View Full Version : Powered Armor?
DarkAnt
Dec24-03, 12:27 PM
Would it be feasible to have a working prototype of a piece of armor so that when you move it mechanically moves with you in the near future?
It seems relatively simple to me, just have the armor move the way you push the pressure sensors. I am certain I am missing something here. I guess my question really is what technical challenges we would have to overcome before we could make a working prototype.
quantum
Dec24-03, 01:37 PM
I would suppose the primary setback would be cost. Having electronics in armour would greatly increase the price of production.
one_raven
Dec24-03, 09:51 PM
If you used some sort of "synthetic muscle" material the electronics could be relatively simple and inexpensive.
I think the only real issue would be the the size/weight of the power source would likely be considerable and have to be incorporated into the design functionally.
Why do you ask?
one_raven
Dec24-03, 09:54 PM
Well that, and you would have to develop the "synthetic muscle", of course.
What we have now is limited in power, its contraction response is limited and it is costly.
Design the functional muscle, and the suit or armor would be easy to develop and build with the vast riches you will come into by licencing your product :D.
Every single moving piece will eventually break.
You could build power armor, but the cost to keep it operational would far outweigh any benefit you could get from it, IMO.
DarkAnt
Dec25-03, 09:22 PM
One_Raven brought up a good point, how would you power it?
Any ideas?
Greetings !
Originally posted by DarkAnt
Would it be feasible to have a working prototype of a piece of armor so that when you move it mechanically moves with you in the near future?
It seems relatively simple to me, just have the armor move the way you push the pressure sensors. I am certain I am missing something here. I guess my question really is what technical challenges we would have to overcome before we could make a working prototype. [/B]
Yeah, I thought of various stuff like that.
The REAL problem is power. The rest is easy by comparison.
The thing is that you would have to power every movement
and all that weight would require a lot of it for any
operation for a reasonable amount of time. Abviously
it would be impractical to drag a power cable behind you.
If you add some chemical engine or something you'll be
adding a lot of weight and even more power is required,
plus - it will become too heavy and cumbersome for a person
to "wear" and operate.
I'm not sure, but perhaps some problems here could be
solved by taking examples from nature. For example, a
cricket can jump many tens of times its height due
to certain chemicals reacting in it's leg muscles.
I don't know if that can really spare a lot power
or could be scaled up - but it could be an intresting
possibility to explore (sorry, I know nothing in biology really).
Live long and prosper.
Carrying a power source and fuel and motors or engines, it would be heavy to lift, unless it also was self propelled. If it was self propelled, it would need wheels or treds, then you might as well add a weapon...hey wait a second, armor that moves and has a weapon, thats a tank!
Originally posted by Artman
Carrying a power source and fuel and motors or engines, it would be heavy to lift, unless it also was self propelled. If it was self propelled, it would need wheels or treds, then you might as well add a weapon...hey wait a second, armor that moves and has a weapon, thats a tank!
A person who could move as fast as a tank, but fit through
doors, brake through walls, jump at least three story buildings,
and be invulnrable to small amounts of light weapons' fire,
would be a far more supperior advesary in most urban environments.
Peace and long life.
1) We don't have to wait for some future time. Many companies and military agencies already have working prototypes. One company in Japan is working on a powered exoskeleton for use in all jobs requiringheavy lifting.
2) Recently the University Of Woollongong developed synthetic muscles with serious potential (there's a joke here too). A professor and his students there discovered that a voltage applied to a certain type of carbon nanotube makes it flex, much like muscle fibre. However, it is about four times stronger than human muscle fibre.
3) I see no reason why powered armour suits will not move fast. But the big bonus is in targeting time. These things will be able to acquire a target, launch a fire-and-forget tank-killing missile, and move on again in a very small span of time. They will not have the slow turret traverse time of tanks.
4) They will be more mobile than tanks, harder to target than tanks, more heavily armoured than infantry, and more heavily armed than infantry.
5) Although his English skills aren't the greatest, I thoroughly recommend the book Armor by John Steakley. It is by far the grooviest powered armour book I've read. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0886773687/qid=1073148088/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-9078837-1111156?v=glance&s=books
One company in Japan is working on a powered exoskeleton for use in all jobs requiringheavy lifting
Recently the University Of Woollongong developed synthetic muscles with serious potential (there's a joke here too). A professor and his students there discovered that a voltage applied to a certain type of carbon nanotube makes it flex, much like muscle fibre. However, it is about four times stronger than human muscle fibre.
Are there sites I can look at this stuff?
Japanese "robot suit":
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,7030508%5e15841%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html
http://www.accessibility.com.au/news/health/robosuit.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030821064305.bjch0eig.html
Carbon nanotube muscles:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/NANOTUBE-99/abstracts/77.html
I saw pictures and film of the robot suit thing ages ago, but I can't recall where. Might have been on television.
Lord Flasheart
Jan4-04, 09:13 PM
I recall at a military museum at Fort Eustes, VA, there was a red chassis that could stand up, walk, or walk on fours. My vague memory tells me that it probably had automatic weapons on it, and a seemingly gyroscopic cockpit for the pilot. I betcha' it was scrapped because:
1) Lack of light-weight power source. (Although small electric servomotors could have made it easier to lift the 8 to 10 foot arms)
2) A single anti-tank projectile could knock it down, upright or quad-ped!
Also at the museum was a personal helicopter with the blades inside the structure that looked oddly like a flying saucer. Methinks I should check there again and subversively cough the word Roswell multiple times.
Oh, I also recall seeing a wakling exoskeleton thing developed by the USA military. Very spidery looking.
Power requirements for a standard soldier with just communications and night vision gear are tough enough to meet at the moment. An armored exoskeleton might be useful for extremely rare, specialized missions, but it won't be the norm.
The army is moving to this goal from the other direction. They are making a small, unmanned tank. Anti-tank ordnance is becoming so effective, that counter-measures can't keep up in a cost-effective manner. Eliminating the need to have people in the tank drastically changes the design restrictions. They don't need large hollow spaces inside, so they can be smaller, but structurally stronger. Because they have no people in them, they can "roll with the punch" to reduce damage.
Njorl
Power requirements for a standard soldier with just communications and night vision gear are tough enough to meet at the moment. An armored exoskeleton might be useful for extremely rare, specialized missions, but it won't be the norm.
Powered armour has its advantages:
Faster and more mobile than a tank.
Harder to target than a tank.
Faster response time than a tank.
Faster targeting time than a tank.
Lighter weapons mean faster rate of fire than a tank.
Able to withstand heavier fire than infantry.
Able to carry heavier weapons than infantry.
Able to protect occupant from chemical and biological threats, no time needed for donning special gear for that.
Can carry more gear than infantry, such as more powerful targeting computers and scopes, more supplies, et cetera.
I see no reason why a military as wealthy as the USA's would not use them. A squad of such soldiers could wipe out half of Afghanistan (not that I condone such acts). A tank-driver friend of mine also thinks this is the way armoured combat is going.
I would like to ask my cousin about it. He's involved in the workshop which is deciding the future of the Australian military. I'm not sure how far ahead they are looking, but I'd like to get his opinion.
The army is moving to this goal from the other direction. They are making a small, unmanned tank. Anti-tank ordnance is becoming so effective, that counter-measures can't keep up in a cost-effective manner. Eliminating the need to have people in the tank drastically changes the design restrictions. They don't need large hollow spaces inside, so they can be smaller, but structurally stronger. Because they have no people in them, they can "roll with the punch" to reduce damage.
The problem with fully automated armour is that they are not independent. They do not have the autonomy of manned vehicles. They can either have heavy communication with command centres to make the things actually work, or have no commuication. The former means broadcasting their location, which makes them much easier to kill. The latter means all you can do is hope they are performing properly out in the field.
Wouldn't power armor be very susceptible to EMP? If power armor were hit by an EMP then it would be useless and the person inside would be trapped. Since the armor controls the air intake, would the person inside suffocate? (a very grim thought) [:(]
Originally posted by DarkAnt
Wouldn't power armor be very susceptible to EMP?
No more so that the Abrams tank with its computer-controlled everything.
Does EMP shielding create a lot of weight and/or take up lots of space?
Lord Flasheart
Jan6-04, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by DarkAnt
Wouldn't power armor be very susceptible to EMP? If power armor were hit by an EMP then it would be useless and the person inside would be trapped. Since the armor controls the air intake, would the person inside suffocate? (a very grim thought) [:(]
I highly doubt a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere would be used in the first place. They (the enemy) would most likely bomb the power armour suit with conventional explosives. After all, why shut down the electronics of everything for 100-200 kilometers, when all you need to do is attack a 5 meter tall bipedal vehicle? To use an analogy here, say you were walking along, and you saw a small ant crawling across a sidewalk. Would you use your foot or a steamroller to liquidate it? *Coughs professionally* I rest my case.
russ_watters
Jan6-04, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Lord Flasheart
To use an analogy here, say you were walking along, and you saw a small ant crawling across a sidewalk. Would you use your foot or a steamroller to liquidate it? *Coughs professionally* I rest my case. A steamroller would be a lot more effective than your foot if there were a million ants.
Originally posted by DarkAnt
Does EMP shielding create a lot of weight and/or take up lots of space?
It takes up no more space than regular parts. Not sure about weight, but Air Force One contains something like six miles of EMP shielded wire.
Originally posted by Adam
I see no reason why a military as wealthy as the USA's would not use them.
Power usage. Unless you want to strap a diesel engine and a feul tank on the soldier, this is a non-starter. Batteries and solar cells are not even in the ballpark for these needs.
Also, vulnerability. Small arms are advancing in lethality far faster than armor. Anything you could make will not offer significantly better protection from direct fire than cloth in 10 years. There will still be a need for protection from fragments though, but this does not warrant such extreme measures.
The problem with fully automated armour is that they are not independent. They do not have the autonomy of manned vehicles. They can either have heavy communication with command centres to make the things actually work, or have no commuication. The former means broadcasting their location, which makes them much easier to kill. The latter means all you can do is hope they are performing properly out in the field.
The forseen implementation is in mixed units - infantry controlling automated armor. Short range communication will not increase vulnerability. The infantryman will vave a variety of unmanned units at his disposal, tanks, ground and airborne recon, temporary communications relays etc. The idea is to keep the human out of harm's way as much as possible while retaining the flexibility of having a person on the scene.
Njorl
Power usage.
You would use a lot less power with 100,000 infantry and 1,000 powered armour suits than you would with 100,000 infantry and 1,000 Abrams tanks.
Also, vulnerability. Small arms are advancing in lethality far faster than armor. Anything you could make will not offer significantly better protection from direct fire than cloth in 10 years. There will still be a need for protection from fragments though, but this does not warrant such extreme measures.
The advantage is the same advantage offered by all armour in the field: better carrying capabilties, and greater firepower. And yes, superior armour to that worn by infantry. An important point is the enemy capabilities. Yes, the technologically advanced nations are developing great stuff; but half the worlf only has AK-47 knock-offs and cheap RPGs. While those things can take out any infantryman, they don't stop armour. Ten guys in powered armour would walk all over an army of people who don't have the latest weaponry.
Short range communication will not increase vulnerability.
How exactly do you plan to stop the electromagnetic signals at a range of 200 metres or so?
one_raven
Jan7-04, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by DarkAnt
Wouldn't power armor be very susceptible to EMP? If power armor were hit by an EMP then it would be useless and the person inside would be trapped. Since the armor controls the air intake, would the person inside suffocate? (a very grim thought) [:(]
Well, wouldn't that really depend on how it was built?
I think there could be ways to build the suit without processors or any kind of microcontrollers.
Think of having this suit with simple mechanical sensors attached to hydraulic switches.
If you bend your right knee, the mechanical sensor would register that movement by pulling on the hydraulic controller switch (no more fancy than and old fashioned wire-wrapped adjustable resistor pot) and that action would cause the right knee hydraulic assist pump to engage and start "helping" you.
Same could be true for synthetic muscles.
Would a simple EMP burst render simple electric curcuits unusable?
I may be wrong, but I don't think it would be a concern.
A question:
If we had the capability to create these suits, why bother putting humans IN them at all?
Why not simply make them unmanned ROV's?
Have one human, back at base camp, sitting in a virtual reality environment that is fed with the unit's feedback (3D visual through the robot's "eyes", 3D audio through its "ears" etc) controlling the robot's movements.
Originally posted by Adam
You would use a lot less power with 100,000 infantry and 1,000 powered armour suits than you would with 100,000 infantry and 1,000 Abrams tanks.
Tanks have engines and feul tanks. Put a feul tank on a man-like structure, with a low volume/surface area ratio and you are building a deathtrap, not a protective suit.
The advantage is the same advantage offered by all armour in the field: better carrying capabilties, and greater firepower. And yes, superior armour to that worn by infantry. An important point is the enemy capabilities. Yes, the technologically advanced nations are developing great stuff; but half the worlf only has AK-47 knock-offs and cheap RPGs. While those things can take out any infantryman, they don't stop armour. Ten guys in powered armour would walk all over an army of people who don't have the latest weaponry.
I can't imagine they would stand up to RPG's. Even if the suit were not significantly damaged, the person inside would be killed by momentum transfer or the compression wave. RPG's are not presently very useful in war. They can't take out heavy armor, and they are ineffective against dispersed infantry. Put thes suits in the field and the RPG becomes the weapon of choice.
Even the momentum transfer of an AK-47 will probably topple such an ungainly structure.
How exactly do you plan to stop the electromagnetic signals at a range of 200 metres or so?
UV communications are being developed specifically for this purpose. They are absorbed and scattered by the atmosphere. Beyond a very short range they are a blur. A bit further out and they disappear completely. A close by enemy can't use them to target you. A distant enemy can't use them to discover you.
Njorl
Tanks have engines and feul tanks. Put a feul tank on a man-like structure, with a low volume/surface area ratio and you are building a deathtrap, not a protective suit.
Obviously you would not even have such powered armour suits if they required engines and fuel tanks as large as those in an Abrams tank. Obviously smaller power units are required.
I can't imagine they would stand up to RPG's.
Why not?
Even if the suit were not significantly damaged, the person inside would be killed by momentum transfer or the compression wave.
I've been inside a solid steel room when flashbangs were dropped in it. No problem. In the bombing of Tobruk, soldiers hiding in trenches only a foot deep were safe from bombs going off very close. It depends on the armour and the cushioning. The fact that "energy is transferred" does not automatically mean death; it depends how much.
RPG's are not presently very useful in war.
Yet they take down USA helicopters regularly. They are barely protected, however. And this is my point. The majority out there have AKs and RPGs. They won't really bother a modern piece of armour.
They can't take out heavy armor, and they are ineffective against dispersed infantry.
Against armour, that's the point. They won't stop guys in powered armour.
Against infantry, they have the AK.
Put thes suits in the field and the RPG becomes the weapon of choice.
They'd have to be pretty damn special RPGs to bother the latest armours, which is what would be used.
Even the momentum transfer of an AK-47 will probably topple such an ungainly structure.
Not at all. Most rifle bullets do not impart enough energy to knock over even an unarmoured human. And you are assuming such things will be ungainly.
UV communications are being developed specifically for this purpose. They are absorbed and scattered by the atmosphere. Beyond a very short range they are a blur. A bit further out and they disappear completely. A close by enemy can't use them to target you. A distant enemy can't use them to discover you.
That seems awfully limited to me. Short range. Not a graet idea for open battle. Good for small, stealthy units perhaps.
ok guys is this a fantasy thread or what,,,just passing by lookin for zdnet computer forums but when i rwad this i had to stop,,a powerted armour suit is nor possiable for many reasons and power is only a small one!!!hmmm lets start there tho,,your average stand up raymond reach fork lift weighs in at about 6000 pounda a fair weight for a hydraulic powered human armour suite,,,perhaps to light for armour bur well ita a good start no??ok take your average ford f 350 pickup,,,hm about the same weight loadad perhaps??needs oh 300 hp turbo diesel to ROLL on a smooth road at 60 mph,,now i know it doesnt take that kind of power to maintain that speed,,, but to get there with anyusefulness ti takes this kind of power,,so you would need a fuel tank to match,,,(( ps i think you just added about 800 lbs to your weight with thw engine))) getting pretty heavy for 2 feet??? hmm well lets sayyou stay on good strong concrete for your battles,,,ok ashphalt prolly wont hold up u will sink unless you keep moving,,,,now add a hmmm 25 gal fuel tank for a battle range of say 11 hours,,( diesel) idle range of about 25,,,remember if you kill the engine you cant move sooo dont run out of fuel!!! now you say you want to move fast well with the relitavely small hydraulics a suite like this would have and the hp to power it,, you could move fast!!! but 2 things off the top of my head,,,((or more!)
hypothetically___ take fit human and strap said human in alight weight powered exoskeleton around the waist and legs and s;lowley accelerate said exoskeleton legs to a running speed of 60 mph,, and start a timer to see how long said human survives before legs break,, tendons snap and muscles are destroyed,, i figger if human were dead drunk and totally relaxed i.e. unconsious, they may last longer than awake and aware human but ?? how much i dont know. You see the legs would be torn apart from inertia,,(( think about a pitcher throwing a fast ball,,, how many times can they do it?? now add a upper suit half and the inertia fun realy starts,,the upper part of the suit would smash you to jhelly in no time IE runn with a back pack full of books on your back!!! now make the pack armoured steel andrattle around inside for a while!!!sooo say you could figger out a way to wear it and not get turned into jello inside<<, and you get it going 60 mph, hm 30 mph even!! u cant stop you cant turn,,, think inertia,think roller coaster,, atleast not well and not sharply,,also remember you must be on concrete,, or you will sink. ( armour and hydraulics are heavy!! now add offensive weapons fitting the power of your platform, a little software and hey presto!!!never work,
remember dont run out of fuel and never never never fall over lololol
russ_watters
Jan9-04, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Adam
And you are assuming such things will be ungainly. I've never heard of anyone building a robot with bipedal locomotion - its a daunting engineering challenge.
a powerted armour suit is nor possiable for many reasons and power is only a small one!!!
Please read the links I have already supplied. They already exist. Don't type anything unless you know what you are discussing.
hmmm lets start there tho,,your average stand up raymond reach fork lift weighs in at about 6000 pounda a fair weight for a hydraulic powered human armour suite
We're not talking about forklifts.
25 gal fuel tank for a battle range of say 11 hours,,( diesel) idle range of about 25,,,
Why would we use deisel?
Once again, please read the material suppled. Then post again.
Originally posted by russ_watters
I've never heard of anyone building a robot with bipedal locomotion - its a daunting engineering challenge.
Then you have not been paying attention. Heck, I've done it myself, although it wasn't very fancy. Kids toys have involved bipedal locomotion for decades. Didn't you ever have a walking toy robot as a kid?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3330183.stm
Greetings !
An automatic and computarized unmanned small tank unit
could indeed be very usefull. However, close range and urban
combat environments are much too complex and require
relatively great amounts of improvisation and many
different capabilities. Also, control of such a unit would
be difficult in such an environment, and I don't suppose
anybody thinks of sending out such killer robots without
the ability of constant contact with them and the
ability to change their targets/shut them down if and
when it is needed.
EMP wave emmiters can disrupt the systems of advanced
military fighter planes today. There should be no problem
for more advanced disruptors to destroy delicate computer
circuitry within such automatic tanks. Of course, it
depends on who it is you intend to use them against -
many countries are unlikely to possess such equipment
in significant amounts in the near future.
A powered exoskeleton can work without multiple sophisticated
computers and thus be much less vulnerable when such
EM weapons are used. As for the armor, like I said before,
they're unlikely to be able to indure more than a bit
of light weapons fire - however, that much is indeed
possible. As for more than that, the whole idea is that
in the appropriate - urban environment, they'll be too quick,
too stealthy, and too adaptable to allow precise targeting
with rocket propelled grenade launchers or medium callibur
automatic machine guns and sniper rifles.
The stealth part, btw, hasn't been mentioned here so far
if I'm not mistaken. Such a unit could easily have the
ability to change it's color (such technologies are
availible today) and remain much less visible to infrared
scanners and night vision equipement - which is quite
widely used by any advanced military today.
Of course, again, all that will happen only if someone
can build some really cool batterries. Fortunetly, there
are lots of more important commercial reasons to develop
such power sources today, so we'll have to wait and see.
Live long and prosper.
russ_watters
Jan9-04, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Adam
Then you have not been paying attention. Heck, I've done it myself, although it wasn't very fancy. Kids toys have involved bipedal locomotion for decades. Didn't you ever have a walking toy robot as a kid?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3330183.stm Lol, Adam, that link is only 3 weeks old! And it still has a long way to go before it can mimic real bipedal locomotion. I don't mean fixed speed on a flat surface - to be really viable, its gotta be able to play basketball. Please read the links I have already supplied. They already exist. Don't type anything unless you know what you are discussing. The device in the link is only 17kg. Thats light enough to act as a power assist for the person using it without requiring the device to think for itself (for balance, locomotion, etc). Its not even close to the level of technology required for what we are discussing.Why would we use deisel? Because the application requires a lot of power - what would you use? We're not talking about forklifts. No, but its not an unreasonable comparison as far as weight and power go. I'm sure you wouldn't use steel for the armor, but even with kevlar, getting the weight under 1000 pounds while still being able to protect the occupant would be a monumental accomplishment. Once again, please read the material suppled. Then post again. Lose the attitude - you're in MY house now and I won't tolerate it.
Because the application requires a lot of power - what would you use?
That is one of the problems, we don't have a power source that we could really use yet.
There was an article in a recent edition of Popular Science magazine describing a pair of exoskeletal legs someone had invented for paralytics. The legs are capable of lifting 350 pounds without any muscular contribution from the wearer. Power was from a fuel cell worn on the back much like that used in the U.S. military's "land warrior" suit. This prosthesis alone would enable a foot soldier to carry a couple hundred pounds of armor and armaments while traveling as effortlessly as if he were naked.
And keep in mind, that device was only developed as a replacement for the wheelchair. A combat version built for the military could have far greater power and mobility. I think that exoskeletal armor is not only possible, but pretty inevitable.
Here is a link (http://sanlab.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/HAL/indexE.html) to the webpage for the powered legs of which I spoke.
I've also found online that the DARPA project is proceeding on-schedule, with the legs already made and the first demonstration model slated for sometime next year (2005).
Are any of you familiar with Nikola Tesla's concept of wireless energy transmission? The power suit would not have to have it's own power supply. It would be fed power from (probably) an army relay station, or would feed off local power supplies. Sure, the power station would be a massive target and would take out all the powered armor if it were hit, but you could always have a backup, and plenty of defenses...and make it mobile. anyway, the suit could suck as much electricity as it wanted, and as long as the wearer was suitably shielded from the electromagnetic radiation, he'd probably even go on to have non mutated children.
Echo 6 Sierra
Feb11-04, 09:15 PM
As mentioned in an earlier post, and having personal field experience with "things", it will break when needed the most and then you will have combatants unfamiliar with fighting unassisted. Unfortunately, the best thing for the job is a warm body in boots "searching, closing with and destroying the enemy by fire and assault or repelling the enemy by fire and close combat".
The only thing that never, I repeat never, broke on me was my Leatherman. The teeth on the pliers might have gotten worn from use but thats all.
E6S, out.
CGameProgrammer
Feb28-04, 10:15 PM
Question: When moving things break, what is the fundamental cause? My assumption is it is air. The fact that there are hollow spaces around the moving parts makes them vulnerable. Something like human muscles work without requiring hollow spaces because they're chemical, not mechanical. So wouldn't something like that be best? Theoretically, I mean... obviously we can't do anything like that with any real power, if at all.
Originally posted by CGameProgrammer
Question: When moving things break, what is the fundamental cause? My assumption is it is air. The fact that there are hollow spaces around the moving parts makes them vulnerable. Something like human muscles work without requiring hollow spaces because they're chemical, not mechanical. So wouldn't something like that be best? Theoretically, I mean... obviously we can't do anything like that with any real power, if at all.
Actually, it isn't so much caused by "air", but the empty spaces around moving parts is indeed a crucail factor. It allows the parts to collide with one another.
And "artificial muscles" have been developed. I don't know how strong they are or hoe they're powered, but once a concept has been realised by engineers, it's speed, or power, or both will increase rapidly. That is just the nature of engineering (and of engineers!).
CGameProgrammer
Feb28-04, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by LURCH
Actually, it isn't so much caused by "air", but the empty spaces around moving parts is indeed a crucail factor. It allows the parts to collide with one another.
Yes, that is what I meant. If you place an axe blade onto a wooden board and push, you'll probably do nothing more than making a slight dent. But if you bring the blade back and then swing it at the board, you'll chop it in half. If things are packed together then vulnerability is minimized.
Of course that example isn't great since there's no moving parts in the first scenario, but you know what I mean.
Nice coder
Apr8-04, 06:16 AM
This thread is quiet.... what happened to all the people?
well, I think people said all they had to say on this topic. If you want to help this topic get going again, go invent a power source for us :biggrin:
A good battery would provide 400 Watt-hours per kilogram. The absolute limit of efficiency would be equivalent to just having our battery move itself around. If we assume trotting movement across rough terrain, that's like bouncing a 1/2 meter twice per second. For a 1 kg battery, that's about 10 watts power. So, the absolute limit is about 40 hours of operation per charge. Electrical systems rarely have much better than 30% efficiency, let's call it 40%. We now have 16 hours of operation, and we have not put in armor, weapons, actuators or a person. Just putting actuators and armor on the batteries would about double the weight. We are now down to a limit of 8 hours operation and we have not incorporated a human or weapons or any electronic gear.
Clearly, such units could not operate without significant support logistics - refueling and resupply with ordnance. That defeats their whole advantage of mobility and concealment.
Njorl
And now, possible changes that might negate my previous post.
Battery efficiency is the single greatest obstacle. Heaps of money are spent on fuel cell and battery research.
A new area of research that is getting a lot of funding is highly efficient flexible solar cells. Roll'em up and pack 'em away when fighting or moving. Spread 'em out over a half-acre to recharge.
If the energy problem is solved, the ordnance problem is solved. The more energy you can put into each round, the lighter that round can be.
Still, world peace might materialize before powered armor, and that would be fine by me.
Njorl
My question would be... why? IMHO, current weapons technology is way ahead of current defense technology. The best strategy to avoid casualties with modern weapons is either to hit them first, or not to get hit. Heavy armour, even if powered, will most likely impair dexterity, and concealment. Air power seems the way forward, and infantry/tanks will probably only hold a role in consolidation, and holding down enemies. What niche would powered armour take?
Nice coder
Apr10-04, 07:11 AM
The many uses for a very small atomic reactor.. :)
STPeaches826
Apr10-04, 04:19 PM
My senior design team tackled a similar problem. We essentially were to design and build an exoskeleton for lifting/loading/material handling. Here are some problems we encountered.
1. Anthropomorphics - The human body is a beautifully designed mechanical structure with amazing dexterity. Getting an exoskeleton to 'conform' to the human body while still approaching the range of mobility of a person is a massive challenge. Just think about how well you can move your hand or foot around, and imagine trying to get metal bars and joints to mimic that. Plus you would have to make this suit fit a large percentage of human adults, who obviously don't come in the same size or shape.
2. Balance - Very important and very difficult to translate the desired movement of the operator into suit movements while maintaining your balance. We solved this problem by using heavy counterweights, but that made the suit ungainly. Our suit was destined for operation on flat surfaces and slight inclines. No telling what the problem would be like for varied terrain types.
3. Power - Alot of talk has focused on this already, so it is in our minds. We settled for chemical batteries, but were looking at fuel cells also.
UC Berkeley is developing a project for the infantryman, called BLEEX
http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/hel/bleex.htm
BLEEX is intended to help soldiers carry more in their packs while reducing soldier fatigue. You can easily see what is needed just for augmenting a person's leg movements, which is alot.
This in my opinion is as far as robotic enhancements will go for the individual soldiers. If powered armor is eventually developed, it will be large in size (bigger than a tank) and crewed by multiple soldiers. A 'Land Destroyer' if you will. It will have to be large enough to carry around it's own power source (small nuclear reactor or turbine engine). Something that large would be an impressive weapon's platform and have a devastating psychological effect on opposing forces.
DarkAnt
Apr12-04, 10:36 PM
"My question would be... why? IMHO, current weapons technology is way ahead of current defense technology. The best strategy to avoid casualties with modern weapons is either to hit them first, or not to get hit. Heavy armour, even if powered, will most likely impair dexterity, and concealment. Air power seems the way forward, and infantry/tanks will probably only hold a role in consolidation, and holding down enemies. What niche would powered armour take?"
The whole idea is that one person in power armor is basically trying to make a person a walking tank. This would be great for mountainous terrain or urban combat. Well it would be great if we could get it to work.
To recap:
Powered Armor:
It's biggest introduction to the mind of the public was in the book, Starship Troopers, in which infantry gained massive advantages of strength, speed, and physical toughness. They carried bigger, badder weapons, leapt over buildings, and sprinted as fast as a car coud drive. They were the "supermen" of the army. (of course, if an army has *supermen*, why waste money on normal soldiers?)
Powered armor has been seen in comics (Iron Man) video games (Metroid, Halo, Starcraft) and has impressed us all with the advantages it gives to the wearer.
Without giving up and saying the only place for powered armor lays in the realm of science fiction, we can say that it is, in a combat-ready version, beyond our current grasp.
The armor must be reasonably light, not too bulky, and strong enough to absorb heavy combat stress without breaking down. It will likely be desired that it allow the wearer to operate in hostile environments, including places which contain biohazards, high levels of radiation, and possibly even vacuums. The soldier will need to be able to use weaponry, not the least of which are his hands and feet. The armor needs to not damage the soldier when it amplifies his speed and strength.
We're talking about
either EXTREMELY high grade servos or synthetic muscles.
lightweight, sensitive sensory equipment, both internal and external
modular construction, for body sizing and repair.
Power. Either a way to relay power to the suit wirelessly by the boatload or a really high quality chemical fuel cell or a mini fusion reactor that hasn't been invented yet.
Hella huge amounts of money for R&D, production, and recruiting reallllly talented people to make it all happen.
Next Post: WEAPONS!
(kidding) but it'd be pretty sweet for them to carry around railguns or gauss cannons...not that those aren't virtually the same thing or anything...
on an editing note... wouldn't it be easier to upgrade our soldiers without sticking them in powered armor? metal grafts onto their skeletons, muscle enhancements, cybernetic implants in their eyes...maybe a way to speed up nerve transmissions for faster thinking and reflexes... dermal implants to absorb more ballistic damage, mental conditioning from birth, etc? The body might even generate enough energy itself to power any cybernetic enhancements, although batteries are certainly implantable.
OR on my third go at this, Let me pose sort of a question. forget armor for the moment, is it possible to take this in stages? To further explain, our conception of powered armor, as I mentioned before comes from science fiction and video games. Now, in some of these, the armor is more form fitting and modular (halo, metroid). This makes me think, maybe a power suit, with armor pieces on top. Think of something that looks like a wetsuit, but has sensors planted all inside, and consisting of a layer of synthetic muscle with mesh or some other covering. a nice, form fitting body suit...that just needs a bunch of power to run. (the more i think about it, the more it all seems possible. we just have to refine current tech and combine it)
SebastianPalm
Apr27-04, 10:35 AM
While we're on the topic...
A while ago, I started hearing things about flexible batteries that had some application as body armor - basically, a ballistic vest that doubled as a battery. Might this be something that helps the Power Armor crowd out? If your batteries can double as ballistic liner at somewhat increased weight, I'd see that as an acceptable tradeoff.
SP
While we're on the topic...
A while ago, I started hearing things about flexible batteries that had some application as body armor - basically, a ballistic vest that doubled as a battery. Might this be something that helps the Power Armor crowd out? If your batteries can double as ballistic liner at somewhat increased weight, I'd see that as an acceptable tradeoff.
SP
Seems reasonable, especially since the increased weight would be of negligable importance to a soldier with powered exoskelital legs.
DarkAnt
Apr27-04, 04:52 PM
battery acid leaking into your wounds might be a drawback
trialsted
May3-04, 02:11 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of KEY points have been overlooked, but there may be a little bit of hope.
As good, in theory, as electronics and computer controls etc. may seem, they are incredibly unreliable. Faults in electronics and especially the wiring involved are very time-consuming to diagnose. Electronics are susceptible to fatigue of components, are haulted by the ingress of water and damaged by vibration and shock.
Computer-controls can crash when over-stressed, rendering the "powered armour" immobile. Imagine being inside such an exoskeleton and it suddenly stop working in the middle of a battleground due to some sort of failure.
Also, imagine being in a hot, stuffy, metal piece of equipment. Imagine trying to get it to fit the occupant sufficiently without it hurting them. Imagine trying to have to solve all these problems before you even solve the problem of how you're going to get it to work.
For the occupant's comfort you could possibly air-condition the compartment but then an air conditioning compressor is a motor that requires a great deal of current and weighs a great deal. If you were to ventilate the compartment it would be cold in the winter and you would lose the ability to make it gas-proof.
In a battle situation, complex systems such as these are not cost-effective, are unreliable and can cause as many problems as they solve.
On the subject of batteries, a russian team of scientists are producing a small nuclear reactor that can replace a mobile phone battery and apparently will supply the required power for 10 years!
ed
"russian team of scientists are producing a small nuclear reactor that can replace a mobile phone battery and apparently will supply the required power for 10 years!"
got a link to that?
I'd love to see a link to that, too. :rolleyes:
Maybe its a radio-isotope device ? Good idea - if we
already get brain damage from microwaves why not
add a few nutrons and gamma-waves while we're at it. :biggrin:
Terrorists will become greatest mobile battery consumers. :biggrin:
Paladin2020
May13-04, 06:45 PM
This is the link for one recent developement in nuclear power technology:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406
Also, another possibility would be a superconductor loop, however, I've only heard mention of those. I haven't been able to find any actual examples.
One more thing, fuel cell technology is advancing rapidly, and a technology that may not seem feasible as a power source today may prove usable within the next ten years.
Now, for an interesting MATERIAL to look at, go to this site:
http://www.liquidmetal.com
This would allow for an incredibly durable frame for any powered suit, as well as low friction joints. It may also open up a whole new breed of extremely resistant lightweight armor.
Generally it is unwise to declare something impossible or improbable because it does not exist today. Tomorrow is a possibility unknown to any man. Only God knows what wonders or horrors it holds.
yeah, check out the thread i started a bit ago in the nuclear engineering forums. there's a little bit of talk about hafnium. it was in popular science. pretty neat.
hey, I have an idea for the power system. How about a power plant that uses biological waste to power it. A piece of equipment as bulky as some have describe will be impossible to get out in time anyway, why fight it?
umm...no way in hell will burning poo create enough power to move a heavy suit of armor, even if it wasn't yucky.
Kojac, then what would you do if you had to go in the suit?
I'd have gone beforehand, first off, and otherwise, i'd have a little door that opened over my bum so i could keep the suit clean.
on a more serious note... supposing we can't make a form-fitting battle suit, how small do you guys think it's possible to get a humanoid tank/mobile armor unit? think powered armor, but bigger...something you pilot with your movement rather then wear, something that is at least 2-3 times as tall as a man. how feasible would that be? (due to obvious advantages in mobility)
kojac, you didn't answer the question. What would you do if you had to go while you were in the suit? Not before you got in.
I don't think that the suit is feasible today because it doesn't seem very agile nor fast. It would be a slowly moving target for RPG's, grenades, suicide vehicles, mines and anything else you can think of. I think it is wiser to invest in vehicles like the stryker and abrams.
oh...haven't looked here in a while. they'd deal with it like they do in a spacesuit. AND the point is to make it faster then a normal human, and more heavily armored. think...amplifying strength, speed, and durability. we don't have a powersource we could mount on it that would drive it, at this point, unless we significantly increased the size. we might be able to rig up a reciever for wireless electricity. that, however, would require quite a large field generator.
Multiades
Jul30-04, 04:12 PM
Hello all, this is my first post on the forum. I found this thread by a Google search, and the topic is of particular interest to me. I've been pursuing the idea since about 4th grade or so, and I read Heinlein's most excellent book Starship Troopers in 6th grade which gave me more encouragement.
I'm completing a senior design project for my BS in mechanical engineering right now that deals with this very subject, and while the project in itself is cursory, I believe believe it is very realistic to implement this concept as a whole in the not-so-far future.
I was impressed by BLEEX (Berkeley Lower Extremety EXoskeleton), but I think it misses the point on many levels and is more cumbersome than necessary. I suppose I shouldn't knock their efforts if I haven't yet duplicated or bettered them -- it is impressive nonetheless.
-Chris Wood
Welcome to the Forums, Chris! Always good to see a for-real engineering major join in the discussion.
Multiades
Aug1-04, 01:53 AM
Welcome to the Forums, Chris! Always good to see a for-real engineering major join in the discussion.Thanks man! I find my total undergraduate knowledge to be a bit dissapointing at times, and I really wish I made it through a different program, but I guess you could say that I woke up late. :frown:
What I lack in outright knowledge I make up for in engineering instinct (read: "common sense" analysis), but anyhow...
Yeah, this is probably one of my favorite topics; I strongly believe powered armor to be more feasible than the less optimistic of us have suggested. Having extensive experience with reciprocating powerplants of very high specific outputs, I believe that a chemical (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, alcohol, etc) power supply is the most effective for such a frame. My design is pneumatic, and certainly much could be achieved BEFORE focusing on portable power, but I strongly believe that a 50-100cc reciprocating engine or a small turbine would be more than adequate with the right system.
By far the BIGGEST obstacle is nailing down a lightweight, robust anthropomorphic design with solid mounting points and space for the power hardware. Secondly, ironing the kinks out of a control system is very important -- I got around the complexity issue by using a direct, mechanical "bang-bang" control system with simple valves instead of electronic pressure sensors and electronic hardware to sort out the responses.
I sincerely believe the power source to be a small part of the total engineering solution.
Incidentally, if there are other engineers (or interested parties) in MA or the general New England area, I wouldn't mind getting together for a chat sometime. :smile:
Thanks,
-Chris
P.S. I think the last thing I needed was to join another VBB forum to chat and speculate about technology. :tongue:
I'm also on a 3000GT/Stealth board with nearly 5,000 technical posts. :eek:
Wouldn't the greatest difficulties for an effective system of this type
be the sensors and software, and the materials (light, strong) ?
The mechanical structure seems like a lesser problem
that can be solved if the above are dealt with.
I'm not sure that such a small engine would do, but partially
it depends on what you want to do, of course.
Also, there's the service life issue.
Multiades
Aug1-04, 05:29 PM
Wouldn't the greatest difficulties for an effective system of this type
be the sensors and software, and the materials (light, strong) ?
The mechanical structure seems like a lesser problem
that can be solved if the above are dealt with.
I'm not sure that such a small engine would do, but partially
it depends on what you want to do, of course.
Also, there's the service life issue.Difficult, yes -- but much of that would be trial-and-error sensitivity adjustment. Moving to an electronic system would likely even improve the ease of tuning (once a basic system is functioning).
Most important, IMO, is the frame and joint design by which each axis is isolated to one pure motion to prevent compound/complex motion and simplify the control scheme. It IS the obstacle to clear before the control system can even really be considered, since no one has a successful total-frame design yet.
