becomes pagophagia when the drive to chew ice is intense and persistent.”
Tomorrow's follow up: Scientists Discover New Form of Brain Freeze.
Given that "The water ice was first chilled in liquid nitrogen to minus 320 degrees Fahrenheit" (77K), I think it would taste like frostbite.
The paper mentions that the new phase of ice reverts to something less interesting at 140K (-207F). Out of range for terrestrial experiences, which is why the article discusses finding it in space or on other planets.
Snow is really high in aluminum content. I'd do what you describe maybe back in our childhood days but perhaps not anymore.
what do they mean "when the planes spray"? Why would planes spray aluminum?
cloud seeding would have been my first guess but that uses silver or potassium, or electricity. nanoparticulates of aluminum near shasta are coming from where? i scrubbed through the video, but the only thing mentioned was "planes", once directly as what i thought to be a joke, and then again at the end showing a plane flying.
If the planes' engines are what is dispersing aluminum i wouldn't expect their lifetimes to be that long. is there aluminum in the fuel?
I'll capture some rainwater here in the gulf coast and send it to a lab to look for aluminum. We have lots of military and civilian planes overhead, so if it is related to planes, there should be plenty of contamination here, too.
Dane Wigington is quite controversial but watch more of his content and make up your own mind. Don't just disregard it like my sibling comment. Definitely collect and test your own groundwater and share the results with us.
He had been friends with Gavin Newsom and met with him to warn him on the issue multiple times.
Epistemic hygiene: if you see a youtube video making unusual claims, check out the other videos on the channel. Title of one of Dane Wigington top videos "New: CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government".
It's a chemtrails channel.
If you are so sincere about your epistemic hygiene, at least call it an "atmospheric aerosol injection" channel.
Then we can all realize that it is tacitly already being done while doing lip service to "should we maybe do it now guys".
That channel has pretty undeniable visuals pointing to something being sprayed, on and off. Meetings of hundreds of people at townhalls, lab results, interviews with relevant officials.
But it is a "chemtrail" channel, those heathens. I bet they added aluminum into the samples they collected and sent it to the lab.
All for the sweet sweet clicks.
Stay hygienic, avoid unapproved information.
Okay then. Do you think there is a shadow government, as the title of that video alleges?
Title of another video from that channel: "Geoengineering: Waging Weather Warfare On World Populations" (312K views) Do you think the shadow government is waging weather warfare?
"Hurricane Irma Manipulation: Objectives And Agendas" (196K views) Do you think the shadow government is controlling the paths of hurricanes?
"Engineered Drought Catastrophe, Target California" (190K views) Do you think the shadow government has created an artificial drought in California?
"Drilling Under Lake Mead To Drain The Last Drop" (145K views) "CONTROLLING HURRICANE IAN?" (118K views) "High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Contrail Lie" (114K views) "Wildfires As A Weapon, US Military Exposed" (76K views) "Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes" (47K views) "Blatant And Inarguable Geoengineering Jet Spraying Captured On Film" (43K views)
Keeping an open mind here, do you think any of these videos accurately describe true events? If you don't think they're true, then why link to them?
son, is that you?
OMG!
They made Ice-nine!
Well, Ice IX already exists, interestingly enough [0]. Here are all the other forms of ice [1].
Vonnegut's Ice-nine was terrifying, though.
Viral, room-temperature ice. Spoiler: everyone dies in the end.
Disappointed they didn’t say how MDA behaves in a drink.
With the same density as water it should suspend in the glass, which could nicely keep the ice away from your teeth.
They mention that "The water ice was first chilled in liquid nitrogen to minus 320 degrees Fahrenheit" (77K). The paper mentions that the new phase of ice reverts to something less interesting when heated to 140K (-207F).
Writing up a proposal for a research grant to explore the all-important follow-up question: What if you put this into a Margarita?
Paywall bypassing gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/science/new-ice-glass.htm...
Disabling JavaScript works well, too.
thanks
That’s nice, but will it give me a clear ice ball for my bourbon?
So they finally discovered ice-9?
(Obligatory hat tip to Vonnegut)
Already happened: https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/ice-seven-al...