Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plan For Cloaking Device Unveiled

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the thanks-to-the-romulans dept.

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."

21 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by HeXetic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new invisible overlords.

    --
    http://www.chmodoplusr.com/
    1. Re:Obligatory by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  2. The Romulans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    will be pissed. :D

  3. Slashdot's at it again by SoVeryTired · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
  4. Re:Tenuous at best by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  5. Ooops! by udoschuermann · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

    --
    --Udo.
  6. Good by owlman17 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Good by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. In theory, this post will be modded down... by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
    1. Re:In theory, this post will be modded down... by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


      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.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:In theory, this post will be modded down... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  8. Nonsense -- water does not look like light. by cinnamoninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nonsense -- water does not look like light. by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      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"

  9. Useless for people by GFLPraxis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Useless for people by pnewhook · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Useless for people by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:Useless for people by shawb · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Useless for people by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Funny
      yea, an invisible tank is great until you get out and forget where it's parked.

      Just look for where the tank treads end.

  10. A cloaking device? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  11. Re:Tenuous at best by jpardey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's a picture of one:







    Pretty incredible, eh?

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...