Slashdot Mirror


Fatal Flaw Discovered In Invisibility Cloaks

KentuckyFC writes "Carpet cloaks took the world by storm last year because they were the first devices to hide objects at optical frequencies. The idea is that a thin layer of dielectric material placed on a surface can make light look as if it is reflecting off the original surface. In other words, the layer is invisible and anything embedded within it is invisible too. This trick is like hiding something under a carpet, hence the name. Carpet cloaks are relatively easy to make because the dielectric material does not need to be specially constructed to steer light in special ways; physicists call this an isotropic material. Now a group at MIT has shown that isotropic carpet cloaks have a fatal flaw. When viewed at an angle, the carpets don't hide objects at all. Instead, they simply shift their position by about the same distance as they are high. So when viewed from an angle of 45 degrees, an object 0.2 units high is shifted to one side by a distance of 0.15 units, says the team. That's a serious limitation for carpet cloaks."

8 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Military Applications by UziBeatle · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's why I say listen to Ripley you dolts. (situational variance)

      As she said, "Just nuke the site from orbit, just to be sure."

      Problem furking solved. Move along now, nothing to see here SOON.

      Use the maximum force possible to cover up errors.

    --
    Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
  2. Pictures by brianleb321 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I demand more pictures of invisibility cloaks in articles about invisibility cloaks. Theory be damned.

    --
    Please stop pluralizing words with an apostrophe. That is not what it is there for.
  3. Re:The fatal flaw is: by ryantmer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am amused at the correlation between your comment and your sig. Well done, sir.

    --
    Whatever it is, it's notablog.
  4. Cheer up by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, cheer up. It might still mean that the Romulan's weapons hit some nearby console when they think they're targeting the warp core. Of course, it would be better if they didn't hit anything at all, but I'm affraid that the law that for each hit a console must explode in a shower of sparks and send some ensign flying across the room is more immutable than the laws of refraction ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  5. Re:The fatal flaw is: by uglyduckling · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nah, that can easily be defeated by a tachyon burst, particularly if you invert the polarity of the shield harmonics.

  6. Re:I guess? by Weedhopper · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean in real life, as opposed to internet dick waving arguments? That depends.

    Depends on the size and type of warhead, the geology of the ground, the angle of the impact of the missile and the alignment of the tank relative to the strike.

    A "standard" 1000lbs conventional cruise missile warhead is a fragmentation/blast effect weapon. Against a 60-ton MBT, anything more than a couple meters away will have minimal effects on the crew, assuming they're buttoned up. Shaken and dinged up, maybe.

    OTOH, the tank itself may have been damaged and/or lost mobility but it's a far cry from having what's essentially a 1000 lbs land directly on the vehicle, in which case the tank is most assuredly dead and the crew does not survive.

    In terms of the very basic science, what about the explosion is the dangerous bit? Fragmentation and the pressure wave, plus possible secondary fragmentation if you're inside a vehicle. Tank armor is designed to protect against these threats, which is why hardware designed to kill tanks are specialized to either penetrate armor or strike where there is next to no armor (the top).

    Directly ON the tank, game's over. Next to the tank, now you're playing against the tank's strength, which is why I responded to badboy_2002 and interval1066 the way I did. A tank sittng right next to where the cruise missile hit is decidedly NOT about the same thing as a direct hit.

  7. Re:The fatal flaw is: by arfonrg · · Score: 2, Informative

    -1 You didn't get tachyon ANYWHERE in there....

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  8. Re:I guess? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, it's about the size of the missile. The warhead is always listed in pounds but the potential is always listed in kinetic energy.

    For example, the BrahMos has 32 times the kinetic energy of the Tomahawk, despite having a warhead 3/5 the size. It is by far much more destructive than our Tomahawk because of its higher mass and higher velocity capability.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.