Innovation: Who Else Is Doing It?

Ain't that the truth. 'Yes men' don't innovate, but they do get promoted.
If you think ouside the box it unsettles the people who are inside the box, although they don't mind you as their 'ideas monkey'...fly my beauties fly <exit left cackling wildly>
Del

Ideas monkey!

You rule!

Milo " as the head cat you probably ordered them to grab the dog"

If you think ouside the box it unsettles the people who are inside the box,

you remove them from their little comfort zone.

although they don't mind you as their 'ideas monkey'

They have a scape goat if the idea goes south

Also, once an innovator gets labelled as innovator, in my personal experience theiy're permanently barred from being thought of as serious 'managerial' talent.

The word innovation is one of those words that are misused and abused. Just because it appears great and a nice catch word.

p911

The Harvard Business Review article was decent. However, the OP's complaint-- "Many times people write stinking, dirty, caustic uncalled for comments on CR4 for crazy ideas."--turns this into an irrelevant rant.

I doubt that this anonymous guest has ever contributed any innovations, other than by brain-picking from others. But he/she has perhaps had some over-unity schemes/scams shot down by "stinking, dirty, caustic uncalled for comments..." [sic]

'...The Harvard Business Review article was decent. However, the OP's complaint-......turns this into an irrelevant rant....'

'...I doubt that this anonymous guest has ever contributed any innovations... But he/she has perhaps had some over-unity schemes/scams....'

Hmmm. So the article was decent, but posting it here was made irrelevant because the OP tied it into their opinion that some suggestions on CR4 are met with excessive criticism?

....and because the OP is not logged in or has not registered, the assumption (receiving two 'GA's) is made that the OP has never contributed innovation but probably pushes scams?

Are all innovations proposed on CR4 met with only comments exhibiting thoughtful open-minded consideration?

Are all users not logged in or not registered, incapable of contributing significantly to CR4?

.....OH! WAIT! I GET IT!

You probably found the subject so poignant, that you decided 'what better way to get this vital message across, than to contribute a comment exemplifying the very biases against which the article suggested vigilance !'

Good show, you crafty badger! You hit the nail square on the head with those closed-minded comments painting all Guests and all Comments with such a broad brush.

Thank you for your insightful constructive contribution!

BBB

I don't think that Tornado meant to put the poster down for linking to the article. I gather that he isn't sure how the two things are linked. This could have been a thread simply about innovation and why it isn't more widely accepted in general.

I do think there are similarities between CR4 and the workplace. There are a lot of different personalities and they tend to clash. In the workplace, however, you don't see so much rude and inconsiderate behavior directed at the individual. People tend to take more liberties on an internet forum because it is precisely that. The ability to hide behind a PC exists. The face-to-face connection is lost.

You 'don't think that Tornado meant to put the poster down'???

Really?

How might one interpret, as something short of a 'put-down', the following excerpt:

'....I doubt that this anonymous guest has ever contributed any innovations, other than by brain-picking from others. But he/she has perhaps had some over-unity schemes/scams....'

???

As these are not based on any specific work attributed to the Op, but rather assumptions conjured and announced, this is certainly not constructive criticism. I hope any friend of mine would not mistake this as general uplifting encouragement. Baseless negative personal accusations.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Was just seen munching hydrilla in a pond with water rolling off its back....

I have to say Tornado's comment certainly comes across as an attempt to 'put the poster down'.

But, I'm no ornithologist, perhaps it IS a spur winged goose, and not a duck, after all....

BBB

Doubt is not conclusive, and neither is perhaps.

speculation yes, but thats not conclusive either.

Here is the sentence BBB questions:

"I don't think that Tornado meant to put the poster down for linking to the article."

Read the WHOLE sentence, especially the last five words. I did NOT put the OP down for citing the article, which I said was decent, but I DID mean to put him/her down for the rant about about nasty, dirty, stinking language. He/she gave neither specifics nor context.

I don't know how long you have been on CR4, or how naive you may be about the quality of some of the ideas that come forth. There are quite a few posters who put up ideas with no evidence or calculations, sometimes in violation of well known physics principles, and often in poor grammar. When their ideas are challenged, they don't produce suitable calculations, explanations, tests, etc. Instead they accuse knowledgeable persons of narrow-mindedness--often in long-winded and excuse-laden rants.

