Slashdot Mirror


Engineers Devise Invisibility Shield

GerritHoll points out an article in Nature according to which "researchers at the University of Pennsylvania 'say that a "plasmonic cover" could render objects "nearly invisible to an observer.' Earlier attempts at invisibility worked by colouring a screen to match its background, like a chameleon. The described technique is new, because it works by the concept of reducing light scattering. It is not a 'magic cloak,' however, because it will not work for the full range of visible light and needs to be adjusted precisely for the shape of the object. However, the concept could find an application in stealth technology."

30 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Cloak of invisibility? by xsfo · · Score: 5, Funny

    What sort of armor class do you get with that?

    1. Re:Cloak of invisibility? by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

      > What sort of armor class do you get with that?

      I'd tell you, but I can't find the fucking thing.

    2. Re:Cloak of invisibility? by Xaroth · · Score: 4, Funny



      First, it has to be a power of 2 in order to be a size-based AC modifier.

      Taking the medium size class to max out at 2 meters, microscopic would be about 16 size classes below medium (since each size class has a maximum of one half the height of the one above it; I'm taking ~30 micrometers max to be "microscopic". It is, of course, a DM's call as to what, exactly, would constitute microscopic - adjust accordingly.)

      This would give an AC bonus (and bonus to hit) of +32,768. Good luck finding a smith to craft armor or weapons for that size class, though.

      For contrast, the parent's "+100" size bonus would roughly correlate to the +128 bonus that's actually possible, and would exist for a creature no bigger than 7.8125mm - hardly subatomic. In fact, this would be the appropriate size class for many normal insects.

      Second, Invisibility grants a 50% miss chance due to total concealment, not an increase to AC.

      Of course, 2.5% of the time you'll still hit it anyway (what with the whole "a 20 always hits" rule + total concealment). So, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I'm sure your DM would allow you to take 20 on hitting something that poses so little threat to you (assuming you weren't otherwise potentially in peril).

      </pedantic>

      Oh, and smile. You know it's funny.

  2. Everybody knows by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Making something invisible is easy: all you have to do is generate a Somebody Else's Problem field of sufficient size.

    (Seriously, am I the only one who looked at this, saw the word 'plasmonic', and thought "Fucking Slashdot editors, its *March 1st*, not *April 1st*"?)

    --

    ---
    Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
    (I read with sigs off.)
    1. Re:Everybody knows by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 3, Funny

      You also need a large can of pink paint or something else to make the object truly abnormal before a SEP field will work properly.

      Having a spaceship that looks like a small upended Italian bistro is a good start...

      --
      [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
    2. Re:Everybody knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Flying is a simpler problem. You just need to miss the ground.

    3. Re:Everybody knows by mcc · · Score: 3, Funny
      (Seriously, am I the only one who looked at this, saw the word 'plasmonic', and thought "Fucking Slashdot editors, its *March 1st*, not *April 1st*"?)
      Correction: The Slashdot Editors have successfully convinced you it's March 1st, not April 1st.

      Best! April! Fools! Joke! Ever!
  3. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't see that one coming.

    1. Re:obligatory by kryten_nl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, "I'll believe it, when I see it."

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:obligatory by Offler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nothing to see here. Move along.

  4. When it's reliable enough... by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... to let me sneak undetected into a ladies locker room, then we'll talk.

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
  5. I already have one of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    See, it hides my identity when I post on Slashdot!

    1. Re:I already have one of these by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have one too!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:I already have one of these by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oops.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. Sounds like someone's been tokin' the hookah by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article: "And crucially, the effect only works when the wavelength of the light being scattered is roughly the same size as the object. So shielding from visible light would be possible only for microscopic objects."

    OK. So if I have this straight... "You see that thing you can't see because it's too small? Well we just made it invisible! Please send more grant funding. And a few burritos. We're like, totally hungry dude."

    Uh huh....

  7. Invisible HUMAN by page275 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here is the technique let yourself invisible, try it yourself: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=439508

  8. Also... by Create+an+Account · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article:
    ...it would be more like the shielding used by the Romulans in the Star Trek episode "Balance of Terror" in 1966, which hid their spaceships at the push of a button.

    ...it's called a "cloaking device", you insensitive clod!

  9. captain obvious by shannara256 · · Score: 3, Funny
    the concept could find an application in stealth technology.

    Really? Invisibility could be used for tasks requiring stealth? No way, that's crazy talk.

  10. Re:Invisibility cloaking by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why do surgeons need an invisibility cloak? To hide from malpractice lawsuits?

  11. I feel so cheated! by serutan · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article is like going to a movie after seeing the really great preview, and finding out that the really great preview contains every single really great moment in the movie.

  12. Re:Invisibility cloaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    How long til I can buy this stuff at Walmart?
    As soon as they can find a way to make this stuff in China.
  13. I already have one of these. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's made me invisible to women for 10 years now.
    I wish I could turn it off.

  14. Skeptical by ggvaidya · · Score: 4, Funny

    I won't believe this 'til I see it.

  15. Re:Indeed, it's pretty far from advertised... by kyojin+the+clown · · Score: 3, Funny
    so wait. if i get a red object, put it in a red room with a red light, I wont be able to see it anymore?

    its amazing what scientists can do.

  16. Re:Indeed, it's pretty far from advertised... by flakac · · Score: 4, Funny

    Absolutely... if we can just get our weapons' size down to a few microns, and get (Al Quaida|Ruskies|Iraq|Iran|North Korea|Massachusetts) to limit their surveillance techniques to the proper wavelength, then this will be really breakthrough technology!

  17. Fricking perfect by mykdavies · · Score: 5, Funny

    the effect only works when the wavelength of the light being scattered is roughly the same size as the object

    This would make it the perfect for those awkward moments when your nanobots are being attacked by lasers (mounted on sharks?)

    --
    The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
  18. Just waiting for the technology to advance by VolatileSamu · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have thought about this few times(when feverish or some other way mentally challenged states) and decided that our technology isn't yet suitable to accomplish this.

    Basically it's quite simpple - all you have to do is route every incoming photon around the object without changing it's course.

    Fabric made of nano-fibres?

    --
    /* If everybody would be like me the world would be much better place to be - at least in my mind. */
  19. Monty Python by vistic · · Score: 5, Funny
    hmmm...

    I don't think these engineers devised any sort of "invisibility shield" ...maybe they're just really dull....

    host: With me now is Mr. Thomas Walters of West Hartlepool who is totally invisible. Good evening, Mr Walters. (turns to empty chair)

    walters: Over here, Hughie. (host turns to see boring, visible man)

    host: Mr. Walters, are you sure you're invisible?

    walters: Oh yes, most certainly.

    host: Well, Mr. Walters, what's it like being invisible?

    walters: Well, for a start, at the office where I work I can be sitting at my desk all day and the others totally ignore me. At home, even though we are in the same room, my wife does not speak to me for hours, people pass me by in the street without a glance in my direction, and I can walk into a room without...

    host: Well, whilst we've got interesting people, we met Mr. Oliver Cavendish who...

    walters: Even now you yourself, you do hardly notice me...
  20. Re:Quick! Get me Rick Moranis! by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the device you mean would be a DeBigulator. Of course to return to normal size would require some kind of ReBigulator, which is an idea so patently absurd I can't even begin to comprehend it, ng'hiey!

  21. Wrong Reference by David+Gould · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on, guys! I can't be the first to notice... Okay, I'll spell it out for you -- the correct first reaction to this story is:
    How funny is it that this research is being done at the University of Pennsylvania, of all places?!

    (Have none of you kids ever heard of The Philadelphia Experiment ?)
    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}