'Cloaking device' idea proposed

XEROX

New Member
'Cloaking device' idea proposed

The cloaking devices that are used to render spacecraft invisible in Star Trek might just work in reality, two mathematicians have claimed.

They have outlined their concept in a research paper published in one of the UK Royal Society's scientific journals.
Nicolae Nicorovici and Graeme Milton propose that placing certain objects close to a material called a superlens could make them appear to vanish.
It would rely on an effect known as "anomalous localised resonance".


However, the authors have so far only done the maths to verify that the concept could work. Building such a device would undoubtedly pose a significant challenge.


Starting small
Cloaking devices are a form of stealth technology much favoured by Star Trek baddies such as the Romulans and Klingons.
The complex mathematical phenomenon outlined by Milton and Nicorovici closes the gap a little between science fiction and fact.
The phenomenon is analogous to a tuning fork (which rings with a single sound frequency) being placed next to a wine glass. The wine glass will start to ring with the same frequency; it resonates.
The cloaking effect would exploit a resonance with light waves rather than sound waves.
The concept is at such a primitive stage that the scientists talk only at the moment of being able to cloak particles of dust - not spaceships.
In this example, an illuminated speck of dust would scatter light at frequencies that induce a strong, finely tuned resonance in a cloaking material placed very close by.
The resonance effectively cancels out the light bouncing off the speck of dust, rendering the dust particle invisible.
One way to construct a cloaking device is to use a superlens, made of recently discovered materials that force light to behave in unusual ways.


Vanishing point
Professor Sir John Pendry, of Imperial College London, who helped pioneer superlenses, said: "If the speck of dust is close enough it induces a very aggressive response in the cloaking material which essentially acts back on the speck of dust and forces it to stop shining.
"Even though light is hitting the speck of dust, scattering of the light is prevented by the cloak which is in close proximity," he told the BBC News website.
The authors of the paper argue that the cloak needn't just work with a speck of dust, but could also apply to larger objects.
But they admit the cloaking effect works only at certain frequencies of light, so that some objects placed near the cloak might only partially disappear.
"I believe their claims about the speck of dust and a certain class of objects. In the paper, they do give an instance about a particular shape of material they can't cloak. So they can't cloak everything," said Professor Pendry.
"Nevertheless, it's a very neat idea to get this aggressive response from the material to stop tiny things emitting light."
The Imperial College physicist agreed this particular concept had potential military uses: "Providing the specks of dust are within the cloaked area, the effect will happen. A cloak that only fits one particular set of circumstances is very restrictive - you can't redesign the furniture without redesigning the cloak."
Details are published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.


Link

I always though if the USS Enterprise ever confronted a "cloacked ship", couldnt they see the heat, electromagnetic signatures etc;)
 

Big-E

Banned Member
PJ-10 BrahMos said:
I always though if the USS Enterprise ever confronted a "cloacked ship", couldnt they see the heat, electromagnetic signatures etc;)
[/SIZE]
The sci-fi cloaking device was a true version, it masked everything inside the field. This cloaking device only bends light so it would only be masked to the naked eye, not IR, radar, or other sensors.
 

Rich

Member
Whats so "rubbish" about it? Such technology would have tremendous defense applications and would transform warfare.

I have some other rubbish military technology ideas. How about instead of throwing the spear launch it with the aid of a throwing platform? Or a mechanism that shoots a bullet thru a hollow tube at 3,000 fps and can kill at 1000 yrds? Or a vessel that sails underwater and can sink ships with torpedoes? How about putting bombs on airplanes that allow it to sink a Battleship? Or why not make both invisible to each other on radar?

Snacks for thought. Before you imagine where we will be in 100 years first look back at where we were at in 1906.
 
Last edited:

Brutus Caesar

New Member
Very true Rich. When you consider it was only around 60 years between controlled, powered flight and landing a man on the moon, it really puts it in perspective.
 

Rich

Member
Brutus I may not be the sharpest geo/political strategist here. I already see that there are serious professionals on this web page who have forgotten more then I will ever know about this stuff. While I have a lot of military/Police experience, and some background in tech, like most folks I have to glean much of what I learn from experts in the field.

But one thing I do know is that time is basically a VHS tape that is re-wound, played, and Fast Forwarded. In other words the study of future warfare is in many ways a study of history. And one thing that history has shown us is the side with the best technology, and the soundest tactics and training ,will win every time. The two modern wars that came closest to stalemates, civil war and WW-l, were also two wars where technology pretty much stayed on par between sides. I dont include Korea because the Chinese only got involved when they discovered we would not use nukes against them. Even still we slaughtered the enemy in comparison to our own casualties.

True there are other variables. But just read the words of those who have been out longbowed, out speared, out defensive structured, outgunned, out man of war'd, out artilleried, out war shipped, out radar'd, out fightered, out bombered, out nuked, out space aged,....ect

The simple fact is that the side who has the best technology will probably win, or at least persevere. Just look at the Gulf Wars and one see's this rule of war picking up even more momentum in the age of the silicon chip and beyond. With a rough balance of forces, or even a disadvantage, we slaughtered them.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
considering that the big sisters of 21st Cent warfare are "awareness" and "precision" - then reducing "spectrum visibility" and "detectability" is pretty critical.

the problem is that the Star Trek analogy tends to trivialise the seriousness of the issue. ;)

The Japanese have done some pretty tricky stuff in reducing "spectrum visibility" - and the US is a generation ahead in real time deployment issues. Its kind of inevitable that the two will marry up at some point.
 

ever4244

New Member
impossible

Impossible for practice , let a tank vibrate in the same frequency with light cost numberless nuclear power plant s energy , and light along with other electromagnetic wave covers a large frequency range. which means it can only choose to be stealth in certain light .and larger object s vibration is much more complicated than man can master , it s chaos . which means it can only let a point to be associated with the right frequency. meanwhile , large scale object can t stand such vibration.
 

dioditto

New Member
Brutus I may not be the sharpest geo/political strategist here. I already see that there are serious professionals on this web page who have forgotten more then I will ever know about this stuff. While I have a lot of military/Police experience, and some background in tech, like most folks I have to glean much of what I learn from experts in the field.

But one thing I do know is that time is basically a VHS tape that is re-wound, played, and Fast Forwarded. In other words the study of future warfare is in many ways a study of history. And one thing that history has shown us is the side with the best technology, and the soundest tactics and training ,will win every time. The two modern wars that came closest to stalemates, civil war and WW-l, were also two wars where technology pretty much stayed on par between sides. I dont include Korea because the Chinese only got involved when they discovered we would not use nukes against them. Even still we slaughtered the enemy in comparison to our own casualties.

True there are other variables. But just read the words of those who have been out longbowed, out speared, out defensive structured, outgunned, out man of war'd, out artilleried, out war shipped, out radar'd, out fightered, out bombered, out nuked, out space aged,....ect

The simple fact is that the side who has the best technology will probably win, or at least persevere. Just look at the Gulf Wars and one see's this rule of war picking up even more momentum in the age of the silicon chip and beyond. With a rough balance of forces, or even a disadvantage, we slaughtered them.



"We slaughtered them ....
We slaughtered them ....
We slaughtered them ...."
 

LancerMc

New Member
The current "cloak" technology only works for microwaves. If I remeber correctly no one uses microwaves to detect objects on the battle field. In addition the cloak would have to have a layer for each part of the light spectrum to work effectively. That means its to sophisticated.

In the end after you make a cloak, no light could penetrate from one side to the other side. This would essentially make a hole appear in what ever dectection system you would be using (I.E. Radar or IR). So you could spot the target by the hole in the light spectrum it creates.
 

ugunnadiepiggy

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The current "cloak" technology only works for microwaves. If I remeber correctly no one uses microwaves to detect objects on the battle field. In addition the cloak would have to have a layer for each part of the light spectrum to work effectively. That means its to sophisticated.

In the end after you make a cloak, no light could penetrate from one side to the other side. This would essentially make a hole appear in what ever dectection system you would be using (I.E. Radar or IR). So you could spot the target by the hole in the light spectrum it creates.
at last someone who can see that the basis is that if it bends light or manipulates the light, this will cause an effect to the spectrum across the board as light is merely a different frequency in the spectrum just like Infra-red also sound.
not that this discredits any theories of cloaking but it has been looked at in different ways for years especially since resonance has been the base for noise cancallation and its is a likely step for other possibilties.
 
Top