|
Author Topic:   Smart paint creates chameleon tanks
Random Chaos
Member
posted November 04, 2002 09:30 PM            
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2386731.stm
---------------------

Monday, 4 November, 2002, 08:38 GMT
Smart paint creates chameleon tanks

Tanks that can repair themselves and change colour on the battlefield are being developed in the US.

A team of researchers based at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, along with the US Army's Armament Research and Development Center are working on the smart machines.

Military vehicles including tanks, trucks helicopters and weapon systems will be covered with a coating that has been embedded with nanotechnology.

The microscopic electromechanical machines - known as nanomachines - will send signals to Army personnel, alerting them if the coating is impaired.

Chameleon tanks

If tanks are corroded or scratched, the vehicles will be able to detect it and heal themselves.


The coatings could also reduce the sensitivity of explosives, making them safer for soldiers to handle.

Perhaps most importantly, tanks would turn chameleon, creating instant camouflage and making themselves virtually invisible on the battlefield.

"Smart coatings technology will make our armed forces more hi-tech and more effective," said New Jersey Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen.

The US army is keen on the idea of smart coatings because the paints used now are expensive and labour-intensive to apply.

Army leaders estimate that the cost of repairing vehicles' surfaces amounts to $10bn each year, $2b

IP:

Sage
Member
posted November 04, 2002 10:45 PM            
Haha, reminds me of Spider-Man 2099. Its amazing how much technology has progressed since WWI and WWII. From the invention of planes to machine that can heal themselves, pits pretty amazin. I'm still waiting on the attack of the clones though, haha not the movie.

Like the goverment makes clones to use in the military instead of "Origanal" people but the clones decide that they don't wanna ba the ones dying is these war (that they never started) so they fight against us in a rebellous sort of fashion and the attack of the clones begains, pretty interesting huh? Ya know, I bet people will outlaw Cloning one day for the misuse of modern science and the abusing of human life.


ITS A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!

IP:

=DNX= Matrix
Member
posted November 04, 2002 11:44 PM            
One clone would be unique, many would be "becomming a race" and making them do something they dont want to maybe seen as slavery by many, even if they are bread for the job. Using dna techniques and chemicals to make these clones "superhuman" could quite possibly bring about a situation where such treatments are not reversable, then what - how do you dispose of them once the job is done ? would you need to, would they come at you next - who knows - but one thing is certain, there are major issues attatched to cloning that need dealing with b4 we even go into the production stage... What about replicative fading for example...

IP:

Blue n Gold Sue
Member
posted November 05, 2002 01:19 AM            
Human cloning IS illegal (just in case you were concerned).
The aging of cells is a big issue. Remember Dolly, the cloned sheep? Even though she is a youngish sheep, her cells are old. That brings up the concern for cancers and such. Ever hear of the oncogene theory? It is thought that genes can replicate only a certain number of times and then problems begin. A cloned human would hit that mark and then big trouble would hit.

IP:

Blue n Gold Sue
Member
posted November 05, 2002 01:20 AM            
hehe, but I want one of those paint jobs for my car.

IP:

BamZipPow
Member
posted November 05, 2002 01:37 AM            
Of course...how will the paint really know when it's supposed to mimic it's surroundings?
Like is it damage if bird poop drops on it? Or when it rains?

The stealth planes can't take too much water on the paint job or it loses some of it's effectiveness...

IP:

Rex R
Member
posted November 05, 2002 03:07 AM            
partly because water does reflect radar. specially at the frequencies used for fire control

IP:

GoldAnt_Number1
Member
posted November 05, 2002 07:01 PM            
hmm, Susan, quit cloning your posts lol (look above)

IP:

KiLlEr
Member
posted November 05, 2002 07:13 PM            
Yea Sue, quit Cloning around! LOL

IP:

Blue n Gold Sue
Member
posted November 06, 2002 02:58 AM            
But isn't this a gaming forum? Shouldn't we ALL be cloning around.
As for water on the stealth wings, Can't the pilot just fly faster and lose some of the water from the air flow? I can't imagine much of the water sticking to the plane while in highspeed flight.

IP:

coaxs
Member
posted November 06, 2002 03:13 AM            
Ever notice that dust collects on fans. How could this be since the fan travels so fast? I assume this observation is related to water and planes and leave it to the Physicist to explain why.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders

IP:

Robo Jaws
Member
posted November 06, 2002 05:05 AM            
<Quote>
Chameleon tanks
Military vehicles including tanks, trucks helicopters and weapon systems will be covered with a coating that has been embedded with nanotechnology

Perhaps most importantly, tanks would turn chameleon, creating instant camouflage and making themselves virtually invisible on the battlefield.
<Quote>

Hmm dont think I'd like to be in the tank when the nanobots have a bad day and make the tank dayglow pink


------------------
TM Tank drivers licence applied for

[This message has been edited by Robo Jaws (edited November 06, 2002).]

IP:

KiLlEr
Member
posted November 06, 2002 09:25 AM            
Dust sticking to fan blades and water sticking to a plane are caused by similar phenomina.

When anything moves through the air, it generates a certain amount of static electricity. This static charge then builds up on the surface and causes oppositly charged particles of dust and water to stick to it. In the case of water, surface tension, in addition to the static field, keeps a thin layer of water firmly stuck to the surface. The denser the air, the more static charge is generated (i.e. humidity).

This is what ultimatly brought down the Hindenburg and also the reason why arcraft must be grounded by a steel cable attached to the wings/fuselage and the ground, while refuling on the ground.

The Hindenburg came in on a damp foggy morning. The minute the first drag rope (saturated with water) touched the ground,
KABOOOM!!!!! Hydrogen and electricty don't mix.

The static electricity built up dosn't ground though the rubber tires of a plane, if you were to stick a fuel nozzel (metal) into an aircraft that is not properly gounded, the static electricity will ground through the fuel nozzel, causing an arc. Instant spark plug. Add to that the fuel vapors in the nozzel and wing tank, instant fireball. But the trucks on tires so why does it ground? AH! The truck, to keep it from rolling, is standing on metal stilts during refuling that drop from the sides of the truck.

[This message has been edited by KiLlEr (edited November 06, 2002).]

IP:

Rex R
Member
posted November 06, 2002 01:21 PM            
ahem RE Hindenberg, ever notice in the newsreel footage, flames dropping down. hydrogen burns with a nonvisible flame(and rises). its been shown that the treated fabric skin was the culprit (burns just like rocket fuel)

IP:

Blue n Gold Sue
Member
posted November 06, 2002 01:58 PM            
I just figured that my ceiling fans don't run 100% of the time and that they gathered dust when they were off.

IP:

Sailor
Administrator
posted November 06, 2002 03:57 PM            
Re - grounding of planes during refueling. What explains in-flight refueling and the grounding requirement - if I may ask? Just a thought - not to many ground attached wires available while flying and refueling.

------------------
May you always have a following Sea and the comfort of those you hold nearest to your heart.

IP:

KiLlEr
Member
posted November 06, 2002 04:03 PM            
The hydrogen was what started the flame. Hydrogen combusted, igniting whatever flammable objects were near by.

Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about the hydrogen that was in the holding container. Obviously, the hydrogen displaced the oxygen in them and without oxygen, there can be no combustion. However, the containers leeched Hydrogen into the super structure. There was enough hydrogen that accumulated during the flight over the atlantic to allow for combustion to take place. Standard operating proceedures required the wokers with these areas to take precautions not to inadvertantly create an ignition source. Over the normal flights in europe the amount of hydrogen leeching was insufficient to allow for combustion to occur from an ignition source outside the vessel. There was always the danger from ignition within, and percautions was taken to properly vent and prevent an accidental ignition of the leeched hydrogen. But the Hindenburg was much different in this respect because of the longer period of time involved in travel over the atlantic, the larger quantities of hydrogen used, and the increased number of containers. End result, more leeched hydrogen. Enough to be ignited from the outside. Once ignited, the fire started to spread, igniting any flamable object. Clothing, Fuel lines, anything that can burn. In addition, the increase in local air temprature due to the fire caused the hydrogen containers to over pressurize and burst, adding more fuel. If you recall the news footage, there was nothing left except for the chared aluminum frame. No hydrogen tanks, no skin, no tables, no chairs, no people. Everything was completely consumed by the fire except for the aluminum frame.

IP:

KiLlEr
Member
posted November 06, 2002 04:10 PM            
Mid Air refuling- a few reasons:

1 - Your attaching a hose to a hose and the connection between them is purged with an inert gas before fueling begins. Whereas in ground fuling, you basically pop open the fuel tank, much like you do to your car. This gives the fuel vapors a chance to escape and mix with the oxygen creating a combustable mixture.

2 - Both planes are charged to the same polairty, and there is no ground.

3 - refuling takes place at high altitudes, where oxygen is less abundant.

IP:

BamZipPow
Member
posted November 06, 2002 05:41 PM            
Hydrogen Exonerated in Hindenburg Disaster. This isn't new, but it's a good article. "Fabric, not filling, to blame" in Hindenburg disaster. Retired NASA engineer and long-time hydrogen advocate Addison Bain, who has been conducting extensive research on the incident, concludes that hydrogen played no part in starting the Hindenburg fire. Bain concludes that the aluminum-cellulose material used for the ship's skin itself is actually what caused the accident, not the hydrogen contained in the craft's envelope. "The message is not to paint your airships with rocket-fuel," Bain stated. He claims the external paint used on the Hindenberg is chemically similar to the solid-rocket propellant used for NASA's Space Shuttle. (From the National Hydrogen Association.)

IP:

KiLlEr
Member
posted November 06, 2002 06:53 PM            
You have to be careful with that article

"Retired NASA engineer and long-time hydrogen advocate Addison Bain", you have to wonder how thourogh was his research. LOL

oh yeah and :

(From the National Hydrogen Association.)

Can ya give me a hmmmmm? It is an interesting article none the less, and it does show why the craft burned so quickly and readily.

I'm not disputing that the fabric burnes very easily, but it has not been proven to be ignitible by a spark. Nor does it "explode". It may be similar to rocket propellant, but its isn't the same as rocket propellant.

[This message has been edited by KiLlEr (edited November 06, 2002).]

IP: