From science fiction author Charles Fort in his 1931 book titled Lo!
“If human thought is a growth, like all other growths, its logic is without foundation of its own, and is only the adjusting constructiveness of all other growing things. A tree cannot find out, as it were, how to blossom, until comes blossom-time. A social growth cannot find out the use of steam engines, until comes steam-engine-time. For whatever is supposed to be meant by progress, there is no need in human minds for standards of their own: this is in the sense that no part of a growing plant needs guidance of its own devising, nor special knowledge of its own as to how to become a leaf or a root.
How Common Is Multiple Invention?
11–20 of 47 posts
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#12This one line (especially the part in parenthesis) hits directly on the heart of the matter:
Lillienfeld likely never actually built his transistor (it would have almost certainly been impossible to build a working one due to material limitations), but he nevertheless described the concept.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#13I've thought a few times when reading some funding announcement on techcrunch, "That was my idea!" which is super validating and nice to see. Some of these multiple-inventions are pretty inspiring to learn about. I think it reinforces concretely the idea that "execution" matters more than anything else.
Yeah. TBH I highly doubt the mainstream, condensed narrative of history. The focus is always on individuals; each invention conveniently having just one inventor, one hero... Whereas in reality, it's almost always a group of people sharing ideas and each making progress until one person stumbles upon the incremental improvement which makes the invention finally useful; that person gets all the credit, everyone else i…
Simpler, happy stories are easier to tell than ambiguous, chaotic, political, and contentious realities.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#14How many inventions were invented multiple times because the first inventor ran out of money before reaching a viable product? That's a worthwhile analysis.
Edison got a workable lightbulb by having a whole staff trying different materials. The concept was known - find some resistive material that will tolerate high temperature and run some power through it. Works fine with platinum, but costs too much. Many materials can be carbonized but the filaments don't last. Swan maxed out at 14 hours. Edison's lab just kept trying materials until they got carbonized bamboo to work for 1200 hours.
It's the power of money.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many inventions simply happen when the environment is ready for them, e.g. manufacturing techniques have advanced to the point where something is possible.
Others get forgotten about because the funding or key manufacturing techniques don’t exist so the idea gets lost. It can be a long way from a prototype to something worth building at scale.
The sadest are the useful ones that cant access their market, have some risk combined with small margins or an [initial] audience without money.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#16My favorite conspiracy theory involves the invention of the economic aluminum process.
It is not really a conspiracy but there are a lot of very strange coincidences involved.
A short summary.
Charles Martin Hall worked out the electrolytic method for aluminum refinement in 1886. The same process was also independently discovered that year by Paul Héroult. both men were 22 years old, a strange coincidence. but where it gets really weird is that both men also died the the same year, 1914.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#17I've thought a few times when reading some funding announcement on techcrunch, "That was my idea!" which is super validating and nice to see. Some of these multiple-inventions are pretty inspiring to learn about. I think it reinforces concretely the idea that "execution" matters more than anything else.
I had a giant laundry list. Most of it got build. My one trick was to not build anything but dream up the next thing in stead. It is hilarious to compare notes to see if they got the details right. It usually gives me a feeling as if the collective mind used my idle brain cycles to run other peoples thoughts by. The entire thing may arrive with an unreasonable amount of detail and float away a few hours later only to return in completed form a few years later.
Also funny is to have an idea just complete enough to be able to find the patents.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#18How many inventions were invented multiple times because the first inventor ran out of money before reaching a viable product? That's a worthwhile analysis. Edison got a workable lightbulb by having a whole staff trying different materials. The concept was known - find some resistive material that will tolerate high temperature and run some power through it. Works fine with platinum, but costs too much. Many material…
In addition to the filament material, Edison's research program also worked tirelessly on improving vacuum technology. Getting electric current into a glass bulb without leaks or cracking due to thermal expansion, and keeping the air out, are no small feats.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#19Before Galileo "invented" the telescope 3 dutch people tried to patent it simultaniously. One also described (like tesla) that hé reverse engineered it from writings by the ancients.
As I understand it, the Vatican astronomers called Galileo out on his claim to have invented the telescope. It didn't stop them from buying a couple of his scopes.
Re: How Common Is Multiple Invention?
#20This one line (especially the part in parenthesis) hits directly on the heart of the matter: Lillienfeld likely never actually built his transistor (it would have almost certainly been impossible to build a working one due to material limitations), but he nevertheless described the concept. An invention doesn't become viable when someone thinks it up, it becomes viable when the material science is there to make it ha…
I've adopted a personal rule about "invention," loosely based on the patent system. Claiming to have had an "idea" is not enough. Ideas are a dime a dozen. But a patent requires a coherent description, novelty, and practicability.
And disclosure.
Reduction to practice is where I think the rubber meets the road. This is where you find out if someone actually understands the subject matter well enough to have invented something, and at least has discovered and overcome the major pitfalls. Plus the act of making something work really helps to clarify the idea and demonstrate non-obviousness. And if it can't be reduced to practice, then it's not an invention.
There's nothing wrong with publishing an idea but leaving recognition for inventorship to someone else.