A Step Toward an Invisibility Cloak 197
Technology Review has a writeup on the latest advance in the lab towards an invisibility cloak made of metamaterials, described this week in Science. We've been following this technology since the beginning. The breakthrough is software that lets researchers design materials that are both low-loss and wideband. "The cloak that the researchers built works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz — a swath as broad as the visible spectrum. No one has yet made a cloaking device that works in the visible spectrum, and those metamaterials that have been fabricated tend to work only with narrow bands of light. But a cloak that made an object invisible to light of only one color would not be of much use. Similarly, a cloaking device can't afford to be lossy: if it lets just a little bit of light reflect off the object it's supposed to cloak, it's no longer effective. The cloak that Smith built is very low loss, successfully rerouting almost all the light that hits it."
invisibility schmisibility (Score:5, Funny)
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can see what happens inside the Girls' dorm!
Giggity-giggity-goo.
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
The Predator still got his ass shot up good with that hand-held vulcan gun, because the soldier saw the 10% of light that he couldn't cloak.
Re:FUUUU (Score:5, Funny)
It's not broke... it's cloaked!
from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
"Now [that] this is becoming a more feasible technology, we will start to see a lot more of it."
Heh, i thought the goal was to see a lot less of it :)
No Photo No Talk! (Score:4, Funny)
I look forward to the photo of the prototype.
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
The Predator still got his ass shot up good with that hand-held vulcan gun, because the soldier saw the 10% of light that he couldn't cloak.
Yes, but if you look at it from a D&D point of view, you get a 90% miss chance, which is a game-breaking advantage.
Re:wavelength = length (Score:5, Funny)
Not for those of us who don't live in a vacuum, you insensitive clod!
Re:1 to 18 gigahertz (Score:3, Funny)
You must be thinking of the 16k visual spectrum. This is referring to the Spectrum 128k.
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but if you look at it from a D&D point of view, you get a 90% miss chance, which is a game-breaking advantage.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Re:invisibility schmisibility (Score:1, Funny)
Okay, i will post one here using the magicks of the internets!
__________________
||
||
||
||
||
||
|_________________|
See, look how amazing that thing is!
It is so invisible it caused the picture to collapse...
California > Minnesota (Score:4, Funny)
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
The Predator still got his ass shot up good with that hand-held vulcan gun, because the soldier saw the 10% of light that he couldn't cloak.
That's what you get for pissing off Jesse "the future Governor of Minnesota" Ventura.
Cloaking device or not.
Re:wavelength = length (Score:3, Funny)
Not for those of us who don't live in a vacuum, you insensitive clod!
C is still constant. C is the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_ not the speed of light in your parent's basement. And by the way I am a clod, you insensitive pedantic.
Re:wavelength = length (Score:1, Funny)
Re:One color invisibility certainly could be of us (Score:5, Funny)
...and I ain't an engineer.
I bet you've a schoolteacher.
Re:FUUUU (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wavelength = length (Score:5, Funny)
Re:invisibility schmisibility (Score:3, Funny)
Re:invisibility schmisibility (Score:3, Funny)
NSFW: http://tinyurl.com/9hn2ba [tinyurl.com]
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:1, Funny)
I've always wondered if "robe and wizard hat" is code for "short dress and high heels". The things geeks will call their fetishes in order to stave off rejection from women.
Funny? (Score:3, Funny)
I fail to see what is so funny about that.
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:4, Funny)
I put on my cloak and tinfoil hat.
There, fixed that for you. ;)
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:2, Funny)
ah, Slashdot. :D
D&D rule nitpicking is "informative".
Re:Blindness (Score:5, Funny)