An Invisibility Cloak

Maybe one day there will be an invisibility cloak, although mainly for stationary objects.

Controlling and bending light around an object so it appears invisible to the naked eye is the theory behind fictional invisibility cloaks. It may seem easy in Hollywood movies, but is hard to create in real life because no material in nature has the properties necessary to bend light in such a way. Scientists have managed to create artificial nanostructures that can do the job, called metamaterials. But the challenge has been making enough of the material to turn science fiction into a practical reality.

[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”http://today.ucf.edu/nanotech-leads-break-stealth-technology/”]
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
x
x
April 15, 2014 7:23 pm

Invisibility Cloak?

BTW NSFW (but not that bad, not as colorful as one of RT’s post)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2mXrndt1ZI

I know it is a bit far fetched as the MAC never jams…………. :)

Observer
Observer
April 15, 2014 8:26 pm

x, you want far fetched? Then you should consider the logic of someone weighing 30 (13?) tons sitting in the front seat of even a truck. :)

x
x
April 15, 2014 8:37 pm

@ Observer

I thought Japanese tons were like American gallons and Swedish feet, a bit of a short measure. :)

Observer
Observer
April 15, 2014 8:41 pm

A bit?

And I suppose the ocean is slightly damp. :lol:

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
April 15, 2014 8:45 pm

X, my posts are paragons of humility and meekness, as are the female soulmates I sought out. Can’t think what you are reading into them. ;)

I always found terrain screening to be more effective than invisibility cloaks. Cheaper anyway, and not requiring batteries.

Observer
Observer
April 15, 2014 9:02 pm

Pity you can’t have a mobile hill RT. :)

Kent
Kent
April 16, 2014 12:09 pm

Concealment is good. Cover is bulletproof.

a
a
April 16, 2014 12:25 pm

Bulletproof? No such thing, if you use a big enough bullet.

Kent
Kent
April 16, 2014 12:32 pm

If it ain’t bulletproof; it ain’t cover.

Observer
Observer
April 16, 2014 1:50 pm

Think a was thinking along the lines of a B83 nuclear bomb.

Hill? What hill? :P

“Target destroyed”
“What was the target anyway?”
“1x infantryman”
“…….”

Disclaimer: I know it really won’t vapourise the hill.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
April 16, 2014 5:22 pm

Observer,

There was a BBC documentary a while back on the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima. Really well made. There were thousands of survivors who were in a small valley (relatively speaking) quite close to Ground Zero: certainly thousands more further away were killed if they were line of sight to the detonation point.

Not that I would welcome taking part in an experiment to replicate that…! We’ve got some pretty advanced terrain modelling software we use for RF propagation modelling (much more advanced than anything ESRI produce, and we used GPGPU processing written in Cuda because the algorithms are so complex). Anyway, it’s fun to model and show bow different RF behaves at differing power and frequencies. I imagine that blast would be much the same, some wind speeds would mould to terrain, others go straight to certain ranges, then mould.