Starlite Plastic

[Nortilus (Josh)]

I just read an article (link below) about a plastic that some man invented that can withstand 10,000+ degrees C temperatures. This was also invented some 20 years ago and has huge implications on a wide range on plastic applications. However if you read the article, the man doesnt just want to sell his invention and let a manufacturer use it as they see fit, he still wants a controlling share of whatever deal is made with his product. A little sad that such an amazing product isnt released into the wild simply because of money. Hell, if i invented it and some company offered me 10% profit share and control of the product i'd be like...mmm...10% of a trillion dollars (which i feel this product would be worth over 10 years) i would definatly jump straight in a sign the deal....and change the world. I'd probably give it away alot cheaper though.
Possible applications could be from thermal barriers for space craft to fire doors in buildings. This stuff can literally take a nuclear blast...pretty impressed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...the-world.html

[renormalised (Carl)]

This will change a lot of things....what an invention!!!!.

[avandonk]

I have seen the videos and demos. Still sounds like an utter con to me!

I have seen pornos where the simulated sex was more real!

Bert

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I have seen the videos and demos. Still sounds like an utter con to me!

I have seen pornos where the simulated sex was more real!

Bert

Tut Tut you DOM.

Barry

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I have seen the videos and demos. Still sounds like an utter con to me!

I have seen pornos where the simulated sex was more real!

Bert

What if it isn't. There's only one way to find out.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just thinking of an application pertaining to space exploration...they could use Starlite as the body of a probe they could launch directly to the surface of the Sun. So long as they can shield the innards from the powerful magnetic fields and radiation, the probe would survive. Just think of how this would revolutionise our understanding of the Sun.

[bojan]

I must say Bert's comment about this sounds more realistic than some others..
The probability of amateur scientist to come up with something like it was implied in the video is VERY low.
First, new materials research in general is very expensive, multidisciplinary sport... and today it is done by large teams of scientists. (and the same was the case 20 years ago).
If this material sample production was within the capability of single amateur guy, it is interesting why it wasn't formulated much earlier by one or several of those teams (and I am sure many were and are trying to do the same or better).
While the possibilities of application of such material could blow one's mind.... this still doesn't mean this is really real.
I might be wrong, though.... We shall see.... (or not).

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I must say Bert's comment about this sounds more realistic than some others..
The probability of amateur scientist to come up with something like it was implied in the video is VERY low.
First, new materials research in general is very expensive, multidisciplinary sport... and today it is done by large teams of scientists. (and the same was the case 20 years ago).
If this material sample production was within the capability of single amateur guy, it is interesting why it wasn't formulated much earlier by one or several of those teams (and I am sure many were and are trying to do the same or better).
While the possibilities of application of such material could blow one's mind.... this still doesn't mean this is really real.
I might be wrong, though.... We shall see.... (or not).

The thing is this...quite a few revolutionary inventions were stumbled upon by people that had no training at all in the areas they were dabbling in. You could say most of the important inventions mankind has produced were found in exactly this manor....the light bulb, airplane, AC and DC motors, electricity etc etc.

Actually, having extensive training can make it more difficult to produce something simply because you're bound by the conventions and theories within your area of study/research. You don't see beyond the box. What you produce doesn't come about by accident and that is the crux of the matter. Most of these inventions happen by pure accident simply because those that invent them don't know any better.

[Nortilus (Josh)]

I agree, may i point you in the direction of vulcanised rubber, pure acciendent by an amateur.

[CraigS]

Ahhh .. the dark, mysterious world of materials science, eh ?

There is often a lot more to applying a new material to solve a problem, than the creation of a test sample. The physical properties of materials goes way beyond a particular strength in one area .. say heat resistance.

What if it is difficult to bond to metals ?
What if it breaks down rapidly if exposed to a particular spectrum of light ?
What if it decays to highly toxic waste (or doesn't decay easily) ?
What if it reacts corrosively in the presence of common atmospheric gases ?
What if it is not (relatively) ductile or malleable ?
What if it is not abrasion resistant ?
What if the materials needed to manufacture it are rare ?
… the list goes on and on and on ...

All of this impacts the ultimate value of the material for industrial applications. Unless Mr Ward presents the world with a thorough analysis of all known properties of this material, how would anyone know its applicability to any one particular application (eg: aircraft design) ?

Who will pay for its properties to be accurately identified and what will it cost ? What is the tolerance of this material to different manufacturing (or operational) environments ?

There's a big leap between producing a sample of material and its commercialisation.

