UNCLASsiFiED//ron o ffic ia l use o m lv Defense Intelligence Reference Docum ent ^^^^^^^^ Acquisition Threat Support 30 M arch 20 1 0 COD : 1 D ecem ber 20 0 9 D IA-0 8-1 0 03-0 1 7 Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor: W here W ill the Next Major Innovations Arise? UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U 0C O N LY UNCLASSI FIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N L¥ Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor: W here W ill the Next Major Innovations Arise? Prepared by: Acquisition Support Division (DW O-3 ) Defense W arning Office Directorate for Analysis Defense Intelligence Agency Author: AAP Person 75 A dm inistrative N ote COPYRIGHT WARNING: Further dissemination of the photographs in this publication is not authorized. This product is one in a series of advanced technology reports produced in FY 20 09 under the D efense Intelligence Agency, D efense W arning Office's Advanced Aerospace W eapon System Applications (AAW SA) Program . Com m ents or questions pertaining to this docum ent should be addressed to|AAP Person 1 j AAW SA Program M anager, D efense Intelligence Agency, ATTN : CLAR/D W O-3, Bldg 600 0, W ashington, D C 20 340 -5 1 00 . ii UNCLASSIFIED //FO R O FFICIA L U G C O N W UNCLASSI FIED /'FOP o ffti^ ■■ „rm ?m ^ Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................iv Maverick Inventor................................................................................................ 1 Corporate Inventor.....................................................................................................2 Technologies...............................................................................................................4 The Type 1 Inventor................................................................................ 6 The Type 2 Inventor...................................................................................................7 The Type 3 Inventor....................................................................... 8 The Type 4 Inventor.............................................................................................. 10 The Type 5 Inventor.................................................................................................10 Com parisons........................................................................... 11 Conclusions................................................................................................... 12 Tables Table 1. Types and Exam ples of Think Tanks............................................... 3 Table 2. Essential Elem ents That Characterize the Types of Inventor...................11 iii UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY — Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor: W here W ill the Next Major Innovations Arise? Introduction Technological innovation has been advanced by several sectors of hum an society and via a diverse set of circum stances. In the early 20 th century, the solitary m averick inventor was responsible for the bedrock of m ost of today's industrial and com m ercial enterprises. As these enterprises grew larger, they could afford their own research and developm ent departm ents, tasking them with developing products and processes aim ed at increasing the m arket share of the parent com pany. Generally speaking, as tim e went on these types of enterprises becam e less hotbeds of true innovation than places where im provem ents to the current technologies were tightly m anaged. Such m anagem ent becam e stultifying for m any inventors wishing to produce true innovation, and these m avericks shunned the com m ercial research agencies and went off to carry out their own brand of research. Another institution where true innovation is fostered is the university. University research as it exists today started in Europe only in the 18th century. The bulk of the discoveries in science leading to technological innovation cam e from university research laboratories in the 19th and early 20 th centuries. Currently there is considerable controversy surrounding the degree to which research at universities is free from external influences, whether from within the university, from the greater scientific com m unity, or from public and/or private agencies that fund the research. As university salaries and expenses go up, there is increasing reliance on external funding sources, the m ajority of which wish to exert som e influence over the type of research they are underwriting. Hum an aggression and hum an needs gave birth to two additional areas of innovation. As governm ents becam e em broiled in conflicts, they found the need to fund "think tanks" for the purposes of stim ulating scientific developm ents that could aid war efforts. As well, the needs of their constituents for food, shelter, health care, energy, econom ic developm ent, space exploration, and so forth dem anded the establishm ent of governm ent- funded agencies to perform research and produce policy. To be effective, m ilitary planners needed access to the m ost innovative technologies in all areas of endeavor, not just arm am ents, and so established their own research and developm ent departm ents. Circum stances determ ine the tem poral requirem ent for innovation. Modern versions of the Four Horsem en of the Apocalypse (wars, pestilence, lies, fam ine/death: read conflict, environm ent, econom y, health) pretty well sum up the m ajor stim ulants that foster innovation. Fortunately, hum an society—at least so far—has shown a rem arkable propensity for inventing m ethods of overcom ing seem ingly insurm ountable obstacles. This paper concentrates on two areas of technological innovation where solutions have been particularly hard to com e by—nam ely energy and iv UNCLASSIFIED/^FO R O FFIC IA L U R E O N LY UNCLASSI FI ED//FO R O FFIC IA L U PC O N L¥ propulsion, in particular aerospace and space propulsion. It is now the case that new and exotic m aterials and their dim ensions are driving the quality and quantity of energy and propulsion innovations and preventing the average inventor from contributing new and useful form s and assem blies. The capital outlay required to probe the lim its of current high technology in search of a new breakthrough is also beyond the m eans of the vast m ajority of lone inventors. These are the m ajor reasons for the shift in