I've never really done this here, but you're an effing dumbass jls. The flexibility of something rigid is to prevent it from cracking due to THERMAL SHOCK. Going back to the article that started this whole thread, Jeff said to keep your bowling balls in temperature controlled areas to prevent expansion and contraction. And just because something is more porous doesn't mean we're talking by a lot. We make concrete that has 6% air in it that is still 6000 psi. It is just as strong as concrete with no added air AND is more resistant to thermal shock.
And speaking of reading the English language being a skill, no one EVER said there were any curing problems. It was said they weren't letting things cure long enough, but that in and of itself is not a problem, it's a poor decision.
IMO, you're an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know what he's talking about, therefore your opinion is irrelevant. My entire job revolves around thickness, strength, and porosity of rigid objects and the properties thereof. I've got a pretty good handle on the concept, and being in research, we've done a bunch of crazy stuff to push limits. The thickness and porosity of the shell has NOTHING to do with it, and theoretically it should make it withstand temperature fluctuation BETTER, which is what the article is about, and is therefore what we are or should be talking about here.
Your analogy is also way off. Temperature isn't a physical force against an object, it is a force of the object against itself. It takes a lot more force to break something flexible than it does to break something dense and rigid. Something flexible gives more than something rigid. Concrete that has no added air, which is therefore more dense, will be destroyed by temperature fluctuation much quicker than concrete that has added air content. This is BECAUSE it is a more dense object exerting force against a more dense object, or itself. If a more flexible material is expanding or contracting against itself, it can withstand the force specifically because it is more flexible. I'm not sure how this isn't making sense.
However, if using extremes and apples to oranges comparisons is what makes sense to you, it's a hell of a lot easier to snap a pencil than a rubber hose. The only way the thickness comes into it is if you're suggesting that the thin covers are being damaged into cracking by the repeated impact with the pins and hard objects in the pits. But seeing as how this thread was started by referencing an article about temperature shock, it would be illogical to assume that's what you're talking about. HOWEVER, if that IS your argument, then that would be completely logical that something thinner wouldn't be able to withstand the physical force that something thicker would be able to, that makes sense or would at least be a logical argument.
