This is a brainfart that just appeared out of nowhere, so imagine an exoskeleton powersuit that provides humans a weight carrying capacity three times of an average joe can carry and have a superhuman who can already carry three times as much a normal man can wear the suit. So does the suit provide any significant benefit in weight carrying or does the suit turns into a deadweight?
Deadweight. I'd imagine the exosuit would use motors and stuff to carry things and, an exosuit that doesn't give an advantage is a little convenient at most and very cumbersome at worst
I suspect there would be mobility issues, because of exoskeleton stuff getting in the way. Still doubling your strength could be useful for specialised tasks where you need to lift or handle heavy stuff, probably in stuff like mining and industry. In that case, it could be cheaper to get a super+suit combo then get an expensive specialised machine you need to keep maintained
If a superhuman can already lift 300kg, why would they need a suit that can also lift 300kg? Better lift weight naked. Angel mode to breakthrough limits.
Deadweight. Design of the exo suit would be such that average Joe does not encounter any additional stress. So the person wearing the suit should not affect the output of the suit
I actually have a slight disagreement with the others. There will be some carry advantage because some parts of the human body are just awkward to hang stuff off. No, not that place. An exosuit/skeleton with the same load carry capacity can function like something similar to current day LBVs (load bearing vests, "webbing" for all you old farts out there), i.e while it gives no extra "strength", it can function as clothing you can hang stuff off like what we see soldiers use in the field. It does not give current day soldiers "extra strength" but people still use it so that they can carry all the stuff ergonomically.
Well I need to be specific about my scenario then, picture a superhuman, three times better than an average joe, finds himself a exosuit that grants an average joe three times their own prowess. In my mind, the thing runs like this, the suit itself has a battery for the movement and weapons like pew pew guns, but it only has enough power to do one job at a time. So in my mind, the logic runs with that the superhuman should just use the suit for its weapons and he can handle the suit's movement instead. This part is still logical, right? But then this part gpt me a bit mixed, see, the movement the suit provides also include jumping, as in it allows the user to jump with all his and the suit's weight combined with minimum effort clearance of a certain height. It is during this time the brain fart turns into something off as I try to question if the notion of using the suit to jump is more effective than letting the superhuman jump with all the added weight. Know this that when an average joe uses the suit, they exert little to no effort as most if not all the load is on the suit. While in my scenario with the superhuman, he deactivated all the artificial muscles and do the heavy lifting on his own.
to simplest analogy would be... if you already can run 100kmph, riding a vehicle that can go 100 kmph wouldn't actually doubles your speed, but surely running is more tiring than just riding a vehicle. So if your limit is basically the same as the tool you are using, it's always better to use tool to make life easier.
It's like putting two machines that does the exact same things for one job. One would be redundant no matter how you put it. If you're engineer you'd want something that interact dynamically with their other components instead of overlapping with each other. So well... no it's still a dumb idea unless there's special use for them such as hostile/hazardous protection which then still make the exosuit a burden rather than a convenience to their superhuman wearer. As always the argument about making wearable robots. "Why the need of human/pilots if you can make them autonomous robots ?" So mobility focused vehicles are better than an exosuit. Tools are made for convenience sure but why would you need to make tools that especially made to accomplish what human can do instead of making the tools to be able to accomplish what the human can't do ?
Because convenience? I mean, humans can already carry stuff yet we still invent things like grocery bags. Or we can already run around barefooted yet still invent shoes?
"why would you need to make tools that especially made to accomplish what human can do instead of making the tools to be able to accomplish what the human can't do ?" 1. What part of the human body that can imitate a bags in functions ? You only have pairs of hands with five fingers each. No don't give me dumb answer give me something in practical sense. 2. If human has skins on their feet that is harder than everything it treads on the ground then chances are they'd never invent footwear though i doubt they won't make foot accessory. So there you go. Shoes and bags do something human don't naturally have. But bla bla bla nada nada 'purpose' 'convenience' n stuff we make because we're too lazy or something Go back to my first two comments. "If the power to weight were 1:1 then yes it's a deadweight." "it's still a dumb idea unless there's special use for them such as hostile/hazardous protection which then still make the exosuit a burden rather than a convenience to their superhuman wearer." <---- this part actually agree with you. Now you have a habit to bring the conversation out of topics when you lost an argument but I'll tell you in advance I'd ignore anything out of the context of the op original post.
I will temporarily ignore the implicit rudeness at the end of your post and once again point out that humans HAVE made things that are of convenience rather than things we "cannot do", further examples being spanner and printing presses. Humans can tighten nuts and bolts with fingers perfectly fine or copy text by hand without any problems yet we still invented these things to make life easier. Or even things like motorcycles. If we had cars, why would we bother to invent motorcycles if cars are more useful? Because sometimes it isn't "can't do" that is the driving force behind our inventions but convenience. Like washing machines vs washerwomen. As for the "harder skin on foot" argument, you do know that callus can grow on your feet and that it will thicken in response to how often you walk on rough surfaces? So yes, tougher skin WILL grow in response to things on the ground. It might be way before your time but in the past, there was a big media sensation when barefooted African athletes competed in the Olympics vs "high tech footwear" (for that time) equipped Western ones and won. Footwear is a convenience as people living in Africa and some parts of Asia and South America have long proven. It's only after not walking on rough ground a lot did we end up losing the callus on our feet and ended up needing shoes. As for the "hands" example, we used to tie things together then carry them as a bunch with our hands. Now back to the OP which you derailed, exoskeletons can act as LBV or Load Bearing Vests that you can attach things to. Or were you planning to double face tape magazines to your shirt? I've already compared an exoskeleton which does not give extra strength to modern infantrymen's webbing or LBV in "extra" utility. In fact, LBVs don't even give extra strength but weighs the infantryman down yet it is still an important part in a rifleman's kit. Why is that so hmm? And BTW ["it's still a dumb idea unless there's special use for them such as hostile/hazardous protection which then still make the exosuit a burden rather than a convenience to their superhuman wearer." <---- this part actually agree with you"] this wasn't me, you were agreeing with yourself.
We've been using bags and footwear since ancient times so nope they're necessity not convenience. And again return to my original comments. "it's still a dumb idea unless there's special use for them such as hostile/hazardous protection which then still make the exosuit a burden rather than a convenience to their superhuman wearer." Op @0000000 original comments. "This is a brainfart that just appeared out of nowhere, so imagine an exoskeleton powersuit that provides humans a weight carrying capacity three times of an average joe can carry and have a superhuman who can already carry three times as much a normal man can wear the suit. So does the suit provide any significant benefit in weight carrying or does the suit turns into a deadweight?" "Well I need to be specific about my scenario then, picture a superhuman, three times better than an average joe, finds himself a exosuit that grants an average joe three times their own prowess. In my mind, the thing runs like this, the suit itself has a battery for the movement and weapons like pew pew guns, but it only has enough power to do one job at a time. So in my mind, the logic runs with that the superhuman should just use the suit for its weapons and he can handle the suit's movement instead. This part is still logical, right? But then this part gpt me a bit mixed, see, the movement the suit provides also include jumping, as in it allows the user to jump with all his and the suit's weight combined with minimum effort clearance of a certain height. It is during this time the brain fart turns into something off as I try to question if the notion of using the suit to jump is more effective than letting the superhuman jump with all the added weight. Know this that when an average joe uses the suit, they exert little to no effort as most if not all the load is on the suit. While in my scenario with the superhuman, he deactivated all the artificial muscles and do the heavy lifting on his own."
Go recheck your history. Shoes started out as status symbols to differentiate the rich from the poor and it only became a common thing when Roman footwear started to become a status symbol. Even the Greeks did not wear shoes often and armies in antiquity like Alexandra the Great's were all barefooted. Historically, shoes are a very recent thing and unnecessary. serfs in Europe and African bushmen all went around barefooted, only the "rich" in Europe went around in shoes. This is where the term "well heeled" comes from. And as for all the rest, try, even if it is difficult for you, to compare your no strength added exoskeleton with modern infantryman load bearing vests. Or even simply shirts with pockets. Can you say shirts or LBVs are deadweight? Or even as an energy saving device when he can "take it easy" once in a while by letting the suit take part of the load? This is even more utility than modern infantrymen have already where they have to haul their load all the time and rest only by sitting or leaning on something. It's not a "red herring" but you simply not considering the implications far enough.