Slashdot Mirror


Making a Liquid Invisibility Cloak

Researchers at Fudan University in Shanghai, China are proposing a method which could lead to the first soft, tunable metamaterial, the key ingredient in building an invisibility device. "The fluid proposed by Ji-Ping Huang of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, and colleagues, contains magnetite balls 10 nanometers in diameter, coated with a 5-nanometer-thick layer of silver, possibly with polymer chains attached to keep them from clumping. In the absence of a magnetic field, such nanoparticles would simply float around in the water, but if a field were introduced, the particles would self-assemble into chains whose lengths depend on the strength of the field, and which can also attract one another to form thicker columns. The chains and columns would lie along the direction of the magnetic field. If they were oriented vertically in a pool of water, light striking the surface would refract negatively – bent in way that no natural material can manage."

66 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Liquid Invisibility Cloak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's been a while but isn't that a shot of Bacardi 151 mixed into a glass of ice tea garnished with a lime?

    1. Re:Liquid Invisibility Cloak? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          No, no, that's the power of invincibility. But can I get that without the tea or lime. I don't need any of that girlie crap thinning out my liquor.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Liquid Invisibility Cloak? by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I want to be invisible, I walk into a singles bar full of women and announce that I'm available. Suddenly no one can see me.

    3. Re:Liquid Invisibility Cloak? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          [sound of crickets]

          Did someone say something?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. Re:Let's get this over with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh ho ho ho ho!

    I didn't see that one coming.

    Did that joke have an invisibility cloak too?

  3. Future Commercial Success Guaranteed by postmortem · · Score: 1

    Much cheaper way to hide weight than liposuction/gastric bypass and available in Walmart..

  4. Re:Let's get this over with... by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

    I was gonna go with the more obscure Way of the Shadows and say it sounds like they are making a ka'kari

  5. What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't understand all these invisibility cloak stories on Slashdot over the years. Is it rooted in some fantasy about being invisible in the girl's locker room?

    1. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um no you are a sick mind... It is for the Woman's locker room.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your average slashdot reader is:

      • A Harry Potter fan, and sees how useful an invisibility cloak can be in certain situations.
      • A star trek fan
      • An aspiring Klingon, knows the language, can't make surprise attacks without a cloak shield
      • A Linux user
      • A user of whole-drive disk encryption
      • Has a UPS, lots of batteries, or other form of backup power
      • In need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)
    3. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by happy_place · · Score: 1

      So WRONG! No. For slashdotters, it would be for scientific research into the daily life of the female species.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    4. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bah. thats just security through obscurity.

    5. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      "In need of a cloaking device, for that one last piece of the security puzzle (keeping the machine safe from physical hackers)"

      No! No! that would be security by obscurity!

    6. Re:What is so great about the invisibility cloak? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Slightly better than obscurity... being invisible is a little different from being obscure :)

      Either way, invisibility is all you need to prevent girlfriend from walking in and seeing you watching porn.

      Oh wait... slashdot.... uh... neighbors?

      Anyways, a physical attacker needs to be able to see your machine before they can steal it.

      If they can't see where it's located, they won't be able to get in and grab it before the burglar suppression system goes off and knocks them out.

      They won't be able to tell whether you moved it to your underground vault or not, since it'll be invisible from your window, either way

  6. Countermeasure by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can see through them with beer goggles.

  7. Just in time... by sznupi · · Score: 1

    ...for the era of Chinese domination.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  8. Re:anonymous coward by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        We already have those. I change channels on TV with them every night. And, be damned if you're going to take my magic stick away from me. Taking it away is like taking food from an angry dog. I don't care if you don't want to watch the Mystery Science Theater marathon, *I* have the magic stick!

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  9. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Funny

    Similarly, a hunk of silicon with strange electrical properties isn't a computer. And yet, the former is very useful if you want to build the latter.

    Do you, like, just not understand how science works?

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  10. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by homey1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

    an SEP field is better anyway

  11. Isn't this overkill? by madbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, Aquaman is enough of a badass already, isn't he?

    1. Re:Isn't this overkill? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I mean, Aquaman is enough of a badass already, isn't he?

      Monarch, super-strength, harpoon, magic water control, now invisibility. These things are _necessary_ to combat the Superfriends Aquaman.

    2. Re:Isn't this overkill? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned about invisible sharks with lasers on their heads.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  12. Only works from one perspective? by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can understand how they could use these materials (theoretically anyway) to make Julian Beever-style illusions (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm). But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact opposite side of the cloak, doesn't it? Otherwise the effect is likely to be like a Beever painting, viewable from only one precise viewpoint.

    -------

    Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road

    1. Re:Only works from one perspective? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon
      > striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact
      > opposite side of the cloak, doesn't it?

      And exactly that is theoretically possible with metamaterials. In any case, a cloak could be useful even if it only works over perhaps 120 degrees.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Only works from one perspective? by theIsovist · · Score: 2, Informative

      you're missing the point. this is more of a lens. It redirects light around the object. now, how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen, but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object. I'm not sure how this would look in real life, but given a mathmatically perfect lens, the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side. In that case, as far as our sense of sight is concerned, the object would not exist

    3. Re:Only works from one perspective? by mea37 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And as far as it's sense of sight is concerned, the rest of the world would not exist.

      Douglas Adams had a jump on this one... "a beast so stupid it believed that if you cannot see it, it cannot see you"

    4. Re:Only works from one perspective? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      They are talking about a material that has a negative refractive index when placed under a magnetic field. If it has a negative refractive index for all wavelengths of visible light, then it IS an invisibility cloak. They aren't talking about transmitting light through the object, as you seem to think, but rather bending light AROUND it, which is possible and does work (at certain wavelengths).

    5. Re:Only works from one perspective? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      And as far as it's sense of sight is concerned, the rest of the world would not exist.

      Ever heard of view-holes? We only need about a quarter-inch diameter hole to get a nearly 180 degree field of view. Cameras can do the exact same thing, often times with less.

      I don't know if you know this, but it's a lot harder to see a little dot a quarter-inch in diameter floating in space than it is to see a 6' tall person or a 10' by 15' tank, or whatever the hell ends up getting cloaked.

      Taking care of visibility out is downright EASY. You simply need a very small (in size) light collector just outside the effect of the light bender.

      Duh.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    6. Re:Only works from one perspective? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "(see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm)."

      Wow. Now that is invisible. A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it is cool, but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an "l" at the end of it. (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html , not .htm ).

      Disclaimer: I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers. Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:Only works from one perspective? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html

      I just can't see it.. but then maybe because I've only got one eye.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    8. Re:Only works from one perspective? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      I don't care what you say, if you're in bed under your blanket and can't see any boogie monsters, that is the safe zone, by monster law.

      OK, commence with the sexual innuendo jokes.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    9. Re:Only works from one perspective? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Glad to hear your advanced research is going so well. So you'll be able to move out of your mom's basement soon?

  13. Sorry for the lack of photos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We poured the material in a jar so that you could see the effects, but unfortunately we now seem to have misplaced it. We'll update as soon as we found it!

  14. negative index != invisibility by stevenj · · Score: 5, Informative

    All metamaterials are not created equal. A metamaterial is an electromagnetic medium created by a composite of tiny (very subwavelength) constituent structures, put together in such away that longer wavelengths see an "average" material with properties very different from those of the constituents. Usually, the goal is to use resonant effects in the microscopic constituents to make a material that is effectively very different from naturally occuring EM media. But this can be done for many different purposes.

    A negative-refractive metamaterial is designed to have an effective "negative" index of refraction, which makes Snell's law (refraction) bend backwards, and can potentially be used for flat-lens near-field imaging, subwavelength imaging (again only in the near field), etcetera. The main practical difficulty here is that the most interesting applications of negative-index materials are in the visible or infrared regime, but negative-index metamaterials rely on metallic constitutents and metals become very lossy at those wavelengths.

    Recent "invisibility" cloak proposals are based on the observation that there is a one-to-one mapping between transforming space to "curve around" the object being cloaked and keeping space the same and transforming the materials. So, if you can make materials with certain properties, they could effectively cloak an object by causing all the light rays to curve around the object just as if space were curved. Although this is mathematically quite beautiful, there are many practical obstacles to making this a reality. The proposal is to make the required materials via metamaterials, but these are NOT negative-index metamaterials. The required materials theoretically tend to require some singularities (points where the index blows up or vanishes), and trying to approximate that in practice inevitably involves losses which spoil the cloaking. In general, the bigger the object to be cloaked compared to the wavelength, the smaller the losses have to be, and the narrower the bandwidth is going to be. When you work out the numbers, you see that this is why all the experimental demonstrations of cloaking have only "cloaked" (reduced the scattering crosssection, but not to zero) objects that were a wavelength or two in diameter. Cloaking macroscopic objects at visible wavelengths is a fantasy because the material requirements are insane. The only remotely practical prospects seem to be cloaking objects on the ground (which makes things technically easier because the coordinate transformations are nonsingular) to long-wavelength radiation, e.g. cloaking something against radio waves.

    --
    If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
    1. Re:negative index != invisibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      All that interesting information, and yet no car analogy. C-

    2. Re:negative index != invisibility by Dalambertian · · Score: 1

      Finally a use for transparent ferro-fluids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4 ? I wish TFA had a better description of how this is supposed to work, so I will have to resort to some serious hand-waving: It sounds like they are trying to make field-aligned wave guides. This would be similar to the way our magnetosphere moves plasma from the night side to the day side by moving around the Earth's magnetic field, a process that happens whenever the magnetic field of the solar wind points south. The analogy can only be taken so far, but for a plasma the magnetic field is all you need in order to confine the average particle motion to surfaces of equal field line length (assuming no external electric field). To do this for photons, you would need the conducting silver layer to confine the light to parallel surfaces of the magnetic field. If all this were true then I say this is f'n brilliant. If not, well it's plausible enough to make for good science fiction.

  15. Ministry of Magic needs to know. by itsenrique · · Score: 1

    someone get this news to harry potter and friends, unicorn tears are probably more rare than silver.

  16. Re:Let's get this over with... by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently you saw right through that one.

  17. It's all about Ninja's, DUH! by socz · · Score: 1

    They gave up on trying to make ninja's of their own (since they can only make cheap imitation knockoff's) so they just said forget the ninja part! Let's just make all of our forces invisible!

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    1. Re:It's all about Ninja's, DUH! by socz · · Score: 1

      haha yeah sometimes I get confused sorry! When I hit submit I was like DOH#!@^#!@*

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  18. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Similarly, a hunk of silicon with strange electrical properties isn't a computer. And yet, the former is very useful if you want to build the latter.

    Do you, like, just not understand how science works?

    My ire was directed at the reporting, not the discovery or researchers (who I wish good luck).

    Calling this discovery "Making a liquid invisibility cloak" is like calling the discovery of a new, slightly higher temperature superconductor "Making warp-capable flying cars".

    Maybe sensational reporting of just about everything (eg the LHC) is causing the public's lack of affinity for science. All they see is hundreds of 'broken promises' made by the media about fantastic whizz-bang technologies that the research they are reporting on isn't even working towards.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  19. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's impossible to actually create an SEP field, because of course the ideas, research and manufacture are all SEP !

  20. Star Wars by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

    "Luke Raised his Macroculars to the sky and watched the Rebel ship be destroyed by the Imperial Star Destroyer"

    To me this sounds suspicously like a Oil Filled Variable Focus Lens with higher magnification and image stabilization.

    The big question though is this something new?

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:Star Wars by jfengel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The big question though is this something new?

      Well, besides not being fictional, the big idea is that the thing (potentially) has a negative index of refraction, something not even the fictional lenses do.

      Negative refraction is useful in making invisibility shields, by directing light completely around object surrounded by it.

      This doesn't go nearly that far; it's a step towards a new way of constructing metamaterials with negative indexes. That's important; the "invisibility" stuff is just press-release science because invisibility is far more interesting than magnetically-controlled metamaterials.

  21. Invisibility? by electricbern · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  22. Re:anonymous coward by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need some disambiguation, though. My "magic stick" seems to be very different than your "magic stick". Yours is likely black or silver; mine varies from light tan/pink to purplish. I'm sure there are other differences as well.

    As a matter of fact, my "magic stick" is superior to yours, since I can cede control of it to my wife and still watch MST3K marathons.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  23. Re:Space Cloak! by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An internal power source must obey the laws of thermodynamics and thus would cause the craft as a whole to be an infrared emitter. We are very good at detecting infrared light which would defeat most cloaking devices including this one.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  24. This is the correct url by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    Very cool link, there was just a typo in your url.

    The correct url is http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html

  25. Not to stomp on ur parade.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually no, just the fact of being invisible. In order to be invisible you have to refract all the light that would normally hit the object being invisible, meaning it would be in absolute dark. You could be invisible in the girls (or guys for the /.ers so persueded) shower room, but you couldn't see a blasted thing. Any lighted object within the cloak could also, possibly, leak out giving away your concealment. So even IF (a big if) the use of, say, an infrared camera, would allow you to see through the cloak, the use of it would give you away as the light from the screen/goggles could give you away. Not to mention you would have to use some containment of the matrix supporting the nano-particles (the fluid). A magnetic field strong enough to suspend water (i'm not even sure if there is such) would likely throw off the magnetic particles, so in turn you would need to have some sort of containment beyond the aqueous sphere. Think fishbowl. The container (fishbowl) in turn, would be visible being outside the sphere of invisibility. So you would see this great 'empty' spherical container just sitting there. Which, logic denotes, means the rat got out, elliciting chaos and panic in said locker room.

    This is just one of the great physics problems that everyone has to come up with an 'answer' to, and get their jollies just from doing that. If you wanna be invisible in the girls shower room the best bet is still a very small drill and a pinhole camera, as any A/V geek knows all too well.

  26. It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by mrnick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would work "optically" if the Invisibility Cloak was made out of vegetable oil and you were made of Pyrex...

