Can they tailor this to other wave lengths?
For example, oh I don't know, damaging solar radation such as might be experienced by space craft?
Because that would be really quite useful.
Boffins have developed the thinnest invisibility fabric ever made, just 0.15mm thick, great for carrying around Harry Potter-style. Harry Potter in his invisibility cloak Unfortunately the miracle "fishnet" copper-polycarbonate textile doesn't work in the visible spectrum. The device scores points for its slim silhouette …
Talking of spacecraft it sounds more like a Romulan cloaking device than a Harry Potter style cloak?
Although now I think about it they could turn them on and off and this would probably be more permanent. However it would still also interfere with any incoming Transporter teleportation.
Not a bloody lot of good, as solar radiation of concern is some gamma radiation, x-rays, beta particles and protons.
For the first two, very little is scattered by something with such a low density. For the latter, they're nuclear particles and wouldn't be effected at all.
Beta and protons are stopped by hulls on spacecraft, that's not a (pressingly major) issue. Gamma and X-ray are the ones I'm thinking of and I was wondering if they could apply the same principle to say, oh I don't know, a layer of material of the right shape grown on the surface of the hull providing a small, light, effective means of shielding.
My car is oddly shaped*, can I cover it with this stuff to sneak past speed cameras??
* Why don't they put corners on cars nowdays? They're all just blobs, not a single straight edge by which to judge parking. And they have distorting wing mirrors to make you cross-eyed just as you want to change lanes on the motorway, it's bonkers!
* Why don't they put corners on cars nowdays? They're all just blobs, not a single straight edge by which to judge parking. And they have distorting wing mirrors to make you cross-eyed just as you want to change lanes on the motorway, it's bonkers!
Streamlining. It goes to aerodynamics. You will notice many airplanes (commercial and military) try to limit the number of sharp corners on their bodies as they affect airflow and thus fuel efficiency.
If it's preventing scatter from the object then it wouldn't be invisible, but sheer black (or your wavelength equivalent of no energy). The idea being that you can't see energy reflected from it, but then neither can energy pass through it from whatever may be behind it. Only diverting technologies can achieve that from what I understand to be possible at the moment (which of course is limited).
I think the word invisible may be being thrown around too liberally here.
Anyone else's thoughts here?
Multistatic radar can defeat that kind of stealth because it works by detecting changes in the ambient radio noise. To fool such a system, you need a cloak-type device that actually diverts the radio waves without altering their course; otherwise, a sensitive enough radio receiver will detect the alteration. And the "fishnet" noted in the article will stick out like a sore thumb--current stealth technology already relies on scattering. To the receiver, both would look like a dead zone.
The word Boffin is so silly. Somehow this local UK slang slips through to American Internet news outlets and instantly prompts mass WTF proclamations Please, lose this term and just write "researcher" or "scientist:. We Americans look to England to uphold some standards of the language.
"Please, lose this term"
No. It's a term of endearment. Of course, if this ridiculous UK publishing regulator ever emerges in its proposed form, no doubt you can pester us to death with complaints about :-(
C.
Drive down this street? Because we didn't get a speed reading on your car.
Let's see your license!
Cue the police jokes.
From the article. this appears (heh) practical applied with conductive paint on vehicles to renders them indetectible by speed radar and triggers for red-light cameras. Onward to Ångströms!
Mike, didn't there used to be a doughnut shop here? ...