Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science Technology

Israeli Company Creates Nano-Armor 416

Posted by Zonk
from the one-step-closer-to-vigilante-superheroes dept.
Izeickl writes "According to IsraCast, an Israeli company has created materials made of inorganic fullerene-like nanostructures (IFs) which have amazing shock absorbing properties. During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter. These materials could be incorporated in "nanoarmors" able to protect soldiers or police forces within three years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Israeli Company Creates Nano-Armor

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:28AM (#14283313)
    "During preliminary tests, these materials, which are five times stronger than steel, have successfully resisted to steel projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter."

    How about teflon-coated bullets? Or armor-piercing shells?
    • ...or bullets made of the same ultra-strong material?
      • by Sensible Clod (771142) <dc-7@nOsPaM.charter.net> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:36AM (#14283352) Homepage
        Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.
    • Conventional bullet-proof vests, made of things like Kevlar, will stop almost all pistol bullets and shotgun pellets but not rifle bullets. If you're making body armor for the military, that's important; if you're making it for police, it's less of a problem because (in spite of US propaganda) most criminals don't use assault rifles, they use pistols, which are easily concealed and much more convenient. If by "armor-piercing shells" you mean things meant to pierce tank armor, as opposed to body armor, tho
    • by Ringthane (415537) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @05:39AM (#14284060) Homepage
      "How about teflon-coated bullets?"

      FWIW:

            The teflon coating found on many armor-piercing rounds for small arms has no effect on the armor-piercing ability of the ammunition. The teflon coat is to protect the barrel from excess wear caused by the hard materials of the projectile. Armor-piercing properties come from the composition of the projectile or from a insert of a harder substance incorporated into the projectile.
    • teflon-coated bullets aren't. They're not armor piercing; they're more fiction than anything, really.

      Armor piercing shells will still probably kill people, because shells are big. Armor-piercing bullets, however, are usually steel core lead, I believe.

      A bullet is typically roughly a square centimeter in frontal surface area (give or take, yadda yadda), and they do not exert nearly as much pressure as 250 tons per square centimeter. I'm fairly certain of this, as no small arm (ie, personal firearm) can withs
      • Ah, unit mixup at work.
        It doesnt matter what kind of pressure your weapon can stand.
        Just think aboutit: if you have a gun with a barrel lenght of 50cm, during which a gas pressure of "x" accelerates the bullet, how much preassure will the bullet project onto a surface if it is forced to stop during a 10cm distance (like outer layer of clothing to center of the hearth...)?
  • Just me? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by blank89 (727548)
    I think I would rather it go to the police than the army. Does anyone else agree?
    • No, I Don't Agree (Score:2, Informative)

      by BigDork1001 (683341)
      I'm in the military so I defintely do not agree. I know several people in the Army and would like to see them have the best protection possible. Why shouldn't they?

      Due to the nature of their job who is going to get shot at more, the Army or police? Obviously it's the Army. So why shouldn't they get this armor?

      • Well, maybe the Army would be better protected if they didn't randomly invade countries they have no business with?

        I'd rather the police be protected whilst stopping crime, that's more of a concern to most people than killing those evil Iraqis with their WMDs...
        • So you would like the Army to decide who they invaded and who they didn't invade?

        • The army does not get to decide which countries it invades. The civilian government decided to invade, the army then does as the lawfully elected government orders it to do.

          You should be mad at the government that decided to start an ill advised war that was justified by frabricated evidence, has cost many, many more lives than 911, and made the USA LESS safe.

          All this assumes you are speaking about the USA army.

    • It is only you! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Policemen need armor a lot less than soldiers do, especially Israeli soldiers.
      I disagree with your statement because it implies that you would prefer more of our soldiers to die.
      I don't want our soldiers to die.
    • There should be a 2 1/2 amendment: asymmetry between government and civilian being damaging to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and wear effective armor shall not be infringed.
    • Considering the police are some of the loudest proponents of the USA PATRIOT Act, I'm thinking "no." The military hasn't fucked over the citizenry as much as law enforcement in recent years, and that will continue to be so at least so long as the Posse Comitatus Act stands.
  • by king-manic (409855) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:34AM (#14283338)
    "Small company invents something that is vaguely like something we read in a sci-fi book and posted it on slashdot to recieve free press!"
  • Good news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:34AM (#14283343)
    This nanoarmor will vastly improve the protection available for nanosoldiers.

    Right now we cannot deploy nanosoldiers due to the high risk of being trodden upon. This brings us one step closer to a solution.
  • by Wingie (554272)
    Now, if you're not in to White Wolf RPGs: armor has two soak values, a bashing soak for bashing damage like from punches and wooden clubs, and lethal soak to protect from swords and bullets and such. So maybe these armors won't protect against bullets... but anyone wearing them will be invulnerable against fists! Imagine: Chuck Norris wearing a suit of nano-armor, kicking his way through Texas in the name of justice. Or, even better, Vin Diesel in nano-armor plowing through gang headquarters with his bare
  • Call me a skeptic... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:37AM (#14283359)
    But I've seen other "incredible" technologies on this website and it seems they're slightly too good to be true. I'm not saying it's entirely vaporware, but they definately highlight only the strengths. Why? At the bottom, they're looking for external funding, complete with company details.

    Invest now! 500% returns in the first year! BUY BUY BUY!
    • Name me one company on the DOW1000 that never asks for investors?

      Unless BG or Paul Allen bank rolls you, extra funding via IPO/part ownership is always seeked. Sure google and many
      companies dont NEED IPOs or stocks to gain cash, they could easily get all the cash they need via banks/bonds to do what
      they need. Its just that stocks is a way to 'spread the risk' onto 500000 clients rather than 1 ie, the bank. The world is
      awash with capitol unlike the pre 20's because we havent had a major war that destroys ca
  • Finally... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:42AM (#14283384)
    I'll be able to keep my ipod scratch free.
  • by Keith McClary (14340) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:46AM (#14283400)
    What if the bad guys start using White Phosphorous or Depleted Uranium?
    • Yes, but unfortunately, water soluble. Dry clean only.
    • If it gets to the point where the "bad guys" have enough capital to invest in significant supplies of ammo of that sort, then they will probably also have a capital somewhere that we can turn into glass for them. Now, I don't know the first thing about the cost of that kind of ammo, but I have to think that it's a little harder to come by than your vanilla bullet.
    • Whether the armor can resist WP or DP has nothing to do with its chemical sensitivities. "Chemical proof"? What is that supposed to mean, anyway.

      Depleted Uranium rounds have efficacy because uranium is extremely hard, strong, and dense. A DU round at a given velocity carries more kinetic energy than a projectile of the same volume and velocity that's made of steel or lead, so it hurts more when it hits. Since it's hard, it doesn't deform easily when it hits, and so more of the KE is transferred into the
    • by jeti (105266)
      I think the bad guys have done this repeatedly.
    • Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon. It is used because extremely dense materials penetrate armor better.

      White Phosphorous is not really a chemical weapon either. A few people have been saying it is lately, so that they can say "The US is using chemical weapons! They are using WMDs!" Sort of like how China accused us of using "Chemical weapons" in North Korea... when in fact we were using tear gas to smoke NKs out of bunkers in lieu of out and out killing them. It's a political motivated definition ma
  • I read the article, but I don't see where it will do much more than stop a projectile, if even that.

    What I want to know is: if the projectile hits a helmet, even thought it won't penetrate it, will it still cause enough force to break the wearers neck? If a projectile hits the wearers chest, will it break ribs and shock organs?

    Body armor can stop some projectiles, but it will still leave, at best, a nasty bruise.

    Alaskan Volcano Getting Stinky, May Erupt [suvalleynews.com]

    • There's no easy way to disipate the energy of an incoming high-powered proyectile. I recall seeing a show about this subject... assault rifle ammo, for example (like the 7.62x39mm round fired by an AK-47) has enough power to knock down a person, even if the bullet doesn't penetrate the armor. Bruises are common too, specially with kevlar vests designed for pistol ammo - they showed a few examples with a dummy wearing a vest and being shot with 9mm ammo.
      • Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. A bullet actually puts less KE into the target than the person firring it feels. The KE of the kick is from the bullet and the hot gas from the propellant, the KE on the target is only from the bullet. There's also drag from the air that further reduces KE.

        An AK-47 can be fired full auto without falling, therefore a person can absorb all the KE of every bullet fired without falling. The only way being hit would make you fall if you had impenetrable (to an
        • IIRC, the AK-47 is a gas operated gun - the reciever is made to work using the energy of the gas from the firing. There's also a recoil spring system which absorbs energy from the shot round and helps reducing recoil. The person firing the rifle doesn't absorb all of the kinetic energy of the round; and even then, those guns can kickback strong.
    • I don't think there are many non-vehicular antipersonnel guns that have enough KE to break your neck or ribs, as they'd often break the shoulder of the firer. If you need that much force you need something like an autocannon or explosive warhead. Also, the "nanoarmour" sounds like it's plates not cloth so in all likelihood chest hit's KE would get too spread out to break ribs.
    • Re:Shock Absorbing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rank_Tyro (721935)
      Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

      As an aside, necks are tougher than most people think. In movies, the hero grabs the villian by the head and makes a severe twisting motion accompanied by a loud "CRACK". In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck
      • Re:Shock Absorbing (Score:3, Informative)

        by arkhan_jg (618674)
        Do a bit of math here. Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if a projectile were to deliver enough energy to break a persons neck after hitting an impregnable helmet, the soldier that made that shot would suffer from a broken shoulder.

