World's Strongest Glass That's As Hard As Diamond Discovered (independent.co.uk) 155
Hmmmmmm shares a report from The Independent: Scientists in China have developed the hardest and strongest glassy material known so far that can scratch diamond crystals with ease. The researchers, including those from Yanshan University in China, noted that the new material -- tentatively named AM-III -- has "outstanding" mechanical and electronic properties, and could find applications in solar cells due to its "ultra-high" strength and wear resistance. Analysis of the material, published in the journal National Science Review, revealed that its hardness reached 113 gigapascals (GPa) while natural diamond stone usually scores 50 to 70 on the same test.
According to the scientists, AM-III has tunable energy absorption properties comparable to semiconductors commonly used in solar cells such as hydrogenated amorphous silicon films. While in diamond crystals, the organized internal structure of its atoms and molecules contribute to their immense strength and hardness, in AM-III the researchers found that a combination of order and disorder of its molecules give rise to its strange properties. Using fullerenes, which are materials made of hollow football-like arrangements of carbon atoms, the researchers produced different types of glassy materials with varying molecular organization among which AM-III had the highest order of atoms and molecules. Increasing the order further, the scientists observed, could potentially kill the semiconductivity and other properties that required the atoms and molecules to be chaotic.
According to the scientists, AM-III has tunable energy absorption properties comparable to semiconductors commonly used in solar cells such as hydrogenated amorphous silicon films. While in diamond crystals, the organized internal structure of its atoms and molecules contribute to their immense strength and hardness, in AM-III the researchers found that a combination of order and disorder of its molecules give rise to its strange properties. Using fullerenes, which are materials made of hollow football-like arrangements of carbon atoms, the researchers produced different types of glassy materials with varying molecular organization among which AM-III had the highest order of atoms and molecules. Increasing the order further, the scientists observed, could potentially kill the semiconductivity and other properties that required the atoms and molecules to be chaotic.
Discovered or Developed? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Discovered or Developed? (Score:5, Funny)
I never figured out how they make glass out of gorillas, but then again they make glue out of horses, so I stopped asking questions.
Don't ask where they get Catsup (Score:2)
Maybe they discovered it on the desk of the smelly intern that, thankfully, went back to school.
Re:Don't ask where they get Catsup (Score:5, Funny)
Baby oil is a real head scratchier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, supposedly it's really good to lower your bad cholesterol levels. Or was it fish oil maybe? Ah, one day it's one thing, another day something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Try baby oil on your head to stop the itching.
Re:Don't ask where they get Catsup (Score:5, Funny)
I figure it's made the same way olive oil is. I have yet to understand why I can't find extra virgin baby oil. You'd think that'd be easy enough to source.
Re: (Score:2)
Baby Powder:
Just add water, place in oven, let rise for 9 months?
Re: (Score:2)
"I never figured out how they make glass out of gorillas, "
BTW, they need a name for that glass and there are not many more impressive animals than a 800 pound gorilla.
Re: (Score:3)
Elephant glass.
Whale glass.
Re: Discovered or Developed? (Score:2)
I like those, but how about King Kong glass or Godzilla glass?
Re: (Score:2)
Godzilla Glass, this makes me diamonds
Re: (Score:2)
That would be like calling it fat glass.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not fat, they're big-boned.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's split it half way, elephants are big-boned. I never thought of them as fat anyway. Whales are fat. He said courageously, hoping they're not going to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal insulation is important in the ocean. Don't warmblood-shame!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew it, whales are woke! But one look at an elephant is enough to conclude , nope. Not woke.
Re:Discovered or Developed? (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I stopped buying Girl Scout Cookies!
Re: Discovered or Developed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how scientists "discover" something like this. I imagine they're deep in the jungle, hacking through the dense foliage with machetes, and suddenly they hit something solid and it's...The World's Strongest Glass!
Wait until they reveal this stuff originally came from crystal skulls ...
Re: (Score:3)
Almost perfect, but to be a proper discovery it should also be something the natives have known about for at least a few hundred years :-P
If you read the link, it's a fullerene glass (Score:5, Informative)
Or in other words, a glass made of carbon "arranged in ball-like structures" that are then pressure and heat treated to produce the glass.
Needs a marketing name (Score:5, Funny)
Before Apple will announce it being the reason the iPhone c14 is being delayed.
Re: (Score:3)
So, basically, if this is ball-sorted carbon and graphene is single-layer carbon...
Does that mean the future is in carbon?
WTH are we doing burning it!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I had similar worries for a long time. All this valuable carbon, and we are just burning it. Fortunately, it turns out you can extract carbon from the air, it just costs more. So if we invent something amazing that requires it, we can still make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
I had similar worries for a long time. All this valuable carbon, and we are just burning it. Fortunately, it turns out you can extract carbon from the air, it just costs more. So if we invent something amazing that requires it, we can still make it work.
I suppose that if we increase the atmospheric concentration enough, it'll be even easier to extract. Assuming we're alive.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that is really interesting. Now I've got to find out how they're getting the fullerenes to cross link. I would assume some of the nominal C=C double bonds on adjacent fullerenes get reacted to dorm two adjacent simple covalent bonds. Which would give both a linkage, and stiffness against rotation about the new bond pair.
Got to go RTFA now, damn you!
Re: (Score:2)
Which would give both a linkage, and stiffness against rotation about the new bond pair.
Got to go RTFA now, damn you!
Well? You're supposed to report back and it's been hours. You're not going to make the rest of us RTFA too are you? That would be too cruel.
Re: (Score:3)
Fullerenes are not diamonds. There's a different crystal structure. OTOH, I sort of doubt it would qualify as a glass, either, but for that I blame the translator. When things are precisely organized they don't qualify as a glass, because glasses are extremely viscous liquids.
(OTOH, in common usage glass refers to lots of things that are more properly crystalline.)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading further, it sounds like it may be disorganized enough to qualify as a glass. But it's still not diamond. And buckyballs aren't pieces of diamond. It's a different crystal structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it enough time and it would flow...though I'm not willing to guess how many centuries (and it would be different for different glasses anyway, and for different amounts of flow). So will most things that aren't crystaline...and maybe some of them that have flexible enough electron bonding.
Unfortunately, the very existence of the term "amorphous solid" seems to imply that the definition I learned for "liquid" isn't the only one in common use. In the definition that I learned the lack of long distance
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't you do any crystallography in your metalwork at school?
Chaos Emerald. (Score:2)
Increasing the order further, the scientists observed, could potentially kill the semiconductivity and other properties that required the atoms and molecules to be chaotic.
There's chemistry in chaos.
I wish hardness is related to "strength" (Score:4, Interesting)
(As is obvious from my comments I am not a materials scientist!)
I wish hardness is related to "strength" (is it?). Then, if diamond, an allotrope of carbon, is as strong as graphene maybe this is even stronger (according to the summary it is twice as hard so it would be great if it was twice as "strong").
The reason is because graphene (or carbon nanotubes) seem to be just barely capable of building a space elevator. If this were twice as strong, it would be possible (assuming you could manufacture the millions of tons of pure material) to build a space elevator without extreme engineering and with decent safety margins (you'd still probably need to clear out ALL of near earth space from space debris and satellites!).
Don't worry Elon, I'm sure this would take several decades so your investment into Starship will have been fully repaid by then!
By the way, (for any material scientists out there), is there any way to make a carbon chain so that instead of a single shared electron pair to the next carbon atom, you could have a double pair? I mean carbon has a valence of 4 right, so that means it shares four electron pairs with other carbon atoms (in diamond it is a tetrahedral shape). But would you be able to have two pairs shared with the carbon atom say to the left and two pairs shared with the carbon atom to the right? Wouldn't this make this much stronger in the direction of the shared pairs? Of course it would be very weak in the transverse direction but for tensile strength it wouldn't matter so much (if you're pulling along one axis, like a cable). This would be another way of making something a bit stronger than "ordinary" carbon nanotubes (if only in one direction).
Of course, it would probably have to be made by nanobots, one atom at a time with millions of tons needed so the technology is far far off.
Re: (Score:2)
But would you be able to have two pairs shared with the carbon atom say to the left and two pairs shared with the carbon atom to the right?
Re:I wish hardness is related to "strength" (Score:5, Interesting)
But would you be able to have two pairs shared with the carbon atom say to the left and two pairs shared with the carbon atom to the right?
What you describe is two sequential carbon-carbon double bonds. Single carbon-carbon double bonds occur in nature all the time in a variety of different structures. I can't think of an example of a molecule with multiple carbon-carbon double bonds in a row, though (plenty of biomolecules exist with multiple carbon-carbon double bonds, though I don't know of any that have two or more adjacent to each other).
I'm not sure why I haven't seen such a molecule, as to my understanding of organic chemistry it wouldn't violate any known natural laws of chemistry or physics.
Re:I wish hardness is related to "strength" (Score:4, Informative)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], if you want to see them you should look at astrochemistry instead.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, if you want to see them you should look at astrochemistry instead.
Thank you for the tip. I figured there was a reasonable chance it would exist somewhere outside my realm of expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
The middle carbon atom(s) in that chain of double-bonds is(are) going to be highly prone to nucleophilic attack. Which would go with what PJT33 says about astrochemistry - if you can form the molecule, then it not meet much else until it gets quite cold, then preservation would be enhanced.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish hardness is related to "strength" (is it?).
They certainly are related. Hardness has the same units as strength, and pressure: mega-Pascals.
But there are two major kinds of strength: compressive and tensile.
Concrete's compressive strength is more related to its surface hardness, but you want the the tensile strength, that comes from the steel reinforcing.
Diamond is far stronger than steel, but a tiny fraction the tensile strength of graphene, or carbon nanotubes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"They certainly are related. Hardness has the same units as strength, and pressure: mega-Pascals."
This glass has Mega-Pedro-Pascals.
Re: I wish hardness is related to "strength" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As you point out, toughness (opposite of brittle) is often the most important thing. Stiffness (elasticity) is the other main concern. But then you add in "per kg" an
As hard? (Score:3)
Re:As hard? (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly. The highest reported Vickers hardness for these materials (I read TFA) is 113 GPa, the highest value for diamond is 115 GPa, basically the same within experimental precision. The AM-III material is able to scratch diamond on one of its crystal faces, since the hardness of diamond varies with the crystal face, and diamonds can also do this. This is why "cutting" (actually grinding) and polishing diamonds is possible - they use diamond dust and random exposure of the harder facets in the dust allows it to abrade the stone.
So this material is sort of an amorphous equivalent of diamond, with similar hardness. It may be possible to make harder carbon materials though, since it is thought that nano-scale dislocations can block distortions and thus resist indentation.
Re: (Score:3)
Also they don't (at least in the summary) mention toughness or shock resistance, which are often inversely related to hardness.
Re:As hard? (Score:5, Informative)
For sure, people will be looking at this for novel cutting applications. But it is going into a market against a well established competitor, and with an ultimate hardness comparable to diamond ... it's going to have to be noticeably cheaper. And that's going to take time to achieve, if it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I deal in machine tooling mostly (mills and lathes and welding...) as a large part of my career. I think that anything which can undercut carbide on price (often at over $10 per tip) has a good chance. As long as the impact properties are the same or better.
The high performance ceramic cutting tips are in another league altogether (and they are capable of cutting carbide themselves) but the price will make your eyes water. TiN is available as a solid cutting tip but it's too fragile for most uses -- which i
Re:As hard? (Score:5, Informative)
When I was studying diamond as an undergraduate (it's interesting, and half of my degree was in mineralogy), I had to get my head around something that obviously hasn't occurred to you. The hardness of any (that is, all) mineral varies in differing orientations compared to it's internal crystal structure. So, diamond on the {111} faces ("octahedral") has a hardness of 115 Vickers units, as you say. But on the same crystal's {001} faces ("cubic") the Vickers hardness may be as low as 50 units.
When you are talking about crystalline materials, when you cite almost any physical characteristic, you need to specify the crystal direction you are measuring it in as well. The science of identifying minerals under the microscope occupied about a half-year of my 4 year degree course - and some of my classmates failed to really understand it - relies on the variation on optical properties of a ray of light with direction through the crystal. Hardness varies similarly. Electrical conductivity does too (but you don't know what interior paths the electron flow is happening on - which has made those complex-oxide "high temperature" superconductors even harder to study). Speed of growth of a crystal from a melt (or a "fertile" solution of components in water) varies with direction - which is why natural diamonds tend to be shaped like octahedra.
Glasses correspondingly are dull - in an industrially interesting way : they have uniform properties in all directions. Or equivalently, you can't distinguish one direction from another in any fundamental sense.
Re: (Score:3)
If I'm reading this comment chain right ... it sounds like you're saying that this new material (glass) has uniform properties in all directions, giving it an edge in industrial applications where diamond is currently used, since the hardness of diamond depends on the crystal direction and how it's placed on tools?
So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing this makes transparent aluminum overrated.
Physics misinformation (Score:2)
This story has a taint of misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't know why whale tanks have to be transparent.
Re: (Score:2)
Because space sausages have poor eyesight.
Re: (Score:2)
How else would Tiberius show the whales to Gillian and thus get laid later? If it wasn't transparent aluminum, the convo would go something like "Trust me! There are whales in there, and one in my pants baby. You wanna get it on?"
Incidentally, I've seen Shatner in person and can't say I really cared for the encounter.
Re: So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:3)
They didn't have to be transparent. They had to be strong and weigh little, which only transparent aluminum could do. The transparency was irrelevant.
Re: So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:4, Informative)
The tank in the ship was made from glass. He gave the formula for transparent aluminum to the person to "pay" for it.
Re: So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:3)
No, it was not glass, it was transparent aluminum. That was the whole point, as discussed in the movie, and in more depth in the novelization.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why not regular aluminum? Or just cut out one bulkhead from the ship and weld it (or whatever equivalent process would be used with whatever it was made of) where it was needed? For that matter, why would the weight matter? They were filling a large section completely with water. The weight of the wall holding the water in should be completely irrelevant. If the wall is too heavy, move it back by 10 cm or so, or just keep the water level a little lower.
Also, seriously, if you're trying to avoid damaging
Re: So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:2)
Transparent aluminum is not just aluminum that is transparent, despite the name.
Re:So Scotty didn't give it all away? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing this makes transparent aluminum overrated.
I realize this is a joke, but it's not necessarily true. If this material is extremely strong, but extremely dense, [cam.ac.uk] it may have limited applications.
If you are designing aerospace equipment, you find there are many times where it is better to use more (in terms of volume) of a low strength material (e.g. balsa wood), because the high strength materials are so dense, they put the design over the budgeted weight.
As an engineer, I'm more interested in material advances that push the limit of the strength-density tradeoff than ultimate strength.
Re: (Score:2)
We call transparent aluminum "sapphire" (technically aluminum oxide) and it's currently used in a lot of things, including lens covers on cellphone cameras.
But sapphire is not as hard as diamond.
yeah, but... (Score:2)
Almost Synthetic Semiconducting Diamond (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod the parent up.
Is it the only informative comment here so far.
Re:Almost Synthetic Semiconducting Diamond (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and not the first time it's been done before either. C60 when under "modest" pressure of ~20 GPa will cross link and make a substance that will indent diamond:
https://science.sciencemag.org... [sciencemag.org]
This was done ~2012. It's all very interesting but until someone finds a way to mass produce the material it's just a curiosity. You can't really make quantities of this stuff if you need a diamond anvil cell.
Re: (Score:2)
specifically they took fullerene c60. Where does anyone get off calling this "glass"? I swear the place is circling the drain...
