Does E = mc² or mc³? The Science in Bond Films Thread

CommanderRoss

I don't think he's got that completely right, as the floatation devices don't lose their boyancy in seconds with those holes from bullits in them. He seems to think their boyancy is gone instantly. There's another thing though. It seemed like those boyancy devices were there probably because the poles the house was build on were beeing replaced. Which most likely means not all of them were gone at once. Also, Archimedes' law only works when the bottom is completely surrounded by water (one of the reasons why a ship even slightly stranded is so hard to pull away), something that 'sn't the case as soon as there's even only one pole still standing.

RichardTheBruce

Looking at a drawing as an example, it seems like some piles would be
most of the height of the building above the waterline anyway.

Well, using film logic and rationalizing what happened on screen there is a tipping point for buoyancy and once reached, the object quickly drops in the liquid. So releasing the air from the bags is key to the catastrophic failure shown on screen. [And the building itself--whether most or all of it is designed to be above the water--could leak like a sieve and quickly sink without the air bag supports or piles.]

For the entire building to submerge up to the roof, considering the water depth, I expect some lower level(s) collapsed like an accordion. So where the house structure itself was in need of repair, that condition would just pile on you could say. And what's shown on screen indicates the piles aren't there--a fatal mistake by the renovation crew, but great for the story.

Archimedes' Principle


Some background on those houses.

How do buildings in Venice manage to stand
despite being surrounded by water on all sides and
being constructed over water?

Answers

Patrick Barry
Patrick Barry, a concrete hippy.
Answered Jul 19, 2013 · Author has 77 answers and 329.6k answer views

The Grand Canyon is 17 million years old. Venice (in its current form) is only 600 years old. It was then they diverted the rivers to surround the city, using the flowing water to deepen the lagoon for military defense.

Given enough time, Venice will be washed away :)

In the meantime, the buildings stay up because they're not built directly on the mud. They're built on closely spaced wooden piles sunk through the mud and into a denser layer of clay beneath.

Picture from an awesome blog post here:
Chapter 6: Venice: Climatic variability, local construction methods
http://integrationandincompletion.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/bibliography.html

The wood is fully submerged, and without oxygen won't rot (there are bronze age piers in the river thames still!) and even if a small amount of the mud is washed away during a bad storm/tide the piers will still carry all of the weight into the deep clay meters below.

Erosion is a tricky question. The Venetian lagoon is flushed by tides (flowing in and out) and also by the rivers carrying slit down. You'll have material moving back and forth with each tide, seasonal changes as more is carried down or carried away and plenty of complex local movement where material literally crosses the street but there's no net volume change over the region.

Venice has been subsiding recently, but this was due to artisan wells draining water out of the aquifer underneath the city (underneath the clay). In this context, in reality the ground was sinking but not eroding, with the city just following it down.

CommanderRoss

So we have a few poles still standing all the way through the clay and the mud, making sure archimedes's law is not working. We have floatation devices there to help keep some of the weight up, as there are not enough poles to support the building. Bond shoots these devices which makes them deflate, which in turn destabelizes the building as some parts are properly supported and others aren't. The parts that aren't are collapsing (exterior shots seem to substantiate this). That's why the building doesn't go down in seconds, but does go down eventually as more and more poles give way due to the overload created.

DarthDimi

I love this thread! :)

RichardTheBruce

Is that insane Bond Spectre helicopter stunt even
possible? The answer is yes, and here's why
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a660503/is-that-insane-bond-spectre-helicopter-stunt-even-possible-the-answer-is-yes-and-heres-why/

A real, actual pilot gives us the lowdown on Bond's latest insane stunt.
By Simon Reynolds | 28/07/2015

Spectre's latest trailer got everyone talking thanks to its jaw-dropping stunt that saw a helicopter complete a 360° corkscrew (aping the famous car flip from The Man with the Golden Gun).

The question on everyone's lips: can the heli-stunt be executed for real? Digital Spy quizzed Roger Gower, an ATP rated helicopter pilot with over 10 years' commercial experience, on Bond, Mission: Impossible and more to get the lowdown on some of Hollywood's most death-defying aerial stunts. The verdict?

Spectre's insane heli-corkscrew is actually possible

MGM

"Is it possible to pull off that Spectre stunt? Several military helicopters can do it - the Apache, Westland Lynx to name two. The Red Bull stunt helicopter does rolls and loops as well. Even if the helicopter wasn't meant to be able to go upside down, if you could keep a positive G-Force on the rotor system - difficult when upside down - most helicopters could probably do a barrel roll without it necessarily ending in catastrophe.

"Whether the machine would be reusable is another matter. If the manufacturer saw evidence of the stunt, they would probably time out every life limited component given the machine would have exceeded its theoretical operational limits. That would take a big chunk off the aircraft's value."

...But Bond films usually get helicopters very wrong
https://youtu.be/u0N4nuBY2a4

"Bond films don't tend to be very accurate when it comes to helicopters: in Tomorrow Never Dies a heli pursues Bond and Wai Lin down an alley at an angle and speed that isn't possible. It's flying very slowly but steeply nose down. If a helicopter is moving very slowly, it will be level. Speed is gained in a helicopter by tilting the rotor system forward, which makes the whole helicopter tilt forward. So with the angle the helicopter is at in the scene, it would be rapidly accelerating.

"In Die Another Day, Bond's helicopter falls out the back of a plane and then he starts it in free fall. There are a few problems with this. With the rotor at standstill, the structural integrity of the blades would be compromised. With no revolutions, there would be no centrifugal force to provide rigidity and therefore the blades would likely bend upwards, or 'tulip', in a matter of seconds.

"Even if that wasn't the case, there would be too much air resistance for the engine to be able get the rotor to start turning sufficiently to unstall itself. Unless Bond could have got it going before it fell off the plane, the helicopter wouldn't have been his answer."

Tom Cruise's helicopter in a tunnel really is a mission impossible
https://youtu.be/4WaXuRWGrvw

"The first Mission: Impossible's big finale stunt - a helicopter flying through the Channel tunnel - would've struggled because of turbulence. Drafts through each end of the tunnel, and drag from a moving train would really mess up the air. The possibility of hitting the walls is perhaps greater than is even obviously apparent. It would go beyond the pilot's skill level.

"If the air is inconsistent there isn't going to be anything he can do to keep the ride smooth and the helicopter off the concrete. That was never going to end well for the helicopter."

And using a helicopter 'as a weapon' is really dumb

https://youtu.be/r4IBPd7-LlQ

"The Italian Job had a helicopter chase scene where Steve's helicopter follows Charlie's Mini into a car park. The car park doesn't pose the same problems as a tunnel because there are open sides where the air can free flow - and there's more space. Using the tail rotor as a weapon against the car was a questionable decision, though.

"While the main rotor of a helicopter can usually withstand an impact with a bird or a small branch without damage, the tail rotor is more fragile because it is smaller, lighter and with an rpm usually 5 or 6 times that of the main rotor. When it hits something hard, like a car, it will be ruined instantly. With no tail rotor a helicopter will have no directional control - beyond that provided by the aerodynamic shape of the helicopter, only effective at speed.

"When you see video footage of helicopters spinning, it is because the tail rotor is damaged. A key focus for a helicopter pilot therefore is protecting the tail and keeping it clear of obstacles and obstructions. This makes the idea of a helicopter being used as the pilot uses it in that scene unrealistic I think. All he was doing there was disabling himself and ruining his helicopter with no realistic chance of any upside."

Lastly then, how much of a real-life daredevil is our very
own helpful pilot, Roger?

"Have I ever tried anything comparable myself? These are things pilots enjoy discussing. The theory of it is quite fun but much of it is not the kind of stuff you could attempt - particularly if the aircraft is not your own.

"I think most pilots have as a core aim for their careers to never damage a machine but some are keen for the challenge, maybe for one-upmanship or simply just the sport of it. If you can think of it, someone will probably have tried it."

CommanderRoss

well the Bolkow used in the film is a military helicopter and anyway the flying was all done for real. An underappreciated stunt for sure.

RichardTheBruce

I should have posted one of the Red Bull helicopter videos earlier, more amazing movements.

Aerobatic Helicopter tricks with Chuck Aaron


Have to wonder where pilot Chuck Aaron gets his inspiration.

Wing Commander Ken Wallis

Top Ten Most Extreme Helicopter Pilots

BMW_with_missiles

I was aware when first viewing SP that the barrel roll was real and was done with the repainted Red Bull chopper. Incredible stunt. The question I’d like to see explored is the odds of a Walther PPK managing to shoot down a helicopter.

RichardTheBruce

Fair enough. Some folks took a shot at that.

Can a handgun shoot down a helicopter like James Bond did in SPECTRE?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-handgun-shoot-down-a-helicopter-like-James-Bond-did-in-SPECTRE
3 Answers

Graeme Shimmin
Graeme Shimmin, I write Bond-influenced novels and so have researched them all.
Answered Jul 20, 2016 · Author has 2k answers and 17.9m answer views

I’d say the main problem would be actually hitting a moving helicopter with a handgun from a boat moving at high speed.

If the bullets did actually hit anywhere vital then the helicopter would be damaged and potentially forced to land, but it’s hitting it in the first place that would be tricky. Looking at the picture above, the boat is moving so fast it is planing along the river. Hitting anything with a handgun would be hard from that platform.

And if we are talking about realism, we need to take into account that the helicopter basically cooperates with its own demise - the pilot flies it straight and level and at a relatively low altitude. To avoid being shot down, all the pilot needed to do was climb a bit.

Obviously, James Bond, at least in the Bond movies is supposed to be an amazing shot, but even so it’s very close to impossible.
4.7k Views · View 26 Upvoters · Answer requested by Jim Oakman

Geek Simpson
Geek Simpson, I've studied weapons since age 9
Answered Feb 9, 2019
Let’s like in all of my discussions, break down the discussion; this time into three parts

The Helicopter:
The helicopter used for filming was a Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin. It’s not designed for military use, so it wouldn’t take much of a beating.

The Physics:
Like previous authors have said, the boat appears to be traveling at a very high speed, which would mean that it would be extremely difficult to land a decent shot precisely on the fuel tank. That being said, if the helicopter was moving in the exact same direction at a similar speed, then it might be possible to land a shot. We must also consider at a certain point, the speed of the boat will affect waves, forcing it up and down over and over again, bumping it continuously.

The Gun:
Bond uses his Walther PPK/S, which is a .380/9mm handgun. A gun like this would likely not cause an opening on the helicopter, but if we remember that the helicopter is not military grade, there is a chance.

