Re-Inventing The Wheel (For Real)
from the sometimes-it's-good dept
The phrase "re-inventing the wheel" is often used to suggest something negative -- as in wasted effort. But, perhaps re-inventing the wheel can be useful in certain ways. TechnoMage points us to this story of a grad student at Bradley University, Curtis Boirum, coming up with a neat hemispherical omnidirectional gimbaled wheel (or HOG wheel). A what, you ask? Well, check out the video below to get a pretty good idea of how it works and what it does:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovation, reinventing, the wheel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Skin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr Skin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking a similar development makes 70+ years apart without any related "market forces" driving them and trying to apply it in a competitive market is sort of misleading. It's okay, I understand what you are trying to do, but it's just funny to watch you work so hard to get to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't see any mention of patents or chilling effects or any of that until your comment....so basically, YOU are the one who brought it up, just so you could argue with yourself that it makes no sense to even mention it?? Classic cowards.
You say you see what Mike is trying to do, but you really don't. You're trying to see what you want to see. The only thing Mike is doing with this article, is drawing attention to this cool new thing that interests him, and point out that even though it was done before, the creator of this particular project had no previous knowledge of the other projects. It's a clear example of independent invention, and that is all. Time between inventions matter as much as the distance between inventors, which should be not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I got his point. But you missed the less than subtle reference to independant invention, which Mike pretty much uses as a way to say that patents suck. The reason the story is on techdirt isn't because the invention is cool, it's because it supports one of Mike's main thrusts against patents."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
from CommonSense's post above yours
" to this cool new thing that interests him, and point out that even though it was done before, the creator of this particular project had no previous knowledge of the other projects. It's a clear example of independent invention, and that is all. Time between inventions matter as much as the distance between inventors, which should be not at all."
No one missed where he said it had already been invented before, all Mike is saying is that they did it both independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In my comment, I address the independent invention comment, and what I believe Mike was trying to convey with it. Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation, or are you just going to copy/paste your one and only, proven foolish, argument over and over again??? Either way is fine, I'd just like to know that I can ignore you if you're just being a fool for the sake of being a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And since you insist on dragging IP laws into it:
The student was lucky - Not only did he claim the idea was his own, he even created a working model without permission. Imagine the law suits he would have been immersed in if this idea had been under copyright... and a mere 70 years wouldn't be nearly enough to clear it anymore. It's simply a fortunate coincidence that patent laws aren't as bad. Yet. If the original invention had been a mere 20 years ago the outcome could be a whole lot different.
The sad thing is that according to maximalist reasoning the family of the original inventor should be able to sue for theft of the idea, even after all this time. The fact that it was arrived at independently has no bearing on their 'right' to financial compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's long out of patent now.
We’ve seen this sort of situation happen over and over, with a seemingly-coincidental 20-year-or-longer lag between the original publication of an idea and its actual implementation in working products: motor-car development didn’t really take off until after the Otto cycle patent had expired; the transistor was invented in 1948, but it wasn’t until the 1960s that transistor radios became popular; and so on and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
It also has no microprocessor other than radio transmission, so doubtlessly it could be much improved again with more precise and intelligent control over the HOG wheel.
I wonder what will happen this time though, I'm not confident that it won't disappear again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
But I mean GENERAL applicability, not this TOY that can work only on smooth surfaces. To put the scheme on even a good ROAD surface, and SPRUNG so isn't broken first time out, the complexity goes up by about an order of magnitude OVER conventional means, just mechanically, never mind the computer control required. At the very least, the gimbals have to be capable of resisting the full /impulse/ shock load that the motor is capable of, making it very heavy.
I'm confident that current mechanisms will be used forever, and that this will never be more than a toy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
Uhm...this has precedence.
In Greece and Rome, circa 400BC and ~100AD, there were simple toys called "Steam Engines." You may have heard of them. Old dudes like Hero of Alexandria explained how they used boiling water in a turbine to move objects as part of plays and for religious ceremonies.
Those of course disappeared into history as just a fad...they never had general applicability to anyone in our modern society.
The simple truth is that 80 years ago, there was no general applicability, but that doesn't mean that there isn't now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
"This too will never see production."
Yeah those damned copycat makers of flying machines...DaVinci invented them centuries earlier but they never caught on so we should all stop flying now since it can't possibly be valid ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally impractical. Too bulky and complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World not ready for it.
Modern highways and cushioned high-traction coatings should make it possible to create fun, if not practical vehicles.
C'mon you engineers it's patent free now - get building!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World not ready for it.
As for it's uses, I can see uses. Anyone else look at this and think I Robot (the movie)? True two dimensional driving, not just a curvy line. Though, I could imagine it would be a bitch if each tire required an independent motor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: World not ready for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are required for innovation?
1) he invented this not because he was going to get a patent, but because he found the idea interesting. (I'm not saying that he wasn't hoping to get a patent - maybe he was - but getting a patent was not a requirement for invention, it was at most a nice-to-have bonus.)
2) Even after discovering that he can't patent the invention, he still advertises it. He didn't hide it or tried to patent it in some other country.
All this basically means that those who claims patents are necessary or we won't have new inventions anymore are full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new under the sun
"What has been is what will be,
and what has done is what will be done;
and There Is Nothing New Under The Sun"
This is from a time when various "scientists" and "engineers" of that age had worked out sizes of the earth, moon and sun and distances between them, chemical warfare, steam engines, massive civil engineering works, etc.
This is from a time when various "security forces" and "governments" were ensuring that terrorism didn't destroy their way of life.
Oh how things change, oh things stay the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]