3 ms·

Thanks! But, if that's the case, a higher value means a worse insulator, so why would he brag about that? (It's also a dimensionful quantity, but the reported

Thanks! But, if that's the case, a higher value means a worse insulator, so why would he brag about that? (It's also a dimensionful quantity, but the reported value has no units -- maybe it's relative to some specific value...)

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
I think it's more likely to be a measure of heat absorbed, rather than heat transferred across a boundary. (The Telegraph's wording is "an energy absorption rating"). Starlite is apparently ablative; if this means an endothermic phase change -- the organic polymers vaporizing, without combusting -- it could absorb an extremely large amount of heat. A space shuttle tile is non-ablative (I think?), and can absorb heat only by increasing temperature.