    Vegetable oil and Pyrex has the same refractive index...

    * put a small Pyrex jar into a larger one and then fill the smaller (inner) jar with vegetable oil and once it's full continue to fill the larger one with the overflow. The smaller (inner) jar will become invisible, to the naked eye.

    On a more serious note this seems to be a big problem with all invisibility cloaks, of non supernatural origin (calm down HP fans), and that is they are all based upon modifying materials refractive index and thus bending the light around the object you want to hide.

    That all sounds good but if you could do this to hide an object; If that object were a person since light doesn't hit them, or their eyes, not only would they be invisible but they would also be blind. I think most people asking Santa for a invisibility cloak would like to actually see what's in the girls locker room right?

    A perfect invisibility cloak would change the person wearing it, along with the cloak, to a refractive index of air but again, they would be perfectly blinded by the process. In the case of RI = air then the light would go straight through them, included their eyes. So you either bend the light or have it go through your eyes and either way your in the dark.

    I guess you could hide everything but your pupils, but in my book you wouldn't be invisible then, floating eyeball freak!

    LOL

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
    1. Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by Judinous · · Score: 1

      One word: echolocation.

    2. Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why a proper invisibility cloak must be computer controlled with millions of dots of resolution interspersed with millions of cameras. The idea is that, like a chameleon, you change to look like your background. With you inside, the cameras can also give you a view of your surroundings.

      And yes, it would still give off a heat signature, but most people aren't walking around with night vision goggles all the time.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by smaddox · · Score: 1

      An invisibility cloak, as in the sort used by harry potter, is not possible with a passive device. This is fairly obvious since you can't see light and yet be transparent to it at the same time.

      However, there is no theoretical limit if the device is active. A simple example would be a flat panel display with a camera on the back. If you track the position of the observer, you can create a very convincing "invisibility" effect.

      More interestingly, it may one day be possible to use active metamaterials to produce a similar effect. However, such a device would not be used for cloaking people, but rather for cloaking planes to Radar (for example).

    4. Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Google up "pinhole camera" or "camera obscura" and you will see that we've had the technology to solve that part of the problem for close to a thousand years.

    5. Re:It WOULD work IF (Do that and you'll go BLIND) by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Why mod this funny? It's insightful!

      Granted, as soon as you poke a camera out of the field it isn't 100% invisible, it's only 99.99% (or more) invisible. Still that's pretty damn good, do you know how hard it would be to notice a tiny dot floating around in space?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  27. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

    So sweet! Where can I get one of these new warp-capable cars??

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  28. "Makers of first invisibility cloak sued... by Tybalt_Capulet · · Score: 1

    by the joint companies Scholastic Books and Warner Brothers Films due to copyright infringement over the J.K. Rowling works Harry Potter."

    --
    Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
  29. Re:Let's get this over with... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    its 6:00am, I get up to go to the bathroom, I casually sit down while trying to wake up. WHO LEFT THE INVISIBILITY CLOAK ON THE TOILET!!!

  30. lasers by lq_x_pl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone know how this material responds to lasers? If it doesn't break, it might be a useful way of preventing resources on the ground from being "painted" by a laser (and subsequently bombed).

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  31. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by kdemetter · · Score: 1

    Humans are dreamers above anything.

    A good thing too , otherwise there wouldn't be any inventions.
    The problem is , just an idea isn't good enough : you need a plan to put it into practice , and you need money in order to bring it into a workable product.

    That means you have to find investors, and 'Liquid Invisibility Cloak' sells better than 'Theoretical material with exotic optical effect' .

  32. Battle of New Orleans by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    Ol' Hick'ry said "You kin take 'em by surprise,
    If you just fire yer musket at the pupils of their eyes"

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  33. Re:Space Cloak! by earlymon · · Score: 1

    An internal power source must obey the laws of thermodynamics and thus would cause the craft as a whole to be an infrared emitter.

    Now you're just being silly.

    As IR is still light, put a second cloak inside the first cloak, but this time FACING the satellite, so the satellite can't see the earth either.

    Now - that surely sounds like fractured logic - until you add a third cloak so the earth can't see that the satellite's not seeing the earth.

    Wait - can you tell it's beer-thirty on Friday???

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  34. Re:Theoretical material with exotic optical effect by Sanat · · Score: 1

    It's sitting right in front of you, but it's covered with an invisibility cloak.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  35. Re:anonymous coward by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    I think I understand your confusion. But it's not exactly appropriate to call Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer), a "magic stick". That's like calling a lightning bolt sent from high above Mount Olympus by Zeus just a "pretty light".

        Magic stick works the electronics.

        Mjollnir bangs your wife. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  36. chinese stealth armour? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    or just a stealth boy?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  37. Vaporware? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

    So when does this turn into vaporware...?

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.