5 ms·

> why don't you get a bit of pencil lead and put between two bits of cellotape, rinse repeat until you got a thin layer. I am a bit skeptical of your Account,

> why don't you get a bit of pencil lead and put between two bits of cellotape, rinse repeat until you got a thin layer. I am a bit skeptical of your Account, but it is also not quite as trivial as that. The key insight wasn’t just the mechanical exfoliation (scotch tape Methode). This had been used before and wasn’t new by itself. The key insight was transferring it onto a SiO2 substrate. So, no worries you most likely did not miss out on your Nobel Prize ;)

6510 7y ago
Its not about that, its about dismissing practical trains of thought - outright. Ironically, the author of the article is such a person. > To invent something is to invent a practical version of that thing. It is not. Like with everything from the chain of command to the chain of events it takes all links in the chain to make it a chain. You might as well argue that it is marketing that is responsible for the invention or that the consumer in their decision to purchase the newfangled contraption decides if the invention is real or not. Or no wait, the financier, he is the true visionary. > If your “invention” is impractical, it’s just a demo or prototype Oh, that is only this and that. Someone who trivializes the prototype doesn't have what it takes to envision it, let alone make it. Hardly a position fromwhich to judge those who did and do.
- fsloth 7y ago
  I suppose from point of view of idea retention and acceptance - for the idea to go 'viral' - you need a strong practical example. Humans are really great at taking into use new practical tools. Not so much taking in a half-established concept and turning it into something usefull. So, from point of view of innovation, you are right. From the point of view of what matters from historical perspective to get a new idea stick, the author has a strong point.
- sriku 7y ago
  Furthermore, if I understand the position, the patent office would not agree to the OP's definition either .. as long as the original maker of the "prototype" could describe the mechanism well enough. The inventor of the "practical" version would have to articulate what it took above and beyond the prototype and even then only be able to patent that part and not including the invention covered by the proto.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    To me that sounds more like an argument against our patent system than an argument in favor of counting impractical prototypes as inventions.
    - sriku 7y ago
      The patent system is supposed to be to encourage knowledge sharing in society by granting monopoly in exchange for full disclosure of invention details. Imposing an irregular concept like "practicality" on top this is counterproductive. Practicality is not straightforward. Was Edison's light bulb practical on its own terms or did it become practical only after the invention of electric power generation and distribution? What about economies of scale? .. and so on.
Zenst 7y ago
> I am a bit skeptical of your Account Fair enough, I know it's true, it happened and nothing to gain proving otherwise. Sure it wasn't the golden solution, but it was on the right track and would of enabled others to progress as at that time there was nothing. > So, no worries you most likely did not miss out on your Nobel Prize ;) Just so you know, I don't care for such things and even throw a chess game just to avoid having to go up in front of the school and didn't like public attention. Turned out I was autistic spectrum, a diagnosis that was late in life for me, mostly due to the time - 70's. My point was and with a personal example how easily something wonderful can be glibly dismissed and shot down before it even gets a chance to try and take flight instead of explored or explained why it won't fly.

6510 7y ago

Its not about that, its about dismissing practical trains of thought - outright. Ironically, the author of the article is such a person. > To invent something is to invent a practical version of that thing. It is not. Like with everything from the chain of command to the chain of events it takes all links in the chain to make it a chain. You might as well argue that it is marketing that is responsible for the invention or that the consumer in their decision to purchase the newfangled contraption decides if the invention is real or not. Or no wait, the financier, he is the true visionary. > If your “invention” is impractical, it’s just a demo or prototype Oh, that is only this and that. Someone who trivializes the prototype doesn't have what it takes to envision it, let alone make it. Hardly a position fromwhich to judge those who did and do.

fsloth 7y ago
I suppose from point of view of idea retention and acceptance - for the idea to go 'viral' - you need a strong practical example. Humans are really great at taking into use new practical tools. Not so much taking in a half-established concept and turning it into something usefull. So, from point of view of innovation, you are right. From the point of view of what matters from historical perspective to get a new idea stick, the author has a strong point.
sriku 7y ago
Furthermore, if I understand the position, the patent office would not agree to the OP's definition either .. as long as the original maker of the "prototype" could describe the mechanism well enough. The inventor of the "practical" version would have to articulate what it took above and beyond the prototype and even then only be able to patent that part and not including the invention covered by the proto.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  To me that sounds more like an argument against our patent system than an argument in favor of counting impractical prototypes as inventions.
  - sriku 7y ago
    The patent system is supposed to be to encourage knowledge sharing in society by granting monopoly in exchange for full disclosure of invention details. Imposing an irregular concept like "practicality" on top this is counterproductive. Practicality is not straightforward. Was Edison's light bulb practical on its own terms or did it become practical only after the invention of electric power generation and distribution? What about economies of scale? .. and so on.

Zenst 7y ago

> I am a bit skeptical of your Account Fair enough, I know it's true, it happened and nothing to gain proving otherwise. Sure it wasn't the golden solution, but it was on the right track and would of enabled others to progress as at that time there was nothing. > So, no worries you most likely did not miss out on your Nobel Prize ;) Just so you know, I don't care for such things and even throw a chess game just to avoid having to go up in front of the school and didn't like public attention. Turned out I was autistic spectrum, a diagnosis that was late in life for me, mostly due to the time - 70's. My point was and with a personal example how easily something wonderful can be glibly dismissed and shot down before it even gets a chance to try and take flight instead of explored or explained why it won't fly.