IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Tomorrow armor created, Tech breakthrough
Traks
post Dec 15 2005, 08:31 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 4-June 03
Member No.: 4,685



http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/091205_tech.htm

Seems like security armor of future, ne?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Dec 15 2005, 08:39 AM
Post #2


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



Looks like a good company to start sinking your stocks into. If they have passive Fullerine armor... Well, let's just say that firearms just took the back seat to paying for Chunky Salsa when you want to kill someone.

Heh. We may be looking at a Schlock Mercenay world before we look at a cyberpunk one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrankTrollman
post Dec 15 2005, 08:49 AM
Post #3


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665



QUOTE
Tungsten Disulfide is relatively heavy


Yeah no shit. It's got a specific gravity of 7.5, the same as Bronze.

-Frank
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Dec 15 2005, 08:59 AM
Post #4


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



But for the chance to be utterly invunerable* to small arms fire, defining "small arms" as "anything without splash damage", you'd wear it.


*Note that there is a difference between "utterly invlunerable" and "safe". In chaotic situations such as firefights, headshots and shots that get through the fluke quarter inch seam do in fact happen. Do not assume because you are wearing passive low-profile Fullerine armor that you can walk through machine gun fire. All armor will help to save your life, but no armor can save you from your own stupidity. Dry-clean only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Dec 15 2005, 09:28 AM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Can someone find an article where it gives the thickness and mass/area of a ballistic panel made out of this material that is sufficient for stopping actual firearm threats? With additional flexibility (weight bending) and backface deformation information if someone can make this stuff non-rigid.

It's a promising field, but I'll hold back on celebration until I get something more definite. For example, the mention of the steel projectile at 1500m/s doesn't actually mean anything since we're not even given the thickness of the armor panel or the mass, diameter or shape of the projectile.

In any case, this technology is still a long way from providing "utter invulnerability" to small arms fire. In the mentioned applications, it's completely rigid, which means you won't see full suits of it any time soon. Likewise, it's only "up to twice" as strong as silicon carbide, but also more than twice as dense.

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
[...] defining "small arms" as "anything without splash damage" [...]

So an M256 firing M829A2 APFSDS-T would be a "small arm"?

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Dec 15 2005, 09:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DocMortand
post Dec 15 2005, 01:01 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,088
Joined: 8-October 04
From: Dallas, TX
Member No.: 6,734



Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Dec 15 2005, 01:19 PM
Post #7


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



...

It does?

What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cray74
post Dec 15 2005, 01:33 PM
Post #8


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (Traks)
http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/091205_tech.htm

Seems like security armor of future, ne?

I'm not going to hold my breath until they actually build marketable body armor. A lot of wonder material start-ups sound good in their initial PR releases, but they're nowhere to be found after a few years.

QUOTE
Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...


Read the article again, particularly the caption of the photo. That armor in the photograph was NOT made of the super-material under discussion, it was just an example of a possible application.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tanka
post Dec 15 2005, 04:26 PM
Post #9


Chrome to the Core
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,152
Joined: 14-October 03
From: ::1
Member No.: 5,715



QUOTE (DocMortand)
Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...

I echo Critias on this one.

Also; SCA members are generally medieval- or Renaissance-based. Not Roman-based.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Dec 15 2005, 04:33 PM
Post #10


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



im guessing that any application of this will be a vest based on kevlar equivalent materials with metal inlays along surfaces that dont need to flex.

maybe having some plates that overlap in some flexible areas.

that is unless they can make a chainmail out of this thats not to heavy...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Dec 15 2005, 06:20 PM
Post #11


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



QUOTE (tanka)
Also; SCA members are generally medieval- or Renaissance-based. Not Roman-based.

Otherwise they'd be much cooler.

I mean, then someone could just show up at an SCA event in a toga, and if he bribed enough of his friends to come along and chant his name to show the other SCA Romans that he had the love of the masses, he could declare himself Emperor, and they'd all have to play along (until someone else went out, scooped up a bunch of random passers-by, and bribed them to shant his name, etc, etc).

