1
   

"Let us widen the debate: creation vs innovation"

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 01:58 pm
Paul Andrew Bourne, BSc. (Hons), Economics and Demography

When one speaks of innovation the concept refers to not creation but the remodelling of already made products. However, creation is primarily the holistic make of products. Examples here are cellular telephone (innovation from the telephone) and the wheel (creation). With the premise of creation versus innovation establish, "has man created anything new in the last 50 years?"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,130 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 03:25 pm
Sure
You mean like fiber optics? Or the transistor?

Actually, I challenge your assertion. Creation and Innovation cannot be so easily separated. You say the wheel is a "creation", but you could also say that it is just an innovation from a tree trunk. Is the artificial heart just an innovation from the real thing? Does it matter if it saves your life? A cell phone is only like a phone on the surface. It is a fundamentally different technology.

I think that all innovation involves creation. You might want to put on a scale depending on how revolutionary it is, but I think it is a spectrum, not black and white.
0 Replies
 
paul andrew bourne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 04:52 pm
"Separation of Conceptualizations"
Paul Andrew Bourne, BSc. (Hons) Economics and Demography


The modification of any product, be it services and or tangible items, cannot be simply a creation but an innovation of existence. When the wheel was created there was nothing in man's past that was able recreate of things therefrom. However, over the years, man has modeled and redisign product of the wheel; and this is similar to telephone created by Bell.

As it relates to the "tree trunk", the concept of this was not to create light or electricity therefrom. As such, this construct bears no resemblance to the issue of discussion. On the other hand, my basic principle is if any product exists before today any alteration or extension of this item is not a creation by an innovation.

The examples discussed earlier are just thought of the issue I am seeking to clarify. Hence, "Have we created anything in the last 50 years?"
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 06:17 pm
Fiberoptics isn't as much an invention as a discovery. The fur of a polar bear is fiberoptic and functions as a light and heat pipe to keep the animal warm. What one can do with the basic principal of second surface refraction is creating a product or application. Since there are legal differences for patents and invention, and applications patents are the most prevalant it would seem you're playing fast and loose semantic games with the basic defintion of "creation."

Main Entry: cre·a·tion
Pronunciation: krE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of creating; especially : the act of bringing the world into ordered existence
2 : the act of making, inventing, or producing: as a : the act of investing with a new rank or office b : the first representation of a dramatic role
3 : something that is created : as a : WORLD b : creatures singly or in aggregate c : an original work of art d : a new usually striking article of clothing
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 07:08 am
Dead Polar Bears
Quote:
Fiberoptics isn't as much an invention as a discovery. The fur of a polar bear is fiberoptic and functions as a light and heat pipe to keep the animal warm.


If you have some links to support this, I will consider it, but it seems to me that if you do a heat balance around a polar bear, the heat source is on the inside and if you put light and heat pipes all around him, he will cool off to ambient temperature pretty quickly. I also doubt the amount of sunlight coupled into a polar bear "fiber" would be significant, even if he had some mechanism to keep all of them oriented at the sun. At the zoo (Asheboro, NC), the polar bear sign said the hollow fiber provides insulation. But, if you have some links I think it would be interesting reading.

The concept of transmitting light miles through glass and using it for communication counts as an invention to me. I think the wheel, which our beloved thread founder "Paul Andrew Bourne, BSc. (Hons) Economics and Demography" stated is a creation, is more of a discovery. Tree log rolls down a hill and the survivors think "I could do that with only a cross section of the tree!"
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 08:24 am
Re: "Separation of Conceptualizations"
paul andrew bourne wrote:
Paul Andrew Bourne, BSc. (Hons) Economics and Demography

The modification of any product, be it services and or tangible items, cannot be simply a creation but an innovation of existence. When the wheel was created there was nothing in man's past that was able recreate of things therefrom.


Hi Paul, despite your objection to Engineer's argument, I agree with him. Your differentiation between "creation" and "Innovation" is not so clear cut.

For example, a tree which falls and rolls down a hill, could easily have been a precursor to a wheel. The Wheel is only a modification of the basic principle observed by watching a log roll down a hill.

Based on your definition of "creation", we would need to find something which has no conceptual precursor. Even Velcro had the common "burr" (a weed), which inspired it.

I suppose ideas might be considered pure creations. New languages maybe, or fictional stories.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 09:37 am
I was giving an oddity phenomena that has been debated since the early 80's regarding polar bear hair to illustrate the flaw in Mr. Paul Andrew Bourne BSc's creation, innovation, discovery conundrum, not to support it. We tested it at the labs at Mitsubishi and it, in fact, transmit light and in the IR range at low levels. The polar bear's skin is actually black which further assists with the absorbtion of heat. It has since been tested several times and the results were not as supportive and, in fact, even debunked. The scientific debate will continue on that one. There's always something one can compare an invention, creation or discovery that occurs in nature.

A better example would be the simple prism. If light enters through the 90 deg. side of a 45 deg. prism, it refracts 90 deg. off the second surface. It was astonishing that this wasn't applied to a tube with an outside coating or tube acting as a second surface before. It was first used in the 60's in a decorative plastic fiberoptic and until glass fiberoptics perfected by Monsanto was not adequate to deliver a high enough transmission to facilitate use in mainly communication and medical devices. I did experiments for Dupont with new plastics in an attempt to rival glass and still couldn't come close. I had a bit of deja vu recently when in a recent medical examination I had one of the fiberoptic catheters which was made by the company I worked for used on me! Now all they have to do is find a way to make them more comfortable. Ouch.

I also worked on light piping in the 80's through flat sheets of such materials as Lucite (acrylic sheets) which has an internal refraction without any outside coating. An outside coating can help loose less light from the light pipe.

You've likely seen this principal used in illuminated signage.

Again, this is a conundrum based playing games with semantics. Yawn.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 12:37 pm
Monsanto or Corning
Quote:
It was first used in the 60's in a decorative plastic fiberoptic and until glass fiberoptics perfected by Monsanto was not adequate to deliver a high enough transmission to facilitate use in mainly communication and medical devices.


I think Corning invented low loss optical fiber for use in communications. Inventors Hall of Fame Link I searched for Monsanto and optical fiber and didn't get a lot of meaningful hits.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:10 pm
Ooops -- you're right. My memory escaped me for an instant and I should know that Corning developed glass fiberoptics because I also did testing of acrylic fiberoptics for that company. It was, after all, over twenty years ago! I did some chemical tests on Monsanto products for use in developing new optically pure plastics so excuse my error.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 03:16 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Ooops -- you're right. My memory escaped me for an instant and I should know that Corning developed glass fiberoptics because I also did testing of acrylic fiberoptics for that company. It was, after all, over twenty years ago! I did some chemical tests on Monsanto products for use in developing new optically pure plastics so excuse my error.


Blinded by the light? Smile
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 03:22 pm
Yes, I've got to stop looking directly into my fiberoptic display at home, especially since the light source is a high discharge lamp!

I've had a lot of fun working with fiberoptics -- did a fiberoptic waterfall for a restaurant in Laguna Beach which involved some rather extensive programming of the fiberoptic bundle. Alas, they had a fire and it was lost.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Let us widen the debate: creation vs innovation"
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/01/2014 at 10:17:13