You should not be sympathizing with such persons.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

At my first job in engineering the Eng. manager would often say "Risk is not a four-letter word." He expected his engineers to take risk, so long as they documented what they were doing and there was some level of review. The same manager would remind his engineers that the turtle never gets anywhere until he sticks his neck out. We were very successful.

One thing I can't stand more that parroting, is a saleman doing it.

why don't you just sum up the site after the link?

Are any ideas bad, the wrong answer is no, it has to be accessed

But an innovating idea may only appear to be bad.

p911

Examples:

"A new engine design idea that really improves fuel efficiency another 10%-15% is innovative. Even though it works, it may not be adopted if the new design requires the industry to radically retool its entire infrastructure.

A new engine design idea that claims 105% efficiency is the other thing and it deserves all the mean criticism it receives."

This is real truth- why in-house innovation does not succeed. Why don't you all go to original HBR link I have suggested and make your comments there- let the top CEOs passing out from there (including Mr OBAMA) get the message !!!!

For a very long time, our military and the militaries of the rest of the world have been guilty of rejecting innovation. Reliability was usually the reason for keeping old technology. Up until a few years ago (20), navy ships were constructed using technology that dated back 100 years. Whenever someone wanted to change the way it had been done years ago, they were always told "don't reinvent the wheel". Solid state electronics was around for many years before the military tried it as replacements for vacuum tube technology. We finally took the leap and haven't looked back since. The military is now one of the most innovative bodies around. They have embrassed computers so that we see computers in places that we would never have thought possible a few years ago. The army, navy, marine corps and the air force all depend on today's innovations.

Ice breaking technology was the same way for the coast guard. Back in the 70's the Norwegians where 50 years ahead of us in technology.

My experience with the coast guard, was that they cared more about flashy items then the condition of the cutters, which was severely outdated. On refitting, you could literally punch holes through the bulkhead due to there was nothing left.

I think the military use innovations, its just one usually hears about the failures, I'd give some examples, but tight with time right now.

p911

The culture at the company I work for is the complete opposite of this. Our market niche is attempting to make things that the larger companies won't try so innovation is positively encouraged.

We have several projects underway at the moment where, frankly, we don't know if the final product will work or be any better than existing products but we are willing to try & have customers willing to finance it. Some of this is by way of research grants but some is financed by customers willing to take the risk to find something that gives them a competitive edge.

Many of our customers are themselves government funded research organisations in the UK & elsewhere so they also understand the uncertainty in this sort of work.

Congratulations to you and your Company!

Milo

The huge wait for the patent office and all of the legal expense tied to innovation is a major reason that people are holding back with innovation.

If it were much easier... I would have more patents, but it takes so much time and money to move forward that it's nearly impossible for individuals, much less companies who are paying workers to innovate.

There is also the problem that people like myself who have good ideas don't always work for the companies they have ideas for.

..in simplified terms.

Securing a patent is not that expensive and is quite simple. If you do it youself. What is expensive is protecting it.

It's the years of waiting for a patent it that is bothersome and expensive.

I would be working 20 at a time instead of one.

..and saying that the process is inexpensive and simple is a very general statement.

it can be.. In terms of the paperwork.. it is..

It's the years of back and forth with paperwork, drawings, citations etc.. While it may be simple and easy at the surface.. It will drain you.

...did i mention the paperwork.. and the waiting?

and can anybody tell me what's in this guys mouth?

I agree, in securing the patent is the difficult part, a number of posts here on cr4 address that issue

I'm not sure whats in his mouth, is it a blah or what. But from the number of posts about it.....its anything you want it to be.

Here's a link to a big thread on another site about the application of hydraulics for wind etc.

It's a lot of chatter. A lot of people with a lot of good and bad ideas..

..Some of the bad ideas.. They seem to be sound and intelligent. But after a lot of reading.. learning.. forums like this and that.. You educate yourself.. sometimes by way of others ignorance being pointed out.. or not.?? What?

It's the way the people ridicule others for being a bit of a doof that's so unnerving.

...We're all still learning here!?.. And yes.. some of us are still learning manners.

I speak from experience..

...I throw a few ill mannered and crackpot ideas out there.. just to expand my understanding if you know what I mean? Ofttimes I am purely ignorant!

Am I the only one who finds posting large cut&paste swaths of previously linked text redundant?

no your not alone #7

I gave up on patenting over 20 years ago. I found the whole process to be crap.

I put the pulser pump free of any restrictions in a magazine and about 12 years ago I put it on the web.

