I think the take-away isn't that his idea is pretty radical, but that he was 15 steps ahead of himself and that seemed to set himself up for failure. Not sure

I think the take-away isn't that his idea is pretty radical, but that he was 15 steps ahead of himself and that seemed to set himself up for failure. Not sure if it's that the article was poorly written, but he didn't seem to have any early small wins to get him to the next big step. All great inventors (except maybe for Dyson), seemed to have all these small wins that would help leverage them to the next chunk. If he needs investment, he should have started with something early on that would win investors trust so that eventually he could call on his network to tackle his crazy ideas.