Slashdot Mirror


Liquid Armor the New Bulletproof Vest

kjh1 writes "Armor Holdings Inc. plans to start selling their 'liquid armor' next year. The new armor, originally envisioned to be spread on like peanut butter, is instead sprayed onto Kevlar in ultrathin coats. From the article: 'it's a mix of polyethylene glycol, a polymer found in laxatives and other consumer products, and nanobits of silica, or purified sand. Together they produce a "sheer-thickening liquid" that stiffens instantly into a shield when hit hard by an object. It reverts to its liquid state just as fast when the energy from the projectile dissipates.'"

629 comments

  1. Video link by skurk · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a video on break.com where you can see the liquid armor in action - it's pretty amazing:
    clicky

    --
    www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
    1. Re:Video link by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      The guy in that video looks like a mixture between Barney Calhoun and Matthew Broderick.

    2. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    3. Re:Video link by Kynde · · Score: 1

      There's a video on break.com where you can see the liquid armor in action - it's pretty amazing:

      or try google videos with 'liquid armor' since the break.com player options didn't quite work for me.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
    4. Re:Video link by BarryNorton · · Score: 4, Funny

      So how would this have protected his Sergeant's groin?

      "What are you doing, soldier?"

      "Painting my groin, sir..."

    5. Re:Video link by Agent00Wang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That video is pretty neat. Maybe there could be an application on rigid surfaces like reinforced windows and such.

      --
      NINJA SPIRIT - The Ancient Art of Insanity
    6. Re:Video link by corychristison · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great....

      So I have the choice of one DRM infested video, or another DRM infested video wrapped in a Flash Movie. Thank you. :-P

      I was forced to see it in a slightly different version of the DRM infested video wrapped in a Flash Movie. ;-)

    7. Re:Video link by Matt+Edd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bullets bounce off? That would transfer more momentum to the armor than if the bullets simply stopped. I wonder how well the liquid armor dissipates energy because you might be better off sticking with the untreated Kevlar. At least, I think your nuts are better protected with something else.

    8. Re:Video link by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      *blink*

      Coolant + superfine sand = bullet resistant.

      nice.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    9. Re:Video link by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really, polyetylene glycol (PEG) != ethylene glycol.

      But anyway, both PEG, and sand are really cheap, so depending on what is published you should be able to make this at home if you are so inclined.

      I'd also expect the DuPont company to try to bring this to market - maybe in their auto paints? I'd be willing to bet they provided significant funding based on the fact that the demo utilized kevlar, and that the research was done at the university of delaware.

      I wonder how simple this really is, while PEGs vary greatly in molecular weight, and there is an infinite span of concentrations, really, knowing only what the video told us, anyone with an interest should be able to figure it out.

    10. Re:Video link by karnal · · Score: 1

      So penetrating this armor and going through "your nuts" as you so succinctly put it is better?

      I'd have to guess that bullets that hit any sort of armor that is attached to a human would get stuck or bounce off, just from the skin on a human being imparting some slight energy back after being depressed.

      --
      Karnal
    11. Re:Video link by rco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right you are. "Stuck or bounce off" is correct. GP's point is that a bullet that hits and sticks imparts energy to the target equal to the kinetic energy with which it arrives. A bullet which hits and bounces off imparts energy equal to the kinetic energy with which it arrives PLUS that with which it leaves (more or less, assuming that it leaves in exactly the opposite direction, etc. Yes, I'm simplifying). In other words, a ball that bounces off your nuts hurts more than one which sticks.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    12. Re:Video link by IAmTheDave · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'd also expect the DuPont company to try to bring this to market - maybe in their auto paints?

      Just don't paint too quickly, or your brush might suddenly become a hammer.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    13. Re:Video link by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      *blinks*

      If you're using a brush, your paint job will look positively /awful/.

      I'd be more worried, however, that when it comes to the buffing stage, the little bumpies in the paint job suddenly become bullet - and thus buffer - proof.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    14. Re:Video link by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? Since the bullet arrives with the same force regardless if it's bare flesh, normal kevlar or the treated one, bouncing of would conclude that the energy for the reflection is gatherd from the energy of the impact, thus leaving less energy to be absorberd for the impacting object. My logic could be false, or correct if there is an alternative source of energy wich feeds the reflection of the object.

    15. Re:Video link by CaseyB · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, because when they say "bounce off", they obviously mean that it reflects the bullets away perfectly at their original speeds. Hence, they are *doubling* the energy of the impact in the perfectly ideal billiard-ball reaction that happens every time a bullet hits the armour in real life.

      Of course, they also have the benefit that whenever someone shoots at the armour, the bullet is bounced directly back down the barrel of their gun, possibly killing them.

    16. Re:Video link by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is an interesting point in there, spray applications are characterized as extremely high sheer. It seems that the armor was basically saturated with this stuff, spray coating would probably be impossible, this stuff would turn into a rock in your sprayer. If this were to make it to an auto market it might have to be applied with a squeegee, or a dip process.

    17. Re:Video link by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      The energy imparted would be smaller if the bullet bounced. The momentum imparted would be more, but you are a very massive object compared with a bullet, so you only need recieve a small overal impulse to compensate for the change in momentum. Bouncing bullet do less damage because they impart less energy into the surface they hit, compared with bullets which become lodged, as a general rule.

    18. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded insightful? Of course it bounces off! The armor has very little mass, and it's being suspended vertically as a sheet. It's like hitting a little bullet trampoline. That stuff would have to be absurdly dense for a bullet to just hit it and drop down.

      Now, if you're saying there needs to be some padding underneath to absorb kinetic impacts, sure, fine. But don't kid yourself...The bullets will still bounce off...That's just Newton; either it's going through, or it's bouncing off (or the material is dense enough to absorb the energy of impact without transfering enough of it back to the bullet to make it bounce). The only way to keep them from bouncing off would be to surround the soldier in some sort of substance that absorbs and redistributes impact, and I don't think they're going to be too keen on looking like the michelin man.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    19. Re:Video link by Matt+Edd · · Score: 1

      you only need recieve a small overal impulse

      You as a whole recieve a small overall impulse but the armor in front of your nuts will recoil more and smash your nuts in farther if the projectile bounces off compared to if the projectile sticks.

    20. Re:Video link by kkwst2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your logic is indeed false. First, it is arriving with a velocity and an associated momentum, not a force. Force is imparted on the bullet to change it's momentum and direction. Thus if it's really bouncing in the opposite direction, then twice the energy is required to stop it is imparted to the armor. See the sarcastic reply under yours for why this is unlikely the case. Most fo the time it would likely be deflecting off, requiring less energy than that required to stop the bullet. However, this still tells you nothing of the force. The peak force imparted to the bullet will be determined by the interaction of the bullet with the armor and contact time of the bullet with the armor. However, it's not even the force that you care about, it's the pressure imparted to the tissue. This will be determined by how the force is distributed over the armor. The force will be much greater if it's distributed over a 1 cm^2 area as opposed to a 1 m^2 area. To sum up, it's complicated and you can't draw conclusions of the performance of this armor by whether it "bounces off" or not.

    21. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right. The only "extra" energy is elastic recoil from the material, and that is not amplified. Getting "extra" force off an impact would violate conservation of energy.

      The real reason it's better to have it bounce off is that the energy of impact is distributed over a wider area. Sure, getting shot in the nuts with no protection but this armor is going to put your childbearing days to an end, but it's probably not going to kill you, as opposed to the massive tissue damage that would result in getting shot with no protection. the bullet might go all the way through (thus imparting less energy) but everything between the point where it entered and the point where it exited would be hamburger, and an area in diameter proportional to the caliber of the bullet would suffer serious shock damage.

      The way this stuff will end up being used, is over certain strategic pieces of hard armor, so the problem with transferring more energy to a delicate area will be minimized, and the type of protection can change from heavy plates (which have to be able to stop a bullet themselves) to kinetic padding to distribute impact. The advantage of being able to wear full body armor that is light and breathable cannot be overstated. Currently you can only wear very little armor because of the weight, which increases casualties from things like shrapnel which would be little more than a nuisance to someone wearing a suit of this stuff.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    22. Re:Video link by Matt+Edd · · Score: 1

      Bullets do not bounce off of Kevlar.

    23. Re:Video link by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "Bullets bounce off? That would transfer more momentum to the armor than if the bullets simply stopped."

      No, it wouldn't. In simple terms, if all of the energy in the transaction comes from the bullet, then the bullet bouncing off means that *energy is being given back to the bullet*, and unless you're breaking a lot of the laws of physics, that means less energy/momentum is being transferred to the target.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    24. Re:Video link by eclectus · · Score: 1

      However you wish to frame it, I would think it preferable for all the momentum of a bullet to be distributed over an area (causing great bruising and 'Americas Funniest Home Video' style groin strikes) than for the bullet to penetrate and spread precious bodily fluid all over the area.

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    25. Re:Video link by vishbar · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're right, I bet they didn't think of that. Good thing these researchers have you to sort 'em out.

      --
      Ride the skies
    26. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's because they go through it. That's why you wear ceramic armor under your kevlar. Kevlar doesn't resist penetration, its just very strong, so it tends to slow a bullet down considerably.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    27. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the issue with bullets is energy not momentum. Remeber the person who fires the weapon experiences the momentum change of the bullet and also the force to accelerate the bullet. Even double this number won't kill you per se. He or she however experiences only a fraction of the energy.

      If a bullet goes through you, you actually experience less than the full force and momentum change the firer experiences. You however expeience MUCH more of the bullets energy!!!

    28. Re:Video link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      You as a whole recieve a small overall impulse but the armor in front of your nuts will recoil more and smash your nuts in farther if the projectile bounces off compared to if the projectile sticks.
      This is true, but not particularly relevant. The bullet rebounds at perhaps three, maybe four feet per second? Let's be ridiculously generous and say it goes flying off at an absurd fifty feet per second. The projectile struck at a velocity somewhere from 2300fps (7.62mmx39) to 3000fps+ (5.45mm or 5.56mm), so the rebound effect is a difference of a single percentage point or so. The effect of "rebound" is a fart in a thunderstorm. "Your nuts" will not hurt any less. This whole argument is stupid.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    29. Re:Video link by kidtux1 · · Score: 1

      Even if it causes more force the point is it doesn't penetrate the armor and therefore does not penetrate the wearers flesh. No one said getting hit by a bullet even with armor, feels nice.

    30. Re:Video link by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But anyway, both PEG, and sand are really cheap, so depending on what is published you should be able to make this at home if you are so inclined.


      How do you make nano particles of silica?

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    31. Re:Video link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Bullets do not bounce off of Kevlar.
      Replace the misleading phrase "bounce off" with "rebound after impact with". The reason you don't see bullets ricocheting around is because 1) the rebound is very small compared to the initial velocity, and 2) the bullet generally penetrates a few layers of cloth and a couple layers of kevlar before stopping, essentially trapping the projectile where it hits.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    32. Re:Video link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'd also expect the DuPont company to try to bring this to market - maybe in their auto paints?
      Sorry? What use is a paint that stays liquid until struck by a sharp blow?
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    33. Re:Video link by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      So if everyone rubs honey on their nuts they'll be way better off than if they put armor on em. Thanks I'll try that next time I piss an unscrupulous woman off.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    34. Re:Video link by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Not as a paint, but as an overcoating - protecting the finish. Also this stuff is probably very viscous even at 0 shear. If you coated your car first with paint, then with "liquid armor" then the clear coat, you could concievably greatly enhance the durability of the finsh.

    35. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      No no, didn't you read the grandparent? When the bullet hits your nuts, your nuts punch back with twice the force of impact doubling the energy of the equation, which means the bullet flies off at between 4600 and 6000fps with no deflection (of course), so it's almost certain to blow a hole the size of (conservatively) a bowling ball in the unlucky terrorist who decided unwisely to try and take on your nuts.

      Unfortunately the doubled energy of the equation causes your nuts to collapse into a singularity which is at least as bad as getting shot in the nuts with no armor, and maybe even worse. //Not sure what it is about people and Newtonian physics...Your post made me laugh out loud.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    36. Re:Video link by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      Great....

      So I have the choice of one DRM infested video, or another DRM infested video wrapped in a Flash Movie. Thank you. :-P

      I was forced to see it in a slightly different version of the DRM infested video wrapped in a Flash Movie. ;-)


      And the fact that you can't actually copy this video to your local hard drive is relevant or interesting.... why?
      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    37. Re:Video link by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      The same way you make nano particles of titanium dioxide, which is already mass produced for paint. Large bead (media) mills, with ~1mm zirconia beads.

    38. Re:Video link by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      Use a rock tumbler. Tumble clean sand with smooth rocks higher on the Mohs scale. Separate the nano silica by settling in water.

    39. Re:Video link by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      So you are telling me a solar sail is just as effective if it is radiator black as it is if it is reflective? Odd that they make them reflective.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    40. Re:Video link by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but if the flesh under the armor gets hit too hard (penetrated or not) hemorrhaging will result, a situation possibly more dangerous than an open wound. Also consider that if that hit your kneecap, it would likely shatter it... and the bone fragments moving in response to that impact would likely cause bleeding on their own.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    41. Re:Video link by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, this only happens when shooting at Chuck Norris.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    42. Re:Video link by misleb · · Score: 1

      I suspect that "nano" might be just a little bit smaller than what you can make just by tumbling.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    43. Re:Video link by GigG · · Score: 1

      Most body armor that police wear these days is made up of multiple layers of Kevlar that do indeed stop most bullets. They often also have a ceramic plate in the center of the chest area to add extra protection and spread the impact to a larger area.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    44. Re:Video link by Matt+Edd · · Score: 1

      you can't draw conclusions of the performance of this armor by whether it "bounces off" or not

      I would like to point out that I don't. I state a fact (more momentum transfer) and then I say that I wonder about the energy transfer.

      I only wrote that post because the video made it sound like because the bullet bounces off the liquid armor, it must be better than Kevlar. As you have stated, it does not mean that.

    45. Re:Video link by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Police wear Kevlar Armor to stop the PENETRATION of a bullet into the human body. Kevlar is "puncture resistant" and was originally designed to replace the steel belts in tires for better anti-PUNCTURE protection. Puncture = Penetrate, no matter how you look at it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    46. Re:Video link by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can. The bullet carries a momentum and kinetic energy, as you said. If the bullet bounces off the vest, that means (if momentum and energy are conserved, which they are) the vest *reflected* much more of the kinetic energy of the oncoming bullet back into the bullet elastically, and that a higher portion of kinetic energy stayed in a state of kinetic energy rather than being absorbed by the target body. That kinetic energy is energy that didn't end up being dissipated as heat or internal energy by the vest, and didn't get absorbed through a force applied over an area to the person wearing the vest. Thus, the overall impact is less than if the bullet had been "absorbed"(via bullet wound) by the person wearing the vest.

    47. Re:Video link by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Um. You ever work with paint?

      PEG can be diluted with a quickly-evaporating solvent, thus inhibiting the properties of the finished compound.

      Meanwhile, the aperture doen't have to be blocking or small; a simple venturi nozzle should do the trick.

      Lastly, if you RTFA, it is sprayed on.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    48. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's not the same thing. Kevlar is just fabric. Bullets go through it because it's individual filaments are not strong enough to resist a kinetic impact from a bullet. It is used because, as a material, it has a very high tensile strength, but even so, kevlar body armor consists of many layers, and is designed to stop the bullet eventually hopefully before penetrating to the person, but not always.

      This is why it's useful in tires, not because it "resists punctures". Tell me how well your tire resists punctures next time you run over a nail! No, kevlar is in tires for the same reason they used to use steel mesh...and for the same reason we use rebar in concrete: as additional support and reinforcement.

      Next time, think about it for a second before you start spouting marketing terms at me...Or at least check out the damn video of the armor test, which shows, very clearly, a bullet passing through kevlar.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    49. Re:Video link by rapierian · · Score: 1

      No, not in cars. Cars are meant to crumple, it keeps the occupants safer.

    50. Re:Video link by misleb · · Score: 1

      Are those nano particles? Or just micro particles? Last I checked, "nano" was pretty darn small. I'm not saying that one couldn't mass produce nano particles of silica. I'm just expressing doubt about the feasability of doing it at home with a rock tumbler.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    51. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      swiss craftsmen painstakingly hand-polish each grain until it reaches the correct size

    52. Re:Video link by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can we ... PLEASE... stop talking about groin shots?!??

      Thanks.

    53. Re:Video link by OhBoy! · · Score: 1

      I think you may be confused by meaning of "energy" and "momentum". While less momentum would be transferred to the target, it would have to do more work to bounce the bullet back instead of stopping it. It first has to do work in accellerating it to stop, and then it has to continue accelerating it away. Motion and energy are not directly related. If we were to push against each other with equal force, we certainly would be expanding energy, but with little momentum to show for it.

    54. Re:Video link by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather chance a massive bruise than a hole going through me, , potentially puncturing a vital organ. It's incredibly difficult to get blunt trauma of such impact that it creates internal bleeding that could kill you in less than 30 min. It's a small bullet, not a Mack truck. You can run away with a bruised calf muscle; you can't even walk when a bullet just shredded your calf into hamburger. This is a stupid argument.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    55. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bullets bounce off? That would transfer more momentum to the armor than if the bullets simply stopped."

      No, it wouldn't. In simple terms, if all of the energy in the transaction comes from the bullet, then the bullet bouncing off means that *energy is being given back to the bullet*, and unless you're breaking a lot of the laws of physics, that means less energy/momentum is being transferred to the target.


      This is non-sense.

      If the energy was with the bullet only, then the bullet would continue its trajectory.

      If the energy was transferred from the bullet to the objective, the objective would be moving in the same direction as the bullet and the bullet would be stopped.

      If the bullet moves in the opossite direction, then the bullet has stopped and then some energy is making it move.

      I think the shield works because the bullet is deformed and the energy is transferred to the armor as a whole. There is some shaking inside the armor, so the bullets of the future will get bigger, so that the shaking kills the objective.

    56. Re:Video link by mitchskin · · Score: 1

      A stray ricochet might also kill your spherical horse.

    57. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bullets bounce off? That would transfer more momentum to the armor than if the bullets simply stopped."
      True, momentum is mass times velocity (direction is important) so if it bounces off it will have more momentum transfered. Try actually reading your physics textbook (I recommend Halliday and Resnik but Young & Freedman also have a pretty good book).

      "less energy/momentum is being transferred to the target."
      False, energy is NOT conserved in collisions (some is lost to heat, sound and other things). Momentum is conserved and since direction is important for momentum there will be more momentum transfered to the target.

    58. Re:Video link by modecx · · Score: 1

      Kevlar material is hardly puncture resistant. A medium strength man can thrust a knife right through the average kevlar vest with little problem, and an arrow (with a normal head) that has the same kinetic energy as a .45 ACP round is much more of a threat than the bullet to an armor wearer. Kevlar when used on a vest is at best "bullet resistant" against bullets that aren't so pointy or high supersonic...

      Also, AFAIK, kevlar wasn't developed to make tires more puncture resistant; it was developed to make tires stronger. I don't know of any passenger car tires that are kevlar belted, but I understand that some of the performance tires around have some kevlar on the sidewalls to increase strength. I do know that kevlar belting has found limited use in off-road race tires, motorbike tires, and bicycle tires... I think I read somewhere that they found that kevlar belting didn't have the longevity required by the average road car, and that it affected gas mileage negatively.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    59. Re:Video link by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      I agree that my comment is not specific enough to point out that the force I was speaking of is the energy within the velocity/mass absorbed by the recieving object.
      Perhaps the loss of energy is marginal and can be dismissed, but still the act of reflecting a bullet needs to get force from somewhere and that force needs energy, in whatever form.
      Since I don't believe that vest material can make energy out of thin air, I concluded that it was originated from the incoming bullet, since some of that energy leaves via the act of reflecting the bullet, less energy needs to be absorbed by the underlying tissue. Well this is what I thought perhaps you could point out again where I'm wrong here (I really like to know), pointers to relevant public information is welcome of course.
      Thanks!

    60. Re:Video link by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      Because I'm having issues with 64 bit Ubuntu running 32 bit codecs / flash / java and stuff properly it means I can run it with sound, which for some reason swiftfox won't do.

      So thanks for the link :)

    61. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this confusion get modded up? It's wrong people.. if you don't know any better don't mod! Momentum is conserved, and if the bullet is reflected it will transfer more momentum to the target. It's also true that the bullet carries away energy with it, but energy can be lost in many ways, from a breaking of the chemical bonds of the material, to heat, to work done by the person. Intuitively it would make sense that a vest that simply absorbed the bullet would be better for the person wearing the vest, but the effect is probably small and they probably just made whatever they could get to work.

    62. Re:Video link by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Calculate the kinetic energy in a bullet sometime. It's pretty much negligible if it's spread over any kind of reasonable area. They kill and injure only because the force is concentrated in a very small area, leading to high pressures and penetration. The function of armour is to spread the impact over a larger area and prevent penetration. Increasing the total momentum transferred is pretty insignificant if the armour does a good job of spreading out the impact.

    63. Re:Video link by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The video states that the bullet bounces off the treated kevlar and goes right through the untreated kevlar.

      Armour that bounces bullets back is better than armour that lets them go right through.

    64. Re:Video link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Not as a paint, but as an overcoating - protecting the finish. Also this stuff is probably very viscous even at 0 shear. If you coated your car first with paint, then with "liquid armor" then the clear coat, you could concievably greatly enhance the durability of the finsh.
      I eagerly await your patent on the process of getting a clear coat to stick to a liquid. That out to be worth billions. It's not "liquid armor" (in quotation marks)-- it is literally liquid.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    65. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...getting shot in the nuts...is going to put your childbearing days to an end...


      I agree, we should shoot hermaphrodites! Damn hermaphrodites!
    66. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, you protect peanut butter!!

    67. Re:Video link by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse kinetic energy with momentum. Momentum is always conserved, KE isn't. KE gets converted to heat, sound, energy to deform the bullet, etc.

      If a bullet (or anything else) picked up KE by bouncing, that'd be pretty amazing. You could create something that bounces higher than the height from which it was dropped, for example.

      Even the momentum isn't a big deal, if it's distributed over the mass of the vest. Consider that the shooter receives exactly the same momentum (with the opposite sign) as is imparted to the bullet when it fires. (Well, no big deal compared to being hit by the bullet directly. I wouldn't want to fire a rifle with the butt held against anything tender.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    68. Re:Video link by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Momentum and energy are indeed conserved. however, momentum is a vector, not a scalar, and has direction. Take the extreme of a car hitting a tree. If the car bounces off the tree at the same velocity as it hit the tree, do you think the car imparted no force to the tree? The tree had to first decelerate the car to zero, then accelerate the car in the opposite direction. If in the collision the car just stops, it only had to decelerate the car. The conservation of momentum states that the momentum changes of each object in a collision are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

    69. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've definitely seen him around too, I think a chem engineering friend of mine had him. W00t for University of Delaware, finally my state has a claim to fame!

    70. Re:Video link by cpt_rhetoric · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, they are Chuck Norris' nuts. Then they not only deflect the bullets, but also fire back twice for each round shot.

    71. Re:Video link by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kevlar alone just has very high tensile and shear strength. It will resist cutting (which is why kevlar gloves are often used by butchers or fishermen cleaning their catch). It's the particular weave of the kevlar in vests that makes them bullet resistant. (Earlier vests were made of nylon, but that's much bulkier for equivalent stopping power.)

      As an ancestor post pointed out, the kevlar just slows down the incoming bullet. For a rifle bullet at 2000-3000 fps, it slows it down enough for the ceramic plate to stop it. For a pistol bullet -- the type most likely to be encountered by police -- at 900-1000 fps, it slows it down enough to stop it.

      --
      -- Alastair
    72. Re:Video link by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I'm not sure what you're arguing against, as I didn't say that the person wearing the vest experienced no force or that the vest experienced no force, just that the fact that the bullet bounces off the vest means that the vast has exceptional elastic qualities that diminish the total impulse(and kinetic energy) absorbed by the person behind the vest. This is because the total energy transmitted to the person is proportional to the force (impulse) due to the collision. If some kinetic energy is reflected back into the bullet, that means that the total impulse the person(who is behind the vest) experiences due to the collision is also diminished. Therefore, you can make the assumption that a bullet bouncing off the vest signifies that the vest has better protection than a vest that would absorb the bullet, along with all of its momentum and kinetic energy.

      In other words, F * dt = dp, or dp/dt = F(which is Newton's second law in terms of momentum) . In an elastic collision, the bullet will experience a reaction impulse causing it to bounce off the vest. Thanks to the fact that the vest is exceptional at redirecting the impulse of the bullet collision in the opposite direction, the remaining momentum that it has to absorb is also diminished, and therefore the task of protecting the person behind the vest from the collision is easier.

    73. Re:Video link by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

      The energy imparted to the vest/person is directly related to the force. Again, you're treating momentum as a magnitude and not a vector. It has direction. The momentum change of a purely elastic collision is twice that of one that is purely inelastic. Thus for the same impact time, the force imparted will be twice. Said another way, the total energy imparted to the vest/person is twice for a purely elastic as for a purely inelastic collision. Reflececting the bullet in the opposite direction does the person no favors.

    74. Re:Video link by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Tumble clean sand with smooth rocks higher on the Mohs scale.

      Okay, sand is quarz (hardness 7). Higher on the scale would be topaz (8), corundum (sapphire - hardness 9) or diamond (10).

      Could be expensive.

      (Ok, joke. Industrial corundum or carborundum would work -- except that some of that would inevitably get ground down too and you'd have to separate out the nano-silica from the nano-alumina.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    75. Re:Video link by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, 'tis true that some of the energy from the impact is dissipated as heat (see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Your point about the distribution of said energy is equally valid and well-stated. And the thing about the momentum not being a big deal? Thank you. I've always hated watching movies where some 85 lb Hollywood bimbette fires a .44 Magnum without flinching but her target flies backward as if hit by a car.

      Now, as to the impossibility of an object gaining KE from bouncing... I think, if we're going to try to engage in a rigorously accurate discussion of Newtonian physics, we'll need to state our assumptions more clearly and explicitly. That statement is true if we assume that the object bounces from a stationary rigid surface. However, Barry Bonds will gleefully show you how an object can acquire momentum AND KE by bouncing off of another object, like his bat. Of course, all of this assumes inelastic collisions (and I had implicitly assumed that no KE was wasted as heat, sound, etc - not valid in the real world, but I did say that I was simplifying). Momentum in the SYSTEM (in Barry's case, the ball and bat system) is conserved, as is total energy in the system - at least until frictional effects from the air are considered. Am I nitpicking? Certainly. This appears to have become a bigger-physics-dick nitpicking thread. Why should I miss out on the fun?

      The inelastic part is probably the crux of the entire concept of body armor, as no collision with the human body can be considered particularly inelastic. The real issue then becomes distribution of energy, dissipation of energy, specific impulse, etc. Could be hours of fun discussion, if that's your idea of fun.

      However: the only point which I was discussing was the very simple and specific question of whether a bullet which sticks or a bullet which bounces imparts more energy. Notwithstanding all of the fine points that you make, the fact remains that a bullet which bounces back (as in, the sign of the momentum changes) does impart more energy to the target than one which sticks, other factors being equal. That was the question posed by the commenter who I answered, and that was the question that I answered.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    76. Re:Video link by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      The energy imparted to the vest/person is directly related to the force. Again, you're treating momentum as a magnitude and not a vector... et. al.

      Guys, I hate to spoil a good argument, but can't this simply be measured? Build or acquire an appropriate crash test dummy that models a live target, test and measure the results?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    77. Re:Video link by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read the poster below you as he just debunked you. Adios informative mod. Also, I have family in law enforcement, I know full well Kevlar armor is woven sheets of Kevlar, and I've watched them stop 9x19 rounds all day long. It's when the bullet is sharp and coated with Teflon that the Kevlar armor becomes practically useless, as Kevlar can't stand a change against the near no-friction of a teflon-coated bullet. Any ordinary bullet barely stands a chance of getting thru Kevlar armor, unless you're packing some serious amounts of gunpowder/gas charges behind that projectile.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    78. Re:Video link by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

      Sure it could, but it's been done before.

    79. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Method 1: Get silane. Be careful: it spontaneously combusts on contact with air, but actually this is what you want to happen. Let it burn, and collect the smoke (which is actually silica nanoparticles) in a stream of water.

      Method 2: Get tetraethoxysilane. Mix in the correct proportions with ethanol, water, and ammonia: everclear and household cleaning ammonia will work. Stir for 24 hours.

    80. Re:Video link by Grey+Haired+Luser · · Score: 1


      "Painting my groin, sir..."

      Is that like "girthing your loin"? :-)

    81. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly! Everyone knows that superior officers don't have anything there to protect :-)

    82. Re:Video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The new armor, originally envisioned to be spread on like peanut butter..."

      Huh. Do our troops actually make a habit of spreading peanut butter all over their bodies? Does someone have a video?

      Or have they just invented a kind of armor that you can slap on a few pieces of bread and eat with jelly? Got to be better than MREs, eh?

      One of these days, we'll have a slashdot editor for whom English is not a foreign language. In the meantime, I must admit, the results are often comical.

    83. Re:Video link by nherc · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded this informative needs to reread the post. Nice job sir, your informative technobabble had me crying.

      --
      'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
    84. Re:Video link by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Ummm...If you're talking about a poster in this thread, all the other posters agreed with me. There is no "debunking" here. Bullets go through plain kevlar armor. Not all the time, but it certainly happens...This is why military kevlar is backed by heavy ceramic plates in the first place: to stop bullets that make it through the kevlar. You don't really think that islamic fundamentalists have got a steady supply of teflon bullets for their AK-47s, do you?

      Modern military rifles fire the exact sort of high velocity/low mass bullets that have excellent penetrating power against kevlar. This new armor is great, and if it lives up to it's promise, it will replace plain kevlar very quickly.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    85. Re:Video link by AJWM · · Score: 1

      True, in a global reference frame, the rebounding object will pick up KE if it hits something moving toward it (like said bat). I was assuming a fixed target.

      the very simple and specific question of whether a bullet which sticks or a bullet which bounces imparts more energy. Notwithstanding all of the fine points that you make, the fact remains that a bullet which bounces back (as in, the sign of the momentum changes) does impart more energy to the target than one which sticks, other factors being equal.

      Um, no. The bouncing bullet still has KE of 1/2 m * v^2, where v is lower and sign-reversed from before it hit, but non-zero. If it hits and sticks, v is now zero (reference frame of the target) and the KE of the bullet is thus zero. Thus the bullet loses more energy if it sticks than if it bounces. Now that's not all imparted to the target (sound, heat, deformation etc), but most of it is.

      OTOH, a bounce imparts more momentum to the target than if it stuck. (Momentum (m * v) is a signed quantity, but KE isn't (squaring the velocity means it's always positive whatever the sign of v).)

      Of course in the real world, without body armor (or soft bullets), the bullet won't bounce or stick, but just keep on going. I vaguely recall a quote from an encyclopaedia article, talking about the Luger and its 9mm jacketed ammunition, which "had a disappointing tendency to completely penetrate the target and expend most of its energy on the surrounding landscape".

      --
      -- Alastair
    86. Re:Video link by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      There's no point since he's right. I didn't really think about the math until just now - but the impulse that the vest has to deal with is larger with a bouncing bullet than wihout, while the total energy that the vest has to deal with is less.

      Sigh. Brain fart.

    87. Re:Video link by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Bloodloss is the number one killer in cases of battle trauma. You can stop a wound from bleeding (if not with bandages, you could use a coagulant). You can't readily stop a hemorrhage. But either way, it's better than no protection (as the video states, this stuff works against sharp objects as well - not just projectiles).

      This stuff might well be usefull outside of infantry armor as well - you could paint a tent with this stuff, or equipment bags, or on other soft materials (sides of tires?)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. Other Applications by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, forget the bulletproof vests, because I'll never need one. But how much would it cost to coat your car in this stuff? And would it give extra protection?

    1. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to coat their car in a protection specifically designed for flexible surfaces? Do you have denim bodywork?

    2. Re:Other Applications by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But how much would it cost to coat your car in this stuff? And would it give extra protection?

      Nope, not if it's your safety you're worried about, rather than the cars. You want the car to deform, so your decelleration slows down. Just like a helmet, you want it to break so you don't.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if your car is penetrated by small particles (shrapnel, bullets). Probably won't help you much in a car accident, as this type of protection is unlikely to help you when the whole vehicle is crushed.

    4. Re:Other Applications by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      Other than on the windows it wouldn't protect much, quite the opposite. If you frontaly collide with something, the deforming of the motor compartiment absorbs a lot of the kinetic energy your cars has. If it can't deform, the other parts would have to deal with that energy. And those are the parts you would be sitting in.
      That is, assuming such a coating would have any effect when applied in that way.

    5. Re:Other Applications by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True story: I had a neighbour who just could not grasp this concept. They'd heard about a modern car which had crumpled really badly in a relatively minor accident, writing it off. They'd therefore decided that older cars built like brick outhouses were far "better", because you might still have a car after the accident.

      Try as I might, complete with diagrams and models, I could not get across the idea that this was a good thing, and that had the car not done the crumpling, the passengers would have - and who cares if the car's repairable when everyone in it's dead?

    6. Re:Other Applications by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Ok, forget the bulletproof vests, because I'll never need one.

      Never say never!

    7. Re:Other Applications by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You're assuming he lives in a safe neighborhood. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    8. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Try as I might, complete with diagrams and models, I could not get across the idea that this was a good thing, and that had the car not done the crumpling, the passengers would have - and who cares if the car's repairable when everyone in it's dead?

      This is a common fallacy when people have just a rudimentary understanding of physics and no other applicable knowledge. A car that crumples well is only definitely better when it's car vs much more massive stationary solid object (e.g., a rock face). When it's two cars, however, it's more like the game theory example of the prisoner's dilemma. If both cars crumple well, then it's fairly good for both. If, however, one vehicle is both more rigid and more massive—something common to older cars—then the situation is greatly weighted in that vehicle's favor. An extreme example of this would be an M1 Abrams vs a small Toyota.

      Thus, if you don't give a shit about the other guys as long as your kids are safe, and you're not a drunk/wreckless driver that is likely to slam into a building/rock face/telephone pole/whatever, the safest option may well be the biggest, heaviest vehicle with a strong frame that you can possibly find.
    9. Re:Other Applications by rastan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It most probably would not give additional protection for a car in case of a crash. This material (the liquid is only one component, anyway) is protecting against piercing, not crushing. It can quickly distribute large kinetic energy peaks that are only in one small spot, like a bullet or a knife's point. A truck crashing into your car is something entirely different.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
    10. Re:Other Applications by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Funny

      if ... you're not a drunk/wreckless driver that is likely to slam into a building/rock face/telephone pole/whatever

      I would think it very unlikely that a driver reckless enough to be likely to slam into buildings or rock faces would remain wreckless for long.

    11. Re:Other Applications by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1
      Ok, forget the bulletproof vests, because I'll never need one.


      you say that now when there aren't any bullets rattling around in your lungs. . .

      personally, I'd like to coat a pair of boxing gloves with this stuff. . .
      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    12. Re:Other Applications by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful
      My theory is: As long as the other guy's car deforms, things should work out just fine for you and your steel frame retromobile.

      Just try not to run into any trees or other non-crumple zoned objects.
       

      /Any safety features are irrelevant if you're not wearing a seatbelt.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    13. Re:Other Applications by klaun · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is a common fallacy when people have just a rudimentary understanding of physics and no other applicable

      example of this would be an M1 Abrams vs a small Toyota.

      heaviest vehicle with a strong frame that you can possibly find.

      Your example relies on a signficant difference in mass as well as overall rigidity of the two vehicles in question. Deformable frames being about absorbing energy (and momentum, being an inelastic collision) in an impact. An M1 brings way more Kinetic Energy to the impact than can be absorbed by a deforming frame of a Toyota.

      The safety of the passengers is dependent on how quickly the vehicle passenger compartment decelerates, as that will determine with what force they impact the interior of the vehicle (the so-called "second impact"). The M1 will not decelerate very much, but it is because of the mass disparity, not that it is rigid.

      Obviously a crumple zone cannot absorb an unlimited amount of energy, but up to the amount it can absorb it is definitely good for you, whether you are hitting something rigid or not.

    14. Re:Other Applications by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      That'd sound like a Katarand from Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar".

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    15. Re:Other Applications by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

      I guess there are many people like that. Up here, in Quebec, even if they're not brilliant enough to understand the crumpling cars, these people still manage to somehow instantly convert liters to gallons and kilometers to miles when they're talking about cars. "Back then", they could drive at insane speeds, drink beer, race through the whole province, never use their seatbelts and, if they got arrested, laugh a bit with the policeman and keep going on, carrying a brand new 20$ fine.

      I don't know... maybe they never had accidents back then. But to them, it seems perfectly logical that a car should survive a 180 km/h impact with a few dings on the chrome. Hell, I bet they pour lead in their gas tanks when we're not looking.

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    16. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, this is not true. I've got some friends who do car safety analysis all the time and they say that a modern crumple zone + rigid passenger egg is safer than a rigid car or light truck in a collision - the crumple zone absorbs most of its car's energy and the rigid car flips over.

      There are many dead SUV drivers to disprove your claim.

    17. Re:Other Applications by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not necessarily. The liquid armor in question is a dilatant. It should provide stiffening in any region in which there is a large shear stress (there is definately a large shear component in a "crushing" auto accident.) While I doubt that this technology could protect you from a truck impact, it would likely stiffen the region of impact. This could be a good thing, like if you are being T-boned - the added rigidity increases the amount of impact your vehicle's side could withstand, or it could be a bad thing, reducing the effectiveness of the crumple zones in a head on collision.

    18. Re:Other Applications by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The real selling point of this stuff in car finishes wouldn't be that your car is now bullet proof (although that would make a good bullet point in the brochure.)

      Consider this:

      We drove this new Ford(TM) Mustang(TM) with DuPont(TM) Protectoguard(TM) coating on the Jersy turnpike, for 200 miles, in construction, behind a Peterbuilt(TM) dumptruck. We recorded 390 discrete stone strikes. But thanks to the Miricles of Science (TM) there isn't a single paint chip in the finish. Blah Blah Blah. Now that's a BOLD move.(TM)

    19. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An extreme example of this would be an M1 Abrams vs a small Toyota."

      Yeah, a 70 ton tank with some depleted uranium versus a 1 ton or so car, thats relevant. Why don't you ride one of those tanks off a bridge, then at least you'll be getting into speeds and impacts more like actual head-on car accidents.

      BTW, those "big and heavy frame vehicles" you like (I know you actually mean a big SUV, nice try though) are actually pretty bad on real world safety records compared to a good sedan. (you know, the ones that actually get more than 2 stars from the feds)

      Just ask anyone that has to scrape peoples guts out of their seats for a living if US highway statistics is not reliable enough for you.

    20. Re:Other Applications by grimwell · · Score: 1

      The liquid armor is absorbing the kinetic energy and using it to transform itself from a liquid state to a solid state. This change uses up some energy, no? The downside being it affects the underlaying material's ability to deform and absorb energy away from the passgeners.

      The change should be measureable, so with structural changes a car should be able to use the energy absorbing feature of the liquid armor to divert more energy away from the passgeners. Or maybe just use it on/in the frame around the passgeners to improve rigidity&energy absorbing characteristics in the parts you don't want to crumple.

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
    21. Re:Other Applications by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you want not to die in a head on collision with a M1 Abrams, take your car and attach big rubber balls to it from all sides. Actually, forget balls, use old rubber tires. Not the knind that is on your car today, but the old type, the type that is inflated and goes inside another tire (what do you call that?) You probably will need more than one level of these tires on your car to protect against a tank. The tire will deform, then the air inside it will compress and will force the rubber to restore its shape and volume and your car will just bounce away from the tank.

    22. Re:Other Applications by budgenator · · Score: 1

      A couple of friends of mine ran into a M60A2 tank with volkswagen beatle, and I can assure you that any car has plenty of crumple zone when it hits a tank weighing 60-70 tons! Actualy they were quite lucky and both was thrown through the winshield and woke up on top of the tank rather than under it like their car.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    23. Re:Other Applications by nathanh · · Score: 1
      If both cars crumple well, then it's fairly good for both. If, however, one vehicle is both more rigid and more massive--something common to older cars--then the situation is greatly weighted in that vehicle's favor.

      You're half right, which is just a nice way of saying you're very wrong.

      More massive does help because in a head-on collision the more massive car will have a reduced change in momentum.

      However more rigid is always worse than having a crumple zone. A crumple zone absorbs the energy that will otherwise have to be absorbed by the only other crumpling parts left in the car; the passengers.

      Do the maths for a 2.5 ton rigid oldsmobile crashing into a 1.5 ton modern sedan in a 60mph head-on... the sedan driver is going to come off much better than the oldsmobile driver (who will probably be dead). The oldsmobile is a death trap because even though the deacceleration is less than that of the sedan it will occur in a very short period of time, resulting in an extremely high impact.

    24. Re:Other Applications by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      who cares if the car's repairable when everyone in it's dead?

      Crumple zones is a shift in thinking. Most people are still nostalgic for the tanks that were driven in the 50s and 60s like classic Corvettes. Those cars were so much cooler than today's models. But form came at the cost of lives. Additionally (IMHO), car manufacturers were not focused on safety as much when society was less litigious. As the cost and likelihood of lawsuits rose, manufacturer had to be more concerned about safety. It's no wonder that crumple zones were first designed by Mercedes Benz. For Mercedes, most of their clients could easily afford another car so the car could be sacrificed for their client's safety.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    25. Re:Other Applications by GalacticCmdr · · Score: 4, Funny
      A couple of friends of mine ran into a M60A2 tank with volkswagen beatle, and I can assure you that any car has plenty of crumple zone when it hits a tank weighing 60-70 tons! Actualy they were quite lucky and both was thrown through the winshield and woke up on top of the tank rather than under it like their car.

      Did these "friends" of yours also happen to have a car full of explosives and yelling "God is Great" when they hit the tank.

      --
      Programming: Its not just a job - its an indenture.
    26. Re:Other Applications by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but the coating would not stop the car from deforming. It may redistribute the impact over a large portion of the front of the car (assuming a head-on collision), but that will still be more than enough to crumple. It may protect your paint job though.

    27. Re:Other Applications by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh that would so suck, I can imagine like on saturday cartoon the 15 ton weight falling out of the sky, hitting you on the head and instantly stopping, only to start crushing you into red goo in slow-motion!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:Other Applications by Steve525 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point. I'd add that in the example of old rigid car hitting a new car with crumble zones, the crumple zone of the second car will slow down the deceleration of both cars. In effect, the crumple zone of the second car serves both cars equally well (although half as well as if both cars have crumple zones).

      (the following is directed toward the GP...)

      So, sure drive a big heavy tank, and if you hit a well engineered Toyota you'll do great. Too bad about that Mom and her kids you just plowed through, though. I suppose she should have been driving a big heavy tank, too? Wait a minute, if she's driving a big heavy tank, then there's no advantage to you having one. You might as well both be driving Toyotas and at least save gas.

      That's what irks me about this heavy car=safer arguement. It's only safer because you are driving a heavy car and other's aren't. (Yes, there are occasions, such as if you hit something deformable like a small tree, you are safer in a heavy car, but those are rare). If everyone buys into this arguement, pretty soon we are all driving big cars and we are all no safer. We are just burning more gas.

    29. Re:Other Applications by amiak · · Score: 1

      keyword: minor

      it kinda sucks when your car crumples like styrofoam after a minor accident. true story: I was driving an old ford, he was driving a camaro (or something like that)... we had a head on collision.

      after we cleared the scene... I had a bit of red paint on the grill about maybe an inch long. His car was smashed, bleeding fluids, a tire at an awkward angle, etc...

      no one was hurt, but he was stranded for a little while...

      --
      accurately define good according to a criteria and seek it out.
    30. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real selling point of this stuff in car finishes wouldn't be that your car is now bullet proof (although that would make a good bullet point in the brochure.)

      Well ...

      The bullet would make no hole.

      Instead, it would make a large dent.

    31. Re:Other Applications by crerwin · · Score: 1
      A couple of friends of mine ran into a M60A2 tank with volkswagen beatle

      Sheesh, I would not want to have their daily commute.

    32. Re:Other Applications by hawg2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could try explaining it in dollars and cents, so to speak. I'm sure your insurance companies claims department could explain how medical costs and bodily injury/death related lawsuits tend to cost much more than repair and property damage related lawsuits do.

      Some people don't speak physics, so you just have to find their "language".

      Just a thought.

    33. Re:Other Applications by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most people are still nostalgic for the tanks that were driven in the 50s and 60s like classic Corvettes.
      That's the first time I've ever heard a 2800 lb fibreglass body car be called a "tank".
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Other Applications by SQLGuru · · Score: 1
      Top view of car:

      f |-----
      o> | ^-crumple here
      r> |
      c> | v-crumple here
      e |-----


      Would this be true? It would absorb some of the initial force. Then the crumple effect would be lessened (less force left to crumple / absorbtion from other armor). Meaning that you could actually survive a HIGHER speed impact due to well designed crumple zones?

      P.S. The real savings would be that you wouldn't get annoying door dings in the parking lot any more.....and hail damage...and shopping carts and......

      Layne
    35. Re:Other Applications by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

      Except this coating seems to be for high-speed point of force impacts (like a bullet), not so much for a large surface area impace (someone throws a brick at you). I suspect that if you coat your car with this stuff and ram something else it will still crumple fairly quickly :)

    36. Re:Other Applications by archen · · Score: 1

      In the growing car armor industry that could still be worth looking into. Especially when you consider how light this stuff is compaired to various alternatives.

    37. Re:Other Applications by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      the type that is inflated and goes inside another tire (what do you call that?)

      Here in the UK, we'd call it an inner tube

    38. Re:Other Applications by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I suppose it is called the same everywhere, I just never had to use the word. English is not my first or second or third language even :)

    39. Re:Other Applications by smackt4rd · · Score: 1
      Nope, not if it's your safety you're worried about
      Well, that depends if you live in compton or not. :D
    40. Re:Other Applications by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Doesn't the crumple zone on the other car absorb the rigid car's energy thus saving the occupants of the rigid car?

      Wouldn't the rigid car be even less likely to have it's "rigid passenger egg" crumpled or penetrated?

      So when you are driving a rigid car, just make sure you crash into nice soft crumply cars, and not solid barriers or other rigid cars.

    41. Re:Other Applications by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      A couple of friends of mine ran into a M60A2 tank with volkswagen beatle

      Sheesh, I would not want to have their daily commute.
      You're not kidding. Seriously, I had a similar commute once. Every day I had to drive this crappy light green Army-issue K car from the motor pool to the headquarters building so some colonel could have a car handy. It was five miles over tiny 2-lane base roads full of 2 1/2 ton trucks and assorted armored vehicles driven by dopey 18 year olds. When it snowed the roads got icy, and those deuce and a half drivers were all over the road...
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    42. Re:Other Applications by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Someplaces a yeild sign really means yeild

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:Other Applications by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The liquid armor is absorbing the kinetic energy and using it to transform itself from a liquid state to a solid state. This change uses up some energy, no?
      No, the state change takes very little energy. That's the idea. If it didn't, the projectile would push it aside like jello while it's still hardening.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    44. Re:Other Applications by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      In related news, a reed is much more resistant to hurricanes than a large oak tree.

      Do a simple sed substitution for rigid human beliefs.

    45. Re:Other Applications by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1
      Try as I might, complete with diagrams and models, I could not get across the idea that this was a good thing, and that had the car not done the crumpling, the passengers would have

      Do a two-part demonstration. In the first part, get him to hold a box of Kleenex length-up on top of his head and hit the box downward with a baseball bat. In the second part, substitute the box of Kleenex with a brick.

    46. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he would have been driving same car as you did, you'd be BOTH most likely severely injured. The cars would also look pretty bad. The energy has to go somewhere. In your case, it was the camaro. If you had hit same old ford, both cars would share the damage. And both drivers would have whiplash-related pain for the rest of their lives.

      You should actually thank the camaro driver. He saved your neck, quite literally.

      Cheers, Kuba

    47. Re:Other Applications by awol · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw a fairly reputable television demonstration (http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=601&f eatureid=301&pageid=-1) of a "rigid" vs "rigid passenger + crumple" offset head on impact. The two cars were a Land Rover Discovery and a Renault Espace MPV. The results were pretty spectacular and the Espace wins clearly. I also recommend the earlier test of "Old Espace" vs "New Espace" if you can track it down on the same site. (Found the video at Renaults web site http://www.renaulttv.co.uk/main.php?loadedSection= safety&loadedItem=safety_1&scrollPosY=8&uniq=)

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    48. Re:Other Applications by Tower · · Score: 1

      Indeed - the 1973 GTO would have been a better choice (>4000 lbs), or perhaps any of the large sedans from the era.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    49. Re:Other Applications by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      When my Volvo wagon gets beyond repair, I will get another Volvo wagon.

      Even if gas is $12/gallon.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    50. Re:Other Applications by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Did they get shipped to GTMO?

      And was it a Type I beetle, or one of the new ones? In some kinds of crashes, old bugs
      can do pretty well.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    51. Re:Other Applications by Zwack · · Score: 1

      But some of the very small cars don't have crumple zones (no room for them) they get safety by being a rigid enough cage that you're safely protected and will bounce off of larger objects...

      So are they more or less protective than the Volvo that hits them and crumples?

      Both models work. They do different things and work in different ways.

      Z.

      --
      -- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
    52. Re:Other Applications by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's far worse than that.

      If you're in a four-ton SUV, and you hit a 1.5-ton subcompact, you take about 1/3 of the force that you'd take if you were in a 1.5-ton subcompact yourself, and the subcompact driver takes about 9x the force that he would take if you were in the subcompact.

      If you're BOTH in four-ton SUV's, you EACH take about 3x the force that you'd have taken if you were in subcompact.

      It's a prisoner's dilemma - everyone is safer if everyone drives subcompact, but the moment someone drives an SUV, they become safer by a factor of 3 while everyone else becomes less safe by a factor of 9. The choice that anyone else has is to get an SUV themselves, at which point they become safer by a factor of 3 - which is still only a third as safe vs. another SUV as if noone had started the arms race.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    53. Re:Other Applications by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Note: The above isn't actual figures; it's just very, VERY rough "orders of magnitude" estimations to illustrate the nature of the problem. The essence, though, is that an SUV has a lot more energy to dissipate in a wreck than a subcompact, and the only reason you're "safer" is that all that energy tends to go into the subcompact - if you're both SUV's, you're both dealing with the extra energy.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    54. Re:Other Applications by nasor · · Score: 1

      Hitting a crumpling vehicle with a rigid vehicle is better for you than hitting another rigid vehicle, but it would still be safer for you if you were both driving crumpling vehicles. When you hit a crumpling vehicle in your truck, the crumpling absorbs X amount of energy from the impact - you and the driver of the other car will experience whatever energy is left over. If you were both in crumpling vehicles, then 2X energy would be absorbed and you would experience even less shock from the impact.

      Now, driving a more massive vehicle would actually make you safer, since your vehicle's higher mass would mean that you experience less acceleration during the crash - but rigidity in your vehicle isn't your friend. The ideal vehicle would be both very heavy and would crumple as much as possible.

    55. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A SUV from Renault does better in a "test" found on Renault's website? Thats unpossible!

    56. Re:Other Applications by nasor · · Score: 2, Informative

      How the hell did this get modded to +5? This deserves a "-1, poster probably failed Introduction to Physics" mod option.

      It is always safer to be in a deforming vehicle during a crash, assuming the vehicle doesn't deform so much that it crushes you. It doesn't matter whether you're crashing into a tree, an SUV, a tank, or another deforming vehicle.

      If you hit a crumpling vehicle with your truck, the crumpling will decrease the elasticity of the collision and reduce the acceleration experienced by both drivers by some amount - but if you had also been in a crumpling vehicle it would have increased the inelasticity of the collision even more and doubled the safety factor introduced by the crumple zones.