Reaction was for the most part HOSTILE. "Nobody is testing it because it is not efficient enough", etc. But the people who wanted to test it were scientists and engineers and they typically get funded by committees who do NOT do alternative energy or appropriate tech funding. It is not "sexy" enough so funding was never forthcoming for any of them.

Anyway, some people at appropedia did take an interest and it was used in a few sustainablility class projects this year in universities. In the US and in Canada. (It worked (Of course!) and more research is needed) Of course.

I have 2 solar energy projects at appropedia too. Solar design t-square that you use to design better solar reflectors and the clam shaped solar cookers that it designed. (For unattended solar cooking)

(Which should be quite a bit more powerful than the "Cookits" that they currently use in Haiti)

So far nobody cares enough to repeat me cheap little experiment.

The second one is the tracking solar accumulator. I finally figured out how to make a parabolic dish work on equatorial mount. Basically you just cut it in half and "twin" the dishes. The big headaches with parabolic dishes are access to the target and that the center of gravity on equatorial mount moves off the axis of rotation as the seasons change. With my approach, the target stays in one place all year, you can make the dish huge and still have safe access to the target and the seasonal movement of twin dishes cancels out the center of gravity change because the dishes move in opposite directions.

That has been on appropedia a week or 2 and the solar cooking wiki for about 2 months. 1 guy David Williams, gave a comment. (He says it will work). He even calculated the best dish depth for it and had it verified by a mathematician.

So it appears that even in an innovative community, people are too chicken to comment on something new. The twin dish idea is about 4 months old

http://www.appropedia.org/Dual_Parabolic_Dishes_on_Equatorial_mount shows a model of the idea. (I have not built one with twin dishes yet). I think it will work well especially in the tropics.

(Because equatorial mount is closer to horizontal there than up here in Canada).

I think that if an engineering company wants to show their green credentials, or a plastic pipe company wants to sell more pipes (pulser pump needs pipes) , it might be a good idea to "donate" to appropedia, stipulate which research you want done and later take the credit for getting the research done. One of the research thingys on the pulser pump only cost 60 or 80 dollars in material! (At Queens University in Ontario). And the students had to do a project anyway so thats how to do cheap research.

Even a small company could afford to have the 3 projects (That I gave away to the community) independently tested and they could easily be in use round the world before 2010 is over.

As the original poster said. People are afraid to stick their neck out. Seriously, if you left school at 18, you should have no problem with the concepts that i put out there.

So why are highly educated people from the engineering and science and math world afraid to say anything?

So why are highly educated people from the engineering and science and math world afraid to say anything?

Ignorance is bliss and blessing too sometimes. Higher the one is qualified- lesser their risk taking ability. May be this is what happens with CEO's. I think Steve Jobs, founder of Apple computer is a perfect example- who is giving run for money for Microsoft !! I had read his convocation address to a University and he said he himself is only 4th Std or so. In India - the Gujarati, Marwari community to some extent believe in this. You should be educated enough to do some maths and read / write. FULL STOP. Beyond that people do get scared to stick neck out!!!

gaiatechnician,

I think you are not alone in your beliefs about patenting. there are a lot of people here that I have read who feel your pain.

As to appropedia... I'd never heard of it. perhaps you could have provided a link.. but at any rate, I found it on google. (appropedia) and will look at it.

I don't see your name on this thread.. so perhaps you missed it. Also, for some light reading there is this thread on Shipping Container Housing, which was largely for Haiti, and did discuss all aspects of relief there.

you might also be interested in this thread about solar collector spacing.

cheers,

chris

I think that if an engineering company wants to show their green credentials, or a plastic pipe company wants to sell more pipes (pulser pump needs pipes) , it might be a good idea to "donate"

This is how some of our projects work. Either ourselves or perhaps a research organisation gets funding for a project (which never covers the whole cost), then suppliers are invited to become partners in the project. They do this in the hope of getting the spin-off work. It seems to generally work OK.

There are a lot of people working on many similar ideas and development efforts have been in progress for a long time.

One of many (IMHO pretty good) examples...

http://davidmdelaney.com/scheffler-precis/scheffler-precis.html

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Scheffler_Community_Kitchen

Scientists and Engineers have seen and heard so many ideas come and go that the "noise" is deafening. Many have put up quick mental "spam" filters to weed out the thousands of "been there, done that, so what's new" concepts that pop up every day. Before you dismiss this process, you should understand that these filters are usually based on years(or decades) of theoretical and practical experience (expertise) in a particular field.

