or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Special Xeon in Mac Pro, MBP battery woes, iPod takes a bullet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Special Xeon in Mac Pro, MBP battery woes, iPod takes a bullet - Page 3

post #81 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The original article on this never said that the iPod stopped the bullet. What it said was that the iPod lowered the impact of the bullet enough for the vest to stop ot without any injury. That's a very different thing.

Some people are too intent on ripping away at anything to fully read and comprehend the story before attacking it.

As I said in the story about the guy in Nam, whether iPod actually really did save his life or not, he will/may certainly think so, and rightly so. He is probably pretty happy to be alive, and will thank anything that may have helped.

Also, as none of us were there to do a full scientific inquiry, we are not sure whether the bullet was a direct shot, a deflected shot, the range it was fired from, whether it had struck anything else before piercing the iPod... the list of unknowns could go on and on. Depepnding on various variables, it could indeed be true that the iPod was able to slow the bullet just ennough to actually save the guy's life. Not all shots are direct, point blank shots; indeed, quite a few aren't, and I would expect a military person to be one of the first to point that out. Something called a ricochet, or a defection. (see my little story about the TV show about the kid who died in a shooting accident; the bullet bounced about 7 times before killing the kid) Reality is not a controlled laboratory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet

Some people just want to blow a story for the sake of blowing it.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #82 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Some people are too intent on ripping away at anything to fully read a nd comprehend the stroy before attacking it.

Some people just want to blow a story for the sake of blowing it.

That's true. Some people seem to think it's cool to do that.

They're also ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of troups were told to buy their own vests, and that one major company recently admitted that its vests didn't pass the testing, but were sold to the military anyway, and ended up in Iraq.
post #83 of 114
Remember all the speeches at the beginning of the war about the "best traiined, best equipped" troops? Don' here those anymore, especially after the prison photo problem, the vest issue and the Humvee problem. With all the moola we sink into the military each year, you would think they had better equipmment. The CEO of the supplier has a very well equipped retirement package, I am sure.

Dick? Dick? What about you?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #84 of 114
[/SIZE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The original article on this never said that the iPod stopped the bullet. What it said was that the iPod lowered the impact of the bullet enough for the vest to stop ot without any injury. That's a very different thing.

WTF! Really!

I posted the AI story VERBATIM!

And I never said (or implied) that said bullet was stopped (in and of itself) by said iPod.

What I am saying is that said iPod DID NOT make any net (or significant) contribution to stopping said bullet. It had about as much effect as if that bullet hit a butterfly in mid-flight!

Quote:
Ipod Saves Soldier's Life

Photos sent to me by my friend Danny with this caption:

My wifes uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound.

I thought it was a great story so I posted them here.

That is all the information (plus 3 photos) that I have seen WRT said bullet "slowing" iPod!

The last statement is the tip-off, because that location is FULLY protected by the underlying ESAPI plate.

A friend, of a friend, of a friend, of a friend,...., ad infinitum! Heck the "uncle" could have been a janitor for all I know!

And yet where are all the MSM accounts if this actually happened (as in the iPod did save this soldier's life). Really!

I have already made the scientific and engineering arguments, ad infinitum (at this point). And would gladly issue a mea calpa (unlike some people who post in these threads ) if I'm proved wrong with actual objective reporting of the facts.

BTW, it is SOP for all soldiers to be examined if hit in the line of duty, this incident (if true) would be no different.

I'd suggest you carefully reread everything I've posted in this thread AND view the Point Blank videos, that's how it really happens, and that's how I expect this incident to be reported!

PS - Going of on the defective armor tangent argument is pointless at THIS time, what may have had some semblance of credence 2-3 years ago is demonstrably NOT an issue today. It gets into technical details of ballistic tests, V50, etceteras. The basic point is that the military is always looking to improve soldier survivability in combat situations, now the politicians, I'm not so sure about that one.

PS - In fact, if pushed, I'll call in some favors where I work, My bos/friend is a BG in the Army Reserves, and as a current/former US Army employee I have access to the AKO website. Given the timing (posted 3rd of April, it would have been to obvious if posted on the 1st) and nature of the web, I'm calling this one a ...

[CENTER]HOAX![/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #85 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

WTF! Really!

I posted the AI story VERBATIM!

The AI story is NOT the original story. Do you think the people involved reported directly to AI?.

Quote:
And I never said (or implied) that said bullet was stopped (in and of itself) by said iPod.

What I am saying is that said iPod DID NOT make any net (or significant) contribution to stopping said bullet. It had about as much effect as if that bullet hit a butterfly in mid-flight!

That's your opinion, and it's fine.

Quote:
That is all the information (plus 3 photos) that I have seen WRT said bullet "slowing" iPod!

The last statement is the tip-off, because that location is FULLY protected by the underlying ESAPI plate.

A friend, of a friend, of a friend, of a friend,...., ad infinitum! Heck the "uncle" could have been a janitor for all I know!

And yet where are all the MSM accounts if this actually happened (as in the iPod did save this soldier's life). Really!

I have already made the scientific and engineering arguments, ad infinitum (at this point). And would gladly issue a mea calpa (unlike some people who post in these threads ) if I'm proved wrong with actual objective reporting of the facts.

BTW, it is SOP for all soldiers to be examined if hit in the line of duty, this incident (if true) would be no different.

I'd suggest you carefully reread everything I've posted in this thread AND view the Point Blank videos, that's how it really happens, and that's how I expect this incident to be reported!

PS - Going of on the defective armor tangent argument is pointless at THIS time, what may have had some semblance of credence 2-3 years ago is demonstrably NOT an issue today. It gets into technical details of ballistic tests, V50, etceteras. The basic point is that the military is always looking to improve soldier survivability in combat situations, now the politicians, I'm not so sure about that one.

I'm not arguing with your more scientific info per se. But, there are a great many factors in how well armor functions. If the HD, circuit board, battery, and thin SS rear shell slowed the bullet down by 20 FPS, and deflected it by a few degrees of perpendicular, it could have made a difference. You really can't argue that without knowing exactly what happened. You might think it unlikely, but it's possible.

If he thinks it saved his life, then that's fine with me.

It's better than those pilgrims who fall off the edge of a cliff, riding in their bus, where the one severely injured surviver says that God saved her with a miracle, even though all the others died gruesome deaths.
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Remember all the speeches at the beginning of the war about the "best traiined, best equipped" troops? Don' here those anymore, especially after the prison photo problem, the vest issue and the Humvee problem. With all the moola we sink into the military each year, you would think they had better equipmment. The CEO of the supplier has a very well equipped retirement package, I am sure.

Dick? Dick? What about you?

Remember, most military equipment is built by the lowest bidder, they have to make up their investment someplace. \

And don't even get me started on sole suppliers!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #87 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

And don't even get me started on sole suppliers!

So, you agree with large businesses and governments, that we shouldn't buy Apple's products because they are the sole supplier?
post #88 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So, you agree with large businesses and governments, that we shouldn't buy Apple's products because they are the sole supplier?

Heh, I meant sole suppliers to the military, no-bid contracts, etc. Apple isn't the only company that makes computers or music players. I meant when a company is the only supplier of a specific part/equipment, and can charge the govt/military what they feel like for it. There was a valve used on my last ship, that was basically a couple of pieces of PVC and plastic with a rubber diaphragm, maybe $20 in parts; the only company that made them charged $600 a pop, and of course the valves never lasted more than 6 months at best.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #89 of 114
Quote:
The AI story is NOT the original story. Do you think the people involved reported directly to AI?.

That's a tangent and you know it, you implied that I stated that the iPod stopped the bullet. Point being that I SAID NO SUCH THING.

Quote:
That's your opinion, and it's fine.

Yes, my 35 years of research, engineering and scientific training, knowledge, and experience. Specifically WRT structural engineering, material properties, and extensive knowledge (and usage) over the past three years with Kevlar materials. Yes, I would say that my opinion is a highly informed one! And yours?


Quote:
I'm not arguing with your more scientific info per se. But, there are a great many factors in how well armor functions. If the HD, circuit board, battery, and thin SS rear shell slowed the bullet down by 20 FPS, and deflected it by a few degrees of perpendicular, it could have made a difference. You really can't argue that without knowing exactly what happened. You might think it unlikely, but it's possible.

If he thinks it saved his life, then that's fine with me.

It's better than those pilgrims who fall off the edge of a cliff, riding in their bus, where the one severely injured surviver says that God saved her with a miracle, even though all the others died gruesome deaths.

The iPod didn't slow down that bullet one bit, not 0.2 fps, not 2 fps, and certainly not 20 fps. Mind you the velocity of a 7.62 mm round designed into these vests is 2,750 fps (for a 155 gr AK-47 round). And extensive ballistics testing is carried out to insure it meets these specifications. It's called Level IV protection per NIJ.

Now for some good times MSM reporting from Good Morning America (very objective and very factual );

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3014778

The important verbiage: " ... An iPod took much of the force when an enemy bullet came roaring towards Kevin Garrad's Chest. " ... In addition to the iPod, it hit his Vest as well ..."

So there you have it, Chest + Vest = ESAPI plate. 100% guaranteed! So even if said iPod was bonded directly to the ESAPI plate acting as a full composite, the mechanical properties of the iPod versus the ESAPI more than strongly suggest that the iPod played absolutely no role in saving this soldier's life. Period!

Nothing less than the damaged IBA (and ESAPI plate) itself would convince me otherwise!

This will definitely make for an interesting MythBusters episode.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Heh, I meant sole suppliers to the military, no-bid contracts, etc. Apple isn't the only company that makes computers or music players. I meant when a company is the only supplier of a specific part/equipment, and can charge the govt/military what they feel like for it. There was a valve used on my last ship, that was basically a couple of pieces of PVC and plastic with a rubber diaphragm, maybe $20 in parts; the only company that made them charged $600 a pop, and of course the valves never lasted more than 6 months at best.

Apple is the sole supplier for OS X machines.

The only time the military uses sole suppliers is when a company is the only source for a critical part, because it;'s their invention, or they worked to come up with that part with DARPA.
post #91 of 114
[QUOTE=franksargent;1066348]That's a tangent and you know it, you implied that I stated that the iPod stopped the bullet. Point being that I SAID NO SUCH THING.

Frank, I'm just going by what you said in a previous post.

"WTF! Really!

I posted the AI story VERBATIM!"

I was refering to that remark, and wasn't even refering only to you, but to all the other posters who only read the AI article.

Quote:
Yes, my 35 years of research, engineering and scientific training, knowledge, and experience. Specifically WRT structural engineering, material properties, and extensive knowledge (and usage) over the past three years with Kevlar materials. Yes, I would say that my opinion is a highly informed one! And yours?

As I said, I wasn't putting your knowledge down in any way, just pointing out that without all of the facts regarding this one incident, we can't be certain of what actually happened. I'm not going to compare my scientific and engineering background with yours, most people here think we all lie about it anyway.

Quote:
The iPod didn't slow down that bullet one bit, not 0.2 fps, not 2 fps, and certainly not 20 fps. Mind you the velocity of a 7.62 mm round designed into these vests is 2,750 fps (for a 155 gr AK-47 round). And extensive ballistics testing is carried out to insure it meets these specifications. It's called Level IV protection per NIJ.

Perhaps. But, it is interesting that one of the main suppliers of those vests is being investigated for their now admitted failure to meet those standards.

Quote:
Now for some good times MSM reporting from Good Morning America (very objective and very factual );

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3014778

The important verbiage: " ... An iPod took much of the force when an enemy bullet came roaring towards Kevin Garrad's Chest. " ... In addition to the iPod, it hit his Vest as well ..."

So there you have it, Chest + Vest = ESAPI plate. 100% guaranteed! So even if said iPod was bonded directly to the ESAPI plate acting as a full composite, the mechanical properties of the iPod versus the ESAPI more than strongly suggest that the iPod played absolutely no role in saving this soldier's life. Period!

Nothing less than the damaged IBA (and ESAPI plate) itself would convince me otherwise!

This will definitely make for an interesting MythBusters episode.

We aren't going to go anywhere with this, so let there be peace.
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple is the sole supplier for OS X machines.

The only time the military uses sole suppliers is when a company is the only source for a critical part, because it;'s their invention, or they worked to come up with that part with DARPA.

Actually it's called a "sole source justification." and it's done all the time, but in general the feds must follow the *FAR's;

Quote:
FAR - (Federal Acquisition Regulations): The acquisition regulations used by all federal agencies. Contains regulations and clauses that are in the contracts. Most agencies have FAR regulation supplements that can add to the FAR but may not conflict with it. The Corps of Engineers has the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS), Army Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (AFARS), and Engineer Federal Acquisition Supplement (EFARS) in addition to the FAR. This FAR, along with the various supplements guides and directs contracting procedures.

The DOD has many acquisition paths, particularly during times of conflict, depending on the situation the SSJ bar can be significantly lowered.

FAR's are very long, and very boring, that's why all branches of government have many, Many, MANY contract specialists!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #93 of 114
[QUOTE=melgross;1066359]
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That's a tangent and you know it, you implied that I stated that the iPod stopped the bullet. Point being that I SAID NO SUCH THING.

Frank, I'm just going by what you said in a previous post.

"WTF! Really!

I posted the AI story VERBATIM!"

I was refering to that remark, and wasn't even refering only to you, but to all the other posters who only read the AI article.



As I said, I wasn't putting your knowledge down in any way, just pointing out that without all of the facts regarding this one incident, we can't be certain of what actually happened. I'm not going to compare my scientific and engineering background with yours, most people here think we all lie about it anyway.



Perhaps. But, it is interesting that one of the main suppliers of those vests is being investigated for their now admitted failure to meet those standards.



We aren't going to go anywhere with this, so let there be peace.

OK!

BTW, I think(?) only a few of us don't hide behind a screen name, when I'm not wishing about new Mac thingies, I try to be as truthful and objective as is humanly possible. But you know what they say: "To err is human."

PS - Oops, I just lied, I forgot about my sardonic caustic wit used many times in these threads!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #94 of 114
Quote:
iPod tells soldier he was shot - the real story

I talked to Kevin Garrad this afternoon and here’s the story firsthand:

The armor stopped the bullet.

The iPod was how Kevin Garrad found out he was shot. This is the real story.
Kevin said he got into the fight with the insurgent and afterwards he did not know he was even shot. He said he returned to his bunk after the patrol, put on his earbuds and began to clean his weapon.

He said: “you get into a ritual out there.”

No music came on. He dug around in the pockets where he kept the iPod and pulled out the twisted hunk of metal that is in the pictures. He said that was how he found out that he had been shot during the fight. He was happy that his armor worked.

He said the upgraded armor he was wearing could stop the AK-47 round. It was not the newest armor that is in Iraq now, but it was an upgrade. This was his second iPod that he had brought to Iraq. The first had been damaged earlier and the store would not replace it, even with the additional warranty he purchased.

The pictures are what happens when an AK-47 bullet hits an iPod.

He’s talked to Apple and is happy that they sent him another iPod. He’s gone through two already. If any others send him iPods he’ll put them in care packages back to friends in his unit who don’t have them.

If you need to reach Kevin, press or otherwise his email is engr21b2002@yahoo.com.

iPod tells soldier he was shot - the real story

So it sounds to me that Kevin had at least an Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) with at least SAPI plates, but given that he was in a combat situation it's more likely that he had ESAPI plates that were first issued in 2005. The updated armor he is probably referring to is the Improved OTV (or IOTV), see;

Interceptor Body Armor
Army to Field Improved Body Armor

Note - The quote is from the person who originally posted the pictures on Flickr.

PS - melgross, yes you were correct about IBA armor deficiencies, deficiencies have also occurred stateside with Zylon vests (police force), with at least one death which went to court and was decided (last year) for the state (I believe it was Oklahoma (consolidated class action for several states) versus Toyobo).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #95 of 114
[QUOTE=franksargent;1066364]
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


OK!

BTW, I think(?) only a few of us don't hide behind a screen name, when I'm not wishing about new Mac thingies, I try to be as truthful and objective as is humanly possible. But you know what they say: "To err is human."

PS - Oops, I just lied, I forgot about my sardonic caustic wit used many times in these threads!

As you say!
post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


Yes, my 35 years of research, engineering and scientific training, knowledge, and experience. Specifically WRT structural engineering, material properties, and extensive knowledge (and usage) over the past three years with Kevlar materials. Yes, I would say that my opinion is a highly informed one! And yours?

I have 40 years of research, engineering and scientific training, knowledge, and experience. I am a forensics ballistics expert at the FBI. No, not really but who can prove otherwise on the net...(for the record I'm a lowly programmer. )

In any case, for someone with 35 years, etc you sure believe in manufacturer and official specs a lot more than other engineers I know...especially for mil-spec gear...

Quote:
The iPod didn't slow down that bullet one bit, not 0.2 fps, not 2 fps, and certainly not 20 fps. Mind you the velocity of a 7.62 mm round designed into these vests is 2,750 fps (for a 155 gr AK-47 round). And extensive ballistics testing is carried out to insure it meets these specifications. It's called Level IV protection per NIJ.

Extensive tests at Aberdeen seems to indicate many of the vests don't meet specs. I can read wikipedia...

In any case, one would expect a ballistics SME to understand that an iPod will cause some reduction in speed and effect since its somewhat more substantial than air...

Also, armor is rated for such and such ammunition at such and such range. Simply repeating wiki specs isn't all that interesting as it lacks such specifics (which are sensitive anyway). I presume that the spec is vs 7.62 ball ammo at something other than point blank range.

One would hope a kevlar/ballistics SME would know that getting hit by a M80 vs M61 has different characteristics... (i.e. about double the pentration capabilities...)

Quote:
So there you have it, Chest + Vest = ESAPI plate. 100% guaranteed! So even if said iPod was bonded directly to the ESAPI plate acting as a full composite, the mechanical properties of the iPod versus the ESAPI more than strongly suggest that the iPod played absolutely no role in saving this soldier's life. Period!

Nothing less than the damaged IBA (and ESAPI plate) itself would convince me otherwise!

One would hoped that an Army kevlar SME would have known that the ESAPI plate is damaged as part of the process of stopping a round...and doesn't believe 100% guaranteed anything...

In any case, if the first the soldier knew that he'd been hit was the broken iPod, if nothing else it told him he needed a new plate...

Vinea
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I have 40 years of research, engineering and scientific training, knowledge, and experience. I am a forensics ballistics expert at the FBI. No, not really but who can prove otherwise on the net...(for the record I'm a lowly programmer. )

In any case, for someone with 35 years, etc you sure believe in manufacturer and official specs a lot more than other engineers I know...especially for mil-spec gear...



Extensive tests at Aberdeen seems to indicate many of the vests don't meet specs. I can read wikipedia...

In any case, one would expect a ballistics SME to understand that an iPod will cause some reduction in speed and effect since its somewhat more substantial than air...

Also, armor is rated for such and such ammunition at such and such range. Simply repeating wiki specs isn't all that interesting as it lacks such specifics (which are sensitive anyway). I presume that the spec is vs 7.62 ball ammo at something other than point blank range.

One would hope a kevlar/ballistics SME would know that getting hit by a M80 vs M61 has different characteristics... (i.e. about double the pentration capabilities...)



One would hoped that an Army kevlar SME would have known that the ESAPI plate is damaged as part of the process of stopping a round...and doesn't believe 100% guaranteed anything...

In any case, if the first the soldier knew that he'd been hit was the broken iPod, if nothing else it told him he needed a new plate...

Vinea

Well you caught me! The first statement was a LIE. It's actually closer to 36 years of ...

I could look into the defective IBA issues you mentioned, but I believe those were circa 2005 (or earlier), and that none of those are currently in in use today;

Quote:
In FY04, DSCP competitively awarded new contracts for completion of acquisition objectives and on-going sustainment. Bids were solicited on the web on May 19, 2004 and 16 bids were received. The US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. is the contracting activity.

Armor Works LLC, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $10,624,028 as part of a $276,796,511 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0040) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Tempe, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by August 19, 2007.
Ceradyne, Inc, was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $28,130,882 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Costa Mesa, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
Cercom Inc, was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,936,592 as part of a $424,465,470 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0043) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Vista, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
Composix Co., was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,064,660 as part of a $362,123,190 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0044) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Newark, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
ForceOne LLC, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,135,979 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0041) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Spruce Pine, N.C., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
Simula, Inc, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,322,828 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0042) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
Point Blank Body Armor Inc.*, Oakland Park, Fla., was awarded on June 7, 2004, a delivery order amount of $11,897,120 as part of a $239,400,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Interceptor Body Armor Extremity Protection Deltoid and Axillary Protectors. Work will be performed in Oakland, Park, Fla., and is expected to be completed by June 6, 2007. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on May 4, 2004, and three bids were received. The U.S. Army Robert Morris Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W91CRB-04-D-0014).

Point Blank Body Armor Inc., Oakland Park, Fla., was awarded on July 9, 2004, a $24,756,750 firm-fixed-price contract for 50,000 sets of the outer tactical vests which are a component of the Interceptor Body Armor. Work will be performed in Oakland Park, Fla., and is expected to be completed by Feb. 28, 2005. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on July 7, 2004. The U.S. Army Robert Morris Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W91CRB-04-F-0126).

from a previous link I provided, see also the Wisconsin NG link I provided earlier.

As to manufacturer's specifications, you are grossly incorrect in your straw-man assumption.

As to the ESAPI plates, I am well aware of their properties/behavior with the incorporated Spectra (or Dyneema) fabric bonded underneath.

The facts speak for themselves, the "iPod saved a soldier's life" is clearly a gross overstatement, and the stuff of urban legends.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be; "A 7.62 mm round fired from an AK-47 at close range and traveling at up to 2.750 fps hit an iPod and other fabrics before hitting the soldier's life saving ESAPI plate, a critical component of his IBA vest."

That is all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

As to manufacturer's specifications, you are grossly incorrect in your straw-man assumption.

As to the ESAPI plates, I am well aware of their properties/behavior with the incorporated Spectra (or Dyneema) fabric bonded underneath.

From open sources I think there is evidence that the ESAPI plates are not "100% guaranteed" against 7.62x63mm, 7.6x51mm AP rounds at all ranges. 7.62x39mm BZ API @ 6m? Should but I haven't seen the official specs but some 3rd party ESAPI makers claim this for their plates.

Strawman? Please. Tell you what, if the risk is so minimal how about I bet you $20 at 10000:1 odds (or is it 1:10000? Hmmm) and we fire a few rounds of 7.52x39mm BZ API @ 1 m at an ESAPI plate pulled out at random from stocks that has been heated to 170 degrees then allowed to cool in ambient for 10mins. Then we can try a couple M61 and M993 7.62x51mm AP rounds and finally a M948 7.62x51 SLAP round (if any can be found) for kicks.

Should be an easy $20 for you since it's 100% guaranteed not to fail.

But anyway, I agree that the iPod didn't do much but the effects were obviously non-zero. In a wierd set of circumstances ipods, bibles, etc might just stop a round or reduce its effects. One Panasonic toughbook stopped a 9mm round and another a 7.62mm after it had pentetrated an unarmored humvee.

So yah, if I had the choice of ipod + ESAPI vs ESAPI alone...

Vinea
post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

From open sources I think there is evidence that the ESAPI plates are not "100% guaranteed" against 7.62x63mm, 7.6x51mm AP rounds at all ranges. 7.62x39mm BZ API @ 6m? Should but I haven't seen the official specs but some 3rd party ESAPI makers claim this for their plates.

Strawman? Please. Tell you what, if the risk is so minimal how about I bet you $20 at 10000:1 odds (or is it 1:10000? Hmmm) and we fire a few rounds of 7.52x39mm BZ API @ 1 m at an ESAPI plate pulled out at random from stocks that has been heated to 170 degrees then allowed to cool in ambient for 10mins. Then we can try a couple M61 and M993 7.62x51mm AP rounds and finally a M948 7.62x51 SLAP round (if any can be found) for kicks.

Should be an easy $20 for you since it's 100% guaranteed not to fail.

But anyway, I agree that the iPod didn't do much but the effects were obviously non-zero. In a wierd set of circumstances ipods, bibles, etc might just stop a round or reduce its effects. One Panasonic toughbook stopped a 9mm round and another a 7.62mm after it had pentetrated an unarmored humvee.

So yah, if I had the choice of ipod + ESAPI vs ESAPI alone...

Vinea

Hmmm, interesting you're not forgetting the underlying 20-30 ply Kevlar ballistic fabric are you? With the underlying elastic properties of the human body to boot. So yes, I'll bet you with a IBA vest with ESAPI plate inserted, for a single 7.62 MM round!

And it's called V50 for a reason, you know p = 0.5. Duh! Another strawman!

RE: Manufacturer's specifications: Your assumption about my POV IS a strawman, just because I quote specifications, it certainly doesn't mean that I believe them, and you can ask anyone where I work how I operate, I have to see it to believe it. For example, I am quite familiar with ASTM test methods amongst others. The Army spec'ed the IBA vests with ESAPI plates in 2004, with the contracts to be completed in August of this year. And you're telling me that the US Army doesn't obtain ballistic tests from random samples of the manufactured IBA vests? And that if they don't meet the specs, that the Army still pays for them and fields them? As we speak?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hmmm, interesting you're not forgetting the underlying 20-30 ply Kevlar ballistic fabric are you? With the underlying elastic properties of the human body to boot. So yes, I'll bet you with a IBA vest with ESAPI plate inserted, for a single 7.62 MM round!

If you're willing to risk $200K vs my $20, I'll meet you at Aberdeen any time you like. I'll even pay your gas from MS...you can even provide the E-SAPI plates to test.

I'll try to dig up a few oddball rounds like NATO Sabot, Russian AP ammo (at $20 a round...its a collector's item)...but I'm sure all the relevant numbers are in the FOUO specs. At these odds I'm willing to hope for a bad plate.

Quote:
RE: Manufacturer's specifications: Your assumption about my POV IS a strawman, just because I quote specifications, it certainly doesn't mean that I believe them, and you can ask anyone where I work how I operate, I have to see it to believe it.

So you can quote specs to support your assertions be no one can challenge them because...you don't believe them? Mkay.

Quote:
And you're telling me that the US Army doesn't obtain ballistic tests from random samples of the manufactured IBA vests? And that if they don't meet the specs, that the Army still pays for them and fields them? As we speak?

/shrug

The marines did, then pulled the offending vests eventually. If we were having a beer and you really are what you say you are I could tell you stories from various PEOs (my stories are all very old though...90s vintage). Say after our range time. Just bring a large check in case I get lucky. If you win, I'll hand over $20 with a smile since trying to punch holes in an armored plate is always fun whether you succeed or fail.

Vinea
post #101 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you're willing to risk $200K vs my $20, I'll meet you at Aberdeen any time you like. I'll even pay your gas from MS...you can even provide the E-SAPI plates to test.

I'll try to dig up a few oddball rounds like NATO Sabot, Russian AP ammo (at $20 a round...its a collector's item)...but I'm sure all the relevant numbers are in the FOUO specs. At these odds I'm willing to hope for a bad plate.



So you can quote specs to support your assertions be no one can challenge them because...you don't believe them? Mkay.



/shrug

The marines did, then pulled the offending vests eventually. If we were having a beer and you really are what you say you are I could tell you stories from various PEOs (my stories are all very old though...90s vintage). Say after our range time. Just bring a large check in case I get lucky. If you win, I'll hand over $20 with a smile since trying to punch holes in an armored plate is always fun whether you succeed or fail.

Vinea

Vinea,

I'm talking about the entire IBA vest with the underlying human body elastic properties (flesh and possibly a broken rib cage (i. e. the trauma wound)) preventing a human fatality. Conditions circa 2007 IBA vests, NOT circa 2004 IBA vests! This is 2007 isn't it?

You seem to be talking about the ESAPI plate in and of itself, while I'm talking about the entire IBA vest on a soldier with a shot into the chest area (as actually happened).

And given that AK-47 rounds travel ~400 fps less then the V50 of 2,750 fps, and that the energy is ~mv^2/2, results in a safety factor of ~1.4.

Why yes, I'll take your bet under the real world conditions mentioned here, an IBA vest with an orthogonal single shot (with an AK-47 round identical to the actual Iraq situation) into the IBS chest area (with it's underlying ESAPI plate, underlying Kevlar multi-ply ballistic fabric, and underlying human elastic properties) not resulting in a fatal wound!

For the test to be conclusive the bullet must pass through (or sufficiently into) the IBA VEST chest area (similar to what actually happened in Iraq) with sufficient force to cause a fatal wound.

And, I'll even volunteer to be the "underlying human body elastic properties" myself! I'll bring MythBusters and sign the necessary release forms! One shot, winner take all. Make sure you have that $20 in your wallet! In other words, I will have to die after given medical assistance (if needed) typical of what is available to our soldiers in Iraq (or similar to this specific incident)!

RE: No one should assume in situ properties of SOTA (ever changing) technologies, without conducting prototype tests, or sufficient lot sample tests, to statistically determine that the product meets the intended specifications. On materials that are time tested, like typical concrete and steel designs, safety factors (allowable stress designs) and load factors are incorporated into the design codes, but even then, some buildings fail due either to inadequate design methods, or construction methods that do not meet the specifications (that is what site inspectors are supposed to do, catch substandard construction, but it isn't 100% foolproof, for various reasons), or on rare occasions substandard materials.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #102 of 114
There are some cool dudes around here.

The US military has often made purchases for mil-spec that did not meet the spec. They have also often payed for household-spec at mil-spec rpices.

In short: our military is not a model purchasing ententy and therefore should not be used as an example.

Remember the original torpeddoes our boys got in WWII? Missed almost every time.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #103 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

There are some cool dudes around here.

The US military has often made purchases for mil-spec that did not meet the spec. They have also often payed for household-spec at mil-spec rpices.

In short: our military is not a model purchasing ententy and therefore should not be used as an example.

Remember the original torpeddoes our boys got in WWII? Missed almost every time.

If I'm not mistaken, the DOD actively participates in prototype development, and is directly involved is various destructive and non-destructive tests. Once the development cycle is over, final specifications are generated and bids are taken (or if SSJ sent to the primary contractor for a RFQ). From what MIL SPEC's I've seen the manufacturer must submit test results based on some test criteria specified in the MIL SPEC. The DOD is rather famous for procurement screw-ups.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Vinea,

I'm talking about the entire IBA vest with the underlying human body elastic properties (flesh and possibly a broken rib cage (i. e. the trauma wound)) preventing a human fatality. Conditions circa 2007 IBA vests, NOT circa 2004 IBA vests! This is 2007 isn't it?

Yes.

Quote:
You seem to be talking about the ESAPI plate in and of itself, while I'm talking about the entire IBA vest on a soldier with a shot into the chest area (as actually happened).

Nope. Whole system.

Quote:
And given that AK-47 rounds travel ~400 fps less then the V50 of 2,750 fps, and that the energy is ~mv^2/2, results in a safety factor of ~1.4.

You were getting loose with your claims. We're in this little sub-thread because you were pushing numbers at folks while claiming to be a subject matter expert...

Like these numbers. Muzzle velocity only tells part of the story. True, the 7.62mmx36 is slow enough to the point that no one bothered to (continue to) make a real AP round for it. Bullet design and material are also a factor in pentration capability. The API-BZ penetrates more material despite the same 2400 FPS velocity of the 7.62 x 39 ball.

The most questionable number you've stated is that an ipod wouldn't slow a bullet by even 0.2 fps and could never impact the outcome. Mkay...I can think of at least one based even on the pictures we see...

Quote:
Why yes, I'll take your bet under the real world conditions mentioned here, an IBA vest with an orthogonal single shot (with an AK-47 round identical to the actual Iraq situation) into the IBS chest area (with it's underlying ESAPI plate, underlying Kevlar multi-ply ballistic fabric, and underlying human elastic properties) not resulting in a fatal wound!

It still a silly bet on your part, especially volunteering to be the dummy. The odds of your winning are quite high given the IBA can stop multiple hits from the M2AP but you're risking a lot on the QC of the manufacturer of the plate and vest. More than $20 worth.

But now you're getting specific which is interesting. I went back to your old posts and notice they've been edited but I had thought you had been vague on 7.62mm in general...yes, the context was an AK-47 but if you're going to play expert don't be surprised that folks hold you to a higher standard.

It would be interesting to know where in the left chest he was hit and the position of the iPod in relation to the plate.

But hey, for $20 I'll watch someone shoot at a vest. You supply the vest. I'll supply the bullets.

Vinea
post #105 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Remember the original torpeddoes our boys got in WWII? Missed almost every time.

I think PEO Soldier avoided this fate even with the controversy of dragon skin. The interceptor is better than anything else we've ever fielded not counting variants tested within the SOCOM community.

But I do think PEO Soldier does suffer from some of the same hubris we see in other DoD programs. Some of the shortcomings of the originial vests should have been caught earlier. Bad weight distribution is just bad design of the outer vest...not limitations of the underlying materials.

Vinea
post #106 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes.



Nope. Whole system.



You were getting loose with your claims. We're in this little sub-thread because you were pushing numbers at folks while claiming to be a subject matter expert...

Like these numbers. Muzzle velocity only tells part of the story. True, the 7.62mmx36 is slow enough to the point that no one bothered to (continue to) make a real AP round for it. Bullet design and material are also a factor in pentration capability. The API-BZ penetrates more material despite the same 2400 FPS velocity of the 7.62 x 39 ball.

The most questionable number you've stated is that an ipod wouldn't slow a bullet by even 0.2 fps and could never impact the outcome. Mkay...I can think of at least one based even on the pictures we see...



It still a silly bet on your part, especially volunteering to be the dummy. The odds of your winning are quite high given the IBA can stop multiple hits from the M2AP but you're risking a lot on the QC of the manufacturer of the plate and vest. More than $20 worth.

But now you're getting specific which is interesting. I went back to your old posts and notice they've been edited but I had thought you had been vague on 7.62mm in general...yes, the context was an AK-47 but if you're going to play expert don't be surprised that folks hold you to a higher standard.

It would be interesting to know where in the left chest he was hit and the position of the iPod in relation to the plate.

But hey, for $20 I'll watch someone shoot at a vest. You supply the vest. I'll supply the bullets.

Vinea

Vinea,

Almost all my posts get edited, not to change the text but to change grammatical errors, structure and spelling (although I've just turned on the OS X spell checker two days ago, so that helps some, but my word structure is still atrocious, IMHO)! I'm kind of a terse person, my speech is minimalist at best, when I talk to people about something, I see puzzled expressions, and then I have (to me) get long winded for them to understand, I guess it's my Vermont upbringing.

Heck, I've even been accused of changing my posts in mid-flight as it were, I mean, I see a grammatical error or shortly after posting (minutes) I see something that wasn't clear or missing, edit the post (I'm a very slow writer BTW), and by the time I hit the submit button, someone else has responded to my original post, and I get accused of changing it AFTER the other person responded to my original post.

Sounds confusing I guess, but whatever.

And please, go back to my first post, I clearly stated that I was not a ballistics expert, let me repeat that:


I am not a ballistics expert.


Heck I've fired a gun twice in my lifetime (22 and 12 gauge shotgun), both times I was in junior college ~ 35 years ago! BTW, you sound like you know a lot about bullets and/or guns?

But as I also stated I do have expertise in structural mechanics/analysis (aced all of 'em in college) material science (aced that one too), and have significant design and analysis experience since my schooling. And that is why I questioned the initial report, then as I looked into the matter it became clearer (to me at least) that the iPod would not (IMHO) have played a significant role in this incident.

As to me being Buster during the live fire test, well you see I guess I'm kind of a risk taker, you know "Dare to be stupid!"

And I would want to simulate the actual incident as close as possible, sans iPod.

That is all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Heck, I've even been accused of changing my posts in mid-flight as it were, I mean, I see a grammatical error or shortly after posting (minutes) I see something that wasn't clear or missing, edit the post (I'm a very slow writer BTW), and by the time I hit the submit button, someone else has responded to my original post, and I get accused of changing it AFTER the other person responded to my original post.

Sadly enough, that happens to me as well.

for some reason, I don't always spot all of the mistakes while in posting mode, but only after the post comes back up. The spell check doesn't always work either, because a number of the words we use here aren't in the checker at all, or because it doesn't understand context.

Sometimes, I read what I've just posted, and realize that something isn't as clearly stated as it should be, and so I'll change it, or that I forgot to add a sentence (or more) that makes the argument clear. Or a link. Or that I somehow posted the wrong link, or one that no longer works, or needs a password. Sigh!
post #108 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Vinea,

Almost all my posts get edited, not to change the text but to change grammatical errors, structure and spelling (although I've just turned on the OS X spell checker two days ago, so that helps some, but my word structure is still atrocious, IMHO)! I'm kind of a terse person, my speech is minimalist at best, when I talk to people about something, I see puzzled expressions, and then I have (to me) get long winded for them to understand, I guess it's my Vermont upbringing.

I thought I recalled that one sentence simply said 7.62 and not specifically for the AK-47 making it a blanket statement. I probably mis-remembered and I shouldn't have brought it up.

It was really the 0.2 fps comment that caught my eye.

Quote:
And please, go back to my first post, I clearly stated that I was not a ballistics expert, let me repeat that:

I am not a ballistics expert.

Yes you said that but you claim specific knowledge of domain...hence "subject matter expert".

Quote:
...where I work (US Army)...

Am I a structural engineer? Yes!

Do I work for the US Army? Yes!

Have I been doing active research into these ballistics materials over the past 3 years? Yes! We have a ... structure with underlying ... structures that may need to be protected from small arms fire! It's called need to know. We have also used these materials (...) several times (...) as ... in the aforementioned ... structures.

Could I contact some people I know at U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick)? Yes!

So, you work for the Army, do active research into ballistics materials and know folks at Natick. Sounds like a SME...

Vinea
post #109 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I thought I recalled that one sentence simply said 7.62 and not specifically for the AK-47 making it a blanket statement. I probably mis-remembered and I shouldn't have brought it up.

It was really the 0.2 fps comment that caught my eye.



Yes you said that but you claim specific knowledge of domain...hence "subject matter expert".



So, you work for the Army, do active research into ballistics materials and know folks at Natick. Sounds like a SME...

Vinea


OK,

So perhaps the 0.2 fps was an overstatement, so I'll admit that one.

My expertise is in the mechanical properties of the high modulus synthetic fibers (like webbing, slings, ropes (linear, twisted, and braided constructions)) using similar materials as those used in ballistics fabrics, but not the ESAPI/SAPI ceramic plates.

We have used Kevlar 29 and 100 as well as Twaron 2200 constructions as linear tendons on 4 different occasions (1 a prototype, 3 were Froude scale models).

Were are in a 6.3 ACTD development program of a Lightweight Modular Causeway Syntem for the US Army. The LMCS uses floatation tubes, a lightweight metal (or perhaps at some future date an FRP) superstructure, and linear high strength tendons.

It's basically a floating bridge, with the floatation + tendons/superstructure providing enough stiffness to carry an M1A2 Abrams from ship to shore. The LMCS is also a compliant structure able to survive in SS6 conditions.

Anyway, at one time (a year or so ago), I looked into ballistic fabrics as a possible means of providing small arms protection of the floatation tubes.

That is all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #110 of 114
You have pm.
post #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

OK,

It's basically a floating bridge, with the floatation + tendons/superstructure providing enough stiffness to carry an M1A2 Abrams from ship to shore. The LMCS is also a compliant structure able to survive in SS6 conditions.

Sea State 6? And carry an Abrams? That's one strong floatie you have there!

SS6 was unpleasant when experienced shipboard, can't imagine there would actually be unloading going on during it!!

(I know, the bridge would survive the storm but not actually be used during it!)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #112 of 114
Well, my experience with Kevlar was when I called DuPont and ordered several yards to put on the bottom of my modular couch to keep my ferrets out. Didn't want the little buggers getting squashed in the springs.

They were interested in the usage, and wanted me to call back and let them know how well it worked. It worked well.

Tough to shoot the pneumatic air staples through the fabric into the oak through. They were chisel headed, and kept bouncing off.

I finally had to use pointed ones instead, so that the tips would slide between the fibers.
post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Sea State 6? And carry an Abrams? That's one strong floatie you have there!

SS6 was unpleasant when experienced shipboard, can't imagine there would actually be unloading going on during it!!

(I know, the bridge would survive the storm but not actually be used during it!)

Evidently the thing even holds the equivalent weight of an M1 with several floatation units punctured. Presumably not in SS6...I would think you wouldn't want any vessels close to shore in SS6...

Vinea
post #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Evidently the thing even holds the equivalent weight of an M1 with several floatation units punctured. Presumably not in SS6...I would think you wouldn't want any vessels close to shore in SS6...

Vinea

Yes, you guys are correct. The SS6 condition is for an intact unloaded causeway. In numerical simulations (that other structural engineers on the LMCS team have conducted BTW) we have had up to 4 adjacent floats removed, and can maintain positive freeboard for the M1A2 as it passes over the removed floats. However, we would not want to conduct what have traditionally been called LOTS (or JLOTS) under a 4-float-missing situation for very long, if at all, we would want to replace floats in situ as it were ASAP (for example, if we were offloading a bunch of M1A2's, for lower military weight classifications, the urgency would not be as great).

As to typical offload SS, even SS2 has been shown to reduce throughput, and by SS3 most throughput operations pretty much come to a standstill (all of what I have said is in the public domain) for classic LOTS/JLOTS operations. As you may well be able to guess, the choke points are at the transfer points of equipment/vehicles from ship/lighterage/causeway.

As to SS6 conditions these tests were simulated in nearshore water depths of 20 ft and 30 ft, so that while real waves are directional and irregular in nature, they are "roughly" sinusoidal only under deep water conditions, but in shallow water the the waves become asymmetric (i. e. flatter troughs and more peaked crests) and eventually break (as you are all well aware), in a hydraulic sense the wave front goes supercritical (unstable, Froude No. > 1). The wave heights become depth limited.

So anyway the large traffic load (over ~2 modules) of an M1A2 on the causeway ends up loading the structure locally more so than shallow water waves, that change in shape and/or break due to nearshore beach type bathymetry. Also, we could claim higher SS survivability then we have, but we ran out of wavemaker stroke capability during the physical model tests at OSU's tsunami basin.

So basically, the causeway moves in waves VERTICALLY, like a snake moves in water HORIZONTALLY. Thus, the curvature (moment) the structure takes in waves is significantly less than the local curvature (moment) the M1A2 ~concentrated load (over ~20 ft) imposes for the modeled rotational stiffness at the LMCS module joints.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Special Xeon in Mac Pro, MBP battery woes, iPod takes a bullet