Material science.. a weird case...

[AngelLestat]

Somebody can believe this ....?

In the 80s, an amateur scientist named Maurice Ward discovered a new not flammable material, very good insulator and light called Starlite.

The material was a dream and something that we are far to accomplish even today, it seems that he wanted billions for it. Many were intested like NASA as a better remplacement for heat shield materials.

There were several tests over the time and exceeded all.

For example it could resist a laser at 10000 celcius between many other things.

He always keep the 51% of the formule into secret (some kind of plastic) and he dint wanted to patent to not publish the formula.

He died in 2011 carrying his secret to the grave. Now it seems that his family are the only ones who may know the formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite

http://mauricewardstarlite.blogspot.com.ar/2009/03/hello-one-and-all.html

https://www.youtube.com/user/mauricewardstarlite/videos

Everytime that I hear these stories I become very skeptical, but I can not find any evidence to point otherwise. Is weird....

Edited April 16, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Streetwind]

The main thing that makes me skeptic is that it hasn't been replicated in 22 years after its highly public TV demonstration, or even longer (30+ years) since its invention.

Even if Mr Ward stumbled onto the formula completely by accident, it is hard to believe that veritable armies of material scientists all over the world (who generally are actually able to predict the properties of a potential recipe to some degree) have been unable to track down at least some of the principles involved in Starlite. He was an amateur scientist. He did not have access to any tools, methods or processes that properly funded research labs do not have. Rather, it would be much the other way around. Whatever he did must have been extremely easy to replicate when knowing the recipe. That would also explain (in part) his paranoid fear of reverse-engineering.

If he did not stumble on it by accident, but rather actively developed a hypothesis and produced the material to confirm it, then it is even harder to believe that it hasn't been duplicated, because it implies that it was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make based on the scientific knowledge of the 1970's. It's been 45 years since then, and these 45 years have seen the advent of digital material science - in lockstep with Moore's Law. This formula simply should have been independently confirmed ages ago.

I don't have an answer for what material was used in those public demonstrations and the few tests he allowed to be conducted on it. But the onus of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the claim, and Mr Ward decided to not provide this proof - and nobody, not even his family, has since stepped up to reinforce the claim. Therefore the only sensible assumption, for a layman like me, is that this Starlite material, and the properties it advertised, does not exist and has never existed. Whatever he found was not what he claimed it to be.

[Ralathon]

What's so miraculous about this material? It seems it's just ablating away at a low temperature and the ablated material carries the heat from the torch/laser. A piece of cork does the exact same...

[*Aqua*]

The amazing thing is it easily withstands 10000°C. There's no other material which comes close to it. Most just vaporize at that temperature! It is also among the best heat insulators.

Also this:

'Starlite has a Q-value [an energy absorption rating] of 2,470. The space shuttle tiles have a Q-value of 1.' Not only that, but because Starlite is so lightweight – 1mm thick, compared to 75mm for the space tiles – it's actually '2,470 x 75 times better'.

(source)

Btw, it is unknown if Starlite ablates. Nobody knows for sure.

I still can't decide my opinion on the whole thing. The inventor (R.I.P.) behaved like a scammer but on the other hand the test with lasers etc. were done by reputable organisations: British Atomic Weapons Establishment, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, White Sands atomic weapons testing site and even NASA thinks it's legit. But the properties of Starlite still sound too good to be true.

It it really isn't a hoax then it will be _the_ prefered material for high-temperature enviroments (inside reactors & engines, use as a heat shield, etc.). Dependeing on how difficult and costly it is to make it could even make all other insulators and heat shield materials obsolete.

[Ralathon]

It is clearly ablating. Look at the video with the egg getting torched. It's charred black.

And withstanding 10k degrees isn't that impressive. What matters is the energy input. My hand could withstand 1 billion degrees if it was applied for a very short duration. So that laser test says nothing, it is clearly a pulse laser so the amount of energy dumped into the plastic is miniscule. It probably barely has the energy to evaporate the top layer of the plastic.

[RainDreamer]

Well, it is not very helpful if we don't know its composition anymore. More lost knowledge. Guess time to come up with new stuff then.

[Streetwind]

It is clearly ablating. Look at the video with the egg getting torched. It's charred black.

Ablation isn't required for something to be charred black. Pretty much all hydrocarbon combustions deposit soot on surfaces touched by the flame.

Not saying it isn't ablating... just saying that being charred black isn't necessarily a sign of ablation.

[Ralathon]

Ablation isn't required for something to be charred black. Pretty much all hydrocarbon combustions deposit soot on surfaces touched by the flame.

Not saying it isn't ablating... just saying that being charred black isn't necessarily a sign of ablation.

True, but those torches usually run on something like propane/butane which burns pretty clean. In addition the flame is blue, so the combustion isn't leaving much soot.

You can see how fast the material is charring in the first video around 1:00. It chars within seconds, way faster than you'd expect if it was just soot buildup from incomplete combustion.

[AngelLestat]

I still can't decide my opinion on the whole thing. The inventor (R.I.P.) behaved like a scammer but on the other hand the test with lasers etc. were done by reputable organisations: British Atomic Weapons Establishment, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, White Sands atomic weapons testing site and even NASA thinks it's legit. But the properties of Starlite still sound too good to be true.

That is exactly my opinion.

Maybe in some test worked very well, but was pointless in other test to become practical. But after 35 years only the possitive opinions and info remains which may be distorted by the same inventor.

But well, I have not proff of this.

StreetWind: Yeah it seems weird also from this perspective, but there is many things that we know it works but we can not figure out why... Only 1 year back we be able to understand why the shell and the glue of some molluscs was so effective with tons of samples..

Is not easy to do reverse-engineering from something we can not see or study.

[YNM]

I don't getting how lasers have temperature at all. If it means the peak wavelength of a blackbody at 10000 deg C, it's even dumber - merely nothing but UV light (which we can somewhat withstand easily). If it means that it delivers an amount of energy enough to keep it at 10000 deg C (so, it's flux would yield temperature like that), mind you that nothing is purely absorbing - could be a slightly reflective material which reflectiveness stays. And others (in here) says it's pulsed laser - AFAIK a pulsed beam doesn't do much, a continous one would (read xkcd what-if on adding brightness to moon, also - there's ablation, which make the illuminated part to be more resistant to additional flux by severing heat transfer).

Edited April 16, 2015 by YNM

[Lukaszenko]

Doesn't make sense, if just because what did he get for it? It's great to want billions but if nobody pays it then you usually go down with the price or shop around, but at least you get something. What did he get? The satisfaction of taking it to the grave?

[AngelLestat]

I don't getting how lasers have temperature at all. If it means the peak wavelength of a blackbody at 10000 deg C, it's even dumber - merely nothing but UV light (which we can somewhat withstand easily). If it means that it delivers an amount of energy enough to keep it at 10000 deg C (so, it's flux would yield temperature like that), mind you that nothing is purely absorbing - could be a slightly reflective material which reflectiveness stays. And others (in here) says it's pulsed laser - AFAIK a pulsed beam doesn't do much, a continous one would (read xkcd what-if on adding brightness to moon, also - there's ablation, which make the illuminated part to be more resistant to additional flux by severing heat transfer).

It said that the same laser capable to do a 2 inches (not sure, I dont remember) hole on a steal stick, doesn´t do much to the starlite (maybe because its reflect a big part, not sure)

And the temperature can be measured from the steal experiment or maybe from the upper surface of the starline.

Doesn't make sense, if just because what did he get for it? It's great to want billions but if nobody pays it then you usually go down with the price or shop around, but at least you get something. What did he get? The satisfaction of taking it to the grave?

It doesn´t. But is not enoght evidence to point that is false. I personally believe that it may be not so good in some cases, but the videos, comments and test of the drawbacks were forgoten and now we see only the good virtues.

[YNM]

Do you know something that is 10^4 deg C hot ? Sun's photosphere is even colder than that, for quite lower than a factor of two...

