Slashdot Mirror


How To Cloak Objects At a Distance

KentuckyFC writes "All invisibility cloaks to date work by hiding an object embedded inside them. Now a group of physicists have worked out how to remotely cloak objects that sit outside a cloaking material. The trick is to make the cloaking material with optical properties that are exactly complementary to the space outside them. Complementary means that the material reverses the effect the space has on a plane wave of light passing through it. To an observer this space would appear to vanish. The scientists say that to cloak an object sitting outside the cloaking material, first measure its optical properties and then embed a "complementary image" of the object within the cloak. So a plane wave is first distorted by the object but then restored to a plane by the complementary image of the object within the cloak (abstract). An observer sees nothing. This method has another benefit. Objects hidden in conventional cloaks are blinded because no light enters the cloaked region. But objects that are remotely cloaked like this should still be able to see their surroundings."

136 comments

  1. Yawn by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when we can get stuff cloaked like Master Chief or the Predator.

    1. Re:Yawn by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll know when cloaking is really working when the monthly dupe of "cloaking, this time for real" stops showing up here.

    2. Re:Yawn by Anonimouse · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wake me up when we can get into the ladies changing rooms without getting bitch slapped.

    3. Re:Yawn by discord5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'll know when cloaking is really working when the monthly dupe of "cloaking, this time for real" stops showing up here.

      Because they managed to cloak the article?

    4. Re:Yawn by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Get implants and shave.

    5. Re:Yawn by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      And here I always thought that explaining a joke was sure to ruin it.

    6. Re:Yawn by theaveng · · Score: 1

      All invisibility cloaks to date work by hiding an object embedded inside them.

      I had no idea we had working cloaks! Cool. Having an invisibility cloak would make raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm so much easier for the Engineering house. Where can I get one? :-)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    7. Re:Yawn by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      I can sell you one. Would you transfer the money first? It's guaranteed!

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    8. Re:Yawn by kingsteve612 · · Score: 0

      yeah dude. that would be sick.

    9. Re:Yawn by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I can sell you one. Would you transfer the money first? It's guaranteed!

      The money will disappear, that's for sure. So I guess you really do have one, in a sense.

    10. Re:Yawn by jebrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno, they've got a good point. If no light is getting in to the object being cloaked, then it's not just invisible, it's blind...so while you wouldn't see much in the Sorority Girls' dorm, you could have loads of laughs feeling up anything that crossed your path.

    11. Re:Yawn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      To be cloaked it doesn't need to stop light getting to it. It just needs to stop it getting back to the observer. But don't stand in front of a white surface.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Yawn by fugue · · Score: 2, Funny

      This, then, shall be your test. To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm. To all those who dare not face the challenge, their punishment shall be downloading pr0n.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    13. Re:Yawn by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when we can get into the ladies changing rooms without getting bitch slapped.

      Easy! These guys pulled it off years ago...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    14. Re:Yawn by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Yes like Harry Potter's cloak. He can see through the cloth, but no one can see him.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    15. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow, are we really citing Harry Potter?

    16. Re:Yawn by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Unless you're European.

    17. Re:Yawn by Mister_Stoopid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I understand that using feminine pronouns is the politically correct thing to do, but in the context of this sentence I think it's fair to assume that the engineer in question is most likely male.

    18. Re:Yawn by Zerth · · Score: 1

      European chicks have beards?

    19. Re:Yawn by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      To be completely cloaked, no light may be absorbed by an object, because otherwise that light will be missing on the other side so the object will be detectable. Thus, you can't have a perfect cloak and also be able to see.

    20. Re:Yawn by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      Shaddup, you. His use of pronouns made the sentence super hot.

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
    21. Re:Yawn by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. It's a kiddy movie, but it's still very entertaining. (And Hermione's grown into quite a beautiful young woman.)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    22. Re:Yawn by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm.

      (1) If the engineer is a "she", then she doesn't need a cloak. She can just walk right in and pretend she belongs there. When a dorm has ~400 people living in it, it's not possible for the residents to know every face.

      (2) Furthermore she'd probably be more interested in raiding the Frat Boys dorm. ;-)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  2. I can do this by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    so basicly what this is saying is that you can't see me if i hold up a sheet that is the same color as the wall

    --
    Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
    1. Re:I can do this by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! It's saying that you can't be seen if someone else holds up a sheet that is the same color as the wall.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:I can do this by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no, because then you're behind/inside the cloak and your visibility in the cloaked direction is zero. you're not unbending the light with a complementary image. if the light source is behind you, you'd just look like a jackass holding up a bed sheet.

      the method proposed in the article is to hide objects outside (hence, "How to Cloak Objects At a Distance") of a cloak using a complementary material. no materials have yet been developed to do this.

      it doesn't even necessarily have to be a physical material. if you can use lasers or an EM field to bend(or unbend) light back to its original state, then you can simulate a virtual complementary material. you'd still need to determine the optical properties of the object that you want to cloak to create the complementary image, but you could theoretically create a mobile/non-stationary cloaking device this way.

    3. Re:I can do this by jfeldredge · · Score: 1

      You would still be cloaked only from one side, and visible from other directions. Also, you wouldn't be able to see in the direction that you are cloaked from; if all of the light from that particular angle is passing around you, rather than reaching you, you would see the reverse side of the cloaking device/field as black. So, this technique would work if you were trying to hide from a sensor or observer at a particular angle to you, but wouldn't be particularly effective against a web of sensors that are sharing their results.

    4. Re:I can do this by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      So this could be useful for cloaking the interstellar fleet en route to blow up the bad guy's planet, but not much use in combat?

    5. Re:I can do this by jfeldredge · · Score: 1

      Also, any waste heat will have to be radiated in the direction away from the shield; radiating heat toward the shield will either pass directly through it (revealing your presence) or warm up the shield (causing it to radiate heat and reveal its own presence). An all-sides shield would require storing any heat internally, limiting how long you can stay cloaked before you have to either reveal your presence or cook in your own juices.

    6. Re:I can do this by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You would still be cloaked only from one side, and visible from other directions. Also, you wouldn't be able to see in the direction that you are cloaked from; if all of the light from that particular angle is passing around you, rather than reaching you, you would see the reverse side of the cloaking device/field as black. So, this technique would work if you were trying to hide from a sensor or observer at a particular angle to you, but wouldn't be particularly effective against a web of sensors that are sharing their results.

      So what they need to do is create a holographic array of emitters that cover a large enough slice of the 3D plane that the remote sensors can't detect the object with accuracy.

      One other aspect that doesn't seem to have been noted much on here is that this method seems to be applicable to all kinds of radiation, not just the visible spectrum. Would it be possible to use this as some sort of a radiation shield when the radiation signature is known?

    7. Re:I can do this by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 1

      ok i get it but that still makes no sense. thanks

      --
      Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
  3. Wow smart scientists... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The trick is to make the cloaking material with optical properties that are exactly complementary to the space outside them. "

    So if you are hiding a tank in the desert, paint it desert colors?

    Oh wait more complex... desert != shiny...

    use flat paint.

    got it!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Wow smart scientists... by discord5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So if you are hiding a tank in the desert, paint it desert colors?

      We've actually gone one step further. We've actually built an entire tank made out of sand. Our prototype required very little materials other than that: a bucket, a shovel and a beach.

      It's still a prototype though since it breaks easily, but it does blend in with its surroundings, and it has been proven combat worthy by having our troops stomp over sandcastles.

    2. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Emb3rz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think about it in terms of bitmasks...

      Background   = 00110000
      UncloakedObj = 11100000
      CloakedObj   = 00001100

      CloakShows   = 11110000

    3. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Arimus · · Score: 1

      It's still a prototype though since it breaks easily,

      What do you mean prototype? that sounds almost ready for serious use - just look at most tanks ;)

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    4. Re:Wow smart scientists... by MetalPhalanx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only on /. would someone try to explain such science in terms of bitmasks. :)

    5. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is old news. The master illusionist, Sir Jasper Maskelyne, was using this technique in Egypt's Western Desert for the British Army in 1940-42. It is described clearly in his autobiography. Have a nice day!

