Plan For Cloaking Device Unveiled

Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that a plan for a cloaking device has been unveiled. The design is pioneered by Professor Sir John Pendry's team of scientists from the US and Britain. Proof of the ability of his invention could be ready in just 18 months time using radar testing. The method revolves around certain materials making light "flow" around the given object like water."

Tenuous at best

[Rethcir]

Granted I didn't RTFM, but proof of my ability to turn, say, a brick into 20 pounds of diamonds could also be ready within 18 months.

Nonsense -- water does not look like light.

[cinnamoninja]

They claim that certain "metamolecules" have the power to make light behave like water, and flow rather than scatter. I quote:

"A little way downstream, you'd never know that you'd put a pencil in the water - it's flowing smoothly again.

"Light doesn't do that of course, it hits the pencil and scatters. So you want to put a coating around the pencil that allows light to flow around it like water, in a nice, curved way."

The truth is, water scatters when hitting something, too. It just doesn't *matter*, because all particles of water look the same to us. So, if the water particle that would have been in the middle without the disruption ends up on the far right, it doesn't matter!

However, we are very, very good at telling different pieces of light apart. At best, this will provide very good camo, where pieces of color from the environment behind you show up on you instead. At worst, the disruption from light working in unexpected ways will make this "invisibility" be a very noticeable beacon. You know how your eyes always flick to something that moves (animated ads, anyone?) This would be like that.

Re:Useless for people

[Feyr]

no one said you'd have to be completly invisible,

sure this does preclude some applications, but imagine as a camouflage for an armored vehicle. you just keep the window visible and/or camera lens. you just got yourself a nice nearly invisible tank, which is a thousand time better than what they have right now

Re:Useless for people

[mcrumiller]

Not to mention the fact that they can probably design it to only block visible light--perhaps infrared or radio communication would work?

Re:Radar?

[twiddlingbits]

The Stealth bomber reflects the signals in all sorts of directions so there is a Mimimum radar return, some of those signals would be reflected to continue on to a reciever on the other end as in your example. However the return (on either end) would be weak sort of like a large bird or a SMALL plane. Sorting out whether that was a bird, small plane, a decoy, jamming, or a real B2 before a HARM missle from the B2 or a UAV blows you to bits is the problem. During the Gulf War the Iraqis were afraid to turn on the radar to try to track anything else they get hammered by a HARM. Shooting semi-blindly into the sky with a missle that has it's own tracking has a good a chance as anything else. The damn things ARE invisible, and when they arent (i.e. bomb bay doors are open) its not for very long. Plus they don't even have to get close to the target these days, a JDAM can hit something 40 miles away when dropped from a B2 at altitude. If the B2 absorbed the radar signal then you would get a "hole" in the sky that could be tracked, of course how the B2 would dump the absorbed radar energy without having a big IR signature is an interesting challenge, maybe some sort of super-cooled liquid as a heat sink.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[Vellmont]

I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences.

The thing you need to understand is that mathematics isn't a science. You can create lots and lots of perfectly valid mathematical theories, prove them true, and they don't have one tiny bit of them relevent to the real physical world. A great example of this is being able to cut a sphere in a certain way into an infinite amount of pieces, and reassemble it into a larger volume. It works great as far as the mathematics is concerned. But obviously you can't do that in the real world because real matter can't be infintely divided.

That's not to say that mathematics isn't usefull. Obviously it's used all the time to make models and predictions. My point is that there's no such thing as mathematics being way ahead of the other science, since mathematics doesn't really relate to the other science directly. As far as science is concerned, mathematics is just another tool in exploring science.

Re:In theory, this post will be modded down...

[im_thatoneguy]

If you thinks mathematics is advanced, just wait until you learn about literature. Now there is a field where they are pushing the boundries. Why I once saw this sentence which described a technology beyond my wildest dreams, I am just really frustrated by how slow the physicists have been in implementing it.

Re:Obligatory

[FFFish]

I think "fear" is currently the big invisible overlord in much of the world.

Re:Cloaking for fun and profit

[dajak]

such as the requirement to have a camera focused on the object you want to cloak, make it less than useful for military applications).

The US is used to enjoying air superiority, but other militaries might be interested in having an "instant camouflage screen" based on this idea over parked vehicles instead of messing around with nets and paint.

Maybe the Dutch/German Fennek [army-technology.com] vehicle can be adapted to sort of cloak itself from planes using its periscope.

Re:Useless for people

[somersault]

If you can see the infra-red then it's fairly useless as anything but camouflage against infantry with no IR goggles.. and infantry aren't too much of a threat to tanks anyway.

Re:Useless for people

[Thuktun]

An enemy near enough to see two tiny camera pinholes in front of a cloaked M1 Abrams from the future should make his peace with God immediately.

Gee, what's that shimmer over there that sounds like a 110 db tank engine?

Re:Useless for people

[bhiestand]

still, you need an RPG. Not many soldiers tend to carry them around, just in case they run into a tank. You'd basically need a squad of people, one person with the bazooka/whatever, and a few guys to cover him. Basically it's best if you can wipe the tank off of all possible scanners.

        I don't think this really usually matters for tanks the way it does for helicopters, planes, missiles, missile silos, etc, at least not for America. What's it matter if the enemy can see you when you have double their range, close air support, infrared/NVG capability, datalinks showing you a picture of the battlefield, and insane DU armour? Sure, they could be taken out by some good IEDs or in urban warfare, but you usually want your presence to be known. If we just want to blow something up without warning, we can just put a missile on the job. Tanks are about show of force.
        Compare that to, say, invisible "black" (ref. to silent) helicopters, where you can fastrope troops into a building to capture its occupants with absolute surprise. Plus being completely undetected infiltrating or exfiltrating troops! Hell, with something like that we could probably end this whole North Korea and Iran building nukes thing.
        Hell, how about an invisible/no-radar-reflection destroyer? You could sail one straight up the Delaware, so to speak. No warning, but, all of a sudden, there are ten american destroyers within a few miles of your nation's capital. Hell of a way to end a war quickly if you can start by capturing the capital and senior leadership...