Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Military Develops Liquid Body Armor

Posted by simoniker on Fri Apr 23, 2004 05:07 PM
from the wet-n-wild dept.
kai5263499 writes "Military.com has an article about a new liquid body armor the U.S. Army Research Laboratory has developed. According to Dr. Eric Wetzel, the project coordinator: 'The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties'."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Flexible Body Armor 210 comments
dotmax writes "One item to pop out of the Turin Winter Olympics is the use of flexible body armor. Similar to silly putty, this shear rate material is flexible under normal load and hardens under impact. Sounds expensive, but could offer some great alternatives for traditional hard shelled impact gear in active sports and military applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by monstroyer (748389) * <devnull@slashdot.org> on Friday April 23 2004, @05:07PM (#8954885) Homepage Journal
    No screen shots on the linked page, but i work as personel in the michigan militia and have set up some servers to show you what the armor in action looks like.
    Your tax dollars at work.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 23 2004, @05:10PM (#8954907)
    Lots of salt or huge silica gel packets.
  • Call me dense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Millbuddah (677912) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:12PM (#8954920)
    I seem to remember a gradeschool experiment where we mixed cornstarch and water in a pan and tried to slap it. Thanks to the starch, the stuff would just kinda slap you back. Is this body armor kinda doing the same thing then?
    • Re:Call me dense (Score:5, Informative)

      by lacheur (588045) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:24PM (#8955045)
      Yes, this is the same type of process. Fluid when handled gently, but it becomes rigid when subjected to a sharp impact.

      If you jab it, it feels hard and your finger won't go in very far. You can pour it slowly, but you can grab a clump of it, almost as if it's a solid. This kind of fluid is called dilatant. It becomes more viscous when agitated or compressed.

      The cornstarch mixture is sometime called ooblick [clueless.com].
    • Re:Call me dense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kalel666 (587116) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:39PM (#8955196)
      I worked a few years ago for Brookfield Engineering (a viscometer and rheometer manufacturer) as Rheology Lab Manager. Part of my duties included conducting training classes monthly for customers.

      We tried to use experimentation to illustrate rheological properties, including using cornstarch in solution. This demonstrates dilatancy (shear thickening), and we would put a spoon in a jar of the stuff, which was very fluid. When you try to pull the spoon out quickly, viscosity increases, and the solution gets real "thick".

      Well, of course, I thought this was pretty boring, so I decided to punch it up a bit. I made a much larger sample of the solution, and put it in a large bowl. I would swirl it around and show everyone how liquid it was. Without warning, I would then move the bowl quickly, like I was going to completely douche someone with it. The solution would thicken, and stay in the bowl (thank you Penn & Teller). Pretty cool, actually, but god help you if you got the mixture wrong!
    • by Roadkills-R-Us (122219) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:42PM (#8955217) Homepage
      Don't tell the military! They'll really be annoyed they wasted all that money when they could have just used cornstarch.
  • by Dav3K (618318) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:12PM (#8954923)
    Armor that is lighter and more flexible would be more comfortable to wear. This makes it more likely to be worn. I would expect to eventually see designer suits utilizing this stuff to be bought up by politicians, rap stars, etc. Bascially anyone who would be interested in an armor plated limo.
  • by Trespass (225077) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:12PM (#8954925) Homepage
    The skate couriers in the novel wore armor based on this principle. Flexible, but with an increasing resistance curve like a catcher's mitt. It's good that it's lightweight, because if it's too bulky to do your job in, it's not really useful.

    I imagine this could be combined with a chem warfare suit (maybe with build-in cooling) to make an ABC system for the footsoldier that's actually practical.
  • Snow Crash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theparanoidcynic (705438) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:13PM (#8954935)
    "sintered armorgel: feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books."
  • by radiumhahn (631215) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:13PM (#8954941)
    In the next james bond movie they will use this stuff in breast implants to make SUPER boobs.
  • by pegr (46683) * on Friday April 23 2004, @05:13PM (#8954942) Homepage Journal
    Don't know about liquid armor, but I imagine if I was in an active war zone, I might fill my own armor with liquid!
  • by the_crowbar (149535) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:17PM (#8954974)

    As a former member of the US armed forces I had to wear a kevlar vest from time to time. The vests I wore hindered movement considerably. They were not that heavy, but the inflexibility was the worst part. As I was finishing my term new vest were just making their way into use that incorporated ballistic plates (steel I think, maybe ceramic) to actually stop bullets. The vest I wore were only said to stop fragments not a direct bullet impact. The downside to the newer vests was heavier weight. If they can make the vest more flexible, lighter weight, and have better stopping great.

    Our service members need every advantage they can get. Wether or not you agree with the politics that puts our troops in harms way a person must be very anti-American to not want them all to come home again.

    That is all for my rant. Time to go home for the day. :)

    the_crowbar
    • I think I can speak for nearly all of us when I say the last thing we want is to see American soldiers die. That's kind of the whole point.
    • Inflexibility (Score:5, Informative)

      by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday April 23 2004, @05:50PM (#8955289) Homepage Journal
      I'm in the same status as Crowbar. The vest I wore had the same inflexibility problem the_crowbar mentions. It may not seem like a big deal, but it really is, particularly when you are in situations where range of motion is critical.

      For example, in urban combat, you are constantly looking up, and pointing your weapon up. As you crane your neck backward and move your non-firing hand above your head, with a traditional kevlar vest you reach a flexibility limitation. If you then have to contort your body laterally for some reason (and they always arise) your trunk is limited in flexiblity as well.

      A vest that could incorporate greater flexiblity and some sort of heat-dissipation mechanism would be a real boon to soldiers who need body armor protection.

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:21PM (#8955012) Journal
    waxy substance [asu.edu]
    Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a water-soluble, waxy solid that is used extensively in the cosmetic and toiletry industry. As the molecular weight of PEG increases, viscosity and freezing point increase
    Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution [nih.gov]
    Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) is used to cleanse the bowel before a gastrointestinal examination or surgery. It works by causing diarrhea... Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) comes as a powder to take by mouth
    Last but not least, the obligatory Google Search [google.com]
  • by David Hume (200499) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:31PM (#8955126) Homepage

    For a scientific paper on the subject, see Advanced Body Armor Utilizing Shear Thickening Fluids [asc2002.com], by Y. S. Lee, R. G. Egres Jr. and N. J. Wagner, all of the Center for Composite Materials and Dept. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Delaware, and E. D. Wetzel of the Army Research Laboratory, Weapons and Materials Research Directorate Aberdeen Proving Ground.

    For a University of Delaware Press Release (with photos), see here [udel.edu].

  • Motorcycles? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:36PM (#8955169) Homepage
    You know, just thinking about this stuff made me realize that it might have some great applications worked into motorcycle suits.

    Also, perhaps this stuff could give stuntmen a whole new level of safety while still giving them a lot of mobility.

  • Degradation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bowling Moses (591924) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:47PM (#8955261) Journal
    Polyethylene glycol's pretty good on one hand: it's dirt cheap, comes in a variety of weights (we have on the shelf in lab average molecular weight PEGs from 200 to 20,000 daltons) and as has been mentioned above is nontoxic. What's bad about PEG is that it degrades fairly easily--it should be stored in the dark and kept cold, at least if you're going to use it as a reagent. This makes me wonder about the shelf life of the armor, although PEG degredation might not be the limiting factor; physical wear and tear might be.
  • by salmonz (697297) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:47PM (#8955265)
    Does this non-toxie liquid stuff mean that if I were to drink it, I would be bulletproof? Wicked!
  • by NoYes19 (766616) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:57PM (#8955338)
    This is straight off of Army News Service. [army.mil]
    And they even have a picture!
  • by Moderation abuser (184013) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:05PM (#8955383)
    As a motorcyclist, the kit I wear has a shit load of armour in it, shoulders, hips, elbows, back, shins, ankles but even with that the inevitable is broken bones when you slam into some street furniture.