    6. Re:Wow smart scientists... by IchNiSan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, just think of this in terms of a car ...

    7. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Cthefuture · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heh, you know to this day I'm still pissed about something that happened when I was in 2nd grade. We were doing some kind of group work thing and I got was this multiple choice question about what a telescope could be made out of. One of the possible answers was sand. I instantly came up with the design in my head. The question wasn't very specific so I wasn't sure if I would need to melt the sand to form the lenses but I knew I could use a glue/sand mixture for the body (shaped by a mold while it hardened).

      Naturally I got the answer "wrong" and nobody would listen to me. That episode basically represents how my entire life has gone when dealing with other people...

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    8. Re:Wow smart scientists... by d0n0vAn · · Score: 1

      I'm not the brightest bulb in the box and I did have to google it, but now I see what you did there. 10/10

    9. Re:Wow smart scientists... by db10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the masking that's the problem, it's filling in the mask dynamically.

    10. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be dumb, but can someone explains the parent's comment?

      thx
      A.C

    11. Re:Wow smart scientists... by slas6654 · · Score: 0

      Now to get started painting everything black and white.

    12. Re:Wow smart scientists... by psydeshow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Otherwise known as "Too smart for your own good." That happened to me all the time while I was growing up.

      Now people just think I'm a crank when I make non-linear associations like that.

    13. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Artuir · · Score: 1

      People mod that up funny, but it's actually insightful as to how the school system doesn't work for everyone, and how thinking outside of the box is so frowned upon when everyone should do their utmost to encourage it.

    14. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Ok, just think of this in terms of a car ...

      Thanks! That made it much clearer!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    15. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      I hate how all those elementary questions had an implicit "only pick the practical answers." That period is not the time to stymie children's creativity.

    16. Re:Wow smart scientists... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Forget the box, think inside, outside, underneath, or on top of the box, just for fuck's sake use your damn brain.

    17. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      You should have replied in a /. friendly car analogy instead of using some mumbo jumbo about melting sand to make glass.

      Sheesh!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    18. Re:Wow smart scientists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to do that anymore - the Republicans lost.

    19. Re:Wow smart scientists... by nilbog · · Score: 1

      I had this happen when I insisted that there was a reasonable argument that glass could be considered a viscous liquid, that objects of different weights fall at the same rate in a vacuum, and that the plural of "Ravioli" is "Ravioli" and not "Raviolies."

      Each time it was me alone against my friends, students, and teachers (including supposed science and english teachers!) and each time I was right. Schools are full of retarded people who can't think of anything better to do with their lives (well, higher education facilities anyway).

      --
      or else!
  4. Firing while cloaked by vvaduva · · Score: 5, Funny

    The better question is, can they fire while cloaked? I hear the Klingons made substantial advances in that area.

    1. Re:Firing while cloaked by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Mmm not sure. I know Harry Potter couldn't.

    2. Re:Firing while cloaked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was only one prototype, and Kirk blew it up, along with the Shakespearean General Chang.

      And it apparently only worked because it ran off of fossil fuels or something. How 20th century.

    3. Re:Firing while cloaked by Da+Cheez · · Score: 1

      There was only one prototype, and Kirk blew it up, along with the Shakespearean General Chang.

      And it apparently only worked because it ran off of fossil fuels or something. How 20th century.

      It didn't run off fossil fuels. The Enterprise was able to use its equipment for cataloging gaseous anomalies to lock onto the plasma exhaust from the impulse engines of the bird of prey (which do not use fossil fuels, but a fusion reaction).
      Indeed, the Romulans also made significant advances in cloaking technology, even to the point of being able to raise their shields while cloaked AND eliminate tachyon radiation and residual antiprotons. Scimitar, anyone?
      On that point, I wonder how much power a cloak of the type discussed in TFA would use.