focus from the lone m averick inventor to the "corporate inventor," the latter being a part of a large organization. This paper com pares the roles of the m averick inventor who is less constrained by the strictures of a large organization with those of the corporate inventor and provides som e insight into where to expect required future innovations in the areas of energy and propulsion. v UNCLASSIFIED//FOB OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY Maverick Inventor M ost of the easy com binations of com ponents and m aterials have been investigated repeatedly since the tim e of M ichael Faraday. However, it is still to this " low-hanging fruit" that the average m averick inventor is drawn for inspiration. For exam ple, in the area of energy innovation, it is still attractive to m any inventors to try various com binations of perm anent m agnets and wire to try to im prove the efficiency of m odern electrical m achinery, or better yet, claim to extract possibly lim itless energy from these m agnets. The average energy inventor is not bothered by pesky Laws of Energy Conservation or that the devices he is spending endless tim e on have been investigated hundreds of tim es before. There is also the role of the m edia, m ost im portant the Internet, in continuing to stim ulate the creativity of the m averick inventor. M ovies continue to depict the lone genius saving the planet via som e invention, be it a physical weapon or a piece of com puter code. This no doubt propels succeeding generations to believe that they m ay one day single-handedly develop a new free-energy or antigravity device and save the planet. Unfortunately, the Internet has fostered the belief that new inventions, especially in the areas of energy generation and gravity control, are relatively straightforward— one sim ply needs the correct com bination of m acroscopic com ponents. One of the disadvantages of the access to apparent technological innovation that the Internet provides is to foster and m aintain intellectual and experim ental laziness. This m anifests itself in m any ways, principally in that the prospective inventor increasingly believes that sim ply spending a few m inutes on the Internet can give him all the background inform ation about who has done what in a particular field of invention. Indeed, the would-be inventor does not even need to leave his chair and physically investigate the situation him self. A corollary concern is the lack of inform ation on prior attem pts that is available to m averick inventors. W hereas the corporate inventor has im m ediate access to a broad range of technical resources, including patents and scientific and technical publications, the cost of these resources and their publicly accessible concentration in university libraries drive the average m averick inventor to rely solely on the Internet. Fortunately there are now positive signs that at least as far as " free energy" and antigravity are concerned, there are Internet sites trying to be repositories for failed inventions in these areas (Reference 1 , 2) . Another m ajor problem is the decreasing reliance on a sound technical education, either in the sciences or in engineering. W hy bother enduring 4 years of an extrem ely difficult undergraduate program when all the answers are right there on the com puter screen. It is the age of instant, albeit self-proclaim ed, geniuses. N o need to bother with correct m easurem ent procedures or proper control experim ents when you can publish the results of your studies on YouTube without bothersom e peer review. So how m ight one characterize the m averick inventor? Useful categories of m averick inventors (assum ed to be in the context of the late 20 th and early 21 st centuries) m ight include the following types: • Individual with no form al training and little m oney. • Individual with no form al training and som e m oney. 1 UNCLASSIFIED//rO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY un c la ssiFiED//ron orriciA L use o n ly- • Individual with form al training and little m oney. • Individual with form al training and som e m oney. • Sm all group (usually two or three) of knowledgeable inventors with m oney. " Form al training" is assum ed to be in the specific scientific or engineering discipline in which the invention would naturally be situated. Of course, in the last entry in the above list, the m averick inventor begins to look m ore like the " corporate inventor," but the idea should be clear. Although this paper does not dwell on the personality of the m averick inventor, it is useful to rem ind ourselves that the m averick inventor is by definition a loner both in social and scientific/technical areas. In an online article (Reference 3) , m averick inventor D ean Kam en1 writes: " It's not that they're brilliant or well-educated...They work all the tim e. They don't let failure dem oralize or destroy them . They pick them selves up and keep going and eventually, every once in a while, one of your ideas actually breaks through and works, and it m akes all that stuff seem worthwhile." 1 D ean Kam en is an experienced inventor in the m edical field, where his inventions include the AutoSyringe. Am ong his m any other inventions are devices using the Stirling cycle for energy generation and water purification and the Segway Personal Transporter. Kam en's article goes on to state: " Stubborn, delusionally optim istic, creative, fearless, flexible and focused are som e of the ways psychologists and business people describe the personality of the m averick...'You need to be in denial or in ignorance about the huge challenges you face,' laughs Guy Kawasaki, a form er Apple executive and entrepreneur who's starting the self-described " m agazine rack" alltop.com . 'You have to believe that it wouldn't be hard for you to succeed.'" Corporate Inventor The corporate inventor is a part of and relies on a large organization, conveniently labeled a think tank, to both stim ulate and sustain him . There is constant interaction between like-m inded innovators that serves both as a stim ulus to explore new areas and as a m uch-needed " dead-end detector." Usually, sufficient cash and equipm ent are on hand, especially when the desired innovation is being funded externally. These think tanks m ay be governm ent, m ilitary, academ ic, corporate, or private. The closest m odel to the freedom associated with the m averick inventor is usually found in a university setting, although a num ber of privately sponsored institutions exist (for exam ple, Perim eter Institute in W aterloo, Canada) . At least until recently, academ ic institutions prided them selves in the freedom granted to their research scientists and engineers. Table 1 provides exam ples of the various types of think tanks. 