PDA

View Full Version : you can't fight what you can't see



nicedog
August 29th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Firing weapons while cloaked, this may be the key to victory, if try can find out how to do this with their ships, Fire there weapons circle around and fire again(they have to keep moving because I think their position will be revealed when firing because the wraith will see where the projectiles are coming from). The PJ’s have this ability but I’m not sure if they can fire while cloaked

nimitz
August 29th, 2005, 09:45 AM
PJs can fire when cloaked as seen in rising.

Three PhDs
August 29th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Ignoring for a sec or two that to be genuinely cloaked you'd also be unable to see anything out yourself either.

PrimalAscended
August 29th, 2005, 10:08 AM
Maybe we could rig a PJ to the shields of the Daedelus to cloak it like they did with Atlantis in "Seige 3". An invisible Daedalus with all its weapons would be pretty swish....................but I'm sure Hermiod would have some choice words to say about it!!! ;)

Lida
August 29th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Ignoring for a sec or two that to be genuinely cloaked you'd also be unable to see anything out yourself either.

Care to expound further on that statement, please? :rolleyes:

Crazedwraith
August 29th, 2005, 10:54 AM
Care to expound further on that statement, please? :rolleyes:
It's quite simply, a realistic cloak could't make you invisible without also rendering you unable to see. Light has to interact with your eyeball for you to see and a cloak preents this. The same think goes from sensors. To prevent sensor beams bouncing back to origin, you would have to be unable to pick up your own sensor rays.

This is of course ignored in most Sci-fi.

Three PhDs
August 29th, 2005, 11:21 AM
Care to expound further on that statement, please? :rolleyes:
Certainly:

http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/2585/cloak0ow.th.gif (http://img275.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloak0ow.gif)

IMForeman
August 29th, 2005, 02:02 PM
I always liked how th Invisible Man invisibility handled that. The Quicksilver not only bent visible light around Fawkes, making him invisible to the eye, but it also allowed him to see in the higher frequencies of light that didn't get bent around him.

-IMF

Three PhDs
August 29th, 2005, 03:39 PM
I always liked how th Invisible Man invisibility handled that. The Quicksilver not only bent visible light around Fawkes, making him invisible to the eye, but it also allowed him to see in the higher frequencies of light that didn't get bent around him.

-IMFAll frequencies of EM follow the same path through spacetime, bend one and you bend them all.

IMForeman
August 29th, 2005, 04:51 PM
All frequencies of EM follow the same path through spacetime, bend one and you bend them all.

I don't think so. As I understand it, the frequency and wavelength of EM radiation are very germaine to how much or how little they are refracted by a given material. The way visible light is effected by water is very different, for instance, than Infra red, or gamma rays, or radio waves, or microwaves. As Quicksilver is meant to be a refractory substance, it's not inconceivable that it would effect different types of EM radiation differently, allowing partial transmission of some frequencies.

It should be noted that he didn't exactly see well when Quicksilvered. He lacked color perception, for instance.

-IMF

Three PhDs
August 29th, 2005, 04:55 PM
I don't think so. As I understand it, the frequency and wavelength of EM radiation are very germaine to how much or how little they are refracted by a given material. The way visible light is effected by water is very different, for instance, than Infra red, or gamma rays, or radio waves, or microwaves. As Quicksilver is meant to be a refractory substance, it's not inconceivable that it would effect different types of EM radiation differently, allowing partial transmission of some frequencies.

It should be noted that he didn't exactly see well when Quicksilvered. He lacked color perception, for instance.

-IMFBlah blah yeah you're right in so much as that the refractive properties of a wave are related to its own wavelength, but the difference between infra red and ultra violet is so slim that you bend one you bend 'em all. Not to mention that the mere act of bending them at all means that there's no other path through spacetime for any light to take regardless of wavelength.

IMForeman
August 29th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Blah blah yeah you're right in so much as that the refractive properties of a wave are related to its own wavelength, but the difference between infra red and ultra violet is so slim that you bend one you bend 'em all. Not to mention that the mere act of bending them at all means that there's no other path through spacetime for any light to take regardless of wavelength.

Huh? I'm not following you. What does "paths through spacetime" have to do with refraction?

Anyway... This is a VERY interesting article about practical cloaking in development (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0228_050228_invisibility.html) at the University of Pennsylvania. I remember seeing this earlier this year, and I went and looked it up again. It still needs work, but it's very cool.

-IMF

nicedog
August 29th, 2005, 06:25 PM
I just thought the ancient ship cloak worked just like our current stealth technology, by simply absorbing incoming waves and there are no sharp edges so the waves don’t detect an object , only they had some micro cam which transmitted an image on both sides so you see what's on the other side but in reality you look at a video image

The last time I checked the stealth bombers of today can fire while in stealth. So there should be no problem implanting the micro cams

It will work like that, kind of, I may be wrong about the stealth tech of today but WHO REALLY KNOWS how it works, everything is all hush hush , maybe a little is public but I think most things are still classified

6thMonolith
August 29th, 2005, 08:58 PM
Eh, It is TV. There is such thing as magic... :rolleyes:

As for modern cloaking, I do find it very interesting, although I don't find that having tiny cameras broadcast their image to the other side of the cloak seems too practical. Damage one camera, and the cloak is detectable.

Three PhDs
August 30th, 2005, 01:45 AM
Huh? I'm not following you. What does "paths through spacetime" have to do with refraction?When light is refracted, its path changes. You follow?

cozzerob
August 30th, 2005, 03:53 AM
It all depends on how you cloak yourself - if you bend radiation around you to bend light, you wont be able to see anything. If you try using cameras thats good, but you make yourslf visible on every other wavelength that isn't visible light. And the image is never perfect.

It's important to remember that you can be seen in visible light, by radar reflections, by the heat you give off - all can be detected, so a proper cloak really needs to bend them all around you. That best thing you can do is have a small array of sensors protruding out of the ship. They will make you very slightly visible on radar, heatvision, etc, but only slightly. Think about trying to find something the size of say - a tv in space by radar. Not going to happen. THat way you remain almost completely invisible but manage to have sensors as well...

cozzerob
August 30th, 2005, 03:56 AM
oh - also the article that was posted... the principle behind the idea is to cansel out all incoming waves so nothing is returned... wouldn't that just result in a black blotch floating in front of you instead of invisibility?

ColdZero
August 30th, 2005, 06:56 AM
OOOOoorrrr, the cloak on the puddle jumpers deals with physics far more advanced than we can understand and it overcomes those problems :)

IMForeman
August 30th, 2005, 07:56 AM
oh - also the article that was posted... the principle behind the idea is to cansel out all incoming waves so nothing is returned... wouldn't that just result in a black blotch floating in front of you instead of invisibility?

Apparantly not... from the article, they've actually done this, and spherical or cylindrical objects nearly vanish when they apply this plasmon coating. I'd love to see this in action. Maybe I should take a run out to UPenn.

-IMF

IMForeman
August 30th, 2005, 08:00 AM
When light is refracted, its path changes. You follow?

But the way your phrasing it seems to imply that to bend light, you have to bend spacetime, or at least the possible paths a photon can take through spacetime... which isn't the case. Light can be bent quite easily... water does it... , it's just controlling that bending to achieve the desired effect that's tricky.

-IMF

Temp2
August 30th, 2005, 09:03 AM
*snip* The last time I checked the stealth bombers of today can fire while in stealth. *snip* The F-117 and B-2 can't go "in" and "out" of stealth. In fact, opening the weapons bay causes a significantly increased radar cross-section, which is why they have certain systems that decrease to a minimum the amount of time the bay has to be open.

Three PhDs
August 30th, 2005, 09:09 AM
OOOOoorrrr, the cloak on the puddle jumpers deals with physics far more advanced than we can understand and it overcomes those problems :)Fire will always produce heat, this is unchanging and inevitable. To be invisible truly, one must not interact in any way with any form of EM. Doing this makes you blind. No debate, no question.

cozzerob
August 30th, 2005, 11:54 PM
The F-117 and B-2 can't go "in" and "out" of stealth. In fact, opening the weapons bay causes a significantly increased radar cross-section, which is why they have certain systems that decrease to a minimum the amount of time the bay has to be open.

quite right. If i recall correctly, they're far from stealthy in daylight. They're about as obvious as a mothership in the middle of Trafalgar Square...

But come night time - you can't see them on the visible spectrum anymore, they soak up and reflect almost all radar waves that hit them and they have special casings for the engines to reduce heat emmision... all in all a nice piece of work.

But as has been said - they can't enter in and out of stealth, they just become less stealthy when firing cos they have to open the missile bays...



To be invisible truly, one must not interact in any way with any form of EM. Doing this makes you blind. No debate, no question.

You are correct here. If you interact, in basically anyway, you become less than completely invisible.

The best idea (IMO) is to have a small sensor array, which won't show up too much, but will enable you to know what you are doing.

The problem with stealth is that you want to be able to interact a little bit - so you inevitably have to sacrifice complete invisibility, and you also have to disguise yourself on every electromagnetic plane, ie, from heat, visible, radar, etc...

If you emit or reflect any of these you become detectable. Fact. The point is minimising emmisions.

IMForeman
August 31st, 2005, 07:57 AM
The problem with stealth is that you want to be able to interact a little bit - so you inevitably have to sacrifice complete invisibility, and you also have to disguise yourself on every electromagnetic plane, ie, from heat, visible, radar, etc...

If you emit or reflect any of these you become detectable. Fact. The point is minimising emmisions.

I agree with you totally, here. I think one of the crucial things to remember when dealing with the puddlejumpers cloak is that space is essentially helping things out. If you can minimize how much EM you actively emit, then the enormity of space will help conceal you. The Wraith ships can't have active sensors pointing in every direction, and the chances of it being scanning in the right direction with the right sensors is just so remote, especially given the speed of the jumpers.

-IMF