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: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: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

Slashdot's at it again

[SoVeryTired]

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

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)

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!

Good

[owlman17]

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

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

[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...

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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

[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: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.

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

[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

[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.

A cloaking device?

[cpt kangarooski]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Tenuous at best

[jpardey]

Here's a picture of one:







Pretty incredible, eh?