Talk:Cloaking device

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

Article Size Too Large[edit]

The article is starting to get really long. I propose that the Star Trek and Star Wars sections be moved to thier own seperate articles. --I 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Surely the real cloaking devices currently researched should come first. Maybe with a brief SciFi history of the concept plus a separate article on cloaking device in popular culture? Doc phil 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is definetaly too long. Too much "in the popular culture" references.Headbomb (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment... I'll get to neutering all those references later and collapsing the examples. I'm thinking something along the lines of "cloaking devices have been explained to work in these ways, and have also been called by these various names." Ong elvin (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the {{split}} tag to the article with some suggested article names. Of course, they are just suggestions and can be changed. — OranL (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed the excessive stuff and the {{split}} tag. Many of the references aren't actually origins of the concept; and I think that if one wants to be realistic, it probably actually originates as a technological adaptation of the magical invisibility cloak. Thus, practically none of those references belonged. I left Star Trek in only because the lead section referenced it directly. Ong elvin (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed vandalism[edit]

Some joker added a George Bush reference to the text below the Bird of Prey. 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars cloaks[edit]

The information on Cloaking in the Star Wars universe is a little dated. The Empire developed cloaked fighters which were not only small (two man fighters) but also their sensors could function while the fighters were cloaked.

Additionally, that section could use some cleanup.RSido 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Real Life Cloaking Device[edit]

Nature.Com:Engineers devise invisibility shield. Andrea Alù and Nader Engheta at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia are developing a 'plasmonic cover' that theortically works by suppressing light scattering by resonating with illuminated light, which could render objects "nearly invisible to an observer". The plasmonic screen would have to be tuned the object it's hiding, and would suppress a specific wavelength: An object might be made invisible in red light would still be visible in multiwavelength daylight.

I'm not sure where to put this, as optical camouflage details "computer-assisted and image-projected-material" invisibility and it's fictional examples. Cloaking device was the first thing that came to my mind, since this is more of a field that retards light. --YoungFreud 00:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ro & LaForge[edit]

The Next Generation also featured phased cloaking experiments that differed from traditional cloaking techniques. In The Next Phase, Geordi La Forge and Ro Laren are accidentally cloaked when helping a Romulan ship secretly testing phased cloaking. This technology was different in that it was capable of acting on a personal scale, did not require a cloaking device to stay cloaked, and allowed the cloaked people to pass through solid objects. Geordi and Ro were able to see and communicate with one another though and they discovered, with Data's help, how to detect and deactivate such cloaking. The Pegasus also speculated on a phased cloaking experiment performed by Starfleet that had gone bad similar to Starfleet's previous experiments with a Transwarp drive using the new (at the time) Excelsior class starship.

This is not cloaking technology but an "actual" phase displacement. --Zanaq 16:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the last example was treated by the characters as a cloaking device (complete with galactic politics) so it does apply. Mucus 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter[edit]

How shall we mention Harry Potter's invisibility cloak? It's not a "device", since it's "magical", but still ... Uncle Ed 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't mention it at all, because it's not a device nor technology. Power of invisibility is a common occurence in fantasy. -- Zanaq 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter's cloak of invisibility is often mentioned in connection with research into cloaking devices. abdullahazzam 15:11, 21 October 2006

An important distinction should be made between cloaking as a 'technological' concept and invisibility as a 'magical' concept. It is a bit of a Sci-Fi/Fantasy distinction. Harry Potter's invisibility cloak does not belong on this page. --I 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Analog to invisibility[edit]

Often ships with cloaking devices are unable to attack. This is highly similar to how in many fantasy worlds invisibility terminates if one attacks. I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in this article and if so where. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This common theme from computer gaming seems to be borrowed from the pen and paper roleplaying game Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (which first appeared in the seventies). --I 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Atlantis Can Cloak?[edit]

'The Puddle Jumpers in Stargate Atlantis (as well as Atlantis itself) have cloaking devices'

Atlantis itself doesnt have a cloaking device, Instead, they tied in the Jumper's cloaking system to Atlantis' shield so instead of generating a sheild, it generated a cloak.


A Cloaking Device?[edit]

Have anyone of you guys seen this?

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the main article?

Robskin 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What???Arbiters can cloak themselves???[edit]

Really? I play the game and Arbiters do not cloak, although they do cloak the area around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor Tassadar (talkcontribs) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Metamaterial[edit]

I have merged the section Metamaterial research with the article Metamaterial in the section Development and applications. In order to centralize discussion, please add any discussion or comments to the talk page there. — OranL (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New image for cloaking device[edit]

I found an image on Google's Image Search that would probably be much better for use on this page. The image is located on this page [1], and I have sent an email to that site asking to get into contact with the party that holds the copyright. I hope they will be able to release it under a GFDL-compatible license, and then I'll just upload it to Commons. Does anyone have any comments about adding this image to this article? — OranL (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Duke U. paper in Jan 16, 2009 Science: advances in cloaking[edit]

See "Next Generation Cloaking Device Demonstrated" desribing the latest work of Ruopeng Liu et al. The Science News description did not make really clear what the image is supposed to demonstrate. "Cloak with bump?" The present article is full of fiction and pseudoscience and does not make clear what the latest science really does. Someone who understands it, please explain for he rest of us. Edison (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek paragraphs in "conceptual background section"[edit]

The Trek episode details, especially the contradictions on the first appearance, are unneeded for an article on the real-world development of cloaking devices. A brief mention of the first appearance on screen (NOT the in-universe chronology) is quite suitable for an article on the real world development. Also, I don't think we need to mention _every_ other fictional universe where they've appeared, so I'm going to cut that sentence down.oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Plasma Cloaking Device[edit]

I believe this is incorrect. I could find nothing on a Plasma cloaking device, except a blog about star trek. I have been researching the topic of bending Electromagnetic waves to "cloak" an object , and the current research has been focused on metamaterials since 2006. Not plasma. There is nothing on plasma cloaking devices. I believe this is being confused with plasma being explored in the theoretical area of force fields. Unfortunately, I am going to remove the content in the Plasma section, because it cannot be backed up and there is no citation. If a reference or references can be found then by all means, please, put it back in the article. Ti-30X (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very simple google search on "plasma cloaking" gave me results that are pretty information, like [2] and [3] in which the latter also have multiple links about this topic like [4] (I know this is not WP:RS, but the point is the information is not hard to find) At least the havard and NASA co-operation site is WP:RS. MythSearchertalk 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. further pages shows more sources, looks like this section is quite worth investigating. MythSearchertalk 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Good job. I had no idea. Sorry I didn't make it back to this section, sooner. I guess I convinced myself there was no research or development in this area. I don't know how I missed it. Again - good job! You can check this out:Plasmonics if you want. Ti-30X (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I had not remembered the faint memory of reading it somewhere in forums, I would convince myself there was no research as well. I fully understand why you would think so, it sounds quite absurd at first indeed. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

The first sentence of the article is not really correct. I understand what the author is getting at, but it is unintentionally misleading. It reads, "A cloaking device is an advanced stealth technology that causes an object, such as a spaceship or individual, to be partially or wholly invisible to parts of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum." From this sentence it appears that a cloaking device is already in exsistence, which can cause something as big as a spaceship or a person to be invisible. That is not the case. The cloaking device is still in the lab, and still perhaps five decades away from being able to accomplish these things. Also, it is not really an advanced stealth technology in existence to today. I would say it could be called an advanced stealth technology of the future - or something along those lines. This is because it is still in the lab, where experimental researchers along with the theory that guides it, are still advancing the technology step by step by step. The phrase - "(invisible) ... to parts of the electromagnetic spectrum." appears to be accurate, because that is what is happening now. I can come back in a few days and attempt to rewrite this if no one else wants to. I don't mind. Or feel free to discuss this here. Thanks Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more specific. I meant cloaking using metamaterials is perhaps five decades away. The other technologies in the article may be realized sooner. However, these too are still in the research phase. I am guessing the Plasma stealth is also decades into the future, and may be less than metamterials. It is hard to tell. In any case, the first sentence still needs to be corrected. Thanks again. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, I have changed the sentence, see if you can make it sound better. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
MythSearcher - I think you did a good job on that sentence. That expresses the idea much better (with more accuracy). I can't see any changes that I want make at this time. Thanks for jumping in, and taking care of it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)