Now, he's got to...I dunno. Hit people with foam swords, or whatever it is those people do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tanka
post Dec 15 2005, 06:36 PM
Post #12


Chrome to the Core
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,152
Joined: 14-October 03
From: ::1
Member No.: 5,715



SCA use live steel and do beat on each other something harsh. Crazy folk, them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevebugge
post Dec 15 2005, 06:43 PM
Post #13


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,026
Joined: 23-November 05
From: Seattle (Really!)
Member No.: 7,996



Most important statistical detail on this armor:

How much does it cost?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FrankTrollman
post Dec 15 2005, 06:46 PM
Post #14


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Banned
Posts: 3,732
Joined: 1-September 05
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Member No.: 7,665



QUOTE (stevebugge)
How much does it cost?

Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars.

-Frank
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevebugge
post Dec 15 2005, 07:06 PM
Post #15


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,026
Joined: 23-November 05
From: Seattle (Really!)
Member No.: 7,996



I actually mean that for in SR not in RL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheBovrilMonkey
post Dec 15 2005, 07:10 PM
Post #16


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 26-February 02
From: England
Member No.: 1,927



QUOTE (Critias)
...

It does?

What sort of "old Roman armor" have you been looking at?



Er... this kind?

Not originally roman apparently, they supposedly copied it from the greeks.

*shrug* whoever made them first, they look distinctly odd when worn by someone with a beer gut, a sight I've seen too many times for it to still be funny.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prosper
post Dec 15 2005, 07:42 PM
Post #17


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 2-October 05
Member No.: 7,799



I dunno what they mean by energy absorbant. Energy absorbant material can actually be pretty harmful to the wearer, particularly for rifle bullets. One the guys who works in my lab (I'm a researcher at the Dynamic Effects Lab at UMD) has a lot of experience in the defense industry. He commented that it's great that a material can stop a bullet, but if the bullet is stopped two inches into the person then it's still going to kill them.

Still, pretty cool stuff. I'll have to take a look at it and see if I can't get a sample for my research.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Dec 15 2005, 07:49 PM
Post #18


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



well the avarage roman soldier was never issued that kind of armor now was they? only some officers and the diffrent emperors and so on would use that from what i recall.

the avarage soldier would use a more simple design that was allso more practical as it was made of overlapping strips of metal that would enable the whole ting to flex more...

this is all on the iirc tho...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mmu1
post Dec 15 2005, 08:05 PM
Post #19


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,070
Joined: 7-February 04
From: NYC
Member No.: 6,058



QUOTE (DocMortand)
Man, SCA nuts go wild! It really does look like old Roman armors...

The picture on that site is just of a random replica breastplate mis-labeled "medieval armor"... I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the material being talked about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Campbell
post Dec 15 2005, 08:23 PM
Post #20


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 9-November 02
From: The Republic of Vermont
Member No.: 3,581



QUOTE (tanka)
SCA use live steel and do beat on each other something harsh.  Crazy folk, them.

Rattan, actually. You can't play full speed unchoreographed with live steel... it results in casualty rates that are unacceptable in 21st century America.

We do have Romans, and Roman-era Celts and Germans and such... they're not all that common, but our official "pre-17th century Europe" scope technically has no starting date. Around these parts, we're so heavily Dark Ages that the joke is, if you have four digits in your year, you're late period.

-- Æðelwulf of Mountain Freehold (8th c. Saxon)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cray74
post Dec 15 2005, 08:33 PM
Post #21


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (stevebugge)
Most important statistical detail on this armor:

How much does it cost?


Cost for SR? Look at the armor list in any SR book. This material, or its SR fictional equivalent, may have found its way into any number of SR armors. After all, the composition of SR armors is unlisted.

Or this may be obsolete by 2060 and you'll only find it in old armors being sold in the Barrens at half price and reduced armor protection.

QUOTE
One the guys who works in my lab (I'm a researcher at the Dynamic Effects Lab at UMD) has a lot of experience in the defense industry. He commented that it's great that a material can stop a bullet, but if the bullet is stopped two inches into the person then it's still going to kill them.


Yes, that's a critical issue with flexible armors. Unlike a rigid plate, ballistic fabric vests are...well, they're fabric. Instead of dispersing energy over a large area (when you punch a plate, the whole plate will move), a bullet tends to indent a small region. Woven fabrics are worse than unwoven fibers because the woven fibers can't move along their entire lengths - the cross weaves pin the fibers in place, so they only deform locally. Armor designers who work with fabrics bend over backwards to try to disperse the energy over a larger area.

