Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bomb-Proof Wallpaper Developed

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the radiation-shielding-curtains dept.

Idle 388

MikeChino writes "Working in partnership with the US Army Corp of Engineers, Berry Plastics has rolled out a new breed of bomb-proof wallpaper. Dubbed the X-Flex Blast Protection System, the wallpaper is so effective that a single layer can keep a wrecking ball from smashing through a brick wall, and a double layer can stop blunt objects (i.e. a flying 2×4) from knocking down drywall. According to its designers, covering an entire room takes less than an hour."

cancel ×

388 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's cool! (5, Funny)

TheWizardTim (599546) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153508)

But will it blend?

Re:That's cool! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153794)

So, a little bit of carpentry and I can make my self a bomb-proof vest/suit!

Re:That's cool! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153966)

STOP SUPPORTING THE MILITARY!

Idle? (5, Insightful)

incognito84 (903401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153514)

Why is this considered idle? It seems like very promising and useful technology.

Re:Idle? (4, Insightful)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153752)

Seems like this would be a best seller in tornado alley.

Re:Idle? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153800)

I agree, its very promising. Imagine using this for homes in Tornado Alley ... it may save many lives!

PS - a hint to keep America working and in the forefront: do NOT outsource manufacturing of this outside the US!!!

Re:Idle? (5, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153812)

Because the editors are trying to scam you into thinking Idle isn't the craphole it really is.

Re:Idle? (5, Insightful)

Garridan (597129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153910)

Probably because it was a nearly content-free "article" that had a short video clip of some shit getting smashed. Not complaining. It's a huge improvement for "idle"... but there it is.

However, I seriously doubt that this material would actually protect a house from much. The impact from the wrecking ball broke the brick, and the "paper" held it together. But what happens when you put a roof on, and you set up the bomb? First, your doors and windows are still just as fragile... and if the impact is as strong as the wrecking ball, the entire front of the house loses structural integrity, and caves in. Suddenly, the roof doesn't have enough support, so down it comes on your head.

Re:Idle? (3, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153970)

Because idle is a failed concept still looking for a justification.

how flexible is it? (4, Funny)

rich3rd (559032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153516)

i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.

Re:how flexible is it? (3, Funny)

Dante Shamest (813622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153530)

I find your needs disturbing.

Re:how flexible is it? (2, Funny)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153762)

I find the juxtaposition of "underpants" with Vader's "I find your (lack of faith) disturbing," to be mentally painful. Ow ow ow, force-balls.

Re:how flexible is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153988)

I find the juxtaposition of "underpants" with Vader's "I find your (lack of faith) disturbing," to be mentally painful. Ow ow ow, force-balls.

Do you analyze jokes at parties too? The ladies must really go for you.

Re:how flexible is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153790)

I disturb your needs finding.

Re:how flexible is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153532)

If women keep kicking you with their heals right there you may be doin it wrong...

Re:how flexible is it? (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153918)

i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.

To keep traffic from coming in or going out?

Now just need a bomb-proof wallpaper for windows (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153520)

Might reduce the BSOD freq.

Re:Now just need a bomb-proof wallpaper for window (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153546)

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

WHOOSH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153802)

MS Windows, moron

Kevlar (3, Insightful)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153548)

It looks like it's just self-stick Kevlar. So it's going to be hideously expensive. However, maybe the Army overpaying for it will help them find advanced production methods to cut costs and benefit us in the long run. But then what? Possible uses: line car gas/hydrogen tanks with it. But aside from that and protecting masonry walls from disintegrating in an explosion, I can't see any practical use. As a commenter on the article site said, what if this is a load bearing wall? Looks like it would just fold up and take the building with it. Great, no shrapnel, I get it. But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, I don't see it happening before a nanotech alternative that's self-healing and much better at linear support.

Re:Kevlar (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153598)

Here's a hint: Not everything developed in this world is for YOU.

Re:Kevlar (2, Insightful)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153614)

But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, ...

Then they'll just make bigger bombs. If Greek and Roman armies never used leather and chain mail armor, people would still (?) be robbing liquor stores with bows and arrows.

Re:Kevlar (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153636)

Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.

As for the other thing, that's the whole idea: better armor makes them develop bigger bombs. That is a back-and-forth that has been going on for centuries.

Re:Kevlar (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153706)

cunt

Re:Kevlar (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153732)

It doesn't count unless you use it in a sentence.

Re:Kevlar (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153754)

Mail [wikipedia.org] armor isn't plate - though it usually goes with and supplements plate armor. Though, yea - leather armor would be mostly useless regarding bows.

Re:Kevlar (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153786)

Mail (chain) armor was generally less useful against arrows than plate to start with... that is one of the reasons that plate armor was developed in the first place. But if you think that mail armor was often a supplemen (worn under) plate armor, you are mistaken. It might have been in rare instances, but in general plate armor was enough of a burden that any other metal would have weighed far too much and further hampered the warrior's effectiveness in battle. Plate was the "ultimate' body armor. It may have had some mail at weak points such as armpits but in general mail and plate were not worn together.

Felt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153924)

Felt was often used to stop arrows.
In fact the Arabs were gobsmacked at how the Crusaders looked like pin cushions and still fought. I am amazed that the still fought in the heat of the Middle East in all that felt.

Plate's weakness was concussion weapons (e.g., maces) You didn't generally pierce or slash someone in plate with a sword (Although with a long or recurved bow it was much easier to pierce). Instead you bashed them and caused internal injuries. The shockwaves traveled fairly well through the plate (although you had to expend energy deforming the plate)

Re:Felt (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153954)

"Plate's weakness was concussion weapons (e.g., maces) "

I think if you do some research you will find that the overwhelming consensus of historians (and even that is a bit of an understatement) agree that it was the longbow that made plate armor obsolete.

I'm just sayin'... you can look it up yourself.

Re:Felt (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153992)

No I agree. Longbows made armoured knights obsolete.
The Battle of Agincourt showed how effective longbows were vs plate.

But in hand-to-hand combat, plate's weakness was a concussion weapon.

And my original point in posting was that felt plus chain was sufficient to protect against most arrows.
Sorry I came in in the middle of the argument.


and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They shot at us with their great arbalists, wounding the Moslem horses and their riders. I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

Re:Felt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154010)

Gross

Re:Felt (2, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154022)

"But in hand-to-hand combat, plate's weakness was a concussion weapon."

That's one of those "Yes, but..." things. It has to be taken in context. Yes, plate armor was vulnerable to "denting" weapons. If your armor was crushed around you, you could be disabled even if you were not particularly injured.

But that has to be compared to the protection that mail armor offered against crushing weapons... which was virtually none. Your armor would not be crushed around you, you would just be crushed instead. So plate armor was still far superior in that sense.

Re:Kevlar (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153926)

I should qualify this a bit. A major problem with mail was that arrows tended to punch through it. Especially arrows that had a long sharp point, designed to work against mail. It might not penetrate enough to be a killing shot but that's rather irrelevant in battle: the idea is to make as many of the enemy as ineffective as possible. A couple of flesh wounds can take out a combatant; it need not be an arrow through the heart.

So some groups started attaching plates to their mail in front, in order to better deflect the arrows. (And other blows: they then realized that plates tended to spread the impact of other weapons as well, minimizing injury.) Plates worked so well that a few groups got the idea that covering the whole body in plates would make the ultimate warrior. And indeed, from s defensive standpoint, plate armor withstood sword blows and thrusts and also arrows much better than any of the older stuff did.

Henceforth, the elite classes would wear plate armor, and the lower classes would use mail or leather or lesser forms of armor. But the only time when mail and plate were commonly used together (i.e., large quantities of both plate and mail), was in that earlier, intermediate period when plates were added to mail as an add-on, as it were.

This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well.

Amazing what can be done with some bent pieces of wood.

Re:Kevlar (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153900)

And you might want to check *your* history.
This was mostly not the case. Plate, when taken care of, was very good protection against the longbow. If you didn't take care of it, then shoddy worksmanship would allow it to be pierced in some spots, and of course there were still the joints and such that could be penetrated. (Though, even maille isn't that bad of protection against arrows, either. Bolts, on the other hand, would pierce maille... And plate, at very close distance, and with some luck. So, freak cases.). So. One arrow against plate? Yeah, no. 2000 arrows against a charge? Yeah, it'll kill a few guys, of course.
Let me put it this way. Would armor have been developed that didn't give greater protection from arrows, if all it did was slow you down when you wore it?

Of course, this is the hard and fast -- At points, arrows did go through plate, sure. Then it got thicker. Problem solved. And it was still totally usable in battle. Plate was, by and large, impregnable.... Unless you have (melee) weapons meant to fuck the guy inside up, despite it, but, that's another case. If there was one thing people back in those days were good at, it was killing people. And preventing people from being killed by those methods. It's pretty much all they did.
(Also, if someone wants to bring up the Battle of Agincourt, this is more because ... the French were stupid enough to run through a field of mud, in plate, while having arrows rained on them. English longbowmen *helped*, but French stupidity lost that fight)

Re:Kevlar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153678)

How bullet proof anything? That stuff could make bullet proof t-shirts possible. Also try replacing all the shell of a car with this instead of the general hard plastics/metal shells they have now. Suddenly the car is 15% lighter and gets 30% better milage. Plus who wouldnt want a bulletproof house. That would be sweet

Re:Kevlar (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153708)

I could see them using it in area's affected by hurricane's, typhon's, and maybe tornados. Seems like it'd be good to protect houses from debris flying at 100+ mph.

Re:Kevlar (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153814)

You forgot the apostrophe in "tornado's",

Depends how it's built... (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154170)

Design the building so the roof is supported by only interior walls and so there are multiple load points, and you have a much better chance of it staying up.

Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153558)

If this can stop projectiles from penetrating the wall, then think about the protection it could offer from tornados and hurricanes. Obviously not a direct hit, since there'd be far more structural damage, but how much of that damage caused by flying debris could be mitigated. At the very least, the protection it could offer for occupants.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (3, Informative)

rekenner (849871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153620)

Eh.
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153662)

The Mythbusters pretty much put that one to rest. Pressure differential (closed vs. open windows for example) makes almost no difference at all.

What raises the roof is simply the shape of the roof. It causes lift that pulls it off the house. (Yes, that is a pressure differential, but not in the sense most people mean.) It is not interior pressure blowing the roof off, nor massive negative pressure outside "sucking" the roof off. It is simple aerodynamic lift.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (0, Troll)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153978)

It is not interior pressure blowing the roof off, nor massive negative pressure outside "sucking" the roof off. It is simple aerodynamic lift.

Last I heard, that's what lift WAS... A difference in pressure. Faster-moving fluids exert less pressure on their surroundings.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153996)

Please read what I wrote again.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154006)

To be more specific, what part of "Yes, that is a pressure differential" did you not understand?

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (4, Informative)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154100)

This seems to be a common misconception, probably due to it being taught badly in schools. Taking an aeroplane as a specific example since this is the most common example of lift. You will find that the Bernoulli effect (the lift generated by a pressure difference above and below the wing) is not the main reason why planes fly (although the effect does exist, it is just not a large enough force to keep a plane up).

What demonstrate this most clearly are symmetrical winged aeroplanes which are things like stunt planes which often fly upside down. It should be evident from the fact the wing is symmetrical that the common explanation of lower pressure above because air goes around a curve making it go faster has zero effect here.

If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.

I have not read anything about how houses are affected but I would imagine it would be a similar effect with the roof deflecting air causing a force.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154048)

Fair enough. Different cause than I figured it was, but this wallpapering still wouldn't do anything, though.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153672)

If this can stop projectiles from penetrating the wall, then think about the protection it could offer from tornados and hurricanes.

This was my first thought (too?). When in university in the early '90s, the institution I attended had a wind chamber and was investigating the effects of cyclone (southern Pacific - Hurricanes or Typhoons for everyone else) damage. I remembered being shocked to see that a piece of 2x4 wood travelling at cyclonic speeds could penetrate a brick wall. If you live in an area prone to these conditions and have seen the effect, you'd be considering the cost of it versus the chance of protecting yourself, your families and hopefully even your house...

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153694)

a hole in the ground under the house has be proven effective and cheap. they call it cellar, go figure

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153832)

Cellars only work with dry weather events, like tornadoes.(*) Hurricanes usually cause mass flooding. Not fun to be in a hole in the ground when that hole fills with water, with the house above collapsed and flying-death outside. (And a few days until the storm & rains around the hurricane subside.) Even in a tornado, if there's less crap flying around (because it's held together), the event will be more survivable.

(*Unless it's a really awesome cellar.)

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153776)

fuck that. let's try it on comets!

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153948)

From what I've seen on the news (not living in a tornado-prone country and all), major damage can usually be attributed to the fact that houses are made out of ply wood and plastic, i.e. cheap. So I suspect an expensive bomb-proof retrofitting is out of the question or else they could have built a real stone house to begin with.

I'm looking at 40cm thick stone walls here. That should be fairly effective at stopping a bit of wind. Then again the worst weather condition I've seen around here, were hailstones the size of small grapes, nothing noteworthy.

Wallpaper anchored in demo (4, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153568)

Well, it certainly looks interesting, but in the video the wallpaper was anchored very securely at the top and bottom of the test wall. I'd like to see how it does with only the sticky backing of the product itself keeping it on the wall.

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo (5, Informative)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153604)

It is meant to be installed with anchors. It would remain stuck to the wall and stop shrapnel fine without them, but when the wall bows, the tape would bow with it, causing a collapse. The anchors make the tape provide tension that keeps the wall up. Here's a video about the stuff that will clarify. [youtube.com]

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153658)

Informative indeed. That's a better video than the inhabitat web page, which leads one to believe you can just stick it on and keep a wrecking ball out of your living room.

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153748)

But then the question is why do you need a wall in the first place? It looks like the wallpaper by itself would be able to block wrecking balls or explosions if anchored.

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo && not load (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153772)

The wall does not have a load on it, otherwise I think it would fully collapse afterwards. Requires structural framing to work.

kind of an inside out airbag.

Wonder how a vehicle with this as a tensile skin would crash test? The body would become a safety cocoon.

New department for demolitions firms (4, Funny)

The Rizz (1319) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153584)

I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?

Re:New department for demolitions firms (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153710)

Hehe ;-)

Demolition needs to attack the structure. Actually, I think this is a good thing for stopping flying debris so blasting demolition crews won't have to put their own layer of "wallpaper" around the building to stop flying debris, thus making the demolition easier and cheaper ;-))

Re:New department for demolitions firms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153734)

God bless the Mexicans.

Re:New department for demolitions firms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153990)

Why not simply Interior Corator?

Discovery channel beat them to it. (4, Informative)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153586)

Rhino liner works great [rhinolinin...strial.com]

Desktop (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153596)

I'm going to use this as wallpaper for my desktop. Does that now make my computer bomb-proof?

Re:Desktop (1)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153690)

Yes this actually going to be their main cash cow. Who else is going to protect us from the internet terrorists that are trolling around Slashdot. http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/05/12/hackers-can-turn-your-home-computer-into-a-bomb/ [geeksaresexy.net]

Re:Desktop (1)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153698)

PS. I love how in the 90s people actually believed shit like that.... Im just waiting for the day when the south finally finds that old internet mime and they start freaking the hell out(Yes I am implying that southerns are 20 years behind and very gullible) .

Re:Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154026)

And I'm stating directly that you cannot spell, and should shut the fuck up.

Not a very scientific example (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153608)

1. There was no pressure (other than gravity) being exerted down on the wall. So yeah, the wall is going to buckle but not fall when a semi-strong cohesive surface is covering the entire back side. 2. They should have tested it against normal wallpaper (or cloth for that matter), not just NO wallpaper.

Bomb inside the building (1)

paultwang (946947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153650)

What will happen if the bomb is inside the building with this wallpaper? Where would the explosion go?

Re:Bomb inside the building (1)

HUKI365 (1113395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153778)

Energy = heat

I know one customer (-1, Troll)

Vylen (800165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153660)

This new wallpaper will be what will line the walls in Microsoft with at least 2 layers in Steve Ballmers office.

Ask Larry Niven... (3, Funny)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153664)

Maybe in the next movie, Superman (or "LL") could put in an order for condoms made out of this material. After all, it would certainly solve a lot of problems [rawbw.com] .

Late news? (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153670)

I have seen this demonstrated on television at least twice in the last year. Isn't it a bit late to be getting to Slashdot?

Might not punch through, but... (2, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153674)

... you don't have to punch through a wall to otherwise destroy it. Even if this stuff stops a wrecking ball from breaking through a brick wall, can you imagine what kind of a shattered mess it will be in after force of the impact? It will still have be rebuilt from the ground up. The video in TFA demonstrates that: if that block wall had been a load-bearing wall, whatever big weight it was supporting would probably still come crashing down.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153686)

This is DEFINITELY what i'm putting on my desktop. Does it come in 1024x768?

