- About time! (5 points, Informative) by sackvillian on Tuesday February 09, @09:50AM attached to Call For Scientific Research Code To Be Released
- Re:Be careful using the P2V tool. (5 points, Informative) by klocwerk on Tuesday February 09, @03:41PM attached to The Hidden Treasures of Sysinternals
- W.A.G. (5 points, Insightful) by ipb on Tuesday February 09, @01:17PM attached to How Do You Accurately Estimate Programming Time?
- Re:Surprise (5 points, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, @04:38PM attached to Microsoft Says Windows 7 Not Killing Batteries
- No problem (5 points, Insightful) by rastoboy29 on Wednesday February 10, @05:27AM attached to Appeals Court Rules On Internet Obscenity Standards
Hot Comments
7108340
story
Comments: 388 +- Idle: Bomb-Proof Wallpaper Developed on Thursday November 19, @01:31AM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday November 19, @01:31AM
from the radiation-shielding-curtains dept.
from the radiation-shielding-curtains dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/firehose/007/108/342-1-thumb.png); width:130px; height:97px;
idle
MikeChino writes "Working in partnership with the US Army Corp of Engineers, Berry Plastics has rolled out a new breed of bomb-proof wallpaper. Dubbed the X-Flex Blast Protection System, the wallpaper is so effective that a single layer can keep a wrecking ball from smashing through a brick wall, and a double layer can stop blunt objects (i.e. a flying 2×4) from knocking down drywall. According to its designers, covering an entire room takes less than an hour."
Related Stories
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
That's cool! (Score:5, Funny)
But will it blend?
Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like this would be a best seller in tornado alley.
Re:Go big or lose your wall (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on guys - it's physics.
This material is great in tension - that's it. If you 'bend' a material, the surface closest the the force goes into compression, and the surface away from the force goes into tension. How do you strengthen a wall? Increase the compressive strength of the surface closest outside, or increase the tensile strength of the surface on the inside. Put this stuff on the inside, smack the outside with a wreaking ball, and whatdoyouknow - the wall stands up.
I'm not saying that this isn't cool, but it's not unique - thinking composite materials here. Laminated glass does this kind of thing easily for example, when using the right kinds of laminates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The videos clearly show that it isn't useful for keeping structure intact.
I disagree. The videos show me that the main failure mode of masonry walls is by 'folding' when the joins between blocks separate. This sheeting is very strong in tension, apparently, and prevents the block joints from opening to the point of causing the wall to tumble. I assume the results from a bomb overpressure wave would be similar to those from the wrecking ball.
Didn't they feature a similar experiment of one of those "Mythbuste
Re:Idle? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the editors are trying to scam you into thinking Idle isn't the craphole it really is.
Re:Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because it was a nearly content-free "article" that had a short video clip of some shit getting smashed. Not complaining. It's a huge improvement for "idle"... but there it is.
However, I seriously doubt that this material would actually protect a house from much. The impact from the wrecking ball broke the brick, and the "paper" held it together. But what happens when you put a roof on, and you set up the bomb? First, your doors and windows are still just as fragile... and if the impact is as strong as the wrecking ball, the entire front of the house loses structural integrity, and caves in. Suddenly, the roof doesn't have enough support, so down it comes on your head.
Re:Idle? AYB. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's obvious and it was explained all over the internet, several years ago.You have no chance to survive. Make your time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All your wallpaper are belong to us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet, the armoured wallpaper makes it impossible for rescuers to dig you out, or air to get in.
Re:missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
So exactly where on earth can you live where none of the following occur:
Re:Idle? (Score:4, Insightful)
how flexible is it? (Score:4, Funny)
i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kevlar (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like it's just self-stick Kevlar. So it's going to be hideously expensive. However, maybe the Army overpaying for it will help them find advanced production methods to cut costs and benefit us in the long run. But then what? Possible uses: line car gas/hydrogen tanks with it. But aside from that and protecting masonry walls from disintegrating in an explosion, I can't see any practical use. As a commenter on the article site said, what if this is a load bearing wall? Looks like it would just fold up and take the building with it. Great, no shrapnel, I get it. But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, I don't see it happening before a nanotech alternative that's self-healing and much better at linear support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, ...
Then they'll just make bigger bombs. If Greek and Roman armies never used leather and chain mail armor, people would still (?) be robbing liquor stores with bows and arrows.
Re:Kevlar (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the other thing, that's the whole idea: better armor makes them develop bigger bombs. That is a back-and-forth that has been going on for centuries.
Re:Kevlar (Score:5, Informative)
Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.
Actually it wasn't. Plate armor was widely used in Europe after the Battle of Agincourt in 1415; arguably it gained in popularity.
It was very difficult to pierce plate with a longbow. The English victory at Agincourt is more due to the terrain than anything else; arguably plalte became even more popular after Agincourt, precisely because it offered reasonable protection against arrows. (Protecting horses etc. was another matter.) The crossbow did a much better job against plate armor. It delivered more kinetic energy, and it took much less time to train a crossbowman than a longbowman. Firearms did the rest in the 15th and 16 century. The single most driving factor, however, was cost - plate armor was too expensive to make and maintain, and if you can hire a whole squad of Landsknechts (arquebusiers, what have you) for the same money it takes to have plate armor made for yourself, the arquebusiers win. At that point, however, longbows had already been obsolete for more than a century.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Interesting)
So some groups started attaching plates to their mail in front, in order to better deflect the arrows. (And other blows: they then realized that plates tended to spread the impact of other weapons as well, minimizing injury.) Plates worked so well that a few groups got the idea that covering the whole body in plates would make the ultimate warrior. And indeed, from s defensive standpoint, plate armor withstood sword blows and thrusts and also arrows much better than any of the older stuff did.
Henceforth, the elite classes would wear plate armor, and the lower classes would use mail or leather or lesser forms of armor. But the only time when mail and plate were commonly used together (i.e., large quantities of both plate and mail), was in that earlier, intermediate period when plates were added to mail as an add-on, as it were.
This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well.
Amazing what can be done with some bent pieces of wood.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
This, also, is misleading. Some of the most spectacular remaining samples and artwork of armor are plate, but are for _jousting_. Like modern bomb-proof armor, what is worn for such a specialized use is far bulkier, more expensive, and heavier than actual combat armor. And even the best plate was often supplemented at joints such as knees and elbows and hands, with chain where making joints out of plate would be too awkward or expensive.
Also, the better plate of the Middle ages was certainly capable of stopping the ordinary "clothyard shaft" of the longbow. The tips of the clothyard shaft were typically rather soft, inexpensive steel: it _flattens_, bends, and glances off with even a quite direct hit on a good quality breast plate or helmet. (Yes, I've seen this tried.)
It is misleading to say "the bow and arrow drove the change" when the bow and arrow predate civilizaiton: plate armor does not. Other factors include the introduction of the _inexpensive_ long bow: the price of a single armored knight was easily undercut by the price of 20 farm boys with bows, and they could produce an arrow storm that would not only kill the knight's less armored steed, but was likely to put clothyard shafts in his joints. Couple that with a muddy field where a knight's boots and heavy armor will bog down, such as occurred at Agincourt, and the yeomen with daggers could easily beat the French knights to death, force their visors into the mud to drown, and shove daggers into their eye slits.
The concept of "plate" long predates the middle ages, remember: even the Greeks and wealthiest Egyptins had breast plates or bronze, quite effective against the weapons of their time. Their efforts were limited by weight and the strength of the metal, but it was certainly the ancestor of "plate".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"
This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well."
Uh, no. If anything, the price of plate mail, combined with gunpowder, made it obsolete. At Agincourt, the longbow shots were used to bog down the French knights in plate mail (and to score the occasional hit through an eye slit a
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that simple, different arrow heads were effective against different armour types, this is why sometimes chain was worn with plate.
Arrows with thin, pointed heads (bodkin arrows) were more effective against chain mail armour because they could pierce between the links and split them much more effectively than wide edged broadhead arrows could.
In contrast, bodkins weren't terribly effective against plate - not so much because of the shape, but because they were rarely hardened. Whilst hardened broadheads fired from longbows could penetrate plante they were far from the death's knell of plate, hence why the Spanish conquistadors in South America were plenty happy to use it still despite the natives being extremely skilled archers having indepently created longbows.
The real death's knell for plate was the spread of firearms, something the native people of South America did not generally have (they had looted weapons and such but not widespread) as a weapon to fight back against the conquistadors.
Even certain silk armour was popular in some parts of the world, because it didn't tear when hit by a broadhead and so the silk could be used to remove the head preventing infection from the arrow head. It would sometimes be used under chain, plate or both.
Really, it's just not as simple as longbow beats plate, the only weapon to successfully have a long reign against pretty much all types of personal body armour has been the firearm until the invention of kevlar.
Re:Kevlar (Score:4, Informative)
While I am not "calling bullshit", as it were, I find the story of the silk armor to be a bit incredible. I am pretty familiar with silk and its properties. I am not saying it was not popular, or that there were not stories, but I seriously question the effectiveness of any quantity of silk that anyone but a "noble born" could afford, as armor.
What I can say with authority, however, is that kevlar, by itself, is not and has never been particularly effective against "firearms" in general. It can prevent the penetration of certain handgun rounds, but by no means all, and still allows considerable damage to the wearer. For the most part kevlar vests were worn by law enforcement and the military to reduce damage, not prevent it. Even for the handgun calibers that kevlar would normally stop, pointy jacketed and/or hardened slugs can still penetrate kevlar like butter. Even relatively low-power rifles will punch straight through a kevlar vest.
However, the combination of kevlar and high-tech ceramics ("Dragon Skin" is probably the best example) can withstand a hit from a relatively high-powered rifle, and with relatively little damage to the wearer. Especially if some of the newer aramid-type fibers are used instead of kevlar. But those developments are VERY recent... no more than a few years.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's one of those "Yes, but..." things. It has to be taken in context. Yes, plate armor was vulnerable to "denting" weapons. If your armor was crushed around you, you could be disabled even if you were not particularly injured.
But that has to be compared to the protection that mail armor offered against crushing weapons... which was virtually none. Your armor would not be crushed around you, you would just be crushed instead. So
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also: The best way to defeat a well armored foe was not an impact weapon - felt and padding under the maille and plate stopped most of the damage - but stuff like http://www.crazywolffarms.com/images/pollaxe_1_.jpg [crazywolffarms.com] that bad boy
Re:Felt (Score:5, Informative)
Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Interesting)
If this can stop projectiles from penetrating the wall, then think about the protection it could offer from tornados and hurricanes. Obviously not a direct hit, since there'd be far more structural damage, but how much of that damage caused by flying debris could be mitigated. At the very least, the protection it could offer for occupants.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Informative)
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:5, Insightful)
What raises the roof is simply the shape of the roof. It causes lift that pulls it off the house. (Yes, that is a pressure differential, but not in the sense most people mean.) It is not interior pressure blowing the roof off, nor massive negative pressure outside "sucking" the roof off. It is simple aerodynamic lift.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Informative)
This seems to be a common misconception, probably due to it being taught badly in schools. Taking an aeroplane as a specific example since this is the most common example of lift. You will find that the Bernoulli effect (the lift generated by a pressure difference above and below the wing) is not the main reason why planes fly (although the effect does exist, it is just not a large enough force to keep a plane up).
What demonstrate this most clearly are symmetrical winged aeroplanes which are things like stunt planes which often fly upside down. It should be evident from the fact the wing is symmetrical that the common explanation of lower pressure above because air goes around a curve making it go faster has zero effect here.
If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.
I have not read anything about how houses are affected but I would imagine it would be a similar effect with the roof deflecting air causing a force.
Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (Score:4, Interesting)
For one thing, hard-science experiments and calculations involving the Bernoulli effect over curved surfaces were what allowed the Wright brothers to be the first in powered flight. This is firmly established in history.
On the other hand, what you say is true, in that symmetrical wing plans can still achieve lift. However (as you point out) not when completely horizontal to the airflow.
So on the other, other hand, there is still measurable Bernoulli effect over a symmetrical wing, at any significant angle of attack.
I am not disagreeing with you, simply saying that as far as I know, this is not a decided issue. Yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is an issue that has been much debated, and to the best of my knowledge not yet firmly decided.
No, it is not an issue that has been debated. The practical aerodynamics of airfoils is very well settled.
If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.
1) This has little to do with the Coanda effect. 2) While there is momentum imparted onto the lower surface of a wing at a positive angle of attack, pressure distributions along the surfaces dominate the behavior of the airfoil. Air is slowing down when it follows the lower surface of a flat plate, and speeds up along the top, which gives (gasp) a pressure differential.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.
You would think that wikipedia would agree with your assessment if you were correct, but no, no they don't. Have a read. [wikipedia.org]
Wallpaper anchored in demo (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it certainly looks interesting, but in the video the wallpaper was anchored very securely at the top and bottom of the test wall. I'd like to see how it does with only the sticky backing of the product itself keeping it on the wall.
Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is relatively old tech. 3M has been making a window film that's bomb proof for years. The problem is that the the window frame and the surrounding structure has to be able to take the load when the film is anchored to the frame.
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/WF/3MWindowFilms/Solutions/Government/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECFTDQGG44_nid=R14R9R3CBCbeT4DCJBL6BVgl [3m.com]
Heck, two layers of ordinary mylar film stuck to a window are "bomb proof" - as long as you anchor them to something.
As for the commen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
New department for demolitions firms (Score:5, Funny)
I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?
Discovery channel beat them to it. (Score:5, Informative)
Rhino liner works great [rhinolinin...strial.com]
Ask Larry Niven... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe in the next movie, Superman (or "LL") could put in an order for condoms made out of this material. After all, it would certainly solve a lot of problems [rawbw.com].
Might not punch through, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
... you don't have to punch through a wall to otherwise destroy it. Even if this stuff stops a wrecking ball from breaking through a brick wall, can you imagine what kind of a shattered mess it will be in after force of the impact? It will still have be rebuilt from the ground up. The video in TFA demonstrates that: if that block wall had been a load-bearing wall, whatever big weight it was supporting would probably still come crashing down.
Fire fighter survival.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Embed in concrete (Score:5, Insightful)
How about embedding kevlar-web in concrete? As a building technique generally. Earthquake resistance?
Demonstration very misleading... (Score:4, Insightful)
Observe that the material is not actually fastened to the wall, rather is is anchored to the top of the wall and the bottom of the wall (look at the piece of angle iron in the demo)
This angle iron also distributes the force across the material, without it, it would just rip out where it was anchored, such as if just screws were used to attach it. I would bet that that piece of angle iron is pretty well tightened...
If it were truly fastened as wallpaper, then it may prevent the wall from shattering, however the wall would still collapse where the material stopped unless anchored (as in the demo). Hence, instead of pieces of a wall falling on you, the entire wall would just fall on you, probably killing you...
And yes, the rest of the structure would still collapse on you as well.
This is probably an advance, however it probably would require new structural building techniques, as well as additional steel anchors/angle iron for it to be truly effective. Not something joe public could ever afford, but I am sure governments could "find" the money.....