# An Armored Personnel Unit

1. Dec 5, 2005

### Livingod

In the Matrix trilogy, there are big robots called APUs, or Armored Personnel Units, Might anyone have any idea on how to make it from cheap matereals? (some parts preferably from a junkyard)

2. Dec 5, 2005

### scott1

Do you mean a repilca or a real APU.If you want to build APU your going have spend millons of dollars and you need secert milltary technology form Area 51.

3. Dec 6, 2005

### franznietzsche

You can build a replica of anything with enough fiberglass and epoxy. Though you'll smell peculiar for a few weeks afterwards most likely.

4. Dec 6, 2005

### Pengwuino

Those APU's are absolutely useless. The whole front is exposed! And there is horrible mobility to consider...

5. Dec 6, 2005

### Livingod

As long as it moves like an APU, it's fine with me, doesn't need weapons, doesn't need to be that big, just a way to "get around".

6. Dec 6, 2005

### Livingod

And in the Revolutions, they made the front exposed in order for viewers to see the characters more clearly.

7. Dec 6, 2005

### franznietzsche

In that case yeah, you're gonna a pretty big budget, millions of dollars.

For that matter, you do realize that mechs in general are structurally unsound, right?

8. Dec 6, 2005

### Cyrus

Last edited: Dec 26, 2005
9. Dec 6, 2005

### Livingod

It doesnt need to have accesories, nothing extra, just a plain skeleton with a torso, seat, legs, arms, and means to control the thing.

10. Dec 6, 2005

### The_Professional

Are you talking about the APU's in the Matrix? they are slow, cumbersome antiquated looking man-chines leaving the pilot exposed and vulnerable.
Civilian APU's are more impressive but with the metal they're carrying it must feel like driving a tank in one of those. I still wouldn't mind having one...
http://www.alpineco.com/armored/new_armored_suvs/suburban/armored_suburban_17.htm [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
11. Dec 6, 2005

### franznietzsche

Again, be prepared to shell out millions of dollars in research and development.

12. Dec 7, 2005

### DaveC426913

13. Dec 8, 2005

### Livingod

I don't want it to be exactly like the APUs in the Matrix, just the same principle: a large man-like robot that can move around with a person inside. I don't care whether or not the pilot was exposed in the Revolutions. I don't care about weapons. I just want it to move with its feet and raise its arms, that's all. Nothing fancy, doesnt need to have cool designs or tatoos like in the movie. Doesn't need to be a war machine

Last edited: Dec 8, 2005
14. Dec 8, 2005

### Livingod

Secret military technology? I was thinking more like hydraulics.

15. Dec 8, 2005

### franznietzsche

Again, be prepared to spend millions of dollars.

And again, they are not structurally viable.

16. Dec 8, 2005

### Pengwuino

As far as robotics goes, those are contradictory statements. It is VERY hard to keep something stable while moving on 2 legs. Humans alone have an incredibly complex system of biological functions that for hte most part, just keep us standing up.

17. Dec 8, 2005

### franznietzsche

Exactly. As I said, mechs are NOT structurally viable.

18. Dec 8, 2005

### -Job-

There are some robots that can actually dance on two legs. They move very smoothly and quickly like a person. It's the creepiest thing. With the necessary sensors you'll be able to program a robot to walk on two legs without falling down. One of the ways to achieve this is to use neural networks, a data structure modeled after biological neuron networks, that allows for learning.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/1218/sony_06.wmv" [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
19. Dec 8, 2005

### franznietzsche

look at the weight distribution though. Mech's are not viable because of the amount of weight above their legs. Its obvious from the existence of humans that you can have bipedal movement in robots, but there are limits. You can't have a 100 ton mech with 90 tons of it above the legs. The legs couldn't hold it up.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
20. Dec 8, 2005

### -Job-

Well, of course you'll have to design it with efficiency in mind.

21. Dec 9, 2005

### Livingod

What about something very lightweigh? (in terms of a robot) The feet could have a little extra weight, but it would not be, like, 90 tonnes. And what I mean by nothing fancy is nothing that's not needed. Although anything useful that does not add a lot of weight to the mech would help.

22. Jan 30, 2006

### Alkatran

Ahahaha I just started laughing when I read this list and noticed "Driver and passenger side power windows" was included with all the other "anti-ballistics" stuff. Hilarious.

23. Feb 18, 2009

### gen ed 333

if you aren't going for a matrix apu thingy, then instead of 2 legs, how about 4? much more stability (and a lot cooler)

24. Feb 18, 2009

### gen ed 333

besides, who needs two legs when you've got this http://www.mondospider.com/images/spider_300.jpg [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
25. Feb 18, 2009

### CRGreathouse

For a unit as small as the Matrix APUs, I don't think there's anything inherently unsound about the structural design (unlike a 75-ton BattleMech). The hydraulics of the legs and arms are buildable without too much trouble, I think, and the metal wouldn't be all that expensive. The real hitch is making it walk on two legs. Without needing it to move responsively, I could imagine this as a $4000 garage project (assuming you build it yourself) -- but with it, you'd need a *lot* more. (I can't get a good order of magnitude here --$250,000? $10 million?) For comparison, here's something like the state of the art in the 'easy' 4+ legged form: http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?section=robotics [Broken] Edit: I see that BD spent over$10 million developing BigDog, which seems easier than an APU that can walk at a reasonable 2-legged gait.

Edit 2: I see that this claimed as a \$300,000 robot, so if you're willing to give up speed you could get something similar:

Its design doesn't require stability in the same way, which makes it much simpler (though obviously slower as well).

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017