Starlite Plastic

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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 expend effort.

The only thing that makes an invention a society benefitting success is the commercialisation of the product and marketing. You can test an retest and scientifically prove an invention all you like. If it's not mass produced and marketed properly, it goes nowhere.

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

Never has been a free lunch at any stage.

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

Ward knows what he used to make the material. He may not know why his material does what it does, but a lot of inventors have been in that situation. And it seems from the testing that the scientists don't even know why this material performs as it does...therefore, so much for the benefits of scientific proof, in this case. Science is not the paragon of all knowledge, nor do scientists know everything about anything. It wouldn't be the first time something totally out of the box has appeared on the scene.

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

Ward doesn't want to tie things up in any non disclosure agreements, but he doesn't want someone to test his material and then reverse engineer it without his knowledge or permission and patent it as their own. That's theft of intellectual property, but with the way the law is now, he'd have no leg to stand on. He has no patents, therefore no proof that the material is actually his, in the eyes of the law. That's why he's applying for patent, now. To tie them up with a legally binding document giving him his rightful intellectual property over the material. He doesn't mind who he sells it to or who uses it, but he doesn't want anyone in particular to tie its use up or have advantage over anyone else. That's why the US companies and government backed off. They wanted it all for themselves. All Ward ever wanted was 51% of the profit. If the corporations and governments got their way, he'd get a handshake at best and told to go on his merry way. The only thing that Ward can be accused of, initially, is of being naive about the way big business and intellectual property works.

As I said before, the people that did test it know what it can do and they want it. They'll do all the commercialisation and such, but they want to get their grubby hands onto it and keep it exclusively. All this is about is money and what comes from it. Ward has every right to ask for the amount he wants, it's his invention. But the big corporations and the government want not only the money, but also the full rights to the material and Ward won't let them have it. That's why nothing has come of it and why they backed off. As if they won't make huge profits from it anyway, they want it all.

[Nortilus (Josh)]

I can totally see Ward's point in wanting to keep his invention his and I hope he does. The flip side is that it'll be one company/govt. organisation that'll hopefully get exclusive rights to this product and market it and get it out there. Money aside, if this is a real product, it needs to see the light of day.

To add a bit of science to this, would a plastic that can withstand extreme temperatures also have a decent tensile strength or would it be brittle. I have worked with ceramics that they line the inside of coal shoots with do prevent the metal wearing away. This ceramic is extremely hard and can withstand really high temps, but hit it with a hammer and it shatters. Could this be the same as this plastic. This would then limit what the plastic could be used for. Still an overwhelming amount of heat protective uses, but limited on structural uses.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Apparently, Starlite is very malleable and ductile, and can be bent into all sorts of shapes without breaking. So, whatever ceramic has been added to the plastic polymer is chemically reacting with it and bonding to the polymer molecules to create a ceramic-polymer hybrid. If Starlite is for real, then the thermochemistry and physics of this product is unique and very much different than the norm. Anything that could easily withstand the conditions it was apparently tested under would be utterly amazing. A thin coating (mm's thick) of the stuff could completely protect a craft like the Space Shuttle. It wouldn't even glow at reentry temps, let alone any hotter. What's even more amazing is after getting blasted at those temps, you can touch the stuff.

Like I said earlier, if it's for real, can you imagine the uses it could be put to for space exploration!!. So long as you could effectively shield the innards of a probe from the high energy radiation and powerful magnetic fields and induced currents, you could build the body of the probe out of the stuff and literally fly it to the Sun's surface...especially if temps of 10000 degrees won't even hardly touch it. You wouldn't even have to do that....just orbit the craft a few hundred miles above the surface would do. Being able to do that would eventually revolutionise our understanding of the Sun.

[CraigS]

There are heaps of other physical properties which could make it not viable for the purpose of venturing close to the Sun.

What about how it bonds to other materials ?

How does it stand up to extremes of cold ?

How does it react with the EM spectrum ?

Does it come in pink ?

