Rocket-Powered Bionic Arm Successfully Tested

amigoro writes "A rocket-powered bionic arm has been successfully developed and tested by a team of mechanical engineers at Vanderbilt University as part of a $30 million military program to develop advanced prosthetic devices for next generation of super-soldiers."

Comments

Bad Move

[DynaSoar]

The Army prefers not to put powered vehicles on the front line because
(1) they require refueling, and fuel is a supply/logistics problem, and
(2) they make noise, and
(3) being mechanical, they break.

Loading up each soldier with enough H2O2 to get through the day would require stocking and maintaining equipment for this stuff. Running out of H2O2 before you can get refueled will result in removing the equipment so it won't detract from action, and that will result in soldiers abandoning it rather than run around burdened by something they can't use.

Sitting around making a hissing noise makes one a target even in the dark.

Putting a non-combatant like a mechanic/armorer on the front line is a bad idea because they can get killed, leaving you with useless armor. If this happens, or if it breaks and you don't send a mechanic/armorer because they're a burden themselves, it will result in the same abandoning noted above. Electrical devices break down less than mechanical and make them more likely to be adopted and used.

If H2O2/catalyst devices are capable of producing sufficient power, they'd be being developed for use in fuel cells (which still requires the rear line placement), which could recharge battery powered armor (which doesn't have near the other problems). To be efficient it would require high purity stuff, which is hard to produce, and requires difficult and expensive maintenance no matter how far back it's made and stored. Even so, it'd be better from a logistic and tactical stand point to develop hydrogen based fuel cells to charge battery powered armor, running off the hydrogen from the fuels they're already going to be carting around -- unleaded, diesel and JP4/8.

Re:I don't know what the rocket adds...

[fractoid]

Well, from the sounds of it this has as much in common with rockets as it has with said spam. A rocket isn't "something that has expanding gas" or "something that uses hydrogen peroxide". A rocket is a device for producing thrust by ejecting propulsion mass. "Piston powered" would be more like it.

Obligatory wiki link excluded since I'm sure you're all smart enough to find it. :P

Re:I don't know what the rocket adds...

[sjames]

It is piston driven, but there is a connection bto rocket power. The catalyst and high-test peroxide fuel mechanism were first developed for rocket propulsion (and are still used in astronaut backpacks for maneuvering).

So it isn't literally rocket powered but it is rocket technology powered.

Re:Disabled vets, anyone?

[phantomlord]

Doctors, when faced with medical problems, strive to find solutions. Our initial knowledge of anatomy came from doctors disecting deceased people, to see how they tick. Some ... a VERY small percentage ... of this knowledge came from the battlefield. An overwhelming majority did NOT come from the battlefield, but from universities.

It's hard to find solutions when you don't have a fresh stream of people in the right place at the right time to try them out on. Certainly, you wouldn't argue that a 10 year old with a facial scar from a car accident when she was 3 is the person to do initial experiments with plastic surgery on. Guys who are missing half of their face from a shrapnel wound? Good choice.

Prior to the Civil War, armies didn't really try to set up field hospitals where they could perform on-site diagnosis, triage and surgery facing a wide array of potentially fatal, somewhat random wounds. They treated everything from burns to gangrene to shattered bones in those hospitals. Morbidity post-amputation was pretty high and that's where sterilization procedures started coming into play. Where do you think the system of roving medics who triage wounds and stabilize patients en-route to doctors (like EMTs/ambulances/helicopters rushing you to the hospital) comes from?

a mini PBS documentary of some of the history of medicine and the military. I've seen lots of stuff on the History Channel as well. There are a LOT of books and other information out there describing the advances made in medicine because of warfare. If you think we'd be where we are without those sacrifices, you'd be very mistaken. Pick up a book, pretty much any book on the subject, and educate yourself before you go off spouting that scientists/doctors will make advances at the rate they have without patients to work on.

Not at all. Capitalism, and in particular Imperialism is driving all the wars on the planet, in one form or another. Even the stupid tribal wars in Africa can be traced back to a bunch of capitalists who want to profit from selling arms and generally sticking their nose ( and capital ) where's it's not wanted. The Middle East is of course the most obvious example of imperialist meddling leading to wars. Individuals - even large groups of them - have no interest in war. People want to solve their problems in constructive ways, that benefit everyone. It's the capitalists who use massive armies and WOMD to enforce their will.

Check your history... Everyone has an ancestor who has been involved in war. It doesn't matter if they were from Athens, Egypt, Russia, Peru or Japan. Everyone fights at some time and you're ignorant if you think it's always pure capitalism at heart. My farm dries up while my neighbor has more water than he can use but refuses to share. It is capitalism for me to go steal his water to keep my family from dying? Only if that is the prism that you look at the entire world through. Wars were fought over the eye of a woman (see Helen of Troy... yes, mythology but mythology is often based in historical fact to convey a lesson). Siblings fight over the attention of their parents. Some people will kill each other still just because of the color of their skin.

Very few people actually like and support full scale war... but, it is the one thing guaranteed to provide a solution to a problem. Diplomacy can never work without a military to enforce it and if someone refuses diplomacy and keeps attacking you, you have no choice but to force them into surrender.

Now... since you seem to be in the camp that the US shouldn't stick its nose into other people's business, do you also agree we have no business going into Darfur, had no business in Kosovo, Somalia, etc? Or do you mean we have no business meddling in other people's affairs unless it is something you, in particular, approve of? I know quite a few people who have an inte