# How would MECHANICAL superstrength really work?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [October 8, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158 "2004-10-08T04:49:21Z")
**Posts on this page:** 14
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/1 "2004-10-08T04:49:21Z")
This thread started by **Reyemile** – “How superstrength would REALLY work.” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275033](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275033) – left is with the conclusion that it **wouldn’t** work. Using the known laws of physics and chemistry and the basic vertebrate design of muscles and bones, it would not be possible to gene-engineer a human-sized humanoid with the strength of Superman, or even Spiderman.
But suppose the true path to superheroedom is Iron Man? That is, a regular genetically unenhanced _Homo sapiens_ in a suit of powered battle-armor with built in weapons and stuff. Could that work? The military applications are obvious.
The problem of a direct interface between and electronic information system and a human central nervous system is close to being solved. In real life. In “Using Your Brain Signals,” an article in _The New Leader,_ August 1, 2001 ([http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=432](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=432)), Michael Lind recounted a recent breakthrough:
> [@](#):
>
> What if you could move a cursor on a computer screen merely by thinking about it? In the spring of 2001, a project sponsored by the European Commission permitted an individual to do exactly that. Researchers attached a plastic cap to the head of Cathal O’Philbin, a severely disabled London resident suffering from spinal muscular atrophy, a degenerative disease that has robbed him of the use of his arms and legs. The skullcap, connected by a cable to a personal computer with specialized software, interpreted the faint electromagnetic signals in O’Philbin’s brain. After several hours of effort spent with the Adaptive Brain Interface (ABI), the paraplegic learned to write a message with a cursor on a computer screen by thought alone. His first three words were “Arsenal Football Club.”
>
> Those words were not splashed across front pages around the world. The story was carried by a few wire services and quickly forgotten. That had been the fate of reports about previous breakthroughs in the new and rapidly developing field of neural interfaces–direct links between the brain and machines. Hardly anyone paid attention a few years earlier when other teams of researches trained rats and rhesus monkeys with electrodes implanted in their brains to move robot arms by means of thought. Now that several patients at different research facilities are using brain signals to type words on screens, you might expect the world to take notice. Instead, accounts of experiments like the one involving O’Philbin are not only brief and relatively rare, but most often they conclude with the anticlimactic prediction that neural prosthetics might help paralyzed people lead better lives.
>
> This may turn out to be one of the greatest understatements of all time. For the equivalent, you would have to find a 19th century prediction that the newly-invented camera might have some limited use as an aide-memoir for oil painters and watercolorist, or a prophecy in the 1900s that motion pictures might have a glorious future ahead as a sideshow attraction at carnivals and boardwalks.
>
> The truth is that bionics–the augmentation of the body and brain by machines–is far more revolutionary in its implications than other new technologies. Even before the Internet stock bubble burst, it was clear that the Web was an innovation of the second order, more like the spread of telegraphy and telephony than the invention of metallurgy or the splitting of the atom. The quickly advancing technology of genetic engineering, by contrast, deserves all the hype it is receiving. Only a year into the 21st century, governments around the world, including our own, are debating the ethics of human cloning and human germline manipulation.
>
> The emergence of bionics, though, may make much of the present speculation about redesigning the human race irrelevant in a few years. Consider the two methods of augmenting intelligence, bionics and genetic engineering. The bionic method of increasing mental power–say, putting on a cap that permits you to download a computer archive directly into your neocortex–is surely much more efficient than the time-consuming and uncertain process of trying to create a child with the mind of Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton. The bionic approach has the added advantage of being controllable. You can always end the process by taking off the cap.
>
> It would also be more sensible to use bionics rather than genetics to enhance physical powers. Why use genetics engineering to create an overmuscled freak when a simple, computerized exoskeleton could permit a scrawny individual to lift up a car with ease?
Well, I can see one practical obstacle. Not the mechanics – given the current state of the art in robotics, nothing could be simpler than to design a form-fitting strength-enhancing exoskeleton. But what would Iron Man use as a power source? He can’t go into combat trailing an extension cord, and I don’t think we have the technology to build a battery or a power plant, small enough for him to carry on his back, which would provide enough power for a long enough time to make the project worth the trouble.
Come to think of it, though, if we could solve the problem . . . we wouldn’t even need to send our troops into combat wearing powered armor suits; the troops could be safely back at the base, with their brains wired into computers, running robot soldiers by remote control.
Can anyone see a solution to the power source problem?
---
### Author:  [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/2 "2004-10-08T06:24:08Z")
“Broadcast power”? (Either Microwaves, or something involving Tesla) I don’t know if you could do that without cooking the armor-wearer…to say nothing of actually broadcasting enough energy, or the efficiency or practicality of it.
And does the armor just have to grant superstrength, or does it have to be super-durable, too? To actually _protect_ the user from attack?
But I’m guessing a [“Power Loader”](http://simonmercs.biz/sitebuilder/images/model_pictures_1892-463x345.jpg) is going to be a lot quicker in coming than the [“Knight Sabers”](http://carnage.fanfic.org/bgcld4.jpg) (Through we might be able to manage a [“Hulkbuster”](http://www.advancediron.com/hulkbuster.htm) eventually, just because of the sheer bulk you’d have to work with.)
---
### Author:  [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/3 "2004-10-08T06:44:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> But what would Iron Man use as a power source? He can’t go into combat trailing an extension cord…
Hey, it worked for the EVAs.
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/4 "2004-10-08T06:55:23Z")
They’ve built a robotic [exoskeleton](http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0403/14/technology-88494.htm) that, at least, can support itself and a very large supply of gear with no (well, very little) stress on the soldier.
