It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Has the secret to Starlite been lost forever?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

One final kick at the can for Starlite:

YES it really DOES exist!

Is it really NEW? hmmm.....NO!

How does it work?

It works using basic scientific principles that adhere to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

"Over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential
equilibrate in an isolated physical system" - Wikipedia


"Energy Can be neither created nor truly destroyed...ONLY changed in form."

...What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics have to do with Starlite?

Starlite absorbs thermal radiation (i.e. heat) from a defined source
and redistributes it over a large surface area to an internally bound
secondary heat-holding substance.

Being an organic composite of PROBABLY (not confirmed!) of
Boro-Carbides, High Density Plastic Polymers, likely some
Aluminum Oxide (alumina) and/or Copper Oxide
and possibly molybdenum...the particles of Starlite
are likely (under a microscope) either massively pitted
or glass shard-like in appearance. The weakly bound
individual particles (held together via Van Der Waals forces
or simple surface friction) have HUGE amounts of surface
area per given unit of volume. This acts MUCH like a radiator
which will QUICKLY diffuse incoming thermal radiation
to a secondary substance that can HOLD large amounts
of heat for long periods of time while SLOWLY radiating it
away in-between the weakly bound particles of Starlite.

The Boro-Carbides and other ceramics are likely the
heat holders/slow diffusers of thermal radiation while
the aluminum oxides and/or copper oxides are the
substances which act as the radiator fins that RAPIDLY
absorb incoming thermal energy before passing it along
to the heat-holding ceramics. The polymers (i.e. probably
high density polyethylene or stearates) are the binders
which prevent the Starlite particles from completely
coming apart. Polymers make GREAT glue/paste-like
suspension mediums for heat absorbing/diffusing
ceramics and metal oxides.

Since these ceramics are crystalline (i.e. like glass)
they are lightly bound together and suffer from "Glass-Creep",
a quality which ALSO ensures that LOTS of free space is
between each particles which ensures that LOTS of
surface area is available to act much like the heat transfer
fins of a car radiator but at a molecular scale.

There was a TV episode in the 1990's which broadcast
an egg coated with one or two millimetres of Starlite being
able to withstand the 4500 degrees Celcius temperature of
an oxyacetylene torch.

This gives us a CLUE by which we could use a computer
to calculate the particle size of alumina or boro-carbides
needed in order to absorb or diffuse a given number of watts
per square centimetre at a thickness of one millimetre
over X number of seconds.

That calculation allows us to COPY the properties of Starlite
by mixing the right amount of ceramic particles of X-size in
microns or nanometers with the right amount of alumina
or copper oxide particles bound with a polymer suspension
paste in order to EQUAL the heat absorption and diffusion
capabilities of Starlite.

Since we somewhat KNOW what actually went INTO Starlite
it's only a matter of 50,000 to 1,000,000 possible combinations
of particle sizes and material volume proportions that would match
what was demonstrated with the torching of a typical chicken egg.

That computer modeling would take about 100 days to do
onto a 100 node 8-core server farm at a cost of
about $200,000 of computer processing time
which is CHEAP compared to the benefits displayed.

So how about it? The USA's DuPont or Germany's BASF or Japan's Kyocera,
you've got the dollars AND the computers...its NOT that hard...think size
of typical chicken egg and one millimetre thickness of paste...calculate optimal
particle sizes of Boro-Silica or Boro-Carbides, Aluminum Oxide, Copper Oxide, Molybdenum,
and some Polyethylene-like binder and you've got a DUPLICATE of Starlite.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: The shape and orientation of the individual particles
is probably critical. This means the various shapes such as diamond-like shapes,
circular, asymmetric slabs, triangular, amorphous and other shapes MUST be considered.
IN ADDITION, their placement and orientation next to each other must also be taken into account.
such as....are the individual particles/shards in vertical or horizontal orientation?, are they
angled or set in a snake-scale like configuration?... and how much SPACE in-between the
particles/shards is required for optimal exposure of maximal surface area used for
heat absorption or dispersal?

