|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2007 : 12:41:41
|
This from APMilitary Seeks Invisibility Cloak
Associated Press 05.25.06 | 4:15 PM
WASHINGTON -- Imagine an invisibility cloak that works just like the one Harry Potter inherited from his father.
Researchers in England and the United States think they know how to do that. They are laying out the blueprint and calling for help in developing the exotic materials needed to build a cloak.
The keys are special manmade materials, unlike any in nature or the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. These materials are intended to steer light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation around an object, rendering it as invisible as something tucked into a hole in space.
"Is it science fiction? Well, it's theory and that already is not science fiction. It's theoretically possible to do all these Harry Potter things, but what's standing in the way is our engineering capabilities," said John Pendry, a physicist at the Imperial College London.
Details of the study, which Pendry co-wrote, appear in Thursday's online edition of the journal Science.
Scientists not involved in the work said it presents a solid case for making invisibility an attainable goal.
"This is very interesting science and a very interesting idea and it is supported on a great mathematical and physical basis," said Nader Engheta, a professor of electrical and systems engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Engheta has done his own work on invisibility using novel materials called "metamaterials."
Pendry and his co-authors also propose using metamaterials because they can be tuned to bend electromagnetic radiation -- radio waves and visible light, for example -- in any direction.
A cloak made of those materials, with a structure designed down to the submicroscopic scale, would neither reflect light nor cast a shadow.
Instead, like a river streaming around a smooth boulder, light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation would strike the cloak and simply flow around it, continuing on as if it never bumped up against an obstacle. That would give an onlooker the apparent ability to peer right through the cloak, with everything tucked inside concealed from view.
"Yes, you could actually make someone invisible as long as someone wears a cloak made of this material," said Patanjali Parimi, a Northeastern University physicist and design engineer at Chelton Microwave in Bolton, Massachusetts. Parimi was not involved in the research.
Such a cloak does not exist, but early versions that could mask microwaves and other forms of electromagnetic radiation could be as close as 18 months away, Pendry said. He said the study was "an invitation to come and play with these new ideas."
"We will have a cloak after not too long," he said.
The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency supported the research, given the obvious military applications of such stealthy technology.
While Harry Potter could wear his cloak to skulk around Hogwarts, a real-world version probably would not be something just to be thrown on, Pendry said.
"To be realistic, it's going to be fairly thick. 'Cloak' is a misnomer. 'Shield' might be more appropriate," he said. |
Several references to this on yesterday's and today's news. Apparently is about tested out. Military applications very soon.
Is this pseudo-science, paranormal, psuedo-journalism, or really Science?
Comments?
[Edited to fix quoting - Dave W.]
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 15:59:48 [Permalink]
|
| I came across this the other day. Different technology but similar effect and it's apparently already in the testing phase. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 20:39:23 [Permalink]
|
There was a novel by one of the big spy writers (Clancy, Ludlum, or one of their peers, can't recall) from some years ago that revolved around a plastic and wood airplane that used exactly what they used in dv82matt's link about the invisible tank.
Pretty interesting stuff.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 20:41:10 [Permalink]
|
| And Dave, I am pretty sure we talked about this at SFN, too, though I can no longer recall the thread or date. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 20:57:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W, I'm pretty sure your link should say 10-19-06.
Also, it seems bngbuck's AP story is about a year old also. The latest on metamaterials published in Science, by J. Pendry, is from March 2007. An interesting bit about negative refraction.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 21:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And Dave, I am pretty sure we talked about this at SFN, too, though I can no longer recall the thread or date.
|
That we did, right here. It was 25th May 2006. I refuse to write only 05/25/2006 as it's just do damm wrong, any way I look at. Can anyone explain to me why they think mm/dd/yyyy is a sensible format?
I'd just sent the link to that older discussion to some friends who saw the article, or one like it that caused this new thread, so I didn't even have to search for it, just copy and paste it out of a skype chat window. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 11/02/2007 21:08:12 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 21:11:16 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to see the first use of this by an artist. Perhaps a sculpture standing invisible in a museum, with people constantly walking into it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 21:12:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And Dave, I am pretty sure we talked about this at SFN, too, though I can no longer recall the thread or date.
|
That we did, right here. It was 25th May 2006. I refuse to write only 05/25/2006 as it's just do damm wrong, any way I look at. Can anyone explain to me why they think mm/dd/yyyy is a sensible format?
I'd just sent the link to that older discussion to some friends who saw the article, or one like it that caused this new thread, so I didn't even have to search for it, just copy and paste it out of a skype chat window.
|
It's not a sensible format, but it does match how dates are normally spoken in English.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 21:49:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I refuse to write only 05/25/2006 as it's just do damm wrong, any way I look at. Can anyone explain to me why they think mm/dd/yyyy is a sensible format? |
It isn't. I'd just done it that way for nigh on 30 years.
Most of the time, these days, I would write 20060525 - but I don't want to scare the straights. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
recurve boy
Skeptic Friend
Australia
53 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 22:58:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
It's not a sensible format, but it does match how dates are normally spoken in English.
|
But it's just as normal to say 25th of May, 2006.
YYYY MM DD formats should be left for the computer (or right to left reading systems). DD MM YYYY formats should be for regular use. It makes more sense in a left to right reading system since we often know what year it is, and what month it is, but the day changes every day ;) |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 04:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It isn't. I'd just done it that way for nigh on 30 years.
Most of the time, these days, I would write 20060525 - but I don't want to scare the straights.
|
Oh yeah, anyone who works with electronic data long enough either figures out or has it beaten in to them that yyyymmdd is the only way to go.
Who are these "straights" of which you speak? I'm kidding, sort of. I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but I've never heard luddites* called straights before.
* Anyone who knows or cares less about technology that you do. Anyone who knows/cares more is a nerd. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 11/03/2007 04:07:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 13:37:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by recurve boy
YYYY MM DD formats should be left for the computer (or right to left reading systems). |
Nah. Year-month-day matches our familiar hour-minute-second system in that the largest unit is on the left, smallest on the right. For that matter, it matches the way we write numbers in general.| DD MM YYYY formats should be for regular use. It makes more sense in a left to right reading system since we often know what year it is, and what month it is, but the day changes every day ;) |
And seconds change every second, but are you going to argue in favor of ssmmhh?
(Note that I don't even use any spaces or punctuation. At this moment, it is 20071103163723, written as it should always be written.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Invisibility Cloak?