[AngelLestat]

We manage to reach 3.6 billions of degress.. so.. what is your point?

http://www.livescience.com/614-record-set-hottest-temperature-earth-3-6-billion-degrees-lab.html

Edited April 21, 2015 by AngelLestat

[magnemoe]

We manage to reach 3.6 billions of degress.. so.. what is your point?

http://www.livescience.com/614-record-set-hottest-temperature-earth-3-6-billion-degrees-lab.html

Yes but this is plasma for microseconds. 10.000 degree will vaporizer any know materials, probably any theoretical too. You could save yourself if its an point source like an laser by disperse the heat over the surface or reflect the laser, but that will reduce the measurable temperature. Note if it ablate you might measure the gas who is again hit by the laser and turned into plasma.

[Fel]

Everytime that I hear these stories I become very skeptical, but I can not find any evidence to point otherwise. Is weird....

You should never look for evidence to disprove a theory... you should look for evidence for the theory, and question if the evidence is valid.

For instance, right now, I have created a fusion generator, but the oil/coal/uranium-refinement companies paid me a few billion to throw it into the ocean; there is no way to disprove this statement as I can always add in stipulations (i.e. self-seal it) but my failure to explain how I created a practical fusion generator should be enough to push doubt that I ever had one to begin with. Yes, you can't disprove my claim, I also cannot prove prove my claim.

I still can't decide my opinion on the whole thing. The inventor (R.I.P.) behaved like a scammer but on the other hand the test with lasers etc. were done by reputable organisations: British Atomic Weapons Establishment, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, White Sands atomic weapons testing site and even NASA thinks it's legit. But the properties of Starlite still sound too good to be true.

ewww, wikipedia.

Wikipedia is wrong

Still, simply because tech companies pursue tech doesn't give that tech credibility; it only means you've been making enough noise that if they ignored it and it was real, they would be in a horrible position.

Faking testing can always be done, especially with social engineering; what matters is the science, not how good you can make it look.

It doesn´t. But is not enoght evidence to point that is false. I personally believe that it may be not so good in some cases, but the videos, comments and test of the drawbacks were forgoten and now we see only the good virtues.

"If God exists, why doesn't he show himself"

God not showing himself doesn't disprove the existence of God even though God showing himself would instantly prove the existence of God; it does show, however, that the argument is flawed in that nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God and the whole thing relies on faith and personal belief.

[YNM]

Very hot plasma on Earth (like, say, in research fusion reactor, or particle accelerator) are confined by other means than direct contact, most often using magnetic fields. Instead, this material is claimed (or, tries to prove) that it can survive 10000 deg C direct contact (well, if the laser's bolometric flux is that, it should be that. but then you should be aware that there's only microwave oven, and then the infrared or "heat rays"). Very, very different.

Edited April 22, 2015 by YNM

[AngelLestat]

You should never look for evidence to disprove a theory... you should look for evidence for the theory, and question if the evidence is valid.

You are saying the same thing.. question if the evidence is valid, equal to find evidence to prove or disprove the first evidence. So if you find evidence which disprove the evidence that proves the theory, then you are finding evidence to disprove the theory.

Faking testing can always be done, especially with social engineering; what matters is the science, not how good you can make it look.

In that case this guy is a magician. He is doing many test in tv, it may be some tricks behind all that (I will not denied that) but still, the test looks convincing. So even if it uses tricks.. those tricks allow it to acomplish those things.

I find this material when I was searching a possible material light and not flammable to use as envelope or envelope addom for a hydrogen airship.

If resist an hydrogen-air flame, then it works. Of course, we need to know if the material does not degrade with the time.. or any other drawback.

It will be nice to find a official record of these test done by nasa.

Very hot plasma on Earth (like, say, in research fusion reactor, or particle accelerator) are confined by other means than direct contact, most often using magnetic fields. Instead, this material is claimed (or, tries to prove) that it can survive 10000 deg C direct contact (well, if the laser's bolometric flux is that, it should be that. but then you should be aware that there's only microwave oven, and then the infrared or "heat rays"). Very, very different.

When they mention the laser test, maybe they are saying that with steal, that laser reach 10000c, but starlite survive the same test.

I have the same doubts, but I will like to have some extra evidence to have a more accurate opinion.. Right now I am in 50% 50%, a place where I dont like to be.

[lajoswinkler]

Some of you here don't understand the difference between temperature and heat, and some do.

I'm not sure what to say about starlite. It seems to have very high thermal emmisivity, very low heat capacity and very low thermal conductivity. It does char at blowtorch temperatures, meaning it changes its composition well below 2000 °C. In fact it breaks apart, leaving carbon. Maybe the leftovers are what has such amazing properties because the initial material does not.

I bet that egg covered in starlite would be cooked fast if left in an oven at 250 °C.

[Beowolf]

I still can't decide my opinion on the whole thing. The inventor (R.I.P.) behaved like a scammer but on the other hand the test with lasers etc. were done by reputable organisations: British Atomic Weapons Establishment, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, White Sands atomic weapons testing site and even NASA thinks it's legit. But the properties of Starlite still sound too good to be true.

Yes, but scientists routinely get fooled by scammers...for a while. Scientists aren't trained to look for cheating, as the universe doesn't normally work like that. Okay, maybe quantum mechanics, but that's probably why it took them a generation to adjust to it.

[magnemoe]

Yes, but scientists routinely get fooled by scammers...for a while. Scientists aren't trained to look for cheating, as the universe doesn't normally work like that. Okay, maybe quantum mechanics, but that's probably why it took them a generation to adjust to it.

Yes, they looks for explanations, they does not expect to be cheated. James Randi who has exposed lots of paranormal scammers says they might be the easiest group to scam.

He is an stage magician so cheating is part of his business.

[AngelLestat]

But scientists are trained to be skeptics. I know James Randi, he did a good job revealing the homeopathy.

[YNM]

Probably the material isn't seriously a bad full-scam thing through - maybe it's a fairly good heat shield ablation material, just that it won't hold up to the promises (like, uh, direct 10000 deg C contact is an unimaginable thing to me). Maybe we should test it on some spacecraft...

Why I have that thought : it came to me to think again about the claim of organic materials, which are mostly carbon. Who knows ablation makes them arrange to some good carbon structure that is more heat resistant than the base material itself ? While the base material is ductile and machinable, the end material is heat resistant (although not superb).

Edited April 25, 2015 by YNM

[jwenting]

But scientists are trained to be skeptics. I know James Randi, he did a good job revealing the homeopathy.

Sure, they're however also conditioned to not rock the boat and certainly not to endanger their sources of funding by speaking out against the interests of their sponsors/sources of funding, or those of the publishing houses they rely on to get their research papers published.

And those are heavily politicised (heck, more often than not they're government agencies or NGOs depending on government agencies for most of their funding).

So if someone comes out with a story and claims to have massive financial backing he's going to not receive a lot of flak, at least not initially. Rather he'll get the benefit of doubt until there's a rock solid case against him from many people...

[Esme]

This is one of the few 'seems too good to be true' tales of this type that I think might just have been actually true. I can remember seeing the Tomorrows World demonstration at the time it was first broadcast, and realised the implications for space travel at the time - and was hugely disappointed that nothing seemed to come of it. But I did hear that tests had been done by a number of interested bodies including NASA,that validated the fact that the material did indeed give a heckuva lot of heat protection from a very thin layer of the stuff. And if anyone can duplicate the blowtorch and egg demonstration without resorting to sleight of hand or a doctored egg (other than painting something onto teh shell of teh egg, of course), I'd love to see it.

I am no expert, but I try to keep a close eye on a wide chunk of science, including materials science, and there have been a number of rather surprising discoveries recently that one might have thought impossible only a few years ago, most recently a form of superlubricity. Given the absolutely huge number of possible chemical compounds, I can well imagine that the inventor of Starlite could have accidentally come across something with the properties demonstrated. Just because it's hideously unlikely doesn't mean that it could not have occurred. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that eventually Starlite, or something liek it, is rediscovered. Refurbishing space shuttle-like craft with a sand-down and lick of new heat-resistant paint would be rather easier, I'd suspect, than refurbishing the tiles on the Space Shuttle as was.