Creating a Working Prototype of Armor to Move with You

  • Thread starter DarkAnt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Prototype
In summary, creating a working prototype of armor to move with you involves designing and building a suit that is both functional and flexible, allowing for ease of movement while providing protection. The process typically involves extensive research, testing, and collaboration between engineers, designers, and safety experts. The end result is a prototype that can be further refined and improved upon to create a final product that meets the needs of the user.
  • #36
http://sanlab.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/HAL/indexE.html to the webpage for the powered legs of which I spoke.

I've also found online that the DARPA project is proceeding on-schedule, with the legs already made and the first demonstration model slated for sometime next year (2005).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
on the topic of power...

Are any of you familiar with Nikola Tesla's concept of wireless energy transmission? The power suit would not have to have it's own power supply. It would be fed power from (probably) an army relay station, or would feed off local power supplies. Sure, the power station would be a massive target and would take out all the powered armor if it were hit, but you could always have a backup, and plenty of defenses...and make it mobile. anyway, the suit could suck as much electricity as it wanted, and as long as the wearer was suitably shielded from the electromagnetic radiation, he'd probably even go on to have non mutated children.
 
  • #38
As mentioned in an earlier post, and having personal field experience with "things", it will break when needed the most and then you will have combatants unfamiliar with fighting unassisted. Unfortunately, the best thing for the job is a warm body in boots "searching, closing with and destroying the enemy by fire and assault or repelling the enemy by fire and close combat".

The only thing that never, I repeat never, broke on me was my Leatherman. The teeth on the pliers might have gotten worn from use but that's all.

E6S, out.
 
  • #39
Question: When moving things break, what is the fundamental cause? My assumption is it is air. The fact that there are hollow spaces around the moving parts makes them vulnerable. Something like human muscles work without requiring hollow spaces because they're chemical, not mechanical. So wouldn't something like that be best? Theoretically, I mean... obviously we can't do anything like that with any real power, if at all.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by CGameProgrammer
Question: When moving things break, what is the fundamental cause? My assumption is it is air. The fact that there are hollow spaces around the moving parts makes them vulnerable. Something like human muscles work without requiring hollow spaces because they're chemical, not mechanical. So wouldn't something like that be best? Theoretically, I mean... obviously we can't do anything like that with any real power, if at all.

Actually, it isn't so much caused by "air", but the empty spaces around moving parts is indeed a crucail factor. It allows the parts to collide with one another.

And "artificial muscles" have been developed. I don't know how strong they are or hoe they're powered, but once a concept has been realized by engineers, it's speed, or power, or both will increase rapidly. That is just the nature of engineering (and of engineers!).
 
  • #41
Originally posted by LURCH
Actually, it isn't so much caused by "air", but the empty spaces around moving parts is indeed a crucail factor. It allows the parts to collide with one another.
Yes, that is what I meant. If you place an axe blade onto a wooden board and push, you'll probably do nothing more than making a slight dent. But if you bring the blade back and then swing it at the board, you'll chop it in half. If things are packed together then vulnerability is minimized.

Of course that example isn't great since there's no moving parts in the first scenario, but you know what I mean.
 
  • #42
This thread is quiet... what happened to all the people?
 
  • #43
well, I think people said all they had to say on this topic. If you want to help this topic get going again, go invent a power source for us :biggrin:
 
  • #44
A good battery would provide 400 Watt-hours per kilogram. The absolute limit of efficiency would be equivalent to just having our battery move itself around. If we assume trotting movement across rough terrain, that's like bouncing a 1/2 meter twice per second. For a 1 kg battery, that's about 10 watts power. So, the absolute limit is about 40 hours of operation per charge. Electrical systems rarely have much better than 30% efficiency, let's call it 40%. We now have 16 hours of operation, and we have not put in armor, weapons, actuators or a person. Just putting actuators and armor on the batteries would about double the weight. We are now down to a limit of 8 hours operation and we have not incorporated a human or weapons or any electronic gear.

Clearly, such units could not operate without significant support logistics - refueling and resupply with ordnance. That defeats their whole advantage of mobility and concealment.

Njorl
 
  • #45
And now, possible changes that might negate my previous post.

Battery efficiency is the single greatest obstacle. Heaps of money are spent on fuel cell and battery research.

A new area of research that is getting a lot of funding is highly efficient flexible solar cells. Roll'em up and pack 'em away when fighting or moving. Spread 'em out over a half-acre to recharge.

If the energy problem is solved, the ordnance problem is solved. The more energy you can put into each round, the lighter that round can be.

Still, world peace might materialize before powered armor, and that would be fine by me.

Njorl
 
  • #46
My question would be... why? IMHO, current weapons technology is way ahead of current defense technology. The best strategy to avoid casualties with modern weapons is either to hit them first, or not to get hit. Heavy armour, even if powered, will most likely impair dexterity, and concealment. Air power seems the way forward, and infantry/tanks will probably only hold a role in consolidation, and holding down enemies. What niche would powered armour take?
 
  • #47
The many uses for a very small atomic reactor.. :)
 
  • #48
My senior design team tackled a similar problem. We essentially were to design and build an exoskeleton for lifting/loading/material handling. Here are some problems we encountered.

1. Anthropomorphics - The human body is a beautifully designed mechanical structure with amazing dexterity. Getting an exoskeleton to 'conform' to the human body while still approaching the range of mobility of a person is a massive challenge. Just think about how well you can move your hand or foot around, and imagine trying to get metal bars and joints to mimic that. Plus you would have to make this suit fit a large percentage of human adults, who obviously don't come in the same size or shape.

2. Balance - Very important and very difficult to translate the desired movement of the operator into suit movements while maintaining your balance. We solved this problem by using heavy counterweights, but that made the suit ungainly. Our suit was destined for operation on flat surfaces and slight inclines. No telling what the problem would be like for varied terrain types.

3. Power - Alot of talk has focused on this already, so it is in our minds. We settled for chemical batteries, but were looking at fuel cells also.

UC Berkeley is developing a project for the infantryman, called BLEEX
http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/hel/bleex.htm

BLEEX is intended to help soldiers carry more in their packs while reducing soldier fatigue. You can easily see what is needed just for augmenting a person's leg movements, which is alot.

This in my opinion is as far as robotic enhancements will go for the individual soldiers. If powered armor is eventually developed, it will be large in size (bigger than a tank) and crewed by multiple soldiers. A 'Land Destroyer' if you will. It will have to be large enough to carry around it's own power source (small nuclear reactor or turbine engine). Something that large would be an impressive weapon's platform and have a devastating psychological effect on opposing forces.
 
  • #49
"My question would be... why? IMHO, current weapons technology is way ahead of current defense technology. The best strategy to avoid casualties with modern weapons is either to hit them first, or not to get hit. Heavy armour, even if powered, will most likely impair dexterity, and concealment. Air power seems the way forward, and infantry/tanks will probably only hold a role in consolidation, and holding down enemies. What niche would powered armour take?"

The whole idea is that one person in power armor is basically trying to make a person a walking tank. This would be great for mountainous terrain or urban combat. Well it would be great if we could get it to work.
 
  • #50
To recap:
Powered Armor:
It's biggest introduction to the mind of the public was in the book, Starship Troopers, in which infantry gained massive advantages of strength, speed, and physical toughness. They carried bigger, badder weapons, leapt over buildings, and sprinted as fast as a car could drive. They were the "supermen" of the army. (of course, if an army has *supermen*, why waste money on normal soldiers?)
Powered armor has been seen in comics (Iron Man) video games (Metroid, Halo, Starcraft) and has impressed us all with the advantages it gives to the wearer.
Without giving up and saying the only place for powered armor lays in the realm of science fiction, we can say that it is, in a combat-ready version, beyond our current grasp.
The armor must be reasonably light, not too bulky, and strong enough to absorb heavy combat stress without breaking down. It will likely be desired that it allow the wearer to operate in hostile environments, including places which contain biohazards, high levels of radiation, and possibly even vacuums. The soldier will need to be able to use weaponry, not the least of which are his hands and feet. The armor needs to not damage the soldier when it amplifies his speed and strength.
We're talking about
either EXTREMELY high grade servos or synthetic muscles.
lightweight, sensitive sensory equipment, both internal and external
modular construction, for body sizing and repair.
Power. Either a way to relay power to the suit wirelessly by the boatload or a really high quality chemical fuel cell or a mini fusion reactor that hasn't been invented yet.
Hella huge amounts of money for R&D, production, and recruiting reallllly talented people to make it all happen.

Next Post: WEAPONS!
(kidding) but it'd be pretty sweet for them to carry around railguns or gauss cannons...not that those aren't virtually the same thing or anything...

on an editing note... wouldn't it be easier to upgrade our soldiers without sticking them in powered armor? metal grafts onto their skeletons, muscle enhancements, cybernetic implants in their eyes...maybe a way to speed up nerve transmissions for faster thinking and reflexes... dermal implants to absorb more ballistic damage, mental conditioning from birth, etc? The body might even generate enough energy itself to power any cybernetic enhancements, although batteries are certainly implantable.

OR on my third go at this, Let me pose sort of a question. forget armor for the moment, is it possible to take this in stages? To further explain, our conception of powered armor, as I mentioned before comes from science fiction and video games. Now, in some of these, the armor is more form fitting and modular (halo, metroid). This makes me think, maybe a power suit, with armor pieces on top. Think of something that looks like a wetsuit, but has sensors planted all inside, and consisting of a layer of synthetic muscle with mesh or some other covering. a nice, form fitting body suit...that just needs a bunch of power to run. (the more i think about it, the more it all seems possible. we just have to refine current tech and combine it)
 
Last edited:
  • #51
While we're on the topic...

A while ago, I started hearing things about flexible batteries that had some application as body armor - basically, a ballistic vest that doubled as a battery. Might this be something that helps the Power Armor crowd out? If your batteries can double as ballistic liner at somewhat increased weight, I'd see that as an acceptable tradeoff.

SP
 
  • #52
SebastianPalm said:
While we're on the topic...

A while ago, I started hearing things about flexible batteries that had some application as body armor - basically, a ballistic vest that doubled as a battery. Might this be something that helps the Power Armor crowd out? If your batteries can double as ballistic liner at somewhat increased weight, I'd see that as an acceptable tradeoff.

SP

Seems reasonable, especially since the increased weight would be of negligable importance to a soldier with powered exoskelital legs.
 
  • #53
battery acid leaking into your wounds might be a drawback
 
  • #54
Unfortunately, a lot of KEY points have been overlooked, but there may be a little bit of hope.

As good, in theory, as electronics and computer controls etc. may seem, they are incredibly unreliable. Faults in electronics and especially the wiring involved are very time-consuming to diagnose. Electronics are susceptible to fatigue of components, are haulted by the ingress of water and damaged by vibration and shock.

Computer-controls can crash when over-stressed, rendering the "powered armour" immobile. Imagine being inside such an exoskeleton and it suddenly stop working in the middle of a battleground due to some sort of failure.

Also, imagine being in a hot, stuffy, metal piece of equipment. Imagine trying to get it to fit the occupant sufficiently without it hurting them. Imagine trying to have to solve all these problems before you even solve the problem of how you're going to get it to work.

For the occupant's comfort you could possibly air-condition the compartment but then an air conditioning compressor is a motor that requires a great deal of current and weighs a great deal. If you were to ventilate the compartment it would be cold in the winter and you would lose the ability to make it gas-proof.

In a battle situation, complex systems such as these are not cost-effective, are unreliable and can cause as many problems as they solve.

On the subject of batteries, a russian team of scientists are producing a small nuclear reactor that can replace a mobile phone battery and apparently will supply the required power for 10 years!

ed
 
  • #55
"russian team of scientists are producing a small nuclear reactor that can replace a mobile phone battery and apparently will supply the required power for 10 years!"

got a link to that?
 
  • #56
I'd love to see a link to that, too. :rolleyes:
Maybe its a radio-isotope device ? Good idea - if we
already get brain damage from microwaves why not
add a few nutrons and gamma-waves while we're at it. :biggrin:
Terrorists will become greatest mobile battery consumers. :biggrin:
 
  • #57
This is the link for one recent development in nuclear power technology:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406

Also, another possibility would be a superconductor loop, however, I've only heard mention of those. I haven't been able to find any actual examples.
One more thing, fuel cell technology is advancing rapidly, and a technology that may not seem feasible as a power source today may prove usable within the next ten years.

Now, for an interesting MATERIAL to look at, go to this site:

http://www.liquidmetal.com

This would allow for an incredibly durable frame for any powered suit, as well as low friction joints. It may also open up a whole new breed of extremely resistant lightweight armor.

Generally it is unwise to declare something impossible or improbable because it does not exist today. Tomorrow is a possibility unknown to any man. Only God knows what wonders or horrors it holds.
 
  • #58
yeah, check out the thread i started a bit ago in the nuclear engineering forums. there's a little bit of talk about hafnium. it was in popular science. pretty neat.
 
  • #59
hey, I have an idea for the power system. How about a power plant that uses biological waste to power it. A piece of equipment as bulky as some have describe will be impossible to get out in time anyway, why fight it?
 
  • #60
umm...no way in hell will burning poo create enough power to move a heavy suit of armor, even if it wasn't yucky.
 
  • #61
Kojac, then what would you do if you had to go in the suit?
 
  • #62
I'd have gone beforehand, first off, and otherwise, i'd have a little door that opened over my bum so i could keep the suit clean.

on a more serious note... supposing we can't make a form-fitting battle suit, how small do you guys think it's possible to get a humanoid tank/mobile armor unit? think powered armor, but bigger...something you pilot with your movement rather then wear, something that is at least 2-3 times as tall as a man. how feasible would that be? (due to obvious advantages in mobility)
 
  • #63
kojac, you didn't answer the question. What would you do if you had to go while you were in the suit? Not before you got in.

I don't think that the suit is feasible today because it doesn't seem very agile nor fast. It would be a slowly moving target for RPG's, grenades, suicide vehicles, mines and anything else you can think of. I think it is wiser to invest in vehicles like the stryker and abrams.
 
  • #64
oh...haven't looked here in a while. they'd deal with it like they do in a spacesuit. AND the point is to make it faster then a normal human, and more heavily armored. think...amplifying strength, speed, and durability. we don't have a powersource we could mount on it that would drive it, at this point, unless we significantly increased the size. we might be able to rig up a reciever for wireless electricity. that, however, would require quite a large field generator.
 
  • #65
Hello all, this is my first post on the forum. I found this thread by a Google search, and the topic is of particular interest to me. I've been pursuing the idea since about 4th grade or so, and I read Heinlein's most excellent book Starship Troopers in 6th grade which gave me more encouragement.

I'm completing a senior design project for my BS in mechanical engineering right now that deals with this very subject, and while the project in itself is cursory, I believe believe it is very realistic to implement this concept as a whole in the not-so-far future.

I was impressed by BLEEX (Berkeley Lower Extremety EXoskeleton), but I think it misses the point on many levels and is more cumbersome than necessary. I suppose I shouldn't knock their efforts if I haven't yet duplicated or bettered them -- it is impressive nonetheless.

-Chris Wood
 
  • #66
Welcome to the Forums, Chris! Always good to see a for-real engineering major join in the discussion.
 
  • #67
LURCH said:
Welcome to the Forums, Chris! Always good to see a for-real engineering major join in the discussion.
Thanks man! I find my total undergraduate knowledge to be a bit dissapointing at times, and I really wish I made it through a different program, but I guess you could say that I woke up late. :frown:

What I lack in outright knowledge I make up for in engineering instinct (read: "common sense" analysis), but anyhow...


Yeah, this is probably one of my favorite topics; I strongly believe powered armor to be more feasible than the less optimistic of us have suggested. Having extensive experience with reciprocating powerplants of very high specific outputs, I believe that a chemical (gasoline, kerosene, diesel, alcohol, etc) power supply is the most effective for such a frame. My design is pneumatic, and certainly much could be achieved BEFORE focusing on portable power, but I strongly believe that a 50-100cc reciprocating engine or a small turbine would be more than adequate with the right system.

By far the BIGGEST obstacle is nailing down a lightweight, robust anthropomorphic design with solid mounting points and space for the power hardware. Secondly, ironing the kinks out of a control system is very important -- I got around the complexity issue by using a direct, mechanical "bang-bang" control system with simple valves instead of electronic pressure sensors and electronic hardware to sort out the responses.

I sincerely believe the power source to be a small part of the total engineering solution.

Incidentally, if there are other engineers (or interested parties) in MA or the general New England area, I wouldn't mind getting together for a chat sometime. :smile:

Thanks,
-Chris

P.S. I think the last thing I needed was to join another VBB forum to chat and speculate about technology. :-p

I'm also on a 3000GT/Stealth board with nearly 5,000 technical posts. :eek:
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Wouldn't the greatest difficulties for an effective system of this type
be the sensors and software, and the materials (light, strong) ?
The mechanical structure seems like a lesser problem
that can be solved if the above are dealt with.
I'm not sure that such a small engine would do, but partially
it depends on what you want to do, of course.
Also, there's the service life issue.
 
  • #69
drag said:
Wouldn't the greatest difficulties for an effective system of this type
be the sensors and software, and the materials (light, strong) ?
The mechanical structure seems like a lesser problem
that can be solved if the above are dealt with.
I'm not sure that such a small engine would do, but partially
it depends on what you want to do, of course.
Also, there's the service life issue.
Difficult, yes -- but much of that would be trial-and-error sensitivity adjustment. Moving to an electronic system would likely even improve the ease of tuning (once a basic system is functioning).

Most important, IMO, is the frame and joint design by which each axis is isolated to one pure motion to prevent compound/complex motion and simplify the control scheme. It IS the obstacle to clear before the control system can even really be considered, since no one has a successful total-frame design yet.

As for the engine, consider the supply needs of such a system if it were to be pneumatic... UNDER 200psi would do nicely, and perhaps 10scfm of air. That could be accomplished with around 10hp -- no problem for a well-tuned 50cc reciprocating engine, and could be made very compact to boot.

-Chris
 
  • #70
O.K. So what Kind of features would such a system have ?
I assume you could lift very heavy weights, though controlling
your center of weight during such an act would probably be quite
difficult. Running & jumping a lot better (if them soft problems are
solved too). Breaking things. What else ?
 

Similar threads

What would a design prototype research paper look like?
Replies
8
Views
2K
How Do You Calculate Pressure and Flow for an Air Float Conveyor?
Replies
3
Views
952
C/C++ Why overload prototype statement works in .h file but not in main file
Replies
2
Views
1K
How to calculate forces involved in a small fall
Replies
26
Views
2K
Motion transmission through a mechatronical wrist
Replies
11
Views
2K
Finding the Right Weight Sensor for a Color-Changing Coaster Prototype
Replies
8
Views
2K
Could a Reverse Uni-Flow Engine Revolutionize the Automotive Industry?
Replies
4
Views
5K
Minimizing the friction of the end of a lever against the top of a moving piston
Replies
21
Views
2K
Construction Inventor wanting to start prototyping
Replies
11
Views
2K
Looking for simple mechanisim to shift wing camber
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top