this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
75 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
59427 readers
2816 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Blowing past the suggestion to highlight the cracks in hopes of a magic compound that makes them last forever seems naive as hell.
Seeing the poles failing sounds extremely valuable.
I don't know that I agree - it's worth researching these things because if it works that's great and that paper proves that other people are working on the visibility problem.
Research is great.
But the article is dismissing a very practical solution and implying it's nonsense to pump up a pie in the sky longshot.
That's what the article says, they're hardly implying it's nonsense. Or are you saying that the self-healing is nonsense? There are examples of self-healing materials, like Roman concrete.
That's extremely dismissive, of something that appears to resolve the issue entirely.
Self healing materials with similar properties and requirements to pole vaulting poles don't exist. They might eventually, but we're not close. When the weight and flex requirements are that strict, and failure is that catastrophic, expecting a solution in the next 20 years is extremely optimistic, and that's ignoring costs entirely. The article should be discussing the actual real world solution far more.
It's far from my field, so I'll have to take your word on that!