AAWSAP DIRD, Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor: Where Will the Next Major Innovations Arise, March 2010

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

UNCLASSIFIED! /FOR OfifilQlalik wse 8HL'I
a technology. Also, they are not generally plagued by the insecurities of the Type 1
inventor about subjecting their inventions to outside scrutiny, and some will be bold
enough to publish in respected scientific journals (Reference 23). This means they keep
better lab notes than Type 1 inventors. It does not mean they are intrinsically better
scientists or inventors.
Type 2 inventors generally have a bit more training in physics and sometimes start with
a theory of which they request analysis from a local university professor, for example.
Usually the theory is either partially formed or is not directly relevant to the proposed
invention. The professor dutifully examines the theory presented while not being
informed of the overall us,e to which his work is to be put and makes a pronouncement
that the inventor can usually twist one way or another to suit his future fundraising
efforts (Reference 24). Often the inventor has access to various theories about energy
or gravity that are posted in non-peer-reviewed media and uses these to initiate or
justify the proposed invention.
Type 2 inventors have a generally greater success at securing a patent, as they have a
better basis on which to make a claim and can afford better patent lawyers. Some of
the more advanced Type 2 inventors realize they need to start with a more pure­
physics experimental approach rather than going straight for the applied invention,
although these are rare (Reference 23).
Once the initial concept has proved infeasible on the bench, these inventors can burn
through a large amount of additional money in a scatter-shot approach, trying to save
face and what little money is left. Some will continually scan the Internet or
underground press for other likely energy candidates to switch allegiance to (Reference
14, 15), or will simply convince other gullible investors to continue to prop up the
technology with ever-more contorted descriptions of what is needed to succeed.
Eventually the house of cards collapses, and all the players go home, licking their
financial and psychological wounds. This occurs when an investor finally starts asking
the tough technical and measurement questions that should have been addressed at
the outset.
What can be learned from the Type 2 inventor? On the one hand, these inventors can
be much more dangerous than Type 1 inventors, as they can use their enhanced
financial clout to make it appear as if they have something of value and thereby attract
capital that might otherwise be used in more fruitful pursuits. On the other hand, Type
2 inventors can serve a useful purpose in showing others where not to tread. Their
ability to instantiate some degree of professional sophistication- for example, university
professor-marginally increases the likelihood of a true innovation. However, the
personality of the Type 2 inventor will dictate their receptiveness to external advice.
The Type 3 Inventor
As the inventor gains more formal training, the foundation for the innovations tends to
be a hypothesis or mathematical model leading to basic experiments, as opposed to
starting with a full -blown embodiment of the hoped-for invention . In the best case, this
is a staged approach in which the inventor already has sufficient knowledge about the
area to know how to design a succession of experiments and interpret the results
properly to make increasingly accurate assessments of the likely validity of the
invention. Optimally, the hypothesis is based on an extension of known physical laws
UNCLASSIFIED/ ffiOR OFifilCIOL 11ili ONI X
8