2 UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U JE O N LY UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY Table 1. Types and Exam ples of Think Tanks Type Exam ples Universities Radlab, M IT, Cam bridge, M A Governm ent Sandia N ational Laboratories, Albuquerque, N M Lawrence Liverm ore N ational Laboratory, Liverm ore, CA Brookhaven N ational Laboratory, Upton, N Y N ASA (for exam ple, Glenn Research Center, Brook Park, OH) Quasi-Governm ent/M ilitary D ARPA, Arlington, VA Corporate GM Research Laboratory, W arren, M I Alcatel/Lucent - Bell Labs, M urray Hill, N J Skunk W orks, Palm dale, CA Privately Funded Perim eter Institute for Theoretical Physics, W aterloo, Canada Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin, TX SARA (Scientific Applications & Research Associates) , Cypress, CA Independent, N onprofit Battelle, Colum bus, OH SRI International, M enlo Park, CA EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) , Palo Alto, CA Austrian Research Centers, Seibersdorf, Austria These entities typically arose in response to a particular need or crisis. Perhaps the m ost fam ous and effective think tank was the vast agency known as the M anhattan D istrict. Less well known to the public was, for exam ple, the RadLab at M IT. Except in the case of privately funded organizations, they all support m any hundreds to thousands of researchers, of which a variable proportion could be term ed " inventors." Even the sm aller entities support a dozen or so highly m otivated scientists and engineers easily classified as inventors. A benefit of being an inventor in a large organization is access to inform ation. The corporate inventor can quickly determ ine whether a certain avenue of approach has 3 UNCLASSIFIED//FOP OFFICIAL USE QNUY UNCLASSIFIED//ron O rriC IA L U SE O N Lr already been tried, using resources not generally available to the m averick inventor, such as patent searches, scientific and technical docum ents, or an in-house library. Another benefit is access to the latest technical apparatus, prototyping, and m achining capabilities. In m ost cases, the inventor does not need to be an expert in the operation of all types of analytical or experim ental equipm ent or m achine tools. There are technicians at his disposal able to convert his ideas into reality. A relatively recent developm ent in the larger organizations is the establishm ent of a " blue-sky" team of highly creative individuals, som etim es just two or three people, whose job it is to think outside the corporate box and provide directions and policy, usually for the long term . However, in general, their tasks still fall within the general purview of the entity funding them . Som etim es governm ent laboratories will allow such team s to investigate unusual areas and possibly set up experim ents leading to eventual inventions assigned to the laboratory. A particular exam ple is that of Tajm ar (Reference 4) . Other relevant m odels for this type of activity are found in research and university hospitals, where continuous innovation is the norm . Corporate inventors also benefit from belonging to an organization that includes people with business acum en. An invention is worthless as a com m ercial innovation if it cannot be produced or m arketed at a com petitive price. The business side of the corporation is an essential com ponent of successful innovation. The m averick inventor typically does not have these skills close at hand, and often the enterprise fails not for technical reasons, but because the inventor has not thought out an appropriate business plan. However, there are drawbacks to the life of the corporate inventor. Fluctuations in the overall econom y can put projects on hold, cause them to be canceled, or force layoffs that can stall or kill a project. The m averick inventor will strive to keep his project alive regardless of the external econom y, which unfortunately som etim es m eans loss of savings, house, fam ily, friends, and so forth. A N ot Invented Here (N IH) syndrom e often can interfere with overall progress in areas where a corporate inventor approach is the m ost suitable. If an idea did not originate with a particular organization, it m ay not be pursued, even though it m ay represent the best approach. M averick inventors rarely suffer from N IH. W hereas the m averick inventor is generally accustom ed to putting 1 0 0 percent of his tim e into the invention, the corporate inventor m ay suffer from burnout if he is not as personally m otivated or has such a personal stock in the invention. After a while, " group think" syndrom e can infect large organizations, including their innovators. This happens in organizations that do not recognize or encourage radical thinking, resulting in m ediocre innovation perform ance. This process is exacerbated if the num ber of projects being attended to by corporate inventors starts to overwhelm them . The m averick inventor is usually single m inded in his attention. Technologies In order to gain a clearer understanding of the relative roles of the m averick and the corporate inventor, it is instructive to observe how each addresses specific technological areas. This paper concentrates on innovations in the areas of unconventional energy and propulsion system s as exam ples of ideas pursued by the m averick inventor in particular. The study does not focus on how the personality of the m averick inventor determ ines his innovative capacity so m uch as it focuses on what tools and techniques are available to him in addressing a particular potential innovation. 4 UNCLASSI FIE D//Fnn O FFIC IA L U SE O N ET UNCLASSI FI ED//FO IL O FFICIA L U SE O N LY The inventors highlighted in this study investigate technologies encom passing the production or conversion of energy from novel sources, som etim es referred to as " new prim ary energy sources," including perm anent m agnets, cold and warm fusion, " zero­ point fluctuations," and novel uses of batteries and rotating system s, as well as theoretical and experim ental approaches to m odulating the local gravity field. Som e of these inventors and inventions are described in recent books (see Reference 5 , 6) . Historically, what has been the relative contribution to the m ajor innovations in these areas? Taking the specific area of electrical energy production as an exam ple, it was the contributions, inspiration, and determ ination of m averick inventors such as Tesla that resulted in the design of m any of the current power-generating technologies in use today. As far as radically new recent designs of alternators and m otors is concerned, there have been very few innovations from m averick inventors, Flynn's dual-path m agnetic circuit being a notable exception (Reference 7) . M ost of the innovations in this area com e from corporate inventors in the electric power industry, as the only path left toward increasing efficiency is through novel m aterials such as high-tem perature superconductors. Such research is generally out of reach of the m averick inventor. There has been no lack of attem pts by m averick inventors to produce electrical " free energy" and related m achines. In the area of space propulsion and earth-to-orbit m ethods in particular, again it was the contributions of m avericks such as Tsiolkovsky and Goddard that laid the foundations for m odern rocketry. Both inventors took a practical approach to rocketry, as the field was in its em bryonic state. Initially denigrated as being " only" a high school m ath teacher with no form al scientific training, Tsiolkovsky developed the fundam ental equation for rocket propulsion. Although Goddard was university trained, like Tsiolkovsky, his fundam ental work on rocket dynam ics was largely ignored until later in his life. D uring their early, creative years, neither m an worked for large organizations. As far as radically new propulsive m eans are concerned, there have been innovations only in the efficiency and overall design, and the fundam ental m ass expulsion m odel has rem ained unchanged. The efficiency innovations have sprung from corporate inventors who have the resources to plan and test their increasingly costly designs only in the context of large organizations. The current innovations in these two fields com e from larger organizations such as those highlighted in the previous section. However it should be noted that these innovations, largely increased in efficiency, have been econom ically as well as technically viable. There are plenty of novel thruster designs that would be excellent candidates for inclusion in the breakthrough category if only they were not so expensive. Antim atter propulsion using positrons and antiprotons is a good exam ple (Reference 8, 9) . In the early developm ent of electrical m achines, m any parts of the system were very expensive— electrical steel lam inations, for exam ple— but m ass production brought prices down. Fortunately inventions are not com pletely discarded sim ply because they are too costly at the tim e of their conception. Increasingly today, m aterials costs rather than m anufacturing costs drive econom ic decisions about the developm ent and com m ercialization of inventions in this category. This is due in part to the replacem ent of hum an m anpower with its robotic equivalent and the scarcity of certain strategic technologically im portant raw m aterials, such as rare earths. 5 UNCLASSIFIED//H U H O EHCiA b U C C O N LY UNCLASSIFIED/7TU IL O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY The Type 1 Inventor One should exam ine the area of novel energy generation inventions from the standpoint of the m averick inventor who has no form al training. Because the approach and tim eline of the typical energy inventor m im ic those of the propulsion (read " antigravity" ) inventor,2 we will concentrate on the energy inventor. Often the invention involves a device that is purported to produce m ore energy than it consum es. In som e cases the inventor naively thinks his invention is sim ply creating the extra energy from nothing. M ore often the inventor believes his device is tapping a new energy source, such as " zero-point energy" or " m agnetic energy." He typically begins his quest by literally playing with storage batteries or pulse-driven, sim ple, perm anent-m agnet­ based m otors. Since the typical m averick inventor has negligible funds for research and developm ent, cheap m easuring instrum ents are the norm . A very cursory understanding of electrical wiring and possibly a rudim entary capability in designing solid-state circuitry seem all that are necessary from an educational standpoint. D elving into therm odynam ics, proper experim ent design, error analysis, or even power factor is usually seen as taking valuable tim e away from construction of an invention prototype. 2 For typical exam ples of inventors concentrating on gravity and propulsion m eans, see Reference 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2. Alas, it is m ost often in the area of m easurem ent that the m averick inventor solidifies his belief that he has discovered the answer to the world's energy problem s. His fear of ridicule and belief that the local university or testing agency would (a) steal the invention, (b) not do a proper test because they do not believe in the underlying concept (for exam ple, zero-point energy) , or (c) are in league with big oil and will suppress the invention ensure that proper m easurem ents are rarely perform ed at the im portant early stages of the invention's developm ent. Fear of suppression also contributes to the typical inventor's lack of proper note taking. The test instrum ents used usually are not suitable for use in m easuring the various electrical param eters in, for exam ple, pulsed-m otor designs. Even if m ore expensive oscilloscopes are purchased, their internal m ath functions are overrelied upon without giving a second thought to applicability, calibration, or use of proper probes within specification, am ong a host of bothersom e details. The m easurem ent problem is generally com pounded when attem pting to m easure the true power or energy output of a device, especially where the output is a rotating shaft or source of heat. The m odern Type 1 inventor shuns publishing in the peer-reviewed literature for obvious reasons and instead m akes a YouTube video or appears on a TV " weird science" program or news clip to further prom ote this incredible invention. Up to this point, the invention has been developed using personal or im m ediate fam ily funds. Once the m averick inventor is convinced he has the ultim ate solution, the next step is to raise the necessary funds to produce a larger, higher power prototype. N ote the key step of independently verifying the technical validity of the device at low power is to be avoided. " Only a big power output will convince the skeptics" is the slogan at this stage. And a high-power prototype will take m uch longer to build, thus buying m ore tim e for the inventor to invent excuses for why the whole idea was unworkable in the first place. Usually the original prototype is either scrapped or robbed of com ponents to m ake a new high-power device. 