        I was thinking about this the other day. Conservation of momentum only means that the force applied to the target by the bullet as it deccelerates will be equal to the force applied to the bullet, which is why it deforms. The fo
      • I agree about breaking the neck. However, a lot of medieval knights lost their eysight. While their helmets withstood the impact of weapons, the resulting forces ruptured their optic nerves.
      • In real life, the amount of force needed to break a neck seems to exceed the amoount of force that a SUV traveling at 35 mph imparts to a stopped vehicle at a stoplight. Whiplash is the usual outcome of a multi ton vehicle traveling at 35 mph.

        Umm you got your physics wrong. The mass of the hitting vehicle has little to do with the force applied to the neck of the driver that was hit. I could bore you with formulas, but a good way to demonstrate that you are wrong is examine the case of an infinitiely ma

      • Do a bit of math here.

        OK - since we are not talking about rigid bodies here energy is absorbed by deforming the material and the amount absorbed is related to the amount of stress required to push the material out of shape a given amount - it's also rate dependant. As people have learned from bicycle helmets, the last thing you want is a impregnable rigid helmet that tranfers a lot of energy to your skull. Unfortuntely the headline for this story appears to be all screwed up - strength isn't the importan

    • If a projectile hits the wearers chest, will it break ribs and shock organs?

      Probably. Cops that are hit while wearing their Kevlar vests get bruises, and even cracked ribs. It's better than a bullet hole, more like getting a whack with a baseball bat.

    • Yes and no as it depends on the helmet design.

      I know this M1 link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Helmet [wikipedia.org] states that:
      "Many men thought that when a bomb went off etc., the chinstrap would snap their neck when the helmet wold be blown off their head. This was also a disproved theory."

      The above is actually both correct as well as untrue. http://www.combatreform.com/chinstrap.htm [combatreform.com] states that:

      "During the course of the North African campaigns in 1943, the rigid hook fastener of the chinstrap was found to be a sou
  • In The Cross Hairs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Criliric (879949)
    What affect would said armour have on a head shot....

    I mean IF a helmet was made... would the user suffer a concussion? Or just feel nothing...?
    • by Nimey (114278) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @10:29AM (#14284990) Homepage Journal
      That would depend on how dense this stuff is.

      In the Society for Creative Anachronism, people can fight in various amounts of steel armor and wield rattan swords. This always includes a helm and some other mandatory armor.

      One man got the idea to make his mandatory helmet out of titanium. Titanium is stronger than steel, but less dense. When he went into combat that day with his new helmet, he took one good whack to the head that someone wearing a steel helm would have shrugged off. With his lighter titanium model, he was knocked unconscious and got a concussion. The helmet was undamaged, however.

      It all goes back to physics: action, reaction, momentum.
  • by Chaffar (670874) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:31AM (#14283573)
    Bah, that won't hold against my Carsomyr +6 [mikesrpgcenter.com].
  • The thing that I am noticing about all of the replies on this subject is that that they are stating this armour is not perfect. Sure, the wearer will still feal the kinetic energy of projectile or whatever...but the wearer will be more protected with this than probably any other armour available measured by hardness. Maybe next they should think how to reduce the amount of energy that is transferred from one plate to the next.
  • by thorndt (814642) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @03:15AM (#14283697)
    The US Army uses ceramic plates that slips into pockets in soldiers' jackets to stop projectiles. This is, I believe, called "hard body armor", as opposed to "soft body armor" (kevlar and such). The article states that this new stuff is five times stronger than steel...but how does it compare to the ceramic plates? FYI: The ceramic plates pretty much crumble and disintegrate when hit by incoming rounds; this stuff, I guess, would be so strong that the bullet would ricochet off?
  • Cocky Armor (Score:3, Funny)

    by NCraig (773500) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @04:09AM (#14283855)
    Alright, IsraCast, the material is strong. We get the point.

    But did you really need to give the armor a six-pack [isracast.com]?
  • The strength of material has *absolutely no relation* to it's ability to withstand impact.

    For example, glass is extremely strong in compression, but easily shattered.

    The steel used to make files is also extremely strong, but shatters with the slightest impact.

    What you need to handle impact is a material that can spread the impact energy as uniformly as possible over TIME and SPACE. So you need something that's extremely uniform and ductile.

    This stuff may be good for something, but touting it as g

  • And not just for spacesuits, but robotics, tether reels, beanstalk climbers and more. If this works, it will be invaluable.
  • The abstract includes this quote, "projectiles generating pressures as high as 250 tons per square centimeter." This may be useful to armorers, but the layperson thinks, "as opposed to what?" Ferinstance, if the kevlar vests that the president's bodyguards or our troops in the field wear have a stopping power of 249 tons, I'll yawn. If this stuff will stop a .357 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the whole world and would blow your head clean off, that's also a useful comparison. If it'll stop a .50 cali

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...