Hope this helps!
edit on 2012/5/22 by StargateSG7 because: Spelling fix

edit on 2012/5/22 by StargateSG7 because: additional information added.

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:29 PM
Its a very interesting idea you have come up with but i think you are seriously underestimating the number of possible combinations of 21 unknown ingredients, quantities and particle size.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:25 AM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

21 to 21st power should about cover it...BUT...even even we add the basic layering and particle orientation configurations one can narrow down the scope to a few tens of million possible combinations because of the ability to narrow down the thermodynamic properties of individual ingredients and particle orientations which
will absorb and diffuse X number of watts per unit of volume over X seconds. Basically using a binary search-like
algorithm, use the EXTREME ranges of configurations to calculate a middle-of-the-road solution that will put any series of combinations into a "comfortable range" of defined thermo-absorption-diffusion criteria.
i.e. between TWO extremes for a given RELATED combination, use or save the MEDIAN or AVERAGE
values ...ergo 21 to 21st power gets shoved down into 21 to the 10th power and below which is a WAY more comfortable AND COMPUTABLE set of simulations to run through...and using 100 four-core processors
running at 3.2 BILLIONS cycles a second EACH and able to do 250 million 64-bit floating point operations per second AT A MINIMUM per processor core = 100 GigaFLOPS per second or 18,000 GigaFLOPS per HOUR!!!!!

Ergo 100 days of thermodynamic analysis simulations of 200 million particles per square millimetre of one millimeter thick starlite-like material SHOULD be able to cover and NARROW DOWN which COMBINATIONS of ceramic and binder particle size and orientation will be best for optimal and/or MAXIMAL high-temperature absorption/diffusion AND still fall into being actually manufacturable using common industrial processes.

And at the outside, 200 days or (almost 7 months) of computer time should REALLY cover all the bases.
At today's prices, a bulk purchase of 100 four-core consumer-level machines with 16 gigabytes of RAM and 4 terabytes of Disk Drive space PER computer and 10 Gigabit Ethernet is about $200,000 with an extra $25,000 to kick in for POWERING that sort of computer processing cluster over 100 to 200 days. THAT'S CHEAP when compared to the possible BENEFITS of making and SELLING a version of STARLITE !!!!

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

Well that never helps a person when they are not prepared Legally and go visit NASA or other Military Based Intell.Groups....and just make them an offer. The reality is not that material of this ability has not been discovered...for it has. It is just that the U.S. Military and it's "CIVILIAN" Agencies that well understand that a compound of this ability or nature...get's into the wrong hands and we have a PROBLEM.

The USAF in conjunction with the U.S. Space Command...has been flying multiple Hypersonic Air and Space Craft for Multiple Decades. Recently...someone using Google Earth...tracked what is known as a Micro-Nuclear Detonation Engine and this was caught on Google Earths Satellite.

The Craft flew out of the GROOM LAKE FACILITY and achieved...VERY RAPIDLY the altitude for and Atomic Powered via Nuclear Detonations...small ones...that increase in size and Maintain a very skilled and calculated increase in Nuclear Detonations as these craft leave behind a Puff of Smoke Con-Trail and Google Earth tracked one leaving Groom Lake and traveling very fast and a great distances across the Planet and at these speeds....Air Friction would melt just about anything...but the Google Earth Satellite caught a Line of Smoke Puffs originating from Groom Lake and traveling east across the U.S. as well as across the Atlantic..over Africa...the Middle east...Russia...China and over the Pacific back to groom Lake. These speeds are well above the melting point that this guy's material can handle so it is not that the U.S. does not have it or something better...we just don't want anyone else to have it. Split Infinity

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by SplitInfinity

I have heard about that report. Some people are suggesting they have found a way to reduce air friction on the body of the craft with some kind of force field or plasma spike. But at the moment even the existence of a craft that can travel that speed and all the specs associated with it are speculation. A contrail is a good indicator but not absolute proof.

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

Here's my corrections as to how to do particle simulations and what the costs and performance metrics

Storage Record for Particle Simulation:

Particle_Simulation_Record =
// 3D-XYZ Coordinate of individual particle within a given 3D-XYZ space volume of material.
x, y, z : Float_64_Bit;

// What compaund is this particle made of?
Type_Of_Material : Byte = One of ( Alumina,
MethylAlcohol );

Purpose_Of_Material : Byte = One of ( Outer_Heat_Absorption_Layer,
Binder_Material );

// What does the particle look like under a microscope? I.e. It's general 2D or 3D shape!
Particle_Configuration : Byte = One of ( Flat_Circular,

// How is particle oriented upper, lower or other nearby particles?
Particle_Orientation : Byte = One of ( 90_Degrees_Vertical,
Angled_60_Degrees );

// Depending upon the shape of the particle, what are
// the upepr, lower and side surface area and TOTAL surface area values?
Total_Surface_Area : Float_64_Bit;

// Particle density in grams per cubic millimetre
Particle_Density : Float_64_Bit;

// In cubic microns.
Particle_Volume : Float_64_Bit;

// How much space separates nearby individual particles on each plane or 3D-axis.
// Throughout a given volume, this separation WILL change depending upon the current
// particle configuration for this and any immediate-neighbour or nearby particles.
Z_Axis_Space_In_Between_Particles_In_Microns : Float_64_Bit;

// Elapsed time since beginning of reaction for THIS particle.
// Allows us to keep track of WHEN this particle has arrived at
// the current 3D-XYZ location. Allows us to track particle movement over time.
Time_Code_Index_In_Pico_Seconds : Float_64_Bit;

// Current Temperature of outside air or flame and the current temperature
// of this single particle as any outside heat or refrigeration is applied.
Internal_Temperature_Of_Particle_in_Degrees_Kelvin : Float_64_Bit;

// Cx number which indicates how much or or fast the particles
// can move over each other in microns per second or millimetres
// per minute or metres per hour at X temperature.
// Techically it's a way of measuring viscosity of hard particles (i.e. glass creep)
Units_Used_For_Coefficient_Of_Friction : Byte;

// Average and Mean Values for friction coefficient at current temperature.
Median_Coefficient_Of_Friction_For_All_Surfaces : Float_64_Bit;

// Amount of heat able to be taken in per cubic millimetre per second of this ONE compound.
Thermal_Absorption_Index_In_Watts_Per_Cubic_Millimetre_Per_Second : Float_64_Bit;

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Continuation of above example Starlite particle simulation definition:

// Amount of heat able to be given off per cubic millimetre per second of this ONE compound.
Thermal_Radiation_Index_In_Watts_Per_Cubic_Millimetre_Per_Second : Float_64_Bit;

// User-definable Index value regarding Van Der Walls forces or Coloumb forces at play here as particles
// repulse or attract each other at specific internal temperatures. For magnetic attraction force
// use Gauss, otherwise staore the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules
// or the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles in any desired unit of measure.
// Gravity-oriented indexes can also be used for attraction/repulsion forces over larger distances.
Type_of_Attractive_Or_Repulsive_Force_Index : Byte;

// Attractive or repulsive force index values for each surface at the current internal particle temperature.
// We use mean and average to find and/or correct particle movement calculation errors during various particle dynamics simulations.
Mean_Attractive_Or_Repulsive_Force_Index_Of_Entire_Particle_At_Current_Internal_Temperature : Float_64_Bit;


Total Record size = 828 Bytes : 3D_Array of Particle_Simulation_Records
of 10,000 particles on each X, and Y axis = 828,000,000,000,000 bytes = 771 Gigabytes.

Total Elapsed Time of Simulation is ONE SECOND consisting of 1,000,000 samples
of the ENTIRE ARRAY = 771,000,000 GIGABYTES (771,000 TERABYTES) of total data processed.

