Re: Wright's Proposals

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

There is a difference in cushy materials and closed-cell high density
polymers.  I offered you to fight in a pillow suit, not an impact armor
suit.  When the cells are closed in a matrix of non-permiable material
(this is a foam)  the air compresses and this absorbs the energy.  The
same as nike air shoes.  Clothing just looses most of it's volume apon
impact and provides nothing more than skin.

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Benjamin Austin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Jevan Furmanski wrote:
> 
> > I tend to agree with Wright.  Being that I have been whacked in chainmail,
> > I agree that the force is more deflected than absorbed through momentum
> > transfer.  There is also a considerable amount of redistribution of force
> > over area from the "surface tension" of the armor.  
> 
> Please, Jevan, impress upon us the sophomore engineering PHYS 152 and ME 
> 200 knowledge:  exactly how is a blow deflected across something that is 
> as moveable as chain mail?
> 
> 
The chain is pulled taut over the skin, and blows to a point are
distributed over an area as the shock is transmitted through the
interlocked rings.  This is all basic statics stuff and all engineering
minded folks should understand it.  It really is just common sense.  

> > If you truly believe
> > the "cushiness" on armor is what prevents impact damage, you wear pillow
> > mail and I'll wear chain mail and we'll go around with baseball bats.
> > 
> 
> You're on!  There is a reason that why the people trainning police officers 
> to use their battons use what is known as the "red man suit" (which is 
> eccentially big foam pads secured around the body) instead of big old 
> plates of metal.
> 
Again, modern inventions...  that is like the french charging machine gun
fire.  

> > As far as layering goes, just about everyone agrees that armor is stepped
> > up in layers, plate has chain in the joints etc.  It would be stupid not
> > to have armor like that, and not even the "jearnian"  scheme could account
> > for the loss of padded layers.
> 
> Yeah, it is layered based on the reasonable things that I have heard but 
> there's nothing to indicate that when I remove plate mail, I get the DVs 
> from chain mail and when I remove that, I get the DVs from heavy clothing.
> 
> 
> B.J. Austin
> jedi@ecn.purdue.edu
> 
> 
> "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session
>  as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."
> 						- Will Rogers
> 
> 

When someone removes armor, I would ask them if they intend to be naked or
not.  If not, then they get the clothing bonus.

Jevan