Cheers
PS: Carl your comment: "And it seems from the testing that the scientists don't even know why this material performs as it does...therefore, so much for the benefits of scientific proof, in this case" .. is not particularly balanced. The way a compound material is created, (particularly polymer hybrids), determines a large part of its eventual properties. Ward refuses to disclose this .. so the scientific description of this material is deficient. This in no way, highlights any flaws in the scientific testing process. Ward is merely exercising his right to shaft himself in this instance.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

There are heaps of other physical properties which could make it not viable for the purpose of venturing close to the Sun.

What about how it bonds to other materials ?

How does it stand up to extremes of cold ?

How does it react with the EM spectrum ?

Does it come in pink ?

They would've tested for it's bonding and other capabilities. However, if it doesn't come in pink, then that really does it. It'll be useless

Originally Posted by CraigS

PS: Carl your comment: "And it seems from the testing that the scientists don't even know why this material performs as it does...therefore, so much for the benefits of scientific proof, in this case" .. is not particularly balanced. The way a compound material is created, (particularly polymer hybrids), determines a large part of its eventual properties. Ward refuses to disclose this .. so the scientific description of this material is deficient. This in no way, highlights any flaws in the scientific testing process. Ward is merely exercising his right to shaft himself in this instance.

Of course, you're right. However, Ward would've supplied the materials to the people to test it. It wouldn't be beyond them to actually sample some of it to see what it was made up of. So, if they did know what was in it and yet didn't know why it did what it did, then their testing was either deficient or they were lacking with any theoretical basis for a description of its properties.

Mind you, I think Ward has shafted himself. Someone will probably stumble upon a similar ceramic-polymer hybrid one day and even though he's within his rights to want what he wants, even 10% of the billions this sort of material would make commercially would be enough....would be for me. Mind you, I'd have patented it myself.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

So, if they did know what was in it and yet didn't know why it did what it did, then their testing was either deficient or they were lacking with any theoretical basis for a description of its properties.

.. or they didn't have the opportunity to conduct a full set of tests … ie: they weren't permitted (by Ward) to conduct other than the thermal resistance tests, so they never knew what was in it (and still don't) …

Why are we assuming there is a flaw in the scientific process or the educational experience of AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government, in this instance?

…. the burden of proof is with Ward as long as he's retaining information.

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.

This is the logical fallacy 'Argumentum ad Ignorantium' ..

* Ward has been successful in inventing a material, because he does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process;
* Ward does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process, therefore the scientific process, (and education), is flawed.

Fallacious argument !

Two examples …

1) Glad Wrap was invented by a scientist by accident (whilst he was scientifically experimenting and trying to develop something completely unrelated).
2) Teflon was invented the same way ... by a chemist trying to make a new CFC refrigerant.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

.. or they didn't have the opportunity to conduct a full set of tests … ie: they weren't permitted (by Ward) to conduct other than the thermal resistance tests, so they never knew what was in it (and still don't) …

Why are we assuming there is a flaw in the scientific process or the educational experience of AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government, in this instance?

…. the burden of proof is with Ward as long as he's retaining information.

They may not have had the opportunity...the article was never specific as to what they were or weren't allowed to do. But given the tests they did perform, all the parties were interested.

However, if there were full and extensive tests carried out and they were stumped, then what does that say....they didn't know as much as they would've liked to have thought. Something new had come up and now they had to figure out how it worked. The material had defied their present understanding of the science and now they had to invent a new understanding, based on extrapolating the present knowledge or maybe even inventing new knowledge to account for it. Something that happens every now and again in science

Originally Posted by CraigS

This is the logical fallacy 'Argumentum ad Ignorantium' ..

* Ward has been successful in inventing a material, because he does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process;
* Ward does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process, therefore the scientific process, (and education), is flawed.

Fallacious argument !

Two examples …

1) Glad Wrap was invented by a scientist by accident (whilst he was scientifically experimenting and trying to develop something completely unrelated).
2) Teflon was invented the same way ... by a chemist trying to make a new CFC refrigerant.

Cheers

They're your words, not mine, so your argument itself is flawed. All I said was that Ward had stumbled upon this material quite by accident and that this happens quite a bit with inventors. I also said the scientists can be hampered by their training and experience because it can tie them into a paradigm of thought and action which mightn't point them in the directions that an amateur might take. You seem to think that because a person trained in science has some great advantage of having gone through all that learning and such that they have a monopoly over anyone else in coming up with great new ideas. You have no idea. Most of the great ideas of the last 500 years were not invented by what we would call trained scientists. Except for a few, most never held position in any higher institute of learning and most were going against the prevailing world wisdom of the times they lived in. Orthodoxy never sees itself as being orthodox, it always nearly thinks of itself as being progressive and cutting edge. In fact, it's not. Most inventors do not work within accepted bounds of conventional wisdom. Though most of the time, they go nowhere with their ideas, sometimes something comes up which really gets a kick along. Most aren't even trained much past high school. They get to where they are because they exhibit the same curiosity and wonder most scientists have but they're not bound by the conventions of science, and are more likely to do something that most scientists wouldn't necessarily think of doing. Not because the scientist isn't capable of thinking like that, but because of their training the scientists have defined limits as to what is permissible within the scientific method and their philosophy. And like all people, scientists are creatures of habit. They stick to what they know best. The inventors do what they do because they know no better. They may use the scientific method themselves without realising it, but they're not encumbered by any prevailing theory or idea as to how to go about doing anything or seeing anything as being possible or impossible. If it don't work, too bad. If it does, then great.

Your two examples have no consequence to the argument....just like an "amateur" inventor, all they'd done was stumbled upon something by mistake. Fortuitous occurrences that they were switched on enough to see had other possibilities. In many cases, the results of those experiments would've been tossed out into the garbage, and labelled as failures.

[Zaps]

It's not even worth debating.

"Put up or shut up".

[gmbfilter (Geoff)]

Inspired genius or deranged lunatic

Why not just test a piece!

These guys seem to think that its a hoax http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39881

[bojan]

Originally Posted by gmbfilter

Inspired genius or deranged lunatic

Why not just test a piece!

These guys seem to think that its a hoax http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39881

I agree with them.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by gmbfilter

Inspired genius or deranged lunatic

Why not just test a piece!

These guys seem to think that its a hoax http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39881

Hardly worth reading...3 replies and no explanations.

Even if it is a hoax, those guys didn't do the topic justice.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Even if it is a hoax, those guys didn't do the topic justice.

Neither did we here.
The argument of type "He didn't know it was impossible to do it, so he did it" simply doesn't sell.

[Zaps]

The argument of type "He didn't know it was impossible to do it, so he did it" simply doesn't sell.

Not to sensible and rational people, but suckers, dreamers and wannabes just eat it up.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

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.

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.

When Ben Lexen designed the Winged Keel he was told the laws of physics say it doesn't work his answer was nobody told me that

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

When Ben Lexen designed the Winged Keel he was told the laws of physics say it doesn't work his answer was nobody told me that

Which only goes to show that the Laws of Physics bear little resemblance to what people tell you. (Thank goodness !)

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Neither did we here.
The argument of type "He didn't know it was impossible to do it, so he did it" simply doesn't sell.

Yes, but how often does this happen...quite a lot, despite anyone's protests to the contrary.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

Not to sensible and rational people...

Who are they??

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, but how often does this happen...quite a lot, despite anyone's protests to the contrary.

Not often at all ... and it will be even more rare in the future...
Romantic times of Tesla, Edison et al are long gone...
The money needed for basic research and testing (like this one should have been) nowadays is enormous. Totally out of reach of most individuals and small(er) companies and teams.

[avandonk]

The 'factoid' that made me wince was 'the simulated nuclear explosion' with a description of that old bit of footage showing the houses and trees destroyed. There has been no above ground tests since this material was 'invented'.

This material seems to have all the properties of diamond without the thermal conductivity. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any known material and a melting or boiling point second only to graphite.

There is something very fishy here.

Bert

[maris]

Starlite at 10 000 Celcius? I don't think so! All known elements are ionized gases at that temperature, plasmas in other words, whose bonding electrons are stripped away and neither solids or liquids can form. Remember, tungsten is the most refractory element and it turns to gas below 6 000 Celcius.