Starlite • Hacker News Board

Re: Starlite

#21

Post by mercuryrising » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 6:49 AM UTC

vitno wrote: post #19

gmaslov wrote: post #16

Sounds like a situation that the patent system was supposedly designed to prevent. But, from the article linked by yapcguy: > He refused to patent the recipe as that would mean making it public and risking its theft Wouldn't patenting the formula prevent it from being "stolen"? Or is our patent system truly good for nothing at all?

SpaceX does not patent any of their stuff for the same reason; it can be stolen by people outside of the country and the patent is essentially directions on how to do so.

I forget the quote exactly, but there was an interview with Elon and the lady was asking him about not patenting things at SpaceX. He said something along the lines of "Patents aren't going to do you much good when your competitors are other country's governments".

Re: Starlite

#22

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 6:50 AM UTC

gmaslov wrote: post #16

Sounds like a situation that the patent system was supposedly designed to prevent. But, from the article linked by yapcguy: > He refused to patent the recipe as that would mean making it public and risking its theft Wouldn't patenting the formula prevent it from being "stolen"? Or is our patent system truly good for nothing at all?

It doesn't prevent theft, it just easens getting compensation for theft.

Numerous patent authors have put deliberate errors in the patent to prevent copying.

Re: Starlite

#23

Post by scotty79 » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #12

adamnemecek wrote: post #11

It kind of blows my mind that one (presumably) cannot reverse engineer things like this.

Without a sample, it's not surprising.

Noone can reverse engineer WD40 with plenty of samples.

Re: Starlite

#24

Post by icambron » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

cwsteinbach wrote: post #18

cwsteinbach wrote: post #17

Starlite, meet FOGBANK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

In 1996, the US government decided that large numbers of its nuclear weapons would require replacement, refurbishing, or decommissioning. Accordingly, the Department of Energy set up a refurbishment program aimed at extending the service lives of older nuclear weapons. In 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) specified a life-extension program for W76 warheads that would enable them to remain in s…

Secrecy: not always a good idea.

Re: Starlite

#25

Post by nperson » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:00 AM UTC

kefs wrote: post #2

Here is the late Maurice Ward's YouTube channel.. https://www.youtube.com/user/mauricewardstarlite/videos

Here's a site I've built for an artist who did "Episodes of Starlite" http://stopthebus.org/starlite.

Re: Starlite

#26

Post by cromwellian » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:05 AM UTC

I'm skeptical. There are a lot of bullshit free-energy and reactionless drive "inventors" who exhibit the same pattern. Super secretive and paranoid that the traditional scientific review process will steal their invention, will only allow third parties to experiment under very controlled conditions, etc, won't produce working patents, etc. Remember Dean Drive?

I often think they either known they're peddling something bogus and are straight out charlatans, or they actually really believed in what they have, but are too afraid of it being debunked.

Science and secrecy don't go together. A material with twice the melting point of tantalum halfnium carbide sounds like an ablative heat shield to me.

Re: Starlite

#27

Post by nodata » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:05 AM UTC

Camillo wrote: post #13

What sort of scientific Scrooge chooses to take his invention to the grave like that? What has he gained in the end?

I'm sure he didn't plan to die.

Re: Starlite

#28

Post by nl » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:08 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #23

brazzy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a sample, it's not surprising.

Noone can reverse engineer WD40 with plenty of samples.

What do you mean? There are plenty of WD40-work-a-likes on the market.

Additionally, the ingredients to WD40 are on Wikipedia[1] and Wired had a mass spectroscopy done and published even more precise details[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40#Formulation

[2] http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/st_w...

Re: Starlite

#29

Post by Eliezer » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:09 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #26

I'm skeptical. There are a lot of bullshit free-energy and reactionless drive "inventors" who exhibit the same pattern. Super secretive and paranoid that the traditional scientific review process will steal their invention, will only allow third parties to experiment under very controlled conditions, etc, won't produce working patents, etc. Remember Dean Drive? I often think they either known they're peddling somethi…

I remember the Dean Drive. Does anyone else remember the Dean Drive?

Re: Starlite

#30

Post by vacri » Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 7:22 AM UTC

nodata wrote: post #27

Camillo wrote: post #13

What sort of scientific Scrooge chooses to take his invention to the grave like that? What has he gained in the end?

I'm sure he didn't plan to die.

Not having something robust sorted out for your invention to survive your death by the time you're 78 years of age? That's bad planning. Or, perhaps, being a scrooge.