<div class="IPBDescription">Google only gives stupid StarTrek links</div> Does anyone know how ablative armor (eg. on modern tanks) works? [besides it being an extra layer of armor that takes the damage instead of the hull]
Reactive armor consists of boxes attached to the exterior of the tank. Each box contains a explosive charge sandwiched between steel plates. Impervious to small arms fire and artillery fragments the charge detonates on contact with a shaped charge warhead. The explosion blows the plates apart disrupting the warheads plasma jet, rendering the round ineffective. Reactive armor can increase the effectiveness of conventional armor up to 5 times but it has it's drawbacks. Once a panel blows it leaves that spot vulnerable to future attacks and it is not effective against KE rounds. Some modern warheads, such as the newer TOW missiles, are designed to defeat this type of armor. They use dual tandem warheads one detonating a split second after the other. The first detonates the reactive armor and the second attacks the conventional armor left naked underneath.
Spaced Armor Spaced armor consists of armor containing hollow areas. Upon being hit by a HEAT warhead the plasma jet burns through the first layer and splashes inside the hollow space without penetrating the inner layer. Spacing armor does not add protection against KE rounds.
Composite Armor Although the exact composition of most composite armor is classified, it is basically a sandwich of steel and depleated uranium plates, ceramics, and plastic honeycomb. The British developed Chobham armor used in the M1 series, the German Leopard 2, and the British Challenger, is the most advanced composite in production.
Anti-Spall Liners Although anti-spall liners are not armor in the traditional sense, they provide protection for the crew and deserve mention here. When a round impacts the outside of the vehicle, wether or not it fails to penetrate, it can fracture the inner armor causing flakes to break off and bounce around the interior at high speed. This is known as spalling and can have a detrimental effect on the crew and delicate components inside, to say the least. Anti-spall liners are basically a kevlar or ballistic nylon liner inside the turret to prevent this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What with the attempts to make synthetic diamonds lately, I wonder if we'll even see diamond plating or diamond-tipped munitions? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
we already have depleted uranium. Diamond tips or coatings might make for a smoother entry but we'll only see it if synthetic diamonds are extremely cheap to make.
They're more likely to be used for their optical properties, especially if they can be made without internal flaws.
<!--QuoteBegin-Amped!+Mar 23 2005, 04:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Amped! @ Mar 23 2005, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What with the attempts to make synthetic diamonds lately, I wonder if we'll even see diamond plating or diamond-tipped munitions? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they using nanotech production methods to produce materials harder than diamond nowadays? Like carbon nanotuubes?
Yeah. IIRC, Kevlar pretty much works like a net, catching bullets instead of having them bounce off.
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-Surge+Mar 23 2005, 08:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Surge @ Mar 23 2005, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah. IIRC, Kevlar pretty much works like a net, catching bullets instead of having them bounce off.
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny that, I watched a video on it, with a DeBeers rep saying "Man, we don't think these diamonds are going to hurt us at all. I mean, what do people want, a precious stone that's millions of years old, or something that came out of an oven last week?"
What he should have said is "What do people want, a piece of rock you'll pay a rediculous ammount for that was mined for slave wages, or a chemically-identical product that will cost you a whole lot less?"
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 23 2005, 09:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 23 2005, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Surge+Mar 23 2005, 08:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Surge @ Mar 23 2005, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah. IIRC, Kevlar pretty much works like a net, catching bullets instead of having them bounce off.
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny that, I watched a video on it, with a DeBeers rep saying "Man, we don't think these diamonds are going to hurt us at all. I mean, what do people want, a precious stone that's millions of years old, or something that came out of an oven last week?"
What he should have said is "What do people want, a piece of rock you'll pay a rediculous ammount for that was mined for slave wages, or a chemically-identical product that will cost you a whole lot less?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I honestly still dont get why you would want one in the fist place, pointless, expensive.
Ablative Armor can be classified, in essence, as any armor that "shears, burns, breaks, detonates, falls, or otherwise detatches from the main vehicle in such a way that it shields it from oncoming attack*
TRUE Ablative Armor, however, as seen on Star Trek, is designed to, as WikPedia said, undergo a chemical/thermal change, rendering the oncoming particle emission relatively harmless.
<!--QuoteBegin-semipsychotic+Mar 23 2005, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (semipsychotic @ Mar 23 2005, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> O/T: Hence the fact that you often see swords and various other bladed weapons/armors shattering upon impact from another; usually in medieval movies where through some idiot move on the heros' part or the incredable power of evil the weapon (almost always a sword) shatters into several peices. Also only repairable by magic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Back on topic, the only real problem with ablative armor is that once it's gone under it's chemical change, it becomes totally useless; thus rendering the area it once protected completely and totally vulnerable. (read: reactive armor) Make it as cheap as you want, it will always get used-up when shot at.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In ablative technology, the surface of the heat shield melts and vaporizes, and in the process, it carries away heat. This is the technology that protected the Apollo spacecraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Maveric+Mar 24 2005, 03:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maveric @ Mar 24 2005, 03:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-semipsychotic+Mar 23 2005, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (semipsychotic @ Mar 23 2005, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> O/T: Hence the fact that you often see swords and various other bladed weapons/armors shattering upon impact from another; usually in medieval movies where through some idiot move on the heros' part or the incredable power of evil the weapon (almost always a sword) shatters into several peices. Also only repairable by magic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Back on topic, the only real problem with ablative armor is that once it's gone under it's chemical change, it becomes totally useless; thus rendering the area it once protected completely and totally vulnerable. (read: reactive armor) Make it as cheap as you want, it will always get used-up when shot at. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Does that apply to dimonds though? They are pretty frigging hard, but I have never heard of any type of dimond being shattered.
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1: it's still a question of expense. 2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Mar 24 2005, 11:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Mar 24 2005, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1: it's still a question of expense. 2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What would the weight be like?
I think if you really set up a chainmail like structure the energy absorbed would transform the material, leaving it hard and breakable for the next hit on that position <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And about that diamond thingy: Where does the absorbed energy go to when not into deformation of the material? Only heat? Then you could use diamonds as power plants <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
actually, diamonds do "shatter" - it is more of a "breaking along crystal lines". Lets put it this way - it may be the hardest mineral known to man, but if you hit it with a hammer at the right spot, you can still break it apart.
Synthetic diamonds ftw - I'll never buy a debours diamond agian.
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Mar 24 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Mar 24 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Mar 23 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1: it's still a question of expense. 2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In space above and beyond the Chigs body armour was made of something like that. It was quoted as being made of " microscopic carbon tubes that had been spun together in a highly complex way"
I know that there are researchers that are trying to use spider webs in a chain-mail mech form since its strong than kevlar. I saw this on the History Channel.
<!--QuoteBegin-GundamCL+Mar 24 2005, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GundamCL @ Mar 24 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know that there are researchers that are trying to use spider webs in a chain-mail mech form since its strong than kevlar. I saw this on the History Channel.
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been suggested that a pencil thick strand of silk could stop a Boeing 747 in flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
------------------- Let me just say that I have always and will continue to hate DeBeers. What they do is wrong.
------------------- On another note, this has turned into a really interesting thread. That wired article was an awesome read. Especially when he breaks out that Apollo Diamond. "Oh yeah, they're for real." Eat that, DeBeers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 24 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 24 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-GundamCL+Mar 24 2005, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GundamCL @ Mar 24 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know that there are researchers that are trying to use spider webs in a chain-mail mech form since its strong than kevlar. I saw this on the History Channel.
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been suggested that a pencil thick strand of silk could stop a Boeing 747 in flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
------------------- Let me just say that I have always and will continue to hate DeBeers. What they do is wrong.
------------------- On another note, this has turned into a really interesting thread. That wired article was an awesome read. Especially when he breaks out that Apollo Diamond. "Oh yeah, they're for real." Eat that, DeBeers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
But ablative materials exist.
Effectively what happens is they burn off taking the heat with them. A few sections of the shuttle's heat reduction system for reentry are ablative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reactive Armor
Reactive armor consists of boxes attached to the exterior of the tank. Each box contains a explosive charge sandwiched between steel plates. Impervious to small arms fire and artillery fragments the charge detonates on contact with a shaped charge warhead. The explosion blows the plates apart disrupting the warheads plasma jet, rendering the round ineffective. Reactive armor can increase the effectiveness of conventional armor up to 5 times but it has it's drawbacks. Once a panel blows it leaves that spot vulnerable to future attacks and it is not effective against KE rounds. Some modern warheads, such as the newer TOW missiles, are designed to defeat this type of armor. They use dual tandem warheads one detonating a split second after the other. The first detonates the reactive armor and the second attacks the conventional armor left naked underneath.
Spaced Armor
Spaced armor consists of armor containing hollow areas. Upon being hit by a HEAT warhead the plasma jet burns through the first layer and splashes inside the hollow space without penetrating the inner layer. Spacing armor does not add protection against KE rounds.
Composite Armor
Although the exact composition of most composite armor is classified, it is basically a sandwich of steel and depleated uranium plates, ceramics, and plastic honeycomb. The British developed Chobham armor used in the M1 series, the German Leopard 2, and the British Challenger, is the most advanced composite in production.
Anti-Spall Liners
Although anti-spall liners are not armor in the traditional sense, they provide protection for the crew and deserve mention here. When a round impacts the outside of the vehicle, wether or not it fails to penetrate, it can fracture the inner armor causing flakes to break off and bounce around the interior at high speed. This is known as spalling and can have a detrimental effect on the crew and delicate components inside, to say the least. Anti-spall liners are basically a kevlar or ballistic nylon liner inside the turret to prevent this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're more likely to be used for their optical properties, especially if they can be made without internal flaws.
<a href='http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.html' target='_blank'>http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/scarce.html</a>
<a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html</a>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they using nanotech production methods to produce materials harder than diamond nowadays? Like carbon nanotuubes?
2: harder is not necessarily stronger.
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly.
I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem.
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that, I watched a video on it, with a DeBeers rep saying "Man, we don't think these diamonds are going to hurt us at all. I mean, what do people want, a precious stone that's millions of years old, or something that came out of an oven last week?"
What he should have said is "What do people want, a piece of rock you'll pay a rediculous ammount for that was mined for slave wages, or a chemically-identical product that will cost you a whole lot less?"
I remember watching a segment on the Learning Channel about synthetic diamonds. They would be in large production if it weren't for DeBiers (sic) and their damned monopoly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that, I watched a video on it, with a DeBeers rep saying "Man, we don't think these diamonds are going to hurt us at all. I mean, what do people want, a precious stone that's millions of years old, or something that came out of an oven last week?"
What he should have said is "What do people want, a piece of rock you'll pay a rediculous ammount for that was mined for slave wages, or a chemically-identical product that will cost you a whole lot less?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly still dont get why you would want one in the fist place, pointless, expensive.
"Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
TRUE Ablative Armor, however, as seen on Star Trek, is designed to, as WikPedia said, undergo a chemical/thermal change, rendering the oncoming particle emission relatively harmless.
I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
O/T: Hence the fact that you often see swords and various other bladed weapons/armors shattering upon impact from another; usually in medieval movies where through some idiot move on the heros' part or the incredable power of evil the weapon (almost always a sword) shatters into several peices. Also only repairable by magic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Back on topic, the only real problem with ablative armor is that once it's gone under it's chemical change, it becomes totally useless; thus rendering the area it once protected completely and totally vulnerable. (read: reactive armor) Make it as cheap as you want, it will always get used-up when shot at.
<a href='http://science.howstuffworks.com/question308.htm' target='_blank'>http://science.howstuffworks.com/question308.htm</a>
I want to emphasize this. Harder materials are often not flexible enough to keep from shattering when forced against other hard materials. Swords that aren't tempered or folded properly often have this problem. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O/T: Hence the fact that you often see swords and various other bladed weapons/armors shattering upon impact from another; usually in medieval movies where through some idiot move on the heros' part or the incredable power of evil the weapon (almost always a sword) shatters into several peices. Also only repairable by magic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Back on topic, the only real problem with ablative armor is that once it's gone under it's chemical change, it becomes totally useless; thus rendering the area it once protected completely and totally vulnerable. (read: reactive armor) Make it as cheap as you want, it will always get used-up when shot at. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that apply to dimonds though? They are pretty frigging hard, but I have never heard of any type of dimond being shattered.
2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible.
2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would the weight be like?
And about that diamond thingy: Where does the absorbed energy go to when not into deformation of the material? Only heat? Then you could use diamonds as power plants <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Synthetic diamonds ftw - I'll never buy a debours diamond agian.
2: harder is not necessarily stronger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, but it was his idea to use diamond, so I was just suggesting a harder material. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wonder if a microscopic chain-mail like mesh of carbon nanotubes would offer more protection than kevlar? Harder and flexible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In space above and beyond the Chigs body armour was made of something like that. It was quoted as being made of " microscopic carbon tubes that had been spun together in a highly complex way"
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been suggested that a pencil thick strand of silk could stop a Boeing 747 in flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-------------------
Let me just say that I have always and will continue to hate DeBeers. What they do is wrong.
-------------------
On another note, this has turned into a really interesting thread. That wired article was an awesome read. Especially when he breaks out that Apollo Diamond. "Oh yeah, they're for real." Eat that, DeBeers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spindraad.htm</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been suggested that a pencil thick strand of silk could stop a Boeing 747 in flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
-------------------
Let me just say that I have always and will continue to hate DeBeers. What they do is wrong.
-------------------
On another note, this has turned into a really interesting thread. That wired article was an awesome read. Especially when he breaks out that Apollo Diamond. "Oh yeah, they're for real." Eat that, DeBeers. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->