New Metal Foam Armor Obliterates Bullets To Dust On Impact (discovery.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Metal Foam Armor Obliterates Bullets To Dust On Impact (discovery.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday April 8, 2016 @09:31PM from the prepare-to-be-terminated dept.

HughPickens.com writes: Discovery Magazine reports that researchers at North Carolina State University have developed a super strong armor material that literally turns bullets to dust upon impact. The armor plating is made in part from composite metal foams, or CMFs, which are both lighter and stronger than traditional metal plating used in body and vehicle armor. The armor -- only an inch thick -- features a ceramic strike face, Kevlar backing, and CMFs in the energy-absorbing middle layer. "We could stop the bullet at a total thickness of less than an inch, while the indentation on the back was less than 8 millimeters," says Afsaneh Rabiei. "To put that in context, the NIJ standard allows up to 44 millimeters indentation in the back of an armor." CMFs are very effective at shielding X-rays, gamma rays and neutron radiation. Other applications include space exploration and shipping nuclear waste which both require a material to be not only light and strong, but also capable of withstanding extremely high temperatures and blocking radiation. A video shows a 7.62 x 63 millimeter M2 armor-piercing projectile that was fired using standard testing procedures established by the Department of Justice for evaluating armor types.

93 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

S.S.D.D by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 21:43 · Score: 1, Funny

"The use of airborne attacks had all bit ceased by the middle of the 21st century due to advances in anti-aircraft and anti-missile technology. Highly accurate, fast aiming laser or coil gun AA sites, coupled with the latest in anti-stealth radar/IR/laser detection systems, meant that most aircraft or missiles would never get close to their targets.
This means most battles are now fought on the ground. Due to fullerene armour making most weapons obsolete, most of the fighting today is men in suits of armour bashing each other over the head with hammers.
Oh how far we have come."
1. Re:S.S.D.D by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't bother clicking the link. It leads to one of the laziest and boring webcomics I've seen in quite a while.
2. Re:S.S.D.D by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, comedy aside, why wouldn't the missiles just have fullerene armour attached? Lots of wars have seen the resurgence of armor relegated to a new role after previous weapons made previous armor obsolete. Never did the weapons go back in time.
  After the medieval knight with full plate armor fell out of use because of cheap pikemen and the pistol, the curassier was basically just a resurgence with only a breastplate and metal helmet - use peaked during Napoleon. Couldn't stop direct hits, but ricochets and fragments yes. Basically eliminated by the 1870s from actual battle.
  Then WW1 saw the steel helmet replace a leather helmet, for much the same reason (fragment) and more importantly, the Tank - the armoured horse anew. Although I probably shouldn't neglect the 19th century replacing wooden ships with steel ones to make this possible. Weapons definitely did not decrease in either the infantry or navy.
  I don't deny after WWIII, we'll be back to using sticks and stones, but it won't be due to armour....
3. Re:S.S.D.D by tomhath · 2016-04-09 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to talk common sense to a science fiction fan. They don't mix.
  But to your point, armor vs. weapon has been a race since the dinosaurs.
4. Re:S.S.D.D by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Very true. First panel I saw he couldn't get then/than right. For fuck's sake, if you're going to write, learn the basics!
5. Re:S.S.D.D by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-04-09 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  After the medieval knight with full plate armor fell out of use because of cheap pikemen and the pistol,
  I thought it was the crossbow, actually. The longbow could nail a knight to a tree, but required a lot of training and strength. The crossbow could do the same but could be learned quickly. Early firearms were about on a par with a crossbow both for handling accuracy and rate of fire (though they had other advantages - and far more room for technical improvement with time).
  Is my impression wrong?
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
6. Re:S.S.D.D by AJWM · 2016-04-09 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to talk common sense to a science fantasy fan. They don't mix.
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
7. Re:S.S.D.D by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, you're absolutely right. See the Hundred Years War - cross bows were prohibited for that very reason ~nobility~ until cannons took over.
8. Re:S.S.D.D by angel'o'sphere · 2016-04-11 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Depends if you call "half right" wrong or not.
  First of all cross bows where banned in most european regions. Which kept the heavy armored men of war and knights "in business". But especially italian troops started to deploy battalions of cross bow men and then cross bows suddenly caught up. That did not immediately lead to displacement of armor or knights. The "knights" simply let the infantry handle stuff like dying to bolts.
  The death blow to heavy armor was indeed mainly pikes and halberds.
  That was long before rifles became in common use.
  Actually the first fire arms had no big advantages. Unlike a cross bow or a bow, you could not use them during rain. The caused lots of smoke that cluttered the battle field. A typical musketeer would carry around 10 bullets and gun powder for that amount. You could not accurately aim with them, shooters usually turned the head/face away to be not get burned by the flame coming out of the fire hole.
  I think the start of their "success" was that they looked more impressive on the battlefield and for long campaigns you need less logistics. At some point people simply thought "they are superior", but after shooting 10 bullets they engaged into melee. Plenty of war tactics e.g. through the 30 years wars in europe only allowed for two shots. Riders where engaging infantry with two pistols, fire them at 10 yards range and drop them to switch to swords.
  On the other hand a trained longbow archer shoots minimum 15 arrows, perhaps 20, in the first minute and about 10 for the next 5 minutes. That is about 60 arrows in 5 to 6 minutes. Imagine how many arrows an archer is firing in a battle lasting 2 or 3 hours. Logistics for both longbows and crossbows was more complex. Armies where not only carrying wagons of food but dozens if not hundreds of wagons of: arrows
  In the battles of Crecy and Agincourt they had "squires" that carried baskets of arrow to the archers, basically a basket for each archer every 15 minutes.
  So bottom line the first firearms had a much lower effect in terms of kills or efficiency. However you are right, everyone could use them after minimal training. Armies became bigger and where called more rapidly into service. The english long bow men on the other hand where basically on duty all year and laws required them to train "before they go to the pub", literally! It was forbidden to hand out beer to archers unless they had a signed/stamped "certificate of participating in training".
  What would you do if one asks you join the kings army and offers you either a bow or a rifle? I guess most would pick the rifle.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
7.62x63mm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 22:02 · Score: 5, Informative

For those who are confused, 7.62x63mm is the metric designation for a .30-06.
1. Re:7.62x63mm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  Me I'm apathetic but there's only a 0.5mm difference between confusion and apathy.
2. Re:7.62x63mm by BECoole · 2016-04-09 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  There are 2 types of M2 30/06 - a steel core AP round that is a standard for testing body armor, and a lead core 150gr bullet.
  I didn't see the core in the video, so I think they used the lead core. Still very impressive, however.
3. Re:7.62x63mm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  is confused the new polite euphemism for Americans?
4. Re:7.62x63mm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't capitalize the beginning of your thought but did capitalize the beginning of your betters. How wonderful it is when a man knows his place.
5. Re:7.62x63mm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  There is no point in wasting the Queens English on you colonials . After all its been five hundred years and you still don't understand it.
6. Re:7.62x63mm by Agripa · 2016-04-09 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  30-06 is one of the few calibers where real armor piercing bullets are available to civilians. You can still find Lake City 30-06 AP and it is non-magnetic because the core is tungsten carbide and not steel.
7. Re:7.62x63mm by Caesar+Tjalbo · 2016-04-09 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  For those who are confused, 7.62x63mm is the metric designation for a .30-06.
  Confusion was intended:
  
  "We could stop the bullet at a total thickness of less than an inch, while the indentation on the back was less than 8 millimeters," says Afsaneh Rabiei.
  But it's nice to know they somewhat cater for the Liberians, the USAmericans and the rest of the world.
  
  --
  "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
8. Re:7.62x63mm by rjh · 2016-04-10 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  (I'm the AC who originally posted; I wasn't logged in then.)
  
  But it's nice to know they somewhat cater for the Liberians, the USAmericans and the rest of the world.
  
  Oddly enough, a .30-06 is only called 7.62x63mm. That's the metricified name for it... but not the actual dimensions of the round: the bullet diameter is 7.8mm, not 7.62mm.
  Cartridge names look like they're dimensional quantities, but they're not, and really never have been. The .38 Special and the .357 Magnum fire the same size of bullet. (In fact, you can fire .38 Special from .357 Magnum revolvers.) The German-designed 7.65mm Parabellum cartridge actually fires bullets 7.85mm in size. The Russian 9mm Makarov is actually 9.2mm. The 9mm Parabellum and 9mm Short fire different sizes of bullets, too; one is true 9mm and the other is smidge larger.
  Moral of the story: the name is just a name -- it doesn't actually reflect the size of the cartridge, and for that reason there's no reason to prefer metricified names.
9. Re:7.62x63mm by Caesar+Tjalbo · 2016-04-10 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't object much to using 'imperial' and 'metric' (NATO) designations for bullets, most of the time it's clear what's intended. I do think it's weird and unwise (see Mars Climate Orbiter) to mix units when talking about something else.
  
  --
  "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Oh great! by dohzer · 2016-04-08 22:30 · Score: 1

Oh great. So now we're going to need even more guns.
1. Re:Oh great! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Standard police procedure is to shoot suspects until they die. Better increase the policing budget.
2. Re:Oh great! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  How many obliterated rounds will it take for your enemies to choke on your lead?
3. Re:Oh great! by Alumoi · 2016-04-09 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, just learn to aim for the head, not for the body.
next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by sittingnut · 2016-04-08 22:41 · Score: 1

this is a race , once you get an effective armor you then create better projectiles that nullify any advantages given by that armor .
wonder if they can create bullets with same metal foam ( at least on the face that hits the target )? may that would be be too expensive since not everyone will be wearing that armor and only few bullets hit targets anyway?
cheaper counter method would be to pack some bullets with some cheap poisonous dust.
1. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by religionofpeas · 2016-04-08 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  once you get an effective armor you then create better projectiles that nullify any advantages given by that armor .
  Effective armor already existed, so people have been trying to create better projectiles for a long time.
2. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's been a race since the first caveman picked up a club and his opponent picked up a club and something else to use as a shield.
3. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-08 23:38 · Score: 2
  
  cheaper counter method would be to pack some bullets with some cheap poisonous dust.
  That method has already been used, and countered
4. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by sittingnut · 2016-04-09 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  but not in small bullets that needs strong armor or some such target to explode to affect a very small area.
5. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by KGIII · 2016-04-09 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Harder jackets and higher speeds would be the next logical steps but will probably mean more lined barrels. I'd guesstimate 20 years out unless we've a major conflict with lots of money invested. If that's the case, expect 2-3 years and a total of about 5 for the new weapons to be really effective. That's all assuming this is something that can be scaled up into production sizes to suit. I obviously haven't read the article but tech like this languishes until needed for large-scale conflicts and then gets incorporated quickly and prices drop as well as production times are lowered.
  Man is never so motivated as when he's trying to kill someone or to stop someone from killing him.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
6. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-04-09 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  wonder if they can create bullets with same metal foamd
  No, that would just make it penetrate even less.
  A fleschette in a discarding sabot (think "little metal arrow, sandwiched in a pair of pieces of wadding to provide a bullet-sized piston for getting it up to speed in the barrel before they fall off in flight") should cut through this pretty easily, and they're already available.
  Downside is that it'll also go through the body behind it pretty easily, doing minimal damage unless it hits something like the heart or a major vessel or nerve trunk - unless you can get it to stay straight going through the armor and start tumbling once it gets to flesh. Part of the point of a bullet is to deliver a punch inside the target, not to just pass through and leave a small hole. The armor eats the punch early, and you need something that gets through it but then does something useful rather than just keep going.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
7. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by currently_awake · 2016-04-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  You could use high explosive tungsten fletchet rounds, that explode after passing through the armour. Would also be useful against light APC's and armoured trucks.
8. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  What does it matter, if you know your threat has that capability, and you have existing countermeasures to nullify it. What would it achieve?
9. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by sittingnut · 2016-04-09 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  so soldiers are going to wear gas masks? to protect against poisonous dust sent through exploding bullets?
10. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-09 15:16 · Score: 2
  
  so soldiers are going to wear gas masks? to protect against poisonous dust sent through exploding bullets?
  No, they'll choose die in their millions from poisoned bullets all the time screaming 'what can we possibly do about this unstoppable threat'.
  Do you have any idea how defence works?
11. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by sittingnut · 2016-04-09 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  yes . 1st hand. do you?
  btw why is it that soldiers with best armor are losing wars. they will lose even more if they had to wear gas masks all the time..
12. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-09 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  yes . 1st hand. do you? btw why is it that soldiers with best armor are losing wars.
  
  Poor strategy. But since you have 1st hand experience you should already know that.
  
  they will lose even more if they had to wear gas masks all the time..
  Americans will continue to lose wars against peasants and goat herders because they continue to believe that the best hardware is all that is required to win.
13. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Tyrannicsupremacy · 2016-04-11 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Armor piercing incendiary.
  
  --
  http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
14. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Coren22 · 2016-04-12 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that you understand the meaning of the word "lose". The only recent war that America lost was Vietnam, and that was down to political issues, not issues with the military.
  Iraq was won in a matter of a week, Afghanistan took longer, but seems to have achieved its goals. ISIS is a failure of the Iraqi army, and their president for choosing to fall on his sword rather than accept help from the US.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
15. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-12 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that you understand the meaning of the word "lose". The only recent war that America lost was Vietnam, and that was down to political issues, not issues with the military.
  So you consider Iraq and Afghanistan a victory? Really?
  The biggest strategic blunder in modern history and you call that a win? Fucking hell, what's in the water over there?
  
  Iraq was won in a matter of a week, Afghanistan took longer, but seems to have achieved its goals. ISIS is a failure of the Iraqi army, and their president for choosing to fall on his sword rather than accept help from the US.
  Oh ok then....
16. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Coren22 · 2016-04-13 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  So, you see Saddam Hussein's government still in power? What are your conditions for winning if the Iraqi government was toppled? That was after all the goal, was to stop a dictator who was threatening the region with WMD (mostly nerve gas and the like). Iraq was well on its way to stability, but the president made unreasonable demands to allow the soldiers to stay (like they are still in South Korea, Germany, Japan) and help stabilize his country, so the US president had to withdraw troops when they should have stayed.
  Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories, not losses. They were political losses, as they turned out to be a poor choice, but the US did not lose these wars, the US politicians screwed it all up.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  I don't consider a war losing our side less than 7000 soldiers as a loss, What would be the conditions of winning in your world?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
17. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-13 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  What are your conditions for winning?
  To leave the place in a better position than you found it.
  
  Iraq and Afghanistan were military victories, not losses. They were political losses, as they turned out to be a poor choice, but the US did not lose these wars, the US politicians screwed it all up.
  Wibble, wibble. By your definition, the Germans won WW2 since Neville Chamberlain was no longer in power at the end of it, and the Germans had less casualties than the Russians
  
  What would be the conditions of winning in your world?
  If Iraq wasn't a whole lot worse than it was when Saddam was running the place. Afghanistan is still going and the insurgency is just as strong as on day one 15 years ago. If that's your version of victory you're a fucking idiot.
18. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Coren22 · 2016-04-14 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  What are your conditions for winning?
  To leave the place in a better position than you found it.
  In which case no war in history was ever won. Glad to hear how you feel, it definitely puts your opinion in perspective...as not meaning a damn thing.
  
  What would be the conditions of winning in your world?
  If Iraq wasn't a whole lot worse than it was when Saddam was running the place. Afghanistan is still going and the insurgency is just as strong as on day one 15 years ago. If that's your version of victory you're a fucking idiot.
  I'm sure I'm the fucking idiot here, considering that by all measures the Taliban isn't in power, and are being forced to the negotiation table to lay down their arms, much like the FARC in Colombia.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
19. Re:next bullets with poisonous dust inside? by Gussington · 2016-04-14 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  In which case no war in history was ever won.
  
  Ahem, Most of the world that doesn't speak German or Japanese politely disagree with you.
  
  I'm sure I'm the fucking idiot here, considering that by all measures the Taliban isn't in power, and are being forced to the negotiation table to lay down their arms, much like the FARC in Colombia.
  Yes, yes that's it. I'm pretty sure the Russians said something similar in 1980. In fact, George W Bush announced something very similar in 2003. How did that work out?
the weight is the impressive part by Orgasmatron · 2016-04-08 23:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Stopping a 30-06 M2 isn't actually that hard. A half inch of steel will do it easily. If that steel is of the Abrasion Resistant (AR) variety of decent grade (like AR400 or AR500), it will hold up to thousands of shots with virtually no wear.
Of course, a half inch steel plate is very heavy and not the sort of thing an infantryman wants to have to wear. Which is why Type IV plates are made of exotic materials like this.
This armor is actually a laminate. The impact surface is ceramic and very hard. The metal foam is in the middle and it distributes the load over a wider area. The Kevlar layers are presumably there to catch any fragments that penetrate. Actually, it sounds an awful lot like the Chobham that we use on the M1 Abrams.
And, since it is finally on topic, here is a link to a video with a bunch of bullet impacts in slow motion. It is amazing!.

--
See that "Preview" button?
1. Re:the weight is the impressive part by wheelbarrio · 2016-04-09 01:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Clearly a lot of uniformed upvoters here if this gets a 5. The article says the test was done with an M2 AP (not ball) round and a half inch of even armour steel is not stopping one of those, let alone "thousands of shots with virtually no wear". See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. Re:the weight is the impressive part by ProzacPatient · 2016-04-09 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  And furthermore it's probably safe to say that insurgents overseas are probably using steel core surplus ammunition.
3. Re:the weight is the impressive part by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  to be clear, Steel Core != Armor Piercing
4. Re:the weight is the impressive part by blind+biker · 2016-04-09 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  A half inch thick AR500 plate will NOT stop an AP (armor piercing) 7.62x63 (30-06) round. You, sir, are simply mistaken.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
5. Re:the weight is the impressive part by Orgasmatron · 2016-04-09 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  Want to see it?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  I was going off the top of my head in my earlier post, and I did get some things wrong. I was indeed thinking ball instead of the old WWII AP round.
  The general rule of thumb (from naval guns, of all things) is that you need your mild steel armor to be about as thick as the incoming projectile to stop it. You add about 50% if the projectile is designed to pierce armor. You can take that 50% back if your armor is face hardened. (Or if you have a decapping layer, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
  That rule of thumb works with small arms too, as long as the small projectile is built like a naval round. Ball is. The more modern SLAP is. The old school M2 AP is not. Oops, my bad. With face hardening, like AR500 plate, you need 50% extra thickness (more if you want to avoid dimpling). Without it, you need something like 200% extra thickness just to stop it, and you have no hope of preserving the face.
  I think I was getting the upmods more for the video than anything else, and the video is still fantastic.
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
6. Re:the weight is the impressive part by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  The general rule of thumb (from naval guns, of all things) is that you need your mild steel armor to be about as thick as the incoming projectile to stop it.
  
  Interesting is that Newton's impact depth math agrees with that statement. His math isn't perfect, but generally if the target and projectile are the same density, the projectile has to be longer than the target is thick to penetrate. Half-inch steel will stop AP rounds, but only if hardened appropriately.
7. Re:the weight is the impressive part by EETech1 · 2016-04-09 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  My great uncle gave me an old 30-06 surplus rifle (with bayonet), and a few boxes of those old AP rounds.
  I won it in a game of sheephead my first year deer hunting.
  He knew I had the hand of a lifetime when I picked on the end and went in 4 against 1, so he took the opportunity to bet (pass on) my great grandpas gun that I couldn't beat them all.
  What fun!
  (Come to find out years later my great grandpa bought cases of the surplus 30-06s. Had enough to use them as oars in his boat)
This sounds familiar... by Uteck · 2016-04-08 23:20 · Score: 1

I think Mega Damage armor has just been invented. Giant robots are just around the corner, since we already have Juicers.

--
no .sig found Please restart your browser.
1. Re:This sounds familiar... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  What ever happened to that fight between that japanese "robot" and the american one?
Weight? by grimJester · 2016-04-08 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The article is kinda pointless if it doesn't mention the weight of the armor, which is kinda the whole point.
Curvy Bust by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-08 23:45 · Score: -1

No need to get breast implant surgery now, If you are looking for Curvy Bust check this out. http://boosmar.com/curvy-bust
Batman by 110010001000 · 2016-04-08 23:48 · Score: 1

I noticed that Batman seems to have this armor as he can deflect bullets. However, I always wondered why don't the bad guys just shoot him in the mouth? It is completely exposed.
1. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 00:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Isn't that what Robin is for?
2. Re:Batman by swb · 2016-04-09 00:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I saw some documentary that sort of explained this.
  It was about SWAT teams and storming rooms and how they like to move quickly in patterns the person in the room can't predict.
  The movement creates a kind of cognitive problem for the adversary in the room which causes them to target center of mass. This kind of increases the utility of body armor because the adversary "can't" target their heads very well, making any shots likely to hit the body armor instead of more exposed extremities.
  It seemed kind of reasonable to me, although I wonder if there's a "in real life" aspect to this that might weaken the tactic, like recoil or muzzle climb tending to cause point of impact on multiple shots to rise. My guess is that the movement of the SWAT guys is enough of a deterrent for secondary shots to not hit them.
  The other possibly confounding factor would be just the random nature of poor marksmanship or the "spray and pray" effect. A presumably unskilled shooter may simply fire a lot of rounds in a way that disregards any aiming or target motion, possibly increasing the likelihood of some impact. My guess is that part of the goal of SWAT movement is rapid lateral movement relative to the adversary, making it difficult for the adversary to achieve a wide enough field of fire for even random shooting to be effective.
  It does make me wonder if special forces type soldiers have a specifically trained countermeasure to defend against trained, skilled people storming a room, such as sweep firing from extreme lateral angles, combined with their own movement, to at least reduce any advantage in attacker methods.
3. Re:Batman by phantomfive · 2016-04-09 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's kind of like how beginner soccer players tend to kick the ball directly to the goalie, even though there is a huge net with plenty of places to kick the ball.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Batman by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  I asked someone in the military about the head protection thing, and they didn't really know either, but explained it as basically a bang-for-your buck sort of thing. I.e., the body has more sensitive area and is easier to armor than the head, which is smaller and harder to armor. The perceptual thing you mention makes sense too... people are probably more likely to attend to the body moving around the room than the head.
5. Re:Batman by currently_awake · 2016-04-09 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  With a short barrel shotgun they wouldn't even need to aim.
6. Re:Batman by painandgreed · 2016-04-11 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  I noticed that Batman seems to have this armor as he can deflect bullets. However, I always wondered why don't the bad guys just shoot him in the mouth? It is completely exposed.
  That's why he has a big yellow target on his chest.
We should ban this armor by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-04-08 23:59 · Score: -1, Troll

We should not allow the police and the military to acquire these armor protection. We know that the second amendment right to bear and keep arms is meant exclusively as a protection against tyrannical government. If the government forces can protect themselves from righteous citizens defending their liberty. The jack booted thugs will simply laugh at the citizen patriots peacefully occupying wild life refuges or graze cattle on land without paying grazing fees and impose their draconian will. It will unleash a tyranny that no founding father would have tolerated.
So we need a constitutional amendment to make sure the forces under the employment of the government are always vulnerable to the guns and ammunition of the law abiding citizens.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:We should ban this armor by 110010001000 · 2016-04-09 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  I have my musket to defend my trailer park! Don't tread on me!
2. Re:We should ban this armor by Z80a · 2016-04-09 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or alternatively, you could buy one of those armors for yourself when battling the oppressive forces.
3. Re:We should ban this armor by silas_moeckel · 2016-04-09 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since they seem to think arms only refers to firearms there is no protection for legally being able to do so in many states.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
4. Re:We should ban this armor by KGIII · 2016-04-09 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of banning it, we should not let *them* prohibit us from owning it. As it is, I believe some States still prohibit body armor entirely and some ban body armor of different grades/classes.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
5. Re:We should ban this armor by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-04-09 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  ... the citizen patriots ... graz[ing] cattle on land without paying grazing fees ...
  You missed the step in 1993 where the BLM arbitrarily slashed the number of cattle Bundy was permitted to graze. If accepted, this would destroy his livelihood and most of the value of his property (which was mainly due to the grazing rights of the attached permits).
  This was apparently done due to environmentalist pressure to "protect the endangered desert tortoise". That's a pretty clear fifth-amendment "taking" of private property for public use without just compensation.
  I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with how he handled this. But there's a lot of law and history in that can of worms. Reducing it to grazing cattle without a permit picks a side and shoves the other side's claims under a rug.
  It's notable that the BLM has stopped attempting to enforce their position. Bundy has his cattle back - still grazing the land in question.
  (It's also notable that cattle are actually an environmental benefit on western range land. Much of the environmental troubles there are from invasive European grasses crowding out native plants. Native animals tend to avoid these grasses and eat the native plants by preference, while cattle consider them a treat and prefer them to the native fodder, thus keeping them under control. Clearing off the cattle is a recipe for environmental disaster.)
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
6. Re:We should ban this armor by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-04-09 12:51 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Bundy is a racist bigot and a loser who depends on government handouts. The grazing fees charged by BLM is way below the market rates. If BLM auctions off the grazing rights and Bundy had to bid for it in open market it would have costed him and other ranchers 10 times more. Other ranchers know they are getting a sweet deal from the federal government and try to avoid drawing attention to it. Bundy's greed is shining a light on their sweet deal and they are worried they all may have to pay higher grazing fees. That is why there is so much opposition to the Bundy family in the west.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
7. Re:We should ban this armor by Camel+Pilot · 2016-04-09 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's a pretty clear fifth-amendment "taking" of private property for public use without just compensation
  Reduced from 130 head to 100 head... not that much
  But what the hell are talking about "private property"? This land Bundy was grazing on - Gold Butte area -- is Public Property and has been since the Mexican-American war.
8. Re:We should ban this armor by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-04-09 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  But what the hell are talking about "private property"? This land Bundy was grazing on - Gold Butte area -- is Public Property and has been since the Mexican-American war.
  But (as you'd know if you'd followed the link I provided) the land he actually OWNS, on which his infrastructure for operation is sited, is a prerequisite for the grazing permits. Most of its market value is the result of this utility. Reducing their number from enough for it to be a viable business will crash that private property's price.
  There's a further issue, however. Historically established licensures have value in themselves - and can amount to property. Some examples are commercial broadcast licenses and taxi medallions. (Prior to Uber the going price of a New York City taxi medallion hat hit a million bux, and it's still over 3/4ths of that.) Officials don't get to arbitrarily destroy or transfer that value on a whim. There are a number of laws, legal principles, and precedents which limit their options in such situations.
  The fact that some piece of land is "public property" does NOT mean that members of the public, with a well-established pattern of making use of that land in some particular way, can be suddenly and arbitrarily limited by a bureaucrat's whim, or even a governmental organization's considered decision, without no regard for defraying the cost to the former user.
  (And I won't even go into the issue of where property comes from in the first place - beyond mentioning it in this sentence. B-) )
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yes, SPARTA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 00:35 · Score: 0

Or should I say RIAD ?
If we only had a "just ruler" etc etc
Keep Bruce Willis safe! by RenHoek · 2016-04-09 00:39 · Score: 1

I don't care much for the military, but this looks like a very cool thing for NASA. Keep those astronauts safe from micro meteorites. Especially with the weight consideration.
1. Re:Keep Bruce Willis safe! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 01:27 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I don't care much for the military, but this looks like a very cool thing for NASA. Keep those astronauts safe from micro meteorites. Especially with the weight consideration.
  a) Micrometeoroids fly around at an average of 10 km/sec which is 32,500 feet per second. Typical muzzle velocity of a 30-06 rifle bullet is in the 2,500-2,900 fps range, depending on bullet mass. 12x the velocity = a couple orders of magnitude more kinetic energy per unit mass for the little space rock.
  
  b) Micrometeoroids are small, average mass of about a gram or less, so its cross-sectional area to be caught by armor is far less than a .30 caliber bullet (which is by definition .3" wide). The mechanism of this foam metal stuff is to distribute the impact load over a wide area. Getting hit by something with the cross-sectional area of a needle point isn't playing to its strengths.
  
  So, no. This isn't spaceship armor. Oh, and
  
  c) Fuck you for not caring about the military to the point that you felt the need to throw that snide comment in. What is this, you think there's some kind of nerd/geek street cred to be gained if you dis the military? Like vegetarians who feel the need to tell everyone they don't eat meat? Or hipsters who don't own TVs need to let us all know? Even if you object to how it's used, your callous disregard for the armor that protects the teenage grunts who get sent in is kind of douchey.
2. Re:Keep Bruce Willis safe! by Megol · 2016-04-09 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  Why don't you go wank to a war movie? You complain about someone that doesn't care much for the military - is there some requirement to have a hard-on for military to post on /.? He didn't even say something about not protecting the military - just that he doesn't think it is a priority.
  --
  Space armor is mostly using a spaced (!) armor with relatively lightweight materials combined with a spall-liner. The reason is that using something that can stop the (natural) high speed projectiles a spacecraft can be bombarded with isn't technically feasible due to weight. For smaller (but still high-speed) projectiles a spaced design is a good solution.
  However you are wrong that metal foam isn't a space armor, the reason you list isn't true as this foam is part of sandwich - the actual catching/slowing down of the projectile is done by the ceramic strike plate. If one want to make a stronger anti-meteorite armor for space metal foam is a good candidate for several reasons including weight, strength and (using the right materials) extra protection against radiation.
  But I don't see what's new about this - metal foams have been used for composite armor for a while now.
cool by grayberry · 2016-04-09 01:51 · Score: -1, Offtopic

games for boys car games

--
games for boys
Soon on Nexus by bobmajdakjr · 2016-04-09 01:52 · Score: 1

> effective at shielding X-rays, gamma rays and neutron radiation sounds like the next fallout 4 armor mod.
Brainy Iranian women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 02:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The professor who leads the team is Prof. Afsaneh Rabiei. She came from Iran
Professor Afsaneh Rabiei is a very brainy woman
Another Iranian woman who is very brainy is Maryam Mirzakhani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
She won the Field's Medal - an equivalent to the Nobel Prize for Mathematics in 2014
I have also met a lot of very intelligent Iranian women
I know a lot of Iranians, and their women are much more brainier than their men --- the Iranian men? Mostly religious fanatics
Whose military? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 03:10 · Score: 0

Could you clarify for us, exactly whose military we should all spend our days in admiration of?
Ta
Pfffffffffft by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-04-09 03:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Not good enough. A foot-thick plate of this stuff still wouldn't protect me from my ex-wife's "Stare Of Death".
That bitch could galvanize a battleship with just a look. You guys know the look I'm talking about.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Pfffffffffft by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  These guys only know the look their mother gives them when the basement needs another shot of frebreeze
radiation shielding? bullshit by thegreatemu · 2016-04-09 07:29 · Score: 1

I do radiation shielding for a living, and there is no way 1 inch of low density _anything_ is going to give you any kind of useful radiation shielding. Maybe x-rays will be attenuated enough to talk about, but you may as well paper for all the neutron and high energy gamma shielding that will give you.
1. Re:radiation shielding? bullshit by AJWM · 2016-04-09 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary, for neutron shielding you want low density materials.
  And the only difference between x-rays and gamma rays is the frequency.
  I do hope you're not doing radiation shielding for anything critical.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
2. Re:radiation shielding? bullshit by thegreatemu · 2016-04-09 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  For neutron shielding, you want low-Z material, not low density material. Neutron shields are pretty much always made of concrete, water, or high density polyethylene (HDPE). All of those are relatively high density (compared to a metal foam anyway). What all those have in common is a high density of hydrogen (concrete less so, but it's cheap so you can put more of it). Metal foam is low density, low hydrogen content, so pretty much the worst thing you could think of for neutron shielding.
  And of course gamma and x-rays only differ in the frequency, but that means the energy, and more importantly the radiation length / penetration depth. The mm-thick layer of lead in the aprons they give you at the dentist will block x-rays, and low energy gamma rays, just fine, but they won't do anything to >MeV gammas that are the real problem with radioactive sources.
  Also just in case you want to be pedantic, x-rays and gamma rays are labeled as such not just by energy, but by emission source. X-rays are generated by atomic de-excitation, while gammas are generated by nuclear processes, so there are actually some gamma rays with lower energy than some x-ray lines.
3. Re:radiation shielding? bullshit by angel'o'sphere · 2016-04-11 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  First tow sentences are wrong, go back to school.
  I guess your parent knows what he is talking about ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
CMF? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 07:49 · Score: 0

What the heck are CMFs?
Wikipedia is no help. :)
Range of bullet sizes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 08:30 · Score: 0

"You are under arrest for shooting a cop"
"Really? I admit to owning a gun, but don't you need to match the bullet to the gun to make such an accusation stick in a court of law?"
"We do have the ... disintegrated bullet fragments .... "
Less dense yet better at neutron shielding? by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-04-09 10:05 · Score: 1

Does anyone care to explain the physics of that claim to me because I can't see how lowering the density of a barrier is going to make it more effective.
1. Re:Less dense yet better at neutron shielding? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe then ment on a comparable basis? Like 1 inch of this stuff equals 10inches of this stuff.
2. Re:Less dense yet better at neutron shielding? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-09 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  You want materials with a lot of atoms per weight or volume. That means you don't want the heavier elements like lead (where one atom provides a great deal of weight).
  For the photons, you're after a large number of electrons for them to interact with in a small volume (which means high atomic numbers). For the neutrons, you're after a large number of nuclei for them to interact with in a small volume.
  Water is cheap enough that it's often used for both.
Other uses? by vile8 · 2016-04-09 12:06 · Score: 1

So its clearly cool for armor, but it sounds like something that might be very useful for say a space station? Both for shielding against incoming projectiles (granted slow ones) and potentiall for its radiation protection... not sure what the spectrum is on that danger though... How expensive is it... insulation properties? Seems like it could be used for a number of things from tornado proofing homes to gun barrels.
Storm Troopers by mcswell · 2016-04-09 14:37 · Score: 1

So that's what Imperial Storm Troopers wear!
Gamma rays? by Bust0ut · 2016-04-10 04:57 · Score: 0

4 feet of lead is hardly enough to stop gamma radiation! No way guys.

--
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.