| From: | Waffelmaisters <evamarie@**********.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Not just Ruthenium Polymers, and they MIGHT work |
| Date: | Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:13:56 -0500 |
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> At 11:49 AM 7/28/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >That's all well and good when there is only one observer, and you
> know
> >where that
> >oberver is at all times. How do you handle the case of two observers
> >looking at
> >the same "side" of the RP-covered object, but from significantly
> different
> >angles?
>
> The way around this, is to assume that RP can be made to apear as
> different shades, depending on viewing angle. This way, the RP can be
> colored to look like what's behind it, even when the image "behind" is
> actually several images, each viewed from a different angle.
Thats a operative possiblity I thought of when cosidering the tech, and
dismissed prematurely. I'd been assuming RP emits light because similar
polymer diplay techs in proto type today do so, and didn't consider
surface treatments like lenticualr arrays, whicare actually perfectly
suited to this type of micro-manufactuting dependant tech.
I'd thought of a "quantum microlazer" type thing, where each
"pizle" is
a microlazer array aimed through a simople hologram display that allows
it to "scan" through all possible anlges. That aproaches CLOAKING tech,
in that it is effectivley an active hologram concealing the object. Far
to fancy.
The lenticular array over RP idea is not bad, but alikely result is
each pixle would effectively be quite large or only "on" for a time
portion (which would make collors dull)- you're dipalying many, many
more images by trying to look different to all anlges, so resolution in
someother way must decrease (the dispaly issmaller than the total view,
in effect). I think its a bit much to think that the RP could sense
every lenses oritntation, so this could be as simple as it looking
different from every 30 degrees of change or so - that would help a
LOT. Good call.
BTW, I think "trideo" uses just such a kind of technology- a flat
display behind a (properly matched) lenticular araray, and the net
effect is the creation of a 3d "space". I remeber the basic
descriptuion on S-beat being something allong those lines. Such a thing
would be possible today if you could match your lenticualr array to your
screen (which with most current screens would look like crap) or you
custom made a screen with resolution arranged to be concentrated in
bands underneath the lens rows. Again, the required resolution for good
images is HIGH.
I think assuming that RP provides decent CAMOFALAGUE, but requires some
brains to use well, is the best way to go. Avoid casting shadows and
standing in where you will create high contrast images on your suit
without being very close to the image source. Eventhoughitcouldcover
multipleangles, it would have limits (like cast shadows,"artifacts", and
low resolution).
>
> I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right, but there is a relatively
> low-tech example of this concept available today: lenticular images.
> The concept has been around for a while, but recently it's come into
> common use on certain videotape and game software packaging. The
> general concept is that several images are divided into thin strips
> and superimposed on the same surface. A plastic frensel lens is
> overlaied on top the surface, and lined up so that the grooved lens
> surface only makes one of the several images visible from any one
> viewing angle.
>
Its not technically a fresnel lens, but I obviously got the point,
which is a good one. These are effectivley non-holographic holograms.
Some 3-d camrea systems offer prints of this type. A "bug eye" array
would have offersimlarutilty, andwork from ALL angles, not just "left to
right". It would also look quite cool (and rather distinctive) when
turned off- have you seen those lenticualr "illusions" binders?
(BTW, Fresnel lenses combine many ridges to create the effect of one
large lens, which is not at all the point here)
> If RP could be programed to display multiple colors, dependent upon
> viewing angle, then the "Stealth Suit" application is feasable. In
> theory, this is at least possible; there are RL materials today that
> exhibit color variation dependent upon viewing angle.
There are other concerns,which I mentioned more or less clearlyabove,
but the basic problems are covered. Its still not magic, but it's not
like trying to creater the illuson that a painting is a window, which
won't work UNLESS the painting can do what you say. This one can, if
proaperly built, and within limits.
> This really makes me wonder though, if the sort of processing power
> needed to drive a "stealth suit" would be available from anything man
> portable. Once you start throwing in the need to generate colors for
> multiple viewing angles for each millimeter of suit surface, the
> ammount of calculation skyrockets. Add to that the fact that the image
> processor needs to calcuate the exact three dimensional location and
> angle of each bit of the suit, I am starting to think a house rule is
> in order for these things.
I don't think for viable concealment you'd need more than some 90-90
rules of thumb. (If it fools them at 90 meters 90% of thetime, it'll
do). Hell,the mapping would not be many orders of magnitude higher than
that used in "Doom", so it sould be pretty easy in SR. If each pixle is
1 cm square, and changes evry 10 degrees, you still get good
concealment. That's less than 300 "views" per pixle, and most suits are
less than 3 M^2, or 30,000 pixles x 300 angles - basically, 10 million
"pixles", at 1 million colors, mapped (crudely) in real time- HMM,
thats a LOT of power, but not outside what a standard crapo-deck easily
does. Hell, its only 10 times the power I use playing "Quake"- I'm
mapping more than 1000 x 1000 pixles, in 1 mil collors, real time. With
the Moore's law, that will be the cost of a cheep watch in 205x, and the
software, imagers, and plastic boxes will be the pricey parts. You can
assume the "scanning array" contains the required stuff. I'm neglecting
the need to track every wrinkle in the suit, but if the suit is
reltively from fitting and just moves because the body changes shape,
that is not a huge deal- afew basic body postion sensorswould give 98%
acuracy.. Loose, flowing "robes" would require more position sensing
wiring, but the much greater amount of RP (and hence cost) required
covers that.
Well, that for ME answers "How does ruthenium polymer work?" RTFM
indeed- the manuel is NEVER an adequite source of information.
Mongoose
