Invisibility cloaking using 4 lenses

[heavystray]

Hello,
So, here's an article about invisibility cloaking

• http://www.businessinsider.my/how-t...y-cloak-2014-9/?r=US&IR=T#ruDbxWBJYWXsXcyW.97

What I don't understand is how's the object between the lenses is cloaked. Is it because the rays are focused to a point after it passed through the first lens? (hence, there will be a region where rays do not pass through?) assuming that's the answer, but then in that case, isn't that, only rays that are parallel to the optical axis come into focus at one point? (which is the focal point) how about the rays that pass through optical center and the rays that pass through the first focal point and become parallel? if we draw a diagram, wouldn't these two principal rays disturb the cloaking region? i tried to draw a ray diagram to understand how this works. the final image of the object would be magnified and upright, but i still couldn't understand why can't we see the image, I really hope anyone here clear up my confusion because i have been thinking about this for days and my physics teacher couldn't help me that much. I have a very basic knowledge in optics such as constructing ray diagrams and solving problems using the thin lens equation. I'm sure there must be some concepts that i didn't know about. Here, I attach two diagrams i constructed to explain in a clearer way-hopefully- of what i don't understand. thank you in advance

 

[phinds]

You seem to be overthinking it. They show very clearly how it's done. The rays from the first lens converge to a point BETWEEN the first two lenses and as long as you don't put anything in front of that exact focus point, it won't be seen.

 

[pixel]

You seem to be overthinking it. They show very clearly how it's done. The rays from the first lens converge to a point BETWEEN the first two lenses and as long as you don't put anything in front of that exact focus point, it won't be seen.

Yes, as you say, if you put the ruler at the focus point of the beam that is imaging the grid in the distance, then the image of the grid would be blocked and you would see the presence of the ruler. With the ruler just outside this focus point, you are not blocking the grid imaging beam, so you see the grid. But you don't see the ruler, as you might by just placing it behind a lens (although not in focus). Well, it's a narrow field of view optical system - notice only about an inch of the distant grid is viewed through the lenses - so once the ruler is off-axis enough, all rays from it are vignetted and won't reach your eye. That's my interpretation of what's happening and I'm having trouble understanding what is unique about it.

 

[phinds]

You seem to be overthinking it. They show very clearly how it's done. The rays from the first lens converge to a point BETWEEN the first two lenses and as long as you don't put anything in front of that exact focus point, it won't be seen.

EDIT: OOPS ... I should have said, as long as you don't put anything in front of the converging rays from the first lens since you COULD put them there but not block the focal point itself.

 

[pixel]

i tried to draw a ray diagram to understand how this works. the final image of the object would be magnified and upright, but i still couldn't understand why can't we see the image...

It's too bad this thread didn't attract more attention. You might consider, in your first diagram at it is drawn, that the rays between the middle two lenses (at image position 2) would completely miss the next lens. What you drew is correct for finding image locations if you assume all the lenses are big enough to transfer the rays, but in reality, depending on the size of the lenses, this might not be the case.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It's a shame that the demonstration is done like a conjuring trick, rather than demonstrating its limitations - i.e. that the illusion doesn't work all over the field of the lens. They use spread fingers and an offset ruler etc. which implies more than the true situation. It's a smart trick but hardly Lord of the Rings or Star Trek.

 

[heavystray]

It's too bad this thread didn't attract more attention. You might consider, in your first diagram at it is drawn, that the rays between the middle two lenses (at image position 2) would completely miss the next lens. What you drew is correct for finding image locations if you assume all the lenses are big enough to transfer the rays, but in reality, depending on the size of the lenses, this might not be the case.

oh, i think I understand it now, so if the lenses are not big enough, we wouldn't even see the image? is that correct? thanks for the replies

 

[pixel]

oh, i think I understand it now, so if the lenses are not big enough, we wouldn't even see the image? is that correct? thanks for the replies

The reduction of image intensity for off-axis points is referred to as vignetting.

 

[heavystray]

The reduction of image intensity for off-axis points is referred to as vignetting.

ouhh,i think i got it, thank you so much