Slashdot Log In
Tsunami Invisibility Cloak
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 29, 2008 05:11 PM
from the just-deflect-those-waves-to-the-poor-town-next-door dept.
from the just-deflect-those-waves-to-the-poor-town-next-door dept.
BuzzSkyline writes "New Scientist is reporting on a lab-scale experiment that may lead to a tsunami invisibility cloak, which could protect islands, open-ocean platforms and even coastlines from dangerous waves by effectively making them invisible to tsunamis. The technology is based on the same sorts of negative index of refraction ideas that some physicists are exploring as they try to make an optical invisibility cloak, except that it works with water instead of light."
Related Stories
[+]
News: The Largest Recorded Tsunami Was 50 Years Ago 323 comments
An anonymous reader writes "July marks the 50th anniversary of the world's largest tsunami — a 1,720-foot-tall wave in Lituya Bay, Alaska. It was triggered by a chain reaction of events that began with a magnitude 7.7 earthquake on the Fairweather Fault, which dislodged a rock fall of 40 million cubic yards, that fell 3,000 feet and splashed into the northwest end of Lituya Bay to generate the wave. This article includes survivor accounts, maps, a satellite image, and photos taken right after the event." To be fair, eyewitness accounts put the height of the wave as it came toward their boats at perhaps 100 feet. The tsunami scoured the land of vegetation and soil to a height of 1,720 feet above sea level, however.
[+]
Technology: Scientists Closer To Invisibility Cloak 308 comments
Aviran was one of many readers to submit news of a just-announced development in the ongoing quest to develop a working invisibility cloak, writing: "Scientists say they are a step closer to developing materials that could render people and objects invisible. Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects. Previously, they only have been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects" Reader bensafrickingenius adds a link to coverage at the Times Online, and notes that "the world's two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week." Tjeerd adds a link to a Reuters' story carried by Scientific American.
[+]
News: Earthquake Invisibility Cloak 121 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Dharma Initiative anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Notice when the Island moved at the end of last year? What date was it? What happened around that time? Tsunami.
Nothing to see (Score:5, Funny)
Move along - Nothing to see here.
Re:Nothing to see (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
invisibility will help? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:invisibility will help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the wording is awkward. But, keep in mind, light is understood to be a wave as well. Thus, the mechanic of causing a tsunami to go seamlessly around an island should be nearly the same as causing a light beam to go around the object. This wouldn't block the Tsunami wave, the wave would continue as normal, as if nothing had happened. The Island also would not be touched by the wave either. The metaphor seems to work.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:5, Informative)
Having said that, I'm not entirely clear how you can use the device described to protect coastlines. It looks like you need a 360 degree coverage for the device to work. That's not going to work for something like say...China's coast.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:5, Funny)
Having said that, I'm not entirely clear how you can use the device described to protect coastlines. It looks like you need a 360 degree coverage for the device to work. That's not going to work for something like say...China's coast.
I think it could be made to work... but it would suck to be in Iceland.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, their point is pretty good. If a Tsunami would have broken up on your island, the "invisibility" rings will instead pass it on to the guy behind you.
Of course, a better analogy of why that has to be acceptable is that, you can't be held liable if you duck and the guy behind you gets shot. It's not your fault that he was unwilling or unable to duck too.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking this, too. However, if you read the article, it's intended for man-made structures and, if you look at the model (and read the article), it doesn't seem like it'd be feasible for anything on a larger scale, anyway. You'd end up destroying most of your own coastline and aquatic habitat in the process, and seriously screwing up the local ocean pretty much permanently.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah screw the lousy standards around here.
I'm going back to the rest of the internet where they have whole pithy paragraphs and entire knee-jerk domains.
Parent
Re:But what about the other islands (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think tsunamis are a big problem for offshore drilling platforms in the first place. From what I've read, they use the ballast tanks in daily operation, and they can also be used to rise above the waves. That seems a bit more practical than surrounding it with an enormous structure to provide protection against something that probably won't occur in the lifetime of the rig in the first place. AFAICT, this solves a problem that basically doesn't exist.
Parent
Re:invisibility will help? (Score:5, Funny)
Well they tried giant towels, figuring that the Tsunami would think that since the Island couldn't see it, then it must not be able to see the Island, but that didn't work because Tsunami's are far to clever for that. Which isn't too surprising since Tsunami's are proven pack hunters, always attacking in waves.
Parent
Re:invisibility will help? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:invisibility will help? (Score:4, Funny)
Is it anything like the eye of the tiger?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This new wave of nonsensical puns has gone too far already, eye think.
Summary's FOS Again (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
No, we are not going to be protecting islands with this thing anytime soon. And we're not protecting tsunamis from anything because the tsunami will just wash over this suckers unless we build them really, really tall. In which case, we're better off building a freaking wall.
Re:Summary's FOS Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Summary's FOS Again (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also going to be impractical for structures that aren't close to shore. You have to build artificial islands all around the structure. It will cost a lot to build artificial islands in deep water. Therefore, it's impractical in shallow water, and impractical in deep water. Nobody's going to build one, it's just an interesting application of wave physics, transferring the idea of being invisible to light waves to being invisible to ocean waves.
Parent
Okay... but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They follow the radial corridors.
Since ships aren't waves, they presumably have little trouble following them.
Re:Okay... but... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, they do have a wave function, but the wavelengths are really small....
E=hv.
Parent
Re:Okay... but... (Score:5, Funny)
First, you draw this tsunami-wave canceling device on a placemat, labeling the ocean as "START" and the coastline as "FINISH". Print out thousands of them and hand out the placemats to family restaurants, along with a few boxes of crayons.
Then, you just go around collecting the "used" placemats, kindly filled out by unsuspecting 5 year-olds, and deliver them to cargo-ship captains.
Problem solved.
Parent
Feasibility (Score:5, Informative)
Quoth TFA:
It's a nice idea but a barrier like this would have to be made of strong stuff. That Asian tsunami a few years ago was able to pick up ten-feet-tall concrete blocks and throw them around like Lego bricks. I'm not sure if I'd want to be sitting downstream of something like this unless they're thinking of making them out of low-lying artificial islands, and in that case I don't know how effective they'd be under a tall enough wave. I'd like to have seen a bit more in the way of diagrams and specifics in TFA.
Re:Feasibility (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing here... but here's my take on it...
It's not a barrier and does not "block" the waves.
It simply disrupts them, like pebbles on the bed of a river. The wave goes around the islands, pretty harmlessly, but the interference pattern created, essentially protects the object at the center.
It's a very subtle approach, not the brute force on you seem to think.
Parent
Jeez (Score:5, Funny)
Waterhenge! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waterhenge! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Waterhenge! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Stringhenge!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Actually I think the best tsunami-fighting device is a giant ball of string; this is pretty clearly proven by the town of Cawker City, Kansas, home to the largest ball of twine in the world, has never been hit by a tsunami. So that proves that the string stops tsunamis; my logic here is impeccable. As for Britain, a lot of people think that country's resistance to tsunamis is due to Stonehenge, but the reality is a much simpler explanation -- the ubiquity of umbrellas. Remember Occam's razor, folks!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you see any tigers around here?
Oh wait, there's one in my PowerBook.
Never mind, then.
seems very pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)
rebuilding is much cheaper then numerous artificial islands.
most people will detect, warn, evacuate and rebuild - this kind of (very very) expensive prevention simply does not make sense on a 1 in 100 year (if not much more) disaster prevention.
it is like putting in bullet proof glass in all the windows of your house just in case the couple next door decide to have a son who might want to buy a bb gun later on in life...
Re:seems very pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:seems very pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
early warning system is much cheap then numerous artificial islands.
Definitely.
rebuilding is much cheaper then numerous artificial islands.
most people will detect, warn, evacuate and rebuild - this kind of (very very) expensive prevention simply does not make sense on a 1 in 100 year (if not much more) disaster prevention.
Er, well, that's not so clear. I mean that was roughly the logic behind not building up the levies in New Orleans, and the cost of that project was several times less than the resulting damages from Katrina. A project which they are now engaging in so as to prevent a subsequent disaster and make people feel safe returning to/investing in the city, meaning they payed for the protection but had to also pay much, much more due to not having it when they needed it.
Now I'm not saying this particular system is cost effective for any particular city. I think it would mostly depend on what kind of materials and engineering you need to make effective barriers. These aren't artificial islands like the ones in Dubai the article mentions. They're big walls. If a tall column of reinforced concrete sunk into the ocean floor, like the struts of a large suspension bridge, is sufficient then I don't think it would be that ridiculous. And think of it this way -- just because "the big one" only comes once every hundred years, there's still plenty of "pretty big ones" that cause lots of damage every single year.
it is like putting in bullet proof glass in all the windows of your house just in case the couple next door decide to have a son who might want to buy a bb gun later on in life...
If I may engage in some analogy abuse, it's more like the couple next door has a son who pretty consistently fires off a few rounds in random directions every night, sometimes using larger calibers than others. How long are you going to bet that he hits someone else's house and not yours? It probably sounds like a safe gamble up to the point the .45 flies through your living room.
Hurricanes, typhoons, and tsunamis happen regularly. They hit sections of the coast every year, causing damage every time. They aren't hypothetical. Even the big ones aren't. They're more like matters of probability, and thus time.
Parent
well... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a general rule, when science fights nature, nature wins.
We are, after all talking about dealing with forces that have shaped the planet upon which we evolved. Star trek fiction aside, I don't think we have enough energy available to seriously hinder a tsunami.
Early warning systems so people can get the hell out of the way would be better then a 'stand back, I'm going to try science' approach.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the Netherlands is not under water, and all those man-made lakes behind dams have not all drained. And when it comes to warming up the planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, Science has done a great job against nature. When science fights nature, science generally wins, but nature does always get a few really good hits in first.
The idea from TFA is not to use additional energy to hinder the tsunami, but to merely redirect the tsunami's energy. It's like the Judo of climate control. If I understand the article correctly, the posts do not have to be strong enough to stop the tsunami. That's the entire point of it.
Parent
Just Close Your Eyes (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't see the tsunami, the tsunami can't see you.
Re:Just Close Your Eyes (Score:4, Funny)
Aw crap.
Parent
Energy source? (Score:3, Interesting)
A possible nice side effect of this could be that instead of letting the tsunami pass, it would decrease the energy of it, so that it won't be as destructive for those in the wake.
Or it could just make the wave pass through even more powerful *shrug* Seems like something to look into though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't be perpetual energy, but it would be free energy, very similar to tidal power [wikipedia.org] Unless I'm missing something obvious, this wouldn't be perpetual motion...
Oblig- Homer Simpson quote (Score:3, Funny)
There is something you must learn
Something something then you'll see
You'll avoid catastrophe
D'oh!
What for? (Score:4, Informative)
Tsunamis are harmless in open water - their height is on the order of a meter, and there's very little horizontal movement of water involved. They only get tall when they steepen as surf, and are dangerous because of their enormous wavelength (up to kilometers) which means one wave has an enormous volume of water to spill.
All of this won't affect drilling platforms at all, and for islands you need to build a structure all around it - a wall is a lot cheaper. In any case, the low incidence of tsunamis won't encourage anybody to build such structures.
JFWI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami#Characteristics [wikipedia.org]
Ocean pollution (Score:4, Funny)
A preposterous solution (Score:4, Funny)
The whole idea is just silly. Everyone knows the only way you can save your island from the spiteful anger of the sky gods is through fasting and prayer.
Re:Because those third-world islands can afford it (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe something like a drawbridge, except that the "fingers" could go sideways, slide down, or lay down?
Or maybe some of the channels could be made big enough with an acceptable loss of efficacy?
Re:Because those third-world islands can afford it (Score:4, Funny)
With a hammer?
-Taylor
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The brakes on the Semi-Truck behind you go out... 'Quick! The invisibility cloak will save us!'
I thought we were supposed to consider that lorry to be a uniform sphere? Now you're saying we should treat it as a wave, too? I didn't realize light shared wave-particle duality with semi trucks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The brakes on the Semi-Truck behind you go out... 'Quick! The invisibility cloak will save us!'
I thought we were supposed to consider that lorry to be a uniform sphere? Now you're saying we should treat it as a wave, too? I didn't realize light shared wave-particle duality with semi trucks.
No no no no! It's a series of tubes!
Re:Yeah but those islands act as barriers... (Score:5, Insightful)
As is always the case, those with the money get to decide.
Parent