FROM: kdpoptics@kdpoptics.com (Jim Klein)
SUBJECT: Invisibility
DATE: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:03:04 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Hi,

Remember the guy who was looking for inverstors for his device which
could make tanks and aircraft invisible. You remember, the guy who had
watched too many Predator movies. Well I think he found an investor in
the Russian military.

On page 191 of the March 1999 AIR International magazine, in an
article on the Mig MFI Enigma figter, I quote:

"An alternative means of achieving stealth-- by enveloping the
aircraft with an electromagnetic field or with plasma clouds has been
tantalisingly suggested"

I guess that would work fine if the aircraft was carrying a big enough
supply of anti-matter in one of its warp nacels or had a long power
chord running down to a nuclear power plant.

I hope the guy who sold this to them was smart enough to get paid in a
hard currency.

Jim Klein
"Nothing is ever truly invisible"





FROM: Don Stauffer 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:45:12 -0600
ORGANIZATION: gte.net
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

I suspect the inventor was trying for RADAR invisibility.  If he were a
Russian, something may have gotten mixed up in translation.  With the proper
properties, plasmas CAN absorb radar wavelengths.  Actually, with somewhat
different parameters a plasma can actually absorb visible wavelengths also,
but it probably self emits to much to be a help.  The plasma idea would
probably only defeat ACTIVE systems.

--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stauffer@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/





FROM: kdpoptics@kdpoptics.com (Jim Klein)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:33:32 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Don Stauffer  wrote:

>I suspect the inventor was trying for RADAR invisibility.  If he were a
>Russian, something may have gotten mixed up in translation.  With the proper
>properties, plasmas CAN absorb radar wavelengths.  Actually, with somewhat
>different parameters a plasma can actually absorb visible wavelengths also,
>but it probably self emits to much to be a help.  The plasma idea would
>probably only defeat ACTIVE systems.

Even if it worked, how do you maintain a substantial plasma field
around an aircraft flying beyond Mach 1?

Jim Klein





FROM: sonicguru@my-dejanews.com
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:09:17 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Greetings all As I recall something about a year ago on TLC or Discovery
channel they went into little detail of a 1960's era experiment using extreme
plasma to try and hide a conventional warship (USS st louis or something) and
they suposedly engaged the system and the ship disapeared for something like
4 hours, only to show up again with ice formed on the hull and the crew all
dead or dying with quite unusual things such as crew members re-materializing
inside steel bulkheads and the deck, the crew were all dead inside an hour
from the incident and there was an imediate cover-up to canvas the entire
program from the media.

I have attempted to find more details of this incident with little or no
sucess, has anybody out there read or researched this?   it makes for good
coffee talk.............curt

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    





FROM: kdpoptics@kdpoptics.com (Jim Klein)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:09:53 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

sonicguru@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Greetings all As I recall something about a year ago on TLC or Discovery
>channel they went into little detail of a 1960's era experiment using extreme
>plasma to try and hide a conventional warship (USS st louis or something) and
>they suposedly engaged the system and the ship disapeared for something like
>4 hours, only to show up again with ice formed on the hull and the crew all
>dead or dying with quite unusual things such as crew members re-materializing
>inside steel bulkheads and the deck, the crew were all dead inside an hour
>from the incident and there was an imediate cover-up to canvas the entire
>program from the media.

This is the plot of the science fiction movie "The Philidelphia
Experiment". It was discussed by Fox Mulder on an episode of the
X-files as if it really happened and has now become part of out folk
mythology.

But if we could sell it to those who are not our friends, we could
make money and at the same time send them on a very expensive wild
goose chase.

Jim Klein





FROM: "A. Gofberg" 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:39:11 -0500
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Here's a URL which may shed some light on the subject.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm

FROM: Ioannis Galidakis 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:44:29 +0200
ORGANIZATION: Morpheus Inc.,
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Jim Klein wrote:
[snip]
> This is the plot of the science fiction movie "The Philidelphia
> Experiment". It was discussed by Fox Mulder on an episode of the
> X-files as if it really happened and has now become part of out folk
> mythology.
> 
> But if we could sell it to those who are not our friends, we could
> make money and at the same time send them on a very expensive wild
> goose chase.
> 
> Jim Klein
> 
> >I have attempted to find more details of this incident with little or no
> >sucess, has anybody out there read or researched this?   it makes for good
> >coffee talk.............curt

I wouldn't be so quick to expell it as "simple entertaining science
fiction". To give you an example: The optical cloaking device used by
the creature in the movie "Predator" caused quite a stir in the American
Military. They in fact contacted the movie makers about possible
practical implementations. There were at least 2 documentaries on the tv
stating the fact.

The device used by Predator was a "light bender" or something akin to a
smooth mirror which was overlayed on his uniform. As a result, when you
looked at the creature, you could see reflections of the surroundings
onto it. Quite smart. But also quite impossible practically with our
technology.
-- 
Ioannis Galidakis jgal@ath.forthnet.gr

______________________________________





FROM: kdpoptics@kdpoptics.com (Jim Klein)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:14:56 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ioannis Galidakis  wrote:

>Jim Klein wrote:
>[snip]
>> This is the plot of the science fiction movie "The Philidelphia
>> Experiment". It was discussed by Fox Mulder on an episode of the
>> X-files as if it really happened and has now become part of out folk
>> mythology.
>> 
>> But if we could sell it to those who are not our friends, we could
>> make money and at the same time send them on a very expensive wild
>> goose chase.
>> 
>> Jim Klein
>> 
>> >I have attempted to find more details of this incident with little or no
>> >sucess, has anybody out there read or researched this?   it makes for good
>> >coffee talk.............curt

>I wouldn't be so quick to expell it as "simple entertaining science
>fiction". To give you an example: The optical cloaking device used by
>the creature in the movie "Predator" caused quite a stir in the American
>Military. 

That's why they call it military intelligence.

>They in fact contacted the movie makers about possible
>practical implementations. There were at least 2 documentaries on the tv
>stating the fact.

I can make it happen. All Uncle Sam needs to do is send me a large
2-1/2 ton truck full of cash. Old bills without the strip in them. I
promise I can make the whole thing disapear and never appear again.

>The device used by Predator was a "light bender" or something akin to a
>smooth mirror which was overlayed on his uniform. As a result, when you
>looked at the creature, you could see reflections of the surroundings
>onto it. Quite smart. But also quite impossible practically with our
>technology.

The only technology that would do it was the technology they used in
the movie. It's called Magic!

Jim Klein





FROM: billyfish@aol.com (BillyFish)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: 24 Mar 1999 22:58:22 GMT
ORGANIZATION: AOL http://www.aol.com
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

>From: Ioannis Galidakis 
>Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999 1:44 PM
>Message-id: <36F80B2F.6716@ath.forthnet.gr>
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to expell it as "simple entertaining science
>fiction". To give you an example: The optical cloaking device used by
>the creature in the movie "Predator" caused quite a stir in the American
>Military. They in fact contacted the movie makers about possible
>practical implementations. There were at least 2 documentaries on the tv
>stating the fact.

You must realize that the militarymust take some of these improbable methods or
devices seriously.  They are paid to be paranoid!

Suppose that  ESP or PSI were indeed possible and dismissed by rational people.
 If an enemy were really able to find out what our Government officials were
thinking, we would be at a serious disadvantage.

Consider cold fusion.  ALL of my colleages thought it didn't happen.  But
because it was reported by reputable self deceived scientists it had to be
looked at.  Even if the probability of it working was one percent, it would be
too important to ignore.

William Buchman





FROM: dkcombs@netcom.com (David Combs)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 22:23:09 GMT
ORGANIZATION: ICGNetcom
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

I saw article in "ieee proceedings" a couple of years ago,
about radar, countermeasures, etc.

One problem goes like this:

Suppose you have some super-absorbing material that 
absorbs all visible light impinging on it.

Perfect, huh?

Well, suppose that at noon the thing flew overhead; could
*you* see the thing?  (Naked eye, no fancy optics.)

Well, what would look like?  It would be black -- blacker than
a huge crow flying overhead.

So, it's got to GENERATE enough light from its lower surface
to match the rest of the sky, so it blends in.

Sort of like that experiment during ww2 of an sub-hunting
airplane approaching a submarine on the surface; they 
mounted lights on the front of the airplane, to make the
airplane blend in with the sky behind it.  They say it
worked wonderfully, but that the stupid navy or army-air-force
or whatever never ok'd the idea.

Worse yet would be that huge black crow as seen from *above*.
How do they make it blend in, via the top surface, with the
ground *beneath* it.

Especially when there is different ground "beneath" it when
viewed from different sky-positions.  Desert, lake, 
brown farmland, green farmland, ...

I know nothing about this subject, but did note these
points.  (the crow example is mine; they were talking
about radar frequencies, of course, but I thought the
crow made it more obvious).

(they said that from the sun, etc, there was a fair amount
of em coming out of the sky, enough to detect a "black"
object against).





FROM: kdpoptics@kdpoptics.com (Jim Klein)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 22:36:04 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Hi,

During world war II the Navy tried several color schemes to make
aircraft blend. One was off white undersides, intermediate blue sides
and dark blue tops. By the end of the war they switched to glossy dark
blue, probably because they had destroyed most of the Japanese
aircraft by then.

I'm sure we will try to make things blend in for a long time into the
future.

The US paints its stealth aircraft flat black and flies them at night.

I would almost guess that if you can, these days, you war at night and
refuel during the day.

Still, real invisiblity only happens in the movies.

Jim Klein





FROM: "EandorY" 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:24:34 -0700
ORGANIZATION: Southwest Cyberport
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ioannis Galidakis wrote in message <36F80B2F.6716@ath.forthnet.gr>...
>Jim Klein wrote:
[snip]
>The device used by Predator was a "light bender" or something akin to a
>smooth mirror which was overlayed on his uniform. As a result, when you
>looked at the creature, you could see reflections of the surroundings
>onto it. Quite smart. But also quite impossible practically with our
>technology.

This wouldn't work - a mirror would show you yourself.  Consider someone
standing in a field looking at the Predator approach him from the trees - he
would see a reflection of the field, all too obviously against the trees.
What you need is a transmitting media that brings light from *behind* the
subject, only it has to do so isotropically.

Remember the gimmic arrows that you could get that fit on your head so as to
look like they went through?  I have often wondered what would happen if you
did the same thing with thousands of fiber optic strands - a suit of fibers
that start on one side of your body and terminate on the exact opposite -
would this create the Predator effect?  If so, it seems that it would only
work on the same plane as they are constructed - you would still be visible
from above or below, unless you worked out the web in many directions.

How much would such a suit weigh?  Cost?  Would it survive combat
conditions?  What about mounted on a plane - how would it affect drag?

Eric





FROM: Ioannis Galidakis 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:55:24 +0200
ORGANIZATION: Morpheus Inc.,
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

EandorY wrote:
> 
> Ioannis Galidakis wrote in message <36F80B2F.6716@ath.forthnet.gr>...
> >Jim Klein wrote:
> [snip]
> >The device used by Predator was a "light bender" or something akin to a
> >smooth mirror which was overlayed on his uniform. As a result, when you
> >looked at the creature, you could see reflections of the surroundings
> >onto it. Quite smart. But also quite impossible practically with our
> >technology.
> 
> This wouldn't work - a mirror would show you yourself.  Consider someone
> standing in a field looking at the Predator approach him from the trees - he
> would see a reflection of the field, all too obviously against the trees.
> What you need is a transmitting media that brings light from *behind* the
> subject, only it has to do so isotropically.

Well, it sort of did that. When Schwarzenegger (sp?) was hanging from a
tree and the creature passed just under him, he saw his own face being
reflected back on the creature's armor. But from a greater distance, the
armor being a convex (or is it concave, I am always confusing the damn
words in English) mirror [o->(] will have your image shown being
extremely small. Which will most likely hide itself in the midst of all
the reflections from the surroundings between you and the creature, as
the other objects would most likely be much larger than you.

> Remember the gimmic arrows that you could get that fit on your head so as to
> look like they went through?  I have often wondered what would happen if you
> did the same thing with thousands of fiber optic strands - a suit of fibers
> that start on one side of your body and terminate on the exact opposite -
> would this create the Predator effect?  If so, it seems that it would only
> work on the same plane as they are constructed - you would still be visible
> from above or below, unless you worked out the web in many directions.

The Predator suit was a simple forward convex mirror. If you don't
believe me, see the movie again. There was no "special" effects that
brought light from the back to front. It just reflected the forward
images.

> How much would such a suit weigh?  Cost?  Would it survive combat
> conditions?  What about mounted on a plane - how would it affect drag?

But on a plane it would be obsolete. Planes are not scanned for by
optical means. I guess what would be needed there would be the
equivallent of Predator's suit but for radar EM radiation.

> Eric

-- 
Ioannis Galidakis jgal@ath.forthnet.gr

______________________________________





FROM: Ioannis Galidakis 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 19:34:22 +0200
ORGANIZATION: Morpheus Inc.,
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Jim Klein wrote:
> 
> I don't believe you guys. IT WAS A MOVIE. IT WAS NOT REAL.
> 
> Jim Klein

We are talking about the cloacking special effect Jim, not about whether
the creature was real or not.

But you know what? I am not so sure it was "just" a movie, myself. Call
me obsessed or fantasy-prone, all THAT, did not appear like someone
could make it up.

I have seen thousands of scripts of sci-fi, have read many ideas, but
this was "just a bit" too real, if you ask me.

And remember, fantasy is not the prerogative of non-scientists only.
-- 
Ioannis Galidakis jgal@ath.forthnet.gr

______________________________________





FROM: dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith)
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:10:19 GMT
ORGANIZATION: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ioannis Galidakis   wrote:
>Jim Klein wrote:
>[snip]
>> This is the plot of the science fiction movie "The Philidelphia
>> Experiment". It was discussed by Fox Mulder on an episode of the
>> X-files as if it really happened and has now become part of out folk
>> mythology.

>I wouldn't be so quick to expell it as "simple entertaining science
>fiction". To give you an example: The optical cloaking device used by
>the creature in the movie "Predator" caused quite a stir in the American
>Military. They in fact contacted the movie makers about possible
>practical implementations. There were at least 2 documentaries on the tv
>stating the fact.

Gee, if you know the right contacts in the military I'd like to show them
the Jack London story "The Shadow and the Flash."  

(Leo Szilard already put them on to H. G. Wells' 1914 novel, "The World
Set Free.")

Meanwhile, whatever came of the Russian military's experiments with
parapsychology?
-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com





FROM: "Ian Ashdown" 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:29:14 -0800
ORGANIZATION: byHeart Consultants Limited
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

EandorY wrote in message <36fc3289.0@oracle.zianet.com>...

[ snip snip snip]

>Remember the gimmic arrows that you could get that fit on your head so as
to
>look like they went through?  I have often wondered what would happen if
you
>did the same thing with thousands of fiber optic strands - a suit of fibers
>that start on one side of your body and terminate on the exact opposite -
>would this create the Predator effect?  If so, it seems that it would only
>work on the same plane as they are constructed - you would still be visible
>from above or below, unless you worked out the web in many directions.
>
>How much would such a suit weigh?  Cost?  Would it survive combat
>conditions?  What about mounted on a plane - how would it affect drag?
>
Why don't we ask the inventor of this technology? After laughing myself
silly on a Sunday morning reading this wacko thread (Jim Klein -- please
stop encouraging them!), I skipped over to:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/galleryarch

and refreshed my memory with:

5307162 - Cloaking system using optoelectronically controlled camouflage

If nothing else, this patent shows that the US Patent and Trademark Office
examiners are either as gullible as the wackiest of this thread's
discussion, or grossly disrespectful of the entire patent process (as should
be anyone who has gone through it as an inventor).

