The Choice, Part Two: The Biggest Challenge, by Robert Gore

staticworld.net

This is part two of a three-part series. For part one, click here.

I and members of my family are minority investors in Dr. Kelly’s majority-owned company, fouRy LLC, or 4Ry. I have performed and will continue to perform, various services for 4Ry, for which I may be compensated. The opinions and analyses are mine alone. This blog post is neither a solicitation of investment nor an offer to sell securities. 4Ry is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation and its trademark application is pending.

Dr. Kelly wisely realized he needed help on the business development side. David Bird has a BS and MS in mechanical engineering and control systems from UCLA and an MBA from Notre Dame. He’s a hybrid between business and science who both understands the technology and has the business experience necessary for its commercial implementation. He developed a network of contacts that got Kelly’s technology in front of people with technical expertise and clout within companies, academia, and the government.

Many of them have recognized the technology’s potential and moved forward with it. The STA is undergoing evaluation at several consumer product companies for personal-care spray applications. Industrial companies are looking at the STA for coating applications. Agricultural companies will test the STA for spraying pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, as well as for foliar fertilization (fertilizing plants through their leaves rather than their roots). Nondisclosure agreements and other confidentiality considerations prevent listing other prospective users and uses.

Most technological advancement, as Thomas Edison noted, is far more about perspiration than inspiration. Innovation really happens after the “Eureka!” moment. The STA must be adapted for each particular application, then tested and further adapted. One exciting possibility for drones would be the application of pesticides. Using conventional pesticides is virtually impossible, because the pesticides and their containers, laden with water and propellants, are too heavy for drones. The STA eliminates the water and propellants and allows a much smaller container to be used. Drone operators can precisely target where drones spray. Using an STA, the spray would ground to the plants, not drift away on random air drafts. It would coat both the tops and undersides. Less pesticide would be required, and less would reach the earth and wash into water supplies.

This is an intriguing prospect, however, you don’t really know how things work until they’re tried out under real life conditions. Rutgers University’s engineering and agricultural departments are working together on field testing STA pesticide spraying from drones, generating data in a series of experiments that may last up to a year. Innovation requires persistence and patience as well as perspiration.

It also requires a degree of precision with which most people are wholly unacquainted. There is no room for “almost” or “close enough,” the usual slop factors. The dimensions of the inner mechanisms of the STA are measured in microns; time is measured in milliseconds. Adaptive adjustments are of corresponding magnitudes. The substances that pass through the sprayer must either be capable of carrying a charge or modified so that they can. Calibrations are exact, results painstakingly recorded, and outcomes described, analyzed, and replicated. Wishful thinking or unshakeable preconceptions would destroy the project; you must go where the facts, observation, evidence, and logic take you.

This is how science and technology work. Most people never stop and wonder at what went into the lights, televisions sets, computers, phones, toilets, microwaves ovens, dishwashers, automobiles, and all the other products of inventive minds they use everyday, or ponder what their lives would be without them. Invention is the essential cornerstone of economic progress, just as logic is the foundation of philosophy. Their union has lifted humanity from the caves.

As an investor in invention, I understand that the endeavor is fraught with business risks. There is a nontrivial possibility I’ll lose my investment. More worrisome than the business risks, however, is the intellectual, legal, and political assault on logic, invention, and honest enterprise, which will, unless stopped and reversed, return humanity to the caves, if humanity is fortunate enough to survive it.

The term “social sciences”—often derisively termed “soft sciences” by practitioners of the hard sciences—is actually a misnomer. It links the word science to decidedly unscientific endeavors, clashes of opinion that ignore facts and evidence, shun observation, and reject logic. Perhaps this would be acceptable if the anti-intellectuals could be confined to their own pretentious preening and groups. Unfortunately, they and their mentally stunted progeny have nothing but contempt, usually outright hatred, for those who have the required intellectual equipment to understand and deal with reality and are successful doing so. Like a horde of mosquitos carrying a deadly disease, these lethal pests are infecting everything from which they can draw blood, and left unchecked, will inexorably wipe out the host population. Unfortunately, even a container of pesticide equipped with Dr. Kelly’s sprayer can’t wipe them out.

One can pick from a number of reputable economics textbooks and business publications and never see the words “logic” or “invention,” the foundations of economic progress. Instead, they peddle the patently illogical: government spending and debt are the basis of prosperity; central banks swapping their fiat debt for governments’ fiat debt or other financial assets will create a tide of “wealth effects” that will lift all boats; debt-based speculation is equivalent to deferred consumption, saving, and investment; incomes can be raised by forcing employers to pay uneconomic wages; something can be had for nothing, and so on.

Some of the most pernicious bromides pertain to invention itself. Great ideas are supposedly a dime a dozen. If so, that values Dr. Kelly’s great ideas at less than one cent per idea. Truly great ideas are virtually priceless. Dr. Kelly has put forty years into ESD and STA, and he’s the first to admit that he has much more to learn, and that his inventions could stand further improvement. If even one or two of the potential applications pans out and 4Ry has a tenable business strategy, the value to its customers, employees, and owners will be enormous, measured in the billions of dollars. (Note I didn’t say “stakeholders,” a detestable term that supposedly gives all who claim it a “stake” in a company, justifying much nonsense and destructive intervention.)

If other great ideas are so common, where are they? The next “killer app” doesn’t qualify. We’ve been warned ad nauseam about global warming. Where are the non-fossil fuel power sources that will cool the planet and don’t require massive subsidies? California, beset by drought, sits next to the world’s largest body of water. Where is economic water desalination that would solve California’s—and everyone else’s—fresh water problems? Surely the technological solutions to these and many other pressing problems must by floating around among all those great less-than-a-penny ideas.

More evil than dime-a-dozen is the notion that invention requires no intellectual property protection, that inventors will just keep inventing because they like to invent, and humanity will be their beneficiaries. The most extreme form of this abomination holds that invention is public property. The person or persons directly responsible for an invention have no property right to it, but everyone else does. Promoted by those with nothing to contribute, this makes slaves of those who would contribute the most, a page straight out of Karl Marx and his intellectual descendant’s playbook. All those who support Dr. Kelly’s enslavement are invited to work without recompense in their chosen field of endeavor for the next forty years.

The public property advocates ignore the dearth of invention and innovation in those regimes that have put their ideas into practice, the strong correlation between the degree of intellectual property protection in a legal order and the prevalence of invention, and the intuitively obvious connection between the two. Of course, ignoring evidence, logical connections, and the obvious are cornerstones of what passes for their metaphysics, which renders them incapable of inventing anything. Ergo, the resort to theft.

Next, Part Three: One or the Other

A NOVEL SET IN THE MOST INVENTIVE PERIOD IN

HISTORY: THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Advertisements

15 responses to “The Choice, Part Two: The Biggest Challenge, by Robert Gore

  1. Pingback: SLL: The Choice, Part Two – The Biggest Challenge | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. After reading part one I thought “What? No central bank thrashing Robert?”, but I knew you wouldn’t let me down two in a row! The problem with a really good invention, that is truly efficient and renders current technology obsolete, is too many corporations would lose too much money. Our market isn’t free enough to allow these inventions out anymore. I’m sure if Rockefeller could have lobbied the government against the electric light bulb he would have done it in a heart beat to avoid losing money on lantern kerosene. I do applaud you and your friends’ work and I truly hope I see this new technology on the shelf soon.

    Like

  3. One thing you haven’t touched is pure, unadulterated envy at the ‘customer’ level. I’ve seen it first hand and I’m not uneducated in this arena.
    ‘Innovation’ is a huge buzz word in industry. ‘Value Add’ is another. Very few on the receiving end of such invention have the mental capacity to embrace the technical shift and take advantage of it. As soon as they hear ‘value’, they think ‘price’ and immediately shut down. They can find a myriad of reasons NOT to embrace innovation however. I’ve seen it so many times over the years.

    Good luck with your project; looking forward to part III.

    Like

  4. Pingback: Intervention Equipments | Purathrive

  5. I like the idiots demanding $15 and hour to flip burgers and mop the restroom. They’re all going to get replaced by robotics, and they don’t even understand that their combatant is not corporations refusing to pay them the money, but govts. issuing worthless fiat currency. Rather than increase their productivity, or some other method of increasing their value, they bleat incessantly for more money. While the company they work for remembers how to MAKE money, and makes ready to replace the more expensive bleaters with robotics that will work 24/7, never need a break, paycheck, health care, training, work mans comp, matching SS payments, etc. Which brings me to the puzzle of the internet. I pay for internet, but most sites I visit, I pay nothing. My wonderment at why Kelly wanted to invent what he did, when his genius and his due will probably be stolen by those who did nothing reminds me of the internet. The collectivists are probably already licking their chops at what they see, and they’ll be on him soon. They’ve already shit canned the internet, turning it over to Russia and China Oct. 1. I can’t wait to see how fucked up it’s going to get. This seems like just another grab bag for the collectivists. No wonder fewer inventions and even fewer real breakthroughs occur today.

    Like

  6. Congratulations – you’ve invented powdercoating with droplets
    Good luck with the patents

    Like

  7. Ideas ARE a dime a dozen. But viable ideas are one in a thousand. Profitable ideas even rarer at one in a million.

    Like

  8. GOOD ideas may not be a dime a dozen, but ideas that the idea holder believes or hopes or claims is a good idea are a dime a dozen. As are ideas that lazy people have and never persue that later turn up on store shelves or late night infomercials. “That guy ‘stole’ my idea! Now he’s making money off of it. No fair!”. A dime is far too generous for those “inventors”.

    Like

  9. Pingback: The Choice, Part Three: One or the Other, by Robert Gore | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

  10. Pingback: SLL: The Choice, Part Three: One or the Other | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  11. Pingback: Purathrive Infolanka News Rooms | Purathrive

  12. Pingback: Purathrive Infolanka News Room Colombo University | Purathrive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s