Talk:Troy Hurtubise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Troy ='s Hilarious Genius

Go Canada Go!!! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:36, 25 March 2005 (UTC)

Troy fascinated me so much, seeing his inventions on Daily Planet, that I just had to create an article for him! TimothyPilgrim 23:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Please update this soon - I want to know if God Light actually worked out. Although it has been only two months so there wouldn't necessarily be much info available yet. Are scientific trials coming soon? I'd think fairly many scientists would at least try to (dis)prove these claims. --Khokkanen 08:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating article... you'd never see this on any conventional information repository... wikipedia truly rocks. 68.122.40.173 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Want the real facts? Visit the official website www.inventortroy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.194.94 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hospitalization

I removed the following from the article:

"He has also suffered multiple mental breakdowns and has been hospitalized at least twice for severe manic episodes brought on by exessive abuse of LSD and DXM."

For such a claim I want a reference. The spelling error leads me to believe it is vandalism; but its certainly a possibility for someone as eccentric as Troy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see references, I agree. However, it is pretty clear from listening to his two radio interviews that he displays classic symptoms of bipolar disorder (manic depression). He starts off sounding relatively normal, then slowly develops the pressured speech and mannerisms typical of bipolars. Also, his claims that his phone is tapped, his laboratory is bugged, and that unidentified agents have been following him around for months, etc. are classic symptoms of psychosis. --Chris Thompson 05:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears his lithium prescription is going into his fire paste instead of his brain 174.6.194.100 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe he's manic, or bipolar? That is no reason to write off his claims before he even has a chance to prove them. No one's perfect, and I certainly don't think this is relevant. Plus, if I had developed such things and brought forward such claims, I'd be worried about such things also. However, it would be extremely hard to tell if he's being extra paranoid, or if he is indeed suffering from some form of psychosis. Personally, I'd be wary of every little thing if I had developed such things. After all, stories of cover-ups by the government aren't exactly rare. 72.224.7.158 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cover-ups by the government that aren't the inventions of lunatics are significantly more rare. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.56.14 (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

That's what they *want* you to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.7.131 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the 2/14/07 article "White House Looks for Faster Top-Secret Clearances" in National Security Media, "Three million federal workers now require security clearances...." That doesn't even include the numerous federal (CIA, FBI, DOD, DOE and other) contractors with security clearances - a significant number of government people intent on keeping secrets from the rest of us. I think it's fair to say that government cover-ups are not rare but common place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.59.148 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is it just me, or is this article a little skewed towards slavering fandom? 208.193.132.253 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a little, but if it remains factual I don't see a serious problem. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Mr. Hurtubise has a vested interest in this page and may have done a great deal of it's original content himself. I know if I had a wiki page devoted to me, I'd check it almost daily to make sure that it told what I consider the truth about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.35.177 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Troy Hurtubise. Do you think I have time or even care about what people say about me? I actually get a good laugh about all of this. For true facts, real information, visit my official website www.inventortroy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.194.94 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just was looking at Mr. Hurtubise's website. That armor he demos is pretty freaking awesome. He's a bit eccentric and swears a lot but you can't knock a guy for trying to protect soldiers. The man deserves more respect than he's given on this page, that's for sure. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who views HIS personal website, the official website, you may have a different opinion once you have watched the newest videos and tests demonstrating his Trojan Armour and just how much abuse it can take. If people would actually stop and think of the lives that could be saved by implementing this technology, everyone would benefit. We wouldnt be losing the lives of our Canadian Soldiers overseas needlessly, and for that alone, Troy deserves respect and admiration. The tests are 100%real and filmed uncut. Nothing is cut out or edited.You should take a look at the website or on You Tube.Check out the most recent videos on the Trojan and also the videos on the demonstration of Troys soft body armour. It is absolutely amazing and explains blunt trauma so that everyone can understand what happens to your body if you are shot while wearing a bullet proof vest. It will stop the bullet but what it does to your body is just incredibly disgusting.Just make sure you check it out and decide for yourself, instead of listening to individuals who have no idea what they are talking about, in regard to the negative comments I have read. Lori —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loritroy (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurtsy & FSA 333

Is Hurtsy & FSA 333 the same as 1313 Paste and Firepaste respectively? 66.69.112.57 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

the suit

Just viewed some footage I happened to have of Troy in the suit. It's actually quite remarkable; seeing him being hit by a moving car. I frankly don't understand it. How can any suit protect someone from the G-forces generated when one's velocity changes from 0 to several mph in a fraction of a second? Puzzling. But spectacular to watch.

We did an item on him on a TV show I worked on. So I came back to have a look. Truly a weird story, altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editdroid (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are air bags inside, to cushion the rate of acceleration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywong137 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A typical person can handle accelerations of about 5 g (50m/s2, or five times the force of Earth's gravity) before losing conciousness - modern pilots can handle 9 g (90 m/s2) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.172.115.12 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually a typical person can handle much more accelerations than 5g. 5 to 10 g is the limit of any sort of prolonged acceleration, but higher g loads can be handled over shorter periods of time. Car accidents are a good example of this. - Jeff the Baptist 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity: "Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 178 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km·h−1 (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open and he hit a wall." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.56.14 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Any Updates on All This Stuff?

It seems like a lot of the info on this guy is a few years old, and it's difficult to find any updates on any of his stuff. I think Angel Light and God Light are a bit unlikely but from the videos I've seen it looks like the Fire Paste and the Bear Suits (sorry don't remember the exact name) have worked really well. Of course the Fire Paste is cool stuff but his suit is a lot more interesting. Last I heard he tested the 7th version with a blowtorch before he tried it with a bear (wtf?) and it screwed up the suit a little (air bags popped?) and he got pretty burnt up. Come on let's get a video of a decent Bear Test before we start doing other random tests. As for the question of "How can the suit take so many G's?" asked earlier on this page: he has airbags between his body and the suit so although the suit will take a high amount of force, his body will take less as the momentum change is distributed throughout a longer amount of time, therefore reducing the force. Hope that makes sense. Honestly they should take a bear that they were going to kill anyway (as in the ones that kill a person or two, and then the rangers or whoever have to find it and kill it because it killed a person) and test it with the suit. In fact I think it'd be quite humorous to see him actually beat up on the bear. 66.229.5.157 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion. The article states that the G-Man Genesis unit has been completed, but it seems impossible to find any information about it. A source would be nice. Dali 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

here is an updated article on the suit...

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168470616997&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815

Acfcording to the article, the suit has stood up to bullets from high-powered weapons, including an elephant gun. Dingfelder 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely Insane

You do all realize that this is completely insane right?
How many times must this guy be debunked? The things he makes, such as the "fire paste" are common. Far thinner materials withstand greater heat for a longer period (ceramics, nomex, various gels used in stunts, mixtures of fire retardants and wool even). As for the "Angel Light", you can simply call the references at MIT for you answer on that front. I have no idea why someone who is either bipolar or schizophrenic is getting real attention on Wikipedia with no dissenting view.
Oh, and for those of you who have no concept of how scientific research is conducted, someone inventing a remarkable device DEMONSTRATES IT'S EFFICACY.
It is the burdon of the researcher to prove their research or invention, not the public burden to disprove it. The few items that this man makes which work as advertised are rehashes of existing materials, or simply absurdities which have long since been surpassed. Of course, if you believe in his angel and god light, you probably think I'm just a "part of the conspiracy". 5 minutes of research into REPUTABLE sources, or the people and places cited by this madman are all it takes to debunk him. Please try to remember that ANYONE can say "I made a miracle ray, and the government is paying me to do it"... when the proof is a picture of you on front of some absurd plastic POS.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.58.100 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Well, here are my two cents: I don't actually know if other materials can do what fire paste does, but the way the media shows it (I just watched a bit on "Discoveries this week", on the Discovery channel), it would seem it really is something "special". I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because I believe there ARE better materials out there. Could someone confirm that nomex or other fiber can perform better than fire paste? I believe it shouldnt be too dificult, or else drivers in F1 would be wearing fire paste suits, or the shuttle would have a fire paste protection for reentry. Quase 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think only someone with respect for the enthusiasm to start big and weird projects should go attack the man ad hominem like you do. The wikipedia article makes it quite clear what is fact and which projects are a long shot which might miss the target. Actually the weird-seeming "god light" might work, because it is not uncommon to shoot something at a tumor. The question there is, if it is not simply a heat effect, how would one know the proper frequencies to alter gene expression and RNA function? For the function of the "angel light", there exist similar commonly used devices for sound although I would not be surprised if this Turdoise guy did not know that. Btw. I suggest you take the time you spoke of, 5 minutes, and debunk him if it is so easy. Highlander 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that all this "God Light" and "Angel Light" stuff looks completely poop-eating voice-hearing crazy. However, he's made numerous TV appearances with the suits, which have more than proven their substantiality, IMO. I've seen the Discovery special the Ripley's appearances, and you can tell from those that the suits are not only legit, but really freakin cool. I don't think the sections about the lights have any business being in this article, but the suits should stay. 67.78.175.82 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of FirePaste, by my understanding, is that it has been produced by fairly cheap and commonly available products, and that it conforms to standards of nontoxicity. One of his ingredients (according to his appearance on Discovery Channel) is a can of Diet Coke...and that's what makes it a big deal. Cheaper means more readily available, blah blah blah blah. The reason it wouldn't be so widespread is probably because (by my understanding) it's taking a lot of research to figure out /why/ it works. --75.176.185.207 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what ingredients go into conventional fire-proofing materials? Do you know how much they cost per liter? It seems you are simply assuming FirePaste is fairly cheap because you know Coke is cheap (well, unless compared to gasoline, which we consider expensive). And if someone was actually mass-producing this stuff, it wouldn't make a bit of difference that Coca-Cola is readily available to the average Joe. 134.173.56.14 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea its quite obvious this guy is a wack job. For those of you that are interesting, his firepaste is nothing extraordinary, especially not compared to, say, aerogel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel. - SwedishPsycho —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, If you actually believe that his Firepaste is crap and that there are other materials out there that are a dime a dozen, as you seem to imply,that are far superior to what he has created, please, by all means,go and buy yourself some of this wonderful material, like your aerogel, and please put it over your own face and then have some brave soul hold a 3000degree torch one inch from your face for 10 minutes or so,and when you can show me that you can survive that unscathed,as Troy did,I might add,then I will believe that you are right. Until then, you should keep your opinions to yourself, as I was right there when the tests and experiments were conducted on his Firepaste, and I assure you, it is 100% real and works just the way you saw on The Discovery Channel. --Lori 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this page is completely wrong

Aside from his bear suits and inflammable paste, this article is completely absurd and I am embarassed wikipedia still has it on here.

Check the references on his Angel Light... everything about it, includign the fact the French paid him to develop it and his research with other scientists is reported by him, and is the only source of that information. This is ridiculous! I know people want to believe their stupid little conspiracy theories or that basement scientists can figure out the secrets of the universe, but all of this is completely absurd, biased, and unconfirmed information. There is no angel light.. there is no God light... give me a break!

The overall obscurity of this man is the only thing that is keeping this article as it is. I recommend it is drastically edited to explain the unverifeid claims that pervade it. 63.100.44.98 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to be edited at all; you'd have to want to believe it in order to read this as fact in its current state. --Joffeloff 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just edit to say that he is the source of the unverified claims, and that they are, in fact unverified? PhilMorton 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

complete agree. this page has too much of the "the establish is keeping him down" flavour to it. the fact of the matter is, all of his projects are hopelessly impractical and his lack of formal engineering training is not the same as a revolutionary approach to armour protection. his ideas do best with the youtube crowd and it is hard to believe that anyone intelligent would invest in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.246.55 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Godlight?

We did the same experiment in university. When you grow plants in an incomplete light spectrum (more reds than blues) they naturally elongate and grow very tall. This is how plants grow over rocks and other plants to get their leaves into direct sunlight. Once they get the full spectrum of sunlight, they stop elongating and begin to grow normally. Landroo 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this God light may be a bit far fetched for me to believe, same with the Angel Light. A claim of this magnitude would need some sense of proof. As it stands now, there is none, as he has reportedly (or has rumored to) dismantled the angel light as it causes unwanted side effects. But, to argue the opposite side of the spectrum I would bet there were skeptics when someone created something revolutionary a very long time ago, like glass. Something along the lines of "Hey, let's melt that sand over there along with some iron filings to make a transparent tinted sheet that we could put in our homes in place of large heavy wooden shutters, but still be able to see through them whether it is closed or not." was said, and would clearly be laughed at, and shunned. Denare 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think whoever invented (discovered?) glass was holding a chunk of it when he told his friends about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.56.14 (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

New link

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/media_archive/jan-11-2007_a.html Don't know much of what to say about this. 209.112.217.159 (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurtubise news! Here comes the Trojan suit

This seems relatively legit. More believable than this Angel Light nonsense. -Skorpus McGee 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: He got a bid for it on eBay of $40,000 but had to withdraw because it didn't hit his minimum bid. --Landroo 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Why isn't this being listed as pseudoscience (or at least the Angel Light and God Light sections)? Has anyone read the references provided? They're all hearsay and abstract observations! Everything is Hurtubise "quoting" from his unnamed German researcher, Hurtubise relaying what the French government told him, a scientist commenting based on a picture he saw of plants, or a scientist commenting based on information a journalist provided to him. There is nothing that has been anywhere within miles of verified or verifiable here. We can't be presenting this as fact, nor should we be giving this anything more than a passing mention. If anyone wants this to be taken seriously, come back when there is actual real information about this; otherwise, there's no reason at all to treat it as anything more than spurious claims, and as such it should be listed as pseudoscience. In fact, I'll mark it as such now. --Pyran 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement. That's why, when I tried to correct for "weasel words," I was obliged to leave in half a dozen instances of the word "claims." Hopefully, it still sounds skeptical, but not in an overtly hostile way. Anyway, if you can find any source claiming to debunk Hurtubise (or at least his amazing rays), post it. I have a feeling no one takes him seriously enough to level the obvious criticisms against him, though, so good luck. Teflon Don 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Titanium not strong enough?

"While the titanium suit was strong yet not overly heavy, it still did not provide the amount of protection Troy desired. The suit was then entirely rebuilt to replace the titanium with stainless steel. he resulting suit is extremely strong, much stronger than the Mark VI, but due to its materials it now weighs a total of 84 kg (186 pounds)(the upper and lower halves are each 93 pounds)."

That doesn't make sense. Titanium has a much better strength/weight ratio than steel. Perhaps expense was a concern (it AIN'T cheap), but I don't buy that titanium wasn't strong enough. Replaced pound for pound, titanium is vastly stronger than steel. Replaced on the basis of strength, it's something like 30% lighter than steel. I thought for a moment that bulk might be an issue (I'm not sure how much thicker titanium has to be in order to equal steel in strength), until I saw pictures of the thing--no WAY is bulk an issue.

I know that there are much more questionable claims in this article (wtf is up with the 'God Light'?), but this claim in particular (that titanium "isn't strong enough") directly contradicts everything I've ever heard about a KNOWN material, so I've added the dispute tag. --Lode Runner 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Titanium isn't the miracle metal it's often made out to be. While it does have a great strength to weight ratio, it has less strength per volume than steel. I.e., you have to use more of it by volume to acheive the same strength as steel, but it'll still weigh less. Lower weight per volume also means lower density, which is why no one makes swords from titanium. A steel sword could theoretically cut through a titanium one. So, this brings two possible explanations to mind-

1. He didn't use enough titanium. If he just used the same amount of titanium (by volume) as he would steel, then it wouldn't be as strong.
2. The bear's claws were able to puncture and tear the titanium, due to its (relatively) low density.

I think #1 is the likely case, considering also the expense of titanium. 67.78.175.82 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, titanium is quite strong, especially for it's weight. However that is only for its weight. It's tensile and yield strengths are lower than steel in absolute terms and it also has a much lower elastic modulus. Jeff the Baptist 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured (though wasn't sure) that this might be the case, which was why I added the tidbit about not knowing how much thicker titanium has to be to equal steel. However, all that doesn't change the fact that, in many applications (assuming you can spare the volume), simply thickening the design and replacing it with titanium works just fine and can indeed result in a stronger AND lighter product. I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases. There is no way a bear's claws could tear through, say, 2" of properly forged titanium... no way in HELL. I think that unless someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary, the wording needs to be changed so that it no longer implies that steel is "much stronger" than titanium (much more likely, it was merely "MUCH cheaper".) --Lode Runner 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on metallurgy, but it sounds like you aren't either. For instance, you speak of "strength" as if it were a single, absolute property, when in fact there are many factors that go into a particular material's fitness for a particular application. You also speak of titanium as if it were all the same, whereas we don't even know what alloy Troy used. Here's a link to a good article on titanium vs. steel with respect to sword construction. Obviously some factors don't apply, such as hardness with respect to blade edges. But it gives a good perspective on the properties of titanium vs the properties of steel, and points out that what's good for airplane frames and the space shuttle is not necessarily good for every application. If you remain convinced after reading that, then by all means reword the article. As I said, I'm not a metallurgist, so I can't push the issue any further. 209.42.59.161 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am (vaguely, but I think sufficiently) aware of the hardness/brittleness tradeoff and the differences between tension, compression, torque, etc. However, I don't need to be a metallurgist to say, with an extremely high degree of confidence, that a bear could not tear through several inches of properly forged titanium (when I say "properly forged", I mean the whichever is the most optimal alloy and temper for a metal armor application.) "You also speak of titanium as if it were all the same, whereas we don't even know what alloy Troy used." It's possible that he used inferior or unsuitable titanium, sure. I just dislike the implication that titanium *in general* wasn't strong enough to withstand a bear's attacks. --Lode Runner 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Titanium is "brittle". What I mean by that, is it's tensile strength becomes nearly non-existent when it is grooved. So if you twist or hit a piece of titanium near the area where it has been grooved it will easily break. This may have been the reason for not using titanium (imperfections in the metal, possibly due to inexperience with it?) --Gethomas 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for not using Titanium were actually pointed out by Lode Runner a few paragraphs up without him realising it. Titanium's strength is related to its weight, not its volume, and in making armor, volume does actually matter, because you're expecting someone to wear the stuff and move around in it. You can't do that if you've got two inches of metal covering your limbs, with padding and protection underneath it. Your armor would actually end up being so huge you wouldn't be able to move around in it, and you'd be wearing something at least seven feet tall, if not more, all the while looking like some kind of metallic Michelin Man. Armor isn't a shield. You can't just thicken it as much as you can. That's why switching over to stainless steel was a good idea, as steel's greater strength/volume ratio is far more advantageous than titanium's greater strength/weight ratio, for armormaking purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.104.56 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't really know anything about metal, but.. Even if steel is heavier, if titanium is weaker gram-for-gram then doesn't that mean it's easier to dent? I don't think a bear would stop after a single strike, so eventually a titanium suit would be much more worn-down than a steel suit of the same "strength", right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.149 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Titanium...does have a great strength to weight ratio, it has less strength per volume than steel. Lower weight per volume also means lower density, which is why no one makes swords from titanium. A steel sword could theoretically cut through a titanium one." I mean no offence, but this makes little sense to me. Assume two swords of the same length and the same weight, one titanium and the other steel. The titanium blade would be much thicker. Since, pound per pound, titanium is stronger, the 10 pound titantium blade would be stronger than the 10 pound steel blade. It would be unlikely for the steel blade to cut through it.

Note also that in the A-10 Warthog, the pilot sits in a titanium bathtub-type arrangement to protect him from bullets and shrapnel. Not steel, because for the same weight titanium is stronger and provides more protection. I think a titanium blade would beat a steel blade of the same strength any day. I'd like to see a Wikipidia article on that subject alone. 76.64.209.131 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Gamma

Just throwing this link in from the Sword forums about how titanium (as discussed above) is not up to the job. http://swordforum.com/metallurgy/titanium.html 188.222.189.230 (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism and Criticism

While I essentially agree that the sections on the Angel and God Lights are equivalent to really bad news stories or press releases, we need to find some articles that analyze with a skeptical tone these claims in order to provide a valid Wikipedia counterpoint. If you have any such articles, please post them here so that we can edit this article to offer a balanced viewpoint. 66.77.144.5 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick to Judge

It's quite interesting how quick all of you are to judge this man and his inventions. The fact is, when it comes to something like "Angel Light," there isn't enough information to argue EITHER WAY. At this point in the project, there simply just isn't enough information to go by, so why argue one way or the other if you don't even know what your claims are based on? And as for fire paste not being better than all others out there, etc. - you simply just DON'T know the compound's make up, nor do you likely have the expertise to be able to effectively compare it to other materials/compounds out there that would attempt to do the same thing. Until you have ALL of the information on these projects, I'd like to see you debunk them and still have a clue what you're saying. 72.224.7.158 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Once you've seen enough of it, snake oil and crazy talk tends to stand out like a sore thumb. You notice that all these crackpots make wild claims that, if true, would revolutionize the world, but they never explain the scientific basis, give well-documented demonstrations, or provide enough information for a third party to reproduce the results, while at the same time they latch onto their inventions that do in fact work (bear suits and maybe firepaste?) and trumpet them from the mountaintops. They make convenient excuses as to why they can't demonstrate their (nonexistant) invention. They have paranoid delusions, etc. Troy demonstrates all of these.

This of course isn't enough to commit him to an institution. Even so, whether he's crazy or not, this is Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, wild claims are (ideally) assumed false until they are backed up with credible sources. 67.78.175.82 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, until there IS enough information to judge either way that fact either a.) needs to be explicitly stated, or b.) has no busniess being in an encyclopedia. Also, the wilder the claim is, the more it will be considered fiction by rational people until proven otherwise. In other words, for some of Hurtubise's stuff, the burdon of proof is on him before it should be viewed in any realistic way. That's not to say that all of his claims are like that; just a few. --Pyran 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of Fire Paste isn't that it can't be equalled, it's that it's cheap, lightweight and non-toxic; it was demonstrated to work in a third party setting with the discovery channel (and while they are sensationalist, they are DO act as a decent third party). The same is true of the ballistic cushion (which is also rather impressive). That he has created not one but three working and tested products which are each impressive in their own right gives him, I believe, at least some leeway in making his claims. That the Angel Light and the God Light do make me raise my eyebrows and state, after clearing my throat briefly and in my most authoritative voice that "I'll believe it when I see it" is, of course given, but that I HAVE seen three of his inventions work gives me, on some level, hope that he may have something there. Remember, the skepticism you people have shown about the 'rays' alone may be enough to explain the lack of interest from the scientific and investment communities. 24.203.157.36 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Marc

I'm don't think he should be allowed to "buy" credibility in this manner. Nikola Tesla practically invented AC electricity, yet he also produced a vast amount of unsubstantiated, downright crackpot claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the inventor actively hinders such proof (e.g. "covert experiments", dismantling the Angel Light machine, etc.), then those inventions do merit a very large dose of skepticism, regardless of his previous work. --Lode Runner 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS NO MYSTERY HERE. This type of technology has existed for a long time and is actually very simplistic in operation. Troy's claims of what makes this work are purely to cloud the simplicity of the technology used. TRAVELLINGNEMESIS 05:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable removal of the 'God Light' section

I do agree that 1) It's sheer fantasy and 2) the God Light section REALLY needed citation (especially his claim that it could "make lame men walk and blind men see". Not that I believe it's true, but that if he really made such claims it's VERY damning to his overall credibility.) However, just because an invention is (almost assuredly) sheer fantasy doesn't make it unworthy of mention. If Troy did indeed claim to build a "God Light" that was even more unbelievable than the Angel Light (to be fair, the Angel Light *allegedly* has some effects which are quite plausible--e.g. if you had a powerful, directional microwave device, you would indeed be able to fry electronics and kill goldfish), then it needs to be mentioned. Talk it over; otherwise, I'm restoring the section tomorrow (with citations.) Will also be rewording the section on the Project Troy to remove implications that titanium is somehow too weak to withstand a bear attack (see above.) --Lode Runner 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's giving him a great big chunk of "benefit of the doubt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is an elephant gun a "high powered" rifle?

"...he claims that the suit can withstand bullets from high powered weapons (including an elephant gun)."

If you consider "high powered" weapons to be ANY weapon that creates a ton of kinetic energy, then this statement is technically true; however, in the context of this suit providing protection against modern firearms, it's VERY misleading statement.

I do not have specific knowledge of elephant guns, so I'm going to speak in very general terms here: An elephant gun is, presumably, designed for maximum "stopping power" against a soft target (namely, an elephant or some other very large mammal.) This is VERY different from a gun designed to penetrate a hard target. From what I understand, the two are actually at the opposite ends of a spectrum. To have high "stopping power", you must have large bullets made out of a soft material (e.g. lead) that deform easily. This deformation increases the surface area of the bullet, spreading out the energy of the bullet over a wider area. Hollowpoint bullets are constructed with this in mind.

"High-penetration", on the other hand, is ammunition able to pierce cover and armor--the obvious example being the full metal jacket bullet (a lead bullet coated with a harder metal.) This has the side effect of making the bullet sturdier, able to be fired at higher muzzle velocities than a non-jacketed bullet. "Armor piercing" rounds go a step further--the entire bullet is made of a harder metal (e.g. steel.) The downside of high-penetrating ammunition is it does not deform nearly as much, resulting in a less severe wound. I believe that most militaries use FMJ or armor piercing ammo because of the range advantages, the ability to penetrate armor, the ability to wound instead of kill (I've heard that wounding is often preferable because it hurts morale moreso than outright killing, plus resources must be expended to care for the wounded soldier) and also because high "stopping power" weaponry is (possibly) illegal under the Hague Convention of 1899.

Though the article on elephant guns does claim that they were successfully used to punch through armored plates in World War 1, this claim is uncited and we have no idea how durable these plates were, nor at what range the elephant guns were used, nor which caliber or model of elephant gun was used, nor if conventional elephant gun ammunition was used (perhaps they used an armor piercing variant.) I am inclined to assume that, UNLIKE most modern military small arms, most standard elephant guns are NOT optimized for high penetration. It just wouldn't make sense--a large, slower, non-jacketed lead bullet would do far more damage to a large, unarmored mammal than a smaller, faster, harder bullet. I would hazard a guess that it is actually relatively easy to design a suit of armor to withstand an elephant gun--it is much harder to design armor to withstand an armor piercing (or even just a regular FMJ) sniper rifle.

To put it simply: Larger, softer, slower bullets tear up living tissue like crazy, but they go "splat!" against decent armor. Smaller, harder, faster bullets can go right through armor EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE LESS KINETIC ENERGY (hint: it's about PSI, not total energy), but the hole they make ain't nearly as big, which is why they don't see much action vs. elephants.

Given that Troy has apparently only tested his suit with a shotgun (also a high-stopping power, low-penetration weapon) and an elephant gun, and given his God/Angel Light craziness, I think that his claims regarding his suit's effectiveness vs. military arms (which is NOT the same as its effectiveness vs. bears and blunt force trauma!) should be viewed with skepticism. At the very least, an elephant gun should not be called a "high power" weapon--not because it isn't true (in the most *useless*, technical sense of the term "power"), but because those types of "high power" weapons ARE NOT USED AS GENERAL ANTI-PERSONAL WEAPONS.

Feel free to correct me if I'm vastly misinformed... --Lode Runner 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Terminal ballistics article says:

The pattern is, of course, that the larger the animal, the deeper its vital organs will be located, and therefore a firearm, cartridge, and bullet type should be chosen that will be able to reach the vital organs and kill humanely.

...

To hit the vital organs on a large game animal requires penetrating the thick fat and muscle tissue surrounding the chest cavity, and quite often bone as well. A hard, nondeforming bullet is often chosen ...

Elephant hunters normally attempt to shoot for the brain, which is much smaller than the size of the elephant's head, and so must be targeted quite precisely, and require a firearm and bullet capable of punching through a foot (300 mm) or more of tough, albeit hollow, bone and reaching the brain.

So I wouldn't discount the armour-piercing ability of elephant guns ... Alnyee 04:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapons characterized as "Elephant guns" are simply conventional rifles of relatively high caliber and power. Various sorts of ammunition could be used in them, but when hunting elephants or other large, tough game, a penetrating 'solid' would be used. These bullets would simply pass through less substantial game as they are non-expanding slugs of uniform construction designed to penetrate bone and very thick hides. In effect, elephants and similar game are armored by their tremendous hides and thick skulls and are hunted with ammunition designed to penetrate this "armor."

An "elephant gun" firing solids would represent a tremendous threat to hard armor, though I am unsure whether this exceeds the penetration threat of military calibers using purpose-built armor-piercing ammunition with steel cores, etc.. Of course, an "elephant gun" needn't fire only solid ammunition (though use of the term implies such). One could use softer expanding rounds in these rifles, in which case Lode Runner's concerns are valid. False cause 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)false_cause

I would personally like to see the armor get shot by a 7.62 AK47 seeing as how that's what we're facing in Iraq and across the world. --J 128.210.105.125 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines (False_cause) A weapon considered to be a medium (deer) to large (large being moose) is the 270. This weapon uses a heavy grain 7.62 full metal jacket (which is standard to hunt with if you plan on killing an animal at 300+ meters and not having to chase it down). This is the same bullet used by Marine snipers with an unspecified grain amount, although the 270 cartridge is larger. I would think a gun used to take down larger game such as an elephant would use a 7.62 or larger bullet with a much larger grain. If you doubt my knowledge in this matter I am in the Marine Corps and when I asked about the grain amount in the sniper round I was told "classified".

On the flip side, the sniper rounds and AK rounds of our current enimies are 7.62. So assuming the test was done with a high grain 7.62 round or greater this would be some cool armor. --Gethomas 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, marine snipers don't have to pierce kevlar armour. They just need an accurate long-range bullet capable of killing someone with a headshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroo (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps I was somewhat wrong about elephant guns--still, there is still a *big* difference between penetrating muscle/bone and penetrating steel plates. Similarly, there's a big difference between FMJ, solid-steel, and tungsten (or DU) rounds. I wonder if FMJ would be sufficient to penetrate an elephant's skull?

Anyway, I think we've established that:

1. "Elephant gun" is not a technical term. We do not know the muzzle velocity, nor the composition of the bullet.

2. The archtypical elephant gun is rarely (if ever) used by modern militaries.

All in all I'm not sure if any changes need to be made, but it would be nice if we could get some more citations, I guess. --Lode Runner 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if Loderunner has a personal grudge against the inventor. I can only assume that this is the case because of the number of comments that he has made trying to discredit the inventer while showing the world that he has absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking about. If he knew anything at all about firearms he would know that an elephant gun is considered a high power rifles. The inventor claimed that his invention can withstand impacts from a high powered rifle round, including an elephant gun. You try and say that it is not high powered until others point out you are incorrect. Then you want to change your argument to your other invalid claims. It appears that anyone who is interested in the truth of the matter should not pay attention to anything that LodeRunner has to say on the subject.

It does appear that the inventor has produced inventions that do work. That means I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over someone who seems to have no knowledge on the subject. In the case of the armor, I think he knows far more than LodeRunner does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.118.118 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, elephant gun is not a technical term. It is a catch-all description of a type of firearm designed to be able to penetrate the skull of an elephant, which was found to be extremely difficult to do with your average load. "Elephant guns" have been produced in calibres ranging from .375 to .700 (9.5mm to 17.8 mm) with slugs of up to 1000 grains. These generate muzzle velocities upwards of 2000 fps, many much higher than that. and stopping power that with some custom loads can be as high as 14000 foot/lbs.

A typical military round, will not come close to an elephant gun for stopping power, or penetration. These are weapons that have been observed to penetrate as much as 6 feet of solid oak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantviolation (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Trojan Body Armour for sale on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.ca/The-Trojan-full-body-armor-designed-by-Troy-Hurtubise_W0QQitemZ190079888295QQihZ009QQcategoryZ25552QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem The suit is for sale on eBay starting at US$15,000 (with a reserve) Also comes with exclusive rights to reproduce something he labels as "Shadow Armour", but he retains rights on the Trojan Armour. 203.26.122.12 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: He got a bid for it on eBay of $40,000 but had to withdraw because it didn't hit his minimum bid. --Landroo 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he should have split the offer into one for shadow armor and one for the Trojan suit Highlander 12:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Borderline mental illness is no joke.

There seems to be an awful lot of ad hominum attacks on this page. Does it not occur to anyone that on the basis of his suits alone, the man is evidently quite quite brilliant? He may also be quite quite mad, and some of his claims may well be delusional, but then again he may just be cagey about verifying his claims because of good old paranoia (either regular or psychotic). Many geniuses have been insane. 172.189.11.17 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Many geniuses are insane, but insanity doesn't make you brilliant.Landroo 03:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody wants to shoot at him?

Let's fire a couple of AK rounds into him and everything will be clear. It's so simple. Mik1984 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have occurred to a genius that you could test the suit against bullets without the inventor inside.Landroo 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You forget, Troy (from what the article shows) is a hands-on kind of person. And seeing as he created this to protect people like his brother in Iraq, he would no doubt test it personally to ensure its effectiveness. 24.58.114.90 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A few water balloons stuffed inside the suit would tell you everything you need to know about the bulletproofness of the suit.Landroo 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

a compromise to please everyone?

(sorry, I think I echoed some of the comments already here . . . I thought discussions displayed newest to oldest)

I don't edit Wikipedia much so it's been awhile since I've read all the rules, but this article must be breaking many rules. The emptiness of some of the claims is self-evident; for instance, not being able to test ballistics protection because no one would shoot Troy—obviously someone who has invented all this can do what the Mythbusters do and rig a gun to a post with a simple remote-controlled trigger-pulling mechanism (not to mention, he doesn't have to wear the damn thing to test himself).

I have no problem with including these claims in the article, but I think the best solution is to have one part of the article with all the material which abides 100% by the Wikipedia rules, and another section labeled "Claims Troy Hurtubise has made". This should please as everyone as the content in included but is labeled for what it is, whether the reader believes it or not. As it stands, the article is all mixed up, and ought to be fixed or removed.

You don't see other private engineers using his supposed inventions. Wouldn't some of these private space companies want some firepaste if it actually existed? It's ridiculous and I agree: embarrassing. This is why people don't trust Wikipedia. Subnubilus 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe similar inventions are well known but do not posses as well all the properties needed for a space craft. According to the section he has proved that it works to the media so it may very well be considered factual even though a reference would be nice for those who didn't follow the media then. Highlander 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

and then, of course, let us remind ourselves that Troy used a blowtorch to heat the firegel. reentry from space isn't being wrapped in burning fuel, it's friction from the air that does the heating. does firepaste stand up to a belt-sander? It's been said over-and over that IF claims are true, it's a super-cheap fire-retardant paste (possibly composed of diet coke, kitty litter, and sundry other houshold chemicals whose owners would sue in a heartbeat for use of their trademarked products) but it's going to take study and testing to find out its range of uses and I don't know if he's put the full ingredients list in a patent at all.

That's probably the biggest thing: what inventions (or even parts of inventions) has Hurtubese patented at ALL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.35.177 (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Project Grizzly (film).jpg

Image:Project Grizzly (film).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Link

I removed the Link http://www.missiontrojan.com from the Trojan section of the page as it appears to be down permanently now, InventorTroy.com seems to be the main site now RyanM651 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous comment

Such a level of dedication deserves a reward, really!--
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 22:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)