Slashdot Mirror


IBM Files Patent For Bullet-Dodging Bionic Armor

An anonymous reader writes with news that IBM has filed a patent for "Bionic body armor" that would protect a wearer from long-range gunfire by detecting the incoming bullets and administering small shocks to the appropriate muscles required for moving out of the way. Quoting the patent: "When a marksman (such as a sniper) is attempting to fire a projectile from a firearm, the marksman typically prefers to be as far away from the target as possible, thus giving him or her a head start for the escape after the firing. As an example, the longest reported sniper hit was from a distance of about 2500 meters, resulting in a time of flight of about 4 seconds for the projectile/bullet. Had the target been aware of the inbound projectile, avoiding it by simply walking away would have been possible." After detecting the projectile, the armor would calculate the trajectory and "stimulate the target to move in a predefined manner ... sufficient to avoid any contact with the approaching projectile."

379 comments

  1. Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Right into the path of another bullet. Or a truck. Or an electric fence. etc.

    1. Re:Stimulate to move... by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Funny

      New goal for terrorists - trigger the response in the armor making the wearer look weird and become exhausted.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Stimulate to move... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, given the knowledge that a bullet is heading for you, you would opt to stay put instead of avoiding it, on the off chance that another hazard would present itself?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Stimulate to move... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...or right into the path of the SAME bullet.

      I mean, how accurate can this thing be? Maybe the bullet detected by the suit was going to pass two feet to the left of you. If the suit makes you jump to the left ... ooops!

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right into the path of another bullet. Or a truck. Or an electric fence. etc.

      You've obviously never been hit with a 5.56 round while wearing ceramic body armour. That little 8 gram bullet is like getting punched. You don't really feel the point of impact, but you are knocked sideways anyway. And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Stimulate to move... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I thought the ceramic armor was made of little discs so you only lose one disc per hit.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Stimulate to move... by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.

      Actually, the plates generally in use by NATO nations are designed to stop up to 3 hits from 7.62 rounds. Now, granted "designed to" doesn't mean they will, but if you're suggesting that the plate is useless after only one hit from a 5.56 round, then you're just plain wrong.

    7. Re:Stimulate to move... by gomiam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As you can see, it's not made of small discs. The reason for this is easy to see, IMO: having one big plate allows for the kynetic energy of the bullet to be spread over a large surface. I.e., instead of getting hit a lot of force in a tiny area as the bullet would do, the victim will get hit with the same force spread across a big area, which will make the pressure per square centimetre much smaller. Using small discs (I guess you mean like chainmail) would probably turn a smallish entry hole into a big one due to the kynetic energy not being spread enough. At least, it would mean having bones breaking and inner tissue rupturing.

    8. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The physics of a small projectile moving at high speed aren't particularly complicated. If you have two or three data points, you can plot the path. Better if you plug in the wind vector, but probably not necessary.

    9. Re:Stimulate to move... by pnevin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like one can have all the fun of being tasered without needing an annoyed policeman around.

    10. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just leave some USB drives around with a rattlesnake worm on it. Infected armor will then shock the user into proper location to bite the bullet.

    11. Re:Stimulate to move... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trig. is easy, sure, the problem is getting accurate data points on a tiny piece of metal moving at twice the speed of sound on a vector almost directly towards you.

      Luckily the patent office accepts patents for impossible things.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:Stimulate to move... by beh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmmm - to make the wearer escape the shot, the shocks would basically have to be admitted from one side only, to make the wearer move away from that side...

      I wonder whether it could be used differently - e.g. make the wearer move in front of a moving car (ouch); or better, aid kidnappers by sending out a signal which actually makes the wearer jump / move towards the kidnappers getaway car - it would make kidnapping so much easier, if the victim would actually help you... ;-)

      The question then would obviously be, can the armor be tricked into believing that WAS an incoming shot that would require this particular movement to evade 'the shot'...?

    13. Re:Stimulate to move... by profplump · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you get the kidnapping/crash victim to put this stuff on in the first place? Are you thinking people will wear bullet-dodging armor in their day-to-day lives?

    14. Re:Stimulate to move... by profplump · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're assuming the only sensors are mounted on you; that is not necessarily true. If you're traveling in a team you could easy have 6+ sensors, all but one of which would not be directly in the line of fire.

    15. Re:Stimulate to move... by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Dagon Skin Body Armor the OP was referring to the more common SAPI Plates
       
      --
        join my mafia family

    16. Re:Stimulate to move... by tocqueville · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.

      Actually, the plates generally in use by NATO nations are designed to stop up to 3 hits from 7.62 rounds. Now, granted "designed to" doesn't mean they will, but if you're suggesting that the plate is useless after only one hit from a 5.56 round, then you're just plain wrong.

      You're talking about the NIJ testing requirement for level 3 plates. They are required to stop 3 .308 rounds. NIJ certified level 4 plates are required to only stop 1 30-06 Armor Piercing round. This ends up having very strange effects on plate design. It is correct that a level 4 ceramic plate can shatter and become ineffective after stopping only one round.

      Other weirdness of the design of plates is the things they will and won't stop. Some level 3 plates will stop the required 3 .308 rounds, but will be penetrated by M193 5.56MM rounds. Others will stop M193 all day long but be penetrated by M855 5.56MM. Some will stop M193 but not M855, and vice versa.

      It's strange, but that's how the NIJ testing standards for level 3 and level 4 work currently. There are more than a couple of websites around that do other ad-hoc testing on armor plates and vests to try to do more extensive testing.

    17. Re:Stimulate to move... by Entropy98 · · Score: 3, Informative

      As you can see, it's not made of small discs. The reason for this is easy to see, IMO: having one big plate allows for the kynetic energy of the bullet to be spread over a large surface. I.e., instead of getting hit a lot of force in a tiny area as the bullet would do, the victim will get hit with the same force spread across a big area, which will make the pressure per square centimetre much smaller. Using small discs (I guess you mean like chainmail) would probably turn a smallish entry hole into a big one due to the kynetic energy not being spread enough. At least, it would mean having bones breaking and inner tissue rupturing.

      Well it all depends how you lay out and support the discs: Dragon Skin Body Armor
       
      --
        join my mafia family

    18. Re:Stimulate to move... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was probably thinking of Dragon Skin which IIRC the military decided was too expensive for our soldiers to wear but kicked the current armor in tests quite badly. Damned shame we can't get rid of the kickbacks and really stupid programs like trying to catch a missile with a missile then maybe we wouldn't have so many of our soldiers coming back in body bags.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doesn't really matter which way it would make you dodge but rather how much. Because it could make one dodge on three different directions(left, right, down) probablity of dodging succeeding increases. Consider that in 80% cases bullet would hit and in 33% cases this thing would fail to make one dodge in any direction that would avoid getting hit. 0.8*0.33+0.2*0.33 = 0.33000. 33% sounds better than 80% to me.

    20. Re:Stimulate to move... by farmerpoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      jump to the left ... ooops!

      and then a step to the right!

    21. Re:Stimulate to move... by Jeoh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you can link the sensors together this could also be used to have people jump in front of the bullet to defend the target. Think President + Secret Service.

    22. Re:Stimulate to move... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Informative

      At these ranges wind modeling is mandatory. Even silly Coriolis effects matter. Remember a small perturbation is not so small after 4 seconds of flight (or even 1 second for that matter). Then there is the spin on the bullet which can affect its angle of attack that has even more effect at 3 times the speed of sound. This is not a fist order approximation problem.

      The Devil is in the details. *But* it is well understood details. And if you know the details you can predict the trajectory quite accurately. Modern tanks do this, but then they have wind, temperature and humidity sensors in order to do this. In fact they also have a bunch of sensors monitoring the barrels temperature etc too.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    23. Re:Stimulate to move... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Either way. I won't be counting on being alive after a .50 cal round or something that big. Even a .308 must hit you like a truck. Also what about light but higher velocity rounds --like a .270 or something. The energy from a 308 is higher IIRC but the velocity means the impact forces could be higher.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    24. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      As you can see, it's not made of small discs.

      Thanks, that is similar to what I am familiar with.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    25. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.

      Actually, the plates generally in use by NATO nations are designed to stop up to 3 hits from 7.62 rounds. Now, granted "designed to" doesn't mean they will, but if you're suggesting that the plate is useless after only one hit from a 5.56 round, then you're just plain wrong.

      Fortunately, I've never actually been hit with either a 5.56 or a 7.62 myself. But I've seen people get hit, and I'm not sure if there were multiple hits on the same plate or not. In Lebanon two years ago we couldn't even exchange our equipment for two weeks, and I wasn't keeping score of who was getting hit or where (front, back). But I can attest that no one was seriously injured by a bullet through the armour. I should probably mention that we were absorbing a nice mix of 5.56 (M16), 7.62 short (AK47) and 5.54 (AK74) rounds (and the occasional mortar or RPG!).

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    26. Re:Stimulate to move... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    27. Re:Stimulate to move... by tylerni7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is anyone important enough to wear bullet dodging armor is someone important enough to fetch a large ransom.

    28. Re:Stimulate to move... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      That's different. In this case the prediction is based on a bullet already in flight, meaning the trajectory is already being affected by whatever will affect it, save for changes in wind. You don't need to measure the other factors, because the bullet itself is measuring them. If you have three points for the bullet, say 0,2 seconds apart, it should be trivial to plot the hit point/zone.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    29. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never been hit with a 5.56 round while wearing ceramic body armour.

      You, obviously, have been.

    30. Re:Stimulate to move... by TerranFury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A reasonable practical concern. However, it's just a patent for "futuretech," not a practical invention (yet?). Also, I don't know how accurate small phased-array radar systems are, or by how much you could improve the accuracy of your estimate of the bullet's state by incorporating a dynamic model (using, e.g., a Kalman filter). But I think that both questions need answering before this idea, even with "existing" technology, can be dismissed.

    31. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your hands on Natalie Portman's tits, and bring your trolls to life!
      And it's the model of trust (group hack, group hack, group hack, group hack) that makes security insane!
      Let's do the slashdot again.

    32. Re:Stimulate to move... by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would think it better to use visual HUD and/or audio cues to let the wearer know they are in the path of fire. This whole idea of the suit controlling your movements involuntarily seems like a poor idea created by someone who's probably never actually been shot at before. (note: neither have I)

    33. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You, obviously, have been.

      Well, no, but I've seen it happen enough times.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    34. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In _Iraq_? Darned straight they'll wear it on convoy duty or for presidential guard duty, if it works.

      It's also _completely_ useless against long-range sniper rounds, since those exceed the speed of sound quite easily. I have a reference page for the US M99 open right now. At 1000 yards, which is well within the capabilities of a well-trained sniper, the velocity of a round is 1500 fps. That's roughly 40% faster than the speed of sound.

      And simply peppering an area with remote gunfire causing US troops to dance like Jennifer Beals in Flashdance? Put a soundtrack of 'What A Feeling' on, and I'd pay to see it.

    35. Re:Stimulate to move... by theaceoffire · · Score: 1

      Of course, now they have dragon skin armor:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYaSRIbPWkM

      Can stop a grenade safely, and multiple hits.

      Assuming that the army will let us use it:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTrTrsJu3pk

      --
      I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
    36. Re:Stimulate to move... by Smauler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I find it hilarious that you are actually suggesting we use a highly sophisticated machine to control a suit which turns the person inside into a meat shield to protect someone else. Surely by the time we've actually invented this amazing device we can figure out something else to put between the speeding bullet and the president rather than another fucking human being! :).

    37. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was my understanding that dragonskin passed some tests well (that ones the inventor of the stuff makes a big deal about), but did not pass all the tests the military requires, and its potential adoption was blocked for that reason, not because of corruption.

      And also not because they put a clock over the wearer's genitals.

    38. Re:Stimulate to move... by IanCal · · Score: 1

      It's also _completely_ useless against long-range sniper rounds, since those exceed the speed of sound quite easily.

      It's only useless if they use sound, even the patent suggests using an EM wave.

      FTFA: "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."

    39. Re:Stimulate to move... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Maybe the bullet detected by the suit was going to pass two feet to the left of you.

      And maybe it was going to pass right through your center of mass. In fact, its most probable path was right through your center of mass, since that was where the sniper was aiming and it is likely that he knows his job. From that it follows that moving in any direction reduces your chance of gettin hit.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    40. Re:Stimulate to move... by eonlabs · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see the headlines now:
      IBM sued when bodyarmor snaps wearer's spine.
      Bodyarmor electrocutes soldier in field
      New body armor provides new technique for weightloss
      Can't touch this, hammer time

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    41. Re:Stimulate to move... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you see something saying "detected by sound"? I didn't.

    42. Re:Stimulate to move... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      There isn't time to analyze a HUD or listen to audio. A solenoid whacking your ribs will trigger instinctive reflexes.

    43. Re:Stimulate to move... by geekboy642 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electronic reflexes are faster than yours. Electronic senses are faster than yours. I would absolutely beg for this kind of armor if I was in a situation where I might take a sniper bullet. There's absolutely no way I could see the muzzle flash, recognize it, judge the bullet, and move out of the path fast enough.
      And if you take your idea of an audio/visual cue, you merely add the human reflex time to the machine's..."wtf is that beeping noise?" *arghI'mdead*

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    44. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, the Dragon Skin guys cooked their test data, they are being prosecuted; their armor is NOT better, Linky: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003533.html

      The live fire test guys who evaluate this stuff take their jobs very seriously, they didn't buy that crap armor for good reason (performance not price).

      Not everything is a conspiracy by the corrupt gubment.

    45. Re:Stimulate to move... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Good point ... when was the last time during a war when the enemy only fired one bullet at a time?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    46. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Dragon skin FAILED the testing: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf

      The adhesive used to hold the little discs on doesn't respond to desert like temps very well; being good armor is about more than performing in pristine lab conditions. The shit has to work when you're in the shit.

    47. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Put your hands on Natalie Portman's tits, and bring your trolls to life!
      And it's the model of trust (group hack, group hack, group hack, group hack) that makes security insane!
      Let's do the slashdot again.

      Oh no. The first time I hear "Goatse" on a Friday night I'm getting up (oh no my seat is wet) and and getting (the fuck) out of there.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    48. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, now they have dragon skin armor:

      Can stop a grenade safely, and multiple hits.

      Stopping grenade shrapnel has never been a problem. The earliest soft body armour would stop grenade shrapnel, and not bullets.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    49. Re:Stimulate to move... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, I've never actually been hit with either a 5.56 or a 7.62 myself. But I've seen people get hit, and I'm not sure if there were multiple hits on the same plate or not. In Lebanon two years ago we couldn't even exchange our equipment for two weeks

      Sorry about that. We'll try to get those US taxpayer dollars to you on the first of the month from now on.

