Lightening The Load Reducing the load sounds easy, but it may be complex with difficult trade-offs. The individual load and the ‘unit’ load. The mortar crew, machine gunner, etc. can't carry all their equipment and ammunition so their loads get divided among the entire unit. Then, add-up the daily water and food consumption by weight (might be 6,000+ calories/day in mountains) and there are physical limits to patrol duration without resupply. Load distribution. Dr. Harman, USARIEM, as one example, showed that the mortar base plate width adds to the energy expenditure. So, a lighter, folding mortar base plate would be better (if feasible). Currently, no standard guidance on how to load to reduce energy cost. (Harman, E.A. & Frykman, P.N. Heavy load carriage performance correlates: backpack vs. individual towed trailer [abstract]. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 27(5): S136, 1995.)(Lots of USARIEM reports on combat load, load distribution, and training). Azimuths (many already being worked): - You can define the body armor as the basic support structure and attach everything to it, saving some straps, weight, etc. - You can define the Soldier as a power system and eliminate individual item batteries in favor if one large battery or fuel cell (also changes weight distribution on the weapon). Adding attachment points and cabling increases other issues. Wilcox Ind has already prototyped this on the rifle (using a powered rail concept). Portable solar recharger (where are all the batteries on day 3?)? - You can give them a filter to convert local water to safe water if there is local water. See Falklands LL. CHPPM has tested water filters. - You can offload to a cart (USARIEM prototyped a hip-mounted single wheeled cart), robot, or mule (powered or natural), but each adds it's own issues (the mule needs fuel, etc.). - At the end of the day, Soldiers believe a ‘bird in the hand’ is best so if you lighten the load, they'll add more water/ammo/etc. - Related second-order issues: • Difficult to resupply a small unit in contact. Realize there are research projects (e.g. 02/24/22 1
Transcript
Lightening The Load
Reducing the load sounds easy, but it may be complex with difficult trade-offs.
The individual load and the ‘unit’ load. The mortar crew, machine gunner, etc. can't carry all their equipment and ammunition so their loads get divided among the entire unit. Then, add-up the daily water and food consumption by weight (might be 6,000+ calories/day in mountains) and there are physical limits to patrol duration without resupply.
Load distribution. Dr. Harman, USARIEM, as one example, showed that the mortar base plate width adds to the energy expenditure. So, a lighter, folding mortar base plate would be better (if feasible). Currently, no standard guidance on how to load to reduce energy cost. (Harman, E.A. & Frykman, P.N. Heavy load carriage performance correlates: backpack vs. individual towed trailer [abstract]. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 27(5): S136, 1995.)(Lots of USARIEM reports on combat load, load distribution, and training).
Azimuths (many already being worked):
- You can define the body armor as the basic support structure and attach everything to it, saving some straps, weight, etc.
- You can define the Soldier as a power system and eliminate individual item batteries in favor if one large battery or fuel cell (also changes weight distribution on the weapon). Adding attachment points and cabling increases other issues. Wilcox Ind has already prototyped this on the rifle (using a powered rail concept). Portable solar recharger (where are all the batteries on day 3?)?
- You can give them a filter to convert local water to safe water if there is local water. See Falklands LL. CHPPM has tested water filters.
- You can offload to a cart (USARIEM prototyped a hip-mounted single wheeled cart), robot, or mule (powered or natural), but each adds it's own issues (the mule needs fuel, etc.).
- At the end of the day, Soldiers believe a ‘bird in the hand’ is best so if you lighten the load, they'll add more water/ammo/etc.
- Related second-order issues:
• Difficult to resupply a small unit in contact. Realize there are research projects (e.g. steerable parachute, etc.). Might explore supplies encased in Styrofoam balls.
• Load is related to shoulder, back, and leg/ankle injuries. Ankle pre-habilitation in PT? Reinforced ankles in boots (see new Israeli boot)? Offer optional loaded marching to a time-distance standard in PT test/training.
• What is impact of doctrine and TTP on load? How might the ‘instant FOB’ concept affect load?05/03/23 1
In 1987, the U.S. Army Development and Employment Agency (1) proposed five approaches for improving soldier mobility:
1. Develop lighter weight components. However, technical developments were expected to reduce loads only by 6% overall (126).
NOTE: Modifying the load might include standardizing/consolidating batteries (see Wilcox modified M4), solar battery charger, water filter pumps, reengineering the mortar base plate to fold, etc.).
2. Soldier load planning model. This was a computer program that aided commanders in tailoring loads through a risk analysis based on the mission, enemy, terrain, troops and time (METT-T).
3. Development of specialized load-carrying equipment. This included such things as hand carts and all-terrain vehicles.
NOTE: offloading could include better hot resupply in danger areas.NOTE: Compared to body carriage, energy cost was reduced by 88% when a 50-kg load was pushed in a cart on a smooth surface (43). Pulled carts (rather than pushed) appear to be easier to control on uneven terrain and also result in considerable energy cost savings (42).A specially designed combat load cart that was pulled by soldiers using a hip belt resulted in faster march speeds than moving the same loads with a rucksack. Over mixed terrain (paved road, dirt road, field, and rough trail), 34-kg and 61-kg loads were moved 22% and 44% faster over a 3.2-km distance (48). This combat load cart, specifically developed for military operations, is available in the US Army.42. Haisman, M.F. and R.F. Goldman. Effect of terrain on the energy cost of walking with back loads and handcart loads. J. Appl. Physiol. 36:545-548, 1974. 43. Haisman, M.F., F.R. Winsmann and R.F. Goldman. Energy cost of pushing loaded handcarts. J. Appl. Physiol. 33:181-183, 1972.48. Harman, E.A. and P.N. Frykman. Heavy load carriage performance correlates: backpack vs. individual towed trailer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:S136, 1995.140. Vanderlaan, J.C., R.C. Turlington and D.N. Tarter. Combat load cart (MANCART). Ft Lewis, WA: Army Development and Employment Agency Report No. ADEA-AR-88-A214, 1988.
4. Reevaluation of current doctrine that might affect load carriage. An example of this was an increased emphasis on marksmanship to reduce ammunition loads.
NOTE: Caseless or aluminum cases would reduce ammo wt. Optical sights add weight, but improve accuracy (as does better training).
5. Development of special physical training programs to condition soldiers to develop more physical capability for load carriage. NOTE: Include a loaded march to time & distance std vice running in PT program.
Effects of a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program on the Load Carriage and Lifting Performance of Female Soldiers. Authors: Everett Harman; Peter Frykman; Christopher Palmer; Eric Lammi; Katy Reynolds; ARMY RESEARCH INST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE NATICK MANOTE : Select Soldiers big and strong enough to carry the load (e.g. One foreign Army used to not enlist Inf soldiers below 5' 6”)(load is a function of % body weight).
History
The Effects of Load Weight: A Summary Analysis of Maximal Performance, Physiological, and Biomechanical Results from Four Studies of Load-Carriage Systems Authors: Amy F. Polcyn; Carolyn K. Bessel; Everett A. Harman; John P. Obusek; Army Natick Soldier Center Ma Supporting Science And Technology Directorate
05/03/23 2
05/03/23 3
Effects of a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program on the Load Carriage and Lifting Performance of Female SoldiersAuthors: Everett Harman; Peter Frykman; Christopher Palmer; Eric Lammi; Katy Reynolds; Army Research Inst Of Environmental Medicine Natick Ma
Abstract: Forty-six women were studied to determine whether their ability to perform 'very heavy' Army jobs could be improved by a specially designed 24-week physical training program administered within normal Army time constraints; 32 subjects remained for the entire testing and training program. The training program proved effective'. •The weight of boxes the -women could lift to three different heights improved between 30% and 47%. •After training, the average box- weight the women could lift onto a truck was 118 pounds, 81% of the Army male value. •The number of 40-pound boxes the women could lift onto a truck in 10 minutes increased from 106 to 140. •The number of 40-pound boxes that could be lifted off the ground, carried 25 feet and placed onto a truck increased from 53 to 62. •Vertical jump and standing long jump distance increased 20% and 15% respectively. •The speed at which a 75 pound backpack could be carried over a 2- mile mixed-terrain course increased from 3.4 to 4.4 miles per hour.
Before the training, only 24% of the women could qualify for 'very heavy' Army jobs; after the training, 78% could qualify. Body composition improved as well.
History
05/03/23 4
Effects of a new individual fighting system on marksmanshipWilliam J. Tharion* and John P. ObusekU.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Military Nutrition & Biochemistry Division, Natick, MA 01760, USAReceived 3 July 1998; revised 21 August 1998; accepted 17 September 1998. Available online 11 January 2000.
Abstract The effectiveness of shooting was tested in both prone and standing positions unsupported while wearing a new prototype infantry fighting equipment system developed under the Land Warrior (LW) program.
Volunteers (n=12) were male infantry soldiers who were experienced marksmen. Volunteers shot while wearing three equipment configurations: the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU), BDU and the conventional fighting load (CONV), and BDU and the LW fighting load (LWFL).
Significant differences (p<0.05) in distance from center of mass (DCM), shot group tightness (SGT) and percent of targets hit between equipment conditions were seen. Shooters shot approximately 42% farther away from the target center, had shot groups approximately 214% more disperse, and took 38% longer when shooting prone with the LWFL compared to the CONV conditions. The principal cause of shooting impairment while shooting prone with LWFL was the contact between the hard pack and the helmet preventing the shooter from properly lifting his head to see the target.
Generally, when designing equipment, engineers should take into account performance under all body positions likely to be encountered in military operations. These results have demonstrated that both the standing and prone positions for shooting need to be considered when designing combat equipment for the fighting soldier.
History
05/03/23 5
Soldier Load Carriage: Historical, Physiological, Biomechanical, and Medical AspectsAuthors: Joseph J. Knapik1; Katy L. Reynolds2; Everett HarmanSource: Military Medicine, Volume 169, Number 1, January 2004 , pp. 45-56(12) Publisher: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S.
Abstract: This study reviews historical and biomedical aspects of soldier load carriage. Before the 18th century, foot soldiers seldom carried more than 15 kg while on the march, but loads have progressively risen since then. This load increase is presumably due to the weight of weapons and equipment that incorporate new technologies to increase protection, firepower, communications, and mobility.
Research shows that locating the load center of mass as close as possible to the body center of mass results in the lowest energy cost and tends to keep the body in an upright position similar to unloaded walking. Loads carried on other parts of the body result in higher energy expenditures: each kilogram added to the foot increases energy expenditure 7% to 10%; each kilogram added to the thigh increases energy expenditure 4%. Hip belts on rucksacks should be used whenever possible as they reduce pressure on the shoulders and increase comfort. Low or mid-back load placement might be preferable on uneven terrain but high load placement may be best for even terrain.
In some tactical situations, combat load carts can be used, and these can considerably reduce energy expenditure and improve performance.
Physical training that includes aerobic exercise, resistance training targeted at specific muscle groups, and regular road marching can considerably improve road marching speed and efficiency. The energy cost of walking with backpack loads increases progressively with increases in weight carried, body mass, walking speed, or grade; type of terrain also influences energy cost. Predictive equations have been developed, but these may not be accurate for prolonged load carriage. Common injuries associated with prolonged load carriage include foot blisters, stress fractures, back strains, metatarsalgia, rucksack palsy, and knee pain. Load carriage can be facilitated by lightening loads, improving load distribution, optimizing load-carriage equipment, and taking preventive action to reduce the incidence of injury.
Document Type: Research articleAffiliations: 1: Directorate of Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010. 2: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA 01760.
05/03/23 6
Combat Physical ReadinessV2d
Purpose: Prepare Soldiers to fight and win as teams in combat with task-specific training and testing IAW FM 3-22.20.
Benefits:
• Combat Fitness: Measurable task-specific strength, stamina, skill, speed, spirit, suppleness, and teamwork to accomplish unit missions and common combat tasks (see WWII PT analysis; Mobility & Portability test results; MaxWACS Study (female Soldiers outperformed men on field tasks by using teamwork, etc.).
• Combat transfer.
• Motivation: high ‘face validity.’
• Flexible: Tailorable to CMF and/or METT-T.
Disadvantages:
• Cost & time
• Cultural changeJim LarsenCell 757-291-2268
05/03/23 7
Combat Readiness Test v2 2050Phase 1: Warrior Phase
Combination Run Dodge Jump, parcourse, lane, and Common Task Test (CTT) conceptsEquipment: rifle, helmet, LBE, dummy grenade (optional dummy rifle)
Trains aerobic, strength, and skillScored on both time and doctrinal process
Aerobic: 2 mile run or combat loaded march to time & distance standard
2.5 tondismount
low wallcross
drygulchjump
highwallcross
3 sec burstup-downassault(time)
sandbagstack(time)
low crawl
C4pit
C4pit
grenadethrow
lasertarget
casualtyCarry/drag
Not toscale
CombativesDummy
Eye gougeGroin kick
Throat Chop/Neck Break
StrengthStaminaSkillSpeedSpiritSupplenessTeamwork
05/03/23 8
Combat Readiness Test v2 2050Phase 2: Warrior Team Phase
Reverse course as 4-Soldier litter carry with sandbag casualtyTrains teamwork, strength, and skill
Scored on both time and doctrinal processAerobic: Combat loaded march to time & distance standard with military events
enroute (react to ambush, etcv.)
2.5 tonMount
(Option: ambulance load)
low wallcross
drygulchcross
highwallcross
3 sec burstup-downassault
4 soldierlittercarry
low crawl
C4pit
C4pit
lasertarget
Not toscale
StrengthStaminaSkillSpeedSpiritSupplenessTeamwork
05/03/23 9
Combat PT Test v22050
Phase Optional: Deployment Prep PhaseFighting or Combat Load (Optional Gas Mask) (Optional night conditions) (Optional Fire Team)
Scored on both time and doctrinal process
C4pit
C4pit
grenadethrow
lasertarget
2.5 tonDismount
OrConvoy
React to Ambush
low wallcross
drygulchjump
highwallcross
3 sec burstup-downassault(time)
sandbagstack(time)
low crawl casualtycarry
MILESengagement
Not toscale
StrengthStaminaSkillSpeedSpiritSupplenessTeamwork
05/03/23 10
TTP: If the Soldier is carrying/wearing 50-150 pounds, and the casualty is carrying/wearing 50-150 pounds, is the single person carry obsolete?
StrengthStaminaSkillSpeedSpiritSupplenessTeamwork
05/03/23 11
Load Carriage Using Carts
Military personnel seldom consider using carts to transport loads, but for some missions this may be an option. Positive and negative aspects emerged in a field trial of three combat load carts.
On the positive side, the tested carts were generally durable, and were effectively used in flat terrain, in barrier construction, and in resupply.
On the negative side, the carts created problems in rugged terrain: they were noisy in brush or rocky areas, thus reducing tactical surprise; equipment could get caught in the wheels of some carts (140).
A combat load cart appropriate for military operations should have a low center of gravity, a wide wheel base, and a large wheel size (42, 43).
Compared to body carriage, energy cost was reduced by 88% when a 50-kg load was pushed in a cart on a smooth surface (43). Pulled carts (rather than pushed) appear to be easier to control on uneven terrain and also result in considerable energy cost savings (42).
A specially designed combat load cart that was pulled by soldiers using a hip belt resulted in faster march speeds than moving the same loads with a rucksack. Over mixed terrain (paved road, dirt road, field, and rough trail), 34-kg and 61-kg loads were moved 22% and 44% faster over a 3.2-km distance (48). This combat load cart, specifically developed for military operations, is available in the US Army.
42. Haisman, M.F. and R.F. Goldman. Effect of terrain on the energy cost of walking with back loads and handcart loads. J. Appl. Physiol. 36:545-548, 1974. 43. Haisman, M.F., F.R. Winsmann and R.F. Goldman. Energy cost of pushing loaded handcarts. J. Appl. Physiol. 33:181-183, 1972.48. Harman, E.A. and P.N. Frykman. Heavy load carriage performance correlates: backpack vs. individual towed trailer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:S136, 1995.140. Vanderlaan, J.C., R.C. Turlington and D.N. Tarter. Combat load cart (MANCART). Ft Lewis, WA: Army Development and Employment Agency Report No. ADEA-AR-88-A214, 1988.
05/03/23 12
05/03/23 13
05/03/23 14
Heat load can be almost as important as weight load.
Other armor users have developed under-armor cooling liners (ideally with copper for anti-stench). Cool-max liner shirt with vertical tubes or pads? See the IBA as the 'uniform' and focus on how to move heat out of it.
German WWII helmets had cooling vents to let hot air escape (head generates 80% of heat since arteries run full bore to brain). Risk trade-off, but....
Impact of Body Armor on Physical Work Performance, Col. Ricciardi & Dr. Duester
Ddemonstrates that wearing interceptor body armor under simulated work conditions significantly: Increases energy cost Reduces physical work performance capabilities and Increases physiological fatigue
Note: IBA is designed for men, so no ‘princess cut’ for breasts (may have to size up) and length can interfere with mobility.
05/03/23 15
RESUPPLY
Onyx Swarming Precision Parachutes
The shape of military technology continues to evolve in all directions and one of the most interesting we’ve seen in recent times comes from Atair Aerospace in the form of its inventive Onyx precision guided parachute systems.
Onyx systems are autonomously guided parafoil systems designed to allow military cargo to be parachuted from high altitudes of up to 35,000 ft, autonomously glide for 30 miles, and land within 50 metres of a preprogrammed target.
Atair is the first company to successfully develop autonomous agent swarming UAVs so the Onyx system includes Adaptive Control, Flocking/Swarming and Active Collision Avoidance capabilities which means in laymans terms that 50+ parachutes can be deployed in the same airspace, guiding to one or multiple targets without the possibility of midair collisions.
With this technology, multiple Onyx systems (50+) with payloads ranging from small ground sensors or small munitions to 2,200 lbs of mission-critical supplies can be airdropped from high altitude above the battlefield and all of them will find their way exactly to their intended recipients.
Atair was recently awarded a US$3.2 million contract by the U.S. Army to supply Onyx systems. Atair developed the Onyx precision guided parachute system under contract with the U.S. Army, and the LEAPP UAV under contract with DARPA
http://www.atair.com/
Note: Should be possible to weaponize all these resupply solutions.
UAV/RPV recovery
http://www.airborne-sys.com/
Parachute design and manufacturing company Airborne Systems has successfully tested a precision guided cargo delivery system capable of carrying 42,000 pounds under a single ram-air parachute.
GigaFly, as the system is known, was used to drop a 33,000 lb load from a C-130 aircraft at 15,000 feet and autonomously guide its cargo to a point 275 meters from the designated target.
GigaFly has a canopy area of 10,400 square feet and a wingspan of 195 feet (making it almost as wide as the wings on a Boeing 747). The system uses an on board GPS guidance unit and software to deliver its cargo autonomously to point on the ground from up to 22 kilometers away and is designed for airdrop at altitudes as high as 25,000 feet with rate-of-descent of 14 feet per second.
The GigaFly test was conducted as part of a US Army Natick Soldier Research Development & Engineering Center development program. According to the program manager, "GigaFly is the largest ram-air ever to be deployed successfully and without the use of pyrotechnics. What has been accomplished here both technically and physically is remarkable."
05/03/23 21
Flying Mule Demos ‘Afghan’ Resupply By Colin Clark Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
In what could prove a significant improvement to the U.S. military’s ability to move fast and far over tough terrain, Lockheed Martin and Kaman Aerospace say they have demonstrated the ability to use a unmanned helicopter to resupply in conditions similar to an FOB in Afghanistan.“
During a series of flights last week in subfreezing temperatures at the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground, UT, the Unmanned K- MAX demonstrated autonomous and remote control flight over both line- of- sight and satellite- based beyond line- of- sight data link,” according to a press release. “We met or exceeded the requirements within the scheduled three- day timeframe of the demonstration,” Dan Spoor, Lockheed’s president of aviation systems at Mission Systems & Sensors, said in the release. “The system performed a rigorous set of cargo resupply scenarios as programmed, allowing the ground- based operator to monitor progress, and make adjustments to aircraft positioning only when requested by the Marine Corps for demonstration purposes.”
The helo hovered at 12,000 ft. with a 1,500-pound sling load and delivered 3,000 pounds of cargo well within the six- hour required timeframe to a forward operating base (two 150 nm round- trip flights). It operated during the day and at night and the testers reprogrammed it in flight. They also used a four- hook carousel, which enables multi- load deliveries in a single flight.
The helo lifted 3,450 pounds, flew to three different sites and released a sling load at each spot. The Marines wanted the fourth load done by a ground operator. It was. “This capability gives the Marine Corps a proven unmanned power lifter to bring vital cargo to troops on the battlefield without the need for ground vehicles and manned helicopters,” Sal Bordonaro, president of Kaman Helicopters, said in the release.
Boeing has a similar capability under development, called the A160 Hummingbird. The unmanned version is being developed in response to an RFI from the Marine Warfighting Lab issued early last year. A lab spokesman declined comment. We hope to get some video of this test soon.
05/03/23 22
Boeing A160T Hummingbird UAV proves front line resupply capabilities
A Boeing A160T Hummingbird UAV, like the one shown here during a previous sling-load test flight, has met or exceeded all requirements during a sling-load cargo demonstration for the U.S. Marines Boeing’s A160T Hummingbird UAV has successfully completed a simulated mission test proving the unmanned rotorcraft’s ability to resupply frontline troops in rough terrain.
The demonstration saw the A160T carry 1,250-pound sling loads over two 150-nautical-mile round trips operating autonomously on a pre-programmed mission. The demonstration proved the craft is capable of delivering at least 2,500 pounds of cargo from one simulated forward-operating base to another 75 nautical miles away in well under the required six hours.
The A160T completed seven test flights during the demonstration, including a two-minute hover at 12,000 feet with the 1,250-pound sling load, and a nighttime delivery to a simulated forward operating base. Boeing says the A160T's ability to execute extremely accurate autonomous deliveries also was demonstrated. "The Hummingbird's performance was outstanding, as we had expected," said Vic Sweberg, director of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Boeing Military Aircraft.
"The A160T's capabilities can fulfill our customer's near-term need for 24/7, reliable cargo resupply. It also provides unmatched flexibility to carry out a variety of other missions, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; target acquisition; direct action; and communication relay.”
The A160T has a 2,500-pound payload capacity. It features a unique optimum-speed-rotor technology that significantly improves overall performance efficiency by adjusting the rotor's speed at different altitudes, gross weights and cruise speeds. The autonomous unmanned aircraft, measuring 35 feet long with a 36-foot rotor diameter, has hovered at 20,000 feet and cruised at more than 140 knots.
The unmanned chopper established a world endurance record in its class in 2008 with an 18.7-hour unrefueled flight.
