Starlite • Hacker News Board

Re: Starlite

#71

Post by ballard » Wed, Sep 18, 2013, 5:12 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #55

jackgavigan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the sci-fi novel 'Friday', Robert Heinlein writes about a physicist named Daniel Shipstone who realised that 'the problem was not a shortage of energy but lay in the transporting of energy. Energy is everywhere—in sunlight, in wind, in mountain streams, in temperature gradients of all sorts wherever found, in coal, in fossil oil, in radioactive ores, in green growing things. Especially in ocean depths and in outer…

Elon Musk is by no means the first person to get that realization. As a theme only things that can be easily reproduced by looking at the very physical nature are patented. If something is easy to reproduce by just looking at the idea or invention itself, that is the kind of thing that is commonly patented. Why else do you think the patent ecosystem if full of crappiest and most obvious patents possible. It hardly ma…

To patentable, it "must be non-obvious to an expert in the field." (A friend is a frmr patent examiner.)

Re: Starlite

#72

Post by yogrish » Wed, Sep 18, 2013, 5:51 AM UTC

adaml_623 wrote: post #51

yogrish wrote: post #37

Just read abt Starlite and other Amazing man made substances at this URL thru reddit. http://listverse.com/2013/06/20/10-awesome-man-made-substanc...

Why the downvotes? The other 9 substances on that link are just as interesting. I recommend people have a look. The video of the amorphous metal is quite interesting. (Yogrish. I saw the link elsewhere first as well but maybe we're not meant to use the R word here)

Didn't know about R word. sure will take care of it next time.

Re: Starlite

#73

Post by scotty79 » Wed, Sep 18, 2013, 9:46 AM UTC

nemo wrote: post #66

jakobe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how many people use WD40 as a lubricant. It's good for loosening stuck parts, but using it as a lubricant will wear parts quickly.

Interestingly, WD40 is a lubricant. I used to think that since it was a penetrating oil/water sealant it wasn't a lubricant, but that's not actually the case. They even have a "myth" that discusses the idea floating out there that WD40 isn't a lubricant. http://wd40.com/about-us/myths-legends-fun-facts/

I think it's just not very good lubricant. It wears off pretty quickly if you use it to lubricate your bicycle.

Re: Starlite

#74

Post by nl » Wed, Sep 18, 2013, 12:02 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #73

nemo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, WD40 is a lubricant. I used to think that since it was a penetrating oil/water sealant it wasn't a lubricant, but that's not actually the case. They even have a "myth" that discusses the idea floating out there that WD40 isn't a lubricant. http://wd40.com/about-us/myths-legends-fun-facts/

I think it's just not very good lubricant. It wears off pretty quickly if you use it to lubricate your bicycle.

It's terrible to use it on bike chains.

It will provide some lubrication for a while, true. But it will also dissolve any of the proper lube that is there, so when the WD40 is chopped up by the chain you'll be left with nothing.

I like the Shimano PTFE dry lube[1] but there are plenty of other brands.

[1]http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/au/en/shimano-dry-lube/rp...

Re: Starlite

#75

Post by DanBC » Wed, Sep 18, 2013, 12:28 PM UTC

Elrac wrote: post #61

I call bullshit. Here's a list of the points in the article that jumped out at me as uninformative, pseudo-scientific or misleading: > a laser beam producing a temperature of 10,000 degrees Celsius. Scientifically, that's meaningless. It's meant to convey a powerful heat source to the reader, but as another reader pointed out, a strong focused light source on a bit of well-insulated black material might be able to ra…

> a strong focused light source on a bit of well-insulated black material might be able to raise it to several thousand degrees;

Here's some well focused sunlight. It gets to 3500 C. Apparently, "nothing is known that can withstand this".

> Certainly no non-crackpot scientist would subject his or anyone's hand to a blowtorching without considerably more convincing previous tests. But maybe that claim about the human hand was just rhetoric - it's hard to tell.

He appeared on a BBC Radio four programme many years ago (Start the Week with Melvyn Bragg) where they used a blow torch on the material and someone touched the back of it immediately after the torch was turned off.