Overall, James Bond is unpredictable and an expert shot, so there’s a small, but possible chance that he could shoot it down. -Geek :)
235 Views · View 1 Upvoter

Alex Jay
Alex Jay, have some laying out around the house
Answered Feb 19, 2016

Highly unlikely with the gun used in the scenario depicted in the movie. I said to myself as I watched it " with a .380? No way". The "Kentucky windage" and velocity needed on a moving target such as a helo with a sub par caliber would is totally unrealistic. The Walther PPKs uses .380 ACP (9mm short) ammunition and holds 7 rounds in the magazine. Good for a concealed carry gun for protection but not much else. But....anything is possible. It was a good movie though.

So the concept of a bullet from a Walther PPK reaching the helicopter is possible. Against all odds, possible. Kind of an element of the Bond film formula itself.

Of interest to me is the effect as the bullet strikes the helicopter from the rear. That's likely not a part of the planned design of the aircraft, which would consider protection from the front. Also as pointed out, this is not a military aircraft.

The effect here is not simply the damage of impact but where that slug of metal comes to rest, which can be disastrous. Restricting or outright stopping movement of parts, maybe affecting avionics (indicated by the sparks and change in direction of the aircraft). There's little to no reason for the design to plan for this potential cause of a catastrophic event.



And of course I enjoyed Alex Jay's final comment.

BMW_with_missiles

Thank you @RichardTheBruce . That was an interesting read. As I had suspected, it was possible but highly unlikely, and all the pilot needed to do to avoid it was not fly in a straight line at low altitude.

CommanderRoss

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

Thank you @RichardTheBruce . That was an interesting read. As I had suspected, it was possible but highly unlikely, and all the pilot needed to do to avoid it was not fly in a straight line at low altitude.

I had the strong impression the chopper was flying at less then it's normal cruising speed. A quick search gives it a max speed of 306 km/h, or 165 kn.

Taking a standard luxury speedboat
https://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/07/04/riva-rivamare-luxury-speedboat/

it has a top speed of 40 kn. Even if the chopper was flying at half speed, it would go twice as fast as the boat.
With a 40kn difference, or 73km/h, the chances of Bond still beeing able to reach it would dissapear within seconds.

I would call it extremely unlikely.

BMW_with_missiles

CommanderRoss wrote: »

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

Thank you @RichardTheBruce . That was an interesting read. As I had suspected, it was possible but highly unlikely, and all the pilot needed to do to avoid it was not fly in a straight line at low altitude.

I had the strong impression the chopper was flying at less then it's normal cruising speed. A quick search gives it a max speed of 306 km/h, or 165 kn.

Taking a standard luxury speedboat
https://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/07/04/riva-rivamare-luxury-speedboat/

it has a top speed of 40 kn. Even if the chopper was flying at half speed, it would go twice as fast as the boat.
With a 40kn difference, or 73km/h, the chances of Bond still beeing able to reach it would dissapear within seconds.

I would call it extremely unlikely.

Yes the pilot essentially cooperated in his chopper’s demise. It’s literally the worst scene in the whole film imo and it’s the climax. The issue isn’t even so much about how impossible/unlikely it is, but how boring. You could give Bond a 50 cal sniper rifle or a machine gun and it would still be anticlimactic and uninteresting.

RichardTheBruce

Well to me it worked fine that a Walther PPK shot down the chopper. Here's some more information of interest.

.380 Auto (9mm Browning Short) Ballistics
http://gundata.org/cartridge/138/.380-auto-(9mm-browning-short)/

Ballistics and Drop for the .380 Auto (9mm Browning Short)

Cartridge Type: Handgun
Height: 0.68"
Width: 0.374"
Average FPS: 980
Average Energy: 194
Average Gr: 91
Recoil: 0.41
Power Rank: 1.78 of 7

The .380 ACP or .380 Auto also known as the 9mm browning, and the 9mm short was created back in 1908.

The 380 provides a low recoil round, that provides moderate power, into a small round that can fit into a slimmed down conceal carry pistol like the 2011 pistol of the year the LCP Ruger 380 ACP a small gun about the size of a pocket bible that holds 7+1 rounds and can be concealed easily in a pocket, pocketbook, or even a bra (if you are a guy there is no reason to wear a bra just to conceal carry this lol).

Why is the name 9mm short used? If you stand a .380 next to a 9mm you will see that the 9mm cartridge is a bit larger than the 380 but that the bullets are near identical in diameter.

The .380 ACP has been given a bad "rep" from many of the larger caliber fans that claim the round is underpowered, and gives you a false sense of security. The argument is often made that it's better to carry a small round, than to not carry a round at all, and when the next step down is a .25 or .22 the .380 really does fit the niche well.

The 380 acp is short and not meant to be a long range round because of this, it does however have little to no drop out to the 100 yard range in ballistic tests. If you want to carry this as a secondary or primary concealed round then do your research, we are neither arguing for or against the round. The .380 ACP has become a very popular round in the last 5 years and numbers seem be showing even more growth in the future.

*Casing image above is an artist rendering and not a real photo of .380 Auto (9mm Browning Short) Ballistics cartridge. While we have went to great lengths to make sure that it's as accurate as possible this rendering should not be used to generate specs for casings.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=127

Notice this .380 chart tops out at 250 yards (228.6 meters), but that's not a limit for how far a bullet could travel. Actual bullet travel also depends on barrel length, grains of gunpowder in the shell casing, and other real world variables like crosswind (or tailwind).


Storytelling staples going on:
- The hero's weapon finding the fatal flaw--the chink in the dragon's armor.
- For want of a nail--the vehicle unexpectedly loses a minor but essential capability. Unforeseen, and a showstopper for the overall airframe.

I adjusted some of my earlier description, I incorrectly suggested the bullet struck the tail rotar when it clearly hit the upper rear section behind the main (top) rotar. It plays out on screen in a reasonable way.

CommanderRoss

Yes, he does seem to hit the engine cover, which, if the bullit had enough energy to get through and probably hit the engine in the right way, would have the desired effect.

SO indeed it's extremely unlikely but not impossible.

What remains is a climax in which the protagonist is firing fromgreat range at a vehicle in which his nemesis is ignorantly enjoying the view. Not the highest of tension moments.

RichardTheBruce

Okay, enough of that.

Follow the Lemur
The Schiensh of Bond: GoldenEye
https://followthelemur.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-schiensh-of-bond-goldeneye/

It’s 1995 and James Bond enters the modern, post-cold war era with a bang, in Martin Campbell’s derivative, but oddly effective, GoldenEye, as we enter the first (and best) of the Brosnans in BlogalongaBond, subtitled …And Sean Bean.



Aside from a plot that bounces along marvellously, there is some properly intersting science in GoldenEye – no, it’s not whether Xenia Onatop can crush men’s ribs with her thighs – it’s all about that crazy-ass space laser.

But it’s not actually a laser. It’s some sort of EMP generator. What is an EMP, you ask? Well, sit back, grab a cup of tea and 10 rolls of tin foil and I shall explain.

The EMP or Electromagnetic pulse was theorised back in the 1940s when the Americans were performing nuclear tests. Enrico Fermi had insisted on shielding electronics during nuclear testing, as he had theorised that disruption in electromagnetic fields would occur and would majorly f*** s*** up. Often, EMPs are encountered in film as a byproduct of nuclear explosions (see John Woo’s Broken Arrow) although non-nuclear forms of EMP generator also exist in the fantasy world of the movies (see Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Eleven).

The example given by M in GoldenEye is a high energy explosion caused by a nuclear device in the upper atmosphere (say 40-400 km above the Earth’s service). This is known as a High-Altitude Electromagnetic Puls (HEMP). While potentially non-nuclear EMP generators exist – governments are pretty hazy on their existence.

A nuclear EMP consists of 3 phases; E1, E2 and E3.

E1 is a very brief intense electromagnetic field generated when gamma rays from the nuclear device knock electrons off atoms in the upper atmosphere. These electrons travel down towards the Earth’s surface. When they pass through the Earth’s magnetic field, the E1 electromagnetic field is generated over a wide area. Here’s some info from How Stuff Works [http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb2.htm]. The problem with this electrical field is that it can rapidly induce very high voltages in conductive materials. Notably, silicon transistors. This fries unprotected computers and communications equipment.

E2 occurs when the neutrons released by the weapon generate scattered gamma rays. This is similar to the EMPs generated by lightening strikes. The major problem is that this can screw up equipment left unprotected following E1.

E3 is akin to an electromagnetic storm – it’s caused by the nuclear detonation moving the Earth’s magnetic field and by the magnetic field reasserting itself. The problem with it is that, like all magnetic fields, it is able to generate currents in long electrical conductors (eg wires). These currents induced in, for example, power cables can lead to damage in transformers which form the infrastructure of the power grid.

Those crazy paranoid Americans came up with the EMP Commission [http://www.empcommission.org/] to assess the risks of an EMP, you can see their report here [http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf]. Among other things, they note the vulnerability of the computer-reliant finance system – curiously, the same plan Trevelyan has for the UK finance system. One does worry that US policy re. crazy Sci-Fi weapons derives entirely from films. What is not really explained in the film is how the GoldenEye generates the EMP, it’s not explained whether it is a nuclear powered device (one assumes not) – I’m not sure the space laser setup they’ve got going would actually work.

How would one prevent damage from an EMP? Well, contrary to what some films have suggested (Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, I’m looking at you) it makes no difference if the electrical device is switched off. Enter Xenia Onatop and her outrageous ‘copter thievery. Onatop steals the Eurocopter Tiger helicopter. Amongst other things, the Tiger is resistent to damage caused by EMPs. This (though an unbelievable flow of logic) leads MI6 to conclude that the Russians actually have an EMP generating space weapon. What is utterly brilliant about the Eurocopter Tiger helicopter is that it actually exists – take a look at the Eurocopter website. What is even more impressive is that the helicopter actually is resistent to damage from EMPs – according to the literature (well, google) the Tiger is protected from the effects of an EMP by a copper/bronze grid and copper bonding foil. This forms a Faraday cage, which encompasses the electronics in the aircraft, thereby protecting them from the effects of environmental fluctuations in electromagnetic fields.

What is a Faraday cage? A Faraday cage is a box or enclosure made of a conductive material. The sides can be solid or made of mesh. The outer conducting materials protect the interior from electrical and, to a larger extent, electromagnetic signals (although it is ineffective at shielding static or slowly moving magnetic fields). Charge collects on the outside of the cage. If the cage is grounded, charge leaves the outside of the cage and goes to ground. From personal experience I can tell you that Faraday cages are good against mobile phone signals and BBC radio waves….

Take a look over here for some pretty impressive examples of how a Faraday cage can protect one from electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi4kXgDBFhw

I rather enjoyed that – some pretty cool science. I look forward to what the rest of the Bron Hom era has in store for Schiensh.

Find out next month when I attempt to watch the thoroughly unmemorable Tomorrow Never Dies.

BMW_with_missiles

The science of Goldeneye was surprisingly sound, but it is strange it’s never expressly stated that the Goldeneye satellite is a nuclear bomb. One reason might be that the EMP produced by a high altitude nuclear detonation has a far more widespread effect than the movie appears to portray. During the US EMP test known as Starfish Prime (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ) damage from the electromagnetic radiation occurred a whopping 898 miles away in Hawaii! Compare this to the film where the effects of the first Goldeneye satellite appear localized to the Severnaya military installation.

CommanderRoss

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

The science of Goldeneye was surprisingly sound, but it is strange it’s never expressly stated that the Goldeneye satellite is a nuclear bomb. One reason might be that the EMP produced by a high altitude nuclear detonation has a far more widespread effect than the movie appears to portray. During the US EMP test known as Starfish Prime (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ) damage from the electromagnetic radiation occurred a whopping 898 miles away in Hawaii! Compare this to the film where the effects of the first Goldeneye satellite appear localized to the Severnaya military installation.

Considering the supposed location of the base, there wasn't anything to be hit for 898 miles......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severnaya_Zemlya

BMW_with_missiles

CommanderRoss wrote: »

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

The science of Goldeneye was surprisingly sound, but it is strange it’s never expressly stated that the Goldeneye satellite is a nuclear bomb. One reason might be that the EMP produced by a high altitude nuclear detonation has a far more widespread effect than the movie appears to portray. During the US EMP test known as Starfish Prime (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ) damage from the electromagnetic radiation occurred a whopping 898 miles away in Hawaii! Compare this to the film where the effects of the first Goldeneye satellite appear localized to the Severnaya military installation.

Considering the supposed location of the base, there wasn't anything to be hit for 898 miles......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severnaya_Zemlya

That’s a good point.

j_w_pepper

The trouble being that the GoldenEye Severnaya is portrayed as being smack in the middle of Siberia, not on a remote island in the North Polar Sea.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Severnaya

CommanderRoss

Well it wouldn't do for the Russians to let anyone know where exactly the base is situated now would it ;-) Anyway, even in siberia there are locations to be pointed with nothingness for hundreds of miles. And I bet blackouts happen more often in Krasnojarsk, i.e.

RichardTheBruce

Golden Eye-style energy beam is developed by Nato scientists
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10303988/Golden-Eye-style-energy-beam-is-developed-by-Nato-scientists.html
An energy beam that can be fired to disable vehicles and electronic devices has been developed by Nato
scientists.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent | 12:07PM BST 12 Sep 2013

The device uses an intense pulse of electromagnetic energy that can be directed at a moving vehicle to interfere with the electronics on board.

Tests conducted by Nato scientists who have been developing the device in Norway show that it can stop a car approaching a roadblock and could be used to thwart suicide bomb attacks.

It can also be carried in the back of a vehicle to disable other vehicles that are in pursuit.

The researchers, who are working as part of Nato’s Science and Technology Organisation, have also demonstrated it can disable jet skis and drones.

In 2000 terrorists launched a suicide attack against a US Navy ship, ramming it with boats packed with explosives.

It is hoped the device could help defend against this while also be used to defend ships against pirates.

The device has also been tested to disable electronic devices such as mobile phones that may be used to remotely trigger a bomb.

It is the latest advance in non-lethal weapons under research being carried out by military scientists around the world.

Recently US scientists unveiled a non-lethal microwave ray that induces intense pain in those in its path and was developed to help subdue riots.

Scientists from the UK, Norway, the US, Germany, France and a number of other countries have been working as part of the Nato Science and Technology Organisation to use high powered radio waves and microwaves as non-lethal weapons.

Dr Ernst Krogager, task group chairman of the Nato STO group that has been leading this work, code-named SCI-250, described the new electromagnetic beam in a video released on the Nato website.

He said: "The ignition generates a very high intensity pulse and it will interfere with the electronic control system inside the car so the car will stop."

The video shows the system being tested in a number of scenarios to defend vehicles and checkpoints from suicide bomb attacks and approaching vehicles.

The device has been compared to the satellite weapon that features in the James Bond movie Golden Eye [sic]. In this an electromagnetic beam is fired from a satellite in orbit to disable electronic equipment.

While the latest device cannot work on the same scale, it has the potential to disable almost any electronic device.

It is, however, unlikely to work against older vehicles that rely upon purely mechanical equipment.

Electromagnetic pulses create an intense magnetic field that damages electronic circuitry.

Details of how the new device works are still secret but it is likely to use microwaves or radio frequency energy.

Images released by Nato show pressure transmitters that are used to generate electrical signals.

The new device has been developed in collaboration with defence company Diehl, which has also been working on high altitude electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Diehl say its "convoy protection" system, which is designed to be portable, can also be used to disable electronic sensors on improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

It states: "Enemy vehicles with electronic motor management can be stopped inconspicuously by mobile and stationary High Power Electro-Magnetics systems.

"HPEM sources can be used for personal and convoy protection, for instance, to overload and permanently destroy radio-based fusing systems.

"HPEM can also support special and police forces in fulfilling their tasks.

"HPEM systems suppress enemy communication and disturb reconnaissance and information systems, for instance, in freeing hostages."

In 2011 Diehl tested its HPEM prototypes against IEDs in an armoured vehicle in Afghanistan.

Scientists at the UK Ministry of Defence's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory have also been conducting research on directed electromagnetic energy weapons.

The most recent tests, conducted at a secret location in Norway, show how the electromagnetic beam can turn off a car engine and its lights as it approaches a checkpoint and a parked vehicle.

It also shows how a device mounted in the back of a car can stop another vehicle that is chasing it.

Describing the test Harry Arnesen, senior scientist at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment that has been leading the project, said: "When we get close to the car, they will fire the engine stopper and the electromagnetic noise from the radiator will interfere with our engine and stop it.

"This is a fairly safe and simple way of doing it. It is also non-lethal – it doesn't actually kill anyone, or harm anyone. It also doesn't really harm the vehicle much either."

HPEM. Not HEMP anymore I notice. And Norway.

CommanderRoss

cool! Bit late, but still.

RichardTheBruce

The Psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic
Emotional Responses to Violent Video Game Events
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5584675_The_Psychophysiology_of_James_Bond_Phasic_Emotional_Responses_to_Violent_Video_Game_Events
Article (PDF Available) in Emotion 8(1):114-20 · March 2008 with 1,176 Reads
DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.114 · Source: PubMed

Abstract
The authors examined emotional valence- and arousal-related phasic psychophysiological responses to different violent events in the first-person shooter video game "James Bond 007: NightFire" among 36 young adults. Event-related changes in zygomaticus major, corrugator supercilii, and orbicularis oculi electromyographic (EMG) activity and skin conductance level (SCL) were recorded, and the participants rated their emotions and the trait psychoticism based on the Psychoticism dimension of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire--Revised, Short Form. Wounding and killing the opponent elicited an increase in SCL and a decrease in zygomatic and orbicularis oculi EMG activity. The decrease in zygomatic and orbicularis oculi activity was less pronounced among high Psychoticism scorers compared with low Psychoticism scorers. The wounding and death of the player's own character (James Bond) elicited an increase in SCL and zygomatic and orbicularis oculi EMG activity and a decrease in corrugator activity. Instead of joy resulting from victory and success, wounding and killing the opponent may elicit high-arousal negative affect (anxiety), with high Psychoticism scorers experiencing less anxiety than low Psychoticism scorers. Although counterintuitive, the wounding and death of the player's own character may increase some aspect of positive emotion.

[Full-text PDF download available]

CommanderRoss

Does that mean they consider the game not to be any good?

BMW_with_missiles

A strange study. Whenever I defeat an enemy in a first person shooter, I feel satisfaction from the accomplishment, not anxiety. There may often be anxiety immediately following that because I’m now worrying about where the next guy is going to come at me from, or what the next challenge is going to be. I could see dying in a game causing some positive emotions because it’s the relief from being in whatever stressful, high action situation your character was just in. Even though you lost, it’s over now. You’re out of that stressful situation. I think this is just another case of psychologists assigning too much meaning to what is nothing more than digital make-believe.

RichardTheBruce

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

I think this is just another case of psychologists assigning too much meaning to what is nothing more than digital make-believe.

Well, @BMW_with_missiles, it's not like MI6 forum members could accuse the researchers of taking Bond too seriously.

CommanderRoss wrote: »

Does that mean they consider the game not to be any good?

@CommanderRoss , based on the emotional valence- and arousal-related phasic psychophysiological responses, event-related changes in zygomaticus major, corrugator supercilii, and orbicularis oculi electromyographic (EMG) activity, skin conductance level (SCL), the rated psychoticism, plus the zygomatic and orbicularis oculi EMG activity...

I think they loved it!

CommanderRoss

RichardTheBruce wrote: »

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

I think this is just another case of psychologists assigning too much meaning to what is nothing more than digital make-believe.

Well, @BMW_with_missiles, it's not like MI6 forum members could accuse the researchers of taking Bond too seriously.

CommanderRoss wrote: »

Does that mean they consider the game not to be any good?

@CommanderRoss , based on the emotional valence- and arousal-related phasic psychophysiological responses, event-related changes in zygomaticus major, corrugator supercilii, and orbicularis oculi electromyographic (EMG) activity, skin conductance level (SCL), the rated psychoticism, plus the zygomatic and orbicularis oculi EMG activity...

I think they loved it!

Ah, of course. Sorry. It was the 'anxious'that frew me off course...

RichardTheBruce

'You must be joking': 007 in the laboratory and
academia
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/you-must-be-joking-007-laboratory-and-academia

With a proper psychologist making an appearance in the latest James Bond film, Professor G.
Neil Martin looks at how and why scientists have studied the secret agent.

Everyone knows Bond’s resident scientist. Major Boothroyd, played by Desmond Llewelyn – the original Q – was a regular foil to Bond’s insouciance and cavalier disregard for office equipment. Desmond morphed into John Cleese, who then transmogrified into the dry, youthful, voluminously-coiffed Ben Whishaw who operated intriguing security breaches from the matutinal comfort of his pyjamas. His was the youthful demeanour which elicited Bond’s exasperated ‘you must be joking’ response. But Q, of course, has not been Bond’s only cinema scientist.

Ignore the dispensable villains and their bacteriological or viral plans for world destruction, and there are some notable meetings of minds between spook and boffin in Bond. There was arguably Bond’s first strong female lead, Dr Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), the US astronaut in Moonraker. And there was, at the other end of the hotpants spectrum, Dr Christmas Jones (Denise Richards), The World Is Not Enough’s unorthodox physicist. The first Bond Girl of the Pierce Brosnan era was Caroline (no surname, just Caroline, like Sting, or Lulu, or Bono) who was sent to undertake a psychological evaluation of Bond in Goldeneye [sic], but ended up unwillingly racing Xenia Onatopp and being seduced by Bond in his DB5. Dr Molly Warmflash (Serena Scott Thomas) did a similar job – this time rehabilitating Bond after his collision with the Millenium Dome – in The World Is Not Enough. Doctor Hall was the comically Freudian shrink in Skyfall. And, let’s not forget – since we are in the era of SPECTRE – Bond’s first Eon film villain, Dr Julius No. Treasurer of the greatest criminal organisation in China, SPECTRE member, and dextrocardic (in Fleming’s novel, he was born with his heart on the right side), Doctor No went to medical school in Wisconsin but, after an unfortunate radiation accident, ended up having his hands replaced with pincers. And, now, in SPECTRE, we have the appearance of Bond’s first proper psychologist in a significant role requiring more than just word association and debriefing, Dr Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux).

So science and psychology have intruded on Bond’s world, but what about vice versa?

A curious cottage industry exists examining films via the prism of psychological theory and research. Review papers have examined the veracity of the representation of amnesia (Baxendale, 2004), epilepsy (Baxendale, 2003) and neurology (Ford & Larner, 2009) in the movies. Books have been written on the mad scientist archetype (Grayling, 2005), and the representation of mental illness in cinema (Wedding & Niemiec, 2014).

The cottage industry extends to Bond. For example, tucked away underneath the seemingly innocuous title, ‘functional connectivity of the macaque brain across stimulus and arousal states’ lies an fMRI study of monkeys’ brain response to Tomorrow Never Dies (Moeller Nallasamy, Tsao & Freiwald, 2009). ‘In our first experiment,’ Sebastian Moeller and co-authors begin, ‘we scanned two monkeys (monkeys L, H) while they viewed clips of the James Bond film “Tomorrow Never Dies,” interleaved with three blank periods.’ Via this method, the authors found 20 cortical network regions involved in the processing of arousing visual stimuli (which probably excluded Elliott Carver’s portable keyboard taping etiquette), including the visual, auditory, somatosensory, motor, prefrontal and parietal cortices. Bond crops up in another study, on imitation and smoking (Harakeh et al., 2009). Eighty-four smokers watched a Bond film which featured smoking (Dr No) or no smoking (The Living Daylights) and which contained breaks for pro-smoking or anti-smoking ads. Watching the smoking in Bond had no effect on ‘smoking intensity’, according to the study published in Tobacco Control. Tomorrow Never Dies was also the subject of a paper in Magnetic Resonance Imaging – TND is the go-to Bond film of choice for scientists (Whittingstall et al., 2010). This paper examined alterations in EEG activity during the continuous viewing of a two-minute film clip (the first two minutes of TND) in seven participants. The researchers found that the perception of differences between visual contrasts in the film were correlated with increased EEG activation in the primary visual cortex.

Another, psychophysiological study examined participants’ responses while they played the part of James Bond in the game, JB007: Nightfire (Ravaja et al., 2008). In the experiment, GSR and EMG were recorded while people either killed or wounded villains, or were themselves wounded and killed. The aim was to discover the psychophysiological responses generated by different emotional and moral perspectives. When an opponent was wounded or killed, participants’ skin conductance increased but some of the muscles in the face (zygomatic, orbicularis occuli and corrugator mucles, all found around the eyes and mouth) decreased. When the protagonist was wounded or killed, there was a similar GSR increase but also an increase in two sets of facial muscles and a decrease in another set. These results suggest that the emotional consequences of attacking another or of being attacked can be characterised by subtle, facial muscle changes.

On the subject of violence, a couple of studies have examined the degree of violence in the Bond movies. Violence in cinema and TV is a perennial favourite of social psychologists exploring the relationship between exposure to violent material and the subsequent expression of aggression or violence. A 2013 study published in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association Pediatrics found that the portrayal of serious violence in the Bond films increased significantly over time, even when accounting for film length (McAnally et al., 2013). The most severely violent was Tomorrow Never Dies, which may explain why scientists have been so keen to use it in their studies. The 2008 re-boot, Casino Royale, featured 250 acts of violence involving a perpetrator, action or target, compared with 109 in Dr No. And it isn’t just violence that’s increased: sexual activity and more violence against women has increased, too. A 2010 study of 195 female characters across 20 Bond films, which was published in Sex Roles, also found that end-of-film mortality was ‘predicted by sexual activity, ethical status (good vs. bad), and attempting to kill Bond’ (Neuendorf et al., 2010).

To M (or at least Judi Dench’s rendering of M), Bond, of course, was a ‘sexist, misogynist dinosaur’ and a ‘relic of the cold-war’. Some may agree with this harsh personality assessment. Some may argue it has as much validity as the Myers-Briggs. But some dark areas of science publishing have wondered aloud what sort of personality Bond enjoys. For example, one paper, which includes ‘James Bond’ in its title and then proceeds to mention the name once in the entirety of the paper, suggests that Bond may express the extreme ends of the Dark Triad. This was based on an analysis of ‘upper division and weekend-course psychology students’ and was probably a desperate way of attracting attention to a paper that would have been otherwise unremarkable. In a vein more in keeping with ill-judged comic-japery than wit, a study from the Medical Journal of Australia attempted to provide a psychological evaluation of Bond by assessing – and I apologise in advance, I really do – the Bond Adequacy Disorder (BAD) using the Bond Additive Descriptors of Anti-Social personality Scale (BADASS). They must have been up all weekend. There is not much you can conclude from this paper other than it is terrible.

One of the more methodical papers investigated how people viewed changing situations or circumstances in films (Magliano et al., 2001). One of the films studied was Moonraker (the others were Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, and Jeremiah Johnson). Participants made 85 change-of-situation judgments in Moonraker, mid-way between the other two. Shifts in time and movement were particularly noted. Staying with Moonraker, the same research team had previously examined people’s ability to make predictions while watching the film – i.e. indicate what was going to happen next (Magliano et al., 1996). People were actually quite good at doing this, using visual and discourse clues in the film. Which either suggests that the participants were quite adept at this or that Moonraker is a predictable watch. The climax of the scene where Bond encounters Jaws on a plane, fights, bails out and the latter’s parachute fails to open and he falls onto a circus tent – a set of scenes grimly illustrated in the paper – was predicted by participants. None of the participants had seen the film before. The best predictors of what was going to happen were the mise en scene, montage, framing and dialogue. Using these, participants made very specific predictions about what would occur in the film.

And, let us not, despite our better instincts, forget semiotics. Holly Cooper and colleagues from Griffith University in Australia, for example, presented ‘a textual analysis of the brand narratives… specifically in the context of James Bond films’ (Cooper et al., 2010). ‘In engaging with the text of popular culture,’ Cooper and colleagues write, ‘consumers engage in the story and the embedded brand narratives in that text. Consumers readily draw on these texts for directions in constructing.’ Not only that, ‘consuming, viewing, and engaging with films and the embedded brand narratives in film fuels consumer dreams and consumption ideals.’

Cooper and colleagues examined the use of brands in all Bond films up to Casino Royale. The first analysis begins with ‘Vignette 1: The Bollinger Lover Brand Narrative’ and goes quickly downhill from there. It describes Bond’s seduction of Caroline, the hapless MI6 bureaucrat tasked with psychologically evaluating Bond in Goldeneye [sic]. ‘The Bollinger brand’, write the authors, ‘embodies the masculine desire of James Bond and presents as a social tool of romance.’ Oblivious to even Bond levels of innuendo, the authors thus set the tone of the analysis.

The next vignette pits the Aston Martin against the Jaguar. I’ve always had a soft spot the Aston Martin – and not just for the nickname possibilities if I was to be employed at Birmingham’s second University. The sleek, understated sybariticity, the purring power and modesty, the cunning stealth… these are all devilish attractions, as is that fact that the company was named after Lionel (Martin) and his favourite hill (Aston). Here, Cooper and colleagues stray into the world of the esoteric, in a way that even Derek Akorah would admire. Commenting on the ice-chase between Zao and Bond in Die Another Day, they write: ‘The depiction of supernatural abilities can only nurture the aspirations of consumers, who are seeking a sophisticated and superhuman status’ (the supernatural abilities are those of the motors). They conclude, ‘the scene embodies the Jaguar brand narrative of an antihero or an outlaw rebelling against the sanctions of society.’ Well, there we are. Think on that when you’re next driving the Jag to the Dangerous Sports Society’s Annual Ball.

- The name’s Martin: Professor G. Neil Martin, Regent’s University London. E-mail: [email protected]; Twitter: @thatneilmartin

References

Baxendale, S. (2004). Memories aren't made of this: amnesia at the movies. BMJ, 329 (7480), 1480-1483.

Baxendale S. (2003). Epilepsy at the movies: possession to presidential assassination.Lancet Neurology, 2, 764-70.

Cooper, H., Schembri, S., & Miller, D. (2010). Brand‐self identity narratives in the James Bond movies. Psychology & Marketing, 27(6), 557-567.

Ford, S.F., & Larner, A.J. (2009). Neurology at the movies. ACNR, 9, 48-49.

Grayling, C. (2005). Mad, bad and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema. London: Reaktion.

Harakeh, Z., Engels, R. C., Vohs, K., van Baaren, R. B., & Sargent, J. (2009). Exposure to movie smoking, antismoking ads and smoking intensity: an experimental study with a factorial design. Tobacco Control, tc-2009.

Magliano, J. P., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Generating predictive inferences while viewing a movie. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 199-224.

Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), 533-545.

McAnally, H. M., Robertson, L. A., Strasburger, V. C., & Hancox, R. J. (2013). Bond, James Bond: A review of 46 years of violence in films. JAMA pediatrics, 167(2), 195-196.

Moeller, S., Nallasamy, N., Tsao, D. Y., & Freiwald, W. A. (2009). Functional connectivity of the macaque brain across stimulus and arousal states. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5897-5909.

Neuendorf, K. A., Gore, T. D., Dalessandro, A., Janstova, P., & Snyder-Suhy, S. (2010). Shaken and stirred: A content analysis of women’s portrayals in James Bond films. Sex Roles, 62(11-12), 747-761.

Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2008). The psychophysiology of James Bond: phasic emotional responses to violent video game events. Emotion, 8(1), 114.

Wedding, D., & Niemiec, R. M. (2014). Movies and mental illness: Using films to understand psychopathology. US: Hogrefe Publishing.

Whittingstall, K., Bartels, A., Singh, V., Kwon, S., & Logothetis, N. K. (2010). Integration of EEG source imaging and fMRI during continuous viewing of natural movies. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 28(8), 1135-1142.

BMW_with_missiles

That was a very good read!

CommanderRoss

Reminds me of a certain Monty Python sketch I can't find anymore, with all those bruces.

Anyway, interesting to see scientists write about scientists writing about Bond.