Slashdot Mirror


Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon

davaguco writes "It seems that we will finally be able to make ourselves invisible" It seems like this story resurfaces every few months and then gets submitted a zillion times so here it is. Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.

41 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Pictures by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here.

    1. Re:Pictures by clevershark · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just think there were no pictures! That's how effective the technology really is!

      --

      My sig is too lon

    2. Re:Pictures by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
      > The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here [http://www.jpassion.net/sitepix/blank_square.gif] .

      Nothing to see there. Moving right along...

      From TFA:

      Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

      Sounds an awful lot like the technology speculated about in Dean Ing's Ransom of Black Stealth One about ten years ago.

    3. Re:Pictures by systemic+chaos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect

    4. Re:Pictures by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This Is What Scientists Actually Believe!

      Science isn't about the "truth," it is about models that explain a set of data. Doesn't matter if their model is real, it explains and predicts a set of behavior. Once data is discovered that contradicts the model, scientists work on reformulating it.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  2. Screw that! by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want my Acme rocket roller skates!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
    1. Re:Screw that! by xWastedMindx · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can find those here.

      Pretty amusing clip, I might add. :)

  3. Wouldn't it be easier... by Kelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To create a Somebody Else's Problem field? People are quite good at ignoring what they think isn't important (or what they don't want to recognize), so if you could find a way to convince people to ignore something, it would be just as effective as actual invisibility.

  4. Nothing to see by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Funny

    I really find it hard to believe that the "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." i just saw is accidental, some meta-humour by Taco perhaps?

  5. Hmmm. by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    1. Re:Hmmm. by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll believe it when I don't!

      --
      ^_^
  6. Re: cloak of evasion by ltwally · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome."
    Yeah, but it doesn't work against constructs or undead, which is why I'll take my epic level cloak of elvenkind any day of the week.
    --



    /dev/random
  7. Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by cculianu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, according to D&D 3.5 rules, if you are invisible (as with improved invisibility), but are detected (ie enemies know where you are due to listen checks and/or maybe you just cast a spell, etc) you get a concealment bonus of 50%, which is better than that 20% evasion that you are talking about. So given a cloak of evasion or a cloak of invisibility, I would much rather have the invisibility, thank you very much. Even with regular invisibility I think it's a 25% concealment bonus -- still better than 20%.

    1. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by jt418-93 · · Score: 5, Funny

      seriously, get out and get laid dude.

      --
      -.no
    2. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by godscent · · Score: 4, Informative

      I assume CmdrTaco is talking about some other game. In D&D, evasion doesn't provide any kind of miss chance. It allows you to take less damage on certain attacks when making a successful reflex saving throw.

      Also, there is no cloak of evasion. There is a ring of evasion, though.

    3. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because of your post, I would like to present you with this +3 Sceptre of Extreme Dorkdom. I'm confident that you'll know exactly what the benefits and disadvantages of wielding it are.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by Ansonmont · · Score: 5, Funny

      For those who don't know the SoED +3 offers the following benefits/penalties:

      Pros
      1) +3 Sci-Fi/Comics/Anime Knowledge Check
      2) +1 Money Making Technology Attribute
      3) +5 ability to skewer pompous know-it-alls

      Cons
      1) -5 Charisma score to all but the "Drow-knowing" of Female Humans.
      2) +4 vunerability to Jock/Bullies/Bugbears
      3) +6 affinity to "reading" Slashdot....

    5. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by jb.hl.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm fairly sure that most people who play D+D can't do much else but "wield their sceptres", if you get my drift.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    6. Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All kidding aside...

      It's a social game- my daughter and her husband played it together in college (it's partially how they met-- it's partially how me and her mom met). They play in my game now that they are back in town. Unfortunately- her mom and I only made it about 10 years.

      There were plenty of females in their college group.

      My games have had a lot of females and couples over the years including a couple messy affairs.

      My game was the basis for a sporting event (Ultimate frisbee) for close to a decade (if we didn't play- it didn't make). I still play ultimate twice a week and just last week they commented on my showing a bit of a six-pack.

      As for me... well I've probably seen more action than you have unless you are an NBA star and none of it through clubs or with "club" girls. A surprising amount through Everquest including a couple trips to Vegas.

      All of this takes money of course- which being a geek in the 80's made pretty easy to do in the 90's and now. I learned a lot of skills writing my D&D utilities in apple basic and cobol.

      Are some D&D folks massive nerds? Sure-- but so are some Harley motorcycle fans. Are they happy? If so why pick on them unless it makes you feel better about your own life (which undoubtably lacks perfection in some way too).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  8. Apparently not quite reality yet by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the end of TFA: So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Apparently not quite reality yet by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but try proving the non-existence of an invisible device...

  9. Tesla did it! by cyber_rigger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a rehash of a phase conjugate mirror.

    http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/pc_wave.htm

  10. Caution, YASD by dmeranda · · Score: 5, Funny

    You pick up a tattered cape (K unpaid). Only $250 for you.
    You put on the tattered cape.
    Suddenly, you can see through yourself.
    The nurse hits.
    You can not remove the cloak, it seems to be cursed.
    The nurse hits.
    The floor is too hard to dig here.
    Really attack Wengretik the shopkeeper?
    Wengretik strikes at thin air.
    The nurse hits.
    Wengretik hits. Wengretik hits.
    You die.

  11. Invisible... or black?!?? by Izhido · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ... when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
    Maybe I'm getting this the wrong way, but if the object "absorbs" the light coming to it through the lens, wouldn't that object be perceived as black? I thought "invisible" is when any light coming behind the object passes through it, and into the observer's eye, with no obstacles whatsoever. But maybe it's just me...
    1. Re:Invisible... or black?!?? by chgros · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless that device works directly on your brain (which I doubt), what you say is complete nonsense. The absence of light is perceived as black.

  12. Re:Yesss finally I will be able to.... by Professr3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you realize how wrong that sounds?

  13. Another Jack Bauer fact... by flagstone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't Jack Bauer already employ the "hoodie of invisibility" a couple of weeks (hours?) ago when sneaking onto the airplane?

    --
    These people have looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
  14. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I must not be a big enough nerd. I thought the cloak of evasion was something that helped you pay less taxes.

  15. Re:Wouldn't... by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, but a mosaic of microscopic convex mirrors might. The effect is such that you get the kind of "invisibility" that a chameleon does; the material would refract (or in the case of mirrors reflect) a blending of colours from surrounding objects, such that when an object is motionless it becomes very hard to pick out from the background due to the lack of contrast. It might be similar in appearance to the "invisibility" you see in the Predator movies. Not 100% invisible, but more of a shimmering, blended-in look, only it would not be transparent. If an object were to move behind the camoflauged object, you would immediately be able to pick it out from the background and target it. That's my guess, anyhow.

    A single mirror wouldn't cut it - if a flat mirror, you'd see a singular object from elsewhere in the region, or if a convex mirror, you'd see yourself in the mirror, along with your background. It would stand right out from the background, like an AC troll in an otherwise-reasonable discussion. ;)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  16. Re:Slashdotters already have that power by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Motorcyclists have had this power far longer that slashdot AC's.

  17. Re:Yesss finally I will be able to.... by moochfish · · Score: 4, Funny

    I assume it sounds wrong because he's talking about eating a mathematical constant right? ;D

  18. /. is the invisibility club by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

    most slashdotters can make themselves invisible simply by entering a room

    (you're nodding your head right now, aren't you?)

  19. erm... are they sure they have the physics right by moochfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

    Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.

  20. Ummm... I have one in my bathroom... by phamlen · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article:
    The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials used to make superlenses that make light behave in a highly unusual way. Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.

    Trust scientists to come up with a complicated term for "mirror" ... :)

  21. That's OK by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it only blocks one wavelength of light, you just paint the object that colour.

  22. The commercial by bastardknight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can you seen me now? .... no? good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good.

  23. "Selective frequencies" already in use by the Navy by CustomDesigned · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My Dad worked on creating "custom fog" for the Navy. He studied propagation, e.g. this civilian paper. Then he developed a method of modifying droplet size distribution in fogs over the ocean. The end product (details classified) allows ships to create a fog bank on demand over large bodies of water (within 1 or 2 hours) that blocks enemy frequencies, but has "holes" for friendly scanner frequencies. The details include taking temperature/humidity/droplet profiles by altitude of the atmosphere over the target area.

  24. Painting something black doesn't make it invisible by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these "cloaking" stories suffer from basically the same problem. Making something invisible is much, much more complicated than blocking light, or cancelling light, or anything like that.

    The article says, rather imprecisely, "when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible."

    But "erasing" the light reflecting off an object doesn't make it invisible, any more than painting a car black... even matte black... makes it invisible.

    In a dark room, if you cover a light with a black box it becomes invisible. When viewing a star from the earth, if it is occulted by, say, the moon passing between you and the object, it becomes invisible. If I pull a red cloak over myself, covering myself completely, you can no longer see me. You cannot tell who I am and if I stand very still perhaps you cannot tell that I am not a statue, so, in a sense, I have become invisible.

    But, to become invisible in the sense of H. G. Wells' "The Invisible Man," or a Star Trek cloaking device, or James Bond's invisible car, or what have you, requires much more than "not being able to see" the object. It means not being able to detect the presence of the object... under real-world lighting conditions, with real-world scenes _behind_ the object, and from more than one vantage point at the same time.

    That last one is the problem with many of these schemes. It doesn't do any good to make an object invisible when viewed by your right eye if there are "matte lines" around it when viewed with your left eye. It doesn't do a lot of good to make an object invisible as viewed from one soldier if it is visible to everyone else in the platoon.

  25. Re:Radar? by JedaFlain · · Score: 3, Informative

    Radio waves (which RADAR uses) are simply light waves. Radar works by bouncing the waves off an object. If this device refracts the light in such a way that it pass around the object without reflecting off of it, then the radio waves would not be able to return a signal to the radar station.

  26. Re:Slashdotters already have that power by djdavetrouble · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdotters already have the power of invisibility.

    It only works against female humans for some reason though.
    It is more like a cursed potion of invisibility from females if you really want to describe the artifact.
    I suspect that a 12 pack of mountian dew a day combined with excessive cheeto consumption metabolizes
    this potion inside the slashdotters body.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  27. Re:Klingons vs. Romulans by BootNinja · · Score: 3, Informative

    I actually think the trade was cloak for a certain class of Bird of Prey, not warp drive. However, the Vulcans made first contact with Earth, not the Romulans. The Romulans are a sister race to the Vulcans. They both evolved on Vulcan, and then during the Time of Sarek, when Vulcans were coming very close to the point of destroying themselves through constant war, Sarek, the Vulcan "Father of Logic", convinced the majority of the population to learn to suppress their emotions, a (comparatively) small sect decided to leave the planet on several sublight spacecraft rather than supress their emotions. This is referred to by the Vulcans as "The Sundering." In TOS this was initially a closely guarded secret of the Vulcans. These sundered cousins eventually settled on the twin planets Romulus and Remus, and through generations of genetic drift became a separate species. If you look carefully, Romulans have slightly less pointed ears and more prominent brow ridges than their Vulcan cousins. For generations, the Vulcans did not know what had become of their sundered cousins. Sometime after the sundering is when Vulcans developed the warp drive. When the Romulans finally landed, their ships were in very poor shape, and they didn't have much in the way of raw materials or production methods, and were thus sent back to a sort of stone age. When The Federation made first contact with the warlike romulans, neither species had developed warp drive. The first Romulan war was carried out with sublight spacecraft.