Issue 16: Traits and Common Threads Across Radio Innovation

Please join us for discussion on the topic presented in Issue 16 of our series, "Trials and Errors -- Ham Life with an Amateur." In case you haven't yet seen it, the column is located at this link.

Use this discussion forum to post helpful criticism, new ideas for columns, and more! The author stands by, awaiting your commentary. Thanks! Dave, W7DGJ

 

Here's another picture that I didn't have space for in my column today. It's a drawing of the "aerial telegraphy" experiments done by American dentist Dr. Mahlon Loomis, even before Marconi's birth.

 

Persistence and grit. Not uniquely American traits but ones that we as a nation had become known for across the 19th and 20th centuries.

Early days in the 21st century but am hopeful of further inventions such as mRNA, Chat GPT, starlink and more that propel the world: society economy and mankind itself, forward in productive and hopefully peaceful endeavors.

 

Well, yes and no.

Inventors don't have vision. They have solution(s). They see the invention's capability. In fact, most inventors and inventions have zero vision, manifesting as only a small fraction of patents--the currency of invention--are shown to break even, let alone see wide usage and or impact. I don't know any inventor that discusses their invention(s) as part of a 'vision'.

When inventors convince themselves they have vision, they get in trouble. A famous case is Art Collins, who took Collins Radio into the realm of computer networks--a 'vision' of a new world some 50 years ahead of reality--that is, 50 years ahead of the need for its existence. Collins Radio went under--bought out-- because of this vision.

That woman from Theranos. She had 'vision'. Look where it got her.

Edison had a 'vision' with his magnetic separator. Essentially drove him into near bankruptcy.

I don't know what you mean by 'persistence'. Perhaps you mean 'stubborn'. I think what you really mean is that innovation--to solve problems-- is like giving up smoking: 'its easy; I've have done it many times.'

Inventors give up constantly . But like other creative people, something sets them off and they go at it again. That's not persistence, which strongly implies a CONTINUATION of action. Inventors are sculptors of solutions: they walk away, often come back, and sling the clay again.

I would very much like to see references where inventors actually describe their activities via 'persistence' and 'vision'. If they want to level with you, they will show the nonlinearity of the process and the short and near term reasons that drive them .

I wouldn't drink the Koolaid too much on Sarnoff. Its really Armstrong's superregen and DeForest's audion that enabled broadcast (RX). And DeForest was the first disk jockey, long before RCA started spewing out receivers. Also, Sarnoff ended uo taking RCA into a conglomerate, and his vision was to sell frozen chicken to everyone in America! True--look it up.(Before that, chicken was an unbranded, almost always 'fresh only' item. )

Well, that vision got RCA broken up and some pieces bought out by GE in 1985.

I actually worry that some budding inventors may get discouraged because they don't think they have 'vision' and may not have (yet) acquired 'persistence'. Its simpler than that: innovators see a problem to solve and a route to solve it. They may need the solution or just be curious where it takes them. If the solution bears fruit then its time to move forward.

BTW, Martin certainly has a LOT of whatever the'correct' words are. For decades people called it 'mighty fine junk'--and then they would cue up at the ham conventions to buy it.

Not trying to be negative here, just provide a slightly different perspective. Now at 92 US patents, none funded/ created by big corporate engineering teams or big business...

 

Hey Chip - I clicked on "like" for your post because anyone who commits that kind of time and effort to a reply on a forum I started deserves my appreciation. But you and I have a basic disagreement that won't go away with my response, I'm sure. And I'm not going to adapt or adjust my first two common threads, because I have too much history of people telling me what has made them successful and their stories jive with the terms I selected -- persistence, and long-term vision. They don't use those terms of course. Just as you say, no inventor or innovator is going to tell me or anyone else that they have these things. But when you sit down at the kitchen table and talk to them for an hour or two about their successes and what got them there, these are two of the five things that are often seen in successful, technical people. After 32+ years of doing these kinds of meetings with innovators, that's a sampling of tens of thousands. Not everyone I interview for key roles (Principal Engineer, Director of Research, VP and Chief Technical Officer, etc) is a wild genius, and some are just extraordinarily average. But the cool thing about innovation is that it can occur even during an extraordinary moment of an otherwise ordinary life. An idea comes into your head. You persist on that idea, you bang away at it or come back later and try it in a different way, and suddenly it works. You envision what can be done with it or how it might affect the world. Steve jobs in his workshop -- I think he saw where that could go, Chip. Bill Linton (Promega Corporation, a huge biotech concern) in his garage making little kits for DNA manipulation and selling them to scientists at the University of Wisconsin. I interviewed Bill in depth and I know that he knew where he was going and what impact he was making on the future.

