![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd suggest to remove the "suffix for a number of metal elements" and replace it with "suffix for a number of elements", since the -ium suffix appears also in non-metals like helium, selenium, ununoctium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We start off with "Engineers have long used (at least since 1980[1])" but then go into some discussion about the SR-71 which is 1960's. It appears that the second invalidates the first. I think this needs to be resolved but I don't have the quals to do so. k thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.18.138 ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the two different uses - does not exist, and exists but you can't get it. They have two different histories. LouScheffer 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Engineer in Charge: ..." and "Development of Winged Reentry Vehicles" refs only prove 23 May 1983 beyond a reasonable doubt, if doubting an earlier date, regardless of the context being about 1957. Authors sometimes add words to stories about events that took place before those words were coined. Samuel Erau ( talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Added an explicit reference from 1958. This reference "Interim Glossary, Aero-Space Terms", published by the Air University of the US Air Force gave an explicit definition:
So what would happen to the material piling up on a hypothetical unobtainium shell around a black hole's event horizon?
A spherical shell of matter has no gravitational effect on its interior; so assuming that the shell is spherically uniform, it wouldn't result in the event horizon expanding until such a time as the hypothetical event horizon of the combined mass of hole-plus-material would exceed the radius of the shell, at which time the actual event horizon would abruptly expand to swallow the whole thing and there would just be a bigger black hole.
(Or slightly before that, actually: as Kip Thorne figured out, if you think of a black hole's event horizon as a "membrane", it responds in an "anticausal" manner to events in the future, since an event horizon is not a material thing but a kind of statement about what can happen in the future. So the event horizon would remain stationary until just before the critical moment, then bloat outward just in time to meet the critical bit of matter to tip the scale.) -- 24.147.149.53 01:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"In spite of efforts by the Soviets a large quantity of titanium somehow found its way to the USA after an apparently innocent European company bought a considerable quantity. The company was in fact a front set up for this very purpose." Anyone know the name of the company refered above?
What kind of metals is unobtainium supposedly made of? What's its melting point?
--- could it reach the earths core if something like the movie portrayed??? please answer oh yea and isnt it like two types of metal at supercolled temps??
Huh?? "[This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources.]"
I don't know who inserted this at the beginning of this article, and it is rather foolish and quare, as are many of the comments about "unobtainium" below. They miss the whole point: as its name says, "unobtainium" does not exist. It is a "substance" that comes straight from science fiction and the humorous quips of aerospace and electrical engineers and physicists. It is a quare idea to speculate about the exact properties of "unobtanium", just like it would be quare to speculate about the properties of "upsiedaisium" or "thiotimoline".
The whole point of this article is that it is all about "inaccuracies". Got it? User:Dale101usa
Quote a bit of the text covering titanium as "unobtainium" is not really relevant to this article. I've reduced it to the basic point, removed some total irrelevancies, and footnoted the rest to leave it available for potential transfer to the Titanium article. The footnotes should probably be removed (or at least trimmed down) once that article's editors decide if they want it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I change the intro for the following reason. Any fictional material referred to as "unobtanium", even if the real-world existence of is currently thought to be unlikely or impossible, may prove at some point in the future to not be so. Our understanding of the universe is limited and our understanding of science is based on assumption that certain rules could never be violated. In the future we may find that there are ways around certian rules of science. I felt it was important to make it clear that the unlikeliness or impossibility of "unobtanium" is based current scientific thought and not claim that such a substance is impossible as we might some day find a far off planet where such a substance really exists. -- Cab88 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the chemical symbol for Unobtainium "Um" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.166.250 ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to remove a lot of content from the SciFi section; it was filled with awful speculation: "unobtainium is an informal one, apparently developed within science fiction fandom..." If the editor even read the listed world wide words source, a very good source for word etymology, he'd know that statement is wrong. I cleaned of all speculation but a better historic perspective is needed; right now it just makes references to a couple of scifi series. — Mitaphane talk 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened to good ol' Balonium? Rich 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For evidence of the use of Galena for 'Unobtainium' in Avatar see
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/labels/minerals.html (for the attention of the Great Interferer LouScheffer). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.146.31.125 (
talk)
10:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This whole section could be replaced by a single link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_%28Star_Trek%29#Fictional_elements_and_materials (or the direct link, which I can't find at present). Then if anyone wants to tweak it they can be directed there and be an SEP (Someone Else's Problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.111.18 ( talk) 14:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Would a better Trek analogy not be Latinum? 109.78.71.84 ( talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That would have to be Gold Plated Latinum --
As a "Dune" fan, I dissent from "Melange" ("the spice") being given as an example of 'Unobtainium'. The substance was in fact widely available and widely used, however expensive it might have been, nor was it difficult to obtain (just dangerous.) 2601:410:200:2C80:7086:EA8F:596D:A31A ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The word "unobtainium" popped into mind during a discussion on manufacturer's pseudo-scientific claims about speaker-construction materials. I wanted to explain the concept, but couldn't remember where I first heard. Wikipedia to the rescue: I thoroughly enjoyed and found the info very helpful. My one suggestion would be to lead off with the engineering info, because I believe that's where the term really started. The length of the titanium discourse is really tangential and could be cut to a sentence. Also, I don't know how many sf citations are really necessary, but if people want to add that trivia to the end, I see no harm in it. Richard Grossman 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Useful info but way to many words .. to tell the meaning of a word... I first heard it in HAM RADIO to tell of a radio tube no one could find and later to describe how rare a part for an old motorcycle was ..THE subject needs a complete rewright to less than 150 words 65.78.219.138 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC):) ar wd8cyv David Thompson
unnobtainium: a material/mechanism that is theoreticaly possibly - however we have not way to produce it at this time
handwavium: a material/mechanism that is theoretically not possible - its existance needs lots of handwaving .. see also: techno babble ..
the lower the content of handwavium in a story is the more it is considered "hard SF"
Markus 84.112.41.61 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
how far would discussions with hard SF authors and gamedesigners count as evidence in this case .. ? it is there that the difference between "unobtainium" and "handwavium" was pointed out to me. if we add the information that this particular usage is possibly limited to hard SF only? 84.112.41.61 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
woud this be considered adequate or should i seek more references?:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html
about mid-page - tihs is a quote from Ken Burnside - designer of a very interesting and critically acclaimed §D space combat game, that REALLY pays attention to physics .. "attack vector tactical" 84.112.41.61 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is unattainium a variant or just a mispelling? Google shows only 68 references for unattainium, versus about 93,000 for unobtainium. Is it worth pointing out such a small usage in the very first sentence?
The article makes a number of references to "modern". From the context, it appears that "modern" in the mind of the respective contributors is sometime in the last 3-5 years; the design and construction of the SR-71 is, therefore, "ancient". Such terminology makes the article sound ridiculous, written from the perspective of an adolescent. It's definitely not scholarly or encyclopedic. For practical purposes, the modern age may include the last two or three centuries, not just years. — Quicksilver T @ 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But context is often used, even in technical and encylopedic documents, to define "modern". You will certainly find articles referring to "modern art", and "modern programming models", referring (unambiguously) to very different timescales. In fact, it would sound very stilted to speak of Linux, for example, as "a late-contemporary operating system", rather than a "modern operating system". Since the article states that the term dates from the 1980s, "modern", in this context, clearly refers to the last few years. I don't feel strongly enough to change it back, but I think it was fine the way it was. LouScheffer 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the addition "that is impossible with conventional materials" makes the definition more complex without helping. If conventional materials would work, then no exotic ones would be needed, so this is already covered. So I think the original sentence makes the same point, but more succinctly. Also, I'm not sure the reference adds anything - the reference seems like many others on the topic, and is not an early one or one that is special in any way, so it seems not to add much. But if others think differently please chime in here. LouScheffer ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unobtainium] is the term coined for a smart material with properties once considered unimaginable: a material that would self-heal; self-replicate; turn invisible on demand; automatically shrivel up to sneak through wall cracks yet remember its original shape afterwards; generate its own power; be able to store and transmit huge amounts of data; flap like a bird and one day, replace human organs on demand.
I was surprised to check this page and not see anything on Oakley's use of the 'element' name.
Several glasses in the oakley product range now feature "unobtanium" ear- or nose-pieces; this material grips better when a person sweats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.190.31 ( talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the glasses, they have other products that use "Unobtanium" as well such as their HOLESHOT Unobtainium Strap Edition watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.38.190.22 ( talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
After some searching, I could not find a reference for this that dates before the introduction into Wikipedia (16 Jan 2009). There are plenty of copies spawned by Wikipedia, and one in uncyclopedia with no 'unobtainium' content (just 'not found'). I think a pre-wikipedia reference is needed before restoring this. LouScheffer ( talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert at the current moment -- but unless it bombs catastrophically at the box office, the Avatar movie is going to elevate "unobtainium" from being something of a footnote of science fiction fandom and engineering in-jokes to a whole new level of pop-culture prominence... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.4.108 ( talk) 07:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a question of whether the usage of unobtainium should be described as 'humorous' or 'facetious'. I think we should use 'humorous' since it get the point across and is a common word. Even if facetious is better (which I am not sure it is), and we don't want to write down to readers, the small gain in exactness is more than penalized by the number of reader who won't know that this means a humorous usage. So I think that we should stick to humorous. (Note that 'facetious' links to the page 'humor' anyway.) Evidence that facetious is not common knowledge might be these SAT prep pages which list it with lots of other uncommon words SAT words and TOEFL words. Of course this is open for discussion and comments are welcome, LouScheffer ( talk) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we use examples here? I think it's a useful distinction - sometimes the main use is to make an implausible invention possible, but in others it's mainly an object to be fought over. Certainly these categories overlap (presumably cavorite would be valuable and could be fought over, and unobtainium might not be fought over if it had little use), but the *primary* reason for the author to use the material is usually one or the other. This is certainly true in real life and movies as well - you fight over the heavy water since it enables an atomic bomb (and pay no attention to how much it costs), but you fight over gold because it's valuable, not because it's corrosion resistant. LouScheffer ( talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, there is some controversy of what 'unobtainium' really means. Is it primarily a material, or a description of the material? As a thought experiment, what is the composition of unobtainium? You cannot say. Furthermore, if I describe a material, such a 50% mixture of carbon nanotubes and kryptonite, could you say whether this is unobtainium? No, you can't. Also, in the case of rare or expensive materials that really exist, the same material can be unobtainium for some uses and not for others. Basically 'unobtainium' is a concept that is undefined without a context. (Another way of seeing the seeing the same thing is asking what all unobtainiumss have in common. The answer is nothing, except for the idea behind them.)
This is very different from a real material such as titanium, where I certainly agree the article should be about the material, and not the word, which might be different in each language. However, the questions above are completely un-ambiguous for a real material such as titanium - you can tell me what it is, and tell me if a lump of something is titanium, independent of context.
Overall, despite the fact that unobtainium is a conceptual description rather than a material, it is notable, as shown by all the references. So we should describe it this way. As always, counter-arguments are welcome, LouScheffer ( talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles in an encyclopedia are primarily about *things* or ideas, not words or names.
The first sentence/paragraph defines what the topic is about ( WP:NAD), and the topic (unlike a dictionary) is about the thing. The thing here is a type of material (more or less any material that is unobtainable), not the term or name that refers to a type of material that is unobtainable.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This is different from a dictionary, there the word unobtainium is the primary topic.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add OR descriptions of how this stuff is used in the movie. And please don't make anonymous reverts without commenting here - I'd like to be able to respond to any reversion of my edits.
Unobtanium is clearly mentioned by the film itself, and unless you can ref a source stating otherwise, it is (to me) crystal clear the characters are talking about unobtanium the mineral.
It is thus not "humorous" nor "oblique". It simply is the name of the film's valuable stuff. However, feel free to add some kind of clarification it isn't spelled "Unobtainium" if you like.
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "It is oblique in-so-far as they mis-spell it, either intentionally or ....." (an edit comment)
Okay, so "mineral obliquely called "unobtanium" (sp)" totally don't cut it - "sp" is internet shorthand and comes across as colloquial.
If you wish to attribute some underlying meaning to how Avatar uses this word (in one of its alternative spellings) feel free, as long as you can provide a source. However, merely calling the reference "oblique" is confusing, because it's use in the movie is completely straight-forward. So it's mis-spelled (insofar it can be misspelled, which we could discuss elsewhere) - then say so instead of being unclear by using a "fancy" word like oblique.
Enough with the re-insertion of this adjective - or any other qualifier - already. If you absolutely must have it in (without adequate explanation), find a source!
