Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Shields up! - Boeing granted energy shield patent

Shields up! - Boeing granted energy shield patent

deltaH - 24-3-2015 at 02:59

Patented by Boeing, the technology is supposed to be based on sensors that detect an explosion, then either a laser-induced or microwave-induced arc superheats a region of air in the path between the blast and the vehicle, supposedly attenuating the shockwave

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

Pseudoscientific nonsense from Boeing or not?

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by deltaH]

Loptr - 24-3-2015 at 07:46

My first thought is how portable would something like this be? The humvee in the picture is already extremely heavy due to additional armor, fuel, special tires, etc., and now you are going to add a huge power supply of some sort? Not to mention the space it would consume.

This might be better suited for defending non-mobile assets.

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by Loptr]

Tsjerk - 24-3-2015 at 08:02

Plus; I don't think the biggest problem is an explosion outside your vehicle, rather than a projectile piercing your armor.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-3-2015 at 08:23

When I first started reading it, I was thinking they were going to ionize the air, and since the electron repulsion in individual atoms will not occur in ionized particles, the shockwave would stop because a gas molecule bumping into an ion wont cause the ion to bounce off in the opposite direction as it would with another molecule. I thought this because I had actually thought of this myself when I was 14! But have since decided it wouldn't work practically. (Which may or may not be true).
Unfortunately that's not their plan, so it's irrelevant anyway.

Quote:

Presented is a system and method for attenuating a shockwave propagating in a first medium by detecting a shockwave-producing event, determining a direction of the shockwave relative to a protected asset, and interposing a second, transient medium, different from the first medium, between the shockwave and the protected asset such that a shockwave produced by the event contacts the second medium and is attenuated in energy thereby prior to reaching the protected asset. The second medium may be formed by rapidly heating a region of the first medium so that the second medium differs from the first medium in at least one of temperature, density and composition.

So basically they expect a difference in temperature, density and pressure will stop the shockwave? Kinda like when you see a prairie fire coming towards your' cabin, you have to start a new fire at your' cabin to burn out the grass before the huge blaze gets to you and burns your house down.
I cant really say whether this will work or not, but this:

Quote:

The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor detects at least two bands of electromagnetic radiation generated by the explosion.

The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor detects at least one of a shape, trajectory and speed of an incoming threat containing the explosive device, and to calculate a signature of the incoming threat, the sensor also using the signature to determine likely explosion characteristics of the explosive device.

How in the hell are they going to detect an explosion that travels faster than the speed of sound and have a fluid "wall" ready before it hits them?
They say they are going to use EM radiation, which of course travels at c, so sure the information can get to them before the blast does, but they must have a very fast reacting "system".
Here's another thing, which may or may not be a problem. How are they going to used EMR to detect an explosion? Electromagnetic spectrum is of course the first though that comes to mind. They say "at least two bands", which I guess mean two different spectrums for different atoms? What are common products of explosions? Nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide or even oxygen (although rarely both, except at very high temperatures). Well not only are all of these elements already in the air, most of these exact compounds are as well.
So what's to detect?

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

deltaH - 24-3-2015 at 08:35

Israel and Rafael has developed and deployed successfully an active tank countermeasure called 'trophy':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044

This fires something like shotgun shot at an oncoming RPG. It detects this RPG automatically and fires at the optimum time, so it is possibly to detect such things. That part I think is somewhat plausible.

The second bit, I think, is trying to reduce the density of air in the path of a shockwave so that less energy travels through that. The amount of electrical energy you would need to discharge would be enormous, you'd need something like the capacitor banks that power military rail guns if you want any hope in hell for it to do 'something'. To be honest, you'd need to send a shockwave in the opposite direction to cancel the incoming one and to do that would require explosives, not electrical discharges.

I'm just amazed at how companies waste money on pointless patents (and employees' time).

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by deltaH]

Loptr - 24-3-2015 at 09:03

The government and defense contractors also tend to look 20 years in the future.

This is setting up a patent for a future application when the technology becomes available.

deltaH: You would be amazed at how much time and money is actually wasted, and written off as justifiable. Nothing is considered waste until the performance reviews come rolling around, and they have to then report on what they have done.

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by Loptr]

deltaH - 24-3-2015 at 09:08

The stupid thing though is that patents are only in effect for 20 years and cost a lot of money... a hell of a lot.

Loptr - 24-3-2015 at 13:00

Quote: Originally posted by deltaH

The stupid thing though is that patents are only in effect for 20 years and cost a lot of money... a hell of a lot.

I know that when the government wants to run war games, they typically bring in leading industry experts for various things and ask them where they see things going in 10, 15, 20, etc., years down the road. They then use these as a guideline to define the parameters of the war game. This aside, you also have to realize somewhere in the government, with all their funding, someone does actually know where things will be in 20 years, or possibly even sooner given it's not yet publicly available.

Considering how tight some of the defense contractors are with the various branches of government and military, I would not be surprised if they had a clearer picture of the way forward, and what will be available and when...

[Edited on 24-3-2015 by Loptr]

morganbw - 24-3-2015 at 13:37

If it had been me that applied for the patent then yes, a dreamers delusion.
Coming from Boeing, well? Some credence maybe.

aga - 24-3-2015 at 15:41

Would it not be the case that a Blast sufficiently large to exactly counter the incoming Blast would have an equal and opposite effect in the the Opposite direction (i.e. towards the vehicle), and that to create a Blast close to the vehicle of sufficient force would need to be of a Much greater magnitude than the incoming Blast in order to exactly neutralise it at a distance from the vehicle (inverse square law) ?

The patent appears to be regarding an Incoming Blast Amplifier.

If the military goes for it, throw a fire cracker at a Tank at the right distance and the tank's defence system will blow the Tank away.

IrC - 24-3-2015 at 16:18

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

How in the hell are they going to detect an explosion that travels faster than the speed of sound and have a fluid "wall" ready before it hits them?

How are they going to used EMR to detect an explosion?

I would guess they want a means to provide blast overpressure protection from a nearby nuclear detonation. I am thinking about tactical battlefield nukes. Plenty of EMR arriving at around 0.95 C to trigger the device providing protection from a blast wave coming at local sound speed. If somewhat supersonic I still think a system operating in a few m-sec from a detonation say a mile or more away would be feasible. If they were too close it would be a moot point so it makes sense they are going after close but not too close to ground zero protection. Say from their own tactical nukes or near misses from the enemy? Careysub would be the expert here but I believe even a few tens of KT would result in a 200 PSI or greater overpressure for a fair distance from ground zero.

jock88 - 24-3-2015 at 16:33

"If the military goes for it, throw a fire cracker at a Tank at the right distance and the tank's defence system will blow the Tank away"

Sounds a bit like the one where, in order to keep flies off the butter you can shit on the table and that will do the job!

The patent may be an attempt to keep the 'enemy' guessing and wondering have they actually got a system that works.
Remember the star wars project?

Molecular Manipulations - 24-3-2015 at 18:57

Good points Iridium carbide (I'm guessing that's what your' name means), I hadn't really thought of nukes. The patent was from Boeing, so I was thinking antiterrorism was the goal of this shield.
BTW, I believe iridium carbides doesn't exist, its just an eutectic mixture, not sure where I read that though.

[Edited on 25-3-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

IrC - 24-3-2015 at 18:59

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

BTW, I believe iridium carbides doesn't exist, its just an eutectic mixture, not sure where I read that though.

Most likely in one of my past posts.

Molecular Manipulations - 24-3-2015 at 19:01

Sounds like you know a lot more about this than I do!

IrC - 24-3-2015 at 19:59

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

I believe iridium carbides doesn't exist, its just an eutectic mixture

I tried for many years to prove IrC as a true Carbide could be made. Harold Aspden set me on the quest long ago. He had a theory I will not go into here about a peculiar property certain substances would have. In one of our conversations after working on the problem a long time it occurred to me a molecule such a IrC would exhibit the property if a true Carbide of Iridium could exist. He thought the idea was a good one and after working on the problem from a theoretical angle more and more he was sure it would fit the requirements. I could not succeed in making it, as you said (and many have agreed), it can only be a eutectic. I decided I liked the name when I joined SCM many moons ago. Probably because it was my version of Unobtainium but more likely my personal reminder of futility. I'm still not sure which. A site worth looking at is linked below.

http://www.haroldaspden.com/

I should add after much study I believe this 'peculiar property' has something to do with the reason Ir and other Pt group metals form eutectics and not Carbides. I have no proof but it always lurked in my mind as the reason why.