You don't need to read the above patent to appreciate it -- just look at the
technical illustrations. My favourite is the airplane positioned inside a
spherical rear-projection TV screen. I'm not entirely clear on how this
works aerodynamically, but I'm sure the Pentagon has it all figured out!

Ian Ashdown, P. Eng, LC
Vice President, R & D
byHeart Consultants Limited
http://persweb.direct.ca/byheart/Ashdown.html





FROM: "EandorY" 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:06:10 -0700
ORGANIZATION: Southwest Cyberport
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ian Ashdown wrote in message ...



>http://www.patents.ibm.com/galleryarch
>and refreshed my memory with:
>5307162 - Cloaking system using optoelectronically controlled camouflage



>You don't need to read the above patent to appreciate it -- just look at
the
>technical illustrations. My favourite is the airplane positioned inside a
>spherical rear-projection TV screen. I'm not entirely clear on how this
>works aerodynamically, but I'm sure the Pentagon has it all figured out!

This is differnet than what I had in mind.  The head arrow was just a
jumping-off point; I would expect that the fibers would be trimmed off very
close to the body, and so would look like regular clothing.  I was thinking
about the wearable stuff that MIT's media lab is working on.  Admittedly, I
was just fantasizing.  But Ian's right - it is silly.  But so was helical
scan recording, and the personal computer, and cellular phones, the idea
that a heavier than air machine could fly, etc.

As far as the Pentagon is concerned, you have to understand their "thought"
process:

1) We have spent $$$ on this.  We would not waste money.
2) Therefore, it is a feasible project.
3) But, it is *not* working.
4) Therefore, we must not have spent enough on it.

ad nauseum....

Eric





FROM: Ioannis Galidakis 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:37:41 +0200
ORGANIZATION: Morpheus Inc.,
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ian Ashdown wrote:
[snip]

> http://www.patents.ibm.com/galleryarch
> 
> and refreshed my memory with:
> 
> 5307162 - Cloaking system using optoelectronically controlled camouflage
> 
> If nothing else, this patent shows that the US Patent and Trademark Office
> examiners are either as gullible as the wackiest of this thread's
> discussion, or grossly disrespectful of the entire patent process (as should
> be anyone who has gone through it as an inventor).

It is indeed gullible to believe every possible speculation about an
actual implementation of something like that, but I say, if scientists
had your overall attitude about it-by immediatelly rejecting every
imaginary idea, we'd be still playing with sticks and fire.

[snip]
> Ian Ashdown, P. Eng, LC
> Vice President, R & D
> byHeart Consultants Limited
> http://persweb.direct.ca/byheart/Ashdown.html

Heh, heh..It's what they say: The higher they sit, the more effort is
needed to put something new in their heads....

-- 
Ioannis Galidakis jgal@ath.forthnet.gr

______________________________________





FROM: Don Stauffer 
SUBJECT: Re: Invisibility
DATE: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:19:17 -0600
ORGANIZATION: gte.net
NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics

Ioannis Galidakis wrote:

> > Ian Ashdown, P. Eng, LC
> > Vice President, R & D
> > byHeart Consultants Limited
> > http://persweb.direct.ca/byheart/Ashdown.html
>
> Heh, heh..It's what they say: The higher they sit, the more effort is
> needed to put something new in their heads....

No, no.  It is the idea of rejecting any new and imaginative idea thought of by
someone ELSE.  Called NIH.

Actually, a reverse NIH occurs in some organizations.  A scientist or engineer
tells management about a good idea, and they won't believe it because "we arn't
the experts in that area."  Then, when the other companies start saying the same
thing, then staff accepts it.

--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stauffer@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl