Inventor claims he can make things invisible

news observer ^ | 4.29.03 | MARTHA QUILLIN

[RightWhale]

Don't you have to come up with a working prototype?

Quick answer--No. The PTO doesn't accept working models anymore. Or non-working models either.

[evad]

..make things invisible..

no big deal..I have a broker that can do the same thing. As a matter of fact, he can make "things" disappear.

[Living Free in NH]

You're a fraud! Those pictures were taking in a snowstorm. That's white-out if I ever saw it.

[bmwcyle]

It's working!!!

[steve-b]

Hillary Clinton tested the device on her Rose Law Firm records and reports that it worked perfectly.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

... one nation, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Works for me!

[steve-b]

I'd try it on Bill and Hill, but it wouldn't be really useful until the audio enhancement was added.

[TexRef]

[John Beresford Tipton]

J-Lo said:
"Invention-my ass"!

[RightOnline]

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.............

............no..........................................wait...............

[AmericanAge]

Exactly. The angles won't be the same. Not to mention the massive cost issue involved in having even just a thousand "cameras". At best, we're talking about a slight improvement on standard urban camo.

I've toyed around with the concept of using downconversion to the microwave spectrum for stimulus of light emission on the other side so that individual sensors and leds aren't needed, but there's some problems still in the designs I came up with.

Also, all systems, LED and otherwise, hold an additional problem: polarization. Unless you have a method to keep track of polarization, a simple polarization filter (like the ones found on nice sunglasses, although preferably a better one, and without any tinting like sunglasses provide) could make you stand out like a sore thumb - actually making you *more* obvious in your surroundings, instead of less. Again, polarization can be shifted (via reflection, transmission through various substances, etc), but trying to match up polarizations makes this hard task even harder.

[green team 1999]

[kidd]

Anyone remember the movie "Mystery Men"?

It was a movie about a group of second-rate superheros. One of them was a guy who could become invisible, but only when no one was looking.

[lepton]

Not to mention the massive cost issue involved in having even just a thousand "cameras"

How many million pixels fit on a chip less than an inch square?

[lepton]

Well, gee. What good does it do if it makes your whole yard disappear - though if the house can't see the bomb, maybe it won't notice it's being blown up.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I've been invisible for years.

[green team 1999]

that movie lost money,i`m sure.

[lawdude]

It has a Patent No. but you can't see it!

[AmericanAge]

1. You don't put pixels onto a chip. ;)
2. Cameras are not pixels. You could have light sensors designed to get just one single data reading, but then you need many times more to capture all of the directional data.
3. There's an additional exponential issue involved in wiring them to their target locations. Before considering downconversion, I thought about all of these issues, and even considered the use of RF communication between the sides (another location revealer), but it always spirals out of control very quickly.
4. One wouldn't even consider trying to make some "gigantic, flexible chip" - chips are tiny for a reason ;)

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Wipe that smile off your face, smiley. :D