Israeli Company Creates Nano-Armor

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."

Getting your point across.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Getting your point across.

[damian cosmas]

...or bullets made of the same ultra-strong material?

Re:Getting your point across.

[Sensible Clod]

Well, bullets made of the same stuff wouldn't be very heavy, so maybe you mean bullets coated with it...still, an interesting question.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Sensible Clod]

Good question. My guess is that they'd both impact with the same force at 1 foot from the muzzle, assuming that they both have the same amount of powder (which means power) behind them; however, the lighter one would lose speed (and energy) more quickly because of its having lower density, but the same aerodynamic cross-section, so the heavier one would be more effective at long range.

Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference i

Re:Getting your point across.

[MoralHazard]

Your point about velocity is taken, though, since delivering the same number of Joules in less time can make a difference in how well the impactee material holds up.

An often-overlooked point about ballistics. How quickly and efficiently the projectile's energy is transferred into the target is a huge determining factor in how damaging it is. If you shoot someone with a .44 magnum and the lead bullet flies through the torso and out the other side, you're not getting the most efficient impact possible, beca

Re:Getting your point across.

[MBraynard]

You are smarter than me on this subject, but doesn't the shape of the bullet also come into play? I have a 10mm. When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Re:Getting your point across.

[PakProtector]

When I go to the range I use cheap standard bullets, but when I load it for home defense, it's hollow point. Goes in with a centimeter, comes out with a decimeter.

Sir, I suggest you Trademark that phrase and enter Bullet Manufacturing.

Wouldn't work.

[raehl]

Americans don't know what a decimeter is.

Re:Getting your point across.

[MoralHazard]

doesn't the shape of the bullet also come into play?

Among other things, yes. The number of variables that influence the behavior of firearms and projectiles is just astounding--it's a HELL of a lot more than caliber, which is usually all the most people think of. There's a reason why ballistics research has its own scholarly journals.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Fordiman]

Also great for naval engine rooms. A lack of penetrating power means it's not going to penetrate your pipes. Meanwhile, it will still wipe the smirk off any stowaway's face.

Re:Getting your point across.

[ls -la]

more muzzle velocity, yes. better armor piercing ability, not likely.

As a physics major, let me explain my understanding of firearms:
I believe the bullets would (all else being equal) receive the same kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2), so if the bullet was half the mass, it would go sqrt(2) times as fast. At least at the end of the muzzle. After that (and to a lesser extent, before) air resistance affects the bullet proportional to v^2. Since v^2 is twice as large for the smaller bullett, the force would be twice as large, and due to the lower mass, the lighter bullet would decelerate much quicker (starting at 4x). This is a rather complex differential equation (because of the square), but what's likely to happen is that at any large distance, the lighter bullett will probably hit the target moving slower.

Now, when the bullet impacts the target I believe it's the pressure that actually does the damage. Pressure is force per unit area, and the areas would be the same (although here the analysis could possibly fail, if the lighter bullet held a pointier shape for longer). At point-blank range (or ignoring air resistance) and treating the force the target exerts as spring-like (probably good approximation for armor), the force needed to stop the bullets would be the same on each bullet (because the energy is the same so they would deform the target the same amount). Factoring air resistance back in, the lighter bullet will reach the target with less energy, and so exert less pressure. If the lighter bullet doesn't deform, it's possible that the pressure would be greater, dealing more damage.

Conclusions:
1. A lighter bullet will hit the target at a slower velocity.
2. Assuming the same deformation upon impact, the lighter bullet will deal less damage.
3. If the heavy bullet deforms and the light doesn't, the light one *might* do more damage.

This is my best guess, but it's possible I made a mistake somewhere.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The primary determinant for how much energy the bullet receives is how long the bullet stays in the barrel, giving the powder time to burn; this is why, for instance, a carbine has a much higher muzzle velocity than a pistol firing the same round. (On the other side of the coin, you could make a pistol chambered for rifle rounds, but it wouldn't be terribly useful; most of the powder would escape from the muzzle and burn up in the air, creating a hell of a muzzle flash but no extra velocity.) So a lighter bullet will have a higher muzzle velocity, but it probably won't be enough higher (increasing as the square root of 1/mass) to give it equivalent energy to a heavier bullet. Barrel length and powder burn speed are the most important factors. Typical rifle rounds are in the 22 to 30 caliber range, while typical handgun rounds are in the 38 to 45 caliber range, and while the rifle bullets are longer, they still run a bit lighter on average than the handgun bullets -- but they have much, much higher muzzle velocity and energy.

You're right about lighter bullets losing velocity faster, of course, but it's not as much a determinant as you might think -- consider the difference between a 7mm rifle round, which is a mid-sized hunting round, and a .45 pistol round, about the biggest practical pistol caliber for most people, which will usually be about half again its weight. Guess which one hits the target harder?

Now, all that being said, deformation on hitting the target is a good thing. (Er, good from the shooter's POV, not the target's ...) One problem with small, fast bullets is that they can go right through the target, leaving a hole almost exactly the size of the bullet*, and not actually doing that much damage. Bullets which deform inside the target dump all their energy right there, and therefore have much more "stopping power." This is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, why the M16, despite having evolved into a pretty reliable weapon over the years since its disastrous first iteration in Vietnam, remains controversial. Many infantrymen, whose lives depend on "one shot, one kill," and medics, who see the results up close and personal (I've been both) believe that our troops would be better served by the older, heavier style of military rifle round. Not necessarily the 7.62 x 51 mm (NATO), which is overkill for anything but a sniper rifle or a machine gun, but say the 7.62 x 39 mm (Warsaw Pact) used in the AK. There's some benefit in being able to carry more ammunition with the smaller rounds ... but more benefit in being sure that the guy on the other end of your sights is going to go down when you hit him.

* Forget all that crap you hear about "cavitation" and "small hole going in, big hole coming out." It's a myth, based on studies of firing bullets into blocks of gelatin which do not behave, in the least, like human (or animal) bodies. If you're looking for a weapon for self-defense, you will always be better off with a bigger bullet, as long as you can handle the weapon. Period. And big slow bullets (e.g., .45 ACP) are about the best single-round choice for self-defense there is, because not only will they take down the target, if you miss they're much less likely to go through three walls and kill your neighbor's toddler. Even better is a short-barreled 16-ga. shotgun.

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rangsk]

I could be wrong, but here are my thoughts.

At the same velocity, two bullets of the same size/shape have the same drag on them due to air regardless of mass. Drag increases by the square of the velocity.

No matter what the mass of the bullet, the gun is going to impart the same force onto it. As you stated, a = f/m and so the lighter bullet will end up experiencing more drag than a heavier bullet (due to drag increasing as v^2).

However, E = mv^2 / 2, and a heavier bullet will gain less velocity in general

Re:Getting your point across.

[penguin121]

You are correct for the most part, but you are ignoring one important factor. The amount of powder used is scaled for the size, or mass, of the bullet so it reaches the desired muzzle velocity (which should be on the upper end of what drag makes practical). The heavier bullet will have more energy (and momentum) and therefore be more effective for armor penetration. Its a similiar to the reason uranium (twice the density of lead) is used in anti-tank rounds. Your target velocity can always be achieved b

Rifle bullets are the interesting problem

[billstewart]

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

Re:Getting your point across.

[Ringthane]

"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.

Re:Getting your point across.

[CAIMLAS]

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

Re:Getting your point across.

[imsabbel]

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...)?

Re:Getting your point across.

[Rolo Tomasi]

What about teflon coated bullets dipped in chicken blood, though?

Re:Getting your point across.

[todd10k]

How about teflon-coated bullets?

Ya see, alot of people watched "V" back in the 80's and think teflon will help a slug penetrate high grade armor. Its like how people think they understand blackhole physics because they seen "event horizon"

People are idiots.

Re:Getting your point across.

[tjstork]

I've heard that teflon coating of bullets makes it easier for them to pass through kevlar fibers.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Just me?

[blank89]

I think I would rather it go to the police than the army. Does anyone else agree?

No, I Don't Agree

[BigDork1001]

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?

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[drsquare]

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...

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[the eric conspiracy]

So you would like the Army to decide who they invaded and who they didn't invade?

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[canadian_right]

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.

Re:No, I Don't Agree

[spauldo]

I think you're treating a symptom, not the cause. If our guys are ill equipped out there, that just means more will die. Think Vietnam here - if our troops had the proper equipment, training, and support back then, there'd be a lot less names on the wall.

The guys in uniform don't (usually) start the war - they follow the orders of those who do. Your best bet, rather than reducing the defense budget now, is to convince congress to quit sending our troops off to fight. Once we're not fighting all the time

It is only you!

[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.

I'd rather give it to civilians.

[Julian Morrison]

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.

Re:Just me?

[Guppy06]

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.

Re:Just me?

[MBraynard]

You are a BIGOT! How do you know that the GP is a him or a her - could be a hermaphrodite or an artificial intelligence logging in from a military lab to try and get it's creators killed.

But whatever it is, it's definitly a sick-0 traitor who should be executed.

Re:bleh...

[spauldo]

In America, the military doesn't protect your civil rights, except in the sense that they ward off invasion (the exception being if you're a member of the military, in which case your civil rights are quite a different matter, and the ones you don't sign over are protected by the military directly). The military is more or less the strong arm of the government in international affairs. Domestically, the military gets used more often for peaceful ventures such as disaster recovery and parades than it does in any martial sense. They can be used against the people, of course, but it's very rare for that to happen in the U.S.

Most military members do care quite a bit about civil rights, but they're not in a position to protect them unless ordered to.

Police act much more individually, so it depends on the cop. Some will play by the rules, some won't. Like Bob Dyllan said, sometimes you just find yourself over the line - in that sort of situation, best hope you get some good ones. In the end, though, it's up to the courts to protect your civil liberties.

Re:Just me?

[blank89]

It's true that both parties could use protection, but the defense budget is large enough as it is. Most likely, it would go to soldiers first, and police 5 years from now. Police often lack the basic equipment they need to take care of the better prepared criminals as it is, and it has been that way for a long time.

Re:Just me?

[h4rm0ny]

I don't much care if it goes to the police or the military, so long as they're still seperate. But have you seen the medieval armour illustration that goes with this? If the material is as light as they say, and as strong as they say, then what's the most logical styling for this stuff? I can see a renaissance in medieval style armours. :) Imagine the police walking along in ultra-light bullet-proof plate-mail. Adds a certain romance, doesn't it?

Of course, escalation means people quickly resort to gas /

Re:Just me?

[Rolo Tomasi]

who are the frontline defenders of our freedom

Alright, I've heard this sentence a lot ... how in the hell are soldiers occupying a foreign country protecting your freedom? I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

At least be honest about it and say they're helping you capture and control key resources or keep others from challen

Re:Just me?

[spauldo]

I agree with you to some extent - our troops aren't out "defending our freedom" in iraq right now. I don't have any freedom in iraq, because I live in the U.S. and have never been there (finished my enlistment about the time we started sending troops there).

They are defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant. They keep, say, Canada from invading us because Canada knows it couldn't win without extremely significant loss of life, if at all.

So they're not out there defen

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

I mean, if the soldiers were stationed in your homeland and a foreign invasion was imminent, that I could understand, but while they're occupying some third world country halfway across the globe? Nope, does not follow.

You should avoid a career in strategy. A defensive posture as you suggest is inferior to an offensive strategy that takes the fight to the enemy, denies the enemy the initiative, dictates the terrain to the enemy, ... While there may have been only one or two terrorist training camps in I

Re:Just me?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy. - Sun Tzu

We occupied Iraq, jihadists are coming to us there. We seem to be in agreement with the Tao in this case.

Vietnam was lost because the US fought an enemy on their own ground, where they could defend and hide as a native force.

Perhaps you have a poor translation of S

Re:Just me?

[Firethorn]

And modern low profile body armor is already effective against 99% of the firearms criminals use around here.

To wit: Handguns.
Next up Shotguns. level II or even III isn't going to protect you if they're packing slugs, but can be of great benefit against buckshot. Heck, the number of crooks who try to use birdshot is suprising!
Criminals rarely use rifles. So called 'assault weapons' are the rarest of all. Of course, I hear a good amount of confiscations, but not usage.

Meanwhile, over in the desert we ha

Revised Headline:

[king-manic]

"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!"

Re:Revised Headline:

[wesley96]

Small company

No wonder they're developing 'nano' stuff.

Re:Revised Headline:

[timeOday]

Yeah, I'm sure all the big-time international arms dealers do their research on slashdot.

If this stuff is so great, it probably won't be sold on thinkgeek. Got to keep the kids away from the good stuff.

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good news

[msbsod]

Federation nanites equiped with nanoarmor fighting Borg nanites

Re:Good news

[werewolf1031]

Dear God, someone please give parent a "+1 Hell Yeah!". :)

Bashing Soak

[Wingie]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

whats new dufus

[cheekyboy]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be able to keep my ipod scratch free.

Is it Chemical proof?

[Keith McClary]

What if the bad guys start using White Phosphorous or Depleted Uranium?

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[st0rmshad0w]

Yes, but unfortunately, water soluble. Dry clean only.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[Wilson_6500]

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.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[timeOday]

DU is one thing, but phosphorus rounds are WWI technology.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[MoralHazard]

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

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[jeti]

I think the bad guys have done this repeatedly.

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[darth_zeth]

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

Re:Is it Chemical proof?

[werewolf1031]

...you can fit more weight and energy into a physically smaller and stronger round.

True. However, what really makes depleted uranium munitions exceptional for inflicting damage against hardened targets is that they "flare" on contact, so you essentially have an incendiary armor-piercing round, such as the PGU-14B 30mm round fired by the 19-foot-long GAU-8A Avenger autocannon nested within the fuselage the U.S. Army's A-10 Thunderbolt II (commonly called by the nickname "Warthog"). I've seen archival test

Rifle Bullets vs. Depleted Uranium

[billstewart]

The real threats this stuff is likely to help with are rifle bullets. It'd be interesting to know how easily it burns - will WP or napalm set it on fire, or just go around it?

Depleted uranium isn't something that would normally be used for rifle bullets - it's used for big honking anti-tank rounds, and it's unlikely that nanotech body armor would keep you alive if you're hit by one of them even if it could keep it from penetrating - there's just too much kinetic energy that's going to get dissipated arou

Re:Rifle Bullets vs. Depleted Uranium

[werewolf1031]

Maybe they could build tank armor out of the stuff that would be lighter or more effective than heavy steel...

Or better yet, use this material as a secondary (tertiary?) armor layer beneath the ablative-reactive armor deployed on most M1 tanks, perhaps beneath the conventional steel of the tank's hull, thus affording greater protection for the crew (arguably the greatest asset of the tank).

Erm... just a thought.

Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[core plexus]

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]

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

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.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

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

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Lisandro]

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.

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Blastrogath]

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 !=Survivability?

[core plexus]

"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."

Then maybe you've never heard of the Barrett Light 50, aka M82A1/2/3. I've shot them, and it's not bad at all. I certainly would not want to be on the receiving end.

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

Re:Shock Absorbing

[Rank_Tyro]

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

[arkhan_jg]

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

Re:Shock Absorbing

[jeti]

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.

Re:Shock Absorbing

[SashaM]

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

Re:Shock Absorbing

[dbIII]

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

Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

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.

Helmet answer Re:Shock Absorbing !=Survivability?

[n54]

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

[Criliric]

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...?

Re:In The Cross Hairs

[Nimey]

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.

"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Chaffar]

Bah, that won't hold against my Carsomyr +6 [mikesrpgcenter.com].

Re:"The Armor Of The Future"?

[Hank Chinaski]

before i clicked the link i actually thought it was about rpgs like in rocket propelled grenade and not about rpgs like in role playing games :p

Not perfect, just better

[ZorgonTheMeek]

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.

question is: is it better than ceramic armor?

[thorndt]

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

[NCraig]

Alright, IsraCast, the material is strong. We get the point.

But did you really need to give the armor a six-pack [isracast.com]?

Once again, complete BS

[Ancient_Hacker]

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

Micrometeorite protection

[Jonathan Burns]

And not just for spacesuits, but robotics, tether reels, beanstalk climbers and more. If this works, it will be invaluable.

Note to Journalists: say what the numbers mean

[technoCon]

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

Re:Sometimes seems

[Namronorman]

Selling them to governments sounds scary, selling them to private citizens sounds scary. It's a shame we live in a world where such wonderful technology (there are other GOOD should be obvious uses for things such as this) seems scary no matter who you give it to unless it's Batman.

Maybe we should just all get a pair and beat on each other until we get bored and move on to something better, or resort to bio/chem/nuclear warfare!

Re:Sometimes seems

[MichaelSmith]

its sad to think that something like this will be used first and foremost, to minimize a country's casualities, so that the country can perpetrate more violence

Maybe, but this is primarily a defensive material. Its not a weapon per se. If this could be used to make lightweight garments which are resistant to some bullets and nearby explosions you could outfit children in landmine infested areas and save a lot of lives.

And you've made a critical point...

[Khyber]

... as I was thinking that "Gee, I wonder when the next war breaks out for the technology to create this material?" I'll admit that's a paranoid thought, but jeeze, oil ain't gonna last forever. Producing technology with a good aplication most likely will last "forever" in our market. (Forever being the lifespan of the entire human race.)

The first obvious application of this technology is war or oppression of one's own citizens. This bothers me probably as much as anyone else here, but the question I po

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

useless metric.

Carbon fibre is also "stronger than steel" but pull it in the wrong way and it'll break like glass [which admitedly is usually the point]. What size/weight/type of projectile at what velocity will be stopped. That's useful.

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[msbsod]

The author of the cited article did indeed have a problem with units and their interpretation (understanding). For example "km/second" should be km/s (at least there is no "kph"), or "tons/cm2" should be t/cm^2. Anyway, the author also neglected to mention the thickness of the material. A km thick layer of paper will stop a bullet, too.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ [nist.gov]
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/metrsty3.htm [nist.gov]
http://www.metric4us.com/ [metric4us.com]

Re:The problem is...

[Firethorn]

No need for a km...

I've found that about a foot and a half works quite well, at least on handgun bullets
Might need a meter or two for high power rifle, though.

Re:The problem is...

[joib]

Nice to know your vest will stop a handgun but if a .223 can go right through it, it won't be to useful against a properly armed adversary.


Most modern armies use body armor and helmets even if they don't help against rifle bullets. Why? To protect against shrapnel (which iirc accounts for about 80 % of casualties in full scale warfare). So even if this doesn't protect against rifle bullets, it isn't exactly useless as long as it's an improvement over the standard kevlar stuff.

Re:The problem is...

[werewolf1031]

The standard bow hunter's bow and arrow has enough force when shot properly to penetrate the walls of an armored car...

I call bullshit. Cite sources please.

Thanks.

Going the other way...

[Gordonjcp]

... you don't need a lot of armour in a car door to stop a bullet. Even thin crappy steel (early 80s Nissan Micra) could take enough energy out of a shotgun blast (not the same thing, I know) to keep all the pellets behind the hardboard door card. A door from a mid-80s Volvo 340 could keep out .303 hunting rounds pretty effectively - only one actually made it right through the door. I suspect the 6mm steel plate up the insides of the doors of my Citroën CX would be pretty damn effective armour. No,

Re:The problem is...

[werewolf1031]

I will have some more worthy sources for you by the end of the night.

Please do! I live in rural Pennsylvania, where there are a lot of hunters. I don't myself hunt, but having grown up in the area, well let's just say I'm intrigued by the premise of a standard hunter's arrow penetrating the armor of even a light military vehicle.

Re:The problem is...

[tomstdenis]

I call bullshit. An arrow moves an order of magnitude slower than a .30 round [e.g. comparing 100s of fps to say 2 to 3 thousand fps].

When an .30 round hits the wall it has far more energy than an arrow head. Unless you have some form of supped up compound this is total bullshit. ... my brother was an armor car driver. I've seen the trucks. They're rated to stop .223 and other small arms fire [though they have problems which usually hinder it, like the locks getting stuck in the winter]

Tom

Re:The problem is...

[Firethorn]

That and it's even quieter than 'silenced' firearms, which are still fairly loud.

I've seen some tricks done with things like buckets of sand, where the arrow will penetrate completely through, while bullets are stopped.

Re:The problem is...

[Supurcell]

The armor may survive, but will the wearer be, too?

No. As soon as the wearer of such armor is struck, he will instantaneously be transformed into absolute nothingness*. Thus he will no longer be.

*Whether "nothingness" is Void, Null, Cipher, Zero, Nothing, or Jersey is still under debate.

Re:I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Melfina]

If the material is as solid as they claim it is it should reduce the impact of the bullet hitting. Reducing the impact is all well and good, but it's only so effective. To truly protect someone from a shot you need to be able to disperse the impact force throughout the entire vest.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OMG THIS IS TOTALLY UT2004!

[ctishman]

I'm saying that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Re:Yes...

[MBraynard]

First, you're wrong.

Eyeglasses were from either Northern Italy or China (dev'd about the same time). The triangular sail thing is about 1800 years ago (pre-Islam) and questionable if it came from there. They didn't originate astronomy - the Greeks did - though I suppose, again, about 1000 years ago. Irrigation was even longer before that (and man, then that's the only place people existed). Same stupid argument for the wheel.

The folks who did all of that are NOT the same people/ethnicity and more important