Hello.
Both sides are right.
A technical innovation needs money to develop and to get into the market making profit.
The money needs good / sound technical ideas to be invested on, otherwise the money is lost.
Take the case of Martin Jetpack.
For thirty years Martin, alone, was developing his Jetpack. Away from commercialization and profit. It was a project full of expenses.
Only a few months ago his project was funded with some $24M. A Chinese company is ready to invest another $50M
Unfortunately a month, or so, ago Martin resigned disagreeing with the new orientation of the company which is incompatible to his own dream for a personal Flyer. The biggest asset of Martin Jetpack company is gone.
Take the case of Malloy hoverbike.
A year ago he was trying to gather $80K in order to make his new hoverbike prototype in normal size. Now he is talking with the US Army for a big deal (an escape / survival vehicle for trapped troops).
Take the case of EcoMotors.
The technical idea – OPOC engine - was ready from 15 years ago.
After several years of efforts Peter Hofbauer received the required funds.
Besides the 100 millions (or so) of dollars funded so far, Hofbauer achieved to have as basic investors big names like Bill Gates (the OPOC was presented as an environmental friendly engine).
Besides, the technical magazines around the world publish anything new (or “new”) coming from EcoMotors. Thousands of articles can be found in the Internet.
Unfortunately the original idea was not good enough (there are substantial issues yet to be addressed).
Despite the big money invested, and the big names involved, OPOC’s future remains uncertain.
Take the case of the VCR-i variable compression ratio mechanism / engine of the French mce-5 company.
They were proud for the €100M (some $110M) invested (several of them by public companies).
Their plans were to get in mass production during 2016.
50 engineers were (are?) working full time for the VCR-i.
Unless I am wrong, the last news added to their website are from 2013.
The original idea was not good enough: as happens regularly, it solves a technical problem introducing others, more difficult to be addressed, technical problems / side effects.
Take the Australian Revetec.
Many investors lost their saving investing on Revetec camless engine. For the technically oriented it is OK. For the rest investors the journalists around the world have the blame, because nobody focused on the obvious technical issues of Brad’s design.
I recall Brad proudly spending big money to Cosworth for high-tech cylinder heads (for engines falling apart at 4,000 rpm or earlier; 4,000 is the number of reciprocations per piston per minute).
Take the case of the Wankel Rotary engine.
Half a century ago they were invested, and lost, several billions of dollars (every car maker had an R&D department dedicated to the evolution of the rotary engine; a few of them (Citroen, NSU) bankrupted because of the Wankel rotary.
Money is an important part of the process.
A sound technical idea is more important. At the end, even if it ends up without profit, it leaves a legacy / a reference / a prior art / a basis for the future inventors / engineers.
For instance:
The TCVJ (Thompson) coupling is a constant velocity joint patented by an Australian engineer and presented as the “Holly Grail” of engineering. The money invested to his company was lost. The idea had a small “issue”. The small “issue” proved its Achilles’ heel in practice.
The TCVJ evolved to the PatCVJ (that solves the “issue” of the TCVJ).
And the PatCVJ evolved to the PatDAN:
that makes a lot more (for more:
http://www.pattakon....takonPatDan.htm )
The problem is simple: to transfer torsional and axial loads by a mechanism that keeps the transmission ratio between the input and output shafts strictly at 1:1.
Either it will be commercialized or not, the PatDAN is a technical solution of a long existing problem.
You can’t imagine how important and useful the objections in a strictly technical discussion may prove.
The engineers, mechanics, scientists (the members of a technical forum like this) look at the new idea from a different than the inventor viewpoint. And their opinion is invaluable for him.
So please do your best posting your strictly technical objections; the more negative, the better.
Thanks
Manolis Pattakos