Joos (pronounced Juice) Orange has been developed by the Californian-based company, Solar Components, LLC. The device can deliver more than two and a half hours of cell phone talk time for every hour it has been charged. It can work under water, and its polycarbonate case has been encapsulated in urethane ensuring that it is rugged enough to be used outside for many years. Joos Orange has a powerful, replaceable, 20 watt hour, Lithium-ion polymer (3.7 volt, 5400mA) battery that can generate enough power to fully charge six standard cell phones or four smart phones. The unit can work with a dead battery, can provide its status to a personal computer and is expected to retail for less than US$100.The Joos Orange is 5.8”w x 8.6”h x 0.8”d (14.7cm x 21.8cm x 2cm) and weighs 24 ounces (0.68kg). It has a steel heat sink inside the molded case to reduce heat and features both top and bottom ventilation. An automotive-grade urethane encases the solar cell and the electronics. The unit has microprocessor-based maximum power point capability and features LED status light to alert users on power production and battery status. The LED light will show red when solar energy is low.The unit can be recharged using any USB power source and includes 2-6 adaptors (depending upon configuration) and a mini USB connector. It has a 5” (12.7cm) mono-crystalline solar cell that features an anti-reflective silicon nitride coating and a maximum power output of 2.6 watts and has legs for solar orientation. Because the cell is connected together electrically in parallel, there are no edge effects.It is FCC A and B, CE and RoHS certified and also meets the NEMA 6P waterproofing and submergibility standard. It can operate in temperatures of -20OC (-4OF) to 60 OC (140OF) and is safe to operate in areas of high altitude.Jamie Bullen, CEO and co-founder of Solar Components, said, “The Joos Orange is the world’s best because it uses the highest efficiency mono-crystalline solar cell on the market instead of a lower efficiency poly-crystalline cell. We use state-of-the-art electronics to stay on the maximum power point, function in low light, work with a dead battery, charge via USB and communicate with a PC. We’ve encapsulated the Joos Orange with a hard, non-yellowing urethane instead of an epoxy-based coating, and we’ve incorporated a steel heat sink and have ventilation built into a case that is also waterproof and submersible.”The Joos Orange is expected to be available to ship in June 2010 and will retail for US$99.95. You can sign up at the Joos Orange website to be notified when it becomes available.
Various estimates put batteries as 10
kg of load
05/03/23 31
http://www.bourneenergy.com/
Backpack Power Plant offers hydroelectricity on the moveBy Tannith Cattermole18:42 March 16, 2010Bourne Energy's Backpack Power Plant is ultra-portable at under 3 feet long and weighing less than 30 pounds. Hydroelectric power specialist Bourne Energy has developed a human-portable hydroelectric generator which can create clean, quiet power from any stream deeper than four feet.
The "Backpack Power Plant", which joins the company's Riverstar, Oceanstar and Tidalstar designs, is aimed at bringing cheap, practical energy technology to remote areas. Bourne Energy has developed two versions of the BPP; BPP-1 is aimed at civilians, while BPP-2 is designed for the military and was recently unveiled at the Cleantech Forum in San Francisco. Both measure three feet in length and weigh less than 30 pounds, though the military version is 10% lighter. Both are self-contained with their own integrated power, control, cooling and sensor systems. They collapse into a backpack-sized module comprising three parts; the generator, hub and folded stored blades. While the military BPP-2 unit produces 20% more power (600W) of high quality continuous power depending on river current, the civilian BPP-1 unit produces approximately 500 W/unit but was not designed to work with a variety of flow rates and produces optimum energy in streams moving at 2.3 meters per second. Both can be arranged singularly or in arrays of 20-30 kW. The BPP-2 however operates silently with no heat or exhaust emissions, is 40% less visible during operation and can also be bottom-mounted to ensure total invisibility if required. The system is designed to be quickly installed via Bourne Energy's novel submerged horizontal high tension mooring system: two trenches are dug on opposite sides of a river and a lightweight anchor inserted into each bank. A synthetic rope is run between the anchors and the BPP unit. Bourne Energy CEO Chris Catlin said his company designed the system to work like the high-tension mooring systems that hold up floating oil rigs. Bourne Energy of Malibu California is currently looking for US$4 million in venture capital to take the BPP mini hydro-electric system from prototype to production. The company is aware that the US$3000 price tag for the civilian version precludes all but the most gadget-hungry buyers, but hope to find interested customers in developing nations and the military as they believe their hydroelectric products offer significant advantages over off-grid solar-power which may be quiet, but produce only a fraction of the power. To illustrate, one commercially available foldable solar panel measures about 12 square feet and produces 62 watts of peak power. Sixty square feet of panels would be needed to get the same peak power as the BPP-2, and the panels would only generate electricity while the sun was shining. This is also true of other renewable energy sources such as wind, which is weather dependent. Hydro-electric power does not suffer from this drawback, and an ultra-portable module will no doubt have many practical applications around the world. “This can bring a cheap, highly portable energy technology to remote areas and remote villages,” said Catlin.
