Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon?

Chris writes "The idea of an "invisibility cloak" has made the leap from science fiction books to an international patent application. The "three dimensional cloaking process and apparatus" for concealing objects and people (WO 02/067196) employs photodetectors on the rear surface which are used to record the intensity and color of a source of illumination behind the object. Light emitters on the front surface then generate light beams that exactly mimic the same measured intensity, color and trajectory. The result is that an observer looking at the front of the object appears to see straight through it."

Comments

The biggest question of course...

[kylus]

...what's the bonus to saving throws when wearing it? :)

Re:The biggest question of course...

[oval_pants]

+1 bonus
-6000 dexterity for "wheelbarrow that you'll need to carry the batteries, fuel cells or magic moonbeams " post

Practicality?

[nuggz]

There are many angles crossing an object, although this may work for simple front to back (as the article states)
I don't think it is that workable for all directions, or even more then a few.

Re:Practicality?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I don't think it is that workable for all directions, or even more then a few.

Well, that depends on what you mean by workable.

Just getting the hue and intensity right (and being able to vary those) will go a very long way. It's not for nothing that English fishermen weren't allowed to paint their hulls white in days of yore, or that Mountbatten had his fleet painted pink. (The sky is brigther than the ocean at dusk/night and hence a light hull blends in. And pink works better agains the redder skies of asian waters).

The US Army even conducted trials with lamps on tanks to make them harder to spot as silouettes against the sky on a ridge line for example.

Now, the light trick is unworkable for other reasons (you have to be quick on the switch) should you drive in front of a dark object. So if this process could be automated there's much to be gained.

Now, of course if your main objection that this is far from a cloak of invisibility, that's for certain. But it could be quite useful camouflage.

And kids remember the old adage "A running soldier in a camoflague uniform, looks just like a running soldier in a camoflague uniform." Camouflage is still very much a stationary art. I doubt that tricks like these would change that much.

Re:Practicality?

[Xaoswolf]

Remember watching the movie "The Predator"? When the hunter sat in a tree, you couldn't see him unless you knew where to look, or already had three dots on your fore head. He was basicly invisible at that time. But when he moved, you got to see all the distortion and weird angles produced by his camoflage. That is basicly what this armor will produce, it will keep tanks hidden better than large cammo netting, snipers will be able to sit invisible for hours in almost plain sight.
You just can't let them get too close or you're screwed.

Looking behind it

[SWroclawski]

The problem with this device as it's designed so far is that it only works when looking straight at the object.

In addition, I have serious questions about the resolution of the device (how many sensors and how many light emitters). Will the person look "pixelated" and or will there be some other problem.

Lastly, such a device is not useful in combat situations as many soldiers in such a ground war situation will be outfitted with infr-red detectors, which will probably be able to detect the human behind the suit.

Good idea but has a lot of practical problems (we haven't even discussed the power source).

Flaw

[alnapp]

I suspect that the squeaking of the wheelbarrow that you'll need to carry the batteries, fuel cells or magic moonbeams that'll be needed to power this thing will render any invisibility firly useless.

But I still want one, go figure

Far more useful

[anthonyclark]

I'll be more impressed when a Cloak of Charisma is released; hellloooo, laydeez|boyz!

(and no, those new cargo pants you just bought from Gap do not count).

Been done

[Anonymous Coward]

Most readers of Slashdot already have one of these. Problem is, it only works on women.

I can see it already

[Wind_Walker]

Person who thinks he's invisible: You can't see me!!!

Naked Woman: Actually, I can see a shimmery shape, because you're slightly off-center to me.

PWTHI: Wait, wait, you're not in the right place. Move to the left.

NW: Ok. Now you're even MORE shimmery

PWTHI: No, no, MY left, not your left

NW: Oh, sorry. There, the shimmering went away.

PWTHI: Ha ha ha ha!!!! I can see you naked!!

NW: Sir, this is a strip club. It's not exactly difficult.

Here's an even better application

[Brento]

Instead of making me invisible, I just want it to make me look thinner. Shave off my side edges by painting the background over my sides, and voila, I've lost 20 pounds.

Huh?

[Hard_Code]

What, no pictures?

Re:moving "eyes" can pick it up?

[trix_e]

My completely uneducated guess is that the object will appear a lot like those "magic eyes" pictures that were all the rage a few years ago...

i.e. when you move from side to side (or up/down) the object will shift at a slightly different rate than the background, and your senses will detect something. you may not be able to tell what it is, but something will feel "off". I'm sure at greater distances the effect will be less, and therefore the technique will be more useful.

Reminds me of Predator, and the way that it shimmered when it moved. My guess is that they used the same thought when they made that movie.

Very cool.

Better applications

[Twylite]

The article very definately uses the words "detect" (light behind) and "generate" (image in front). This implies it is not some passthrough technology (fiber, etc), but an electronic record and recreation.

If this "clock" could live up to its claims, there are three (possibly more) far more interesting applications that must be considered:

• Holographic photography: the photoreceptors on the back can apparently sense the intensity, colour and trajectory. They can also do this without a lens. Impressive.
• Holographic projection / 3D TV: the light emitters on the front can recreate the image behind the object. In order to do this with enough accuracy to clock an object, they have to recreate the trajectory of the light; failing this they have a 2D image which will be noticable as soon as the viewer moves.
• Realistic looking TV: apart from the 2D/3D problem, TV just doesn't look real because it is poor at depecting matt textures. A glowing, glossy area within your field of vision would certainly attract your attention, even if it fitted into the background.

Given that researchers would be coining it from more down-to-earth inventions like these, I can't really see that the technology - as described - exists or is being developed.

I'll believe it...

[yelims]

...when I see it.

Sorry, it had to be said.

Perfect bad patent

[RichMan]

This is a pretty near perfect example of a bad patent.
1) the idea is pretty obvious (as well as many references in common SF literature)
2) the actual implementation with current tech will be pretty miserable. Put big bright light behind object, make object shine big bright light at viewer. Viewer is blinded by both and as object is indistinquishable the technique is easily demonstrated to the patent requirement level.
3) it serves as a patent stake. Further research into a better/improved technology will have to deal with this patent.

This is a near perfect bad patent that grants the patent holder a big stake in the ground for actually showing very little. And any future work that will actually improve the technique is going to have to deal with the patent.

Still More Limitations

[swb]

It also doesn't do much for your heat signiture. Since so much military surveillance is done with IR, you'd think that the extra heat generated by the thing being cloacked and the cloaking mechanism that it'd glow like a light bulb under IR.

Jack London's "The Shadow and the Flash"

[dpbsmith]

...is an amusing century-old story about competitive brothers who devise two different methods of achieving invisibility. It's online here.

In his fictional story, both methods have problems. The problems are more than fictional, since one of the methods relies on the nonsense supposition that since black is the absence of light, the only reason you can see something that's black is that the black isn't PERFECTLY black, and that if you could achieve perfect blackness you could achieve invisibility.

However, the method described in the parent article here is equally flawed, since it would work only for an observer placed in a specific view location. One wonders how the equipment is supposed to locate the observer; if there are several observers, how does it decide which of them should be prevented from seeing the object?

The method bears a close resemblance to Hollywood special effects processes (glass shots, matte shots, etc.) Special effects processes are notorious for having visible edge effects if not done carefully, and I'm sure this would be true of the proposed method as well.

In "The Shadow and the Flash," one invisibility cloak could be detected by a sensation of darkness and depression whenever the concealed individual was nearby; the other suffered from occasional rainbow flashes due to mismatches in the index of refraction. I'm sure that the proposed method would have similar problems.

Tall guy sitting in front of you.....

[3seas]

Now that they have solved the tall guy sitting in front of you in the movie theater .... Now they just need to solve the jerk sitting behind you kicking your seat.