6 UNCLASSIFIED/XFOP fiHIHAb UGE ONLY - UNCLASSIFIED//ron O ITIC IA L U SE O N LY W here does the inventor find funding for such a developm ent? The typical inventor (Reference 1 3) will canvas a wider network of friends, his church, a local venture capitalist or private investor who is not very savvy, or a fund specifically established to invest in exotic energy startups (Reference 1 4, 1 5 ) . After convincing them of the incredible return on their investm ent in the technology by " dem onstrating" it (without proper protocols, test equipm ent, and so forth) , m anpower, space, and new equipm ent are purchased. Usually the last thing on the inventor's m ind at this stage is wasting investors' m oney on an independent laboratory test such as m ight be found at a local university's engineering or physics departm ent or certified testing laboratory to determ ine whether there is any validity to the technology. Around this tim e, the m ajor investors start to sense there m ight be som ething am iss in their original assessm ent of the validity of the technology. This m ight arise from any num ber of factors, including continual requests for m ore funding, continual delays in dem onstrating the new high-power unit, m ore-inform ed friends asking probing technical questions, and so forth. Investors start to withdraw, accepting the fact of their bad investm ent, and the inventor eventually recedes into oblivion or skips town to start up again under a different guise som ewhere else. This is typical behavior for the con artist (Reference 1 6, 1 7, 1 8) , whose exploits will not be further analyzed herein. However, som e enterprising individuals parlay their experience into related conventional businesses (Reference 1 9), and som e investors hang on long past the tim e a reasonable person would quit (Reference 20) . Patent protection generally is not sought by the Type 1 inventor. And if a patent is sought, either it is rejected outright by the patent office or a watered-down version is obtained that is usually worthless from either the physics or technical point of view or as part of the intellectual property to eventually be sold to an investor interested in com m ercializing the device. W hat can be learned from the Type 1 inventor? Given their lack of form al education in the relevant disciplines, there is a negligible chance that Type 1 inventors will contribute anything of significance to m ajor innovations in the energy and propulsion areas. Their undisciplined approach, coupled with their lack of funds and interest in science by m edia, virtually guarantees failure. The Type 2 Inventor The m ajor— and som etim es only— difference between Type 2 and Type 1 inventors is that Type 2 inventors tend to be even m ore confident in their inventions because they have been able to purchase fancy and costly m easuring equipm ent and have high- quality m achining done. However, because of their general lack of education in the relevant areas of instrum entation, they can m isuse the instrum ents or m isinterpret the resulting data just as badly as Type 1 inventors (Reference 21 ) . However, Type 2 inventors have the advantage of being able to purchase external expertise in these areas (Reference 22) . The degree to which they rely on and believe the external expertise— for exam ple, a university laboratory— is dependent on several factors, m ost notably the personality of the inventor him self. The m ore self-assured personality relies less on outside expertise. Type 2 inventors generally have m ore to lose in term s of m oney, as they typically start out big and want to go bigger faster. They tend to investigate less speculative areas of uNCLAssiFiED//ron ornsiA h use o n ly 7 UNCLASSIFIED//rQ R Q m C TA L U SE O N L^ a technology. Also, they are not generally plagued by the insecurities of the Type 1 inventor about subjecting their inventions to outside scrutiny, and som e will be bold enough to publish in respected scientific journals (Reference 23) . This m eans they keep better lab notes than Type 1 inventors. It does not m ean they are intrinsically better scientists or inventors. Type 2 inventors generally have a bit m ore training in physics and som etim es start with a theory of which they request analysis from a local university professor, for exam ple. Usually the theory is either partially form ed or is not directly relevant to the proposed invention. The professor dutifully exam ines the theory presented while not being inform ed of the overall use to which his work is to be put and m akes a pronouncem ent 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 m edia 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 m ake a claim and can afford better patent lawyers. Som e of the m ore advanced Type 2 inventors realize they need to start with a m ore pure- physics experim ental 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 am ount of additional m oney in a scatter-shot approach, trying to save face and what little m oney is left. Som e will continually scan the Internet or underground press for other likely energy candidates to switch allegiance to (Reference 1 4, 1 5 ), or will sim ply convince other gullible investors to continue to prop up the technology with ever-m ore contorted descriptions of what is needed to succeed. Eventually the house of cards collapses, and all the players go hom e, licking their financial and psychological wounds. This occurs when an investor finally starts asking the tough technical and m easurem ent questions that should have been addressed at the outset. W hat can be learned from the Type 2 inventor? On the one hand, these inventors can be m uch m ore dangerous than Type 1 inventors, as they can use their enhanced financial clout to m ake it appear as if they have som ething of value and thereby attract capital that m ight otherwise be used in m ore 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 som e degree of professional sophistication— for exam ple, university professor— m arginally 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 m ore form al training, the foundation for the innovations tends to be a hypothesis or m athem atical m odel leading to basic experim ents, as opposed to starting with a full-blown em bodim ent 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 experim ents and interpret the results properly to m ake increasingly accurate assessm ents of the likely validity of the invention. Optim ally, the hypothesis is based on an extension of known physical laws 8 UNCLASSIFIED//*QB QEETCIAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//FU H O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY and calls on known or reasonably postulated prim ary energy sources. In contrast to Type 1 and 2 inventors, who seem never to realize that a perm anent m agnet cannot be an energy source in and of itself, for instance, the Type 3 inventor relies on the known conservation laws. Type 3 (and 4) inventors generally realize the enorm ity of the problem s they face, whereas Types 1 and 2 have insulated them selves from this realization. As a result of his education, the Type 3 (and 4) inventor should know where to access specific technical and scientific literature to aid in the process of researching their ideas. The inventor m ay be associated with a local university or an em eritus professor and use this expertise on an inform al basis to com pensate for a lack of funds. Prim ary funding com es from personal or fam ily finances or from sm all groups of like-m inded aficionados (Reference 25 ) . Generally the Type 3 (and 4) inventors are older than Types 1 and 2. They are also m uch better at explaining the scientific basis for their proposed invention and thus can attract additional funding from venture capitalists, foundations, or governm ent granting agencies. This is a m uch m ore palatable approach in the eyes of prospective investors, as there is the feeling that their investm ent is based on science rather than on pure speculation and thus has a better chance of a positive return. In som e cases, the individual or venture investors' funds can be m atched by governm ent grants if the idea is passed by a scientific review board. M ost investors in Type 3 and 4 inventions are m ore sophisticated than those who invest in Types 1 and 2. Type 3 inventors generally have a record of publications in peer-reviewed literature. However, even with a greater degree of education, it is often the case that the inventor m akes m istakes in m easurem ent or interpretations of data (Reference 26, 27) , especially when the initial results apparently confirm the inventor's hypothesis or physical m odel (Reference 28) . This is m ost often what leads to the dem ise of the innovation. However, in these cases, the investors are not as angry or em barrassed as Type 1 and 2 inventors, and so m ay continue to support the inventor for som e tim e as he tries to work out the problem s in understanding the innovation m ore fully. The very fact of their higher education m akes the Type 3 inventor m ore easily able to denigrate com peting theories and experim ents. This facet can be derived from or evolve into a rather dogm atic belief that the Type 3 inventor's theory is the only correct interpretation and the only one likely to succeed. This aspect m ust be taken into account when assessing the inventor's potential to accept other explanations or assistance when he eventually encounters difficulty with his theory or experim ent. Typically the scope of the claim s is m ore m odest com pared with Types 1 and 2. Instead of trum peting that the invention will literally save the world, these inventors are m ore realistic, suggesting how the invention m ight be one part of an overall solution. W hat can be learned from the Type 3 inventor? Type 3 inventors' education and fam iliarity with the scientific m ethod puts them in an entirely different league from Types 1 and 2. Access to their publications provides good insight into their capabilities. They are m ore realistic in their goals and expectations. It is easier for investors and other scientists to deal with Type 3 inventors, but Type 3 inventors are hungrier for funding than Type 4 inventors, so caution is still required in interpreting their spiel. A Type 3 inventor displaying a rigid and dogm atic approach should be avoided. 9 UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFICIA L U SE O N LY UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY ■ The Type 4 Inventor If a m averick inventor educated in science or engineering already has personal funding, m any of the attributes ascribed to the Type 3 inventor also apply. However, the Type 4 inventor is freer to pursue his innovation without as m uch concern for outside opinion. It is often the case that such inventors have m ade their m oney from previous inventions, so they already know the process. They have a m uch easier tim e attracting capital, as evidenced by their track records. However, not all have m oney from previous inventions. Som e have fam ily wealth, and som e m ay have m ade m oney developing technology in areas som ewhat rem oved from their current interest. Type 4 inventors generally are less inclined to pursue inventions in the areas of energy generation and propulsion as defined above. In fact, the likelihood of such inventors even being interested in novel prim ary energy generation or gravity m odification is greatly dim inished. They still tackle difficult technical challenges, but not generally fundam ental issues like gravity and prim ary energy. It is by avoiding these suprem ely difficult areas that they have been able to invent in other areas and are thus already better funded! Type 4 inventors realize the necessity of a step-by-step approach and the pitfalls of developing ideas from scratch. They tend to apply their genius to im provem ents to status quo in these areas rather than providing com plete breakthroughs. For instance, Kam en's Segway (Reference 29) contains no fundam entally new technology. Although Ovshinsky (Reference 30) did m anage to develop new m aterials for solar electricity generation, the general idea of harnessing the Sun's energy to produce electricity was not new. Incidentally, Ovshinsky is included in this category even though he had no form al university education but is a self-taught genius. N otwithstanding their aversion to the fundam ental issues relevant to this study, Type 4 inventors are capable of determ ining at an early stage whether an idea has m erit and how it m ight properly be developed, assum ing the basic concept is sound. It should be noted that Type 1 and 2 inventors usually are true loners, whereas Types 3 and 4 m ay be part of a sm all group of up to 3-4 people dedicated to a single objective. W hat can be learned from the Type 4 inventor is quite sim ilar to that of the Type 3 inventor. The m ajor difference is the track record of invention and the likely increased business sense of the Type 4 inventor com pared with those of the Type 3 inventor. The Type 5 Inventor Here one starts to see an overlap in form and function with the corporate inventor. The prim ary distinction is the num ber of active inventors constituting the group: in this study, we assum e that 5 -6 inventors is a typical group size. The sm all group setting allows the individuals to bounce seem ingly crazy ideas back and forth with little concern about ridicule. D epending on the nature of the organization, no topic is taboo. However, the inventor in this situation is usually required to contribute to near-term com m ercial products rather than exotic innovations. This is because m ost sm all groups of inventors are prim arily interested in keeping their enterprise afloat. They realize that the effort required to tackle topics such as gravity and prim ary energy would be enorm ous, and although the payoff would be exceedingly large, the probability of success is sm all given that their com petitors are in well-funded academ ic and governm ent laboratories. 1 0 UNCLASSIFIED //tQ O O FFIC IA L U SE O NET UNCLASSIFIED//FO R O FFIC IA L U SE O N LY These innovators have a high degree of m otivation for near-term com m ercial projects but less m otivation for exotic long-term projects and typically have specific educational qualifications in the relevant fields. They generally work on im provem ents to the technological status quo (Reference 31 ) . These im provem ents are expected to be com m ercial products in the near-to-m edium term , com pared with the energy and propulsion technology discussed here, which have a long tim e horizon, W hat can be learned from the Type 5 inventor? He is significantly less interested than the lone m averick inventor in pursuing exotic inventions. As part of a com m ercial enterprise, a Type 5 inventor's m otivation to investigate long-term possibilities with a low likelihood of success is sm all. This is not to say that the individual inventor within the group m ight not be the m ost suitable candidate for considering exotic inventions if he can operate with considerable freedom and enjoy the support and intellectual m ilieu of the sm all group. Com parisons Table 2 below com pares the essential elem ents that characterize the types of inventors discussed in the previous sections. The various attributes shown can be used as criteria for determ ining the inventor type m ost likely to produce the necessary innovations in the areas of advanced prim ary energy and exotic propulsion. Table 2. Essential Elem ents That Characterize the Types of Inventor Attribute Type 1 (& 2) Type 3 and 4 Type 5 Corporate Age Younger Older Younger Various M otivation High High M edium Various Realism Low M edium High High Bureaucracy Low Low M edium High Capitalization Low (& M edium ) Low (& M edium ) M edium High Education Low High M ixed High Business Sense Low Various High M edium M easurem ent Low M edium M edium - High High Lab Skills Low High High High Externals Low High M edium High Flexibility High High M edium M edium M edia Interest High Low M ixed Low For clarity and com pactness, Types 1 and 2 and Types 3 and 4 are com bined, since in general the only m eaningful difference is the capitalization. As discussed above, unfortunately, m erely having m ore funding does not lead to substantially greater capabilities in other areas. Motivation: degree of com m itm ent to initiating and com pleting the task and belief that it is possible a priori. Realism: degree of realization of the difficulties to be faced. U N C I.A C C TFTFD //FnP H EFTF™ . urn nnut 1 1 UNCLASSIFIED/7FUA OFFICIAL USE ONLY Bureaucracy: am ount of general and adm inistrative overhead to be put up with by the inventor, Capitalization: relative am ount of funding available to the inventor for the specific invention. Education: level of education achieved by the inventor in the relevant fields of science or engineering. Business Sense: degree of business acum en associated with inventor. Measurement: capability of the inventor to understand and properly use m easuring instrum ents. Lab Skills: ability to show orderly developm ent from original concept, keep proper lab notes and com m unicate ideas to others. Externals: inventor's interest in and capability of using external assistance— for exam ple, a university, including publishing. Flexibility: ability to work on different sorts of projects, even when highly exotic. Media Interest: interest in self-prom otion and reliance on various popular (nonscientific) m edia for guidance; this is m ore an indicator of the psychology of the inventor than of his technical skills. In a 20 03 N ASA tutorial on breakthrough propulsion (Reference 32) , M illis describes the division between " m asters" and " pioneers" in the context of determ ining where the next space propulsion breakthrough m ight arise. At the extrem e end of the m asters are the " pedantic prudes" who consider that the process is already at the end-point of advancem ents in the field. This classification is sim ilar to the least m otivated corporate inventor. At the opposite end of the pioneers, he places the " pathological pundits" who characterize them selves using phrases such as " M y theory is great...I can't be wrong...If you don't agree, you are part of the suppression conspiracy," and can thereby be classified as Type 1 or 2 inventors. M illis also characterizes Type 1 and 2 inventors and " nonrigorous enthusiasts" (Reference 33) . Conclusions W e can draw several conclusions from the com parisons in Table 2. M averick inventors of Types 1 and 2 score high in m otivation and flexibility with little bureaucracy, but in all other areas, they are lacking. Especially troubling for the present scenario is the lack of education leading to substandard to nonexistent m easurem ent capabilities and laboratory skills, together with overreliance on m edia. Types 3 and 4 also exhibit beneficial attributes relating to m otivation, flexibility, and bureaucracy, as well as their treatm ent of m edia. As far as the present scenario is concerned, in all other attributes, Types 3 and 4 rank higher than their Type 1 and 2 counterparts. Their m easurem ent skills could be im proved, particularly in view of the requirem ents of these new areas of energy and propulsion. 