Talk:Negative-index metamaterial

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus. — Please relist after further developing the article or reaching some consensus on the topic being addressed here.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope → ? — The current title is unwieldy and doesn't seem to have the right style for a Wikipedia article title. There must be a more appropriate name we can give this article. Suggestions? Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has altered my comment above. I did not propose Negative index metamaterials as the new name, and I oppose this name for the article.--Srleffler (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

since you originally movereq'ed the article, someone has moved it and then that move was reverted. There seems to be at least some consensus developing in support of using "Negative index metamaterials", so I would suggest jumping in to the discussion below.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored my original comment, and the original movereq tag, so that the text does not falsely attribute the name proposed below to me.

The title expresses the theme of the article. If you could sum up the article in a phrase, this would be itTi-30X (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index metamaterials sounds good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Agreed, Negative index metamaterials is a much more reasonable title.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling reasoning. If you have a legitimate concern with the proposal, now would be the time to state it.
— V = I * R (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the science, technology, development, and future application of negative refractive index theory ( and the sub theories, which this encompasses). There is no science in invisibilty. Invisibility is a science fiction term, and a term or description used by mass media. It would not be appropriate as a title for this article. Negative index metamaterials is a more appropriate title than invisibilty for this article. In fact, I have to agree that Negative index metamaterial is a very good title, Rich. Ti-30X (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: As the original author of the article, could I just go ahead and move the title to "Negative index metamaterials" ? Would anyone mind that? This is not easy, though. For some reason I like the orginal title, but maybe it is too glitzy. So let's do the change, and get it out of the way. Ti-30X (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would wait for a while. At the very least, you should give the proposer a chance to come back and see where the discussion is going. Besides, you never know, someone could come up with a great alternative... Which isn't to say that we should wait indefinitely. Give it a coupe of days to shake out, though. If I were you, I'd take this opportunity to try improving the article some (having just skimmed through it, I can say that it needs copy editing with an eye to grammar at the very least).
— V = I * R (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, too late now, I see... for future reference, I strongly recommend waiting at least a couple of days. Anyway, since you've gone ahead and performed the page move I've removed the movereq from the page.
— V = I * R (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't like it was that the article doesn't seem to be on that subject. Note that there already is material on negative refractive index in the wikipedia Negative_refractive_index#Negative_refractive_index.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't too late, and I have duly undone the move. It is completely unacceptable to do these kinds of moves in the middle of a discussion like that without a shred of consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

wow.. OK, thanks for creating an even bigger mess. Ugh. I've readded the movereq templates (at least now there's a good proposed name to use).

As for the "doesn't seem to be on that subject" comment... I'm not sure what to say really. Yes, it is, but I don't really expect you to take my word for it. The fact that there is a Negative refractive index article (or, at least, a section) actually suppots the proposal to use "Negative index metamaterials", here (the use of "negative index" is obviously established on Wikipedia).
— V = I * R (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you moved the article to the wrong title. The original title was Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope. You tacked "to Negative index metamaterials" onto the end. It looks like you copied and pasted the text from the history entry for the move, and got more text than you should have. The article can only be moved back to the original title by an administrator, but perhaps it can sit here while the discussion continues.--Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the article seems to be on using negative refractive index materials for producing stealth. An article on negative refractive index materials would be on all uses of negative refractive index materials; some of the proposed uses include imaging things smaller than the wavelength of light for example. But, I'm going to go with consensus if that's what the consensus turns out to be, which right now there clearly isn't consensus, and I won't accept fait accomplis.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the distinctions that you are drawing above are your own artificial constructs... I won't allow this to be turned into an inter-personal issue though, so I'll just leave it at that. As for consensus, you appear to be the only actual opponent so far. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees, necessarily. Regardless, this hasn't even been up for 24 hours, so I'm perfectly willing to let this continue for a while longer, at this point.
— V = I * R (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Electromagnetic invisibility???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the name Negative index metamaterials for this article, because this article is on one specific application of such materials, not on those materials in general. This just wouldn't be an accurate title for the article. How about Electromagnetic cloaking or Metamaterial electromagnetic cloaking, based on titles of some of the article's references?--Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... can you define what "cloaking" means, withing the real Physics world?
— V = I * R (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The terms "cloak" and "cloaking" are used in the article, and in the titles of references 26, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43 (as currently numbered). I'm not going to attempt to define it, but the evidence is that the editors of Science, Physical Review Letters, and Optics Express were satisfied that this term is a good description of this technology.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not move the page. However, to another editor, I said that I wanted to make the move, get it out of the way, and move on. So, the other editor accomodated me. Personally, I don't want to Hem and Haw about this for the next seven days.Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose cloaking. It is a science fiction term, made up in the science fiction genre, no matter that some peer reviewed journals are using the term. Furthermore, the term cloaking is a term used by the mass media, to allude to things like Harry Potter. In other words the conotations are non-scientific, and trite. Harry's Potter cloak is pure fantasy. Star Trek is fantasy science fiction. This is not a mass media article, nor is it science fiction.

Also, if you notice, the word cloak is used once (or only twice) in the whole article. That was because I typed in there, by mistake, and intended to remove it. I conciously, and intentionally, made sure that I used physics, or physics related terms. If you want I can give a word count for this article and show you the ratio of the word "cloak". If the article is 2000 words then the ratio would be 1 in 2000 or 2 in 2000. If the article is 3000 words then the ratio would be 1 in or 2 in 3000. Using the word "cloak" in the title would be incogruous. It would not match the article at all. Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, at the time I wrote the comment above, the article used the words "cloak", "cloaked", and "cloaking" a total of twenty-one times, not counting the seven references that use it in their titles. I see that since then you have been removing this term from the article. Your reply above does not seem to reflect these facts. If you don't like the term "cloak" I'm fine with removing it from the article, but be up front about what you are doing.--Srleffler (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the count of the word "cloak". That was very sloppy of me. I didn't count it myself, and thought what I wrote was true. I actually had no idea. I was on edge when I wrote that, but it was still very sloppy of me. This has definitely been a good learning experince. Ti-30X (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ω (Omega) thank you for the advice. I think you are correct. This would be a good time to shape up the article. I will take a look at the grammar. Ti-30X (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index metamaterials is appropriate for this article. Negative refractive index and Negative index metamterials go hand in hand. Metamaterials by definition, are materials not found in nature (artificial). In this article Metamaterials are used to produce negative refraction index, and this article discusses the fabrication, use, and theory behind metamaterials and, what is seen as negative index, as opossed to a conventional (positive) refraction, in accordance with Snell's Law. Ti-30X (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with having an article on negative index metamaterials, but such an article cannot focus exclusively on applications to stealth technology. If this article is going to remain at Negative index metamaterials, it will have to have its focus on stealth reduced, and be broadened to cover other applications of this technology. Alternatively, the current structure of the article could be kept, but it could be moved to a title that reflects that this is an article specifically on stealth applications of negative index metamaterials. I'm open to either option, but we must choose one path or the other.--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope everybody would agree that a title for this paper should be a compromise between scientific accuracy, brevity and being understood by non-specialists (the primary audience here). The current title is way too long and incomprehensible; there is a reasonable concern that "cloaking" is a jargon which is not yet popularized in the media; "negative index" has a problem that it implies that "index" is "refractive index" which is not evident at all, and indeed, the article is on science and its techniques, not on materials. I understand the concern of Ti-30X that invisibility sounds as a fiction, but believe this word suits here because it will be understood and because it reflects the described techniques - after all, they all aim at making the object invisible to eyes or devices. Therefore propose Science of invisibility or Science and technology of invisibility (a bit more awkward though). The proposal of Wolfkeeper "electromagnetic invisibility", sounds good to me as a scientist, but looking by Martian eyes of a non-specialist, I would say it is a bit unclear. Please vote. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cloaking also suffers form Klingon associations. Key terms seem to be:

• Stealth
• Negative index
• Metamaterials (thee were once called composite materials (?), somewhat confusingly as that is also something else)

So maybe "Negative index stealthing" or "Negative index stealth applications" or "Negative index stealth" or "Negative index stealth with metamaterials"? Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

I like your line of reasoning here. If we don't find anything shorter, I would be satisfied with something like "Stealth applications of negative index metamaterials". It's not concise, but it is encyclopedic and accurately captures the subject matter of the article. --Srleffler (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with avoiding "cloaking" if others object to it, so long as we can come up with a title that accurately reflects the article's contents (or adjust the contents to correspond to the title). If the article is specifically on stealth applications, the title must reflect that. Negative index materials have applications beyond stealth, and if the title is going to be "Negative index metamaterials", focusing exclusively on stealth is giving undue weight to one application.

The use of the phrase "negative index" to refer to metamaterials with negative refractive index is pretty well established. I think it should be OK to use the former in the title, as long as the intro quickly explains what is meant. One of the problems with the intro at present is that it fails to quickly explain what the subject of the article is.--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index is unclear (should be negative refractive index, which makes the title awkward again). I do not mind exchanging "stealth" and "invisibility", but why avoiding "invisibility" ? This is exactly what is aimed in the paper. Regarding "Metamaterials", if you look at their article (again by Ti-30X), they are wider than negative refractive index. That was what I kept in mind in my above proposal. Materialscientist (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Invisibility" may be too much of a peacock term in this case. It implies a degree of control over visible light that is not very realistic. A metamaterial layer that routes radar waves around a fighter jet is a good stealth technology; it is a stretch to call that "invisibility".--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really - (i) this article is not on the old stealth technology, but on its future expansions; (ii) invisibility is a broad term covering radars and microwaves too; I don't see anything fancy in it (an object may be invisible even if merely blends with the surrounding, like animals do). I might accept that "negative index" is becoming a common term, and I don't mind other ideas. "Stealth applications of negative index metamaterials" sounds Ok, but the current "Negative index metamaterials" might be acceptable after all. Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern I have with "Negative index metamaterials" is just what I have stated before: these materials have other applications. If we choose that title, this article will need to be broadened to cover other applications, and the focus on stealth correspondingly reduced. I think it would be better to keep this as an article on stealth applications of this technology, and choose a title that accurately reflects that.--Srleffler (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The circumstances surrounding this article is a joke, in every way. The name is inappropriate, the article is a duplicate of metamaterial, it covers the same ground, the article doesn't cover the topic it claims in the introduction, the article name is ambiguous. The admin that moved the article to this inappropriate name, contributed to the discussion. Basically, there is nothing whatsoever meeting consensus about any aspect of this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Search statistics

Material scientist, I do appreciate your argument, but let me show you guys something: Looking at page view stats for the following articles: Metamaterials: July 20,005 views, June:13,032 and Metamaterials shows up at number 4 on the google search page after entering the "Negative index metamaterials" search term. When I use simply Negative index for my search term then the article Metamaterials shows up number 1 on the google search page. These statistics imply that there is a substantial audience who understand that Metamaterials and Negative index are something to look up. This shows awareness of these terms, and maybe awareness of some the concepts involved. I compare this with the stats, I looked up for Introduction to quantum mechanics, recently, which were over 16, 000 views for both June and July.

Now, I plug "negative refractive index" into the google search. Wala! Metamaterials is second, and Refractive index is third if we count the "google scholar links. Refractive index has 36, 568 views in July and 39,396 views in June. Relatively speaking, in the physics world, these are popular aritcles. "Refractive index" as a search term results in Refractive index as the first on the page. Surprisingly second on the page is List of refractive indices.

The stats for "Stealth technology" is 18, 004 views in July. Anyway you can see public awareness for terms such as "Negative Index materials". Not to mention that there are a list of these sites or articles running down the google page when these terms are entered into the search. I imagine people read these descriptions or terms in popular media Ti-30X (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rich has some good search terms, no offense Materialscientist. Yours are good too, but I prefer his, at the moment. And the current name is good. BTW if you think the Break isn't good here go ahead and take it out. Ti-30X (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist - yes I wrote most of that first section (which was skillfully edited, by someone else). But, that was when I was into Dr. Kaku and the Physics of the Impossible. I was also learning (from a certain Materialscientist) the value of scientific journals, and the value of citation templates. These were not easy lessons to learn. So, in other words my point of view has shifted. I suppose it can't be helped. Uh oh, have I been brainwashed? Or did I just wash my brain? (There was also a certain Dr. Bologna and Dr. Cheese, involved there, if I remember correctly.)Ti-30X (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking the work here. While search results shouldn't be , they are suggestive. What I take away from the above is vindication of the view that we shouldn't "dumb down" more accurate verbiage based on some nebulous belief that "lay people won't understand it". If someone could present some sort of proof that less accurate terminology is in fact more understandable then I'll accept that, but seeing as how there are copious dictionaries and plenty of supporting articles on Wikipedia readily available to readers I don't expect that any such proof is available. Wikipedia should strive for accuracy. Where accuracy impacts understandability, the issue should be resolved through explanatory text, including the use of links to additional articles.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above. Article titles should use the most common terminology for the subject, but should not avoid technical terms if they are the most common description. Rather, the lead should explain what the subject of the article is and provide the necessary context and links to supporting articles. --Srleffler (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading all of the recent conversation here, it's clear to me that the title is actually the item of least concern here. What this article is, or is supposed to be, really needs to be settled before coming up with a name can be adequately addressed. I'm really wondering if this shouldn't be multiple articles, myself (some of which probably already exist). I have other editing concerns so I'm not going to get into this beyond the naming issue here, but I suggest tabling the name issue for now and coming back to readdress it once the content issues have been settled (and the lead rewritten).
— V = I * R (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved back

Previous mover broke the page move "Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope to Negative index metamaterials" was the title. Moving it back is not even an endorsement of where I moved it to (except for it being better than where it has been), if you guys find a better title, then move it there by all means, and if you have a problem I will help move it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

You should not have moved the article while the discussion is ongoing and lacks consensus. Moving it to this title creates problems, since this title is not an accurate description of the current article's content. This title would seem to mandate reducing the article's focus on stealth as an application of negative index materials, and broadening the focus of the article to cover other applications. It would probably be better to keep it as an article specifically on stealth applications of this technology, and choose a title that reflects this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please understand Rich Farmbrough. What he did was housekeeping, merely reverting the questionable previous move. We are all positive here and just need to build up a solution. This stage is transitional, and the title is to be agreed upon. Please read my note above and vote. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

B******. As part of the move he used CSD G6: uncontroversial deletion. He very deliberately moved it to the one place that we were arguing it definitely should not be! This is literally abuse of administrative privileges. He could have moved it practically anywhere else.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, he should have moved it back to where it started.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I understand your frustration, and I apologize that you havent' been heard. Let's work togther, to resolve the issues that have come up. Please see my paragraph below - the last entry at this time. Let's move back to cooler heads. I react quickly too, so I completely understand!!Ti-30X (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article violates LEAD

Right now I'm not sure what the article is about. The article violates the WP:LEAD guidelines. Specifically, it's supposed to define what the title means, and what the article covers. In that way, it seems unencyclopedic right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This was why I tagged it "intro-rewrite". It's not that the intro is badly written; it's just not in the right form for a Wikipedia article. The article should lead off with a definition of what "Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope" is, ideally in the first sentence, and then explain it in more detail and provide background and motivation.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if we clearly knew what the article was about we would be much clearer what an appropriate name was, and whether there was anything missing from the article or not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The lead clearly and succinctly gives an overview of the article, and the rest of the article supports the lead. This is clearly in agreement with, WP: Lead guidelines. I think the tag, is not agreement with what is clearly written there. And so far you are speaking in generalities. If you want - you point out a section in the introduction, and I will point out the section of the article that supports that part of the introduction. After that we can remove the tag that you placed there. Ti-30X (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ti-30X, but this really is not the style of lead you would expect in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. It reads like somebody's thesis or essay, which is probably how it got its ridiculous title. This whole article needs rethinking to make it accessible to non-scientists; it is supposed to be written for the general reader. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ti-30X: Wikipedia standards require the title of the article to appear in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. Look at a bunch of WP articles, and you'll see that this is generally the case. Typically, the first sentence should define the subject of the article. The most obvious problem with the intro here is that it does not do this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strieffler - OK I will take a look around. Thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't tackled rewriting the intro because of the discrepancy between the article's title and its contents. Once we decide what the subject of this article is, we can get the intro right. --Srleffler (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So would you like to me elucidate what my original intentions are (or were)? See last few paragraphs below. - Ti-30X unsure of the time of this entry, replying to Srleffler.

Crystal ball?

I'm a bit concerned that in places the article may get too speculative. As an example, near the end the article says "When the technology is fully developed, an object can avoid detection by infrared, radar or radio waves. A large building, which is obstructing a view of the bay, could be cloaked. This would not only enhance the view, but also improve wireless communications. The same theory applies to sound waves so any structure could be protected from vibrations, sound, or seismic waves." Neither of these applications of the technology is very likely, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it a bit. I'll remove this bit from the article shortly.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's a proposed application of metameterials- the idea is to sink piles down in a particular pattern around the building. Calculations show that this avoids some types of earthquakes from hitting the building, they deflect around it.

The question is whether this is supposed to be covered by the article or not. Given the lack of lead, I honestly don't have a clue what the scope of the article is, so I have no clue whether that should or shouldn't go in; the lead is what scopes the article. This is a car crash of an article right now, it's just somebodies essay. The article as-is would fit in fine in some scientific journal, just not an encyclopedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but is that seismic redirection accomplished with a negative index metamaterial, or do the pilings function more like a photonic crystal? I suspect the latter. We can add something about this application back in, if it's more carefully worded. The previous text's implication that the "same theory" applies to sound waves, and therefore structures can be protected from "vibrations, sound, or seismic waves" is at least misleading if not outright incorrect. The underlying physics of negative-index metamaterials is pretty specific to electromagnetic waves. I don't believe there is any analog for sound or seismic waves. One can make other types of metamaterials for sound, however.--Srleffler (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative mu for sound: [1]. That's the thing, what the heck is the topic here? The lead is even more important than the title, and it's utterly inadequate. The title says its all about that as well, but the text doesn't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chalkboard

Let's try to decide what the topic is. I apologize for thinking that was apparent. That was arrogant of me. I hope you understand that I am knew to this process, and I became a little overwheimed with the attention this article has drawn. Also, I became overwhelemed when we started trying to find an appropriate title, and then someone brought up the introduction, and then someone else thinks corrections need to made in the article, etc., etc. I guess I really didn't expect to have this much help available. So I have been feeling like this stuff is coming at me from different directions. As I said, I am knew to this. . Also, I am familiar with a couple of editors from previous articles. But, there a couple of editors I am not familiar with, you guys decided to pitch in and help, anyway. But, you have different styles than the styles of working I am used to. I am realizing the different working is style is fine. I just didn't want to get into any contests about marginal science, and I see that hasn't happened. So I am rating this article Phew! (with a sigh of relief). Wolfkeeper, and Srleffler, I see that you both have backgrounds in physics - so welcome aboard. So, hopefully you want to hear what the intended topic is or was. Ti-30X (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that you will want to have this information. Here is a basic summation I wrote in another thread: This is research that is going on in the lab, creating a negative refractive index. It has been in the lab since around 2006. Actual negative refractive index was achieved around the year 2000, but this was similar to just checking out the material. This technology is decades away from real world applications. I based the article on peer reviewed journals. This is nothing that is going to happen tommorrow. I would say, maybe the 2040's, 2050's or 2060's. Who knows? Military is not the only projected possible use. There are other civilian uses as well, some of which is mentioned later in the article. Today's stealth technology is very effective, and I admire it very much from the research I did on it.

OK - here is another very basic summation, that I did at another thread: I see what you are geting at. The "pliable envelope" part would be controlling responsive electromagnetic fields. It's kind of a metaphor. The envelope would also be in enveloping the object in the electromagnetic fields. It's a two word description of a mature future technology, perhaps sometime in the 2040's, 2050's, or 2060's. I have no problem in letting that go from the title, at this time. It sounds too glitzy, anyway. To provide further clarity - I am not refering to current stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope. Current stealth is about the physcial materials used. It is actually used as a contrast, in the article. So the sourced material on current stealth technology, is about current stealth (today). Ti-30X (talk), 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - I meant to say the core of the article is based on peer reviewed scientific journals. For stealth topics, I went to books, articles, and what I considered to be worthy websites that had information about air craft, such as Global security and Airforce - technology.com Ti-30X (talk), 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ti-30X. I'm glad you've realized that we're all trying to help here. Sometimes the attention a new article gets can be overwhelming. You've realized the important thing: tags, editor comments, debates about titles, etc. are all attempts to help improve the article, not criticisms or obstructions.

The key question that we need to decide on is what the scope of this article should be. Do we want to cover negative index materials generally (including stealth applications), or focus just on stealth applications? Note that there are already articles on Metamaterials and on cloaking devices (the latter covering both sci-fi concepts and metamaterial technologies). Personally, I favor having an article just on stealth applications, and letting Metamaterial cover the underlying physics and the broader applications of these materials. I haven't looked into it in detail, however, so I'm open to other ideas about how to organize the material.--Srleffler (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper: cool, I wasn't aware of that. I stand corrected.--Srleffler (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Srleffler, hopefully you are reading the section, I opened up entitled "Introduction". I would like to have a go at trying to work with the article as is for now. Truthfully, at this point I am better versed in metamaterials, and the theory of negative refractive index, than stealth technology. Ti-30X (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Let's do all the work in the introduction section here (for the introduction to the article).

• Ok here is the first sentence in the introduction, and from this I thought it was pretty clear what this article is about: "The capability to direct and regulate electromagnetic fields, in order to blend in objects with the environment, is available, but yet only in the laboratory."

OK so I am saying "blend in" as a synonym for cloaking or cloaking technology. The object blends in because the EM fields surround and cloak the object. In addition, I first state that there is a capability to do cloak an object by directing EM fields. In other words by choice, with someone at the controls and object is hidden from view, and look like only sky is there. This is because the EM fields now imitate empty space, while at the same time hiding an object within the fields. Then I state that it is available, but now, come to think of it. It is not really available, because it is only in the lab. It is available in the lab, but not out in society, yet. This is an undeveloped technology. So, the phrase, "is available" should be removed or it gives the wrong impression. So, is this clear so far? Does this give us a direction to go in? Ti-30X (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 UTC)

I will continue, here, but you guys feel free to jump in. Ti-30X (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The next sentence mentions agencies that fund these projects. This is important to help establish notability for the article. That is the main function of this sentence.
• The next two sentences state: Real world applications are unlikely for several decades. With today's stealth aircraft, such as the B-2 Spirit, the current technology is based on the materials and shapes of the vehicle

I state correctly that applications for this technology is several decades away. With the next sentence I am starting to establish limitations, of current stealth technology. These are limited because of materials used to maintain the stealth vehicles, and because of the specifications for their shape, so they can be stealth vehicles. I do elaborate and expand this in a later section within the article. The rationale for doing this, is to be able to compare the limitations of current stealth with a possible or projected solution - several decades from now. Ok I will stop for now, so everyone can catch upTi-30X (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding suspiciously like synthesized, original research... There should be sources somewhere that we can paraphase (either paper sources or online, it doesn't matter which). It's important to keep in mind what Wikipedia is not
— V = I * R (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Ohms. I suggest we work through the article to find out what it is and what it is not. Let's not jump to conclusion, this early in the process. Ti-30X (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please don't get caught up in the names of stuff yet. I think part of this process will be defining what we mean, in the article. Ti-30X (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

synthesis brings up a concern as to weather or not the article should exist at all, though (on Wikipedia, at least).
— V = I * R (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This next sentence, looks like it has been edited, hence, it gives incorrect information. No matter, we can correct it now. Here is the sentence, One development of stealth technology is to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum, to envelope the object so that it cannot be seen or detected.

So this sounds like a development of current stealth technology, even though that is not the intended meaning of the sentence. The readers will misunderstand, so I need a correction here. This should state, something like, "One development of manipulating EM fields is to envelope the object so that it cannot be seen or detected."

There are about four basic distinctions in this article. One is stealth technology is current stealth technology, until near the end of the article, or it gets all mixed up. I suggest that we don't define a future stealth technology until later in the article. Use EM fields, or EM spectrum, or other similar descriptions until near the end of article. If this isn't clear I will try to clarify.

Two is the manipulation of EM fields with the science of Negative Index Refraction.

Three is the object is hidden from view, or can be hidden from view. I have tried to use words such as concealment. If in the end, this is too much of a pain in butt for everybody, than we can use the word "cloak". These are suggestions only, BTW. Ti-30X (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Four Current limitations of stealth technology. Allow me to add to this, it might be prudent to add a number of the stealth aircrafts's abilities, when we get to this part, to show they are effective military aircraft. This is so we can present a balanced view of current stealth technology. How do we do this, I don't know. Ti-30X (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also for number 4, keep in mind that we don't have to worry about this, until later in the article. This is not a concern for the introduction. The article is structured something like this:

1. Introduction
2. Four sections in describing the theory and demonstrations of controlling EM fields and negative refractive index.
3. The fifth section is Limitation of stealth tech. Hopefully we can change to include capability.
4. The next sections are other stuff, which we can get into later.

• Everything directly relating to Stealth technology should be covered in the stealth article, including (reliably, and verifiably sourced) future technologies. Cloaking is covered in Cloaking device, and the same holds true of material about it as with stealth. That leaves points #2 and 3, both of whom deal with Negative index refraction, which is covered somewhat in the Metamaterial article. This description seems to indicate that the "field of view" (so to speak) needs to be narrowed and/or differentiated further for this article.
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  Would you care to sign your entry so I know to whom, I am speaking? And we are only in the introduction yet. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please.Ti-30X (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about forgetting my sig earlier (keep in mind that you can always look at the page history to figure out who posted an unsigned comment. Talk page histories are distinct from article histories). I'm bringing these points up because it's basically impossible to write an introduction to an article where there is uncertainty regarding the actual topic. The so far unanswered concerns regarding WP:SYN also give pause to rushing ahead to copy editing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at stealth

Thanks for your civil demeanor - here is this so far:

In the stealth article these sections have no citations - Radar cross-section (RCS) reductions, Vehicle shape, Non-metallic airframe, Radar absorbing material, Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations. Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations has a subsection entitled Low frequency radar. If you check out the article that is used as a source there is nothing at all about Low frequency radar in the article. The article is entitled "AirVenture Oshkosh 2009 – Another Pilgrimage". However, the one after that looks hopeful for stealth limitations, I am reading it now. But the score, in this article isn't too good at the moment.Ti-30X (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can believe that the Stealth technology article needs work (most articles do). Be sure to edit the issues that you do find with it, when you are able to do so. I'm not really certain, but I think that what you are implying here is that nothing from this article should be merged into the stealth article because it needs work? If that's the position which you are actually advancing, then I can simply point to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. While the subject of that essay is not directly on point regarding mergers, the general ideas which it expresses are still applicable.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about merger. I wasn't thinking about that, right now. I really, think it is too soon for that, at the moment. I thought you were pointing out that the stealth material in this article is already sourced in the other article. Which most of it isn't. That is what helps distinguish this article from that one. In any case, I did not write this so it could be mergered into metamaterials, and stealth. The other editors are on board for re working this article as it is. Like I said, don't jump the gun, right now. With all due respect, if you are not interested at this point then let us work on it. You are free to join us later if you want. Ti-30X (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW - here is the information on the rest of the stealth article.

The next, following sections have no in line citations: Acoustics, Infrared, Reducing radio frequency (RF) emissions. There is a questionable external link in "Infared". I am not sure if this qualifies according to WP standards. In any case, there are no in line citations in this section, as previously mentioned. In addition, Measuring stealth, and Stealth tactics have no inline citations. After that it is a list similar to a "see also" section. Ti-30X (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I feel compelled to point out that you sound as though you're asserting ownership of the article. I've been putting off editing on other articles which I've been working on in order to assist editing this one, but I'm beginning to question that decision now... At this point, based on all of the discussion so above, I'm really uncertain what we should be deciding right now. I don't think that there is any agreement that the article should even exist any longer (based on my own thoughts expressed here, and those of Materialscientist, Wolfkeepe, and Srleffler. I admire your enthusiasm, but precicely who is "getting ahead" of whom seems to be in debate right now as well.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I wasn't intending to assert ownership. I have to agree, I have no idea what we should be deciding. I previously came to the conclusion that we all wanted to develop the introduction, so I was trying to apply a focus to that in the hopes that the other editors would pick up the ball and run with it (including me). I apologize if I am coming across, as asserting ownership - I didn't know that I was. I would like to make a proposal. How about if we fork, the stealth technology stuff into a stealth technology article entitled something like "Limitations of current stealth technology." And fork the four sections that go with "Scientific background" into another article about the science that is there. You were correct that there are WP synthesis questions, later in the article. However, my hope was that by the time we got there we would have a solution, where there would be no question of synthesis. Hopefully, this is now moot. We fork into two articles and merge the rest out in agreement with your tags. I don't have a consensus here. I thought that I did. Another editor is interested in working on a stealth technology article and I am too. What do you think of my proposal Ti-30X (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fine proposal. The only point where I would offer an adjustment is that it will likely be much easier to merge material from this article into Stealth technology#Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations, and after accomplishing (most of) that task to then set about splitting the Stealth technology article. Trying to accomplish both tasks in one feel swoop is likely to cause more dispute rather then resolving anything.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good! I think you have done this before. I appreciate your experience in this matter. OK, so how about if we take it one step at a time. First we merge with the other article. After that has been accomplished. Then, take the next step, which is, later we propose a split. Does this sound good to you? We don't have to accomplish that all at once, right? Ti-30X (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my sudden interference. I only briefly looked through the posts, and the one before last message by Ω (the last actually crossed with my edit, twice :) brought me to say this: There is much useful info in the discussion, but we might be wasting time. Talking about editing and actual editing need balance. Another thing I would address to Srleffler is that IMO, it is useless trying to fix WP as a whole - one article at a time, existence of other articles has never been an impediment, even if the topics overlap, they give different views. Mergers are always a tricky matter which can be decided later. To me, existence of other WP pages on metamaterials is irrelevant here. Many of them were actually written by Ti-30X (with his earlier views on the matter, and those views clearly improved, as easy to see by comparison). Terms are also misleading. "Stealth technology" is often understood as something pertaining to the US stealth aicraft - let the terms be, they are always misleading to some extend. To summarize, I would leave the current title and work on the article itself, adding refs, fixing incorrect science, etc., i.e. a usual routine. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist - so you are reccomending against splitting this article into a merger and an article now, and another article later. I will take this into consideration. You might be correct that if we just retain the current title, we could derive a focus from that for the introduction and go from there. OK I will look at this proposal. How about you Ohm, what do you think? Ti-30X (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have to agree that existence of overlap by article title is not an impediment, and the other articles do give a different view. That does express how I percieve the matter, but no one seemed to be going along with it. Thanks for your input Materialscientist Ti-30X (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohm, I appreciate your interest in this article. Especially, your willingness to put off working with other articles, for this one. It says a lot. And I consider it a compliment. So, what is your opinion on Materialscientist's proposal. Ti-30X (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can we archive this talk page? It is really long, now. That way we can start fresh wherever we want to start fresh from. Ti-30X (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No we can't. Much of the volume here is the move discussion, which is still open. We need to close that before we archive it. Give it another week. By then we should have a consensus.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

Some synonyms for the word "material", as in physical "material":

being, body, bolt, cloth, component, constituent, crop, element, entity, equipment, gear, goods, habiliments, individual, ingredient, machinery, materiel, object, outfit, paraphernalia, staple, stock, stuff, substance, supply, tackle, textile, thing.

Poll

Looking over the recent comments, it appears to me that a consensus may be developing around keeping the title "Negative index metamaterials", and adjusting the article content to fit it to this title. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. (This is of course not a vote, but rather a poll to determine whether we have a consensus. I encourage you to leave comments on why you support or oppose.)--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain for now. I was opposed to the current title, but it sounds like there is willingness to broaden the article's coverage so that it truly agrees with this title. I am fine with the overlap with Metamaterial.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support (that is keep). The article is work in progress, it is much better than metamaterial, and could enlarge through adding content or absorbing other articles. Lead is a non-issue now, the majority of (new) articles don't have a coherent lead at all; it will hopefully be fixed later. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I support this proposal. The current title indicates or describes the science underlying the article. It gives the reader a sense of what the article discusses. Ti-30X (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with whatever you guys want to do. Just be sure to reference everything real well. I find that inline referencing is generally more important then anything else, including proper grammar and well written prose, when it comes to Wikipedia articles. I'm personally still somewhat concerned that a syntheses is presented here, for example, and the way to alleviate such concerns is through referencing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed, about referencing. One problem with the current article is that Ti tended to put references at the end of paragraphs. It would be very helpful, especially in the introduction, if he would move them to the end of the sentences they support, especially in cases where the sentence is talking about future technologies, or is speculative. Such material needs to be very well cited.--Srleffler (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed given the current lead, the current title is inappropriate for what the article claims to be covering. If you want to keep the current title, I suggest you change the lead to match it, and put up maintenance tags for the rest of the article. Negative index metameterials are not only materials that are constructed to manipulate electromagnetic fields, there are different types and the article is essentially lying/misrepresenting what they are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  What you are suggesting is just what I proposed, as far as I can see: keep the current title and adjust the article content to fit it. If this poll achieves consensus for "support", the first thing to do will be to rewrite the intro to match the new title.--Srleffler (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Just to convey my observation over hundreds of unfinished WP articles I tried to fix - they do not have a proper lead at all. Their lead is usually written only when they get to GA or B level, and it is natural - hard to summarize if the text is unsettled yet. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yea, that observation matches my own experience; generally speaking it does, at least. The issue here isn't so much the lead, it's that neither the lead nor the title, nor the subject of the article itself is firmly settled. I don't see much progress being made on this issue without settling exactly what this article is/should be, so my advice is to just ignore the current state of the actual article and concentrate on the ideas of what it should be. That's what seems to be occurring at the moment anyway, so it's all good.
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I honestly can say I've never seen that happen where the title changes to a radically different meaning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, I've seen everything, a poll about whether a poll should be closed??? This is total abuse of the wikipedia's processes. The poll was no consensus, and should be closed with that, at best.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Ohm, wrote to me, on his talk page, that it would be OK for us to remove the merge tags, if that is what we want to do. Well, it looks like consensus is moving toward keeping the article intact, and working with it as is, whatever the title. So, hopefully, no one minds, I will remove the merge tags. Ti-30X (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"her"? really? that's interesting... lol
— V = I * R (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't why I did that. I was thinking earler, how do I refer to Ohm? I meant to refer to you as a "person", or something like that.

lol, It doesn't bother me, I just found it interesting is all.
— V = I * R (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction 2

Srleffler, I rewrote the introduction in a manner that you and Wolfkeeper were discussing. Materialscientist did do some coaching as well. I see, now what you were saying. This does reflect the title. And it will be a simple matter to change the introduction, to reflect a different title, if that is the result. Ti-30X (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, check out the lead (introduction) in a few minutes. I have narrowed it down. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people have done some good re-writing with the introduction. Ti-30X (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is a good re-writing, but I think that it is important, to state the capabilities of stealth aircraft, before briefly mentioning some limitations. IMHO - this presents a balanced (an unbiased) view. IMHO (again) I don't believe it is necessary to focus only on limitations of stealth for the sake of this article. In addition, I think it is important to add capabilities to the Limitations of stealth section. I guess we should discuss this. Does anyone mind if I add capabilites to the article? Ti-30X (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the time being I added back the capabilities to the introduction. This can be removed at anytime. I didn't change any of the other editing, because I like how it is written already. Also, this part mentioning capabilites can be reworked (I will be glad to do it) without so many quotes. This was mostly to just get it into the article, at the time. Please discuss: Ti-30X (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Advise to reconsider. The re-added part does sound like a cheap promotion for stealth aircraft, i.e. it only says they are good, whereas a better way is to say, in a focused manner, what makes them good, avoiding "good" words as much as possible - the reader is to judge. BTW, I only quickly reformulated what already was in the lead, without looking at the article. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did a good job with the lead IMHO, along with whoever else worked on it. And I hear your opinion on adding stealth capabilities in this manner. I believe you make a good point, that stating what makes them is good is much more effective. I will do this. Ti-30X (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a statement in the introduction - "In the future, the concealment might be achieved across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from the lowest radio frequencies, through microwaves, to the visible light." I am pretty sure I read this in one or more of the journal articles. I just have to find it, again. Ti-30X (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of sink piles for earthquakes

In addition, not related to the Introduction, I am going to add what Srleffer and Wolfkeeper were discussing -

W - "Actually that's a proposed application of metameterials- the idea is to sink piles down in a particular pattern around the building. Calculations show that this avoids some types of earthquakes from hitting the building, they deflect around it.

S -Interesting, but is that seismic redirection accomplished with a negative index metamaterial, or do the pilings function more like a photonic crystal? I suspect the latter. We can add something about this application back in, if it's more carefully worded. The previous text's implication that the "same theory" applies to sound waves, and therefore structures can be protected from "vibrations, sound, or seismic waves" is at least misleading if not outright incorrect. The underlying physics of negative-index metamaterials is pretty specific to electromagnetic waves. I don't believe there is any analog for sound or seismic waves. One can make other types of metamaterials for sound, however" etc, etc

To me this is fasinating. This definitely a WoW!. This could be put under civilian applications, and we can refine the content later. I just need to find a reference or two. Ti-30X (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole heap of these kinds of things Protecting offshore platforms from waves/tsunamis Earthquake cloak Stealthing submarines. I'm pretty sure these are all proposed applications of metamaterials of varying levels of development, some of them could have applications in just a few years as well, the superlenses could be employed straight away for ultrasound for example, if somebody gets one to work, and it's believed that they would work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful to stick to applications that are supported by a citation to a reliable source. No original research or speculative predictions.--Srleffler (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now this is starting to sound like "Applications of Wave theory" or...something
— V = I * R (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to add these to the article yet. Ohm, I'll be sure to check out what the applications are related to, before I try to add them. If I see a real problem I will vet those here. These are very interesting, however, and I will be trying hard to add them to the article. Ti-30X (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an issue, I was simply making an observation. Now that I think about it, however, I think I see where Wolfkeeper was coming from earlier when he was talking about how the title is inaccurate because it extends beyond electromagnetism... I don't really agree with that conclusion, since almost everything is electromagnetic, but... sound waves and (most of) ground waves from earthquakes are not (there are electrical aspects to the results of earthquakes, mostly due to piezoelectric effects from my understanding, but that's not what is being mentioned here). Anyway, I guess that my point is that Wolfkeeper may have been onto something earlier, and I just didn't understand that before now. If the article is to be extended to all forms of wave dampening research, then that changes things somewhat. I could recommend something along the lines of "Wave damping materials research", for example.

Ohm, OK, I see what you were thinking. Ti-30X (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not about damping at all (that's a lossy reduction in the wave's energy), it's about guiding waves around an object using negative refractive index, ideally losslessly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the language issues seem to adequately highlight a primary issue which I keep coming back to. All of this seems to be very speculative, right now... which isn't to say that I disagree with it (I know that I've read about some of this elsewhere), I'm just trying to hammer home the point that strong referencing and sticking close to exactly what is referenced is very important here. Since this is an article which seems to be attempting to cover "bleeding edge" engineering (some of it, if not most of it, being conducted in secret) we need to be especially cautious not to be creating or re-posting original research as Encyclopedic content.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohm, as someone who has developed a familarity with metamaterials and negative refractive index, through research and study, what Wolfkeeper has here is not speculative. I recognized this when I first saw it. This is really valuable stuff. I didn't realize that this science had branched out to sinking pilings to ameliorate sesmic waves from earthquakes. And, yet it fits right in with the reasearch being conducted on metamaterials today. For example, the pilings appear to be constructed of metamaterials, according to Wolfkeeper. This alone shows incredible diversity, which very much impresses me. And, personally, I don't even bother trying to create orginal research, post it in an article, or try to get away with it. I use what I have gleaned from the research and use citations. I just wanted to say that up front, to allay any fears. So, since this keeps coming up, I am letting you know that the area that I expressed concern about is, the Limitation of stealth section. It is straight sourcing, but it is in this area where we have to through and ask questions, to make sure that we are OK. But, of course we must pay attention to the rest of the article. I really wanted to start adding what Wolfkeeper has presented, but since this question keeps coming up, do you guys want to go through this section first? And, I will apply a tag over to this section.Ti-30X (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shifting the citations from the ends of paragraphs to match the statements, in the paragraphs. Ti-30X (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ah, humm... you're misinterpreting the intent of my statement somewhat. I wasn't attempting to be accusatory at all (as I attempted to explain, I personally know that this isn't really speculative), I was, have been, and am currently trying to get across the point that this topic can easily seem speculative. With that in mind, a high amount of inline referencing is important.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific background

I understand that the sections related to "Scientific background" are more like a thesis, or an essay. The feedback is saying this needs to read more like an encyclopedia. Looking it over, I can agree. Therefore, I will begin rewriting this part into understandable terminologies and descriptions. Please, feel free to refine my efforts. Ti-30X (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper. I was wondering if you could help me with the Scientific background section. I am attempting to write it into understandable terms and descriptions. Also, you could help narrow the generalities that are used in the article concerning Negative index materials. I notice that having this title does help to narrow the description, now that you pointed this out.Ti-30X (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of Stealth

I don't have any source to back up this phrase, yet: "development of aircraft could be focused on more conventional types that would have longer ranges without refueling. " I haven't actually come across a source that states the range of conventional attack aircraft or conventional figher aircraft, to compare to the range of the F-117 stealth aircraft. And I don't know what the range of the F-117 was. If anyone wants to find some sources, thanks. I need the range of conventional attack aircraft or figher aircraft (before refueling), and I need the range for the F-117 (before refueling). Ti-30X (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW I noticed that Wikipedia has a well sourced article on the F-16. This is a conventional fighter aircraft (hint, hint) that is still in production. (Hope you don't mind a little light humor). Ti-30X (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia F-117 article it says 930 NM. The operational radius in its source is 465NM. Doubling 465 NM, I get 930 NM. So according to this means it can go out 465 NM before it has to come back. Ti-30X (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest just pulling the sources from F-117 and something else (like F-16), but you obviously beat me to it. :) Just be very cautious to use the references for exactly what they support in order to avoid WP:SYN.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about avoiding WP:SYN. I still need the range (before refueling) on the F-16 (anyone?). The following might be synthesis, right now: It is acutally the last sentence in the section. "When mature, this capability could utilize rugged, conventionally produced aircraft." I probably either need to reword it, or find a compatible source. Or does it look alright to you guys? Ti-30X (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I have the range for the F-16. Thanks anyway. Ti-30X (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this one source the operational radius of the F-16 is 490 miles. Conflict Iraq page 43. Converting to Nautical Miles, using Google calculator, that would be 425.798359 NM. Essentially that's 426 NM.

• F 117 operational radius = 465 NM
• F 16 operational radius = 426 NM
• A 10 combat radius = 250 NM

The source that I used wrote that the F-117 was quickly pressed into service, resulting in a design compromise. During Desert Storm it required "extensive tanker support", because of this design compromise. To me this implied somehow its operational radius, or combat radius was shortened compared to conventional craft. However, the source does not specify at what range the F-117 was capable of flying before refueling, during Desert Storm. So far, comparing the operatioal or combat radius of these craft, I don't see where the F-117 was deficient. Ti-30X (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will add: given the number of missions (sorties) the F-117 flew during Desert storm, well, yeah, any aircraft would need "extensive tanker support". I can only guess the author is comparing range of the B-2 to the range of the F-117. And if that is true, that is comparing apples to oranges. Ti-30X (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so - I have removed any statements related to a deficient range capability (operational radius) for the F-117. It looks like the first two paragraphs (related to the F-117) will comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Ohm, and Srleffler thanks for being the conscience of this article, so far Ti-30X (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, that I moved the citations into both paragraphs, to match the statements, and clarified the wording. It looks like it is backed - up well with citations. Ti-30X (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the last paragraph complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I moved the citatiions into the paragraph, to match the statements, brought in another reference, and clarified the wording. The new reference is also being used in other parts of the Stealth Limitation section. Ti-30X (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the third paragraph, now, complies with Wikipedia guidelines, as well. Ti-30X (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of stealth aircraft 2

Sorry, I can't make time these days to review the discussion and text of this article, but I am very much worried by the recent development of the aviation field here. It is off-topic, by all means. Please do move it to the relevant stealth or aircraft articles. Forgive my threats, but when I will find time, I (or any other editor) will mercilessly erase large parts of it from the article. Limitations of stealth aircraft are partly relevant, but should only be mentioned briefly, without going into specifics. Materialscientist (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please wipe away the section on limitations on current stealth technology. It is written by someone who has just read random articles and combined them and clearly has no expertise to write such a demanding synthesis. There are articles already on wikipedia on stealth technology and RCS (radar cross-section) which cover most of the issues which this section tried to discuss.

I'm not going to source this for you because most of my expertise derives from classified materials and courses but the following information should be in the public domain:

Particular issues with the section:

1. the 'several decades from now' sentences are speculation and redundant. One could make such statements about any technology on any article on wikipedia. Without explaining the background, the current state-of-the-art and the reasoning behind such speculation they are useless to anyone.

2. No stealth technology, current or speculated claim to 'return no signal to enemy radar'. They merely recude the signal they return to below the detection treshold in combination with other EMC-measures (or even other enemy radar interfering with each other). Battlefield EM-conditions are such that even reducing the RCS by 6DB (75%) can make a huge difference to being detected.

3. There are already radar systems which defeat current conventional stealth technologies by a) having multiple receivers at different geographic locations which can detect and combine the reflection and b) passive radar systems (also with multiple receivers) which seek to i) detect reflections of broadcast EM-radiation from aircraft surfaces or ii) detect the EM-emanations of the aircraft avionics. So equally well I could speculate that these technologies will make all flying objects completely visible to future radar 'in decades from now'.

4. RAM (Radar absorbent material) is no magic solution to stealth. What it does it attennuates EM-radiation only at certain frequencies - and the longer the wavelenght the thicker the coating needs to be. This coating is also extremely expensive, fragile and makes it much more difficult to construct aerodynamic and especially control surfaces.

5. The windshield coating isnt there to 'hide the pilots helmet' - its mainly it is there to stop direct reflections inside the cockpit instrumentation (some of which will always be pointing towards enemy radar) as well as shield the cocpit avionics emanations inside.

6. "With an electromagnetic shielding capability, it would be possible to fly either aerodynamically stable or aerodynamically unstable military aircraft, as desired or required, because the cloak is in the control of electromagnetic waves" This sentence makes absolutely no sense! First of all, almost all of todays fighter aircraft are aerodynamically unstable, wherther they are stealth or not! They are aerodynamically unstable not because of stealth but because they have been designed to optimize for a) combat manouverability b) supersonic speeds c) other stuctural requirements such as weapon loading, heavy avionics racks etc. - all of which move the center of gravity away from stability (forward of center of aerodynamic balance - or the point of aerodynamic balance is allowed to shift radically, unlike in conventional aircrafts). Modern flight computers can also control many more flight surfaces simultaniously (as well as move them in opposite directions as required) then a pilot could and can make dynamic calculations about what is their optimum configuration for each flight mode, attitude, airspeed etc. which the pilot could never perform in his head.

7. Generally the sections parts about the difficulty of maintenance for stealth materials (RAM) and structures is correct.

So like Materialscientist says, this is off-topic for this article, but it is also atleast very poor information as well. Just wipe it clean and start again. --84.250.70.125 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist did not say this section is off-topic. He was referring to informaiton that was previously part of the introduction, as well as one or two aircraft images that were placed in the introduction, all of which have been subsequently removed. You have taken this conversation, between Materialscientist and I, out of context. This was orginally on my talk page and placed here. Also, he was in a very sour and cranky (peevish) mood when he wrote that. With what you have written here, are you also trying to stand on some authority (i.e., Do you need Materialscientist to back you up)? Essentially you are putting words into his mouth. You have misconstrued the intent, and presented statements out of context. Is there really a need to do this? Ti-30X (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes: I was indeed referring to the lead, not to the stealth section in the body, that section is relevant, and the lead has been cleaned up, but. I do appreciate the above comments by 84.250.70.125 and believe they should be considered in the stealth section (yes, after stealth was launched in the US, Russians had come up with clever radar techniques). Again, expanding on that is to be done in the stealth article, but corrections are relevant here too. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the information this editor has posted, in spite of the fact he or she presented statements out of context. As far as stealth being defeated by current radar technology and or low frequency radar, I have come across this already. However, I have had to be choosy about what I was going to put into this article. This article is about the science of a baby technology first, and then applied usage of this technology Vis-à-vis future stealth technology. It is not about current capabilities to defeat stealth, and I am not going to research deep into this, just for the sake of someone else's comment. Perhaps another article could be written about current capabilities to defeat stealth. There is also infared detection that was being developed (by the Russians?) But, again, I am no going to deeply research this topic for this article.

• As far as the comment of "several decades from now" being redundant - it may or not may be redundant. I repeated it at least twice (actually three times) in this section on purpose. The rationale was to emphasize the fact that this is a technology that is not going to be available tomorrow. And to use it for stealth capabilities vis-à-vis "invisiblity" this is decades away. These are not my words. I thought this was implied with the statements about Pendry and Smith, in this section. However, since some doubt has been expressed, I have taken the next step and and cited a source, who for me started me on this quest to express the science behind this baby technology. The cited source is Dr. Michio Kaku, and his book "Physics of the Impossible". I did not want to use this book as I am a reformed "Physics of the Impossible" enthusiast. However, thanks to the comments on this page, my passion for this book has been reignited. This is because I was compelled to read reviews, and then review the chapter on "Invisibility" again. I hope 84.250.70.125|84.250.70.125 is satisfied. Can all the milk ever be put back in the bottle, once spilled. Does the geenie ever willingly return to the lamp?
• Regarding your comment"return no signal to enemy radar" once again you have posted a phrase out of context to support your interpretation. The entire sentence is: " Several decades from [ now radar would not be a concern at both night and day hours because with electromagnetic cloaking capability, the fighter would potentially return no signal to enemy radar" First, I use the caveat "the fighter would potentially return no signal to enemy radar". I did not write that it defintely without a doubt that it would do this or not do this. You are basing your conclusions on current radar return rates. I am basing my conclusions, which are about "potential" - on peer reviewed scientific journals. I am going to give you at least four titles and DOI's to scientific journal articles. Wtih your background I am hoping that it will be no problem to comprehend the ideas and accomplishments being conveyed. I also reccomend that you follow up on a few of their citations, for these can make for some interesting reading as well. I don't know for sure, but you may come to the same conclusion that I did - Potentially no signal will be returned. It will take a short amount of time to compile this short list. Ti-30X (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have gotten this from the list of references. Keep in mind that I am not going to do all the work for you. My time is valuable. The list is as follows:

• Pendry, J.B. (2006). "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields". AAAS Science Magazine. Vol. 312 (5514): pp.1780 - 1782. doi:10.1126/science.1125907. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Leonhardt, Ulf (2006). "Optical Conformal Mapping". AAAS Science Magazine. 312 (5781): 1777–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1126493. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Shelby, R. A. (2001). "Experimental Verification of a Negative Index of Refraction". AAAS Science Magazine. Vol. 292 (5514): pp.77 - 79. doi:10.1126/science.1058847. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Schurig,, D. (2006). "Metamaterial Electromagnetic Cloak at Microwave Frequencies". AAAS Science Magazine. 314 (5801): 977–980. doi:10.1126/science.1133628. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Ti-30X (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• The following statement from you "RAM (Radar absorbent material) is no magic solution to stealth. What it does it attennuates EM-radiation only at certain frequencies - and the longer the wavelenght the thicker the coating needs to be. This coating is also extremely expensive, fragile and makes it much more difficult to construct aerodynamic and especially control surfaces. " This is already in the article. You are just repeating what is already here. In fact I also use "attenuates". Except for thicker coating, we have said the same thing here. I don't see the need to specify frequencies at which this is either effective or ineffective. That would be off topic here. Furthermore, I never claimed that RAM is a magic solution. This is the first I have ever heard of RAM being referred to as a magic solution. If anyone cares to read my cited sources regarding RAM they too will understand that it is extremely expensive, fragile, contol surfaces, etc., etc, And this is already stated in the article in so many words. So what are you getting at? Ti-30X (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• You also wrote: 5. The windshield coating isnt there to 'hide the pilots helmet' - its mainly it is there to stop direct reflections inside the cockpit instrumentation (some of which will always be pointing towards enemy radar) as well as shield the cocpit avionics emanations inside. I will definitely look into this. What I have in the article is sourced, and verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines. As to what you have written here, I have to say I am sure that the helmet is also a concern because radar beams can bounce off of it. If a small defect in the RAM coating can compromise stealth capability, and this is a definitely a concern according to my research, then I am thinking so can a helmet. So, if I find the facts to support your statements I will add this, into this part of the article. Unless I find facts that say the helmet is not a concern, I am leaving this in the article as well, because I already have a source that says this is so. Ti-30X (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction 3

I just dod some copy editing on the lead. Feel free to change anything you think should be changed. I have some concerns with the third paragraph, about stealth aircraft tech, because it currently (still) reads like some sort of ad copy. We need to decide what the primary point which is trying to be expressed is and stick closely to it.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The content I have removed and added expresses the primary point IMHO. My intention was to somehow express some of the positive capabilities of today's stealth technology, besides the limitations, to present a non-biased view. So I got rid of the ad copy, and expressed what are the capabilities with an example - the F-117 in combat. Also, I mentioned the purpose behind its design, which was: The F-117 Nighthawk was designed to fufill the need for an "aircraft capable of attacking high value targets without being detected by enemy radar". This may work because it expreses how well it fufilled that need, and it relates to the article because it was designed to enter combat without being detected by enemy radar. Radar of course relates it to the article vis-à-vis negative index materials. Furthermore, the first paragraph seems to segway well into this paragraph. And the paragraphs which follow, in the introduction, seem to fit OK with this one. However, it may not be perfect Ti-30X (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I reccomend not doing more with the introduction, for now. Personally, I want to get the next parts of the article into shape, before doing more with the introduction. And I want to integrate what Wolfkeeper has presented into the applications part. Ti-30X (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, although the introduction works well with the last three paragraphs, we need a segway from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. The first paragraph is fine, we just need a segway. Ti-30X (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I managed a segway. Ti-30X (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I reccomend not doing more with the introduction, for now. Ti-30X (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Integration of new technology into society

I've had to review some of the science journals, because I was trying to recall which reference applies to one or two statements. (The review was pleasant btw). During my review I edited some items into the "Integration of new technology into society" section. These are cited to the respective journal, from which they are derived. These are presently in the form of quotations and I believe they are directly related to the topic. I will re-write these later, into regular prose, but for now I am working on another section. Please do not remove these. Please discuss removal with me first, please. Ti-30X (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So far I added two of Wolfkeepers proposed applications (from the same article) into the section. Again these are in the form of quoted material. I will re-write these later. In addition, I think I discovered a better name for this section, after returning to Wolfkeeper's proposed contributions for this article, above. I think a better name for this section would be "Proposed applications of metamamterials" or "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials." It certainly has a nice ring to it. Let us discuss... Ti-30X (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that this has occurred; my point was more that if the article claims to cover such a broad topic it would need to do so in a major way anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated comments on renaming/merging.

Ti-30X asked me to comment here a few days back. Unfortunately, I still have no time, but I can provide a link to the relevant thread at WP:PHYS. Long story short, my concerns were:

• This seemed to be mostly duplicating material at stealth technology and cloaking device; the effort might be better spent improving those articles.
• The article name started out as something I've never seen used in the literature as a name for this approach to designing metamaterial structures ("stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope"). It was looking like a synthesis of valid information into an OR-sounding article at the time I first checked it.

My recommendation for addressing these concerns would be to:

• Focus the article on metamatarial "invisibility cloaks" (a term that, while corny, I've seen used in the literature).
• Fold an appropriate amount of material back into the primary articles dealing with metamaterials and with cloaking devices, and to apply "main article: metamaterial invisibility cloak" templates or similar to the primary articles to link to this article.

I recognize that these comments and suggestions are based on very old versions of this article, and likely no longer apply. I also recognize that the naming debate is over. I respect the work that Ti-30X and others have put into creating and improving this article, and I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I'm providing this summary in case additional views are still useful for the article in its current state, because I'm not going to have time to participate properly in its future development. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply: thank you. Your message reminds us to clean up other relevant articles. As you noted, this article is developing daily and seem to get over some old drawbacks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly developing, but becoming more and more inappropriate, because no consideration of its place in the wikipedia was done before starting. Basically, it's totally encroaching on other articles around it in scope. The most likely outcome is gross deletion of material, and I wouldn't like to bet it would be the other articles that will be shrinking. The longer it goes on with such vague scope the worse this will be.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I completely agree with Christopher here; the article should restrict itself to electromagnetic invisibility/cloaking/stealth and stay away from grandiose claims that the article is about the general topic of 'Negative index metamaterials', which is what the article name very strongly implies. The article name is supposed to reflect the contents, but it frankly doesn't, and I don't see how it can ever do so, given the scope of the other articles around, and the length of this article which is only about one facet of that topic, and is currently running at over 60k length.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments of the day 13 Aug

A fellow editor pointed out that this is not a stealth aircraft article. I have to agree, and cut out the dramatic sorties of the F-117 during Desert Storm. :( Ti-30X (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, does "Proposed applications of metamamterials" or "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials." sound like good titles to rename "Integration of new technology into society" section? Or should we just keep the original name? I think the second one, "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials" is best. Any comments? Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The current title makes no sense. Please rename to Negative Refractive Index Metamaterials. Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the above (archived) discussion why the name was kept, despite some ambiguity "negative index" - "negative refractive index". The former term is becoming acceptable jargon. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do that, and note that it was closed with inappropriate keep, when there was no consensus. I have reopened the discussion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

B-2 Image

Personally, I would rather remove that picture of the B-2 at the top of the page. I am coming to believe it gives the wrong first impression of the article. The topic of this article is Negative index metamaterials. The B-2 is a great picture, but does it give the wrong first impression?

In addition, I added another image in the introduction to give a simple schematic of negative index metamaterials. I tried to place this image above the B-2, but the frame around the B-2 picture covers text in the introduction when I try to move it down. Or it pulls the text down and leaves a wide white area, splitting the introduction in half. Anyway, I decided to remove this image from the introduction. Of course this is open to discussion.... Ti-30X (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe credit should be given to James Clerk Maxwell. As one of the most brilliant minds ever known to mankind he had the formula for electromagnetic energy placed on his tombstone, and nothing else. To find out more about this great man please refer to the Wikipedia page on James Clerk Maxwell. Jucarter (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments of the day 16 Aug

I appreciate the good faith edit. However there are some points I need to bring up. The active camouflage if off topic in the Limitations of stealth section. It was intended to delineate Limitations of stealth aircraft. I am glad this was pointed out, in whatever way and I will now change the title in the section to reflect this intention. Furthermore, any editor is welcome to develop a section on the limitations of active camouflage. Personally, I am too busy to do so at this time. But it is a welcome addition. However, this is expressed succinctly already in the introduction.

The lead is intended to have a small emphasis on stealth because this is a summary and limitations of stealth aircraft is a delineated section of this article.

One of the basic concepts of the both the introduction and the section on the Limitations of stealth aircraft is that current stealth and future EM shielding-stealth share the same technological goal. This is an important concept in the article,. Hence, it is important to present this in the introductory lead, so that readers understand this up front. This is a clear distinction from other articles. Furthermore, metamaterials and Negative index materials are two different topics. There are metamaterials that are developed for other and more uses than are shown here. In addition, a clear subarticle relationship can be established already in the introduction, with the "Limitations of stealth" section. Based on the intention of the article, there is no clear reason to move the stealth material out of the lead. Ti-30X (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I had reached an understanding that there was a consensus to keep the article intact.Ti-30X (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to have been consensus, and even if it were, it doesn't look like this article can sustain the current title long term- this article is simply not on the topic the article title claims; and the current title also violates other aspects of WP:MOS, there's absolutely no chance it can stay exactly where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus for this article. If you look above, it is three support one abstain, and one oppose. That's a three to one, in support. Ti-30X (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and section refs

The article quotes other WP articles: problems because

1. Wp is not a "reliable source"
2. The quoted article can change.

Therefore I would suggest removing the quotation marks, if possible put a WP:permalink in the edit summary. Add a parenthetical (see Permittivity) or juts a plain wikilink. I would not aim to source these statements, which are well known, simply implicitly defer sourcing to the linked article, and see if it causes any problems.

The article refer to "Section1.4" this should be a link to the section header as numbering changes even faster than section names. The section header needs an html comment saying it is linked too, and from where. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

This article makes a lot of claims about what this technology will achieve. "It could not be visually observed during daylight hours because the propagation of controlled electromagnetic waves would make it appear as if no ship were present." for example. See WP:CRYSTAL: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections". There are many such sentences that need to be removed or rewritten. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is riddled with technical errors

There are many very serious technical errors with this article, so many that I don't even know where to start editing. Are any of the editors experts in this field?

Firstly, it seems to be mostly an article about "cloaking". There seems to be some debate about whether this is an appropriate term or not. Without wading through all the arguments, I would like to point out that this is a relatively respectable term which is commonly used in the scientific literature. It also seems to describe the majority of the contents of this article.

Secondly, a negative refractive index has nothing to do with cloaking. Cloaking is based on transformation optics, which currently has a pretty awful page of its own. Probably the stuff on orthogonal coordinate systems and optical conformal mapping should be moved here.

The 2006 papers by Pendry and Leonhardt introduced transformation optics (which harks back to some previously known ideas in general relativity), and Pendry proposed that it could be used for cloaking. He also showed that any structure which could be described by transform optics could be implemented by metamaterials. Metamaterials can also be used to create a structure with a negative refractive index, but these two facts are unrelated.

Thirdly, there are cloaking techniques which are based on other approaches, such as plasmonic reactance (see the works of Alu and Engheta, or Ross McPhedran), which definitely having nothing to do with a negative index. It is also arguable whether they could be considered metamaterials, but then again the term does not have a universally accepted meaning in the scientific literature so they could probably be included.

Finally, stealth technology as used on current aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with metamaterials nor is it related to a negative refractive index. Of course it could be related to cloaking, though all the metamaterial related cloaking examples are still very speculative things in the lab shown under very limited circumstances, so they will not be seen in aircraft any time soon (if ever).

Also, why is there a mini section here on dispersion, when it is a well understood and distinct pheonomenon which has its own page? The same goes for the picture describing the electromagnetic spectrum.

ShiftyDave (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A short answer is the article is yet very unshaped and was built up from scratch. Your editing is welcome. Please be tolerant. Quality of the content is usually considered more important than matters of terms, or which material should be where. That something can be this or that, here or there, does not mean it shouldn't be described. WP is not an ideal world and things are getting fixed gradually, one at a time. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixing this page is going to involve renaming it and/or moving vast slabs of irrelevant text to other pages. I don't want to spend my time doing this only to have my changes undone by someone else. And to be honest there are so many conflicting topics on this page it's hard to work out what to do with it all. I assume that the contents should match the title, which means that roughly only the paragraph entitled "Experimental verification of a negative index of refraction" should remain and everything else should be moved elsewhere. Probably some of the material should be put in a page on "Metamaterial based cloaking" or something like that, all the stuff about planes and ships needs to be put on another page about current stealth technology, although this already has its own page so this material may be redundant. ShiftyDave (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

True. As I mentioned, there is some specific history for this article - it was built from scratch and much of supporting material, which normally should have been in separate articles, wasn't there. Thus some parts were incorporated which normally should not be (however, metamaterial-related specifics of usual properties may be briefly mentioned). I do agree that shifting things around is often waste of time and personally prefer to polish the content (shape the text) and then simply split up what appear better suited elsewhere. The entire metamaterial topic on wikipedia was built from nothing, within the last few months, by a single editor, and is still very much work in progress. Constructive help would be very much appreciated. Your comment on chirality is valid and I talked with the article "author" about that. Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing the following solution to fix up this page:

• Move all the metamaterial cloaking type stuff to a new page, possibly entitled Metamaterial Based Cloaking. This should then be linked to by the page Cloaking Device which also mentions this, and possibly should be combined with some duplicate material under Cloak of invisibility

  Reasonable, but again, I would focus on quality and split up content when necessary. There is one tricky part here - cloaking probably attracts many readers to learn science from this article, thus some part of it could stay. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all the material on stealth for aircraft and planes, as it has nothing to do with a negative index, or to metamaterials, and only a very tenuous link to cloaking. In addition, there is already a page on stealth technology which seems to cover this topic already

  I would listen to Steve before deleting (he might wish to keep it in some form, in other article or elsewhere), but agree in general - only bits related to metamaterials may stay here. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are a couple of paragraphs which genuinely relate to negative index metamaterials. These should form the basis of the page once it is fixed up. The page on metamaterials is currently getting very big, so the paragraphs on negative index, double negative and single negative metamaterials should be moved here, and a simplified explanation of negative index should be left on the metamaterials page ShiftyDave (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  After stealth is gone, the article will lighten up. I wouldn't bother too much with splitting until the size becomes a real issue (70k is not at the edge yet). A second thought (after seeing your post at talk:metamaterial) is yes, some text could be moved from metamaterial to this (and other metamaterial-related) article, leaving metamaterial as a summary of various directions, without going in depth. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

First since the previous (intense) discussion about cloaking with other editors I have since turned the corner, and I am not adverse to include "cloaking" or "cloak" in the title. I previously discussed this with Materialscientist, in fact just recently. I suggested a title change. For whatever reason we decided to leave it. It doesn't matter now. At the least a title change is appropriate for this article.

Second, This article is actually formatted to discuss the science behind the (first) original cloaking that occured in 2006. This is where the science part of the article ends. Regarding the content and sections:

If I remember correctly all the sections and material are connected, in that a later experiment or simulation was based on a prior study. I started with some general principles. Apparently I included theoretical studies on coordinate transformations - but with the intent that this is related to the actual cloaking demonstration. I then felt it was a good idea to include the first demonstration of negative refraction (the prism experiment). This was a breakthrough demonstration. Also, this is referenced in "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields" which is about coordinate transformation. As I briefly check the references for "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields" (J. B. Pendry D. Schurig D. R. Smith. Science 23 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5781, pp. 1780 - 1782) I notice the following:

• Pendry's wire arrays and negative permittivity (if I recall) "Extremely Low Frequency Plasmons in Metallic Mesostructures" (Pendry, et al Phys. Rev. Lett. » Volume 76 Issue 25. 1996)
• Pendry's cylinder and srr discussion effective magnetic permeability μ-eff "Magnetism from conductors and enhanced nonlinear phenomena" (J. B. Pendry, A. J. Holden, D. J. Robbins, W. J. Stewart, IEEE Trans. Micr. Theory Techniques 47, 2075 (1999)).
• We know what this one is: V. G. Veselago, Soviet Physics USPEKI 10, 509 (1968).
• This structure forms a left-handed medium "Composite Medium with Simultaneously Negative Permeability and Permittivity" (D. R. Smith, W. J. Padilla, D. C. Vier, S. C. Nemat-Nasser, S. Schultz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4184 (2000))
• The first demonstration of negative index of refraction - "Experimental Verification of a Negative Index of Refraction" ( R. A. Shelby, D. R. Smith, S. Schultz, Science 292, 77 (2001))

So you can see where the idea of including negative index of refraction comes from.

Anyway, the goal was to lead up to the first cloaking demonstration, but use peer reviewed science to do it. I was mostly spurred on by the "thumbs down" attitude I recieved from other science editors when I tried to do this with popular science literature. When I did this with peer reviewed journal articles I could see a marked difference in the quality and accuracy of the science. I believe to "prove them wrong" is the reason I wrote this.

This is also the reason for including actual cloaking as a possible stealth technology. If you notice I state in the article that this technology is decades away. Also, the reason for the limitation to only one form of cloaking was to just lead up to the 2006 demonstration in the science section. So in a way this fills in where the media and popular sceince leaves a void.

Having said all that I think including other methods of electromagnetic or plasmonic cloaking would be a good fit. After I started working on the Metamaterial article I kind of left cloaking behind. Also I know there is no relationship whatsoever between current stealth technology and electromagnetic cloaking. There isn't supposed to be. EM cloaking is just a pie in the sky potential possiblity decades from now, and different from today's technology. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So now on to your current proposals. Are you sure that we should remove material related to negative index materials, because these are cited sources from the peer reviewed journals? Also some of the principles appear to be related. For example:

I just reviewed the last part of "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields". Here are two quotes that indicate a relationship to negative index materials. "In fact, it is now conceivable that a material can be constructed whose permittivity and permeability values may be designed to vary independently and arbitrarily throughout a material, taking positive or negative values as desired" Here is the last paragraph "We have shown how electromagnetic fields can be dragged into almost any desired configuration. The distortion of the fields is represented as a coordinate transformation, which is then used to generate values of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability ensuring that Maxwell's equations are still satisfied" It appears that very similar principles are involved.

I just re-read through this paper carefully and confirmed what I already knew. The quote you give may lead one to think that a negative index is necessary for cloaking, but certainly does not explicitly say so. Its purpose in this paper is really just to emphasize the flexibility in material parameters which can be achieved using metamaterials. If you look at equation 7, you can see the values of epsilon and mu which are given by the coordinate transform. R2 is greater than R1, and R2, R1 and r are always positive. Therefore the values of epsilon and mu are always positive and there is no negative index. Further confirmation can be found in the paper by Schurig et al, Science 314 p977 (2006) doi:10.1126/science.1133628, which is the first experimental verification of this phenomenon. In the inset of figure 1 you can see the values of epsilon and mu, and they are all positive. Moreover, in the online supporting material there are several animations showing wave propagation through the cloak. It clearly shows that the phase fronts are all moving forwards (in the same direction as the power is flowing), whereas if the cloak had a negative index the phase fronts were moving backwards. ShiftyDave (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So my point is that negative index and cloaking are only indirectly linked, insofar as they both relate to metamaterials (and should be linked to from the main metamaterials page). Therefore they should be split somehow. Maybe it would be easier just to rename the current page to something including the word cloaking, and to create another separate page for negative index metamaterials (adding it to the negative index section of the metamaterials page is another option but I think the page is getting a bit too big already - but this is more about organization than correctness so I'm not so concerned here) ShiftyDave (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind this article is to present the science of EM cloaking instead of the more inaccurate popular science view. The stealth technology is basically a brief overview to mention the aircraft or ships. The idea is to use these as examples of objects that can be electromagnetically cloaked in the future - decades from now. It is merely a platform to showcase how electromagnetic cloaking works. That in a nutshell is the theme. Does this appeal to you, Dave?

Certainly you are right that there is a lot of nonsense in the popular press about cloaking. Actually there are good physical reasons to think that this approach will never be used, even decades into the future. They mostly relate to the very narrow-band nature of cloaking - that it only works for a small region of frequencies, and must do so because of the limitation that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This is actually mentioned at the end of Pendry's Science paper on "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields", though there are other references out there which I can hunt down if you want to explore this point further. ShiftyDave (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, to answer to one of your previous questions - the picture of the EM spectrum is neccessary for this article. It is a visual aid for the readers of this article. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But isn't this just a needless repetition of the material found under electromagnetic spectrum which could be replaced with a link? ShiftyDave (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't mind merging content from Invisibility or other cloaking articles into this one (whatever form it takes) but I am opposed to merging this material into those articles. Although this article may have some drawbacks, it is a science article. The other articles are based in the popular culture and popular media. I think that's it for now. Sorry about the length of this reply. Hopefully my future responses will be shorter. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Dave. It is really good to have clarity about certain points. Why don't we go ahead with your first and third proposal:

• Move all the metamaterial cloaking type stuff to a new page, possibly entitled Metamaterial Based Cloaking. This should then be linked to by the page Cloaking Device which also mentions this, and possibly should be combined with some duplicate material under Cloak of invisibility
• There are a couple of paragraphs which genuinely relate to negative index metamaterials. These should form the basis of the page once it is fixed up. The page on metamaterials is currently getting very big, so the paragraphs on negative index, double negative and single negative metamaterials should be moved here, and a simplified explanation of negative index should be left on the metamaterials page.

And regarding the second proposal - If you think current stealth technology in this article is too cumbersome for one of the "new" articles then let's go ahead and remove it, and see how this turns out. I agree that these are good ideas. And having an article named "Metamaterial Based Cloaking" (or something similar) will attract more readers than the name of this present article. OK I gotta go. I will be back later today. Merry Christmas to Dave, Materialscientist, and everyone else. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Invisibility science

OK, I went ahead and created a new article for the material related to metamterial cloaking (invisibility) entitled: Invisibility science. I merged the related material over to that article and left the negative index metamaterial content here. I still have some minor merging to do. The reason for this title is that Dave noted there are other types of cloaking materials which may, or may not, actually be considered metamaterials, so I opted for a more general name for the article. If another title is desired it is a small matter to move the article to a new name. That is just an adminstrative process. Dave, feel free to write and edit as you like in these articles. Both Materialscientist have no problem with that, since you obviously have a deep knowledge concerning this material. And your contributions are appreciated. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the material realted to current stealth technology - it really seems to be burdensome (to me) to have that mixed in with this material. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the section entitled "Institutional research" is relevant to this article anymore. The only reason for its existence was to help demonstrate notability of the article when it was about cloaking. However, if it seems useful to this article feel free to keep it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Invisibility science has been moved to Metamaterial cloaking. In other words, the article is now named "Metamaterial cloaking" with "Invisibilty science" as a redirect page. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not valid science

Please excuse my inexperience with the editing of WP and I apologize in advance for anything that I say which is inappropriate (and I'd appreciate your pointing that out). However as an optical scientist I immediately challenge the validity of the entire concept of negative index of refraction, at least in the way that this would normally be interpreted (and if there is a different interpretation, then the accepted PHYSICS term index of refraction shouldn't be used to describe it!). A homogeneous isotropic material with n<0 (such as would produce the so-called Pendry lens, which I am therefore sure does not exist!) would violate conservation of energy. The amplitude reflection coefficient at an interface from free space (or air) is (n-1)/(n+1) and the power reflection coefficient is the square of that. This produces a coefficient ≤1 for any possible (that is, ≥0) index of refraction n. For n<0, there would be more power reflected from the interface than incident on it: it would produce energy!

Since this is an impossibility, I believe that the implied phenomenon is impossible and that this supposed science is invalid. WP could well report about the existance of such myths, but this cannot be portrayed as actual science. Interferometrist (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in this subject, and you've said nothing inappropriate. Since it seems you are mostly disputing Pendry's "Perfect Lens" I would rather have this discussion over at Talk:Superlens. However, since you are new to Wikipedia we can have this discussion here. You are correct, the Pendry Lens does not in fact exist. Research which challenged Pendry's proposal turned out to be correct. This is actually discussed in the Superlens article. Pendry's proposal was a starting point for some intense research over the last decade, and merely a starting point for the Superlens article on Wikipedia. If you start with this section: Superlens#Perfect_lens you will see what I mean.

For negative index of refraction there are two peer reviewed articles which you might be interested in reading. The titles are linked to PDF formats of the article available to the public:

• Smith, D. R. (2000). "Composite Medium with Simultaneously Negative Permeability and Permittivity" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 84: 4184. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4184. {{cite journal}}: Text "Free PDF download" ignored (help)
• Shelby, R. A. (2001). "Experimental Verification of a Negative Index of Refraction" (PDF). Science. 292 (5514): 77–79. doi:10.1126/science.1058847. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This work was inspired and developed from a paper published by Victor Veselago 33 years ealier than the first of the above demonstrations (in 1967). To read this in available PDF format see the citation below. Then follow the link from Turpion Ltd, then on the next page click "Full Text: PDF file (531 kB)" then check the box on the page after that, and download the PDF.

• Veselago, V. G. (1968). "The electrodynamics of substances with simultaneously negative values of [permittivity] and [permeability]". Soviet Physics Uspekhi. 10 (4): 509–514. doi:10.1070/PU1968v010n04ABEH003699. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). (My response) Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY MUCH for these references which I will try to look at when I have a little time free from my own work! (And thanks for the general help about using WP). Interferometrist (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To chime in, the reflection coefficient is actually based on the difference in material impedances between media.

You are absolutely right. My objection was written in haste. I will think more about this (though it STILL doesn't seem right!). Thanks. Interferometrist (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, you can use any of a set of two pairs of constitutive, independent properties to define a medium, like permittivity/permeability or index/impedance. Your beef is with the effective material concept: any of the literature which deals with retrieving effective parameters assumes that the real part of impedance has a specific sign, which takes care of your mathematical objection. I won't go into the derivation. A good one is here:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.016608

Sorry, I don't use the wiki syntax as you can see I don't have an account. Choosing the correct sign for effective impedance covers your objection relating to reflections, while choosing the correct sign of the imaginary part of the index insures the material is passive. There have been objections raised periodically by varied scientists, but the overwhelming consensus at the moment is that both a) effective material parameters are a valid description of metamaterials and b) negative effective index can exist. It sounds like you (Interferometrist) aren't very familiar with the current state of metamaterial research or the objections to its conclusions - I'm not saying this as an insult. Some scientists have developed critiques (IE Ben Munk, one of the pioneers of frequency-selective surfaces), but the overwhelming consensus among the electromagnetics community is that this is valid. The criticisms now come with problems in implementation. Here's an example paper dealing with the occasionally disputed theory of evanescent wave enhancement for some reference:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.016617

There have been many experimental demonstrations of phenomena best described by a negative index including things like, yes, negative refraction and the above evanescent wave enhancement. Really, the arguments boil down to the following.

• If describing periodic, subwavelength structures with effective material parameters is possible, you can have structures yielding negative effective permittivity and permeability separately (papers like, eg, Pendry's original SRR-like paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/22.798002)
• If you can have negative effective permeability and permittivity, you can have negative effective index of refraction (Veselago)
• Negative effective index metamaterials have been created and observed to behave as predicted (Shelby/Smith/Schultz)

(not a WP user) 08:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete patent section

I see no reason to have a separate section for the patent. The patent was filed by the same group (Smith/Schultz/et al) who demonstrated negative index and covers the same material - and this patent never comes up in technical discussions. Keep a note about it, but just add a single sentence to the experimental demonstration section. 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.196.93 (talk)

Casimir effect

NIMs can be used for reverse Casimir effect. Shall we link?

http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/72/6/929;jsessionid=308522502339F0F954377859C8271B94.c2 http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/metamaterials-breakthrough-brings-invisibility-closer http://www.fisica.unipa.it/~cewqo2007/Archive/presentations/Philbin.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very interesting, isn't it? I don't see a problem with putting these items in the External link sections. I came across a reverse Casmir effect using Chiral metamaterials, and only added a brief entry in Chirality (electromagnetism). So, I thought this was possible only with Chiral metmaterials. I didn't know that NIMs could possibly be used for this effect. Reverse Casmir effect is one of the topics I want to explore further, once these other metamaterial articles in are in good shape. The Casmir effect comes into play with nanoscale and microscale machines. Thanks for your contribution. Feel free to add these to the external links section, or I can do it later. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose delete DARPA section

This DARPA program has now ended. The final review for the program has already been conducted several months ago (it was actually done before that reference was originally retrieved). That's not to say that DARPA has no interest in NIM, but the overarching program is over and now there is ongoing research on more specific topics by, for example, the ARO and AFRL. The program did have many interesting/useful output projects over its length, but anything available for a public website is going to already be published somewhere in journals/conference proceedings. I'm not sure where to find a public source for what I say above - this is speaking from firsthand experience on the program. Perhaps cutting this section down to a sentence or two in the intro - is it really notable that a research office sponsored a program on this which has now ended, enough for a full 2 paragraphs? 152.3.196.93 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)