But hopefully, you can realize its usage here isn't uncontested, and so we could instead agree to simply and neutrally report the usage in the movie. CapnZapp ( talk) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just recently scientist working on the Web Telescope have created a new type of composite material that can withstand high temperatures of space, here is a link to confirm this... http://bigthink.com/ideas/24334 Zymyne ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a question of whether spherical cow should be referenced here. I think not, since it's a very different idea. The point of a spherical cow is not that it's hard to obtain, or that it is particularly good for any application. Instead, it's a nonsensical approximation, which may be better, or worse, or irrelevant, to any real application. Other opinions are welcome, of course. LouScheffer ( talk) 01:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Please correct the spelling for this article as Unobtainium is simply wrong, and every scientist on the planet would disagree with this spelling. It is seriously bothering me the original author is obviously a plebeian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.183.161 ( talk) 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If you don't care why you changed it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does this article refuse to correct the spelling? Would you spell Titanium Titainium? No, you wouldn't. Case closed, just because people spell it one way, does not make it correct. You are just supporting a major typographical error. Stubborn as well. -- 19 January 2014 68.190.183.161
lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
SEE: Titanium
Prounounced TIght-TAIN-ium
Spelling Unobtanium with an AI is simply wrong, and whoever keeps editing the page is wrong about the spelling. -- 18 January 2014 68.190.183.161
"The term Eludium (also spelled with variants such as Illudium) has been used to describe a material which has eluded attempts to develop it." I thought Illudium was different - something Illusory or for use in casting Illusions [lexically challenged editors please note: not Allusions nor Elusions].
Also while I was here I did something useful - linked cryptocurrency to its article. Shannock9 ( talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It mentions in the article that this is also the name of a crypto-currency. Is this crypto-currency in widespread enough usage to merit mention in the article? There are a lot of them at this point. Zell Faze ( talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to understand the reference to Helium in the first paragraph. Is being stronger than helium supposed to be surprising for a material that is lighter than air? 211.30.197.108 ( talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The name of this element comes from the Greek word "dysprositos", meaning "hard go get". This is sufficiently similar in meaning and etymology to "unobtainium" to be worth at least mentioning in this article. For now, I have simply added a link and brief explanation of relevance to the See Also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.9.41 ( talk) 21:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unobtainium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Rare-metal link goes to electric vehicles or something 97.83.18.143 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd suggest to remove the "suffix for a number of metal elements" and replace it with "suffix for a number of elements", since the -ium suffix appears also in non-metals like helium, selenium, ununoctium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We start off with "Engineers have long used (at least since 1980[1])" but then go into some discussion about the SR-71 which is 1960's. It appears that the second invalidates the first. I think this needs to be resolved but I don't have the quals to do so. k thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.18.138 ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the two different uses - does not exist, and exists but you can't get it. They have two different histories. LouScheffer 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Engineer in Charge: ..." and "Development of Winged Reentry Vehicles" refs only prove 23 May 1983 beyond a reasonable doubt, if doubting an earlier date, regardless of the context being about 1957. Authors sometimes add words to stories about events that took place before those words were coined. Samuel Erau ( talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Added an explicit reference from 1958. This reference "Interim Glossary, Aero-Space Terms", published by the Air University of the US Air Force gave an explicit definition:
So what would happen to the material piling up on a hypothetical unobtainium shell around a black hole's event horizon?
A spherical shell of matter has no gravitational effect on its interior; so assuming that the shell is spherically uniform, it wouldn't result in the event horizon expanding until such a time as the hypothetical event horizon of the combined mass of hole-plus-material would exceed the radius of the shell, at which time the actual event horizon would abruptly expand to swallow the whole thing and there would just be a bigger black hole.
(Or slightly before that, actually: as Kip Thorne figured out, if you think of a black hole's event horizon as a "membrane", it responds in an "anticausal" manner to events in the future, since an event horizon is not a material thing but a kind of statement about what can happen in the future. So the event horizon would remain stationary until just before the critical moment, then bloat outward just in time to meet the critical bit of matter to tip the scale.) -- 24.147.149.53 01:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"In spite of efforts by the Soviets a large quantity of titanium somehow found its way to the USA after an apparently innocent European company bought a considerable quantity. The company was in fact a front set up for this very purpose." Anyone know the name of the company refered above?
What kind of metals is unobtainium supposedly made of? What's its melting point?
--- could it reach the earths core if something like the movie portrayed??? please answer oh yea and isnt it like two types of metal at supercolled temps??
Huh?? "[This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources.]"
I don't know who inserted this at the beginning of this article, and it is rather foolish and quare, as are many of the comments about "unobtainium" below. They miss the whole point: as its name says, "unobtainium" does not exist. It is a "substance" that comes straight from science fiction and the humorous quips of aerospace and electrical engineers and physicists. It is a quare idea to speculate about the exact properties of "unobtanium", just like it would be quare to speculate about the properties of "upsiedaisium" or "thiotimoline".
The whole point of this article is that it is all about "inaccuracies". Got it? User:Dale101usa
Quote a bit of the text covering titanium as "unobtainium" is not really relevant to this article. I've reduced it to the basic point, removed some total irrelevancies, and footnoted the rest to leave it available for potential transfer to the Titanium article. The footnotes should probably be removed (or at least trimmed down) once that article's editors decide if they want it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I change the intro for the following reason. Any fictional material referred to as "unobtanium", even if the real-world existence of is currently thought to be unlikely or impossible, may prove at some point in the future to not be so. Our understanding of the universe is limited and our understanding of science is based on assumption that certain rules could never be violated. In the future we may find that there are ways around certian rules of science. I felt it was important to make it clear that the unlikeliness or impossibility of "unobtanium" is based current scientific thought and not claim that such a substance is impossible as we might some day find a far off planet where such a substance really exists. -- Cab88 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the chemical symbol for Unobtainium "Um" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.166.250 ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to remove a lot of content from the SciFi section; it was filled with awful speculation: "unobtainium is an informal one, apparently developed within science fiction fandom..." If the editor even read the listed world wide words source, a very good source for word etymology, he'd know that statement is wrong. I cleaned of all speculation but a better historic perspective is needed; right now it just makes references to a couple of scifi series. — Mitaphane talk 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened to good ol' Balonium? Rich 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For evidence of the use of Galena for 'Unobtainium' in Avatar see
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/labels/minerals.html (for the attention of the Great Interferer LouScheffer). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.146.31.125 (
talk)
10:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This whole section could be replaced by a single link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_%28Star_Trek%29#Fictional_elements_and_materials (or the direct link, which I can't find at present). Then if anyone wants to tweak it they can be directed there and be an SEP (Someone Else's Problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.111.18 ( talk) 14:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Would a better Trek analogy not be Latinum? 109.78.71.84 ( talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That would have to be Gold Plated Latinum --
As a "Dune" fan, I dissent from "Melange" ("the spice") being given as an example of 'Unobtainium'. The substance was in fact widely available and widely used, however expensive it might have been, nor was it difficult to obtain (just dangerous.) 2601:410:200:2C80:7086:EA8F:596D:A31A ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The word "unobtainium" popped into mind during a discussion on manufacturer's pseudo-scientific claims about speaker-construction materials. I wanted to explain the concept, but couldn't remember where I first heard. Wikipedia to the rescue: I thoroughly enjoyed and found the info very helpful. My one suggestion would be to lead off with the engineering info, because I believe that's where the term really started. The length of the titanium discourse is really tangential and could be cut to a sentence. Also, I don't know how many sf citations are really necessary, but if people want to add that trivia to the end, I see no harm in it. Richard Grossman 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Useful info but way to many words .. to tell the meaning of a word... I first heard it in HAM RADIO to tell of a radio tube no one could find and later to describe how rare a part for an old motorcycle was ..THE subject needs a complete rewright to less than 150 words 65.78.219.138 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC):) ar wd8cyv David Thompson
unnobtainium: a material/mechanism that is theoreticaly possibly - however we have not way to produce it at this time
handwavium: a material/mechanism that is theoretically not possible - its existance needs lots of handwaving .. see also: techno babble ..
the lower the content of handwavium in a story is the more it is considered "hard SF"
Markus 84.112.41.61 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
how far would discussions with hard SF authors and gamedesigners count as evidence in this case .. ? it is there that the difference between "unobtainium" and "handwavium" was pointed out to me. if we add the information that this particular usage is possibly limited to hard SF only? 84.112.41.61 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
woud this be considered adequate or should i seek more references?:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html
about mid-page - tihs is a quote from Ken Burnside - designer of a very interesting and critically acclaimed §D space combat game, that REALLY pays attention to physics .. "attack vector tactical" 84.112.41.61 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is unattainium a variant or just a mispelling? Google shows only 68 references for unattainium, versus about 93,000 for unobtainium. Is it worth pointing out such a small usage in the very first sentence?
The article makes a number of references to "modern". From the context, it appears that "modern" in the mind of the respective contributors is sometime in the last 3-5 years; the design and construction of the SR-71 is, therefore, "ancient". Such terminology makes the article sound ridiculous, written from the perspective of an adolescent. It's definitely not scholarly or encyclopedic. For practical purposes, the modern age may include the last two or three centuries, not just years. — Quicksilver T @ 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But context is often used, even in technical and encylopedic documents, to define "modern". You will certainly find articles referring to "modern art", and "modern programming models", referring (unambiguously) to very different timescales. In fact, it would sound very stilted to speak of Linux, for example, as "a late-contemporary operating system", rather than a "modern operating system". Since the article states that the term dates from the 1980s, "modern", in this context, clearly refers to the last few years. I don't feel strongly enough to change it back, but I think it was fine the way it was. LouScheffer 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the addition "that is impossible with conventional materials" makes the definition more complex without helping. If conventional materials would work, then no exotic ones would be needed, so this is already covered. So I think the original sentence makes the same point, but more succinctly. Also, I'm not sure the reference adds anything - the reference seems like many others on the topic, and is not an early one or one that is special in any way, so it seems not to add much. But if others think differently please chime in here. LouScheffer ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[Unobtainium] is the term coined for a smart material with properties once considered unimaginable: a material that would self-heal; self-replicate; turn invisible on demand; automatically shrivel up to sneak through wall cracks yet remember its original shape afterwards; generate its own power; be able to store and transmit huge amounts of data; flap like a bird and one day, replace human organs on demand.
I was surprised to check this page and not see anything on Oakley's use of the 'element' name.
Several glasses in the oakley product range now feature "unobtanium" ear- or nose-pieces; this material grips better when a person sweats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.190.31 ( talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the glasses, they have other products that use "Unobtanium" as well such as their HOLESHOT Unobtainium Strap Edition watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.38.190.22 ( talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
After some searching, I could not find a reference for this that dates before the introduction into Wikipedia (16 Jan 2009). There are plenty of copies spawned by Wikipedia, and one in uncyclopedia with no 'unobtainium' content (just 'not found'). I think a pre-wikipedia reference is needed before restoring this. LouScheffer ( talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert at the current moment -- but unless it bombs catastrophically at the box office, the Avatar movie is going to elevate "unobtainium" from being something of a footnote of science fiction fandom and engineering in-jokes to a whole new level of pop-culture prominence... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.4.108 ( talk) 07:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a question of whether the usage of unobtainium should be described as 'humorous' or 'facetious'. I think we should use 'humorous' since it get the point across and is a common word. Even if facetious is better (which I am not sure it is), and we don't want to write down to readers, the small gain in exactness is more than penalized by the number of reader who won't know that this means a humorous usage. So I think that we should stick to humorous. (Note that 'facetious' links to the page 'humor' anyway.) Evidence that facetious is not common knowledge might be these SAT prep pages which list it with lots of other uncommon words SAT words and TOEFL words. Of course this is open for discussion and comments are welcome, LouScheffer ( talk) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we use examples here? I think it's a useful distinction - sometimes the main use is to make an implausible invention possible, but in others it's mainly an object to be fought over. Certainly these categories overlap (presumably cavorite would be valuable and could be fought over, and unobtainium might not be fought over if it had little use), but the *primary* reason for the author to use the material is usually one or the other. This is certainly true in real life and movies as well - you fight over the heavy water since it enables an atomic bomb (and pay no attention to how much it costs), but you fight over gold because it's valuable, not because it's corrosion resistant. LouScheffer ( talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, there is some controversy of what 'unobtainium' really means. Is it primarily a material, or a description of the material? As a thought experiment, what is the composition of unobtainium? You cannot say. Furthermore, if I describe a material, such a 50% mixture of carbon nanotubes and kryptonite, could you say whether this is unobtainium? No, you can't. Also, in the case of rare or expensive materials that really exist, the same material can be unobtainium for some uses and not for others. Basically 'unobtainium' is a concept that is undefined without a context. (Another way of seeing the seeing the same thing is asking what all unobtainiumss have in common. The answer is nothing, except for the idea behind them.)
This is very different from a real material such as titanium, where I certainly agree the article should be about the material, and not the word, which might be different in each language. However, the questions above are completely un-ambiguous for a real material such as titanium - you can tell me what it is, and tell me if a lump of something is titanium, independent of context.
Overall, despite the fact that unobtainium is a conceptual description rather than a material, it is notable, as shown by all the references. So we should describe it this way. As always, counter-arguments are welcome, LouScheffer ( talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles in an encyclopedia are primarily about *things* or ideas, not words or names.
The first sentence/paragraph defines what the topic is about ( WP:NAD), and the topic (unlike a dictionary) is about the thing. The thing here is a type of material (more or less any material that is unobtainable), not the term or name that refers to a type of material that is unobtainable.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This is different from a dictionary, there the word unobtainium is the primary topic.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add OR descriptions of how this stuff is used in the movie. And please don't make anonymous reverts without commenting here - I'd like to be able to respond to any reversion of my edits.
Unobtanium is clearly mentioned by the film itself, and unless you can ref a source stating otherwise, it is (to me) crystal clear the characters are talking about unobtanium the mineral.
It is thus not "humorous" nor "oblique". It simply is the name of the film's valuable stuff. However, feel free to add some kind of clarification it isn't spelled "Unobtainium" if you like.
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "It is oblique in-so-far as they mis-spell it, either intentionally or ....." (an edit comment)
Okay, so "mineral obliquely called "unobtanium" (sp)" totally don't cut it - "sp" is internet shorthand and comes across as colloquial.
If you wish to attribute some underlying meaning to how Avatar uses this word (in one of its alternative spellings) feel free, as long as you can provide a source. However, merely calling the reference "oblique" is confusing, because it's use in the movie is completely straight-forward. So it's mis-spelled (insofar it can be misspelled, which we could discuss elsewhere) - then say so instead of being unclear by using a "fancy" word like oblique.
Enough with the re-insertion of this adjective - or any other qualifier - already. If you absolutely must have it in (without adequate explanation), find a source!
But hopefully, you can realize its usage here isn't uncontested, and so we could instead agree to simply and neutrally report the usage in the movie. CapnZapp ( talk) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just recently scientist working on the Web Telescope have created a new type of composite material that can withstand high temperatures of space, here is a link to confirm this... http://bigthink.com/ideas/24334 Zymyne ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a question of whether spherical cow should be referenced here. I think not, since it's a very different idea. The point of a spherical cow is not that it's hard to obtain, or that it is particularly good for any application. Instead, it's a nonsensical approximation, which may be better, or worse, or irrelevant, to any real application. Other opinions are welcome, of course. LouScheffer ( talk) 01:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Please correct the spelling for this article as Unobtainium is simply wrong, and every scientist on the planet would disagree with this spelling. It is seriously bothering me the original author is obviously a plebeian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.183.161 ( talk) 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If you don't care why you changed it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does this article refuse to correct the spelling? Would you spell Titanium Titainium? No, you wouldn't. Case closed, just because people spell it one way, does not make it correct. You are just supporting a major typographical error. Stubborn as well. -- 19 January 2014 68.190.183.161
lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
SEE: Titanium
Prounounced TIght-TAIN-ium
Spelling Unobtanium with an AI is simply wrong, and whoever keeps editing the page is wrong about the spelling. -- 18 January 2014 68.190.183.161
"The term Eludium (also spelled with variants such as Illudium) has been used to describe a material which has eluded attempts to develop it." I thought Illudium was different - something Illusory or for use in casting Illusions [lexically challenged editors please note: not Allusions nor Elusions].
Also while I was here I did something useful - linked cryptocurrency to its article. Shannock9 ( talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It mentions in the article that this is also the name of a crypto-currency. Is this crypto-currency in widespread enough usage to merit mention in the article? There are a lot of them at this point. Zell Faze ( talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to understand the reference to Helium in the first paragraph. Is being stronger than helium supposed to be surprising for a material that is lighter than air? 211.30.197.108 ( talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The name of this element comes from the Greek word "dysprositos", meaning "hard go get". This is sufficiently similar in meaning and etymology to "unobtainium" to be worth at least mentioning in this article. For now, I have simply added a link and brief explanation of relevance to the See Also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.9.41 ( talk) 21:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unobtainium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Rare-metal link goes to electric vehicles or something 97.83.18.143 ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)