    If this stuff goes rigid when there's an impact it might just distribute the impulse over a large enough area to reduce the internal injuries.

  • by Embedded Geek (532893) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:48PM (#8955707) Homepage
    After all, liquid courage [guinness.com] has been a part of the military since the beginning of time.
  • "We would first like to put this material in a soldier's sleeves and pants..."

    So the hookers of the future will ask soldiers, "Is that shear-thickening liquid armor in your pants, or are you just glad to see me?"
    • by black mariah (654971) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:13PM (#8954934)
      "Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a water-soluble, waxy solid that is used extensively in the cosmetic and toiletry industry."

      http://www.google.com/search?q=Polyethylene%20Glyc ol&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf- 8&oe=utf-8
      That's from the first link.
      • by The Tyro (247333) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:29PM (#8955580)
        of PEG... it's called Golytely... here's a bit of info. [pharmacyhealth.net]

        It's commonly used by gastroenterologists to clean out the colon prior to endoscopy. You have to drink an entire gallon...it's usually referred to as a "bowel prep."

        To those of us familiar with it, it's also affectionately known as "GoHeavily," "GoFrequently," or "GoEndlessly." I've also seen it used to treat bad constipation... ingestion of the required amount virtually guarantees an impressive "code brown."

        Yes, I realize that's waaaaay more than you wanted to know. Sorry.
    • by ramk13 (570633) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:16PM (#8954967)
      "poly" changes it completely. Binyl chloride is pretty nasty (much much worse than ethylene glycol), but polyvinyl chloride is PVC and that's all over the place. Generally when you polymerize a monomer you are using up the reactive sites that would normally cause toxicity to form bonds with other monomer molecules. The same thing goes for a whole lot of other monomers.

      Polyethylene glycol is actually really bio-friendly. Proteins don't stick to it well so it can be used in the body. You can even eat the stuff. I can't think of specific products, but I know it's on the ingredient label of lots of things we eat.
    • by All Names Have Been (629775) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:18PM (#8954978)
      Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      Sodium explosively combusts in water! Chlorine gas is highly toxic! Can the combination really change their properties all that much?
    • by jfengel (409917) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:19PM (#8954990) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, it does quite a bit. PEG is used in shampoos and drugs all the time to make them nice and goopy.

      EG is toxic because it's metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase to form glycolic acid, causing acidosis (too much acid in the bloodstream), or various other nasty downstream products. PEG isn't metabolized, so it's safe.
    • Ethylene Glycol: C2H6O2

      Polyethylene Glycol: C2H4O

      So they are pretty different from a chemical standpoint. Good old Ethylene Glycol melts at -13C, while the "poly" melts at 60C. However, when looking up an MSDS on this stuff, I get "May act as an irritant. Toxicology not fully investigated" so I wonder about it being completely non-toxic.

      See link here. [ox.ac.uk]
      • by Mad Alchemist (706211) on Friday April 23 2004, @09:23PM (#8956550)
        Sort of. Ethylene glycol looks like this:

        HO-CH2-CH2-OH

        The repeat unit of polyethylene glycol looks like this:

        -CH2-CH2-O-

        So with polyethylene glycol, just attach that unit end-to-end over and over again. How many repeat units you have in the polymer will determine the melting point and many other properties. The MSDS you link to is for PEG-8000, which probably means it has a molecular weight of 8000.

        Incidentally, you'll notice that the ethylene glycol unit (the monomer) is different from the PEG repeat unit by an H2O -- water is a byproduct of the polymerization.

        Polymerization does make a huge difference in properties. Polyethylene is basically ethane (or, if you look at it another way, methane) attached end-to-end, but polyethylene, of course, is very different chemically from methane.

        Finally, I get to post to Slashdot about a technical subject I know something about. Quick, someone, mod me up! It may never happen again! :)

    • by eaolson (153849) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:22PM (#8955026)
      How is that non toxic? Ethylene Glycol is the antifreeze you find in coolant and windshield wiper fluid and I assure you it is very toxic. Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      Absolutely.

      Ethylene glycol is OH-CH2-CH2-OH and is fairly toxic. I would suspect it behaves similarly to ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH) in the bloodstream, but I don't really know. Contrast this with propylene glycol, CH2-CH2-(CHOH)-OH which is pretty much completely non-toxic.

      Polyethylene glycol is (-CH2-CH2-O-)n, where n is some large number. It's a polymer. There are different kinds of PEG, but glancing at the web, there appear to be a number of different kinds available, and they appear to be reasonably non-toxic.

    • by rrkap (634128) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:26PM (#8955064) Homepage

      Does the "poly" really change it all that much?

      In a word, yes. Here are the Material Safety Data Sheets for both chemicals:

      ethylene glycol [ox.ac.uk]

      polyethylene glycol [ox.ac.uk]

    • by emarkp (67813) <emarkp AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 23 2004, @05:47PM (#8955267) Journal
      Not only is it "non-toxic", but it's an ingredient of one of my favorite carbonated beverages, Dr Pepper [wiw.org].
    • by jimmcq (88033) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:15PM (#8954953) Journal
      its resistance to stabbing has to be called into question

      According to the article: "Liquid armor is much more stab resistant than conventional body armor. This capability is especially important for prison guards, who are most often attacked with handmade sharp weapons."
      • Stabbing... slowly (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jtheory (626492) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:15PM (#8955458) Homepage Journal
        I wonder... sewing it at a high speed would probably break the machine, but as long as you keep everything slow, you're fine.

        So technically, if you manage to hold that prison guard still while you slowly push the shiv through his armor, it'll work just fine (for you, not the guard). Interesting -- so throwing yourself on the knife might actually be a useful defense!

        It reminds me of a fight scene in Dune (was that the movie? -- does anyone remember this?); they had force fields that detected and warded off quick attacks, but allowed a slow entry into the field would be allowed... so the trick to knifing someone was to do it slowly.
        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:05PM (#8955384)
          All body armour is resistant against what is intended to prevent, not invincible. Bullet proof vests are actually nothing of the sort, they are bullet resistant. Shoot a Type II vest with a 9mm pistol round, it won't penetrate, shoot it with a 5.56mm rifle round, it'll go right through.

          So just because something resists stabbing doesn't mean it can't be done. Needles more so. The way a knife or needle works is based of of high pressure on a small amount of surface. Well a needle has a much smaller area to penetrate than a knife thus can achieve more PSI with less input force.

          It may not be sewable by hand, it may need a machine with an extra hard needle but so what? BP vests are expensive items as is, it is ok if there are some extra manufacturing costs with this new kind.
        • by Cruciform (42896) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:16PM (#8955473) Homepage
          Speed is probably a factor as well.

          There's an old trick with a paper towel tube, some salt, and wax paper.

          If you put a stick through the salt slowly enough it pierces the paper. But if you ram it quickly the particles of salt bind and resist the force.
    • by Rostin (691447) on Friday April 23 2004, @10:34PM (#8956916)
      Actually, no, it doesn't.

      (Very) brief lesson in fluid dynamics.. Newtonian fluids obey this "law:"

      Shear stress = - viscosity * shear rate.

      Imagine you have two panes of glass. You lay one out horizontally and pour a layer of liquid on to it (we'll pretend it stays on and doesn't run off onto the floor). Then you place the second pane of glass on top. You apply a constant, horizontal force to the top pane of glass, and it begins to move at a certain velocity.

      shear stress = the force * the area of the glass
      shear rate = the velocity / the distance between the two panes (not really, but close enough for our example)

      Fluids with viscosities that don't depend on the shear rate are called Newtonian. Water is largely a Newtonian fluid. It's viscosity depends very strongly on temperature, but not much on shear rate. Doubling the shrear stress (the force) would result in a doubling of the shear rate.

      Ketchup is a good example of a non-newtonian shear-thinning fluid. If you put ketchup between your glass panes, you'd find that smaller and smaller amounts of additional shear stress are necessary to increase the shear rate by equal amounts. This is easy to understand, b/c our everday experience with ketchup tells us that it can take a big shock to get it moving, but once it goes, it goes quickly. (The viscosity is high at low shear rates, like when it isn't moving, and so a lot of shear stress is required. Once it starts, the shear rate goes up, the viscosity decreases, and less shear stress is needed).

      The fluid in these vests is the opposite of ketchup. It is shear-thickening. At the shear rates the armor is subjected to in ordinary movement, its viscosity presumably remains low, allowing the soldier to move. But when someone tries to stab through it (a fast, high shear movement) it thickens (its viscosity increases) and the blade/bullet/whatever is stopped.

      I don't know how the stuff is sewn, but it could be sewn slowly without a problem. Remember, it's shear rate that makes it thicken up.
    • by Thai-Pan (414112) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:23PM (#8955027) Journal
      I think your instructor is a little bit misinformed.

      Kevlar fabric isn't really a lattice. It's woven from very fine strands of a plastic which is VERY strong under tension. The material also has a tremendous coefficient of friction and even when a strand is broken, it can often be held in place by being squeezed by its neighbouring strands; even under impact. Anyone who has ever handled kevlar can attest to this as the material will give you severe friction burns easily (imagine a bad papercut and carpet burn on one spot just by casually sliding your hand down a thread -- OUCH! I cringe just remembering the stuff).

      A lot of the strength of kevlar comes from its weave; bulletproof applications and such have very fine weaves to prevent particles from getting between the threads. I assure you, it is VERY difficult to damage the kevlar weave badly enough that it is rendered useless. I did a university research project that involved kevlar, and I would definitely trust a battered and beaten kevlar helmet over a steel one any day.
    • Your instructor was talking about the hard Kevlar for the PAGST helmets. Kevlar vests (which ironically usually aren't Kevlar anymore, rather some kind of Aramid fiber) are still a lattice or weave of fibers. They work on two priciples 1) Extending the moment of impact by stretching out, and 2) by spreading the force of the impact across a wider area. When a bullet hits a "Kevlar" vest, the vest doesn't stop it cold instantly, rather the vest fibers stretch and entangle the round and slow it's progress. (The vest and bullet do actually move back into the body cavity slightly, but not enough to do permanent damage).

      The current limiting factor with soft armor is that it won't stop a rifle round (Due to its extreme speed). So to provide protection to NIJ III+ or IV levels (i.e stopping rifle rounds) hard armor plates (usually a ceramic and titanium composite) are inserted in over vital areas.

      The advantage of the liquid armor is that much less fabric will be needed to provide the same level of protection, and the hard armor plates won't be necessary.

      Hit www.galls.com 's body armor section for more info on levels of protection and whatnot.

      -E2

      (BTW: Shadowrun had the liquid armor idea waaayyy before Snow Crash came out.)
        • Re:Liquid Armor (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 23 2004, @05:44PM (#8955240)
          Nukes are not always desirable.

          For example you may want something the country has *cough* oil *cough*. In that case you don't want to make the country uninhabitable. Not only do you want to make sure the occupying army is unharmed but you will need the labor of the civillians to make the gears of industry turn.

          If we dropped nukes on iraq who would pump the oil and transport it to our ships? How could our soldiers stay in the country for a decade to make sure people do what we say?
            • by el-spectre (668104) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:07PM (#8955403) Journal
              Couple of issues here (avoiding the whole flame aspect):

              1) While logistics would be a pain, if the US camped a couple of carrier battle groups off the coast of a given country, they would own the sky and sea in short order. It becomes much easier to keep supplied when you can do that.

