Plan For Cloaking Device Unveiled

Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that a plan for a cloaking device has been unveiled. The design is pioneered by Professor Sir John Pendry's team of scientists from the US and Britain. Proof of the ability of his invention could be ready in just 18 months time using radar testing. The method revolves around certain materials making light "flow" around the given object like water."

Comments

Obligatory

[HeXetic]

I, for one, welcome our new invisible overlords.

Re:Obligatory

[Mr. Bad Example]

> I, for one, welcome our new invisible overlords.

Invisible overlords? Frankly, I can't see it happening.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

We're over here, you insensitive clod.

Re:Obligatory

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Invisible overlords? Frankly, I can't see it happening.

No? It was perfectly clear to me.

Re:Obligatory

[FFFish]

I think "fear" is currently the big invisible overlord in much of the world.

Re:Obligatory

[Ansonmont]

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Re:Obligatory

[Mehtuus]

Now I've seen it all...

Tenuous at best

[Rethcir]

Granted I didn't RTFM, but proof of my ability to turn, say, a brick into 20 pounds of diamonds could also be ready within 18 months.

Re:Tenuous at best

[vodkamattvt]

I have millions of venture capital for you my friend. Please give me your bank account number and I will deposit my funds which are stuck in Nigeria at the moment.

Re:Tenuous at best

[M0b1u5]

Given a brick weighs less than 20lbs - how do you propse doing that? o_O

Re:Tenuous at best

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a problem with the bricks into diamonds part, just the 20lb bricks?

Re:Tenuous at best

[schon]

Given a brick weighs less than 20lbs - how do you propse doing that?

Well, you start by throwing it through a jewellery store window. :o)

Re:Tenuous at best

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

magic

Re:Tenuous at best

[Rethcir]

The mass slides in from a subspace pocket.

Re:Tenuous at best

[ahodes1]

A heavier brick?

Re:Tenuous at best

[jpardey]

Here's a picture of one:







Pretty incredible, eh?

Re:Tenuous at best

[Zaatxe]

This ability/technology would render diamonds chaper than bricks in other 18 months, making itself useless.

Re:Tenuous at best

[Holi]

Yes but then my secretly stashed pile of bricks will be worth MILLIONS.

Re:Government Uses

[Metabolife]

Forget the government, I know a lot of this I could do with this. And most of them violate the constition, and morality, and decency, and privacy, and...

The Romulans...

[Anonymous Coward]

will be pissed. :D

Re:The Romulans...

[yobjob]

How do you know Professor Sir John Pendry isn't a Romulan, hmm?

Re:The Romulans...

[webjonesin]

Especially since this design doesn't require you to decloak before
firing your photon torpedoes or using your transporter...

of course now we need a good design for photon torpedoes and transporters

(*grin*)

Slashdot's at it again

[SoVeryTired]

I long for a month where slashdot doesn't announce a new design for a cloaking device...

Re:Slashdot's at it again

[technoextreme]

I long for a month where slashdot doesn't announce a new design for a cloaking device...

Come on.. We have the transparent aluminum. We just need the cloaking device. I'll be dammed though as to why Science keeps on publishing these design though.

Re:Slashdot's at it again

[ceoyoyo]

I don't know why everybody's so excited about cloaking devices. We clearly won't use them because you can't fire weapons when they're engaged and a clever chief engineer or science officer can always figure out a way to detect the ship anyway. On the rare occasion when we actually NEED a cloaked ship, like when we need to go back in time and pick up some whales, we'll just lift a Klingon ship.

Re:Slashdot's at it again

[UltraAyla]

See, but even if you don't see a story on cloaking devices in a given month, it'll still be there, invisible.

Re:Slashdot's at it again

[noidentity]

Maybe we can cloak these endless stories about cloaking devices. Oh, wait, that wouldn't work because the cloaking devices never turn out to actually cloak.

Alternative Technique

[Anonymous Coward]

WEAR A THICK CLOAK THAT ADMITS NO LIGHT. You will become "INVISIBLE" because according to Wiktionary, you (meaning your body proper) are no longer visible!

Honestly, where do our tax dollars go, eh? Eh? Am I right, folks?

Re:Alternative Technique

[kfg]

Cloaking Device Plans

KFG

Re:Alternative Technique

[kfg]

EVIL!!

The Shadow knows!

KFG

Re:Alternative Technique

[Zaatxe]

Honestly, where do our tax dollars go, eh? Eh? Am I right, folks?

From the article: Researchers in the US and Britain have unveiled their blueprints for building a cloaking device.

Well, it's not only dollars, but pounds too. Good thing my euros are out of it! Besides, since you write so many EH's, I'm assuming you are canadian. So, no worry for us.

Ooops!

[udoschuermann]

AP Wire (2019): In the news today, once again the military claims to have "lost" an F-22 somewhere on the grounds of Andrews Airforce Base (AFB). Said Captain J. Andrews (no relation): "I could have sworn I parked the thing right over there. Last night's storm must have blown the locator-ribbon off the nose or something."

Re:Ooops!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Found it!

Re:Ooops!

[modecx]

once again the military claims to have "lost" an F-22 somewhere on the grounds of Andrews Airforce Base.

It's not really a big deal... But you do have to wait for it to rain! :)

Good

[owlman17]

This is good if the enemy doesn't have a Comsat or a Science Vessel.

Re:Good

[remembertomorrow]

Unfortunately, most enemies already have missle turrets though. :(

Re:Good

[CrazyJim1]

So it will work well vs Iran who's going nukes and can't build a comsat.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the case, then I, for one, would have to welcome some Overlords.

Re:Good

[DavidD_CA]

I would be MUCH more concerned if the enemy had an Observer or Overlord.

Re:Good

[fanblade]

Would those be our Zerg-ferrying Overlords? ;-)

Re:Good

[RedBear]

This is good if the enemy doesn't have a Comsat or a Science Vessel.

Don't you mean a Science Wessel?

Wessel.

Well, I thought it was funny...

Re:Good

[Gareth Williams]

All detection methods have their place and use. Overlords are easily chased off with a few corsair, while scanner sweep is incredibly useful in early game Terran v. Zerg.

But of course that's what makes it such a great game, it's versatility. Out of interest, does anyone around here still play it, or am I the only one? :)

Yes, I know this is OT, but SC is much more fun to discuss than yet-another-cloaking-story anyway ;) Oh, and to the AC who posted that comment above about welcoming some Overlords - you owe me, as they say, 1 keyboard and 1 new cup of coffee :)

Re:Good

[DavidD_CA]

My friends and I have an appt to play it nearly every week. Of course, sometimes real life gets in the way, but we try to be consistent.

And battle.net is still full of people playing it. So what if the game is nearly 10 years old?

Re:Good

[ic3p1ck]

You miss spelt 'Wessel'

Maybe, maybe not

[SlashSquatch]

I hope they don't plan to use refractive materials, they'd be much better off bending the light, you know, like when water bends around a pencil and stuff.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[Arthur B.]

Come on, no need to pretend, you did RTFA, please return your slashdot card.

Radar?

[cosmotron]

"A simple model that will work for radar..."

So... they mean like the Stealth Bomber?

Re:Radar?

[Amouth]

I would think a little different.. the Stealth Bomber is "Stealth" against active radar.. but can still be seen via passive radar..

abet harder to set up a passive radar system but not imposable..

when you send out the radar wave and look for what bounces back that is active.. when you have something on the other side of your target looking for that wave - that is passive.

if you setup two towers and the broadcast to each other and you fly between them they can tell even if they can see it actively... if you set up a perimeter of them say 3-4-5 or more and they all talk back and forth .. they could see the stealth bomber fly through and if your field is dense enough they would be able to track it easily

with this type of tech the item would be invisible to active and passive radar.. although I bet it would show some type of ghosting effect for areas near it via passive scan.. it would be very hard to track.

Re:Radar?

[Meetch]

*sigh*

Craft like the stealth bomber work by scattering radar signals so they return almost any which way but back to the sender, making them appear a lot smaller than they really are. If there were something in the shadow of its profile, you wouldn't see that either. You would get no significant "ping" from your radar signal.

This theory, if it works and proves practical, would change things so you would get no reflection off the bomber, but you would see the object behind it just the same as if the craft wasn't there. There would be a radar blip! The downside for the bomber is if the object behind was a legitimate target, the bomber would be hit by shots aimed at the object behind.

It sounds like any effective cloak created using this any time in the "near" future would only really be effective for static installations.

Re:Radar?

[Amouth]

or the plane could listen to signals (ones it doesn't bend) just like a sub listens to other subs and natural sounds in water.. and can map the enviornment from that - there by flying via pasive scanning.. subs do it all the time.. but then again they don't have nearly as much to worrie about as planes..

Re:Radar?

[cosmotron]

I know how they work... -_-

I guess I didn't read enough of the article. I thought that they meant that it would be good only against radar.

Re:Radar?

[twiddlingbits]

The Stealth bomber reflects the signals in all sorts of directions so there is a Mimimum radar return, some of those signals would be reflected to continue on to a reciever on the other end as in your example. However the return (on either end) would be weak sort of like a large bird or a SMALL plane. Sorting out whether that was a bird, small plane, a decoy, jamming, or a real B2 before a HARM missle from the B2 or a UAV blows you to bits is the problem. During the Gulf War the Iraqis were afraid to turn on the radar to try to track anything else they get hammered by a HARM. Shooting semi-blindly into the sky with a missle that has it's own tracking has a good a chance as anything else. The damn things ARE invisible, and when they arent (i.e. bomb bay doors are open) its not for very long. Plus they don't even have to get close to the target these days, a JDAM can hit something 40 miles away when dropped from a B2 at altitude. If the B2 absorbed the radar signal then you would get a "hole" in the sky that could be tracked, of course how the B2 would dump the absorbed radar energy without having a big IR signature is an interesting challenge, maybe some sort of super-cooled liquid as a heat sink.

Re:Radar?

[Amouth]

If i remember correctly the fighter isthe one that mainly relies on reflecting it in random directions.

the B2 absorbes it

Re:Radar?

[kimvette]

I have an idea for a super-cooled heat sink: how about a Nitrogen/Oxygen/CO2 mixture with an ambient temperature of -60&degF to -40&degF? Will that work? Of course that fluid would be rushing past at MACH2-MACH4, negating the cooling effect to some degree (er, no pun intended) but still. . . ;)

Seriously though, there are bigger heat signatures to worry about than the RF's conversion to heat, namely, the heat generated by moving through the air at supersonic speeds, and the exhaust gases. They have sought to minimize IR emissions by mixing ambient air with the exhaust but as long as jets rely on combustion, there's no possibility of totally eliminating the heat signature. Ditto for completely eliminating the heat signature of friction with the air.

But, with the enemies that are being dealt with in the latest wars, it is unlikely they will have the very sensitive thermal imaging cameras integrated into their tracking/targeting systems AND the refrigeration system required to keep the thermal imaging sensor at its optimal operating temperature. The best they'll likely have is the over-the-counter thermal imaging system that any tom, dick, or harry with enough money cam buy, and good luck building a weapons targeting system with that stuff. It's low resolution first of all, and second of all, the sensitivity is crap compared to what they would need for a reliable tracking and targeting system.

Basically, the only ones who would have something that sophisticated in a real, working system would be us (America)/NATO, Russia, Israel, and possibly China and maybe India. Not a decentralized bunch of terrorists (er, doesn't PC speak require me to call them 'militants'?).

Re:Radar?

[Hektor_Troy]

[...] the return (on either end) would be weak sort of like a large bird

So you're essentially looking for a bird doing just under mach one? No way that that'd make you pay attention ... not at all.

Re:Radar?

[ciroknight]

Sure. Too bad most RADAR systems are tuned to look for objects the size of planes and not birds.

Imagine retuning your RADAR for small objects; every bullet in the sky, every missile, every plane, and at least some atmospherics would light up like the Fourth of July. Now, it'd be possible if you have a very complex RADAR system with a computer attached that aided in target acquisition, but even designing a system that sophisticated to take out one class of aircraft will likely blow your defense budget that year.

Believe it or not, the "close your eyes and light the skies" approach works. Stealth aircraft have been knocked out of the skies using it. And it makes sense; if you can't have the smartest weapon, you might as well have a billion dumb ones. Kinda how the whole Iraq war works, doncha think?

Re:Radar?

[jusdisgi]

B2's weren't used in the gulf war; those were F-117 stealth fighters.

Re:Radar?

[Jesus_666]

Repeat after me: "A one billion dollar aircraft does not qualify as a simple model."

Re:Radar?

[phoenix321]

You misspelled two billion dollars per unit.

Re:Radar?

[Eljas]

[...] the return (on either end) would be weak sort of like a large bird

So you're essentially looking for a bird doing just under mach one? No way that that'd make you pay attention ... not at all.

I, for one, welcome our new just under mach one flying bird overlords.

Re:Radar?

[smellsofbikes]

Raytheon developed a radar system that used reflections from commercial TV and radio transmissions to track objects. It worked pretty well but the US government wasn't interested in funding it... that is until China developed something similar. Both can give reasonably good positioning -- good enough for a missile to launch (after which point, presumably, it'll be doing its own tracking) without exposing the missile launcher to pre-launch suppression fire. Several newer systems have used GPS signals to do the same thing, which is really difficult, given how weak the signals are, but you can always rely on at least some GPS signals, while commercial TV/radio might not be operational.

Many of the stealth planes use facets to make big specular reflections of radar signals, on the theory that you're much less likely to pick up a huge narrow bounce than a much lower-level, omnidirectional bounce. This is used in both the B2 and the F117, but both also use paint that contains radar-absorptive paint, as I recall.

One of the early anti-radar setups ran into an interesting problem: the signal they got from the mounting hardware completely overwhelmed the signal they got from the stealth airframe so they couldn't easily measure improvements. I've read that it is precisely this attention to detail -- edges, screw heads (and the slots for screwdrivers) and the like, that show up on radar when the bulk body has been disguised.

Early radar operators in England kept detecting what they called 'angels' and after the war they realized they were picking up flocks of birds. In the '70's the local air traffic control center could easily pick up and distinguish between different truck sizes on the interstate highway 20 miles to their east, which was a problem for distinguishing low-flying aircraft in the small (non-ATC, so not THAT much of a problem) airports beside and near the interstate.

Re:Radar?

[smellsofbikes]

And I meant to mention that drug-runners thought they'd scored gold when the first all-composite homebuilts, like Burt Rutan's (of SpaceShipOne fame) EZ and Long-EZ, started hitting the used aircraft market. Composites! Invisible to radar! Except the engines, all covered in sharp little edges and corners, stood out like beacons for radar, better (according to a radar tech friend of mine) than a smoothly-covered metal aircraft. Plus the homebuilts often had less cargo space so they didn't do very well for high-volume contraband. Ooops.

Re:Radar?

[duffstone]

Try useing a modern weather dopler RADAR system. You'd have to tune it of course but those are MUCH higher resolution than is needed in aviation. They can pick up "Water droplets" & Vapors (includeing smoke plumes, see the stories of Texas & Oklahoma Burning up this last winter) from hundreds of miles away. Account for the curvature of the earth and you can pick up most close range objects as low as 100m or so, in really nice detail.

RADAR is much more sophistacated than the average person might think. All it takes is the proper tech to tune it up for what you need.

-Duff

Re:Radar?

[Jesus_666]

Well, the 'Pedia said that the B-2's price was "US$1.157-$2.2 billion in 1998" and I went with a rounded down optimistic number. At that order of magnitude it doesn't really matter which number comes before all those zeroes, at least not when you're talking about simple models to use for experiments...

Harry Potter Bull$4it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read this story on about 4 news sites now and if I hear one more bloody site telling the public that this is 'Harry Potter' inspired I am going to have to cloak my foot up their asses. The mere thought of a scientist being inspired by Harry Potter pisses me off enough, but that they are perpetuating the idea that a childrens book written relatively recently is superceeding 150 years of SCIENCE fiction is what inspires stuff like this.

Completely off topic I know but had to get that out.. Carry on

Re:Harry Potter Bull$4it

[kfg]

. . .they are perpetuating the idea that a childrens book written relatively recently is superceeding 150 years of SCIENCE fiction is what inspires stuff like this.

Welcome to the Age of Unenlightenment.

Have a happy.

KFG

Re:Harry Potter Bull$4it

[koreaman]

I thought you were full of shit, but then I read the CNN article.

I hope CNN chokes.

Re:Harry Potter Bull$4it

[1u3hr]

I've read this story on about 4 news sites now and if I hear one more bloody site telling the public that this is 'Harry Potter' inspired I am going to have to cloak my foot up their asses. The mere thought of a scientist being inspired by Harry Potter pisses me off enough, but that they are perpetuating the idea that a childrens book written relatively recently is superceeding 150 years of SCIENCE fiction is what inspires stuff like this.

I feel your pain... but whether termed SF or not, I haven't read any stories concerning invisibility that aren't basically magic, including the original, HG Wells' Invisible Man in 1898. And of course, here on Slashdot it's Trek that gets the "credit".

Re:Harry Potter Bull$4it

[Ansonmont]

The Many Colored Land by Julian May, pub 1981 +/-

Aiken Drum, one of the main characters, uses as light bending/background displaying cloak to sneak around Castle Gateway. Supposed tech, not "magic." I am sure there are many others, just the first I could think of.

Best,
A

Re:Harry Potter Bull$4it

[Krakhan]

Indeed, you could go back even further to about 2000+ years. See for example The Ring of Gyges.

Cloaking for fun and profit

[patio11]

There is a Japanese research group which has a cloaking system (well, technically its more of a very adaptive camoflague -- significant drawbacks, such as the requirement to have a camera focused on the object you want to cloak, make it less than useful for military applications). Its essentially useless currently, but it makes for very fun tech demos.

http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDI A/xv/oc.html

My favorite one is the breakdancing guy in the bottom video.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[UncleJam]

You realize that there is just a camera behind the guy and a projector in front, right?

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[patio11]

Yep, and a specially designed cloak. Completely useless but fun to watch.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[fufubag]

This is just the simple example. Imagine thousands of nano-cameras ingrained all over your body armour, all linked to nano-screens ingrained on the exact opposite side of the armour. This is one way cloaking may be able to work someday.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[Kandenshi]

... From one side? :P

So, as long as you're facing me, I'll never see you right? But if I just, y'know, walk around you a little bit I'll see all the cameras on your back?

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[ceoyoyo]

Have you seen the camera/screen combo Apple has a patent on?

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[fufubag]

No, for example, every inch of body armour may have a 2mm by 2mm (or smaller - nano) camera lense, and the rest taken up by some kind of 'screen' (but each screen is connected to a camera on the opposite side), and this is done all over the suit. Every 1 inch screen has its own camera on the opposite side. So from every angle, you would see what the cameras are recording on the exact opposite side (the camera is filming what you would have in your line of sight if the target was not standing in the way).

Basically the exterior of the suit would be made up of hundreds or thousands of nano cameras mixed with some kind of view-screens as well.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[^Bobby^]

Parallax. Any 'stealth suit' that relies on cameras and screens cannot work because a screen would have to show different images depending on the angle the person is looking for.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[It'sYerMam]

This would work great if you wanted to cloak a sphere. If, however, you view anything else, then as the viewing angle changes, so does what you expect to see behind it. Imagine (as a simple example) a cube with a large camera on one end and a screen on the other. You will only see what you expect to see when you view the screen straight on. Otherwise, the camera will have rotated with respect to you and will be transmitting diagonally to the screen.
Further, if you then deform the screen or the surface with the cameras on, this breaks completely, too.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[armb]

> a screen would have to show different images depending on the angle

In theory you might be able to do that, using the same sort of principle as lenticular animations, with a holographic lens. For some applications you could get away with only doing it in two dimensions, so you show up clearly to anyone lying on the ground looking up at you silouetted against the sky, or anyone looking down at you from a staircase, but not to anyone with eyes at normal head level. Slightly more plausibly, you can be hidden from one particular person whose movements you track (using your magic nano-cameras) and show the image needed for their viewpoint only.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nad/pubs/IBC99-Dodgson.pd f
http://kagakukan.toshiba.co.jp/en/02visual/newtech 101.html
http://www.opticsexpress.org/ViewMedia.cfm?id=8665 4&seq=0

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[dajak]

such as the requirement to have a camera focused on the object you want to cloak, make it less than useful for military applications).

The US is used to enjoying air superiority, but other militaries might be interested in having an "instant camouflage screen" based on this idea over parked vehicles instead of messing around with nets and paint.

Maybe the Dutch/German Fennek vehicle can be adapted to sort of cloak itself from planes using its periscope.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[Wilson_6500]

1) Assume a spherical tank.

2) You Win

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[It'sYerMam]

If you put a tank in a ball then it's great until you want to see out and/or shoot anyone.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[dodobh]

Nothing like a bunch of big fucking nukes to make the US see reason.

All that it takes is the willingness not to lose at any cost. You can nuke me off the planet, but I will not go alone.

If you doubt that, just remember that the US has only threatened countries without nukes. If Iran actually goes nuclear, the US will back off.

Doesn't this vialate our treaty with the Klingons?

[NerdENerd]

Doesn't this vialate our treaty with the Klingons?

Imagine the market!

[Arthur B.]

In the pr0n business

Re:Imagine the market!

[Arthur B.]

Of course you don't *get it* you're on slashdot... think of cloacking the audience!

In theory, this post will be modded down...

[AlexanderDitto]

I'd like to point out that this is brilliantly advanced... in theory. It's completely possible and will likely be buildable... in theory.

I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences. Things that are perfectly possible in theory are out of our grasp in the real world... right now, at least.

Even as a mathmatician, the fact that there's so much theory and so little actual DOING has me worried. There's a tiny flaw in the use of 'metamaterials' to make objects invisible... we don't HAVE metamaterials.

Though, it beats sticking my head in the sand by a long shot.

The split ends are horrible.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[WhiteWolf666]

Well, I think that idea is that instead of just blindling pursuing random, poke-in-the-dark type science (Radioactivity & Marie Curie, anyone?), we theorize a possibility first, and then pursue long term, expensive projects to try and acheive it.

Even if the project merely proves that implementation is practically impossible, the spinoffs can be valuable.

Given that mankind is not (at this moment) capable of vast scientific leaps into the future, evolutionary improvements via theorizing seems like a valid way to "tread water".

We'll work on metamaterials while we wait for someone to intuit a Grand Unified Field Theorem that will make the metamaterials unnecessary.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Vellmont]

I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences.

The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world. A great example of this is being able to cut a sphere in a certain way into an infinite amount of pieces, and reassemble it into a larger volume. It works great as far as the mathematics is concerned. But obviously you can't do that in the real world because real matter can't be infintely divided.

That's not to say that mathematics isn't usefull. Obviously it's used all the time to make models and predictions. My point is that there's no such thing as mathematics being way ahead of the other science, since mathematics doesn't really relate to the other science directly. As far as science is concerned, mathematics is just another tool in exploring science.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[f97tosc]

I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences. Things that are perfectly possible in theory are out of our grasp in the real world... right now, at least.

I fail to see the problem. The authors calculate the exact distribution of refraction indeces (they would have to vary) the cloak would have to have in order to work. They leave it to someone else to make a material with these properties. This distribution of labor is extremely common in science, some are more theoretical and come up with the first ideas and others are more experimental and make it work in pracitice. The material properties will also depend on the wavelengths you want to cloak against and radio waves are probably the first ones that will happen in pracitce. Writes the reviewer (not the author) in Science: "In the near future, such cloaking devices might shield sensitive equipment from disruptive radio waves or electric and magnetic fields".

Even as a mathmatician, the fact that there's so much theory and so little actual DOING has me worried.

Have we been on different planets recently? This is the first time I hear the accusation that modern science hasn't been very productive. If you go through the scientific achievements in the last 10,20 or 100 years you will see that the progress is crazy. And a lot of it starts off as purely mathematical models.

Tor

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[sconeu]

Actually, some strange quark theories are isomrphic to Banach-Tarski.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[shimmin]

We do have metamaterials for microwave wavelengths. If the air force is funding you, this is good enough, because if you can make it work, you have planes that are invisible to radar.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, we DO have metamaterials. They even work pretty well for microwave frequencies.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[im_thatoneguy]

If you thinks mathematics is advanced, just wait until you learn about literature. Now there is a field where they are pushing the boundries. Why I once saw this sentence which described a technology beyond my wildest dreams, I am just really frustrated by how slow the physicists have been in implementing it.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[DigiShaman]

If you thinks mathematics is advanced, just wait until you learn about literature. Now there is a field where they are pushing the boundries. Why I once saw this sentence which described a technology beyond my wildest dreams, I am just really frustrated by how slow the physicists have been in implementing it.

Ain't Sci-Fi a bitch? ;)

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[z0idberg]

I'd like to point out that this is brilliantly advanced... in theory. It's completely possible and will likely be buildable... in theory.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Lumpy]

Bah they tried this back in the 70's it resulted in many crew members fused to the desk of the ship and 2 crew members disappeared for some time with one returning and the other becoming his own grandchild be being thrown into the future.

It was fully documented in this report

Oh come on it is mildy funny that they are trying to creaete something from a bad 80's B film.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[welcher]

Who said that science is limited to the physical world? It makes perfect sense to talk about whether or not mathematics is ahead of some physical science in a particular field: in this case, it is. In other cases, like many parts of biology, it clearly is not. It think you have to understand that the object of mathematics includes but is not limited to the physical world. And the theorem you are talking about actually states that a sphere can be cut into finitely many pieces and then reassembled into a larger one. The inifinitely many pieces argument is simple - think of the unit shpere each point multiply the radius by some constant c to shrink or grow the sphere.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world.

There's a lot of debate about this. One thing that can be said concretely is that mathematics involves the application of the scientific method, and rigorous falsifiability conditions. Does that make it a science in and of itself? Well, it is a scientific exploration of the mathematical frameworks we define. But is it "really, real" is I think the question you're asking.

For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.

Newton was a mathematical physicist. Mendel used mathematical and statistical theory to prove the laws of inheritance. Shannon showed the link between boolean logic and electronic circuits which birthed digital computers. Mathematics wasn't just a method they used. It was teh very basis, sometimes the only basis, for their physical theories.

Mathematics is both an integral part science and a science in its own right. It's more than just a tool. It's one of the foundations on which science, and indeed modern society is based. Without mathematical theorems, rigor and methods, science as we know it would be something on par with psychoanalysis and political studies.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[dr_dank]

A great example of this is being able to cut a sphere in a certain way into an infinite amount of pieces, and reassemble it into a larger volume

Granted I was never strong in math, but I don't follow. How can the sum be greater than the whole that you started out with?

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[ate50eggs]

There's a tiny flaw in the use of 'metamaterials' to make objects invisible... we don't HAVE metamaterials.

Yeah, I have an idea for cloaking a tank:
1) invent some invisible paint
2) paint the tank

The article is a little light on details, but it seems to imply that it would only work for spherical or cylendrical objects. is anyone else picturing tanks rolling around in giant hampster balls?

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[hublan]

Granted I was never strong in math, but I don't follow. How can the sum be greater than the whole that you started out with?

(Veering slightly off-topic here).

It's called the Banach-Tarski Paradox. Basically, it states that you can take a solid ball in 3-dimensional space and cut it up into a finite number of pieces (the lowest limit is five pieces) and re-assemble them into two balls of equal volume. In fact, you could take any shape and cut it up into finite number of pieces to make any other shape.

The thing to bear in mind here is that the individual pieces have no "real world" counterparts. They are infinitely complicated and therefore immeasurable. So things like volume and area don't really apply to them. It's purely a mathematical device, although I wish I could do this with my paycheck.

That's maths for ya.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[lazarusdishwasher]

Actually, we DO have metamaterials. They even work pretty well for microwave frequencies.

That is what I am using for my new weight loss program, I am going to sell TV dinners coated with these metamaterials. Under this plan you can eat as much as you want as long you can get it to the proper temperature in your microwave.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[dr_dank]

Thanks for the info. Is it really that easy to come up with unproveable situations in high level mathematics? If so, then I'm gunning for the Nobel Prize with my 3+5=Coconut hypothesis.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Vellmont]

For the "real" part of mathematics, look no further than applied mathematics, and indeed much of mathematical physics. Vast amounts of physical theories are grounded in mathematics, and mathematicians solve many real world problems through the application of mathematical models. Where would general relitivity be without mathematics.


Absolutely. But I'd say mathematics is as real as any other tool. Is a hammer real? Well certainly the actual physical hammer is that pounds in nails. But the idea of a hammer is just an abstraction created by our minds.

This is a bit closer to philosophy than I'm normally comfortable with, but I'd still say that for the purposes of the orignal discussion, mathematics can't be ahead of the other sciences.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Vellmont]

Is it really that easy to come up with unproveable situations in high level mathematics?

The thing is that it can and has been proven. That's the point I'm trying to make. Mathematics has things inside it (possibly even an infinite amount of things) that don't exist in the real world. Hell, even euclidean geometry doesn't actually exist in the real world and is only an approximation (just a very good approximation). Space, as you may know from Cosmology, is warped as described in General Relativity. It isn't flat like euclidian geometry requires.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[citanon]

We have meta-materials that can guide microwaves in the manner described in the article. You could construct such a meterial by embedding a bunch of wires and rings in cardboard, I kid you not, because microwave wavelengths only require structure on the sub-cm scale. We don't have meta-materials that can guide visible light in the same manner since the wavelength of visible light is small enough that the material has to have specific structure on the submicron scale.

As a rule of thumb, EM radiation cannot see any feature smaller than a quarter (IIRC) of its wavelength. Therefore, for microwave radiation, you can create all kinds of sub-centimeter structures to guide electric and magnetic fields. The microwave will see your structures as a uniform material, al beit with strange properties that are caused by the structure you've designed.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Vellmont]

Who said that science is limited to the physical world?

Well, I think there should be a distinction between the study of the real world (the physical), and what we create in our minds. I guess I think mathematics is more related to language than it is to science. In that sense I consider mathematics to be a branch of philosophy that produces provable answers. Speaking philosophically, I find defining math seperate from science to have more utility. It conveys the idea of what mathematics is better than saying it's science.

Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[cinnamoninja]

They claim that certain "metamolecules" have the power to make light behave like water, and flow rather than scatter. I quote:

"A little way downstream, you'd never know that you'd put a pencil in the water - it's flowing smoothly again.

"Light doesn't do that of course, it hits the pencil and scatters. So you want to put a coating around the pencil that allows light to flow around it like water, in a nice, curved way."

The truth is, water scatters when hitting something, too. It just doesn't *matter*, because all particles of water look the same to us. So, if the water particle that would have been in the middle without the disruption ends up on the far right, it doesn't matter!

However, we are very, very good at telling different pieces of light apart. At best, this will provide very good camo, where pieces of color from the environment behind you show up on you instead. At worst, the disruption from light working in unexpected ways will make this "invisibility" be a very noticeable beacon. You know how your eyes always flick to something that moves (animated ads, anyone?) This would be like that.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[Intron]

So it will look about like the cloaking device in Predator. That's sufficiently cool. They can name it the Kevin Peter Hall Effect.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[Salsaman]

A little further down, they say:

"What you're trying to do is guide light around an object, but the art is to bend it such that it leaves the object in precisely the same way that it initially hits it. You have the illusion that there is nothing there"

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[HermanAB]

Bear in mind that the sky is rather drab. Therefore it may be possible to effectively cloak an aircraft in the sky, but not necessarily a ground vehicle in front of a complex background.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[ceoyoyo]

I think they'd settle for making a radar beam go around an airplane instead of bouncing off it. One photon in a radar reflection is pretty much like any other.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[CthulhuDreamer]

"...even vaporized fuel bombs to be ingested..."

There were tests done by the US Army using missile warheads with gelatinized water and calcium carbide. This forms a bubble of acetylene gas around the target, causing all sorts of havok to any engine that sucks the stuff in (the plan was for premature detonation to break the piston rods).

(I also heard of one that genereated styrofoam peanuts by feeding the raw material through the missile engine just before impact. The cloud of peanuts would clog the dust filters on the helicopter's engines, bringing it down. I never was able to find out if they ever got it to work.)

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[cinnamoninja]

I get that. And I don't know enough physics say that it's definitely impossble for magic molecules to do this. However, the analogy they make is blatantly incorrect, so it doesn't lend confidence to their theory.

We all know about the state of science reporting, though, so it's entirely possible the scientists are on the right track, and just the journalism was bad.

I actually think something like invisibility can be done someday, but it will involve electronics and computation. Instead of letting light pass through a wall, put a sensor (camera) on one side and a screen (projector) on the other.

Heck, we might even be able to recreate some 3d shapes from the images. Then, we could use matrix and modem game graphics techniques to adjust the distance appropriately, so that *any* size object would be hidden.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[Penguinoflight]

#1, that is certainly not how water flows over something.
#2, how would you possibly account for the disrupted space? Wouldn't any human with good depth perception be able to tell that the "invisible" object is there simply by noticing that a piece of light is recessed? Sure, you could use this to walk across a desert with few interuptions, but in the more likely environments (urban landscapes and jungles) simply standing under a tree would give you away. The tree would appear to be split at the height of the cloaked person.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[Valar]

Yeah, but the idea is that at any reasonable distance, observers wouldn't notice. Indeed, this is the idea behind all camouflage. And even if the light did appear to come from a slightly different place, it would still be better than the current system of "little splotches of color that might have some hues in common with the area we are fighting in."

Of course, if the light, like the article claims, would appear to come from the same angle and position as if no object had interferred, then there would be no way for an observer to notice.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[bw_bur]

#1 The water thing is just an analogy, and is definitely not perfect, although it does convey the important point that the light flows around the cloaked object (never reaching it, or interacting with it in any way).

#2 The entire light field on the observer side appears EXACTLY as it would if the cloaked object were not there. In your example, the tree would not appear to be split -- it would just look like a tree.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[bw_bur]

I don't think you've RTFA. You certainly haven't read the paper.

At best, this would provide almost perfect camouflage. Bits of colour from the background would not show up on you; from whatever direction you look at it, you would see right through it. The light goes around the cloaked object, but there is no way for you to know that.

Of course, this only works over a restricted frequency range. In addition, since these metamaterials are usually based on resonant systems and are consequently strongly dispersive, there is some initial scattering while the resonance is established; very short pulses defeat the invisibility.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[Polski Radon]

So this has the potential to render Radar and Lidar useless. They still have to solve Sonar.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[HunterZ]

#1, that is certainly not how water flows over something.

Indeed. Following it like the water analogy, you'd think the best they could hope for is to bend light around the user, leaving a wake in all directions. I imagine this would probably make the cloaked person/object look like a somewhat reflective sphere/cylinder, except that the part you look directly at would look darker and the edges would look brighter.

It would be a good way to cloak someone's identity, but I don't see it making them undetectable.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[TheNumberless]

That is an analogy created to explain the phenomenon to the layman. Since it's highly unlikely that the analogy itself is the basis of their work, debunking the analogy does nothing to show that their idea isn't feasable.

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[davidsyes]

What is with the particular idiots who prudishly wield their "god-like" "off-topic" on something that condemns or pokes holes in their favorite projects? Goddammit, NO NEW or revived technology can be vaunted as an answer when something can imperil it.

MY point, which the uncouth, contemptable modder bitch-slapped to "off-topic" aimed to show that this technology can be CIRCUMVENTED. HOW is that off-topic.

Regardless of what that modder *thinks*, you CANNOT just look at one or two sides... almost EVERthing is multifaceted, often having more than 3 angles to a subject...

Some people...

Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[EricTheO]

In all the pictures of prototypes I have seen they are always stationary and viewed head-on. What about off angle views of the cloaked object, like trying to see an LCD screen from an oblique angle? If they cloaked object moves, what is the effect as the viewer percieves? "You know how your eyes always flick to something that moves (animated ads, anyone?" This makes my eyes flick so fast to the "x" or "Close" button, I couldn't tell you what the ads say.

Obligatory Star Trek reference

[thedarkone64]

psh, this can easily be overcome by a Tachyon detection grid. n00bs.

Re:Obligatory Star Trek reference

[jpardey]

Or a bag of flour.

Re:maths?

[pilot1]

yes, of course it's correct grammar in the UK..

From TFA

[Jonboy X]

From TFA: These metamaterials can be designed to induce a desired change in the direction of electromagnetic waves, such as light.

Kinda like, say, glass changes the direction of light?

Useless for GW

[Jaza]

But a Stealth Bomber cunnot fyre when she's cloaked, Mister Pres'dent!

(adapted from a quote by Scotty, Star Trek VI).

This is in clear violation....

[skam240]

How can we do this! This is clearly in violation of the Treaty of Algeron we signed with the Romulans.

Re:This is in clear violation....

[Starfleet Command]

Well two things....#1) Since this is 2006 and the treaty of Algeron was signed in 2311, I think we are OK there. But even if a cloak is built, there are several ways to detect it...a quantum beacon for example, or a simple tachyon detection grid

Forget the Romulans

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

I'd worry more about the Elder Gods.

Does not work

[failedlogic]

Surely, if this cloaking technology were working properly, the inventors would have cloaked themselves and the blueprints to their devious device.

At least I would have,
Dr. Evil

If it bleeds we can kill it

[Timbotronic]

Here's a picture of the prototype...

Re:maths?

[aluser]

wow. I never heard it except as a joke

Useless for people

[GFLPraxis]

If I'm not mistaken, since this bends the light around the object, none of the light actually hits the object, correct?

So no invisible surveilance cameras or human beings- the light would miss the lens of the camera or the eye of the human and they'd be completely blind.

Re:Useless for people

[Feyr]

no one said you'd have to be completly invisible,

sure this does preclude some applications, but imagine as a camouflage for an armored vehicle. you just keep the window visible and/or camera lens. you just got yourself a nice nearly invisible tank, which is a thousand time better than what they have right now

Re:Useless for people

[mcrumiller]

Not to mention the fact that they can probably design it to only block visible light--perhaps infrared or radio communication would work?

Re:Useless for people

[pnewhook]

yea, an invisible tank is great until you get out and forget where it's parked.

Re:Useless for people

[Walt Dismal]

No, not useless. The first guy to invent a fat ass-cloaking device for women will make billions, except in the hip hop community.

Re:Useless for people

[shawb]

That's why you have the alarm button on the key fob.

Re:Useless for people

[phoenix321]

There are thousands of CCD "spy"cameras available everywhere that have an aperture of less than 3mm. Their video quality is not much worse than the regular surveillance cam, which is already enough for driving a tank. And I'm sure the military can do MUCH better than that.

An enemy near enough to see two tiny camera pinholes in front of a cloaked M1 Abrams from the future should make his peace with God immediately.

Re:Useless for people

[Professor_UNIX]

yea, an invisible tank is great until you get out and forget where it's parked.

Just look for where the tank treads end.

Re:Useless for people

[ab762]

There are plenty of small things that people might want to conceal, for good reasons or bad. There's a market in fake rocks for hiding spare keys, for example.

What about

• an invisible keyhole
• hiding a door
• concealed IR light source for surveillance hardware
• hidden audio bug
• concealed sprinkler heads in high-fashion offices

There must be dozens more.

Re:Useless for people

[Cervantes]

yea, an invisible tank is great until you get out and forget where it's parked.

It's disguised to look like two homeless people fighting over a wheel of cheese...

Re:Useless for people

[somersault]

If you can see the infra-red then it's fairly useless as anything but camouflage against infantry with no IR goggles.. and infantry aren't too much of a threat to tanks anyway.

Re:Useless for people

[lymond01]

I don't imagine it's designed to block emissions of light from within anyway, just turns outside light away. So if you're holding a flashlight, or happen to have body heat, it'll likely be seen.

Re:Useless for people

[Overt Coward]

I'm not saying it would be easy... but since we're talking theory anyway... couldn't you "split" the light through some form of prism so that one stream is bent around the concealed object, and the other is directed to a very small collector inside the object that could be used to create a display for whomever or whatever was inside?

(An image would work so much better here...)

Re:Useless for people

[data64]

infantry aren't too much of a threat to tanks

So thought the Germans in WWII until they ran into Allied Bazooka teams. So they copied it to create a better version, the Panzerschreck.

Re:Useless for people

[somersault]

still, you need an RPG. Not many soldiers tend to carry them around, just in case they run into a tank. You'd basically need a squad of people, one person with the bazooka/whatever, and a few guys to cover him. Basically it's best if you can wipe the tank off of all possible scanners.

Re:Useless for people

[Alef]

Just look for where the tank treads end.

That comment was not only funny, but in a way actually rather insightful -- objects interact with the environment in a lot more ways than through exchange of visible light.

If I were to find a (moving) tank where I live, I would rather go for all the trees and bushes cracking and falling around it as it paves its way through the forrest.

Re:Useless for people

[mwilli]

Remember kids, we parked in the Scratchy lot.

Re:Useless for people

[Thuktun]

An enemy near enough to see two tiny camera pinholes in front of a cloaked M1 Abrams from the future should make his peace with God immediately.

Gee, what's that shimmer over there that sounds like a 110 db tank engine?

Re:Useless for people

[HTH NE1]

this bends the light around the object

So if you're inside the field with the object, you can still see it.

Which just proves what I've always said (since my days playing in TinyMUCKs): invisible objects aren't really invisible; they only look that way.

Re:Useless for people

[wealthychef]

In order for it to be effective, blocking emissions is exactly what it SHOULD do. The parent has pointed out that if you block light from entering your space, you will be blind at all blocked frequencies, quite a retarded plan, actually. But if you block emissions, then voila! you are invisible. But I didn't RTFA, so I am too Retarded To Freaking Answer correctly.

Re:Useless for people

[HTL2001]

reminds me of that message painted on a bomber once...

"If you can read this... your fucked."

Re:Useless for people

[honor, not armor]

Don't blind yourself to the alternatives! All the camouflage has to do is block the visible spectrum. Hopefully I won't blunder because I didn't RTFA, but you could still use ultraviolet or infrared for cameras.

And as Paris Hilton taught us, infrared still shows you all the raunchy detail ;-)

Re:Useless for people

[bhiestand]

still, you need an RPG. Not many soldiers tend to carry them around, just in case they run into a tank. You'd basically need a squad of people, one person with the bazooka/whatever, and a few guys to cover him. Basically it's best if you can wipe the tank off of all possible scanners.

        I don't think this really usually matters for tanks the way it does for helicopters, planes, missiles, missile silos, etc, at least not for America. What's it matter if the enemy can see you when you have double their range, close air support, infrared/NVG capability, datalinks showing you a picture of the battlefield, and insane DU armour? Sure, they could be taken out by some good IEDs or in urban warfare, but you usually want your presence to be known. If we just want to blow something up without warning, we can just put a missile on the job. Tanks are about show of force.
        Compare that to, say, invisible "black" (ref. to silent) helicopters, where you can fastrope troops into a building to capture its occupants with absolute surprise. Plus being completely undetected infiltrating or exfiltrating troops! Hell, with something like that we could probably end this whole North Korea and Iran building nukes thing.
        Hell, how about an invisible/no-radar-reflection destroyer? You could sail one straight up the Delaware, so to speak. No warning, but, all of a sudden, there are ten american destroyers within a few miles of your nation's capital. Hell of a way to end a war quickly if you can start by capturing the capital and senior leadership...

Re:Useless for people

[phoenix321]

Hmm, I dunno. Wahid, Mustafa, Muhammad, can you three take a look and find out what it is?

Re:Useless for people

[dodobh]

What's it matter if the enemy can see you when you have double their range, close air support, infrared/NVG capability, datalinks showing you a picture of the battlefield, and insane DU armour?

And all that the enemy has to do is drop a nuke. Perhaps at the bottom of the Pacific. Or in Antarctica.

Or launch biological weapons. Or start a rumour or two. Or a combination of any or all of these.

You can't defend against a suicide bomber.

Re:Useless for people

[fusion9290991]

Surely the cameras would need to be mounted on the back of the tank? Facing AWAY from the enemy? Isn't that why they call it the background? If the guy's in front, the last thing you'd want him to see is a picture of himself, moving towards (or would that be rapidly away from? :)) himself?

What happens if the tank in front suddenly breaks down? Will the tanks driving behind it know in enough time to stop or take evasive action to avoid driving into it?

Re:Useless for people

[somersault]

*rolls eyes* perhaps because tanks are heavily armoured, and it takes a grenade to the treads, a decent rocket/high-velocity projectile to penetrate the armour. I admit I'm not an expert, and most of my 'knowledge' is from playing computer games, but when it comes to a fight between a single soldier and a tank, I'd rather be in the tank.

Re:maths?

[kfg]

Do you study mathematic?

KFG

Re:Doesn't this vialate our treaty with the Klingo

[dark404]

No, it violates our treaty with the romulans stupid!

It's so obvious

[computertheque]

After all these years, they just couldn't take it anymore. They need the predator cloaking device.

Re:Doesn't this vialate our treaty with the Klingo

[Tony Hoyle]

Romulans actually.

And no it doesn't, because we've got a couple of centuries until we actually sign it.

But what I want...

[phxhawke]

...is Thermoptic Camo, Ghost in the Shell Style :) If only it had been available back in high school...

Well, a bigger problem...

[emarkp]

Is that it's a fraud. There's nothing in those videos that can't be done with traditional "green screen" effects.

Re:Doesn't this vialate our treaty with the Klingo

[Raul654]

2311 to be exact :)

Re:maths?

[aluser]

er no; CS. surely it's not an advanced term though : )

"I made like infinity of those at scout camp"

[SlashSquatch]

"I see your drinking 1%. Do you think you're fat?"

Re:"I made like infinity of those at scout camp"

[shodanx]

I wonder if anyone else got the N******* D******* reference ;)

Ah so...

[remembertomorrow]

... that explains why the "weight limit" alarm went off when I took the elevator...

Old news ?

[darthgnu]

Apparently, some people have already been using this technology.

Re:maths?

[kfg]

>>Do you study mathematic?
>>
>er no; CS.

Yeah, I've been bitching about that for years.

KFG

Re:maths?

[aluser]

right I get it, the missing 's'. it's been a slow day.

Metamaterials

[vliktor]

Forgive me, but I stopped reading the TFA after seeing "metamaterials".

More and more pseudoscience. Please stop it.

Re:Metamaterials

[emurphy42]

No.

Re:maths?

[patio11]

Yes, in UK and Australia (and probably other Commonwealth nations, although I don't have personal experience outside of those two -- Canada I think follows American usage) "mathematics" always shortens to "maths" when describing a field of study ("My worst subject at uni was maths"), the process of computation ("Help me, I can't get the maths to work out here"), etc etc.

How do you cloak the cloaking device?

[martonlorand]

It is an interesting question, and I am probably not smart enough to figure this out, and probably it has more "traditional" logic/physics than I know.But...

I did RTFM and the one thing that came down to me: how will you cloak the cloaking device?

There is a drawing - the cloaking device like a cherry and the object to be cloaked like the pit of a chetty. The light travels around the pit, but what hapens to the outer device? Is it made of glass or transparent material?

If I go by what I see it is basically like a big periscope - which was discovered a couple years ago... Ohh wait - you can see the periscope...

Re:How do you cloak the cloaking device?

[Mortiss]

Isnt it obvious? All you need is a second cloaking device to make the fist one invisible...

One minor problem

[Omega Blue]

Well, if light doesn't reflect like it should off this, um, clocked object, and instead "flows" around it...

What you will get is in fact a black blob sitting there, not an invisible object, except in the direction where all this light is "flowing." Think about it. A black object absorbs all light on the visible spectrum, reflecting none. These two behave in exactly the same way, except in one specific direction.

Re:One minor problem

[ceoyoyo]

Suppose light flows around it in all directions. Using their pencil in flowing water analogy, it doesn't matter what side of the pencil the water hits, it still flows around.

Re:One minor problem

[sepelester]

Except that it doesn't flow in one single direction.

Research abstracts

[FleaPlus]

The BBC article mentions a couple of articles in the current issue of Science. Here's the text from their research abstracts:

Controlling Electromagnetic Fields
J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, D. R. Smith

Using the freedom of design that metamaterials provide, we show how electromagnetic fields can be redirected at will and propose a design strategy. The conserved fields--electric displacement field D, magnetic induction field B, and Poynting vector S--are all displaced in a consistent manner. A simple illustration is given of the cloaking of a proscribed volume of space to exclude completely all electromagnetic fields. Our work has relevance to exotic lens design and to the cloaking of objects from electromagnetic fields.

Optical Conformal Mapping
Ulf Leonhardt

An invisibility device should guide light around an object as if nothing were there, regardless of where the light comes from. Ideal invisibility devices are impossible due to the wave nature of light. This paper develops a general recipe for the design of media that create perfect invisibility within the accuracy of geometrical optics. The imperfections of invisibility can be made arbitrarily small to hide objects that are much larger than the wavelength. Using modern metamaterials, practical demonstrations of such devices may be possible. The method developed here can be also applied to escape detection by other electromagnetic waves or sound.

Unfortunately, I don't seem to have access to the full papers.

Re:Research abstracts

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Okay, I'm a dumb-butt bumpkin, so please excuse this if it's an idiotic question. But do these little blurbs hint at the idea that we could one day generate Voyager'esque holograms this way? I.e. using electro-magnetic fields to guide light and form an image?

It must have been said...

[jftitan]

I can just see it... The scientists have cloaked all the investors money... I can just see it now. (well not really, because the money has disapeared.

Thats one hell of a magic trick.

I know companies that have done this same scientific project. which comes to mind... Enron... Money here now, but tomorrow its vanished.

I'm trying not to be so skeptic about this, but I just can't comprehend this at the moment. (I read the article... maybe my stupid meter is broken.)

Oh sure it sounds good now......

[rune2]

But don't you remember what happened in Hollow Man?

Re:Oh sure it sounds good now......

[epp_b]

But don't you remember what happened in Hollow Man?

Umm, yeah, a bunch of bad actors got together and played in a pretty lousy flop of a movie (well, OK, there was that guy who played The Goblin in Spider Man).

18 months?

[GersonK]

Yeah right. I'll believe it when I don't see it.

Re:maths?

[cbiltcliffe]

Math == short for mathematic.

Not exactly what they meant.

Re:Government Uses

[f97tosc]

Since the cloaking device will send all light around you to come out on your opposite side, you will not be able to see anything of the outside world while you are using it (I am not making this up, I RTFP in Science). Sorry if this is will hinder your sinister plans. Tor

Cloaking Device

[Sandmann]

I have one of those. Now if only I could find it ...

So long as all the pilots...

[Rastan_B2]

are tall gorgeous brunettes with blue hot pants, indestructible bracelets and the Lasso of Truth.

From what I can tell,

[pecosdave]

this device is going to create smudges and blurs everywhere. As water flows around an object it is also stired, imagine a suspension in the water as it flows, the particles in the suspension will not come back in the same order and place. I imagine the cloaked object will be the right basic color - perhaps with a bit of a shift or blend, possibly with some resemblance to what's behind it, but overall I forsee a blur. Predators cloak is excelent in comparison to this tech and you can see that bastard. I think this qualifies as mobile camoflauge. Now, perhaps with some time, development of pixelated strands in layers, and a lot more development you just may get something better than a camo/blur. This article doesn't go into enough detail on the negatives, but then again that doesn't draw readers.

Theory paper

[0SpinBoson]

Although these guys are from a real place, it's still a theory paper... Wait until one comes out from engineers.
Also, according to them, it only works for single frequency, and would only work for many frequencies (say, normal light) if immersed in a medium with high index of refraction. Most materials with high index of refraction would make it invisible anyway =)

Re:Government Uses

[Andrew Kismet]

Place a monitor inside the cloaking device, and have it recieve and interpret non-visible frequencies. Voila, a picture of sorts.

What frequencies of light

[syousef]

You'd have to cover every part of the spectrum that isn't absorbed by air for this to work.

You think the Romulans will be pissed

[uberjoe]

just wait until the Klingons hear of it.

Re:You think the Romulans will be pissed

[TheNumberless]

Why would the Klingons care? They're not the ones we have the one-sided no-cloaking treaty with.

I see no point

[FSMonster]

Of what use is a cloaking technology when you have to drop shields to engage it?

Re:maths?

[Kandenshi]

I'm Canadian, and I'll vouch that 'math' is more common here(south eastern Ontario anyway). But I have seen people using 'maths' as well. Don't remember anyone getting confused over what was being talked about, so I guess we're capable of switching back and forth with relative ease.

War! It's fantastic!

[ruckenheim]

Naturally, this is funding by the War Machine.

I'd prefer to see the technology being used to harvest energy from sun light. Perhaps light funnels? Or?

Re:War! It's fantastic!

[DrVomact]

Stealth cars. The radar and infrared versions would, of course, be preferable--I just want my car to be invisible to radar and lasers, not to other drivers...

Re:Government Uses

[Kandenshi]

Indeed, while not being able to see will hinder my plans slightly, it doesn't stop 'em all. Cloak, walk to where I'm going(can follow a path perhaps, or just an upside down periscope penetrating the cloak at my feet so I can see from that angle?

Besides, the ability to just suddenly appear someplace would be pretty amusing for the first few times at least. I might not be able to see anything but I could scare the willies out of a few people who annoy me... And I'm looking at you Mrs Mean Cashier at the local grocery store X(
*snickers at the thought of sneaking up on them and just yelling BOO!

Re:maths?

[Valacosa]

Yes, and the opposite is true for athletic activities.

US: "sports"
UK: "sport"

And in this case as well, the Canadian usage tends towards the American usage.

useful for what?

[phlegmofdiscontent]

Reading TFA, it strikes me as being similar to something posted on /. a month or two ago promising the same thing. TFA is light on details, but if I remember the previous article correctly and they're a similar principle (that's a lot of ifs), then this is only useful for objects about the size of the wavelength of light being used. In other words, objects smaller than 3cm for microwaves, objects about a meter for radio, and about 500 nanometers for visible. That being said, it's useless for military applications since most military vehicles are larger than 1 meter. It's also useless for people since you'd have to be about a thousand times smaller than the width of a human hair in order to hide.

Re: My God!

[Maxo-Texas]

All they have to do is cover the planes with animated ads and most of us would never be able to see them!

My eyes instinctively ignore them these days if the browser doesn't block them to begin with.

Old U.S. Navy Technology from 1943

[cwalk]

See Philadelphia Experiment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Expe riment

"Through a special application of the theory, it was thought to be possible, with specialized equipment and enough energy, to bend light around an object, rendering it essentially invisible...

...Testing began in the summer of 1943, and was initially successful to a limited degree. One test, on July 22, 1943, resulted in Eldridge being rendered almost completely invisible, with some eyewitnesses reporting a "greenish fog" -- however, crew members complained of serious nausea afterwards. At that point, the experiment was altered by the request of the Navy, with the new goal being invisible to radar only."

A cloaking device?

[cpt kangarooski]

I'll believe it when I see it.

At a distance, it does

[jpardey]

Does a chameleon completly look like it's background? No, but it is good enough for most purposes. Although it would not be a "silver bullet" of stealth, it would probably be possible to blend in with a wall, or a desert, from a distance. If you are trying to totally obliverate a poor country with minimal effort, this technology may be for you.

Imagine a plane flying over a desert/plain/feild and seeing a human size blob of black, or a human size blob of the same colour as the surroundings. Which would be easier to spot? Then again, a nice camoflauge suit would be a bit cheaper.

Of course, any cloaking device would have a hard time dealing with IR scopes, unless it managed to somehow mask all blackbody radiation, which would probably be more impossible than the supposid metamaterials. This probably dosen't matter, because such devices don't seem to be in great supply. But still, if you are worried about them coming for you, paint your bunker walls with checkerboards, and install triplasers. Or a large dog.

Which variety?

[Lord Kano]

Romulan, Klingon, Dominion or the Federation cloak?

If it's the Federation cloak, I want nothing to do with it.

LK

Re:Which variety?

[JesseHathaway]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Federation cloak. After all, it *was* the Federation who one-up'd the rest and made their cloaks do the whole "pass through solid matter" trick.

Pesky Treaty of Algernon, always getting in the way...

Re:maths?

[koreaman]

Don't try to say that the British or the American way is better, or makes more sense.

No language is better than any other.
Languages don't make sense.
Every language sucks.

It should be obvious why this is so, but if anyone needs any help figuring out, I'm here.

Uggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the ignorant among you there is a BIG (as in several orders of magnitude) difference between Radar EM waves and light. Dudes and dudettes if you going to post about a scientific article how about reading up on the science behind the article so that you can post intelligently?

ac

Re:Uggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

[Verminator]

Dudes and dudettes if you going to post about a scientific article how about reading up on the science behind the article so that you can post intelligently?

[ Pot and kettle surrender. ]

I can't wait

[Kuvter]

to see the results!

Re:maths?

[Mant]

In American English it's Math, but in British English (as used by the BBC) it's Maths.

Sounds familiar

[davidmcg]

Isn't this similiar to what they tried to do with the USS Eldridge in 1943 (philadelphia experiment). By distorting light around the ship using powerful magnetic forces, they attempted to make it look like it had disappeared.

Not new...

[Zaatxe]

Wonder Woman has this technology since the 70's. Nothing to see here, folks!

Would it be functional at night?

[Jerry Smith]

What's the use of being invisible when others aren't depending on their eyes? Would a blind person be aware that another person was invisible?

Real World Problem

[Samuar]

Without suggesting a bias towards any nation in the world today, developing such cloaking technology will eventually lead to considerable problems (-IMHO). Leading world power(s) will no doubt be successful in producing such a device, and in the following decades it will become available to other nations or corporations.

Their ability to control other potential seriously dangerous technologies, such as nuclear weapons, will become seriously hampered. Nations attempting to develop such technologies will be able to hide their activities much more effectively; Terrorists are already capable of escaping detention from superior sized and equipped armed forces: which will become easier with such technologies.

History also shows that nations tend to share their technology with lesser developed/equipped nations during a brief time of partnership (e.g. to repel an invading and opposite world power) - only for the partnership to become seriously sour decades later. (e.g. US and Afghanistan vs Soviet Union).

However, I strongly favour the development of new technology and believe it will lead to an improvement in life for all. I'm also an avid Star Trek fan :-)

I just believe that we should take great care with whom we share such technology, if we ever develop it.

Veils and cloaks

[InSlice]

The BBC is reporting that a plan for a cloaking device has been unveiled.

"Unveiled"? Why not "decloaked"?

Nano-engineering?

[sanman2]

Various articles point out that the lensing structures bending the light have to be smaller than the light's wavelength. That means for visible light spectrum, which is around 400-700nm, your meta-material structures have to be molecular-sized. This is much smaller than what's required for radio or microwaves, which are centimeters to meters in length.

So either you'll have to nano-engineer your cloaking shell from the molecular level, or else you'd have to find a way to convert the light that strikes it into a lower frequency (higher wavelength) that you can handle more easily. If you had some super-efficient down-converter/up-converter material coating the surface of your cloak, this might then enable you to bend the light without having to go all the way down to nanometer size for your meta-material lensing structures in the cloaking material itself.

I can imagine the color green would be particularly useful to cloak against, because that would allow you to be invisible in front of vegetation/greenery.

Interesting use of Lateral Thinking

[Linker3000]

I understand that the technology involves covering the object with life-size photos of Osama Bin Laden, upon which the object disappears and can't be traced by anyone.

The only side-effect is that audio and video recordings of the object can occasionally be heard in Al Jazeera offices.

Cloaking device Unveiled

[VincenzoRomano]

And so it will not cloak anymore!

What "metamaterials" can bend light?

[master_p]

Article does not say much. Which materials can bend light? water is not an electromagnetic wave. And how will make sure photons keep their original trajectories so as that the image is consistent from all angles?

Concerning dogs and bunkers

[Jesus_666]

But still, if you are worried about them coming for you, paint your bunker walls with checkerboards, and install triplasers. Or a large dog.

I'm currently working with the army to install a dog in a bunker. It's a real hassle.
First we tried to bolt the dog to a wall, but that was messy and after a few days the dog started to smell real bad and he came undone somehow.

Then we made a hole into the floor, put another dog in the hole and filled it with quick-dry cement. That was less messy, but again the dog started to smell after a couple days. Maybe we shouldn't have covered the dog up to the eyebrows, but I think it just didn't handle the concrete very well.

Experiments with welding have led to really unsatisfactory results. The dog started smelling bad right away.

Lately we have found something that appears to work, but we still have to find a way to keep the dog from moving while the hot glue settles. My friend Bill has suggested bolting it to the wall and then removing the bolts when the glue has cooled off - when the bolts are gone the dog will probably not start smelling due to less bolt exposure. We'll try that next. Bill is pretty smart.

Have I missed something?

[fraggleyid]

How would I see out of a cloaked device? If the light is flowing around me, then none of it would hit my retinas/ system sensors. Or am I being silly?

Re:maths?

[kfg]

Don't try to say that the British or the American way is better, or makes more sense.

Please note that I did not.

KFG

ah, no way this will "cloak"

[Ancient_Hacker]

Dang laws of Physics! Getting in the way again.

It's very unlikely this development will 'cloak" anything.

Small matter of "index of refraction".

You'll note the picture in the article shows light rays hitting the object "head-on". What happens to rays that hit at an angle? Even if they exit at the same angle, are they exiting along the same axis, or displaced? The article doesnt say.

Also most substances have significant reflection at each air-substance boundary-- how will this device handle that issue?

Nice try, but still quite a long way from making an object "invisible".

Can anybody say ...

[NoSalt]

Can anybody say "Philadelphia Experiment"?!?!?!?!?

Re:Can anybody say ...

[What me a Coward]

Uh Uhm ahhh....

  Pillidelipha

  Er
  Phyidilipha
  Erhm eh
  Spillidiliphipha
    I..Uhm
  Sacaraphiliphum
  Well actually .....

  No i can't say Philadelphia

  How about Just Experiment?

    Will that do? :D

Philadelphia Experiment

[CooKiEz]

Holy crap it's the Philadelphia Experiment all over again

Not to mention decloaking to fire a torpedo volley

[ianscot]

At best, this will provide very good camo, where pieces of color from the environment behind you show up on you instead. At worst, the disruption from light working in unexpected ways will make this "invisibility" be a very noticeable beacon. You know how your eyes always flick to something that moves (animated ads, anyone?) This would be like that.

In any case, military applications probably wouldn't be able to keep the cloak up when a weapon was fired from within it, the energy involved being difficult to surround with a smooth, flowing light "cloak" consistently. You'd need to de-cloak to let loose a killing volley of photon torpedos, wouldn't you?

What a nuisance -- though it'd be a boon for the writers.

Re:Useless for people, but not artillery

[BraksDad]

How about artillery?

All you need is the tip of a radio antenna to receive coordinates from a satelite. That antenna could even be a dragged wire that would be flush with the ground.

The satelite itself might not be able to benefit from this technology... unless it was nuclear powered. Can't exactly hide those solar panels from light.

I could swear I saw a video of something like this

[plasmacutter]

... and it didnt involve "metamaterials"..

it simply involved clever use of fiber optics.

who gives a crap about "metamaterials" when we have these things called fiberoptic pinhole cameras and nanotube leds.

simply weave a coat of alternating light sensors and leds together and you will have optical camo a-la ghost in the shell.

granted we still cant make them cheap today, but at least we have a shot at this possibility within the next 50-100 years.

Re: My God!

[phoenix321]

Even the terrorists are using an adblocker already. I haven't seen a web banner in years...

Re: My God!

[BraksDad]

Those adds are aimed at the ignorant masses who appearantly CAN see them.

This would meen your cammo would only work against intelligent people.

There is a reason we view "Military Intelligence" as an Oxymoron!

Good idea, but not for military application!

"Cloaking Device Unveiled"

[bukharin]

Guess it doesn't work too well then :-P

Re:"Cloaking Device Unveiled"

[What me a Coward]

Hey you peeked! :D

Hmm, I wonder if they are going to schedule a test

[Sardonic1]

Around Philidelphia. If this hits the news, I bet that movie hits tv, soon, again.

Mathematics is the defining science

[Corp186]

The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world.

Although this seems right, mathematics plays a much larger role once you get to quantum mechanics. In this field you can no longer grasp what is going on, but you can do the math to yield the truth. For instance, Schrodinger's equation tells us the energy of a particle through an eigenvalue, which is a purely mathematical construct. The reasoning is that the particle is a wave, but what does that really mean? Not very much other than that the mathematics which tell us everything about it is the only thing we can use to understand the basics of chemistry, physics, and biology.

Re:Mathematics is the defining science

[Vellmont]

Sure, mathematics is certainly a language that's used extensively to describe what's going on in quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it real. The actual thing you're observing is real, but the description of it is just an idea.

Sweet

[crea5e]

This is one step closer to having Dungeons and Dragons in Real Life.

What about heat emissions?

[koa]

I dont have time to RTFA (at work), however I have a question; what happens to light in the far infrared, or thermal vision? (i.e. light coming _from_ the object obscured).. Does this technology have an answer for this? or is this just cloaking from light/radar coming from external sources?

Re:What about heat emissions?

[What me a Coward]

Uhm..... Yes! Unaeqivieably Yes!. :D

Speeding..

[Sunsetbeach]

Cloaked from radar waves?

I do need one for my car...

Re: My God!

[Sarisar]

So you need something that would work against stupid people... didn't they have something like that in the days of the vikings?

a lot better article on it

[majortom1981]

here is a lot better article on it. They state they can make the materials. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/06052 5193729.htm

What abou the treaty...

[CohibaVancouver]

...with the Romulans that prevents Federation use of cloaking technology?

Re:What abou the treaty...

[What me a Coward]

What treaty? This federation of your's doesn't exist yet! Theirfore any inventions up till that point would be null and void or otherwise grandfathered in and as such meaningless even dispite any possible agreements to the contrary.

    I mean what are you going to do tell every eco terroist and bio terroist and exo terroist etc in the future to not use a tech just because it was discovered and hence prior art before any such deal with a future discovered race who claims their own unprovable prior art to stealth tech?

    That would be like the US in the late 1940's telling the Soviets not to try inenting nuke's or to forgo any attempts to dcevelop radar or ICBM's or other such tech based on US's prior art or some post war treaty. Bottem line is the Soviet's didn't obey any treaties with the US nor did the US.

    So what makes you think the United federation of planets would obey such a treaty? Gene Roddenberries candy apple vision of what he thinks in his arogant self imposed glass bubble of a vision of the ideal future would someday possibly be?

    Ok so this is a far fetched vision of what you propose as a problem for future event's but could more than likely be more probable than you're scifi future conflict of a treaty with an as of yet none existant race as of yet known eneywhere in the universe.

    At least as far as Seti and the reat of the US and international space community is concerned so i restate again.

    What treaty?

    Rethorical question the above pretty much answers what treaty for anyone not stuck physically in the scifi world of a non existant universe as Star trek.

    Or rather Bar Wreck.

    Tell the Romulans we'll flip their world and satilite of Romulus and Remus for it and then blow them to kindom come for the rights to Stealth Tech!

    Let them Wretch that out amungst themselves while we smoke cubains over the ashes of their planet and moons in the interum.

Somebody else's problem

[etn991]

Does it involve painting the object pink?

Just what we need . . .

[indytx]

soldiers and planes smacking into stuff. I mean, light is rather essential for sight. I could be wrong about this, but I generally get around better--with less running into furniture--when light reaches my eyes.

How would you see where you're going?

[thepacketmaster]

I might be missing some vital piece of information, but here is my question: The cloak will bend light around the object (person, aircraft, tank, etc) so that it isn't visible. But if all the light is being bent around the cloaked object, wouldn't that mean the object can't see anything either?

Delays...

[neiko]

I suspect that the delay that the light gets by having to travel a farther distance than the light around the object is so small that you wouldn't notice strange behaviors from objects passing behind the cloaked object. However I'm sure electronics would be able to detect it and thus only make this useful against the human eye and low quality cameras.

Bad title

[loose_cannon_gamer]

Shouldn't this article have been titled, "Plan for cloaking device uncloaked?" Am I the only one who appreciates a painful pun around here?

Re:Bad title

[chawly]

You are not alone. But you should be - for a painful pun, that's painful.

Wasn't this allready done, the Philadelphia ...

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

The Philidelphia experiment. They Hetrodyned microwave RF to shift light, the project worked, people died. It spurred a scifi about time travel, but the fact is no one traveled in time, but people died horribly. It didn't travel in time, just cloaked that's all.
This appears to use the same principle, it takes a lot of energy to bend light. I think the stealth tecchnology is right on, reduce the signature both optical and rf, only problem you can track a stealth jet by the engine emissions. A stealth submarine you can track by looking for a trail of dead plankton.A stealth battle ship, you can't hide from the hydrophone network.
You can not cloak the exhaust emissions of a vehicle. There's an easy countermeasure for this so called cloaking device.

Sometimes I think people are so smart that they are foolish.

lol r@ygold

[Ayanami Rei]

cp much?

heat & motion (and a note about the Phila. Exp

[Isaac-Lew]

What about the heat of the cloaked person/tank/whatever?
Even more important, wouldn't motion detectors still work against this?

(Note: and for those yelling about the Philadelphia Experiment, I think that's a myth. If the US really had tried it & failed (*especially* during a war), they would simply have kept trying until it provably did or did not work - no way would having a few people go insane or die have stopped research).

Re:Beat THAT!

[chawly]

But you gotta get tinfoil trousers ! Think of the next generation !

true, that-

[alfs boner]

But I have a feeling that my car is more expensive than yours.

:)

Vaporware? Increasing wavelength temporarily?

[SoopahMan]

For the most part the technical details are just flat out missing from this article, and I agree with other posters the water example is crap, both because the water turbulence in the example would be untenable for making things invisible in dealing with light, and because the water is flowing in just one direction. I think it's just a stupid metaphor to make press.

If there's any technical basis to this it sounds a little bit like they propose to use these "metamaterials" to hop up the wavelength of the incoming photon momentarily to something huge, so it bends itself around the object cloaked, then returns to its normal wavelength, never losing its original vector, and eliminating the problem of recalculating position.

This is different from say, wrapping an object to be cloaked in fiberoptics, which with proper channeling might carry light in and out as intended, but you lose vector temporarily and must solve position on the other side with awfully careful channeling. The surface carrying the cloaking wrap could not be allowed to bend, for example.

I guess if they ever got it to work it would be interesting to see how lossy the "metamaterials" were, as we know fiberoptics are not 100% lossless - the cloaked object might be distinguishable as a faint shadow, variably darker and lighter in areas where the lossiness peaks and valleys.

I'd be very interested to see it, but I'd also be very interested to see a teleporter. A guy making news in the BBC saying he has an idea for a teleporter doesn't help me get to work any faster. Water metaphor or no.

As I replied in the last article on cloaking.....

[Soul-Burn666]

I'll believe it when I don't.

Re:tanks but no tanks

[werewolf1031]

Unless they come up with california cert battery operated tanks, the bg's (bad guys) could just shoot at (under) all the engine smoke. Big, fat, mean diesels, IIRC.

Only in very old models. The now-ubiquitous M1A1/A2 Abrams runs on a 1500hp gas turbine engine. Sure it puts out some hot exhaust, but not the bellowing black smoke from a diesel engine that you envision.