16

In Iron Man, it is obvious that Tony Stark's chest-mounted ARC reactor serves two purposes:

  1. Keep the shrapnel out of his heart, and
  2. Power the Iron Man suit.

However, in Iron Man 2, we see that the War Machine suit has an ARC reactor built into it.

Jarvis indicates in IM2 that increased use of the suit was leading to Tony's chest-mounted reactor killing him. If he could mount a reactor directly into the suit, why does he continue to use the chest-mounted reactor to power it? Why not put the ARC reactor into the suit and use something less poisonous to power the magnet keeping the shrapnel out of his heart? Was an explanation ever given for this?

alexwlchan
  • 102,594
  • 16
  • 447
  • 468
Shadowman
  • 2,725
  • 5
  • 30
  • 35
  • 4
    Possibly not a dupe, but very much related: Why did Tony Stark build arc reactors into his extra Iron Man suits? – phantom42 Apr 24 '14 at 14:16
  • As far as we know his Arc Reactor was the only thing capable of keeping the Sharpnel out of his heart indefinitely. Switching out the entire Arc Reactor entirely for something else would most likely kill him. – DoctorWho22 Apr 24 '14 at 14:52
  • 2
    @DoctorWho22 Not true. In IM1 Tony has an electromagnet powered by a car battery, so clearly something else could be used. – Shadowman Apr 24 '14 at 15:33
  • In the movie it was a prototype Arc Reactor that was powered by a car battery it wasn't just a normal electromagnet. – DoctorWho22 Apr 24 '14 at 15:39
  • Even in the comics it was a pacemaker like device that kept the sharpnel out of his heart and eventually he modified it to power his suit. It even states it on the Iron Man wikia : Back in the United States, Stark redesigned his chest plate, which contained a pacemaker-like device, reducing the chest plate's size and weight so he could wear it under his normal clothing. Required to wear the armor's chest plate at all times to keep his heart alive and beating, Stark decided to put the rest of the armor to regular use as well. – DoctorWho22 Apr 24 '14 at 15:43
  • 3
    @DoctorWho22 I highly doubt the FIRST device in his chest was a prototype Arc reactor. Yensil is the one who put it in there while Tony was unconscious. Tony later built the prototype reactor and used it as a replacement. – Shadowman Apr 24 '14 at 15:45
  • 1
    It wasn't a prototype arc reactor, but a coil magnet. And that too was fairly insufficient. That is why Tony built the prototype arc reactor. And @Shadowman, it's Yinsen. – Stark07 Apr 25 '14 at 06:36
  • For that matter, why even use an electromagnet in the first place? Some permanent neodymium magnets would almost certainly be just as strong, and would require zero energy to run. – Ajedi32 May 20 '20 at 15:23

1 Answers1

9

1. Why there's no alternative:

He cannot use anything less poisonous up until the point he re-discovers the new element that Howard Stark had thought of.
At one point in the movie J.A.R.V.I.S. mentions that

"I have run simulations on every known element, and none can serve as a viable replacement for the palladium core. You are running out of both time and options. Unfortunately, the device that's keeping you alive is also killing you."

This means that there was no "something less poisonous" that he could have used.
Also, There are no other clean energy sources that could've generated the amounts of power required by the magnet. This was significantly bigger than a pacemaker, so he couldn't have used a battery of that sort. And no battery could've given him the levels of energy required for the magnet. Plus the arc reactor was already integrated into his chest.

2. Why he doesn't continue wearing the suit:

J.A.R.V.I.S.: It appears that the continued use of the Iron Man suit is accelerating your condition.

Using a suit based reactor would mean he would have to use the suit more often, which would have in turn worsened the reaction to Palladium, as seen from what J.A.R.V.I.S says.

Also, another reason he puts the reactor directly into his chest is so that he doesn't depend on the reactor in the suit for life support.

Stark07
  • 16,185
  • 10
  • 69
  • 122
  • During captivity in the first movie there is a non-arc power source keeping him alive (a car battery as I recall). There are plenty of smaller power sources capable of generating that level of power in real life that he could have used in place of the arc to hold off his poisoning. Certainly not to power the suit, but if his life was on the line you would think he could have lived with two different power sources (one for him and one for the suit) for a while. In fact, by IM2 he already integrates reactors into the suits. – Nicholas Oct 09 '17 at 14:59
  • This doesn't really answer why he doesn't have a low-power/long-life/low-toxicity reactor in his chest to run the electromagnet and a high-power/short-life one in the suit, instead of running both suit & magnet off the same power source - especially since he has to keep swapping out the core. As an engineer, multiple redundant power sources should have been one of his first solutions. – Chronocidal May 24 '18 at 15:48
  • IIRC, the magnet was originally powered using a car battery, back in Iron Man 1. An arc reactor was certainly not the only power source capable of generating enough electricity to keep the magnet energized. – Ajedi32 May 20 '20 at 15:20