Over the 32 years of my career, I've spoken with at least 10 scientists or engineers a week in in-depth, biographical conversations. Not the kind of interview you get for a job. The kind of interview a professional conducts who is both interested in doing good for that person, as well as doing good for the company who would consider hiring him/her. It's a conversation that gets to the bone, so to speak. Sometimes emotions are involved. Sometimes a person will get upset, angry, but often they end the conversation thanking me for the insights we developed together. It's not a "mean" discussion . . . it's me, helping that person recognize what they bring to the table and why they've made the decisions they've made so far. "Tell me about that patent," and "What were you thinking when you saw what that technology did in the lab?" and more. By these conversations, I have learned what makes innovators "tick." I've seen common ground in their experiences, and I enjoy thinking about this and musing about what they must have gone through. You're right, Chip, that persistence often means going at it again and again with the same tool until something happens. But that's not what's intended in my use of the word. It's persistence as it relates to the idea; you can come at it six ways, or go back later and throw the clay (as you say) in a different manner.

With long-term vision, the innovator sees what the technology or idea is truly capable of. I've worked with oddball geniuses who have an idea but no vision of what it might do for the world, and I would far rather stake my own investments on a lesser genius -- one who knows what the market could do with such an idea and how it will pull it along into revenues and improvements in our quality of life. In order to bring these kinds of innovations forward, the innovator must have the long-term vision to at least see a marketable idea and how that technology he/she is developing fits into that potential. Martin saw MFJ as a company that fills a void for so many different kinds of products that hams need . . . Sarnoff saw the wireless, instead of one-to-one communication, as communication to the masses. Like him or not, he had the vision it took to get there. Would he have said he has "long term vision?" Maybe he's the only one of the profiled innovators who would agree, but that's ego and nothing more. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Great comment, Joe. You're right. When you talk about these things, it seems we were known for this as a country. And hopefully it, along with our entrepreneurial nature, will never fade. Dave

 

Dave,

Again, my experience is not as a narrative reporter, but as someone who is out there doing it; knows dozens of inventors; has worked with dozens more; has picked THEIR brains for insight to save ME time.

Clay Christensen alrady covered the traits of innovators quite well. I refer you to his co-authored book THE INNOVATORS SOLUTION published in 2003.

You are very correct that the PATH of invention has not been documented well. The problem is that if you NEED to reduce the 'traits' to a handful of adjectives, they need to be accurate. For example, can you cite published interviews where successful inventors have used those words--'persistence', 'vision' in describing their process? I asked you that in the prior post.

As to 'vision', I think you should be direct and not metaphorical. To wit: Tesla 'saw' things in his mind. He said that. He did experiments in his mind. He said that. I will tell you right now that many, but not all,inventors have this 'blackhoard in their mind'. It is a running machine. The closest I can have it relate to for 'normal' people is when their hear a song in their head. THIS 'vision' --the blackboard of the mind-- is likely a common trait. I have it. But this 'vision' is not views of how civilization will change by the inventors. Not a metaphor. Vision is the 'blackboard'. IOW inventors are poor FUTURISTS but great problem solvers.

I am stating that 'vision' (as you define it)and 'persistence' are not accurate descriptions of successful innovators. I have been explicit in the prior post why this is the case. I appreciate that you disagree. And both of us have the right to diverse and in this case, conflicting, opinions. But I did ask you to cite direct provenance from inventors, for this evidence. You have not cited a reference or references that directly capture that from the inventors themselves...please give us a taste, at least

Probably the best insight into the 'traits' of innovators is the interview done with Jerry Lemelson and published in INVENTORS AT WORK by Ken Brown. Jerry was stubborn. He didn't espouse futurist vision. But he also knew that many inventions go into a 'hibernation' stage. That is why he used submarine patent tactics so well... he filed continuations when the NEED was best appropriate.

He espoused multidisciplinary extrapolation. IOW, Jerry had a broad knowledge base that let him combine and hybridize, KEY TRAITS of the invention process. I suspect that you WILL divulge that you have found this (these)as one of the 'traits'.

And how do I know this about Jerry? Because I asked him, in Reno. Many years ago. After discussing it he sent me to that interview.

Care should be taken to let the subjects tell the story, rather than interpret it for them. Opinions are fine, but hearing it from the horse's mouth is the best way to get the facts.

Yep. Stubborn

73
Chip W1YW

 

Chip, I am happy that you are so passionate about your interests and your inventions, and about innovation in general. Please note that I am the same way. I've been picking the brains of innovators (as you say) since the mid-1980s and the result has been the growth of companies in several quite dynamic marketplaces. My thoughts about innovation stand as they are, and acting as a schoolyard bully and pushing me around isn't going to change anything. My career and life's focus has been directed to this aspect of innovation . . . what do they bring to the table and how do they do what they do? I think, perhaps, that you are too close to the subject to provide a balanced perspective. You have your own beliefs, which I am not diminishing here. Appreciate your input, but don't slam mine please. Help us find a way to bring your ideas into the picture and broaden both of our perspectives. Dave. W7DGJ

 

Never slammed you Dave. I am helping you see the inventor perspective. Again, I am interested in your citations, which are not here. Please just give us a case or two where successful inventors described themselves as 'persistent' and or had long term 'vision'. That is not a personal diss of you. It is a request for evidentiary facts.

Anyone who describes me as 'passionate' indicates they really don't 'get' me. Again, the wrong words. Inventors 'are'. Passion doesn't drive the dozens I know or worked with. They are wired to solve.

IMO,I don't know why we--that is, folks as a whole in the business arena-- have to use words, in 2023, like 'passionate' or 'vision'. Thirty years ago, these words were not so overused. it seems that oftentimes we use the words first and then coax the situation to fit them. I don't know if the case here is that, I tend to doubt it. I am concerned that budding inventors may feel at a loss to proceed if they don't have 'vision' or 'persistence'. Inventors eat failure. That's not quite 'persistence'. Inventors enjoy solving problems. That is not the same as 'passion'.

I do not invoke emotional content in discussions in which I am experienced. Ain't no 'passion'.This is a topic in which I am experienced and, in which I am additionally published (i.e. innovation). I can provide a reference on Monday if you desire , when I am back in the office.

Again, the issue is the appropriate adjectives. I have no problem with your desire to assist others in understanding common traits of innovators. I just think its deeper and more intricate than the reductionist approach you are taking. I have given you a bit of insight , on something that I seldom discuss for example, such as the 'blackboard of the mind' (some people think you are nutso if you discuss that).

My opinions. Yours may differ.

I actually think you are being helpful to those who don't have the inventor knack--yet. Continue to encourage them! It's all good.

I do hope that one of the traits you mention is 'inventors eat failure'.

73
Chip W1YW

 

BTW, as per the aforementioned, and bizarre fact,here is a reference--from Wikipedia (I am sure there are others)-- on the Radio Corporation of America buying a (frozen) chicken shack while Sarnoff headed the realm:

"Banquet was founded in 1953, with the introduction of frozen meat pies. Banquet first hit the store shelves in 1955, offering frozen dinners. Soon after that, Banquet became popular with their Cookin' Bags products. In 1970, the company was purchased by RCA, which in turn sold it to Con-Agra in 1980.

Banquet is known primarily for a frozen breaded chicken,[citation needed] but expanded into other chicken products over the years, including chicken pot pies, chicken nuggets, ready-to-heat microwaveable dinners and buffalo wings."

 

Ugh. What a weird acquisition. They must have been "cash rich" at the time, and why they might have thought that this was a direction to go, who knows! One bone-headed decision, for sure. Dave W7DGJ

 

Bone-headed! good pun! Cluck!

Dave, even those who make brilliant decisions make idiotic ones. But as an historian, you know that

Years ago, Apple bought a synthetic sapphire-glass(?) company and Steve Jobs gutted it. Apple never used it. That was part of a long term vision to provide mechanically solid super-thin phones. Ooops! Now the trend is super thin flexi phones...

You should continue on Marconi,IMO. The guy was just amazing. As you note

73
Chip W1YW

 

Growing up in Akron, my family made the trip up to Neela Park to see the Christmas lights every year.

Dinner somewhere on the way up, go see the lights, then hot chocolate on the way home.

Some great times I hadn't thought about in quite a while.

Thanks for the whack to my brain!

 

Rick, we did the same thing. What a beautiful place to drive around at Christmas! Many fine memories. NE Ohio was beautiful with the snow at Christmas. I moved to AZ so long ago that I'm a "native," but there are two times I miss Ohio . . . for one, Snow at Christmas. Secondly, whenever I am trying to get an antenna up in the air and I have to use tall cactus instead of trees for support! Dave

 

An interesting and well-written article. I would offer that there's a difference between invention and innovation (although they often exist together). Not all inventors are great innovators, and not all innovations were the result of invention by the innovator. Consider Heathkit as an example. Reportedly, Howard Anthony saw a construction article for an oscilloscope in Radio News in 1946. That oscilloscope, which Anthony did not invent but he did innovate to market, was eventually kitted and marketed by Heathkit in 1947. It was the first Heathkit -- and it certainly did lead to other innovations (and even some inventions over the years). Anthony was an innovator with an enormous amount of persistence.

73 - Steve, KW4H