

The Curious Field of Metamaterials - judegomila
http://www.judegomila.com/2012/12/the-curious-field-of-metamaterials.html

======
JunkDNA
The article mentions a potential application using lenses with incredible
properties. Could one use these materials to make a lens that focuses x-rays?
It has been postulated for decades that if one could use an x-ray light source
for microscopy, it would be possible to observe the machinery of cells in real
time (assuming the energy doesn't obliterate the cell). My understanding is
that it isn't possible to make a lens to focus an x-ray as you can with
visible light or using magnetic fields for electron microscopes. If these
materials allowed this, it would usher in an incredible era of biological
understanding.

~~~
ars
No, the problem with x-rays is not the lens shape, but rather finding a
material that will refract (i.e. bend) x-rays. X-rays tend to just go right
though, or be blocked. It's hard to find something where the x-rays slow down,
but keep going.

Also, the higher the frequency the harder it is to make a meta-material that
works for it. (Since the feature sizes need to be about the same size as a
wavelength.) We're barely there for visible light, x-rays are completely out
of reach.

------
venus
This stuff seems like science fiction. Small-object visual cloaking within
five years? Room-temperature levitation? Really!? That would be, uh, somewhat
revolutionary.

Does anyone have a more conservative layman's introduction to the field?

~~~
46Bit
It reads like science fiction partly because there are things this makes
possible that seem to go against everything the 'bedroom scientist' would
think. Some of the things this mentions I had no idea about, but the core EM-
cloaking seems to be described quite reasonably.

Just don't believe the timeframes. They are very optimistic from all I've read
of this technology, especially if you're interested in doing much more than
cloaking a coin from most visual frequencies in the next decade or two.

Long term promise in this field seems quite great, but I'd say we're way too
early to be able to even guess what the drawbacks and limitations of any
practical use will be.

------
S_A_P
This article mentions that intellectual ventures invented a type of super
antenna for improving wifi bandwidth on flights. Pardon my ignorance on this
subject, but aren't they a patent troll? I'm not overly encouraged that this
thing will actually be built and put to market.

~~~
kevingadd
Patent trolling is one of their revenue streams (i.e. acquiring patents from
others and then using them to get truckloads of money out of vulnerable
companies already using similar technology) but they do perform actual
research. Sometimes.

I'm not aware of any commercialized products based on their research, but they
probably exist.

~~~
rpm4321
There was a lengthy article I read a number of years ago - the source escapes
me (maybe Technology Review) - that described their process at length. To call
what they do "research" or "inventing" is to twist those words beyond all
meaning. They contract with a number of domain experts in various fields, fly
them into Seattle as consultants, and hold multi-hour brainstorming sessions
where they basically throw a bunch of loose concepts at a whiteboard and see
what sticks.

Like all patent trolls, they basically identify where a valuable invention is
likely to occur sometime in the future, have lawyers draw up a sufficiently
vague patent application, and spray and pray - and then prey.

There is _zero_ follow up - no prototyping, no CAD files, no R&D, no clinical
trials, no betas, no execution - it goes from nebulous "idea" straight to the
legal department. If Myhrvold is an inventor, then Arthur C. Clarke's estate
should get royalties on every satellite in orbit, and Gene Roddenberry's
should get a piece of every iPhone sold.

Wait, I take that back - Myhrvold is an inventor after all. He's the Henry
Ford of patent trolling - a pioneer in its mass production.

~~~
WalterGR
_There is zero follow up - no prototyping, no CAD files, no R &D, no clinical
trials, no betas, no execution - it goes from nebulous "idea" straight to the
legal department._

Is that uncommon?

~~~
rpm4321
For an inventor or a patent troll? I'm disputing them being characterized as
anything but the latter.

~~~
WalterGR
For the average patent.

~~~
rpm4321
I suppose that depends on how pervasive patent trolling has become.

But yes, I would say that the development of the vast majority of inventions
worth protecting would necessitate more than some scribbling on a bar napkin.

If the process begins with some vague "inspiration" about where an invention
may lie, and then promptly ends with a call to your lawyer - no feasibility
testing, no fleshing out of the concept, no iteration of thought, I would say
that the patent system is fundamentally broken.

------
louischatriot
tldr versioin: <http://tldr.io/tldrs/50bb074fcfbff44a4d000b00>

Impressive, hard to believe things such ad "cloaking a building to seismic
waves" can actually be done!

------
javert
This article could use some editing.

 _super antenna's can_

super antennas can

 _companies like Hyperloop_

Not a company.

These kinds of little details definitely raise questions about the general
quality of the research, especially since the article seems "too good to be
true." But I hope this doesn't discourage the author; it's a really good
article.

~~~
judegomila
Thanks Javert. Corrected. Can you ping me if you see any other mistakes via
email?

------
hxrts
point of clarification: quasicrystals are by definition non-periodic, most
known examples of which are metamaterials. the first sentence incorrectly
ignores a very interesting class of engineered compounds.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal>

~~~
judegomila
You are correct. I just removed the word "periodic".

------
kenjackson
I don't get what cloaking to the naked eye means. Does it mean someone would
be invisible or rather that I'd see a big black blob where they are?

~~~
judegomila
Black blob in the case of the EM "black hole". Invisible in the case of the
standard cloak.

~~~
kenjackson
That's pretty incredible. So for the standard cloak does transmit the light
from behind the object to the observer somehow?

~~~
a_m0d
I believe, from what I read in the past, that it actually _bends_ the light
around the object, somewhat like the way water will flow past rocks in a
river.

~~~
Sharlin
These cloaks typically work by converting an incoming photon into a surface
plasmon, a wave of electron oscillations. By carefully tweaking the surface
geometry it is possible to get the wave to interfere with itself so that the
photon is re-emitted at the opposite side of the cloak, at least if the cloak
shape is symmetric enough.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon>

------
frozenport
This article is 2000 and late. Next in the series we will see an article on
Bose-Einstein condensation and the wacky world of atomic optics.

------
Tutorial
This is so essential article. Thanks to the creator of the website. Thanks by
<a href="tutorialhutbd.blogspot.com">Tutorial</a>

~~~
anigbrowl
You're doing it wrong.

