This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2013-03-24 01:39
-
Joker wrote on 2013-03-24 01:47
it's not that new a tech... people have been working on this stuff for awhile and it's been researched in Japan I think for some sort of see through car to see through blind spots?
http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/japan-invents-%E2%80%98james-bond%E2%80%99-see-through-car-tech
Though this version from the Canadians is probably a revised tech version
-
Yoorah wrote on 2013-03-24 23:20
The Japanese tech you linked uses cameras and a monitor. It's s completely different principle. :p
As for hyperstealth, ice seen those mockup pics before. I guess they've finally worked out the glitches or something.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-03-25 00:01
My antivirus lid up when I clicked the first link... anyway, I don't know if I can trust this news. You can bend lights but how do you make the object behind the person reflect light pass the person and to my eyes without distortion?
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-03-25 20:25
Well it's not truly invisible if you can see the outline of the device. Perfecting it will be difficult and dangerous. Think of all the evil uses guys or girls will do to see people naked without them knowing!
Not like they could do much else besides that without making themselves not invisible. Well, they could stalk someone and not be seen so I take that back...
-
Drizzit wrote on 2013-03-25 21:04
Quote from Kingofrunes;1055679:
Well it's not truly invisible if you can see the outline of the device. Perfecting it will be difficult and dangerous. Think of all the evil uses guys or girls will do to see people naked without them knowing!
Not like they could do much else besides that without making themselves not invisible. Well, they could stalk someone and not be seen so I take that back...
Yes, these are clearly the most evil uses for stealth technology imaginable.:chin:
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-03-25 22:28
Quote from Drizzit;1055709:
Yes, these are clearly the most evil uses for stealth technology imaginable.:chin:
It depends on how much you perfect it really. As long as movements distort it so that you can see outlines like the way it is currently, the uses of it are fairly limited.
100% invisibility is a death sentence for humanity as so many things could be done with it if every single thing about the person was invisibility. Murders, Rape, and chaos would be widespread and the human race would fall.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2013-03-25 22:37
It's much easier to make technology to detect than it is to make technology to conceal. Even if they perfect this invisibility to the human eye there's still chemical, infrared, motion sensing and air volume displacement.
If this ends up becoming publicly available technology then not soon after, or even before it goes mainstream, we'll be able to say "there's an app for that".
-
sump wrote on 2013-03-25 23:13
"for security issues we can not show the actual technology"
This means:
"No we can't superficially demonstrate our product to anyone, they'll gather all the technical details, copy it and make us go out of business and sell it to terrorists and China and stuff".
That means: load of hogwash.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-03-26 00:38
They also claim this technology can avoid detection from radar and such... Which means this technology emits no detectable radiation... what?
-
Yoorah wrote on 2013-03-26 02:48
It's actually perfectly acceptable for them not to want to reveal any details, given that this would be top secret technology. I'd have more issues with them going public with this announcement in the first place. If they have a revolutionary product and a massive buyer (US military) then they don't need the publicity. But eh, I'll give em the benefit of the doubt because this is cool tech none the less.
And making it invisible to radar isn't any different than making it invisible to the naked eye. It's all EM--the only difference is the frequency.
-
Drizzit wrote on 2013-03-26 04:22
Quote from Kingofrunes;1055750:
It depends on how much you perfect it really. As long as movements distort it so that you can see outlines like the way it is currently, the uses of it are fairly limited.
100% invisibility is a death sentence for humanity as so many things could be done with it if every single thing about the person was invisibility. Murders, Rape, and chaos would be widespread and the human race would fall.
For military purposes anyway, 100% invisibility is not necessary for it to be extremely useful, simply making things harder to detect provides one with a tactical advantage..
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-03-26 07:14
Quote from Yoorah;1056004:
It's actually perfectly acceptable for them not to want to reveal any details, given that this would be top secret technology. I'd have more issues with them going public with this announcement in the first place. If they have a revolutionary product and a massive buyer (US military) then they don't need the publicity. But eh, I'll give em the benefit of the doubt because this is cool tech none the less.
And making it invisible to radar isn't any different than making it invisible to the naked eye. It's all EM--the only difference is the frequency.
It's very different, to be invisible to the naked eyes, you are bending the light to make us "see" the object behind the cloak as if it's directly in front of us. To be invisible to detection equipment means to scatter radiation so much that it's as if the object doesn't emit radiation.
-
sump wrote on 2013-03-26 07:33
Quote from Yoorah;1056004:
It's actually perfectly acceptable for them not to want to reveal any details, given that this would be top secret technology.
That's fine, but showing that it works does not equal revealing technical details which can be used by competitors. It would be just as revealing as those pictures, except slightly harder to edit I guess. This isn't like letting anyone look at the chassis of the F-117, which has also not been a significant disadvantage as of yet, just saying.
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1056129:
It's very different, to be invisible to the naked eyes, you are bending the light to make us "see" the object behind the cloak as if it's directly in front of us. To be invisible to detection equipment means to scatter radiation so much that it's as if the object doesn't emit radiation.
Light
is radiation. The same basic principles could apply here, though I guess higher and lower frequencies bring their own particular problems just like in music reproduction with boxes.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-03-26 07:39
Quote from sump;1056139:
That's fine, but showing that it works does not equal revealing technical details which can be used by competitors. It would be just as revealing as those pictures, except slightly harder to edit I guess. This isn't like letting anyone look at the chassis of the F-117, which has also not been a significant disadvantage as of yet, just saying.
Light is radiation. The same basic principles could apply here, though I guess higher and lower frequencies bring their own particular problems just like in music reproduction with boxes.
Yes, but what optical invisibility is trying to do is bend light, not scatter it. It's not the same thing.