Creating a Working Prototype of Armor to Move with You

[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.

 

[quantum]

I would suppose the primary setback would be cost. Having electronics in armour would greatly increase the price of production.

 

[one_raven]

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]

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.

 

[enigma]

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]

One_Raven brought up a good point, how would you power it?

Any ideas?

 

[drag]

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 interesting
possibility to explore (sorry, I know nothing in biology really).

Live long and prosper.

 

[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, that's a tank!

 

[drag]

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, that's 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.

 

[Adam]

Powered Armour

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.

 

[DarkAnt]

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?

 

[Adam]

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]

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.

 

[Adam]

Oh, I also recall seeing a wakling exoskeleton thing developed by the USA military. Very spidery looking.

 

[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.

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

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[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)

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[DarkAnt]

Does EMP shielding create a lot of weight and/or take up lots of space?

 

[Lord Flasheart]

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]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[Adam]

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]

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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[glondor]

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 let's 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 doesn't 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 let's sayyou stay on good strong concrete for your battles,,,ok ashphalt prolly won't 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 can't move sooo don't 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 don't 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 really 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 can't stop you can't 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 don't run out of fuel and never never never fall over lololol

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Adam]

glondor

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 let's 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.