PDA

View Full Version : Douglas Adams would smile



Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-15, 05:22 AM
Zaphod's attention however was elsewhere. His attention was riveted on the ship standing next to Hotblack Desiato's limo. His mouths hung open.

"That," he said, "that ... is really bad for the eyes ..."

Ford looked. He too stood astonished.

It was a ship of classic, simple design, like a flattened salmon, twenty yards long, very clean, very sleek. There was just one remarkable thing about it.

"It's so ... black!" said Ford Prefect. "You can hardly make out its shape ... light just seems to fall into it!"

Zaphod said nothing. He had simply fallen in love.

The blackness of it was so extreme that it was almost impossible to tell how close you were standing to it.

"Your eyes just slide off it ..." said Ford in wonder. It was an emotional moment. He bit his lip.

Zaphod moved forward to it, slowly, like a man possessed -- or more accurately like a man who wanted to possess. His hand reached out to stroke it. His hand stopped. His hand reached out to stroke it again. His hand stopped again.

"Come and feel this surface," he said in a hushed voice.

Ford put his hand out to feel it. His hand stopped.

"You ... you can't ..." he said.

"See?" said Zaphod. "It's just totally frictionless. This must be one mother of a mover ..."

A new black that is like a hole in the universe. (http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-developed-black-deep-makes-3d-objects-look-233004466.html)
Vantablack absorbs 99.965% of light, erasing any three-dimensional features of objects it coats. Vanta is short for “Vertically Aligned Carbon Nanotube Alloys,” and the principle here resembles sound-dampening rooms with foam spikes sticking out of walls and ceilings.

The scientists behind the project have demonstrated Vantablack properties with a nifty trick — by coating a crinkly sheet of aluminum foil with the substance. The black part of the foil looks like a flat, dark patch. All dimensionality is lost in the light-absorbing nanotubelage.


Tactile stealth. (http://www.iflscience.com/technology/unfeelability-cloak-prevents-sensing-object-touch)
The KIT team however, have produced a polymer metamaterial that can shield objects placed inside it so that they appear not to be there at all. "We build the structure around the object to be hidden. In this structure, strength depends on the location in a defined way," explains Tiemo Bückmann, the first author of the Nature Communications reporting their success.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-15, 04:34 PM
A new black that is like a hole in the universe. (http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-developed-black-deep-makes-3d-objects-look-233004466.html)
Tactile stealth. (http://www.iflscience.com/technology/unfeelability-cloak-prevents-sensing-object-touch)
I applaud the first article for not mentioning invisibility.

The second article though...
They seem to go around trying to make it sound amazingly more than just a shield material that distributes any distortions extraordinarily well.
Not to belittle the stuff, just the way they overhype it.

Solfe
2014-Jul-15, 07:29 PM
I was just camping, I want a mattress pad that hides rocks.

Oh... my back.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-15, 07:31 PM
I was just camping, I want a mattress pad that hides rocks.

Oh... my back.

I feel your pain. I'm getting an air mattress and car-charged inflation fan next time I camp out.

IsaacKuo
2014-Jul-15, 08:08 PM
Looks like a fish. Moves like a fish. Steers like a cow.

Ken G
2014-Jul-18, 03:12 AM
Not to belittle the stuff, just the way they overhype it.I saw one article that said it absorbs 99.965% of the light passing through it, as if any brick wall couldn't do that!

profloater
2014-Jul-18, 07:24 AM
I saw one article that said it absorbs 99.965% of the light passing through it, as if any brick wall couldn't do that!I achieved this effect by accidentally setting fire to a waxy plastic in the kitchen. The fine soot covered everything for yards around and the kitchen disappeared except for the new black cobwebs. Actually I believe there may be nanotubes in there. Overall I regret the experiment but applaud the others who showed more control.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-18, 05:36 PM
I saw one article that said it absorbs 99.965% of the light passing through it, as if any brick wall couldn't do that!
I'm not sure how else I would state that. Maybe "into" is better, but no matter what I think of, it seems awkward. The key word here is absorb instead of the "stop" that they would use (also incorrectly) in a general sense.

Ken G
2014-Jul-18, 07:24 PM
I'm not sure how else I would state that. Maybe "into" is better, but no matter what I think of, it seems awkward.I would just say it absorbs 99.965% of the light that could otherwise bounce off it and permit us to see its surface. That's what the material actually does that is unusual. I'm sure it absorbs way more than 99.965% of the light passing through it, but that's no trick at all. I believe it is all right to actually educate people who read science articles, in this case what they need to understand is that we see objects because their surfaces bounce light from light sources to our eyes, but this stuff basically doesn't do that.

SkepticJ
2014-Jul-18, 08:58 PM
I'm not sure how else I would state that. Maybe "into" is better, but no matter what I think of, it seems awkward. The key word here is absorb instead of the "stop" that they would use (also incorrectly) in a general sense.

I would say "on to".

Or it reflects 0.035% of incident light.