Slashdot Mirror


The Story of Starlite, the 'Blast Proof' Material (bbc.com)

OpenSourceAllTheWay writes: The BBC has posted an interesting video series on "Starlite," a white paste developed in the 1970s and 1980s by British hairdresser Maurice Ward that could completely insulate any object it coated, like a raw egg or a piece of cardboard, against extreme heat sources -- even acetylene torches, nuclear blasts and lasers capable of heating an object to 10,000 degrees Celsius. Anything Starlite paste was smeared on could withstand extreme heat exposure without the coated object melting or combusting or heating at all in the process. The heat-proof paste got a lot of attention around the world when it was demonstrated on the BBC's Tomorrow's World TV program in 1990. Ward was an eccentric inventor -- not a classically trained scientist -- who came up with the formula for Starlite by experimenting wildly with different substances. He got the initial idea for Starlite when he was burning garbage in his backyard one day and one particular piece of garbage simply would not burn at all. Ward thought that Starlite would be worth billions when commercialized. He let NASA and other scientists test Starlite -- it did work as advertised -- but never allowed anyone to retain a sample of the substance, fearing that it could be reverse engineered. Starlite never was commercialized properly, and Ward died in 2011 without making the millions or billions he had imagined he would. Sadly, Ward took the chemical formula for Starlite to his grave with him. To this day, nobody knows the exact chemical composition of Starlite, or how one might go about recreating the substance.

13 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Patents by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sorry and I know that they aren't very popular here, but that's what patents are for.

    Afraid of commercializing something and someone reverse-analysing and stealing it? Patent it! It's public knowledge then, but you can sue the crap out of anyone trying to steal it.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Patents by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 5, Informative

      Patents haven't worked for people without millions to defend them for years.

    2. Re:Patents by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The guy was a bit of a kook. I could imagine he simply didn't trust the patent system.

      The thing is, he could have sold it for millions as a trade secret. He was worried about doing that though, in case it was worth billions. While that makes sense on one level, in practice, he didn't sell it, so made £0.00

    3. Re:Patents by GuB-42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Patents prevent commercialization of those copies for a limited* period.

      * For practically infinite values of "limited".

      Patents are limited to 20 years, hardly unlimited. We are seeing the result of expired patent everyday. If you see a barrage of knockoffs of a popular product seemingly appearing out of nowhere, it usually mean its patent has expired. Another well discussed result of expiring patents are generic drugs.

      You may be confusing patents with copyright, for with every work published after and including Mickey Mouse gets effectively unlimited protection.

    4. Re:Patents by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More broadly, this is why technology barely advanced for thousands of years. Paranoid craftsmen discovering new techniques but keeping them secret, whispering them to their children while on their deathbed. Except like this guy, a lot of them never managed to pass on the secret, causing it to be lost, only to be discovered again later, to be lost yet again, etc. (We're still trying to figure out how Stradivarius made his violins.) It's not a coincidence that the pace of technological advancement began to pick up around the same time as the printing press - when ideas could be made semi-permanent by publishing, thereby entering them into the shared knowledgebase of the human race.

    5. Re:Patents by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it really works... Rumour has it that while it performed well in demonstrations it was not durable, which would have greatly limited its commercial applications. A cynic might suggest that he was hoping someone would pay him for the rights to his invention before discovering this, and hence he did not want to patent it or allow others to retain samples for longer term testing.

      The whole affair smacks of pseudoscience. It has many of the classic symptoms:

      (1) An inventor without any training or scientific background who purports to have invented a device or solved a problem that has eluded scientists and engineers.

      (2) Unreasonable secrecy about the details of the invention, and reluctance even to work with impartial third parties operating under a non-disclosure agreement.

      (3) Public demonstrations, but only when made under the direct control and supervision of the inventor.

      (4) Proclaimed distrust of the patent system, or else an attempt to manipulate the patent system by filing a non-enabling patent disclosure.

      (5) An attitude of "pay me the money first, and then I'll show you how to make it". In other words, you have to put your faith in the inventor and give him your money, and then he'll show you the way to "salvation". (The religious parallels are quite common with pseudoscientific inventions.)

      Based on my own experiences dealing with a pseudoscientific invention (and inventor), I would bet that Ward did indeed have Starlite secretly tested, perhaps numerous times ... but you never heard about those tests, because Starlite didn't work as claimed. That leads to the final symptom of pseudoscience:

      (6) Despite claims of an amazing invention, the inventor seems completely incapable of doing anything useful with it on his own. It's the equivalent of the inventor who claims to have a machine that generates free electricity, but who still pays the power company to keep his lights on.

  2. Necromancy by The_Dougster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely one of you adepts can pull his soul from the great beyond and bind it to an Alexa or something so we can recover this important lost secret!

    --
    Clickety Click ...
  3. C'mon, it's easy. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's made of catskin. Proof: Anyone who ever had a cat knows that any amount of heat can easily be absorbed by a cat. Cat thermodynamics also mandate that heat always flows from the warmer body to the cooler body, except in the presence of a cat body whereas all warmth flows to this.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Re:Nuclear blasts? Lasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Extreme claims require extreme evidence.

    The quote is actually : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    The quote should be retired because it is wrong and perpetuates bullshit ideas about how science works.

    Extraordinary claims just require evidence, that is all. Reproducable, confirmed scientific evidence is all that is required.

    The only reason this quote is repeated so often is because of the individual from whom the quote originates.

  5. Re:Nuclear blasts? Lasers? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Informative
    The surrounding discussion indicates something ablative, or at least some form of sacrificial material in general:

    Mr Ward came to my lab about a year before his death needing help to turn what was essentially a party trick into a useable & commercialy viable product. The problem he had was although the powder component did exactly as it said on the tin, he had found no way of applying a lasting coating. All he really has was some powder mixed with PVA glue, the problem being that although you could apply it to certain objects it's longevity was no more than 2 weeks. While testing we discovered that a sample he'd kept for almost 10 years could be destroyed in a matter of minutes under a methylacetylene-propadiene propane blowtorch. Unfortunately after many samples & tests we where unable to find a effective application method & we parted company on good terms. Sadly this is the true reason why Mr Ward was never able to sell or bring his incomplete product to market

    As for the nuke-proof claims? Pure fantasy, unless you're quite a long distance from ground zero, but in that case vehicular armour or similar will provide the same level of protection.

  6. Re:Nuclear blasts? Lasers? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are close; it should be:

    On one hand we have The Standard Model.
    On the other, a dead hairdresser's undocumented process discovered while burning trash in his back yard in the 1970s , without samples.

    Whatever he came up with is roughly derivative of melted and slightly charred packaging and household waste from the UK in the 1970s. It's probably quite the cocktail of asbestos, brominated plastics, lead, and velvet smoking jackets. The formula is probably lost to the world, as we don't generate the same kind of toxic shit headed to the landfill anymore, and we have HOAs to prevent people from "improving" the neighborhood aroma by dumping household waste in a hole in the in the back yard, dousing it with diesel fuel, lighting it on fire, and being surprised by the God-knows-what carcinogenic goop left in the bottom of the hole that just! won't! burn!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  7. Just watch the BBC videos for facts by Moskit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just watch the BBC series of videos to get actual information.

    Material was tested by Ministry of Defense, they used 4kt nuclear bomb equivalent. Goal of material was to disperse heat (thermal energy), provided it withstands the shockwave. There is also many more details available on lasers (tested energy), view of the inventor on patents (from an interview)...

  8. Re:Nuclear blasts? Lasers? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, on the other hand, it was tested by the U.S. Military at the White Sands Missile Testing Range by subjecting it to a 5-kiloton non-nuclear explosion. It was also subjected to -- and passed -- tests by the U.K. nuclear weapons agency as well as tested involving high intensity pulse lasers.

    Watch the video series, it is very interesting.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.