/sci/ - Science & Math

I would assume it is because propane could blow up if you put it under high pressure around working electronics.

It can be used. It just isn't as good.

Energy density sucks. It'd cost more in added weight to carry it around then it's worth.

So what your saying is electric powered hydrolics are more efficient?

OP Here: What would be a perfect fuel source? I mean, in my mind, servos would fail. Hydraulics would be to energy consuming. What give, I want Master Chief Armor NAOW

Bump for self interest

Define perfect. Best in terms of energy density? Nuclear. Best in terms of feasibility? Probably gasoline or a high density battery. Best in terms of conversion efficiency? Fuel cell with hydrogen.

Best overall? Probably the battery or gas tbh.

I approve of this, I'll tell you what.

Yeah, let's just encase ourselves skin tight in pressurized and highly volatile gasworks. What could possibly go wrong?

What we need are electronic muscles. Something that acts just like a muscle fiber, contracting in response to voltage applied, or elongating would work too. They already have fluid with magnetic particles suspended inside, that changes viscosity in response to voltage applied. They put it in the shock absorbers of high end vehicles, as I understand.

why not use a liquid which gives a higher energy density like ... gasoline ?

>>1006980
Enjoy having freeze burns if the pressurised gas passes through a pipe too close to your skin

>>1007205

You just described myomar.

>>1006992
Hydrogen would be better?

>>1007157
It works in comics...

<spoiler> people taking these seriously must grow up <spoiler>

I would probably put my money on the best energy density - not of the fuel alone, but of the whole suit as a whole - being achieved with pneumatics powered by a small gas turbine. 200 gram model aircraft engines can produce over a horsepower.

>>1006980
FFS /co/! What you read is FUCKEN TOTALLY UNREALISTIC !!!FICTION!!!.

Even if such thing (PCS) was technologically doable what would the point of manufacturing a mansuit about a 300 hundred times less cost-effective than a tank or a jet-fighter?!

For crying out loud! Even the inbred fuc/k/tarded phalliccases have more common sense than you do!

>>1007278
>implying mysterious Palladium-based energy producing rings made by some goldenboy in a cave

>>1007294
While the full powered suit is unreasonable, some elements are going to see or already see widespread use: worn computers, worn communications, worn sensors, heads-up display (esp. integrated with weapons), active camouflage, full-body armor, etc

>>1007336
The troops have many of these things and hate them. They tend not to use them because they can't fight when overburdened no matter how great the technology is.

>>1007336 smoke weed everyday

The cabs in my town run on Propane.

>>1007352
Fact remains deaths per troops deployed have been going down steadily as the technology available to individual soldiers has increased. (and is especially correlated to the cost of each soldier's personal equipment)

I have a idea, why dont we make a endoskeleton powered by butane?

>>1007352
yeap

you can be well camouflaged without a high-tech active-c chameleon suit, being more agile and by thousands of times more cost effective and less sweaty

>>1007380
>implying world's greatest national military expenses vs Coran-jerking camel-humping insurgents of random bananias is a good example of military efficiency

>>1007404
>implying adversaries used to come to this conclusion didn't include America (confederates), Germany, the USSR, China, Serbia, etc, etc...

>>1007381
>implying you can refill anything with butane

>>1007419
>implying these cases are comperable

>this thread

>>1007558
and also

>Serbia

... like seriously?