More scientifically, unless there is an accompanying theoretical explanation for its apparent heat-resistance, how could one ever position it for a particular application ? (And people poo-hoo scientific theory, eh) ? Without a scientific explanation, it will go nowhere. There's the value of the scientific process in everyday life, right there !!

By analogy, graphene is under intense investigation presently, and is slated as the next replacement for silicon as a substrate in semi-conductor manufacture. It has taken years to develop this material. It is difficult to manufacture and they're only just working out how to do it cost effectively.

Even if Mr Ward dreams he's in line for a Nobel prize, or even to become a billionaire, he's smokin' it, regardless of the truth, or otherwise, behind 'Starlite' ! ...

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The thing is this...quite a few revolutionary inventions were stumbled upon by people that had no training at all in the areas they were dabbling in. You could say most of the important inventions mankind has produced were found in exactly this manor....the light bulb, airplane, AC and DC motors, electricity etc etc.

You could say this .. but it doesn't hold much value. For example, you could also say that when these things were discovered, an education in the sciences was a rarity available to the privileged few. The relationship between the discovery and training at the time of discovery of these items is a 'non sequitur' argument.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Actually, having extensive training can make it more difficult to produce something simply because you're bound by the conventions and theories within your area of study/research. You don't see beyond the box. What you produce doesn't come about by accident and that is the crux of the matter. Most of these inventions happen by pure accident simply because those that invent them don't know any better.

.. the counter argument to the value scientific theory adds to the invention. We live in a structured, ordered society. If you don't play the game by its rules, you don't get anywhere, nor can you garner the recognition/rewards for its discovery.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

You could say this .. but it doesn't hold much value. For example, you could also say that when these things were discovered, an education in the sciences was a rarity available to the privileged few. The relationship between the discovery and training at the time of discovery of these items is a 'non sequitur' argument.

Yes, I can say this and despite the fact that an education is science was, at one stage, a privilege, the fact that quite a few inventions have come from people with no formal training in science is as true today as it was back then.

Originally Posted by CraigS

.. the counter argument to the value scientific theory adds to the invention. We live in a structured, ordered society. If you don't play the game by its rules, you don't get anywhere, nor can you garner the recognition/rewards for its discovery.

Cheers

Yes it is the counter argument, but that hardly invalidates the theory, not does it invalidate the work of scientists. All it means is that sometimes the truly revolutionary inventions don't come from formally trained scientists simply because they're taught to think in certain ways. They have the scientific method to guide them and their knowledge in their specific field to inform them. That can be both a help and an hindrance at the same time.

Being in a structured and ordered society has nothing to do with it. In his case, being in a society that would ripoff an inventor in order for the elite within it to profit from the inventor's ideas, is. Despite his seeming selfishness in wanting "too much" for what he came up with, he has every right to want what he did. After all, it was his idea in the first place. Plus, why should this big corporations and governmental organisation unfairly profit from something they had no idea about in the first place. wanting to tie things up in non disclosure agreements and such, especially where the government is concerned, usually means they're up to no good. Ward wants everyone to benefit from this, not just a few.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ahhh .. the dark, mysterious world of materials science, eh ?

There is often a lot more to applying a new material to solve a problem, than the creation of a test sample. The physical properties of materials goes way beyond a particular strength in one area .. say heat resistance.

What if it is difficult to bond to metals ?
What if it breaks down rapidly if exposed to a particular spectrum of light ?
What if it decays to highly toxic waste (or doesn't decay easily) ?
What if it reacts corrosively in the presence of common atmospheric gases ?
What if it is not (relatively) ductile or malleable ?
What if it is not abrasion resistant ?
What if the materials needed to manufacture it are rare ?
… the list goes on and on and on ...

All of this impacts the ultimate value of the material for industrial applications. Unless Mr Ward presents the world with a thorough analysis of all known properties of this material, how would anyone know its applicability to any one particular application (eg: aircraft design) ?

Who will pay for its properties to be accurately identified and what will it cost ? What is the tolerance of this material to different manufacturing (or operational) environments ?

There's a big leap between producing a sample of material and its commercialisation.

More scientifically, unless there is an accompanying theoretical explanation for its apparent heat-resistance, how could one ever position it for a particular application ? (And people poo-hoo scientific theory, eh) ? Without a scientific explanation, it will go nowhere. There's the value of the scientific process in everyday life, right there !!

By analogy, graphene is under intense investigation presently, and is slated as the next replacement for silicon as a substrate in semi-conductor manufacture. It has taken years to develop this material. It is difficult to manufacture and they're only just working out how to do it cost effectively.

Even if Mr Ward dreams he's in line for a Nobel prize, or even to become a billionaire, he's smokin' it, regardless of the truth, or otherwise, behind 'Starlite' ! ...

Cheers

The AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government and others wouldn't have initially been interested in Starlite if they hadn't have run all the tests and concluded whether it was good or not. They did, they wanted it, but Ward wouldn't play by their rules so they promptly dropped him by the wayside. They wanted to be the ones who made all the profit from this (and that's what it was about....profit, and access to the material) and to just cut him out, for the most part, like they do with all inventors. If he had done what they wanted to with their agreements, especially those with non disclosure clauses, he'd have been shafted and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Craig, if we had to wait to have everything "scientifically proven" before we invented something or put it to use, we'd still be living in caves. What did the Wright Brothers know about the physics of flight??? Nothing at all I'd venture. Yet they and others like them (Bleriot, Fokker etc) invented powered flight. The science came later. That's just one example.

[Barrykgerdes]

The whole story looks like a great hoax to me but I will wait till it is shown to be real before I get enthused.

I agree that a great many of our common solutions to problems have been discovered by amateurs by accident. Particularly by-products of war and space research.

Barry

[renormalised (Carl)]

Whether it is a hoax or not, only time and a bit of investigation will tell.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, I can say this and despite the fact that an education is science was, at one stage, a privilege, the fact that quite a few inventions have come from people with no formal training in science is as true today as it was back then.

So what of ceramic tiles for the space shuttle, graphene, doped silicon, computer screen materials, heat shields for space probes, jet turbine blades etc … the point requires balance … and there's plenty of evidence to balance it up !
My point is that inventions require lots of effort to make them a society-benefitting success. Education assists the inventor to participate in the realisation of that benefit and thereby justifies them in claiming the benefits which stems from their expending that effort.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch thesedays.
To think there is .. is a delusion.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes it is the counter argument, but that hardly invalidates the theory, not does it invalidate the work of scientists. All it means is that sometimes the truly revolutionary inventions don't come from formally trained scientists simply because they're taught to think in certain ways. They have the scientific method to guide them and their knowledge in their specific field to inform them. That can be both a help and an hindrance at the same time.

Not a hinderance ... a burden … and that burden is still there even for the uneducated inventor .. just as Mr Ward is finding out.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Being in a structured and ordered society has nothing to do with it. In his case, being in a society that would ripoff an inventor in order for the elite within it to profit from the inventor's ideas, is. Despite his seeming selfishness in wanting "too much" for what he came up with, he has every right to want what he did. After all, it was his idea in the first place. Plus, why should this big corporations and governmental organisation unfairly profit from something they had no idea about in the first place. wanting to tie things up in non disclosure agreements and such, especially where the government is concerned, usually means they're up to no good. Ward wants everyone to benefit from this, not just a few.

Are you saying that Ward isn't attempting to 'tie things up in non-disclosure agreements' ???
He has that right, too … and he knows it ..
The issue is a debate over the value of what he's discovered.
And until its commercialised by having endured the burden of proof, it has little value.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Craig, if we had to wait to have everything "scientifically proven" before we invented something or put it to use, we'd still be living in caves. What did the Wright Brothers know about the physics of flight??? Nothing at all I'd venture.
Yet they and others like them (Bleriot, Fokker etc) invented powered flight. The science came later. That's just one example.

The physics of flight was tantamount to being unknown at the time.
Since the development of knowledge of the physics of flight, there has been a huge acceleration in the numbers of inventions to support it.
Once again .. the value of theory is evidenced by the enormous numbers of inventions, technologies occurring is shorter timeframes … across vast numbers of other minds.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government and others wouldn't have initially been interested in Starlite if they hadn't have run all the tests and concluded whether it was good or not. They did, they wanted it, but Ward wouldn't play by their rules so they promptly dropped him by the wayside. They wanted to be the ones who made all the profit from this (and that's what it was about....profit, and access to the material) and to just cut him out, for the most part, like they do with all inventors. If he had done what they wanted to with their agreements, especially those with non disclosure clauses, he'd have been shafted and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Making a profit is no easy task.
It deserves recognition and reward … more profit for the organisations who undertake the burden of commercialisation !

If you don't play the game … you're on your own … you are able to shaft yourself … I would argue for that right !

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government and others wouldn't have initially been interested in Starlite if they hadn't have run all the tests and concluded whether it was good or not. They did, they wanted it, .......

And how do you know this is true???