As for the engine, consider the supply needs of such a system if it were to be pneumatic... UNDER 200psi would do nicely, and perhaps 10scfm of air. That could be accomplished with around 10hp -- no problem for a well-tuned 50cc reciprocating engine, and could be made very compact to boot.
-Chris
O.K. So what Kind of features would such a system have ?
I assume you could lift very heavy weights, though controlling
your center of weight during such an act would probably be quite
difficult. Running & jumping a lot better (if them soft problems are
solved too). Breaking things. What else ?
btw, I appologize for being rude :wink:, better later than never -
Welcome to PF Multiades ! :smile:
Multiades
Aug2-04, 11:45 AM
O.K. So what Kind of features would such a system have ?
I assume you could lift very heavy weights, though controlling
your center of weight during such an act would probably be quite
difficult. Running & jumping a lot better (if them soft problems are
solved too). Breaking things. What else ?I would consider the advantages of the suit to be the natural by-products of its design rather than "features", but that's just semantics. :tongue2:
Some are very obvious -- the fictional system envisioned by R.A.H. in Starship Troopers worked on a very simple reverse-feedback principle. The actuators move when the wearer moves against the inside of the suit; whatever way the wearer tries to move against the suit, it "moves out of the way" of the path of the wearer's limb, and so duplicates his motion.
What does this accomplish?
*There is zero learning curve; you just wear it and it works. Sure, some of the more sensitive tasks would take a little practice, but basic movement should be immediate. There is no control interface to learn.
*The suit completely isolates the wearer from external loads (aside from gravity and inertia). Lifting a 20lb barbell takes zero effort; similarly lifting a 200lb person takes zero effort -- in fact both loads would feel the same unless the control system was designed to offer resistance.
Balance would be relatively hard to get right, but I don't envision needing gyroscopes or artificially-supplied balance. With a properly sensitive control system, the wearer could balance him or herself either immediately or with a little practice.
Jumping... you would almost certainly be able to jump higher, but there is some question about landing safely when coming down from a height. Would you be able to jump higher than you could tolerate on landing? Probably not. If you hop down from a 20' ledge, your technique could be the difference between a smooth landing and a concussion -- but a properly designed frame should almost completely prevent the possibility of broken bones.
Also, some of this concerns the way that the wearer is "strapped in" which could be done many different ways. I figure the more firmly affixed the better. Can you imagine what would happen if the user was able to wriggle around to oppose one of the joints (like the elbow)? :eek:
btw, I appologize for being rude :wink:, better later than never -
Welcome to PF Multiades ! :smile:Thanks! Rude? Hardly -- unless you deleted a post that I never saw. :wink:
-Chris
I would consider the advantages of the suit to be the natural by-products of its design rather than "features", but that's just semantics. :tongue2:
O.K. but like you hinted that's "a bit" not the engineering approach. :wink:
Or as a favourite fictional figure with pointed ears, I like quoting, would say:
"Illogical". :wink:
It will be too costly and sophisticated for construction works, factories
don't need such complications either, military uses are limmited by
service life and in short urban engagements it would likely be
uncomfortable due to size and speed limitations. Maybe rescue
operations for collapsed buildings or for firemen ?
Live long and prosper.
Multiades
Aug3-04, 12:16 AM
O.K. but like you hinted that's "a bit" not the engineering approach. :wink:
Or as a favourite fictional figure with pointed ears, I like quoting, would say:
"Illogical". :wink:
It will be too costly and sophisticated for construction works, factories
don't need such complications either, military uses are limmited by
service life and in short urban engagements it would likely be
uncomfortable due to size and speed limitations. Maybe rescue
operations for collapsed buildings or for firemen ?
Live long and prosper.I don't want to talk about service life, limitations, and "too costly and sophisticated" until they have been built and determined as such. I believe that has been said about more than one invention that is in widespread and practical use today. :smile:
Cheers,
-Chris
You know, power armor would be sweet!
Anyway, first post, but this topic has been great to review. A lot of you have some really great resource links.
I noticed someone mentioned construction material. Check out the following:
http://www.liquidmetal.com
Twice as strong as steel, lighter, cheaper to make, better memory, more resistant to thermal expansion and corrosion, and has a cast strength that makes steel manufacturers weep. (Strong steel usually has to be forged.)
Very cool stuff.
As for power, what about an RTG that also reuses heat generated by operation to increase power efficiency? Oh, and carbonfiber nano tubes as artficial muscles used to assist movement instead of mechanical drive mechanisms. Less likely to break, less maintenance.
Just wanted to throw some ideas out there. Feel free to tear in to them!
"One hundred million lemmings can't be wrong!"
- Graffiti
whisper
Sep28-04, 08:51 PM
Hafnium is a beautiful metal, just beautiful. It's also very useful, because it likes to give up electrons to the air around it.
Hafnium excited with a low power microwave produces wonderful blue plasma of pure electrons and a surprisingly substantial amount of very useful heat.
66 ounces of hafnium excited by microwave energy produces enough electrical and thermal energy to power a predator size aircraft for 1 week.
Check it out, the information is out there on the net.
If "you" are dreaming it, It's probably already been built.
Cheers
I suppose you'll be the first (and last) volunteer for such a suit ? :biggrin:
Hafnium is inert, that is to say you could eat it if you were so inclined with no ill effects beyond the obvious gastronomical protestation :tongue2: .
Seriously when excited it does produced non-ionizing gamma radiation that would indeed produce, uncomfortable side effects to put it mildly. But the gamma radiation produced is low energy and with a modest amount shielding, not a problem.
I'm sure that it's possible to build a compact system say the size of modern re-breathing scuba apparatus which can comfortably power an electric vehicle the size of an civilian suv.
Just a thought.
cheers
Greetings !
Didn't find the info. Where's the energy coming from ?
(Only possible thing I can think of is fission = not user friendly.)
Peace and long life.
From what I read it would appear that Hafnium must be first be placed in to an excited nuclear state, known romantically as Hf178m2. This extra nuclear energy radiates over a 31 year half life, making Hafnium pretty unique as most isomers placed in an excited state have a half life shorter than a minute. The energy it sheds is given off as a gamma radiation and after it collapses to it's next state, it has a 7 second half life before returning to nuclear ground state.
A scientist at the University of Dallas claims that he has caused Hf178m2 to collapse in to it's next half life stage immediately, as opposed to taking 31 years to do so, which yields all of the potential gamma radiation at once, by exposing the isomer to x-ray radiation. Only he has been able to perform the experiment.
According to his results, you get a 50-60 times energy return on the gamma radiation shed from what you use in the x-ray trigger. This is potentially a very promising energy source, and weapon. The thing is because this isn't a release acting the weak or strong force, but simply on the energy state of the particle, it doesn't fall under any known non-proliferation treaties. This has naturally grabbed the attention of the U.S. Military, though the scientific community at large has a problem with this as no other scientist can verify the results. They think this process isn't actually possible and the military is chasing phantoms while angering the international community by persuing such a weapon.
Check it out:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/hafnium.htm
Thank you for the info - very intresting, zesban.
At any case then, even assuming that it works and that a
small X-ray emitter could be used, the big problem for a backpack
generator of this sort, as I suspected in the first place, would still
be shielding and energy conversion of the gamma radiation.
Live long and prosper.
I agree. While it would be suitable as a weapon, I think there are better avenues to explore for energy sources. I had made the suggestion of using an RTG, or Radio-isotope Thermal Generator a while back. I still think it would be pretty cool.
An RTG produces electrical current based off of the Seebeck thermalelectric effect. Basically it takes two units, coupled together, that have radically different thermal states. The excitation due to thermal energy of one unit creates pressure which then flows to the other unit, generating current.
See the following link:
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1994/9423/942306.PDF
While the RTGs discussed weigh approximately 1-2 tons, they also produce anywhere from 9-20 Watts constantly for at least a 30 year lifespan. If these generators could be scaled down for uses in the armor I think they would make an effective power source.
See, the community has developed this carbon fiber nanotubing that acts like muscle. When you apply an electric current to it it contracts and then relaxes when current is removed. But it's 100 times as powerful as muscle, approximately, per similar densities.
http://www.eikos.com/articles/carbnano_routetoapp.pdf
(This is a lengthy article but discusses a number of applications for this material. Look under Electromechanical Devices, it's in the second half of this section.)
The generators would provide the current needed to drive the nano tubing throughout an armored exoskeleton. These methods would eliminate a lot of moving parts making the suit pretty reliable for away missions and with such an efficient power source you include a number of other tools.
The suit itself would have to be as lightweight as possible. I would suggest components of Liquidmetal Steel and Tungsten alloyed or Ceramic Aluminum composite. This would provide a very strong, very corrosion resistant, light weight, and heat resistant material with which to craft the armor. Any heat generated could be fed back in to the RTG to improve efficiency.
http://www.liquidmetal.com
http://www.astromet.com/alumina-ceramic-amalox68.htm
Right now I can't decide between the steel or the alumina. I wanted to bounce these ideas off of the posters here as a lot of good knowledge is being thrown around here.
Titanium could be good too.
The muscle idea sounds cool. Though, the "good old"
motor would probably be better for the major parts.
The problem with titanium by itself would be that it isn't as resistant to corrosion and not strong enough. When you alloy it with steel it would solve these problems, but then it is heavier then these other materials.
Motors are nice, but they break. Often right when you need them the most. They also require a lot of chemicals, i.e. coolants, lubricants, etc...
By eliminating the moving parts you create a much longer lived field suit. The "muscles" would have the capabilities to lift a ton or more and be approximately the size of a man's arm in volume.
If we had a motor with no friction that didn't need coolant or other chemicals that need regular replacement than I would consider it equitable. Or if the motor could far outperform the nanotubes. I haven't seen anything like this out there though, but I'm always willing to be enlightened.
I like that people are still talking about this stuff though. Very cool, and I bet it'll happen, a lot sooner than people think too...
whisper
Oct13-04, 11:50 AM
Very true, exposure to Gamma radiation is very harmful; Gamma rays are stopped only by direct collision with an atom and are therefore dangerously penetrating.
Conventional thought would have you strap on several hundred kilograms of lead to reduce the amount radiation you are exposed to. Now enter if you will the world of Plasma Physics and Magneto hydrodynamics; while magnetic fields alone do not stop Gamma Rays, magnetic fields can contain plasma and plasma is where the magic happens.
Here are the principals:
Very High Density Plasma forms a barrier with which the Gamma radiation collides, on collision with the VHDP barrier the Gamma Rays trajectory is deviated to such a degree the radiation becomes briefly trapped within the plasma giving up more energy with every collision.
By the time the radiation moves beyond the plasma it has attenuated to the point that most of the radiation will not pass through the reactor housing and the radiation that does would be no more harmful than the radiation given off by a standard CRT.
The byproduct of the process is heat and free electrons.
Q: What about the heat you say, how could anyone survive with that sort of heat strapped to their back?
A: Now bear in mind that were talking about a containment core roughly the size of a grapefruit.
“In the 1980s, Scott Backhaus and Greg Swift at the Los Alamos National Laboratory realized that compression/expansion action could be used to cool and heat metal plates placed in the path of a sound wave.”
Radio waves also work and have actually been used for near absolute zero experimentation.
I think you see where this is going. Waste heat management was never an issue.
Q: Great what about Electricity, where does that come from?
A: The free electrons are harvested from within the core through electron migration and thermal coupling. Again producing enough electrical energy needed to power an SUV sized electrical vehicle.
Whisper
kirkmcloren
Oct13-04, 02:38 PM
If you like electron emitters try cesium.
BTW you aren't going to shield a backpack gamma emitter with a magnetic field.
whisper
Oct14-04, 11:09 AM
Thats correct, magnetic feilds can't stop gamma radiation. Plasma on the other hand works wonderfully. Megnetic feilds only keep the plasma where and in what shape you want it.
The plasma is the radiation sheild.
Whisper
Do you have a link on such plasma radiation shields ?
Never heard of this before, for some reason.
It could be considered for space applications too, if it works.
Peace and long life.
kirkmcloren
Oct14-04, 04:07 PM
Thats correct, magnetic feilds can't stop gamma radiation. Plasma on the other hand works wonderfully. Megnetic feilds only keep the plasma where and in what shape you want it.
The plasma is the radiation sheild.
Whisper
You had it right when you said:
Gamma rays are stopped only by direct collision with an atom and are therefore dangerously penetrating.
Plasma has no enhanced gamma interception. Stipping electron(s) from a nucleus reduces the capture area, not enhances it. Someone yanked your crank when they sold you on plasma as a wonderful shield. A solid has lots more atoms per unit volume than a gas.
whisper
Oct15-04, 09:30 AM
"Plasma has no enhanced gamma interception."
That is based on scientific theories made when the scientific community had very limited understandings of Plasma Physics. The fourth state in now understood to range from gaseous to crystalline. That’s as much as you can get from me, however you can google for this information as some of it is already making its way to the public domain.
Brief Abstract on liquid and crystalline plasmas (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/44/12B/319)
"Stripping electron(s) from a nucleus reduces..."
What you are referring to is a state of Plasma, Ionization. Ionization is simply a subset of a state of plasma, nothing else. "Plasma can be ionized or not"
There has already been a "RADICAL!" shift in ideas and understandings concerning Plasma Physics and Magneto hydrodynamics, terrestrial and otherwise.
