Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Gate of light? True one way mirror?

  1. #1 Gate of light? True one way mirror? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    So I am on the edge of a science brakethrough. This idea could be revolutionising in warfare (And could make me millions) But I have to get pased this one problem and thats How to make a true one way mirror.

    As many of you probably know, A one way mirror or window is a window with a thin sheet of a chosen metle. This sheet alows some light through while reflecting the rest. To make it look like a mirror one room is lit brighter than another.

    This is not what I want. I need a mirror that works like this. One side reflects all light hitting it. The other side alows all light through to the other side. This means one side looks black and the other is much brighter with 2 different images shown on the one side.

    If someone could help me with this if you know a material like this or anything please tell me. I have been trying to find a way around this problem but to get the best result this material is needed so please if anyone knows what material I could use please please please tell me.

    Thanks

    Rudster


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Such a mirror or material violates the laws of thermodynamics as it would allow heat to be transferred from a colder body to a hotter one, which in turn would decrease the overall entropy of the system.

    You say you are on the edge of a scientific breakthrough, yet you are asking for help to solve the fundamental problem which would allow such a mirror to be made. In other words, you are talking complete nonsense.


    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    108
    I think that he has an idea that requires one-way mirror. But, as Waveman said, forget it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Anything that requires something perfect is pretty much automatically impossible. One-way mirrors in particular have some serious practical limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    52
    Well, logically speaking you could put a perfect mirror surface on one side, then have a LED screen on the other side... It works nevertheless. Why would you need a one-way mirror for warfare when cameras can do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Electromagnetic radiation has an associate momentum to it thus there is "pressure of radiation". Your "diode like mirror" is pretty much like opposing fire hose streams through a screen. The bigger hose wins, entropy is preserved.
    By the way, we(humanity) DO NOT need more way's to kill each other. If you can invent a high efficiency energy manipulation device, then why not use it in such a manner that the wealth you garner from it's creation can be enjoyed in a world that hasn't been blown to hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    108
    Weapon technology needs to be developed, if only for peacekeeping purposes. Imagine some militaristic country developing weapons while others stagnate. What could happen? Or just imagine some extraterrestrial threat... you got the point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    11
    Such a mirror is impossible, for even if you had one side that allowed all light to pass through, once you attempted to put it on the back/front of a mirror that reflected all light, the mambranes of the sheet with light passability would overlap the ones of the sheet that reflects light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Oh yeah, look up Maxwell's demon for another reason this isn't possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    Ok so I failed to state afew things. One I do not wish to focus on making a wepon. This was mainly a kick start if I were to bypass this one problem. From what I can see it is not possable so I am going to ask afew more questions. P.S. This item I have been working on could be used as an energy free light souce. Warfare is a mere option.

    One, Some of you may have seen windows that with a flip of a switch becomes opaque. Would this become possable but make it more efficient and with the flip of a swith the window become reflective? If so can you tell me the name of the material.

    Two, Say I had a basic 7.5 watt Tungsten Light bulb (Incandescent Bulb) How hot is the Tungsten when on?

    Three, How much light would the bulb create per second?

    Four, How much heat would that light per second transfer to Tugsten if reflected?

    Now if "(X/299792458^(Nx299792458))" is the equation for how much heat the Tunscan increased. X being the heat per second and N being time in seconds . (Yes I came up with this equation.) Then I can work out with trial and error how long the tunscan would last.

    Please help me. If you dont get my equation just think about for awile, I tock me about half an hour to work out how to write it. But all I need is questions 1-4 answered please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Weapon technology needs to be developed, if only for peacekeeping purposes. Imagine some militaristic country developing weapons while others stagnate. What could happen? Or just imagine some extraterrestrial threat... you got the point.
    "How doe's one simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." - Albert Einstein.
    "If intelligent extra terrestrials wanted something from us, they would drop out of the sky in faster than light spacecraft, shoulder antimatter projection weapons, and take it. There would be two things we could do about it, nothing and like it." - Me.
    I can't claim to be a pacifist for I believe an important rule to be, if something tries to eat you then fight back. I call it the animal rule. I recommend, for purpose's of peace and defense, self cultivation through the practice of asymmetric warfare techniques. Asymmetric warfare has a long history of success due to the fact that it isn't dependent on destroyable infrastructure. The self discipline inherent in practice would certainly aid a person in making the profoundly difficult decision of peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Sindrato
    Weapon technology needs to be developed, if only for peacekeeping purposes. Imagine some militaristic country developing weapons while others stagnate. What could happen? Or just imagine some extraterrestrial threat... you got the point.


    Everyone, may I present tonights main attraction, the Common American Mentaility!



    you do realise I hope, thats the excuse EVERYONE uses, al quaida fight for peace from the evil western godless scum, america fights for peace from the evil eastern godless terrorists
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Quote Originally Posted by Sindrato
    Weapon technology needs to be developed, if only for peacekeeping purposes. Imagine some militaristic country developing weapons while others stagnate. What could happen? Or just imagine some extraterrestrial threat... you got the point.


    Everyone, may I present tonights main attraction, the Common American Mentaility!



    you do realise I hope, thats the excuse EVERYONE uses, al quaida fight for peace from the evil western godless scum, america fights for peace from the evil eastern godless terrorists
    Note that this mentality has resulted in the lack of global conflict for over 60 years now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    108
    And note that I'm not an American. :P
    To get to the point, I meant exactly what dr.Rocket said. If the USA has developed weapons in period od 18.-39., Germany wouldn't have stood a chance. I don't pretend to like what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I certainly prefer that to another Hitler or something similar.
    And considering the extra-terrestrial threat. Of course I don't mean we could organize a military defense against some race advanced enough to reach us. But exterminating a species is extremely difficult process, and the weapons technology could help the "partisans."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hate my country
    Posts
    29
    One, Some of you may have seen windows that with a flip of a switch becomes opaque. Would this become possable but make it more efficient and with the flip of a swith the window become reflective? If so can you tell me the name of the material.
    Now you are just rephrasing your question: you want us to give you some magical material, which would allow it. If there would be such a material, don't you think, that someone would've already discovered it? Maybe not. But still - you basically have only the idea, which you probably got from some movie, or even a game. There are many such both things.
    No offense meant...

    Secondly, about the warfare: I agree with both, Rocket and Giant, partially:
    US wants to fight with IRAQ, they do. IRAQ fights back, because of distorted view of their religion (interpretation of the book, which I know no name in English, nor Arabic) and of course naturally.
    To stop the war - it's not gonna happen, let's face it. US wants Russia dead, Russia hates US. So... Make weapons? Russians and Americans are making weapons both, at about the same... developmental circle. Same is other developed countries. Everyone is about equal. Why do you need new and very advanced weapons? It's tempting to have the power in your hands. It's tempting to rule the world. isn't it? Don't you think, that US wouldn't be tempted to take down some countries? Russia, Iraq, Afganistan? That means war. I'm not saying, that it'd be for sure, I'm just stating possibilities. So in simple words - there could be a better peace, or a possibility for a war to arise.

    In my opinion, people should concentrate on such things, which would help the humanity. Like population, energy sources, food sources, nature. Not the guns. Right now, it seems like people are focusing mainly on militaristic things, not the things, that actually could help people. I'm talking and super-countries, as we call them over here. Not about small countries, which does neither. Mine for example.

    Hope you got the correct point of views and points, it's 3AM here, and I haven't got much sleep today, so if what - don't get my opinions and points wrongly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    108
    Of course that it would be nice to stop developing weapons, but if one country stops doing it, you can't expect all others to do the same. Imbalance of power= much greater conflict than we have now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Admittedly, MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) has proven to be a deterrent to global nuclear holocaust for over sixty years now. The presence of a world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield would reduce nuclear war to an exercise in wrestling or boxing in armour. In certain specific cases, advances in offensive/defensive systems is of benefit to humanity in general, as long as such things result in a reduction of conflict or collateral damage from such conflict.

    As alternatives to large scale conventional warfare I recommend political assassinations, lethal or non-lethal mano-a-mano duels between leaders or national avatars, and a primary use of special operations forces(metaphorical Ninja). The movie "Gun's of Navarone"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gun...avarone_(film)) is an excellent(though fictional) example of asymmetric warfare. Some "Ninja" used improvised demolitions to destroy complex weapons infrastructure belonging to "Hitler".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Admittedly, MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) has proven to be a deterrent to global nuclear holocaust for over sixty years now. The presence of a world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield would reduce nuclear war to an exercise in wrestling or boxing in armour.
    You overestimate the effectiveness of real systems. There is no such thing, nor is there likrly to ne in forseeable future, as a "world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield". I have worked on anti-missile systems and while I strongly support their development and deployment I also recognize the limitations inherent in them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    The presence of a world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield would reduce nuclear war to an exercise in wrestling or boxing in armour.
    I should have qualified that statement with a "when/effective". I added the "world wide" part because the exclusive possession of such by any single nuclear power of course would be a disastrous imbalance of power. I realize that when were discussing guided missile systems the trajectories are no longer simple. Then if the missile can be effectively targeted, what happens when it is "destroyed". If nuclear material isn't "reacted"(High altitude EMP's, radiation, all bad.) then it might be inadvertently spread over a large geographic area(Bad). A WWABMS is pretty pipe dreamy. Keep working Doc, and has anyone thought of using "Sticky Foam"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Gate of light? True one way mirror? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudster
    So I am on the edge of a science brakethrough. This idea could be revolutionising in warfare (And could make me millions) But I have to get pased this one problem and thats How to make a true one way mirror.

    As many of you probably know, A one way mirror or window is a window with a thin sheet of a chosen metle. This sheet alows some light through while reflecting the rest. To make it look like a mirror one room is lit brighter than another.

    This is not what I want. I need a mirror that works like this. One side reflects all light hitting it. The other side alows all light through to the other side. This means one side looks black and the other is much brighter with 2 different images shown on the one side.

    If someone could help me with this if you know a material like this or anything please tell me. I have been trying to find a way around this problem but to get the best result this material is needed so please if anyone knows what material I could use please please please tell me.

    Thanks

    Rudster
    What you are describing is not very different from how lasers work. The difference is that with a laser, a crystal is being used to continually amplify the signal by adding more photons in phase with the light as the light passes through the crystal.

    The main problem you're going to run into with your scheme is that the amount of light that gets through the reflective barrier is a percentage of the total amount of light hitting it. So, if the amount were 5%, and I used a 100 watt light source (we'll say 100 watts per square meter, and a 2 way mirror surface of that size), then the most that could possibly build up is 2000 Watts, because once there is 2000 Watts bouncing around in there, 100 Watts will be leaking out..... and that's exactly as much as the light source is adding.

    I'm not even sure that a setup like that is possible, but you can clearly see what the problem with it would be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3
    I have been watching this thred and just now came up with an idea. tell me. if I had a custom 100w bulb reflecting light at a mirror then strait back at it. theory it would heat up producing more light. Now for the mirror I would use something like GORE DRP Diffuse reflector lining a tube. The shape would be like this |(Light)====| with electricity bringing the light up untill the light is released or the mirror melts. the mirror can withstand temportatures up to 260C and refectivity of 97.4% to 99.2% depending on the wavelengths.

    So can someone conferm my theory that the light would continue to heat up even if the light were to stop reaseving electricity?[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hate my country
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Admittedly, MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) has proven to be a deterrent to global nuclear holocaust for over sixty years now. The presence of a world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield would reduce nuclear war to an exercise in wrestling or boxing in armour.
    You overestimate the effectiveness of real systems. There is no such thing, nor is there likrly to ne in forseeable future, as a "world wide ABM(Anti Ballistic Missile) Shield". I have worked on anti-missile systems and while I strongly support their development and deployment I also recognize the limitations inherent in them.
    If such thing would be started to build, someone might get unhappy, that their enemies are getting it, and might think "we should act now, before we can do nothing"... And yes, there's no logic in the shield idea itself, where would the rockets go? Up the sky to blow up the moon? Doesn't make much sense.
    Sorry for my poor English skills, I've learned it by myself... Trying to improve them, feel free to criticize, hehe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •