14

So anyone with the invisibility cloak (The Deathly Hallows cloak) can hide themselves, almost completely.

Can this effect work on inanimate objects in any capacity?

As someone in the comments said, his cloak hides his clothes while he is wearing them. Does this extend to any more objects he is holding? Even if they are luminous? For example, he had a lantern when he was searching the restricted section of the library, and he put it out and put it under his cloak. Is the invisibility cloak nullified by bright objects?

And does it work on non-sapient creatures? e.g. Skrewts, griffins, etc.

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    Both of the creatures you listed are sentient.
    – phantom42
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 14:12
  • 7
    Well, his clothes are inanimate.
    – NoNameNeeded432
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 14:12
  • 4
    @phantom42 Blast-ended skrewts have higher reason? God help us all.
    – Halcyonixus
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 14:13
  • 6
    Sentience has nothing to do with higher purpose, it merely means that a being is capable of feelings (such as pain and pleasure). I think you mean sapience, which is having human-like level of intelligence.
    – Moogle
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 14:23
  • 2
    Regarding the lantern, Harry would have to hold it out of the cloak, since he was illuminating something outside the cloak. When he no longer need the lantern's light, he hid it again.
    – TenthJustice
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 15:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
29

I mean, Harry wears clothes and glasses. Those turn invisible along with him. In regards to creatures, Harry uses the Cloak in the first book to get Norbert to a high tower in Hogwarts. He, Hermione, Norbert, the large crate Norbert is in, and Norbert's teddy bear are all invisible.

Every indication would seem to be that everything under the cloak, living and nonliving, turns invisible. Really, this makes sense. An invisibility cloak that hides people but has a floating wand visible would be utterly worthless.

Improve this answer
7
  • 3
    secondary question, will the invisiabilty cloak cover say, a chair if the cloak is draped over it, with no person underneath the cloak. because i seem to remember the cloak being visible when not on Harry.
    – Himarm
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 15:16
  • 2
    @Himarm: It could potentially be somewhat visible (thinking of the first movie here) where two layers of the cloak are touching each other. Then it's visible if bundled or folded up, but invisible when spread out over someone or something. Thus, it could conceal a chair. I have absolutely no canon (or other) evidence to support this though.
    – niemiro
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 15:36
  • 1
    It might be that the Cloak is only invisible when its covering something, So when its folded in a bundle like any other cloak, it stays visible. Edit: Ah, niemiro beat me to it.
    – TenthJustice
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 15:38
  • 1
    Hmmm... maybe I'm misremembering, but did Crouch Jr. use an invisibility cloak to hide his father's body, before he transfigured it into a bone?
    – TenthJustice
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 15:43
  • 3
    @himarm Based on the movies, it appears that only the exterior of the cloak confers invisibility. The inside area remains visible. This is similar to the way Star Trek cloaking devices are said to work: bending light around the object. So one would assume that when rolled up or put away it would be turned inside out (or, said better: outside in).
    – Nicholas
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 19:25
3

Everyone here is on the right track. In canon when unfolded, open, and covering something (to what degree the item must be covered is unknown) both the cloak and all covered items and people are rendered invisible.

If the user were to stick her leg out from under the cloak to kick something would onlookers see a completely solid segment of leg floating in midair? Seeing it from behind would they bear witness to a living, moving cross-section of a disembodied leg?

I think, yes, though there is no direct canon evidence (that I can remember). My reasoning is that magic and magical items don't have intelligence. They follow simple formulas (akin to Occam's Razor) to figure out their effects, but have no intelligence to make decisions about what to make invisible or not. Very few magical items in the Harry Potter universe have intelligence (though certainly wands and maybe the sorting hat are exceptions).

Improve this answer
4
  • 6
    "though there is no direct canon evidence" - "floating head" scene in PoA.
    – Kreiri
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 16:35
  • Thanks, Kreiri. I felt as if there were something but a cursory search of my memory and the internet turned up nothing.
    – Gavin42
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 16:58
  • 3
    Also, in one of the later books (I want to say 4, but not certain), when Harry, Ron, and Hermione are all under the cloak, it mentions how they grew and when all 3 of them were under it, you could see their ankles.
    – Salmononius2
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 18:38
  • 1
    I wanted to disagree with the "disembodied leg" part. Since, from behind, you would still be looking at the opposite side of the cloak. (invisible facing of cloak is still between you and the leg) But then I wondered, "what happens if you hang it across a wall?" Invisible side towards the center of the room of course.
    – DoubleDouble
    Commented Sep 19, 2014 at 22:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.