So please believe me when I say it's probably been done. I assure you that I'm no quack; I simply was impressed with you general conversation. I however noticed that you all were limiting yourselves by assuming that no suitable power supply existed, or would be viable in the near future. And that is just not true.
whisper
kirkmcloren
Oct15-04, 01:35 PM
[QUOTE=whisper]"Plasma has no enhanced gamma interception."
That is based on scientific theories made when the scientific community had very limited understandings of Plasma Physics. The fourth state in now understood to range from gaseous to crystalline. That’s as much as you can get from me, however you can google for this information as some of it is already making its way to the public domain.
Brief Abstract on liquid and crystalline plasmas (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/44/12B/319)
The abasract is:
Abstract. Liquid and crystalline phases can be formed in so-called complex plasmas—plasmas enriched with solid particles in the nano- to micrometre range. The particles absorb electrons and ions and charge negatively up to a few volts. Due to their high mass compared to that of electrons and ions the particles dominate the processes in the plasma and can be observed on the most fundamental—the kinetic level. Through the strong Coulomb interaction between the particles it is possible that the particle clouds form fluid and crystalline structures. The latter is called `plasma crystal'. In this review we present an overview on the physics of this new area in plasma physics on the basis of theory and dedicated experiments performed in the laboratory and under microgravity conditions on the International Space Station.
---------------------------------
So where in all that do you get the impression it stops gamma better than the same mass in a non ionized state?
--K
whisper
Oct15-04, 02:22 PM
Please read the PDF attached to the abstract.
Here are a couple facts.
Metal generally is crystalline.
Strong magnetic fields cannot stop gamma radiation but magnetic fields can alter its trajectory.
Structural alignment is more important than mass and beyond that there are other forces that are more important than structural alignment.
Please don't expect me to explain the science or find all the papers and articles necessary explain all the process it's not something I can do.
So you'll have to take it on faith for now, I’m sure before long it'll show up in Scientific America or the like.
whisper
kirkmcloren
Oct15-04, 04:49 PM
Please read the PDF attached to the abstract.
Here are a couple facts.
Metal generally is crystalline.
Strong magnetic fields cannot stop gamma radiation but magnetic fields can alter its trajectory.
Structural alignment is more important than mass and beyond that there are other forces that are more important than structural alignment.
Please don't expect me to explain the science or find all the papers and articles necessary explain all the process it's not something I can do.
So you'll have to take it on faith for now, I’m sure before long it'll show up in Scientific America or the like.
whisper
Sorry, I take nothing on faith especially when it is contrary to the established body of sciece. Only alpha and beta are deflected by a magnetic field. Gamma is not.
You don't have to find papers and articles. Just tell me where you got the misinformation you already have. What papers were they?
Remember gamma rays are used by astronomers because they are not deviated by magnetic fields during their travels over intergalactic distances.
They point right back to their source.
Kirk
There are no strong magnetic fields in intergalactic space either.
But, I too never heard of magnetic fields affecting
gamma ray trijectory.
russ_watters
Oct17-04, 12:16 PM
Keep it on topic guys - whisper, that stuff sounds suspiciously like Electric Cosmos. We won't be discussing that in the engineering forum and likely not at all on this site. Please obey the rules of the forum.
kirkmcloren
Oct17-04, 01:29 PM
There are no strong magnetic fields in intergalactic space either.
But, I too never heard of magnetic fields affecting
gamma ray trijectory.
What you are trying to perceive is the affect. If the distance is short, as in a lab, the field's effect has to be large enough to be measureable. If the field is quite weak and it's effect quite small it would still be easy to see as intergalactic distance is many times the distance in the lab. A very small affect would be large over that distance.
Kirk
Alright, coming back around to the topic then.
I believe we do have the capability for the power source. RTGs I think hold potential and there are probably even better solutions that already exist or are close. I think we should focus on one that can generate steady amounts of electricity from a stable system with a long life span. The reason I would argue this is that I'd like to see the muscle like nanotubes provide the mechanical energy for the armor from this electrical source.
The problem here is even if plasma fields could be used to harvest gamma radiation, the original idea was to have the Hf178m2 provide, unless I'm mistaken. And it would appear that this is not likely, as the experiment itself is so far unable to be reproduced and seems to not be possible.
One possibility may be a Helium-3 fusion reactor. This exciting material has been concepted to fusion with itself and release no radiation. Only appropriate heat shielding would be necessary. Further, proof-of-principle has been established that it can fusion with Deuterium with very little radiation given off.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Also, a more mundane solution may come from a company called UltraLife batteries. Their Lithium ION cells are flexible in their configuration and rechargeable. Further, they appear to produce a decent current.
http://www.ulbi.com/market-display.asp?ID=10
Feel free to contribute further ideas, this forum has been great for sharing ideas on this!
FutureRNS
Oct22-04, 02:33 PM
Helow. I'm new here, so I can't undersand what's the problem? Power armor has got basic parts:
1) Engine that creates energy. It could be anything from micro nuclear or hydrogen plant to biological synthesis.
2) Armor plating. USA army has been developing new tipes of armor for tank. Lates polifabric ceramical armor could be used to cover power armors. It is light ant has got good qualitys even in few centimetre thick. New researches of fiber produce by spiders
could be useful here too. It's incrediblly stong and elastic. But you should understand that you can't make power armor resistant to everything. Basicly it should be inpenetratable for bulets up to 50 cal.. RPG and 50 cal. could penetrate every armor of up to 3-4 cm thickness.
3) Muscular system. I read about fiber muscles long time ago. It's the most progresive solution I can think of. It is highly tolerant to heat, pressure or other factors. It doesn't need other machinery to work (not like hydraulics whitch needs masive compresors). Fully operational unit could produce speeds up to 30-50 km/h, jump to 6-12 meters high.
4)Control system. It would be imposible to move your leg forwards, so no pressure plates would work. But I think I found interesting solution. When you move your arm or leg your brain sends a neuro signal for muscle. Everything is like with a fiber that is developed already. So you could intercept these signals and produse into electronical signals. This way power armor wouldn't be a suit it would be extension of human body.
5)Visual system. I think everyone would agree that it isn't a problem :) New technology cameras would help to see targets that is 2-6 km away. When connected whith weapon, it could improve targeting system. Hitting a moving target wouldn't be a problem even in distance of 2km.Such weaponry is already in development or production.
6)Life suport system. Power armor should protect what is inside. But armor isn't everything. Soldier should be protected from biological weaponry. So it should be hermetic container whilth individual air suport or air cleaning system.
With such power armor, soldier could be be exteemly mobile, invulnerable to bulets and could take down 10-20 soldiers in close combat and even more in distance. So it's future of warfare.
By the way, sorry about my grama, Engish is my second language. I'm from lithuania :)
Yes, it's interesting how more and more we're able to get metals to act like polymers. This over all but the power source, is probable the greatest advancement we've toward developing such a piece of technology.
I still think the power source is, like most things that are in development, the most critical hinge on which a project like this is fixed. Unfortunately, this also seems to be the slowest developing component. I wish we had more info on viable power sources, but crawling the internet even doesn't seem to yield much in this way.
Anybody out there got some info on compact power sources?
wgayton
Oct23-04, 02:21 PM
It’s truly amazing, seems like a powered suite has all the pieces in place to a large degree except for the power supply. I think I remember seeing something similar to what whisper was talking about on darpa's website sometime ago, I'm trying to find it again. Anyway I think it was about very small reactors for robotic spy submarines. If I can find it I’ll post a link.
How long would you need to power such a suit and how much power would it consume? It may not be necessary to have a very advanced power supply.
Just a few hours at before a recharge would probably still make something like this very effective.
My thoughts.
FutureRNS
Oct24-04, 12:11 PM
Yes, it's interesting idea to use stored energy. But it would greatly reduse the efectivnes of power armor. Still maybe it's the only solution for this time. I found interesting product that is already in stocks. It's simple batary, of unusual thikness. one batary is only 0.6 mm. You can find all data about Powe paper here http://www.powerpaper.com/u/3_technology/batteryspecs.htm .
But i don't think that it would be good solution. I'm looking into a beter perspective. Nano-technology. It is said that nano robtos will be in production after 2 to 5 years. It isn't very long. So every power armor created would be opsolyte when nano-technology will be developed. But i think that there is a formu for this technology. But by the way i wanted to ask what is power usage of the muscle fiber? I think that i saw about it on tv and they said that is very low.
I'm not sure what power would be needed to drive the nano fiber. Most people researching that technology are interested in it for its tensile strength currently. This property is unique to certain layouts in its structure and was an accidental discovery. Never-the-less, it has fantastic possibilties for an armored suit, but nobody is reasearching what it would take exactly to power such a device, to my knowledge anyhow.
If anyone finds any figures on this it would be interesting to seen them. We know the human body can produce enough power to drive its muscular system readily enough, so I don't imagine this to be too taxing on a power system, but real figures are always better than educated guesses.
notal33t
Nov19-04, 04:22 PM
One wonders if DARPA's involvement in the whole area of nanofiber research isn't going to ultimately bury the construction of such projects as the space elevator under a blanket of 'national security interests', due to this whole area of nano-armor. I hope I'm wrong, but I've run into several attempts at misinformation and, unexplicable (sic) ridiculing of the concept of using CNT, by people one could term defence establishment types.
It's would truly be a shame if, 'defence establishment types', have placed civilian nanofiber technology on it's KILL list, because of 'nano-armor'.
Indeed, a frightening inference. Regardless, unless a suitable power source is found the point is moot. I haven't had much time to research potential power sources or what the power requirements would be for the suit myself. Any ideas, figures, etc...?
lucien86
Nov25-04, 03:22 AM
I have been working on things rather like this for many years, I was mainly looking at
the design for bipedal robots but power suits have much the same problems.
Yes power supply is the biggest issue. Nuclear reactors, biochemical engines, and batteries are basically out because of various reasons, but basically don't produce enough energy.
The simple and only current sane solution is our old friend the internal combustion engine. Its light weight strong reliable and above all produces a lot of energy. This can then drive an efficient pneumatic or hydraulic compressor, electrical drives or even mechanical half shafts and clutches.
Another potential solution is steam drive, this can deliver quite a lot of power for low weight but generates a lot of heat. Steams real problem though is its safety aspects, - if anything goes wrong it tends to explode with shrapnel, or broils the operator alive.
These are some old robot technologies developed in the 50's and 60‘s, mostly by the American military, most of these come under the heading called pitons. (Pitons work rather like pneumatic rams, the movement comes directly from a sliding piston, but they are driven in a different way.)
There are several kinds of pitons. -
Petrol pitons use tiny pulsed petrol explosions inside the cylinders themselves, they were very powerful but unstable (I don't know if they ever worked).
Hyper-sonic pitons used hypersonic shockwaves to move the pistons, they were incredibly fast and powerful but extremely dangerous. The shockwave generator was basically a powerful whistle and if it failed in the wrong way the energy could leak out killing anyone within a hundred feet or more. Also although the drive system was very lightweight the shockwave generator itself weighed several tones. Shockwave machines tend to explode if 'anything' goes wrong.
Rocket pitons used a rocket engine to provide the impetus (probably similar to the V1's pulse jet), again a lot of power and again subject to self detonation.
Vacuum pitons were more sensible and used strong vacuum pumps rather than compressors, but are otherwise quite similar to modern pneumatics.
Electrical pitons were the strangest of all, they used electrical fields to move the pitons and they are quite different to any technology used today. As far as I know they were pretty close to genuine positronics and used a 'very' high field strength. Surprisingly very fast and very strong. Completely invulnerable to EMP themselves but unfortunately a very strong generator of EMP and radio noise. Electrical pitons could well have been connected to a nuclear fusion engine developed in the 50's by the American military that used the same technology - it was one of the programs destroyed by Kennedy and nothing is known about it now.
The final type of piton used a wonderful idea, it was driven by a battery that stored energy by bending space directly, not surprisingly it is entirely theoretical. The plus side of such a battery is that it can store energy almost without limit. The downside is that space is slippery, and if the batteries ultimate limit is reached or anything goes wrong all the energy is released instantly, and it explodes with enormous force.
There is a legend that this battery actually was built and has been used in teleportation experiments, it was essentially a giant electrical capacitor with a colossal electrical field inside it. (The legend says that it was powered by 8 500 megawatt power stations). The 'Hoover' teleportation experiment had the vile motto (something like) '6 seconds from Moscow'.
The real point about all the above though is that any really high energy system has a high tendency to fail, and particularly to explode. The same is true of liquid oxygen systems.
At the end of the day it looks like its sad old petrol thats the solution. In the future some kind of system using muscles may be possible BUT it is really decades away. The real problem with muscles is that they get damaged constantly in use so they need to be self repairing, I don't see how synthetic muscles can (ever) do it. A living machine using natural muscle seems to be the real best solution but would be colossally difficult to construct and is practically identical to a well known experiment by a certain Dr Frankenstein. (pictures greens and animal rights protesters chasing me with pitch and burning torches)
The difference between our muscles and this is stuff is epic in disproportion.
Please refer to the following source:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
Carbon nano-tubes, nature's response to Buddy Lee's "Can't bust 'em" would be the material I'm referring to.
