Heh. Read the news report Randofo cited above, or even better, some of the original papers.

Randofo's picture is (obviously) a nice photoshop (or whatever :-) overlay.

I think it is not a photoshopped picture. I tried what was said above, using a picture of the room and a projector, and I sat in front of it and took another picture... well, actually I sat down about 49 times and took like fifty pictures and in between I had to get up and fix some miniscule problem so I couldn't see the difference between the edge of the projection and the wall in the picture. You have to do it just right, and the lord only knows how many times I had to get up and adjust the projector position, trapezoid, span, width, contrast, and brightness, but it works the way they said it would... However, I must note that I was blind for about half an hour after I did all of this this because of all that time spent looking directly into the projector. I do not reccomend trying this without sunglasses. Kudo's on figuring this out though. This just proves that sometimes simple but abstract ideas are much bettter solutions to a problem than complex technology and years of development. ^_^

Please Please make an Instructable on this What Fun i could do with this

If nobody has Bought it i will!.. But i Believe this Post

PS CS4 is out...

:D

That's a very nice method. Since you've been on I'bles a few months, why not put together a proper I'ble presenting the method, or at a minimum a Slideshow or Video demonstrating it.

<bump>
Read the original articles. The idea is to fabricate an artificial material (often stacks of split-ring conductors) with both a negative index of refraction (not found in natural materials) and with a spatially varying index.

If done correctly, a plane wave (e.g. from a distant illuminant) incident on the "cloak" will be guided around it in such a way that, instead of a shadow or diffraction pattern, the outgoing light will also be a plane wave. Consequently, it will appear as though nothing was in the way of the illuminant.

There are many issues with this technology.

• It mostly works only in two dimensions. There have been reports of 3D cloak designs, but the symmetry makes the problem much more complex.
• It mostly works only at specific wavelengths. The split-ring method preferentially affects wavelengths close to the diameter of the rings, so cloaks tend to be very narrowband.
• Most cloaks have only been demonstrated in the microwave regime for the same reason. Fabricating repeating material structures at the few hundred nanometer scale (with the materials needed for cloaks) is not easy.

But most people would notice the motion of the near invisible subject.

But then probably not be able to pinpoint it... kind of like watching the Pedator move in the original movies: you could only see it if you had an idea of precisely where to look.

True, true.

No they would just be too scared to pin point you. Besides they won't be able to recognise you anyway. "Mommy, that transluscent girl just took away my ice cream" "WTH?"

can any body tell me how you would actually be able to make this like design schematics of just tell me where to go

I don't know...

I don't know, I think it'd be a lot funnier if he told people he hated them while invisible. :)

>so far they have only been able to do it with 2D objects< Hum, wonder how they managed that, seeing as how no such thing exists in the universe...

from sciam.com my bad, they can do it in 2 dimensions, not around 2D objects "In 2006 a group at Duke University demonstrated partial cloaking in two dimensions with a pizza-size disk of copper rings. Look for researchers to try that soon with visible light." "but despite some successes bending visible light in two dimensions, they've had a harder time making three-dimensional versions."

Lol, that's better...

How'd u do that?

A a little electrical tweaking to my Phaser... Like I said.

get a tripod, take a picture with the flashlight and without the flash light, photoshop the flashlight out of the pic and set to 10 opacity NOTE: you cannot see the item shadow on the desk EVEN if you were invisible youd still see a shadow

The flashlight is making a reflection on the table. There would be no reflection if he did what you imply he did. Also, There would not be a shadow.

Correction, you don't need to photoshop the flash light out, it would work anyway.

My class did a research project on it last year. Try googling nanotech invisibility.

Good faking!

It's a program that you can edit photos in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop

Fail of the week goes to.....

Haha...

if I said his name, would I FAIL too?

Yes, quite so.

Shhhh. Don't talk. Just pull your hair.

......SPARTA!!!!

*Kicks down pit of death*

Argh!!!!!!!!!!!!

*kicks down into pit of arms*

lol

Touch it

It's like the old "Is the cat in the box if the box is closed and I can't see the cat any more?" type thing.

Ah, once invisibility is perfected this kind of argument will be so much fun!!!

except we won't need to close the box

Nor will the box need to exist.

The box doesn't exist. How can you be sure that there is a box? I've never seen the box. The only "evidence" we have of the box's existence is that Uru Wolf told us that there is a box. Do you concur?

No, I quarrel.

Do you wish to quarrel? Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?

But surely you'll just wear your steampunk goggles with built-in phase determination, allowing you to see the formerly invisible? (Or just a pair of polarised lenses, one over each eye but 90 degrees out)