"Let us widen the debate: creation vs innovation"

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.

"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?"

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

Dead Polar Bears


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!"

Re: "Separation of Conceptualizations"


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.

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.

Monsanto or Corning


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.

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?

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.