Reputation trap

I *know* you're an idiot. He's absolutely right.

About the same lifetime as a solar panel.

to be sure.

The nearest I have to any "evidence" is a case of a project I worked on in cooperation with another company. The project was for some military grade communications equipment (so nothing too serious, and not weapons

- but still classified as "military"). The guy had taken some equipment to the USA for testing. He was not allowed to take it back to Norway, because it was "military secrets". It did not matter that Norway is a close ally of the USA. It did not matter that the equipment was expensive, and owned by the Norwegian company. It did not matter that /he/ had designed it, and all the "secrets" involved were in his head. It did not matter that the loss of this equipment meant delays in producing systems that the American military were waiting for.

Given how idiotically rigid the American authorities were with something of little military relevance, I find it hard to imagine they would be so helpful and easy-going about something that could have enormous military consequences.

But perhaps I am wrong - maybe I have been assuming a level of rational thinking that is way above what the DoD (or NSA, or CIA, or whatever) possess.

I suspect, however, that the Starlite material was not nearly as impressive as the myths suggest, and therefore could be returned to the paranoid inventor with no further ado.

I don't expect anything more than what I have seen so far - plenty of wild optimism, and links that mostly refer directly or indirectly back to the same unconfirmed information.

I like /science/. Two of the vital pillars of science are repeatability, and peer review. These are completely missing in this case. The scientific, and rational, reaction here is to view the claims of this material with extreme scepticism. I certainly cannot say that the material would not survive 10,000 C temperatures - without independent, peer reviewed, repeatable and published testing, the claim cannot be ruled out. But on balance, based on known science and the current state of the art of material engineering, plus the small amount of information we currently have (and the level of reliability of that information), I would be looking for other explanations rather than a total revolution in material science. That is not /ignoring/ the information viewed - it is giving it due consideration.

I don't doubt that this material is a good thermal insulator, and that it remains stable at unusually high temperatures. I don't doubt that it could form the basis of a useful material. But I /do/ doubt that it can withstand nuclear flashes "equivalent to 10,000 C" - a temperature over twice as high as the highest known melting point of any material.

I am very familiar with that rule. Various electronic gear is considered to be "munitions" under some very old law which has been interpreted to include crypto and so hardware that can execute advanced levels of crypto.

I am not willing to ship my designs overseas just because of this rule. It would take an approval from the US government for me to be certain I am not running afoul of this law.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't know why that gear was considered to be regulated. You can always explore that option and maybe show them the gear is not that advanced. But the US government didn't *take* the gear. They just said you can't export it.

That's the problem. I haven't seen anything that wasn't the inventor being interviewed or a news report based on what he has said. So I can't tell for sure any of it is true. But regardless the videos with the egg seem interesting.

Heck, had the girders in the world trade center been coated with that, the buildings likely would not have collapsed.

I totally agree that what we have seen is far from rigorous scientific proof. I don't see anything that is obviously fraud though. The biggest issue is I don't see where the inventor ever received a penny from investors which is the primary purpose of a fraud.

So I would withhold doubt until something further develops.