  5. Not a dupe, but... by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...this reminds me of that "X-Files" article from yesterday.

    "Gee, if we had enough money, we could make your troops invisible, Mr. General Sir."

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Not a dupe, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know whether to mod that insightful or funny... So, instead I will give you this meaningless reply :)

  6. Small...Far Away. by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

    Dougal, this cow is small.

    Those ones are far away.

    Small...far away.



    "That's nearly as mad as that thing you told me about the loaves and the fishes."

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Small...Far Away. by andy19 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As much as I love the Father Ted reference, that really doesn't have anything to do with this article.

  7. wait by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't pr0n constitute a complimentary image? Cuz I gotta tell ya with the right pr0n nearly everything around it disappears.

    1. Re:wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of pr0n... Can this device make only the clothes of someone invisible ?

  8. Jeez by Konster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone knows that a tachyon sub-space burst from the main deflector dish invariates the sublimated inverse proportional fields that all cloaking devices use.

    Phase the array with multi-numinal values and any cloak in the perimeter will be dropped due to subversive nominal decay but only if you attune your tertiary sensing systems to compensate for the quadralinear flux.

    This is all so simple, and I have to wonder about the credentials of /. editors that would post such elementary issues on this website.

    I mean really, this is first trimester stuff that any recruit can do off the tops of their heads.

    1. Re:Jeez by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      ... and, Mr. Data.

      Yes, sir? ... Nicely done!!!

  9. The next step... by MadDogX · · Score: 1

    So we have the technology for an invisibility cloak. Now I just need an unbeatable wand and a funky "I see dead people" ring and I can be master of death. Suck on that, Voldemort!

  10. 50% of the population does it all the time by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Funny

    How hard can it be if even girls manage it?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  11. Fair in war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cloak objects at a distance ?

    Why do we need this this ?
        Weapons of war can already kill at range greater than the enemy and those firing it can see ,
      ans so they have since World war One.

    What do we gain ?
    True Invisibly is a great danger , Its use is only bad and or covert.
    When used by the police , it only makes any government a bigger Polizeistaat (police state )
    When used by the military we can already kill covertly.
    So what good is it?

    1. Re:Fair in war by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well, for instance, it can be used to cloak that silo you're hiding from the enemy, or the troop barracks, or a supply cache....

      There are a LOT of things in war that can't be done at a distance, and there are a LOT of things you don't want the enemy to see when the war is on your turf, not theirs.

      This would also be interesting combined with surveillance equipment. I wonder if two of these cloaks could cloak each other as well as a third object though? Otherwise, the cloak will be a dead giveaway.

  12. How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech style.. by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ummm...howzabout just hiding behind a tree or ducking...

  13. Only transulcent objects? by Timmmm · · Score: 1

    This must only work with translucent objects. The other method works with any object.

  14. It's trap by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    This "cloak"-technology is just a re-adjustment of your mental reference framework:

    Soon, you'll get these kindof presentations:
    "This! is the best thing ever since the previous thing that was the best thing ever!" "Can I see?"
    "It's right here, it's cloaked.. You can see it but you cannot perceive it. But believe me, it's there."
    "If it's invisible, it must be good! *throws monnies*"

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  15. If you give it some thought by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This technology, if adopted by the military, will probably only be useful against civilians. Against another sophisticated military there will always be a way to detect what you're trying to hide through other means than visible light - magnetism/alterations in the earth's magnetic field (in the case of big chunks of metal, heat), RF emissions, overhead imaging, radar, sonar, etc.

    You won't be able to hide your tank like this, but the small laser turrets to keep the neighbor's cat off the lawn might work... now if only those sharks would stop swimming.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:If you give it some thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This technology, if adopted by the military, will probably only be useful against civilians.

      Well... sort of. I suppose they have in mind insurgents, irregulars, rebels, rioters, militias (both well regulated and not so well regulated) and their non-combatant sympathizers, civilians who would spy on military.

      Also, this will probably have its first use in hiding public surveillance cameras and other surveillance devices - what you don't know, you can't complain against.

    2. Re:If you give it some thought by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is why it is important to maintain sophisticated technology in the civil society.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:If you give it some thought by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure about that. I mean, the military currently uses a whole bunch of stealth technology against their enemies: everything from simple paint color and camouflage, to radar-reflective stealth paint or ultra-quiet engines for submarines. None of these are perfect, but all are useful.

      You may not be able to make yourself 100% invisible to an enemy that has good tech, but as long as you can give yourself an advantage in hiding, it's worth using. The "advantage" could be increased survival (enemy hit accuracy is reduced), better range (you can get closer before being detected), or maybe just the cost to the enemy for them to launch all the overhead imaging and use all magnetic field sensing equipment you just mentioned.

      If cloaking became viable, it would definitely be used by the military against other high-tech enemies. In battle, every advantage counts.

    4. Re:If you give it some thought by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This technology, if adopted by the military, will probably only be useful against civilians.

      Or unsophisticated military. Against other sophisticated military, it's good to have the tech first because that allows research into counter-tech sooner. One way to beat the enemy is to force them to spend too much in resources keeping a stalemate.

    5. Re:If you give it some thought by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously haven't given it much thought. If your logic held true, there would also have been no reason to develop stealth technology for our aircraft. As someone else astutely pointed out in response to you, every advantage helps. There would be many, many applications for 'cloaking' technology against even high tech militaries.

      Of course, it's fashionable around here to say will really only be useful when used against civilians.

    6. Re:If you give it some thought by bahstid · · Score: 1

      >>radar-reflective stealth paint....all are useful.

      I think you will have better luck with radar-absorbent stealth paint unless you are some kind of damn hippie subversive.

  16. Misplaced effort. by gpn · · Score: 0

    They should be working on the SEP field. Hitchikers guide reference: "The technology required to actually make something invisible is so complex and unreliable that it isn't worth the bother. The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain."

    1. Re:Misplaced effort. by N+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should be working on the SEP field.

      Hitchikers guide reference:

      "The technology required to actually make something invisible is so complex and unreliable that it isn't worth the bother. The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain."

      You don't even need a battery. Just build it to look like a sink full of dirty dishes in a student household and no one will see it.

  17. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Notquitecajun, will you stand up please. (gunshot)

    This demonstrates the value of not being seen.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  18. Seems limited by Chthonic+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this method limit the cloaking mechanism to only work from one viewing angle? It seems to me the cloak would need to have hundreds of complementary images embedded in it to prevent someone from seeing it who took a step to the side. That, however, causes the problem of the complementary images distorting areas around the cloaked item, therefore making the cloaked item even more obvious. Is there something I'm missing?

    1. Re:Seems limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any good cloaking device would have to be multispectral. An optically cloaked tank might be invisible to binoculars but the hot running engine would stand out like a sore thumb to an IR sensor in an overhead UAV. The tank radio would also set off EW sensors, etc.

  19. I just need an old-kind Invisibility Cloak by BhaKi · · Score: 1

    All invisibility cloaks to date work by hiding an object embedded inside them.

    This conventional kind is enough for me. Where can I get one?

    --
    The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    1. Re:I just need an old-kind Invisibility Cloak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You do realize you will be blind, right?

      Unless you poke some holes in your cloak, and then people will just see eyes floating in the air.

      Actually, that seems like a fantastic idea.
      Sign me up!

    2. Re:I just need an old-kind Invisibility Cloak by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do realize you will be blind, right?

      Unless you poke some holes in your cloak, and then people will just see eyes floating in the air.

      Actually, that seems like a fantastic idea. Sign me up!

      Okay so that's one invisibility cloak for...Mr Anonymous Coward.

    3. Re:I just need an old-kind Invisibility Cloak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well...is there anyone who needs it more?

  20. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not duck or hide ?
      Because a 50 caliber rifle can penetrate a 15 inch thick tree at thousands of Yards as if it were toilet paper , and the speed of the bullet such that before You, the one firing it hears the crack of the gun , the enemy or tree has about a 5 - 6 inch gaping hole in it ..
    Reason enough ?
       

  21. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monty Python, nice. Can't remember the name of the skit though.

  22. At a distance? by Quantos · · Score: 1

    In TFA it admits that the solution would only be 2D and on a single frequency. This leaves me with a few questions.

    1. Is the "cloak" effectiveness reduced as the observer gets closer to the object being cloaked?
    2. How would they overlay the new image of the item being cloaked, would they use some type of projected hologram, or another physical system - such as attaching the image to the object?

    --
    Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
  23. The fast show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm sure that "The Fast Show" covered this last century...
    • You aint seen me, right?
    • I'll get my cloak.
  24. Shoot by indros · · Score: 1

    I've been doing this for a long time. I simply hold my hand in front of my eyes. Viola! Object remotely cloaked.

    1. Re:Shoot by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 1

      We've had a hands free version for years, it's called a blindfold. It does kinda require the co-operation of whoever you're trying to cloak things from though.

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

  25. So, in summary... by stoofa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Scientists: "We've made an invisibility cloak that will make your soldiers vanish!"
    General: "That's amazing, let's try these out."
    Scientists: "Right, Here is one you can try, but if you want more then we need money... a lot of money."
    General: "Sorry, the deals off, the soldiers say they can't see out of it when they're inside it."
    Scientists: "Give us a few minutes."
    [Obligatory view of shed with hammering and sawing noises]
    Scientists: "Okay, how about your troops just hide behind it?"

  26. Big-ass photo... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1, Troll

    So, in plain English, they take a big photo of the background, put it in front of the object and make the object disappear from view. How incredibly ingenious.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Big-ass photo... by Comboman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wile E. Coyote claims prior art.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    2. Re:Big-ass photo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?
       
      I read it as taking a picture of a tank, then covering it in a cloth with the embedded NEGATIVE of that photo.
       
      If I understand how light works, though (from my GCSE Physics), wouldn't this just create a black area? All light absorbed etc.
       
      Because nobody is going to notice a big, black tank-shaped object heading towards them at 40mph, barrel rotating towards them.

    3. Re:Big-ass photo... by Keramos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, no, actually they take a photo of the subject, make a sort of translucent negative, and put it in front of the object and make the object disappear from view. Slightly more ingenious because the background can change.

      Not sure how they handle the "light behind the 'cloaked object' isn't shining through it" scenario. Presumably you could bend the light around the object and back into it's orignal path - but that's the 'embedded cloaking device' as far as I can tell.

  27. No. This one has an actual demonstation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll go you one better - over in the Middle East, there were apparently some insurgents/terrorists/whoever using the tried-and-true method of hiding in a sandstorm before attacking or while attacking. It worked well in the good old days, but we now have these things called satellites and night-vision and infrared and technology, where they're pretty much sitting ducks now.

  29. Go back to Academy, Ensign. by argent · · Score: 1

    That's the oldest trick in the book, and it only works against objects that are polaron neutral against the subspace background. And since most variations of phase-harmonic shields break polaron symmetry any military warp-capable ship is immune.

  30. David Copperfield... by afranke · · Score: 1

    ... has been doing this for years.

  31. Skit title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The name of the skit is "No. 42 How not to be seen".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZnGprplKU

  32. What about a pointed stick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say someone were to attack you with a banana? Could the cloak protect you?

  33. The key point by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... in your argument is "against another sophisticated military".

    However this is rarely the case. Nowadays most engagements the US Military is involved in are against people with little more than 25-50 year old weapons. The problem the US Military has is the on the ground war against these kinds of insurgents - this tech. would be invaluable against them, you could approach a camp on foot without fear of being seen.

    1. Re:The key point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you can approach without fear of being seen, huh ?

      What if the enemy uses dogs which can smell and hear exceedingly well ? You might just die, that's what.

      Better not quit your job at Wal-Mart, "brunes69".

  34. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by db10 · · Score: 1

    well I manage to cloak myself by securing a towel around my head... I figure if I can't see you, then surely you can't see me.

  35. Somebody Else's Problem by Dteyn47 · · Score: 1

    I remember reading about this somewhere, I think it's called an SEP Field... "An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye." -- Douglas Adams, HHGTG. In that series, a strange object can be effectively hidden from view while out in plain sight, by an "SEP field", which "relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain."

  36. Didn't RTFM but... by russotto · · Score: 1

    seems to me that having a cloak showing a "complementary object" is only going to work if the original object doesn't destroy information about the background. If it does, the object is going to show via the distortion of the background.

  37. is it two way or one way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldn't this effectively be "if i can't see you than you can't see me"... meaning that you could stand behind the cloak, but then also anything on the other side of the cloak would also be ... cloaked.

  38. wrong road by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientists are looking in the wrong direction in this matter. Like in so many other breakthroughs, they just have to watch how nature does it. What in nature can be totaly invisble without any kind of complex technology or huge power consumption? Easy: keys.

  39. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd like to see your source on that one, Assuming that sound can't move through the rest of the rifle(for sake of discussion) and will only escape out of the muzzle the shooters ear is about 1 meter away form the source. The Barrett M82 (using .50 BMG round) has a max effective range of 6800m with a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s. That means that it will take that round 7.79 seconds to go the max distance or 2.16 seconds to go the effective range of 1850 meters.

    The speed of sound is 340.29m/s, so for the sound of the gun shot to go from the muzzle to the shooters ear 1 meter away will take apx 0.0029 seconds.
    At 853 m/s the round will have only traveled 2.47 meters away from the muzzle.

    Provided the target is less than 2.47 meters away then yes the will have a whole in them before you the shooter hears teh shot, but you said thousands of yards, which as we proved is just wrong. Now had you said that you the target will have a whole in you before you the target even hears the report then yes you would be right.

    Oh and you totally misused the joke anyway of th GP. It was a Monty Python sketch. /All figures from GIS and wikipedia) //Math could be wrong, please correct me if I'm wrong

    --
    500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
  40. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, if they're hiding in the sandstorm BEFORE the attack, sure.

    But during? You'll be hard pressed to find a radio wave length that'll cut through what is essentially a huge but very fluffy stone and NOT cut through humans (tiny bit of water in the middle). Infrared will be blurred out. Radar will too.

    What kind of advances have the military conjured into being that'll see through a sandstorm and tell you what's inside it (outside of lots and lots and lots of sand)?

  41. Re:New improved goatse by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

    If this technology ever becomes viable, I know what we should cloak first.

    --
    I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
  42. As long as ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... I can still uncloak them in my mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, for one, the effective range of a .50 cal sniper rifle is closer to 2000m than it is to 7000m. 7000m is basically the ballistic trajectory of a 45 degree shot.

  44. Article Summary by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    1) Assume a cloaking material with optical properties that are exactly complementary to the space outside them.

    2) Become invisible using that material.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  45. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parabola!

  46. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    I was thinking more like going one step further past the point where you are a tiny on the horizon to your enemy's eyes

  47. alternative way by floatingrunner · · Score: 0
    better yet, use distraction. if you can get some scantly-clad, busty, thin, female (or male whichever you prefer) jumping around the desert. i think the tank will be able to go past the enemy without problems.

    they do that in beer commercials... always miss their secret message

  48. This will end up in the hands of pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt that the police will use this to steal money from civilians because they were going faster than the government said they were allowed to.

  49. in practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't really news. The (very) basic principle seems to be the same used in noise-cancelling headphones (with the complexity of finding inverses of all horribly high frequency emissions to be protected).

    I wonder how they plan to implement it. May be useful in hiding objects that aren't normally seen from all angles (satellites). Still no real breakthrough until we see an implementation. // then again, i'm no reliable critic..

  50. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1
  51. IANAP by kwikrick · · Score: 1

    I am not a physicist, but it seems to me the proposed invisibility 'cloak' is just a mathematical trick, and its not clear to me that the mathematical model actually corresponds with the real physics of light/electromagnetic waves. And even if the model is sound, I don't believe materials with the desired properties can actually be made. Also, it seems, the method only works when the background light is uniform, i.e. monochromatic background light, i.e. no other objects are allowed anywhere in view, besides the cloak and the disappeared object.

    --
    assignment != equality != identity
  52. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    They get on the radio and drop a bomb on your head from the plane you didn't know was there.

  53. Just put a "Vista Inside" sticker on it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    it will then be ignored.

  54. Photos? by shish · · Score: 1

    Can we get some photos? I want to see this in action :-)

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Photos? by bronney · · Score: 1
  55. Doh! It's so simple! by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    Object * (1/Object) = 1

    Why didn't we think of it before!

  56. This is the same as noise cancellation. by bezenek · · Score: 1

    I expect someone else already pointed this out, but just in case... -Todd

    --
    Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
  57. Not just schools, but everywhere by wasted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People mod that up funny, but it's actually insightful as to how the school system doesn't work for everyone, and how thinking outside of the box is so frowned upon when everyone should do their utmost to encourage it.

    It's not just the school systems that frown upon non-standard answers, it's the majority of society. In many situations, propose an idea even slightly outside of the predominant group-think, and watch how many folks start to get offended/shoot it down without thought.

    For example - I had a boss write a simple VB app that cut the time needed for his subordinates to do a specific task by at least 50% every time, sometimes as much as 80%, while improving the quality of the output. His boss shot it down and prohibited its use because my boss wasn't assigned to write software, and they had paid someone else to write less-effective software that used more bandwidth and provided a lower quality output.

    In another case, we had a door clearance problem in a customer area due to carpet installation. Funding for a new door wasn't forthcoming, so a couple of us on the late shift lowered the false floor just enough to regain clearance. We didn't think much of it, since it solved the problem without needing any funding. However, that solution got a lot more attention (both negative and positive) than we expected. All of the regular visitors noticed. Some folks thought it was a great idea. Those responsible for the building bristled at the idea of a non-standard solution when we suggested it (after the fact, and played it off as a joke when we saw their response), so we had to tell them we bought a new door out of our own funds. (I guess spending hundreds of dollars on a new door is more acceptable than a few radians of rotation of a few large bolts in their eyes.)

    Despite all of the feel-good seminars, I believe people in general still aren't accepting of ideas outside of their limited fields-of-view. If I recall correctly, in Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to "The nail that sticks up is hammered down." Although U.S, citizens like to say that the saying does not apply to them, and individuality is encouraged, I think that the saying is applicable in many U.S. situations as well.

    I hope that most reading this work for those without such a limited field of view. It is so much more enjoyable to go to work with bosses that encourage thinking.

  58. Re:How to not be seen at a distance, low-tech styl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail at reading.

  59. Re:Not just schools, but everywhere by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

    I would agree that group-think is a defining characteristic of pretty much all human cultures , but as someone who has taught in Japan I can say that the US is a land of insane non-conformists compared to the Japanese. My favorite example: Sacred Assumption 1) all people in Japanese schools are Japanese (this isn't actually true, and there are in fact ethnic Koreans, Ainu, Okinawans and *gasp* people with a foreign parent, but don't mention that.) Sacred Assumption 2) All Japanese people have straight, black hair. (This isn't even true for people who are 'completely Japanese'.) Thus the result: At the high school where I taught any students with even sightly wavy or brown hair had to dye/straighten it, in the interests of a 'harmonic school environment' as one teacher put it. "The nail that sticks up is hammered down." indeed.

    --
    snig