Shock kills and without mass it can't stop shock.
Shock kills and without mass it can't stop shock.
not really sure of the specs on this graphine, but I would bet a M82 Barrett firing .50 BMG-DU cartridges, even if they didn't penetrate, would really eff-up your (or more likely the poor sap you got to wear this suit's) whole week. At the very least, I am sure it would knock you right on your *** & disorient the hell out of you... to say nothing of possible concussions.
aside from that, I would be interested in what a .45 with a 1oz mercury charge would do. I'm sure it wouldn't penetrate if this material is half of what it has been made out to be, but the repeated concussive force of said bullets popping all over would certainly have whoever was in the suit about beat to death in no time.
Last edited by zemaj; 05-10-2011 at 03:52. Reason: grammar & spelling
2) The only reason steel is so durable is because it has a lot of toughness and ductility; it takes a lot of energy to cause steel to flow below its melting point. This energy comes from the bullet, which eventually stops the bullet. The energy goes into the steel causing layers of steel atoms to move over and around each other.
Graphene, on the other hand, is brittle because of the nature of its atomic bonds. Yes, it's extremely strong, far stronger than any other manufactured material, but it will readily fracture if its tensile stress is achieved in the plane of the graphene, absorbing very little energy in the process. Graphene also has almost no inter-layer strength because the bonding between layers is very weak. This means layers will freely slide over one another and provide no resistance. Thus you'd also need something to keep multiple layers together, and you would need millions of layers to even get a paper-thin armor, none of which would be stuck to the others (talk about a paper-cut!)
To use graphene as a kinetic energy absorbing barrier, it would need to be used to reinforce something that has a lot of ductility and toughness and that can hold layers together, like a thermoplastic polymer. I'd think something like polyester film would do very well. What you'd do is layer the graphene with some polyester between each layer, and fully encase each layer in the polyester. Each layer would have lots of small holes in it to allow the polyester to join together between layers of graphene. The holes, of course, would be offset between layers. You'd stop full "plug" type penetration because the load would be totally transferred to the graphene, which won't tear due to its incredible strength. Furthermore, the layers won't slide freely (and thus won't expose the holes) because any sliding would have to cause shear flow in a huge area of polyester, which would absorb a lot of energy. Instead the bullet would deform the sheet. Unfortunately because it's a thin film, it would deform significantly because, although graphene's bending modulus is enormous, the sheet is so thin its global stiffness is miniscule. This would probably cause the user to suffer tissue damage and shock through the armor from significant kinetic impacts.
Granted the polyester would easily melt at about 500 F, but maybe it can just be used to limit shrapnel damage from bombs. As noted above, you aren't stopping a bullet's killing power with personal armor.
As an aside: you definitely can't use graphene to directly reinforce metals, because there is the problem of galvanic corrosion. Both materials would eventually corrode, leaving the parts useless. You could coat the graphene in another substance before using it, but that is going to add some serious cost and reduce the number of layers you can use in the same thickness of armor.
In short: sorry to burst your bubble but I don't see this being a miraculous new material for armor. I do, however, see it being used to great effect in heatsinks, computer chips and similar devices sometime down the line thanks to its great thermal and electrical conductivities.
Edit: There it is! http://defense-update.com/newscast/0...08_railgun.htm
That's what I meant (different numbers) when I mentioned (1) above. That isn't an explosion from a chemical agent behind the shell. It's not a rocket. It's traveling so fast and creating so much frictional energy with the air it is igniting the atmosphere behind it. Whether they'll actually get it working without destroying the barrel every time? Probably not.
Last edited by starrise; 05-10-2011 at 03:37.
I Love RailgUns
They need to be fired in Space and all the problems go away.
in atmosphere tests are silly - fire one from orbit.
For your armor well:
Last edited by BobCox2; 05-10-2011 at 08:32.
I hate you guys -__-;
Nice "fog-thrower" bob.
The Internetz ate my previous response. It was such a pretty response, too...
However, your vision of full jousting plate for the infantry will simply never happen. Medieval knights did not require visual capability of the sort needed today, nor were they expected or even capable of rising from the ground to make a 3-5 second rush. Even for the risible USSR 'human wave' tactic, wherein the soldiers simply run in the general direction of the enemy spraying their weapons on full auto, the ability to both run and to fit into an APC for transport to the battlefield requires that they have far greater flexibility than plate armor allows.
Just for giggles, here's some 'true' images:
You can see in both cases that the areas covered by 'plate' are certainly not large swaths. What is more important (and interesting as well) are both the joke about the new 'bulletproof underwear'already in service, and the potential of 'liquid armor'. In both cases these are specifically designed to prevent the damage from fragmentation I'm referring to.
Alright, basically it boils down to: materials have a limit on strength and energy absorption. C-C bonds is the upper limit on material strength (something like 1.5 terapascals) and a material can only absorb as much energy as it takes to vaporize the material. So while you can add arbitrary energy to a target by shooting at it, the material that makes up the target can only absorb a maximal amount.
Essentially: weapons will eventually completely outclass all materials (and they already do...if you can find me a material that can withstand ground zero of a nuclear device let me know, we can sell it and become rich!)
I basically agree with jmervyn, and would like to expand on his point: preventing loss of life is virtually impossible in modern warfare from bullets. We should be focusing on preventing brain (and reproductive organ) damage from things like bombs. You can't fix those if they're totally or partly destroyed. Reducing the number of TBI cases would be amazing!
huge fast moving boulder, it kills and not much can penetrate it without destroying it (antimaterial sniper rifles maybe can shoot thru it)