Slashdot Mirror


Materials From Tough-as-Nails Crustacean Could Inspire Better Body Armor

carmendrahl writes "The peacock mantis shrimp, a crustacean which is neither a mantis nor a shrimp, has hammer-like clubs for smashing the shells of its prey. They're so strong that regular glass aquariums can't hold them. But what's interested researchers for some time is how the clubs stand up to all that stress. Now, a team has figured out why: the mantis shrimp club's molecular structure is set up to resist fractures. That discovery could lead to stronger and lighter car frames or body armor."

144 comments

  1. So it is a peacock? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Funny

    The peacock mantis shrimp, a crustacean which is neither a mantis nor a shrimp...

    Ok. So it is a peacock.

    1. Re:So it is a peacock? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I thought!

    2. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's funny. Every time I try to keep a peacock in my aquarium, it drowns.

    3. Re:So it is a peacock? by crazypip666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't you read the summary? This one has clubs so it can break the glass and get out before it drowns.

    4. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think we should rename it it, to remove this silly confusion. I suggest "Alligator Platypus Tadpole".

    5. Re:So it is a peacock? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The trick is simple. Don't fill it with water if you are planning to keep peacocks in it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:So it is a peacock? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      A stormtroopod? Of course it can't get out, it's got lousy aim.

    7. Re:So it is a peacock? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 2

      Lousy aim ? Didn't you hear Obi-Wan ? "And these blast points, too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise"

    8. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the same man who told Luke his father was dead.
      You hear "too accurate for Sandpeople," but all I hear is "blah, blah, blah" coming out of his filthy lie-hole.

    9. Re:So it is a peacock? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alligator Platypus Tadpole? That would be apt.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for Interior Crocodile Alligator.

    11. Re:So it is a peacock? by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is also the man who, when going into hiding from the new Empire because they were hunting down and exterminating his kind decided to hide on Darth Vader's home planet and only change his first name.

      Real S.M.R.T.

    12. Re:So it is a peacock? by JackCroww · · Score: 3, Funny

      You never know; Kenobi could be the Smith/Ng/Wong/etcetera of the Star Wars Universe...

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    13. Re:So it is a peacock? by Darby · · Score: 0

      If you don't fill it with water, then it's not an aquarium, it's a terrarium.

    14. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that is SO clever on so many (at least two anyway) levels lol.

    15. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not the Kenobi you are looking for....

    16. Re:So it is a peacock? by xtrafe · · Score: 1

      Technically, a peacock is also neither.

    17. Re:So it is a peacock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hide it in plain sight and it will never be found.

      Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

      Vader knows that Kenobi is too smart to hide in such an obvious place, so he would never bother to look there. And also, it was pretty strong in the dark side of the force, masking Kenobi's presence.

      It was perfect.

    18. Re:So it is a peacock? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Dammit! Now I have to change my password again!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    19. Re:So it is a peacock? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you put your terrarium inside an aquarium (with a lid on, of course!) ... is it ... oh, never mind.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. To combat the robot hordes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon I can order my suit of pseudo-chitin armour? It will have to do until they invent power armour.

    1. Re:To combat the robot hordes by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      They could call it Zoidberg.

    2. Re:To combat the robot hordes by Muchsaki · · Score: 1

      They already did in a Fred Saberhagen's Berserker Short Story "Smasher"

  3. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they make it out of solar-powered spider silk, possibly at a room-temperature fusion reactor......the world will asplode.

    1. Re:Wow by Turken · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, spider silk and the shrimps hammers are both resilient for the same reason: they're comprised of an oriented ceramic/amorphous composite.

      Engineering these types of materials is challenging because you can't just mix together some micro-crystals and binding glop. The crystals need to line up with each other in one direction to provide the strength, while the glop stretches and squishes in another to enhance the toughness. Figuring out how to mix the materials so they properly self-assemble on the micro scale isn't easy, but when it's done right (as the shrimp and spiders have) the results are simply amazing.

  4. Stronger, lighter cars? by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

    No. We have already passed the point on the strength axis at which the car survives but the occupants die of internal injuries. For cars, what you need is energy absorption to decelerate the car's contents gradually. That means a body that will crumple.

    Body armor, perhaps. Here, the total energy of a typical round is not lethal if it can be spread over a large area of the body. This can be facilitated by stiff materials backed by some padding.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In some specific situations yes, but in others the occupant is perfectly fine but did thousands of dollars of Damage to their car.
      And making a car more bullet resistant is in high demand from many sectors.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Or make lighter cars that are just as strong.

    3. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by pnot · · Score: 1

      No. We have already passed the point on the strength axis at which the car survives but the occupants die of internal injuries. For cars, what you need is energy absorption to decelerate the car's contents gradually. That means a body that will crumple.

      Not exactly. Yes, you want a crumple zone. But you don't want the human occupants to be part of that crumple zone, even if their soft, fleshy bodies might make fairly decent shock absorbers.

    4. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a lighter car frame reduce the amount of kinetic energy involved in a collision? That seems like it would be a good thing to me.

    5. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by paiute · · Score: 1

      ...making a car more bullet resistant is in high demand from many sectors.

      I would be rich if I could make a bullet that was more car resistant.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point. The application to cars is not about making the car more resistant to damage. It's about reducing the weight of the car without compromising existing safety standards in order to increase fuel efficiency and decrease cost. Also a better understanding of how materials withstand stresses & strains and how they ultimately fail leads to the ability of engineering crumple zone so that a car will deform in a predictable fashion.

    7. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lighter cars are also more fuel efficient which also makes them more marketable, more ecofriendly and more regulatory friendly.

    8. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by rhook · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You assume the manufacturing process does not cause more damage to the environment than the weight saving offsets. Same as how buying a Prius is worse for the environment than buying a used (or even many new non-hybrid) cars due to the manufacturing process.

    9. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. We have already passed the point on the strength axis at which the car survives but the occupants die of internal injuries. For cars, what you need is energy absorption to decelerate the car's contents gradually. That means a body that will crumple.

      Body armor, perhaps. Here, the total energy of a typical round is not lethal if it can be spread over a large area of the body. This can be facilitated by stiff materials backed by some padding.

      Seems like 'stiff materials backed by some padding' might describe the optimal car design also: an impact-absorbing outer layer (crumple zone), inside of which is an extremely hard shell to prevent debris penetrating and crushing the passenger. On impact, the passenger strapped within the inner shell decelerates by crumpling the outer layer, without the inner layer's being breached by debris, or the passenger's needing to decelerate within the context of the inner layer. In such a model, you would want to make the inner shell as hard as possible. You might even be able to make an even flimsier outer layer if you could make the inner layer harder, resulting in less abrupt deceleration when using harder material.

    10. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by PPH · · Score: 2

      The kinetic energy that will kill you is your bodies mass traveling inside of the vehicle (which just stopped suddenly) towards your dashboard.

      Lower vehicle kinetic energy might save the occupants in the other car. But this isn't important for two reasons: 1) High energy two car collisions aren't that common. Odds are higher that you'll hit a fixed obstruction, or another vehicle with a glancing blow. 2) I don't care about the people in the other vehicle.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the occupants of the other car would be just a tad more polite towards you and travel in a lighter one, if you weren't such an asshole.

      A lighter vehicle can also carry more cargo, before going over the limit for its class.

    12. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I even seem to remember that "we passed that point" loooong ago. So making tough car frames on its own hasn't been a problem for a long time. Though some others have mentioned good points as well:
      - reducing weight
      - making a tough frame around the driver/passengers but inside the crumple zone to protect them from the deformed frame and debris

      The point about kinetic energy is incorrect though. What hurts you / kills you is the kinetic energy from the *other* car, not from your own. Reducing your own car's mass actually makes it more vulnerable to being "pushed" around, hence needs a larger crumple zone to avoid that (since being "pushed around" will kill you just as well as being crushed).

    13. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lighter = Faster
      Faster = More Kinetic Energy

      Weight is not a factor

      Hmm... from my 40 year old classical physics I seem to recall that:

      KE=1/2 MV^2
      W=Mg

      so KE = 1/2 (W/g)V^2

      qed: weight is a factor

    14. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by willy_me · · Score: 1

      No. We have already passed the point on the strength axis at which the car survives but the occupants die of internal injuries.

      That's not the point. Stronger materials can make a stronger frame but they can also be used to make a *less heavy frame. The goal is lower fuel consumption and greater interior space.

      *less heavy: most new materials will be less heavy as they will be primarily based on elements less dense then iron.

    15. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That doesn't change any of: :more marketable, more ecofriendly and more regulatory friendly" though.

      Unless you interprete "ecofriendly" to be "better for the evironment" rather than "better for the owners feelings about the environment" of course.

    16. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying we should build cars to avoid petty financial damage over serious life threatening damage?

    17. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by v1 · · Score: 2

      I think some people would prefer a broken arm over a totalled car. And it certainly is annoying to hit a pole at 8mph and instead of bouncing off, it "eats" the pole and does $2000 in damage to the car.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    18. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Perhaps the occupants of the other car would be just a tad more polite towards you and travel in a lighter one, if you weren't such an asshole.

      Probably not.

    19. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Lower weight and kinetic energy also means the car becomes more maneuverable, both in changing direction and in braking. This means you have a better chance of avoiding a collision.

    20. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 0

      Same as how buying a Prius is worse for the environment than buying a used (or even many new non-hybrid) cars due to the manufacturing process.

      I totally agree with you, but am curious: do you have any credible sources? I know aluminum manufacturing is worse for the environment than steel due to it's high energy costs to both purify and recycle, but do you have any numbers that I could, say, share with my idiot democrat cousin who loves her Prius to prove that it isn't a good car for the environment?

    21. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or we could build a frame with an internal shock mounting where we could prevent frame destruction, as well as protect the passenger.
      this could be done by having the passenger compartment be in a floating design where as much as energy as possible is transmitted to the whole frame, rather then absorbed on just one side, or have sacrificial parts that will rupture in a collision but are dirt cheap and easy to replace.

      you don't have to have a 70s death trap or a modern crumple like a soda can when hit at 5 miles per hour.

    22. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. The only thing that seems to discourage MFFYs and elicit 'polite' behavior is a large (rusty) 4x4 with winch bumper and Idaho Stop bars (also known as buffalo bars in other parts of the world).

      Yeah, I know. Its not the safest vehicle. If I hit a tree, I'm dead. But then that's my own fault. If a Prius blows through a stop sign, it will absorb all the energy I'll need to walk away from that accident. Perhaps even drive away. Cargo isn't an issue with this vehicle. But frame strength is*.

      * Cars today are so highly engineered to comply with regulations that an accident not anticipated by the FMVSS will probably cause them to crumple like wet cardboard. Heck, you can't even use bumper jacks on them anymore, since the bumpers are only designed for impact loads. Guess what will happen if you try yanking yourself out of a ditch with a bumper-mounted winch. You'll probably pull your frame apart.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    23. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by rthille · · Score: 1

      You make the material stronger, so you can use less of it, so the car is lighter, so you can use even less material and energy to move it around.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    24. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stronger materials = less needed = lighter = more fuel efficient and/or faster cars.

    25. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to go faster.
      Your link shows the relationship between kinetic energy, mass and velocity. Since mass has weight on Earth, weight is certainly a factor.

    26. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by trout007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok time for a mechanical engineer to step in here. There is some confusion between stiffness and strength. These are two different properties of the material.

      Stiffness is the ability of the material to resist deflection. Think of identically shaped tube held fixed in one end made from different materials. Now put a force on the other end and assume it is small enough so you don't bend the tube permanently. All aluminum tubes will deflect about 3 times that of all steel tubes. It doesn't matter what kind of aluminum or steel. This is due to a property called Modulus of elasticity.

      Now when we talk strength of metals we have two types. The first is yield strength. In the above example this would tell you what load the tube could take before it bends to the point when you remove the load it doesn't return to its original shape. The next is ultimate strength. This is the load when the tune actually breaks.

      These strengths vary widely for metals with some aluminums stronger than steels and the other way around.

      The next thing is density. Aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel. But you need more if it to make a stiff structure.

      So what does this mean for impacts in cars? You want a material that is stiff for its weight so that it can absorb the energy as it deflects but also strong so that it doesn't break as it deflects. Ideally you would want your car to crush like modern cars do to absorb the impact then return to their original shape so there is no damage.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    27. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by PPH · · Score: 1

      OK, so where does that place this crustacean's club/claw/whatever in terms of stiffness and strength?

      I think its a combination of both. You want to have something that's strong (high yield strength) and stiff (deforms less than your target so as to transfer more energy to it).

      Either way, the design philosophy behind the crustacean's club seems to be different than that of autos in a collision. The crustacean doesn't want to bend or break its club whereas cars are supposed to crumple (exceed ultimate strength in a predictable manner). That sounds like two different goals and perhaps two different materials selections.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    28. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Sketchly · · Score: 1

      "Here, the total energy of a typical round is not lethal if it can be spread over a large area of the body"........ is that why fat people are harder to kill?

    29. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but both those pdfs you link to debunk the claims of “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles
      From Concept to Disposal” from CNW Marketing Research.

    30. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      It was behind a pay wall so I didn't see the data. I'm pretty sure steel is both stronger and stiffer than this crustacean.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    31. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what will happen if you try yanking yourself out of a ditch with a bumper-mounted winch. You'll probably pull your frame apart.

      You're close: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19hUTpbm9OM

    32. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also lighter cars = faster cars with the same engine.

      There is a reason the base model Lotus Exige is much faster than a Cobalt SS, despite having a much less powerful engine. The Cobalt is pig heavy compared to the Lotus.

    33. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I would be rich if I could make a bullet that was more car resistant.

      You're a little late to this particular game.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      They don't really say. They never describe strength in a classical mechanical engineering fashion. Mostly TFA is about the microstructure of the material:

      Our studies show that the stomatopod dactyl club represents a notable departure from previously studied damage-tolerant biological composites, in that it is specifically employed for high-velocity offensive strikes. Our structural investigations, coupled with nanomechanical characterization and finite element simulations, have shown that the club consists of several microstructural features that permit the infliction of crippling impacts while simultaneously minimizing internal damage within the club. These characteristics include a pitch-graded helicoidal architecture constructed from mineralized chitin fibers that can dissipate the energy released by propagating microcracks; an oscillating elastic modulus that provides further shielding against catastrophic crack propagation; a modulus mismatch in the impact region that acts as a crack deflector near the impact surface; and an ultrahard outer layer correlated with a high level of mineralization and a radial organization of apatitic crystallites. The structural lessons gained from the study of this multiphase biological composite could thus provide important design insights into the fabrication of tough ceramic/organic hybrid materials in structural applications where components are subjected to intense repetitive loading.

      I hate it when Slashdot covers stuff behind paywalls, but unfortunately virtually all decent science and engineering is either 1) described by the breathless university PR department which could not describe the difference between gravity and fish farming or 2) behind a paywall.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by axlr8or · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when drivers figured out if they had a car that strength axis could in fact cause the occupants of the 'other' car to die of internal injuries they told us we had to go green. So now we all drive around these batches of shit.

    36. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I was being informative. Was curious to see if anyone noticed. The Prius-haters are looney-toons. I'm not sure they make sense economically (would not for my commute) but they clearly have a lower life-cycle energy cost than most other new cars, and used cars don't last forever -- somebody has to buy new cars.

      Note that the comparison of new-car to used-car will always start out behind on the lifecycle costs, since it is assumed that the "production cost" for the now-used-car was assigned to the first owner.

    37. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's because the cost of a broken arm is externalized to other agents, so it appears to be less costly than the car damage.
      Even so, why value a thing over your own health?

    38. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by ghostdoc · · Score: 1

      No, you're right, weight is not a factor.

      Mass, however, is.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    39. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      "Here, the total energy of a typical round is not lethal if it can be spread over a large area of the body"........ is that why fat people are harder to kill?

      Yes, however the effect is compensated for by their being a much easier target to hit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    40. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

      While this is in total disagreement with everything I thought, I am glad to finally have some definitive answers on this. The results are VERY interesting, especially compared to what I had (wrongly) assumed. It opens up a whole new line of thought for me on vehicle design/fuel efficiency.

      I still hate the Prius, but I welcome the new information. Information that I will use to better form opinions in the future and ponder new vehicle designs.

      Could you let me know how you came across these, by any chance? I'd love to stay on top of information like this; fuel efficiency for modern ICE engines is kind of my passion. Or was it just a quick Google search?

    41. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Just posted, and somehow I'm pretty sure my username got lost with the post. Or I'm that drunk. Either has a fair chance of plausibility.

      Anyway, in case it was lost, I wanted to thank you for your links. Though they totally disagree with what I though, they provide insightful information to me. Information I'll use to reform opinions and thoughts on vehicle design/manufacture that I held (apparently) erroneously.

      I still hate the Prius, I have other valid reasons for that (objective, supportable-by-fact reasons, such as actual fuel efficiency, though they are less meaningful with this new information).

      Was it a quick Google search that yielded the PDF's you linked, or do you have some other source you get these from? I notice the one si apparently through the Way Back Machine.

    42. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      And in some cases, a round expends all its kinetic energy destroying fat which you don't care much about, since it's not a vital organ, and doesn't have enough vascularization to bleed quickly.

    43. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Assuming 2 equal cars (same mass, crumple zone & velocity), a head-on collision will have NO more effect on the passengers than hitting a stationary object (wall) that has no crumple zone. The whole "2 cars going 60 is like hitting a wall at 120" is completly wrong unless the other car is heavier or has a smaller/harder crumple zone (smart car vs. semi).

      Picture 2 cars hitting each other, now draw an imaginary plane at the point where they first touch. If the cars are the same, no part of either car should cross that plane by a significant margin. Of course there will be SOME difference (steering columns/engines not being perfectly centered and all that), but you get the idea.

    44. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      It was a Google search (actually DuckDuckGo -- I got pissed off at Google because it fills the browser history with Google redirection URLs instead of where I actually went), but I knew about the study, so I knew some likely words. The winning search was "Prius lifecycle costs".

      I think the fuel efficiency depends on your commute. My brother's may win -- 50 miles one-way, crap driving (a lot of varying speeds). They ought to be a good choice for taxi cabs; again, high mileage, lots of stops and starts. I am somewhat hacked off at the subsidy that they received over the years (where's my bicycle subsidy, hmmm?) but I don't think it's as large as the effective subsidy that corn ethanol receives because of its mandated use in fuel (would need to check that, of course).

    45. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      PS Alumin[i]um is often recycled, and that saves a lot of energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling .
      Something as large as a car is definitely going to be recycled. I would expect that costly lithium batteries would also be recycled, and we already do that for lead batteries so it would not require much new.

      Main plan is to "drive" much smaller "cars". Ideally, bicycles and electric scooters, though those don't work for all people and all commutes. Depending on speed the scooters can be most efficient, can manage a higher average speed, and don't get you all sweaty. Cycling has substantial exercise benefits, which can make it "infinitely fast" if you regard time on the bicycle as time "spent at the gym", and then surprise, you are at your destination.

      And clearly, this crustacean armor can be used to develop better helmets; definitely necessary for the scooters, and possibly necessary for bicycles (it's not a major factor in bicycle safety -- where cycling is safest they are hardly used at all).

    46. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Interesting again. I always though recycling aluminum was more energy intensive than refining bauxite. It's a good thing I'm still in school. Also a good thing I'm not stubborn enough to refuse information that disproves something I "knew," because now I have even more to feed my fire of increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles.

      I thank you again.

    47. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by hiryuu · · Score: 1

      I think some people would prefer a broken arm over a totalled car.

      Give me the completely-trashed car over an injury any day; anybody who prefers the broken arm either hasn't considered or isn't aware of the long-term impact to their body and its functionality, resiliency, etc. I'd rather not have the loss of structural integrity of the bone, joint and/or muscle damage, possible need for physical therapy to regain strength and loss of range of motion, and all that.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    48. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      In Canada we have 5mph bumpers as a "Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard". The idea there is that the car should not be damaged in a 5mph collision with a solid object. The bumper should absorb the impact but stay in tact. The bumpers are usually solid and have shock absorbers, designed such that permenant damage should not occur. It is often used as a playing card by car manufacturers to prevent us from buying cheaper used American cars and bringing them across the boarder, but I would imagine if you damaged your new car in such an accident, you could go back on the manufacturer.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    49. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      But in Canada we aslo have free* health care... so a broken arm is less of a big deal then a 7000aed broken arm in UAE.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    50. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Actually, those crustacean are cool, saw a documentry on them. Their club is actually like an elastic/spring - that is how it generates the force it uses to wind up the club.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    51. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by stepho-wrs · · Score: 1

      If you hit a brick wall then some of the car's energy will go into the brick wall, causing it to fall down away from the car.
      Ie, some of the energy crosses the imaginary plane and the wall acts like a (bad) crumple zone.
      Whereas in your two car example the other car resists the transfer of energy and your own car has to do all of its own crumpling.

    52. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      than hitting a stationary object (wall) that has no crumple zone

      Fine, so a wall isn't the best example of "no crumple zone", how about a metal bridge then?

    53. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My new truck came with mounting holes in the frame for a front hitch which is then used for a winch. I imagine it is a pretty strong mounting point as it is a 4inch thick C beam of solid steel, but I could be wrong...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    54. Re:Stronger, lighter cars? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The US has the same standard...but the bumper is generally under a cheesy plastic cover that shatters on impact...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. That's really how you get funding these days... by t4ng* · · Score: 1

    ...tell the military that your science project has military applications. Otherwise, good luck getting a grant.

    1. Re:That's really how you get funding these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could claim a climate change angle.

    2. Re:That's really how you get funding these days... by t4ng* · · Score: 1

      Nah, the real money is in climate denial "research."

  6. butter tipped crustacean piercing rounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see the future of hot melted butter with a hint of lemon jiuce on those body armor piecing rounds. On the hand to hand combat front,shrimp forks being the weapon of choice.

  7. the thing i don't understand by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    about animal lovers, is that the world, naturally, is a place of violence

    although, what it isn't a place of, is cruelty. nature kills for hunger, and with no emotion. taking delight in another's suffering is the problem. the mechanics of the violence we are born and live in and die in is without cruelty, it just is

    you see something like this shrimp, and you think: isn't this evil? and the answer is, no, because it is only hungry, it is not cruel. it is the human mind that perceives cruelty where there is none. much like those against eating meat

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the thing i don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, cats domestic and big cats tend to kill anything that moves and not just to eat.... do they find pleasure in it I don't know, they do seem to have fun with it from having watched them with lizards.... should I have jumped up and stopped that, I don't know.... I wonder why we only sell cat food in flavors people would find interesting, I never see, rat, snake, lizard on the shelf, but my cat seemed to like snake more then anything else.

    2. Re:the thing i don't understand by Sodki · · Score: 2

      There are some nutty "animal lovers" out there, but I think most of those that are against easting meat do it in protest against the cruelty of how animals are raised for human consumption. As a meat-eater myself, I often think about this and I'm getting closer to be an almost full-time vegetarian. I don't have any problems eating the livestock that my parents raise, because I know they live a good life, full of great outdoors, and are treated with respect. But I've seen my share of farms and in some of them the conditions in which animals live are horrendous. This is the cruelty you speak of.

    3. Re:the thing i don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much like those against eating meat

      Not quite. Humans have other choices.

    4. Re:the thing i don't understand by ongelovigehond · · Score: 2

      For cats, playing with food is a form of training exercise. The mother cat brings dead or half-dead prey to the kittens so they can practice hunting.

    5. Re:the thing i don't understand by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      but the point is you wouldn't see the need for other choices if you understood eating meat isn't cruelty

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:the thing i don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, much like Lisa Simpson stranded on the island, humans could probably lick slime if so desired. At least slime wouldn't require the slaughter of the countless millions of animals that die mangled in harvester combines every year, harvesting all that oh-so-good vegetarian goodness.

      I'm not sure how an "other choice" which favours convenience and hypocrisy over morals is anything to crow about, but knock yourself out.

    7. Re:the thing i don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how an "other choice" which favours convenience and hypocrisy over morals is anything to crow about, but knock yourself out.

      There is nothing hypocritical about desiring to reduce the suffering of other living beings. The desire itself, that is. Your example is akin to saying that indirectly and unintentionally hurting something is the same as purposefully doing it, and that's simply preposterous.

      Not to mention that you attempt to point out others' alleged hypocrisy to presumably make yourself feel better. The world does not work like that.

    8. Re:the thing i don't understand by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      although, what it isn't a place of, is cruelty.

      That's good that you don't allow mammals into your "nature". Those are creepy creatures.

    9. Re:the thing i don't understand by rthille · · Score: 1

      Eating meat isn't cruelty, it's the cruelty that seems built into the system of getting meat to your fridge. I'm happy to eat hunted meat, or even pasture animals where I know the animal wasn't killed cruelly. Of course I still don't eat much meat due to the environmental damage...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    10. Re:the thing i don't understand by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I wonder why we only sell cat food in flavors people would find interesting, I never see, rat, snake, lizard on the shelf...

      Cats don't buy cat food. People do. It's the same reason fishing lures are all fluorescent and sparkly, instead of organic looking. They are marketted at fishermen, not fish.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:the thing i don't understand by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Chances are that slime contained a fair number of animals (well, "small" ones). And I can't think of any more "mangling" of a death than being licked to death!

      Won't somebody think of the slime?!?

    12. Re:the thing i don't understand by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Not true. I've seen plenty of adult cats playing with smaller animals, then killing them, just for the fun of it.

      Also, there are killer whales - they play with sea lions a lot, throwing them in the air, etc, before they eat them. They also kill stuff they do not eat, too.

    13. Re:the thing i don't understand by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      But I think it's been proven fish love to try and stick sparly moving things in their mouth. The spinner is really effective. Often more effective then a plan old organic looking grub.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    14. Re:the thing i don't understand by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Because we are omnivores? Tell that to a kodiak!

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  8. Mantis Shrimps are smart by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    Everything I know about Mantis Shrimps comes from The Science of Discworld (a book which should really be named, The Science of Roundworld, since it's about how the inhabitants of Discworld might view our world), by Terry Pratchett and two scientists, one of whom actually owned one of these critters. They're extremely smart (relatively speaking). He used to set it puzzles it had to solve to get food. After a while, it started ignoring food that didn't involve solving a puzzle, apparently because it was too boring.

  9. They also have quite a vision system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trinocular vision with at least 8 visual pigments (as opposed to our mere rgb) and the ability to detect the direction of circularly polarized light.

    Theorized to help them detect the phase of the moon for breeding and to see in turbid waters and as secret communication channel between the sexes that cant be exploited by predators.

  10. Stronger car frames? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The very point of a car frame is to crumple. They're expensive to replace, but not as much as the driver.

    1. Re:Stronger car frames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the proposed car frame would resist the impact so the driver wouldn't be killed, however anybody caught by that car frame in a crash isn't probably going to survive a hit that strong.

    2. Re:Stronger car frames? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      [Car frames] are expensive to replace, but not as much as the driver.

      Not really, but people tend to frown when you put things in the opposite order.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    3. Re:Stronger car frames? by vakuona · · Score: 1

      No, parts of a car should crumple in a controlled way. You do not want the passenger section crumpling. You use airbag to absorb energy in those parts.

    4. Re:Stronger car frames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worth reading, even if only slightly relevant: http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

    5. Re:Stronger car frames? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I guess i get to be the one to point out that you fail physics forever. It's entirely possible to build a car that will bounce off an obstacle without taking significant damage. But if the car bounces without deforming then the passengers inside have to withstand the exact same forces. Without something else absorbing the energy even 10-20 mph impacts would be exceedingly dangerous. Don't believe me? Go outside, find a brick wall, and try running into it full tilt without stopping. That's what it would feel like if you were driving in a car at 10-20 mph and it instantly came to a dead stop in a collision.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    6. Re:Stronger car frames? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Go outside, find a brick wall, and try running into it full tilt without stopping.

      Much too difficult for the average Slashdotter. The easy way: Go up on the second floor. Swan dive to ground. Let gravity do all the work.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Stronger car frames? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Bahhahaha

      "What happened to Jimmy?"
      "He got in a fatal accident so we replaced him with Lin Sung here instead. He's adapting quite well to our culture but Jimmy's old wife still has some reservation"

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    8. Re:Stronger car frames? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      An air bag is not a pillow. It is unable to surround you in that split second with a nice soft place to park your face. You are still belted into your seat. The passenger section should collapse too(slightly) if the alternative is that the occupants aren't going to survive. Take for instance a hit to the passenger door - there is not much crumple room no protection from side to side whiplash - I'd rather have my passenger pushed towards me then us both dead.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  11. I don't get it? by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    If it's as tough as nails, then why not just make the armor out of nails? Thanks folks, I'll be here all week!

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:I don't get it? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      But four-inch-thick hardened steel similar to nails is used in armor. Just not the kind you wear.

  12. real missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The peacock mantis shrimp, a crustacean which is neither a mantis nor a shrimp, let alone a peacock..."

  13. Science: Killing people or not getting killed ... by tp1024 · · Score: 0

    ... in the process.

    This is neither the first nor in any way exceptional, but in every single instance, it is a disgrace!

  14. Molecular Acid by rhook · · Score: 1

    Does this protect against it? Never know when you might be fighting Xenomorphs.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Paid Subscription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kinda worthless linking an article the requires a paid subscription to access.

    1. Re:Paid Subscription by MLease · · Score: 1

      Not if your objective is to sell subscriptions.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  17. What we've got by sco08y · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to outline what the standard gear can do as of fairly recently; I'm out, but I wore it in 2010.

    The kevlar lining in the vest, by itself, is rated to stop 9mm pistol rounds.

    The main chest and back ESAPI plates are rated to stop a NATO 7.62x51 round. (The AK commonly fires the lighter 7.62x39 round.)

    The armor is bulky as hell. The full assemblage, helmet, shoulder protectors, front and back plates, side plates, etc., is heavy and greatly restricts movement. I found it very difficult, with everything on, to man a gun and drop down to check radios. (I've also never found a decent pair of gloves.) I stopped wearing the neck protection and shoulder protection while driving because I couldn't easily turn my head.

    The problem of being trapped is partially addressed through the quick-release mechanism; there is a strap you pull that will simply make your armor fall off. Of course, there's a fairly elaborate system of cables wound throughout the armor, and the armor itself is more annoying to put on.

    My feelings are that we're well past the point where the increased likelihood of getting shot while stumbling around is worse than the benefits of not getting hurt by shrapnel. I'm considering a common combined IED and small arms attack in which the convoy is successfully stopped, and they have to kick out dismounts to respond. In that scenario, getting in and out of vehicles is very dangerous (especially some MRAPs where you have to basically go out ass-first) and performing tricky tasks like hooking up tow bars and tow cables.

    The next biggest problem is it's hard to allow air flow. The armor tries, and they recently came out (thank god) with a lighter shirt to wear underneath it instead of the regular ACU top. That was a huge improvement, but it's fundamentally hard to put yourself inside a ceramic box and not cook.

    Except for shoulders (and no one wants to wear the damned shoulder armor) it doesn't protect joints. The neck protection further restricts mobility.

    Wearing it, overall, I felt like a damned turtle. Other people I saw didn't seem to be doing much better.

    1. Re:What we've got by Sketchly · · Score: 1

      Presumably, though, if you were shot in the face all this would be irrelevant?

    2. Re:What we've got by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Well, we simply should invade Canada and stop bothering with the pesky, hot, dangerous places.

      Mosquito repellent and you're golden!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:What we've got by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Too bad they won't let you have dragonskin. Instead, the guy who oversaw the "competition" now works for the company that makes that armor you wore.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What we've got by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you get shot in the face, you get shot in the face. There's really nothing effective that can block even a handgun bullet without making you look like a bobblehead Darth Vader. That, combined with the loss of peripheral vision would just make your soldier more likely to blunder into a bad situation rather than avoid it in the first place. It's a tactical trade-off, sure, but better to be able to avoid getting shot than hope your faceplate can catch whatever heat the ambush is packing.

    5. Re:What we've got by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      True story: Marine shot in the face with a 9mm, spits out the bullet (and a few teeth). One taliban soldier renounces violence forevermore, throws down his sidearm, and surrenders.

      There's not much that's vital to immediate survival in the facial area. Unless a brain-leading blood vessel or the spinal column is severed, that's the sort of wound you can recover from.

    6. Re:What we've got by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Dragonskin was even heavier than the Interceptor, and while it offered much better coverage, the junction between the scales could be blown straight through by an AK, if it hit at just the right angle. However, it was a lot more flexible.

      The Army didn't think the weight penalty was worth it, but some soldiers disagreed.

      And when it was Dragonskin or PASGT, the Dragonskin vest won hands-down. PASGT was roughly equivalent to NIJ level 2A, (rated for light sidearms) but Interceptor is somewhere around NIJ level 4 - enough to stop armor-piercing slugs fired from a battle rifle at close range.

    7. Re:What we've got by sco08y · · Score: 1

      I'd have to wear Dragonskin to make any judgement. I've heard it was even heavier... heavier armor means you carry less bullets and water. For convoys, Dragonskin probably would have been great since you are in a vehicle. Not so sure about foot patrols.

      The biggest problem the Army had wasn't favoritism towards this contractor or that. The biggest problem was entrenched bureaucracy, the CIF structure (central issuance facility) could not get gear to soldiers. Incredibly, CIF wasn't simply fired for not doing their job, instead someone with stars set up RFI (rapid field issue) to get gear out.

      If you've worked around government, the whole thing of people not doing their jobs and not being held to account is incredibly common. Barney Frank explained it best, to paraphrase from memory, "talking about fraud waste and abuse, people talk about cutting the fat, but they fail to see the implicit premise: they think that there are layers of fat in government that we can cut out, but that analogy is simply wrong. The fat isn't in layers, there are no layers of government that are uniformly useless. The better analogy would be that the fat is marbled throughout government."

    8. Re:What we've got by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Well, we simply should invade Canada and stop bothering with the pesky, hot, dangerous places.

      Mosquito repellent and you're golden!

      No, fuck no. Too goddamned cold.

      Why not invade Italy? Or take over a few more tropical islands?

  18. Cool Natural Materials... by pittance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lots of natural materials exhibit really interesting properties, sometimes at odds with the way we'd expect such materials to react. For example crustacean shells are ceramic but quite tough because of the layering of the ceramic with small amounts of organic binder material which causes any fractures to be diverted before they spread though the bulk of the material.

    Many natural materials exhibit high levels of hierarchy like this and it's one of the many reasons why natural structures and materials are way cooler than most of the things that we make, with the possible exception of aerogel. One of the most interesting hierarchical structures is Euplectella Aspergillum (Venus' flower basket), its structure is really complex. I can easily see this being an aerospace material in 10 years...

    1. Re:Cool Natural Materials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it's sooner than that. This stuff sounds great for protecting carbon fiber bike frames.

  19. Size isn't everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The way the fibers are laid out to create the surface can have a dramatic effect on it's strength and ability to maintain shape. Watch this TED talk for more interesting facts about penis anatomy.

  20. I want to be a lawyer representing the.... by axlr8or · · Score: 1

    Well, whatever it is. Anyways. Let them build their armor. I'll hold off a few years and then throw a Lodsys on them!

  21. Once again something amazing that just happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evolution is just amazing. It produced a complex highly application specific material that we will need to copy because of its (undeniably intelligent) design.

  22. Even better one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go bungee jumping off the brooklyn bridge with the bungee secured to the helmet on your head.

    That's the extent of the whiplash a human being would feel if a car actually bounced off a wall.

  23. Re: prefer a broken arm by neonsignal · · Score: 1

    maybe; but those people already have concussion from their previous accident

  24. Another Really Neat Thing About Mantis Shrimp... by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is it's primary hitting power is not the claw itself, but the inertial cavitation shockwave.

    The creature lashes out so fast and powerful, that the impact generates a cavitation bubble on the forward surface of the claw. So not only does the claw hammer in, but there's a nasty blast of energy as the cavitation bubble collapse at the speed of sound. Its so powerful, it even generates light!

    --
    [End Of Line]
  25. coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I just happen to be watching the QI episode with them in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtGdLTnriE&feature=related, at around 21:35

  26. Ping all scientist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pssst. Scientist. God has gotten ahead of you again.

  27. Re:Another Really Neat Thing About Mantis Shrimp.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes me think of the pistol shrimp.

  28. Wow, what a concept by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    Layered composite materials. People who have been designing and building fault tolerant systems have been using such techniques for a very long time.

    It may be interesting to determine that's what's at work in this instance, but it's not a new technology.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  29. Question by DanielBMS · · Score: 1

    Will this crustacean based armor be available in Cepheus Pack 6 for Soul Calibur 5?

  30. Amazing Natural Products by Eco+Bay · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how much we are still learning and benefiting from nature around us.

    --
    Eco Products