So (1)

maitai (46370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153696)

Looking at the video it looks like the "wallpaper" was supported at the top and the bottom by the rig used to hold the wall (and "wallpaper") in place. Making the "wallpaper" act more like a safety net catching a falling object than something reinforcing the wall itself.

How well does it work when it's a wall bearing load instead of the rig bearing the load of the "wallpaper" and the impact?

What! (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153724)

How can a wallpaper displaying 3 bombs help against anything?

Is it like the red ribbon, if I use this wallpaper I give money to peace soldiers or something?
And is it available in a 1680x1050 resolution?

Hurricane alley (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153730)

This stuff needs to be put in the walls of the homes out in hurricane alley. Tactical considerations are nice of course, but in your day-to-day those people could probably use it more. Especially since every so often 2x4s doing 250+ mph are thrown at their homes.

Fire fighter survival.... (3, Insightful)

cantbeatL337 (1136549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153760)

As a volunteer firefighter I see this is a horrible idea for being put in use in homes and offices. Im not sure how easily a firefighter will be able to get through the material. If a firefighter becomes lost or disoriented in a building during a fire, one tactic they can use is to find out where the nearest window is and if they can get to it easily. Sometimes they will need to go bust through an interior wall. With this wallpaper I think it would be near impossible to get through the wall which could lead to unnecessary deaths.

Re:Fire fighter survival.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153828)

This would be on exterior walls though, to protect from blasts/debris coming from the outside.

Re:Fire fighter survival.... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154160)

I'd imagine some places would have this put on interior walls as well; places where you would expect a lot of gunfire, such as police stations, military bases, public schools, and post offices.

Re:Fire fighter survival.... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153962)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but many countries have lots of buildings that are basically brick or rock, including internal walls. Firefighters don't die more there than anywhere else.

Re:Fire fighter survival.... (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154096)

Firefighters only die once, no matter where they are. Except if they are Cat Firefighters, I guess.

Works Like A Charm (1)

qpawn (1507885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153774)

The wallpaper doesn't let my video projector display Battlefield Earth.

Embed in concrete (4, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153788)

How about embedding kevlar-web in concrete? As a building technique generally. Earthquake resistance?

Re:Embed in concrete (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153874)

Technology like this is to retrofit buildings to resist bombings, not for new construction. Linings like this are expensive, but less expensive than rebuilding the wall. And if you ARE building a new wall from scratch, you wouldn't use masonry with a lining either, you'd use pretensioned concrete, which is impressively strong stuff.

Re:Embed in concrete (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154018)

I'm picturing pretensioned concrete with embedded kevlar mesh, for extra kevlar-meshy goodness.

Bomb PROOF may be over the top... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153896)

I think it might be better called "bomb resistant". Certainly a big enough bomb would go right through it. They make them into the megaton range these days...

Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30153912)

So how will they, eventually, demolish buildings that have been wallpapered with this stuff?

Re:Oops (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154088)

Using a wrecking ball wrapped in the stuff.

What if (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153916)

an unstoppable cannon ball hits and unbreakable wall?

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154130)

The universe collapses and we no longer need LHC.

Hmmmmm..... (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30153920)

Now they can start on that 'Bomb Proof' school desk that my parents hear so much about when they were kids.....

Oscar Wilde (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154012)

Oscar Wilde famously said "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One of us has got to go". I'm thinking this could swing the odds.

Wallpaper adhesive (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154034)

A chain's only as strong as it's weakest link. So if this stuff is glued to the walls with anything less strong than it is, that adhesive will become the problem: not the bombproof wallpaper. Presumably "wallpaper" is the wrong term, too as this stuff would have to coat the floor and ceiling (and doors & windows) to be completely effective. Then what would you do if you lost your keys? Move house?

Re:Wallpaper adhesive (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154080)

you can see in the video that the "wallpaper" is anchored to the floor and ceiling.

If (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154084)

If it keeps wrecking balls out, then, it can probably keep wrecking balls in. Hmmmmm

twin towers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154092)

if only he twin towers would have been covered with it....

Quaint... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30154162)

Hmm I always wanted to cover my house in those lovely victorian patterns. Now I can hold tea parties and casually talk about my bomb proof wallpaper... Oh, isn't that lovely? Yes, yes it is indeed, dear.

something new for (1)

stillpixel (1575443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30154180)

High school chemistry labs? perhaps Hollywood can find a way to wrap their movies in it? Thank you! I'll be here all week! Try the adolescent bovine!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>