    50. Re:Stimulate to move... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would think it better to use visual HUD and/or audio cues to let the wearer know they are in the path of fire. This whole idea of the suit controlling your movements involuntarily seems like a poor idea created by someone who's probably never actually been shot at before. (note: neither have I)

      Actually, it sounds like the creators have been shot at before, or had access to people who have. When you first notice incoming fire, your brain has an almost comical "WTF?" moment that lasts at least a half second. If you're well trained and/or have been shot at before, your "lizard brain" is already screaming at your muscles to get moving. If not, you might stand there for as long as 3 or 4 seconds before you can get your thinker running and get moving. A flashing red light on a HUD indicating "incoming fire" would probably be just enough warning for you to realize you've been hit by enemy fire, so it's not a complete surprise. I'd have loved something like this suit when I was in Afghanistan.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    51. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry about that. We'll try to get those US taxpayer dollars to you on the first of the month from now on.

      US taxpayer dollars do not pay for locally-developed and produced technology, only technology imported from the US. If I'm not mistaken, the US _imports_ personnel-protection technology from my nation. In fact, it's the fact that _I_ test it in Lebanon that US soldiers can wear it and feel [relatively] safe.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    52. Re:Stimulate to move... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > The Devil is in the details. *But* it is well understood details. And if you know the
      > details you can predict the trajectory quite accurately.

      And snipers do so: that's why they hit their targets. Thus you only need to know the bullet's trajectory precisely enough to know that it is most likely aimed at you to make it a good idea to dodge in any direction or throw yourself on the ground. Except that you can't react that fast, so this gadget does it for you. Yes, you might jump into the path of the bullet, but it is more likely that you will jump out of it as it is likely that the sniper is good at his job and has sent the bullet right at your center of mass.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    53. Re:Stimulate to move... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      This still won't be enough. Being able to plot a hit point is not the same as this is where the bullet will go. 3 points might be enough for a 2nd order stage 2 physics question, but the real world has a habbit of throwing a spanner in the works.

      The US at least was developing guns to shoot artillery rounds in mid flight. They were using a lot more data than 3 points and more data than just bullet parameters. The high supersonic speeds and the fact that *after* traveling 1000m+ you need to care about distance smaller than 20cm makes this a pretty hard problem (you can run the numbers). Wind changes over that distance is something snipers are trained about. It will need that data too at the very least. Or as the original post said you gonna get dodged right into the bullet.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    54. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK, let's go down the list of possible sources of information, shall we?

      Light? No good, the optical field is very confusing, with dust, buildings, etc. There's too much optical noise.

      Radar? Oh, yes, that works well to track a small, high velocity object in a similarly cluttered field. Moreover, the radars have to be so scattered that they are also expensive to deploy.

      Sound? Several of us have already mentioned the problems with that.

    55. Re:Stimulate to move... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bullshit, the Dragon Skin guys cooked their test data, they are being prosecuted; their armor is NOT better,

      Read your own link, fucktard. No one is being "prosecuted", and the question of whether the DragonSkin product is better or not is still up in the air. I have seen about a 50:50 split on reports that one side or the other skewed the test procedure to make one or the other come out on top. I wore the current Army OTV off and on for 2 years and have seen it both fail and succeed first hand.

      The live fire test guys who evaluate this stuff take their jobs very seriously, they didn't buy that crap armor for good reason (performance not price).

      Yeah, no one would ever manipulate a test to make the product chosen look better. I've spent too many years using the end result of DoD procurement and testing procedure to have absolute faith in it. Sure, the guys conducting the test might be serious straight shooters, but what do you know about the pentagon political hacks who drew up the test procedure? Was it tailored to subtly exploit a particular weakness of the Pinnacle product? Pinnacle seems to think so.

      Not everything is a conspiracy by the corrupt gubment.

      No, but DoD procurement is rife with idiots who make poor decisions, and then go to the ends of the earth to back up those poor decisions, because to admit error is to admit incompetence, and promotions get harder when you've admitted incompetence. The Pentagon is a political rat's nest, full of infighting, backstabbing, and deal-cutting.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    56. Re:Stimulate to move... by IanCal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was trying to point out that going faster than sound is only a fundamental issue for sound based tracking. Fast & small objects are *hard* to track with other methods, not impossible.

      You claimed it was _completely_ useless (emphasis yours) for situations like the one they quoted. The idea that they hadn't considered that the bullets may be moving faster than sound was the one I was responding to.

    57. Re:Stimulate to move... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ignore the troll :) You guys did a heck of a job in Lebanon. Glad to hear you never took a hit. I've got a high level of confidence in the armour, but it's always nice if you can turn it back in to the QM without a scratch on it.

    58. Re:Stimulate to move... by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, yes, that works well to track a small, high velocity object in a similarly cluttered field.

      It is exactly the high velocity that makes it so easy to track. It would stand out like a sore thumb on doppler radar. And since you only care about bullets aimed at you, it will also be almost stationary in the radar's field of view.

    59. Re:Stimulate to move... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could post some links to these websites, since I've never seen any of this "weirdness" of which you speak. I've seen the plates we use take all sorts of different calibers from short and long range, without much difficulty. Just about the only way you're going to punch through them is with a .50 cal, or by putting a full clip through 'em at spitting distance. That's (one of the reasons) why the majority of our KIA are from IED's.

    60. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I didn't think it was so much a troll as a smart-ass. The GP should brush up on his history and see where his US technology is being perfected. Notable of course are the first kill of an F-15, first kill of an F-16, a quite a few others. The US and Israel have a very symbiotic relationship with regard to technology in general and military technology in particular.

      Anyway, thanks!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    61. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > something else to put between the speeding bullet and the president rather than another fucking human being

      They were going to use virgins, but that would have been a waste.

    62. Re:Stimulate to move... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1
      I spent 7 years in the Infantry, and 6 in the Artillery. I've been to Iraq. I've heard lots of pouges, REMFs, newbs, and PONTIs talk bullshit over the years. I've heard lots of PAC clerks talking about cutting throats, etc.

      And the ceramic body armour breaks after only one bullet. After that you are on your own.

      You've obviously never SEEN a body armor plate. The SAPI plate I shot successfully stopped 3 7.62 NATO M61 Ball fired from an M21, and 5 5.56mm M855 Ball (with steel penetrator) fired from an M16A4 at ranges from 10 to 30 meters. Shortly after that, the ESAPI (enhanced) came out to provide protection from 7.62mm AP rounds.

      I trust those plates, they've proven their worth to me. I don't trust you, you've proven you don't know what you are talking about.

    63. Re:Stimulate to move... by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      I don't think the shock is supposed to "herd" the wearer in a certain direction, I think it's supposed to stimulate their muscles to move the body a certain way to avoid the bullet, which would be faster than an involuntary response... Although I think it would take a while to get the software down to stimulate the proper muscles, what I'm really curious to see is how it can detect an incoming bullet from 1500 yards and calculate its trajectory. I really think this is, at least for now, vaporware. I think liquid armor is more promising.

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    64. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I spent 7 years in the Infantry, and 6 in the Artillery. I've been to Iraq. I've heard lots of pouges, REMFs, newbs, and PONTIs talk bullshit over the years. I've heard lots of PAC clerks talking about cutting throats, etc.

      You've obviously never SEEN a body armor plate.

      Obviously, compared to your amazing service I'm just some idiot who's never even SEEN a body armor plate. I bow to your excellence, and apologize for stepping in your domain. I've proven that I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh, by the way, here's a pic of me _in_ ceramic body armour vest:
      http://dotancohen.com/eng/pictures/photo/dotan_his_way_work_equipment.html
      I wonder where I dreamed _that_ up. Oh yeah, Jenin, how could I forget?!?

      In any case, hot shot, I would expect a bit more disciple and questions than "your equipment is different than mine! lier!" from A) someone with 7 years of infantry behind him and B) a slashdot poster. Unless you are one of those jerks in American movies who likes to make himself feel all big and tough because he thinks that he can attack others. Then again, from what I've heard about your military, maybe that is just the type of soldier that they breed.

      (why do I feel a pissing contest about to start? better grab me a beer)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    65. Re:Stimulate to move... by tiny-e · · Score: 1

      Well the sound isn't the problem here... but, I believe that sometimes snipers, special troops, etc. use subsonic rounds for reasons of stealth. A silencer doesn't do you very much good when the bullet sonic-booms on its way to the target.

      Oh yeah.. 1000 meters is nothing for a sniper... and given your 1500 fps velocity, you'd have 2 seconds to move.

    66. Re:Stimulate to move... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0

      Ok, ok. Fair enough.

      But you can't tell me YOUR plates are only good for one hit.

      I usually get into this body armor argument with democrats who just want to score points on the "Bush sucks" system by feigning concern for soldiers. "Bush and Cheney sent troops into Iraq with bad armor...wahhhh." No mention of Clinton sending troops into Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, et al. with soft body armor that couldn't stop 9mm. So I get kind of defensive about it. Sorry.

    67. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I see, I did not realize that there was politics involved! That tends to muck everything up!

      I can tell you that they crack, but I did not know until I read another post here that cracked armour still protects. We don't shoot at our own armour to test it (At least, the infantry troops don't do that. I hope some agency is, though!), so in the rare instances where they've been pushed to the extreme limits we were not in a position to start examining them.

      Also, our enemies have a real mess of different rifles, even among otherwise unified groups. Their mess of ammo is even worse. So we never really know what type of weapon (M16, AK47, AK74) was used, or which bullets. I've even pulled green tipped bullets out of magazines from standard thin-barreled AR15's (we call them M16's, but they really are AR15's). I'm assuming that American bullets use the same colour coding as we use, if not, then green-tipped bullets are the ones for M4, A3, and other thick-barreled 5.56 rifles.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    68. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      No mention of Clinton sending troops into Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, et al. with soft body armor that couldn't stop 9mm.

      If that's the stuff I'm thinking of, then it's not designed to be bullet proof, only explosion and shrapnel proof. I mention that in another post here. It depends what type of mission those soldiers were on.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    69. Re:Stimulate to move... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      We had several...um...extra SAPI plates kicking around. So we conducted our own tests. Even 2 7.62x39mm from an AKM in a dime-sized grouping still didn't penetrate.

      Of course, I didn't wear it during the test. (:

      This guy was.

    70. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The 1500 fps I quote is the velocity for an M99 at 100 yards. The round starts out considerably faster, so the time is less than you think. Also, plot the timeline.

      Sniper fires, at leisure.
      Traveling bullet triggers sensors of detection system. (This takes time.)
      Detection system actually detects bullet, as opposed to system and environmental noise. This time should _not_ be underestimated! Such a system will have a tremendous amount of "noise" from other sources, no matter what the detection method used, and while you can process and process and process to detect relevant gunfire, this takes significants amount of data and real-time-processing.
      Signal is transmitted to armor. (Small, but non-zero time, may not be relevant depending on signal encryption and local transmission conditions. The troops on convoys in Iraq, for example, are _blasting_ all over local radio signals to avoid radio triggers for IED, and I shudder to think what an improperly secured bionic armor could be made to do in combat.)
      Solder moves. Wearing armor, carrying weapons, etc. This is not the half-second or so you need to hit the brakes in a car, major muscles have to _move your body_, and that takes time.

      So 2 seconds is not the generous amount of time you might think at first glance from a geek's armchair.

      On further thought, I can see one use for it. Public speakers, like presidents, in a very controlled environment such as an inauguration. The nearby area is already secured, and there are plenty of people with better armor to jump _on top_ of the president to protect him where the bionic armor has thrown him. And it's potentially much lighter and less embarassing than a flak jacket.

    71. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The sonic booms don't convey much positional data unless you have multiple acoustic sensors and do a triangulation on the data; they do hurt and will give you a ferocious headache even with hearing protection.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    72. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Presidential guards are expected to take the bullet, not avoid it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    73. Re:Stimulate to move... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      It's not completely useless. Radars that can easily track bullets already exist, even in cluttered environments. Computers watch for the small fast-moving object. That's how you distinguish it from a building.

      The guy you're talking to is a know-nothing who just likes to be contrary. He's an ass at parties, harassing anybody who goes near his hangout--- the punch bowl. When there's no party to ruin, he hangs out here. You're the smart one in this conversation. Everyone here knows it. You can safely ignore his idiocy and maintain your reputation.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    74. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The silencer or more properly sound suppressor is used in these cases more for their ability to suppress the muzzle report and flash, this gives the sniper a better opportunity to execute an escape. People trained in anti-sniper techniques will hear the sonic boom from the bullet passing, then listen for the muzzle report to determine the sniper's shooting position if they didn't see the muzzle flash.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    75. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Moving directly toward or away wouldn't help.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    76. Re:Stimulate to move... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      It seems like a lot of the people offering analysis are over thinking things. There are only a couple of things to consider. A system with a few different nodes generates an EM field to monitor a specific sector of space. The system would have a small handful of triggers (object moving faster than xxx fps, sound above xx db, etc). If any of those alert conditions were met, it would trigger the armor. Of course the system would be biased toward false positives, better to err on the side of caution.

      As for the actual movements for the wearer of the armor, that seems simple enough. The armor just needs to trigger a couple of reflex points that causes the target to drop. Perhaps something to spin the hip and shoulder enough, combined with something to take their legs out from underneath them. It just needs to generate enough of a shock to spasm the muscles for a split second.

      The patent says that the intended wearers of the armor are VIPs, not front line combat troops. A VIP just needs to get down, not return fire or remain combat effective.

    77. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Either way. I won't be counting on being alive after a .50 cal round or something that big. Even a .308 must hit you like a truck. Also what about light but higher velocity rounds --like a .270 or something. The energy from a 308 is higher IIRC but the velocity means the impact forces could be higher.

      No the .308 has more power, m*v, the .270 has more energy, m*v^2. Which is more effective is a matter of considerable controversy.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    78. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Dragon-skin doesn't hold up to thermal stresses the military requires, the adhesive fails at extremely low and extremely high temperatures, then the plates fall down leaving the system vulnerable to first round penetrations. It's great until you go to the desert or the arctic.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    79. Re:Stimulate to move... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I'll give you that. It shouldn't be to hard for the gadget to poke your muscles in such a way as to make it most likely that you will move at right angles to the bullet's trajectory (down, for example: it could just trip you).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    80. Re:Stimulate to move... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I couldn't determine if the system was trying to override the nervous system and move the person through direct stimulation of the muscles or by causing an avoidance reflex, but if it simply tasered your ass that would work too! I imagine after a couple of assassination attempts, the wearer would tend to avoid high-risk behaviors!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    81. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would stand out like a sore thumb on doppler radar.

