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.

 

[Adam]

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

 

[drag]

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 possesses 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]

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 got to 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.

 

[DarkAnt]

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.

 

[LURCH]

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.

 

[LURCH]

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).

 

[Kojac]

on the topic of power...

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]

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 that's all.

E6S, out.

 

[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.

 

[LURCH]

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 realized by engineers, it's speed, or power, or both will increase rapidly. That is just the nature of engineering (and of engineers!).

 

[CGameProgrammer]

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]

This thread is quiet... what happened to all the people?

 

[DarkAnt]

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

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[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

 

[FZ+]

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]

The many uses for a very small atomic reactor.. :)

 

[STPeaches826]

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]

"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.

 

[Kojac]

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 could 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)