• catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know if I’d call materials science technology, exactly, but it’s certainly more on topic than “business but at a tech company” posts.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, everyone knows that technology only involves computers and they’re basically just made out of metal and not some fancy material.

      • ebolapie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        What would you say is technology? Materials science isn’t technology, but what about things made out of the materials created by materials science?

      • pahlimur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Extreme doubt on strong enough. The author of this article barely understands the words they are using. Cool it strain hardens, so do so many other materials. Cool it’s tough like many other materials. Wow it has more links than others. No actual numbers about toughness, yield, ultimate strength, cycle limits, etc. It’s great research, but it absolutely isn’t going to magically solve the space elevator issue.

          • pahlimur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Any company will market that its ideas are possible. The article you linked is promising, but take it with a huge grain of salt. They are moving the goalposts the whole article. Flat graphene is a great material for space elevators, but it can’t currently be created without defects. Polycrystaline means the graphene created includes defects sort of. It means the graphene they created that is km’s long has shitloads of places where cycle loading will cause it to fail way under (like 10%) of its expected load carrying capacity.

            Edit: I want this technology to exist. My MS in mechanical engineering focused in materials science tells me we are quite far from it happening.

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think I remember reading that a structure strong enough would have to be wider than the earth

      • Nighed@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The stronger the material the thinner it could be.

        There are a lot of properties in the word ‘stronger’ though.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Good news, it’s completely non toxic.

      Bad news, it costs 2 million dollars per square foot.

      The pentagon will now take your whole paycheck.

      Thank you for your support, patriot.

      • HEXN3T
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Good news, it costs 2 million dollars per square foot, so they won’t militarise the police further with it.

        • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well not immediately… Years from now when the military develops something even better then this will all become surplus and sold off to SWAT teams etc. for next to nothing.

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          There is an old Russian joke.
          Son asks his father, “Daddy, I’ve heard the price of vodka went up, does it mean you will be drinking less?”, and the father answers “No, son, you will be eating less”.

  • Baggie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m sure this is real, but I see a headline like that and I think of schoolyard talk. Like, nuh uh, my armour has 100 trillion bonds, you can’t shoot me.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    China, please respect this secret. Its made up with grapheme threads. Its impossible to understand exactly so we made a little picture with the molecules and such so you can’t copy it.

  • inconel@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    I skimmed the article, scrolled down but people hasn’t mentioned its mechanically Chain mail in atomic scale yet? Did I read it wrong?

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Hardness isn’t the best thing to have in armor. In fact, extreme hardness means extreme brittleness.

      Tensile strength is more desirable in armor. That’s the sort of strength that a string or rope, or Kevlar will have.

      Those can stretch a bit before breaking.

      Kevlar will stretch a bit when catching a bullet, this does a few things, but importantly it slows the bullet before stopping it.

      So this new material will likely show extreme tensile strength rather than hardness.

      • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Correct. 🙂 Reminds me of when I wanted new tires & I was complaining about how some tires were rated for a criminally short life. I wondered which ones lasted the longest.

        The mechanic then remarked that sure, they can make tires that last a hell of a long time & never puncture. But the ride would be so terrible because the tires would be tough, stiff, would work your suspension harder, and it would cost a fortune to boot. It’s not worth it. There are multiple material, usage considerations when making a product. Really makes you appreciate the experts in their various fields.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not to mention, really hard tires would have very poor grip. The rubber needs to be a bit softer to squish around all of the little imperfections in the road, technically increasing the contact area and providing a little lateral bracing (probably not the right term so I hope I’m making sense). This is why a lot of performance tires have shorter lifespans then other tire types, because in addition to a different tread pattern, they also often use a softer, “stickier” rubber, which wears out faster.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that DNA is not a particularly effective armor.