Super Strong Metal Foam Discovered

MikeChino writes to tell us that a North Carolina State University researcher has discovered what appears to be the strongest metal foam yet, capable of compressing up to 80% of its original size under load and still retain the original shape. The hope is that this amazing material could be used in cars, body armor, or even buildings to absorb the shock from earthquakes. "Metal foam is exactly what you might think – a cellular structure made from metal with tiny pockets of space inside. What makes Rabiei’s metal foam better than others is that she’s been able to make the tiny pockets of space more uniform. And that apparently is what gives it the strength as well as elasticity it needs in order to compress as much as it does without deformation. Many tests are being performed in the laboratory to determine its strength, but so far Rabiei says that the spongy material has 'a much higher strength-to-density ratio than any metal foam that has ever been reported.' Calculations also predict that in car accidents, when two pieces of her composite metal foam are inserted 'behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph.'"

Comments

Bumper Cars!

[G2GAlone]

Soon the roads will be bumper car mania.

Uniform fab

[oldhack]

Is it simply the uniformity in the cellular structure? What is the difficulty/breakthrough in achieving higher uniformity?

Re:Uniform fab

[Anonymous Coward]

Uniformity is one of the hardest things to accomplish when manufacturing anything. If it were easy, then first pass yield would be 100% every time. In reality, you are lucky if FPY reaches 95%, and if you've ever been in quality control, you know that 95% FPY is shit depending on the industry. If you aren't above 99% your nothing.

This is especially important and difficult in metallurgy. This is why there are highly trained material scientists and metallurgists working in the Aerospace industries. A well designed part is worthless if the heat from the tools changes the metal properties at the joints.

To go back to TFA, how would you suppose you form a foam out of metal? Now how you you ensure consistency?

I don't know, and neither do you. That's why it's a breakthrough.

Re:Uniform fab

[oldhack]

I'm assuming there are two related metrics (at least): the tolerance and the yield.

I'm wondering what the breakthrough here is to increase that.

Re:Uniform fab

[Razalhague]

It's actually quite simple: if nobody could do it before you, it's a breakthrough.

Re:Uniform fab

[twidarkling]

He's asking "what is the breakthrough," not "what is a breakthrough," which is a small difference, but crucial. What changed about the process, or in the concept behind the process that allowed the breakthrough to happen. That's the question posed.

I suppose with your smartass answer, you're used to being able to coast through limited reading comprehension through application of "humour."

Re:Uniform fab

[element-o.p.]

A well designed part is worthless if the heat from the tools changes the metal properties at the joints.

Annealing and heat treating?

I don't know, and neither do you. That's why it's a breakthrough.

No, that's why neither you, I, nor oldhack are metallurgists. "I don't know and neither do you" is like two chemists agreeing that a bubble sort is a breakthrough because neither one of them know how to write computer code. Yes, it's a breakthrough because they found a way to do it better, with a corresponding improvement in the properties of the final product. However, I took oldhack's post to mean, "what was the breakthrough that allowed them to achieve greater uniformity?", not "what's so groundbreaking about better uniformity?"

Re:Uniform fab

[Useful Wheat]

Random side note. I mentally swapped FPY into PFY, or pimply faced youth. One of the main characters in the Bastard Operator From Hell. Which is the single greatest collection of stories about IT workers abusing users.

Re:Uniform fab

[mea37]

Do it in your basement, or don't claim that you could do it in your basement.

If I had a nickel for every time someone assumed that something they don't know how to do must be easy...

Re:Uniform fab

[L4t3r4lu5]

This is the bit that will be patented to the hilt, so good luck getting that information before that time.

Re:Uniform fab

[vegiVamp]

Dear Canadian,

Even your own country has at least two languages. Suppose GP is not a native english speaker, and just misinterpreted the question?

Eh ?

How is it made?

[slashkitty]

No details on how they made it, or how feasible it will be to scale up.

Re:How is it made?

[Chris Burke]

Some hot metal, a tiny straw, and a guy who's really good at measuring his breaths.

Needless to say, scaling is a problem.

Re:How is it made?

[Smidge204]

The foam is made by filling a mold with hollow steel spheres and then filling the gaps with molten aluminum. VERY scalable.

I wonder how it would fair if, instead of using molten aluminum to fill the gaps, you coated the steel spheres with aluminum (or other binder that melts at a temp lower than the spheres would start to collapse at) and sintering it into a solid block. More air gaps means it's lighter, but still very uniform.
=Smidge=

Re:How is it made?

[mindcorrosive]

TFA doesn't even mention the what the base metal is (I'd guess aluminium -- most foams I've seen are Al-based). I'm not too impressed by this, as no details on either the method or the composition are mentioned - sounds like slashvertisment to me.
A common method to produce Al foams is similar to the way bread is made - add some "soda" to the base alloy, invoke a chemical reaction that releases a gas (CO2 or similar), then quickly cast and solidify. You get mostly spherical voids, which have relatively low influence as a stress concentrator. That being said, it's rather complicated to get uniform void distribution along the volume, especially avoiding large gas entrapments in critical places that can weaken significantly the material.

Re:How is it made?

[MRe_nl]

"It's the bubbles of nothing that make it really something".

Re:How is it made?

[da5id]

TFA is a poor re-blog of the original article here, which has this video, where you actually hear how it is made: Hollow steel balls are pored into a from, (and presumably agitated to settle them in a uniform matrix), then aluminum is pored over them to fix them there. So yes, should scale up well.

Re:How is it made?

[rhsanborn]

I hate seeing this comment on every science article mentioned. It reflects a common attitude among people and corporations, and it is, in many ways, the wrong attitude. Yes, many ideas aren't scalable. But there is, and needs to be a lag time between discovering something and then figuring out how to manufacture and apply it. If we only concern ourselves with something we can bring to market tomorrow then a lot of items will never see the light of day. Some science needs time to develop, and it isn't any less impressive if they haven't already started building the factories to put these in [insert application here].

Re:How is it made?

[vlm]

The foam is made by filling a mold with hollow steel spheres and then filling the gaps with molten aluminum. VERY scalable.

Well, yeah, if you assume hollow steel spheres are "off the shelf". Kind of like saying starships are very scalable, you just make them with warp drives, problem solved.

I have cast aluminum and have had porosity problems. Basically some gasses dissolve better in hot aluminum and bubble out as it cools. Preventing porosity in castings is very old technology. I always assumed metal foams did the opposite of preventing porosity, and tried to supersaturate molten metal with hydrogen or argon or something under pressure and then froze it at a rate that grew the bubbles to just the right size. Metallurgists have no problem doing all kinds of complicated heat treatments and all kinds of weird alloys, so I figured the limitation was dissolving enough "whatever" in the metal to make it work.

Re:How is it made?

[goffster]

Think China, lots of guys, lots of straws.

Re:How is it made?

[TheCarp]

When you say small metal spheres, it makes me think of stealth technology. If I remember right, the "radar absorbing coating" contains small metalic spheres that cause the radar signal to be diminished as it is dispersed into the medium and begins bouncing off the spheres.

So, I have to wonder, if a layer of this material would have a similar effect for reducing your radar signature. If so, that plus a laser jammer (legal in most states for non-commercial vehicles) would make for a pretty sweet rig.

-Steve

Re:How is it made?

[Chris Burke]

Damn, and we already shipped all of our tiny straw manufacturing over to China!

Re:How is it made?

[Hurricane78]

Nah. All you need is a straw-transistor: You blow in a small straw, which controls a huge turbine, blowing out of a bazillion straws into a bazillion glasses of fresh metal milk.

Re:How is it made?

[Hurricane78]

You know what’s ignored and missing in this discussion?
The question of what the spheres are filled with!

Because they are certainly not “filled” with a vacuum.
But I think there got to be cool properties and applications, when you fill them with something else than air.

Re:How is it made?

[Chris Burke]

Hmm, I foresee fan-out issues with this method.

Re:How is it made?

[smellsofbikes]

The foam is made by filling a mold with hollow steel spheres and then filling the gaps with molten aluminum. VERY scalable.

I wonder how it would fair if, instead of using molten aluminum to fill the gaps, you coated the steel spheres with aluminum (or other binder that melts at a temp lower than the spheres would start to collapse at) and sintering it into a solid block. More air gaps means it's lighter, but still very uniform. =Smidge=

I wonder if you'd even have to use sintering technology: you could probably solid eutectic bond it at room pressure and mild heating, and you might even be able to use (massive, massive) ultrasonic transducers to contact-weld them together the way they do with chip wire-bonding. Plus we're pretty good at physical vapor deposition for coating metal things with other metals. It might even be possible to just pour all the spheres into a plating line and plate a mil of zinc onto them, using that to bond everything together -- although I suspect plating way inside a mass is a problem. But we get stuff plated down in 10 mil holes that are 200 mils deep. I don't know enough about the limitations.

Re:How is it made?

[NotBornYesterday]

So, you're saying the lead content is going to be a problem?

Re:How is it made?

[John Hasler]

The problem with making metal foam by blowing bubbles in liquid metal is that gravity tends to overcome the surface tension.

Re:How is it made?

[squizzar]

Who is poring over the aluminium while it is being poured?

Re:How is it made?

[John Hasler]

> Well, yeah, if you assume hollow steel spheres are "off the shelf".

Googling for "hollow steel spheres" gets about 11,000 hits.

will be nice to see...

[hesaigo999ca]

It would be nice to see how this could be introduced inside the lining of a car to help the impact at a high speed collision.
Such as on a highway where many people die yearly, maybe it might give a bit more possibility to avoid also havign pieces fly off, as they would stay all together with this foam lining/mesh...no messy bumpers split into a million pieces..making clean up quicker and more efficient as well.

This solves my anti-alien transmissions helmet

[Anonymous Coward]

and underwear design problems! If we can just get some aluminum oxide mixed into the alloy...I'll be free, free at last!

Replacement for air bags?

[Nefarious Wheel]

I think I'd rather have some of this between me and a potential impact than a classic airbag, if it came to the crunch. What do they use for an inflation gas generator - sodium azide is it? Nasty stuff. Like driving around with a firecracker held in front of your face.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[kevinNCSU]

Have you ever seen someone inflate regular foam? I'm pretty sure it comes full size when it's made and then you can compress it, but it doesn't inflate up like an airbag.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Primitive Pete]

Maybe, maybe not. Elasticity is not the same thing as softness... steel is pretty elastic, but you don't necessarily want a face full of it in a car wreck. OTOH, landing in a bed of inelastic potato chips wouldn't be particularly painful (though it would be itchy).

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Ironchew]

Um...
Whoosh? ::facepalm::

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[SatanicPuppy]

You'd rather have a big hunk of metal than an airbag? Don't let the "foam" fool you: slamming your face into a block of it at 35mph would only be a little better than running face first into a brick wall at the same speed.

It's squishy and springy...for metal. But it's not what you'd call soft.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[dintlu]

Airbags and bumpers serve two entirely different purposes.

If this material lives up to the hype (unlikely), your next car will feature both items.

I'm curious to know more about the 28mph -> 5mph assertion. That stat was given to the media because it sounds impressive (grant guff), but how does it compare to the deceleration of a traditional auto bumper.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[SatanicPuppy]

Well, and elastic just describes it's tendency to return to it's original shape, it says nothing about how much energy it's going to take to make it change shape in the first place...We're talking about a block of aluminum filled with hollow steel balls here. Anything short of a sledgehammer isn't going to change it in the least.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[kevinNCSU]

Really? what am I missing here, he seems to genuinely believe this foam could replace airbags which leads me to believe he thinks it can be inflated on the fly rather then being a solid chunk of metal that deforms. I realize that is so insane that I wish it was a joke, but if it was it wasn't made very apparent.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[DuckDodgers]

I think the person meant that they would rather have a traditional seatbelt and a front end crumple zone made of this metal foam versus a seatbelt, a regular crumple zone, and an airbag.

I'm not sure I agree. I've been in collisions where the vehicles involved were moving at about 20 or 25 mph, and the speed was too low for airbags to deploy. In both cases the vehicles involved were nearly destroyed and none of the occupants were hurt. If you're moving fast enough in a collision that an airbag deploys, you probably want the protection it offers.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[mcgrew]

I'm curious to know more about the 28mph -> 5mph assertion

I flat out disbelieve it. Extreme claims need extreme proofs.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[flitty]

Airbags would be bad, but Steering columns might be a better application for this.. perhaps.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd rather have some of this between me and a potential impact than a classic airbag, if it came to the crunch. What do they use for an inflation gas generator - sodium azide is it? Nasty stuff. Like driving around with a firecracker held in front of your face.

I'm thinking if your face is traveling at 80+ kph into metal foam there is a going to be a lot of crunch going around. Airbags made of cloth and gas which deflate when you hit them do enough damage. I'd be more concerned with inhaling the fragments of my teeth and skull that resulted from my face colliding with a metal "pillow" than about inhaling the byproducts of the airbag detonation.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Rakishi]

Or he thinks it can be used in the crumple zones and remove the need for an airbag. I mean, did you even bother reading the article summary? Whoosh, indeed.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[natehoy]

I read it as his desire to use this foam as a replacement for the bumper and crumple zones. It would turn the existing crumple zones into something in the car's frame and bumper system that would absorb a great deal more of the impact and, therefore, largely eliminate the need for airbags.

I'm not sure I'm buying it, though. Airbags are an "also need" feature, and cannot be replaced wholly by a better crumple zone.

The problem lies in the elasticity and the distance. If you hit a brick wall doing 65MPH and your crumple zone is too squishy, it will continue crumpling up until you are included in the crumple zone. In other words, you're dead.

Make it too hard, and the car will stop more quickly than your flesh can handle. The airbag is a crude but effective way of allowing a relatively stiff crumple zone that can manage to keep your passenger cabin intact during a VERY major impact, and still accommodate your body's need to decelerate as gradually as possible. If you hit a brick wall doing 65MPH, the crumple zone decelerates the car from 65MPH - 0MPH in the distance represented by the zone (usually a few feet at best), and materials aren't going to improve on that a whole hell of a lot. You are still going from 65MPH-0MPH in just a few feet. That's a SERIOUS amount of deceleration.

The airbag is what takes your head and torso and slows them down as gently and slowly as possible, leveraging the deceleration already provided by the crumple zone and making the best use of it to keep your brains from splashing around in your noggin, and/or snapping your neck. Which is not to say the airbag is gentle or slow at all, far from it, just more gentle and slower than making your dainty neck bones absorb all of the force as your torso is stopped by the seatbelt and your several pounds of head really wants to keep going to make Newton happy.

Could be worse, though. You could be wearing no seatbelt at all and expect your chest and head to absorb all of the speed when they impact the steering wheel and windshield respectively. That always ends colorfully, particularly in shades of red and grey.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[wwfarch]

I agree with this sentiment. I was in an accident and totaled my car a few weeks ago. I hit some black ice on the expressway going about 65 miles per hour (had no traction issues up to this point). Went off the road and hit a large concrete block. I'm not sure that the airbag saved my life but it definitely helped me avoid some injury.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[PitaBred]

Perhaps she wasn't comparing the 28mph to a 5pmh with current bumpers, but a 5mph perfectly inelastic collision? Can't tell for sure.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[SatanicPuppy]

The national standard is for a wimpy 50% reduction (5mph->2.5mph); this isn't the maximum by any stretch, since obviously you can put enough crap on the front to reduce the impact by 99% if you want to. So it's hardly an extreme claim.

The origin of the 28->5 number should be obvious. The material can compress to 80% of it's original size under load.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[SatanicPuppy]

This stuff is nice, but it's a mistake to look at it as a drastic improvement in terms of safety.

The benefit of this is the reduction in weight without loss of strength.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[FlyingBishop]

Does it matter when the only sample of this material probably costs as much as 5 Hummers, and has enough volume to serve as a bumper for a 4 inch wide RC car?

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[drinkypoo]

When they develop an airbag that can detect your position and avoid punching you in the face, I'll want one. I had one in my Subaru and was always thinking about replacing the steering wheel and getting rid of it in the process. Neither of my vehicles have them and I like them that way.

If you really care about safety, the thing to do is to wear a helmet and a five- or six-point harness (males prefer six) when driving. The helmet is there not so much to protect your head as to give you a place to mount a head strap.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[a whoabot]

So, if the airbag and seatbelt were working ideally (gave you constant deceleration), in that case of 65mph to 0 in 3 feet, you would suffer something like 47 g-forces. What's the chances of surviving that? Wikipedia says: "The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments in which he survived forces up to 46.2 times the force of gravity for less than a second. Stapp suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this test.[14]" !

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[BitZtream]

the crumple zone decelerates the car from 65MPH - 0MPH in the distance represented by the zone

This isnt entirely correct.

The crumple zone will be fully collapsed in many cases well before you stop moving. The remaining energy is absorbed elsewhere. The cabin has to be designed strong as if it collapsed it'd be just as deadly. The other problem is that the crumple zone works well to start with, and then becomes useless quickly. Its great for the first part of a highspeed impact, but the energy it absorbs before it fails can be only the initial part of the impact. As the structure gets further along its failure mode its ability to absorb energy gets lower and lower, rapidly.

Crumple zones can be greatly improved by spreading out the slowdown period and making it consistent rather than falling off rapidly very soon after the initial impact.

Thats what this can help to do, in theory anyway.

I certainly wouldn't recommend getting rid of airbags anyway. Crumple zones may help to slow the car down, but the human body STILL has to slowdown as well.

The biggest problem is that the body can't withstand all that deceleration on the limited points of contact that something like a seat belt provides.

An airbag provides a contact area across your entire face and chest in some cases, so rather than your forhead smacking the steering wheel or windshield, it smacks a much softer surface of the airbag, at the initial contact points, like say your nose, you sink into it, and the pressure across your face and body increase as more of your body pushes into it, spreading the load equally across all surfaces, keeping the load at any one point MUCH lower.

Example: A shotgun shell loaded with buckshot shot at a person from say 20 feet will certainly break the skin and damage internal organs. Put a bean bag in it, use the same load in the shell, and you end up with a really bad bruise rather than hamburger for a chest.

Example 2: Put an egg on the counter, smack it with a fork, relatively lightly, it will crack. Now put it in your hand and squeeze it equally on all parts, you won't break it. If you do, its because you applied the pressure unequally, not because of the amount of pressure you applied.

Surviving crashes is more about limiting the pressure on any given point of your body at any given time. You HAVE to dissipate ALL of the energy in your body, that you can't get around. The key to survival is to keep the PSI at any given point on your body at any given point in time to within limits that the body can withstand without permanent injuries, or at least without the injuries being fatal.

No single solution is 'the right way to do it', the more methods you have to dissipate the force across as much of the mass at the same time so everything shares it equally, the better chance you have to survive. You could run your car into a solid wall at 100mph and not have any real damage IF you could apply an equal stopping force to EVERY bit of mass in the equation.

If you look at all the things used to help in accidents, its all about spreading the load across everything, not ignoring it or trying to have any one thing absorb it all.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[ascari]

You make an excellent point. But no matter what, this ought to be good news for Wiley Coyote and ACME Industries!

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[natehoy]

Probably pretty well, for smaller accidents. But you wouldn't catch me driving one.

A (combined) 28MPH accident in a regular car with another regular car is, well, pretty trivial. Each car is assumed to be doing 14, or one car rear-ends another at 28. You'll know damned well you hit something, but as long as both people are in decently-designed cars, the worst injury will generally be to the wallet of the person found at fault. Maybe a little whiplash, but you'd have to be doing something really odd to be killed by it (like not wearing a seatbelt, but I digress, and probably not even then anyway).

But that's partly because a car is designed for much more serious crashes, and the current design is a compromise between the size of the crumple zone, the G-force you have to subject your occupants to, and how much impact you expect it to take. If we all drove spheres 150 feet in diameter, we could make them out of pretty soft stuff and absorb 200MPH impacts with nothing more than a few harsh words exchanged. However, in most accidents, the other car impacts you mere feet from your person, and it's some pretty amazing engineering that leads to anyone walking away from a serious accident at all.

A well-designed crumple zone "spreads out" the deceleration over as much time as possible, focusing on the more severe deceleration at the cost of making less severe impacts uncomfortable. If I tune my crumple zone to absorb exactly 40MPH of impact, then I'll be out of crumple zone once the accident reaches 41MPH, and then I hit the solid frame behind the crumple zone and the remainder of the speed is decelerated over a few inches. A well-designed crumple zone would crumple only halfway, giving me twice the deceleration force (which is less comfy, of course), but leaving me with enough reserve to sustain an 80MPH impact without running out of crumple zone.

You could take an EXISTING crumple zone and, with a gas ax and a little skill, remove a lot of its materials and re-tune it to absorb a 28MPH accident with very little apparent G-force (5MPH accident). But that car would be unsafe at any speed much beyond that. Get into a 50MPH accident, and the difference between 28MPH and 50MPH would be absorbed directly into the car's frame after the crumple zones run out, and you'd be "hurting or harping". The original crumple zone would be able to give you, say, a sustained survivable (but probably pretty damned uncomfortable) level of G-force up to a 75MPH crash. Your new crumple zone gives you a really comfortable level of G-forces followed by a sudden G-force when the crumple zone runs out. If you are still moving at more than about 10-20MPH once the crumple zones run out, you're going to be in a lot of pain, or dead.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[maxume]

Hopefully the car stops moving before you do, giving you a bit of extra time.

Also a factor is that crashes equivalent to hitting a brick wall at 65 mph are a bit rare.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Grishnakh]

For a steering column, you want a structure with very high torsional stiffness, but very low longitudinal stiffness. You don't want it to deform at all when you turn it, but if it's compressed along its length, it should do so readily.

I believe today's steering columns already do this to some degree.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[natehoy]

Actually, it's closer to 6 feet, maybe a tad more, at least as far as your head is concerned in a frontal impact.

Car hits wall, car's 2-to-3-foot crumple zone does its thing and you experience a survivable but uncomfortable G-force until the airbag can deploy.

At that point, the initial crumple zone is gone and G-forces increase as the engine compartment starts absorbing energy over its few feet of space, but the airbag has now deployed and allows your head to move forward in a controlled deceleration over 2-3 feet as the seatbelt gives way. So the deceleration there is happening in two ways as far as your noggin is concerned (car slowing down, your head moving forward).

So the overall distance might be as much as 2-3 feet of initial crumple zone, plus another 4 feet or more between the engine compartment and the airbag.

I oversimplified my explanation a bit. Surviving an major accident is usually a multi-staged and complex bit of engineering. As one teeny detail, the airbag needs to go off just so to absorb the worst deceleration as the engine compartment is compressing and "pushing back" harder. As another, there can't be fatal-level G-forces during any part of the accident. They can vary, but they cannot exceed the fatal point. So putting one bolt in the wrong place can turn a crumple zone into a death zone.

Hats off to the eggheads who think about these things, figure them out, and come up with decent-looking cars that aren't 400 feet long.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[natehoy]

Putting in a 6-point harness and/or a helmet with a head strap ignores one of the major advantages of deceleration-by-airbag - namely the fact that the seatbelt and airbag can give way and give you an extra 2 feet or so over which your valuable noggin can decelerate in an accident.

As far as wanting one - well, your call, but I'd prefer a poke to the snoot if it means the bruise will have a chance to heal.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Ladysman3621]

What I think they are trying to say has to do with impulse, or force over time. In the case of a crash, your body is traveling with the car at some speed when the car hits something and stops. The longer it takes for your body to slow down to rest, the less force is applied to your body to slow it down. I believe they are trying to say that currently the force exerted on a person during a crash at 5mph would be the same force as a crash at 28mph in a car that utilizes metal foam.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[GooberToo]

Basic math seems to support that conclusion. An 80% reduction of velocity, from 28 MPH is roughly 5.6 MPH. Based on that, it does not any other factors should be assumed.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[jabuzz]

At 65mph into a solid concrete wall you will need a proper four point seat belt and an Hans device or similar to stand a real chance. I cannot see that being terribly popular with the general public though.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Grishnakh]

Don't be stupid. I'm sure the first airbags cost as much as 5 Hummers too, and now every car has them.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[jabuzz]

You do understand that air bags cause more injuries than they prevent? It is just that they tend to cause minor none fatal injuries and prevent major fatal ones. Do you put up with some bruising when with no air bag you would have walked away uninjured, for the possibility that it will save your life?

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[wwfarch]

I know older airbags definitely had a reputation for causing injuries but my understanding was that newer ones were a lot better (obviously not perfect). Either way, I walked away from the accident completely uninjured.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[amRadioHed]

Do you put up with some bruising when with no air bag you would have walked away uninjured, for the possibility that it will save your life?

Yes, obviously. Is that a trick question?

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[mhajicek]

The airbag punching you in the face provides an important service. It distributes the acceleration not only over time, as previously covered, but also over area. A six-point with headstrap would be a lot better than a standard seatbelt, but the airbag is better yet. Besides, modern airbags aren't all that bad; I had one go off on me last winter when my wife slid the car into a plow, and it was more like a light fast slap than a punch.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Dalambertian]

She doesn't say how she arrived at that number, but this video does shed some light on the fabrication/testing. http://www.livescience.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=LS_100129_metal-foam . She has a paper "Evaluation of Modulus of Elasticity of Composite Metal Foams by Experimental and Numerical Techniques", to appear in the Journal of Materials Science and Engineering A. I guess we'll just have to wait.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[autophile]

OTOH, landing in a bed of inelastic potato chips wouldn't be particularly painful (though it would be itchy).

As well as delicious.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Hucko]

Bring on the joysticks. Why are we still using a primitive (yet complex) mechanism to do when we have had other means are simpler, more reliable (we aren't talking gaming joysticks), and less intrusive for a reasonable amount of time?

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[DigiShaman]

About twelve years go, one of my friends got into an auto accident. Apparently some lady pulled out into his lane while he was already going 40ish MPH. He didn't even have time to react it happened so suddenly.

He called me on my cell while I was at home. When I arrived on site, I noticed the passenger side windshield was blown outwards. You could clearly see the layer of safety glass in it. When I asked him if the passenger was alright, he responded "Oh that? No, I was alone. That was caused by the airbag". Sure enough, upon closer inspection, I could see where the top airbag flap on the top dashboard swung up and smashed into the windshield.

I clearly remember me saying at that moment, "God damn!!!". To this day, that image scares me shitless of airbags. I hope I never have to experience that on my face anytime soon!

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[ZorbaTHut]

Joysticks have major precision problems. With a steering wheel I can control it to a precision of less than five degrees, with a total range of well over a thousand degrees. With a joystick . . .

. . . well, old PC joysticks had 8-bit input, and you were lucky if you could hold it steady within a value of ten.

There's a reason why people buy steering wheels for racing games.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Really? what am I missing here, he seems to genuinely believe this foam could replace airbags which leads me to believe he thinks it can be inflated on the fly rather then being a solid chunk of metal that deforms.

No, I genuinely do not believe that, apologies for not extending the communication to match the idea. (Inflated on the fly? Really? No.)

I had more in mind the concept of firewall structures and other monocoque chassis elements made of this foamed metal, taking up more of the energy before the energy of collision gets as far as the steering wheel hub. I figure if you get to the point where you need to cushion your head against impact against the steering wheel, the rest of the structure up front hasn't done its job.

Of course the laws of physics do apply, and it's nice to be able to spread the contact patch to lower the point pressure of impact. But I'm still uneasy about driving around holding on to a wheel that contains, at its hub, something of a small bomb.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Maybe, maybe not. Elasticity is not the same thing as softness... steel is pretty elastic, but you don't necessarily want a face full of it in a car wreck.

Correct. For an example, take a large steel ball bearing and a solid rubber ball the same size. Drop them on a concrete floor from the same height.. The steel ball, being more elastic than the rubber(!) will bounce higher.

The ability of a metal to deform under compressive stress is malleability (the counterpart of this is ductility, which is a measure of tensile stress). Elasticity is an entirely different 'ticity.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Menkhaf]

...and to carry on on a similar note: how thick would the bumper have to be to slow a regular car down from 28 to 5 mph?

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[Eivind]

Me too. Energy scales with the square of the speed, so since 28 is 5.6 times faster than 5, you'd need a braking-distance 32 times longer to get the same deceleration.

When you hit something in 5 mph, the bumper of the car deforms about an inch, and elasticity in seatbelts, clothing and flesh etc gives you an additional stopping-distance of around 3 inches.

To get the same deceleration from 28 mph, you MUST thus have a stopping-distance of atleast 32 * 4 inches = 120 inches. That is 10 FEET.

They claim this foam compress 80%, so to gain 10 feet of stopping-distance, you'd need to add 12 feet of this foam behind the bumper, which would then smoothly compress to 2 feet.

But 12 feet isn't practically possible, and is certainly not what is alluded to by "adding a bit of this foam behind the bumper".

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[RockDoctor]

When I arrived on site, I noticed the passenger side windshield was blown outwards. You could clearly see the layer of safety glass in it. When I asked him if the passenger was alright, he responded "Oh that? No, I was alone. That was caused by the airbag". Sure enough, upon closer inspection, I could see where the top airbag flap on the top dashboard swung up and smashed into the windshield.

NOW do you understand the reason for those warning to put nothing, not a spot of paint, not a sticker, not a glue-on coffee-cup holder, over the burst panel for the airbags.
Did you think that these warnings were put there for the extra few microgrammes of plastic that the lettering would use?
They're actually a legally-compliant Darwin Award encouragement device. Not a terribly effective one, but an attempt.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[danielsfca2]

Are you insane? I was in an accident with an airbag and getting "hit in the face" by the airbag as you put it didn't even leave a bruise. The steering wheel, now, that would have been far more severe. I mean, I know it's not technically "air" in the "bag" but do you know what an airbag is at all? It's not a fist. It's a BAG OF AIR.

So anyway:

that can detect your position and avoid punching you in the face

What would you prefer for this new smart airbag to do? Go above your head? Below it? Nudge you and remind you quietly not to impact the windshield and dash??

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[danielsfca2]

To this day, that image scares me shitless of airbags.

I'd expect more reasoning skills on /. -- Did you notice that your friend was not severely injured after the accident? You can argue that in his particular case he would have been okay without it (depending on the speed the lady was driving), however, you ignored the fact that his face wasn't bleeding all over and in pain, which would suggest to me that the airbag IS HARMLESS*. Stop worrying and focus on not getting in accidents for a different reason!

Also i can attest, it definitely did not hurt me in my (head-on) accident.

*Except to babies in rear-facing seats with idiot parents who didn't read that warning about the front seat.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[drinkypoo]

I mean, I know it's not technically "air" in the "bag" but do you know what an airbag is at all? It's not a fist. It's a BAG OF AIR.

People get their nose broken by their airbag all the time. The problem solved by the airbag that isn't solved by a safety harness (not an inadequate "seatbelt") is whiplash. The airbag is inflated by an explosive. If your head is close to the airbag and you accidentally activate it, which can happen if you manage to accidentally short one of the yellow wires under your dashboard, it can kill you. You would know that if you had gotten an "A" in automotive electronics, as I did. Alas, at the time I could not afford the fee to take the certification exam, the pre-test for which I passed halfway through the class, or this anecdote would be more impressive.

What would you prefer for this new smart airbag to do? Go above your head? Below it? Nudge you and remind you quietly not to impact the windshield and dash??

I would like it to be able to inflate to a lesser degree and still function, and to detect very small people who have moved their seat all the way forwards, or very large people like myself who are still in the "wrong" position for safe airbag inflation in most cars even with the seat all the way back. Again, you would understand these issues if you were even vaguely technically qualified to comment on them. And if you were wearing a safety harness and driving a vehicle with a roll cage and a properly designed steering column, you would not be in danger of hitting the steering wheel, something else you apparently aren't equipped to understand.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[danielsfca2]

which can happen if you manage to accidentally short one of the yellow wires under your dashboard

I like how you're mocking me for being unqualified to comment, but you seem to be advocating making compromises to protect unqualified people playing with wires under the dash. Maybe they shouldn't monkey with those wires unless they know what they're doing?

People get their nose broken by their airbag all the time.

Oh, no! In the process of having your life saved, you've sustained a superficial injury!

And if you were wearing a safety harness and driving a vehicle with a roll cage and a properly designed steering column

You go ahead and market these 6-point harnesses (with free airbag deactivation!) and you tell me who's willing to wear them. Clue: Some people don't even wear seatbelts. Sorry, but your harness solution is great for racecars where everyone has to follow the rules, but a convenient seatbelt + airbag combo has saved more lives a hundred times over than your idealist solution would, because nobody would bother to properly strap in before driving down the street for groceries. Before you mock me (again) for being unqualified, apparently most of the auto engineers who do this stuff for a living agree with me, otherwise our cars would be equipped as you advocate.

And my main point was that I'm qualified to comment on the effects of airbags on passengers because I have been in an accident and had an airbag deploy on me. Have you? Were you permanently harmed?

Now that we've finished the name-calling and stuff, can you answer an honest technical question? Some posters here have said that the airbag gives your head a little farther to travel while it decelerates so it doesn't have to decelerate all at once. I understand that to be the point of airbags. Without getting into how much you hate airbags (and superficial wounds), can you explain to me how your harness system is better? I would think that a harness would stop your body all at once (and I think it was you who mentioned a helmet with a head strap, so it would stop your head all at once too). That's a lot of G-force. I'm not sure that would be so good for your head.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[DigiShaman]

I'd expect more reasoning skills on /.

Thank you asswipe, for your snide remark.

I never said airbags don't serve a valuable and life saving purpose, because they do. However, airbags are NOT HARMLESS. My friend was waring glasses at the time. One of the lenses popped out of the frame and he ended up with minor bruising. All things considering, I'm sure he would choose the airbag again vs having broken facial bones without one. But to say airbags are harmless is simply not true. In fact, there is no such thing as a high-speed harmless car wreck. Your going to get beat up one way or another.

As for being scared of airbags, it's a reminder to me that auto accidents should be taken seriously. Unless you want to be punched in the face...

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[danielsfca2]

ended up with minor bruising.

All things considering, I'm sure he would choose the airbag again vs having broken facial bones without one.

So, you're admitting that having airbags is way better than not having them? Cool, cause that was my freaking point too! As for your nitpick, yes, I meant "harmless" as an aggregate term. Think in gaming terms:
Big head-on collision + no airbag: You take 86 damage.
Big head-on collision + airbag: You take 6 damage.

I define "harmful" as causing you to take more damage than you would have without it. For example, a spike mounted on the wheel causes you more damage than no spike, and is harmful. Therefore, since you are in fact 80 health units better off with it than without it, I don't see how you can blame the airbag (by labeling it "harmful") for the 6 damage. Instead I'd blame the accident for it. Now, if airbags replaced a perfect device that would allow you to take NO damage from the same accident, then you could call them harmful.

Thank you asswipe,

Um, okay.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[drkim]

"Do you put up with some bruising......for the possibility that it will save your life?"

Uh.... yeah.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[drinkypoo]

Without getting into how much you hate airbags (and superficial wounds), can you explain to me how your harness system is better?

I suppose you love superficial wounds? But yes, yes I can. See, this argument is about how I would rather have a rollcage and a safety harness, and how it would be safer if you could get people to use it. Here's why: all vehicles have inadequate side impact protection. Rollcages fix this. Most vehicles have inadequate rollover protection; a rollcage fixes this too. Ordinary seatbelts often cause injury during an accident; harnesses tend not to do this except in the most extreme cases. Airbags can deploy in cases where the vehicle is still moving at speed, and throw your hands off the wheel; they may well punch you in the face and blind you at the same time, and they also cause hearing damage in many cases. All of this interferes with your ability to control the vehicle. It is entirely possible to get whiplash before your head hits the airbag, which is prevented by a head strap, though to be fair I have no intention of wearing a helmet on the street in an ordinary car, where it would interfere with visibility. Harnesses attach to the cage instead of the floor pan, so they do a superior job of keeping the driver in their seat, and for that matter, keeping driver and seat in the proper position in the vehicle.

The fact that many people woudn't want to use such a system does nothing to change the fact that cars would be safer with more reinforcement and superior seatbelts.

I would think that a harness would stop your body all at once (and I think it was you who mentioned a helmet with a head strap, so it would stop your head all at once too). That's a lot of G-force. I'm not sure that would be so good for your head.

Helmets are padded; in addition, some head strap systems have a certain amount of give to distribute the force even further over time. But your head can actually take a fairly amazing amount of abuse; your neck, not so much. Any collision severe enough to cause concussion is almost certainly also enough to break your neck, with or without an airbag.

Re:Replacement for air bags?

[danielsfca2]

Thanks, this is interesting. Okay, I'm willing to say that it would be cool for some research to go into bringing some principles from your rollcage and harness proposal into an updated passenger car design that would still be acceptable to drivers.

I suppose you love superficial wounds?

Of course i do, in fact I'm a 16 year old girl and i cut myself every day. it makes me all hardcore and sexy. ;) (just kidding, none of that is true)

Geroge Carlin

[mollog]

"...behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph,,,"

George Carlin used to point out that if you put a large spike on the steering wheel so that the driver would suffer badly in a collision, the numbers of collisions would drop dramatically.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Or course, this would be because no one would get in a car anymore. When half the accidents will be through no fault of your own, why would you risk impaling yourself?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[h4rr4r]

1960s and 1970s cars prove him wrong. Those vehicles had a high rate of impaling the driver on the steering column in a crash of high enough speed and the accident rates were no better.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[kevinNCSU]

I'm pretty sure the medical expenses associated with car accidents would drop as they'd all be dead, but most people don't drive around assuming an impact that would otherwise cause their face to impact the steering wheel is all fine and dandy because they have an airbag so they might as well plow into that bridge abutment anyways.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Daniel_Staal]

It's not the mortality rate that would cause safer driving. It's the threat of the mortality rate.

It's much harder to ignore the threat of a large spike than of the steering column.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[maxume]

I've heard it told that George Carlin was a comedian.

Maybe Geroge Carlin was a different guy that was a car designer, but I don't thing so, I think it was a typo.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jgtg32a]

But if everyone found out that they will die if they crash, they would take less risks.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mcgrew]

True, because the population would drop dramatically as well.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[BenBoy]

"...behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph,,,"

George Carlin used to point out that if you put a large spike on the steering wheel so that the driver would suffer badly in a collision, the numbers of collisions would drop dramatically.

With a properly placed explosive charge behind the bumper of a car traveling at 5 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at up to 28 mph ..."

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Nadaka]

My response to that would be a liberal application of a hacksaw.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they would take fewer risks.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Red Flayer]

Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.

Using a primary plus two secondary means of birth control can help (condom + pill + rhythm method)

Seriously, though... some accidents simply cannot be avoided. Sometimes a driver is faced with a choice of accidents... get sideswiped by a moron or run off the road. Sure, there are things you can do to minimize accidents (like don't drive in someone else's blind spot), but the only way to assure yourself that you will never get in an auto accident, no matter how careful you are, is to not ever get into an auto.

That said -- I've been in two accidents in my life (both when I was 17 with less than a year's driving experience), and I could have avoided both if I was as experienced as now, by not putting myself in a situation with no escape. And if I'd been weeded out of the gene pool at age 17, then humanity would have suffered a great loss*.

*YMMV. Some may say that humanity would have escaped great suffering. It depends on how my plans for world dominat^H^H^H^H^H^H^H leadership progress.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

Okay, let's play out a scenario here.

You are at a stop light in the middle lane, with a vehicle in front of you and vehicles on both sides of you. It is winter time, and the roads are slick. A vehicle coming up behind you skids on the ice and cannot stop in time. You are boxed in by all the other cars on the road and cannot go anywhere.

Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Red Flayer]

So somehow I was supposed to avoid the four (yes, four different cars, four different times) accidents I had where I was rear ended at a stop light, while the light was red?

Yes. There are ways to minimize the chance of getting rear-ended at a red light.

1. Pump your brakes when a car comes into view in your rear-view mirror. Your flashing brake lights increase the chance the other driver will recognize the situation and stop in time.
2. Stop at least a car length before the white line at a stop light. If a car looks like it is going to rear end you, you have at least one (if not two) car length space to move forward and to the side to avoid a collision.
3. Avoid driving at times when it is likely other drivers are not alert (late at night, and the post-dinner tipsy driver time).
4. Avoid driving when visibility is poor.

It boils down to: not putting yourself in bad situations; making sure you are alert and focused on sources of risk; doing your best to make sure other drivers are aware of your position, speed, and intentions; and having an escape plan if something bad happens.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jackherer]

"George Carlin used to point out that if you put a large spike on the steering wheel so that the driver would suffer badly in a collision, the numbers of collisions would drop dramatically."

He got the idea from TE Lawrence.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[RobVB]

but the only way to assure yourself that you will never get in an auto accident, no matter how careful you are, is to not ever get into an auto.

That's not true. You can still get hit by a car while riding your bicycle or walking on the sidewalk. Not getting into a car doesn't keep you safe from cars.

The best way I can think of to assure yourself you will never get into a car accident is to shoot yourself in the head.

Or jump off a bridge or a cliff so they don't find your body and get into a car accident on the way to the morgue.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

His being a comedian proved him wrong. Fractured logic == funny.

(Note to everybody about to hit 'reply': Yes, the 'irony' of my post was intentional.)

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.

Simple - In the George Carlin system, if you're smart you don't drive when there is a chance of ice on the road during the day.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Red Flayer]

That's not true. You can still get hit by a car while riding your bicycle or walking on the sidewalk. Not getting into a car doesn't keep you safe from cars.

Aww, you got me there. How about if you never leave your mom's basement, and you arrange your furniture on the side of the basement away from the street? Would that work?

The best way I can think of to assure yourself you will never get into a car accident is to shoot yourself in the head.

Or perhaps drive a six-inch spike through your head?

That is no good. It leaves right back where we started.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[idontgno]

Aww, you got me there. How about if you never leave your mom's basement, and you arrange your furniture on the side of the basement away from the street? Would that work?

Sorry. Off-road vehicles approaching from the middle of the block. Cars dropped from the back of transport aircraft and crashing through the roof and all intervening floors. Cars experiencing a freakish (vanishingly unlikely, highly improbable, probably only going to happen if someone triggers an Improbability Drive without shielding) spontaneous quantum teleportation from the street into the basement.

It's like the Golden BB... if your number is up, it's up.

I would imagine the best way to avoid a car accident is to have never been conceived. After all, for some people, having been conceived was itself a car accident.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

Hmm, so everyone who lives north of Georgia and actually has to leave their basement is too stupid to live. Actually, I kinda like that *evil grin*

But then, I live in Florida, where I run the risk of hydroplaning during an afternoon rainstorm 8 months out of the year. So maybe I'm too stupid to live for not being smart enough to call in sick 120 days a year because I might have to drive home in the rain =)

Maybe we're all too stupid to live.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[idontgno]

I dunno. At worst, it shifts the kinds of risks they'd be willing to take.

"Oops, traffic ahead on the street has stopped suddenly, and it looks like I can't avoid hitting something."

Normal steering wheel: "Brake hard, hope the ABS works well, and trust to the air bag and the seat belts."

Spiked steering wheel: "Swerve onto the sidewalk to buy about another 200 feet of braking distance. Too bad for the pedestrians."

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Beardo the Bearded]

Really?

I'd use a plasma torch and save the labour.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

Riiiight. Because in the real world, there are only 5 other vehicles on the road at any time. Roads are way too congested to actually leave enough room to change lanes in a case like this.

Nevermind the time requirement. Safely changing lanes safely in a short distance on sub-optimal road conditions requires a nontrivial amount of time. Which you may/may not have depending on when the vehicle behind you begins to skid.

You can takes steps to *minimize* the risk, but some accidents simply cannot be avoided.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mcgrew]

Nice missing his point, dingbat. There would be no way of avoiding that situation, and an otherwise fender bender that would not cause injury would result in your death.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jbezorg]

Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.

Normally, I try to be constructive and polite but sometimes there is a need to make an exception.

Don't you hate it when you post something really stupid on slashdot and you can't unpost it?

Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?

Something that would have told myself and a few others to pull to the side of the road rather than stop in the lane for heavy traffic on I95 to allow the driver that fell asleep to pass us by harmlessly? You know, rather than plow into the back of my truck, into another vehicle and finally into a third?

They had to cut the roof off to get me out. So if you have figured out some magic way I could have avoided that I, and I'm sure a heck of a lot of other people, would really like to know.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Monolith1]

Okay, let's play out a scenario here.

You are at a stop light in the middle lane, with a vehicle in front of you and vehicles on both sides of you. It is winter time, and the roads are slick. A vehicle coming up behind you skids on the ice and cannot stop in time. You are boxed in by all the other cars on the road and cannot go anywhere.

Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.

I think the real question in this scenario is, what would MacGyver do?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[MiniMike]

I've been hit at a stoplight twice. Both times, the car behind me had stopped, sat there for several seconds, and then inexplicably started moving- into my stationary car. You can only do so much to avoid dumb- sooner or later it will hit you (apparently while stopped at a stoplight).

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Chris Burke]

Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?

Yeah, I thought it was common knowledge! Tom Cruise was advertising them a while ago.

Of course it's not terribly practical in most vehicles, having to carry around the three bathtubs for your precogs (you can try one but the accuracy goes way down). Plus the way they tell you things is pretty useless while driving. By the time the little wooden ball rolls down the machine and get carved, you look at it and it just says "You're about to die!" Thanks, precogs.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Red Flayer]

Troll? Really?

I thought I was passing on some useful information about avoiding getting rear-ended.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[saider]

Maybe we're all too stupid to live.

You just summed up Carlin's work in that one sentence.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[pclminion]

In that case, I would think I made a pretty bad decision by being in the middle lane. If the middle lane was the only choice, due to traffic control patterns or something, I would re-evaluate how important it is to reach that particular destination.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mea37]

Don't get boxed in.

At a red light, with 3 or more lanes of traffic, you should ensure that no situation could develop in which you are boxed in.

Please, do elaborate.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mestar]

And George Carlin got this idea from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Risk-John-Adams/dp/1857280687/ref=sr_1_199?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265063180&sr=1-199

The more people feel safe, more they will do the risky things. And seat belts do not save lives, only transfer the risk from the person driving to other drivers and pedestrians.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[eth1]

In the GP's defense, he didn't necessarily claim that *all* accidents that aren't your fault can be avoided. Obviously that's not the case. But it is true that the vast majority can be avoided or mitigated by a good, attentive driver.

Being stopped (or almost stopped) like you were is about the worst situation to be in, because you have almost no control of the situation. Even then: Was there a shoulder? If you stay in the right lane, and leave enough space in front of you when you stop, you might have been able to get out of the way. Leaving plenty of space in front of you instead of riding someone's bumper (at a light or stopped in traffic) means you won't be as likely to end up in a sandwich.

It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into driving defensively.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jfredric]

yes and no. You can always control the one area of space to keep from being "boxed in." in front of you. Especially in the hypothetical icy condition. You should be leaving enough space when slowing between you and the car in front of you that if you slid on ice you wont hit the person in front of you. This space you could also move into to give more space for the car behind you to stop. On the other hand the point is that there can always be extreme cases beyond even this that you can do NOTHING besides just not driving to avoid. A car can be moving so fast that you cannot even physically react no matter where you do or do not have space. Not to mention the idea that the other driver could mirror your movements trying to avoid you as well. (think walking down a hallway, I go left you go right, oh I got right you go left, stop...laugh).

Re:Geroge Carlin

[chriso11]

I thought Troll was a bit strong too, but hey, that's just me. And BTW, about your leadership program; I fear it may eventually conflict with my in-process effort. However, I like many of your ideas and think that you could definitely rise in the ranks in my organization - in fact, I am still looking for someone to handle Africa or Asia. Interested?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Red Flayer]

However, I like many of your ideas and think that you could definitely rise in the ranks in my organization - in fact, I am still looking for someone to handle Africa or Asia. Interested?

I don't know... Africa has three borders, Asia something like 7. If I'm going to play second fiddle, I'd want something a little cushier -- perhaps Australia, which only has one border?

*My apologies if you've never played Risk.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[gyrogeerloose]

George Carlin used to point out that if you put a large spike on the steering wheel so that the driver would suffer badly in a collision, the numbers of collisions would drop dramatically.

Chevrolet tried that on their 1956 model. People bought a lot of them and crashed them at a normal rate. Sammy Davis Jr. lost an eye to one, in fact. These days, it's hard to imagine a car company ever being able to get away with designing something like that.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[eggoeater]

And fast lane changes can cause plenty of accidents too. The only time I've been rear-ended was when I had to stop short, and the car behind me didn't even slow down, just swerved over to the next lane barely missing me, which gave NO time for the car behind him to see that traffic had stopped.



....

Re:Geroge Carlin

[SleazyRidr]

Alright, there are some situations where a crash is beyond your control, but by driving defensively and being aware of the road conditions you will significantly reduce your chances of being in a crash.

Also, if the guy behind you had a spike in his steering wheel, he'd probably be more cautious and wouldn't be skidding into the back of you in the first place.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Clandestine_Blaze]

This is almost exactly what happened to me two weeks ago, except there was no precipitation on the road. So why did the lady rear end me? She was distracted by her cell phone and the three dogs in her car.

I've been driving on a busy interstate (I-95) every day with truckers and other motorists going speeds excess 80 mph for almost four years now. Not one single accident. I'm on a regular road(as opposed to the interstate) at a stop light and BAM. The only way I could have avoided my accident was if I had a "final destination" type moment and stayed off the road or gotten on at a different time.

(Thankfully everyone walked away from the accident - that's all I care about.)

Re:Geroge Carlin

[maxume]

A seatbelt saved my life when a car swerved across a 2 lane high in front of me (the other driver had lost control).

As a self centered, normal human, I'm pretty comfortable transferring the risk.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rts008]

Well, you could always pay attention to your surroundings and not have to make those choices. Self-entitled idiots like you are the problem to start with.

Slow down, quit following so closely, and start paying attention!

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jabuzz]

Explain to me when I am stationary at a junction, waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out and some total moron drives into the back of me how I could possibly have avoid that accident without not getting in the car? I had only been waiting about 30 seconds as a constant stream of traffic passed. I was lucky not to have been hit by any vehicles on the main road as I was pushed onto the main road.

You clearly have no experience of real life yet.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Runaway1956]

Far to few people give any thought to Carlin's comment. The spikes go in ALL cars. If the assholes who rearended you had spikes on THEIR steering columns, they wouldn't have run into you. The idiot drivers would be weeded out in a matter of months. Sure, we'd have a lot of funerals to attend to, but after the first year, it's all good.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

You mean like if I come to a stop 1 car length behind the person in front of me, and then four vehicles come up on either side?

My control over being boxed in pretty much ends the moment I come to a stop. I can't control how the vehicles coming up behind me arrange themselves.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[SydShamino]

...like, as is pointed out above, the lower risk of hitting the squishy pedestrian instead of swerving to avoid him and hitting the hard telephone pole.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jabuzz]

I have been rear ended by an idiot leaving a car park of a large DIY chain store. It was the middle of the day. Visibility was good, I could not have stopped a car length back as I would have been unable to spot a gap in the traffic to pull out (not all junctions have stop lights). Oddly I was looking for a gap in the traffic not in my rear view mirror so I was not pumping the brakes.

Here in the UK their have been several instances where drivers have fallen asleep at the wheel, even in the middle of the day and piled into traffic.

Just to prove the point that even not getting into a car does not make one immune from morons in cars, by pointing you at the Selby rail crash

But basically you are a total jerk.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jabuzz]

The fallacy of the zero risk choice. Remember in real life all choices carry risks.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

Using has SAK, he would scrape some rust off the late-model vehicle he always drives, file off some magnesium from the mountain bike strapped to the roof, combine it together to form a primitive thermite torch, ignite it and cut the spike off just nanoseconds before the impact. And he would do all of this in under 7 seconds (stretched out to two minutes by forcing the universe into a slow-motion montage repeatedly alternating between him and the car skidding). At the end of the scene, we discover that the driver of the skidding vehicle is none other than Murdoc. Murdoc's vehicle then explodes for no logical reason, and we all assume he is dead. Next season, Murdoc reappears and tries to kill Mac with another overly complex scheme.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[gstoddart]

Hmm, so everyone who lives north of Georgia and actually has to leave their basement is too stupid to live. Actually, I kinda like that *evil grin*

And, I'd love to see some of you Floridians deal with an actual winter -- you know, one with large amounts of snow and -40 (doesn't matter Fahrenheit or Celcius, at -40 it's the same). Then we'd see who is too stupid to live. ;-)

[ Actually, I usually feel really bad for the obvious recent African immigrants when they have a parka on in October -- it's only going to get worse from there. ]

But then, I live in Florida, where I run the risk of hydroplaning during an afternoon rainstorm 8 months out of the year.

Or, having iguanas fall out of a tree due to a cold snap and bonk you on the head. That would suck. :-P

Cheers

Re:Geroge Carlin

[omnichad]

You really want to be on the same side of your mom's basement as the street. If a car approaches at a good speed, it's going to land on the opposite side of the basement.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[gstoddart]

Those vehicles had a high rate of impaling the driver on the steering column in a crash of high enough speed and the accident rates were no better.

Was it the car, or the lack of seatbelts?

Momentum is a harsh reality.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[rainmaestro]

And, I'd love to see some of you Floridians deal with an actual winter -- you know, one with large amounts of snow and -40 (doesn't matter Fahrenheit or Celcius, at -40 it's the same). Then we'd see who is too stupid to live. ;-)

Hell, I'd never survive, that's why my ass stays down here *grin*

Re:Geroge Carlin

[steelfood]

Accidents, including accidents that are not your fault, can be avoided.

Difficult to call it an "accident" if you can just avoid it.

Some things are unavoidable, and if you've driven or sat in a car enough, you'll know that. Hell, if you've actually lived long enough (as in, ventured outside of your mother's basement), you'll know that.

The best thing you can do is minimize your risk. To say that you can "avoid" accidents entirely means you can reduce your risk to zero. This is blatantly untrue.

If you failed to avoid an accident, including the ones the ones that are not your fault, you get weeded from the gene pool.

Tell that to the former residents of Chernobyl. I guess since they couldn't avoid the radiation from the nuclear plant nearby blowing up, they got what was coming to them.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[insufflate10mg]

Pointing out your own irony within moments of completing your post == not funny.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I wasn't aiming for funny. Just pointing out that despite what Mel Brooks says, a comedian is not a philosopher.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Just Some Guy]

You can claim that accident's 'aren't your fault' all you want. You can also try avoiding dangerous situations. Or if you accept that you are willing to risk an accident to drive on a certain road, at a certain time of day, on a certain day, you have put yourself into a situation where accidents will happen.

You're a dumbass. Last month, I was driving down a residential road when a woman ran a stop sign and pulled out 20 feet in front of me. I tried to swerve and stop, but wasn't able to avoid hitting her truck. Your idea of me having even partial responsibility for this is as meaningless as if I claimed it was your fault for being struck by a meteorite because you chose to sit in the living room chair where it landed.

You then share responsibility for the accident when it happens.

Fortunately for me, the policeman who took the accident report was not a dumbass and cited the other driver, certifying them as the responsible party and absolving me of fault.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[obarthelemy]

by not getting boxed in in the middle lane to start with ?

by ducking the spike because you ARE alert and see the crash coming ?

by not driving when there's ice on the road (always a good idea)

Re:Geroge Carlin

[h4rr4r]

Both. The old steering columns did not break away, just the steering wheel broke off, so you had a nice spear at chest level and without a seatbelt you were promptly impaled.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jbezorg]

While precautions are necessary, you serve as proof against your own position when it is considered in it's entirety. For example, your precautions still failed you with regards to the drunk driver. Did you tell your employer or the police that arrived at the scene that you could have avoided the accident?

I'll never know what happened in the side-swipe, but the road was narrow and winding, so there's mitigating circumstances.

Where is that willingness to take responsibility? You focus on and downplay your own fault here and thus, by your own words "Some people, such as you, get focused on fault instead of responsibility. You are the type of person who deserves to get impaled."

Your own experience is contradicting your stated position so I'll stick to my stated position. That is you managed to post something really stupid.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[amRadioHed]

1. Might work, might not. No guarantees.
2. Might work, might not. It's a good suggestion but only works at intersections without sensors under the pavement. I've been at red lights that never go green until you pull up close enough to be detected.
3 & 4. Might work, might not. Just because some times are more likely to have unsafe drivers on the road does not mean you are guaranteed to be safe from them at other times. Also, not driving is not a solution to safe driving. Well it is, but it's not always practical.

Basically, the previous posters assertion that failure to avoid an accident is always your fault is absurd. You can be a safer driver, but no matter what you do driving will never be 100% safe.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[biryokumaru]

Um, my wife has totaled two cars by going at a green light when someone going over the speed limit entered the intersection in front of her.

Collisions aren't always avoidable.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[owlstead]

Hello lucky arsehole.

My mother barely survived two accidents. Once she was hit by a car that went on straight in a turn. The second time she was hit from behind while waiting for a red light. The van driver did not see the red light (or, apparently, a rather large car or two sitting in front of it).

Sometimes there is simply no way to avoid mishaps. Fortunately it does not happen to most people (in the western world); that many people never have accidents is not because they are smart, it's because they are the lucky ones. Sure enough, thinking ahead can remove a large amount of danger, but in the end you are always left with some uncertainty.

You act like you are mighty smart. But actually you are a awful TWAT, thinking you have full control over your life, and claiming other people are stupid because bad things happen to them.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[amRadioHed]

Only for the first week or so. After a short while without getting impaled the spike would just fade into the background.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[A nonymous Coward]

Yes, he's the guy that first created a CAR version of LINux. Since it was crash proof, he was making a snarky remark about Windows which was misconstrued.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[amRadioHed]

Both, but the effect is the same either way.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[shutdown -p now]

You can always control the one area of space to keep from being "boxed in." in front of you. Especially in the hypothetical icy condition. You should be leaving enough space when slowing between you and the car in front of you that if you slid on ice you wont hit the person in front of you.

That would be more space than needed to fit (unsafely) one more car in front of you. Practical experience shows that, as soon as that much space appears, some impatient jerk from a nearby lane will weave into it because he thinks that your lane is going faster. At that point you're back to square one.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Cunk]

That sounds more like a phobia than common sense precautions. Sure, some of the things you mention you do while driving are just good common sense but saying in on holidays or making sure you live near your job seem a little excessive. So if someone invites you to a New Years Eve party you actually say no because you're worried about getting in an accident? Sounds paranoid to me and your letting your desire for a perfect driving record interfere with your social life.

Not that I wish any harm on you but wouldn't it be ironic if a drunk driver crashed into your living room on New Years Eve while you were home alone watching the ball drop?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Cunk]

He's saying it's your fault you were even there. You should have been at home, perhaps hiding in a closet.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Nefarious Wheel]

So somehow I was supposed to avoid the four (yes, four different cars, four different times) accidents I had where I was rear ended at a stop light, while the light was red?

Perhaps your brake lights weren't?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[paxcoder]

This unnatural selection may lead to a new breed of sharp-fearing people. I predict the return of the 70's design and the development of the hypo-spray.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Nefarious Wheel]

Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.

Move to Alice Springs one month previously.

Hey, we're being hypothetical here, aren't we?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jbezorg]

Well... it's better than what I've already got.

Do you think one of those stretch limos with the hot tubs in the back from the 80's will work? I know it's not a real bathtub, but I think I could pick one up cheap on eBay and there is plenty of room for the wood carving machine.

I wonder how many wooden ball would get carved that said..

*carve*
"I said, bubble jets off!"
*carve*
"And for Christs sake if..."
*carve*
"I have to listen to Van..."
*carve*
"Halen one more time I'll..."
*carve*
"make you drive off a cliff!"

Re:Geroge Carlin

[onepoint]

well I am from up north and I get a good laugh at the people that live in southern Florida.

Truth be told, I am rather sure that Darwin is working hard down here to clean up the mess, but he's doing a crappy job of it. and your right, I would love to see some freezing weather down here, watching everyone slip and slid LOL.

but anyway, how do you drive when it get's real shitty with ice and snow, last I recall, I always waited to see the salt and sand trucks go by before I choose to go out, otherwise I would stay in.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[ravenshrike]

So you're that asshole who stops a car length in front of the white line and doesn't trigger the pressure plate half the time. Thanks asshole.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[chriso11]

But those continents would give you more armies than Australia. While I can understand your interest in Down Under, however that region is already committed to a loyal follower. I need to keep Australia under a tight control; as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Labcoat Samurai]

1) Seems like overkill. He evidently doesn't notice that you are stopped at a light with solid brake lights, but if your brake lights are flashing, it'll dawn on him that he should stop? Maybe I'll buy that it improves your chances, but a guy has to be pretty damn unobservant to hit you in the first place, so I wouldn't be so sure he'll notice that either. For my part, driving a stick, I'll start drifting if I do that on a hill.

2) As mentioned elsewhere, sometimes you won't be able to see the intersection well enough at that distance, and sometimes a sensor won't trigger. And as for a car looking like it's going to rear end you, how do you tell? People bear down pretty fast sometimes and they almost never actually hit you. Are you going to gun the car and swerve off to the side every time a person waits questionably long before braking?

3) This is not bad advice, exactly, but it doesn't seem appreciably different, in principle, from just suggesting people never drive at all to reduce their chances of being in an accident. Sometimes driving at those times is unavoidable. Sometimes it's part of your lifestyle.

4) Again, good advice. In general, avoid driving in poor weather conditions. But sometimes you don't have a choice. Or at least the alternative could seem worse.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[gstoddart]

but anyway, how do you drive when it get's real shitty with ice and snow

In my case, I buy cars with all wheel drive and good snow tires. Generally speaking, if you live up here you've probably driven in snow and the like many times -- the first snowfall leads to a general outbreak of stupidity, but people adapt.

Sometimes, you don't have the choice of whether or not you venture out.

Hell, it snowed for four straight days or so starting from New Year's Eve this year. Even if the plows and salt trucks had been out, the roads were crappy and slippery.

It's the cold and the wind that really suck. And the dark -- by Christmas, it's fully dark before 5pm.

Cheers

Re:Geroge Carlin

[MartinSchou]

Using a primary plus two secondary means of birth control can help (condom + pill + rhythm method)[...]I've been in two accidents in my life (both when I was 17 with less than a year's driving experience)

Damn .. you got pregnant twice at 17? That's ... I'm not sure if it's scary or impressive.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[garompeta]

ACTUALLY that is EXACTLY WHAT IS GONNA HAPPEN.
And it already happened with the seat belt. Paradoxically security measures makes driving more dangerous, because of the perception of security. People WILL behave more recklessly because they feel that there is no danger at all. If they realize that crashing at 28mph feels like 5mph, they will be driving at 200mph.

Think, imagine that exoskeletons existed capable of absorbing thousands of kinetic energy and were cheap and efficient, wouldn't you be jumping to the snowboard and try the most risky stuff you always dreamed of doing but never did? or just jump from a plane without parachutes, because you won't be harmed? I would totally do it. That is happening with the car security. The more secure it is felt, the more reckless behavior will incentive.

When the seat belt became a policy and then a law, much more car accidents were registered (although less fatalities).

Re:Geroge Carlin

[NotBornYesterday]

That's probably because they couldn't find a "-1, Unrealistic" mod. I get your point about defensive driving, but the plain truth is that a) taking measures for minimizing risk are not always practical, and b) accidents can occur no matter what, since you can never eliminate risk, only reduce it and try to minimize its impact. My wife and I have each separately been in serious accidents which could not realistically be avoided.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[ahabswhale]

"Or are you aware of some precognitive ability that I am not?"

Yes, If you had read your astrology reading in the paper that day, you would have known to be weary of such things. Why do you think they put those things in there??

Re:Geroge Carlin

[NotBornYesterday]

If that's what he meant, he should have said so. "Most accidents" would have sufficed.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[not flu]

Congratulations on entirely missing his point.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jbezorg]

In the GP's defense, he didn't necessarily claim that *all* accidents that aren't your fault can be avoided.

True but he did make an absolute claim and I reacted to his post very much like anyone would. Much like anyone who saw the following on their bank statement.

"Overdrafts on your account, including overdrafts that are not your fault, will be charged a fee. If you failed to avoid an overdraft, including the ones that are not your fault, you deserve to be charged the fee."

The BS meter would go into the red with that logic and if a bank tried to justify it's position. So, I see no reason why I should not call the GP out when the same BS logic is being used regarding auto accidents.

Being stopped (or almost stopped) like you were is about the worst situation to be in, because you have almost no control of the situation. Even then: Was there a shoulder? If you stay in the right lane, and leave enough space in front of you when you stop, you might have been able to get out of the way. Leaving plenty of space in front of you instead of riding someone's bumper (at a light or stopped in traffic) means you won't be as likely to end up in a sandwich.

The guy never hit the breaks. I had enough time to get out a "Oh Crap" and turn the wheel before he drove into the driver side half of my rear end.

I was knocked out with the impact. I went right, pushing my way through the car in front of me, across an acceleration lane and about 50 yards at an angle into a ditch. Glad I had an extended cab Ranger with an empty full size bed. About 12 feet of stuff to get crushed and deformed before it got to me. However, he was far from done yet.

He went left and bounced off car #2. A large portion of energy was spent on my sorry ass so there wasn't enough energy and the angle was fairly slight. He didn't force car #2 into another. Instead, into car #3 he goes and then, finally, to a rest.

Me? I get a helicopter ride and the uninsured guy sleeping at the wheel? TA DA! Walks away. The other 2 drivers were also okay. Luck played a big role. He had drifted to the driver side and managed to bounce between vehicles. Had he caught me dead center on the rear, if I had lumber in the bed, who knows.

Did the GP hit a nerve? Damn straight he did and I'll call him out again on it in a heartbeat to explain his position. An explanation that I feel supports my original position.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[NotBornYesterday]

I agree with much of what you said, but not all. MOST accidents can be eliminated by good defensive driving & other skills, but some accidents are simply a bolt out of the blue. It is entirely possible that you might be one of two cars on the road, and as the other one passes you, an inner tie rod breaks, sending his car into yours, both going off the road. You might be driving down a lightly traveled road and get hit by a drunk driver at 2 in the afternoon. Or maybe he's not drunk; maybe he's the victim of a heart attack or stroke, and can't steer his car away from you. I won't excuse ignorant or stupid driving habits (mine or anyone else's), but there are driving situations beyond anyone's ability to preempt.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[speederaser]

The fallacy of the zero risk choice. Remember in real life all choices carry risks.

... and not making a choice is still a choice. Even making no choice at all carries risk.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[kimvette]

So, in the northern states don't drive any time between November and April?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[kimvette]

Here in Massachusetts, if you leave a two-second, one-second, or even a measly half-second following distance, some masshole will invariably move over in front of you to occupy that space. It does not matter if you have a half mile behind you and a half mile in front of the person in front of you, someone absolutely must occupy that space - and then some wank will cut in front of you across 2-4 lanes to get all the way over to the right to take the exit 100' ahead.

Another law of driving in Massachusetts is that no matter how slow or fast you are driving, be it 5mph under the limit, at the limit, or 25 over, and someone wants to take the next exit, if there is a half mile empty behind you they will invariably pass by, cut directly in front of you and slow down until reaching the exit.

Lastly, you know that lane to the far right which in the rest of the country is referred to as the "breakdown lane?" Here in Massachusetts it is known as the passing lane.

Good luck avoiding accidents!

Re:Geroge Carlin

[ikegami]

Minimize the chance, yes. Earlier, you said the accident could have been avoided.

No matter how clear the weather and how much you pump the brakes, the teenage driver behind you still can't see through her coffee cup.

And you have no control over the deer completely hidden in the ditch, that decides to run into the side of your car.

Note that (2) is illegal, and will prevent the triggering of the light change at traffic activated lights (which is pretty much every light around here).

Re:Geroge Carlin

[nmos]

You sound like one of those people who refuses to wear a seatbelt because there's a chance they'll drive into a lake and drown. Sure it's possible to get into an accident through no fault of your own but the vast majority of the time multi-car accidents involve two or more people who screwed up to some degree.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[insufflate10mg]

True, but that does not mean a comedian can not make a solid philosophical observation. Are you implying Carlin was wrong about the whole "steering wheel spike" idea?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[styrotech]

The best approach is to have a decoy basement between your actual basement and the street. Maybe two decoys - just in case the first one fills up with cars.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[donaggie03]

Wow, after reading all this George Carlin nonsense, you just reminded me that this discussion is supposed to be about some super strength metallic foam! Can we talk a little more about that for a while?

Re:Geroge Carlin

[L4t3r4lu5]

So, you're the guy that helpfully nudges the guy who doesn't stop at the white line and doesn't activate the pressure plate forward a car length so he's at the white line and activates the pressure plate?

Thanks!

Re:Geroge Carlin

[L4t3r4lu5]

No, he'd have said mostly.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Xest]

Whilst I'm not saying it's your fault still, it's good practice to assume that people wont stop at stop signs even though they should.

In the UK we have lots of roundabouts, and I mean lots. The amount of people who incorrectly indicate on roundabouts is phenomenal. It's not always easy to tell if someone is exiting the roundabout or not, it should be easy to tell- they should just indicate and go off, but often they don't, sometimes they indicate to go off and then don't even. The point is, when pulling out onto a roundabout you can't rely on what they should do, you have to base your decision on their speed, the cars angle and so forth.

The same goes for stop signs, traffic lights and so on, if someone's approaching a stop sign fast enough that they don't appear as if they are going to stop then you have to prepare for that. Driving in the UK is a nightmare nowadays and our driving tests reflect this sort of thing, you shouldn't have to look left when turning right at traffic lights when your light is green, but you do because you must make sure no one is running the light.

So whilst you may not be at fault for an accident, it is still possible to avoid a lot of them. There are always circumstances where you cannot avoid them certainly- where you simply don't have enough visibility to see that someone is going so fast they aren't going to stop when they should for example. As such again, I'm not saying you could have helped it- perhaps this was your circumstance, there just wasn't the visibility to see her coming. What I'm saying is that even your scenario of someone running a stop sign in many cases could often still be avoided.

Avoiding accidents isn't just about who was technically at fault at the end of the day, and whilst the parent appears to take things a little too much to the paranoid and the extreme (i.e. not driving at all on certain days of the year) I think there is a little truth in what he says at least, in that some accidents can be avoided, even when you weren't the one at fault in said accident.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Xest]

"Leaving plenty of space in front of you instead of riding someone's bumper (at a light or stopped in traffic) means you won't be as likely to end up in a sandwich."

I'm a firm believer in this two on single lane roads, but stupid drivers make it impractical on multi-lane roads.

The problem is, if you leave a safe gap on a multi-lane road, someone always squeezes into it forcing a dangerous gap between you and them. Your choice is to then slow and increase the gap, or drive as is being ultra-alert to the people in front of him so you can brake. The problem is if you take the first option, increase the gap, some other arsehole rinses and repeats. Effectively, the best you can do is the second option which really, really sucks because it puts you at fault should there be a crash and you end up running into his back end, but that's the option you get left with regardless.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jridley]

FYI, there are no pressure plates. They use induction loops.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[jridley]

how do you drive when it get's real shitty with ice and snow

There's something that apparently a lot of drivers don't realize - that you can SLOW DOWN and drive carefully. If you see a stop sign, slow down well before you get to it. Look for the reflection of lights in the distance on the roadway to tell you if it's icy there. If it's icy, put the right wheels into the gravel on the side of the road where you'll get traction before applying the brakes. Don't tailgate. If you see brake lights up ahead, slow way down way early.

There are many drivers who think that the speed limit means LOWER limit, even in inclement weather. Unfortunately the increasing safety of cars means that Darwin doesn't get his shot at these morons.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[BoothbyTCD]

The OP is in fact being asinine, but that being said I don't Drive on New Year's Eve for precisely this reason. Icy conditions and drunken revelry are a bad mix. If I am not somewhere with public transportation I just stay home. New Years is a stupid holiday anyway.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[pnutjam]

Avoid driving when visibly poor.

That won't avoid accidents, but it keeps the cops from bothering you.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mea37]

Thanks, captain obvious. Now learn to follow a conversation and you'll notice that you're repeating what I already said.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[DarthVain]

I have gotten hit by cars 3 times. Twice on a bike and once walking. I have never been hit by a car while actually driving.

In ALL 3 cases I was on the cross walk, crossing the road, during a walk signal. All three times the driver was making a right hand turn on a red on a one way street (legal in Canada except Quebec). In all 3 cases the driver just looks at on coming traffic one way, and doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to anyone crossing the road from the opposite direction.

Just because the road is one way, doesn't mean the sidewalks are. Look both ways jerks!

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mollog]

I do accept risk, but I weigh the risk against the 'reward'. For example, I paddle a kayak. It's hard to explain how sitting in your kayak on a river can clear your mind of all the detritus of daily life. For an hour or more, you can be involved in an activity where you and your cohorts only think and talk about paddling.

One of the mothers of a young paddler is a nurse in the ER of the local trauma center. She believes that her daughter is more at risk driving to and from the river than actually paddling in the river. On a trip to a river, I was a passenger in a car that had a head-on collision on a road in one of the most remote places in this country. So there's something to what that mom thinks.

Back to Carlin and his spike, I think the point remains that making cars safer will have the unintended consequence of making drivers more dangerous. There was a head-on collision recently on a four-lane road a mile from where I live. I suspect the offending driver was texting. I now drive in the right lane when I can in case some inattentive driver crosses the line.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[Daniel_Staal]

You'd just have to put in long enough spikes. Have it brush the driver every time the driver moves.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[mcgrew]

When it's slick, no amount of space is going to stop someone rearending your car and making it hit the car in front of you. The fact is there ARE situations you cannot anticipate and cannot escape.

Re:Geroge Carlin

[drkim]

Yeah,
I used to have just the one pre-cog in the car with me, and all she ever said was, "Don't go home. He knows."

Reinforced...

[Pojut]

...for the downstairs neighbor's protection.

A bit more detail here

[jayemcee]

http://www.rexresearch.com/rabiei/rabiei.htm

Re:A bit more detail here

[advocate_one]

warning, the text of the patent is also in the link... don't read it if you are working on similar things...

Impact at 5 mph

[noidentity]

Calculations also predict that in car accidents, when two pieces of her composite metal foam are inserted "behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph."

In other words, calling insurance companies, calling the police to file a traffic report, possible layer involvement?

Re:Impact at 5 mph

[SomeJoel]

In other words, calling insurance companies,

Yes

calling the police to file a traffic report,

Not usually

possible layer involvement?

Anything is possible. Though I'm not sure why a layer would care (unless I hit his brick truck).

Body Armor

[SignalFreq]

Place this behind an existing body armor compound (one that stops the bullet) and use the foam to absorb the remaining shock. Then you could survive being shot and also continue to return fire without being thrown back or suffering bad bruising.

Re:Body Armor

[Shadow of Eternity]

Unless the guy firing it gets knocked on his ass your own shock will be the only thing knocking you on yours...

Re:Body Armor

[vlm]

Place this behind an existing body armor compound (one that stops the bullet) and use the foam to absorb the remaining shock.

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

Probably would make a nice spall liner for tanks.

Re:Body Armor

[Red Flayer]

Place this behind an existing body armor compound (one that stops the bullet) and use the foam to absorb the remaining shock. Then you could survive being shot and also continue to return fire without being thrown back or suffering bad bruising.

FWIW, I think we're a long way away from metal foams being used as personal body armor. Yes, they'll absorb some of the energy, but they'd still be bulky and heavy.

Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.

Re:Body Armor

[kevinNCSU]

People don't generally lean into a bullet, but they do take a proper firing stance, so that's not completely true.

Re:Body Armor

[SatanicPuppy]

Actually, they use steel and ceramic plates behind the kevlar even now, so you could switch out those and maybe see an improvement in protection to weight.

Re:Body Armor

[SignalFreq]

Maybe if you are wearing full Level IV body armor. Most of the lighter stuff traditionally worn by law enforcement still imparts a great deal of impact to the body, especially with higher mass or higher velocity rounds.

Re:Body Armor

[Chirs]

The total impact energy (and momentum) of the bullet is constant regardless of vest type.

Lighter vests may not be able to spread the force of the impact over as large an area, so may be more likely to cause bruising.

In any case, the person firing the gun (assuming they're hand-holding the gun rather than having it fastened to something rigid) will need to absorb more energy/momentum when firing the gun than the target will when hit by the bullet. (Because the bullet is slowed slightly by air resistance.)

Thus, while you can knock someone down by shooting them (since as mentioned above the shooter can brace against the recoil) it's impossible to shoot someone with a standard slug from a hand-held weapon and make them fly through the air from the impact.

Re:Body Armor

[ArsonSmith]

Also a bullet has anywhere from 8-18 inches to accelerate, a vest has to stop it in usually less than 2.

Re:Body Armor

[afidel]

More like as a replacement for the ceramic ballistic inserts needed to obtain class iv ratings for body armor. This might be very useful for the military as the ceramic tiles generally only provide single shot protection as they shatter with the first round. That's where price comes in, the Dragon Skin body armor is already available for ~$5,000 for class iv rating.

Re:Body Armor

[BitZtream]

The problem is the use of the word 'absorb'.

You aren't going to absorb it in any useful amount, you have to spread it. The energy HAS to go somewhere.

People aren't really thrown back, they are knocked off balance because they weren't prepared for the energy imparted on them. If getting shot actually 'knocked you back' it would do the same to the person firing.

Body armor just helps spread the force across a larger area. Your body is pretty damn resilient, but when you rich the breaking point it just falls apart. Body armor tries to prevent it from reaching that breaking point by taking say (totally making numbers up here, I have no idea what the real values are) 2500 pounds of force in a 1/4" area and spreading it across say 10 inches of surface area, NOW you've got something that while it'll hurt like hell, won't actually kill you.

Re:Body Armor

[DerekLyons]

On the other hand, the additional thickness and weight increases fatigue and interferes with mobility.

Re:Body Armor

[Hognoxious]

In any case, the person firing the gun (assuming they're hand-holding the gun rather than having it fastened to something rigid) will need to absorb more energy/momentum

Which? They aren't the same thing.

Re:Body Armor

[petermgreen]

In any case, the person firing the gun (assuming they're hand-holding the gun rather than having it fastened to something rigid) will need to absorb more energy/momentum when firing the gun than the target will when hit by the bullet.
IIRC there is a type of gun known as a "recoilless rifle" that avoids that, the downside is much lower efficiancy (e.g. you need a lot more propellant) and they eject hot gasses out the back.

Re:Body Armor

[SydShamino]

The guy firing it is braced to absorb the force of the recoil. You may not be braced to absorb an impact from the exact orientation of the incoming bullet.

What you said is like claiming that it's impossible for a(n American) football player to knock another one down unless the first one falls down, too.

Re:Body Armor

[SignalFreq]

Thus, while you can knock someone down by shooting them (since as mentioned above the shooter can brace against the recoil) it's impossible to shoot someone with a standard slug from a hand-held weapon and make them fly through the air from the impact.

I never said anything about "fly through the air". My post said thrown back or bruised, I suppose thrown back could be interpreted to mean flying through the air. That was not the intent in my statement, so let me rephrase: "Then you could survive being shot and also continue to return fire without being as easily knocked off balance, spun, or badly bruised."

Re:Body Armor

[GooberToo]

Vehicular armor is a much more likely use with the foams we have today.

Not likely. Most anything that penetrates vehicle armor today is gong to cut through that stuff like like air. Things that take out vehicle armor include high velocity penetrator rounds and shape charges. Shape charges work by super heating copper alloy and pushing through armor. Its literally hot butter through a knife. Penetrator rounds work by going a couple thousand feet per second, combined with a small frontal area of a super hardened projectile. There is no indication this material will have any affect in this area.

On the other hand, unlike what you see in the movies, being shot while wearing a bullet proof vest typically results in black and purple bruises at best and more typically broken bones. Basically these vests prevent penetration. But even though it stops penetration, the blunt force trauma is still transfered! Think of a heavy aluminum baseball bat hitting, full swing, for every bullet stopped. And THAT force can very likely be significantly reduced using this material.

As for military applications, ceramic plates are typically used but those plates don't cover your entire body; else it would seriously inhibit mobility. That's why so many want to see Dragon Skin issued to soldiers. Which is to say, it completely stops the transfer of energy in addition to the projectile. Additionally, Dragon Skin is more effective as stopping nade shrapnel than is traditional ballistic armors.

Just the same, a lot of force is still transferred though both the anti-ballistic materials and traditional ceramic plates. Again, this may serve as a complimentary technology.

Re:Body Armor

[jvkjvk]

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse/

Re:Body Armor

[Bob-taro]

Also a bullet has anywhere from 8-18 inches to accelerate, a vest has to stop it in usually less than 2.

Jerk

Re:Body Armor

[radtea]

Also a bullet has anywhere from 8-18 inches to accelerate, a vest has to stop it in usually less than 2.

Which is irrelevant. Total momentum transfer is what knocks you over (or not), not peak force--it's the integral under the curve, not the peak of the curve that matters.

A bullet has a mass of 10 g or so--up to 30 for really big guns. It travels at around 500 m/s. That's 0.01*500 = 5 kg*m/s momentum, enough to impart a velocity of 0.1 m/s to a 50 kg (very light) person or 0.05 m/s to a 100 kg person (quite heavy).

Walking speed is a few m/s, so I don't see anyone being thrown back. Maybe staggered a little if hit by a really big gun. People are thrown back in the movies because people who don't know any physics think it looks good, but to those of us who do it makes as much sense as people being thrown up in the air by the impact of a bullet.
 

Re:Body Armor

[Jedi Alec]

The guy firing it is braced to absorb the force of the recoil. You may not be braced to absorb an impact from the exact orientation of the incoming bullet.

What you said is like claiming that it's impossible for a(n American) football player to knock another one down unless the first one falls down, too.

Ehmm, that only applies if he tries to knock the other guy down using the football as a projectile.

Now can we go back to car analogies?

Re:Body Armor

[qc_dk]

The problem is the use of the word 'absorb'.

You aren't going to absorb it in any useful amount, you have to spread it. The energy HAS to go somewhere.

Yes, but then it's a lucky coincidence that all forms of energy are very happy about being transformed into heat.

Re:Body Armor

[vegiVamp]

It seems to me that part of the energy *does* go somewhere: it is used to deform the body armour, and in this case the foam, which will then use some more of the energy it stored to bounce back to it's original shape.

Re:Body Armor

[ArsonSmith]

more of a push.

Re:Body Armor

[Grishnakh]

People aren't really thrown back, they are knocked off balance because they weren't prepared for the energy imparted on them. If getting shot actually 'knocked you back' it would do the same to the person firing.

Don't be such an idiot. Haven't you watched any movies? When someone shoots another person with a gun, that person gets thrown across the room!

I'll bet one of you nerds is going to tell me now that movies aren't realistic....

Re:Body Armor

[Grishnakh]

Unless you're getting shot with a 50-caliber BMG or something huge like that, you're not going to be "spun" by a bullet. Bullets do not have very much energy in them to do something like that. If anyone actually "spins" because of a bullet strike, it's because of their own muscular reaction, not the momentum of the bullet itself. Lots of people, when shot, fall down immediately mainly because of mental shock, not because they can't continue to function for 10-20 seconds while they bleed out.

The whole point of a bullet is to punch holes in people and things, in the hopes that the holes will cause damage and render that person or object inoperable. People are easily wounded when hit almost anywhere, so it works pretty well against them, unless they're extremely determined or high on something and don't feel pain; in those cases, you have to either shoot them in the head so they immediately stop, or you have to wait for them to bleed enough to lose blood pressure to the brain. This is why police frequently shoot suspects dozens of times; it takes that long for them to lose blood pressure and fall down. If they shot them in the head, this wouldn't be necessary, but headshots are much more difficult under duress (when your accuracy goes way down), plus greatly increase the chance of missing the target and hitting something behind it, so officers are trained to always shoot for the center-of-mass (which is the chest).

The problem with ballistic vests is that, while they prevent the bullet from penetrating and punching a hole through your body, they don't prevent the bullet from making a deep impact into your flesh before being stopped, perhaps as much as 1-2 inches. This causes severe bruising, internal bleeding, and can break bones if they happen to be in the way. Still, all this is much better than having a bullet wound with massive bleeding, and far more survivable.

There are vests which prevent the bullet from pushing into the body as deeply; however these vests are much stiffer than normal ones (so they're really uncomfortable to wear), and probably heavier too. There's also military-type vests which have replaceable ceramic panels to stop rifle rounds, but again, this is more weight and more stiffness. You have to choose your armor based on what kind of threat you think you're going to face.

Re:Body Armor

[drkim]

You are correct sir.
And for those of you who don't like maths, if someone were thrown thru the air from a bullet impact, the shooter (thanks to Newton) would also be thrown thru the air...

YouTube videos

[Terrasque]

Two youtube videos about the material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI5ZzfOlbKA - earlier video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfFcs25KmMc - one week old video

Shows among other things compression tests of the material.

Yes yes yes

[Primitive Pete]

Scaring the drivers is not a better idea than making cars safe enough to tolerate drivers' faults. It's just not.
Machines have to be usable.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It's funny how out-of-shape nerds that OD on Dr. Pepper and Cheetos and avoid outdoor activities often support survival of the fittest.

The link does not work.

[methamorph]

Error establishing a database connection... Is there any other link to the article?

Grammar? Writing? Editors?

[rrohbeck]

We just griped about that.

>capable of compressing up to 80% of it's original size

"It's" == "It is." No exceptions.
The genitive of "it" it "its."

Sincerely,
Grammar Police greetings from somebody for whom English is the 3rd language.

Re:Grammar? Writing? Editors?

[mcgrew]

The reason people do this is because they remember the rule that possessives use apostrophes, but forget that some possessives don't.

He's, she's, it's (contraction)
His, hers, its (possessive)

Re:Grammar? Writing? Editors?

[ArsonSmith]

That's the miracle of this stuff. Even after compressing to 80% it is still original size.

Re:Grammar? Writing? Editors?

[Hognoxious]

I'm guessing "retain" should be "return to". But I guess you're used to this kind of crap by now...

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Red Flayer]

A piece of spongy metal will not protect the pedestrian, cyclist or child when 2 tons of monster truck plow into it.

Au contraire! Some of the impact force will compress the foam, instead of compressing the child's head.

My testing has conclusive shown that a child's head, impacted at 25 mph by a block of this foam, will compress only 3 inches, compared to 5 inches when hit by a piece of solid aluminum.

Clearly this means that children will be 40% less dead when hit by a Canyonero driven by a soccer mom texting her neighbor's landscaper about getting her garden tilled*, provided that the Canyonero is equipped with this foam.

*And by getting her garden tilled, I mean having her bushes trimmed**

**And by having her bushes trimmed, I mean having bulbs planted***

****And by having bulbs planted, I mean having roots... oh screw it. I mean having a tryst.

Collision

[TexVex]

when two pieces of her composite metal foam are inserted "behind the bumper of a car traveling at 28 mph, the impact would feel the same to passengers as an impact traveling at only 5 mph."

Yeah, try that without a seatbelt or airbag then. You'd still be crushing your chest into your steering wheel at 28 MPH, unless this stuff also generates a star trek inertial dampening field.

Re:Collision

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like they are saying that, due to the compression of the metal, only 5 mph of force of a vehicle moving 28 mph is transferred through the marterial (the rest being eaten by compressing the foam).

Similar to a wooden bat and a foam bat. If moved at the same speed, the foam bat feels softer because it compresses and transfers less kinetic energy to the receiver.

Re:Collision

[mcgrew]

In 1976 I was driving a 1974 Gremlin at 50 mph, and had a head on collision with a quarter ton pickup truck that was doing 70. Back then they didn't even have padded dashes, let alone airbags; it was naked steel. I wasn't wearing a seat belt. I bent the steering wheel, and bent the dash where my shoulder hit it. The shoulder was permanently dislocated, but I had no organ damage (well, I may have suffered a concussion) or broken bones.

After the wreck you couldn't even tell what kind of car it was. I'll tell you though, it hurt like hell! My then-fiancee didn't fare nearly as well, her pelvis was broken in six places and she was in the hospital for a long time.

I've worn my seat belt ever since. You're in the most danger in the city at 30 mph where these new bumpers wouldn't help -- the deaths come from being t-boned.

Scaling collisions...

[Dogbertius]

As a rough approximation, would the decreased shock from collision drop quadratically as opposed to linearly? Someone feeling the shock of a 80mph crash as opposed to 100mph will still likely get hosed off the road at the end of the day.

Re:Scaling collisions...

[amorsen]

100MPH+ crashes are fairly common in Formula 1. The driver almost universally survives. In fact, the last Formula 1 fatality happened in 1994. This material might be too heavy to work for Formula 1, but if it can give other cars a bit of the same safety, I'm all for it. If the car magically springs back into shape after a crash, so much the better.

Re:Scaling collisions...

[Dogbertius]

100MPH+ crashes are fairly common in Formula 1. The driver almost universally survives. In fact, the last Formula 1 fatality happened in 1994. This material might be too heavy to work for Formula 1, but if it can give other cars a bit of the same safety, I'm all for it. If the car magically springs back into shape after a crash, so much the better.

Fair enough, but the average 1990's sedan flying along head-on at that speed usually doesn't end too well.

Re:Scaling collisions...

[drinkypoo]

This material might be too heavy to work for Formula 1, but if it can give other cars a bit of the same safety, I'm all for it.

NASCAR uses a highly engineered carbon fiber bumper, dunno what F1 uses but I would imagine that there's some of that. The driver in F1 is wrapped in a tubular steel crash cell, and just as importantly has a helmet with a strap preventing their noggin from bouncing around like a bobblehead. You could drastically reduce traffic fatalities by putting rollcages and harnesses in all cars, but the helmet and headstrap are unrealistic because they would reduce visibility in such a context. I suppose you could mandate neck braces...

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[mcgrew]

It sounds like a cool material, but the last thing we need is for something to make the idiot behind the wheel feel SAFER.

Oddly, the vehicles that make you FEEL safest are the most dangerous on the road -- SUVs. More people die in SUVs per passenger mile than any other kind of vehicle, and the reasons are simple. Their weight makes braking and handling problematic, their height makes handling problematic and rollovers easier, and they have no crumple zones. This stuff wouldn't make you feel safer, but it would make you BE safer.

George Carlin first talked about the metal spike, but he was joking. You're not supposed to take a comedian seriously, you know.

If I have a choice between hitting a pedestrian or a utility pole, I'll hit the pole. With the spike, one might not make that choice. You have to be crazy to think dangerous cars are safer; cars used to be a lot less safe then they are now; metal dashes, no ABS, no airbags. And then as now it was said "the most dangerous part of the car is the nut behind the wheel", and the people who said that were the ones who were against seat belts. With today's safer cars the death rate per passenger mile has plummeted.

Still in theaters now ...

[nickheart]

I just saw a really interesting documentary on this over the weekend. They called it Unobtainium, but I'm pretty sure that's just marketing speak. Turns out there's a bunch of it just ready to be harvested about 6 light-years away, but there's a catch ...

Re:Still in theaters now ...

[Beardo the Bearded]

Just as an FYI, the stuff in that movie was a room-temperature superconductor. That's why it floated in the presence of a magnetic field at, uh, room temperature.

Exceedingly valuable, but I don't know why they didn't just pick up all the mountains that were floating / use orbital bombardment.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Chris Burke]

Clearly this means that children will be 40% less dead when hit by a Canyonero

That might be enough for Miracle Max to work with!

****And by having bulbs planted, I mean having roots... oh screw it. I mean having a tryst.

I'm still confused... What's a tryst? Are they perennials? What's this landscaper's number, I think I could use a tryst or two.

Re:Bullshit

[Antiocheian]

When you say "fucking magic" you mean elixirs of love and the like ?

Re:Bullshit

[Overzeetop]

It might be flame-ish, but some things don't add up. The force during impact is proportional to the acceleration from impact speed to zero. For a perfectly designed bumper, the acceleration (change in speed) will be linear from initiation of impact to zero speed.

Here's the rub - most impact at 28mph is likely going to be absorbed by the crumple zones in the fenders, not the bumper. The bumper is already going to compress at least 25-50% at impact and this is going to increase that to maybe 90% (I'm assuming at 28mph it will go partially plastic). So out of the 8-12" of compression, we're getting an extra 2"-3" from the bumper. The numbers don't quite add up.

Damn science and cute researchers!

[CFBMoo1]

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Metal-Foam-2.jpg

I hate those pictures where you have to try to find the foam.

Next Scientist to go missing?

[sadegs]

Don't count on this going very far.. Iran will take her back to use the metal for some nuclear reactor.. then she'll go missing... [story to cont..] (from the video) "Feerst of all, this aloomeenum has ten percent denseeeety of the origeeenal alooomeenum" (in her bad persian accent)

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Red Flayer]

I'm still confused... What's a tryst? Are they perennials? What's this landscaper's number, I think I could use a tryst or two.

I think it's like a cyst, only three times as much.

I got this from etymonline.com:

late 14c., from O.Fr. tristre "appointed station in hunting," possibly from a Scand. source (cf. O.N. treysta "to trust;" see trust).

So I think maybe she has a furry rodent (perhaps a muskrat or beaver) she needs the gardener to take care of with his big gun.

Apollo Lunar Lander gear shock absorption system

[thanasakis]

This material reminds me of the lunar module's landing gear, made out of collapsible aluminum honeycomb. Look here for the word aluminum. Highly interesting.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Chris Burke]

Hmmm, now I'm thinking I'd be more interested in the woman's rodent than the gardner's gun. I don't like guns, they make me feel nervous and awkward as I try not to look at them.

IT'S?!

[essjaytee]

On a day where grammar and spelling made the front page, surely we can use the correct "its" ?

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[mcgrew]

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of the physically fit, it means the most fit to survive in its environment.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Red Flayer]

Ive never seen what someone looks like that is 40% less dead than a normal 100% dead person.

Pictures or I call bs.

Here you go. Not just pics... video!

Re:What about the kid on the bicycle?

[drinkypoo]

The spike in the middle of the steering wheel thing is fucking retarded, because someone can come right into your lane or even hit you head-on while you're parked, and then you get stabbed for no fault of your own. Do yourself and the world a favor and stop repeating such a stupid meme, even in jest.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[drinkypoo]

It sounds like a cool material, but the last thing we need is for something to make the idiot behind the wheel feel SAFER.

What we need to do is make the driver feel more connected to the road. Cars with poor handling, or with poorly done alignment (the last three cars I've taken to the Alignment shop had too much toe due to shitty alignment done before I got them... er, make that two, because I had roughed in the toe on one of them myself, and tried to get it to spec but I didn't have a truly flat place to do it) make the driver feel insulated from reality. Make them pay attention while they drive by making the car responsive, and you'll see less accidents. Well, you'll probably see more for a while, maybe even a generation, like we've seen with ABS and traction control. But you can't change human nature; that's no reason not to make cars safer.

I don't mind if you make your car less safe, though. Then when someone crosses into your lane and hits you when you have nowhere to go, you can be dead, and you'll stop making such retarded comments.

The best thing we could do for road safety is to put a six inch spike onto every steering wheel - you'd

...die horribly the first time someone else did something stupid and hit you. Which is okay with me if it happens to you, but not if it happens to me.

(BTW that's Max's idea, not mine).

It's George Carlin's idea, and he probably didn't mean it seriously. He got paid to make people laugh, and knew how to do it, but now he's dead. He didn't install the steel spike in his own car, so presumably he was only kidding.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[esrobinson]

If we're going for stupid ideas that might keep people from killing themselves, why not just ban cars altogether?

Re:Bullshit

[drinkypoo]

Here's the rub - most impact at 28mph is likely going to be absorbed by the crumple zones in the fenders, not the bumper.

Most modern cars have a big plastic bumper cover out front, and in the rear. Under it is a little sheet metal bumper. In between is some polystyrene foam. Replace this with a big foam metal bumper thinly covered with a plastic bumper cover, and more of the impact will be absorbed by the bumper. The material could wrap around the inner fenders (where the real crumple zones live - the outer fenders definitely play a part and absorb quite a bit of the impact force, but the unibody does most of the work) and play a bigger part there too, with the bumper cover extending all the way to the cab.

You could also put the material in the doors, with pockets cut out of it/molded into it for the window motor &c. The glass of course, takes up very little space. The mechanism usually consumes quite a bit, but not always. It was quite small in my 240SX, leaving quite a bit of empty space in the door in all positions.

Mythbusters!

[fibrewire]

"Can a car with magic foam in the bumper really make a 30mph collison feel like 5mph?"

In the end - they blow up the foam!

Re:Bullshit

[mopomi]

Do you have physics to back you up? No, I didn't think so.

Take a new Toyota Tacoma. Assume weight savings in replacing bumper with foam metal is used elsewhere so you have the same mass vehicle. A Tacoma weighs approximately 4000 pounds, which is approximately 1800 kg.

Kinetic energy is given by:
e=0.5*m*v^2
m = mass
v = velocity (or speed for our purposes).

The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 28 miles per hour is approximately 141 kJ.
The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 5 miles per hour is approximately 4.5 kJ.

That is, the foam bumper only has to absorb 31 times as much energy as the solid bumper to perform to the quoted standard.

See quote below, which is from here: http://www.rexresearch.com/rabiei/rabiei.htm
We see they estimate a factor of 80 improvement of energy absorption over the foam metal's equivalent bulk material. They don't say, but let's assume (reasonably) that they are talking about linear compression. Let's assume for a second that the stock bumper is made of a block of solid steel that doesn't absorb any energy. It's not, and it does, obviously.

If their estimate is correct, and a foam bumper of the same size will absorb 80 times as much energy as its solid counterpart, then the passenger in the 28 mph impact would feel 1-2 kJ of energy instead of ~140 kJ of energy. Obviously the bumpers are not solid metal, and they already have some energy absorption capabilities built into them.

Based on the factor of 31 between the kinetic energies of the vehicle at different speeds, I think their claim is the opposite of bullshit. It's reasonable.

Researchers at NC State have developed, processed, and tested a new high-strength ultra-light material that combines the advantages of metal matrix composites with metallic foams. Dr. Afsaneh Rabiei has produced a new generation of metal foams showing 5 to 6 times greater strength to density ratio and over 7 times higher energy absorption than that of currently available metallic foams. As a result, the energy absorption of these materials is estimated to be over 80 times greater than the bulk material from which the foam is made. Dr. Rabiei was interested in maintaining the advantages of metallic foams (excellent rigidity/ weight ratio, durability, isotropic absorption of energy at low and constant stress) while improving the mechanical properties under cyclic compression loading. The performance advantages of this metal foam are based on improving foam cell structure and reinforcing the cells with a metallic matrix. The resulting novel, closed-cell, metallic foam composite is made from preform hollow metallic spheres and exhibits a strength of over 130 MPa in compression. The densification for the new foam occurs at strains of approximately 50-65%.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[pjtp]

Clearly this means that children will be 40% less dead when hit...

This can be reduced further, to about 20% dead, by encasing your children in a suit of spongy metal.

Don't you want your children to be safe from the outside world?

Order yours today!

Re:What about the kid on the bicycle?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Kid on a bike? I'm 33 years old and I bike to work, you insensitive clod. You're right, though -- no amount of foam on the car is going to help. In the matchup between 2 tons of steel, in any form, vs. 165 pounds of skintanium, skintanium loses every time. I don't have any crumple zones.

Re:Why has nobody mentioned

[fibrewire]

because cars are not solid - they are mostly stamped metal. Engine blocks and drivetrain components that are normally solid pieces would benefit the most. I can already see a new breed of Indy Car coming out of this. Aircraft engines, etc.

only retarded if you don't know history

[malp]

From the wikipedia article on anti-lock brakes:
Anti-lock brakes are the subject of some experiments centred around risk compensation theory, which asserts that drivers adapt to the safety benefit of ABS by driving more aggressively. In a Munich study, half a fleet of taxicabs was equipped with anti-lock brakes, while the other half had conventional brake systems. The crash rate was substantially the same for both types of cab, and Wilde concludes this was due to drivers of ABS-equipped cabs taking more risks, assuming that ABS would take care of them, while the non-ABS drivers drove more carefully since ABS would not be there to help in case of a dangerous situation.

From wikipedia's article on risk compensation:
In 1981 John Adams published a paper, The efficacy of seatbelt legislation: A comparative study of road accident fatality statistics from 18 countries, Dept of Geography University College, London 1981 - published in 1982 by the Society of Automotive Engineers.[3] This showed that in the countries studied, which included states with and without seat belt laws, there was no correlation between the passing of seat belt legislation and the total reductions in injuries or fatalities. When all associated fatalities and injuries in road accidents were included, it appeared that some accidents were being displaced from car drivers to pedestrians and other road users.

I agree with the earlier poster. A spike would make the road much safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle riders at the expense of drivers.

Re:only retarded if you don't know history

[drinkypoo]

I agree with the earlier poster. A spike would make the road much safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle riders at the expense of drivers.

let me just say that I am in favor of eliminating personal road vehicles in favor of working public transportation... but your comment just ain't so, because you can mow down pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle riders without hitting the steel spike. all it would result in is people buying more big vehicles that kill those classes of people without much more than a bumpy ride.

Also, motorcycle riders can fuck off sideways; the average motorcycle has ten times the emissions per mile of the average car, and the average motorcycle actually gets about 40 mpg when driven normally, while you can get that kind of mileage driving a TDI Jetta which will carry four people and a bunch of cargo.

Re:only retarded if you don't know history

[stephanruby]

Also, motorcycle riders can fuck off sideways; the average motorcycle has ten times the emissions per mile of the average car,

We're now in 2010. The EPA has phased in new standards for on-road motorcycle emissions starting in 2006 and finally starting in 2010.

and the average motorcycle actually gets about 40 mpg when driven normally

That's simply not true. An average pre-2006 on-road motorcycle will pollute way more than a Jetta, yes, but it will still consumes much less fuel than a small car. You're confusing fuel consumption with fuel emissions (granted, those two are usually correlated, but not in this case). If you don't believe me about the fuel consumption, just ask the next person you see refueling pretty much any motorcycle at a gas station.

Re:only retarded if you don't know history

[drinkypoo]

If you don't believe me about the fuel consumption, just ask the next person you see refueling pretty much any motorcycle at a gas station.

I have a significant number of friends in the Santa Cruz Vampires Motorcycle and Scooter Club, and right now the rider of a FZR600 is house-sitting for me. I know you're full of shit. Thank you, please drive through.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[ModernGeek]

I believe this is the picture in question.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[Hognoxious]

Make them pay attention while they drive by making the car responsive, and you'll see less accidents.

You might call it steering feedback or road feel. I probably would too. But to a soccer mom, it means the wheels are shaking so much they're about to fall off and the power steering feels like it's broken.

Needless to say she's on the cellphone explaining that to the garage as she shoots through red lights and ignores a firetruck with its blues and twos going...

compression isn't deformation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely I'm not the only one that finds this statement,

    "capable of compressing up to 80% of it's original size under load and still retain the original shape",

to be conflicted. Or this one,

    "in order to compress as much as it does without deformation".

Come on, compression is a form of deformation.

Re:What about the kid on the bicycle?

[Cyko_01]

So the stupid driver who was texting on their mobile phone or eating a burger is fine, great. What about the ten year old old they've just thumped into with their SUV? Does it help them at all?

they should have been wearing a metal foam bike helmet

Re:Discovered? How about created?

[jameskojiro]

LOLZ, I thought the same thing, it is liek saying someone discovered an LCD TV in a cave and they had to reverse engineeer it in order make TVS.

Re:Apollo Lunar Lander gear shock absorption syste

[kaiser423]

They also use this for helicopter seats. A helicopter can stall out and hit the ground doing 15G's, and the pilot can walk away. They have an absurdly huge amount of crumple. Let me tell you though, a pain in the ass to build things around the pilot that can withstand the 15G's also, so that something doesn't fly off and otherwise kill him, especially when they want them light as can be and cheap.

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[steelfood]

children will be 40% less dead

So would that make them only mostly dead instead of all dead?

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Tim C]

But that's the whole point of crumple zones - the point of impact on the car goes from 25mph to 0mph instantaneously; but because the area immediately behind it crumples, the rest of the car takes longer to go from 25mph to 0mph. Still pretty quickly, but not instantly. That reduces the deceleration you experience, and thus makes it (more) survivable.

Deformation

[jklovanc]

In all the videos the foam was compressed but did not spring back. Would that mean that every time you hit something the foam would have to be replaced, much like the foam in a helmet? How many people would do this? How many cars would be going around with ineffective energy absorbers? There is a reason springs are used to absorb these impacts; repetition.

move to new york city

[circletimessquare]

take the subway
walk to work

result: all car accidents successfully avoided

Re:move to new york city

[Fred_A]

take the subway
walk to work

result: all car accidents successfully avoided

Or move to central Australia...

It really seems that some people make no effort to avoid endangering themselves or others when really it's all quite simple and just requires a change of habits.
Besides there's nothing like a good 60 km walk in the morning to feel refreshed all day !

Keep this stuff away from the shuttle.

[PDX]

If light foam can hit like a brick then this stuff would trash the spacecraft. I heard that NASA was considering an ablative hull design for the next shuttle upgrades.

Re:Dr. Rabiei

[reboot246]

I've always thought the most beautiful women in the world come from Iran, Pakistan, and India. And they're intelligent, too!

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[TubeSteak]

With today's safer cars the death rate per passenger mile has plummeted.

What you've said is accurate, but doesn't really give an accurate portrayl of the situation.

Cars have gotten vastly safer, more miles are being driven, yet fatalities have barely budged.
The # of auto deaths has been amazingly consistent over the last 35 years (give or take a few thousand/year).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Re:Bullshit

[jbengt]

It's not just about absorption of energy - a solid, stiff bumper can absorb energy. It's about rate of deceleration. The the theoretical minimum is total change in speed over total change in distance (constant deceleration). The minimum change in speed is fixed by the impacting speed and end speed. The maximum change in distance is fixed by the depth of the bumper. The way to minimize deceleration is to get the declereation to happen over a greater distance than the bumper: allow the engine compartment to crumple and cushion the deceleration, not just the bumper.

you can try to bury the truth

[drinkypoo]

But moderation will not do the job. If you want me to stop telling the truth even over the objections of liars, you're going to have to ban me from slashdot.

Re:you can try to bury the truth

[drinkypoo]

in other words youre full of shit.

You picked the most fuel-efficient motorcycle you could find, and still came up with an efficiency rating which barely edges you out over a commonly available vehicle which I specified. You are a particularly incompetent troll. But just in case you're only stupid, refer to my SIG, then go back and read my comment. I stated specifically that a TDI Jetta gets better real-world mileage than the average motorcycle, and you have done absolutely nothing to contradict this. I know many motorcyclists, and have spent literally days in the aggregate hanging out with multiples of them at once. I know that most motorcycles, as they are actually driven, do not get anywhere near 40 MPG. The existence of some motorcycles which do does not contradict my statement in any way.

I don't really like to feed the trolls, but I'm obviously under attack by persons who are attempting to use the moderation system to silence me. My posting style has not changed recently, yet my number of negative moderations has skyrocketed. My clue that it is being done by trolls is that many of the moderations are obviously-undeserved Troll mods; Trolling is where you say something you don't believe in order to offend. Flamebait is for comments which are needlessly abrasive while saying a true thing, or at least something the poster believes. I haven't been complaining about the flamebait mods, because to the humorless mind, many of my comments are just that. But when I am marked as troll not just for saying what I believe but actually for sharing facts, this is an attack on my character and much like a defense of a trademark, I must defend against it or lose all credibility. (Cue the smart-assed comments about my nickname in 3...2...1...)

Re:What about the kid on the bicycle?

[georgewilliamherbert]

I don't have any crumple zones.

Actually you do, with most cars... Because your center of mass is above the centroid of impact in the nose of the car, you get tumbled over onto the hood and then windshield by the impact, and are accelerated over a significant distance as that happens. Unless the car's fast enough that you then faceplant into the windshield.

There's an airbag in research which fits into the gap between the hood and windshield, to deflect you gently out of that as well, absorbing you in low speed impacts and flipping you (much more gently) up and over the roof in higher speed impacts.

Doesn't work as well for SUVs where there's vehicle nose at your waist and chest level. But normal cars are already much better than "splat", and getting better as pedestrian safety standards round off corners and put energy absorbtion into the hood and engine top (part of the reason for those flat, plastic panels on the top of a lot of engines these days).

Re:Now we just need...

[fast turtle]

They've already got it, just need to bring the cost per sq.cm down to pratical levels.

Re:Bullshit

[atamido]

I don't know how common they are, but I have seen compression systems on bumpers for well over a decade. What makes metal foam better than every other impact compression system out there?

They don't talk about it, but while the metal foam compresses better, it would also bend easier. You can't simply replace the studs for the bumpers with metal foam, or you risk the bumper folding under the car on impact, which greatly increases the chances of rolling the car. You would have to encase it, to ensure the bumper slid in the right direction. But at that point, why not fill it with compressed gas (with a limited release valve), or whatever else?

Transparent ?

[Zoxed]

If it is not transparent then I am not interested :-)

A ton of metal is a ton of metal

[fantomas]

So happy to hear that I'll be "gently deflected flipping me up and over your roof". You make it sound like a positive experience I'll be wanting to have every week.

A ton of metal is still a ton of metal and I think this still means that I'll go from walking across the road to be hit by a ton of metal moving at 28mph. Your car might be nice and gentle to me but I think this means I am now moving at high speed, 2 or 3 metres about the ground, with my unprotected skull about to impact either the tarmac road, a car moving at 28mph in the opposite direction, or some steel street furniture at high speed.

I'm really happy to hear the metal foam might mean my injuries in this situation would be reduced, as you rightly say pedestrian safety standards on cars are really helping reduce injuries, this is indeed a good thing. But road user education is definitely required (pedestrians, car users, bike users and all) to reduce collisions in the first place.

Re:A ton of metal is a ton of metal

[drkim]

"So happy to hear that I'll be "gently deflected flipping me up and over your roof". You make it sound like a positive experience..."

It's even more relaxing if you're listening to Enya on your iPod and burning a violet aromatherapy candle, too.

:)

Corrosion

[ThatsNotPudding]

I quickly scanned TFA, but didn't see what the 'metal' actually was (steel? iron? titanium?). With a vastly larger amount of delicate structure potentially exposed to the environment, I think corrosion could be a significant problem.

Re:Bullshit

[hesaigo999ca]

And what is your are of expertise, are you even an engineer?
What mass vs. velocity formula do you use to calculate how big the
bumper has to be in order for the foam to be able to do what the person says it does,
as you are obviously more aware then we are...

Looks like....

[Muad'Dave]

My first thought was how similar the metal foam is to a metallic meteorite.

US Patent 7,641,984 pertains

[LeadSongDog]

See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7641984.pdf

Al Si

[drkim]

How about glass spheres (melting point 2300C) and fill with aluminum (melting point 660C) ?
The glass is fairly light, even a little flexible, and cheaper than steel.

Bird bones...

[drkim]

...it made me think of bird bones: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1391/548392054_0a1d20612b_o.jpg

Re:NO NO NO NO NO

[drkim]

Correct.
If you were trapped in the rubble of a 7-11 in Haiti for 15 days, with nothing to eat but Dr. Pepper and Cheetos, you would out-survive the guy who eats nothing but organic foods.

...until he eats you.

If I have a choice between hitting a...

[drkim]

If I have a choice between hitting a pedestrian or a utility pole..."

You failed to mention who the pedestrian is. Consider:
Mother-in-law vs. pole
Jessica Alba vs. pole
Zombie vs. pole
Trysting wife's gardener vs. pole
Hitler vs. pole
Hitler vs. Pole
(a little WWII humor there...)