1 2 UNCLASSIFIED/ 'FO P Q FFK 7A L U SE O N h¥ UNCLASSI FI ED//FO R O FFICIA L U SE O N L¥ Type 5 inventors are not as m otivated 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 im pacts their ability to innovate is not clear. They are m ore constrained insofar as bureaucracy is concerned, which tends to ham per carrying out " blue-sky" innovations. Finally, the corporate inventor scores high in all areas except m otivation, business acum en, and flexibility. As noted previously, the corporate inventor suffers from being em ployed in an agency that, except for the university, does not generally prom ote the types of innovations addressed in this paper. In m any cases, university innovators are hidebound by dogm a that prevents them from even entertaining the possibility. Therefore, as far as m averick 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 sim ilar perhaps to those used above. M illis considers the sam e scenario (Reference 32) when he states that the innovators he seeks are published, credible risk-takers with vision. They should be m onitored and encouraged by m eans of financial and other incentives to pursue these difficult areas of innovation. If the corporate inventor, and especially the university-based inventor, could be m otivated 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 m erely being watched casually, as no substantial innovation is expected to arise from these quarters. 1 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://peswiki.com /index.php/M ain_Page 2 , accessed Jan 1 3, 20 0 9http://www.am ericanantigravity.com / 3 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://wwwxnn.com /20 0 9/LIVIN G/worklife/0 1 /1 2/entrepreneur.psychology/index.htm l 4 /, accessed Jan 1 4, 20 09http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajm ar 5 Cook, N ., The Hunt for Zero Point, Century/Random House, London, 20 0 1 6 Tutt, K., The Search for Free Energy, Sim on and Schuster, London, 20 0 1 7 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://www.flynnresearch.net/ 8 Chiang, P.R., Sm ith, G.A., et al " An Antiproton D river for Internal Confinem ent Fusion Propulsion," Kam m ash, T. (ed) , Fusion Energy in Space Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 1 67, AIAA, W ashington, D C, 1 995 9 Sm ith, G.A., " Positron Propelled and Powered Space Transport Vehicle for Planetary M issions," N IAC Phase I Final Report, Research Subaward # 0 760 5 -0 03-0 48, presented at N IAC Phase I Fellows M eeting, Atlanta GA, M ar 7-8, 20 0 6 1 0 Zinsser, R., " M echanical Energy from Anisotropic Gravitational Fields," Hathaway (ed.) The First International Sym posium on N on-Conventional Energy Technology, University of Toronto, Oct 23 - 24, 1 981 (privately published) 1 1 Interavia, Vol. XI, N o. 1 2, pp. 992, (Switzerland) , 1 956 1 2 " Anti-Gravity not so Crazy After All," N ew Scientist, Feb 1 4, 1 980 1 3 Ball, P. " Burning water and other m yths," N ature N ews, Sept. 1 4, 20 0 7 1 4 . , accessed Jan 1 5 , 20 0 9http://www m agneticpowerinc.com / 1 5 , accessed Jan 1 5 , 20 09http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.htm l 1 6 , accessed Jan 1 1 , 20 0 9http://www.greaterthings.com /N ews/Tilley/fraud/index.htm l 1 7 .htm , accessed Jan 1 1 , 20 0 9http://www.phact.org/eZz/perendev 1 8 Krieg, E. " Exam ining the Am azing Free-Energy Claim s of D ennis Lee," Skeptical Inquirer M agazine, Vol. 21 , N o. 4 , pp 34 - 36, July/Aug 1 997 1 9 , accessed Jan 1 3, 20 0 9http://www.r-charge.com /about.htm l 1 3 UNCLASSIFIED//FOP OFFICE' urrnuLM UNCLASSIFIED/7TUH UI 11UAL U9C ONLY - 20 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://www.searleffect.com /free/jt_biodetail.htm l 21 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://www.steorn.com / 22 Gam bier, J-L, M icheletti, D .A., " Theoretical Analysis of the Electron Spiral Toroid Concept," N ASA Report N ASA/CR-20 0 0 -21 0 65 4, Langley Research Center, Ham pton, VA, D ec. 20 0 0 23 , accessed Jan 1 2, 20 0 9http://www.lawrencevilleplasm aphysics.com / 24 , accessed Jan 1 4, 20 0 9http://gam m am anager.blogspot.com / 25 W oodward, J., " Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" Foundations of Physics, Vol. 34, pg 1 475, 2 0 0 4. 26 Little, S.R., " N ull Tests of " Free-Energy" Claim s," Frontiers of Propulsion Science, (in print) , M illis, M .G., D avis, E.W . (eds) , Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, 227, AIAA, 20 0 9 27 Hathaway, G.D ., " N ightm ares of the Art of M easuring," Space Technologies and Applications International Forum 20 0 6, El Genk, M .S. (ed.) Am erican Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, M elville, N Y, 20 0 6 28 Graneau, P., Graneau, N ., et al " Arc-Liberated Chem ical Energy Exceeds Electrical Input Energy" J. Plasm a Physics Vol. 63, part 2, pg 1 1 5 , 20 0 0 29 , accessed Jan 1 3, 20 0 9http://www.dekaresearch.com /aboutD ean.htm l 30 , (under construction) accessed Jan 20 0 9http://ovshinskyinnovation.com / 31 , accessed Jan 1 5 , 20 0 9http://clever-fellows-innovation-consortium .sbcontract.com /profile.htm 32 M illis, M .G., " The N ASA Breakthrough Propulsion Project: M ethods of Advanced Research," AIAA Professional Short Course, N ASA Glenn Research Center, 20 03 33 M illis, M .G., " Prioritizing Pioneering Research," Frontiers of Propulsion Science, (in print) , M illis, M .G., D avis, E.W . (eds) , Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, 227, AIAA, 2 0 0 9 1 4 UNCLASSIFIED//FOP OFFTCT"' urrnuLM