Slashdot Mirror


A Step Toward an Invisibility Cloak

Technology Review has a writeup on the latest advance in the lab towards an invisibility cloak made of metamaterials, described this week in Science. We've been following this technology since the beginning. The breakthrough is software that lets researchers design materials that are both low-loss and wideband. "The cloak that the researchers built works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz — a swath as broad as the visible spectrum. No one has yet made a cloaking device that works in the visible spectrum, and those metamaterials that have been fabricated tend to work only with narrow bands of light. But a cloak that made an object invisible to light of only one color would not be of much use. Similarly, a cloaking device can't afford to be lossy: if it lets just a little bit of light reflect off the object it's supposed to cloak, it's no longer effective. The cloak that Smith built is very low loss, successfully rerouting almost all the light that hits it."

7 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. FUUUU by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Direct link please!
    http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21971/?a=f

    Garbage javascript broke for me and the page didn't get past a white page.

  2. wavelength = length by Doviende · · Score: 5, Informative

    "works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz"

    frequency is in hertz.
    wavelength is a length, so it will be in meters or feet or inches or volkswagen bugs.

    that is all. </pedantic>

    --
    "The value of a man resides in what he gives,
    and not in what he is capable of receiving."
    --Albert Einstein
  3. The sentence above is wrong by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    1-18 ghz is way way broader than a very thin swat of visible light. Just looking at the spectra should show it. Mod me actually uninformative or overrater.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  4. Re:One color invisibility certainly could be of us by Proteus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bah, "ain't" is a perfectly valid contraction for "am not", and has been since at least 1706. (See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ain't&searchmode=none) Proscriptionists object to it largely because it's often used for "is not", or "are not", which was seen as somehow "perverting" the English language.

    In fact, though, "ain't" has been used that way since at least the 19th century.

    About the worst that you can say of "ain't" is that it's inappropriate for a formal register, but so are most contractions.

    Cheers,
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Pedant

    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  5. Re:Why not let a bit through? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except that full concealment or invisibility only grants you 50% miss chance and you can't gain more than that.

    Learn the rules!

  6. 18 GHZ is NOT the width of the visible specturm by jschimpf · · Score: 5, Informative
    Visible light ~5000 - 7000 Angstroms (1X10-9 m)

    7000 -> f = lambda/c -> 4.28275E+14

    5000 -> f = lambda/c -> 5.99585E+14

    Difference -> 1.713E+14 Hz -> 1.713E5 GHZ

    About 171,000 GHZ not 17

  7. Re:Why not let a bit through? by bar-agent · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you who have wondered where the "robe and wizard hat" thing came from:

    http://bash.org/?104383

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]