Processing Time calculations (ignore the minor rounding errors!):

13 64-bit floating point storage values calculated using 4 multiply, divide,
add and subtract operations with four 64-bit input operands each.

Using CHEAP 4-core procesors (AMD Phenom II X4 940 (4258MHz) ) processors
running at 7,525 Million Floating Point Operations per second (7.2 GigaFLOPS)

x 100 processors = 720 BILLION 64-bit floating point operations per second.

720 Gigaflops divided by ( 4 math operations per record field * 13 64-bit record fields ) =

13.8 BILLION individual record access/calculate/store operations per second.

771,000,000 GIGABYTES of total data / 13.8 BILLION individual record operations
= 55,869,565.2 compute time seconds = 646 days of elapsed compute time.

on the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE GOOD processing system at $250,000 of CONSUMER_LEVEL CPU's
and the Electricity to power all that processing.

If I use Dual CrossFire AMD Radeon HD 7970 GPU processors in each node of the 100 CPU network
at 3788.8 Gigaflops per node...processing time drops down to less than 10 days for an extra
$200,000 for the 200 high-powered AMD Radeon graphics cards or a total processing COST
of $450,000 which is WELL WITHIN the financial range of a medium size business to do
basic research and development of a proprietary Starlite Material.

While 3700+ GigaFlops per node should bring total processing time down to a day or two,
ACTUAL processing speed is limited by BOTH NETWORK and DISK DRIVE DATA TRANSFER SPEED that
limit total bandwidth by a factor of 10 or more.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by StargateSG7

And finally these are mostly worst case scenarios, so that 600+ day computer time
for the first part of my observations is because of the double precision 64 bit floating point
numbers and the multiple operations done on each record field, in addition to network and
disk drive transfer speed limitations...change the field values to single-precision 32 bit floats
and use SSD Flash disks and 40 gigabit network cards. While twice the price, that 600+ day
compute time goes down to less than 10 days per simulation run for 36 possible particle size
and composition types per year.

Cost effectiveness starts REALLY INCREASING when AMD Radeon or NVIDIA CUDA
GPU based processing systems are used. In my personal experience, I've been able to put
FOUR dual GPU Radeon cards in a single computer which has over 12,000 GigaFLOPS
(and that's SUSTAINED Performance) of processing power...add 40 gigabit ethernet cards
and 200 megabytes per second SSD drives and total throughput over 100 processing nodes
would allow two to four particle dynamics simulations PER DAY or 1200 possible combinations
in a year. Again using Binary Search techniques and Gaussian Distribution Curve Estimation
(i.e. Bell Curve Estimation), TARGETED ranges of effective particle types, orientations and sizes
would narrow down the possibilities for a duplicate Starlite-type high-temperature resistant material.
Particle Property Range targetting techniques would, in my estimation, bring the search time down
to about 100 to 200 days of elapsed network processing time.

THAT is a good return on investment!!!

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by SplitInfinity

I have heard about that report. Some people are suggesting they have found a way to reduce air friction on the body of the craft with some kind of force field or plasma spike. But at the moment even the existence of a craft that can travel that speed and all the specs associated with it are speculation. A contrail is a good indicator but not absolute proof.

The Space Shuttle...when it re-entered earths Atmosphere was doing so at a starting speed of over 18,000 MPH. The Ceramic Tiles were preventing the craft to melt away. There is a very large program in ADVANCED METALLURGY as well as I have also heard of certain types of Protective Plasma Shielding but as I have said...The U.S. Military as well as U.S. Military Contractors who are not allowed to share certain aspects of their work even with their own companies.

The U.S. Military is Multiple Decades to even Centuries in some cases ahead of other counties R&D. What we need is for them to release a bit of the High Tech. Energy Generation Developments. This alone will create enough jobs as well as Get us out of the Middle East for which if there was no oil..we would not even have an embassy. Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:15 PM

forgive me for joining in this thread rather late - I only became aware of it today.

Maurice was a good friend of mine for the ten years up to his death and I wanted to make a couple of points in response to some of the posts here. I set up the blog and the Youtube videos because Maurice asked me to.

First of all, Maurice died from a brain tumour after a very short illness - little more than a month from detection to the end. He was an old chap and I rather think it was "Natural Causes" and not some James Bond style event.

Secondly, Starlite did / does exist and it did what it appears to do on the videos - I have other videos and I have seen it in the flesh very close up indeed.

On the rather perplexing question of "Why didn't Maurice patent it"?
He told me he did not want to publish the formula (which of course a patent would do) because he thought that it would be copied, the formula compromised by attempts at cost saving and thus the reputation of his product compromised. I have to take this at face value as it was said to me by Maurice face to face. I can however think of another reasons for not taking out a patent but to write it here would be just speculation and there is already plenty of that here.

I did try quite hard to find a commercial partner that Maurice would find acceptable and used my Company to introduce him to a number of Companies that we dealt with where Starlite could be of significant value.
For example, an aerospace company and also a major manufacturer of doors. On these and several other opportunities terms acceptable to both parties could not be reached. This resulted in my Sales Director, who I asked to handle this, refusing to spend any more time and money on what he saw as an excercise unlikely to make much progress.

So, why do I think it never got into use?

We have heard on this forum from some other inventors, which is incidentally what I do these days.
Browsing on Youtube you can find all sorts of seemingly wonderful technologies (Nitinol Wire for example) that never went anywhere.

My thinking is that it is well nigh impossible to invent a product, raise the finance and get it out in the UK. There are obviously some exceptions, Dyson or Baylis for example, but in the main it can't be done unless you have very deep pockets or know someone who has.
The current commercial focus in the UK is on a maximum timescales of 18 months with what must be a racing certainty that you are happy to hand over most of to qualify for any finance and I think Maurice found himself trapped by this.
He wanted it to be used but he could not see a way of doing it - I for my part rather let him down because I couldn't think of a way of doing it either (and still can't).

So thanks for reading this, don't think ill of Maurice he was a genius and a rare breed, Starlite was only one of his inventions there were many others some I suspect more valuable and I very much miss talking with him.

Finally, Maurice did have a sense of humour - if anyone spots the "Picture of his laboratory" featured on this thread don't be fooled by what appears to be a jar of Sultanas and a jar of used engine oil - I am pretty certain they are not amongst the constituents of Starlite.


posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by mauricesmate

Hi mauricesmate, thank you very much for joining up and contributing to this thread. Its a crying shame that its so difficult to get inventions like starlite up and going in the UK. It makes you wonder what would have been the reaction if he had taken it to Dragons den /shark tank.

One of the questions i think many people have regarding starlite is : does the formula exist somewhere and could it be resurrected if the right people became interested in it? Its such a loss to humanity for it just to die tragically with Maurice.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by PhoenixOD

Hi, he did say that he had entrusted the formula to his family. I have had no contact with them since the night I phoned Maurice and his wife answered and said that he had died. I did intend to call again after a couple of weeks but I could not bring myself to as I suspected that the family had probably been pestered constantly by all and sundry.

I have of course spent a lot of time thinking about what could be in it in my own plodding style, piecing together things that he told me over the years. I have, I think, a fair idea of how he thought it worked.
I once got an email via the Youtube stuff (it uses my email still) that I think was a very good analysis of how it worked and seemed to match what Maurice himself thought was going on, but I have never tried to make any.

It is extremly interesting to me how some contributors speak with such great authority on the subject, describing in much detail how it works / or that it can't possibly work / or it's old hat and has been done many times years before Maurice did it etc whilst at the same time being , to my own understanding, entirely wrong.
It does illustrate how the fascinating world of conspiracy theories works and demonstrates that such behaviour is not just restricted to members of the traditional scientific establishment.

There is even a couple of posts suggesting Maurice cannot have come up with anything because he wasn't a proper scientist so it must have been a hoax.
Whilst I would expect such nonsense from a stuffed shirted Oxford physics professor I am suprised and disappointed to find such comments on a discussion forum such as this.

