Nanotube Body Armor Coming Soon 112
s31523 writes "Military and law enforcement agencies are constantly seeking better protection in the line of fire, but current armor is heavy and bulky. The University of Cambridge has developed a new type of carbon fiber made up of nanotubes that is some cases exceeds the performance of Kevlar. The new material has other potential uses as well, from bomb disposal bins to flexible solar panels."
but (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:but (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
multiple uses? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Screw multiple uses, if it saves me from dying when I get shot, I'm all for it. If it happens to be better than kevlar for that, and lighter, then heck yeah. I'm probably not going to get drafted, but if I were ever put into combat, then I know I'll be hoping they're passing this out.
Multiple uses is great, but really, make it good for one thing only, stopping bullets and you've got a sale.
Re:multiple uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
A better way to stop people from getting shot in wartime is to not be in stupid wars.
Re: (Score:2)
He had to invade Iraq to drive oil prices to a new record high. This while his family is in the oil business.
That dose NOT look stupid to me. Callus and selfish perhaps but not stupid. Don't let his speech dysfunction fool you. For all we know that is a well rehearsed act to stop people from looking to carefully at his self serving "dumb" decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who really benefit from this sort of thing are the contractors who fiddle with it.
If this stuff does become widespread the main
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Carbon nanotubes are *expensive* to manufacture. If the resources spent outfitting the entire infantry with these were instead spent on preventing unnecessary wars, the military would have a better way of delaying dying.
1) Boy armor isn't just for "the entire infantry"
2) War is inevitable. It is the military's job to survive the war, defeat the enemy, and come home to their families/jobs/communities
3) It's nice to have stuff that will save your life when war happens
Hell, a better way to save the lives of infantrymen would be to take the money spent on nanotube armor and instead spend it on twice as many troops.
Sure, that sounds like a great idea. While we're at it, let's just sell their current body armor so we can quadruple the number of troops. And maybe if we take away the rest of their equipment, we can have tens of millions of troops! That worked well for o
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you appear to have learned something about the history of military weapons and countermeasures.
Well, that history of weapons and countermeasures should tell you something... Yes, there are advantages to armor, but in the end what really counts is firepower and manpower is a good proxy for that, especially in these crappy lil' LICs the US Army seems so fond of fighting.
And maybe if we take away the rest of their equipment, we can have tens of millions of troops! That worked well for other countries in the past, right?
Russia was the big winner of WW2. Its massive low-tech army of conscripts prevailed over Germany's technologically advanced yet much smaller army. China prevailed over the US and its allies in the Korean War by similar means, forcing
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course not... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Looks Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
Enforcer types from dystopias, just like the GPP said.
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's inevitable and I want our troops protected, but its ironic how much this looks like the garb worn by the enforcer types in dozens of dystopia movies.
They're just fitting in with the modern trend. In the time I've lived here in Cambridge, the average police uniform has gone from the friendly, lots-of-white Police Service garb to the almost-all-black Police Force look of today. This has, of course, been happening in parallel with the systematic erosion of individual rights and increases in summary powers for the police, all with the backing of both our national government and, in some cases, our local councils. It would be sadly ironic if police officers became even more invulnerable^Wisolated due to an invention from our very own university.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, because an all-white uniform [geocities.com] is so much friendlier.
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the A-Team, the world's only "crack commando unit" who can't actually shoot anyone until they've had several series of training, that is... :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in regards to law enforcement, I find the all black uniforms simply serve to make them look threatening. I understand that in an encounter they don't want to give any impression of vunerability or weakness, but these people are human (most of them, anyway) and their job is to serve the public.
The thing is, in this country we used to have policing by consent. That had some major advantages, not the least of which was that the police commanded the respect of the public they served, and members of the public could generally be relied upon to help them. Today, it's increasingly a them-and-us culture the closer to the top you get, thanks in no small part to an increasing number of silly laws pushed through by politicians but lacking popular support: everything from excessive stop-and-search to "roa
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:4, Interesting)
That may have benefits as well. Would you shoot something that doesn't look human and you aren't entirely sure they are going to die? If the enemy appeared to be immortal cyborgs that your (apparently) puny weapons had no affect on, would you not just be afraid of them and comply?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But why is your goal to make people be afraid of you and "comply"? Isn't the goal to make people friendly towards you and want to have sex/do business/stop setting fire to your cattle?
Dominating people does not make them peaceful or well-disposed towards you. This is an obvious truth that almost every individual learns from personal experience by the time they are seven. I simply do not understand why at the level of national policy, nobody seems to grasp it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Make people friendly to you?" Hell, we can't even get people as far as Will Smith's attitude in MIB -- "Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'."
Re: (Score:1)
If the enemy appeared to be immortal cyborgs that your (apparently) puny weapons had no affect on, would you not just be afraid of them and comply?
Actually, it would make me reach for a bat'leth (or an axe - they are generally easier to find). It always works for Lt. Worf.
Or retreat into the jungle, smear mud over myself, and build a giant mousetrap with logs and some rope. Worked for both the Governator AND Ewoks.
There is no such thing as "immortal". You are just not hitting it hard enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not really what I am saying. Its more about psychological warfare. During WWII the US/British were horrendously afraid of Tiger tanks and would freak out and drop anything they were doing when they saw one. Of course considering that most of their guns were ineffective over the 500 meter distances, you could just imagine the dismay
Re:Looks Familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you live in the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain you must surely already realize that you already live in a dystopia. The police in the streets here already wear body armor and are already watching everyone on big brother cameras.
Add to that: no right to freedom of speech, no right to freedom of assembly, thought crime, Government controlled media, mind control by fear generation through creation of irrational abstract enemies like pedophiles, etc,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it may be better (Score:2)
Right now, our adversaries paint us as Americans being lead by an idiot that we voted for. When they looked down the sight, the do not see something inhuman. They see an American. And at this moment, they HATE us.
Re: (Score:1)
Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
For another, just because it is "got to them" doesn't mean it stays got. Every time a ceramic armor plate takes a bullet, it ought to be replaced. Even just being knocked around can probably weaken the armor. Durability is the reason the flexible glued ceramic disk armor might not be the best choice for an environment like Iraq.
For yet another, fabric based armor makes it possible to protect areas that you can't with ceramic armor: the hands, the head. There was a report on NRP about the unusual number of fatalities suffered by police this year. The bad guys have adjusted to the fact that the police wear body armor and take a head shot before the cop realizes he needs to draw his gun.
Finally, production of fabric armor an probably be scaled more cheaply than ceramic plates. You start with a vat of organic goo, draw threads out of it, spin them into thread and weave them into garments. You can make as large a "plate" as you need by setting up long warp yarns and weaving a longer strip of cloth. Think of a set of drapes: you could produce armored drapes if you wanted to. By contrast with ceramic you have to fire each plate in an oven. To make a larger plate, you need a larger oven and presumably getting a uniform result is trickier. To ramp up the production line, you need more or larger ovens. To overcome these problems, you could make lots of small plates, but then joining them becomes a problem.
If you could make fabric armor that was just as good a ceramic plate armor (doubtful, but imagine that you could), it is certain to be cheaper and faster to produce, provided you are making enough.
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Most taxpayers are already paying for the war and associated expenses. I suspect many would be not displeased to put money into actually saving troops rather than (to pick a couple of examples) paying mercenary armies who don't pay their own taxes, or paying corrupt contractors building the US embassy with (semi-)slave labor, or paying the CIA to run secret prisons where they can torture with impunity, or paying Haliburton so Cheney can make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I submit that until the voters aren't swayed one way or the other on an issue by how it is framed, they don't really care about that issue.
There isn't a clear dividing line, of course, because the framing always matters a little. It is a matter of degree, but even so it is perfectly possible to detect clear disinterest or clear interest in many cases. Most voters, for example, truly care about their own taxation rate. It
Re: (Score:2)
Why keep repeating this meme? (Score:4, Informative)
(More on the IBA [globalsecurity.org].)
Yes, there are newer and better things out there. And many troops are wearing them already--or were when I was in Afghanistan last year. Presumably more have them now. Could they get the newer and better stuff to the troops faster? Perhaps. Look into it. Make a valid argument. But stop trotting out the old "troops can't get any armor" BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you care to elaborate on what the newer/better stuff is? For instance -- I've done som
I've seen that photo before.. (Score:1)
What do you mean, there is no Silicon Heaven? Where do all the Calculators go?
Bomb disposal bins (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
from here [sciencemuseum.org.uk]:
Unlike normal litter bins that shatter into thousands of pieces of shrapnel during an explosion the outside cover of this bin will break away into three or four large pieces while the bin itself remains intact. It means that if hit by one of the pieces at the most any passer by would only suffer from is mild bruising.
The "mild bruising" bit sounds a bit far fetched ("mild incineration" more likely?) but maybe a nanotube casing would stay in one piece which would be an improvement.
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of unlucky guys have to carry the bomb from the site to the bomb truck, they would use one of these bins to contain the bomb while they do that. It may not be 100% effective but it's sure as hell better than just carrying the bomb
Exposed bits.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, it is the bits behind the vest that are the problem for several British troops killed in places like Iraq each year because they hadn't been supplied with the right body armour or had been required to return it so other troops with greater perceived need could have it.
I'm no fan of the war in Iraq or the politicians behind it, but if we're going to send our boys and girls into a dangerous situation like that, you'd think giving them the best equipment available would be the least we could do. Hopef
Solar Panels??? (Score:2)
Is it because the oil-crazy nuts would shoot at the solar panels???
On a more serious note, a Gel nanotube would better absorb the shocks.
Re: (Score:1)
Sooo... (Score:5, Funny)
Only part of the problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now seriously, some of what you propose could probably be done. I doubt that it would be really efficient, as these tubes aren't big enough to hold a significant amount of whatever substance inside.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
liquids are awfully heavy and modern soldiers already need to lift so much equipment that their body weight doubles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, not really. The body armor would stop the bullet and there would be no puncture wound: that's the whole point. Also, most of the wounds in Iraq are from IEDs, and involve wounds to extermities not covered by body armor (arms, legs, neck, etc.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wearing enough (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html [nytimes.com]
And a year and a half later (after above article):
http://www.bakesalesforbodyarmor.org/ [bakesalesf...yarmor.org]
Health Concerns (Score:3, Interesting)
'd ever want to. Wearing such body armor, which would stop speeding bullets, IEDs, mines, rockets from injuring soldiers might not be a good idea. The injury from the enemy fire might not be the only concern.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
On a serius note. Carbon Nano tubes don't have the same "could be dangerus" stamp as nanosized manmade particles, since they aren't nanosized. They may have a nanometer diameter, but they can be as long as several centimeters.
And again the danger of nanosized particles isn't that they are nanosized, it's simply th
No need for nanotubes. (Score:3, Informative)
Toxicity is an important consideration (Score:2)
--
This space for rent
Re: (Score:1)
I Call Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but does it (Score:1)
Counter-Strike (Score:1)
Half Life 2: Combine Metrocops (Score:1)
uhmmm... (Score:1)
Nothing personal, but if I'd have to wear it, I'd want it to exceed the performace of Kevlar in ALL CASES! - *Cough...*
Maximum Armor (Score:1, Funny)
"stronger than kevlar" not so special. (Score:2)
For a while now there have been products that significantly out perform kevlar strength wise. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7038702.stm
In fact this is not even the first time that such stuf has been discused on slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/23/1817216
There are also many common materials that outperform kevlar in some applications, including technora, which is commonly used in
What about motorbikes? (Score:2)
It's not a big truck... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)