Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Visible wavelengths -> I don't think so!
R_Colin_Johnson   11/16/2013 5:19:17 PM
NO RATINGS
@Nicholas.Lee I told Dr. Eleftheriades about your objection to a visible light version of his cloak--that cancelling visible light would just create a black target, rather than transparency as most people interpret "invisibility," and this is what he replied:

No I do not agree with this: What is cancelled out is not the total field surrounding the object to hide. Only the scattered field is cancelled. Hence you will not see anything black around the object. You will just see what light was there when the object was absent.

What is true though is that for light, the cloak cannot respond instantly. Short but finite time is needed (size_of_object/speed of light) for the information to flow behind the object. Hence momentarily the object will show up before it disappears. However, this is true for any electromagnetic cloaks, including the metamaterial based ones (where the situation is worse since they are thicker and light will need even more time to travel around it).

gte532f
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Visible wavelengths -> I don't think so!
gte532f   11/16/2013 1:06:30 PM
NO RATINGS
You're actually correct in everything you said, and I was incomplete in what I wrote as the message was getting too long.

For an "invisibility cloak" you actually have to do both things, what you mentioned and what I mentioned.  I took the leap of how to apply this concept to make an invisibility cloak, which is to detect what's coming in on one side, send a cancellation pulse backwards, AND send a propagating pulse forward as though your object didn't exist.

So, as you said, what's described in the article has all the issues you correctly identified.  However, a logical extension of the same concept (calculate and project what is behind the object) gets around the whole "black on black" issue for the visible range.

Hope this clears things up a bit an sorry that my reply was a bit incomplete.  I would consider this extension a part of the "concept" of utilizing detector/emitter combo to make something invisible, but definitely see that what's described in the article is not at this level of complexity.

For the backwards cancellation, the phase matching is absolutely necessary, but for the forward propagation, it's not unless you're trying to fool an actual sensor which can detect phases instead of the human eye, so once again, you are in the strictest sense correct.

Nicholas.Lee
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Visible wavelengths -> I don't think so!
Nicholas.Lee   11/16/2013 12:35:53 PM
NO RATINGS
The idea propsed in the article is phase cancellation, (not a "camera on one side, +display on the other" type of invisibility.), so that is the only concept I am commenting on. I grant you that other solutions may indeed be viable.

I was specifically criticising the impossibility of the solution they proposed when it was glibly extended to visible wavelengths and a non-emitting observer.

To say "Phase matching is not an issue for practical applications as the eye is not a single event detector and is a continuous amplitude integrating sensor.", is not a correct statement in this case, as to phase cancel out light you need phase coherent cancellation and the non-phase sensitivity of the eye is irrevlevant to the physics of this.

Their idea is to have "destructive interference" of the signal at the receiver, and this requires phase coherency. This approach is easy for mono-static radar, and impractical for light. 

Please make sure you have read and comprehended the physics they are using before responding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)

NB: I have designed phased-array-radars and also laser interferometers.

gte532f
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Visible wavelengths -> I don't think so!
gte532f   11/16/2013 3:08:24 AM
NO RATINGS
Nicholas.Lee, 

I agree with this statement for what can be done with the level of sophistication currently in this paper and that the whole "cancellation/distortion" of the source pulse is about as much as what is shown here (which has a lot of very interesting applications, so it's not to be trivialized).

In principal though, this "concept" can work.  For instance, a simple analogy would be that if you had a thin opaque wall that you wanted to cloak.  It is possible to put detector/emitter combo on the surface of the wall and directly emit whatever is detected on the other side and it will even be practically invisible on the either side (I think there was a demo of this where someone was wearing a set of camera's on his back and had a white screen that was in front of him that had a projected image of what was behind him on there... some university in Tokyo?).  Phase matching is not an issue for practical applications as the eye is not a single event detector and is a continuous amplitude integrating sensor.  If you were in a room lighted by a scanning coherent RGB lasers, or watching some display that utilized phase matching to create the image, that's a different matter, but in normal diffuse light situations, you don't need to match the phase, but would probably need it to calculate what would need to be projected on the other side.

However, in practice, I think this is beyond the processing capability to do on anything beyond a very thin sheet and for looking at things from relatively far away. The number of antenna's and the processing that would be necessary to do to translate input from one antenna to the output of the others real time in a more complex 3D object is huge and impractical as anything beyond a thin sheet would not be a direct translation and for visible spectrum, you would need emitter/detectors at the resolution limit of your closest target observer (which could be a spacing of every 500um of less if you wanted to cloak at something at arms length (calculate how many of these you would need to cover even a computer mouse...).

With that said, for psuedo stationary objects that needed portable cloaking from detection far away where a moderate time lag between what is projected and what is detected on the other side doesn't matter, I think it is possible. Think of setting up a military field station tent and wanting to reduce it's detection from binoculars... a "dome" like this would be ideal to make it very hard to detect from 500 yards away.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re:
prabhakar_deosthali   11/16/2013 2:04:30 AM
NO RATINGS
I am just imagining a scenario when both the attacking planes and the target warships are cloaked. This could be a virtual war where no war-photographers will be able to show it live on their TV channels!

 

R_Colin_Johnson
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Invisibility
R_Colin_Johnson   11/15/2013 7:26:29 PM
NO RATINGS
@junko.yoshida We are all hoping that this will come to life within our life time!

So am I--invisibility is such a magical concept, qualifying as the premiere example of Arthur C. Clarke's third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Invisibility
junko.yoshida   11/15/2013 7:19:51 PM
NO RATINGS
Instead of using metamaterials, Eleftheriades's approach surrounds the object to be cloaked with tiny antennas tuned to the frequency band in which the cloaking is to occur, such as radar.



Now, that's interesting. Colin, you've been writing about this "invisibility cloak" topic for many years. It's such a tantalizing idea. We are all hoping that this will come to life within our life time!

Some Guy
User Rank
CEO
At the behest of Mayor Rob Ford?
Some Guy   11/15/2013 4:41:49 PM
NO RATINGS
Since its at the University of Toronto, I have to ask. Any truth to the rummor that it will sheild municipal leaders from video's of them smoking crack? :)

Terry.Bollinger
User Rank
Manager
Re: A truly intriguing idea!
Terry.Bollinger   11/15/2013 3:11:11 PM
NO RATINGS
No disagreement whatsoever!

MeasurementBlues
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Harry Potter and the Klingon Cloak
MeasurementBlues   11/15/2013 3:04:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Having been a fan of both Star Trek and Harry Potter, I leanred from Star Trek how to analyze the events for what made sense and what didn't. There are plenty of instances on both that don't make sense or are never explained. One place where the HP story breaks down is right at the very end when Ron suddenly speaks Parsel Tongue. It comes out of nowhere and IMO is a cheap way out.

You can apply the same analysis to the Wizard of Oz books as well as the Wicked series.

I really need to read/see The Hunger Games Series.

 

<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Aging Brass: Cow Poop vs. Horse Doo-Doo
Max Maxfield
39 comments
As you may recall, one of the things I want to do with the brass panels I'm using in my Inamorata Prognostication Engine is to make them look really old. Since everything is being mounted ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
11 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
11 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)