A typical format is to use woven fibers on the outer shell of an armor fabric panel, then unwoven fibers as a core. The woven fibers act as a catcher's mitt to prevent a bullet from penetrating, while the thicker core of unwoven fibers disperses the impact over a larger area. Hopefully large enough that the underlying meat won't be deformed enough to splinter ribs and such.

QUOTE
I dunno what they mean by energy absorbant. Energy absorbant material can actually be pretty harmful to the wearer, particularly for rifle bullets.


It depends on how they mean "energy absorbant." If that means "some way of dispersing energy other than deforming or moving the armor," it's not necessarily a bad thing. Better to absorb the energy in the material than to let through more joules to the body that can be spent driving cracks through bones and bruising meat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eidolon
post Dec 16 2005, 05:23 AM
Post #22


ghostrider
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,196
Joined: 16-May 04
Member No.: 6,333



QUOTE (Prosper)
but if the bullet is stopped two inches into the person then it's still going to kill them.


That's the exact first thing I thought of. It's still gonna mush the mushy parts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Dec 16 2005, 07:08 AM
Post #23


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (FrankTrollman)
QUOTE (stevebugge @ Dec 15 2005, 01:43 PM)
How much does it cost?

Because a soldier's life isn't worth a hudred thousand dollars.

I doubt you'd find anyone who'd say it is who isn't reacting emotionally. Not that I mind, but it would make fielding an army totally untenable. Assuming one per soldier, that'd be $48,550,000,000 for the US Army in active duty as of fiscal year 2004. For reference, this would be an over 10% budget increase based on budget figures for the entire DOD for that same period. If we want to add the Marine Corps, add an additional $17,620,200,000 to the bill.
QUOTE
We do have Romans, and Roman-era Celts and Germans and such... they're not all that common, but our official "pre-17th century Europe" scope technically has no starting date. Around these parts, we're so heavily Dark Ages that the joke is, if you have four digits in your year, you're late period.

I'd expect at least four digits to be considered early. 900 BC is getting pretty late, all in all.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Dec 16 2005, 09:17 AM
Post #24


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



It depends on how much it costs to train the soldier and the probability that the armor will save his or her life. If it costs more than $100,000 to train a soldier and play death benefits and the armor reduced overall mortality by 100% or more then it is certainly worth the cost. It would, after all, cost more to train new soldiers than it would to field the armor.

A problem comes from the fact that there is no force in the world with a 100% mortality rate and there is no armor that is 100% effective, making a 100% reduction in mortality impossible. Thus, the costs of training a replacement and paying death benefits for a dead soldier must be sigificantly more that $100,000 to justify such an expenditure. When one takes into account the fact that this will not stop turnover due to discharge and individual decisions not to re-enlist, there are other problems, as well.

Since every human being dies eventually and every soldier will leave the service eventually it is even more difficult to determine an absolute monetairy benefit for the use of such armor.


However, there are some more important factors to consider. If they wear obvious rigid body armor then most people would just go for head shots. If they wear helmets then most people wil just aim for the face, a helmet has to leave the face unprotected or else it would block the field of vision. sure, it can incorporate a ballistic glass visor, but it would still provide less protection in that area. But, face shots aren't easy to make compared to center mas shots as the overall probability of surviveal is still increasd significantly.

The final and most important consideration is where this armor seems to fail, weight. Armor is useless if the soldier doesn't wear it and this is the kind of armor that soldiers won't wear, it increases the overall gear weight to intollerable levels. How would you like to march 20 miles through the desert wearing 300 pound and carrying 80 pounds of gear? Enough soldiers would simply leve their armor in their lockers as to render it much less effective overall.

If they can build a suit of this stuff that weighs equal to or less than modern body armor while providing the equal or greater levels of protection then it may just be worth the expenditure. If not, then one would simply be buying expensive doorstops.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Dec 16 2005, 10:29 AM
Post #25


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



one thing. unless this have to be form fitted for each soldier, they can just issue a set number of them pr base. the troops on patrol are the ones that use them, the ones back on base dont need them (unless your base is under 24/7 shelling, but then the lack of body armor is a lesser problem).

if a person do not re-enlist, he turns over his gear and so on. that is unless the us army is handing out free m-16's and similar, if so: :silly:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 11:20 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.