Re: (Score:2)
"glass" refers to the lack of long-range predictability in the structure of the material on a scale of tens to hundreds of "unit cells". It does not (in this context) refer to the composition of the material. Fullerenes have larger "unit cells" than metals, but are quite comparable with some of the more (structurally) complex minerals - amphiboles or micas, for example. For reference - typical crystals in a metal are 10ths of a mm or smaller, and control thei
Great, when can we buy it? (Score:2)
Let's face it, /. is absolutely lousy with stories about some whiz-bang new discovery which ends up being completely impractical for use in any kind of real-world application and becomes little more than a novelty lab experiment. So how long until we can start buying products using this new glass?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's how science works. People discover new things all the time. They rarely transition immediately from new discovery to Amazon.com Item SKU #12345. The new material may itself not ever become a product... but maybe the scientists learned something in creating this new material that might, eventually, lead to the practical development of some other yet-unknown material.
The problem is, there seems to be so much immediate pressure nowadays (in China, in the US, probably everywhere) to turn new resear
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great, when can we buy it? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not even a glass. Glass is based on silicon dioxide. What these folk did was compress the bejeezus out of fullerene carbon, C60. So no duh it's like a super diamond, who woulda thunk it?
Nope. Not all glasses contain silicon (Score:5, Informative)
Glass is a state of matter, not a chemical formulation.
Glasses are formed by cooling molten matter to form an amorphous solid, i.e. where the internal arrangement of atoms or molecules remains random. Glass acts like an extremely viscous liquid - if left for long enough it will slump.
In addition to SiO2 glasses (which include borosilicate, lead and soda lime variants), there are non-silicate glass ceramics, various plastics (acrylic, polycarbonate and PET are all glasses), and many organic and inorganic compounds can form glasses too: phosphates, nitrates, aluminates, germinates, titanates, borates, and others. Heck, even some metals have been made to form glasses in lab environments.
Re: (Score:3)
Glass acts like an extremely viscous liquid - if left for long enough it will slump.
I thought that idea had been refuted. Wikipedia says:
The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. You're not wrong, but it does get considerably more complex than that. For example, you quite likely have a device in your house whose function depends on the transition of a liquid between two structural states, both of which are glasses. (And neither of which contains any silicon.) You call it an LCD, but in reality both of those "crystal" states are technically glasses.
(OK, it's some years since I read up on LCD structures - t
Re: (Score:2)
You mean some people incorrectly and recently use some other definition based on appearance. Meanwhile, glass is silicon dioxide with other things added.
This article's thing is a diamond, metamorphic carbon. Call diamond glass in 99 percent the world's business and you'll risk getting kicked in the nuts. The article's people crushed C60 fullerene into a diamond.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean some people incorrectly and recently use some other definition based on appearance. Meanwhile, glass is silicon dioxide with other things added.
This article's thing is a diamond, metamorphic carbon. Call diamond glass in 99 percent the world's business and you'll risk getting kicked in the nuts. The article's people crushed C60 fullerene into a diamond.
No, I meant that you were wrong. Doubling down doesn't change that. Next time, read and understand what I wrote, rather than presuming to tell me that I meant something completely different that supports your erroneous preconceptions.
For those still unclear on the matter (no pun intended): Glass is a state, not a chemical composition, nor for that matter, an appearance.
The Independent article is a little fuzzy. I read it as: they crushed crystalline fullerene under heat and pressure to form a glass. Nowh
Re: (Score:2)
I'll triple down.
If you had read the article you'd find the material made had small crystals inside. That is not truly "amorphous" at all.
"Glass" in 99 percent of usage is a specific material. This material is in article is "diamond". They made a hard diamond material, full of little diamond crystals, that could scratch most (not all) natural diamond but not certain synth diamond.
Even by your less common usage of "glass" that stuff wasn't glassy.
Diamond Molecules? (Score:5, Informative)
One of the characteristics of fullerenes is the rather unusual form of hybridization taken by their carbon atoms, which falls somewhere between the planar sp2 hybridization of graphite and the 3-dimensional sp3 hybridization of diamond.
