Talk:Cloak of invisibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New version[edit]

I've created a new version at the temporary subpage. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Now we wait for it to move into place. -- M (speak/spoken) 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Misza13 to do this task. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 14:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved. Misza13 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just found something interesting , might be incorporated into the science section, as this could potentially make an invisibility cloak. read it and check it out ( you may have heard of it before.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a reference to "Lord of the Rings" in the literature section? Frodo uses a cloak of invisibility there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific development[edit]

I think this info should be added to the article. John Hyams (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Why is this article not merged with Invisibility? In particular, the scientific contributions (here and for Invisibility) are merely idiosyncratic versions of that in the metamaterial cloaking, varieties of cloaking theories, and other pages. In fact, I suggest all the detailed science from here and Invisibility is moved somewhere else, leaving only a few descriptive sentences and appropriate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A recurring theme[edit]

In the field of metamterials a new paper often critques a previous work, or method. New papers pertaining to cloaking do this also. This can include an overview of the weaknesses of the previous work. This is probably because the new paper is an advance, or progress in the field. And critiquing the other paper probably helps to illustrate the current work, and maybe ensures funding, and it is appropriate. However, the critiqued work often advances (incrementally) and then critiques the work that critiqued it. Hence, there is no sure bet about which method will actually achieve broad band cloaking in the visible spectrum. Metamaterials and cloaking are in a constant state of flux, will be until a broad band invisibility cloak is produced (in 50 years ???). Hence, I have made some changes in this article.

I copy edited global statements and "forever-always" conclusions. I removed implied, or explicit, singular authorites of this sceince. This is a highly collaborative field, with many participants, and a number of approaches to cloaking. There is no way to predict the outcome - there is no way to know which methods will ultimately succeed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New article which might be useful[edit]

See here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Section copy edit[edit]

I am thinking doing some clean up on the section entitled "Cloaks of invisibility in science". On the other hand, it seems to do well in its current format. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarnkappe and Alp[edit]

The tarnkappe is probably most often associated with the dwarf Alberich, but association with Alp (folklore) is spurious, and I have removed it. The association is given in the Alp (folklore) citing three vampire handbooks, which have no independent value since the contents are so similar, and only one of the three (Maberry) says the hat worn by the Alp is the tarnkappe. So this is pretty much only citable to only one not so reliable source (fiction writer and not an academic who specializes in German lore). Furthermore, the three vampire references make an assertion that an alp is always found to be wearing a hat (or tarnkappe), which is patently false, since not every alp anecdote features a hat/cape of invisibility. Ergo, the three vampire sources are erroneous and not reliable on this subject. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)