Came across this great alternative science web site from (England?).
http://www.alternativescience.com/index.htm
And a fascinating article called:
>>Too hot to handle
In April 1993, the defence magazine Jane's International Defence Review
announced the discovery by a British amateur inventor, Maurice Ward, of a
thin plastic coating able to withstand temperatures of 2,700 degrees
Centigrade
The reason why it was a defence magazine who first published news of This
revolutionary invention is that the coating is so resistant to heat that it
can make tanks, ships and aircraft impervious to the effects of nuclear
weapons at quite close range -- and hence is of great interest to the
military mind.
A little later that year the whole nation had an opportunity to see for
themselves the effectiveness of Maurice Ward's new paint on BBC Television
when it was featured on "Tomorrow's World". Presenter Michael Rodd showed
viewers an ordinary chicken's egg that had been painted with the new coating.
The paint was so thin it was not visible. Rodd then dramatically donned
welder's visor and gauntlets, lit up an oxyacetylene torch, and played the
flame directly onto the egg for several minutes.
<<
link: http://www.alternativescience.com/flame-proof.htm
I had seen the BBC bit on this guy and his invention on one of the learning
channels on cable (TLC?). But the interesting part is how initially he was
rejected out of hand by the big chemical companies, until this BBC expose.
Read on:
>>
When he removed the flame, and cracked the egg on the table top, viewers were
able to see that the coating was so heat resistant that the egg was still raw
and had not even begun to cook.
This invention, a simple paint that can render anything impervious to very
high temperatures, has been the holy grail of chemical research for more than
fifty years. Teams of scientists in the world's greatest industrial and
defence laboratories have poured billions of pounds and hundreds of man-years
into the search for such a substance -- a quest which made Ward's discovery
even more extraordinary.
Ward's invention is remarkable enough, but the story of how he came to make
it, and the resistance he encountered in getting anyone to believe him, is
even more remarkable.
<<
>>After the "Tomorrow's World" demonstration, Ward stopped getting the
brush-off and starting getting offers instead.
One consequence of his contacts with chemical companies was that the head of
research of ICI's paint laboratory left the firm and went into partnership
with Ward to exploit the discovery commercially.
One other interesting consequence is that the large corporations who had
rejected his initial approaches in such a knee-jerk fashion, conducted
internal inquests to find out what had gone wrong, both with their own
research and with their dealings with the outside world.
On the face of it, it was perfectly understandable that Ward's claims should
be ignored since he was merely an amateur, with no scientific training and no
track record in research.
ICI's own paints laboratory held an internal audit and what they found puts
this claim in an entirely different light. For the audit showed that the most
scientifically qualified of its research chemists had contributed to the
least number of patents, and the fewer scientific qualifications the staff
possessed, the greater the number of patents they had contributed to. In the
most striking case of all, the person who had contributed to most ICI's
patents had no scientific qualifications at all.
It seems that Maurice Ward's greatest strength as a researcher was that he
had not been taught how to think.
<<
I wonder if this trend is repeated at other corporations? That the most
highly educated end up having their creativity stifled due to scientific
"dogma" - (my own interpretation of why this occurred) (I have actually
experienced this in one of my own patent efforts - when the concept occurred
to me for a serious improvement to the prior art - it seemed so simple - I
almost didn't pursue it, because I thought "how could so many learned men of
science have missed this obvious error of omission between two different
specialties?" - but I did pursue it - and the success of the patent and
subsequent manufacturing business came about in part, to my not being trained
that this was not possible!)
Sincerely,
DMBoss1021
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------