• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    You’re forgetting that “strength” has a formalized engineering definition, which is the amout of force (not energy or impact) a material can resist before deforming or breaking.

    The other 2 properties you’re alluding to are hardness (force needed per unit of deformation) and toughness (energy absorbed before deforming or breaking. All of these are important factors when choosing materials for a particular use case.

    The article is comparing the material to kevlar and spider silk, which suggests that they’re referring to tensile strength, which is a proper use case. It isn’t the paper’s fault that your are incorrectly conflating “strongest” with “best”. What’s best for any particular use case is going to be dependent on design requirements.

    • LordGimp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      And you’re forgetting that the chumps making these engineering definitions are chump engineers who think they’re making parts in a theoretical plane of existence where only their numbers matter.

      In reality, everything should be made out of copper nickel superalloys because man that shit is cool af. Frfr if you ever get a chance to mess with aluminum copper nickel you should do it because that shit is borderline mystical.

      • Tweaker@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        56 minutes ago

        Lookout everyone, big brain here has it all figured out. Don’t need any more engineers with their fancy words.