Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Stainless steel strengthened: Twisting creates submicron 'anti-crash wall'

    (techxplore.com)
    102 points wglb | 11 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:28 UTC | HN request time: 1.183s | source | bottom
    1. abakker ◴[17 Apr 25 15:34 UTC] No.43718366[source]▶
    Yeah - 304 is nasty stuff for work hardening, too. I wonder if what they're really describing is a very specific amount of work hardening that improves certain mechanical processes. It can't be hardened/tempered since it's austenitic, but maybe selective work hardening provides some benefits.

    (p.s., I sure hate milling 304 parts)

    2. StopDisinfo910 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:34 UTC] No.43718368[source]▶
    > I am highly suspicious of this.

    The reviewers of Science were not and unless proven otherwise Science is a serious publication.

    > I hate to say this, but I personally believe that "Chinese metallurgy" is an oxymoron. The word "Chinesium" didn't come out of nowhere.

    That's plain racism.

    replies(2): >>43718550 #>>43718683 #
    3. kurthr ◴[17 Apr 25 15:36 UTC] No.43718400[source]▶
    It is sad to me that much of Asia went straight to the "publish or perish" phase of science. There once was an era when science was about pushing the edge of our understanding of nature rather than just pushing the edge of what is publishable for promotion. In the west that goal has been slowly lost (like many things it became infotainment), and some still strive for new knowledge. It's not that good research doesn't go on, it's just very product/engineering focused and business profit dominated. The majority of academic stuff everywhere that is not immediately verified is enshittified to varying degrees.

    So this article still gives me both hope that it is real, and sadness that it probably isn't.

    4. ssklash ◴[17 Apr 25 15:41 UTC] No.43718475[source]▶
    You think a country of 1.4 billion people is utterly incapable of metallurgy, simply because some of their products are intentionally designed as cheaply as possible, to be sold on a market that wants products sold as cheaply as possible?

    Are you also an expert on 3D nano-scale material science? It sounds like you only know a couple terms about stainless steel on a macro scale.

    5. skyyler ◴[17 Apr 25 15:46 UTC] No.43718550[source]▶
    There's a pervasive thought in the English speaking world that Chinese people are unable to achieve creativity and are only capable of copying western innovation.

    It's weird, and it's racist.

    replies(1): >>43720299 #
    6. MarkusQ ◴[17 Apr 25 15:56 UTC] No.43718683[source]▶
    > The reviewers of Science were not and unless proven otherwise Science is a serious publication.

    Serious publication or not (which, BTW, is an instance of the Argument from Authority fallacy), they aren't immune to the problem of junk science.[1]

    > That's plain racism.

    Not the OP, but I believe the intended reading of "Chinese" in this context is "product of the present Chinese social and economic system" and has nothing to do withe race or ethnicity (e.g. it wouldn't apply to Taiwan). The present Chinese system has a significant problem with bad science.[2]

    [1] http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?jou%3dS...

    [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6

    "China with 4353 retracted articles out of 2,741,274 documents is the leading nation in breaching scientific integrity."

    replies(3): >>43719786 #>>43719847 #>>43719879 #
    7. genter ◴[17 Apr 25 16:04 UTC] No.43718775[source]▶
    I don't know much about stainless, but work hardened alloy steel has benefits and isn't less reliable. For example, the rolled splines on automotive shafts.
    8. pvg ◴[17 Apr 25 17:23 UTC] No.43719786{3}[source]▶
    but I believe the intended reading of "Chinese"

    There is no intended reading that makes "Chinese metallurgy is an oxymoron" a sensible thing to post any place where you want to have a halfway reasonable conversation with strangers.

    9. squigz ◴[17 Apr 25 17:29 UTC] No.43719847{3}[source]▶
    I can't access the PDF from that Springer link - what are the numbers for other countries?
    10. squigz ◴[17 Apr 25 17:32 UTC] No.43719879{3}[source]▶
    > Serious publication or not (which, BTW, is an instance of the Argument from Authority fallacy), they aren't immune to the problem of junk science.[1]

    I'm not sure anyone was saying they're immune to it, but their reputation does lend them credibility when compared to a random HN commenter that says stuff like "Chinese metallurgy is an oxymoron"

    11. zimpenfish ◴[17 Apr 25 18:06 UTC] No.43720299{3}[source]▶
    > It's weird, and it's racist.

    Also demonstrably wrong if you look at something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions