Talk:Negative-index metamaterial/Archive 1

Article violates LEAD

Right now I'm not sure what the article is about. The article violates the WP:LEAD guidelines. Specifically, it's supposed to define what the title means, and what the article covers. In that way, it seems unencyclopedic right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This was why I tagged it "intro-rewrite". It's not that the intro is badly written; it's just not in the right form for a Wikipedia article. The article should lead off with a definition of what "Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope" is, ideally in the first sentence, and then explain it in more detail and provide background and motivation.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if we clearly knew what the article was about we would be much clearer what an appropriate name was, and whether there was anything missing from the article or not.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The lead clearly and succinctly gives an overview of the article, and the rest of the article supports the lead. This is clearly in agreement with, WP: Lead guidelines. I think the tag, is not agreement with what is clearly written there. And so far you are speaking in generalities. If you want - you point out a section in the introduction, and I will point out the section of the article that supports that part of the introduction. After that we can remove the tag that you placed there. Ti-30X (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ti-30X, but this really is not the style of lead you would expect in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. It reads like somebody's thesis or essay, which is probably how it got its ridiculous title. This whole article needs rethinking to make it accessible to non-scientists; it is supposed to be written for the general reader. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ti-30X: Wikipedia standards require the title of the article to appear in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. Look at a bunch of WP articles, and you'll see that this is generally the case. Typically, the first sentence should define the subject of the article. The most obvious problem with the intro here is that it does not do this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strieffler - OK I will take a look around. Thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't tackled rewriting the intro because of the discrepancy between the article's title and its contents. Once we decide what the subject of this article is, we can get the intro right. --Srleffler (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So would you like to me elucidate what my original intentions are (or were)? See last few paragraphs below. - Ti-30X unsure of the time of this entry, replying to Srleffler.

Crystal ball?

I'm a bit concerned that in places the article may get too speculative. As an example, near the end the article says "When the technology is fully developed, an object can avoid detection by infrared, radar or radio waves. A large building, which is obstructing a view of the bay, could be cloaked. This would not only enhance the view, but also improve wireless communications. The same theory applies to sound waves so any structure could be protected from vibrations, sound, or seismic waves." Neither of these applications of the technology is very likely, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it a bit. I'll remove this bit from the article shortly.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's a proposed application of metameterials- the idea is to sink piles down in a particular pattern around the building. Calculations show that this avoids some types of earthquakes from hitting the building, they deflect around it.

The question is whether this is supposed to be covered by the article or not. Given the lack of lead, I honestly don't have a clue what the scope of the article is, so I have no clue whether that should or shouldn't go in; the lead is what scopes the article. This is a car crash of an article right now, it's just somebodies essay. The article as-is would fit in fine in some scientific journal, just not an encyclopedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but is that seismic redirection accomplished with a negative index metamaterial, or do the pilings function more like a photonic crystal? I suspect the latter. We can add something about this application back in, if it's more carefully worded. The previous text's implication that the "same theory" applies to sound waves, and therefore structures can be protected from "vibrations, sound, or seismic waves" is at least misleading if not outright incorrect. The underlying physics of negative-index metamaterials is pretty specific to electromagnetic waves. I don't believe there is any analog for sound or seismic waves. One can make other types of metamaterials for sound, however.--Srleffler (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative mu for sound: [1]. That's the thing, what the heck is the topic here? The lead is even more important than the title, and it's utterly inadequate. The title says its all about that as well, but the text doesn't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chalkboard

Let's try to decide what the topic is. I apologize for thinking that was apparent. That was arrogant of me. I hope you understand that I am knew to this process, and I became a little overwheimed with the attention this article has drawn. Also, I became overwhelemed when we started trying to find an appropriate title, and then someone brought up the introduction, and then someone else thinks corrections need to made in the article, etc., etc. I guess I really didn't expect to have this much help available. So I have been feeling like this stuff is coming at me from different directions. As I said, I am knew to this. . Also, I am familiar with a couple of editors from previous articles. But, there a couple of editors I am not familiar with, you guys decided to pitch in and help, anyway. But, you have different styles than the styles of working I am used to. I am realizing the different working is style is fine. I just didn't want to get into any contests about marginal science, and I see that hasn't happened. So I am rating this article Phew! (with a sigh of relief). Wolfkeeper, and Srleffler, I see that you both have backgrounds in physics - so welcome aboard. So, hopefully you want to hear what the intended topic is or was. Ti-30X (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that you will want to have this information. Here is a basic summation I wrote in another thread: This is research that is going on in the lab, creating a negative refractive index. It has been in the lab since around 2006. Actual negative refractive index was achieved around the year 2000, but this was similar to just checking out the material. This technology is decades away from real world applications. I based the article on peer reviewed journals. This is nothing that is going to happen tommorrow. I would say, maybe the 2040's, 2050's or 2060's. Who knows? Military is not the only projected possible use. There are other civilian uses as well, some of which is mentioned later in the article. Today's stealth technology is very effective, and I admire it very much from the research I did on it.

OK - here is another very basic summation, that I did at another thread: I see what you are geting at. The "pliable envelope" part would be controlling responsive electromagnetic fields. It's kind of a metaphor. The envelope would also be in enveloping the object in the electromagnetic fields. It's a two word description of a mature future technology, perhaps sometime in the 2040's, 2050's, or 2060's. I have no problem in letting that go from the title, at this time. It sounds too glitzy, anyway. To provide further clarity - I am not refering to current stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope. Current stealth is about the physcial materials used. It is actually used as a contrast, in the article. So the sourced material on current stealth technology, is about current stealth (today). Ti-30X (talk), 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - I meant to say the core of the article is based on peer reviewed scientific journals. For stealth topics, I went to books, articles, and what I considered to be worthy websites that had information about air craft, such as Global security and Airforce - technology.com Ti-30X (talk), 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ti-30X. I'm glad you've realized that we're all trying to help here. Sometimes the attention a new article gets can be overwhelming. You've realized the important thing: tags, editor comments, debates about titles, etc. are all attempts to help improve the article, not criticisms or obstructions.

The key question that we need to decide on is what the scope of this article should be. Do we want to cover negative index materials generally (including stealth applications), or focus just on stealth applications? Note that there are already articles on Metamaterials and on cloaking devices (the latter covering both sci-fi concepts and metamaterial technologies). Personally, I favor having an article just on stealth applications, and letting Metamaterial cover the underlying physics and the broader applications of these materials. I haven't looked into it in detail, however, so I'm open to other ideas about how to organize the material.--Srleffler (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper: cool, I wasn't aware of that. I stand corrected.--Srleffler (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Srleffler, hopefully you are reading the section, I opened up entitled "Introduction". I would like to have a go at trying to work with the article as is for now. Truthfully, at this point I am better versed in metamaterials, and the theory of negative refractive index, than stealth technology. Ti-30X (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Let's do all the work in the introduction section here (for the introduction to the article).

• Ok here is the first sentence in the introduction, and from this I thought it was pretty clear what this article is about: "The capability to direct and regulate electromagnetic fields, in order to blend in objects with the environment, is available, but yet only in the laboratory."

OK so I am saying "blend in" as a synonym for cloaking or cloaking technology. The object blends in because the EM fields surround and cloak the object. In addition, I first state that there is a capability to do cloak an object by directing EM fields. In other words by choice, with someone at the controls and object is hidden from view, and look like only sky is there. This is because the EM fields now imitate empty space, while at the same time hiding an object within the fields. Then I state that it is available, but now, come to think of it. It is not really available, because it is only in the lab. It is available in the lab, but not out in society, yet. This is an undeveloped technology. So, the phrase, "is available" should be removed or it gives the wrong impression. So, is this clear so far? Does this give us a direction to go in? Ti-30X (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 UTC)

I will continue, here, but you guys feel free to jump in. Ti-30X (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The next sentence mentions agencies that fund these projects. This is important to help establish notability for the article. That is the main function of this sentence.
• The next two sentences state: Real world applications are unlikely for several decades. With today's stealth aircraft, such as the B-2 Spirit, the current technology is based on the materials and shapes of the vehicle

I state correctly that applications for this technology is several decades away. With the next sentence I am starting to establish limitations, of current stealth technology. These are limited because of materials used to maintain the stealth vehicles, and because of the specifications for their shape, so they can be stealth vehicles. I do elaborate and expand this in a later section within the article. The rationale for doing this, is to be able to compare the limitations of current stealth with a possible or projected solution - several decades from now. Ok I will stop for now, so everyone can catch upTi-30X (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding suspiciously like synthesized, original research... There should be sources somewhere that we can paraphase (either paper sources or online, it doesn't matter which). It's important to keep in mind what Wikipedia is not
— V = I * R (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Ohms. I suggest we work through the article to find out what it is and what it is not. Let's not jump to conclusion, this early in the process. Ti-30X (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please don't get caught up in the names of stuff yet. I think part of this process will be defining what we mean, in the article. Ti-30X (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

synthesis brings up a concern as to weather or not the article should exist at all, though (on Wikipedia, at least).
— V = I * R (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This next sentence, looks like it has been edited, hence, it gives incorrect information. No matter, we can correct it now. Here is the sentence, One development of stealth technology is to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum, to envelope the object so that it cannot be seen or detected.

So this sounds like a development of current stealth technology, even though that is not the intended meaning of the sentence. The readers will misunderstand, so I need a correction here. This should state, something like, "One development of manipulating EM fields is to envelope the object so that it cannot be seen or detected."

There are about four basic distinctions in this article. One is stealth technology is current stealth technology, until near the end of the article, or it gets all mixed up. I suggest that we don't define a future stealth technology until later in the article. Use EM fields, or EM spectrum, or other similar descriptions until near the end of article. If this isn't clear I will try to clarify.

Two is the manipulation of EM fields with the science of Negative Index Refraction.

Three is the object is hidden from view, or can be hidden from view. I have tried to use words such as concealment. If in the end, this is too much of a pain in butt for everybody, than we can use the word "cloak". These are suggestions only, BTW. Ti-30X (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Four Current limitations of stealth technology. Allow me to add to this, it might be prudent to add a number of the stealth aircrafts's abilities, when we get to this part, to show they are effective military aircraft. This is so we can present a balanced view of current stealth technology. How do we do this, I don't know. Ti-30X (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also for number 4, keep in mind that we don't have to worry about this, until later in the article. This is not a concern for the introduction. The article is structured something like this:

1. Introduction
2. Four sections in describing the theory and demonstrations of controlling EM fields and negative refractive index.
3. The fifth section is Limitation of stealth tech. Hopefully we can change to include capability.
4. The next sections are other stuff, which we can get into later.

• Everything directly relating to Stealth technology should be covered in the stealth article, including (reliably, and verifiably sourced) future technologies. Cloaking is covered in Cloaking device, and the same holds true of material about it as with stealth. That leaves points #2 and 3, both of whom deal with Negative index refraction, which is covered somewhat in the Metamaterial article. This description seems to indicate that the "field of view" (so to speak) needs to be narrowed and/or differentiated further for this article.
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  Would you care to sign your entry so I know to whom, I am speaking? And we are only in the introduction yet. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please.Ti-30X (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about forgetting my sig earlier (keep in mind that you can always look at the page history to figure out who posted an unsigned comment. Talk page histories are distinct from article histories). I'm bringing these points up because it's basically impossible to write an introduction to an article where there is uncertainty regarding the actual topic. The so far unanswered concerns regarding WP:SYN also give pause to rushing ahead to copy editing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at stealth

Thanks for your civil demeanor - here is this so far:

In the stealth article these sections have no citations - Radar cross-section (RCS) reductions, Vehicle shape, Non-metallic airframe, Radar absorbing material, Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations. Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations has a subsection entitled Low frequency radar. If you check out the article that is used as a source there is nothing at all about Low frequency radar in the article. The article is entitled "AirVenture Oshkosh 2009 – Another Pilgrimage". However, the one after that looks hopeful for stealth limitations, I am reading it now. But the score, in this article isn't too good at the moment.Ti-30X (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can believe that the Stealth technology article needs work (most articles do). Be sure to edit the issues that you do find with it, when you are able to do so. I'm not really certain, but I think that what you are implying here is that nothing from this article should be merged into the stealth article because it needs work? If that's the position which you are actually advancing, then I can simply point to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. While the subject of that essay is not directly on point regarding mergers, the general ideas which it expresses are still applicable.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about merger. I wasn't thinking about that, right now. I really, think it is too soon for that, at the moment. I thought you were pointing out that the stealth material in this article is already sourced in the other article. Which most of it isn't. That is what helps distinguish this article from that one. In any case, I did not write this so it could be mergered into metamaterials, and stealth. The other editors are on board for re working this article as it is. Like I said, don't jump the gun, right now. With all due respect, if you are not interested at this point then let us work on it. You are free to join us later if you want. Ti-30X (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW - here is the information on the rest of the stealth article.

The next, following sections have no in line citations: Acoustics, Infrared, Reducing radio frequency (RF) emissions. There is a questionable external link in "Infared". I am not sure if this qualifies according to WP standards. In any case, there are no in line citations in this section, as previously mentioned. In addition, Measuring stealth, and Stealth tactics have no inline citations. After that it is a list similar to a "see also" section. Ti-30X (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I feel compelled to point out that you sound as though you're asserting ownership of the article. I've been putting off editing on other articles which I've been working on in order to assist editing this one, but I'm beginning to question that decision now... At this point, based on all of the discussion so above, I'm really uncertain what we should be deciding right now. I don't think that there is any agreement that the article should even exist any longer (based on my own thoughts expressed here, and those of Materialscientist, Wolfkeepe, and Srleffler. I admire your enthusiasm, but precicely who is "getting ahead" of whom seems to be in debate right now as well.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I wasn't intending to assert ownership. I have to agree, I have no idea what we should be deciding. I previously came to the conclusion that we all wanted to develop the introduction, so I was trying to apply a focus to that in the hopes that the other editors would pick up the ball and run with it (including me). I apologize if I am coming across, as asserting ownership - I didn't know that I was. I would like to make a proposal. How about if we fork, the stealth technology stuff into a stealth technology article entitled something like "Limitations of current stealth technology." And fork the four sections that go with "Scientific background" into another article about the science that is there. You were correct that there are WP synthesis questions, later in the article. However, my hope was that by the time we got there we would have a solution, where there would be no question of synthesis. Hopefully, this is now moot. We fork into two articles and merge the rest out in agreement with your tags. I don't have a consensus here. I thought that I did. Another editor is interested in working on a stealth technology article and I am too. What do you think of my proposal Ti-30X (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fine proposal. The only point where I would offer an adjustment is that it will likely be much easier to merge material from this article into Stealth technology#Radar stealth countermeasures and limitations, and after accomplishing (most of) that task to then set about splitting the Stealth technology article. Trying to accomplish both tasks in one feel swoop is likely to cause more dispute rather then resolving anything.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good! I think you have done this before. I appreciate your experience in this matter. OK, so how about if we take it one step at a time. First we merge with the other article. After that has been accomplished. Then, take the next step, which is, later we propose a split. Does this sound good to you? We don't have to accomplish that all at once, right? Ti-30X (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my sudden interference. I only briefly looked through the posts, and the one before last message by Ω (the last actually crossed with my edit, twice :) brought me to say this: There is much useful info in the discussion, but we might be wasting time. Talking about editing and actual editing need balance. Another thing I would address to Srleffler is that IMO, it is useless trying to fix WP as a whole - one article at a time, existence of other articles has never been an impediment, even if the topics overlap, they give different views. Mergers are always a tricky matter which can be decided later. To me, existence of other WP pages on metamaterials is irrelevant here. Many of them were actually written by Ti-30X (with his earlier views on the matter, and those views clearly improved, as easy to see by comparison). Terms are also misleading. "Stealth technology" is often understood as something pertaining to the US stealth aicraft - let the terms be, they are always misleading to some extend. To summarize, I would leave the current title and work on the article itself, adding refs, fixing incorrect science, etc., i.e. a usual routine. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist - so you are reccomending against splitting this article into a merger and an article now, and another article later. I will take this into consideration. You might be correct that if we just retain the current title, we could derive a focus from that for the introduction and go from there. OK I will look at this proposal. How about you Ohm, what do you think? Ti-30X (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have to agree that existence of overlap by article title is not an impediment, and the other articles do give a different view. That does express how I percieve the matter, but no one seemed to be going along with it. Thanks for your input Materialscientist Ti-30X (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohm, I appreciate your interest in this article. Especially, your willingness to put off working with other articles, for this one. It says a lot. And I consider it a compliment. So, what is your opinion on Materialscientist's proposal. Ti-30X (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can we archive this talk page? It is really long, now. That way we can start fresh wherever we want to start fresh from. Ti-30X (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No we can't. Much of the volume here is the move discussion, which is still open. We need to close that before we archive it. Give it another week. By then we should have a consensus.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

Some synonyms for the word "material", as in physical "material":

being, body, bolt, cloth, component, constituent, crop, element, entity, equipment, gear, goods, habiliments, individual, ingredient, machinery, materiel, object, outfit, paraphernalia, staple, stock, stuff, substance, supply, tackle, textile, thing.

Poll

Looking over the recent comments, it appears to me that a consensus may be developing around keeping the title "Negative index metamaterials", and adjusting the article content to fit it to this title. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. (This is of course not a vote, but rather a poll to determine whether we have a consensus. I encourage you to leave comments on why you support or oppose.)--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain for now. I was opposed to the current title, but it sounds like there is willingness to broaden the article's coverage so that it truly agrees with this title. I am fine with the overlap with Metamaterial.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support (that is keep). The article is work in progress, it is much better than metamaterial, and could enlarge through adding content or absorbing other articles. Lead is a non-issue now, the majority of (new) articles don't have a coherent lead at all; it will hopefully be fixed later. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I support this proposal. The current title indicates or describes the science underlying the article. It gives the reader a sense of what the article discusses. Ti-30X (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with whatever you guys want to do. Just be sure to reference everything real well. I find that inline referencing is generally more important then anything else, including proper grammar and well written prose, when it comes to Wikipedia articles. I'm personally still somewhat concerned that a syntheses is presented here, for example, and the way to alleviate such concerns is through referencing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed, about referencing. One problem with the current article is that Ti tended to put references at the end of paragraphs. It would be very helpful, especially in the introduction, if he would move them to the end of the sentences they support, especially in cases where the sentence is talking about future technologies, or is speculative. Such material needs to be very well cited.--Srleffler (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed given the current lead, the current title is inappropriate for what the article claims to be covering. If you want to keep the current title, I suggest you change the lead to match it, and put up maintenance tags for the rest of the article. Negative index metameterials are not only materials that are constructed to manipulate electromagnetic fields, there are different types and the article is essentially lying/misrepresenting what they are.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  What you are suggesting is just what I proposed, as far as I can see: keep the current title and adjust the article content to fit it. If this poll achieves consensus for "support", the first thing to do will be to rewrite the intro to match the new title.--Srleffler (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Just to convey my observation over hundreds of unfinished WP articles I tried to fix - they do not have a proper lead at all. Their lead is usually written only when they get to GA or B level, and it is natural - hard to summarize if the text is unsettled yet. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yea, that observation matches my own experience; generally speaking it does, at least. The issue here isn't so much the lead, it's that neither the lead nor the title, nor the subject of the article itself is firmly settled. I don't see much progress being made on this issue without settling exactly what this article is/should be, so my advice is to just ignore the current state of the actual article and concentrate on the ideas of what it should be. That's what seems to be occurring at the moment anyway, so it's all good.
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  I honestly can say I've never seen that happen where the title changes to a radically different meaning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, I've seen everything, a poll about whether a poll should be closed??? This is total abuse of the wikipedia's processes. The poll was no consensus, and should be closed with that, at best.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Ohm, wrote to me, on his talk page, that it would be OK for us to remove the merge tags, if that is what we want to do. Well, it looks like consensus is moving toward keeping the article intact, and working with it as is, whatever the title. So, hopefully, no one minds, I will remove the merge tags. Ti-30X (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"her"? really? that's interesting... lol
— V = I * R (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't why I did that. I was thinking earler, how do I refer to Ohm? I meant to refer to you as a "person", or something like that.

lol, It doesn't bother me, I just found it interesting is all.
— V = I * R (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction 2

Srleffler, I rewrote the introduction in a manner that you and Wolfkeeper were discussing. Materialscientist did do some coaching as well. I see, now what you were saying. This does reflect the title. And it will be a simple matter to change the introduction, to reflect a different title, if that is the result. Ti-30X (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, check out the lead (introduction) in a few minutes. I have narrowed it down. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people have done some good re-writing with the introduction. Ti-30X (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is a good re-writing, but I think that it is important, to state the capabilities of stealth aircraft, before briefly mentioning some limitations. IMHO - this presents a balanced (an unbiased) view. IMHO (again) I don't believe it is necessary to focus only on limitations of stealth for the sake of this article. In addition, I think it is important to add capabilities to the Limitations of stealth section. I guess we should discuss this. Does anyone mind if I add capabilites to the article? Ti-30X (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the time being I added back the capabilities to the introduction. This can be removed at anytime. I didn't change any of the other editing, because I like how it is written already. Also, this part mentioning capabilites can be reworked (I will be glad to do it) without so many quotes. This was mostly to just get it into the article, at the time. Please discuss: Ti-30X (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Advise to reconsider. The re-added part does sound like a cheap promotion for stealth aircraft, i.e. it only says they are good, whereas a better way is to say, in a focused manner, what makes them good, avoiding "good" words as much as possible - the reader is to judge. BTW, I only quickly reformulated what already was in the lead, without looking at the article. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did a good job with the lead IMHO, along with whoever else worked on it. And I hear your opinion on adding stealth capabilities in this manner. I believe you make a good point, that stating what makes them is good is much more effective. I will do this. Ti-30X (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a statement in the introduction - "In the future, the concealment might be achieved across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from the lowest radio frequencies, through microwaves, to the visible light." I am pretty sure I read this in one or more of the journal articles. I just have to find it, again. Ti-30X (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of sink piles for earthquakes

In addition, not related to the Introduction, I am going to add what Srleffer and Wolfkeeper were discussing -

W - "Actually that's a proposed application of metameterials- the idea is to sink piles down in a particular pattern around the building. Calculations show that this avoids some types of earthquakes from hitting the building, they deflect around it.

S -Interesting, but is that seismic redirection accomplished with a negative index metamaterial, or do the pilings function more like a photonic crystal? I suspect the latter. We can add something about this application back in, if it's more carefully worded. The previous text's implication that the "same theory" applies to sound waves, and therefore structures can be protected from "vibrations, sound, or seismic waves" is at least misleading if not outright incorrect. The underlying physics of negative-index metamaterials is pretty specific to electromagnetic waves. I don't believe there is any analog for sound or seismic waves. One can make other types of metamaterials for sound, however" etc, etc

To me this is fasinating. This definitely a WoW!. This could be put under civilian applications, and we can refine the content later. I just need to find a reference or two. Ti-30X (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole heap of these kinds of things Protecting offshore platforms from waves/tsunamis Earthquake cloak Stealthing submarines. I'm pretty sure these are all proposed applications of metamaterials of varying levels of development, some of them could have applications in just a few years as well, the superlenses could be employed straight away for ultrasound for example, if somebody gets one to work, and it's believed that they would work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful to stick to applications that are supported by a citation to a reliable source. No original research or speculative predictions.--Srleffler (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now this is starting to sound like "Applications of Wave theory" or...something
— V = I * R (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to add these to the article yet. Ohm, I'll be sure to check out what the applications are related to, before I try to add them. If I see a real problem I will vet those here. These are very interesting, however, and I will be trying hard to add them to the article. Ti-30X (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an issue, I was simply making an observation. Now that I think about it, however, I think I see where Wolfkeeper was coming from earlier when he was talking about how the title is inaccurate because it extends beyond electromagnetism... I don't really agree with that conclusion, since almost everything is electromagnetic, but... sound waves and (most of) ground waves from earthquakes are not (there are electrical aspects to the results of earthquakes, mostly due to piezoelectric effects from my understanding, but that's not what is being mentioned here). Anyway, I guess that my point is that Wolfkeeper may have been onto something earlier, and I just didn't understand that before now. If the article is to be extended to all forms of wave dampening research, then that changes things somewhat. I could recommend something along the lines of "Wave damping materials research", for example.

Ohm, OK, I see what you were thinking. Ti-30X (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not about damping at all (that's a lossy reduction in the wave's energy), it's about guiding waves around an object using negative refractive index, ideally losslessly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the language issues seem to adequately highlight a primary issue which I keep coming back to. All of this seems to be very speculative, right now... which isn't to say that I disagree with it (I know that I've read about some of this elsewhere), I'm just trying to hammer home the point that strong referencing and sticking close to exactly what is referenced is very important here. Since this is an article which seems to be attempting to cover "bleeding edge" engineering (some of it, if not most of it, being conducted in secret) we need to be especially cautious not to be creating or re-posting original research as Encyclopedic content.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohm, as someone who has developed a familarity with metamaterials and negative refractive index, through research and study, what Wolfkeeper has here is not speculative. I recognized this when I first saw it. This is really valuable stuff. I didn't realize that this science had branched out to sinking pilings to ameliorate sesmic waves from earthquakes. And, yet it fits right in with the reasearch being conducted on metamaterials today. For example, the pilings appear to be constructed of metamaterials, according to Wolfkeeper. This alone shows incredible diversity, which very much impresses me. And, personally, I don't even bother trying to create orginal research, post it in an article, or try to get away with it. I use what I have gleaned from the research and use citations. I just wanted to say that up front, to allay any fears. So, since this keeps coming up, I am letting you know that the area that I expressed concern about is, the Limitation of stealth section. It is straight sourcing, but it is in this area where we have to through and ask questions, to make sure that we are OK. But, of course we must pay attention to the rest of the article. I really wanted to start adding what Wolfkeeper has presented, but since this question keeps coming up, do you guys want to go through this section first? And, I will apply a tag over to this section.Ti-30X (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shifting the citations from the ends of paragraphs to match the statements, in the paragraphs. Ti-30X (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ah, humm... you're misinterpreting the intent of my statement somewhat. I wasn't attempting to be accusatory at all (as I attempted to explain, I personally know that this isn't really speculative), I was, have been, and am currently trying to get across the point that this topic can easily seem speculative. With that in mind, a high amount of inline referencing is important.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific background

I understand that the sections related to "Scientific background" are more like a thesis, or an essay. The feedback is saying this needs to read more like an encyclopedia. Looking it over, I can agree. Therefore, I will begin rewriting this part into understandable terminologies and descriptions. Please, feel free to refine my efforts. Ti-30X (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper. I was wondering if you could help me with the Scientific background section. I am attempting to write it into understandable terms and descriptions. Also, you could help narrow the generalities that are used in the article concerning Negative index materials. I notice that having this title does help to narrow the description, now that you pointed this out.Ti-30X (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of Stealth

I don't have any source to back up this phrase, yet: "development of aircraft could be focused on more conventional types that would have longer ranges without refueling. " I haven't actually come across a source that states the range of conventional attack aircraft or conventional figher aircraft, to compare to the range of the F-117 stealth aircraft. And I don't know what the range of the F-117 was. If anyone wants to find some sources, thanks. I need the range of conventional attack aircraft or figher aircraft (before refueling), and I need the range for the F-117 (before refueling). Ti-30X (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW I noticed that Wikipedia has a well sourced article on the F-16. This is a conventional fighter aircraft (hint, hint) that is still in production. (Hope you don't mind a little light humor). Ti-30X (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia F-117 article it says 930 NM. The operational radius in its source is 465NM. Doubling 465 NM, I get 930 NM. So according to this means it can go out 465 NM before it has to come back. Ti-30X (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest just pulling the sources from F-117 and something else (like F-16), but you obviously beat me to it. :) Just be very cautious to use the references for exactly what they support in order to avoid WP:SYN.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about avoiding WP:SYN. I still need the range (before refueling) on the F-16 (anyone?). The following might be synthesis, right now: It is acutally the last sentence in the section. "When mature, this capability could utilize rugged, conventionally produced aircraft." I probably either need to reword it, or find a compatible source. Or does it look alright to you guys? Ti-30X (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I have the range for the F-16. Thanks anyway. Ti-30X (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this one source the operational radius of the F-16 is 490 miles. Conflict Iraq page 43. Converting to Nautical Miles, using Google calculator, that would be 425.798359 NM. Essentially that's 426 NM.

• F 117 operational radius = 465 NM
• F 16 operational radius = 426 NM
• A 10 combat radius = 250 NM

The source that I used wrote that the F-117 was quickly pressed into service, resulting in a design compromise. During Desert Storm it required "extensive tanker support", because of this design compromise. To me this implied somehow its operational radius, or combat radius was shortened compared to conventional craft. However, the source does not specify at what range the F-117 was capable of flying before refueling, during Desert Storm. So far, comparing the operatioal or combat radius of these craft, I don't see where the F-117 was deficient. Ti-30X (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will add: given the number of missions (sorties) the F-117 flew during Desert storm, well, yeah, any aircraft would need "extensive tanker support". I can only guess the author is comparing range of the B-2 to the range of the F-117. And if that is true, that is comparing apples to oranges. Ti-30X (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so - I have removed any statements related to a deficient range capability (operational radius) for the F-117. It looks like the first two paragraphs (related to the F-117) will comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Ohm, and Srleffler thanks for being the conscience of this article, so far Ti-30X (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, that I moved the citations into both paragraphs, to match the statements, and clarified the wording. It looks like it is backed - up well with citations. Ti-30X (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the last paragraph complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I moved the citatiions into the paragraph, to match the statements, brought in another reference, and clarified the wording. The new reference is also being used in other parts of the Stealth Limitation section. Ti-30X (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the third paragraph, now, complies with Wikipedia guidelines, as well. Ti-30X (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of stealth aircraft 2

Sorry, I can't make time these days to review the discussion and text of this article, but I am very much worried by the recent development of the aviation field here. It is off-topic, by all means. Please do move it to the relevant stealth or aircraft articles. Forgive my threats, but when I will find time, I (or any other editor) will mercilessly erase large parts of it from the article. Limitations of stealth aircraft are partly relevant, but should only be mentioned briefly, without going into specifics. Materialscientist (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please wipe away the section on limitations on current stealth technology. It is written by someone who has just read random articles and combined them and clearly has no expertise to write such a demanding synthesis. There are articles already on wikipedia on stealth technology and RCS (radar cross-section) which cover most of the issues which this section tried to discuss.

I'm not going to source this for you because most of my expertise derives from classified materials and courses but the following information should be in the public domain:

Particular issues with the section:

1. the 'several decades from now' sentences are speculation and redundant. One could make such statements about any technology on any article on wikipedia. Without explaining the background, the current state-of-the-art and the reasoning behind such speculation they are useless to anyone.

2. No stealth technology, current or speculated claim to 'return no signal to enemy radar'. They merely recude the signal they return to below the detection treshold in combination with other EMC-measures (or even other enemy radar interfering with each other). Battlefield EM-conditions are such that even reducing the RCS by 6DB (75%) can make a huge difference to being detected.

3. There are already radar systems which defeat current conventional stealth technologies by a) having multiple receivers at different geographic locations which can detect and combine the reflection and b) passive radar systems (also with multiple receivers) which seek to i) detect reflections of broadcast EM-radiation from aircraft surfaces or ii) detect the EM-emanations of the aircraft avionics. So equally well I could speculate that these technologies will make all flying objects completely visible to future radar 'in decades from now'.

4. RAM (Radar absorbent material) is no magic solution to stealth. What it does it attennuates EM-radiation only at certain frequencies - and the longer the wavelenght the thicker the coating needs to be. This coating is also extremely expensive, fragile and makes it much more difficult to construct aerodynamic and especially control surfaces.

5. The windshield coating isnt there to 'hide the pilots helmet' - its mainly it is there to stop direct reflections inside the cockpit instrumentation (some of which will always be pointing towards enemy radar) as well as shield the cocpit avionics emanations inside.

6. "With an electromagnetic shielding capability, it would be possible to fly either aerodynamically stable or aerodynamically unstable military aircraft, as desired or required, because the cloak is in the control of electromagnetic waves" This sentence makes absolutely no sense! First of all, almost all of todays fighter aircraft are aerodynamically unstable, wherther they are stealth or not! They are aerodynamically unstable not because of stealth but because they have been designed to optimize for a) combat manouverability b) supersonic speeds c) other stuctural requirements such as weapon loading, heavy avionics racks etc. - all of which move the center of gravity away from stability (forward of center of aerodynamic balance - or the point of aerodynamic balance is allowed to shift radically, unlike in conventional aircrafts). Modern flight computers can also control many more flight surfaces simultaniously (as well as move them in opposite directions as required) then a pilot could and can make dynamic calculations about what is their optimum configuration for each flight mode, attitude, airspeed etc. which the pilot could never perform in his head.

7. Generally the sections parts about the difficulty of maintenance for stealth materials (RAM) and structures is correct.

So like Materialscientist says, this is off-topic for this article, but it is also atleast very poor information as well. Just wipe it clean and start again. --84.250.70.125 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist did not say this section is off-topic. He was referring to informaiton that was previously part of the introduction, as well as one or two aircraft images that were placed in the introduction, all of which have been subsequently removed. You have taken this conversation, between Materialscientist and I, out of context. This was orginally on my talk page and placed here. Also, he was in a very sour and cranky (peevish) mood when he wrote that. With what you have written here, are you also trying to stand on some authority (i.e., Do you need Materialscientist to back you up)? Essentially you are putting words into his mouth. You have misconstrued the intent, and presented statements out of context. Is there really a need to do this? Ti-30X (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes: I was indeed referring to the lead, not to the stealth section in the body, that section is relevant, and the lead has been cleaned up, but. I do appreciate the above comments by 84.250.70.125 and believe they should be considered in the stealth section (yes, after stealth was launched in the US, Russians had come up with clever radar techniques). Again, expanding on that is to be done in the stealth article, but corrections are relevant here too. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the information this editor has posted, in spite of the fact he or she presented statements out of context. As far as stealth being defeated by current radar technology and or low frequency radar, I have come across this already. However, I have had to be choosy about what I was going to put into this article. This article is about the science of a baby technology first, and then applied usage of this technology Vis-à-vis future stealth technology. It is not about current capabilities to defeat stealth, and I am not going to research deep into this, just for the sake of someone else's comment. Perhaps another article could be written about current capabilities to defeat stealth. There is also infared detection that was being developed (by the Russians?) But, again, I am no going to deeply research this topic for this article.

• As far as the comment of "several decades from now" being redundant - it may or not may be redundant. I repeated it at least twice (actually three times) in this section on purpose. The rationale was to emphasize the fact that this is a technology that is not going to be available tomorrow. And to use it for stealth capabilities vis-à-vis "invisiblity" this is decades away. These are not my words. I thought this was implied with the statements about Pendry and Smith, in this section. However, since some doubt has been expressed, I have taken the next step and and cited a source, who for me started me on this quest to express the science behind this baby technology. The cited source is Dr. Michio Kaku, and his book "Physics of the Impossible". I did not want to use this book as I am a reformed "Physics of the Impossible" enthusiast. However, thanks to the comments on this page, my passion for this book has been reignited. This is because I was compelled to read reviews, and then review the chapter on "Invisibility" again. I hope 84.250.70.125|84.250.70.125 is satisfied. Can all the milk ever be put back in the bottle, once spilled. Does the geenie ever willingly return to the lamp?
• Regarding your comment"return no signal to enemy radar" once again you have posted a phrase out of context to support your interpretation. The entire sentence is: " Several decades from [ now radar would not be a concern at both night and day hours because with electromagnetic cloaking capability, the fighter would potentially return no signal to enemy radar" First, I use the caveat "the fighter would potentially return no signal to enemy radar". I did not write that it defintely without a doubt that it would do this or not do this. You are basing your conclusions on current radar return rates. I am basing my conclusions, which are about "potential" - on peer reviewed scientific journals. I am going to give you at least four titles and DOI's to scientific journal articles. Wtih your background I am hoping that it will be no problem to comprehend the ideas and accomplishments being conveyed. I also reccomend that you follow up on a few of their citations, for these can make for some interesting reading as well. I don't know for sure, but you may come to the same conclusion that I did - Potentially no signal will be returned. It will take a short amount of time to compile this short list. Ti-30X (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have gotten this from the list of references. Keep in mind that I am not going to do all the work for you. My time is valuable. The list is as follows:

• Pendry, J.B. (2006). "Controlling Electromagnetic Fields". AAAS Science Magazine. Vol. 312 (5514): pp.1780 - 1782. doi:10.1126/science.1125907. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Leonhardt, Ulf (2006). "Optical Conformal Mapping". AAAS Science Magazine. 312 (5781): 1777–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1126493. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Shelby, R. A. (2001). "Experimental Verification of a Negative Index of Refraction". AAAS Science Magazine. Vol. 292 (5514): pp.77 - 79. doi:10.1126/science.1058847. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Schurig,, D. (2006). "Metamaterial Electromagnetic Cloak at Microwave Frequencies". AAAS Science Magazine. 314 (5801): 977–980. doi:10.1126/science.1133628. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Ti-30X (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• The following statement from you "RAM (Radar absorbent material) is no magic solution to stealth. What it does it attennuates EM-radiation only at certain frequencies - and the longer the wavelenght the thicker the coating needs to be. This coating is also extremely expensive, fragile and makes it much more difficult to construct aerodynamic and especially control surfaces. " This is already in the article. You are just repeating what is already here. In fact I also use "attenuates". Except for thicker coating, we have said the same thing here. I don't see the need to specify frequencies at which this is either effective or ineffective. That would be off topic here. Furthermore, I never claimed that RAM is a magic solution. This is the first I have ever heard of RAM being referred to as a magic solution. If anyone cares to read my cited sources regarding RAM they too will understand that it is extremely expensive, fragile, contol surfaces, etc., etc, And this is already stated in the article in so many words. So what are you getting at? Ti-30X (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• You also wrote: 5. The windshield coating isnt there to 'hide the pilots helmet' - its mainly it is there to stop direct reflections inside the cockpit instrumentation (some of which will always be pointing towards enemy radar) as well as shield the cocpit avionics emanations inside. I will definitely look into this. What I have in the article is sourced, and verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines. As to what you have written here, I have to say I am sure that the helmet is also a concern because radar beams can bounce off of it. If a small defect in the RAM coating can compromise stealth capability, and this is a definitely a concern according to my research, then I am thinking so can a helmet. So, if I find the facts to support your statements I will add this, into this part of the article. Unless I find facts that say the helmet is not a concern, I am leaving this in the article as well, because I already have a source that says this is so. Ti-30X (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction 3

I just dod some copy editing on the lead. Feel free to change anything you think should be changed. I have some concerns with the third paragraph, about stealth aircraft tech, because it currently (still) reads like some sort of ad copy. We need to decide what the primary point which is trying to be expressed is and stick closely to it.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The content I have removed and added expresses the primary point IMHO. My intention was to somehow express some of the positive capabilities of today's stealth technology, besides the limitations, to present a non-biased view. So I got rid of the ad copy, and expressed what are the capabilities with an example - the F-117 in combat. Also, I mentioned the purpose behind its design, which was: The F-117 Nighthawk was designed to fufill the need for an "aircraft capable of attacking high value targets without being detected by enemy radar". This may work because it expreses how well it fufilled that need, and it relates to the article because it was designed to enter combat without being detected by enemy radar. Radar of course relates it to the article vis-à-vis negative index materials. Furthermore, the first paragraph seems to segway well into this paragraph. And the paragraphs which follow, in the introduction, seem to fit OK with this one. However, it may not be perfect Ti-30X (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I reccomend not doing more with the introduction, for now. Personally, I want to get the next parts of the article into shape, before doing more with the introduction. And I want to integrate what Wolfkeeper has presented into the applications part. Ti-30X (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, although the introduction works well with the last three paragraphs, we need a segway from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. The first paragraph is fine, we just need a segway. Ti-30X (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I managed a segway. Ti-30X (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I reccomend not doing more with the introduction, for now. Ti-30X (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Integration of new technology into society

I've had to review some of the science journals, because I was trying to recall which reference applies to one or two statements. (The review was pleasant btw). During my review I edited some items into the "Integration of new technology into society" section. These are cited to the respective journal, from which they are derived. These are presently in the form of quotations and I believe they are directly related to the topic. I will re-write these later, into regular prose, but for now I am working on another section. Please do not remove these. Please discuss removal with me first, please. Ti-30X (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So far I added two of Wolfkeepers proposed applications (from the same article) into the section. Again these are in the form of quoted material. I will re-write these later. In addition, I think I discovered a better name for this section, after returning to Wolfkeeper's proposed contributions for this article, above. I think a better name for this section would be "Proposed applications of metamamterials" or "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials." It certainly has a nice ring to it. Let us discuss... Ti-30X (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that this has occurred; my point was more that if the article claims to cover such a broad topic it would need to do so in a major way anyway.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated comments on renaming/merging.

