Quick read on structural advantages of the flute design.
I’ve yet to make good ones without cheating and using copper punches.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404160022.htm

Thats insane to think about. I only chipped a few stone a few hours under my belt. But eventually want to retry it again.

I don't think that paper is going survive a peer review. 

First, most surviving broken Clovis points are broken above the flute, usually about 1/3 of the way up. 

Second, I have yet to see any evidence of the base crushing in a Clovis.  Nor have I read anything about others mentioning this.  And I can tell you from my own experience that I've never had a base crush.

Third, modern made Clovis' usually have too long a flute, the ancient ones usually have a very short flute.  Te average length of a Clovis point is around 3 inches, (75mm), average flute length is around 1/2 inch or 12mm.

Fourth, 30 minutes is actually on the quick side for knapping out a point, 45 minutes to an hour is usually what it takes to make a point from reducing the rock to a bi face to a finished point or blade.  And basal thinning is quite common.

If they had mentioned an "I" beam and the way it handles stresses, then I probably would agree with their opinion.

Well, it already did survive some peer review, as it is published.  People who read it might criticize it, but by definition, it has been peer reviewed by being published in a peer-reviewed journal.  This could bring up a whole other conversation about how good the peer review system is (not great in my opinion, it needs to be updated), but we can save that for it's own post.

As for the meaning of the summary, I think some of your observations do not necessarily discount their conclusions. The breaking of the points 1/3 of the way from the base could be evidence of their claims, perhaps these crumpled several times before failing there, which may be better than at the tip, it could possibly be reused?  From the summary, I got the impression that the I-beam bit you are mentioning may be one of the factors they are attributing to stress-redistribution. Although we'd have to read the paper to know for sure, and I don't want to pay for access.

IronGoober wrote on Jun 14^th, 2020 at 11:01pm:

Well, it already did survive some peer review, as it is published.  People who read it might criticize it, but by definition, it has been peer reviewed by being published in a peer-reviewed journal.  This could bring up a whole other conversation about how good the peer review system is (not great in my opinion, it needs to be updated), but we can save that for it's own post. As for the meaning of the summary, I think some of your observations do not necessarily discount their conclusions. The breaking of the points 1/3 of the way from the base could be evidence of their claims, perhaps these crumpled several times before failing there, which may be better than at the tip, it could possibly be reused?  From the summary, I got the impression that the I-beam bit you are mentioning may be one of the factors they are attributing to stress-redistribution. Although we'd have to read the paper to know for sure, and I don't want to pay for access.

Peer review has a lot of problems. I agree that would be a very good thread to discuss.