Frankly, I think that’s pretty damn impressive. Sure, nowhere near Iron Man, but it’s a step…
---
### Author:  [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/5 "2004-10-08T15:18:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Can anyone see a solution to the power source problem?
Use a mini turbine burning kerosine, driving a hydraulic pump and/or an electric generator, similar to an aircraft’s APU. They do exist small enough to be carried as part of a super-strength suit.
The robotics and mechanics of building and controlling a powered suit are actually pretty tricky, however.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/6 "2004-10-08T15:23:00Z")
There are incidental problems to the issue of superstrength; can you really pick up an ocean liner by grasping it in one place, or are you just going to tear off a piece of it?
Having overcome that problem and having picked up your ocean liner, will the ground underneath your feet support all that weight concentrated in such a small area?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/7 "2004-10-08T16:04:35Z")
> [@SPOOFE](#):
>
> They’ve built a robotic [exoskeleton](http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0403/14/technology-88494.htm) that, at least, can support itself and a very large supply of gear with no (well, very little) stress on the soldier.
>
> Frankly, I think that’s pretty damn impressive. Sure, nowhere near Iron Man, but it’s a step…
The linked article says, “The next step for the BLEEX team is making the power source quieter and stronger and miniaturizing components.” But it doesn’t say what the power source **is,** nor how long it can power the apparatus before recharging/refueling.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/8 "2004-10-08T16:18:23Z")
> [@AndrewL](#):
>
> Use a mini turbine burning kerosine, driving a hydraulic pump and/or an electric generator, similar to an aircraft’s APU. They do exist small enough to be carried as part of a super-strength suit.
The Amazing Steam Man! Shades of Frank Reade! [http://www.bigredhair.com/frankreade/steam3.html](http://www.bigredhair.com/frankreade/steam3.html)
---
### Author:  [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/9 "2004-10-08T16:55:52Z")
If this competition goes well, we could be seeing several more real-world examples of this technology:
[http://www.servomagazine.com/tetsujin2004/](http://www.servomagazine.com/tetsujin2004/)
---
### Author:  [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/10 "2004-10-08T16:58:01Z")
As I’ve posted elsewhere, powered exoskeletons have received the Officcial Kiss of Death: there was an article in Popular Science in the late '60s showcasing the Brave New Future of this Promising New Technology. As usual, it was Never Heard From Again.
---
### Author:  [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/11 "2004-10-08T23:01:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> The linked article says, “The next step for the BLEEX team is making the power source quieter and stronger and miniaturizing components.” But it doesn’t say what the power source **is,** nor how long it can power the apparatus before recharging/refueling.
[This machine is gasoline fueled](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1568989,00.asp)…and, as I remember, the engine takes up a lot of that big “backpack.”
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/12 "2004-10-09T07:30:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> But it doesn’t say what the power source is, nor how long it can power the apparatus before recharging/refueling.
I’m sure the power source is quite lacking. However, there have been various examples of robots maneuvering under their own power - such as Honda’s [ASIMO](http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/) - that show that it’s possible.
It’s not gonna happen for a long time, though. For military purposes, they don’t just need to make it small and long-lasting, they need to make it DURABLE. Military hardware needs to survive under far harsher conditions than civilian stuff.
Battle armors are a long way off.
However, systems that SUPPLEMENT - rather than replace - a soldier’s motor systems are far more feasible in the near future. Take a gander at [artificial muscle](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003FCFC-BB3C-1F5C-905980A84189EEDF). Imagine being able to pull on a shirt, hook up a battery, and suddenly you’re bench-pressing 200 lbs instead of just 150. It’s not exactly leaping tall buildings in a single bound, but shit… every little bit helps. Suddenly it’s not so difficult to give a soldier a little more armor, or fit him with a little more supplies while in combat…
---
### Author:  [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/13 "2004-10-09T17:56:31Z")
The quote of the article given here has several assumptions and statements that strike me as debatable. Not necessarily wrong, but possibly wrong or atleast not quite right.
“The web was an innovation of the second order” comparing it to telephony and telegraphy. Maybe the author has a different definition of second-order from mine, but all three technologies strike me as incredibly important and having far reaching consequences for the world.
The idea that you could download stuff into your brain from a computer, it may be quite possible, but on the other hand it may never work. (This is my opinion, but bear in mind that, as far as I know, no one has shown that it has to be possible.)
And, of course the idea that you can “end the process by taking the cap off” and the idea that it is more controllable than genetic modification. Again, I’m not saying this is definitely wrong, I’m just thinking it is an unwarranted assumption. It seems to me that either the mechanical method would turn out to be less useful/powerful/versatile than the genetic method (assuming they both are viable methods of modifying humans) or the mechanical method would end up being as complex or more complex than the genetic method and hence less controllable. I guess that I am making assumptions too, but I think mine are just as valid at this point as the author of the articles’
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-mechanical-superstrength-really-work/268158/14 "2004-10-09T18:03:59Z")
> [@sjc](#):
>
> “The web was an innovation of the second order” comparing it to telephony and telegraphy. Maybe the author has a different definition of second-order from mine, but all three technologies strike me as incredibly important and having far reaching consequences for the world.
Lind said the Internet was “an innovation of the second order, more like the spread of telegraphy and telephony than the invention of metallurgy or the splitting of the atom.” He’s not denigrating the telephone – but it’s not that important compared to the invention of metalworking, an innovation of the **first** order. And his point is that a neural-electronic interface may be an innovation of the first order. A lot of SF writers and fans seem to agree.