• Baggie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 minutes 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.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours 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.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours 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
        2
        ·
        4 hours 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
          3
          ·
          4 hours 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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      23 hours 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.

      • ebolapie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours 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?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

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

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours 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
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The stronger the material the thinner it could be.

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

      • pahlimur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours 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
            9 hours 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.

    • sm1dger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Currently, garbage. They used it to reinforce a polymer to go from a strength of 50 MPa to 70 MPa. Kevlar is 10x stronger, commercially scaled, and cheap

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

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