      In your ridiculous example of a tank hitting a Toyota, the tank crew will be safe because the tank's much, much larger mass would result in much less acceleration on the part of the tank. The rigidity of the tank's frame wouldn't have anything to do with it. In fact, it the tank were to crumple during its impact with the Toyota then the tank crew would actually experience even less acceleration during the collision.

      Instead of cars, think about it like this: You are about to crash into an object at a high speed. Would you rather have a rigid object between you and the impacting surface, or a soft object?

    57. Re:Other Applications by eth1 · · Score: 1
      "An M1 brings way more Kinetic Energy to the impact than can be absorbed by a deforming frame of a Toyota."

      ...and this is why I've always maintained that liability insurance rates should be directly proportional to the mass of the insured vehicle.

    58. Re:Other Applications by booch · · Score: 1

      Excellent proper usage of the words "reckless" and "wreckless" in the same sentence!

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    59. Re:Other Applications by bbcisdabomb · · Score: 1

      About your seatbelt comment, I knew a guy in high school who only survived a crash because he WASN'T wearing his seatbelt. I don't remember the exact details of the crash, but he was drunk, and managed to hit something hard enough to roll his SUV. He was thrown out the front windshield, but the roof of the car crumpled to about a foot above the seat. If he had been wearing his seatbelt, it would have crushed his skull and spine.

      I admit that he is the exception, and that wearing your seatbelt is always the best choice, but seat belts are not the only safety feature on a car for a good reason.

      --
      Please put some pants on before you post again.
    60. Re:Other Applications by smokeslikeapoet · · Score: 1

            Compact   SUV       PD  BallUp Snitch
      Compact  1,1    0,1     BallUp  2,2    0,3
      SUV      1,0    1,1     Snitch  3,0    1,1

      Given that an accident will happen It doesn't sound like "Prisoners Dilemma" it sounds like some other game. If your choices are to walk away from the accident represented by a "1" in the diagram, or limp away from the accident, or die, represented by the "0".  Given Tennessee there are enough SUV's and pickups here, I'm going to drive a pickup or SUV, if I lived in a region where everyone drove a cheap Datsun and Minis, I'd probably drive a Datsun or Mini.

    61. Re:Other Applications by kkwst2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and thus inversely proportional to testicular mass.

    62. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Poindexter! Bigger boat/tank-like car = more mass = more save for occupants. You cleared that up.

    63. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody is talking about crumple zones and the mass diferential between two vehicles. How about having a small Toyota that is a more nimble, agile car that can AVOID the accident with the tank? Everybody wants the big SUV because it's "safer" in an accident. How about being able to avoid the accident?

    64. Re:Other Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're half right. ;-)

      Crumple zones benefit both vehicles in a collision even if only one vehicle has them. Until they are fully crumpled, both vehicles will still be decelerating.

    65. Re:Other Applications by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Depends on your weighting. If you put "walk away" as '3', "limp away" as '2', "get hauled away in an ambulance" as '1', and "die" as '0', then it looks more like:

                    Compact SUV
      Compact 2,2 0,3
      SUV 3,0 1,1

      Which is your good ol' PD matrix.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    66. Re:Other Applications by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Crumple zones benefit both vehicles in a collision even if only one vehicle has them. Until they are fully crumpled, both vehicles will still be decelerating.

      Good point :-)

    67. Re:Other Applications by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      What, because they don't drive POVs in the military? Or because they only hire good drivers?

    68. Re:Other Applications by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, should have specified that POV = Privately Owned Vehicle. Another thing about the military: EGA (Everything's Got an Acronym).

    69. Re:Other Applications by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      /Any safety features are irrelevant if you're not wearing a seatbelt.

      So we should disable ABS, air bags, and traction control if a seatbelt isn't engaged? I agree seatbelts are important, but there's no need for hyperbole.

    70. Re:Other Applications by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Good idea. Now how do you propose they make a liquid coating that doesn't come off?

      Consider this:

      You don't.

    71. Re:Other Applications by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

      Rigid.

    72. Re:Other Applications by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actualy it was an euro spec type 1, everything from about 6 inch in front of the windshield ended up under the track. Of course the non-DOT glass in the winshield just shreded their faces, I could tell one of them was black when I walk into our room, but his face was bandaged so much I couldn't tell if it was my roomy or not.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    73. Re:Other Applications by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Offtopic note on that first image; The incident in question there happend at Bagram Airfield about a week before I got here. The driver of the crane was a Contractor for KBR, and the vehicle that was run over was also owned by that same contractor. So, basically, while that's listed on the navy safety center site, and came from the 455 AEW safety office, the only involvment the military had in the incident is that it happened in Afghanistan on an Air Base.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    74. Re:Other Applications by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      While you jest at your parent post, an incident like that has actually happened in Iraq. A young, foolish man in a toyota corolla hatchback with several mortar rounds, bombs and other explosives all wired up slammed into a M1A2 Abrams. I'll leave what happened next to your imaginations ;-p

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    75. Re:Other Applications by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      I think that no matter where you are, a large tank alwaysmeans yield!

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  3. Okay what the fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First the military is developing something called an "ultrasonic tourniquet", now somebody is making bulletproof peanut butter?? Fuck this shit, the universe is just too weird right now. I am going to bed.

    1. Re:Okay what the fuck by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1
      bulletproof peanut butter
      I'm picturing a dramatic final scene in a movie, in which the hero appears to be shot and killed, but then gets up and reveals what saved him: The PB&J sandwich in his front pocket, which his true love had made for him that morning.
    2. Re:Okay what the fuck by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Get a load of this old news where the army has created an indestructible sandwich. Is that a supply drop? Quick! We only have 3 years to find it before it's not "fresh" anymore:

      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2151
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:Okay what the fuck by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      From TFA you mentioned, "Soldiers who tried the pepperoni and barbecue-chicken pocket sandwiches have found them "acceptable"."

      Ever survived off of MRE's for more than a week? They start to taste great. Survive off of indestructable sandwiches for a week and I'm sure they'll be the best thing on earth after a while.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    4. Re:Okay what the fuck by rpillala · · Score: 1

      No I haven't, but I have been starving before.

      As I understood it from the article, the innovation of these sandwiches is that no preparation is needed to make them into a sandwich. Which is good, since they taste better (I hope) than a regular MRE and don't take time to put together. I think that's good even though to some people it might seem like a small thing. Food is fundamental. Just the phrase "indestructible sandwich" seems funny to me.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  4. "a polymer found in laxatives" by Riktov · · Score: 5, Funny

    "it's a mix of polyethylene glycol, a polymer found in laxatives..."

    As if having a gun fired at you isn't enough to make you shit your pants...

    1. Re:"a polymer found in laxatives" by rozz · · Score: 1
      "it's a mix of polyethylene glycol, a polymer found in laxatives..."

      or u can see it from another perspective - if your dog licks your armor, you'll find yourself in deep shit

      --
      "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    2. Re:"a polymer found in laxatives" by duerra · · Score: 1

      Hahahahaha! Oh wow, that has to have been the funniest thing I have read in weeks.

  5. Predicted by Larry Niven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading one of Larry Niven's books where they had a "soft" armor suit which was just like clothing normally but would stiffen instantly if hit by high kinetic force.

    1. Re:Predicted by Larry Niven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember reading one of Larry Niven's books where they had a "soft" armor suit which was just like clothing normally but would stiffen instantly if hit by high kinetic force.
      I also read in a Larry Niven book that the dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program. Not only does this dude know his history, he can see into the future!
  6. Magic Chocolate by dustpuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... they found that the materials worked best when painted on Kevlar in ultrathin coats. By holding the fibers tight like a flexible glue, the compound spreads out the impact of a blow better than fibers alone.
    Imagine the practical jokes you could play with this stuff ... smear a thin coating on eggs and watch as your housemate tries to crack them in the morning. Or smear it on a trampoline ... the more they try and jump up and down, the less bounce they get. Or if you could blow bubbles with this stuff ... would you be able to pop them?
    1. Re:Magic Chocolate by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm wondering if you could effectively immobilize someone wearing this armor by shooting them with a sonic canon.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Magic Chocolate by bitchell · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they could even run while wearing it?

    3. Re:Magic Chocolate by isaacklinger · · Score: 1

      The rigid armors that weigh 5 to 10 kilograms aren't very comfortable for running either. Having a flexible 2kg armor that's just as effective is a nice benefit. Special units do a lot of maneuvering, and even regular grunts have to chase a hostile here and there.

      On the other hand, those rigid armors come in handy when you're steaking out and want some smooth surface to rest your back on.

    4. Re:Magic Chocolate by isaacklinger · · Score: 0

      (Yeah spelling nazis, it's "staking out")

    5. Re:Magic Chocolate by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmm, steak. I actually like your typo better. Although maybe a soft comfy surface would be better. =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    6. Re:Magic Chocolate by FirienFirien · · Score: 5, Informative

      The eggs one won't work, because the eggshell is rigid, and so provides no shear force on the coating. The trampoline one should work, but the effect you'd feel is negligible - this stuff works well at the speed of bullets, but at that small thickness you'd get little effect at the speed of a person's bounce. If you could get bubbles to work, then they'd still pop - they'd just pop slowly, since as the sides pull away from the initial point of zero thickness they'd cap their own speed.

      Yeah, I did projects on this stuff. You can make some yourself with 1 part water and 1.44 parts cornflour; put it in at 1:1.3, then continue to add the rest of the flour while pouring. It'll get difficult to mix (don't do it in a machine, you'll break the machine, it's like stirring rocks at that speed) but a minute of perseverance will give you something you can bounce your thumb off or sink your finger in. Good fun. Kids love it, and it's easy to clean off; if it gets onto clothes then it just rinses out.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    7. Re:Magic Chocolate by FirienFirien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd need to have a high enough amplitude and frequency to cause the goop to shear against itself from the sound; I'm not quite sure, but gut feel says you wouldn't need to immobilize them since you'd be doing horrible things to their skin and organs already.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    8. Re:Magic Chocolate by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but (a) the rigid armor is "flexible" in terms of the joints between the plates, and (b) doesn't cover the whole body - whereas presumably this would be shirt, trousers, the lot. The parent's question was whether they could run in the liquid armor... IE the video states that the liquid solidifies when agitated - are the forces of running enough to trigger the solidification? What about with full battle kit slapping around on your back? Or when you slip in what's left of your buddy's intestines and land flat on your face? Or (as another poster put it) some other applied force may be sufficient to trigger it - sound waves, a blast of air, a sonic boom from a low-flying jet. If the stuff doesn't de-solidify in a hurry then the enemy could have a field day among the now "statuesque" soldiers...

    9. Re:Magic Chocolate by cluke · · Score: 1

      They did something like this on the Sky show Brainiac, filled a whole swimming pool full of cornflour custard which the presenter was then able to walk across. However, when he stopped he began to sink and they had a lot of difficulty pulling him out as it was like quicksand!

      It looked very impressive. (Though Brainiac are taking a lot of flak these days due to faked experiments..)

    10. Re:Magic Chocolate by budgenator · · Score: 1

      depends on which MRE you get, sometime it is steaking-out.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Magic Chocolate by fitten · · Score: 1

      Or, it could be SteakOut.

    12. Re:Magic Chocolate by Tower · · Score: 1

      There's no reason the sleeves couldn't have small sections of non-treated fabric around the elbow that is bunched under the protective part with a little elastic, allowing some movement even when the rest of the sleeve is solidified. There could be sufficient overlap to prevent open areas. Apply this same idea to the other joints. This would be kind of live the removable skateboarding/rollerblading elbow pads - there are cases in sports and other games where fixed(shell-style) pads/blockers are used on both sides of an elbow or knee, and there is still flexibility.

      This shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, really.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    13. Re:Magic Chocolate by FirienFirien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I can't vouch for brainiac, I can agree that cornflour certainly has the strength to do this. If you have a cup full, you can literally bounce stuff off the top of it without any visual change; it feels slightly rubbery. If you move your finger slowly into it it glops onto the finger; if you try to pull the finger out fast it locks it in and only moves slowly.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    14. Re:Magic Chocolate by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      whereas presumably this would be shirt, trousers, the lot
      Why would you presume that?

      If the stuff doesn't de-solidify in a hurry then the enemy could have a field day among the now "statuesque" soldiers.
      It returns to liquid just as fast as it turns to solid.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:Magic Chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm wondering if you could effectively immobilize someone
      > wearing this armor by shooting them with a sonic canon.

      No, but you can turn them to jelly if they're within range. Otherwise, it's just really, really loud.

    16. Re:Magic Chocolate by Suidae · · Score: 1

      The cornstarch in water mix will do some interesting things if you set a plate of it on top of a speaker to subject it to the vibrations from a tone generator. It'll stand up in freaky-looking peaks and blobs.

    17. Re:Magic Chocolate by svnt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, I did projects on this stuff. You can make some yourself with 1 part water and 1.44 parts cornflour

      What? I thought we were talking about PEG and nano sand. You may have noticed that no one is suggesting that wearing cornflour/cornstarch into battle will make you any safer.

      this stuff works well at the speed of bullets

      And if you watched the video you'd see a lab slave (grad student) attempting to pull a stir stick out of a jar with little success. I doubt she approaches the speed of a bullet.

    18. Re:Magic Chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our kids used to make this in science class. It was called "ooblik." Cornstach and water. None of this nano stuff.

    19. Re:Magic Chocolate by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      Heh... cornstarch and water is nano stuff. It's just handled in a macroscale way, and the nano stuff takes care of itself.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    20. Re:Magic Chocolate by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      The stir stick is in a large jar, and so is able to create large shear forces, over an area proportional to the length and circumference of that stir stick. A thin layer of stuff - as discussed in my post and my parent's has no such large shear surface, and so requires far higher forces - for example, those from a high speed projectile - to cause enough shear to thicken the stuff up. That difference in scale is important here; no-one's going to wear a jacket with a 4-inch layer of goop in it, whether it's cornflour or PEG. From my own research I know that you get a little less than half an order of magnitude of improvement if you use PEG over water, and a little less than a factor of two if you use nanosand over cornflour; also while PEG is cheap, nanosand is bloody expensive for its weight, and I wouldn't recommend that people go out to buy it to be able to try this at home. Cornflour and water are dirt cheap, and so anyone interested can try it out and see the effects.You may have noticed that I wasn't suggesting wearing cornflour in battle either - just trying it out at home.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    21. Re:Magic Chocolate by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1
      whereas presumably this would be shirt, trousers, the lot
      Why would you presume that?

      Two reasons:
      1. It's flexible and much lighter than plate armour. Plenty of people die from wounds that don't occur on the torso. Why wouldn't you want to protect more of the body if you could?
      2. It is supposedly stab-proof as well as bullet proof, and in a typical knife fight you tend to get defensive wounds on the limbs.


      If the stuff doesn't de-solidify in a hurry then the enemy could have a field day among the now "statuesque" soldiers.
      It returns to liquid just as fast as it turns to solid.

      State your proof, please. Very few chemical reactions have equivalent reaction rate coefficients for both the forward and reverse reaction. On top of that the video from TFA showed a scientist slowly lifting up a beaker of this goop by the spoon he had just stirred it with, which was now stuck in it. Doesn't sound like it's rapidly reversible to me...
  7. Shear-thickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely shear-thickening?

    1. Re:Shear-thickening by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Surely shear-thickening?

      maybe they plan on making bulletproof pantyhose?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Shear-thickening by Alaria+Phrozen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Product Announcement! New, glistening panty-hose. Shimmering as if they're wet. Catches eyes. Attracts only the daring. Promotes celibacy and abstinence!

      In the heat of the moment, you push her against the wall and kiss. Heat. Fire. Desire. You reach down below her skirt, and trying to be spontanious, rip at her pantyhose... but wait! No satisfying tear or gasp escape from her lips... ... humiliation as you try again and again, unable to even stretch the panty-chasty-hose. The situation goes... limp.

      "Liqui-hose, helping you dodge a bullet every night."

    3. Re:Shear-thickening by PhaseChange · · Score: 1

      OK, I was about to comment that it's about time someone caught this misspelling. Then I read TFA and saw that the original wording is 'sheer-thickening'. It's a rather sad commentary when a "science & technology" writer for BusinessWeek doesn't take the time to learn the terminology associated with non-Newtonian fluids even though he/she is writing an article about them!

      Shear stupidity.

    4. Re:Shear-thickening by DarkDragonVKQ · · Score: 1

      *takes out lightsaber* Wait, if I have a lightsaber I wouldn't be in that situation. *puts lightsabaer away*

      --
      "I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
  8. thats great.. by b1ufox · · Score: 1
    great!!! Can i take a bath in it and kick my neighbour's ass :) ...

    somebody please make it free like free software

    --
    -- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
  9. No more vests? by Atario · · Score: 1

    Just make the whole uniform out of kevlar coated with this stuff. Might not need that many layers before your regular uniform is bullet resistant...

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:No more vests? by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just make the whole uniform out of kevlar coated with this stuff. Might not need that many layers before your regular uniform is bullet resistant...

      First, wouldn't there is a weight issue to creating a uniform out of kevlar and this stuff? Second, did you see the part in the summary where it says the liquid stiffens quickly when hit by an object? Wouldn't running, jumping, moving your arms rapidly, etc., cause the armor to be stiff, and slow soldier's movements?

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    2. Re:No more vests? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      A bullet is going to be traveling at 250-900 m/s, which is much faster than any normal body movement.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:No more vests? by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, much like a suit of armor that has joints to make it flexible, you could add "joints" that aren't coated in the film at the knees, elbows, etc. Whether your need to would only be answerable by seeing the stuff in action for real, but being able to put a layer of this around everything except your elbows and knees would still be huge.

      Another question that we'd need to know is - how breathable is the stuff? If it's like being encased in a suit of armor, it's gonna be too hot to be applied everywhere.

    4. Re:No more vests? by javaxjb · · Score: 1

      I suspect vests will still be necessary. If you watch the video linked in the first post, you can see there s still quite a bit of deformation before the bullet bounces off. Those rigid plates will still offer additional protection to sensitive areas by distributing the impact (like the risk of the heart stopping when boys getting hit at just the right area in the chest at just the right time with a baseball, although I believe that risk goes away after a certain age).

      --
      Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
    5. Re:No more vests? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I see that you do not have military field experience. Even if it would provide reasonable protection uniforms made using this technology would not be washable using normal laundry procedures, would have a short service life, would be heavy, and would not breath. Someday, this or another technology may advance to the point that ballistic uniforms may become practical; for now leave this technology to removable body armor.

    6. Re:No more vests? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      In the video link given in one of the first comments, the liquid works against stabbing, which is much slower than any bullet.

    7. Re:No more vests? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for those time-warping shape-shifting bodysuits from the Hyperion books.

    8. Re:No more vests? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The stuff they use now is like wearing a winter coat and wearing a chemical protective suit for 6 hours isn't all that breathable either. I can remember lifting up my arms and having the sweat that collected inside the rubber gloves run down my arms and armpits and thinking it felt good!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:No more vests? by Gallon+of+Fuel · · Score: 1

      I went to the University of Delaware while this stuff was being developed and sat in on a few presentations about it. It's pretty durable, and I believe its machine washable. Additionally, it actually makes the protective garment lighter. Say, for example, your current vest uses 6 sheets of kevlar for some arbitrary protection threshold. Using the STF, you can now reduce the number of sheets to 3 (an example) for the same protection. The weight is decresed, as kevlar is significantly heavier that the STF, it's cheaper to make since kevlar is expensive as hell, and it allows protection in areas not normally protected because at low rates of movement, such as human body movements, the stuff is fluid, and theres less sheets of kevlar in the way. The most important aspect to this material, IMO, is the cost savings over traditional armor. Local and state level law enforcement may now be more inclined to purchase these garments, since most of those folks have to front the money to buy protection on their own.

      --
      Join the fight in the preservation of your right to bear arms. www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
    10. Re:No more vests? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I see that you do not have military field experience. Even if it would provide reasonable protection uniforms made using this technology would not be washable using normal laundry procedures, would have a short service life, would be heavy, and would not breath. Someday, this or another technology may advance to the point that ballistic uniforms may become practical; for now leave this technology to removable body armor.
      It's always a hoot to read comments to these stories. Things like "why don't they make the whole uniform out of this", or "why don't they make them ALL carry one", or "why don't they just buy lots of the cheap taiwan-made civilian version of [critical piece of equipment] instead of making such expensive sturdy ones". They all make the Army infantryman in me shudder. Some things are only understandable by those for whom "manportable" is a very dirty word. Like the Marines I used to work with always said, "boots, utes*, and rifle-- all the rest is extra".

      * "utilities", camouflage utility uniform
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:No more vests? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      STF technology is WONDERFUL for reducing weight and cost, increasing flexibility and comfort, and providing protection to areas of the body where currently available body armor isn't practical. There will also be a whole slew of other military and civilian uses for STF.

      It might be interesting to have a military field uniform that can integrate removable pieces of STF body armor. Even though this is great armor technology, it would still make piss poor uniforms. How were they able to make STF machine washable when its main constituent, PEG, is water soluble? Three (or whatever) sheets of Kevlar, not to mention the STF, is going to weigh a HELL of a lot more than the fabric that field uniforms are currently made of, and it is not going to be anywhere near as durable. STF fabric is also not going to breath; it would be like wearing bullet resistant vinyl rain pants and rain coat.

    12. Re:No more vests? by brainplay · · Score: 1

      It would be more cost effective to make the armor in sections and piecemeal than as a whole unit. The bullet is still going to cause damage and the part will still have to be removed and inspected to check for reuseability. Replacing a thigh section would be easier than replacing an entire pair of trousers. Additionally those pieces could be modified with the MOLLE system to act as a load bearing device much like the current SAPI laden vests are today.
      If nothing else these when complied would make a nifty light weight anti-trauma plate for the regular IIIa stuff.

      If this stuff is as good as it says it is then we could actually start dropping ceramic plates and go with lighter and thinner titanium plates instead for level IV protection. That would make any MOUT or SWAT team very very happy.

      Hehe, we are getting closer and closer to full body armor all over again. Oh oh...if we get the right helmets we can start painting it all white!

      --
      It is often ironic that those that define others as lemmings are often themselves lemmings dancing to the latest fad.
  10. First real users will be... by smithberry · · Score: 1

    No doubt the first folk to use this will be the bad guys. Planning or carrying a gun or a knife to protect yourself? Well, in a year's time it will be a waste of time, cos that mugger will just laugh in your face. And steal the gun after you've wasted your bullets.

    Maybe I should stop being a cynic.

    1. Re:First real users will be... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      One solution: mandatory full-body coating!

      Just imagine a war in a few decades:
      Soldiers of opposite side standing a few metre appart, shooting at each other with hundreds of bullets without any effect what so ever. Now that would be, ..., intresting.

    2. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beeign shot while wearing armour will still hurt like hell and probably knock you down.

    3. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt the first folk to use this will be the bad guys. Planning or carrying a gun or a knife to protect yourself? Well, in a year's time it will be a waste of time, cos that mugger will just laugh in your face. And steal the gun after you've wasted your bullets.

      Duh... instead of buying a gun or knife for protection, just buy a can of this stuff and spray your clothes.

    4. Re:First real users will be... by cnettel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll still get an impact from the energy alone. You're not thrown back, but certainly hit. I imagine that hundreds of bullets would be enough to cause some quite significant effects anyway. (The total heating alone could be "interesting".)

    5. Re:First real users will be... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it does bring the interesting issue of proliferation, since this sounds a lot easier to produce than Kevlar or similar materials. I bet it will now be easier for insurgents and terrorists to get the same level of protection as our troops.

      From what I understand, this only works against projectiles going fast, so maybe we'll see something like the shields in Dune, where they duel to make the slowest thrust? :)

    6. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your response shows how queer it is to use fruity-ass terms like "daft". "Oh, bloody el, that is just so dreadfully daft, cheerio and take all my guns and rights with you."

    7. Re:First real users will be... by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 1
      Sure, just like I am seeing lots of gang bangers running around with M1A1s (tank or bazooka, for that matter). Ever been mugged by a guy with night vision goggles?

      I'm not going to hold my breath over FUD.

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
    8. Re:First real users will be... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      This is applied in addition to Kevlar, it's not a replacement for it. The liquid is sprayed on top of Kevlar to give additional protection. I don't know how effective this would be on regular fabric. If you sprayed it on a cotton shirt and shot a bullet at it, I imagine the cotten would just tear farther from the impact site, as the fabric itself is less resilient than kevlar.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:First real users will be... by VagaStorm · · Score: 0

      Finaly, maybe ppl will have to train so they become atleast half deasent shots for that protective gunt to have any oter effect than just beeing a hazzard to evry one else :)

    10. Re:First real users will be... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      Thermite-tipped bullets. Somehow I doubt that vaporized liquid armor will be able to stop much of anything.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    11. Re:First real users will be... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The OP was misinformed. This has to be used in combination with Kevlar to produce the level of resistance; the only criminals who'll be using this are the ones already wearing bulletproof vests.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:First real users will be... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Seen that already: Nothing outlasts the energiser

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    13. Re:First real users will be... by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except 3 rounds from a 45. planted square on his chest will either A: Knock him on his ass. B: Bruise his chest and wind him C: If your lucky pop his sternum D: All of the above Body armor just makes it so the round doesn't kill you. It still hurts like hell. Your body is still absorbing the energy of the round.

      --
      You mad
    14. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "The A-Team"

    15. Re:First real users will be... by XJHardware · · Score: 1
      No doubt the first folk to use this will be the bad guys. Planning or carrying a gun or a knife to protect yourself? Well, in a year's time it will be a waste of time, cos that mugger will just laugh in your face. And steal the gun after you've wasted your bullets.
      Yeah, only after they invent the bulletproof face.
      --
      The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
    16. Re:First real users will be... by finkployd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullets do not have enough momentum to knock you down, that is a hollywood invention. Think of it this way, if shooting the bullet does not knock the shooter down, it isn't going to knock the person he shot at down either.

      Finkployd

    17. Re:First real users will be... by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

      The shock of a 45 can kill. Look at some of the slow motion pictures of a hand breaking boards, you can see the body flowing as the shockwave travels down the arm. Now replace the impulse (change in momentum per time) of a hand with the impulse of a 45 slug, the shockwave can kill - your heart is liquid filled, after all.

      --
      Think global, act loco
    18. Re:First real users will be... by technococcus · · Score: 1

      Unless you're carrying something with a small enough cross-section and a high enough ballistic coefficient to pop clear through the coating through penetrative force (See: .223 Rem/5.56x45 NATO or 5.7FN or 4.6HK).

      Or something like 10mm Auto that will from pure energy transfer cause a three inch deep cavity to form in the tissue behind the vest and break pretty much every bone in that area.

      Also, TFA only says that the armor will be better able to "[resist] punctures". So, yes, a reletively low-force (human-strength) stabbing attack with a non-optimal weapon (improvised: modified prison fork, broken piece of something) will not penetrate as far or do as much damage. A good knife or a highly penetrative round (rifles, some pistols/subguns) will still get through with only nominal resistance.

    19. Re:First real users will be... by araemo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a very simplified view.

      Many guns WILL knock you on your back when you fire them, if you aren't in a proper stance to handle the recoil.

      Those same guns, even if the shooter is standing and holding the gun properly, will very well knock someone backwards who wasn't ready to be hit by something like that.

      Granted, most of those guns aren't handguns, but that doesn't mean there are no handguns like that(And this is why they're not guns that just anyone can pick up and shoot safely with no training)

    20. Re:First real users will be... by Culture · · Score: 1

      This may be less signficant thatn you think, especially if trauma plates are used. Take a look at the North Hollywood Shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shoot out. These guys got hit many more than three times, and kept shooting away as if nothing happened. Scary stuff.

      --
      ----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    21. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe that this was why the US Army moved to the M1911 colt .45 pistol during world war II. Prior to that they were using something like a .38 and the japanese soldiers were swaddling themselves in bandages as a rudimentary body armor. The .45 didn't penetrate either, but the kinetic energy still went somewhere.

      Kinetic energy is a wonderful thing. I attended the autopsy of a bad guy that had been assaulting people. He was wearing a kevlar vest to protect himself during his assaults. A 12 gauge slug to the chest from 15 feet away basically pulped his entire body cavity.

    22. Re:First real users will be... by finkployd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a difference between knocking you off balance and throwing you back.

      Shotguns will knock you off balance easily if you are not prepared, but no gun on earth is going to lift you off your feet and/or toss you backwards. The ones that are powerfull enough to (military cannons) just rip you to shreads instead.

      Finkployd

    23. Re:First real users will be... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Your skin will resist penetration from a baseball or cricket bat too, so I'm sure you wouldn't mind letting me take a few wacks at you; the kenetic energies are reasonably close.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:First real users will be... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      According to the article "Their body armor was able to stop the .38 caliber and 9 mm projectiles fired by the officers' service handguns".

      A .38 caliber round sits between 9 and 10mm when looking at a conversion table. A .45 caliber would be between 11 and 12 mm. Taking hits from a 9mm with body armor is no walk in the park, but it's a far cry from taking hits from a .45.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    25. Re:First real users will be... by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      I dont think you are realizing this:
      The maximum energy the bullet will apply to the target is the same as the recoil it applied to the firer.

      If you can hold a 45 magnum and fire it, then an ideal body armor can make the hit on the target have no worse
      an impact than it did on you.

    26. Re:First real users will be... by Culture · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it is not quite that simple. Remember, muzzle energy is mv^2, and while a 45 apc has a higher mass, it has a lower velocity than a 9mm luger. In general, there is not a large difference between the muzzle energy of a 45 apc and 9 mm luger, and some 9mm luger cartridges have a higher muzzle energy than some 45 apc cartridges (they are both available in a bewildering variety of loads).

      --
      ----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    27. Re:First real users will be... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      If you can hold a 45 magnum and fire it, then an ideal body armor can make the hit on the target have no worse an impact than it did on you.

      Well, less actually because the energy transfer is nowhere near 100%. The difference, however, is that the recoils is being absorbed by your arms rather than an arbitrary part of your chest. Catching a heavy ball with both hands is a lot different than having it impact your chest. Besides, if you've ever fired a .45, you do react quite a bit to the recoil and it takes a second to recover for another shot.

    28. Re:First real users will be... by djelovic · · Score: 1

      Hm. That doesn't sound right.

      The force that propelled the bullet forward is equivalent to the force that the gun from which the bullet is fired is exerting on the shooter's hand.

      The only difference is that the force of the gun is spread over your palm, while the force of the bullet is concentrated into a much smaller area.

      So I guess that if body armor could spread the pressure of the bullet to some 30 cm^2 you shouldn't fare that badly.

      Dejan

    29. Re:First real users will be... by misleb · · Score: 1

      Having fired a .45, I was actually surprised how little "kick" there was to it. How can the reciever get more a blow than I did in the recoil of the gun firing the bullet? Only thing I can figure is that maybe the acceleration of the bullet out of the gun is done over a longer period of time such that the impulse is less than if you try to stop the bullet in a shorter time.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    30. Re:First real users will be... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      broken ribs are common in people that survive gunshots with a bulletproof vest.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    31. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, then tossing a baseball at them would knock them back half a mile! A baseball is WAY bigger than a whole box of .45 ACP. You must be missing something. One part of what you are missing is velocity. Typical muzzle velocity of a 230 grain .45 ACP is 850 fps (subsonic). A 9mm luger typically sends a projectile of about half that mass at about 1200 fps. The 9mm is a better penetrator, but the .45 makes a bigger hole. Of course, there's multiple loadings in 9mm luger, and multiple families of 9mm. You can also load a .45 lighter and faster, but not as light and fast as a 9mm. Then there's the other .45s (45 Colt, 45...)

    32. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that the energy will be divided between the two of you, but you, as the firer, have the benefit of the weight of the weapon and the effects of the recoil dampening devices in the weapon to absorb most of the energy. Also, with the bullet, the energy is focused into one small point, with the gun it's spread throughout your hand. Also also, the fact that you hold the gun in your hands means that the energy hits your readied hands/arms first, the recipient takes it full in the .

    33. Re:First real users will be... by Ozan · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way, if shooting the bullet does not knock the shooter down, it isn't going to knock the person he shot at down either.

      Are you sure? I always thought that the shooter can direct the impulse into the ground by standing firm while the person hit would have to be lucky to time that correctly. Maybe we should test this by throwing bowling balls against each other.

    34. Re:First real users will be... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you've only accounted for about half of the determination of pain. Also, it's the energy that is the same, not the force.

      Force = pressure * area = mass * accelleration. Assuming the main determinant of how much pain you feel is pressure (a rough but reasonable assumption), then just do some real quick algebra and note that:

      Pressure = mass * acceleration / area

      Obviously, the more distance you can distribute that accelleration over, the lower the acceleration and hence the lower the force.

      As an example some of us may have experienced personally when we were little, consider catching a sharply thrown baseball in a glove and compare that to taking a sharply thrown baseball in the chest (lesson: don't get distracted when playing shortstop). The glove alone has several inches of give while absorbing the energy of the ball (assuming you catch it in the web, rather than on your palm), and if you pay attention you'll also notice most people give with their arm as they catch. In comparison, the ball hitting you in the chest slows down in about the distance it deforms your chest (staggering happens to slowly to really count). Actually, given the extra mass, a fastball is probably a good approximation of a pistol round for momentum as well as for the area that body armor distributes the force of a bullet.

      I've never shot a .45 pistol, but I have shot 9mm and that little round will move your arm by probably about 6 inches unless you're particularly tense. And if you are really tense, you'll probably find that shooting the gun actually does hurt your hand. I've also shot rifles as big as .50 Browning. If you don't have the butt tightly up against your shoulder, effectively making your body and the gun one rigid mass that will be accellerated simultaneously, you're going to be in pain when the butt hits you.

      To sidestep back to the main discussion, a lot of people seem to think of this fluid as magical ("imagine what it could do for car safety," etc). The practical limitation is that it only achieves the extremely high shear rate needed to "lock up" in small areas. If you try to deform a 1 inch square piece of material by 1 inch in 0.01 second, the shear rate is relatively high. If you try to deform a 10 inch square piece by 1 inch, you'll find that the displacement is distributed and the average shear is only about 10% as much as the other case. That's assuming you can deform the two samples in the same manner, which would be pretty tough for any load case other than planar stretching. If you coated a car bumper with this stuff, it would probably just crack at the areas of highest deformation and not react at all at the areas of lowest deformation in an accident. Of course, you could simply fill the entire bumper up with it...

    35. Re:First real users will be... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Bowling balls weigh a lot more than bullets, and can have significantly more momentum.
      Also, I could easily jump into the air or stand on one foot and fire a handgun and not be affected. The force is spread out over a greater area (my hand and arm) and in the case of a semi-automatic pistol, spread out over a slightly greater span of time, but it is almost exactly the same amount of force directed at the target. Even if I were to place the gun against my chest and fire it, I would not be thrown backward (I would probably break a few ribs and be in serious pain though).
      The difference is that the bullet directs the force into a much smaller area.

      The image your suggestion brought up is intriguing :)

      Finkployd

    36. Re:First real users will be... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      You know, the total energy absorbed by the one hit is less then the one firing the gun. Of course, unless you are using a mounted gun where the ground is holding it so the shooter doesn't have to. You know, the laws of physics and all.

      So, "knocking someone on their ass" is just the result of being cought off-guard and shock.

    37. Re:First real users will be... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      If you can hold a 45 magnum and fire it, then an ideal body armor can make the hit on the target have no worse an impact than it did on you.

      Well, less actually because the energy transfer is nowhere near 100%. The difference, however, is that the recoils is being absorbed by your arms rather than an arbitrary part of your chest. Catching a heavy ball with both hands is a lot different than having it impact your chest.


      Obviously, ideal body armor would identify the incoming round and laser it into vapor before it impacted at all.

      Slighly less than ideal body armor would identify the incoming round and extend a long squishy psudopod along the predicted trajectory of the round thus extending the impact in time.

    38. Re:First real users will be... by Dravik · · Score: 1

      Muzzle energy doesn't matter, the energy at impact is what is important. The farther the distance the greater the advantage of a .45 over 9mm

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    39. Re:First real users will be... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      > Obviously, ideal body armor would identify the incoming round and laser it into vapor before it impacted at all.

      Wouldn't the vapor have the same kinetic energy as the bullet?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    40. Re:First real users will be... by Culture · · Score: 1

      There is still not signficant difference. Winchester 45 ACP 230 grain JHP energy at 50 yards is 363 ft-lbs. Winchester 9mm Luger 115 grain JHP energy at 50 yards is 306 ft-lbs. At the muzzle the numbers are 383 vs 396 ft-lbs. OK, 20% more at 50 yards, but I do not think this is a signficant difference. Also, given that anyone shooting a pistol is most likely shooting at 25 years or less, I think it would not matter which one hit you. BTW, the very small 7.62mm Tokarev (about .30 caliber) have a muzzle energy about 75% greater than the much larger .45 ACP. Why? Becuase is has a much higher muzzle velocity.

      --
      ----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    41. Re:First real users will be... by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Knock him on his ass? Break his sternum?

      Please. The muzzle energy of a .45ACP round is the same as that of a 10-pound weight when dropped from a height of 1.37 inches, and thus traveling at a speed of 2.7 feet per second.

      There's no physiological reason for that to knock anyone down.

    42. Re:First real users will be... by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Yeah. However, the phase change reaction has the attractive property of actually absorbing some of the energy completely for a time, with less immediate heat and spread-out kinetic effect. I was highly "optimistic", but pointing out that even then the scenario of the original poster was quite farfetched. (as in: damn violating thermodynamics, with anything similar to the here stated armor approach)

    43. Re:First real users will be... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      do you mean energy or momentum?

      I don't know the mass and velocity of a .45 ACP round off the top of my head, but if I suppose that it is 0.5 ounce (a number I'm picking out of thin air) with a velocity of 900 fps (another number I am picking out of thin air) its kinetic energy would be almost 347 times higher than a 10 lbs ball traveling at 2.7 fps. On the other hand, if I was looking at momentum the ball and bullet are about the same.

      Since momemtum is preserved in calculating trajectories of objects bouncing off one another, it is absolutely correct in saying a bullet would not knock anyone on their ass (unless they were on the verge of falling over). It is momentum and not energy which is comparible in your example.

      momentum = Mass * velocity.

      energy = mass * velocity ^2.

      if we assume a person is generally able to stay upright provided they are traveling less than 4 fps (less than walking speed), then a 150 lbs person would need to be shot with 22 bullets in order to be knocked over. This is a relatively light weight person, who doesn't have a very good sense of balance (in fact this person would tend to fall over when they run or jog, since we have assumed they can't deal with even 3 mph of speed).

      It is fair to say that in the real world, unless a person happens to get caught in midstep, exactly when they were distracted or trying to rapidly change direction it is unlikely that a bullet will physically "knock" them off balance.

      However... pain can easily cause a person to fall down. I dont think anyone disputes that however.

      as for breaking the sternum : this is a matter of energy and not momentum. Even if a bullet can break the sternum, that doesn't imply it would have enough momentum to knock the target over. And vice versa, something with enough momentum to knock you over ( a train traveling at 0.1 mph) would not break your sternum. (I know because I've hit the inside wall of a subway car which was rapidly accelerating and didn't break anything).

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    44. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except 3 rounds from a 45. planted square on his chest will either A: Knock him on his ass. B: Bruise his chest and wind him C: If your lucky pop his sternum D: All of the above Body armor just makes it so the round doesn't kill you. It still hurts like hell. Your body is still absorbing the energy of the round.

      Equal and opposite reaction - no more force exerted on the receiving end of the bullet than and the hand that fired the round - bad when concentrated on bullet sized area, definitely manageable in a chest size area.

    45. Re:First real users will be... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      3 rounds from a .45 wouldn't knock you on your ass any more than the person firing the gun gets knocked on his ass.

      As for bruising, yes, the impact will (at least) bruise your chest, but the damage is proportional to the surface area absorbing the impact. As the area increases, the damage decreases.. same principle as a bed of nails. If the area of impact can be increased anywhere close to the area of a pistol grip, then it wouldn't be too bad at all.

    46. Re:First real users will be... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the flight path of a vapor tends to be less focused than that of hot lead.

    47. Re:First real users will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9mm really is not designed to cope with body armor (or more specifically, body armor is generally rated against 9mm). Also, those guys were wearing about 40 pounds of armor each. The 7.62x39 mm rounds our troops have to cope with and that the robbers were shooting are heavier, higher velocity, and have a smaller cross section (aids penetration). I believe some of the cops wounded in that shootout were wearing body armor, and it didn't stop the robbers bullets. Had the SWAT guys gotten there before they tried to make their get away, they probably could've taken them out from a distance using 5.56 mm, or better yet, .308 sniper rounds.

  11. Gloves by Joebert · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While liquid armor seems tailor-made for combat personnel or police, the company is initially targeting prisons because the fabric resists punctures. That means it can protect guards from stabbings, something even a top-of-the-line bulletproof vest can't do.

    Can they produce gloves able to stand up to shark bites ?
    How about gloves for butchers ?
    Would they be cheaper to produce than the steel-ring gloves used today ?
    Are they water proof ?
    How do they react to heat; could they be used in motorcycle clothing ?
    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Gloves by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can they produce gloves able to stand up to shark bites ?

      Thereby forcing sharks to evolve frickin' lasers on their heads.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Gloves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you mean Intelligently Designed sharks with lasers on their heads.

    3. Re:Gloves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you talking to?

    4. Re:Gloves by Ancil · · Score: 1
      Can they produce gloves able to stand up to shark bites ?
      How about gloves for butchers ?
      Would they be cheaper to produce than the steel-ring gloves used today ?

      What are you, some kind of hand model?

      Can't you just use oven mitts or a hypobaric chamber like everyone else??
    5. Re:Gloves by im_mac · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've actually played with some of this stuff (I know the people who developed this, and by the way, there's no hyphen in Delaware, despite what BusinessWeek thinks) and yes, I don't see why they couldn't make butchers' gloves out of it. One of the easy demos they do is give you an ice pick and two pieces of kevlar and ask you to puncture each sheet. You can stab the ice pick through the normal kevlar but not through the shear-thickening fluid treated one. That should provide some protection against sudden knife slips that butchers might experience.

    6. Re:Gloves by budgenator · · Score: 1

      1 even if a the glove stop shark tooth penetration into the hand, the shark would still rip your arm off. I used to work in a dog grooming shop while in college, it's the head shake that does the real damage. After a few bites I learned to completely relax when they clamped much less pain and damage, with a shark, anything left is because he didn't take it.
      2. maybe but probably not
      3. not likely would probably be priced higher due to "higher protectction" or more comfortable is worth more and it's a patented technology. As an interesting aside I've been searching for patents involving chainmaille and butcher's glove and have come up dry so far.
      4. I suspect that they are not water-proof at all, PEG polyethelene glycol is used as a thickener in all kinds of cosmetics, foods and medicines that are water soluble. I wouldn't be at all surprise if the kevlar/STF material isn't encased inside a waterproof bag and the whole thing needs replacement upon puncturing.
      5. Kevlar is great, heat resistance almost as good as nomex and tear/cut resistance so it's used in fire suits and you can buy kevlar reinforced bluejeans pants and jackets for riding.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Gloves by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      Sharks with frikin' lasers on their heads, that a pretty UN-intelegent design if you ask me.

      Attention to detail took a bit of a nose dive after the 5th day, but who can blame him, on the 5th day god created cannabis.

    8. Re:Gloves by orielbean · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine that this would concievably be cheaper than the "wizard" chainmail cutting gloves. Those things are excellent.And not all that much money.

      Maybe this would be more useful in a construction environment, where your whole body is at a little more risk than a kitchen - where extremities are the main concern for stab stab from rogue rivets, nails, enclosed areas.

      It could also be an idea to make existing safety equipment less heavy, like your steeltoe boots or hard hat. Intriguing.

    9. Re:Gloves by Joebert · · Score: 1

      My brother & uncle are butchers at grocery stores.
      I've been cleaning my own fish when I go fishing since I was a kid, my dad, since he was a kid.

      I'm kinda skeptical about the icepick test.
      Sounds promising, but I'd much rather see a test that wraps a quarter-inch thick slice of beef around a woden dowel, then makes a slicing-while-chopping action at it from 6 inches to a foot away. Having an actual butcher or fish cleaner doing it at a distance & speed that made them comfortable would be nice.

      I think that would much more accurately simulate what butchers & thoose cleaning fish experience.
      My brother has a steel ring glove he's required to wear when he's cutting meat, I think it cost him $80-$100 for that glove, but don't quote me on that.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    10. Re:Gloves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about soft flexible gloves for astronauts that would stand up to micrometeorite strikes? May allow easier working with tools and hands.

    11. Re:Gloves by endlessoul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this probably won't be made anytime soon.

      Saw an episode of Dirty Jobs, and Mike Rowe was in a factory where they were preparing some sort of fish.

      For protection from the razor-sharp knives, they had chainmail gloves.

      I would assume that both would work equally well in that situation, but the chainmail is apparently what's used in some places.

  12. Perfect for April Fools by Alaria+Phrozen · · Score: 1, Funny

    My snobby boss loves to swim in his private pool. Oh, what fun it would be to coat the surface of it with this stuff so when he dives in head first he gives himself a nose bleed. Of course the stuff will instantly reliquify, letting him slide into the water like he just got the worst belly-flop ever.

    1. Re:Perfect for April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then when your boss comes up for air whats gonna happen?
      will this stuff block him causing him to drown? and then will
      it be your fault or will you plead innocent? umm

  13. Re:Wolverine by Flounder · · Score: 4, Funny

    But could it stop a lightsaber? Cause you know there's scientists in North Korea working on lightsaber technology. Mr. President, we cannot allow a lightsaber gap!

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  14. Custard by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So basicly they're making military use custard (being gentle will let you penetrate it, but use force and you bounce off). Buug how will this stand up against a knife or a bayonet? I know in the modern era this is more or less mute, but it's still something I'd personally wonder about.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Custard by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Given it is put on top of an existing kevlar vest I'd imagine the kevlar layer will stand up to the knife/bayonet part...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:Custard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA: While liquid armor seems tailor-made for combat personnel or police, the company is initially targeting prisons because the fabric resists punctures. That means it can protect guards from stabbings, something even a top-of-the-line bulletproof vest can't do.

    3. Re:Custard by Yaotzin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But even so, someone using a knife or a bayonet might not be aiming for the area protected by the vest anyway...

      --
      Error: No error occurred
    4. Re:Custard by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the clothing is loose enough the knife/point object would still penetrate the skin, it just would be taking the fabric along for the ride.

      I read awhile back (old wives tale maybe?) that being stabbed while wearing kevlar isn't always going to protect you as the knife does not have to penetrate the kevlar to penetrate the skin, especially cavity areas.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    5. Re:Custard by FST777 · · Score: 4, Funny
      being gentle will let you penetrate it, but use force and you bounce off
      You're sure you're talking about custard?
      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    6. Re:Custard by lonasindi · · Score: 1

      kevlar WILL NOT stop a knife or bayonet. That is exactly kevlar's weakness. The point on the knife/bayonet/rifle round spreads the threads of fabric aside, nullifying the energy-spreading effect of the armor.

    7. Re:Custard by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      As far as I can remember there was a Darwin award given out a few years ago to a Marine who lost a bet that he could be stabbed hard in the chest while wearing his body armour and he wouldn't be hurt.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    8. Re:Custard by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1
      But even so, someone using a knife or a bayonet might not be aiming for the area protected by the vest anyway...
      Don't worry, they're working on that, too.
    9. Re:Custard by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      how will this stand up against a knife or a bayonet? I know in the modern era this is more or less mute

      The article suggests near the beginning that it would protect against knives. Also, one of the earlier comments contained a link to a CNN video ( http://www.break.com/movies/newarmor23.html ), and near the end of the video one of the researchers (I believe that's who it was) explicitly says that it can protect against ballistics and knives.

      P.S. It's moot, not mute.

    10. Re:Custard by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      but it will when covered in the liquid, I suppose because as liquid stiffens under impact it pulls the fibres together so the blade cannot slip between them.

    11. Re:Custard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Does anyone refuse to wear a helmet because it doesn't cover their ass? It doesn't matter if the new technology has no protection against ___insertweaponhere___. The fact is, it stops bullets and shrapnel, so this is really useful.

      And if that first analogy doesn't float your boat, you could say this is like the star powerup in Super Mario. The star protects mario from the bad guys but he can still die if he falls down a hole.

    12. Re:Custard by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where on earth did you grow up that old wives talk about knife-fighting while wearing kevlar?

      --
      I hate printers.
    13. Re:Custard by col_blu · · Score: 1

      I don't normally give a damn about spelling on blogs as long as the correct message comes through, and I don't want to produce a major digression on this thread, but I was wondering if you actually mean "mute," as in "the question cannot be spoken (about)," or are you referring to the word in the commonly used phrase, "moot point?" That comes from the old Norse "moot court" which was a court where decisions that were not clear cut were extensively discussed. A "moot point" then is one that is open to discussion and various interpretations. I certainly could be wrong, but I don't believe there is such a phrase as "mute point."

    14. Re:Custard by mlush · · Score: 1
      I read awhile back (old wives tale maybe?) that being stabbed while wearing kevlar isn't always going to protect you as the knife does not have to penetrate the kevlar to penetrate the skin, especially cavity areas.

      I recall that kevlar vests are not very good at resisting knives. Stab resistant vests are a different design and use a very fine weave to prevent the knife penetrating (and are not very useful against bullets) so remember ladies laminate!

    15. Re:Custard by scovetta · · Score: 1

      I always have the same problem with my chain mail. Great against long swords, terrible against daggers and scimitar thrusts.

      Still, I think this is way cool. Hell, paint it right on your skin and start a fight with somebody. Did you see the way that bullet bounced off the goo? Superman had this technology years ago, but now the army's got it. Hooray Science!

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    16. Re:Custard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kevlar isn't very good against knives, but not for the reasons you suggest. Bullets do damage through blunt force trauma. Although the fiber in a vest may snap if put under too much tension, they aren't actually cut per se. Adding more layers (in additional directions) increases the strength of the vest by reducing the tension transmitted through each fiber so that they are less likely to break.

      Kevlar can protect against knives to a certain extent. It is still more difficult to cut than, say, denim. But a knife or bayonet can still go through kevlar fairly easily because it is simply cutting individual fibers all the way through the armor.

      But the knife will penetrate the vest. Kevlar won't form around the knive like you seem to suggest. That was once a problem with some silk armors used in the ancient world. The silk wouldn't break but it was so elastic the weapon would penetrate anyway.

    17. Re:Custard by RevDobbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

      Modern body armor fails against anything sufficiently pointy or fast. Knifes and daggers will go right through Kevlar, as will small, fast bullets typically found in rifles (e.g. 5.56 NATO or 22 Magnum Rimfire).

      Second Chance and Point Blank used to have more information on their websites, but maybe that was before the WTC destruction. Here's a page that at least hints at different products for protection from ballistic and hand weapons. Rigid, insertable "stab-" or "rifle-plates", sometimes made out of titanium or high-tech ceramic, offer more protection agains the fast and pointy attacks.

    18. Re:Custard by technococcus · · Score: 1

      No, it's moo. It's like what a cow thinks. It's moo.

    19. Re:Custard by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      So basicly they're making military use custard

      Yes, but its effectiveness will be limited once the enemy researches explosive hundreds-and-thousands.

    20. Re:Custard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the proper phrase is 'moo' You know, like in a cow's opinion, nobody cares. It's moo.

      * Taken almost word for word from Joey, on Friends.

    21. Re:Custard by john83 · · Score: 1
      Actually, he is.
      Custard thickened with starch is a non-Newtonian fluid which in short means that if impacted with sufficient force it behaves more like a solid than a liquid, as a consequence, as was dramatically demonstrated on Sky Television's Brainiac: Science Abuse programme, it is possible for a full-grown adult to walk across a swimming pool filled with custard, without sinking.
      - Wikipedia.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    22. Re:Custard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where on earth did you grow up that old wives talk about knife-fighting while wearing kevlar?

      Maybe his grannie wears army boots? :-)

    23. Re:Custard by nasor · · Score: 1

      This is true, but not for quite the reason you cite. It's very easy to cut kevlar with something like a knife. It stops bullets because bullets try to bluntly tear through the fabric. It's like the difference between stabbing a knife into a piece of fabric and trying to punch through a piece of fabric.

    24. Re:Custard by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The mongols used to wear silk under their armor, because silk is resistant to puncture in just this way...Doesn't sound useful until you remember that barbed arrows were the fashion back then, so if you were wearing the silk the arrow would still penetrate, but you'd be able to pull it out with no additional damage because it would be stuck in the silk, not in your skin.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  15. Sounds like a Non-Newtonian fluid to me. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although I am not sure what the point of it being in this state protects more? Does it weigh less?

    Anyway kids if you want to create your own non-newtonian fluid fluid at home heres how.

    1. Get your custard power, or corn starch (think baking soda can be used too).

    2. Get a dish or a cup. More fun with a large jar though.

    3. Add some water to the container and proceed to mix as much powder as possible into the water until it gets to a weird creamy/solid state.

    You now have something which is a liquid and solid at the same time. Enjoy! :D

    1. Re:Sounds like a Non-Newtonian fluid to me. by mrjb · · Score: 1

      What you are describing works wonderfully with tapioca flour too.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    2. Re:Sounds like a Non-Newtonian fluid to me. by hey! · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if somebody would bring this up. You can actually stand on top of this stuff, if you keep moving your feet. Stop and you sink.

      Liquids whose viscosity increases with shear have been a staple of home science project for years, and have been sold as toy "slime" as well.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Sounds like a Non-Newtonian fluid to me. by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      "You can actually stand on top of this stuff, if you keep moving your feet. Stop and you sink."

      As demonstrated so excellenty in Brainiac (Discovery channel) the other day. I was lucky to catch the rerun, so now I have a video clip (not on the pc, or I would have linked it) of a grown man walking around on top of a pool-ful (!) of custard cream. :-D

    4. Re:Sounds like a Non-Newtonian fluid to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a non-newtonian fluid, yes. This is the same phenomenon as silly-putty or corn starch and water.

      The actual armor may weigh less (although their early research didn't show great weight savings), but more importantly it encumbers much less. By making 4 layers of kevlar do the work of 8, you have a garment that is still as protective, but is more flexible and probably cooler as well. This means that soldiers/cops will be more likely to wear their armor (a big problem) and you can armor them in tricky places like the joints and the groin where flexibility is required to maintain mobility.

  16. Emperor with No clothes by gafferted · · Score: 1

    Has someone sold the Emperor a suit made out of Silly Putty

  17. Better armor = better weapons by Sky+Cry · · Score: 0

    With better armor there'll be a need for better weapons capable of penetrating said armor.

    (Guess why modern soldiers don't wear full plate anymore. History repeats itself.)

    As armor gets better, weapons get more damaging - not only to the targets protected by armor, but also everything else.

    1. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Did soldiers ever wear full plate? I could be wrong, but I don't think there was ever an army fielded with the majority of its soldiers wearing full plate.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Better armor = better weapons by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Imagine someone uses a bullet that goes through this thing, some of this liquid will penetrate the body alongside with the bullet. Can someone tell if this counpound is poisonous?

    3. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Armor-piercing bullets tend to create less damaging wounds than soft bullets that are designed to expand upon impact and dump all of their energy quickly.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they can stop using projectile weapons, and use other forms of damage, say heat or sonic?

      (Which are both being developed, IIRC)

    5. Re:Better armor = better weapons by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Eventually maybe, but today's guerrilla fighters which is basically who someone wearing this stuff would be most likely to fight, are a few decades behind on weapons tech.
      So unless they find a lowtech workaround, this should still improve the safety of soldiers for a while.

    6. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just go for the headshot!

    7. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

      The obvious immediate safety of soldiers isn't what I'm talking about. It's the side effect, that comes later, I'm talking about.

      Say a gun can no longer take out an enemy soldier? What do you do? Surrender?
      Of course not. You take a bigger gun and blow half the building along with the enemy soldier (leaving him with more than just a bullet whole - or less than a full body).

      The difference? Half a building gone compared to just a few holes in the walls; plus higher death rate even among soldiers. And that's just a tiny example.

      But enough with the negativity. :)

    8. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

      Sorry for being off-topic, but your sig sounds like another Soviet Russia joke... just replace drugs with vodka. :)

    9. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Courageous · · Score: 1

      In the lobstered head to toe sense, you're right. No, there wasn't. However, near the end there, 18th century, I think, there were pikers that wore a lot of plate. Breast plate and sallet helm kind of stuff.

      C//

    10. Re:Better armor = better weapons by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Alright, let's assume joe guerrilla fighter switches from AK47s to RPGs.
      They're less mobile
      Have to be quite a distance away so as not to get hurt from the blast.
      Much lower rate of fire.
      Much more expensive.

      So they have to plan ahead before attacking.
      This should probably reduce the amount of casualties.
      There's a reason they are not so widely used today, you know.

    11. Re:Better armor = better weapons by technococcus · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Armor Piercing" is really a misnomer in a lot of cases. Most of the time, what people (civilians) are referring to are what have in times past been called "cop-killer" bullets (a name that was applied also to Teflon-coated [lubed] bullets) by the sensationalist media and what are more officially known as jacketed hollow-point (JHP) ammunition [a quick note: this is the most common form of self-defense ammunition carried by civilians in the USA and is totally legal to purchase and own]. These are designed to penetrate body armor and clothing better than standard unjacketed hollow-point (HP) rounds while maintaining the hollow-point's rapid expansion characteristics. A standard fully metal jacketed (FMJ) round gets better (tissue) penetration than a JHP, especially if the bullet is of "spitzer" style (pointed) as opposed to wadcutter or semi-wadcutter (flat-tipped) style. Due to complex mechanisms of expansion and point-of-impact material deformation, a lot of the time a JHP in a pistol will get better penetration through armor than an FMJ, but that is a topic for another day.

      In the military sense, an "armor-piercing" projectile is a steel-(or tungsten-, or depleted uranium-)cored, brass- or copper-jacketed projectile that, upon impact will strike like a normal bullet or whatever caliber and then allow the penetrator to slip free of the bullet body and, by virtue of a very small cross-sectional area, penetrate deeply into the armor of the target.

      Other bullets which are sometimes called "armor piercing" are standard rifle rounds (FMJ, BT, BTHP, OTM) in small-diameter calibers that easily puncture through most modern body armors. These are calibers such as .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO (the main cartridge of the M-16 and AK-101/108), 5.7x28mm (FN P90 round), 5.45x39 (AK-74), and 4.67HK (HK MP7). Additionally, some larger calibers simply have enough velocity and ballistic coefficient to pierce virtually all armor at very long ranges: 6.5mm Grendel (a few AR-15s), .30-06 (M1 Garand), and .50 BMG (M85 Barrett, M60) are a few such cartridges.

      Oh, and the primary wounding mechanism for expanding rounds is not rapid energy dump but large wound channels provided by an expansion to up to twice the bullet's initial diameter. Shooting someone with an FMJ .45ACP round will result in a primary wound channel of .45". Shooting them with a JHP .45ACP will result in a wound channel (with a good bullet, like Speer Gold-Dot) of .7-.8". Bigger hole==bigger wound.

    12. Re:Better armor = better weapons by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      .50 BMG (M85 Barrett, M60)

      The .50BMG shoulder fired rifle wielded by the US Military is the M82 Barrett, not the M85 and the M60 fired 7.62x51 ammunition, not .50BMG.

      You're probably thinking of the M2 (Ma Deuce).

    13. Re:Better armor = better weapons by technococcus · · Score: 1

      *blinks*

      I thought the M240 was the 7.62 MMG... I know the M2 was a .50, but... Well, damn. I fucked that all up, didn't I?

      Also, I apologize; I was thinking of both the service M82A1 and the Barrett M95 bullpup configuration .50 and did not fact-check myself.

      *hangs head in gun-nut shame*

    14. Re:Better armor = better weapons by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Just to add a point, the non-expanding rounds, supposedly do most of their damage by hitting the target and then tumbling through the body. The high velocity and small diameter is designed to penetrate most body armor and then the length of the bullet, not the diameter causes the size of the wound. For most common military arms, this doesn't actually work very well. .223 cal. rounds tend to not tumble very much at all, often going straight through with only a small hole. 7.62 mm rounds tend to tumble shortly after leaving the barrel, somewhat mitigating their abiltiy to penetrate as well as their accuracy.

    15. Re:Better armor = better weapons by Detritus · · Score: 1

      With an expanding bullet, much of its energy is used to create that large wound channel, as opposed to having it exit the target with most of its energy intact.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    16. Re:Better armor = better weapons by brainplay · · Score: 0

      Actually, most people don't understand the issue with tumbling, coefficients, and various properties thanks to crappy media reporting as usual. Military ammo is given a full metal jacket. This is misleading to many people. The jacket is EXTREMELY thin and better referred to as a copper gilt. Its purpose is to cut down on bullet deformation in the barrel and accomodate better friction. ALL military bullets are intended to tumble when entering human flesh. When tumbling occurrs the bullet when it reaches its first perpedicular axis to its path (when its facing upwards instead of pointing straight) it will fragment dynamically. This turns a little bullet like a 65grain 5.56mm when entering flesh into a pocket of shredded meat and lead the size of your fist. This all depends on the speed of the bullet when it hits flesh and things like short barrels, body armor, and physics at long range all affect how well a bullet performs. The current M-855 which the military uses has a tiny nub pointed steel at the tip of their bullets. This gives it just enough power to penetrate flak jackets (it was designed to defeat Russian body armor of the time right after Vietnam) and still have its devestating effects. It is considered "light" armor piercing. The downside is that it penetrates further in unarmored flesh than the rounds without the steel tip. This caused problems in places like Somalia where the people were thin and undernourished. Wounds to the extremities (arms and legs) would pass through without fragmentation and in some rare cases (talk about thin) the fragmentation would occur well past vital organs. The 7.62Nato (also know as the .308) is a big bullet that travels somewhat fast but relies on it heavy weight for alot of its properties. It also hasn't changed much since the type was first invented other than some specialty rounds (most of which aren't an improvement when striking flesh). It does the job great and short and medium ranges but needs a long barrel (ie M-14 and G3) and is HEAVY to lug around. Rounds like the new 6.8mm are pretty much crap. Great for short ranges and somewhat medium ranges (the M-855 is too duh) but not much else as they have the ballistic coefficient of a brick. They are also expensive, have more hype about then than what is good for, and still weigh more. To date I have yet to see any test results using what the military would use (FMJ with cheap brass, primers, and ball powder). Most tests are once again specialty junk which are going to be used by some police agencies and a few private citizens (ie TAP, nosler, etc) not the military. To the person that said, better armor=better bullets....that is pure junk. There is no body armor in the world that is proof against all specialty round out there. The rounds needed already exist. The thing that really effects this arguement is COST. Can a country afford to outfit their army with expensive bullets that they will be firing off on a regular basis? This is the same argument as to which countries can afford to issue effecitve body armor to their entire armies. Cost affects what we can issue to our soliders, how well we can train them, how far we can deploy them, for how long they can be deployed, and how long before the homeland political scene will begin to destabilize. If cost wasn't an issue we'd be in power armor, using the new chemical lasers, and would probably have invaded more countries by now.

      --
      It is often ironic that those that define others as lemmings are often themselves lemmings dancing to the latest fad.
  18. oblig. Jagged Alliance ref by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

    'bout time we got our Compound 17/18!

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    1. Re:oblig. Jagged Alliance ref by Magada · · Score: 1

      Compound 18 is real enough. It was found that Spectra weave liberally treated with plain ol' SuperGlue (tm) or some other similar resin is able to absorb much more KE than just plain Spectra, which after some more research gave rise to composite materials like the Spectra Shield.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  19. I see swords coming back in style. by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    No text really.

    1. Re:I see swords coming back in style. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm. More like clubs, maces, morningstars, and other instruments of blunt force trauma.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  20. Yin Yang by el_womble · · Score: 1

    The fascinating thing about this is that it will just change the weapons. Better armour means just one thing, better weapons. So you can't stab a guard with a shiv, they'll find another, probably more gruesom way of penetrating the thin blue line.

    Never the less, liquid armour sounds cool, can I have it in my motorbike kit? Lighter, more flexible armour that resists penetration can only make landing in a hedge that little bit safer. Of course, better armour means more dangerous riding...

    --
    Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
    1. Re:Yin Yang by teslar · · Score: 1
      Never the less, liquid armour sounds cool, can I have it in my motorbike kit? Lighter, more flexible armour that resists penetration can only make landing in a hedge that little bit safer.

      Yeah, it might stop you from gettign impaled on that fence. I wouldn't count on it stopping you from doing bendy things like breaking your back or neck though.
    2. Re:Yin Yang by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      If you're worried about landing in a hedge, you're riding beyond your ability and probably will have a short lifespan regardless*. I'm more interested in how this stuff might protect against cars. That's the real danger for bikers, no matter how skilled a rider you are.

      *I'm sure you're joking/exagerrating.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:Yin Yang by Detritus · · Score: 1

      All motorcyclists should wear jackets containing 5 kg of impact sensitive high explosive. After a short learning period, motorists would start to pay attention to their driving and other users of the roads.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Yin Yang by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Even better is put a really big pointy spike in the steering wheel. You will find people will tend not to tailgate or do anything where they may have to brake really quickly. And if they do then they will only do it once.

    5. Re:Yin Yang by Sircus · · Score: 1

      Even better is put a really big pointy spike in the steering wheel.

      I'm in favour of this idea - so long as the motorcyclists also get something similar (or are compulsed not to wear helmets, something like that). I've had a couple of instances with motorcyclists driving 1-2m behind me while we're both doing 180-200km/h and I'm legitimately overtaking in the lane I'm in. One of them even decided he couldn't wait for me to finish overtaking and overtook me in the spare 80cm of lane to my left. (I'm in Germany, incidentally - doing 200km/h is legal.)

      Just because lots of car drivers are morons, doesn't mean some motorcyclists aren't dangerous maniacs too...

      --
      PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
    6. Re:Yin Yang by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      a pal from Duncanon PA used to say, "the way to make motorcycles safest is to arm them with a 500 pound shaped charge directed forward of the headlamp." Soccer Mom would think twice before cutting off a biker if the whole family was to be incinerated.

    7. Re:Yin Yang by CagedBear · · Score: 1

      Just because lots of car drivers are morons, doesn't mean some motorcyclists aren't dangerous maniacs too...

      In the biking community these people are called SQUIDS. So QUIck to Die. They drive up insurance rates and cause anti-biking legislation to get through. Other bikers can't stand them.

    8. Re:Yin Yang by dcam · · Score: 1

      I take issue with this. I don't ride a bike, but I know people who do.

      People who ride bikes are many, many, many times more likely to hurt themselves than a driver of a car. In fact of all the people I have known who ride bikes, I can think of only one (a weekend rider) who has not had a serious accident, and by serious I mean an accident involving physical damagesignificant.

      What is more, in many of those cases the accidents have been caused by car drivers. Motorcyclists don't need 5kg of explosive, they take their life in their own hands each time they ride.

      --
      meh
  21. Awesome! by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    What we can expect in the 21st century:

    • People are going to start fighting with swords again, because bullets won't work.
    • Somebody will be able to fill a pool full of this stuff (or, if it floats, it'll be even more feasible), causing the swimmers to be fine, but the divers to suffer spinal cord injuries.
    1. Re:Awesome! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I don't imagine the viscosity of this substance, even when in its liquid state, would allow for comfortable swimming. Also, bullets would continue to work just fine, as long as you increase the energy behind them. This sort of armour is just like any other, in that it has a finite amount of energy it can absorb before its compromised. The only difference is that it's flexible, restricting movement less. It's a physical barrier, not a Dune force-shield.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  22. Ad possiblities... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1


    "Not only does it repel bullets and shrapnel, but for the soldier in the field who has a bit of constipation, just a bit of this 'Oxy-Flow' and you're regular."

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  23. Oobleck by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative

    This stuff sounds like a dilatant.

    Kitchen experiment: take some cornflour and some water. Mix one part of water to about two parts of cornflour until you get a thick paste. Play with it.

    If you apply gentle pressure, it behaves like a fluid. If you apply strong pressure, it abruptly solidifies. Scoop up a handful and throw it at something, and it'll bounce. Drop something heavy into a bucket of it and it'll sink.

    Beach sand also manifests this behaviour, under certain situations; occasionally you can find a patch of heavily waterlogged sand that's rock hard when you walk across it, but if you stand still you slowly find yourself sinking in.

    Disclaimer: cornflour almost certainly does not make good body armour.

    1. Re:Oobleck by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw a thing on Brainiac where they filled a swimming pool full of cornflour and water and got a guy to walk on it... it was ok so long as he kept moving but as soon as he stopped he sank pretty quickly.

      Getting out was pretty hard as the more he pulled the more it turned like concrete... pretty scary if you start sinking in this stuff and have nothing to hang on to!

      --
      Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
    2. Re:Oobleck by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      This also works with custard.

      There was an episode of Brainiac where they got someone to walk on the surface of a pool of custard. But as soon as he stopped, he began began to sink.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Oobleck by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the positive side-effects of having kids - getting to play with stuff like this with mine. (as well as Legos, etc.)

      I was going to post about Oobleck, but first did a quick scan to see if anyone else had. We called it corn starch instead of cornflour.

      I presume the name comes from "Bartholomew and the Oobleck" by Dr. Suess.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:Oobleck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Disclaimer: cornflour almost certainly does not make good body armour.

      Gak!? Now you tell meA&^@#D(*#$#$#(&*Ay@S$A NO CARRIER

    5. Re:Oobleck by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me more like it's rheopectic.

      I was helping in an elementary school physics program: we made crazy things and took them to the local elementary schools to get kids involved in science. One of the coolest demos we did was to dump about 4 pounds of cornstarch (which IS dilatantic) and the appropriate amount of water into a giant Tupperware and then lifted up a kid and told him "stomp your feet as fast as you can!" and he could stand on the surface. As soon as he stopped he sank -- and when we grabbed him and tried to lift him out rapidly the tupperware came up with him and we could wave him and it around for a moment before it dropped off again. Pretty visual demo.

      It's a little sad to know that 'rheopectic' is a word because it's the opposite of thixotropy and I've always secretly called that 'thinotropy' coz it seemed appropriate.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    6. Re:Oobleck by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      One of the positive side-effects of having kids - getting to play with stuff like this with mine. (as well as Legos, etc.)

      Why do you need kids to play with this stuff?

    7. Re:Oobleck by dpilot · · Score: 1

      You don't strictly *need* kids in order to play with stuff like this. It just makes it easier to justify the time, vs doing more mundane, but 'necessary' stuff. (like mowing the lawn or washing the dishes)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:Oobleck by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      It just makes it easier to justify the time, vs doing more mundane, but 'necessary' stuff. (like mowing the lawn or washing the dishes)

      It's unfortunate you (and I'm sure many others) feel that way. As an adult, we need time to relax and 'play' every bit as much as kids do. The idea that we should simply stop when we get older, and instead focus strictly on more 'necessary' stuff is just plain silly. The dishes will still be there in an hour. The lawn can be mowed tomorrow. Take a little time off and *play*, people! It's good for you! Maybe if more people did this, we wouldn't hear so much about things like road rage.

    9. Re:Oobleck by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that I don't play, even without kids. It's just that kids make it easier. They also give good refresher lessons at it.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  24. Maybe.. by NightSwan · · Score: 1

    we should start stabbing people slowly now....

  25. a slow kinjal penetrates the sheild.... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

    Hmm

    I wonder if a slow projectile would get through? Ok, obligatory Dune reference in the heading, but still I wonder...

  26. Dune had it by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's in Dune. Shields result in a form of fighting in which the object is to make way for a slow knife atatck that will go through the shield. Off-topic, it's a pity that Herbert didn't stop at the first book because the rest were so poor by comparison. He used up a lifetime of good ideas in one book and couldn't think of any others. Sad...a friend once suggested that the only titles missing from the series were Dune Buggy and Dune ot forsake me oh my darling.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Dune had it by 87C751 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      it's a pity that Herbert didn't stop at the first book because the rest were so poor by comparison.
      A friend of mine once met Frank Herbert and asked why Dune was so good, yet the other two (at the time) were so weak. Herbert reportedly answered that Dune was a labor of love, and the followups were contractural obligations.
      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    2. Re:Dune had it by db32 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I liked the others in the series for the most part. Its the ones his son wrote that make me want to cry.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Dune had it by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you think that then Herbert caught you as he did me and so many others. You need to read the first three of the series as a single piece of work whose overarching theme is: superheroes - whether good or evil - are dangerous to humanity. It's easy to stop at the end of Dune and rejoice in the final triumph of Paul and the defeat of the bad guys, and then miss his decline and eventual humiliation in the next two books, because the events he triggered have gone beyond his control.

      Tim O'Reilly's biography of Herbert explains the author's purpose very well. It's available online here.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    4. Re:Dune had it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Stargate? I recall that guns and energy weapons can't penetrate a Gou'ald personal shield, but a knife can.

    5. Re:Dune had it by Sketch · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I actually thought the third book was the best of the series. The second wasn't all that interesting, but is pretty much required reading for the events leading up to the third. (You could almost view it as one long book, split in half.) However, after that, it was all downhill...WAY downhill.

      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    6. Re:Dune had it by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Actually this is closer to the gel pack body armour in Shadowrun. you could get a flexible armour that was these liquid gel packs sewn together. The gel would harden under any significant impact, spreading out the force of the impact.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    7. Re:Dune had it by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      They're written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson.

    8. Re:Dune had it by Fallingcow · · Score: 1
      (You could almost view it as one long book, split in half.)


      I managed to find a hardcover that has both Messiah and Children in it. That's the way it should be.

      It's still smaller than Dune :)
    9. Re:Dune had it by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I couldn't remember the other guys name. I read the House: Atreides one and cried myself to sleep and vowed never to read the rest. It was sad :(

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    10. Re:Dune had it by bughunter · · Score: 1

      The real shame is that Herbert never got any wide recognition (outside of SF fandom) for his other novels, e.g., The Doasadi Experiment, Whipping Star, The Santaroga Barrier, Destination: Void / The Jesus Experiment, etc., which were at least as thought-provoking and inspired as Dune.

      If Dune had never been written, he'd still be a star of classic SF.

      The sequels to Dune were sheer hack in comparison. /herbertfan

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  27. meh! by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

    Imbaciles! Can't they provide some pictures/videos with the armour in action?!

  28. Bruising by beset · · Score: 1

    Ok, it might stop the bullet going through the skin but the second level damage could easily still put you out of action. From watching the video there's a fair amount of flex in the product.

    Imagine a heavy round being stopped by your kneecap.

    --
    1) Clever Sig 2) ????? 3) Profit!
    1. Re:Bruising by Detritus · · Score: 1

      At least you'll still have a kneecap, rather than an orthopedic surgeon's nightmare.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Bruising by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      You could always use a much stronger, non-flexible plate on the kneecap. Like a steel toecap, but for the knee. After all, your kneecap doesn't bend, so the armour over it doesn't need to be flexible.

  29. A Similar idea by 07734 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is not only the bullet's ability to pierce the armour, but the energy it transfers through the armour. This company : http://www.d3o.com/ use a similar technique but instead of leaving it as liquid, they treat it in a way which turns it into a foam structure. I beat the crap out of a friend's elbows and knees with a shovel while he was wearing d30 stuff, and he didn't feel a thing. It's quite amazing.

    1. Re:A Similar idea by Vengeance · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hrmmm...

      So with this new advanced 'd30' stuff, does that mean you need to roll a natural 30 to get a critical hit?

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    2. Re:A Similar idea by 07734 · · Score: 1

      haha, still not sure I fancy those odds! Interestingly though (and I'm not sure why I'm continuing it in this thread) I wonder if anyone has considered how far bullets are apart. If one bullet hits, the material goes solid for an instant, then another bullet hits while it's solid - SMASH!?

    3. Re:A Similar idea by Vengeance · · Score: 1

      Hrmmm... So the arms race continues, as Metal Storm weaponry becomes more widely deployed to counter the armor! The system works!

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    4. Re:A Similar idea by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1
      Only for some weapons. Most guns when adapted to the new 'D30 Modern' system are 28-30x2.

      on the down side, it will lead to even crazier wealth check results (We had a guy that was able to afford a car, but was unable to afford a knife due to some crazy rolls.)

  30. ...the slow blade penetrates the shield by ElHorrendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but look down. We'd have joined each other in death.
        --Dune

    1. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Yes; bullet proof and knife proof jackets are quite different, and are not interchangeable. This just makes it even more obvious.

    2. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by misleb · · Score: 1

      Ah, so THAT is why everyone says that a groundwar in China would be a bad idea. We have no protection against all the Flying Daggers.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the most famous of the classic blunders - never get involved in a land war in Asia. Now what was the slightly less well-known one...

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    4. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by ksheff · · Score: 1

      so if two Asian countries want to declare war on each other, do they have to do all the fighting at sea?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    5. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1
      From TFA: (Read the last sentance)
      Armor Holdings, which bought the rights to Wagner's discovery last February, pulls in the bulk of its $1.64 billion in annual sales from selling vehicle armor to the U.S. Army. While liquid armor seems tailor-made for combat personnel or police, the company is initially targeting prisons because the fabric resists punctures. That means it can protect guards from stabbings, something even a top-of-the-line bulletproof vest can't do.
    6. Re:...the slow blade penetrates the shield by Netochka · · Score: 1

      2 things:

      First, a knife impact is still normally going to have a very strong impact if you're trying to stab someone, and so this vest will stop it. In fact, you can see this in the video when the lab assistant trys to stab the cloth, and they're starting by selling it to prison guards to prevent against stabbings.

      Secondly, they're integrating it with kevlar, so you will still have pretty good protection against that kind of stuff.

      In conclusion, RTFA, :p

  31. T-1000 anybody? by dead.phoenix.616 · · Score: 0

    could this be like the basic building block of a future t-1000 from t2???
    supposedly mix a network of nano-chips and it might be able to morph...
    am i too far off?
    cool idea though right? ;)

    --
    GUI == Graphical User Interference
  32. Corn Starch by realitybath1 · · Score: 0

    If you want to see a similar substance in action, just mix cornstarch and water together in a bowl.
    It handles like a liquid if you move your finger through it slowly, but if you punch it it will act like a solid.

    Neat video of cornstarch and water: http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=CH6-2UizHfI&sea rch=science

    1. Re:Corn Starch by 07734 · · Score: 1

      The last experiment on that video is crazy, finger-like protrutions?!

    2. Re:Corn Starch by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      Apparently they're applying some vibrations/oscillations to the bowl; that's not your typical corn-starch-and-water behavior in that video.

  33. I'm reminded of two things... by NevarMore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) The 'injured stormtrooper' fan film.

    2) What if he shot you in the face?

    1. Re:I'm reminded of two things... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/05/0 9/wus09.jpg

      That's the new suit they've been handing out to HMMWV turret gunners.
      The suit is bullet & shrapnel proof, including the visor.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:I'm reminded of two things... by stoney27 · · Score: 1

      2) What if he shot you in the face?

      That would be the natural 30 critical hit a previous poster was talking about :)

      -S

      --

      It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
      but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
  34. no snow crash jokes yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you dissapoint me slashdot, I expected at least one person to come up with a Snow Crash reference.

  35. As with all new tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... can it be used for... sex? Seriously, would this make condoms truely unbreakable?

  36. No one suggested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm appalled that no one has suggested jock strap/athletic supporter.
    Kevlar undies here we come! Oh, and if Materazzi had been wearing this
    stuff in the final those Zidane spoof videos flooding the tubes would
    be very different.

  37. Bedroom by cerberusss · · Score: 1
    The new armor, originally envisioned to be spread on like peanut butter
    Cool for the bedroom.
    "No baby, this time we're not rubbing eachother in with peanut butter but with liquid armour"
    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  38. Neal Stephenson said it first by Eadwacer · · Score: 1

    "A bullet will bounce off it like a wren hitting a patio door...feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of phone books."

    1. Re:Neal Stephenson said it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Larry Niven said it first (or at least earlier) - he mentions a Flexible Armor Suit in a 1968 novel.

  39. How fast is fast? by ThomsonsPier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article states that the material returns to a liquid state rapidly after pressure ceases (which I assume would help further with shock dissipation), but how fast is that? Combat will just require a different approach to breach the defence. Off the top of my head, it woould seem that if your clothing suddenly stiffens, you're vulnerable to attack, especially if you're in the middle of doing something dangerous that requires the use of your limbs.

    1. Re:How fast is fast? by asylumx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it's not the entire suit that stiffens, just the area local to the impact. This armor coating is intended to protect you from being penetrated by a bullet but chances are even if you're wearing this, if you get hit (in the chest for instance) you're going to have the wind knocked out of you and be vulnerable to more attacks anyway. That's why the military doesn't send people out to fight alone, they have others with them to protect them until they can re-arm themselves.

  40. Map of Bones by SourKAT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just read the novel "Map of Bones" by James Rollins, and his characters makes use of this Liquid Body Armor. He mentioned in the foreward that it was real technology, and that was the first time I heard about it.

    It was a thrilling read, too!

  41. One Question... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 0

    Having only watched the video (not RTFA), my question is how the liquid will prevent damage to the body. The video shows that the material will repel the bullet, but not that it will prevent the momentum from transerfing to what it protects. Will it spread the damage enough to prevent fatality in someone who gets shot? Or is this only good for armoured cars in war zones?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:One Question... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well because it's shear-thickening liquid, the more violent the impact, the more it locks up and spreads out the impact. One market that they are initially targeting is prison guards because the threat to them is from stabbing rather than gunshot or shrapnel, which the liquid armor stops yet remains flexable unlike plate armor that is rigid. The thing that will always annoy you when wearing armor is weight, heat build up and lack of flexability; this stuff should put a dent in all three.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:One Question... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Why does this remind me of Dune?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:One Question... by GundamFan · · Score: 1
      Why does this remind me of Dune?
      Because you have some taste in Sci-Fi (the first three novels anyway) and read Dune perhaps?
      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    4. Re:One Question... by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      Does it call every worm for kilometers when activated?

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    5. Re:One Question... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Why does this remind me of Dune?

      I don't know. It should remind you of Snow Crash, where YT's protective skateboard gear was similar, not the energy shields of Dune.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:One Question... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I don't remember her skateboard gear, but I do remember the motorcycle clothing Hiro wore stiffening to protect him from bullets when he fled after beheading the guy in the bar in the bubble dome.

    7. Re:One Question... by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 1

      Another market is Silly Puddy. Last I checked, that was shear thickening. In fact, I remember showing my friends how I could tear it in half like paper, or let it run like a liquid.

    8. Re:One Question... by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Ever tried shattering a glob of it with a hammer? :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    9. Re:One Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One market that they are initially targeting is prison guards because the threat to them is from stabbing rather than gunshot..."

      So the prisoners will just have to corner the guards and stab them slowly...

    10. Re:One Question... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I don't remember her skateboard gear, but I do remember the motorcycle clothing Hiro wore stiffening to protect him

      "The orange and blue coverall, bulging all over with sintered armogel padding, is the uniform of a Kourier..." We see it first on YT, then later on Hiro.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:One Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always assumed armorgel was padding for protection in crashes (hence the use in kourier and motorcycle clothing). I don't remember the bullet-stopping mentioned by the GP and can't really be bothered to walk the four feet to the bookshelf to confirm it.

    12. Re:One Question... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Fascinating... The first three books are all I've had the chance to read.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    13. Re:One Question... by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      Weird...

      Well anyway, those are the best of the series in my humble opinion.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
  42. Cornstarch by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sounds a bit like corn starch. From my PMK days (sigh, Alisha), I remember seeing demos of cornstarch mixed with water. It appears liquidy, but if you smack your hand down in it, it turns to a solid instantly and temporarily, so no splashing occurs. Kinda freaky.

    The WikiPedia entry actually has a video of this.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Cornstarch by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I remember trying this as a schoolkid wearing a black school uniform. Didn't make the stuff thick enough...

      Poured a big pool of it on the kitchen table and smacked my hand down on it hard .... and got covered in sticky cornstarch. :-(

    2. Re:Cornstarch by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought of a Cornstarch solution too, less glamorus than "nanobits" I guess.

        I just thought wouldn't filling a balloon with the Cornstarch solution be a really mean trick!

  43. Damn, now I'll have to respec by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Funny
    This material (the liquid is only one component, anyway) is protecting against piercing, not crushing.


    Darn. Now I'll have to respec my Rogue to use maces instead of daggers.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  44. Snake Oil! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Hah! Look folks! I'm going to put peanut butter on this sheet of Kevlar. BAM!!! See? The bullet didn't go through! Bullet-proof peanut butter! Only $49.95 while supplies last! Better hurry!

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. it might be just me but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I usually don't spread peanut butter on my clothes.

    At least not on purpose

  47. Liquid Armour vs Liquid Metal by payndz · · Score: 1

    Awesome! Now John Connor has a defence against shape-shifting Terminators!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  48. Re:Gotchas by Frightening · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I stand corrected. View the very nice clicky post at the beginning of the comments to understand how it really works.

    The question is, can it be used (in sufficiently thick amount?) without hard-to-get materials like kevlar? I am really asking if you can make this at home. From the brief vid, it looked like point 5) above is very possible.

  49. American SUV? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    "Thus, if you don't give a shit about the other guys as long as your kids are safe..."

    Is it just my prejudice, or is this the prime reason people drive around in those big honking oversized cars called "sports utility vehicles"? (Another reason being using sheer size to brag and intimidate others with...)

    (Grudgy, me? Why, never! ;-)

    1. Re:American SUV? by Fishead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice stereotyping.

      What if the prime reason for my big SUV with the big tires, and the skookum bush bar on the front is so I can say, go offroad? I grew up in a remote town, but now due to work I have to live in the city. I drive my bush beast on the road not to intimidate as you say, but rather for my own reasons. I like to throw my boat on the roof and go where few can go. My friends and I found a sweet de-activated logging road one day with trees growing in the middle of the road that were 2 meters tall. Sorry, but your honda civic can stay in the city. There was nobody around for prolly 15km. When I got back to work the next week, I was much less stressed out and misserable. Something about tossing a new propane cylinder in a fire puts a nice close to a sweet adventure! I believe in low impact offroading, but when the trees are in the middle of the road... fair game I say.

      Now, thos SUV's with the low profile tires and chrome bush bars... I agree with you on that.

    2. Re:American SUV? by Skater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, and there are plenty of people that need an SUV for work or whatever. Most anti-SUV people I know don't have a problem with people that actually need something like that. The Chevy Suburban has existed since the 30s or something, LONG before the SUV moniker and hatred appeared, and they've sold models every year they made them.

    3. Re:American SUV? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What if the prime reason for my big SUV with the big tires, and the skookum bush bar on the front is so I can say, go offroad?



      If this is really what you bought it for (and actually do), Congratulations. You are one of the 0.5 % of SUV owners who actually should own an SUV. Unfortunately, 99.5 % of them are owened by soccer moms and men who need to overcompensate for something, and are just endangering us all on the roads, and burning very excessive amounts of gasoline.

    4. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its simple.

      99%, yes 99%, of SUVs sold this year will never see anything but pure pavement...and the occasional curb from a sh*tty park job. They'll be lucky to see more than 1 person inside most of the time too.

      You know its bad when consumer reports tells you DON'T buy a SUV if you actually want to go off road.

    5. Re:American SUV? by JDevers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here is the problem though, you are the type of person who would have bought an SUV 20+ years ago (yea, they've been making several for at least that long). Most people that buy them now are NOT like you. When one can go to a center city Chicago car dealership and the lot is more than half full of SUVs most of their clientele isn't buying them to go offroading.

      Another example, I live in a mostly rural state (Arkansas). I happen to live in an area that is fairly urban but not too far from significant outdoor activities (Fayetteville...around 400,000 people in the metro area) but was born in a town with under 15,000 people that was about an hour and a half away from any sizeable city and was completely surrounded by farmland. One would think that there would be far more SUVs in the small town when I go to visit than in the larger city that I currently live in, but the opposite is true and in a big way. I attribute this to the fact that incomes here are about double what they are in the smaller town and people can afford what they want not just what they need, so people that never do much WALKING off of concrete, much less driving, buy SUVs.

    6. Re:American SUV? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      I'd have to argue with your arbitray % designation for SUV use.

      You're forgetting that not everyone lives in sunny urban america. I myself live in NH where it Snows pretty heavily during the winter months. I'd like to see you try to drive a Prius (or any small front wheel drive sedan for that matter) through 18" of snow. My last car was a Subaru it was a heck of a lot better then a FWD car but even IT wasn't all that great because it had next to nothing for ground clearance. Honestly if I had a family of 5 and needed something that can get you around in the winter months without fear of getting stuck and stranded the most obvious choice is an SUV. Heck there are lots of roads around here that arn't even paved, sure you can drive your eco-sedan down them but you'll be in the shop replacing parts every other month because the suspensions just weren't built for that kind of road.

      People in my area have been driving SUVs and other trucks long before the "fad" ever started simply because it's the most worthy vehicle for driving in this area. I would imagine that a lot of New England is like that, perhapse some points to the west of that, Canada, Alasaka, etc.

    7. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots who drive big SUVs with the big tyres, destroying regrowth, forcing open roads that were intended to be closed for the next 60 years, and initiating erosion problems, are the reason some of us have started carrying our nine millimeters when we hike into the deep woods.

      I can think of no way of curbing post logging ecodamage that is more effective (and satisfying) than putting a round into each of the tyres of a hummer found out where it doesn't belong, and a couple more rounds between the skookum bars into the radiator.

      I foresee in your future a long walk, your lovely SUV being confiscated by the Government, a large bill for its removal and the repair of the damage it has done, and your name on the permanent blacklist of those who can never get a hunting, fishing, or forest access permit.

      The aluminum frame nine millimeter is the perfect tool for this job. Its tyre and radiator penetration capability is on a par with a 45 caliber gun, but it is much lighter and easier to carry around all day. Some blokes use a short barrelled 357 magnum, but I think the convenience of carrying ammo in preloaded clips in ziplock bags overrides the slight weight advantage of a 357 snubby. Also, I personally find the buck of a short 357 uncomfortable in the wrist, but maybe that's residual from some carpal tunnel I picked up when I was younger and more stupid, and thought that spending the night coding for Linux was a proper thing to do.

    8. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I picked up when I was younger and more stupid

      Sounds like you have a long way to go, yet. I'm hoping you practice at the range a bit and are already in the mindset that your life is only worth a damaged Hummer. I wouldn't be surprised if you came face-to-face with one of the owners sometime in the deep woods and have to deal with the direct consequences of your actions.

    9. Re:American SUV? by Gulthek · · Score: 0

      What a trite argument. How about this:

      Sorry, but your honda civic can stay in the city.

      Sorry, but your SUV can stay offroad. I'm glad you have a good time with your friends; but you endanger the lives and safety of the cars around you when you're in traffic. How can that not bother you?

      Just because you grew up in a remote town (which doesn't make you unique you know) doesn't give you the right to do as you please.

    10. Re:American SUV? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Just to be sure: I am aware that some amount of SUV or off-road drivers have a valid reason; you seem to be one of them.

      But around where I am, the picture is dominated by Porsche 'off-roaders' with huge rims and what have you. A Hummer, even a straight-from-the-factory with no modifications, has very little business in a capital cityscape where there are hardly even cobblestoned roads anymore. that was my point.

    11. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like NH needs to beef up its snow removal. I live in the country outside of Ottawa, Canada. Yes it snows heavily, but snow removal equipment clears the snow before it gets too deep for small cars the vast majority of times.

    12. Re:American SUV? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      My friends and I found a sweet de-activated logging road one day with trees growing in the middle of the road that were 2 meters tall.

      So the logging company was actually being responsible and re-planted. What did you do? Destroyed em. Yeah, really sweet.

    13. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why most major airports won't let you land your tiny, personal aircraft that you fly for pleasure. There's no utility in endangering everyone so a few can have their kicks.

    14. Re:American SUV? by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      99.5 % of them are owened by soccer moms and men who need to overcompensate for something

      Ahh, so you own an SUV do you. It couldn't be that taking a soccer team in three cars is less economical than in one SUV could it? Peoples choices in purchasing vehicles have a large variety of differing motivations. Some people do feel that their vehicle presents an image that represents them. SUVs are popular because they have the features people desire. I personally drive a Subaru, hardly an SUV, but I do it because I like the four wheel drive combined with reliability. Some purchase larger vehicles because they feel safer. Your motivation for purchasing your vehicles may have something to do with overcompensating for something, but I think most people just want specific features, comfort, and styling.

    15. Re:American SUV? by Greatmoose · · Score: 0

      I foresee in YOUR future a confiscation of your firearm and charges of property destruction and possible aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Hooray eco-terrorists! Oh, and it's magazines, not 'clips'. Clips are entirely different. Magazines usually have a return spring to push the rounds into the chamber. A clip is normally a strip of metal that hold s the rounds for insertion into a box mag.

      --
      Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
    16. Re:American SUV? by Skater · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that the people who DO go off road or carry heavy loads or tow with them have a good reason for needing them, and they don't bother me. It's the people that slow down their SUV to go over a bump in the road that make me want to slap them...

    17. Re:American SUV? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      No, that's just the excuse people like to spit out to stir up emotion. Can't logically argue against somebody buying something you don't like? Just accuse them of "compensating for small genitalia". Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense.

      The same applies to arguments about homosexuality. Anti-gays claim that anybody who doesn't berate and persecute homosexuals must indeed be gay themselves. Why else would they be sympathetic? The other side claims that anyone who so adamently comes out against gays are hiding something, so they must be gay themselves. If both sides were right, pretty much everybody would be gay and we just like arguing about it. More realistically both arguments are just stupidly trying to appeal to emotion.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    18. Re:American SUV? by Tower · · Score: 1

      That's just it - if you are using it to haul things (plywood/drywall/jobsite stuff) and/or as a tow vehicle, they are great. If you don't have a hitch, have only one kid and no dogs, and use it to commute to your desk job every day... that's a little excessive.

      My grandfather owned a 1983 Suburban (later on a Chevy Express van), using it to pull his 31' and 35' travel trailers, but when he was at home, he primarily drove the smaller car (currently a Ford Focus) unless he was getting something that wouldn't fit.

      Seems like a decent usage model to me.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    19. Re:American SUV? by Fishead · · Score: 1

      Hmm... you seem very educated in the ways of the forest industry.

      Logging roads are de-activated by digging a diagonal trench across the road. This is to stop majour errosion before they return to use the road again. The logging company did NOT replant on the road. The logging company will re-open the road in another couple years, long before the trees growing in the road are viable timber, and will probably just scrape them down to make way for more equipment. In fact, it is explicitly legal for myself and other offroaders to use de-activated logging roads. In fact, you can buy maps of these roads from the forestry offices.

      Sure, there are those that do drive directly through the forest with no concern for nature, but driving on an abandoned logging road is quite a different matter.

    20. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry, a minivan has even more room inside it for a soccer team than an SUV. Plus it's got lower bumpers (friendlier to others when you crash into their cars) and is goes by stricter car emissions standards rather than those for trucks. It's greener, safer for others (as well as yourself, they don't tip over as much as SUVs), and has more room.

      A minivan can have every vehicle feature and comfort an SUV can. If style is being ungreen and dangerous to others, that's an ugly style.

    21. Re:American SUV? by Fishead · · Score: 1

      I wish I could keep my SUV offroad. It's that friggen work thing that gets in the way of my fun.

      All I am saying is that I always hear about the "SUV Soccer Mom" burning barrels of fuel, ruining the environment. Sorry, not everyones lifestyle fits into the compact car category. There is a legitimate use for SUV's whether you want to admit it or not.

      I would probably save a tonne of money driving a compact car to and from work, but I wouldn't like it.

    22. Re:American SUV? by Fishead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my friends and I mock these SUV drivers as much as everyone else. When you need to replace your 4X4, it is recommended to go looking for a pavement princess. The less it has been abused, the more you can abuse it before it breaks!

    23. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Seems like a decent usage model to me.

      Costs like insurance, maintenance, and even parking, can make it less economical to go this
      route (smaller car plus the truck).

      If you are one of those people who can afford two vehicles without having to finance either of them,
      you probably aren't too concerned about gas anyway.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    24. Re:American SUV? by cellocgw · · Score: 0

      I like to throw my boat on the roof and go where few can go.
      And just why do you feel the need to *drive* there? All you've done is left hydrocarbons and dead underbrush for miles in the middle of some quiet forest.
      Next time, use an existing launch site or parking lot and try boating or hiking to this "few can go" location.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    25. Re:American SUV? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Minnesota, I never had anything but a manual tranny sub-compact sedan, or a rear-wheel-drive compact pickup (slightly more dificult to handle than the front-drive car). You don't need 4WD, you just have to learn how to drive properly.

    26. Re:American SUV? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Your post is so gay - you must have a small penis.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    27. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >And just why do you feel the need to *drive* there?

      If we had to walk we wouldn't actually get to go.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    28. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >That's why most major airports won't let you land your tiny, personal aircraft that you fly for pleasure.

      You can name a major airport that has no GA facilities whatsoever?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    29. Re:American SUV? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that a lot of New England is like that, perhapse some points to the west of that, Canada, Alasaka, etc.

      Speaking as a citizen of Edmonton Alberta, Canada, our northern-most major city, I can assure you that and decent driver can get by quite happily with a FWD sedan in virtually all weather conditions around here. The only people who own trucks or SUVs and *actually* need them are: farmers and ranchers, or recreational offroaders. And rest assured, they are very much the minority of truck and SUV drivers around these parts.

      Not that I expect to dissuade you from the (frankly silly) idea that you need your monstrous gas guzzler. I'm sure you'll find *some* reason to justify your purchase... it's something the human brain excels at.

    30. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Here is the problem though, you are the type of person who would have bought an SUV 20+ years ago (yea, they've been making several for at least that long)."

      Chevy Suburban, in production since 1935.

      "When one can go to a center city Chicago car dealership and the lot is more than half full of SUVs most of their clientele isn't buying them to go offroading."

      You're sure none of them do backcountry activities down towards Carbondale or up in Michigan? They don't take ski trips and stuff?

      I know where you're coming from though. The natural consequences of this kind of decision (to get a larger car than is needed) will either have an effect on the owner, or they won't. Maybe we will see $8 or $12 gas. I don't even know if *that* is enough to reduce traffic, let alone cause people to reconsider the size of their vehicles.

      Me, I have two large dogs, and I frequently haul a keyboard rig and racks and amps and speakers and people. Perfect vehicle for me is a Volvo station wagon -- although the Dodge Magnum wagon is tempting.

      I'd stick with my Volvo even if gas was $8.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    31. Re:American SUV? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly forgetting. I grew up in the country. The nearest village to our farm had 300 people in it. Our road certainly wasn't paved. We were lucky when they put some gravel in the bigger dips. I grew up not seeing a snow plow for a week or so after a 'big' snow, while they were busy digging out more populated areas. (Lake effect snow in northern Ohio). My dad always had a 3/4 ton truck (he hauled stuff in it, an SUV would have been zero use for hauling wood). The rest of us had cars. Sedans, compacts. etc. You know what? We always seemed to get by ok with some snow tires. Sometimes the snow would get too high for the cars to plow through. But then again, it was sometimes too high to get through with a truck/SUV. You needed a plow.

      Do I think everyone in the country needs to have a plow on the front of their truck/SUV? No. Do I think most people who drive an SUV, even in the country, really need one? No.

    32. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Those "0.5%" and "99.5%" numbers come from someplace other than your ass?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    33. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Sounds like NH needs to beef up its snow removal. I live in the country outside of Ottawa, Canada. Yes it snows heavily, but snow removal equipment clears the snow before it gets too deep for small cars the vast majority of times."

      The guys who drive the city's snow plow fleet -- what do they drive to work?

      You're trying to imply that folks in Ottowa don't drive big trucks!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    34. Re:American SUV? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh, and it's magazines, not 'clips'.

      Nope, it's clip. Just like the case that houses a computer is the "CPU" despite the CPU being technically just a single chip within the case. People misuse words. The great thing about a living language (unless you are a pedantic asshole), is that the language changes to accept new meanings. Currently, a "clip" means a separate housing for delivering bullets into a gun. It is generic and does not differentiate from a magazine. That is, by far, the most common usage of the term, and thus, the generally accepted meaning. Give it a few years, the dictionaries will catch up to the usage, and you'll have nothing to complain about anymore. Won't your life be grand then?

    35. Re:American SUV? by MCraigW · · Score: 1
      Sorry, a minivan has even more room inside it for a soccer team than an SUV. Plus it's got lower bumpers (friendlier to others when you crash into their cars) and is goes by stricter car emissions standards rather than those for trucks. It's greener, safer for others (as well as yourself, they don't tip over as much as SUVs), and has more room. A minivan can have every vehicle feature and comfort an SUV can. If style is being ungreen and dangerous to others, that's an ugly style.

      Sorry, according to the EPA, my http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-SUBARU-Forester-01.h tm Subaru Forester has a higher gas mileage rating than any of http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/mnvn-06.htm these 55 minivans... and a hybrid Ford Escape does even better.

      And other SUVs come with big enough engines to tow a large boat, or a loaded horse trailer, or with the capacity to carry a load of paving bricks along with that soccer team. And real 4 wheel drive, and enough room to carry a table saw, etc. If minivans do have all the features of SUVs, then everyone would purchase them instead of SUVs, but in reality, SUVs are highly popular and there are reasons for it.

    36. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What if the prime reason for my big SUV with the big tires, and the skookum bush bar on the front is so I can say, go offroad?


      Yeah... Sure. The average amount of time such a vehicle spends off road (in my experience) is probably 0.01% offroad to 99.9% on road... And "off road" most accurately describes a relatively smooth dirt road--which is still a road. Furthermore, if you don't drive a trophy truck, a pro truck, a sand rail or some other comparable vehicle, and yet manage to do better than 25MPH while you're "off roading", you're probably not really off-roading.

      Now, that's not to say that a 4x4 dosen't have utility, they're great in the snow for instance, and you basically need a truck if you semi-regularly haul stuff that dosen't fit in a car... Even though I have an AWD car that gets around in light snow just fine, it becoms a snowplow when the snow goes over 5" or so, and that's no good.

      Most SUVs are about as useless as the one-ton dualie diesel trucks I see hauling some lardass around. It's beyond me why someone would get a ~$60,000 truck and drive around the city with it so they can get 10 MPG, when that truck would be better served towing a fifth wheel trailer loaded with 10,000 lbs while getting 10 highway miles per gallon. I mean, it's plainly obvious that 90% of the huge diesel trucks around are actually used for work less than 5% of the time! I mean, get a freaking Cadillac for crying out loud, it rides better, it's more comfortable, it's more manuverable, it certianly costs less, and it will cost less to run!

      Fact is, if you don't utilize one, an SUV is a useless toy.

    37. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, a whole 2 SUVs get good mileage. Hurray.

      And just what percentage of people tow boats or horse trailers? Yeah, that's a great reason for as many folks to buys SUVs as do... Face it. Most folks who own SUVs don't tow, and don't go off road. Only about 10% do any of that. That's from a study from GM. Wanna tell me again why the other 90% of folks who drive SUVs but never go off road, and don't tow anything need an SUV over a minivan? It's crap. It's all because "I don't wanna be seen driving a mini van. It's so uncool".

    38. Re:American SUV? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      When I was taking driver's education in Minot, North Dakota, we were taught
      that 4WD will help you accelerate on slippery roads, but does not improve
      handling or stopping (why this is a dangerous combination should be obvious).

      My experience agrees with this.

      Use 4WD vehicles for the relatively slow off-roading conditions they were designed
      for, but don't kid yourself by thinking that 4WD keeps you safer during bad driving
      conditions.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    39. Re:American SUV? by Epyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My wife's geo prizm handled one of the largest blizzards i'd seen in ND very nicely.

      The whole 'big vehicle' = 'better in snow' thing is something people made up. People who rarely drive in snow and don't know that even with snow on the ground you have fine traction.

      Then they hit that one special stop sign that has a sheet of ice covered by a layer of snow, and -bam- they slide into an intersection in their biggun truk. Larger mass doesn't fix inattentiveness.

    40. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making very deceptive comparisons. From personal experience, the Forester will seat only four people comfortably (and that's open for debate, considering the horrible rear seats), and although it has a nice rear cargo area, it's still in a different class from most minivans. The overall styling (ground clearance, etc) also places it much more like a car than the stereotyped SUVs that have been discussed so far.

      It's not suprising that it gets decent mileage. But compare it to a minivan with a similar-sized engine, such as one of the Dodge caravans on the list you linked, and you'll see that the Forester gets a worse score for air pollution and it's about a tie on gas mileage.

      The Forester might compare well to the minivans, but as a whole the minivans still win. In addition, if they were sold with more appropriate engines (we Americans seem to love everything super-sized), there would be no comparison.

    41. Re:American SUV? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It's funny every winter to see the hundreds of upside-down SUVs in Colorado. It is helpful to have clearance in seldom-plowed mountain roads, but the locals often drive normal cars after watching too many SUVs flip and roll.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    42. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, anyone who would buy or drive an SUV is a freekin MORON.

    43. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic that you would bring up the concept of a living language, when in this case it provides supporting evidence against your claim.

      Both history and current usage and in agreement, and they both say you are wrong. A 'clip' and 'charger' might be somewhat interchangeable, but a clip and a magazine are two very different items.

    44. Re:American SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You're sure none of them do backcountry activities down towards Carbondale or up in Michigan? They don't take ski trips and stuff?


      Hey, I see plenty of people with ski racks or as I like to call them, Spock Caskets, stuck on their car/wagon... Heck, my Audi 5000 Quattro has a little bag in the middle of the rear seat that you can use to share cabin and trunk space to accomidate a few pairs of skis, and the trunk is big enough for a couple dozen snow boards and a good picnic lunch. No doubt, I'm biased towards my Audi, it's powerful, it goes up hills like crazy and still gets decent mileage, it rides and drives better than any truck I ever drove, it can go around a corner much faster than most trucks, and with snow tires and chains it's unstoppable unless the snow is up to the bumper, and not many trucks could do much better in that regard, either!

      You know, it's amusing to me the people that argue they NEED an SUV. Go to Europe, most people who have cars seem to manage just fine. Go to the alps in the winter, there are more SUVs than there has been in the past, but mostly people do just fine in sedans.

      I don't have anything against the 10% of the people that need and have an SUV or a truck... But let's face it, most SUVs are bought and sold as status symbols, and they're used as a buffer between themselves and the rest of the world when the driver decides that talking on the phone is more important than safety--theirs or everyone elses'. There needs to be responsibility and accountability, to other drivers, and to the environment.

    45. Re:American SUV? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "There needs to be responsibility and accountability, to other drivers, and to the environment."

      Make it so, Number One.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    46. Re:American SUV? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I say I NEEDED a "monstrous gas guzzler" I drive a small-ish Toyota Pickup now. The reason I got rid of the Subaru for the pickup was due to a few nasty snow storms we got last winter. Working in IT when I get a call that I need to come in to re-start something that went down, I better damn well be able to get there (particuarly since I work for a 3-shift manufacturer). There were a few nights that I litterally couldn't get the Subaru out of the driveway and basically I had to call in and tell them that I wouldn't be able to make it in until the plow came by (which can sometimes be days during heavier storms since they put all their efforts into the highways and tend to neglect the back roads). Bad snow storms seem to always come hand in hand with snowy roads and IT problems. My employer made it clear that I needed to be more reliable in such situations or they would find someone else who was. In all honesty I'd much rather drive my subaru then the pickup, but I'd rather keep my job then the Subaru.

      I completely agree that most people can get by with a FWD sedan. But honestly if you live on a road where you can't rely on the plow coming through after a big storm for a few days I'd rather having something in the garage that I knew I could get to work, the grocery store, the hospital... etc. reguardless of the weather.

    47. Re:American SUV? by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      Actually, the main problem with 4x4 drivers in the snow is that they think they can do thngs that 4x2 drivers can't. What they forget is that 4x4's not only don't have better brakeing characteristics, but due to their weight usually have worse brakeing - and that's what gets them into accidents. They forget that all cars have 4 wheel braking, not just 4x4s.

    48. Re:American SUV? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Both history and current usage and in agreement, and they both say you are wrong.

      Stop 100 random people on the street, show them the magazine for a Glock 18 (just picking something off the top of my head for a very specific example) and ask them to identify it, and I assert you will get 80% "clip" 5% "magazine" and 15% other answers. So, are you asserting that this does not back my assertion, or are you asserting that people will call it a "magazine" a much larger percentage of the time than it is called a "clip"?

    49. Re:American SUV? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to justify anything. It's his money; he can buy any damned car he pleases.

      Seems to me the people who bitch the most are the ones who can't afford the lifestyle, and are jealous. Strip down all that neo-eco-urban bullshit and what you get is yet another useless git who's pissed off that HE isn't the one making barrels of cash.

      Fuck 'em.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    50. Re:American SUV? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      People who rarely drive in snow and don't know that even with snow on the ground you have fine traction.

      Then they hit that one special stop sign that has a sheet of ice covered by a layer of snow, and -bam- they slide into an intersection in their biggun truk. Larger mass doesn't fix inattentiveness.

      Exactly, it's why I'm happy to ride my motorbike in any weather conditions (well, any that I would want to drive a car in, at least). You have to be pretty much 100% attentive on a 'bike 100% of the time anyway.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:American SUV? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me the people who bitch the most are the ones who can't afford the lifestyle, and are jealous.

      Yes, you keep telling yourself that. I bet that's why people made fun of you in school, too, right? *snicker*

  50. I did this as a kid 20 years ago by idji · · Score: 1

    All you need to do is mix LOTS of flour with water. it is then a thick paste. Hit it with a hammer at it cracks like a solid under the shock before it instantly reliquifies

  51. Snow Crash by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sounds like the stuff that Hiro Protagonist wears to deliver pizza..

    "Sintered Armorgel ; feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books"

    Maybe they should ask Neal Stephenson about using that as an ad slogan.

    1. Re:Snow Crash by Beergeek0064 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I ride daily ('98 BMW R1100R) -- my first thought was of the "sintered armorgel" from Snow Crash. If the usual route to civilian applications for military tech holds true, we should see riding gear (jackets, pants, suits) within a few years. Having a comfortable jacket that protects without the need for plates of plastic armor would be awesome. Cheers, BeerGeek

      --
      -- If it won't move, get a hammer. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
    2. Re:Snow Crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephenson came up with the hip description, but Niven came up with the idea of a variable-stiffness suit:

              Snow Crash (by Neal Stephenson): published 1992
              The Soft Weapon (by Larry Niven): published 1967

      For further reference:
              http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=942
              http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=927

      -klode

  52. Full body armour by ubergenius · · Score: 1

    I could see this being used as a full-body spray-on armour. Sure, it would still be likely lethal if your shot in the head (since even if the bullet isn't allowed to pierce the skull, the impact alone would probably kill you), and it could be potentially lethal if shot in the neck or side of the face, but even so, if you can prevent the bullet from penetrating the body, the chances of survival increase dramatically. Now, even a shot to the leg would never be fatal. Even though it would hurt tremendously, without piercing the skin, there is no chance to bleed out (internal bleeding is another matter entirely).

    To me, the most important factor is going to be how easy it is to get off the body once it's on, especially in emergency situations, such as after someone has been shot and if there is internal bleeding from the impact that a surgeon needs to get to.

    --
    Student Manager - Take control of your education!
  53. sounds like ooblick (oobleck, ubliq...) by karlandtanya · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  54. I know.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I know this is pedantic, but shouldn't it be "SHEAR-thickening liquid"?
    TFA says sheer-thickening but that doesn't make sense to me.

    sheer != shear.

    --
    -Styopa
  55. Ramming Speed by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
    I have noticed a correlation between big SUV's and driving habits. It is very common to see Tahoe's and Suburban's out in the left lane pushing. Regardless of how fast you are going and what is happening in the other lanes they will ride up on the car in front of them and intimidate them into speeding up or moving over. The BMW's and other sports sedans do pylon drills through the other cars.

    The automotive companies have actually done some fantastic things over the last 30 years with respect to occupant safety. Now the driving public needs to do their part and stop driving like they have a "New Game" menu selection on their dash.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    1. Re:Ramming Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have noticed a correlation between big SUV's and driving habits. It is very common to see Tahoe's and Suburban's out in the left lane pushing. Regardless of how fast you are going and what is happening in the other lanes they will ride up on the car in front of them and intimidate them into speeding up or moving over.


      Yeah, well that shit doesn't fly. In addition, you'll find out how sheepish people can get when they figure out that the armed idiot that followed them home was the same one they nearly bumped off the road earlier that day.

      It does make for interesting conversation.
    2. Re:Ramming Speed by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >intimidate them into speeding up or moving over.

      It is every bit the fault of the driver in front, if he is actually intimidated by this sufficiently to break the law.

      Seriously -- what's the car *behind you* going to do? Ram your bumper? He's going 70, you're going 75, he speeds up and rams you? You're *intimidated* by this prospect? Hell, this would make my day, no it would make my YEAR. PLEASE assault me with your expensive, well insured vehicle by trying to push me from behind on the highway!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Ramming Speed by Carnildo · · Score: 1
      Seriously -- what's the car *behind you* going to do? Ram your bumper? He's going 70, you're going 75, he speeds up and rams you?


      The situations I've been involved in, it's been a case of "I'm going 75, he's going well upwards of a hundred." If the guy behind me hits me at that speed, there's no way I'll keep control, and all of a sudden it's "I'm going 90, the bridge abutment is going 0".
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:Ramming Speed by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      The situations I've been involved in, it's been a case of "I'm going 75, he's going well upwards of a hundred." If the guy behind me hits me at that speed, there's no way I'll keep control, and all of a sudden it's "I'm going 90, the bridge abutment is going 0".

      That's into a whole different realm, though.
      People who *really* speed, past the threshold of racing speeds, should get life without parole on the first offense.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Ramming Speed by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Strangely, in Colorado it is against the law to stay left. They passed a law that vehicles must stay right except to pass. You'll see "Slower traffic keep right" and "keep right except to pass" signs around. They actually ticket for this, a friend found out personally. He was going 60 in a 55 in the left lane and got a ticket for blocking traffic. The officer said they give out hundreds of these tickets every month.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    6. Re:Ramming Speed by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >He was going 60 in a 55 in the left lane and got a ticket for blocking traffic.

      It's not like he's in any position to argue. Had he been doing 55 in a 55 zone, on the other hand,
      it would be get certain kinds of lawyers drooling. But he was breaking the law, and even though he
      got cited for the wrong thing, he was speeding. He probably got lucky -- does a "blocking traffic"
      ticket raise your insurance rates like a speeding fine does?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Ramming Speed by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      It is a several point moving violation, so it'd affect insurance rates. The tickets are generally given to people going at or under the speed limit. It's already been tested in court, going the speed limit in the left lane is illegal if people are passing you on the right. I think the law was passed to placate speeders, but it also may have safety benefits. Passing on the right is more dangerous than passing on the left, especially when truckers are involved.

      Anyway, drivers here are truly horrible. And I've driven in California, Texas, and Chicago. It's a nightmare of 25 over the speed limit, swerving, no turn signals, tailgating, impossibly rude actions, all done while on the phone. Oh, and regular beatings/killings of people who get so worked up they take it outside the car. I guess they forgot why they're so uptight in the first place, which is getting there fast. People are idiots, sorry for the rant!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    8. Re:Ramming Speed by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >going the speed limit in the left lane is illegal if people are passing you on the right.

      Fair enough. "Slower traffic keep right" is all over Oregon, California, Colorado, and especially anyplace with mountains.

      The scenario I'm picturing with the original article is something like LBJ Freeway between Farmers Branch and Dallas, with six lanes of traffic at rush hour and people trying to intimidate cars in front of them by tailgating.

      I once wired a momentary switch to my brake lights so that I could "stomp the brakes" for tailgaters while accelerating. It was pretty effective.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Ramming Speed by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      I once wired a momentary switch to my brake lights so that I could "stomp the brakes" for tailgaters while accelerating. It was pretty effective.
      Wow, that's hilarious! Much safer than my idea of locking up the emergency brake without the courtesy of brake lights. I've been tempted, but never done it. I fear it would also be effective.
      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    10. Re:Ramming Speed by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      A downshift has a similar effect! Actually my point is when the traffic on the right is going 10-15 MPH slower...so here the right lane is the limit +5 to +10 and the left lane is 10+ over that...and then some dickhead in a Tahoe doesn't think 85 MPH is fast enough. If I got pulled over for 85 in a 65 zone I doubt the ticket would be for impeding.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  56. "What's the matter, private?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What's the matter, private?"
    "I'm sorry, sergeant, but I kinda, uhm... spilled some of my bulletproof armor..."

    Then again... What if the soldiers get shot in the face? I guess that's a risk their officers are willing to take. :)

  57. Re:You ever notice that in Starship Trooper, the g by codegen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You ever notice that in Starship Trooper, the guns were basically 20th century? They have these huge space-faring ships and bunch of sooped-up M16s ?

    That was my objection to the movie. If you read the book, they all had mobile armour (and not soft, liquid armour either) with jetpacks and were spread about 100 yards apart when in combat. The only thing in that movie had in common with Heinlien's work was the title

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  58. Bullet proof goo by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

    Sure hope it's waterproof too, or we'll have to save crime fighting for fair weather

  59. Shoot for the face by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

    That's why I always aim for the face.

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
    1. Re:Shoot for the face by noamsml · · Score: 1

      Dick? Is that you?

  60. Re:Gloves - not shark resistant by Nursie · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I don't think sharks will be biting fast enough for this stuff to help.

    It's the velocity of the object hitting the liquid that determines whether or not (or how much) it resists.

  61. Just what I needed! by thenerdgod · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For my trip with Nessus to the Ringworld!

  62. mnb Re:Better armor = better weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only true of classc armor-piercing rounds which try to poke through like an icepick. Those which fragment and attempt to cut through fibre armor cause almost as nasty of wounds as hollow points.

  63. Contraception, anyone? by Skythe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In other news, the birth rate has risen by more than 42%.

  64. Body Armour Joints by Catmeat · · Score: 1

    Given that Iraqi insurgent snipers are smart enough to aim for the gaps in Americans' body armour - article - flexable armour, even if's only used to cover joints, would be a very good thing.

  65. Definitely armor from the future. by kalirion · · Score: 1

    Even the article is from 6 days in the future, according to the date on it.

  66. Rhadamanth Nemes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rhadamanth Nemes had this and it didn't stop Raul Endymion from kicking her ass ;-)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(book)

  67. Re:Motorcycle Gear by SolarStorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wish I could remember the mag I read it in, but there is some company working Motocross gear made from simialr stuff. It created a Roost Guard (chest/shoulder protector) from foam coated with this stuff. The foam was flexible until impact, then the foam became rigid absorbing the impact. The rigidity was based on the speed of compression of the foam. The faster the impact the harder the foam. So for regular riding, it was like wearing a 1/2" layer of flexible foam. If the bike in front spit up a rock, it hit your chest and became hard during the impact then soft again. Or as soon as you went over your bars and landed on your shoulder, the shoulder area became rigid during impact then soft as you lay on the ground wondering what happpend. The last demo was actually going into the bars with your chest and having the whole chest plate harden during impact!

    I think the projected public delivery date was around 2008 but for the life of me I cant find the article again. I do remember that it was a British company making the stuff.

  68. Puncture Proof . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If their puncture proof, this could be used in medical gloves to prevent medical practitioners (and patients) from accidental puncture of their gloves. Stopping anything from puncturing could reduce a lot of risk from doctors dealing with agitated patients with infectious diseases.

    Or how about on environment (hazmat) suits? Or space suits? A lot of useful safety applications if it can resist punctures in those dangerous environments.

  69. Laxatives are good for you by Brix+Braxton · · Score: 2, Funny

    Funny that they use an ingredient found in laxatives for all of those "oh crap" moments.

    --
    www.wildpad.com
  70. Re:Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my neck of the woods we call it beer (liquer, wine, etc...). After a sufficient amount one becomes bullet proof. Sometimes invisible.

  71. Re:Dune - a common misunderstanding by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You make the common mistake of considering the sequels to be the same sort of book as the original Dune. The first book is mostly an adventure novel. The later books are much more weighted towards religion, politics, and philosophy. Book 2 and 3 are tough to get through (at least the first time, I found they were easier and more enjoyable upon re-reading). You definitely can't approach them expecting the same hero-villian adventure-battle-conquest scenario.

    Frankly, Lord of the Rings is a grade school fairy tale compared to the Dune series. There are very few books that address the scope of history that Dune presents. The first book is a basic adventure but the subsequent books explore the nature of heros, mesiahs, and rulers throughout a vast span of (future) history.

  72. Re:Gloves - not shark resistant by kalirion · · Score: 1

    Even if they were biting fast enough, it would be like getting your hand hit with a sledgehammer instead of an axe. Not much comfort.

  73. Ob GTA quote by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

    "Mommy mommy where's the reset button!?"
      - Lazlo, Chatterbox, GTAIII

    1. Re:Ob GTA quote by Quasicorps · · Score: 1

      That wasn't Lazlo, that was a caller. They went on to say,

      Mom- Life doesn't have a reset button.
      Lazlo- No, but shis show does. -Click- I love that button.

      While the focus of that conversation wasn't the Maibotsu or anything, GTA3 criticised the SUV culture greatly.

      I'm also wondering how important it is to have a rigid vehicle. Why go for a massive solid vehicle that you can't crash into rocks with, when you could get a massive crumpling vehicle that you can crash into anything with? That way if you crash into a rock or another Hummer, you won't be as badly off as if you are in a solid vehicle, and you are still well off if you smash a little hatchback up.

      I don't like SUVs, and I feel very threatened when I see their driving, as I drive and like small cars. If I crash into one, I don't stand much of a chance. I digress.

  74. Sorry guys, Niven was there first by bobetov · · Score: 1

    Much as I love Neal, Larry Niven was way ahead of him on this idea. Check out: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=942

    I loved the idea in the Ringworld books. Very clever technology that subtly changed the rules of combat. Larry Niven is the man.

    --
    Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
  75. Difficult sales pitch. by Spectre · · Score: 0

    I think most women are pretty disbelieving at claims of:

    "It gets hard, I promise!"

    --
    "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    1. Re:Difficult sales pitch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but...didn't really laugh. You might need to work on your delivery.

  76. Easy formula by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    The way I learned to make it was a very simple two parts cornstarch to one part water. A few drops of green food coloring helps the whole green-slime effect immensely.

  77. Good stuff by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    I am definitely going to get one of these to protect myself from my wife.

  78. In related news by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

    In related news, several members of the notorious gun hackers gang were found dead today. Strangely, their bodies were smeared with peanut butter.

  79. Agitation by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

    The video pointed out that if the new armor was agitated, it would harden. This makes me wonder if the armor wouldn't be applied to the joint areas in order to prevent the armor from prematurely hardening and thus becoming less effective, if not ineffective.

    ~UP

    --
    Eat the Path.
    1. Re:Agitation by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The video pointed out that if the new armor was agitated, it would harden. This makes me wonder if the armor wouldn't be applied to the joint areas in order to prevent the armor from prematurely hardening and thus becoming less effective, if not ineffective.
      Joints aren't generally armored anyway. Military body armor is generally just a vest. In the few applications where joints are armored, such as full-coverage EOD (bomb disposal) armor, the articulated joints are protected by means of overlapping layers that slide over each other.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Agitation by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

      Good point -- I hadn't thought of that!

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
  80. Re:If the soldier ate less... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    he could evade things better

    Do a barrel roll?

  81. Shin Gauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard somewhere that they were already using this for professional soccer (football) shin gaurds.

  82. Ouch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    So you get hit by a big slug, and all your clothes instantly stiffen with the absorbed energy, clubbing you across your whole body?

    This tech will be really exciting when the stiffening material can leave creased joints for flexibility as the material stiffens.

    It will have fully arrived when the material can combine nanoparticles upon impact, ejecting them back along the incoming vector of the impacting bullet. "Firing back" automatically.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Ouch by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      So you get hit by a big slug, and all your clothes instantly stiffen with the absorbed energy, clubbing you across your whole body?

      Well, that's how all impact-protective gear works, spreading out the force. One of these, for example, takes a karate kick that might break your ribs, and turns it into a slap across your whole chest that just stings and maybe knocks the wind out. They are, however, remarkably awkward; it would be nice to have a flexible version that stiffened on impact.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Ouch by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      This tech will be really exciting when the stiffening material can leave creased joints for flexibility as the material stiffens.

      Unless you're being hit by multiple impacts in quick succession, that shouldn't be necessary - the material doesn't stay stiff for long, just long enough to absorb the impact. It's the imparted momentum that causes the stiffness - think of silly putty (or US equivalent). Squeeze it and it deforms, hit it with a hammer and the hammer bounces off.

    3. Re:Ouch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      In the moment that it absorbs the impact, the armor will become a skintight shell, while the human within keeps moving. That's got to hurt. Articulations would solve it, but that's a very complex material, either self-articulating or jumping across articulations in an integument carrying tiles.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Ouch by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The instant, complete stiffening makes your body bang into the now-rigid form of its last impression.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  83. Also good for sports by Gulik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another company, d3o Labs, has developed a similar substance, but they've been adapting it to sports applications -- ski racing suits, hockey pads, and sneakers.

  84. Gloves... by waferhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone has forgotten their classic SciFi.

    Nice pair of Deerskin gloves with a layer of this inside would make brass knuckles so obsolete...

  85. Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Didn't the personal shields in Dune have a similar purpose (stop fast-moving objects, allow small forces)? The way they got around this in Dune was to stab someone slowly. I imagine that's still possible with this armour, same way you can stab through custard+water or whatever.

  86. Deuce and a quarter by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    They just scrape you off the dashboard and sell it to someone else.

    -Sinbad

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  87. False dichotomy by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even big heavy modern cars have crumple zones engineered in. A 6000 lb car with a crumple zone will always be safer than a 6000 lb car without a crumple zone.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  88. Chainmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I always have the same problem with my chain mail. Great against long swords, terrible against daggers and scimitar thrusts.
    Chainmail was particularly ineffective against blunt weapons. If your opponent had a mace, club or a flail you might as well ditch the armor and save the weight. That was why you normally wore a set of padded armor under the chainmail.
    Crossbow bolts and longbow arrows also sucked big time. Come to think of it, chainmail didn't help much with catapult rocks or burning oil either. I guess war just sucked pretty much all the time for the participants.
  89. warped cars... warped logic... by bziman · · Score: 1
    ...and who cares if the car's repairable when everyone in it's dead?

    I'm sure you've already got a hundred responses, but I'll throw in my two cents. I have been in two traffic accidents (both many years ago as a young driver). The first accident was in an early 90s Mitsubishi. I hit a tree squarely, head on, going less than ten miles per hour, and the car stopped when the engine hit the tree. The car was totally demolished. To give you an idea of the situation, I was just pulling out of a parking lot from a full stop, and an SUV decided not to yield the right-of-way, and I decided to veer over off the road, instead of being hit by the SUV. The tree was less than fifteen feet from where I started at a dead stop. And it was a total loss.

    The other accident, was in a 1983 Oldsmobile Toronado, a four thousand pound beast of iron and steel. In this car, I was doing the speed limit (thirty-five or forty) on a relatively twisty back road, when I crested a hill, and as it dipped and curved, I hit six inches of standing water that had collected from the previous day's rain. The car hydroplaned, and hit the guardrail on the front left corner at full speed, spun around, hit the guardrail on the other side of the road, before stopping, pointed back in the direction I'd come.

    The only damage to the vehicle was that the piston on the bumper was compressed, where I'd first hit the guardrail, and there was no damage in the spot where I'd hit the other guardrail. There was a small crack in the plastic wheel-well cover, but no other damage to the car. I was able to drive it home, without any problem.

    Sure, I might have been killed if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. And sure in a crash at highway speeds, it's good if the car sacrifices itself for you. But at ten miles an hour, a car shouldn't be totaled. And I can't help but think that if I'd been in the Mitsubishi in the second accident, the car would have ended up a ball of debris hanging from a tree, and I probably would have been killed anyway... and even if not, this was before cell phones, and it would have been an awful long walk back to civilization.

    --brian
  90. Non-Newtonain Fluids by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Informative

    I became suspicious when I read the phrase "nano bits of silica". Nano technology my big toe: that's a marketing flourish.

    The article mentions that this is a sheer thickening fluid, what they probably mean is shear thickening. That would be a fluid where the coefficient of viscosity increases with increasing strain rates, instead of remaining the classically Newtonian constant. In this case it's probably because the glycol tangles around the silica particles and can't untangle quickly.

    While it's quite possible the material can become a semi-solid for the brief duration of a dynamic impact there is no reason to believe, and lots of reasons to not to believe, it becomes a particularly strong solid. In a particulate reinforced composite, which this is in its pseudo-solid state, the matrix (the ethylene glycol) is important to the strength and being a simple organic molecule it's strength must be on the same order of, say, polyethylene.

    TFA itself infers this, noting the original idea of using the material itself (in peanut-butter mode) didn't work out. Instead it is employed as the matix in a conventional fiber composite using Kevar or Spectra or something like that as the workhorse.

    As in all conventional fiber composites, the fiber bears the load, the matrix supports the fiber. In this case the support, I conjecture, amounts to preventing the fibers from displacing away from the impact point, probably allowing fewer layers of fiber to absorb a given impact energy.

    Whle this is innovative and a good idea, it's hardly liquid armour. What I would hope for and maybe expect is better performance against pointy, hard, teflon-coated projectiles of the cop-killer variety which work by nosing the fibers out of the way.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by technococcus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Teflon-coated bullets are teflon coated to reduce barrel wear, not to provide any performance increase with respect to penetrative capabilities. Other lubricants are often used, but teflon works very well even with high velocity projectiles. Handloaders who shoot USPSA/IPSC handgun competitions often lube their bullets to decrease wear on their 1000USD high-polish barrels. "Cop-killer" is a sensationalist name first applied to Teflon-coated bullets and later to Jacketed Hollow Points when that term was all the rage in the liberal media. Remember, only YOU can prevent the spread of FUD!

    2. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by hacker · · Score: 1
      I became suspicious when I read the phrase "nano bits of silica". Nano technology my big toe: that's a marketing flourish.

      (emphasis mine)

      nano-

      pref.

      1. often nanno- Extremely small: nannoplankton.
      2. One-billionth (10-9): nanosecond.

      YOU added the "nano technology" bungle, but nano as used in TFA is correct. Please don't confuse readers by inferring something which did not exist in the parent article.

    3. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by technococcus · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you just proved my point, right?

      *sighs@reactionary rhetoric-spew*

      Also: Everyone knows/accepts that Fox News is THE source for right-leaning reporting.
      I'd make more of an arguement about you not properly applying critical thinking to the propaganda overflowing from both of the major political parties in the US, but I just know it would only lead to yet another flame.

    4. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by florescent_beige · · Score: 0, Troll

      Good luck with your war, it's going real well I hear.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    5. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by technococcus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the war I claim is. Hezbollah doesn't stand half a chance against Israel.

    6. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 1

      Why Beige... Why did you feel the need to go from being a person to a low grade slashtroll when faced with verifiable facts correcting a small peice of your posting? Kids these days...

    7. Re:Non-Newtonain Fluids by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Israel wiped the walls with several of their neighbours simultaneously in the six day war, for all the media gives them a hard time for the term, this current military campaign is definately "measured" compared to their capabilities.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  91. Re:Dune - a common misunderstanding by andphi · · Score: 1

    Frankly, Lord of the Rings is a grade school fairy tale compared to the Dune series. There are very few books that address the scope of history that Dune presents. The first book is a basic adventure but the subsequent books explore the nature of heros, mesiahs, and rulers throughout a vast span of (future) history.

    I would have to disagree. It seems to me that both The Lord of the Rings and The Dune Chronicles (by which I mean the six Dune books that Frank Herbert wrote) are sui generis. There are points of comparison, but they are limited by the differences in scope and focus. Dune is in some ways a classical tragedy, i.e., a story of the nobility exalted by their virtues and brought down by their humanity. The Lord of the Rings, while also a tragedy in some sense, takes its cast of characters from more layers of society: many are nobles or even godlike, but some are very, very humble or even profoundly debased.

    Moving beyond the question of focal characters to the unities of time that you refer to, The Lord of the Rings is on its face much more compact than The Dune Chronicles. However, Herbert plays fast and loose (as is his right) with the flow of time. He polevaults over 3000 years of future history between the last word of Children of Dune and the first word of God Emperor of Dune. He appears (IIRC) to do it again between God Emperor and Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune. In other words, The Lord of The Rings shows unities of time that Herbert deliberately discards.

    I suppose I can sum my thoughts up by saying that comparing the Dune Chronicles to LOTR seems to be a lot like comparing da Vinci's Last Supper with Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Each one is a masterwork in its own right. Each artist chose a specific scope and worked within that scope as he saw fit. Neither should be faulted for not being the other.

  92. Kinda like silly putty... by voxel · · Score: 1

    I had that thought when I was a kid in the 1980's... Wow, this stuff is soft when you move it slow, but if you hit it hard, it gets stiff really fast.. I wonder if you could change it slightly and then make armor out of it.

    --
    Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  93. To be honest... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Mitsubishis are some of the shittiest import cars in terms of reliability (including behavior during accidents). Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru: all worlds better.

    Hit a tree at 10mph in a Honda Odyssey and you will need to replace your bumper (if you mind that dent in it).

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  94. Pontiac Catalina -vs- Ford Escort by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1
    True story: Escort (mine) -vs- Catalina (his).
    Situation: I've got the "green", he ignores the red, our cars "meet".
    Equipment required: (Escort)
    • "jaws of life" (to remove driver's door)
    • back board and neck brace (to remove driver)
    • large white vehicle with garish lights and loud siren (to transport driver)
    • large flat-bed truck (to transport Escort)
    • City work truck (to transport concrete for patching curb which forcibly removed Escort's rear wheel during "meeting")
    Equipment required: (Catalina)
    • Phillips-head screwdriver (to re-aim driver's-side headlight)

    Synopsis: In contest between Catalina and Escort, bet on the Catalina.
    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    1. Re:Pontiac Catalina -vs- Ford Escort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas. Wisdom through application.

      All the other countless prior posts above are book worm wannabe physicists. In simple terms:

      1. "Collapsable frames" to absorb impact energy from a collision is an END TO JUSTIFY THE MEANS. What? In other words, "collapsable frames" is the industries MARKETING response to using lighter, less safe, materials in the construction of vehicles; in the name of fuel economy and cost of production. It's the Industries' latest marketing bait, and countless /.'ers above bit it hook line and sinker, which is quite alarming for a bunch of tech saavy readers.

      2. All modern cars ONLY response in a collision is to do just that; to collapse. There was no inherit design paradigm shift in the way cars were built for safety over the past four or five decades. Sorry. The only real substantial influence or addition was the incorporation of inflatable air bags. And if "collapsable frames" were so "revolutionary" as some preach here, there would be no real need for the air bags. Right?!

      3. A simple illustration (in accordance and agreement with your practical example) will hopefully knock some sense into the others above, until such time their head gets jarred into CORRECT alignment from an accident in one of those "collapsable frame" cars they rest so much of their misguided faith:

      Two soda cans of equal weight collide with eachother at the same speeds. One is made of standard aluminum, and the other is composed of titanium or steel. Regardless of elemental mass difference, to make the illustration accurate to a modern "collapsable frame" car to a vintage stiff 50s vehicle, the two principals have the same weight since the lighter aluminum will just have thicker walls (or however you wish to distribute that mass, even making the aluminum can bigger if you must). Now, an egg is inside each can, and when the collision occurs, naturally, the RIGID steel can WILL rip right through the collapsable aluminum can, and the egg inside it will continue along that same path with almost equal momentum to the steel can. Conversely, the aluminum can will collapse of course and, yes, absorb some of the energy from the collision. HOWEVER, the egg will ALSO continue along that same momentum path inside the aluminum can. The ONLY real energy abosrbing safety for that poor little egg inside the aluminum can is, guess what, the air bag in front of it. Meanwhile, the egg in the stiff steel frame continues along with LESS energy absorption since it's path is relatively unimpeded. Yes, there will be some force felt by the egg in the steel can, but not nearly as much as the egg in the aluminum can, UNLESS the egg shell is made from collapsable material as well. How many humans you know with such a design feature?!

      This "collapsable frame" safety feature is quite amusing actually. I have a classic 60s vehicle made with a 1/4" thick steel shell, from doors to hood to trunk. For all intensive purposes, it is an Abrams tank. I have been involved in rear end collisions and front end collisions, ranging from 10 to 40 mph. I ASSURE all you /. physicist wannabees above this posters here, you are just wrong about your assumptions of a "collapsable frame" safety feature. Simply wrong. I tore all other vehicles a new ass hole with my 60s car, and had no physical or medical effects from either. It really is quite simple a concept and quite alarming how many book worm /.'ers fail to see it. Don't fight your commons sense. In all cases, as a scientist, it will guide your hand from the book to the lab. I think most /.'ers here need a little more lab experience in their respective field...

    2. Re:Pontiac Catalina -vs- Ford Escort by slightcrazed · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, you missed the entire point of the collapsable frame. The point is not to reduce absorbtion of impact energy, but to redistribute that energy so that the cabin of the vehicle takes less than the part being struck. In your same misguided soda can example, you have made the entire vehicle the cabin, which few cars sans the VW minibus actually replicate. Crumple Zones (as the industry likes to call them) are designed so that the impact energy transmitted at the front of the vehicle (bumper) is distributed only along the support structure that we want. A stiff frame will PASS the impact energy along it's length and it will be absorbed initially by the WEAKEST point, which inevitably is the cabin of the vehicle. "Crumple zones" present the weakest point to the transferred energy before it travels to the cabin, thus transmitting less of the energy to the cabin.

  95. Rigiplast and similar sci-fi stuff by johnkzin · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one mentioned how similar this is to so many sci-fi (especially sci-fi rpg) standard materials out there: rigid plastic that immediately hardens with impact, forming a temporary hard surface.

    What I'm wondering is: how long before we see martial arts equipment makers selling gloves made with the stuff. Imagine two thin layers of a fabric with a layer of this liquid between them. Nice soft pliable gloves usable for grabbing and grappling, but which become like brass knuckles when you punch someone.

    You wouldn't even need the stuff to be "everywhere" on the glove. Just along the knuckles and back of the first (base) digit for conventional fist strikes (maybe along the 2nd digit for those kinds of strikes), along the side of the palm for strikes along there. And then maybe a gauntlet type long glove with the stuff along the forearm for protecting the arm during blocking. Actually, with a long gauntlet type glove, you might be able to get several of the benefits of a tonfa out of your glove (using it for both blocking and striking). (but not all of the benefits, as a tonfa gets some benefits out of rotating it around its handle, that cause some extra kinetic energy).

    I wonder if it would be good or bad for race car driver body suits. Wonder where else it'd be good.

  96. What about Ringworld? by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

    Larry Niven's Known Space series has armor exactly like this, that stiffens on impact. The only thing the armor has in common with Dune is that a slow impact gets through, IIRC in Dune they used some kind of force field. Larry describes what it's like to try to run in a suit like this while being peppered with automatic gunfire. Kinda funny. I don't think the Dune force fields stiffened up and made you fall over while being shot...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:What about Ringworld? by qeveren · · Score: 1

      I believe they did, actually. I vaguely recall a scene in one of the Dune novels where someone was, while not totally immobilized, slowed down by a barrage of projectiles. I could be mis-remembering, however. :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    2. Re:What about Ringworld? by holdenholden · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong. There is no such scene in the original Dune or the first two sequels.

    3. Re:What about Ringworld? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      John Brunner used a similar idea, earlier, in "Shockwave Rider" (if I'm remembering correctly -- it might have been the even earlier "Stand on Zanzibar" or "The Jagged Orbit"). He introduced the "karatand" (karate hand), gloves made of the stuff that are flexible in normal use but stiffen on impact. Of course Brunner's use was offensive rather than defensive.

      I think it was also Brunner in one of the above novels that introduced the "geckopad", which is also just now becoming reality.

      --
      -- Alastair
  97. Good jorb. by sirrobert · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Well done. This is the first slashdot post I've ever actually laughed at aloud. (I'm not a moderator or I'd mark it funny =)

  98. For testing, they used.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ex girlfriend, who I hear now also spreads like peanut butter.

  99. Lets not forget Scintered Armor Gel by CokeJunky · · Score: 1

    Feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of bricks..

    (Snowcrash, Neil Stephenson. Don't have the book on hand, so the quote could be off, but the jist of it is right.)

    --
    More Caffeine. NOW
  100. This stuff sounds like.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This stuff sounds like liquid "Stretch Armstrong". The thing was pretty mushy and pliable, but, man if you got hit over the head with one of those...you were 'out' for awhile...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  101. Sweet, so now I can be Batman by teshuvah · · Score: 1

    All I need to do is make a batsuit, coat it in this stuff, and I'll be bulletproof.

  102. Straight from sci-fi by phorm · · Score: 1

    Did this strike a familiar chord with anyone else who's read books by Ringo/Weber (military futuristic sci-fi authors). I remember in particular that the series starting with "March Upcountry" had chameleon suits which, in addition to camoflague, had very similar properties in that they would absorb and spread out hits by kinetic weapons.

    One of the comments attached to the article mentions an offensive use as well in sci-fi:
    Life imitates art; John M. Brunner anticipated this many years ago in his science fiction classic, "Stand on Zanzibar." Characters wore what was called a "Karatang" on their hand. Worn like a glove, they remained flexible until they were used to strike an object, whereupon they hardened into a steel-like gauntlet, packing a serious "punch.

    I prefer the idea of dissipative armor, but it's nice to see that fantasy can still become reality.

    1. Re:Straight from sci-fi by SBJ95 · · Score: 1

      I've never read those books, but it reminded me of the shields from Star Trek... You know...invisible until something hits it, appears when that thing hits it, blocks that thing, and then disappears. I can definetly see something like that in the future.

  103. NIght's Dawn anyone? by Puchku · · Score: 1
    Anyone else reminded of the armour in the Night's Dawn Trilogy? http://thierrygagnon.com/en-article10.html

    Damm good read, by the way, if you like well crafted space opera.. Ian M. Banks, and Alastair Reynolds fans, you have to read the trilogy..

    Offtopic, I know, but would appreciate any good recommendations along the same lines.. I've got some time on my hands, and want to read some nice books.

  104. Protection in space by FridayBob · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this might be something NASA could be interested in for protection against micrometeoroid strikes in space. For instance, you could use it for space suits (nobody's been killed this way yet, although it's always a possibility), but also for space ships in general and perhaps even exposed portions of a hypothetical moon base (assuming most of it will be built underground). Of course, it would be most practical if the stuff could be made to stand up the the vacuum and extreme temperatures.

    1. Re:Protection in space by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      After RTFA my first reaction was the same. Could this stuff be made on the moon itself? But consider Carbon; it's a finite element, were Silicon is not. For purposes of space habitation, could Silicon be an "acceptable" alternative?

  105. non-newtonian fluid by vg30e · · Score: 1

    I am not a physicist nor am I an engineer, but I think this is called a non-newtonian fluid.

    If it is, that is pretty cool. I remember trying to figure a use for fluids with this kind of property.

    you can experiment with non-newtonian fluids at home by taking a small amount of water, say a glass full, and adding lots and lots of cornstarch. When you have added enough, the fluid will flow slowly, but when you hit it with a spoon, it will be rigid.

  106. Re:If the soldier ate less... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it would be better than making a BLT roll ( with extra mayo )

  107. All I could think on reading this post... by technococcus · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Arg! My squeedleespooch!" -Zim, Invader Zim

  108. Re:Wolverine by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    Of course, while it would be about the most bad-ass thing I could possibly own :), a real light saber wouldn't do much of anything to modern warfare. It's still a sword (I suppose they could make light-bayonets :)), and the use of melee weapons has been greatly reduces in todays world.

    Despite our notions of the robed Jedi masters walking around, in real life the lightsaber would probably be more useful in construction or manufacturing than on the battlefield.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  109. like...PEANUT BUTTER...?? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    Now, I just want to know what's going through the mind of someone who thinks of peanut butter as the
    natural thing that comes to mind here. Maybe it's a common activity just not in my town?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  110. Blankman! by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

    Damon Wayans invented this in 1994! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blankman. He sprayed it on his clothes and made hime bulletproof!

  111. Re:Wolverine by rmerrill11 · · Score: 1
    "Despite our notions of the robed Jedi masters walking around, in real life the lightsaber would probably be more useful in construction or manufacturing than on the battlefield."

    And in mouse traps.

  112. Ring-something? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    Luis Wu unimpressed and unavailable for comment.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  113. You are so right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, just because you don't like SUV's, that gives you the right to tell other people what they can and can't do.

    God, I am so sick of little tin-pot, busy-body, wannabe dictators like you. ESAD

  114. liquid condoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could apply to condoms. Sperms shoot out at 50 mph in a piercing motion. Plus, it'll feel better for the women. Most women I know hate condoms because of the feel so they tell their mates to do it raw and withdraw before sperms shoot out. This new condom could prevent high school pregnancy. Should have told my friend about this.

    1. Re:liquid condoms? by jabelar · · Score: 1

      But is it edible?

    2. Re:liquid condoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dipped your wang in liqid armor, she'd have a great time, but if you got too... um... *vigorous*, your armor would harden, and you'd stop feeling friction all together.

      Besides, how do you put a resivoir tip on a spray on condom? You'd have to pull out before the armor lost it's rigidity, or she'd just end up with a low velocity payload delivery.

      Why the hell am I taking this seriously, anyway?

  115. Johnny thought there was water in the pool, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me who wants to fill a pool with this stuff and then sit back with a camera?

  116. Re:Video link (magic bullet?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice the "bullet" in this video was a pellet?

    Am I seeing things?

    A pointed pellet for your consideration.

  117. Can I buy matching Breeches of Security? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    "Sheer-thickening?"

    Learn to spell, sheesh.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  118. Re:You ever notice that in Starship Trooper by Anomalyst · · Score: 1
    The only thing in that movie had in common with Heinlien's work was the title
    Well, there was the flogging scene.
    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  119. Suprise! by K-Mile · · Score: 1

    From the video:

    "I can't remember ever once leaving the base thinking 'I'm one hundred percent safe'."

    That's why they call it a warzone, not 'staying in bed all day, contemplating wether to do someting usefull with your life.'

    And even then, you could die of sudden heart failure or one of Osama's pal going for his '747 exam.

  120. New weapons for new armor by Dark_MadMax666 · · Score: 1

    I suspect as personal body armor improves firearms will improve too. - Same way anti-tank projectiles did. Next step is cumulative projectiles -if the armor because so dense and hard to penetrate ,just burn it trough. Protection vs cumulative projectiles is expensive in terms of space and weight and while tank can afford it (barely) I doubt personal body vest can.

      Though before that I think there is still quite enough room to improve bullets and ammo.

  121. In some neighborhoods.... by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

    cheaper bulletproof cars might be a real blessing. I wonder if this stuff could be made to work on glass windows as well.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:In some neighborhoods.... by rapierian · · Score: 1

      That's true: you wouldn't put it in auto paint, but you might put it around gas lines, the gas tank, and windows and such.

    2. Re:In some neighborhoods.... by ars · · Score: 1

      I think you quite missed the entire point.

      The neat thing about this stuff is that it's flexible - meaning I can bend my arm which wearing this.

      If you don't need to it be flexible, then don't both with this, there are a ton of much simpler things you can use.

      And I see little reason for gas lines, (or paint) to be flexible.

      --
      -Ariel
    3. Re:In some neighborhoods.... by rapierian · · Score: 1

      I get that flexibility is one of the main points, but I don't think it's necessarily the main point. For one thing, it's fairly cheap, that's always important. The other thing is that during an impact, it becomes incredibly impact resistant. So during a crash, what are the things you want to be able to withstand any shrapnel?

  122. Bill Hicks by giminy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bill Hicks predicted the future:

    *pshwhshswsh*

    "What's that?"

    "Musket repellant."

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  123. alternative to automatically totaled cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not connect the bumpers to the frame with shock absorbers?

    1. Re:alternative to automatically totaled cars? by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      They do. A shock absorber doesn't help much at 40 MPH though.

  124. The US ski team was already usin g this by phelix_da_kat · · Score: 1
    The US and Canadian skiers at the Winter Olympics were already using liquiud armour.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8721&f eedId=online-news_rss20

  125. Energy, yes. Momentum, not so much... by khayman80 · · Score: 3, Informative
    You're right about energy transfer. A bullet bouncing off really DOES carry away its kinetic energy, rather than depositing it in the armor as heat or deformation or pressure waves. Momentum, on the other hand, is a different story...

    Point #1: Momentum is a vector quantity. This means that a bullet approaching a person from the left and a bullet leaving said person, heading right, have totally different momentum vectors.

    Point #2: In situations where outside forces can be ignored (such as a bullet impact), momentum is said to be "conserved". This means that any momentum change the bullet experiences has to be equal and opposite to the momentum change the person experiences. A bullet of mass "m" which is travelling to the right at speed "v" has momentum "mv" (taking the direction "right" to be positive). Similarly, the same bullet travelling to the left at speed "v" has momentum "-mv". Therefore, a bullet which ricochets off at its initial speed has TWICE the momentum change compared to a bullet which simply stops. As a result, the person has to experience double the momentum change as well.

    This means that a ricochet imparts MORE momentum to the target than an embedded bullet would, which is (as another poster remarked) why solar sails are reflective.

  126. Re:You ever notice that in Starship Trooper by johnkzin · · Score: 1

    and bugs.

  127. Silly Question... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Isn't this basically Silly Putty?

    If you roll it into a ball, it will bounce off of hard surfaces; but gentle pressure will deform it like peanut butter...

    Perhaps it will be used by secret agents to copy documents without a camera by pressing against it...

    1. Re:Silly Question... by hotwatermusic · · Score: 0

      What if they spray the bullets with the same liquid armor as the vests?

  128. Knight Industries Two-Thousand... Testing Imminent by RUFar · · Score: 1

    *joke* I hear they're going to be testing this in the near future on a Chevy Corvette. (Original plans were for a Pontiac Firebird, but that model was discontinued during development, so an alternative GM sports car was selected.) Long-term plans for the vehicle include military applications, however civillian law-enforcement has also been discussed. Vigilante testing has proven successful, but met with mixed approval. K.I.T.T. pilot, David Hasselhoff was unavailable for comment. :)

  129. Fun with Non-Newtonian Fluids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    super saturarted corn starch solution in water is pure liquid pour it in a pie tin and slap it REALLY HARD...

    Silly Putty...it bounces but will drip down

    Gak! Throw it against a wall...

  130. Terminator 2 already has it by WaR.KiN · · Score: 0

    It's not surprising. That killer cyborg in Terminator 2 has liquid armor. And he's from THE FUTURE.

  131. Re:You ever notice that in Starship Trooper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember they also had portable rocket launchers (redeemer missles) with low yield nukes attached. The trick to surviving the bugs is to sprinkle this liquid stuff on your helmet so their brain suckers can't get you.

  132. It's just hi-tech Oobleck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when I first heard of "oobleck" (though it was called "blue ooze" by the guys who told me about it, for some reason), I thought of this precise application.

    http://sciconn.mcb.arizona.edu/oobleck/oobleck.htm l

  133. But I don't wanna practice knife-fighting Picard! by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

    "Moods are for cattle and love-play Potatoface! Defend yourself!"

  134. Re:Energy, yes. Momentum, not so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't everyone in high school physics do the problem that demonstrates why it hurts more to be hit with a bouncing ball as opposed to a non-bouncing ball? This one is right next to the running through rain gets you more wet than walking on my old old physics homework.

  135. Testing of this product. by bmalia · · Score: 1

    All right Jimmy, you got that liquid armor on, it looks good... They want you to stand infront of this fireing squad, and you tell us if it hurts when they shoot ya.

    Well, all right, hold my sign. I don't wanna lose it.

    --
    There's no place like ~/
  136. Force vs. Energy by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

    No, you guys are still confusing total energy and force. You're not creating energy by bouncing something off the armor, but you do require more force to reverse it's direction. It requires force to make something change direction. Thus, you must apply more force to reverse an object than to stop it (assuming the time of application of the force is the same). That force is applied by the armor/body. However, as I said in my previous post, what really matters is how much 1) time and 2) area this force is applied over.

  137. I agree, that's the problem. (note moderation) by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, I got an off-topic for the gp post, though agreed I invited it. But none of the respondents got an OT. Somewhere is a dim mod fanboy with no sense of humor.
    Let's give him another chance in case he is still looking for opportunities.
    The first book, is in my probably insufficiently humble opinion, a very well written adventure novel with some interesting ideas, though what a pity so many American SF writers are obsessed with aristocracies and empires as their themes. Over-compensation? The other books contain (in my probably equally dubious opinion) poorly written meanderings on religion, politics and philosophy which would cause you to fail a degree course in any of those subjects. Leto wittering on about being the ultimate predator? Scope of history? Believe me, there is more and deeper religious and political theorising, better presented, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books than in the Dune series or Lord of the Rings.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  138. Re:Energy, yes. Momentum, not so much... by kkwst2 · · Score: 1

    Actually that one was worked out in Myth Busters. A brisk walk was deemed best under most rain conditions.

  139. Liquid Armour easily defeated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swap your uzi for a hairdryer. Liquid armour defeated!

    Next!

  140. Motorcyclists! by DonGar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How well would this work as armor for motorcyclists? I spend a lot of time trying to find gear that's comfortable enough to wear as normal clothing. Both so that I'm comfortable on the bike, and so I don't have to spend so much time gearing up and down for each trip, even it it's only to the convenience store.

    --
    plus-good, double-plus-good
    1. Re:Motorcyclists! by Unnngh! · · Score: 1

      It seems like it's more designed to stop little, fast-moving stuff from penetrating the armor rather than deflecting blunt force trauma over a large area, like you would experience in a bike crash. I also bet that a slide on asphault would tear it to shreds, but I don't know much about kevlar. I think your best bet is a padded leather racing suit like people I've known wear for the track.

    2. Re:Motorcyclists! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      In the summer here in the UK, you'd come home after a ride looking like a fly-paper.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  141. Not to be too technical... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    With all this technical talk and math about force calculations, let me just say: Mmmmm, Peanut Butter.

    But seriously, how would you actually eat this stuff? It would get rock hard on each bite, then soften up. My dog would go nuts!

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  142. Re:You ever notice that in Starship Trooper, the g by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

    And Dizzy was a man! ...wait, wait... Does that mean that in Verhoeven's transcendental universe Johnny Rico is gay?!?!

    --
    ---k--
    </stupid>
  143. I see how this stuff works... by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    The new armor, originally envisioned to be spread on like peanut butter, is instead sprayed onto Kevlar in ultrathin coats.

    So they spray this stuff onto bulletproof material to make it... bulletproof? I'm not sure how this makes an improvement on the original.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  144. I know this one: by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

    Holtzman effect generated by a Holtzman Generator!

    Though as the sheilds also had the small drawback of attracting Worms and the slightly larger drawback of triggering a cascading nuclear fusion reaction when hit by the most common weapon of the time the lasgun. The shields weren't actually used much.

  145. "sheer-thickening"??? by riprjak · · Score: 1

    spelling nazi time...
    Interesting quote, was he quoting an idiot, because it makes no sense? I suspect "Shear-thickening liquid" is the accurate quote, which is both logical and an accurate description of what the fluid is doing.

    err!
    jak.