Replies

What a load of nonsense.

If it were a load of nonsense, then people who are shot while wearing kevlar vests wouldn't have things like broken ribs from the experience. Unless nanotube armor could stop a projectile and completely dissipate the energy away from the wearer, it would be no better than kevlar. Consider: when Kevlar stops a handgun round, it pretty much debilitates the wearer. He's not in the fight anymore. And we're talking about handgun rounds that probly don't exceed 1200 feet per second. Scale that up to 3000 feet per second for your average civilian hunting round (which kevlar is incapable of stopping anyway) and the wearer is still likely to die from the shot even if the armor stops the round. Might want to think about those things before you spout off.

Again, there is nothing in the article that suggests that carbon nanotubes have good ballistic properties. I don't see why we automatically assume that they would. It has high tensile strength, but that doesn't necessarily transfer to stopping a projectile. Hardened steel also has high tensile strength. It's also very brittle and prone to break.

The big advantage I see to this technology is the realistic possibility of aritificial limbs as good as the original.

Consider: when Kevlar stops a handgun round, it pretty much debilitates the wearer. He's not in the fight anymore. And we're talking about handgun rounds that probly don't exceed 1200 feet per second.

So how was it that Richard Davis, president of Second Chance body armor, would shoot himself in the chest while wearing his body armor, as part of his sales pitch?

Wouldn't get too many sales if he ended up gasping on the floor and needing medical attention afterwards.

Again, there is nothing in the article that suggests that carbon nanotubes have good ballistic properties

I don't disagree with that. It's the hydrostatic shock stuff that's wrong, and BTW class IV armor WILL stop even .308 AP rounds. Yes there is bruising on some of the lighter vests when they stop a round, but that just proves my point, because the hydrostatic shock is the same plus or minus the vest (same momentum same energy that the target has to absorb.)