Also refer to the following source for applications in Electromechanical Devices:
http://www.eikos.com/articles/carbnano_routetoapp.pdf
(This was in a previous post of mine, and again I would like to point out that this is a lengthy but good article on the material.)
The idea then is a feasible power source. Sadly no one is yet interested in pursuing this technology *because* it's too similar to the natural solution.
theriddler876
Nov29-04, 09:44 PM
blah, hmnn I don't know if someone said this before but I have no intent in reading 8 pages worth of posts, but, one the suit will be made of some kind of metal if it's going to be resistant so then you can just get a really big magnet, or if it's even remotely electrical powered you can distrupt it's function with a tazer or something. the weight wouldln't be an issue because it would sense pressure and move with you type thing, unless it's mechanisms where shut off in which case you'd be stuck
FutureRNS
Nov30-04, 01:09 PM
you must be joking? A huge magnet. Ya !!! Wonderfull . Have you heard of EMP? You drop a bomb and all batlefeeld is disabled :) But this is overkill. Power armor can be made of ceramic and plastic material with electomagnetic sheelding. But theriddler876 tree to imagine, what potencial power armor has in close combat. Enyone seen 3Dmark 2005. It would be like that :) And no one is talking about invulnerable mashine.
Additionally, not all metals react to a magnet. But yes, ceramics and polymers have shown great promise recently and may end up being the material of choice. Riddler, I would refer you to some sources on ceramic composites such as AmAlOX-68.
http://www.astromet.com/alumina-ceramic-amalox68.htm
Also, a tazer shouldn't shut down a suit that is electric powered unless you were to apply it directly to a circuit path. If the suit is properly built then the possibility of a tazer shutting down the suit would be equivocal to the tazer shutting down your car while it's running.
Now these potential problems having been addressed, that's not to say such a suit would be indestructible. An atomic bomb, or more simply, an RPG would still injure and/or kill the wearer. But, its presense on a field of combat though would allow for a sizeable increase in the effectiveness of the infantry, saving lives and providing an edge in both peacekeeping and war time operations. Then there's the industrial applications of said suit.
FutureRNS
Dec7-04, 04:31 AM
That's what i am talking about:) Evin tanks can be destructed. And they are ... what 20-50 t. Power armor should be up to 1 t. to be productive. So as i said you could reach maximum imunity to bulets up to 50 cal. RPG would definitly not only penetrate any armor of that thiknes but would destroy enyone operating power armor. But it would still be a "slising and tramping" machine. With new technology termo cameras, it could spot all infantry in 1-5 km range. So it would be extreemly dificult tu destroy one powered soldier and even harder if they would be in group. But the is a idiom in lithuania "Neskaiciuok visciuku ziema" :)
lucien86
Dec7-04, 09:56 AM
RPG's are the real problem with anything like powered armour. War is a horrible place and real soldiers are cheap plentiful and expendable (that’s the basic military definition of what a soldier is). Powered armour makes them much stronger but has the fatal flaw that it also makes them a more tempting target (especially if it costs several million dollars for each suit).
In the end you would need 10 tons of armour to overcome RPG's and then someone would use tank type guns on you and only sci-fi technology could defend against that.
The main thing on the battlefield is not to be a target and anything that attracts bullets is a big negative. I would guess powered armour for real is at least 50 years away because of this alone.
There are many good places for power suits though, the construction industry, machine assembly, scientists, firemen, forestry workers, even nurses. (one of the real 'suits' I've seen a picture of was being developed to help nurses lift heavy patients.)
As for the sci-fi version, I love playing with things like gravity engines, ftl, teleportation etc. and I think that personal force fields probably are among the most difficult of all the technologies. Armour must absorb kinetic energy and an energy field that can stop a bullet would be on the wrong side of the E=mc^2 relation so it would need staggering amounts of energy. This problem is still easy compared to shaping the energy field and stopping the energy being dissipated though
(Creating and reinforcing a free air hologram is actually the most difficult of all the sci-fi technologies. Holograms are formed by interference patterns which require a stable diffraction substrate - and which air is not!. Even ordinary holograms are a brutally difficult technology.) :rolleyes:
Well from what I see here it seems like the idea is that the power armor would be for the defense of the soldier, almost like making them a walking tank. I tend to disagree with this view. The reason for power armor is to increase overall combat effectiveness. The battle field is about more than who shoots who with the bigger gun.
The idea here is to assist the soldier in navigation, endurance, tactical manuevers, provide protection, etc...
An enclosed environmental suit would shield a soldier from dire environmental effects such as heat and cold or weather in general, providing an enclosed breathing system to protect against chemical and possibly biological attacks. The armor, while not standing up to heavy caliber shells or rockets and other highly explosive incendiary devices, would protect against smaller calibers and some shrapnel and other possible sources of injury. It would also assist the soldier in movement, increasing endurance and allowing for easier navigation of the battlefield, which is not a static place and takes a lot of work to get around. Taking the high ground, as it were, is easier for someone who can run or climb twice as fast or jump twice as high, especially if it takes only half the effort of a normal fit soldier to do so. This is not to mention that this soldier could carry upwards as 100 times as much weight with the same effort.
Additionally, because this suit is a powered suit it would be a natural extension to build a point to point communcation array and possibly other automated software in to it. This would allow for real time updates to orders, images of the terrain and tactical field data storage and analysis software, a heads up display could even be built in to the suit which could provide the soldier with all kinds of information that would benefit them greatly.
The suit could monitor a soldiers condition and position, reporting this back to a base camp, allowing them to immediately know if a soldier has been injured or is in need of assistance and locate them. This increases the likelyhood of saving that soldier's life.
A number of these benefits translate even to peacetime operations, such as relief efforts, peacekeeping, rescue, and transport operations.
The application of a suit like this is not to make the soldier a walking tank, but a versatile member of the armed forces by enhancing mobility and effectiveness. I'd like to think that not only is this a rather good idea as it can save lives, but that it is not as far off as we think. I think if it were pursued with any real effort, and by effort I mean funding research and development, it could be accomplished within a decade, not half a century. DARPA has already taken an interest in the development of exoskeletons and could use this as a basis to lead in to power armor research. That's where I sit on the issue anyway.
SkepticJ
Dec7-04, 10:10 PM
What everyone seems to be talking about is a five meter tall bipedal robot suit. This could be overkill. What would actually be useful in urban combat, jungle, mountains ect. would be about a 2.5-3 meter suit. The frame would be made of nanotube composites that are encased in several layers of titanium-tungsten alloy fabric(or metal glass alloy). The actuators would be electrical carbon nanotube muscles, which only need a little power to run. The power would be stored via a tank of adenosine triphosphate, which is used to generate electricity. A superconducting loop could be used to store power instead and in high densities. Weapons technology would be much smaller by then so the exoskeleton's advantage would be carrying supplies, running faster, tearing down walls, leaping etc. The hands and feet would be equiped with titanium claws and setae adhesive pads for scaling walls. Weapons would be metal glass bullets, mini HE rockets, entomopter and gecko grenades and would have a fleet of Roboflies (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/06/fearing/home.html) swarming around a several km radius around the "mech" looking for enemies. Perhaps these flybots could inject deadly ricin poison into unwary troops as easily as a mosquito.
Well that is rather specific. A few things...
First, could we get some sources on these technologies, ie websites, text books, articles, etc...? Especially statistics on power usage on a nanofiber actuator and the power source you referenced. That is where my interest lies.
Second, why assume everyone here is discussing the larger suit? The 2.5 to 3 meter model is what I and a few others have been discussing all along. Actually closer to 2 to 2.5 meters.
Third, why robo-flies? Is this in and of itself inspired from a specific source? Other than Berkley's breakthrough of course.
Any answers are welcome. Thanks for the input so far!
Hey guys, first post, but I found a site that seems to have answers to some of your questions : http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht15poweredarmor.htm
Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to come up with any real ideas of my own, so I was hoping that this would inspire some of you guys, and maybe get more people to participate in the topic.
Also, for any of you that haven't already, I would definitely suggest you read the book "Armor" by John Steakley, or "Halo: The Fall Of Reach" which I believe is by Eric Nylund. Both contain some pretty awesome powered armor, especially the Halo books.
SkepticJ
Dec9-04, 09:05 AM
Third, why robo-flies? Is this in and of itself inspired from a specific source? Other than Berkley's breakthrough of course.
Small hard to see and destroy scouts. They will be cheap so each suit could have hundreds reporting back its findings. Plus can you imagine how paranoid enemy troops would become if any fly they hear or see isn't really a fly but is going to kill them. Maybe they would wear bee keeper outfits. But a fly with a metal needle could just poke through that.
I thought everyone was talking about a five or more meter "mech". That's what I think would be overkill in cities. It'd be to big to go through doors.
SkepticJ
Dec9-04, 09:24 AM
First, could we get some sources on these technologies, ie websites, text books, articles, etc...? Especially statistics on power usage on a nanofiber actuator and the power source you referenced. That is where my interest lies.
ATP is what biological cells run off of. It's an efficient storer of energy. I don't know how well it'd work for generating electrical power. I was just throwing out something for someone to play with.
Nanotube muscles are hard to find data on also. But I can tell you that so far they've been able to make ones that contract at twice the speed human muscle can and with one hundred times the force. Our little mech trooper could pick up and throw a car. http://www.pa.msu.edu/cmp/csc/NANOTUBE-99/abstracts/77.html <--this is really old.
Another possible improvement to an exoskeleton design would be to have one or several small roller blade like wheels on the knee pads so one could get through short spaces without the knees rubbing and slowing the trooper down.
I was aware of the stats on nanofiber muscles, check out the link in one of my posts higher up on this board if you want a really in depth study of carbon nanofiber. The link is the one regarding electromechanics, though the article covers much more than that. As far as the biologically inspired power source, I'm going to have to do more research in to this, but it sounds very promising. Thanks for some new ideas. I just wish I knew what kind of power draw a nanofiber muscle system requires, especially to operate in the capacity we're looking at.
The wheels on the knees would be a good idea, got any on waste processing? I think a resevoir for hydration would be a good idea, with as much physical activity as the wearer will be performing. And the suit should also have a way to deal with sweat, lest the wearer chafe like the dickens, heh... Climate control within it would be a fantastic feature!
SkepticJ
Dec9-04, 06:22 PM
The wheels on the knees would be a good idea, got any on waste processing? I think a resevoir for hydration would be a good idea, with as much physical activity as the wearer will be performing. And the suit should also have a way to deal with sweat, lest the wearer chafe like the dickens, heh... Climate control within it would be a fantastic feature!
They might just wear diapers like astronauts do. Maybe they'd have shoulder straps though, for the really heavy days.
I think about a three to five Liter version of one of these (http://www.camelbak.com) would be sufficient. Plus another 2-3 liter one filled with a thick Gatoraid-like liquid food.
The trooper should wear liquid cooled undies like astronauts wear on spacewalks to keep them cool. In Arctic cold conditions the underware has hot liquid flowing through the tubes.
Respirocytes (http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes1.html#Sec1) in their blood stream could be useful when the trooper needs to go underwater.
The suit should have filters capable of dealing with chemical and biological agents as well as filtering air from fires and cooling the air so it doesn't burn the trooper's lungs. Perhaps a compressed air supply that lasts 60+min. The gas could be compressed in tens of millions of respirocytes in a tank on the back or sides of the legs or somewhere. The purpose of doing this is one large tank couldn't be shot and go off like a bomb. Some hypothetical enemy weapon would have to be able to break millions of micron sized tanks. Are gains of sand destroyed when a barrel of it is shot or bombed?
The Gatoraid idea is a good one as you'd need more then water when that active.
As for the Respirocytes, I haven't heard about these either. And regarding the grains of sand question, I can't really say I've studied the forensics of such a scenario.
Most of these features that have been brought up are great, but what I'm really concerned with right now is the idea of a working suit. A prototype. Additional features are tertiary concerns, relegated to the end product design. Crawl before you walk and all that jazz.
I'm still trying to find specs on the power usage of nanofiber actuators and a power source compact enough to integrate in to such a suit. Then there's the question of control and feedback. What kind of drive mechanism are we talking about here? Sensors responding to input and controlling the suit electronically, mechanical systems built right in to the structure, some third option? Man is it hard to crawl...
spartan
Dec10-04, 10:11 PM
You can't beat good old h20 when it comes to hydration, although it would be good to add some electrolytes and maybe some extra calories. As for the power usage of the nanotube muscles, the only thing I've seen said that a finished product shouldn't take more than 1-4v to activate, other than that I don't know much about it. Anyone have any good sites to find out more about them? Also, has anyone here looked into that ring-carbon armor mentioned in the site I posted earlier? I can't seem to find out much about it. I don't have too much information to contribute, but I'll throw in whatever I can when things start to get slow around here.
SkepticJ
Dec12-04, 04:50 PM
Not much to add but a link to the metal glass (http://www.liquidmetal.com/index/) I talked about a few posts back. It should make great armor piercing bullets because like depleted uranium rounds it's self sharpening as it goes through the target.
dragonpowered
Dec14-04, 02:19 PM
this is my first post and id like to keep it short. you guys have had a great many good ideas but has anyone considered what kind of support structures you would use. also what kinds of people would be able to pilot it?
In regards to the pilot question, I would offer the following idea. The suit should be designed to be modules that are selected for different body types and sizes for at least the limbs, torso, and head. Further, the parts would be designed to be slightly loose and then have a system to more "form-fit" the pilot. Maybe an inflatable inner layer on the suit.
As for support structures, I'm not sure what you mean. For instance, are you speaking of mechanical support for the suit, battlefield support for the pilot, or financial support for the development? Or something else entirely?
To the others, I haven't had much of a chance to do any further research on a power source or to even check out the metal glass link skeptic posted. Sounds like some cool stuff though.
Edit: LOL! I just checked out the glass metal link and it's liquid metal! I've been posting links to these guys for a month now on here! That's great that we came to the same conclusion! A buddy of mine pointed out the low melting point of the stuff though, so we've been looking at AmAlOx for armor and such, check out my previous link about it. As a projectile this might be nice though, its melting in mid flight could have an interesting effect.
SkepticJ
Dec14-04, 08:40 PM
Maybe an inflatable inner layer on the suit.
That'd make the trooper into a human arm floaty. They might need to be able to dive underwater(Green Berets, Navy Seals etc.)
spartan
Dec18-04, 11:18 PM
I'm sure the immense weight of the armor would outweight the buoyancy of the inflatable layer, and it could also be inflated with something like gel instead of air. The gel layer could be heated or cooled as climate control and would insulate against heat from fire and weapon impacts from outside.
FutureRNS
Dec19-04, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by SkepticJ
Small hard to see and destroy scouts. They will be cheap so each suit could have hundreds reporting back its findings. Plus can you imagine how paranoid enemy troops would become if any fly they hear or see isn't really a fly but is going to kill them. Maybe they would wear bee keeper outfits. But a fly with a metal needle could just poke through that.
If you would think about this more close, you would understand that you realy don't need a power armor for this. Any portable instalation would be suficiant. You can launch tens of thousand of these thing into the battlefield. And what the heck you would use toxic material? Don't you think that using sedative would be better than killing everyone? It doesn't matter that they would be your enemy, still first task of advanced worfare is saving lives in both sides.
About the size of power armor, as allready said it should be up to 2.5m. More and you get a tank (like in a joke "Rushan government is building a new sport car. What will they make a tank or a plane?"). And about the alloy "AmAlOx" it's as good as we can get for now. Who knows what will be in 3-5 years. But I would want to know, what is posibilities of force field. Don't you think that by the time this project will be compliete, force field technology will be developed enough to use it? But I imagne that this won't help with power issue:)
But as I see, we all agree that power armor won't be in production without 3-6 years. Well the power armor we talk about. USA army is almost completed the "Scorpion suit" project. I couldn't wind link to this, I realy dont have the time, but maybe someone does? Most of us had to hear of it. It the basic of power armor. It's a combat suit, with enchanted strenght and agility. It has modern injury treatment system, and many more that could help a soldier. But it hasn't got an armor.
Well the idea of the inflatable inner layer would be to make the suit form fitting. The idea of using a gel in it and then using that as part of the temperature control system is awesome!
I'm wondering, anyone out there know of any good clear substance that could be used as the face plate, or would a screen inside the helmet be preferrable? Ideas, thoughts, comments?
spartan
Dec21-04, 04:46 PM
I was thinking about that, and I came to the conclusion that we don't have any materials that are completely transparent that can still stop bullets, and those that do seem to crack and turn white when hit. The best option I think would be to have a very small camera on one side of the helmet, and a small nightvision/infrared camera on the other side. The soldier would have a small screen on the inside of the helmet to view, and where the faceplate would normally be, is instead covered in metal. This might seem like overkill, since the likelihood of being shot directly in the faceplate is pretty slim, but it wouldn't be too much more difficult. I imagine the soldiers wearing these won't be your ordinary, run of the mill troops. I think something like this would be more effective as a unit all its own, that operates in small squads of five or six. The suits and training to use them would be too costly to put directly on the battlefield, and it wouldn't necessarily be any more effective there than a normal soldier. It could however be used for specific operations, such as infiltrating an al qaeda encampment and capturing osama bin laden. That's if he's even really still alive.
SkepticJ
Dec22-04, 12:09 PM
Lexan polycarbonate resin is the best transparent bullet stopper I know of. AK-47 rounds might still punch through though. Same stuff the Apollo launch helments were made of.
I think Osama will have long ago bought the opium farm by the time exoskeltons hit the battlefield. I'd really like humans to grow out of fighting with each other. I'm mostly interested that not will we use them, but could. I hope nuclear fusion bombs are never used to destroy cities of people, but I'm glad they exist. Why do I want weapons research then you ask? Spinoffs. You never know where they will come from. The technology made for military exoskeletons could be used to create space suits for leaping over boulders on Mars. The nanites developed to reduce a building to elemental goo could build a home. Nuclear fusion bombs are the only thing we have to deflect SMALL asteriods incoming with only a few years notice. If they are to big(and to big isn't that big) then we're still screwed.
I'm along the same line of thinking regarding the helmet, as it would probably be better to use the camera and screen method. As for leveraging this technology as only a Special Forces unit, I see it as being that way in the beginning but eventually I'd like to see every soldier outfitted like this. A suit like this will increase the efficiency of the infantry exponentially as it will reduce work for them, increase durability, mobility, communication, and protect them far better than they are now. It will be expensive to manufacture them at first, which is why I see them as probably being relegated to the Special Forces role you describe, but cost for manufacturing will drop as more equipment is made available to do so, techniques improve, and the technology progresses. I see this suit as the future of the armed forces personally.
Regarding bigger asteroids Skeptic, why not use those nanites again? In fact, use them for all the asteroids, then take those materials and use them to build/fuel stuff. I still think you're placing these technologies too far off in the future, but then again Osama could be killed in a couple years as well. I am an eternal technological optimist. That Lexan stuff is pretty cool, but I imagine a suit like this would have the cameras and be using them anyway, so why not just go the full monty on protecting the head and fully armor it? It is noble to wish for peace, and I agree, it would be nice. I'm not sure if humans would be capable, although they've surprised me before.
SkepticJ
Dec22-04, 02:43 PM
Regarding bigger asteroids Skeptic, why not use those nanites again? In fact, use them for all the asteroids, then take those materials and use them to build/fuel stuff. I still think you're placing these technologies too far off in the future, but then again Osama could be killed in a couple years as well. I am an eternal technological optimist. That Lexan stuff is pretty cool, but I imagine a suit like this would have the cameras and be using them anyway, so why not just go the full monty on protecting the head and fully armor it? It is noble to wish for peace, and I agree, it would be nice. I'm not sure if humans would be capable, although they've surprised me before.
One thing that everyone should learn and you probably already know is that nanotech cannot and will not be alchemy. They will only be able to make things from the elements avalable. Only have iron, iron oxide and magnesium in the asteroid? That's all you can build then. Compounds using those elements. Without oxygen you're not going to have burning fuel etc. Maybe the nanotech could make the native elements on the asteriod into a huge mass driver to push it out of the way of the earth. Years of advance notice and technology decades in the future would be needed though. I'm an optimist to, that's really the only outlook worth having because if you're in a bad condition and don't think there is any possibility for improvement then what's the point of living? Enough about asteroids, the kind of nanotechnology you and I are talking about is at least twenty years in the future. Osama isn't a young guy, lives a hard life running from troops and living in caves. How long do you think he'll survive?
Well I think the power armor we're talking about is a 5 to 10 year project, if it is pursued. That's my opinion though.
As far as building something out of the materials from these asteroids, I don't mean right there. I mean send out a craft to break them down in to their core elements, harvest them, and then return them to Earth or somewhere in a controlled manner.
Basically a craft goes out, launches a nano-probe filled with the little critters at the asteroid, they break down the asteroid and bring the materials back to the ship, say on an electro-magnetic beam. The ship then returns with new materials that we can combine with existing materials to make what we want. Nanotechnology like that is closer to the 20-year mark you describe, or that's what I think anyway. Again, that's only if it's actually pursued.
Sadly neither of these technologies are getting the attention they deserve yet. Oh well. Imagine the armor we can develop for this suit when nanotechnology is available!
spartan
Dec29-04, 10:31 PM
Imagine an armored suit coated in a layer of nanobots, when a bullet hits the suit the nanobots immediately break it down into atoms before it can hit the person inside. Not sure if they could possibly do it that fast, but it would be pretty cool.
That would be cool! I'm imagining self repairing power-armor that also can repair the human inside. Of course by this point we may not even need to involve humans in war, but I'm not sure if that will ever truly be the case. Regardless, I'd first like to see a suit made. As far as the HUD goes, some interesting existing technology can be seen here:
http://www.microopticalcorp.com/Products/HomePage.html
Some very cool stuff there too!
SkepticJ
Jan1-05, 06:40 PM
I don't think that taking a bullet apart before it hits would be possible. A rifle bullet travels at Mach 2 or greater. Imagine the speed that the tiny machines would have to travel around in the suit's skin to take it apart in time. Think of the friction that would be generated by them moving at tens of times the speed of sound around in the suit's skin. The heat generated would destroy them I think. A suit that can repair itself to like new afterwards, sure. Nanotech still has to obey the physical laws of the universe remember, no magic.
I'm talking about a layer made purely out of nanobots, they wouldn't have to move anywhere.
Ghetalion
Jan4-05, 04:26 PM
The purpose and target of a powered suit would not be for conventional military application. We have more then enough of a variety of mechanized forces for nations to obliterate each other with that the only way to force the change was to up the defense procedures of biological components to the degree of manipulating quantum flucuations around them to alter the 'direction' of force-carring bosons.
However, modern war will not turn out to be the all-out national military industrial engine ferver it was in the early 20th century. In all reality, in Huntingtonian fashion, modern war will be a clash of civilizations. We will have our ideological/ethnic/religious/economical reasons for conflict that will heavily polarize certain regions of the world and will force kin cultures into making a decision about that conflict. This changes the battlefield of warfare entirely, from the traditional far away terrains to the macroscopic level of urban landscape.
The Cold War brought us a limited assurance that national-level industial complexes may never again compete head to head directly. Instead, they will fight via proxy. The Soviet Union did its share of proxy rearmament to most of Asia by producing 80 million AK-47 (and deriviatve) models during it's 50 year empire. The weapon was designed to simple to manufacture, intuiative to use, minimal part usage for repairs/cleaning, and durability so that poorly educated peasent classes could become of equal an force multiplication level of capitalist/industial armed forces. It worked wonderfully. However, these 80 million weapons remain in circulation in addition to RPG, mortar, and other light projectile explosives that could spell impending doom on a mechanized army in a heavily urbanized environment. (Review the Battle of Berlin for a disturbing example of civilian defensive mobilization and simple projectile explosives against heavily mechanized forces) These weapons are the hallmark of any political/religious terrorist because of their sheer abundance (yay Communism!) and simplicity. These are the weapons that we will be encountering on the battlefield because the flashpoints of civilization clashes will not be in the supraeconomic titans who have the most to lose in an all-out conflaguration of military powers, but of those who continue to ensure an unrestainable volume political instability for one reason or another. These political factions do not have the means to produce their own weapons, thus, tap into the nearly inexhaustable market of Cold War Soviet Arms with whatever funds they can raise. (Just as pro-Democratic forces in the 1950s tapped into the nearly inexhaustable market of Post-WW2 Western Weapons)
Thus, our prime enemy on the new battlefield of modern war will be the 7.62x39 mm round, the RPG-7's PG-7VL, PG-7VR, and TBG-7V rounds, and the British 81 mm mortar. The question is: Do we have the technology to defend against these weapons?
Yes. These weapons contain limitations that will not be upgradable by the third-world nations that rely on them. Once the technology is developed to stop them, third-world nations will not be able to redesign these weapons capabilities en masse and thus, any armor developed would provide long-term defensive capability to infantry units during civilizational conflicts. These civilization conflicts will attract the attention of kin cultures of nations who have higher economic influence which, in turn, the third-world nations will receive money, weapons, and training from these civilizations. However, technological adaptability against technological targets will be much slower since 1.) these industrial nations are not attacking each other 2.) these industrial nations are not within communication/hierarchial command of third-world military units 3.) any adaptibility against future technology will have to become increasingly complex (reducing the number of third-world units that can deploy such weapons) and expensive (reducing incentive to even give these weapons to third-world units) when compared to classical projectile weaponry. Thus, creating an armor that renders Cold War Communist weapons inefficient should be the top priority of Western military forces.
The carbon nanotube flexion/plamsa containment powe source combination appears to show the most promise.
SkepticJ
Jan4-05, 04:44 PM
I'm talking about a layer made purely out of nanobots, they wouldn't have to move anywhere.
What's going to happen to the kinetic energy of the bullet's lead atoms? The bullet is traveling at Mach 2 which means so are the atoms that make it up. I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be. Just have a weave of titanium and threads made of nanotubes to stop the bullets like aramid(Kevlar) does, but stronger. If any damage occurs then the diminutive machines come in to repair the fibers and clean out the blob of lead.
Krishna Bharadwaj G
Jan4-05, 11:08 PM
instead of going for armors and all that stuff,which in some ways may bitter the relations between different countries,i guess there are far more important issues to be addressed.
after this tsunami disaster,thought of the ways in which these quakes could be predicted well in advance?
happy new year.
Krishna, you obviously have your priorities straight by focusing on saving human lives. Please remember that this thread is for the discussion of developing power armor and a separate thread should be started for the discussion of that technology and field of science, geophysical studies I believe.
Regardless, a suit like this would help even with the tsunami disaster. With the amplified strength and the environmental enclosure the suit could traverse the flood waters with ease and allow aid workers to clear rubble and other debris with astonishing speed and agility. The precision of a human touch with the strength of a machine could navigate collapsed buildings and other dangerous areas to get to survivors hanging on the brink of life.
It could help carry supplies to remote regions faster than even typical vehicles could, helping to restore order, prevent rampant disease, and feed the hungry. The presence of such equipment would assist in maintaining order as well. The benefits of a suit like this are obvious even in peacetime.
SkepticJ
Jan5-05, 05:02 PM
Two words: centaur truck
owen13599
Jan10-05, 06:36 PM
All you are doing is playing a game with yourself.
SkepticJ
Jan10-05, 07:34 PM
All you are doing is playing a game with yourself.
What are you talking about? You'll need to say more than that if you want to tell somebody something. It seems their might be a few people who have posted in this thread who aren't taking physics into account but this is no reason why engineers can't create robotic suits someday. It's not like mythical magical phenomena have to be invoked to make it work.
shashwat
Jan10-05, 10:44 PM
Actually, the real problem would be speed.
With all the parts moving, you would need them to be speed multipliers.If you use levers to move the parts(I'm not an engineer), then the Mechanical Advantage will be less than 1. The person inside will have to apply a lot of force. Nobody will agree to wear the armor anyway.
shashwat
Jan10-05, 10:46 PM
I'm talking about a layer made purely out of nanobots, they wouldn't have to move anywhere.
Why not have a layer of steel. Its stronger.
gramero
Jan11-05, 08:13 AM
I work for a company that is building the engines that may power the prototype exoskeletons. Small horsepower, light weight turbine engines.
Check out the prototype suits.
http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/bleex.htm
If you use elctro-mechanical actuators then there are no moving parts. It's just like human muscle. Carbon nano-fiber has this property but is far stronger and more resilient. Check out the previously links I've posted.
SkepticJ
Jan11-05, 12:39 PM
If you use elctro-mechanical actuators then there are no moving parts. It's just like human muscle. Carbon nano-fiber has this property but is far stronger and more resilient. Check out the previously links I've posted.
I did a little more research on nanotube muscles and it's seems they don't contract at twice the speed of human muscle only expand. They contract at 1/10th the speed of human muscle. But they still are two orders of magnitude stronger than human muscle. Well that's if this is true anyway--> http://www.physorg.com/news2577.html
"While the carbon nanotube muscles can exceed the performance of natural muscle by generating a hundred times the force and elongating twice as fast, the contraction is less than one-tenth that of natural muscle."
It sounds like what they mean is that the tubes provide these forces, but they don't pull in as far as a human muscle would. So when contracting to produce this force, they only shrink down a tenth of an inch in size rather than one inch in size on a comparable ratio.
Perhaps they could use an exterior lining that does shrink like the human muscles do so that the suit still moves with the pilot, but have the carbon nanotubes assist in the actual work while the lining assists in the movement. Perhaps that's why they're examining the polymer muscles, to create a hybrid that capitalizes on the benefits of both. We will see. Thanks for the info!
SkepticJ
Jan11-05, 06:25 PM
Why not have a layer of steel. Its stronger.
Steel is heavy, the suit needs to be as light as it can be while also being strong.
Possible good materials to build the armor and frame of are metal glass, titanium or alloys of it, spider silk composites(silk is being worked on right now), carbon nanotube composites, good old graphite composites, glass microsphere composites and aramid composites.
SkepticJ
Jan11-05, 06:34 PM
"While the carbon nanotube muscles can exceed the performance of natural muscle by generating a hundred times the force and elongating twice as fast, the contraction is less than one-tenth that of natural muscle."
It sounds like what they mean is that the tubes provide these forces, but they don't pull in as far as a human muscle would. So when contracting to produce this force, they only shrink down a tenth of an inch in size rather than one inch in size on a comparable ratio.
Hmmm, you might be right, they worded it poorly if so. They should have said the muscle contracts at 1/10th the speed; but why doesn't the article say they elongate and contract a 2X human muscle speed? Why don't you e-mail them and get an anwser? Or I could but I don't feel like it. :biggrin:
Solution seems simple; if the artificial muscle contracts 1/10th the distance but 100x the force of human muscle, one could attach the artificial muscle to a lever that amplifies the range of motion 10x's, and still have 10x's the strength, no?
That is true, but again it would be better to avoid moving parts, as they are prone to breakage. I think that's why they're examining the uses of other polymer muscles. These muscles more close mimic the movement of human muscles and may provide the answer if used properly. I may just email them.
dragonpowered
Jan13-05, 03:08 PM
ok i have another question. why not build the entire suit out of composites. it would be lighter and many times stronger than steel. also all anyone seems to see as a really big obstacle is the financial side of developement. well if you were developing nanobots to reapair the suit then why not use them to build it too? as to the support structures i meant things like where they are stored what will deploy them(like the dropship in aliens and the "coffins" in starship troopers). also is the armour going to be more like a knight of the 15th century where you had to have help to put it on or can we make it like a suit. step into it, zip it up,and the nanobots stiffens certain parts to absorb impact. what could be simpler?
dragonpowered
Jan13-05, 03:11 PM
oh another thing, has anyone thought of using the suits in space?
brewnog
Jan13-05, 03:48 PM
step into it, zip it up,and the nanobots stiffens certain parts to absorb impact. what could be simpler?
What could be simpler indeed!
Technology like this is so far down the line that when it becomes available, the need for humans being suited up like this would be completely superfluous.
Nice brainstorming though...
dragonpowered
Jan13-05, 06:44 PM
ok so the the technology is farther down the road but still the question remains. will it be hard to "suit up" or will the suit be like wearing clothes?meaning that it is relatively easy to "suit up" on your own.
dragonpowered
Jan18-05, 09:44 PM
hey guys check this out http://neogentronyx.com/content/view/20/43/ its really awesome. of course it is a bit taller than we were discussing.
Hello guys, I've been keeping track of where this topic has been going for almost a year now, and finally decided I wanted to post, as this is a topic near and dear to my heart (I'm a Warhammer 40,000 player), and if you look to Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries and the Elemental 'Mech you'll see a perfect example of what I think we are looking for. Well anyway, I was just looking back at an earlier post of yours zesban and i think that ZTA-96 Zirconia Toughened Alumina would probably be a better material for this application than AmAlOx 68 Alumina. well, I hope I didn't waste your time with this post
*edit*
i just remembered a wonderful metal my father told me about one time, Berylium i think it was. if what he told me is true, we could build say, a car engine, and include 5% berylium in alloy, it wouldn't need oil, period. granted, berylium isn't exactly cheap if i remember correctly, so it probably wouldn't really be cost efective here, it was just a thouht
Kulaman
Mar25-06, 04:58 AM
i really hate to see this topic fall so deep in the back logs... (i'm not normally one to double post but...) unfortuantly i don't have any more to add right now, other than a bump and a prayer... lol :biggrin:
i also wish i could delete that stupid title i put on my last post...
rhinovirus
Apr17-06, 02:45 PM
i just remembered a wonderful metal my father told me about one time, Berylium i think it was. if what he told me is true, we could build say, a car engine, and include 5% berylium in alloy, it wouldn't need oil, period. granted, berylium isn't exactly cheap if i remember correctly, so it probably wouldn't really be cost efective here, it was just a thouht
Yeah my materials lecturer has told me how great the stuff is and how widely used it would be...if it were not for the fact that 1 in 7 people are fatally alergic to the stuff.
IMO, a "Mech Warrior" or "Gundam" type thing would be completely superfluous, especially for urban warfare. You have something that cannot enter a building, and isn't going to be any faster or better armed than a tank (probably slower and with lighter armament). Plus, if it's that big, is there any reason to make it human shaped, or even give it legs? Legs give you the advantage of being able to handle rough terrain, but in a city you already have paved streets. Plus, a human is relatively tall and narrow, which means that it would be easy to knock over. And legs are less efficient than wheels or treads. The only scale at which powered armor is feasable is about human sized. Think Master Chief from Halo, not Mech Warrior.
Kulaman
Apr20-06, 05:43 PM
okay, okay.(master chief's armor doesn't give him that strength, he has that from implants) Think the Space Marines from Warhammer 40,000 then. their armor makes them about 30% larger than a human, with broad soled "boots" giving them a lot of stability.
Wow, it's nice to see this post is still alive. Well I was recently discussing this very topic with my cousin and he brought something up that I was not entirely aware of. As it turns out Carbon Nano Fiber is very tough, but it is also very brittle, not supple as I previously thought. That is to say is does not bend well, which precludes it from my no moving parts idea. As such I'll have to start from scratch in locating an acceptible power amplifier for the suit.
As for the wear of the suit, I'd put it roughly between wearing Plate Mail and wearing a Deep Dive Suit. Ofcourse, the weight would be off set by the assistance the suit provides. The idea though is to keep it low profile enough that the soldier can navigate an urban environ without much impedance.
rhinovirus
Apr25-06, 03:50 PM
Lots of interesting posts, lots of talk about materials and power sources, but not much in the way of control systems. I think this would be the 3rd major hurdle to overcome, after power and materials. To make the most of the suit, I think most of you would agree that it would sense the movement of the wearer and react to that rather than some sort of joystick and buttons configuration. Is it possible to develop a control system that allows the suit to react immediately and precisely? One of the possible dangers is the control system malfunctions or misjudges your movements and reacts in such away that, for example, it breaks the wearers arm.
FutureRNS had the interesting suggestion of intercepting signals from muscle-controlling neurons:
4)Control system. It would be imposible to move your leg forwards, so no pressure plates would work. But I think I found interesting solution. When you move your arm or leg your brain sends a neuro signal for muscle. Everything is like with a fiber that is developed already. So you could intercept these signals and produse into electronical signals. This way power armor wouldn't be a suit it would be extension of human body.
I forsee a problem with this "extension of human body" idea. You can walk about quite freely and agilely because of the balancing mechanism in your ears, but also because you personally have a feeling for your own weight and mass distribution. You'd be controlling the suit as if it was just your body, but the dynamics of the armour would be vastly different - you'd have x amount more weight and it would be distributed differently, you'd end up over/under-compensating and generally falling over lots. You would require some sort of feedback system to give the wearer a feel for their 'new' body. As a revision of FutureRNS's idea you could send information back into the wearers brain, letting them actually feel the armour as if it was skin/muscle/bone, but I can't see that sort of technology being available anytime soon.
Just some thoughts.
rhinovirus
It is true that the control system would be vital in the operation of such a suit. But I think we're on two separate paths here.
What I would envision is an active assistance system whereas it seems the one you suggest is passive. While the passive would eventually be a better system, I think at first we should look to the suit to only offer assistance on certain tasks. That way we have less interpretation to leave up to the control system.
Some tasks would include lifting, climbing, jumping, and running. Because your soldier is not constantly engaged in these activities the suit would not be engaged. When it came time to perform one of these activities only then would it kick in to assist by providing extra leverage to a limited range of arm and leg movements.
Additionally the suit would have to support a good amount of it's own structure, taking the burden off of the wearer. Otherwise it would be self-defeating as we're trying to increase battlefield endurance, not encumber it. Thus the lighter materials are more preferable.
Another benefit of starting with this system would be that power consumption is lowered thus easing the initial power requirements, making it easier to develop such a suit. This is because the suit would not be engaged and with proper power management would have an increased operation window.
In addition it would be recommended that the soldier be trained on how to use the suit and how to move with it, much like any other heavy armor training. From there we could eventually evolve a passive assistance suit that is always assisting its wearer. And we would have real world data and countless hours of training and feedback to provide better information for it's development than what we could possibly speculate.
With such a suit the control system would be easier to design for because we're choosing to limit the capabilities in the initial designs. Without having to account for as much of the dynamic positioning that the human body is capable of, we can focus on better developing the control of the functions we do implement.
It may even be more reasonable to only focus on static position functions at first such as just lifting and maybe assisting only the upper body in certain climbing exercises. The idea is to start by focusing on a small range of movement and designing for that scenario and then integrating larger ranges in each design iteration.
Thought I would bring this one back to life with some new developments.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/reuters/3369-alien-exoskeleton-for-us-army-video.htm
russ_watters
Mar6-08, 10:12 PM
That's cool, but it doesn't really change the focus of the discussion: Due to power requirements, I doubt this will ever be feasible for a soldier to wear in combat.
glondor
Mar11-08, 09:17 PM
Was not trying to change focus, only update some new developments I came across.")
TheRyan
Mar11-08, 09:59 PM
Too bad James Bond's magnetic bullet deflection built into a watch was proven ineffective on MythBusters, otherwise that technology could have made one sweet kind of electromagnetic body armor. How about Iron Man? That's a kind of mechanical body armor that moves with you, and we all know from the trailers how awesome it could be. If only that stuff worked in real life as it did in the movies...
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.