Slashdot Mirror
Tsunami Invisibility Cloak
BuzzSkyline writes "New Scientist is reporting on a lab-scale experiment that may lead to a tsunami invisibility cloak, which could protect islands, open-ocean platforms and even coastlines from dangerous waves by effectively making them invisible to tsunamis. The technology is based on the same sorts of negative index of refraction ideas that some physicists are exploring as they try to make an optical invisibility cloak, except that it works with water instead of light."
Notice when the Island moved at the end of last year? What date was it? What happened around that time? Tsunami.
Move along - Nothing to see here.
And invisibility will help you against a giant wave? I wasn't aware that Tsunamis basically hunted those vulnerable islands and coastlines down for large scale destruction.
But Guenneau cautions that large structures like islands and coastlines are unlikely to become invisible anytime soon, because building the many small islands needed to protect one is such a big job.
"It's crazy - maybe only people in Dubai could do this," he adds, referring to the spectacular artificial islands built there.
Smaller structures such as offshore oil platforms would be easier to protect, he says.
I personally like the little model. It must've taken awhile to CNC machine that.
How are the tourist ships and supply ships supposed to get to the island at the center?
From the article:
No, we are not going to be protecting islands with this thing anytime soon. And we're not protecting tsunamis from anything because the tsunami will just wash over this suckers unless we build them really, really tall. In which case, we're better off building a freaking wall.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
how do you end up getting ships in and out of the coast?
Quoth TFA:
It's a nice idea but a barrier like this would have to be made of strong stuff. That Asian tsunami a few years ago was able to pick up ten-feet-tall concrete blocks and throw them around like Lego bricks. I'm not sure if I'd want to be sitting downstream of something like this unless they're thinking of making them out of low-lying artificial islands, and in that case I don't know how effective they'd be under a tall enough wave. I'd like to have seen a bit more in the way of diagrams and specifics in TFA.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Civilization V: Just try your Tech Level 2 Tsunami against my Tech Level 3 Wave Cloaking Device, you rank amateur!
What's wrong with these scientists? Why work on making tsunamis invisible when we have enough trouble with the ordinary, visible ones already?
http://pinopsida.com
Anyone else notice that their scale model looked an awful lot like a certain circle of monolithic stones? We know the technology works. When was the last time Britain was hit by a tsunami?
-=Bang Bang=-
LOST
Maybe something like a drawbridge, except that the "fingers" could go sideways, slide down, or lay down?
Or maybe some of the channels could be made big enough with an acceptable loss of efficacy?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
early warning system is much cheap then numerous artificial islands.
rebuilding is much cheaper then numerous artificial islands.
most people will detect, warn, evacuate and rebuild - this kind of (very very) expensive prevention simply does not make sense on a 1 in 100 year (if not much more) disaster prevention.
it is like putting in bullet proof glass in all the windows of your house just in case the couple next door decide to have a son who might want to buy a bb gun later on in life...
Even if this can protect islands from tsunamis, I fail to see the point. Tsunamis are pretty uncommon and most of the coastline that it is designed to protect will be underwater in 50 years anyway.
Invisible != Invincible.
The brakes on the Semi-Truck behind you go out... 'Quick! The invisibility cloak will save us!'
Ehh... No. Some scientists have too much grant money.
But clearly you have something better to say...
...for the rest of us!
If they cloak one thing that just moves the damage somewhere else. After all, it's not stopping the wave. So who gets to decide who gets cloaked and who doesn't?
What happens to the neighboring nations or coastal countries that can't afford them? I know they can't be built currently, but wouldn't this just shift the devastation. a bit like protecting yourself from a flood by pumping the water into your neighbors' houses?
-=Bang Bang=-
As a general rule, when science fights nature, nature wins.
We are, after all talking about dealing with forces that have shaped the planet upon which we evolved. Star trek fiction aside, I don't think we have enough energy available to seriously hinder a tsunami.
Early warning systems so people can get the hell out of the way would be better then a 'stand back, I'm going to try science' approach.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Not exactly. When you're invisible, the light simply passes through where you would have been as normal. You're just not in the way to block those waves anymore. According to the article, the water from the Tsunami mostly goes straight through as if the island wasn't even there. So, if there is a wave that originates from the east, it hits this cloak, the wave will continue it's movement west as if it never hit an island at all. The only ones who would be affected would be anyone who's behind that island, who has been using it to break their Tsunamis in the past.
Having said that, I'm not entirely clear how you can use the device described to protect coastlines. It looks like you need a 360 degree coverage for the device to work. That's not going to work for something like say...China's coast.
What we really need is Captain Planet (by your powers combined). Or the Asian chick at least.
Next line of defense...
CAREBEAR STARE!
-=Bang Bang=-
Having said that, I'm not entirely clear how you can use the device described to protect coastlines. It looks like you need a 360 degree coverage for the device to work. That's not going to work for something like say...China's coast.
I think it could be made to work... but it would suck to be in Iceland.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I was thinking this, too. However, if you read the article, it's intended for man-made structures and, if you look at the model (and read the article), it doesn't seem like it'd be feasible for anything on a larger scale, anyway. You'd end up destroying most of your own coastline and aquatic habitat in the process, and seriously screwing up the local ocean pretty much permanently.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
If you can't see the tsunami, the tsunami can't see you.
Same way you get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Read the article? I'm too busy spouting pithy one-liners and making knee-jerk reactions based on my limited understanding of the subject matter! This is /. after all right?
-=Bang Bang=-
The article mentions that a strong whirlpool is created near the center of the structure. Would it be possible to harness this energy to generate electricity?
A possible nice side effect of this could be that instead of letting the tsunami pass, it would decrease the energy of it, so that it won't be as destructive for those in the wake.
Or it could just make the wave pass through even more powerful *shrug* Seems like something to look into though.
Has the person who wrote this been within a thousand miles of the ocean? Anyone that has been to sea during a storm would have to laugh themselves into a coma at the thought of this idea. If you have seen big waves from the beach you know it aint gonna happen. The thought of diverting a wave is an interesting concept but the unintended consequences would be massive.
Wake me up!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
When there's fire and it burns
There is something you must learn
Something something then you'll see
You'll avoid catastrophe
D'oh!
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
With a hammer?
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Just give Iceland a cloak, too...
Tsunamis are harmless in open water - their height is on the order of a meter, and there's very little horizontal movement of water involved. They only get tall when they steepen as surf, and are dangerous because of their enormous wavelength (up to kilometers) which means one wave has an enormous volume of water to spill.
All of this won't affect drilling platforms at all, and for islands you need to build a structure all around it - a wall is a lot cheaper. In any case, the low incidence of tsunamis won't encourage anybody to build such structures.
JFWI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami#Characteristics
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I sure hope no one respawns inside a wall like they did in the 40s.
http://www.think-aboutit.com/Misc/philadelphia_experiment.htm
OK, so after we surround every body of land with these things, tsunamis will go around all the obstacles and keep going around and around the planet. So how many tsunamis going around and around does it take to make an ocean useless?
So let me get this straight... The tsunami goes towards the island, and passes around it, to the back of the island... and then to the poor bastards sitting right behind?
Actually I think the best tsunami-fighting device is a giant ball of string; this is pretty clearly proven by the town of Cawker City, Kansas, home to the largest ball of twine in the world, has never been hit by a tsunami. So that proves that the string stops tsunamis; my logic here is impeccable. As for Britain, a lot of people think that country's resistance to tsunamis is due to Stonehenge, but the reality is a much simpler explanation -- the ubiquity of umbrellas. Remember Occam's razor, folks!
"We noticed that islands tend to have a lot of sand. We noticed that by placing your head in it, the tsunami would just pass by. We expect broader reaching applications of this new and valuable technology. Oh, and patent pending."
I don't think tsunamis are a big problem for offshore drilling platforms in the first place. From what I've read, they use the ballast tanks in daily operation, and they can also be used to rise above the waves. That seems a bit more practical than surrounding it with an enormous structure to provide protection against something that probably won't occur in the lifetime of the rig in the first place. AFAICT, this solves a problem that basically doesn't exist.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
All we need now is a working ZPM to power the cloaking device.
I don't think tsunamis are a big problem for offshore drilling platforms in the first place. From what I've read, they use the ballast tanks in daily operation, and they can also be used to rise above the waves.
From what I know about tsunamis they are barely noticable until they reach shallow water, so offshore drilling platforms don't need this. I believe the point is for small low islands where the tsunami would otherwise wash right over most of the habitable area.
The only ones who would be affected would be anyone who's behind that island, who has been using it to break their Tsunamis in the past.
Like your parent said, it'd be like pumping the water into your (backdoor) neighbor's house. Nature built the islands the way they are, and the ones on the front lines are just screwed. It's understandable that we want to protect whatever home we're on, but by doing this, you are dumping the problem onto the next guy.
Instead of spending a lot of energy and wasteful construction techniques building many pillars surrounding islands, maybe we could cultivate coral reefs around them in the right shape. It could take years, but tsunamis don't hit any one island or platform very often.
That is, if this "refractive shield" is any more protective than just the same amount of "armor" in a simple wall around the defended location. Is it?
--
make install -not war
> This is /. after all right?
Yeah screw the lousy standards around here.
I'm going back to the rest of the internet where they have whole pithy paragraphs and entire knee-jerk domains.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
The whole idea is just silly. Everyone knows the only way you can save your island from the spiteful anger of the sky gods is through fasting and prayer.
How about we just stop ripping up wetlands and let nature's sponge do its job?
If this type of structure effectively creates a whirlpool by altering the type of force exerted by the water - could it be used to generate power or electricity? I'm assuming that this would probably be able to work on a smaller than tsunami scale, perhaps it's an efficient way of harnessing kinetic energy of waves for conversion into electricity?
How DARE you call my understanding limited, you holier-than-thou elitist prick! I went through a technical college you know!
And out the back door ?
When has that ever stopped us?
Two words:
Ned Kelly AKA: Reckless Kelly, AKA: Yahoo Serious
It 'happened' in 1993, I think...I don't remember. (maybe i did too much LDS at Berkeley in the '60's?)
Anyway...lassoo a structure onshore, then pull it out to sea, or wherever...
Does: 1) ????
2) Profit!
belong here next?
I don't know how Aussie laws, culture, or taxes work, but I saw this on HBO!
*disclaimer*
I have full respect for the Aussie military that I have had the pleasure to interact with. I may have felt bruised and battered afterwards, but have always left feeling 'partied out' in a good way!
P.S. I hope this post is taken as the tongue-in-cheek nature I had intended!?!? :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
oh for fucks sake.
the islands were not built by anyone.
There is no design.
And this "dumping the problem onto the next guy" thing is about as retarded as claiming that building earthquake proof buildings will lead just make the earthquake worse for everyone else.
It looks like the italians have discovered this system over a millenia ago, although to their credit one must mention they introduced a bit of variety in size and shape to that metamaterial pattern.
They also masked those huge waterbreaker blocks as derelict gothic and renaissance palaces covered in marble, then filled the canals with gondoliers and now tourists flock there like crazy.
Offshore-oilplatforms (and evil genius homes) usually need not be protected from tsunami-waves due to its nature:
"While everyday wind waves have a wavelength (from crest to crest) of about 100 m (300 ft) and a height of roughly 2 m (7 ft), a tsunami in the deep ocean has a wavelength of about 200 km (120 miles). This wave travels at well over 800 km/h (500 mph), but due to the enormous wavelength the wave oscillation at any given point takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete a cycle and has an amplitude of only about 1 m (3 ft). This makes tsunamis difficult to detect over deep water. Their passage usually goes unnoticed by ships."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami)
On the other hand it might help preventing damage from Rogue Waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave). If one looks at the damage done by the Draupner Wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draupner_wave) the costs for fitting offshore-platforms with a system like this would be uneconomical.
The real question is where you can make the structure strong enough to withstand a tsunami. Physics work against you. This will most likely have to be built on the ocean floor, and have to be hight enough to break a tsunami wave. Deflection of a beam is proportional to (length)^4. Deflect to far, and SNAP!
Not really, their point is pretty good. If a Tsunami would have broken up on your island, the "invisibility" rings will instead pass it on to the guy behind you.
Of course, a better analogy of why that has to be acceptable is that, you can't be held liable if you duck and the guy behind you gets shot. It's not your fault that he was unwilling or unable to duck too.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Ah the good ole days, doing Latter Day Saints at Berkley. Ever notice its the good little religious girls who turn into the dirtiest little thangs.
Anyway, I digress....
Seems this isnt' really about tsunamis.. I think in deep-ocean like this, a tsunami is spread out, wide, and fast. It's a patch of ocean a foot higher than the rest, moving really, really fast. And harmless.
This seems more about protecting against freak waves and other large detructive waves...
How DARE you call my understanding limited, you holier-than-thou elitist prick! I went through a technical college you know!
By the looks of it the technical college deployed active camouflage so you passed around it instead of running into it.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
explain how making earthquake-proof buildings will lead to making the earthquake worse for everyone else? Ok, imagine I live on an island that's prone to tsunamis, and you live on an island behind me that's protected by my island. Are you really ok with me putting up the barrier so that now, you have to deal with the tsunami's?
I don't see how this argument is retarded, because this is exactly what's happening.
omg this retards needs to stop watching Stargate Atlantis and focus in serious stuff..
Where would they get the ZPM?
Not a Republican, then?
I'm curious as to whether an array of structures as described could feasibly mitigate the waves by using destruction interference, even in the case of a continuous (re: China) coast, or at least for a certain portion of it.
No, I'm a small government loving, personal responsibility endorsing conservative whose also believes moral issues should not be regulated and am against marijuana use...I'm the man without a clan.
-=Bang Bang=-
They anchor out front, where they are vulnerable to the tsunami of course.
If you were going to go through all this effort, wouldn't it just be easier to use all that building material to just put all the buildings on stilts?
> could go sideways, slide down, or lay down
A Wonkabridge!
"Of course, a better analogy of why that has to be acceptable is that, you can't be held liable if you duck and the guy behind you gets shot. It's not your fault that he was unwilling or unable to duck too."
Difference being (According to insurance companies) that tsunamis are acts of God, of course.
Don't worry, you're a hypocrite, just like everyone else. Welcome to the human race.
So I have a duty to take the fall for the people behind me?
Yes, I did notice!
I made it a point to date the proverbial 'Preacher's Daughters' and usually scored bigtime!
Hell, I even managed(by coincidence) to time it just right and snagged one of them when both of us were finally ready to settle down into a stable marriage.
Happily married now for 13 years, and going strong.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Wait a minute, are you saying that tsunami's look for islands to hit?
Right.. I had written essentially your same post, but it was just conjecture. Suffice to say that the only references I could find to "oil rig" and "tsunami" were this article (or others like it) and another by a company that makes the ballast pumps. They talk about an 80' wave, so I'm assuming it's a rogue wave.... which doesn't make much sense either, because from what I know of them, they're caused by constructive interference, which would only happen along the intersection of two crests. It's not something that would just travel across the ocean in plain sight. But whatever.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If that's where the island was put originally, and it's been experiencing the tsunamis constantly (compared to the age of the Earth), yes, the island should still take the fall for the ones behind it.
For humans: It's not the fault of the people behind you that you're living on a tsunami-prone island. If you don't like the environment, then move. Don't let other people suffer because you're stuck up and think that you're the center of the universe.
Again with the "put".
No gods or demons decided to put anything anywhere.
Just because you've always gained from someone elses suffering doesn't give you the right to stop them from protecting themselves rather than you.
Don't force other people to suffer because you're stuck up and think that you're the center of the universe.
Actually, I don't think I'm the center of the universe, I'm advocating for the poor souls whose suffering you are causing because of your arrogance and lack of consideration.
I'm advocating for the poor souls who've been suffering for years and who you now say shouldn't try to stop their suffering. Why should the people on the first island be expected to suffer for the sake of others when there's a way for them to protect themselves?
Why should the people on the first island be expected to suffer for the sake of others when there's a way for them to protect themselves?
Agreed. They should be able to protect themselves, but not at the expense of creating a new problem for others.