      So those weren't clouds on the screen, just 60 miles of gunfights? I guess I know why it didn't rain now.

    82. Re:Stimulate to move... by imaniack · · Score: 1

      TFA implies that the armor can be programmed, so you just make beowulf clustered armor from the secret service guys.

    83. Re:Stimulate to move... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, how about another one: A distributed network of microphones linked by radio.

      I believe I've read about similar things being developed/trialled for deployment in Iraq, precisely for the purpose of pinpointing sniper shots. They just airdrop a bajillion little gizmoes that are basically a GPS, a radio and a mic. They detect a gunshot, and squeal their position and the exact timestamp of the shot. Any radio listening can triangulate gunshots much faster than a bullet (or the sound front) can move.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    84. Re:Stimulate to move... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Never send a man to do a machine's job, hey?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    85. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      You can get the bullets in a dime-sized group with an AK? That's good! At what range? What firing position?

      That's a rather dramatic video, but it's over done. I'm sure we've both seen enough miracles to full up an entire Youtube with.

      By the way, that armour looks to break differently than ours does. The black plate that he was holding looked to be intact except for the point of impact. Is that the same material that your plates were made of? Could that thing block another round at the same point of impact? As the range was merely 75 meters, and it was Iraq, could I assume that the sniper (or sharpshooter, really) was using an AK? Or do they have real sniper rifles over there?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    86. Re:Stimulate to move... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      But it's traditional !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    87. Re:Stimulate to move... by senor_burt · · Score: 1

      My spidey-sense is tingling...

    88. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      High velocity helps in that sense, yes. But it's _small_. And that "cluttered battlefield" constitutes a huge radar problem. The radar's point of view constitutes another set of related issues. Is the person wearing the armor wearing the radar? Radar capable of detecting a single bullet at a range far enough to provide time to move has to be putting out quite a lot of radio energy, which also means big batteries or a generator. That's unlikely to fit in the armor itself, and it's painting a big target on the wearer saying "drop mortar shell here, please".

    89. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No, no, you put the "dance like Jennifer Beals" armor on the president, not his guards. _HE_ is the one who absolutely needs to get out of the way of the bullet. Thinking in that situation is the job of the Secret Service personnel, who are supposed to be wearing the best possible body armor and know the escape routes.

      Disabling presidential guards by planting a remote sniper to make them fall over does not seem like a good move.

    90. Re:Stimulate to move... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That actually makes more sense, technologically. But do _not_ underestimate the processing time to filter out background noise. While the US 'Green Zone' itself is isolated for a considerable distance around it, to control snipers, and sensors there might work well, try leaving them within a few hundred yards of an armored convoy or even a major middle eastern bazaar, and I would expect the background noise to be so high that tuning it would become a nightmare.

      People do tend to forget about the phase delays in signal detection. You remember more about them if you're old enough to have dealt with a lot of older network and computer technologies, and substitute "let the computer fix it" for actually minimizing propagation delays. But for this? The delay matters!

    91. Re:Stimulate to move... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Real sniper statistics are not used in Hollywood movies. Reality is - well - a lot more grimy. For want of a better word.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    92. Re:Stimulate to move... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      That dime sized grouping was incidental, I can't get a nice group with an AK. (:

      We saw lots of Dragunov sniper rifles in use there, I don't think the marksman was using an AK. He could have just hosed the guy.

      Our plates look like a sandwich of diff. materials. You are right, they only get weak at the point of impact.

    93. Re:Stimulate to move... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Ouch. Our so-called 'sniper' enemies are really just using M16s or AK47 with an optical scope, often no more than x4. They are really, really good shots, though, and they get more range out of those weapons than you would believe. I'm surprised that the sniper in the video was shooting from only 75 meters but did not go for a head/neck shot.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    94. Re:Stimulate to move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar? Oh, yes, that works well to track a small, high velocity object in a similarly cluttered field. Moreover, the radars have to be so scattered that they are also expensive to deploy.

      Doppler radar, which is what they'd be using, wouldn't have too much clutter because not too many objects would be approaching the wearer a near the speed of sound.

    95. Re:Stimulate to move... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Dance, puppets, dance!

    96. Re:Stimulate to move... by torgis · · Score: 1

      Imagine the electromagnetic halo this would produce:

      A team of six soldiers wearing millimeter-wave radar capable of detecting supersonic objects the size of a marble, said objects traveling several thousand feet per second. I'm no expert in radar, but I imagine that this team of soldiers would be broadcasting their location for miles in every direction.

      You wouldn't need a sniper rifle; a HARM Missile would work just fine, thanks. You can't dodge a high-explosive shockwave.

  2. Sign me up! by WiiVault · · Score: 5, Funny

    I get so much shit thrown at me at the daycare everyday I could really use this.

    1. Re:Sign me up! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

      you type very well and you even spell well for someone in daycare. you must be in the advanced track.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor

      For babies with grenades?

    3. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's just European.

    4. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so that's how they reduced this to practice -- plush toy projectiles as a substitute for actual bullets.

      I miss the "reduce to practice" part of patents. Very much.

  3. And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Shag · · Score: 1

    I'd be most interested in seeing a YouTube clip of it trying to avoid a hail of bullets fired from different angles.

    I wouldn't want to be wearing it in that scenario.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm sure there will be tell-tale signs of who is wearing this, and you could fire at them, not necessarily for a hit, but to make them move into an area where you do want to hit them, or even fire a burst, to make someone wearing it move out of the way so you can hit the guy behind him, etc, etc...

      "Dance fucker dance"

    2. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to know how easy it would be to generate false positives like car alarms do. The results could be quite humorous for the observer.

    3. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Fumus · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about a chair?
      Will it allow the wearer to avoid being hit by a flying chair?

      If yes, then IBM might actually be able to sell it to a few people.

    4. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      Round of applause after the first demonstration...

    5. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in that case even a bulletproof vest would be irrelevant because it cannot stand repeated hits anyway.

      that's why a .22lr smg can be far more dangerous than a 9x19mm pistol.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by yotto · · Score: 1

      I'd be most interested in seeing a YouTube clip of it trying to avoid a hail of bullets fired from different angles.

      I wouldn't want to be wearing it in that scenario.

      I wouldn't want to be in the scenario in any case. Though, if I was, I'd want as many things trying to protect me as possible.

      I'm not saying *this* suit would be preferable, but if it could avoid some of the bullets and absorb the rest, what possible reason could you have for preferring getting killed?

    7. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by wisty · · Score: 1

      It would not be so humorous if the wearer was carrying, say, a loaded firearm.

    8. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      I'd be most interested in seeing a YouTube clip of it trying to avoid a hail of bullets fired from different angles.

      You may get to see IBM's executive team demonstrate it after pulling a stunt like this.

      Any ideas about what made IBM pursue this line of research?

      I have a few guesses....

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    9. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days, these devices should come with built-in shoe-detection.

    10. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you see, our company did that, and for that reason, we abandoned the research.

      When we ran said simulation, the machine tried to move in every direction, resulting in it crushing the human operator inside and exploding.

      Just don't tell anyone i told you.

    11. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by VagaStorm · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news; Bush has patented the "anti shoe move" :)

    12. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      In this instance the device is designed to eject itself after transmitting a short prayer in to the users ear.

    13. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by berashith · · Score: 1

      easy, it just wraps a rope around your legs and you fall down. Now if the bad guys are smart enough to wait two seconds and fire another round of shots...

    14. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Article says nothing about a shoe.. Sorry Bush, looks like you are going to have to rely on your cat-like reflexes.

    15. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, if it's jolting your muscles, it would make it [b]very[/b] difficult to sprint to/dive for cover when the suit is in "get out of the way of this projectile. No, this one. No, that one. No, this one over here. Dance!" mode.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    16. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      "Falling down" is an excellent move when being shot at and is done by infantrymen everywhere.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    17. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Come on. Do you really think he designers didn't think of this? That you're that much more clever than an IBM engineering team? I seriously doubt the system isn't designed with some sort of "one at a time, please" filtering. Typical Slashdot "I am smarter than the universe" attitude.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    18. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      Come on. Do you really think this is a useful idea? That it will ever be more than an arbitrary patent? I seriously doubt the system is designed with any sort of real life limitations in mind. Typical concept whore "Oh shit, that's a good idea" attitude.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    19. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      What is cool about the 'falling down' technique is that it requires almost no extensive training! It almost seems like the natural thing to do even! (my personal technique also usually involved some frantic digging as well!-not ashamed to admit it either)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    20. Re:And how's it deal with multiple shooters? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Come on. Do you really think he designers didn't think of this? That you're that much more clever than an IBM engineering team? I seriously doubt the system isn't designed with some sort of "one at a time, please" filtering. Typical Slashdot "I am smarter than the universe" attitude.

      If that's the case, then I'd imagine that it would be very easy for a sniper to fire one shot, watch for the dodge, and quickly follow up with a second shot to compensate for the movement. With a semi-automatic sniper rifle like the Dragunov (most likely to be encountered), Mk14/M21, PSG-1/MSG-90, and so on, that follow-up shot could happen practically as quickly as the shooter can adjust his aim and pull the trigger, which could cleanly counteract any such "one at a time, please" filtering. Which in essence would actually make a sniper's job easier.

      As the other reply to your comment goes (and I agree with it), it's more a question of whether or not it's actually ever going to be useful and is just a patent than whether or not future US/NATO troops will be able to dodge one, two, three, or any arbitrary number of bullets by using a magical electro-shock armour that makes them dance out of the way.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  4. Mechanism of detection? by tenco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how they want to detect an approaching projectile. By sound wouldn't give really much of a head start. Anyway, detecting a projectile, calculating an approximate flight path and stimulating including biomechanical lag would have to happen in a really short period of time.

    1. Re:Mechanism of detection? by DeadPixels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Considering that the example of the longest recorded sniper shot has a "four second" travel time, one would assume that the majority of sniper shots will take only a second or two. That means that the detection, calculation, and stimulation would have to take place in maybe a hundredth of a second to be useful.

    2. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FTFA "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."

    3. Re:Mechanism of detection? by AJWM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or in other words, radar.

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:Mechanism of detection? by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Throw a handful of gravel against a group of military personel and watch the fun :D

    5. Re:Mechanism of detection? by ZOP · · Score: 2, Informative

      sound would not give any warning. very few modern rifles, especially sniper rifles, and most certainly those in the class that will fire past the 1km mark are subsonic.

    6. Re:Mechanism of detection? by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder how they want to detect an approaching projectile.

      Millimeter-wave radar would do fine, as long as the bullet was metallic. I've read about another idea for protecting people from gunfire which was a radar-triggered airbag that would pop up if anything within a hundred feet or so was moving too fast. The air bag would be made of kevlar, and the a bullet hitting it would stop like an arrow hitting a curtain.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The air bag would be made of kevlar, and the a bullet hitting it would stop like an arrow hitting a curtain.

      How many such airbags would you guess it woukd it take to provide 360 degree protection?

      And wouldn't the required number make the wearer look pretty burly?

    8. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or use a hornet's nest to make a whole military base start jumping around uncontrollably while you just stroll in and set the charges.

      The possibility for pranking is endless.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Mechanism of detection? by gomiam · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, car airbags weren't too bulky (until deployed, I mean).

    10. Re:Mechanism of detection? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      If it's subsonic, then it *will* give a warning. It won't give a warning if the rounds are supersonic, which most long range rifles are designed to deliver. Subsonic rounds are limited in range, and slower rounds have to be heavier, leading to a reduction in kinetic energy.

      Before someone goes off half cocked (heh heh), kinetic energy is proportional to mass and the square of velocity. So a reduction in velocity requires a much larger proportional increase in mass if kinetic energy is not to be lost.

      IOW, trading speed for mass is bad. Lighter rounds at higher speeds are better in sniper rifles.

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Mechanism of detection? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      So you fire radar guided bullets.

    12. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Fizz753 · · Score: 2, Funny

      One well made virus and a good sound track that would be one heck of a dance party..

    13. Re:Mechanism of detection? by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The idea wasn't to wear them, but to install them along the ground where the potential target would be walking.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Mechanism of detection? by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you throw gravel at several hundred meters per second so as to get the doppler signature required for the system to act, it had better dodge your gravel.

      Of course, that won't be very efficient; the gravel would probably disintegrate.

      Hmm, maybe if you make metal gravel? And make it aerodynamic? Hmm...

    15. Re:Mechanism of detection? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is not quite the full story. lighter rounds are affected by wind far more than heaver rounds. I know the .50 cal and .308 are typical rifles used for this sort of thing, and they have high velocity but not the highest, but run heaver bullets. Also lighter bullets loose there energy faster than heaver ones. So too light and it will be going pretty slow when it gets there. Finally there is a limit to the velocity from the physics of gases and the chemistry that makes the highest velocity in the 1500 m/s range. And thats pushing it for a rifle. IIRC the .50 cal is more like 1000 m/s.

      I have a .270 that has a muzzle velocity in the 1300m/s range (IIRC). Its a real flat trajectory out to about 700m but drops off real quick after than. We also call it a meat bruiser ;).

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    16. Re:Mechanism of detection? by VagaStorm · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, part of what a silence do is slowing down a bullet so that it dos not break the sound barrier. If a bullet travels faster than the sound, a sonic detector becomes useless except to protect a VIP holding a speech, like when the president talks to a crowd, monitors could be placed in the area, calculating flight path and move the target accordingly. FYI: This is slash ., so no, I did not read the article.. :p

    17. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be better off having a vehicle or two with radar and a couple of heavy machine guns or mortars mounted on them. The radar can detect the incoming fire and automatically attack that location with a large barrage of fire.
      A sniper is likely to think twice about letting off a round or two if they're about to come under a barrage of well directed fire a couple of seconds after taking a shot.
      You also can also protect a larger quantity of personnel, have fewer power problems, and would probably be far cheaper and easier to manufacture.

    18. Re:Mechanism of detection? by zer0that · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then we can name it something impressive like shrapnel.

    19. Re:Mechanism of detection? by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 1

      and the a bullet hitting it would stop like an arrow hitting a curtain.

      wtf

    20. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealth bullets with strawberry jamming, anyone?

    21. Re:Mechanism of detection? by juenger1701 · · Score: 1

      sound would be too slow most high power rifle rounds are super-sonic

    22. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound suppressors don't have any effect on round speed, to my knowledge. They work by slowing the escape of gases from the muzzle so that the gun itself does not produce a loud crack.

      Subsonic rounds are separate. If memory serves, they just have a reduced powder charge.

      At any rate, this armor seems unlikely to accomplish anything, even if it works. If a suit of armor could successfully detect an incoming bullet and twitch you like a marionette to get out of the way, I can't see how it can avoid false positives.

      After the first time the stuff knocked you into a tree or a fellow soldier because a distant sparrow was flying towards you, any soldier on the planet would rip out the batteries.

      Heck, imagine an actual sniper taking a shot at a formation of soldiers in a parade march; all their armor would spasm in different directions and the entire unit would go over like ninepins.

      I can virtually guarantee you that most soldiers will take a remote risk of being sniped over a much higher risk of false positives that hurl them around like magnetized cartoon characters. That holds true even if you reduce it from a safety issue to a convenience issue.

    23. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better-- a bullet!

    24. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      You know, that's actually an awesome idea. I mean, if they CAN detect incoming bullets in something the size of a suit of armour, then surely a vehicle could mount something a lot more sensitive and a lot more accurate (and with a lot more computational power). The only real problem would be soldiers would need to carry an IFF transmitter to prevent them from being lit up if they happen to be firing in the direction of said vehicle (for whatever reason; Like for example a saboteur about to set a charge on the vehicle, or if they're firing at an enemy from a position behind the vehicle).

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    25. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, your trajectory isn't flat out to 700m. It's just that the range setting on your sight/scope make it look that way.

      Assume a spherical horse of uniform density... I mean, assume the bullet has a constant velocity for the entire flight time. For easy math, we'll use a muzzle velocity of 1400m/s, a range of 700m, and call gravity at 10m/s^2. It will take the bullet 0.5 seconds to travel to the target, which means it will fall: (1/2)*(10)*(0.5)^2 or 1.25 meters. Which, if you were going for a center mass shot, would put the bullet into the ground at their feet. Unless they were really tall, and then you might hit their ankle.

      However, what the proper range setting does is raise the back side of the sight/scope, which requires the shooter to lower the back end of the weapon to get proper sight alignment and sight picture. This means the weapon is now at an angle, and the bullet will arc through the air so it rises, (in this case), 0.6 meters and then falls 0.6 meters to put it on the line-of-sight just as it arrives at the target. Since most sights/scopes don't have very long range settings, after a certain point they are no longer compensating for the large drop by having it arc higher, and all of the drop due to gravity "shows up".

      The bullet also continues to accelerate downwards as it flies so the angle of the weapon changes more dramatically at longer ranges to compensate for the overall drop. That's why it takes more "clicks" of elevation to go from 400 to 500 meters than from 100 to 200 meters.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    26. Re:Mechanism of detection? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      monitors could be placed in the area, calculating flight path and move the target accordingly.

      Still isn't going to help a lot - the distance that the bullet leads the shock wave will be a function of the bullet's velocity, among other things. If you don't know at least that velocity, you can't know where the bullet is at the time of measurement, and thus can't predict the path. With multiple sensors in three dimensions, you might be able to get a good idea of the trajectory over time, but the bullet might easily have already reached its target by the time you pick up the sonic boom.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    27. Re:Mechanism of detection? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Actually, your trajectory isn't flat out to 700m. It's just that the range setting on your sight/scope make it look that way.

      "Flat" is a relative term. I use a rifle, I set my own sights, and have a PhD in physics... Hence the term "real" flat. I mean come on, you forgot about the curvature of the earth, and time dilation effects caused by earths mass. please.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    28. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Doppler shift, genius. It's trivially easy to tell the difference between a handful of thrown gravel and a 1200fps projectile.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    29. Re:Mechanism of detection? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If it's going to keep emitting electromagnetic waves, that might make soldiers equipped with it easier to spot from far away.

      --
    30. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Every try it? Works pretty well. In highschool whenever we'd do archery we would shoot at targets that had a tight mesh (not a silk or anything ;)) curtain backdrop. Granted, we weren't using real heavy bows or anything but they physics of it makes sense if you think about it. The curtain is hanging relatively loose to it has a lot of give, slows the arrow down slowly.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    31. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four dead in Ohio...

    32. Re:Mechanism of detection? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Ah, CS gamers, measuring bullet speed in FPS!

    33. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Spadefinger · · Score: 0

      It's only trolling if you're saying it to get a response. In this case, I meant every word.

      --
      I don't need /. to tell me I have bad karma.
    34. Re:Mechanism of detection? by mi · · Score: 1

      If you don't know at least that velocity, you can't know where the bullet is at the time of measurement, and thus can't predict the path.

      Actually, I don't need the velocity to predict the path, because I know, the bullet is flying straight (or nearly so). Knowing, where the bullet was at 2 different times is enough to know, whether it is going to hit my VIP and where to move him to avoid it. Getting a few more points, if possible, would allow to correct for wind and otherwise increase accuracy.

      Now, if I know the exact times the bullet flew through those points would give me the velocity too, but I don't really need it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    35. Re:Mechanism of detection? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't need the velocity to predict the path, because I know, the bullet is flying straight (or nearly so)

      The bullet's not flying even close to straight except when observed over short distances - it's flying in a parabolic arc vertically, and then you have wind effects and whatnot to consider on top of that. The shape of that arc is going to depend quite heavily on exactly how fast the bullet is flying, the shape of the bullet (which in turn affects how fast the bullet decelerates), and a few other factors.

      If your sensors are far enough away from the target to be able to do any good (more than 500 yards or so), then the curvature in the trajectory is going to become important, and if your sensors are acoustic in nature, odds are they're not even going to know of that bullet's presence until it's well past their location.

      It's critically important to be able to locate that bullet in space accurately, precisely, and repeatably if the system is to be able to do anything more than soak up tax dollars. Having spent my fair share of time behind a rifle, I have my doubts.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    36. Re:Mechanism of detection? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An airbag armor system would be effectively a Whipple Shield. The penetration of a projectile is blunted by multiple layers of a material separated by a small distance. The initial layers progressively shatter the projectile into smaller parts, each of which have less penetration capability into the next layer. The concept is used in spacecraft to defend against small space debris but it has also been used in tank armor.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    37. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      If you throw gravel at several hundred meters per second so as to get the doppler signature required for the system to act, it had better dodge your gravel. Of course, that won't be very efficient; the gravel would probably disintegrate. Hmm, maybe if you make metal gravel? And make it aerodynamic? Hmm...

      They already have such a thing. It's called a claymore mine.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    38. Re:Mechanism of detection? by ZOP · · Score: 1

      Ach. I meant supersonic. i'm tarded, and that teaches me for writing a comment at 2AM.

    39. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone thought of ECMing the system by spraying it with weak echoes at the right doppler signature? I bet you could design a small flashlight-sized object to do that.

      The sight of a platoon all line-dancing to the left and right would liven up the battlefield no end....

    40. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh, but I think that's already in development. Google this keyword to find info: "bullets"

    41. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An airbag armor system would be effectively a Whipple Shield.

      I really don't believe a shield of toilet paper is going to eliminate the threat of getting shot. It may, however, help with microwave beef burrito night in the dorm.

      Don't squeeze the Charmin!

    42. Re:Mechanism of detection? by mi · · Score: 1

      The bullet's not flying even close to straight except when observed over short distances - it's flying in a parabolic arc vertically, and then you have wind effects and whatnot to consider on top of that.

      That's why I said "nearly straight". Yes, everything is flying over a parabola, including bullets, but their parabolas are very close to straight line. For example, M40's effective range is 1000m. With muzzle velocity of 777m/s, it would take the bullet about 2 seconds to reach that range. Within two seconds, it will "fall" only about 20 meters (g*t^2/2). 20 over 1000 is 1/50th...

      That said, the main application for these would, probably, be civilian (providing security) and thus much shorter ranges — there are few places in urban locales, where a sniper can be 1000 meters away from the VIP and still have a line-of-sight...

      if your sensors are acoustic in nature

      I'm pretty sure, the plan is to use radars — much like the anti-missile and anti-shell systems are doing. I don't think, detecting the bullet will be the hardest part here. Reacting to it is tricky. The missile-shields bet on either powerful lasers or "kinetic" pieces to destroy the projectile. Quickly moving the target instead is the novel idea here, perhaps, worthy of a patent, indeed.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    43. Re:Mechanism of detection? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      It's all a moot point though, since as you mention, in an urban environment the sniper is likely to be firing from a range of less than 200 yards. Assuming a muzzle velocity of 2500 fps, that gives the system less than a quarter-second to detect the threat, acquire enough data to plot the trajectory, and move the target out of the way. Even assuming you can do the processing that quickly, in moving the target out of the way quickly enough, the system might seriously injure/kill the individual it's supposed to be protecting.

      Additionally, if the system is RF-based and is going to be able to detect something as tiny as a bullet, it's going to need to be throwing massive amounts of energy at around 25 GHz or higher everywhere in line-of-sight in order to have any hope of getting a return, which is probably not going to be very good for the people that get bathed in it. It's just not a practical idea, and just because the concept works on 30-pound artillery projectiles that are as big around as a CD and take 30 seconds to reach their target doesn't mean it will work in this situation.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    44. Re:Mechanism of detection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all the enemy needs is a suitable passive radar detector to see where your soldiers are. Nice idea. Also, if the enemy jammed your system, it could have all your soldiers on the floor being jerked out of the way of a huge storm of non-existent bullets.

  5. Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That doesn't mean you can make it work in 10 years or less.

    I guess we should be patenting everything we can possibly think of, now. Sigh.

    1. Re:Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then have a working prototype be the time the ptent runs out

    2. Re:Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits

      So why don't you?

      Clearly patents now have absolutely no relation to any form of reality.

       

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you can make it work in 10 years or less.

      I think UT has prior art on that

      I guess we should be patenting everything we can possibly think of, now. Sigh.

      I think Apple has prior art on that

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Jeez, I'd like to patent invisible rocket suits by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Which part do you think is impractical?

      There is a passage in "All Quiet on the Western Front" where Remarque describes the effects of artillery (the scourge of WWI). To live more than a few days, soliders had to develop reflexes to instantly "hit the deck" when the sound of incoming artillery indicated it would land nearby. Those who did not immediately detect and respond, died. Casualties were high among greenhorns before they developed this reflex.

      Unlike mortars, bullets are supersonic so you'd need radar instead of hearing the incoming round. And making somebody drop to the ground is easy. A stun gun can already do it. Directing the current to the muscles instead of the flesh of the torso should reduce the disorientation and pain from a stun gun.

  6. Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by MrZaius · · Score: 1

    While this seems like a great way to protect an unarmed VIP (as seems to be the intent), it seems like it'd be a little bit problematic when installed in the armor of a soldier in the field. This seems like it could be more dangerous than beneficial in such circumstances, unless you also apply a number of safety precautions. What if the wearer is already firing or moving? Will it be smart enough to detect preexisting movement? Will it be smart enough to disable the wearer's firearm, in the event that he is already firing at another target?

    1. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by neokushan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suppose the logic is this:

      Without the suit, you WILL be hit by a bullet.
      WITH the suit, you MIGHT accidentally fling yourself off a cliff or whatever.

      I'll take the latter odds over the former odds any day of the week.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by repvik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the wearer is about to pull the trigger on his M72 LAW when someone fires a rifle at him, do you think it's a Good Idea (TM) to jerk the person around?

      Without the suit, you WILL be hit by a bullet.
      WITH the suit, you MIGHT accidentally blow up your whole team.

    3. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      So you've contrived one very very specific situation where saving the wearer might kill multiple people - surely that's a matter of judgement on the part of the person deploying the suits to not put the suit on someone who can blow everyone up if they are administered an electric shock without warning?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    4. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong application wise guy...

      think president on inauguration day

      or pope

    5. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      The soldier would only want the radar portion and only one per squad. If it can detect the trajectory of a bullet, it can identify precisely the point of origin. It makes it a lot more dangerous to be a sniper.

    6. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by C0C0C0 · · Score: 1

      Hell, doesn't have to be restricted to a sniper and a LAW. In any firefight, accuracy in a pinch is the difference between life and death. If my tango is bearing down on me, throwing rounds in my general vicinity, the last thing I want is my clothes to start freaking out on me while I'm trying to draw a bead.

      --
      You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
    7. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If the wearer is about to pull the trigger on his M72 LAW when someone fires a rifle at him, do you think it's a Good Idea (TM) to jerk the person around?

      You figure that being hit by a rifle bullet doesn't jerk him around?

      Without the suit, you WILL be hit by a bullet.
      WITH the suit, you MIGHT accidentally blow up your whole team.

      And WITHOUT the suit you'll blow them up anyway, because you'll be hit by a bullet.

      All this armour does is make the inevitable jerking happen a bit earlier. That's all.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      If the wearer is about to pull the trigger on his M72 LAW when someone fires a rifle at him, do you think it's a Good Idea (TM) to jerk the person around?

      Without the suit, you WILL be hit by a bullet.
      WITH the suit, you MIGHT accidentally blow up your whole team.

      The LAW rockets have to travel a short distance (I think 17 meters) before they are armed. So if you fire it into the ground or your nearby APC, nothing really bad happens.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Zironic · · Score: 1

      I'd assume it comes with an on/off switch.

    10. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 2, Funny

      think president on inauguration day or pope

      In a world... where Mecha Saddam and his Robo-Muslims threaten your mom... and apple pie... and FREEDOM...
      Only two men have the magic dancing armor that can save the day.

      Bionic Barack
      and
      Powerpope
      in:

      "Church and State 2: Best Friends Forevarrr!"

    11. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... Did you read the article at all? Assuming of course it would actually work as described, in that firefight you would rather be hit than get moved out of the way. Awesome reasoning. So without the armor you'll have another 1/2 second to aim and then get killed, instead of evading at least one bullet and living to aim again.

    12. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      The LAW rockets have to travel a short distance (I think 17 meters) before they are armed. So if you fire it into the ground or your nearby APC, nothing really bad happens.

      Indeed, the greatest danger would be from either mis-directing the backblast into your team, or the blunt-force trauma of hitting someone with the projectile.

      It's also rather moot, as the LAW isn't generally fielded anymore, being 40+ years old and not good against modern armor. Might as well be talking about bazookas and Messerschmidts. It's mostly the AT4 now.
      ...
      Huh. Apparently, as of 2006, they're pulling M74 LAWs out of storage and using them in Iraq because they're lighter than the AT4 and insurgents don't travel in armored vehicles.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the greatest danger would be from either mis-directing the backblast into your team, or the blunt-force trauma of hitting someone with the projectile.

      I did think about the blast, but didn't think about the trauma! Ouch!

      It's also rather moot, as the LAW isn't generally fielded anymore, being 40+ years old and not good against modern armor. Might as well be talking about bazookas and Messerschmidts. It's mostly the AT4 now. ...