Ti-30X asked me to comment here a few days back. Unfortunately, I still have no time, but I can provide a link to the relevant thread at WP:PHYS. Long story short, my concerns were:

• This seemed to be mostly duplicating material at stealth technology and cloaking device; the effort might be better spent improving those articles.
• The article name started out as something I've never seen used in the literature as a name for this approach to designing metamaterial structures ("stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope"). It was looking like a synthesis of valid information into an OR-sounding article at the time I first checked it.

My recommendation for addressing these concerns would be to:

• Focus the article on metamatarial "invisibility cloaks" (a term that, while corny, I've seen used in the literature).
• Fold an appropriate amount of material back into the primary articles dealing with metamaterials and with cloaking devices, and to apply "main article: metamaterial invisibility cloak" templates or similar to the primary articles to link to this article.

I recognize that these comments and suggestions are based on very old versions of this article, and likely no longer apply. I also recognize that the naming debate is over. I respect the work that Ti-30X and others have put into creating and improving this article, and I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. I'm providing this summary in case additional views are still useful for the article in its current state, because I'm not going to have time to participate properly in its future development. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply: thank you. Your message reminds us to clean up other relevant articles. As you noted, this article is developing daily and seem to get over some old drawbacks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly developing, but becoming more and more inappropriate, because no consideration of its place in the wikipedia was done before starting. Basically, it's totally encroaching on other articles around it in scope. The most likely outcome is gross deletion of material, and I wouldn't like to bet it would be the other articles that will be shrinking. The longer it goes on with such vague scope the worse this will be.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I completely agree with Christopher here; the article should restrict itself to electromagnetic invisibility/cloaking/stealth and stay away from grandiose claims that the article is about the general topic of 'Negative index metamaterials', which is what the article name very strongly implies. The article name is supposed to reflect the contents, but it frankly doesn't, and I don't see how it can ever do so, given the scope of the other articles around, and the length of this article which is only about one facet of that topic, and is currently running at over 60k length.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments of the day 13 Aug

A fellow editor pointed out that this is not a stealth aircraft article. I have to agree, and cut out the dramatic sorties of the F-117 during Desert Storm. :( Ti-30X (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, does "Proposed applications of metamamterials" or "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials." sound like good titles to rename "Integration of new technology into society" section? Or should we just keep the original name? I think the second one, "Proposed applications of negative index metamaterials" is best. Any comments? Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The current title makes no sense. Please rename to Negative Refractive Index Metamaterials. Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the above (archived) discussion why the name was kept, despite some ambiguity "negative index" - "negative refractive index". The former term is becoming acceptable jargon. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do that, and note that it was closed with inappropriate keep, when there was no consensus. I have reopened the discussion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

B-2 Image

Personally, I would rather remove that picture of the B-2 at the top of the page. I am coming to believe it gives the wrong first impression of the article. The topic of this article is Negative index metamaterials. The B-2 is a great picture, but does it give the wrong first impression?

In addition, I added another image in the introduction to give a simple schematic of negative index metamaterials. I tried to place this image above the B-2, but the frame around the B-2 picture covers text in the introduction when I try to move it down. Or it pulls the text down and leaves a wide white area, splitting the introduction in half. Anyway, I decided to remove this image from the introduction. Of course this is open to discussion.... Ti-30X (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe credit should be given to James Clerk Maxwell. As one of the most brilliant minds ever known to mankind he had the formula for electromagnetic energy placed on his tombstone, and nothing else. To find out more about this great man please refer to the Wikipedia page on James Clerk Maxwell. Jucarter (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments of the day 16 Aug

I appreciate the good faith edit. However there are some points I need to bring up. The active camouflage if off topic in the Limitations of stealth section. It was intended to delineate Limitations of stealth aircraft. I am glad this was pointed out, in whatever way and I will now change the title in the section to reflect this intention. Furthermore, any editor is welcome to develop a section on the limitations of active camouflage. Personally, I am too busy to do so at this time. But it is a welcome addition. However, this is expressed succinctly already in the introduction.

The lead is intended to have a small emphasis on stealth because this is a summary and limitations of stealth aircraft is a delineated section of this article.

One of the basic concepts of the both the introduction and the section on the Limitations of stealth aircraft is that current stealth and future EM shielding-stealth share the same technological goal. This is an important concept in the article,. Hence, it is important to present this in the introductory lead, so that readers understand this up front. This is a clear distinction from other articles. Furthermore, metamaterials and Negative index materials are two different topics. There are metamaterials that are developed for other and more uses than are shown here. In addition, a clear subarticle relationship can be established already in the introduction, with the "Limitations of stealth" section. Based on the intention of the article, there is no clear reason to move the stealth material out of the lead. Ti-30X (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I had reached an understanding that there was a consensus to keep the article intact.Ti-30X (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to have been consensus, and even if it were, it doesn't look like this article can sustain the current title long term- this article is simply not on the topic the article title claims; and the current title also violates other aspects of WP:MOS, there's absolutely no chance it can stay exactly where it is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus for this article. If you look above, it is three support one abstain, and one oppose. That's a three to one, in support. Ti-30X (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and section refs

The article quotes other WP articles: problems because

1. Wp is not a "reliable source"
2. The quoted article can change.

Therefore I would suggest removing the quotation marks, if possible put a WP:permalink in the edit summary. Add a parenthetical (see Permittivity) or juts a plain wikilink. I would not aim to source these statements, which are well known, simply implicitly defer sourcing to the linked article, and see if it causes any problems.

The article refer to "Section1.4" this should be a link to the section header as numbering changes even faster than section names. The section header needs an html comment saying it is linked too, and from where. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC).