Slashdot Mirror


Earthquake Invisibility Cloak

BuzzSkyline writes "The same folks who brought us the tsunami invisibility cloak last year have now come up with an earthquake invisibility cloak. They show that a platform made of just the right configuration of elastic rings could make a structure invisible to earthquakes by effectively steering a quake around the structure. It doesn't work well for compression waves, but the researchers claim it could hide buildings from the slower-moving, more destructive shear earthquake waves. The research is due to be published soon in the journal Physical Review Letters."

26 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Marketing vs Engineering by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're in marketing you call it an invisibility cloak. If you're an engineer you call it a tuned resonator and ask yourself why oh why you didn't go to medical school.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Marketing vs Engineering by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An informal survey done my one of my coworkers at a party with his fiance's family and coworkers (a group largely composed of doctors and lawyers -- she's doing her residency) found that only 25% of the doctors would do it again (given the costs and stresses involved); many indicated they'd have stayed in medicine, but have gone for a cheaper job title (such as FNP). For the lawyers, the would-do-it-again ratio was closer to 50%.

      I think we engineers have it good.

    2. Re:Marketing vs Engineering by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we engineers have it good.

      Many doctors and lawyers go into the field for the money. That's not really true of the hard science/engineer types. So most engineers would do it again because they actually want to spend their time engineering, and enjoy it.

      That's true of a lot of doctors too...but a lot of them just picked their career by the expected income. How many engineers or mathematicians or computing scientists or physicists etc chose the career for the paycheque*. Sure we can get paid well, but lets face it... its not the license to print money being a lawyer or doctor can be.

      (*Other than the brief rash of worthless eng. and comp.sci. grads chasing the .com bubble)

    3. Re:Marketing vs Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many doctors and lawyers go into the field for the money.

      And doctors going into it for the money is one of the big reasons why healthcare is so broken in America. Doctors aren't doing it in order to help people (though it is a secondary motive for some). Rather, they're mainly doing it to enrich themselves. Is it any surprise that healthcare is so expensive?

    4. Re:Marketing vs Engineering by martas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if there is such a difference of incentives between US doctors and, say, Canadian doctors, then i find it hard to believe that that is the root cause of the problem. rather, i think it's probably much more of a consequence.

    5. Re:Marketing vs Engineering by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (now spends another 20 minutes with that patient covering what the real issues were, and is now 15 minutes "behind" which physicians *hate*, but they have no control over)

      I hate to break it to you, but that is par for the course in ANY profession where you need to meet with other people for any reason whatsoever.

      Doctor. Plumber. Network Admin. Baby Sitter.

      I don't book 16 15 minute appointments in a 4 hour afternoon, because there is no way in hell I'd ever get through them all. 8-10 would be pushing it.

      If they want to address this, do what everyone else does: wake up to reality and stop over booking yourself. Yeah, you'll make less money if you can't book 32 patients in a day anymore. So what?

      And on that note, why do I have to take half a day off work, so I can come in and meet with a doctor for 7 minutes (after waiting 40+) who has nothing important to tell me and barely looks at me. Fuck, unless they need to poke or prod or sample something I have better things to do than to lose half a day of work to see them. -- you want to tell me my test came back fine, or that I need to book another blood sample at some lab... pick up the phone tell me.

  2. Don't forget the bad analogies! by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Guenneau said that it's possible to shield an object, even a building, so that an incoming earthquake wave behaves as if the object weren't there. The building in the path of the wave is like a rock in a fast-flowing river, he said.

    Having seen my share of rivers, I can pretty much say that the water pattern DOES change when it hits a rock.

    And that the rock is more solid than the water.

    With an earthquake, isn't the building less solid than than Earth?

    "It's the same picture, the wave pattern, as for a water wave that is propagating in a river, and it's bent smoothly around the rock and will be reconstructed around the rock." The object, or building, is "invisible" to the mechanical waves.

    And because it is done "smoothly", the top of the rock will never have water splashed upon it.

    Maybe their technology does work, but their analogies do not.

    1. Re:Don't forget the bad analogies! by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > With an earthquake, isn't the building less solid than than Earth?

      Solidity isn't necessarily good protection against an earthquake. A hunk of granite bedrock a mile thick is a fairly solid thing, but a medium-grade earthquake will crack it without breaking a sweat. The atmosphere, on the other hand, is not generally considered to be solid, but it's difficult to imagine an earthquake powerful enough to damage it.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:Don't forget the bad analogies! by Bandman · · Score: 3, Informative

      > With an earthquake, isn't the building less solid than than Earth?

      IANASiesmologist (but I play one on TV (ok, I can't back that up))

      Actually, sometimes it isn't. Depending on the properties of the quake (strength, depth, etc), the ground itself (particularly soil) acts a lot like a liquid. A "slab" house might float while a bedrock based building may have major structural issues due to compression of the major structural elements. This is one of the big reasons that building in earthquake zones have "floating" structural members. They need to be able to "move" independently, relative to the ground, because the ground doesn't move uniformly. One particularly inventive solution stored inertia in a giant multi-ton sphere suspended in the top of a skyscraper. This reduced lateral movement while maintaining flexibility of the structure.

  3. Well thats useless. by wjh31 · · Score: 3, Funny

    we have enough trouble predicting when they will come as it is, if you make them invisible we wont stand a chance.

  4. Reality decloaking off the starboard bow. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not an invisibility cloak. A nearby building could still fall on the cloaked one, with the usual result. Also, it's not a cloak, as in a piece of fabric. Last, anything can be made resistant to earthquakes, but to make it earthquake-proof is something only an arrogant designer or a project manager would say. Every design component can fail, and most catastrophic engineering failures are rooted in miscalculation or failing to test the model with a particular cascade of failures.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Reality decloaking off the starboard bow. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Live in the big flat mid-west plains, it might be boring, but it is safe.

            (Taps Cassini2 on the shoulder and points to the huge tornado) "Is anywhere safe?"

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Reality decloaking off the starboard bow. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Funny

      Taps Cassini2 on the shoulder and points to the huge tornado "Is anywhere safe?"

      Cassini: Ah, I'm sorry, but I'm over 746 million miles away right now. Try asking a satellite a bit closer.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Will it work for everyone? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What will happen when all buildings in a certain area will be "cloaked" to earthquakes?
    Will mechanical waves skip the entire area?
    What if all buildings in a certain large area will be made that way?
    I fear that the "solution" is good only when a few of them are made that way. The other ones will need to collapse.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Will it work for everyone? by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It should be perfectly safe to cloak all buildings. Buildings only absorb a tiny fraction of the shock of an earthquake; you don't need to have something man-made fall over just to keep the waves from going further. Now if you somehow made huge chunks of land cloaked to earthquakes, I would agree that the shaking may have to come out somewhere. But anyway at that point you're talking about making an isolated chunk of land whose borders crunch and stretch a lot more than everything else -- people wouldn't go for that. And I don't see how you'd do it anyway, you can't just seismically isolate a chunk of land.

    2. Re:Will it work for everyone? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would there potentially be constructive interference though? That could make it worse for neighbors.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  6. EARTH QUAKE! by jack2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But is it effective versus the Juggernaut?

  7. Flying by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this render you invincible to ground pokemon, that is unless they use non-ground attacks?

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  8. Re:Brilliant by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

    You do realize that the point of this is to build it into all new buildings, right?

    Additionally it's unlikely that the amount of extra energy from a few buildings would have a noticeable effect in the other buildings. Of course we can't violate the laws of physics, but when you're talking about that much energy and when most buildings are built to sustain much larger earthquakes than what's realistically going to happen it isn't worth worrying a whole lot about.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Myth of doctors as "high paid" by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The illusion that medicine is well-compensated for the effort is just that -- an illusion.

    Relative to what, exactly?

    http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm

    There isn't an entry on that list below six figures. And I'd say the average is easily 250k plus.

    An electrical engineer "1" in the 90th percentile (ie making more than 90% of his peers), according to salary.com makes 67k. Unless he gets promoted to management, (and does less engineering and more managing) he's going to have a very tough time cracking 6 figs.

    A nuclear physicist, cracks six figures. But even his 90th percentile at 126k doesn't quite reach the expected STARTING wage of "Pediatrics - Adolescents" - 130k, probably the lowest number on that list.

  11. Re:Myth of doctors as "high paid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Couple of things to point out here...

    A "starting" physician is 6 years behind a starting electrical engineer. 4 years of med school + 2 years of residency (at a minimum!) and they have a tremendous amount more debt for those additional years of schooling. Even at that point they are considered to have very little experience.

    In addition try looking at malpractice insurance for physicians, or something called "tail insurance", ie if you leave the practice and 10 years down the road someone you treated decides to sue you the tail insurance takes care of that, but it means you're paying insurance against the chance of a lawsuit forever basically, even if you leave medicine.

    Not to mention the fact that if differences were that significant in salary and the work was actually the same amount of effort or easier I have absolutely no doubt that we would see more physicians but instead of that we're actually seeing *fewer* physicians. I've often heard from physicians that anyone could do it, there's nothing special about them, just a matter of lots and lots of hard work. Most physicians I know actually recommend to their children that they *not* go in to medicine. How's that for an indication of how the field is doing?

  12. Re:Brilliant by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not the sheer magnitude of an earthquake that actually determines damage. Damage should be much more correlated with how much of the energy gets dissipated into a building or other structure.

    Try looking at it like this: If you are standing out in a field when an earthquake hits, you personally may be the only thing on top of the ground, that could absorb any energy from that part of a wave passing through the whole area. Just you. Now if you are on the bottom floor of a big concrete parking garage, that whole garage and all the cars in it could absorb various parts of the energy, so if energy really determines the damage, you are safer on the bottommost floor of that garage than out in the open. Doesn't seem at all likely, does it?

            Energy in physics is sometimes defined as the ability to do work. A lot of energy means a lot of work can happen, not that it invariably happens where you might expect, or even happens at all. (and yes, knocking down a tall building counts as work for most definitions in physics, even if gravity does most of the job once you get it good and started).

            So, we have a structure which doesn't couple strongly to the energy of a quake wave. You can say it deflects the wave, or channels it, or lots of other verbal descriptions, but the point is, not a lot of the energy of the wave passes into the building. That energy could go on to get absorbed by another building, but alternately it could keep on going until it dissipates in the relatively empty countryside many miles from the city. Not absorbing a lot of the locally available energy doesn't mean the energy has been deflected to target some other building, or somehow focused. It also doesn't necessarily mean the energy has changed overall direction, or that you have created more turbulence in the earthquake waves, or lots of other things that could possibly happen but maybe really won't. To see if any of them are really probable, you have to do math, not reason from a verbal model that is already just an approximation.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  13. Now they can't see me! by Kenshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good thing we invented the earthquake invisibility cloak! Now the earthquakes won't be able to see me!

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  14. Wind Cloak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAP but the basic idea I got from the design of the "Tsunami Cloak" was that there was simply a path of less resistance along the concentric corridors than along the radial ones, so that the wave tended to flow around the center rather than through it. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. Sometime later I was wondering if the same principal could be used to redirect strong winds around a vulnerable structure. I was thing along the lines of metal posts rather than concrete pillars, but then I started considering the "green" factor and wondered if a precisely planted grove of trees would have the desired effect. My assumption of course is that since air and water are both fluid, then they would have similar waves that can be manipulated, but since I'm also not a meteorologist, I could be wrong.

    What do you think, would it be possible?

  15. Re:Myth of doctors as "high paid" by indiechild · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The intake of doctors into med school is tightly controlled. They are not going to start raising their intake, oh, just because the market wants it. How else could they command the high salaries that they do?