I think that yes, Starlite or a replication of it will see the light of day and I truly hope it is soon


edit on 27-2-2013 by mauricesmate because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by mauricesmate


The cruel irony of your posting does seem to illustrate how inventions can die on the vine
due to financial strangulation and the unfortunate "Not Invented Here" syndrome that
cause large companies to OVERLOOK inventions from outside sources.


My condolences to Maurice's family on his death.

On a somewhat unrelated side note, if he died of a short-lived brain tumour
and was WORKING with Starlite up to that point, that gives a clue as to the
WHY of his death. Technically, Starlight-like materials are NANO-PARTICLES
which can CROSS the blood-brain barrier and the body's own immune system
will ATTACK those particles thus POSSIBLY (i.e. unconfirmed!) causing
Glio-Blastoma-like tumours. is PARAMOUNT when working with nano-particles, so
anything to do with Alumina ceramics, Carbon-60, Carbon Nano-tubes,
rare earth oxides, etc or anything else of that nature IS TOXIC and must
be handled with care! Even an N-95 dust particle mask won't help!

ONLY a FULL PVC/Neoprene Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
suit will protect you and even then there MUST BE a hazardous material
protocol for WASHING AWAY statically attached nano-particles to those
haz-mat suits. Think ASBESTOS...THIS is how DANGEROUS Nano-Particles ARE!


In terms of how Starlite works, there's really no SPECIFIC be-all/end-all
formula for Heat-Transfer agents, almost any ceramic-oxide material will do,
and with ENOUGH computer horsepower, the SHAPE and Thermo-transfer
properties of any given substance CAN BE PREDICTED for any given or
desired application. My computer systems are CONSIDERABLY more
advanced than what Starlite's inventor had access to. He did his work
pretty much by trial and error and that took YEARS if not DECADES!

I've pretty much REPLICATED his work using particle-simulation
and thermodynamic simulations on grid processing networks
in a FEW WEEKS..but it's a pity that the results of my work are
almost IDENTICAL to what 3M and BASF have already created
and PATENTED in terms of high-performance heat transfer agents
that work to the nearly the SAME levels of performance as Starlite!

So on a financial basis I am out of luck trying to self-benefit because
of those enforceable patents, BUT it does show my grid processing
software DOES WORK! And THAT can at least be sold to some big outfit!

OH WELL !!!...on to the next project!

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Maybe if you use computer modeling in a virtual world to try to solve this kind of problem you will end up with similar materials as the ones that some of the big company's have patents on.

But as Maurice didn't use computer modeling and just used his brain and lots of hands on tests it would not surprise me if his Starlite was different to the materials that companies like M3 have tried to make that are not quite as good.

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:24 PM
Starlite could of saved the shuttle crew when they faced death by disintegration. This material could of saved hundreds of lives in house fires, and let's not even go looking at how many other lives could if been saved had this in my opinion selfish greedy bastard not sat on it for high on twenty freaking years.

I'm not surprised industry gave up on the Muppet, because had he let this go into mass production he would of got the nobel for science easily and been both well rewarded and well regarded.

Greedy sons of bitches that cost lives piss me off. He in my opinion was no better than big oil sitting on water powered engine patents.

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by StargateSG7

Maybe if you use computer modeling in a virtual world to try to solve this kind of problem you will end up with similar materials as the ones that some of the big company's have patents on.

But as Maurice didn't use computer modeling and just used his brain and lots of hands on tests it would not surprise me if his Starlite was different to the materials that companies like M3 have tried to make that are not quite as good.


One big issue that Maurice likely didn't take into account which my particle simulations
and thermodynamic profiles DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT was the various stresses under
aerodynamic pressure loads, mechanical pressure loads (torsion/shear/compressive),
frictional and abrasive loads and radiation/ablation loads which are a REQUIREMENT
for using Starlite-type materials in REAL-WORLD environments.

If I'm using Starlite, I NEED to KNOW if it can take the punishment over any given time period
for any required application. The loads are DIFFERENT for airplanes, cars, building coatings,
cell phones or toys under variable temperatures in outside/inside environments AND under
human-initiated ABUSES of that material. My grid-processed calculations ALLOW ME
to quickly formulate Bell-curve distributions which indicated minimum, median, average
and maximum possible loads (of many singular and combined stress types) for which
a Starlite-type material will retain its thermal protection qualities. The materials databases
I used consistently pointed to TOUGH-ENOUGH coating products that just happened to be
coatings and materials that are or were PATENTED by other companies, in some case
since the Early 1980's!

So until I know what Starlite was composed of on an ABSOLUTE basis, I can't calculate
its load/stress resistance qualities. Ergo, I cannot make a definitive QUALITATIVE assessment
on the commercial viability of Starlite. I personally THINK that Starlite is variation of products
already out there...BUT it does seem to be HIGHER PERFORMING (although not outlandishly so!)
than the 3M or BASF thermo-stress resistive coatings. In my case, being nearly always short on time,
i'll just have to buy the 3M/BASF stuff because it's cheap enough and I can get it
quick enough that I don't really have to care that it's not quite up to the Starlite
level of performance...but it's close enough for my needs!

edit on 2013/2/28 by StargateSG7 because: grammar

edit on 2013/2/28 by StargateSG7 because: spelling

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Hi Stargate
I very much appreciate your approach to the conundrum by the application of computer horsepower. I have a background in commercial computing (not scientific) so I have to come at it in a different way and have instead focussed on Maurice’s commercial experiences and what it is likely he had access to (which wasn't very much).
The only flaw I can see in a mathematical approach is that the permutations are astronomic and a simple oversight in the selection of parameters could inhibit any iterative solving of the problem.
As an example, in your parameters you suggest various ways that Starlite might achieve the effect. However it isn’t a comprehensive list by any means. As a Devil’s Advocate style observation (for which I apologise) what about reflection rather than conduction / dissipation? I also note that you have omitted the Sultanas and 'used engine oil' clearly visible in the picture of Maurice’s lab / kitchen – surely an obvious oversight.
However, I must admit that I haven’t got anywhere really with my methodologies so what do I know?

Strange coincidence is that I am a director of a Nanotech Company which develops and manufactures nano particle plant foods and fertilizers largely used in hydroponic fertigation.
As you point out nano sized particles can pass through cell walls - which are handy for precise adjustments in plant chemistry but fairly scary from a point of view of killing yourself – a fact that has not escaped my notice as I am up to my elbows in the stuff splashing it about.
As an illustration of the point you make, we were using ‘light scatter’ technology to measure particle size – this involves paying for the tests as a suitable machine costs £300k+This is expensive and time consuming (we need to constantly to monitor the manufacturing process) so I sought out a simple “litmus test” I could utilize and came across a sintered filter used in aerospace to split Nitrogen and Oxygen in jet engines (used on the RR Trent engine).
This is great as it gives me an instant and cheap test for particle size.
As an example it will not allow air to pass through it but will allow distilled water through!
Anyway, thanks for your comments – be very impressed if anyone can solve the mystery, as you say making any money at it is a different matter all together
Finally, to those naive enough to suggest Maurice was a selfish git out to feather his own nest regardless of the consequences to others.
There are other inventors on this forum with experience of the wonders of how big business operates, employing huge teams of lawyers / accountants / thugs etc with the sole purpose of stealing IPR and discrediting anyone who stands in the way of their employers.
Look at the state of the mobile phone industry with Apple, Google et al trying to trip each other up in courts around the globe – is that for the good of humanity?
Every man has one life to live as he thinks fit and for which he may be called to account (or sometimes) not.

I always feel it useful to remember that when anyone points a finger at someone else three of their fingers point straight back at themselves.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:32 AM
If I'm not mistaken an M1A2 can survive a 10KT nuke at 500m. Not sure how hot that would be.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by mauricesmate

"...The only flaw I can see in a mathematical approach is that the permutations are astronomic and a simple oversight in the selection of parameters could inhibit any iterative solving of the problem.
As an example, in your parameters you suggest various ways that Starlite might achieve the effect. However it isn’t a comprehensive list by any means. As a Devil’s Advocate style observation (for which I apologise) what about reflection rather than conduction / dissipation? I also note that you have omitted the Sultanas and 'used engine oil' clearly visible in the picture of Maurice’s lab / kitchen – surely an obvious oversight.
However, I must admit that I haven’t got anywhere really with my methodologies so what do I know?..."


To input Every possible parameter is impossible unless you have "REALLY SERIOUS"
computer horsepower. But since I'm not IBM with access to their Blue Gene/Q
supercomputers, I have to make do with a small network of PC's that have multiple
GPU accelerator graphics cards good enough for me!

So to CUT DOWN the number of variables, We ESTIMATE a Minimum, Maximum,
Median and Average values for particle size and shape, particle thermal characteristics,
Friction Co-efficients, radiation AND ablation characteristics and flame/heat inputs/output
and then add in the outside load stressors. We basically then run ONLY THOSE
ESTIMATED input values as initial variables and once we get a general RANGE
of expected Flame-Resistant materials that fall CLOSE to those predicted
Minimum, Maximum, Median and Average compound characteristics
as final output, we then check for manufacturability in terms of can
this material be made for X-amount of dollars in Y-amount of time
material and systems.

A fairly large database of tens of millions of possible compounds are output
BUT we then do "Binary Search-like" analysis which takes into account our
desired application and then filters the compounds that are close to our initial
variable settings and therefore finds the optimal-mix of ingredients that will
produce a heat-resistant product that performs at the desired or specified,
min, max, median, or average load stresses. As a final pass, the resulting
tens-of-thousands of VIABLE compounds are further reduced based upon

This means we only keep the compounds that are PREDICTED to be
the cheapest AND FASTEST to make which will STILL perform well within
the desired application performance envelope. This final pass usually
narrows it down to less than 100 to 200 viable and MANUFACTUREABLE

Other versions may PERFORM MUCH BETTER but those may simply
be too expensive or too time consuming to manufacture. Early in this
series of postings I have a pseudo-code example of particle dynamics
simulation parameters which I thought were important. Take that record
structure code and add to it so as to run an iterative filtering process
through multiple heat-resistive materials databases. If you have about
1.5 million dollars, I can guarantee you that you can EASILY buy 250
TYAN brand computer motherboards that use four 16-core Opteron chips
(i.e. 64-CPU cores per motherboard) each with 256 or 512 GIGABYTES
of RAM MEMORY and each with FOUR NVIDIA TESLA or four
AMD Radeon GPU accelerators and then NETWORK and attach
all that computer horsepower to two hundred 3 terabyte drives and
you will be able to WAY-OUTPERFORM my own fairly-limited
compound survey!

In my estimation, using today's (i.e. as of March 2013) technology
as described above, within 100 days you'd have a list of 200 viable
compounds whittled down from BILLIONS or even TRILLIONS of
combinations AND you could even FILTER those compounds so
that they don't equal or infringe upon the 3M/BASF patented
heat resistive compounds.

You could even SORT the output database to filter and organize
based upon the price and available of LOCAL raw materials or
filter based upon ABSOLUTE highest performance or filter based
upon absolute LOWEST cost and other filtering criteria.

THEN you do REAL-WORLD manufacturing and testing of the
predicted compounds so that you can REFINE the final formulas
for sale to the big-boy companies such as 3M or BASF or you could
sell it yourself ... OR GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE!!! i.e. OPEN SOURCE
edit on 2013/3/1 by StargateSG7 because: spelling

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:56 AM


Look at the state of the mobile phone industry with Apple, Google et al trying to trip each other up in courts around the globe – is that for the good of humanity?

SpaceX could sure use something like Starlite. They themselves don't patent at least some of their stuff.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in