Try not to be discouraged by the lack of instantaneous approval and success for your projects. There are frequently good valid reasons for negative feedback. The trick is to not take it personally. Again, seek to learn and understand what may be wrong with the idea, revise it, and try again.

Innovation Developing and perfecting new ideas takes skill, hard work, dedication, luck, time (timing), and money. Expect frequent failures and to get "beat-up" throughout the entire process. Get-rich-quick schemes rarely succeed and few of those are ever more than flash fads.

I put 99% of my ideas out here on cr4.. I save only a couple for myself for potential development. We all need invention investment.

OOne of those excellent advice on CR4.

Try not to be discouraged by the lack of instantaneous approval and success for your projects. There are frequently good valid reasons for negative feedback. The trick is to not take it personally. Again, seek to learn and understand what may be wrong with the idea, revise it, and try again.

Innovation Developing and perfecting new ideas takes skill, hard work, dedication, luck, time (timing), and money. Expect frequent failures and to get "beat-up" throughout the entire process. Get-rich-quick schemes rarely succeed and few of those are ever more than flash fads.

__________________
If your ideas hold up under fire, you are probably on the right track!

By the way what is CR4? What doe sit stand for? Recently some car manufacturer introduced a new diesel car saying it is CR4!!!

"March on. Do not tarry. To go forward is to move toward perfection. March on, and fear not the thorns, or the sharp stones on life's path." -- Kahlil Gibran

CR4 stands for Conference Room 4. Welcome! We don't manufacture cars here but we do discuss a lot of technology and engineering related topics. You can learn more on the FAQ and related pages. Please register to the site for more features!

I have a problem with people pointing out proven technology (that took 5 years of exile in a 3rd world country to develop) as a response to a new idea. There is one person working on a similar idea. (David Williams). Thats it. Everyone else is hypnotized by photodiodes.

Why do people do that? And the excuse about noise! Well at least it is honest.

You cannot hear because you refuse to listen. At first glance, it just looks too complicated so I guess the brain panics? The panic is the noise. The new idea cannot be heard because of the panic.

But all you guys went to college. Detail should make things clearer?

The refusal to engage your brain because "its all been done before" is such a brutal art.

People will play with a rubix cube or chess pieces because it is a game (and it has been done before) but they will not play with the 2 dish idea because? Why? It has been done before? By who?

Scheffler had to go to Kenya to develop his solar kitchen. Why? (Because the labour costs of building and designing them in Germany or Austria made them uneconomical). There are almost no Scheffler dishes in first world countries because of that. Lots in Africa, lots in India, and south and central america. And almost every one built locally. Hardly any in North America. Cos they are too expensive.

Now here is a mental challenge for everybody. Do you think a rigid half parabolic dish will produce a tighter focus (and therefore a hotter focus) than Scheffler's flat mirrors on a bendable frame?

And which is easier to make, the rigid dish or the bendable focusing dish? I think these things matter when you manufacture something, don't they?

By the way I have emailed with Scheffler and Delaney. Delaney was happy to get my email because nobody ever questioned his solar ideas or asked for more detail before!

Delaney is much quoted because his material is well explained and well organized. But nobody has tested some of his ideas at all. Thats quite shocking to me. Millions of dollars go to Haiti and Dafur and other places. These people often continue to exist because of cardboard cookit panel cookers.

And nobody bothers to conduct proper tests to improve the things!

Those things have been "scientifically tested". i call bs on that. Where are the results, where are the controls and the blank results? A test should be competitive so that better designs win out.

My solar design t-square indicates that cookits are used incorrectly and that the pots are too low in the panel cooker to get all the light, and that the panel cooker should not be pointed at the sun but rather aligned with the path of the sun. But hey! Nobody gives a crap so no testing will be carried out.

500,000 (perhaps) university and college students in north America are available to do testing of various new and novel ideas as part of their schooling. Make use of them!

Here is Scheffler being interviewed. I think it is a great interview.

http://podcast.beyondzeroemissions.org/audio/podcast-2009-04-05-33994.mp3

I find your attitude a little abrasive..

Thank you for your interest. The thing is community commons licensed. I get nothing if it succeeds. If Jenner was nasty like me, does that mean that nobody would have tested his stuff?

So my attitude should be irrelevant. It is your attitude that counts. Do you want humanity to have easier or cheaper solar power? Its in your hands.

If you poo poo an idea before you even look at it, how is that attitude useful to you or anybody?

Well done to the 2 people so far who gave the guy good answer for taking his ball and saying "I am not playing". Thats so like 7 year old boys.

Maybe i should give him good answer too?

The internet is a big place. Other people are interested and some will eventually play. Suppose it is a good idea? Will historians go back in the records and label people as twits later?

When you actually look at it with an open mind the 2 dish idea and the solar design t-square

have a lot of sense built into them. If I had a fragile ego like most people, I would have quit this years ago. Probably lots of people quit with their big and little ideas because of the hostile reception.

Brian

I'm not showing any hostility towards you, nor do I have a closed mind about solar energy collection. I am simply witnessing your abrasive behaviour. you can choose to be abrasive or not. It will not change the technical invention's function one iota.

Chris

Thanks Chris. Sorry, it was just a general reply, it was not personally directed at you. And this reply is not personally directed at you either.

I doubt that if I was polite, that the discussion of a 2 dish solution would get any further. I have been there, and tried that. There is some deeper inertia in humans that we are dealing with.

People continue to evade, and duck and weave and refuse to give an answer. Is it a good idea or not? Has it merit? If you rush off and fire up google, perhaps you will find something similar?

Or not. If you cannot find it, might it mean that it is a new thing?

But remember back in school, where you were not allowed to bring the reference books to exams?

When you had to think up the answer all on your own.

When the answer came from your heart and mind. (I know lots of people cheat exams and others memorize it all the night before, so those guys are excused)

Presumably there are some really intelligent engineers on this forum. What stops them having an opinion on the technical merit of the 2 dish solution? I don't know, and they probably don't know either. Maybe it is the security of the crowd? We are a herd animal after all. In the stone age, if you ventured too far from the herd, it was shake throttle and eat, and a big cat, dog, crocodile or something else got its supper. Maybe the venture gene is very rare now? Even if it is just mental venturing. And herd animals have a pecking order too. So if one of the alfa males in the forum, sorry, herd, pecks at a venturer, you get pecking points (good answer points?) for joining in?

Here is a social science video for people to ponder. The guy says that the really important person in any movement is the first one to follow. The first one who "has the guts to follow"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

So Mat in Cornwall got the pulser pump going. He was first one to make a model and put video of it on the net.

Innovation? Who refuses to think about it? I made the pump over 20 years ago. Up to 2 years ago the vast majority were saying that it is Impossible. Now, even with pumps and model pumps in 4 countries, some made in science labs, and videos of them working! some people are STILL saying it is impossible because of something or some formula they learned in School! (It is in the discussion page on appropedia, for instance)

How would you feel if idiots (some with big jobs) on the internet claim that your working models and videos are fake? And that went on for about 7 years! Either you develop an extra thick hide or you get demolished.

I am still here.

Brian

that's understandable. it seems to be the inventor's lot.

As you stated, the concepts presented (pulser-pump, solar t-square, split parabola dish) are easy to understand for anyone who "left school at 18". With a little polishing, they might even pass for grade school science fair projects.

You reference dedicated pioneers, like Scheffler, on your appropedia page and claim advantages of your design over his. The thoroughly conceived ideas, practical implementations, and years of difficult field work all brought together by Scheffler and people like him are the reason his designs work and are successful. Your split dish design is in no significant way better for stationary kitchen applications. Aperture size is a far more important factor than precise focus for the simple portable cookers and your design offers no significant improvement here either. HINT: Complaining won't improve the design.

Mocking everyone interested in helping you is wonderful for your sceptics. With that kind of antagonistic attitude and limited vision, it is obvious why no one wants to get involved.

A sustainability class did research on the pulser pump in Queens university, Ontario this year.

Much of the stuff on the appropedia page is from them, see the credits at the bottom. If you have issues with it, take it up with the class and their professor. (Who just happens to be an ace in solar pv panel research)

And one of the original test models that I made is still working over 2 decades later. You know of any mechanical device that goes 20 years without something being replaced or repaired?

Thank you for the signing in as guest. So brave. Well, I do not have a whole bunch of money or time to give to the projects but I do my best. What design have you ever made and put out there on community commons license?

Speed or polish? Get it perfect or get it done.

I asked a question about software to design better solar cooking reflectors on the solar cooking.org forums a few years ago. It is recorded there. Little response so I found free software to do the trick. (Art of illusion). The idea is to lower the bar to entry into solar cooker reflector research. (Because the engineers and scientists and aid organizations are NOT doing it).

I used it for the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIRhNRk_0js that compared different reflective dishes. (And learned from it) But still it was hard to use and very few software experts joined in to make the "scene files" better.

So the solar design t-square was an effort to lower the bar further. Now all you need to design a new reflector for unattended cooking is a laser level or laser pointer, a t-square and some clay and mirrors. And the design you make is yours in its entirety. You can even call it after yourself. Immortality for somebody!

Hopefully some 18 year old guys and gals will take it up and do it with more polish.

Bill Gross made a design using genetic algorithms for a unattended use collector http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html that you can see just after 5 min 15 seconds in the video. "Tuba like horns"

But he is not sharing the design, is he? The clam shaped reflector that you make yourself using the solar design t-square is the poor mans solution. And it is the poor men and women who need the solution.

"Your split dish design is in no significant way better for stationary kitchen applications" . How the hell would you know? Seriously. How could you possibly know? Scheffler did great work, but his dish has to change shape with the seasons. The 2 dish solution uses fixed shape dishes. Well, thats easier to make, isn't it? Just stamp them out in their thousands in a factory.

Aperture size?

I do not know how big it can be but it is the same winter and summer with the 2 dish solution. I have seen info that indicates that the smallest useful size is 2 sq meters. So a square dish 1,4 meters wide will do that. Your frame only needs to be 5 ft wide. Definitely doable. 1 dish and counter rotating weight for balance or 2 dishes the same size. I do not know which would work better.

The Scheffler dish solution has a seasonally changing aperture size.

And if the rotating mounting is held at both ends, fine adjustment is possible, isn't it? And attaching a hitch to it and transporting it to a new location is possible isn't it? So you do not need to pour concrete footings for it like a scheffler dish.

And transporting it to safety if a hurricane is coming is possible too, isn't it?

How the hell can you be in a position to pass judgment on factors like that?

I am in awe of Scheffler. Scheffler dishes have a great future. I would not last a month in Kenya. But I do what I can.

Scheffler dishes are not the only solution. The duel dish accumulator might be a viable lower tech solution for many people. Either you make an effort or you do not. It is probably beyond my skills or time available to do one this year.

Edited to add. I reread and see that your aperture size remark was about simple solar cookers.

Well you are incorrect on that one. The solar design t-square designs a solar cooker with the max aperture size possible. So a one hour or 2 hour dish made with it will have a larger aperture than a cookit. The one I made was a lot larger and could have been bigger still.

Remember that the laser and mirrors is being used to do the design. It is pretty much foolproof.

Brian

Excellent answer!

GA for you!

Try not to be discouraged by the lack of instantaneous approval and success for your projects. There are frequently good valid reasons for negative feedback. The trick is to not take it personally. Again, seek to learn and understand what may be wrong with the idea, revise it, and try again.

Innovation Developing and perfecting new ideas takes skill, hard work, dedication, luck, time (timing), and money. Expect frequent failures and to get "beat-up" throughout the entire process. Get-rich-quick schemes rarely succeed and few of those are ever more than flash fads.

Milo

A lot of people is doing a lot of money just talking about innovation.They found is a deal of several milliondollars at every country...

I understand that innovation is a catch word, do not understand your point or your post

Innovation is the very basis were uncertainties of present and future need to be answered.

Innovativeness is a quality improvement caliber.

The vision based progressive minds take to innovative thinking.

Will power, critical thinking and sound goals are key drivers behind innovations.

It should be based on unbiased, open minded free mind dispositions of inventors.

Experimentations are part of the game and not a perfect solution at first instant.

First time success is a foolish unrealistic pre condition, that spoils or scars many to indulge.

Those who are curious, guttsful and capable of squeegeeing their thinking faculty are best fit for the innovation journey.

I have found that developing a product along the development stages, when there is positive critism along the way, for the product to become truly an innovation. Negative critism would have to be ignored. If its a overunity device, or a great innovation, its on your shoulders.

Phoenix 911,

How are you? Open to negative criticism by way of technical aspects, particularly from learned people skilled in the art is to be given importance. Negative critics are true drivers for a successful invention. In case you feel you can over come the set backs criticized, you are the real inventor who made the difference. Go by criticsm and just don't totally get carried away.