Starlite

[Anonymous No.6466376]

Look at this shit

http://itotd.com/articles/653/starlite/

Why has this not been mass produced yet? Is this prick really not letting out the recipe to potentially the greatest discovery in 200 years? Seriously?

[fox No.6466419]

I remember Lucky Severson on the Discovery program Invention mentioning this in the early 90's.

What a loss if the formula dies with the inventor.

[Anonymous No.6466428]

Sounds like aerogel on acid.

[Anonymous No.6466436]

sounds like they should put it onto a rocket and send it to space.

[Anonymous No.6467047]

>>6466436
It can withstand tempatures up to 10,000 degrees.

You could literally land on the fucking sun with a coat of this shit on.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6467056]

>>6467047
Good luck getting it through the corona though.

Also,
>mfw "heatproof"http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_Vuv1KCMdvsvvKpvX3Zs9n68vsTEDhJ9LvvlM63WvWUrOrYw87v72MKkQdqcgt9DJdBEnq3sxhnBEElh8siYqMY5XX-NYVmi-pGPPgMeIyQGBOxgJmz6JHZkCBi-MHtTGkpWpi-Ev9ZpS8qf6ykONUkhr2we54w30VzTX24Yhqj_7iqCewUHvwTZl7P8Nahy1a8lxDAAjDjAs8nXQcMkuL5UC3sf7SYr2QdAISflr1alEm7Q_-ei-YNivI2xksRNssK3o8lJQ
>mfw thermo laws are laughing

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6467059]

>>6467047
Good luck getting it through the corona though.

>mfw "heatproof"
>mfw thermo laws

[Anonymous No.6467062]

>>6467047
who gives a fuck?

magnesium sparks are 3000C and they don't hurt a bit on your skin, doesn't mean you can walk around on the sun naked

heat matters, not temperature

[Anonymous No.6467064]

>>6467059
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxqFyDugqs4

[Anonymous No.6467068]

>>6467062
Sorry i worded that wrong, it's only been tested with 10,000 degree tempatures.

There's no telling how high up it can with stand. Look on youtube about it.

BBC did a documentary about it.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6467077]

>>6467064
Forgive me if I trust thermodynamics laws more than a youtube video. Wikipedia says that this stuff is "90% organic", and there's no way that many C-C and C-H bonds can absorb and dissipate energy like that. Sounds like a crackpot to me.

[Anonymous No.6467082]

>>6467064
almost all the people hawking HHO kits (lmao what a dumb name) were demonstrated to be complete frauds scamming people

[Anonymous No.6467092]

>>6467077
Do a little research on it then.

That's all i can say

[Anonymous No.6467108]

>>6467092
>research
>i read some shit on the internet, theres even a youtube video

Im pretty sceptical of this as well. Both for physical chemistry reasons, and for economic reasons.

The man would have ZERO problem retaining 51% ownership of this material, corporations would be lining up just to own 10% of the rights if this was even remotely true.

[Anonymous No.6467106]

>The tests showed, among other things, that a thin piece of Starlite wouldn’t burn even when subjected to temperatures as high as 10,000°C
stopped reading here
after wolfram and wolfram carbide, the highest melting point according to wiki is at 4500 °C
first rule of science: paper or GTFO

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6467117]

>>6467092
I did, and there is nothing out there besides misinformed dailymail news articles and sensationalist articles about the creator. No scientific trials or compound analyses at all.

[Anonymous No.6467129]

>>6467108
>The man would have ZERO problem retaining 51% ownership of this material, corporations would be lining up just to own 10% of the rights if this was even remotely true.
these are based off assumptions that this man isn't a prick, in which i think he is.

Apparently his family still has the recipe.

This is one of the only times i'd support the government running into their home, taking the recipe by force, then leaving.

[Anonymous No.6467141]

What if a sun made of Starlite© crushed into a sun made of fire?

[Anonymous No.6467143]

>>6467141
you create a sun made of ice

[Anonymous No.6467144]

>>6467092
how about he shows his research first?
what tests did he perform, what are the physical properties of the material?
you dont even need to reveal the components or the production process, but simply saying "it works, believe me" is not enough

>>6467047
the coating would survive, the content will not

[Anonymous No.6467204]

>>6467144
Here's a demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nnLP--uTI

[Anonymous No.6467229]

>>6467204
thats only 1200 "C not 10000
and it looks just like aerogel which you can produce at home relatively easy. At this resolution you cant see whether it is covered in a thin film or half a centimeter layer

[Anonymous No.6467233]

>>6467129
>based on assumptions about the man's character

are you honestly 12 or do you just believe everything you read on the internet?

corporations could give a flying fuck about your personality, long as you have the goods. world-changing material? he could be a puppy-eating baby rapist, they wouldnt give a damn.

[Anonymous No.6467246]

>>6467233
Jesus christ, every fucking time, /sci/ is so incredibly and unshakably fucking dogmatic and sure of themselves about their most petty assumptions.
He means the man is a prick who would refuse any level of ownership less than, well, some far too near 100 number that nobody else would be happy with.
Im not that anon, by the way.

[Anonymous No.6467269]

>>6467233
Are you retarded? Can you not comprehend what i'm (OP) saying ?

I'm trying to get across that he doesn't want to give up the recipe, no matte rwhat he's been offered, which in-turn makes him a prick. He doesn't want other people to know the recipe, and potentially revolutionize the world, because he doesn't want to give the fucking recipe. Jesus fucking christ, it's like your comprehension skills are that of a fucking frog.

Fuck, you piss me off. I'm sure you still don't understand what i'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.6467281]

>>6467269
He doesn't want to give the recipe because it produces shit. He is too ashamed to publish it now that everybody thinks it's mithril

[Anonymous No.6467284]

>>6467269
with my 20 years experience as hairdresser i was able to find a cure for cancer, but i dont want to give it to anyone

[Anonymous No.6467292]

>>6467204
>>6467229
It would be a pretty easy fraud, too, if the show producers thought the story could be enhanced with a bit of showmanship.

[Anonymous No.6467327]

>>6467269
not only do you express your ideas poorly, but you are also a collosal faggot and a loser. especially if you believe this fucking startlite starbrite bullshit for even one half a second.

eat a giant dick, kid. oh, and buy an e-cat while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.6467368]

>>6467327
He expressed his ideas perfectly clearly, you are truly a socially inept retard if you couldnt understand the original implication.
That or an arrogant fuck who will automatically assume the worst possible interpretation of something they hear.

[Anonymous No.6467369]

>>6467284
seems plausible

[Anonymous No.6468849]

>>6467368
thank you sir.

You'd think /sci/ would have intelligent, rational people. But then you remember /b/ is just a click away.

[Anonymous No.6469538]

>>6467327
why do you make efforts for grammar if your grammar is not complete

[Anonymous No.6471292]

>>6468849
you're missing the point.
I too could invent a zero-point teleportation device an decide not to tell you about it, nor show you tangible proof of it's existence. What possible reason do you have to believe me without a shred of evidence? Do you just wanna believe in it 'cause it's convenient? Dont be such gullible pleb bro.

[Anonymous No.6471296]

>>6471292
>video proof
> no evidence

[Anonymous No.6471306]

>>6471296
dammit not you too
videos arent good enough, we need proper scientific papers with confirmation from multiple sources of its authenticity. As far as i care the video could have been an april fools joke.
Even if it is legit, maybe it has some degenerative proccess that makes it useless after a few months. If it was real, you can bet the military would have already gotten the information out of this guy, by force if necessary. Dont be so naive.

[Anonymous No.6471310]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite
>Former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence Sir Ronald Mason noted "Maurice sometimes speaks scientific cobblers, but this is really the most remarkable material".[2]
[2] ^ The Guardian, "Soundbites", 12 Apr 1993

It was tested and observed by people with money.

He is dead now.

[Anonymous No.6471322]

>>6471310
ok, you've convinced me
"Ward allowed various organisations such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment and ICI to conduct tests on samples, but did not permit them to retain samples for fear of reverse engineering."
bs ofc they retained some of it, they'd be stupid not to. Given this info, the material is probably in use, at least not to public knowledge.
>inb4 conspiracyfag
i said probably, not definatly

[Anonymous No.6471338]

>>6471322
I don't think he ever mailed out samples.

The moral of this story is, paranoia gets you nothing when you're trying to make money.

[Anonymous No.6471381]

Hey /sci/, anyone has idea how to solve this?
Solution is: x = 1/4042110

[Anonymous No.6471389]

Yes.

Now get out.

IOW, do it yourself.

[Anonymous No.6471394]

>>6471389
meant to post it as a thread.
I think another hour and a half isn't going to help me much.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471411]

Here's the deal. If this stuff is able to vent heat quickly enough to keep the egg under it cool, then it should theoretically be letting off heat at virtually the same rate as it's intaking heat. Assuming that it is distributing that heat equally throughout the entire Starlite layer, then the Starlite itself should be glowing hot - the exact temperature of the stuff could vary, but we can safely say that it would be at least 7500degC on the surface. At 7500degC, the egg should be glowing white hot (assuming that the radiation it's emitting is visible), raising the temperature of the room to fatal levels within minutes (if it's infrared), or killing everyone in the area (if it's UV or xrays).

Now, the torch used in that video is NOT a blowtorch, and it's not burning at 10000degC. It's probably closer to 1000degC, which would still mean that the egg should be a uniform orange or red if it's distributing heat like the creator claims. Instead, it looks cindery and black, indicating that the Starlite is decomposing under the heat. Obviously, the video is bullshit.

Also, this material would have to be capable of emitting thermal radiation in a single direction (i.e. not inwards), which would be ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6471417]

>>6471411
>vent

thermal conduction does not work that way.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471418]

>>6471417
Would you prefer I used the term "emit"? The heat energy going into the Starlite, according to the creator, is not going into combining the chemical bonds of the Starlite itself with the oxygen in the air, so the majority of it must be emitted as radiation, even if it is contained to some degree within the bonds of the atoms in the compound.

[Anonymous No.6471420]

>>6471418
"Reflect" is the word you are looking for.

You are the weakest link.

Bye-bye.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471426]

>>6471420
You realize that reflection is a very fast combo of absorption and emission, right? And Starlite is obviously not a good mirror, because it visibly undergoes extreme changes in the video.

[Anonymous No.6471481]

>>6471426
What changes? I only saw a carbon accumulation from the burning gas.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471488]

>>6471481
Have you ever witnessed carbon accumulation like that from a live bunsen burner?

[Anonymous No.6471495]

>>6471488
Those are not ethanol torches.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471591]

>>6471495
>mfw bunsen burners burning ethanol

Bunsen burners run on propane or methane, usually. And the majority of carbon oxidized during the process is made into CO2, with a very, very small portion becoming complex carbon compounds like PAHs. There's no carbon buildup - if there is, your burner is burning too cool, and it's still not enough to form the black stuff shown in the video.

[Anonymous No.6471624]

>>6471591
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunsen_burner

..."This reduced mixing produces an incomplete reaction, producing a cooler but brighter yellow which is often called the "safety flame" or "luminous flame". The yellow flame is luminous due to small soot particles in the flame which are heated to incandescence. The yellow flame is considered "dirty" because it leaves a layer of carbon on whatever it is heating. "

[Anonymous No.6471712]

>>6471591
I doubt the torches were using Bunsen burner quality nozzles. A $30 dollar nozzle on a $5 dollar tank of gas? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.6471745]

>>6471411
Is there a reason why it would only emit one type of radiation? Couldn't it be like those really fancy fans that make very little noise because the windblades are designed in such a way that the sound comes out in tons of different frequencies (smooth frequency spectrum/no tonal peaks)?

[Anonymous No.6471782]

>>6471745
The person you're replying to can't understand how cheap nozzles produce soot.

You shouldn't expect much from his answer, if he gives one.

>Couldn't it be like those really fancy fans that make very little noise
Could you explain again what your question is? I don't see how a fan applies to a compound mixture. For that matter, I don't see how radiation applies since the mixture never gets hot.

[Anonymous No.6471785]

>>6467129
>This is one of the only times i'd support the government running into their home, taking the recipe by force, then leaving.
That's exactly what happened. The military confiscated the recipe.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.6471842]

>>6471624
Obviously it's not complete combustion, but the amount of soot is nowhere near enough to produce the black shit all over the egg, and anyone who has ever actually used a bunsen burner should know that. Not even a campfire produces that much that quickly.

>>6471745
No, it could emit any number of wavelengths of radiation. But it's highly unlikely that it's going to emit anything besides infrared and visible light. You could certainly test that though, and you could model the emission profile if you knew the heat of the flame and the composition of the Starlite (according to the creator, it's mostly C-C and C-H bonds, which have distinct emission traits).
>>6471782
Fine, there are a few millimol of carbon residue buildup. The soot buildup is made up of things like PAHs, which I mentioned.
>I don't see how radiation applies since the mixture never gets hot.
The Starlite has to be emitting ~100% of the incoming energy as radiation if it's not getting hot. The energy has to go somewhere.

[Anonymous No.6471905]

>>6471842
>The Starlite has to be emitting ~100% of the incoming energy as radiation

>emitting

Do you think it is kinetic energy or light spectrum energy that it is emitting when it doesn't absorb the heat?

[Anonymous No.6471908]

>>6471842
>but the amount of soot is nowhere near enough to produce the black shit all over the egg

You have been spoiled on too much lab equipment. Those flames in the video were obviously yellow.

[Anonymous No.6471973]

>>6467143

so...

<div class="math">Fire*Starlite = Ice</div>

<div class="math">Fire=Ice*Starlite^{-1}</div>

<div class="math">Fire*Ice^{-1}=Starlite^{-1}</div>

I think you just solved the problem of the century son

[🔥SupaHo†Fire🔥 !K0ZeBuddhA No.6471986]

What a dick.

[Anonymous No.6472016]

How is this different from any other ablative thermal barrier?

[Anonymous No.6472061]

>>6472016
The lack of shit falling apart because of fire.

[Anonymous No.6472088]

>>6472061
Falling apart?
Riiiiight.

[Anonymous No.6472187]

>>6472088
Did you see anywhere that says it is ablative?

That's right. You're making shit up.