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."

45 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Dharma Initiative anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Notice when the Island moved at the end of last year? What date was it? What happened around that time? Tsunami.

  2. Nothing to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Move along - Nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Nothing to see by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the Tsunami Invisibility Cloak is an item you get in one of the quests in World of Warcraft.

  3. invisibility will help? by mackil · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:invisibility will help? by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know the wording is awkward. But, keep in mind, light is understood to be a wave as well. Thus, the mechanic of causing a tsunami to go seamlessly around an island should be nearly the same as causing a light beam to go around the object. This wouldn't block the Tsunami wave, the wave would continue as normal, as if nothing had happened. The Island also would not be touched by the wave either. The metaphor seems to work.

    2. Re:invisibility will help? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Well they tried giant towels, figuring that the Tsunami would think that since the Island couldn't see it, then it must not be able to see the Island, but that didn't work because Tsunami's are far to clever for that. Which isn't too surprising since Tsunami's are proven pack hunters, always attacking in waves.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:invisibility will help? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      Invisibility will help. What do you think the eye of the storm is for ... duh.

    4. Re:invisibility will help? by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is it anything like the eye of the tiger?

    5. Re:invisibility will help? by orasio · · Score: 3, Funny

      This new wave of nonsensical puns has gone too far already, eye think.

  4. Summary's FOS Again by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    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.

    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/
    1. Re:Summary's FOS Again by endymion.nz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tsunamis only get tall when they approach land. The danger to oil platforms is the massive energy involved, not the height of the wave. So this would only be impractical for structures close to the shore.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    2. Re:Summary's FOS Again by jimdread · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tsunamis only get tall when they approach land. The danger to oil platforms is the massive energy involved, not the height of the wave. So this would only be impractical for structures close to the shore.

      It's also going to be impractical for structures that aren't close to shore. You have to build artificial islands all around the structure. It will cost a lot to build artificial islands in deep water. Therefore, it's impractical in shallow water, and impractical in deep water. Nobody's going to build one, it's just an interesting application of wave physics, transferring the idea of being invisible to light waves to being invisible to ocean waves.

  5. Okay... but... by mattsgotredhair · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how do you end up getting ships in and out of the coast?

    1. Re:Okay... but... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, they do have a wave function, but the wavelengths are really small....

      E=hv.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:Okay... but... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny

      how do you end up getting ships in and out of the coast?

      First, you draw this tsunami-wave canceling device on a placemat, labeling the ocean as "START" and the coastline as "FINISH". Print out thousands of them and hand out the placemats to family restaurants, along with a few boxes of crayons.

      Then, you just go around collecting the "used" placemats, kindly filled out by unsuspecting 5 year-olds, and deliver them to cargo-ship captains.

      Problem solved.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. Feasibility by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quoth TFA:

    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 â" 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.

    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
    1. Re:Feasibility by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing here... but here's my take on it...

      It's not a barrier and does not "block" the waves.

      It simply disrupts them, like pebbles on the bed of a river. The wave goes around the islands, pretty harmlessly, but the interference pattern created, essentially protects the object at the center.

      It's a very subtle approach, not the brute force on you seem to think.

  7. Jeez by atomicthumbs · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  8. Waterhenge! by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 5, Funny

    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=-
    1. Re:Waterhenge! by arethuza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually there was a pretty nasty one about 7000 years ago caused by a underwater landslide off of Norway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/glasgow_2001/1531049.stm

    2. Re:Waterhenge! by AshtangiMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Right, so before that structure was built. That must have been the event that led to its construction.

  9. seems very pointless... by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:seems very pointless... by srothroc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Netherlands have various kinds of incredibly costly structures erected to prevent those 1 in 100 year events that you seem to scoff at. Sure, they could just sit around waiting for one to happen and clean up after the mess by pumping out the water and holding it back again after a flood, but I doubt anyone would really want to live there knowing that it could happen to their grandkids because the government was too cheap to protect them.

    2. Re:seems very pointless... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      early warning system is much cheap then numerous artificial islands.

      Definitely.

      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.

      Er, well, that's not so clear. I mean that was roughly the logic behind not building up the levies in New Orleans, and the cost of that project was several times less than the resulting damages from Katrina. A project which they are now engaging in so as to prevent a subsequent disaster and make people feel safe returning to/investing in the city, meaning they payed for the protection but had to also pay much, much more due to not having it when they needed it.

      Now I'm not saying this particular system is cost effective for any particular city. I think it would mostly depend on what kind of materials and engineering you need to make effective barriers. These aren't artificial islands like the ones in Dubai the article mentions. They're big walls. If a tall column of reinforced concrete sunk into the ocean floor, like the struts of a large suspension bridge, is sufficient then I don't think it would be that ridiculous. And think of it this way -- just because "the big one" only comes once every hundred years, there's still plenty of "pretty big ones" that cause lots of damage every single year.

      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...

      If I may engage in some analogy abuse, it's more like the couple next door has a son who pretty consistently fires off a few rounds in random directions every night, sometimes using larger calibers than others. How long are you going to bet that he hits someone else's house and not yours? It probably sounds like a safe gamble up to the point the .45 flies through your living room.

      Hurricanes, typhoons, and tsunamis happen regularly. They hit sections of the coast every year, causing damage every time. They aren't hypothetical. Even the big ones aren't. They're more like matters of probability, and thus time.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  10. Re:But what about the other islands by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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=-
  11. well... by thermian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:well... by darthwader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that the Netherlands is not under water, and all those man-made lakes behind dams have not all drained. And when it comes to warming up the planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, Science has done a great job against nature. When science fights nature, science generally wins, but nature does always get a few really good hits in first.

      The idea from TFA is not to use additional energy to hinder the tsunami, but to merely redirect the tsunami's energy. It's like the Judo of climate control. If I understand the article correctly, the posts do not have to be strong enough to stop the tsunami. That's the entire point of it.

      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
  12. Re:But what about the other islands by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Yeah but those islands act as barriers... by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As is always the case, those with the money get to decide.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  14. Re:But what about the other islands by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?
  15. Re:But what about the other islands by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  16. Just Close Your Eyes by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you can't see the tsunami, the tsunami can't see you.

    1. Re:Just Close Your Eyes by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Peekaboo!
      Aw crap.

  17. Re:But what about the other islands by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 5, Funny

    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=-
  18. Energy source? by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Energy source? by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wouldn't be perpetual motion, it would take energy from earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, etc. that cause massive amounts of water to be displaced.
      It wouldn't be perpetual energy, but it would be free energy, very similar to tidal power Unless I'm missing something obvious, this wouldn't be perpetual motion...

  19. Oblig- Homer Simpson quote by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  20. Re:Because those third-world islands can afford it by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Funny

    With a hammer?
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  21. What for? by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  22. Ocean pollution by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

  23. Re:But what about the other islands by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:But what about the other islands by Laser+Dan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  25. Re:But what about the other islands by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Funny

    > 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!
  26. A preposterous solution by malevolentjelly · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  27. Re:But what about the other islands by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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