Who Drives Innovation?

Ed:

I wanted to get this on the record, since I've more or less dropped out of active discussion in this thread (my brain got tired. I guess I don't use it enough to really make it grow robust. ), but, though I disagree with you in your feelings about Mr. Obama (I despise everything he has stood for, but that's just me.), I would not "OT" you for that, and have not. In fact, I don't think I've ever OT'ed anyone, for any reason, except myself, when I was deliberately veering OT.

So, though we don't agree, I respect your right to your opinions. I also admire the detail you put into your answers. You obviously have more brain-power (maybe also more time) than I do. And you don't, no matter how frustrated you may have become with me, stoop to "ugly". I appreciate that, and hope my reference to "drinking the koolaid" was not offensive. If it was, I offer my apology. My son uses that comment jokingly with his friends, and, to me, it seems to be a light-hearted way to suggest someone is following blindly. I don't think your analysis indicates following blindly, even if I disagree with where you sometimes go.

Thanks again for you patience, and a good fiscal analysis.

Good to see a bit of levelheadedness. Something must have driven you to invent such a diplomatic post. I think we all appreciate it, at least I do.

Have one on me , Ky.

Thank you, Ky. Thinking about the heat I probably poured on the subject last night drove me. It was unneeded, if not unfair. Glad to get the air cleared a little.

Good as gold Mate.

A man has to do what a man has to do. No shame in sticking up for oneself. I have a better understanding of what your principles are now. Hang in there as many others should do. Nothing is more important than self reliance but support is sometimes needed and hopefully taken as such and not as "Big Nanny will do it for me" and then stand still.

Ky.

With Egypt in the positive news these days, it is interesting to consider what they did. They thought education was the answer so they have allowed all young people to attend and graduate from college. But they did nothing else to give them jobs or help the economy by allowing small companies to easily start-up. So with a relatively low standard within their college system, they created the total unrest themselves. I believe education is one answer and the other is to get government regulations and requirements out of the way. In some countries it takes years to get approval to start a company with all the paperwork. Not that bad in the USA but it still has many hurdles and now we are adding significantly to the cost and support system for each employee we might hire. We need to allow the germ of innovative ideas to be developed somehow. No easy answers here with our current situation.

Innovation is GREAT. Unfortunately the American system doesn't keep that innovation here to create lasting jobs. It was noted in an earlier post a partial list of some of the layers of costs involved in producing a product here, taxes, LAWYERS, fees, environmental impact reports, etc. When its easier and cheaper to move jobs and manufacturing someplace else we will continue to invent only to have that product/idea providing jobs elsewhere. We need a system that rewards those that create and stay here. We'll never sue or tax our way to prosperity.

My company spent fully 45% of our gross revenue in the last two years in R&D in alternative energy. As a 30 year old established company with a proven track record, we could find NO ONE to support our efforts and bootstrapped four large concurrent development projects. The government supported us by helping the banks who then changed their rules and pulled our lines of credit and, of course, increased our L&I, and UI taxes. (By the way, in order to find a new bank, we had to BE profitable, which meant the we took the expenses personally, effectively not recognizing real costs, whereby a false profit (hmmm) was created. As an S-Corp, this means we had to spend large sums to keep the business afloat, spent large sums to develop new technology, but couldn't take the deductions in order to appease the banks. The net effect was that we (many? most? small business) effectively paid more taxes while being strangled by the recession and listening to our government tell us that were behind us. We'd like to hire because we're all very tired of working three jobs each.

The punchline? China has decreed that it will be an innovation culture. In fact, they have decreed they will be THE innovation culture by 2020. In 2012 they are expected to file more patents than any country on earth, (they were #3 in 2011). They are beginning to embrace IP (they call it license) and they are buying technology at an alarming rate. Guess who's government wants to buy our developments?

The US is still #1 in manufacturing in the world even though you don't hear it in the news. Our government MUST support innovation and must support the sciences and engineering in schools in order for us to remain relevant globally. Our problem is not that we're losing manufacturing, its that we've become England circa 1900 and don't know it yet.

There should be an open and frank discussion of the merits of suggested innovations. ... like wikis and blogs, ...... ... examination with a clear public record before funding would avoid fiascos like "sequestration" wilmot quoted.

Our society seems to have open and frank discussions of many important issues without reaching consensus. We diddle and dawdle onward continually respecting minority viewpoints to the point where nothing gets done. Were we to emphasize this approach we would certainly save money in the short run.

Research is usually a gamble. Even engineering development is so; although legitimately it ought to have a higher certainty of success. Were we to simply hoard our resource waiting for sure things we would neither gain the successes nor the important knowledge of what turn out to be failures. We would forever have naysayers who rhetorically cryout "why don't we try that?"

We pretty well know now that sequestration won't work. This is useful knowledge. I believe it was a very worthwhile research effort in spite of the expenditure.

Considerable continuing research is increasing the probability that we face global warming and also the lesser probability that it is human caused. We are also learning the difficulty of stopping this phenomena. This is good. Entities like the King County government of Washington State are taking tangible steps toward mitigation of future local global warming effects. They would not be doing this if research findings over the past 30 years had not confirmed the probabilities they face. It is very difficult for large political entities to take preemptive action in the face of questionable data.

Ed Weldon

Government cannot drive innovation directly because innovation occurs in the technical details, and Government is not trained or experienced in technical details. It is not Government's role.

However, Government can support and nurture innovation by funding research and development. New ideas and development require money, and if our business community is unwilling or unable to fund it then Government can step up to the plate. However, as with any outside funding, you must accept the strings attached.

The best ways to support individual creativity and initiative is to provide work environments that support and reward those endeavors. That is a private business practice that Government can only cheer from the sidelines, not step in and enforce. Although Government with its best intentions might like to coerce business practices, that is not Government's role in our free capitalist society.

Productive collaborations are possible between Government, industry and academia. However each party must understand each other's capabilities and limitations, and work within them. We have the most trouble when any party tries to extend itself outside of its competencies and meddles with other parties.

President Obama is correct to act within his capacity as Leader to urge and cheer for innovation, and to try to reverse our economic malaise by offering Government support. How much Government can truly do is debatable, but our society is structured so we should be carrying that load ourselves. Too many of us refuse to speculate our efforts and accept potential risk. If we look to the Government to do that for us all we do is cost ourselves time and money because now an expensive middleman (Government) is part of the process. Government's money is our own money; if we want to spend it more efficiently then we need to fund innovations out of our own pockets. But Government can spread risk out thinly, so it can be an appropriate resource. Use it wisely.

Gary,

I agree with you that Obama acts correctly about helping people to be better educated and participate in innovations. However, inventions and innovations come from people's minds when something stimulate the brains and they see opportunities.

Henry Ford was innovative and Edison did the samething. They were smart and saw empty areas and they filled them by convincing ways. Also, the time was right and they successfully took advantage of it.

During WWII it was necessary to do things and everyone collaborated. After the war we get new brains and we used to do marvelous things for decades.

During the last decade we do electronic and communicating things as innovation but someone else do for us. All those electronic gadgets doesn't create a better life for us, we just buy them. Many another industries stay stagnant or sleeping. We lost many manufacturing advantages, and agricultural products, and it's hurt.

It's time to redo and Obama call for it. We will see who will follow his words, Gil.

Who is a good question. One thing is for certain, if we do nothing, we will head the world into a global war for resources. Ian Morris in his book, "Why The West Rules..For Now," explains the situation through a review of man's history and geography.

The west is defined as most of the world less Africa and Asia with the exception of Russia. According to Morris, during most of mans history we as people needed less than 2000 kcal/cap/day (nonfood). By the mid 1800s the consumption was close to 90,000 kcal/per/day in the west. Today the same consumption is 228,000 kcal/person/day and the east is quickly closing in on the same level of consumption. There have been periods of history where the east was ahead of the west in social development. If you were to graph the development in the east vs west scenario, these graphs would be very close with the west ahead for most of the recent time (since the industrial revolution in Europe).

The Chinese are currently aware of the energy consumption revealed by Ian Morris and are forming alliances, both political and industrial, to garner a share of the resources. We cannot keep consuming ever higher and higher levels of energy consumption and at the same time see the world population increase as has happened. The west needs to also form alliances but it may be with countries we currently are not actively involved. Russia, Africa, and South America, are certainly large blocks with a significant resource base.

The innovation must eventually come from renewable energy. Yes, I know the current economical market for such technology is not correct. But, as we place more pressure on the raw natural resources, these renewable forms of energy will be extremely important. Renewable Energy will be important to the world as a safety valve and perhaps to stave off an possible extinction. Global warming is a fact; whether, it is man made or not is not the issue. With global warming comes ever higher pressures for fertilizers, irrigation, and even land space. Extinctions are currently happening at a rate close to what happened 65 million years ago. In geological terms this is "sudden."

We need schools to develop the technology knowledge that will be required to cope. Renewable energy deserves much greater attention today so that we can stay ahead of the curve socially. Conservation technology that will lower our footprint so we can develop energy patterns that can cope, needs to be developed.

So IMO renewable energy innovation is something that can be developed with the schools, individuals, and business community. Politicians need to direct the schools and steer them to develop such technology. Politicians should also work hard to form pacts with resource rich countries and in such a way that both countries will benefit. One thing is certain, we must pay attention to history and geography and soon recognize the world to which we are headed. It is time to think longer term than just the next election. The world can be forced to concert its efforts through good innovation. The alternative is not very good for mankind.

China's effort to stimulate innovation is more likely to fail than in the US. Both countries are behaving as if the government can legislate innovation. Both are so large and complex as to be as intelligently controllable as a herd of cats. China's problem is the sheer size of its government. Accountability is widely inconsistent, and generally absent.

Some isolated pockets within China have every possibility of significant technical advance as anywhere in the world, however the risk of the larger government compromising, destroying or significantly diluting those successes is higher there than here.

Those who think that this, or any government should have any role in stimulating innovation have not noticed how we arrived where we are today.

Sometimes we get to where we are by luck. If the Pacific Ocean was smaller than the Atlantic Ocean, I suspect North America would have a dominant Chinese Flavor and as would the world. Yes individuals are the backbone of innovation and likely always will be the backbone. However, if governments fail to recognize what is going to drive future needs, it can cause the complete failure of society. All I would suggest is the governments put in place the correct conditions to advantage such innovation. That help could be with grants or simply removing red tape.

At the same time individuals including companies must recognize what the world will need in the future, say the year 2100. To do that it is necessary to speculate on what the world societies will look like. Going back to the dark ages is not a real alternative and partly the revolutions in the mid-east reflect the desire of the people. I have mentioned renewable energy as a future demand but to that you could add food technology, and many of the medical demands of an aging world. Nanotechnology and cyborg implants seem likely to be developed. Hell even the real need for people may disappear, witness Watson on Jeopardy. This type of technology will likely proceed faster than can be imagined when the demand crescendos.

"Get the Frikken Politics and the Al Gores out of it, and put some real practical Engineers on the job,"

Yup.....and while you're at it get rid of the scientists and their inconvenient truths and avoid ocean front property.

Ed Weldon (with his usual excess of entropy, another inconvenient truth.....)

C-mac. I couldn't agree more. There is always an abundance of energy source on this planet and likely always will be. Even the so called "fossil fuels" scarcity is really a myth. But to believe that you have to subscribe to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of Hydrocarbons on the earth. Thomas Gold spelled it out in his book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere" and in it he suggests there may be much more hydrocarbon locked in the Earth's mantel than we really thought. The problem will be reaching or obtaining this resource. And even that can probably could be solved soon.

The alternatives of energy are already here as you stated. All we have to do is get busy and develop and refine the alternatives. Give the engineers the chance to develop these energy alternatives and close down agencies of the hype caused by Al Gore and the IPPC. We should not expect most of these things to be developed by innovating in a basement or a garage; although, the idea can be thought out anywhere. Sooner or later the idea must be implemented or put in pilot demonstration and that likely will not be cheap. In the interim I suggest we use better conservation methods. Looking at the recent price of oil may instill new incentives. GA.

There are really only two forces that drive innovation. Money (and i.e., power) and a compulsion for investigating the laws of the physical universe. Those with money try to go out and get the second group to work for them.

Case in point: Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla.

An individual or "private" money source will almost always care more about efficient use of the capital used to fund the innovation. Although, plenty of "private" foundations allow money to be used improperly without enough oversight. I've worked in research at 2 different universities. I've seen it firsthand.

Does this mean I think innovation can't be had via federal funding? Not in the least. Federal funding is available to private enterprise as well as universities.

Regarding the "nanny" state. Someone long ago in history said, "The poor you will always have." And he also advocated to "Give away all of your wealth and come follow me." If the idea of giving to people one judges as "undeserving" bothers you, then one is still far away from understanding the mind that made those statements.

Pragmatic as ever. GA.

well said.

'me, and people like me'

Yep, it is a lonely place. If it were not for some friends here in CR4 I would even be more lonely. I mean, who can you discuss these matters with? Only with people or organizations, at some late stage and then only on a need to know basis. Slowly, slowly, catch the monkey.

Some still believe it is prudent to consult with a patent attorney. I'm over it and have found other ways to protect the product, at least as long as it takes to get a return on investment. Even a patent could not guaranty more, if at all.

If they can buy it they can fake it. One has only 2 years max to take the cream and maybe establish a brand name. After that one ends up employing more lawyers than you have staff and claims and counter claims are chewing away at resources. Life is too precious, way too precious.

Not wanting to be embedded with the government is a decision that has no advantages for the single identity inventor. Only companies who can write off the time it takes to follow the red tape can afford to go for government support anyway. Like head hunters there are Grant Hunters. They will not even talk to a 'backyarder' and have no space in their applications for them at all.

The reality is just as you say: 'me, and people like me' are the salt in the soup. With out individuals like us we would have a standstill, caused by the parties you have mentioned. I'll just learn more every day and keep at the coal face never mind what the circumstances are.

No whinging or whining here, just facing blunt reality and the will to succeed. Success is just around the next corner.

Are we there yet?

Ky

Success is not only measured by the bank account...

So how then am I going to get to visit you and dip for some Marlin? There is one with my name written on it. Don't you dare and catch it before I get there.

When there is no conviction, enthusiasm everything turns gray and people don't like gray, most of them at least. You are right, I love how things are going and how I can now recognize that others before me have trodden the same path.

After planting there is a long wait until blossom and then the fruit and then the bringing to market. If you don't prepare the field and treat it like your best friend there is little chance to go all the way.

You know, there are people (other inventors) who think that some day someone will turn up and say: "Let me do this for you", nice and friendly, with a slap on the shoulder. "I'll do it for you, don't worry about a thing". Just not gonna happen, ever.

It will be a long and rude awakening and mostly not only for the inventor but for his/her family and friends as well. It can get very emotional when the wishful thinking is replaced by reality or sometimes realities.

Again, driving innovation needs an engine and if the builder of that engine stays close enough to this engine, success is possible. A day at a time.

Talk soon, Ky.

Very succinct and to the point.

You've got my vote, also.

Good to see this topic back on track Ed. It is late here but I read it twice. There is something surgical about what you say but ...... I liked it, Ky.

Well said Chris. It's a pity some think it's a "dislike" (you/your opinion) or a "brown nose" button, [and are prone to tantrums]

However, in my opinion; JFK stands head and shoulders above world leaders as an "identifier of a clear 'need' to focus a Nation"*, in fact the World.

_{(*both ways of reading that apply)}

There is so much work to do Chris. If it would be easy everybody would be doing it. You have been such a integral part of the solution and harvesting is just down the line. Just you wait and see.

Thank you, Ky.

GA. I also thought I would "sprinkle" a couple of GAs to Ky and Chris for recognizing your input. I am sure I will be ambushed again in this thread. You have a good heart and demonstrate good logic, a good combination. Thanks Ed for the valuable input.

Excellent assessment, Ed.

In regards to Governments and Innovation, why don't we do what successful businesses do: Have the Goals set first ( What is needed in the Field of endevour, Products to fill those needs, Budgets, proposed surpluses for rainy days set aside, R and D on certain National Priorities etc. etc. , then let the voters decide what THEY want, and HIRE people to run those areas of need. If they don't perform, fire them. No waiting for another 4 years. Vote on policy, then hire the very best people to insure those policies are enacted efficiently, rather than electing Politicians that they do whatever the hell they and their Lobbyists want? Just a thought..

RCE just touched on this "root cause".

Just picking out one of your sentences as 'indicative'.

"It isn't smart to put that kind of power in the hands of a few bureaucrats who don't have your and my best interests at heart."

RCE observes; (57)

"Surprisingly, you can achieve consensus on an issue sometimes in public meetings, but when they bring the idea back to the design engineers, the Principals (typically marketing) didn't realize that the proposed idea ............................................ is just way more expensive than anyone really thought it would be....."

[I have removed RCE's ......context ............ for you to fill in with your own, whatever]

This, to me is 'the traditional' way of doing things, and it makes it very hard to get information 'common', so anything right.

It is the way of 'government' and that 'handful of bureaucrats'

What should happen is the technical people accompany 'marketing' and participate in 'solving'

Or as opposed to nay-saying, or 'wedded to a position' - think team 'work-around'.

Most 'problems' quickly 'self solve' if this 'change in approach' can be established.

I see the beginning's of this already in this thread.

Seems to me what could happen next, is some 'clear common goals', by American's, for American's, start to be identified.

Isn't it conceivable that returning all possible power to the States might reduce some of the problems our nation now faces? That would be a fitting tribute to the founders, and those who sacrificed to keep us free.

Isn't it also likely that states the size of the populations typical when the Constitution was drafted might be more accountable and responsive to we, the people?

I am not a revolutionary, however I am slowly coming to the realization that indeed it may be against the laws of nature that this great nation could continue as it is. It also seems that her prior glory, including her ability to innovate, create, and defend freedom, might again live in many smaller forms, all with our Constitution, and a loose association for defense - as was the original vision.

This is written into the Constitution, under the heading of "enumerated powers". The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the States would govern themselves, under the belief that the smaller, yet large enough to stand alone, organization of a State's People would know better what their needs were (dictated by geography, weather, lifestyle, borders, and a whole host of other things I'm not smart enough to think of now), and that the Federal Government could not possibly know those things as well, for all.

We've sure seen the Federal Government prove that. And the states that do well, find more "like minded" people moving in, while those that do poorly, find less.

Of course, "do well" and "do poorly" in this instance are subjective, but the point stands no matter how you slice it. A smaller area, managed by the people in it, will provide a life much closer to what those people wish, than a huge, centralized management area defined by a huge centralized government could ever do.

We agree. Wouldn't it be nice if the government followed the Constitution?

Yep. But fat chance of that, regardless of your party affiliation. Unless We The People are willing to force the issue.

2nd Amendment guarantees the first amendment. That's why so many of us fight so hard to protect them both. And we haven't lost yet.

But it is the 10th Ammendment (and the 9th) that are ignored today. These last two of the Bill of Rights were required to get all thirteen colonies to accept the Constitution...

Anyone who reads the Constitution must come to the conclusion that far more than the 9th Ammendment is being ignored. (the 10th states what is already in the Constitution. By the way, the 10th has only been ruled against in cases where the Federal gov't was trying to require the States to enforce Federal Law. This outcome seems consistent with the original intent.)

The current President wrote as a Constitutional scholar that it is wrong for the Constitution to limit the powers of the Federal Government. If you listen closely to his speeches on the subject, he means it! The more this view is emplaced, the more disastrous to innovation. Franz Kafka warned us, among many others.

If and when we ever get back to following the constitution, I would like to see a repeal of the 17th amendment. We would then go back to having each state elect their two senators so states would have some representation at the Federal Government level.....another one of the checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers.

GA

Your #1 is THE #1

Nicely said.

Sceptic -- You and I often disagree on things and while I don't agree with everything you suggest in reply #140 that doesn't keep me from appraising your answer as not just good; but excellent. Unfortunately I can vote only one point toward a GA.

Ed Weldon

Same here but you know that anyway, Ky.

hoooah!

GA, Wilmot. Hearty congratulations on your achievement.

News from the "trenches", even though it comes with an honestly developed dose of cynicism, is valuable to all of us. I've seen enough of the technological world to appreciate where you are coming from.

"I got no encouragement or interest at CR4 when I naively attempted to get the idea discussed. Quite the opposite, in fact." Wilmot, reply #144

Please cut us a little slack. Most of us in CR-4 are rank amateurs in technical areas outside our own work experience. And sadly some of us have over conditioned ourselves to respond derisively to apparent over unity schemes and ideas that appear to our narrow minds like the stuff of science fiction. Heck, most of us still haven't figured out why a centrifugal pump works the way it does.

About venture capitalists? They are consumers of innovation rather than drivers. I've been close enough to that world to have seen it from a close second hand. A bunch of wolves with checkbooks. They only get interested in a start-up when all the useful innovation has been put into it. If an entrepreneur has survived one "marriage" with those people he usually has little use for them the next time around. Basically I see them as the money source of last resort when your company is ready to buy a large staff of engineers, inventory, hard tooling and a professional advertising campaign.

Now I'm going to go read your patent, probably several times to try to understand it, so I can intelligently watch for new developments.

Again, congratulations on your achievement. Please let us know when you are ready to go public with reports on the development of hardware.

Ed Weldon

can you provide a link to your previous discussion on cr4? that would be interesting.

Chris

That would be good. I can't remember seeing anything about it. Very clever stuff. All that research, amazing .

Good luck, Ky.

Well said.

I can get a rough idea of how your separator works from your description. Sounds quite neat!

Commercialization is probably the most difficult and expensive part, even if you seek out joint ventures, licensing etc.

There seems a significant need for your gadget, but it can be very difficult to overcome the "where else has it been used?" objection that most managers will throw up.

I will be interested in how you do.

Good luck.