              2) Iraq had something like the 3rd largest army in the world back in 1991, which the US effectively neutralized in a month or so. Again, airpower is king. The country isn't large or exceptionally modern, but it was quite a military foe.

              3) If Iraq is small, then there aren't many countries that are a big military threat. Germany, the UK, israel... the list is small and we're on good terms of most of the strongest countries (coincidence? I think not)

              4) The fact that the US hasn't fought a "big" country in years doesn't mean jack with regards to the ability to. I've never mugged someone, that doesn't mean I'm too weak to.

              Sure, there's some arrogance from the US on the military front, it makes sense. Like it or not, the US posesses the strongest military force in the world.

              Hate us for our culture, politics, whatever, that's an subjective opinion and you are welcome to them. But military strength is an objective thing, and hatred of the States doesn't diminish that.

              And yeah, if we fought a united (!) Europe, we could probably be beaten. There are a zillion better reasons not to attack, least of all being that France is a strong ally...
                • by el-spectre (668104) on Friday April 23 2004, @10:14PM (#8956830) Journal
                  Just to clarify a couple of things:

                  1) Absolutely, air forces aren't a panacea. In responding to the fellow asking how a supply line would be supported, I invoked airpower. Since aircraft are very good at sinking ships and destroying ground forces, the supply lines would be pretty well protected. Of course you need ground forces to _keep_ territory, but you can kill most everything in it from a distance (artillery, air, missles, whatever).

                  2) Sure, some of the iragi leaders were bad, but there were some very tough forces. Not to mention more of them than american soldiers. I think it's a very bad idea to assume the enemy is stupid.

                  3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.

                  4) If none of these float your boat, then just rack me up as a naive fool who refuses to have black and white opinions. You wouldn't be the first.
    • by handy_vandal (606174) on Friday April 23 2004, @05:55PM (#8955325) Homepage Journal
      All the Snowcrash quotes left out the best part about the armor: "A bullet will bounce off its arachno-fiber weave like a wren hitting a patio door." Probably not applicable, but damn I love that line... I'm still laughing about it years later.

      But wait -- there's more! -- the really best part of the Snow Crash quote is:

      " ... but excess perspiration will waft through it like a breeze through a freshly napalmed forest."

      Stephenson may have his faults, but he's got the gift for cool similes.

      -kgj
    • by Run4yourlives (716310) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:21PM (#8955512)
      But how does a footbal player turn soldier qualify as a hero, exacty?

      I was a soldier, am I a hero? Are football players heroes?

      What about Iraqi soldiers, are they heroes?
      • by Performer Guy (69820) on Friday April 23 2004, @06:51PM (#8955727)
        Rubbish, it's not disrespectful to anyone. The guy turned down $ millions to volunteer to go fight for a cause he believed in after returning from his honeymoon. That demonstrates unusual and quite incredible selflessness, sacrifice and commitment to his country, he was also well known and liked by many fans whatever you think of that. He made the Army Rangers, an elite force and now he's joined the ranks of America's war dead. Telling his story takes nothing away from the others, I remember when this guy joined up with his brother, he was being interviewed (nobody could quite figure out why he was doing it and he was reticent about going into details) and I remember thinking, "that's one hell of a guy", now we've learned today that he's been killed. If anything it brings the loss of the thousands of family members into sharp focus through our fleeting familiarity with this hero. And no I ain't even an NFL fan.

        You belittling his sacrifice and claiming his career was silly is ignorant and disrespectful.
    • by Jim McCoy (3961) on Friday April 23 2004, @07:22PM (#8955915) Homepage
      Not sure how to go about sensing that though, so a passive option i probably better.


      How about using a piezoelectric effect? Deforming the outer surface (e.g. a bullet strike) creates a charge that propogates through the fluid beneath the outer sheath and causes it to stiffen.