In graphite, each carbon atoms forms carbon-to-carbon bonds with a C-C-C bond angle of 120 degrees. Each carbon atom forms trigonal and pi bonds with three neighbouring atoms.
In a diamond, carbon atoms are sp3 hybridized and arranged tetrahedrally - that is, each carbon atom is attached to four other carbon atoms 1.544x10^-10 meters away, with a C-C-C bond angle of 109.5 degrees. This gives rise to an infinite network of atoms.
Why is this relevant? Because the article is suggesting that there are discrete molecules in diamond. This is not the case. With a pure diamond, the entire frikkin' diamond is the "molecule", because the atoms arrange in an infinitely repeating structure. By comparison, a fullerene contains a finite number of 60 carbon atoms, thus it is fair and true to describe fullerene molecules.
Very sorry for the pedantry overload this early on a Tuesday morning, but in this specific instance the difference between diamond and fullerenes at the atomic level would seem to be central to the story.
Re: (Score:2)
"With a pure diamond, the entire frikkin' diamond is the "molecule", because the atoms arrange in an infinitely repeating structure. "
The next iPhone glass will be named "Molecular glass" then, thanks for the info.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that this is wrong, and somewhat misleading. It's the common problem of having people without a strong science background writing PR/ journalism against a deadline. They probably were thinking in terms of the "unit cells" of diamond, crystalline fullerenes, and these materials, but didn't have time, space or understanding to use "unit cells" (and explain them) instead of "molecules".
Off-hand, I don
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's either a miscomprehension, or just poorly-written by the science correspondent at the Independent.
Abstract from the journal:
Discovery of carbon-based strongest and hardest amorphous material
Carbon is one of the most fascinating elements due to its structurally diverse allotropic forms stemming from its bonding varieties (sp, sp2, and sp3). Exploring new forms of carbon has always been the eternal theme of scientific research. Herein, we report the amorphous (AM) carbon materials with high fraction of sp3 bonding recovered from compression of fullerene C60 under high pressure and high temperature previously unexplored. Analysis of photoluminescence and absorption spectra demonstrates that they are semiconducting with a bandgap range of 1.5–2.2 eV, comparable to that of widely used amorphous silicon. Comprehensive mechanical tests demonstrate that the synthesized AM-III carbon is the hardest and strongest amorphous material known so far, which can scratch diamond crystal and approach its strength. The produced AM carbon materials combine outstanding mechanical and electronic properties, and may potentially be used in photovoltaic applications that require ultrahigh strength and wear resistance.
Manufacturing (Score:2)
Now they have discovered this, the next step is manufacturing and that can add a number of years before it is something that is directly useable. For this reason Iâ(TM)d be curious if the scientists already have identified how to possibly make it outside and of a lab?
Re: (Score:2)
I feel a "cold fusion" moment coming on (Score:2)
2. There is no mention of peer review in TFA
SOCCER (Score:2)
Go Bucs!
TF Paper (not the newspaper fish-wrapping) (Score:2)
Firstly, the authors do not claim this material is stronger than diamond : "the synthesized AM-III carbon is the hardest and strongest amorphous material known so far, which can scratch diamond crystal and approach its strength."
The authors perfectly well understand the difference between crystalline
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I went looking, I found a basic primer article [wikipedia.org] on measuring hardness, which breaks this down in to three discrete attributes: scratch hardness [wikipedia.org], indentation hardness [wikipedia.org] and rebound hardness [no detail article yet created].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stop making fun of my dong! -- Xi Jinping"
Winnie, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can also crush a hammer into small pieces with a diamond. I think.
Re: (Score:3)
Natural diamond can beat PCD compacts on overall toughness - because they are less consistent. But PCD compacts are cheaper. So, on exploration drilling you'd typically take 3 or 4 different PCD core heads and only one or two types of natural diamond head. All heads would be on a sale or return basis. And the import-export paperwork for that is a PITA, I