GURPS Fantasy-Tech 1: The Edge of Reality

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Kromm

When you use the name of a metal without qualifying what it's compounded with, it's assumed you mean the elemental metal.

White gold?

Originally Posted by Kromm

For definitions of "small" that include "femtoseconds" and "transparent" that mean "to hard UV," yeah. Check out the energy requirement, too. :)

I know the specs. It's like calling nuclear energy "fake inventions of the far future" during the Manhattan Project. Sure we're just getting started. But we're doing it and producing theories on how it can be improved.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Edges

White gold?

There actually is elemental gold in that - its an alloy, not a compound. I don't really understand why people want to insist transparent aluminium is a real material, but if they're determined and willing to allow compounds, there's no reason to go for anything exotic, alumina (Al2O3) is decently transparent and a widely used engineering material (though manufacturers like to call it sapphire).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I don't really understand why people want to insist transparent aluminium is a real material.

"How do I know he didna invent the thing?"

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by malloyd

There actually is elemental gold in that - its an alloy, not a compound.

Precisely. My geekish objection wasn't to the presence of other elements, but to the presence of chemical bonds between them. I'm fine with using <qualifier><element 1> for <mixture> if actual elemental <element 1> makes up most of <mixture> and hasn't reacted with <element 2>, <element 3>, etc. I'm less fine with using <qualifier><element 1> for <compound>, where <element 1> has reacted with <element 2>, <element 3>, etc.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Precisely. My geekish objection wasn't to the presence of other elements, but to the presence of chemical bonds between them. I'm fine with using <qualifier><element 1> for <mixture> if actual elemental <element 1> makes up most of <mixture> and hasn't reacted with <element 2>, <element 3>, etc. I'm less fine with using <qualifier><element 1> for <compound>, where <element 1> has reacted with <element 2>, <element 3>, etc.

So Yttrium Silver is not metallic silver?
Rusted Iron is not Iron?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Rusted Iron is not Iron?

If all of the iron has oxidized, I call it "rust." I would only say "rusted iron" if there were a substratrum of metallic iron beneath an oxidized surface, or maybe shot through with oxidized strata.

Bill Stoddard

[Edges]

Peanuts aren't nuts either. And panda bears aren't bears. But everybody calls them that. Saying peanuts and panda bears are fictitious because they're not really nuts or bears would be pedantic to the point of being silly.

If a bunch of people who work with a material every day that they call transparent aluminum are told by a gaming geek like me who's never even seen the stuff that it's not really transparent aluminum because the aluminum atoms are bonded with oxygen and nitrogen, they're not going to care. Of course aluminum isn't transparent. We've all seen it. You obviously have to alter it chemically to make it so because we've been melting it and crystallizing it, hammering at it for centuries without seeing through it. If transparent means bonded it with O and N or being bombarded with X-rays, so be it.

We're all shmot guys here. We can go on and on about chemistry and physics. All I was saying was that while the book in question (which I like a lot) says that transparent aluminum is "a fake invention of a far future", that may not be the whole story...for those interested and who don't already know, there is real stuff out there today that lots of people are calling transparent aluminum and there is currently a budding science of making elemental aluminum transparent.

Sheesh.

EDIT: Note that in my original post on the subject (post #9), I put the words "transparent aluminum" in quotation marks. I did that for a reason.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Edges

Peanuts aren't nuts either. And panda bears aren't bears. But everybody calls them that. Saying peanuts and panda bears are fictitious because they're not really nuts or bears would be pedantic to the point of being silly.

Clearly, you haven't sat through many GURPS playtests yet. :) I tend to be a precisionist about such stuff in books because people really do care about and point out the facts during reviews. My point in this case is that we actually did weigh Matt's words and decide he was right, 'cause in the strictest sense, elemental aluminum transparent to visible wavelengths is sci-fi. Yes, the point was raised! :)

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Edges

the book in question (which I like a lot)

...which is what's really important. So let's all get back to talking about how awesome I am.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

...which is what's really important. So let's all get back to talking about how awesome I am.

Okay! "Matt, you're awesome! I promise to pimp the two non-Low-Tech books that you have in the bullpen (the one under review right now and the one you're handing in on August 16) without mentioning aluminum even once!" Hm, I think I can avoid mentioning it in the context of Low-Tech, Low-Tech Companion 1, and Low-Tech Companion 3, too.

But if you write GURPS Bauxite Babes, all bets are off.