Helmet-Mounted Displays: - USAARL - The - U.S. Army

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Issues 253 USAARL evaluated a nuclear flashblindness protective device with the initial development of the HGU-56/P helmet program in the early 1980's. A certain material of lead, lanthanum, zirconate, and titante (PLZT) could be electronically switched rapidly in polarity, such that when sandwiched with a near infrared blocking material and a fixed polarizing material, the visual transmittance could be varied from full open state (approximately 20%) to a full off (OD >3.0) in approximately 150 microseconds (McLean & Rash, 1985). The original PLZT goggles were developed for nuclear bombers such as the B-52 and B-1 in the Strategic Air Command (SAC), where the crewmembers would hopefully be just outside the blast, radiation, and/or heat damage radii of the weapon. Tactical fighters could also deliver smaller nuclear weapons, but the evaluation of the PLZT goggles for the fighter aircraft was not favorable, due to the weight and visual transmittance (Templin, 1978). Also, the tactical fighters would probably have delivered the weapons in the daytime during this era and the effects of temporary flashblindness in the daytime would be minimal for the smaller nuclear weapons. USAARL also found that the PLZT electronics, which detected a certain increase in ambient luminance in approximately 4 microseconds, could be accidentally activated by the rotor blades and when near a radar station. The designers of the PLZT goggle had found that the material could be discharged quicker than when charged to change the transmittance. Unfortunately, in order to obtain the desired switching speed, this meant that when the nuclear flash protective goggle failed, it was basically opaque. Other materials such as liquid crystals have also been evaluated for an electronic shutter and variable visual attenuator, but switching speed and minimum transmittance values have been of concern. With the electronics in the lens materials, it was questionable how the lenses or the electronic drive circuitry could be shielded from the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear explosion . However, the real problem with the nuclear flashblindness protective device requirement is the concept for helicopter operations. Unless the nuclear device was delivered by the helicopter on an enemy not having a nuclear capability, the visual trade-off, even if the device worked, would not be logical. One of the most dangerous places a pilot could be during a nuclear attack would be in a helicopter near the ground. In the European scenario with a tactical nuclear war with the former Warsaw pact, the very basic unclassified war game models showed that the only helicopters that could survive were the ones hidden in bunkers. Therefore, we do not recommend the need for
254 Joseph R. Licina a nuclear flashblindness protective device for Air Warrior or Army aviation with the known technology. References Allen, J. H., and Hebb, R. C. 1997. Determining the gamma of a night vision device. Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center. Report No. NAWCTSD-TR-95-003. American National Standards Institute. 1991. RF protection guide. ANSI C95.1-1991. Behar, I., Wiley, R.W., Levine, R. R., Rash, C. E., Walsh, D. J., and Cornum, R. L. S. 1990. Visual survey of Apache aviators (VISAA). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No. 90-15. Brunsman, M., Daanen, H., and Files, P. 1996. Earthquake in anthropometry: The view from the epicenter. CSERIAC Gateway, Vol. VII, No. 2, pp. 1-6. CuQlock-Knopp, V. G., Sipes, D. E., Torgerson, W., Bender, E., Merritt, J. O., McLean, W., and Myles, K. 1997. Extended use of night vision goggles: An evaluation of comfort for monocular and biocular configurations. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Report No. ARL-TR-1427. Department of the Army. 1983. Health hazard assessment program in support of the Army materiel acquisition decision. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. AR 40-10. Department of the Army. 1985. System safety engineering and management. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. AR 385-16. Department of Defense. 1984. System safety program requirements. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. MIL-STD-882B. Donelson, S. M., and Gordon, C. C. 1991. 1988 Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Pilot summary statistics. Natick, MA: U.S. Army Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Technical report No. TR-91/040. King, J. M., and Morse, S. E. 1992. Interpupillary and vertex distance effects on field-of-view and acuity with ANVIS. Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No. 93-9. Kotulak, J. C. 1992. In-flight field-of-view with ANVIS. Fort Rucker,
Page 1:
Helmet-Mounted Displays: Design Iss
Page 4 and 5:
The views, opinions, and/or finding
Page 6 and 7:
vi Contents 4. Visual Coupling Clar
Page 8 and 9:
viii Contents References ..........
Page 10:
x Ben T. Mozo, Research Physicist U
Page 13 and 14:
xii Foreword began its phenomenal e
Page 15 and 16:
xiv Preface Acknowledgments The aut
Page 18 and 19:
Introductory Overview 1 Clarence E.
Page 20 and 21:
Introductory Overview 5 Figure 1.2.
Page 22 and 23:
Introductory Overview 7 The trend f
Page 24 and 25:
Introductory Overview 9
Page 26 and 27:
Introductory Overview 11 aviator to
Page 28 and 29:
Introductory Overview 13 1970's. Ta
Page 30 and 31:
Introductory Overview 15 Image sour
Page 32 and 33:
Introductory Overview 17
Page 34 and 35:
Table 1.3. HMD performance figures-
Page 36 and 37:
Introductory Overview 21 direct vie
Page 38 and 39:
Introductory Overview 23 Figure 1.9
Page 40 and 41:
Introductory Overview 25 Figure 1.1
Page 42 and 43:
Introductory Overview 27 Ercoline,
Page 44 and 45:
Introductory Overview 29 II, Procee
Page 46:
Introductory Overview 31 Armstrong
Page 49 and 50:
34 Clarence E. Rash, Melissa H. Led
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
40 Liquid crystal Clarence E. Rash,
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 70 and 71:
Optical Designs 3 William E. McLean
Page 72 and 73:
Optical Designs 57 and plotted in l
Page 74 and 75:
Optical Designs 59 phosphors, (b) u
Page 76 and 77:
Optical Designs 61 optics. Examples
Page 78 and 79:
Optical Designs 63
Page 80 and 81:
prism combiner. Optical Designs 65
Page 82 and 83:
Figure 3.2. (continued) Optical Des
Page 84 and 85:
Optical Designs 69
Page 86 and 87:
Optical Designs 71 Figure 3.4. Comp
Page 88 and 89:
Optical Designs 73 Figure 3.6. Opti
Page 90 and 91:
Optical Designs 75 Figure 3.8. Refl
Page 92 and 93:
Optical Designs 77 Figure 3.9. Ray
Page 94 and 95:
Optical Designs 79 incidence and re
Page 96 and 97:
80 Clarence E. Rash hinted at befor
Page 98 and 99:
82 Clarence E. Rash metal tolerant
Page 100 and 101:
84 Clarence E. Rash the performance
Page 102 and 103:
86 Clarence E. Rash Figure 4.3. Hig
Page 104 and 105:
88 Clarence E. Rash imagery in HMDs
Page 106 and 107:
90 Clarence E. Rash as with ANVIS.
Page 108 and 109:
92 Clarence E. Rash performance, on
Page 110 and 111:
94 Clarence E. Rash effects on visu
Page 112 and 113:
96 Clarence E. Rash concerning roll
Page 114 and 115:
98 Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
Page 116:
DESIGN ISSUES PART TWO
Page 119 and 120:
102 Clarence E. Rash and William E.
Page 121 and 122:
104 Contrast Clarence E. Rash and W
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
168 Number of SOG = � log (C r) /
Page 187 and 188:
Visual Performance 6 William E. McL
Page 189 and 190:
Visual Performance 171 observer is
Page 191 and 192:
seen. Visual Performance 173 Figure
Page 193 and 194:
Visual Performance 175 perception.
Page 195 and 196:
Visual Performance 177 with monovis
Page 197 and 198:
Visual Performance 179 individuals
Page 199 and 200:
Visual Performance 181 0 to -5.25 d
Page 201 and 202:
Visual Performance 183 Report No. 9
Page 203 and 204:
Biodynamics 7 B. Joseph McEntire He
Page 205 and 206:
Biodynamics 187 behavior of this de
Page 207 and 208:
Figure 7.2. Head anatomical coordin
Page 209 and 210:
Biodynamics 191
Page 211 and 212:
Biodynamics 193 al., 1972), and man
Page 213 and 214:
Biodynamics 195 Figure 7.5. Vertica
Page 215 and 216:
Biodynamics 197 disability and fata
Page 217 and 218:
Biodynamics 199 been fabricated int
Page 219 and 220:
Biodynamics 201 Ty pic al acc ele r
Page 221 and 222: Biodynamics 203 exceed the mechanic
Page 223 and 224: Biodynamics 205 complexity and comp
Page 225 and 226: Type Reference helmet Foam in place
Page 227 and 228: Biodynamics 209 the fitting problem
Page 229 and 230: Biodynamics 211 adjustment buckle,
Page 231 and 232: Biodynamics 213 down. The helmet ma
Page 233 and 234: Biodynamics 215 Desert Shield/Deser
Page 235 and 236: Biodynamics 217 Donelson, S. M., an
Page 237 and 238: 219 Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aero
Page 239 and 240: 220 Ben T. Mozo Figure 8.1. Noise l
Page 241 and 242: 222 Ben T. Mozo available in the ne
Page 243 and 244: 224 Ben T. Mozo Protectors”(ANSI,
Page 245 and 246: 226 Ben T. Mozo language. Tests of
Page 247 and 248: 228 Ben T. Mozo Figure 8.6. Speech
Page 249 and 250: 230 Ben T. Mozo the communications
Page 251 and 252: 232 Ben T. Mozo Item Mass (grams) C
Page 253 and 254: Ribera, J. E., and Mozo, B. T. Unda
Page 255 and 256: 236 Joseph R. Licina operational us
Page 257 and 258: 238 Joseph R. Licina Standard MIL-S
Page 259 and 260: 240 Joseph R. Licina On electro-opt
Page 261 and 262: 242 Joseph R. Licina For HMDs with
Page 263 and 264: 244 Joseph R. Licina 1994b) that wi
Page 265 and 266: 246 Joseph R. Licina Table 9.2. Hea
Page 267 and 268: 248 Joseph R. Licina provided a 93.
Page 269 and 270: 250 Joseph R. Licina and buckles, a
Page 271: 252 Joseph R. Licina authorized to
Page 275 and 276: 256 Joseph R. Licina requirements:
Page 277: HMD PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PART THR
Page 280 and 281: 262 Clarence E. Rash, John C. Mora,
Page 286 and 287: Glossary 11
Page 288 and 289: 270 making stereoposis possible. Bi
Page 290 and 291: 272 John C. Mora and M elissa H. Le
Page 297 and 298: NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Melissa H. Le
Page 299: Notes on Contributors 281 Research
Page 303 and 304: 284 Index Breakaway force (see Fran
Page 305 and 306: 286 Index movement, 55, 80, 84, 90,
Page 307 and 308: 288 Index 198, 204, 205, 208, 210,
Page 309 and 310: 290 Index Microphone, 15, 186, 224,
Page 311 and 312: 292 Index Speech intelligibility (S
show all

Helmet-Mounted Displays: - USAARL - The - U.S. Army

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?