# How is this new military "invisibility cloak" camouflage supposed to work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 12, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805 "2012-12-12T06:16:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/1 "2012-12-12T06:16:05Z")
[Per the CNN video segment](http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/12/11/west-virginia-gas-line-explosion.wchs)it claims the tech is “in the fabric” and is not some powered video screen concept. Any ideas how this magic fabric is supposed to “bend light”? [Bit more explanation here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch09030NDMU&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1) ---
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/2 "2012-12-12T06:21:44Z")
Omg. Harry Potter is real :eek: ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/3 "2012-12-12T07:03:16Z")
First link is a cop who “speed[s] away,” which means they sit by the fire for several seconds, checking their computer or whatever. Then they drive slowly away. Second link: when I hear a guy invented a “negative ion generator,” my BS-sensor tingles. Google search on it gets poorly formatted website that says ???. From that video, not enough to make a conclusion. His website (not the previous) says “Developer of new military camouflage based on mathematical fractals.” He is advised by Jay Neitz, who I know is not a quack. Haven’t heard of his research in this specific area, though. [Relevant link](http://www.optifade.com/hunting-gear/content/how-science-of-nothing.html). Might take me awhile to pore through this. The science links are credible, but the whole I can’t figure out yet. My conclusion: ??? ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/4 "2012-12-12T07:32:20Z")
Start by looking at the concept of [metamaterials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial). From the wiki, > [@](#): > > The primary research in metamaterials investigates materials with negative refractive index. Negative refractive index materials appear to permit the creation of superlenses which can have a spatial resolution below that of the wavelength. In other work, a form of ‘invisibility’ has been demonstrated at least over a narrow wave band with gradient-index materials. A scientific paper describing the design and properties of a fibre exhibiting such negative refractive indices, may be read [here](http://123seminarsonly.com/Seminar-Reports/029/36952004-Invisibility-Cloak.pdf). (Pdf.) From the abstract of the paper: > [@](#): > > The invisibility is realised by matching the refractive index of the metamaterial fibre with the surroundings. We present a general recipe for the fabrication of such fibres, and numerically characterise a specific example using hexagonally arranged silver nanowires in a silica background. We find that invisibility is highly sensitive to details of the metamaterial boundary, a problem that is likely to affect most invisibility and cloaking schemes. Perhaps the military has found a way around their boundary issues? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/5 "2012-12-12T22:27:42Z")
The CNN video doesn’t have anything to do with the topic, and the YouTube link is some random crackpot, so it’s hard to tell what the OP is asking about. But there are two completely different technologies that are often described as “invisibility cloaks”, and neither is anywhere remotely near practical. One is the metamaterials **Gray Ghost** mentions. They work, in principle, but the smaller the wavelength you’re working with, the finer the detail you need in your nanowires. So far, it’s only actually been done in microwaves, which are a far cry indeed from visible light. In fact, I’m skeptical that it’s even possible to make something out of atoms that would work with visible light. The other consists of taking an image with a camera, and then somehow putting that image on a surface, so that if you’re standing in just the right spot, the surface sort of looks transparent. The catch here is that even if you can match everything up just right, it only works from that exact angle. If the military wants invisibility that only works against someone standing in one exact spot, the easier method is to just fire an M16 at that spot. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/6 "2012-12-12T23:32:45Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > [snip] Another good username/topic confluence. ---
**Author:** ![JWT\_Kottekoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@JWT\_Kottekoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JWT_Kottekoe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/7 "2012-12-13T04:24:13Z")
I saw the story on CNN that the OP must have been referring to. It was complete nonsense. Someone must have been listening too long to the likes of Michio Kaku, spouting off about invisibility cloaks. As Chronos says, those thing aren’t anything like their name implies. I blame the scientists who are deliberately using this terminology to make their work sound more exciting. Typically they show that under some highly contrived circumstance with absolutely monchromatic waves, cominig from just the right angle in some limited number of dimensions (1 or 2) the waves go past the obstacle just as if the obstacle wasn’t there. Nothing to do with invisibility cloaks. Harry Potter is fantasy, but someone in the military must have bought this story of cloaks made out of whole cloth, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/8 "2012-12-13T09:54:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The other consists of taking an image with a camera, and then somehow putting that image on a surface, so that if you’re standing in just the right spot, the surface sort of looks transparent. The catch here is that even if you can match everything up just right, it only works from that exact angle. If the military wants invisibility that only works against someone standing in one exact spot, the easier method is to just fire an M16 at that spot. This “retro video” technique wouldn’t work very well even at that, unless whatever surface that is displaying the image is able to match or come close to the ambient luminance of whatever setting it’s in. Most likely, it’ll be outside in broad daylight. That’s pretty frikkin’ bright. Take your laptop outdoors, set to the brightest setting and you’ll see what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/9 "2012-12-13T13:07:15Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The other consists of taking an image with a camera, and then somehow putting that image on a surface, so that if you’re standing in just the right spot, the surface sort of looks transparent. The catch here is that even if you can match everything up just right, it only works from that exact angle. If the military wants invisibility that only works against someone standing in one exact spot, the easier method is to just fire an M16 at that spot. _Top Gear_ did it recently. It was surprisingly effective but more in a “camouflage” sense rather than true invisibility - quite disorientating. The actual footage from the show doesn’t appear to be on YouTube but someone [filmed them going past](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg81bBQJxQE). It looked a lot better on the show, as they were obviously filming from the right vantage point. The brightness seemed to match fairly well - they used those bright LED(?) screens like they use in stadiums. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/10 "2012-12-13T13:20:24Z")
Most of these seem roughly as effective as asking your enemy to close their eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/11 "2012-12-13T13:41:36Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Most of these seem roughly as effective as asking your enemy to close their eyes. Hey, it works on Traal. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/12 "2012-12-13T14:04:42Z")
Why shouldn’t the military throw a few million at this half-true, half-baked nonsense? They already spent ridiculous amounts on high-tech dowsing rods for mine detection. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-this-new-military-invisibility-cloak-camouflage-supposed-to-work/643805/13 "2012-12-13T14:17:31Z")
It worked for Malcolm. Plus it was recyclable.