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/} POR OPPlelAL l:t9! 8HLY
Type 5 inventors are not as motivated as their Type 1 to 4 counterparts in these areas
of innovation, possibly owing to their increased sensitivity to the difficulty of the task.
Business sense is higher than Types 1 to 4, but the extent to which this impacts their
ability to innovate is not clear. They are more constrained insofar as bureaucracy is
concerned, which tends to hamper carrying out "blue-sky" innovations.
Finally, the corporate inventor scores high in all areas except motivation, business
acumen, and flexibility. As noted previously, the corporate inventor suffers from being
employed in an agency that, except for the university, does not generally promote the
types of innovations addressed in this paper. In many cases, university innovators are
hidebound by dogma that prevents them from even entertaining the possibility.
Therefore, as far as maverick inventors are concerned, Types 3 and 4 appear to be the
best choice regarding where to expect the next innovations to arise and should be
carefully selected based on criteria similar perhaps to those used above. Millis considers
the same scenario (Reference 32) when he states that the innovators he seeks are
published, credible risk-takers with vision. They should be monitored and encouraged
by means of financial and other incentives to pursue these difficult areas of innovation.
If the corporate inventor, and especially the university-based inventor, could be
motivated and granted sufficient flexibility, he would be an excellent candidate to carry
out the required innovations in energy and propulsion and rival Types 3 and 4 for
innovation capacity.
Type 5 inventors are the next best possibility, with Types 1 and 2 merely being watched
casually, as no substantial innovation is expected to arise from these quarters.
1 http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page, accessed Jan 12, 2009
2 http://www.americanantigravlty.com/, accessed Jan 13, 2009
3 http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/Ol/12/entrepreneur.psychology/index.html, accessed Jan 12, 2009
4 http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/, accessed Jan 14, 2009
5 Cook, N., The Hunt for Zero Point, Century/Random House, London, 2001
6 Tutt, K., The Search for Free Energy, Simon and Schuster, London, 2001
7 http://www.flynnresearch.net/, accessed Jan 12, 2009
6 Chiang, P.R., Smith, G.A., et al "An Antiproton Driver for Internal Confinement Fusion Propulsion," Kammash, T.
(ed), Fusion Energy in Space Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 167, AIAA, Washington,
DC, 1995
9 Smith, G.A., "Positron Propelled and Powered Space Transport Vehicle for Planetary Missions," NIAC Phase I Final
Report, Research Subaward # 07605-003-048, presented at NIAC Phase I Fellows Meeting, Atlanta GA, Mar 7-8,
2006
10 Zinsser, R., "Mechanical Energy from Anisotropic Gravitational Fields," Hathaway (ed.) The First International
Symposium on Non-Conventional Energy Technology, University of Toronto, Oct 23 - 24, 1981 (privately
published)
11 Interavia, Vol. XI, No. 12, pp. 992, (Switzerland), 1956
12 "Anti-Gravity not so Crazy After All," New Scientist, Feb 14, 1980
13 Ball, P. "Burning water and other myths," Nature News, Sept. 14, 2007
14 http://www .magneticpowerinc.com/, accessed Jan 15, 2009
15 http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.html, accessed Jan 15, 2009
16 http ://www.greaterthlngs.com/News/Tilley/fraud/index.html, accessed Jan 11, 2009
17 http://www.phact.org/e/z/perendev .htm, accessed Jan 11, 2009
16 Krieg, E. "Examining the Amazing Free-Energy Claims of Dennis Lee," Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, Vol. 21, No.
4, pp 34 - 36, July/Aug 1997
19 http ://www.r-charge.com/about.html, accessed Jan 13, 2009
13
UNCLASSIFIED/ (FOR OFFICI0L Mi& &PtLY