English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent comment arxiv:1310.1503 Miller et al. noted that a cloak wepreviously presented (Scientific Reports 3, 2328) that exploits a scatteringcancellation technique to render an optically small dielectric particleinvisible suffers from increased extinction. According to Miller et al. thisdisqualifies the terminology of a cloak. We concur with the crux of the commentbut wish to stress that we never claimed nor suggested a reduction inextinction. A scattering cancellation cloak cancels scattering. The issue,therefore, seems to be whether the structure should be called a cloak or not.We understand a cloaked object as an object that is not perceived by anexternal observer. We argue that optically small particles are much easier seenin a scattering configuration whereas it is difficult to perceive them inextinction; providing justification to the terminology as used.

Reply to the Comment on "A self-assembled three-dimensional cloak in the visible" in Scientific Reports 3, 2328