It seems to me that the technology to support the application is pretty accessible. I'm actually surprised uniforms like this aren't a staple on the battlefield. Any sense as to why it's lagged behind? I would think there would be dozens of small businesses all over this opportunity to land a meaty government contract.
One answer is power. The uniform becomes just another device requiring power to run. A significant percentage of the load a soldier must carry is spare batteries. The army is currently on a push to get all the devices a soldier now carries to use a common battery size.
You're right, TJ, the uniform would need a power source. But that could be taken care of by using a device that generates power. The military already has devices that attach to the boot and charge batteries through simple movement such as walking.
Rob, I know of the boot mechanism you describe (saw it featured either here or at Machine Design).
In Robert Heinlein's words: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The boot mechanism uses a trooper's own energy. That means in addition to walking, the trooper puts some effort into moving the boot mechanism. A little extra resistance.
I don't see that particular mechanism going very far. It's too external (susceptable to damage). Anything that would sap energy from me (extra resistance to movement) is NOT going to be greeted with enthusiasm.
Think about it. Would you want to wear something that resists your motion after climbing Afghan mountains all day?
The soldiers of WWII frequently jettisoned their gas masks as soon as they could, calling it extra, unnecessary weight.
The better means of powering this clothing would be the cloth that uses temperature differential (outer layer to inner layer) to generate electricity (it was featured here a month or two ago). Combine that cloth with this technology would be a VERY smart thing.
Assume an adhoc network of minimally intelligent sensors embedded in fabric, scattered around the entire body. With some rudimentary spatial framework analysis resulting in a three-dimensional "body image", with ancillary temperature and perhaps pressure and acoustic measurements, it should be possible to map out everything happening to the uniform wearer -- from loose backpack straps and untied shoelaces down to point-of-impact for projectile wounds and, worst case, impact damage and loss of limbs, etc.
In a perfect world, that adhoc network would be able to make use of (and share) spare processing power to perform augmented intelligence tasks, acting for example as a full-body haptic interface between the wearer and a "smart phone" or equivalent, or, depending on line-of-sight and optical interface options, interfacing/coordinating between multiple individuals. I like the possibility of acoustic point-of-discharge analysis for incoming fire, too, given the virtual-sensor-array size benefit of correlating input from multiple uniforms across an area. Sharing processor power gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "All right, let's huddle up"...
It would seem that another DN post going into detail about the benefits of ultracapacitors versus batteries (re wind-farm generators) might be pertinent to the power requirements (given that you do NOT want to have to monkey with replacing sensor battery elements).
@flare0one: The application in the textile is easy but putting it in a functional military uniform is the challenge.
Worldwide, uniforms have evolved to meet the needs of military personnel. Some things can't be moved or removed because it interferes with the new technology. The uniforms have to maintain their function under a wide range of conditions-hot, dry, wet, cold, etc.
I'm assuming that each sensor point would be some type of encapsulated "lump" which could reasonably be attached (encapsulated?) after the uniform itself has been fabricated. Most sensors could conceivably be general purpose, with a subset designed to be positioned adjacent to key physiological elements (heart, trachea, carotid, diaphragm, etc) and another subset (if specialization is necessary) designed to be gridded in primary haptic I/O points (gloves, forearms, thighs, chest, back, hips, etc). The majority of the volume of each "lump" would likely be made up of the encapsulant, some type of transducer (piezo? etc), the network transceiver mechanism, and the ultracapacitor energy storage element.
But the intent would be for these devices to be attached where there is space available, not to preempt priority of any existing uniform functionality (other than maybe augmenting buttons, snaps, closures, elastics (for power generation), etc). The actual encapsulated "lump" could feasibly survive environmental excursions that would exceed the limits of the wearer (and the rest of the uniform).
In the sense that design is always an iterative process, with "what we COULD do" influencing "where are we going with this", some kind of evolving specification would emerge, hopefully soon enough to prevent self-destructive "feature creep".
Easy to hypothesize a context where having your uniform "call home" might equate to "painting a target on your position". But if you consider the benefit to a "Man Down!" of being able to pinpoint the person's location (via a low-signal-strength short-range signal)so no need to search through debris and rubble, yes, you get faster aid. And with many types of wounds, the primary immediate need is to apply pressure to the wound: the UNIFORM could handle that. Assuming some combination of contractile and inflatable fabric, the uniform could form a localized pressure pad and significantly reduce the loss of blood from a trunk wound. The same functionality would enable an intelligent "tourniquet" for wounds to extremities. These various capabilities, in conjunction with the audio capability of the distributed sensors, also enable a virtual "blood pressure cuff".
Realizable goals and constraints accumulate and evolve.
Why embed the sensors in the uniform? Why not provide a wearable device directly? For example, a watch that monitors blood pressure and transmits an emergency signal and homing beacon if the blood pressure goes off scale one way or the other (very low blood pressure is a symptom of shock and blood loss).
Battar, the army is actively trying to reduce the number of things a soldier must carry. Adding a device goes against that. Making something they already have do double (or triple!) duty is the right direction.
A uniform that monitors for wounds, AND can power itself via temperature differential, would be a smart design (in both meanings of the phrase).
A chart of a soldier's load weight (all that he is expected to carry, including uniform), plotted against years would show the load slowly creeps up, until it reaches some critical point, at which the army goes on an equipment weight loss program, only to see it creep up again as new features/tools become available.
The average soldier of Vietnam did not have to carry night vision gear (there were exceptions). Now NVG is almost standard issue. The soldiers of WWII and Korea did not have to carry batteries.
With the work I do, designs seem to be somewhat evolutionary and not revolutionary.It very well may be the DOD never really thought about having the ability to monitor the well-being of a soldier on the battlefield or maybe the ability to do so is catching up with the need to do.At any rate, it's a great idea although I do agree that added weight from batteries to drive the system might be a real concern.Good reliability would be absolutely necessary to prevent false positives when signals were received.
The article describes evaluative technologies as opposed to medicinal or healing technologies; meaning, the uniform would tell where you need a band-aid instead of providing a band-aid. At first glance, it doesn't seem like a value-added idea.
When I've had the opportunity to interview infantry and foot-soldiers regarding ergonomic focus groups for new product development, their attitude is largely one of survival over cool technology.In 2007, a large defense contractor launched an initiative called the Connected Warrior, which failed amongst the ranks due to the cumbersome nature of all the extra gear and batteries required. As one soldier bluntly put it, "I get deployed 6 duffle bags of CRAP – and if it ain't bullets or water, I chuck it".
Innovative technologies to help the enlisted men and women must be completely conformable or it will never get adopted.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.