I'm right there with you when that kind of clickbaiting crops up, but this article actually isn't doing that; they're directly quoting the researchers:
[Manganese]-based passivation is a counter-intuitive discovery, which cannot be explained by current knowledge in corrosion science.
This seems like a genuinely novel discovery.
If something in a headline is in quotes, it should be a direct quote. In this case, they are following that standard. It's a direct quote of Dr. Kaiping Yu who worked on the research.
It also happens to make for a very catchy headline.
Except the article says the same thing that the title does. They explain that it does work but that they don't know why because by all expectations it shouldn't.
A material that should make the alloy less resistant to corrosion actually makes it more so, and they can't explain why.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I hate when they se terms like "cannot be explained" in the headline, and then proceed to explain it in the article.
How lazy are journalists and editors these days?
save