      Huh. Apparently, as of 2006, they're pulling M74 LAWs out of storage and using them in Iraq because they're lighter than the AT4 and insurgents don't travel in armored vehicles.

      The LAW and RPG are also great for punching through buildings. Just be sure to do it in an area that you know has no civilians.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    14. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Church and State 1 was "Best Friends 4ever." The second installment was Church and Statier 2: Electric Bugaloo - 'cause of all the dancing due to the bullet-dodging power suits. And it had the Osama/Hitler half-clones, not Mecha Saddam.

    15. Re:Great - Throw 'em around during a firefight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure it wouldn't be designed for the standard combatant. Anyway, it would take huge amounts of processing power for this thing to still be even mildly practical in the middle of a firefight - there would be hundreds of bullets flying around that the "armor" would be sensing, calculating trajectory on, etc etc etc.

  7. wtf by jswigart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably the lamest idea ever. Long range sniper kills of this type represent an insignificant minority of deaths, they really think people are going to wear this crap?

    The detection method sounds flaky and lame. What I would pay to see though is the other side create an 'electromagnetic' interference device that causes this armor to 'stimulate' the wearer to dive into a brick wall or something.

    1. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably the lamest idea ever. Long range sniper kills of this type represent an insignificant minority of deaths, they really think people are going to wear this crap?

      The detection method sounds flaky and lame. What I would pay to see though is the other side create an 'electromagnetic' interference device that causes this armor to 'stimulate' the wearer to dive into a brick wall or something.

      I agree. The whole idea seems like something somebody thought up after getting really, really drunk and watching "The Tuxedo."

      Makes great book/movie material, but actually making it functional is a pipe dream at best.

    2. Re:wtf by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      It might have been effective if Kennedy had been wearing it.

    3. Re:wtf by hldn · · Score: 1

      uh probably not.

      kennedy was shot from ~200 ft away with a bullet that traveled around 2000 fps. that puts the travel time of the bullet at around 1/10th of a second.

      even if this system could detect the bullet the instant it was fired and then somehow compute it's exact trajectory in that same instant and then figure out how the target must move to avoid it, do you really think it would be physically possible for a person to move fast enough to dodge not one but multiple shots in that kind of time frame?

      even if the technology for this system works flawlessly, it would only be useful for the most long-range shots people can make, ie pretty much useless.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    4. Re:wtf by interiot · · Score: 1

      Yitzhak Rabin? JFK? MLK Jr? Clinton?

    5. Re:wtf by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with you that this solution is not a good fit for the problem, I just want point out that the threat of a sniper isn't in the total body count. Snipers tend to have a much greater psychological effect that's very disproportionate to the the resources employed. Soldiers, especially officers, are less likely to be out in the open if they knew there are snipers stalking them. Maybe one soldier will be killed per day or maybe even less but that's probably enough to make the unit operate less effectively the rest of the time. No one wants to be that one soldiers. More importantly, there is nothing they can really do about the threat and that makes soldiers feel helpless and drains their morale.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    6. Re:wtf by cliffski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't about saving lives. It's about getting government money.
      Stuff like this sounds sexy. The generation of people in government office who hand out cash for this grew up watching sci-fi movies, and this sounds cool. They even get to try on the armour at sales pitches I reckon. Probably get to take a few souvenir photos.
      Compare that with very dry presentations saying more steel is needed to reinforce the armour on military vehicles. It sounds dull, and it doesn't get funding.

      This is nothing new. Governments make emotional decisions in knee jerk response, or decisions that have good photo-ops. The press makes things worse by reporting sound bites, or stories with good photos, and ignoring the important stuff.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:wtf by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      getting really, really drunk and watching "The Tuxedo."

      Redundant. As much as I love Jackie's movies, Tuxedo can only be watched while really really drunk.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:wtf by gomiam · · Score: 1

      ...around 2000 fps.

      Now that's what I call a graphic card! Can I play Quake 4 at that speed too?

    9. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Probably the lamest idea ever. Long range sniper kills of this type represent an insignificant minority of deaths, they really think people are going to wear this crap?

      Finally -- a voice of reason.

      What you say describes exactly what Bruce Schneier calls "movie-plot terrorist threats". People who think up this crap are the same as parents who take separate airline flights so the their children won't lose both in case of an airline accident. But they go together in the same car to the airport -- a far more dangerous proposition.

      It's called lack of perspective.

      There just isn't a way to choose in advance between the plane that landed in the river and the more recent one that crashed with the loss of 49 people.

    10. Re:wtf by wITTus · · Score: 1

      even if this system could detect the bullet the instant it was fired and then somehow compute it's exact trajectory in that same instant and then figure out how the target must move to avoid it, do you really think it would be physically possible for a person to move fast enough to dodge not one but multiple shots in that kind of time frame?

      And how could that suit possibly find out about the velocity of his car? However, don't let us forget that this seems to be an absolutely new technology. Give it twenty years and it will be usable.

    11. Re:wtf by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      More importantly, there is nothing they can really do about the threat and that makes soldiers feel helpless and drains their morale.

      Actually, there's the anti-sniper robots, which use multiple microphones and various processing technologies to recognize the distance and bearing to the target, and even in some cases the caliber and even type of firearm. Similar things can be done to recognize submarines from sonar signatures. This technology can be combined with the sentry gun (a well-known technology today) to make an automated anti-sniper weapon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:wtf by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Technology won't stop a magic bullet. You need an appropriately powerful protective charm for that.

    13. Re:wtf by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the steel issue.. a large part of that problem is using vehicles for purposes they were never designed for.

      A humvee is supposed to be a relatively light support vehicle that follows behind the front. It was not generally designed to get shot at - adding extra armor plates is a lot of weight that significantly changes how the vehicle handles.

      By taking our army that was designed to kick ass and take names against another army, throwing them into anti-insurgency duty where they have to deal with civilians who may or may not be setting bomb, we've gone completely outside of the expected parameters our military was designed for. Once you come to this realization, it takes a lot of time to actually design, build, and install hundreds of armor plates, assuming that your distributors even have free space on the machines to do it (since they're probably full up making armor plates for your armored vehicles). The Iraq war has been like trying to use an attack dog as a seeing eye dog - he probably capable of learning how, but he just isn't set up for it.

      The interesting thing to me is that, according to the articles I've read, the US military actively dismantled their anti-insurgency units and doctrines after Vietnam over concerns that if we had units trained to do this sort of thing, leadership would be dumb enough to try to do it again. Never underestimate the stupidity of government leaders, I guess.

    14. Re:wtf by dargaud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      officers, are less likely to be out in the open if they knew there are snipers stalking them

      Too damn bad. If there's one thing that wars don't kill enough of, it's officers.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:wtf by swillden · · Score: 1

      This isn't about saving lives. It's about getting government money.

      More likely it's about getting IBM patent bonus money (for the employee who came up with the idea) and keeping IBM's patent count up.

      I seriously doubt IBM has any plans to try to sell this to anyone.

      Disclaimer: I work for IBM, but I know nothing about this. I didn't even RTFA.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:wtf by Venim · · Score: 1

      agreed. this has bad idea written all over it. using a taser to move someone away from a bullet, seriously.

    17. Re:wtf by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Long range sniper kills of this type represent an insignificant minority of deaths

      Snipers aren't about killing lots of people, but about killing the right people. The death of one person might be trivial compared to the total number of soldiers, but killing a high ranking officer, or essential intelligence personnel, can be very effective even if that one dead person is statistically insignificant.

    18. Re:wtf by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "the US military actively dismantled their anti-insurgency units and doctrines after Vietnam "

      Were they really that good/effective though?

      The US back then seemed just as good at making staunch enemies out of the local population as it is today. Doing that makes anti-insurgency a lot harder.

      After WWII the USA seems better at toppling democracies than establishing them. Maybe Iraq will be a success.

      --
    19. Re:wtf by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      officers, are less likely to be out in the open if they knew there are snipers stalking them

      Too damn bad. If there's one thing that wars don't kill enough of, it's officers.

      I would agree, but only if "officers" meant "Pentagon assholes". Plenty of officers get killed. It just seems like fewer because enlisted folks outnumber them by like 10 to 1.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    20. Re:wtf by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Compare that with very dry presentations saying more steel is needed to reinforce the armour on military vehicles.

      Armoring a hummer is fucking stupid anyway. The hummer is the replacement for the old WW2 army jeep. Would you armor a jeep with steel plates? Totally asinine. If you want soldiers in armored vehicles, give them fucking armored vehicles. Thousands of perfectly good M113 armored vehicles sat in mothballs while our idiot-run DoD stuck to its "light and fast" vision of the Army and soldiers (who knew better than the DoD what they needed) had to turn light trucks into APCs by scrounging steel from junkyards. Then to compound their idiocy, the DoD created an official program to misuse their light trucks by adding armor they were never designed to carry. Eventually they started shipping over M113's but they did spend a lot of time and waste a lot of lives defending their original stupid decision.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    21. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long range sniper kills of this type represent an insignificant minority of deaths...

      ...but a larger fraction of officer deaths.

    22. Re:wtf by db32 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! If man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings.

      I sure am glad guys with bizarre and different ideas don't listen to guys like you or the people that modded this nonsense as insightful. I am quite happy to fly cross country rather than catching a horse. I bet there are more than a few people happy to be alive due to other bizarre and improbable inventions like helicopters. I mean, we couldn't have pulled of tons of rescues without that horrible sounding idea.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    23. Re:wtf by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Oh, they failed miserably... but they learned from it, and had a fair idea by the end of it what sort of things worked and what didn't. The books written by generals researching what happened in Vietnam are what guide our current strategy in Iraq since Petraeus took over.

    24. Re:wtf by jswigart · · Score: 1

      Non-Sequitur?

    25. Re:wtf by jswigart · · Score: 1

      Nah, Straw Man fits more I think.

  8. Too Many Trajectories? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of something I read here recently about meteor strikes on Earth. Basically, we can only map about 0.001% of the sky per day or something small, and there are so many potential meteors out there we may never see that we may just die in our sleep tonight. How could body armor see all the potential trajectories of a bullet, scan them, and react all within a fraction of a second? While the longest bullet travel was 4 seconds, I would imagine that most successful sniper attacks are less, and armor doesn't exactly have eyes. Maybe I should read the article?

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    1. Re:Too Many Trajectories? by berashith · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that if we can perfect this for people, we can attach giant meteor dodging armor to the earth? How much electricity is required to make the planet jump to the side real quick?

    2. Re:Too Many Trajectories? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      If we can solve the problem of power budget in getting the Earth to jump to the left, then the step to the right should be trivial. Dunno how the whole "hands on your hips" thing will play out though.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  9. Yes! But will it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Finally! Now everyone will be able to fight Agents and not just that hack Keanu.

    1. Re:Yes! But will it... by supernova_hq · · Score: 3, Funny

      AC, you are the two.

  10. In the words of the great Neo. by stonedcat · · Score: 1

    Woah!

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
  11. Super Sonic Rounds by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vast majority of sniper rounds are super sonic. (the speed of sound is only about 1,100 ft/s)

    So the bullet will hit it's target before the sound wave warning has arrived

    1. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by joggle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why they aren't going off of sound (detailed in the patent application). They're using EM waves to reflect off of the bullet (either radar, laser, etc).

    2. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by wisty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh brilliant. So all you need is a rocket built to home in on EM waves from the armor?

    3. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by cloakable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you like firing anti-tank missiles at infantry instead of bullets.

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    4. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a -rocket- why bother with aiming for the soldier at all?

      Just aim roughly in his vicinity, at the ground he's standing on, a nearby parked vehicle, wall or other non-moving target.

    5. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of sniper rounds exceed the speed of light, anyone knows that

    6. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... (either radar, laser, etc).

      Radar is sound.

    7. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's any number of technologies which would be convenient here. Micro-missiles, for example. Or rail guns. (They didn't specify gauss gun, rail gun, etc. No idea which they meant here.) Homing bullets are actually in development - they don't exactly turn corners or anything, but make corrections. You also don't need a homing projectile at all; all you really need is a scout vehicle with passive detection and sighting, and a mortar at another location.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Oh brilliant. So all you need is a rocket built to home in on EM waves from the armor?

      And if you are McGyver you might be able to create such a rocket, and a launch system, with pocket lint and 5$ worth of stuff from radioshack. If not, you might need a bit of a budget to actually create the targeting mechanism.

    9. Re:Super Sonic Rounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AGM-88 already does this but costs $250,000. Quite expensive to kill one person.

  12. Lamers. That is HALO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lamers. That is HALO!

  13. This sounds way too good to be true.... by VinylRecords · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the armor emits an electromagnetic signal that can detect, instantly, the movement of a bullet, can calculate the trajectory of said bullet, and somehow ensure that the user is warned enough to move out of the way of the bullet. In the example that they give, the bullet is traveling at 625 meters per second, the size of a bullet coming from a typical sniper rifle is very small. So this armor can detect, say the size of a small marble, from 2500 meters away?

    Assuming that this armor can perfect and accurately detect incoming small arms projectiles and warn the user in time, how can the armor know the ground terrain that the wearer has to physically negotiate? Say the person is standing in two feet of snow, or in sand in the desert, perhaps the person is in two feet of water, or they are walking down stairs? The armor requires the user to be an acrobat from what I can tell. And no matter what, unless the armor can fully mobilize the wearer and move them automatically, this system still leaves room for grave human error, meaning it's hardly reliable.

    And won't people figure out a way to beat the armor, or beat the system. Imagine a sniper rifle that fires a decoy bullet, that knocks the target down (as he evades the first bullet) and puts the armor wearer in a prone position on the ground, making him or her easy to target. Or perhaps a decoy bullet is shot from one barrel and the real bullet follows in a pre-calculated trajectory requiring no manual aiming for the sniper. Perhaps a bullet can be made undetectable to the electromagnetic pulse that the armor gives off. Maybe the armor can be jammed? You fire a bullet with an electromagnetic pulse destabilizer and then pick off your target when the armor fails.

    I should mention that I live like three or four miles from IBM's headquarters in the Hudson Valley, so I hope they let my friends who work there bring in their buddies (or just me) for some live fire demonstrations where we can snipe at blowup dolls wearing million dollar armor with some high tech rifles.

    1. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by espiesp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, light is an electromagnetic signal I guess.

      If the wearer had a 360* light sensor on top of his head, and it was tuned to detect small flashes in the particular light signature of a rifle flash, something like this could work I suppose.

      While I'm pretty confident that the electronics could react fast enough for at least a 1000meter range, I'm really not sure how fast the human body responds to the electrical impulses. If the last time I touched live 110v AC is any indication that's pretty bloody fast.

    2. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a guyver mega smasher plagiate!

    3. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by jcr · · Score: 1

      So this armor can detect, say the size of a small marble, from 2500 meters away?

      Sure, why not? Radar routinely detects objects that cover far smaller arcs in its field of view.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      ...demonstrations where we can snipe at blowup dolls wearing million dollar armor with some high tech rifles.

      "...protect a wearer from long-range gunfire by detecting the incoming bullets and administering small shocks to the appropriate muscles required for moving out of the way."

      Blowup dolls don't have muscles... You'll have to wear it for them.

    5. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      ...how can the armor know the ground terrain that the wearer has to physically negotiate? Say the person is standing in two feet of snow, or in sand in the desert, perhaps the person is in two feet of water, or they are walking down stairs? The armor requires the user to be an acrobat from what I can tell. And no matter what, unless the armor can fully mobilize the wearer and move them automatically, this system still leaves room for grave human error, meaning it's hardly reliable.

      I would rather fall down a flight of stairs than get hit by a bullet.

      Just sayin.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    6. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there's no way it would get false positives on light flashes. The guy in the suit will look like he is auditioning for riverdance.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by sam0737 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I guess the detection would be done by analyzing the sound, instead of visual analysis.

    8. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no matter what, unless the armor can fully mobilize the wearer and move them automatically, this system still leaves room for grave human error, meaning it's hardly reliable.

      Whine whine! This system isn't absolutely perfect! Therefore it's worth nothing, because everything is black and white!

      Sheesh, seriously. There are many problems with this, as others have pointed out, and many things that could be said against it, but "it's not 100% perfect" is not one of them.

    9. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yes, with massive radar antennae. There's no way you can do the same with a six-inch antenna (or whatever).

      Also, radar antennae tend to spin so you get a latency in the detection. If it spins (eg.) once per second and you need three readings to be able to calculate the trajectory of the bullet then that's 3.5 seconds latency on average. Plus a second to get out of the way, and, ooops! We've just taken longer than the longest ever snipe.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by MotorMachineMercenar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is a brilliant idea if you want to turn your army into a zombie army.

      Hint: sniper bullets travel faster than sound, so you'll end up with a zombie army if you rely on sound detection... fine, nevermind.

      --
      "We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
    11. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by jcr · · Score: 1

      There's no way you can do the same with a six-inch antenna (or whatever).

      Why not? You'd be scanning thousands of feet around you, not hundreds of miles.

      Also, radar antennae tend to spin so you get a latency in the detection.

      Not all radars need a moving antenna.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love to hear your arguments against bulletproof vests.

      "Won't people figure out a way to beat the armor, or beat the system. Imagine a gun that fires a much heavier caliber bullet that the vest cannot stop?"

      "What if people are standing on the edge of a building. Now instead of having a bullet rip through them only to make them collapse, the impact will push them off the ledge and crash into a crowd of toddlers and other kids. Boom, splat. Instantly kills multiple people with one single bullet, just because the target was stupid enough to wear a bulletproof vest."

      Here's a hint - it's not supposed to be a forcefield. It's supposed to improve survivability not make you impervious to any and all attacks. After all - what's to prevent the shooter from just switching nuclear armaments?

    13. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by LS · · Score: 1

      -1 Not Insightful

      You are reading about this armor as if it were something out of a DND rule book. Either it's real or it's fiction. If it's real, then there are three possibilities:

      1. The tech is mostly classified, meaning they have access to things that you wouldn't expect existed, e.g. high speed landscape detection and evasion systems that you hadn't expected were possible at this current time

      2. It's just a patent for patent's sake, and IBM did the minimum required to get the patent

      3. The system just doesn't work

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    14. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by acq3 · · Score: 1

      "OMG Angelina Jolie is having an epileptic seizure!"

      "Opps, my bad, she just forgot to turn off her BDBA..."

      Death by papprazzi!

    15. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      And won't people figure out a way to beat the armor, or beat the system. Imagine a sniper rifle that fires a decoy bullet, that knocks the target down (as he evades the first bullet) and puts the armor wearer in a prone position on the ground, making him or her easy to target. Or perhaps a decoy bullet is shot from one barrel and the real bullet follows in a pre-calculated trajectory requiring no manual aiming for the sniper. Perhaps a bullet can be made undetectable to the electromagnetic pulse that the armor gives off. Maybe the armor can be jammed? You fire a bullet with an electromagnetic pulse destabilizer and then pick off your target when the armor fails.

      You make a lot of good points, but this is just wet blanket quibbling. If our enemies have to be using special sniper rifles with computers built in that fire multiple bullets just to hit one of our guys, I think that means the system worked. Same for them having to use special ammunition.

    16. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      You'd be scanning thousands of feet around you, not hundreds of miles.

      You still need to transmit at a wavelength short enough that will interact with that tiny object, and you'll need to do it with enough power so you get enough energy being returned by the reflection from the bullet. I think it's that second part that's going to be a bear - you're probably going to need to transmit at about 24 GHz or so to be able to resolve the bullet, and even a 5 watt transmitter is probably going to be difficult to cart around. Police radar operates in that band, and even with the size of those units, they're only transmitting about 15 mW, and often have trouble dealing with car-sized objects 1000 feet away.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    17. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Narpak · · Score: 1

      And won't people figure out a way to beat the armor, or beat the system. Imagine a sniper rifle that fires a decoy bullet, that knocks the target down (as he evades the first bullet) and puts the armor wearer in a prone position on the ground, making him or her easy to target. Or perhaps a decoy bullet is shot from one barrel and the real bullet follows in a pre-calculated trajectory requiring no manual aiming for the sniper. Perhaps a bullet can be made undetectable to the electromagnetic pulse that the armor gives off. Maybe the armor can be jammed? You fire a bullet with an electromagnetic pulse destabilizer and then pick off your target when the armor fails.

      If and buts were candy and nuts everyday would be Christmas!

    18. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by instarx · · Score: 1

      Oh gosh - it's not perfect!? Let's just forget about it then.

      A rifle that fires decoy bullets...GUIDED decoy bullets... a bullet with an electromagnetic pulse destabilizer!!? How old are you?

    19. Re:This sounds way too good to be true.... by Aetrus · · Score: 1

      Yeah...I agree. I want my armor to take the bullet. Shrugging off a sniper round (or any round for that matter) would be far more effective.

  14. New sniper rifle patent by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Funny

    simulates projectiles in a manner which causes the aforementioned bullet-dodging armor to deliver stimulus which directs it's wearer to repeatedly and fatally strike him or herself in the genitals.

    I predict this to be added to the hague conventions in short order.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:New sniper rifle patent by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "fatally strike herself in the genitals"?

      Is that even possible?

    2. Re:New sniper rifle patent by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      You can kill someone with crotch-shots in Fallout and Fallout 2. Instantly. Ever seen what happens to a raider taking a critical from an M72 Gauss rifle? It's ugly. Mega power fists work just as well. Yes, that's right, death from being racked. Not even Johnny Cage could pull that off with a single Ball Breaker.

    3. Re:New sniper rifle patent by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Cunt Punt.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:New sniper rifle patent by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the crotch shots are my favorite, usually knocking them down and immobile for easy finishing off. Besides that, it is just damned funny putting your opponent down and out with a crotch shot from the Red Ryder LE BB gun!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:New sniper rifle patent by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I was questioning the pronoun use.

      I'm not closely familiar with female genitals (I'm posting on Slashdot, after all!), so I don't know whether they are similarly at risk. The "kick him in the crotch" self-defense advice mostly seems to imply a male assailant.

    6. Re:New sniper rifle patent by cicuz · · Score: 1

      That's what she kept screaming while fatally striking herself in the genitals..

  15. Another typical IBM patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when a company pays its employees for each successful patent, and when employees are even told to put patent applications in their yearly personal objectives, which affect their annual bonuses. You end up with employees spending a large chunk of their work week filing for patents on any random idea that enters their head, no matter how impractical, obvious, or unrelated to the company's actual research and development.

    1. Re:Another typical IBM patent by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      I'd patent a penis accelerometer so you can use your penis as a joystick. Also a computer in a computer so you can compute while you compute (yo dawg). But that's probably been done already.

    2. Re:Another typical IBM patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Both are true. Also true, however, is the "pushback" from the IP review board, which results in most submitted disclosures being closed (not pursued further) or send back to be refined/rewritten. Typical questions in such review board meetings include importance of the concept, if it's likely to be used in an IBM product, if the concept has been prototyped or validated in some other way (careful analysis, simulation), similarity to prior art, etc.

  16. patent missing magic bullet detector by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

    So if I make a patent of a device that detects incoming sniper bullets, wouldn't IBMs patent be useless without buying mine?

  17. Interesting... by martas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there are several obstacles which I can't see being solved within the next decade or two (I'm being optimistic):

    First of all, there's accuracy. You don't want your VIP actually walking to intercept the bullet.

    Second, size. If your radar is so precise as to detect a bullet even 500 yards away, it's gotta be pretty big.

    Related to this, there's energy. For an awesome radar (or anything else) like that, you'd need big-ass batteries, and/or to recharge every couple of hours. Especially in battle, this would be a no-go.

    Finally, if they claim that this is really for VIP's under high risk of an assassination attempt, and not for military/police, then the device would probably have to be invisible. I don't think Obama or Bill Gates wants to walk around with a huge thingamajig on his head (remember "Child abduction is not funny"?).

    Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give somebody a patent for an idea if they haven't addressed so many key issues.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      It's a better idea than giving somebody a patent for the wheel or for breathing. I guess this is above-average quality for the patent office. ;)

    2. Re:Interesting... by Lukian · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Bill would be happy to wear the armor if it can dodge incoming pies!

    3. Re:Interesting... by dethb0y · · Score: 1

      from the patent, the "detection" system is actually separate from the armor itself, and uses a variety of techniques.

      Radars regularly detect things that are very "small" in consideration to their coverage area. There's no reason you couldn't have many of them, to. You could also use visual sensors, as a back up.

      The actual system could be quite modest in size. A few wires, some attachment pads, and a power pack/control system the size of a cell phone would do it.

      There's ways to defeat it, but there's ways to defeat absolutely any defensive system ever devised. I could see definite uses and applicability for this for stuff like (say) the inauguration or public speaking events.

      FWIW, they also DO mention using it on soldiers or a group of soldiers, to protect them from sniper fire, most likely in situations where they'd not normally be expecting it (ie, a field hospital or a depot or such).

      --
      "Nothing excites jaded grandmasters like a Theoretical Novelty" - Dominic Lawson
    4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus you're perfectly lit for radar-seeking missiles.

    5. Re:Interesting... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's a better idea than giving somebody a patent for the wheel or for breathing. I guess this is above-average quality for the patent office. ;)

      Back in early 20th century the patent office had Einstein. The people who work there today... are not Einsteins.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Interesting... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > First of all, there's accuracy. You don't want your VIP actually walking to intercept
      > the bullet.

      The sniper is going to aim for your center of mass. Moving in any direction will reduce the probability that the bullet will hit you. A common reflex among veterans is to react to a loud bang or the whistle of an incoming mortar round by falling to the ground. This thing could save your life by simply tripping you.

      > Second, size. If your radar is so precise as to detect a bullet even 500 yards away,
      > it's gotta be pretty big.

      Not as big as you think, and it is not going to be attached to you.

      > Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give somebody a patent for an idea if
      > they haven't addressed so many key issues.

      I don't think there is anything in patent law about "addressing key issues".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:Interesting... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      First of all, there's accuracy. You don't want your VIP actually walking to intercept the bullet.

      The goal was to avoid intercepting bullets. Maybe I don't understand your sentence?

      Second, size. If your radar is so precise as to detect a bullet even 500 yards away, it's gotta be pretty big.

      Does it? Saying so doesn't make it so.

      Related to this, there's energy. For an awesome radar (or anything else) like that, you'd need big-ass batteries, and/or to recharge every couple of hours. Especially in battle, this would be a no-go.

      It sounds more useful for something like a VIP giving a speech. You put detectors in the dais and stick the nerve controller up his ass (or whatever) and let him talk. Someone tries to put his head out, and he dodges automatically. This eliminates your following objection as well, so I won't bother to C&P that one.

      Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give somebody a patent for an idea if they haven't addressed so many key issues.

      Seriously, I don't know if it's a good idea to give you a submit button.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you have a patent doesn't mean anything except that legally you own the right to develop that particular idea. It doesn't have to be a good idea, or even a practical one. The key issues would be addressed when actually designing the armor, which I'm going to guess will never actually be marketed.

    9. Re:Interesting... by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      Why does all the hardware need to be located on the suit? If we're talking about the president of the US, the hardware could all be located nearby or inside a podium. The suit would only need to have a way of communicating with the outside hardware and some sort of connection to the presidents muscles so that they could be activated at the appropriate moment if necessary.

      For someone like that, having one secret service guy dedicated to this full time would be reasonable. He could program in the type of environment on which the president is walking.

      However, given all that, I think a more practical system would be a quick deploying bullet shelf in front of the podium (or wherever the president is standing. No need to jerk the president out of the way, just raise a huge bullet proof wall into the path of the bullet. Or just drop a pope cone on top of him the moment a bullet shot is detected. Or just drop him through the floor.

      But yes, beyond someone like the president, it seems unlikely that such technology would have much use. Perhaps it could be used by soldiers in sniper-prone areas. The sensors would be in the vehicles and muscle jerking devices would be attached to all soldiers along with sensors that identify where they are relative to the main vehicle.

      Regarding technologies built specifically to thwart this, that is a concern, but it would probably not be a huge concern if the enemy is most likely to be a underfunded rebel group. There is always an arms war with new technology, but underfunded groups will rarely have the best tech.

    10. Re:Interesting... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Finally, if they claim that this is really for VIP's under high risk of an assassination attempt, and not for military/police, then the device would probably have to be invisible. I don't think Obama or Bill Gates wants to walk around with a huge thingamajig on his head (remember "Child abduction is not funny"?).

      Well, if he can hide this motherfucker in his motorcade, there's probably room for a radar system, too.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    11. Re:Interesting... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Or George, if it can detect flying shoes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    12. Re:Interesting... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I didn't think patentability had anything to do with usefulness or marketability.

  18. Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As an example, the longest reported sniper hit was from a distance of about 2500 meters, resulting in a time of flight of about 4 seconds for the projectile/bullet. Had the target been aware of the inbound projectile, avoiding it by simply walking away would have been possible."

    Bad analogy - For the record:

    That shot was taken by a Canadian sniper in Afghanistan, on his 3rd round, with a .50 cal.
    I assume that after the target had been alerted by the other 2 rounds landing nearby,(one hit a pack he was wearing) he kinda knew what was up already. Still didn't help him though.

  19. brilliant! by jipn4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since bullets typically travel faster than sound, you first get hit by the bullet, and then you get an electric shock on top of that. What fun.

    What will those IBM guys patent next?

    1. Re:brilliant! by flewp · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wasn't aware that electromagnetic radiation traveled at the speed of sound.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    2. Re:brilliant! by jipn4 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that bullets come with little radio beacons or flashing lights attached that say "I'm coming".

      The only thing they do seem to do is make noise, and that's why gun detection systems use sound, not EM radiation.

    3. Re:brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that you have no idea what you're talking about. Now I do.

    4. Re:brilliant! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They also reflect EM radiation. Just FYI.

    5. Re:brilliant! by flewp · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that bullets come with little radio beacons or flashing lights attached that say "I'm coming".

      The only thing they do seem to do is make noise, and that's why gun detection systems use sound, not EM radiation.

      I know it may be too much to ask, but if you RTFA you'd see that the detection system uses electromagnetic waves, much like radar to detect the bullets. The detectors send out electromagnetic waves that are reflected (as dave420 points) off the projectile.

      From the article: "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  20. Title... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

    IBM Files Patent For Bullet-Dodging Bionic Armor

    Reading that title, I got a mental image of body armor sensing incoming bullets and dodging them by jumping off of the wearer.

    1. Re:Title... by cloakable · · Score: 1

      Thank you, so did I.

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    2. Re:Title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fuck this, I'm outta here"

      "I can't let you do that, Rambo"

    3. Re:Title... by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      IBM Files Patent For Bullet-Dodging Bionic Armor

      Reading that title, I got a mental image of body armor sensing incoming bullets and dodging them by jumping off of the wearer.

      Well of course it does! The armor is vastly more expensive than the wearer.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  21. Bullet Dodging Armor? by feedayeen · · Score: 1

    So, it is armor, that dodges the bullets when they are heading for your body. Um, wouldn't the armor work best when it is BETWEEN me and the lead projectile?

  22. gaming the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposing you could generate the signature of a bullet yourself? That could make for great fun.

  23. We can Rebuild him. We have the technology. by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Funny

    We can build the first 700 Billion dollar man. Da da-da da! Da da da da da da da da daahh

  24. Sorry...won't work by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The sniper was Canadian, so I'm pretty sure the armour wouldn't have saved the target in the long run. The sniper was told that the guy he killed was responsible for blowing up ten skids of imported microbrewery beer. If the rifle didn't work, that sniper would have run down there with a dull, rusty spoon, cut the guy's balls off and beaten him to death with them.

    It's the Canadian Way.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Sorry...won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMOA --- This is one of the few slashdot comments I can show to my Canadian ex-military friends and family members that they would both understand and appreciate

      Thanks

    2. Re:Sorry...won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sniper was Canadian, so I'm pretty sure the armour wouldn't have saved the target in the long run. The sniper was told that the guy he killed was responsible for blowing up ten skids of imported microbrewery beer. If the rifle didn't work, that sniper would have run down there with a dull, rusty spoon, cut the guy's balls off and beaten him to death with them.

      It's the Canadian Way.

      Except that the guy who got shot was a fanatical Islamic extremist, who therefore didn't have any balls, what with being enamored with killing women and children, and being "nice" by waiting to fuck 6-year-old brides until they're 9, just like their "Prophet" did.

      Anyone ever tell you how the Saudis stone homosexuals? They empy a giant dump truck full of rocks on top of them.

      Islam - stuck in the 8th Century and damn proud of it!

    3. Re:Sorry...won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and when the americans wanted to give the "Three men" a service medal(since the shot's and kill ratios were so high) the Canadian beaurocrats crapped all over them and then put them up for a court marshal, because of some suspicion over who defiled a corpse. Of the 3 snipers; One is a police officer, the other has tried to be a bouncer, a dj and a few other things, and the third is now in a mental institutional.

      Bury the good men under red tape and then accuse them of War Crimes, It's the Canadian Way!

    4. Re:Sorry...won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Canadian sniper with the highest distance confirmed kill at this point.

  25. The consulting business must be slow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin'.

  26. Breakdance by magerquark.de · · Score: 1

    I thought, that's how breakdance was invented?

    --
    -- Watch me working: www.magerquark.de
  27. Radar-armor means we need... by dfsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... $20M stealth bullets that have the radar signature of a mosquito. Yay!

  28. It dodges lasers too! by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    With battle field lasers being available now, it needs to have a quantum entanglement detector to operate. This also requires the IBM time machine to be really effective. The nice thing it is so futuristic it has an open source time machine operating system.

  29. Yet another Old West tradition down the drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you don't have to shoot at someone's feet to make them dance. Shoot anywhere you damn well please.

  30. Is this a troll patent? by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or do they actually have something? Personally I don't see it working that well. A system that detects where the fire comes from and automatically returns fire with a sniper round, or an RPG, would be much bigger deterrent IMO.

  31. Who would have thought... by Lavene · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shampoo is working for IBM!!

  32. Complete BS - the Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's assume that this vest actually exists and would protect the wearer in the example given. 4 seconds is a lot of time to get out of the way of a bullet.

    An ar15 with a 20 inch barrel can easily propel a (standard) 55 grain bullet over 3000 fps. Using modern tactics, "long" range is 300 yards. Most kills happen closer than 150 yards.

    150 yards at 3000 fps leaves just .15 seconds to detect the bullet simulate the situation and force the wearer to get out of the way.

    Even at the longer 300 yard range, there is just .3 seconds to get out of the way. This is vaguely more likely, but practical armor (total weight 25 lbs) will likely never be made that could accomplish this inside the duration of the patent.

  33. It could be a trendy move.... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

    ...in a world where leaders are not usually known for their dance steps.

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  34. Re:Stimulate to move... That would be a short... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    circuit...

    A bolting child of Oh Big Blue,
    Melting into a mound of goo,
    Sizzling, hopping, and spewing doo,
    Settling, calming, as flies go "OOOOH"

    Guided, misguided into fire,
    The circuit boards fry in the pyre,
    A life whose fate is down to wire,
    So NOW Big Blue what will you sire?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  35. Other projectiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when a flock of birds fly past?

    You will be dancing the robot!

  36. BUT... by capebretonsux · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...will it work with thrown shoes?

  37. Finally! by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

    something to upgrade my baby armor with!

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  38. Ode to Big Blue's New Suit of Armor by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    The troopers run in Big Blue's ARMOR
    With glint and sprint each one's a CHARMER
    In humid climes the suit's a WARMER
    They are no match for pick-axe FARMER

    Be brave and stout and dodge rounds nearby
    A jig you dance cuz rounds fly on by
    But whizz your pants-the round hit you guy
    Oh now you know - bionics can fry

    (there is a store-all in this more, and there's a moral to this story)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  39. Nazi's by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Who's the modern day equivalent of the nazi's? shouldn't ibm follow suit and sell to the bush administrat.. oh wait.

  40. This begs the question by ShooterNeo · · Score: 0

    I've seen a lot of proposals for high tech advancements on the infantry soldier. From power suits, to medical robot arms integrated into stretchers, to drones for spying, to head to toe electronics gear. But wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to work on a complete remotely controlled robot to replace a soldier? If you aren't sending a human in harm's way, there's an awful lot more missions you could accomplish, and you wouldn't be as worried about casualties or armor...

    1. Re:This begs the question by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to work on a complete remotely controlled robot to replace a soldier?

      If all you want to do is kill, then yeah, maybe. We don't have the technology for it, but in the long run you could probably pull it off. You'd lose a lot of situational awareness, and have various other issues to overcome, but it might be worthwhile anyway.

      Thing is, such machines would be fairly useless in a conflict like the current wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. You can't send a robot to check on shop owners, play with kids, share cigarettes and gossip with the local soldiers/police, and sit in on tribal meetings. Somehow I can't see the locals inviting a robot in for tea.

      You could use them to augment combat missions - they'd be GREAT for room-clearing - but you're still going to need real people for most of your other work. Which means you still need all that other junk to protect your people, so you're not saving any money.

  41. Something similar was demo'd in the 70's by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    They've had these for cars for a long time. It triangulates the bullet's path from two or three sensors mounted on the body, so the driver can tell where the shots are coming from and take avoiding action.

    I guess the novel part of this is to buld a taser into the mechanism - though, I would expect most politicians would prefer to take a bullet than to crap themselves in public as a result of the shocks they receive.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  42. Snatch by Xiroth · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Boris the Blade? As in Boris the Bullet-Dodger?"
    "Why do they call him the Bullet-Dodger?"
    "'Cause he dodges bullets, Avi."

    1. Re:Snatch by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      Ha! Love that movie. Obviously nobody got the reference. :-)

    2. Re:Snatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well why do they call him bullet-dodger? ...
      Because, he dodges bullets Avi

  43. OK, time to put an end to that idea ... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Why is almost everyone (so far) fixating on BULLETS?

    Hell, if I had an army or some resisting force being assaulted by troops in armor, i'd set up IEDs, nuts and bolts, flame-throwers, and bouncing betty-type combinations of devices. Neck, face and limb armor will negate ANY head and upper body armor. As long as you set up confusion, sheer horror, and profuse bleeding, any army will spend an inordinate amount of time collecting casualties for triage. At some point, body bags going home will (ideally) cause resistance to more bodies coming home.

    Also, for close-quarter combat, IMPROVISE. Set up spring-loaded, stud-fitted poles at neck, chest and shin level. Anyone walking into those traps will be one un-pretty fucked up individual. If you are defending YOUR TURF, i don't give a damn what country you are from, you have EVERY RIGHT to whack the shit out of intruders, and, morally, i support you. The point of war and combat should be to reduce war and combat, not create blind or programmed "rah rah rah".

    Besides, much armor can be a death trap if the shit set ablaze, and made useless if penetrated in a concentrated area more than once. Without field replacements, anyone shot more than 3 or 4 times has got to be asking the Dirty Harry question: "Do I feel LUCKY?"

    But, nevermind all that. Napalm for up close and personal, and microwave cooking for out to 50 yards, and distributed cluster bombs for random psychological dissuasion. Hell, in Afghanistan, heavily booby-trapped fields became so untrustworthy and costly to clear that the British (IIRC, it was British) just paved their own way through farm land and only THEN did they trust the road's safety agains "insurgents".

    I am hoping this armor is not being paid for out the the "stimulus" package. IBM has enough money that they should pay for it themselves and recoup costs on sales -- as long as the cost is not burdensome to the Taxpayers. Besides, this is probably going to turn out to be more for pacifying troops psychologically than to actually be protective. All protection is just some layer in a larger near-local system. Senses, sharing information, and choosing to avoid catastrophe can go a long way in obviating a dependency on armor. But, since people are going to follow orders rather than be shot for cowardice in the face of an enemy...

    But, at first, when i read the OP/summary, i immediately flashed forward thinking this would be like Chobham armor, or some kind of reactive armor that predetonates just before impact, so as to lessen the shock to the person under the armor. But, the effects would be as disorienting from inside the armor as from outside.

    It might look ludicrous, but maybe they should just run together under a huge, deflector shield -- everyone carrying/shouldering their 3 pounds of transparent Kevlar, with the dirt skirt about 5 inches above ground. Now, if they could just program the TKDS to match the surroundings, IBM might be on to a better product. Unfortunately, though, anyone getting a few frag grenades under that skirt will turn that TKDS into a "dome of doom" with all that shrapnel creating "Hamburger Helper". Once the death dome hits the ground and stops moving, the enemy would redirect fire to entomb the next set of rolly-pollies...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    1. Re:OK, time to put an end to that idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't get out much, do you?

    2. Re:OK, time to put an end to that idea ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire combat experience consists of watching Home Alone doesn't it?

  44. So what are they saying? by rantingkitten · · Score: 3, Funny

    That I can dodge bullets? Or that when I'm ready, I won't have to?

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    1. Re:So what are they saying? by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Everytime you dodge a bullet, you pay IBM a license fee, or they sent agents^Wlawyers after you.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  45. Do they mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duck and Cover?

    Works for nuclear bombs so why not for mere bullets?

  46. It's just a patent. by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A bullet is a very very small target for any radar to detect, even with very sensitive equipment. However something moving at 1000m/s is a very distinct doppler rader signature, wich makes it MUCH easier to detect. From there this is plausible.

    It's just a patent, it doesn't represent any actual project planned and certainly is no waste of bailout/stimulous package money.

    I for one welcom such advances, as some day our troops will be wearing exoskeletons which may be able to make movements for the wearer - this is a step towards the machine revolution, where we are all anhiliated by robotic exoskeletons where the human is either dead or no longer has control... oh crap.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:It's just a patent. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think it was in his book Terminal Man that Michael Crichton described a project to build an automated ping pong playing machine. They idea is that the machine detects the incoming ball and uses a bat to deflect it back to where it came from. The people being paid to build the system had some suspicions that the real goal had nothing to do with playing table tennis.

    2. Re:It's just a patent. by drspliff · · Score: 1

      Don't you think it's ironic that they're patenting something which doesn't exist yet?

      Say I just brainstorm a whole load of outlandish ideas which may or may not be technically possible in the near future, patent them all, then sit back and wait for them to be independently invented when the technology is available, then sue them all for loads o' monies. ...Isn't that a good definition of a patent troll?

      I can spend comparatively nothing on R&D, then reap the rewards of other people's innovation; that's a pretty cool business model!

    3. Re:It's just a patent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that oh crap the we're going to die or is the oh crap you revealed your plan?

  47. More money in pie defense... by argent · · Score: 1

    I'm sure people like Bill Gates would have paid for something that would detect and intercept incoming pies. They're a more credible threat for a well funded and high profile market.

  48. New Sniper Objective - Dance Target Into Danger by aCodeCowboy · · Score: 1

    Once the sniper knows there is a reaction to their action, they could try to make the wearer jump off roofs, under moving tanks, etc.

    At the very least, it would be difficult to return fire when you have a spasmodic fit whenever the bad guy shoots a couple rounds at you.

    Could lead to friendly fire incidents.

    "Sorry Joe, the sniper made me do it!"

  49. Flying bullet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is BS. 4 seconds? Without muzzle elevation - and regardless of the velocity of the round - the bullet will hit the Earth at the same time as if you dropped it from your hand - unless it hits something first.

  50. Speed of sound by Nyckname · · Score: 1

    Unless it's subsonic projectile, the target is hit before he can hear the gunshot.

  51. Pffft. by Strake · · Score: 1

    Frankly, this seems like technological overkill to me. Instead, why not just deck yourself out in ceramic and kevlar? Available _now_, less expensive, no power required, and it protects against all bullets, supersonic or no. Better still, a good suit will protect against a stick of dynamite at several metres' distance. Let's see this fancy armour dodge _that_.

  52. +15 to dexterity 150-180% Enhanced Defense(varies by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    Had this kind of armour a long time ago in diablo II. Dodging arrows, but that is not different. Crow Caw Tigulated Mail has +15 to dexterity, and a higher defense rating.

    But typically you woul add dexterity to a helmet, not to the body armour...

    (is this prior art?)

  53. Wouldn't a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..be to have a single device with the capability to detect incoming projectiles in the area (like the proposed body armour), but instead of trying to save an individual in the sub-4 second flight time of the bullet, calculate the trajectory of the bullet's path and provide the soldiers with a precise location of the firer?

    This would be valuable information to anyone trying to take cover and neutralise the sniper in return, especially when they would normally be very will hidden, I'd have thought.

  54. Good Idea! I will file another patent. by Rusty+pipe · · Score: 1

    A slow bullet, so the enemy would not need a special armor or suit. The bullet will need about ten seconds for the way from the rifle to the target. It doesn't matter how near or far the target is. Ten seconds is programmed into the bullet, so anybody has plenty of time to get out of the way, if he or she don't want to get hit. I'll get rich!!!

  55. Partners? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    They are starting a joint venture with Tazer International. /You will duck and twitch.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  56. K.i.t.t. by Rusty+pipe · · Score: 1

    Michael, i have detected an incoming sniper bullet with subsonic speed arriving in 2 seconds and coming from south direction. Should i activate the ultraprotection or do you want to use the turbo boost? TURBO BOO

  57. Laser guided bullets by LunarEffect · · Score: 1

    This is...impressive, but unfortunately, the laser-guided bullet has also been invented. The spotter points a laser beam at the target while all the sniper has to do is fire a bullet. The bullet then changed its direction towards the laser point. Try dodging that =)

    Article.
    Patent.

    1. Re:Laser guided bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we need to start punching people in the face when they attempt to patent something without a fully working prototype. That would solve a lot of problems.

  58. It's a "method". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a practice or a process and it's not enabled by any art that a POSITA is put on notice of within the disclosure.

    The patentability of any vague notion that pops into the head of any arbitrary Scientifictionalist remains arguable (except within circles where the notion that certain "Law Lords" will "tell us what the law is"). /rant

  59. Prior Art by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Ray Winninger's UnderGround, c 1993 MayFair Games.
    More specifically: "Fully Strapped, Always Packed: Gats and Gear from the UnderGround" by Mitch Gitelman, c 1993 MayFair Games.

    From "Fully Strapped, Always Packed, page 83-84":
    Geneve Dodge-Man

    Dodge-Man is Geneve's entry into the conflict software market. Essentially a tool to combat Pueblo's Firefight!, Dodge-Man is billed as the ultimate 'First Alert' system, linking the Punkbuster radar detector (and other brands,) a "Lockout" laser-sight system foiler, adn a patented electrode system. Before leaving a place of safety, the user ocvers her body in adhesive electrodes. She then covers her body in Heavykev and/or MONDO armors as usual. When confronted by a positive lock from Pueblo Sniper! or Firefight!, Dodge-Man fires a small electrical charge into the epidermis of the wearer. This "buzz" alerts the user to incoming ifre and indicates the targeted area, allowing the user to get a jump on her dodge.

    Running the program gives the user +2 to her Acrobatics/Dodge Specialty. It will take some time to get used to the muscle spasm/immediate movement component of the system. Most veterans practice several times with empty magazines to get the feel of the software.

    Emphasis mine.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:Prior Art by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      You'll also need a reference to cover finding the actual position and trajectory of the bullet. Maybe the description for the Punkbuster radar detector has something along those lines?

    2. Re:Prior Art by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      That it does. Also includes detecting laser sights and what not. I'll point out, though, that fire detection is a known quantity, from AEGIS to CIWS to Patriot to anti-sniper and artillery counter-battery. Hell, Snow Crash has lengthy discussions about using millimeter-wave radar for trajectory plotting.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Prior Art by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      True, but the benefit of using the Punkbuster as a reference is that you eliminate any sort of unobviousness argument because the same reference teaches every limitation.

  60. Doubtful by curtinparloe · · Score: 1

    I suppose it can hear the sound of the sniper's finger tendon tightening?

    So: 1x sniper 1x bionic body armour outfit 1x high calibre sniper rifle I don't know, it sounds like a really expensive way to lose weight when you can just get one of those things for around your waist.

  61. Priort Art exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sorry IBM, but this has already been invented back in 1999

    http://www.under-the-gun.org/captainrex/Bullet-Time.jpg

    Anon Man

  62. Easy counter-counter measure by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    The original article hints at its own counter-measure. If you aim at the head or other extremity, it's easy to move it out of the way with a simple muscle contraction.

      But if instead the shooter aims at the target's center of gravity, it's much harder to move that.

    Not much point in a device that can be so easily countered.

  63. Is this even practical? by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

    Is detecting a bullet once fired even practical? A typical rifle bullet travels between approximately 700 m/s to 1000m/s.

    Assuming a 1000 m/s bullet, like a 50BMG or 338LM, if a sniper is positioned 2km away, it will take 2 seconds for the round to reach the target. 1km, 1 second.

    Problem is that most sniper engagements are not at extreme long ranges. Most occur between 275-550 meters. That means a quarter to a half a second.

    That is not enough time to get out of the way of a typical bullet, even if your reaction is instantaneous.

  64. Better yet by 3seas · · Score: 1

    For body guards wearing such armor, the reaction should be the opposite.

  65. How about armor that can just take the bullets ove by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    How about armor that can just take the bullets over then something that needs batterys and other high tech stuff that can be easy to breakdown in combat.

  66. Neo dogging style? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    CIA uses 3 shooters (Back... and to the left). Impossible unless you are The One.

  67. Why stop there? by gznork26 · · Score: 1

    Why limit the reason for having reactive body armor to avoiding incoming projectiles? If you create a body-covering platform that can sense the environment and react to it, you might as well complete the job and have them act as an ad-hoc network, such as the ones in the recent story about the placeable cookie-sized units. Other areas of military readiness would start piling on, too. But like all tech, there's also the risks inherent in such a system, like the one I explored in a story I wrote called 'Infantry Hack'. It starts like this...

    + + +

    "If you don't back off right now, I'll tighten your LifeSkin tourniquet the rest of the way. You know I can do it!"

    That's Edgar Brannock screaming in my earbud. He's been rocking back and forth behind that grimy warehouse window over there for the past ten minutes. See the glowing smudge in the infra-red overlay of my gunsight? Yeah. That's him. For someone responsible for a major terror attack on New York, you'd think he'd be geek enough to know not to yell at a bugged window.

    "I'm not going anywhere, Edgar."

    Cripes. Why do these jerks always have to be so melodramatic? It's not like I haven't noticed the auto-constriction band digging into my arm. Targetting someone with something as fuzzy as an IR overlay is hard enough when you can feel your fingers, but doing it with purple sausages is a real thrill. And telling me to back off? Give me a break. They've even given up using that tired ploy in the movies.

    "How's you're arm? There are lots of other constriction bands in that thing you're wearing, you know. Want a demo?"

    = = =

    You can read the whole story (and lots of others) at my short story blog, here:

    http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/short-story-infantry-hack/

    P. Orin Zack

  68. That's an awesome concept by das3cr · · Score: 1

    I hope they can get some prototypes built and fielded sometime soon.

    All other factors ignored, that's just way cool.

    --
    Hurricane Island Outward Bound
    OB
  69. Right by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Because long range snipers aren't trained to take that sort of physics into account when shooting at targets over a kilometer away.

  70. A much better idea... by polishengineering · · Score: 1

    Would be to use this new awesome bullet sensing and trajectory calculating technology claim to have, and attach it to a big gun instead of a soldier. Since the technology is capable of knowing where the bullet it going, reverse the calculation, and figure out where it came from. Then just kill the sniper. In this manner the mission of the sniper become obsolete. If the enemy knew that every time a sniper fired a round he was probably going to die, it all becomes a moot point because no one does it anymore. In the asymmetric wars we fight today we always have more troops, so the 1 to 1 kill rate this technology would create would generate unacceptable loses to the enemy.

  71. Fate by Krneki · · Score: 1

    Dude, you can't dodge death.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  72. IBM's justification of the need for this patent by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    From the patent application as quoted in TFA:

    "Based on the foregoing, there exists a need for an improved system and method for protecting an individual against the potential damage caused by being impacted by a projectile propelled from a firearm."

    That's patent-attorney-speak for getting shot.

  73. Accidental movement? by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 1

    Great! Now the president can grab someone's boob in public and claim the suit propelled his arm.

  74. Re:No it is Timmies coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No..No.. and No. It isn't beer. Beer get's either warm if not in a thermos or goes flat if it's in a thermos. I can respectfully and accurately tell you that Canadian snipers carry Tim Horton's coffee (affectionately known as Timmies) that they obtain at base camp before going out in the field. This point is not arguable because it is fact. Just ask any Canadian sniper... if you can find him/her.

  75. Newer sniper rifle patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New armor will "stimulate the target to move in a predefined manner"

    Thus we fire at the predefined point where the target will be stimulated to.

    1. Re:Newer sniper rifle patent by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Soldiers expect to be facing death, even death by horrible torture. There is no training in the world that will withstand the threat of death by being punched in the cock.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  76. The Adventures of Nervous Twitch Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By day, he's a IBM employee, moved 4 times, just shy of his 10th anniversary. At night, he puts on his electro-zap armor and becomes Nervous Twitch Man, fighting crime and dodging bullets, and getting shocked for it!

  77. What about false positives? by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

    My take is that the system is comprised of a light weight "suit" for the VIP, separate detectors, and a control module that analyzes the data and signals the suit.

    False positives would really annoy the VIP and cause lots of consternation with the VIP's security force disrupting whatever was going on. I don't think that videos showing the VIP suddenly jerking to one side would be welcome publicity. And false negatives?

    --
    Nate
  78. Did anyone actually bother to do the math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can only be for anti-sniper use, lets do some math-lite.

    A great Olympic sprinter reacts to the gun in .12 sec. A great NFL player might run an electronically timed ( this eliminates the reaction time ) 40 in 4.25s, putting us at 28 f/s. So if we put these althetes together slap the armor on him ( assumming it won't slow him in any way ), and assume that he needs to move about 2.8 feet to avoid being shot, we come up with .22 sec needed to avoid the bullet. Now assume we are firing a fairly standard M4/M16 at him and the round travels 2800 fps ( conservative estimate for M855 ball ammo ). In the .22 seconds needed the round will travel 616 ft. That is a bit under 200M, now factor in that most combat shooting occur at distances less than 250M, the armor has around 0.05 seconds to figure it out and deliver the shock.

    The upside is you won't have to check how your buddy is doing after being shot, if he bitches about being shocked, you know he is still alive.

    1. Re:Did anyone actually bother to do the math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an afterthought for my post.

      I really would not want to see what the army training would be like for this equipment.

      Think about it, your natural reaction to being shocked isn't typically to just go with it. I am pretty sure mine would involve a fair amount of swearing.

  79. RIP by revxul · · Score: 1

    ...and that's when he stepped in the path of the tank. We'll miss him.

    --
    Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
  80. Simpler solution by woolio · · Score: 1

    Third world countries aren't going to have such advanced sniper rifles that fire two bullets at a time.

    However, they could just have two snipers right next to each other, trained on the same target. One fires and makes the target lay/fall down. The second fires and doesn't miss.

  81. Moving Mars by Malenx · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone else of the book, "Moving Mars"? In that book the user has a small pouch of nanobots. A sniper fires a bullet, the pouch detects it and instantly spreads around the VIP's body, then moves itself in a motion that causes the wearer to dodge the bullet and hardens itself in the direction of the incoming bullet. Basically matrix style dodging caused by nanobots shoving you around. Great book btw.

  82. Worthless Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This patent is worthless.

    The only part of the patent that matters is the following excerpt of the claim (everything else is found in the prior art):

    "A method of protecting a target from a projectile propelled from a firearm comprising ... triggering a plurality of muscle stimulators operably coupled to the controller and to the target when the estimated projectile trajectory coincides with the actual position of the target, wherein the muscle stimulators stimulate the target to move in a predefined manner, and wherein the target moves by an amount sufficient to avoid any contact with the approaching projectile."

    Problem is, the patent completely fails to teach how to actually to actually stimulate the muscles to move in the desired, predefined manner. Nor is it obvious how to do that. The patent only talks about a vague "intelligent algorithm". In any infringement litigation, this patent would very likely be held invalid under 35 USC 112 for lack of enablement. 'Nuff said. There are a number of other problems with the patent. Can't believe they paid money for this. Silly IBM.

  83. I don't know about this, Yogi... by tmp31416 · · Score: 1

    Maybe there are some good intentions behind this, but... Oh, dear, I can only see this being used for bad jokes. I mean, remember how people would get their jollies by repeatedly pouncing on cars with the "this car has an alarm system, your are too close, please stand back" car alarm? Hey, let's try to beat on this guy to make him jolt around!

    This sounds like a very bad idea to me. But I might be wrong.

  84. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the patent examiner is not aware of The Flash and Wonder Woman.

  85. Cliff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 seconds...and you walk right off a cliff in 3. Mission accomplished.

  86. Does this mean that I'll be able to dodge bullets? by mellon · · Score: 1

    No, Neo. It means you won't *have* to.

  87. Next IBM patent: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radar tracking bullets.

  88. Economic value... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldnt it be cheaper to help poorer countries with food or building infrastructure instead of raping their resources or slaving their people to produce junk. Then they wouldnt hate the west and one wouldnt have to waste money on military shite like this.

    No one is going to hate you if you give them gifts like food, and help them build a better community. Its a heal of a lot of cheaper to give these things than send a million dollar cruise missle to blow up a house worth a few hundred dollars. And guess what after blowing up the house you still havent won because now some of the relatives and neighbours now hate you so whilst you mighjt have eliminated a handful of enemies youve created many more.

    At least the worlds wealth would be used for something positive.

  89. Hmm.. by Dremth · · Score: 1

    I wonder how this will fare against shotguns...

  90. Bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Dodged that bullet! Unfortunately, I've somehow been thrown into the path of an oncoming bus....

  91. The secret service... by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    will probably buy some of these if its functionality is reversed: detect a projectile then move _into_ the line of the fire.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't