Stiffler Scientific wrote:
What you said makes sense, except;
Unless the device is so costly and complex that you can only afford 'one' or
have only managed to get 'one' to work, I would think it prudent that you
have another in the wings to be rushed in for just this type of problem.
That is what I had in mind when I described Charlie and the burning
power supplies. Always pack a spare!
"Charlie" in this case is honors of the "two Charlies" who
accompanied the Wright brothers on some of their most crucial tests
and public demonstrations, Charles Taylor and Charles Furnas. The
Wrights experienced dozens of disastrous public demonstrations,
ranging from the time the airplane did not take off in front of
reporters (Dayton, OH, 1904) to the time the airplane crashed and
killed the passenger (the official U.S. Army tests, Washington DC,
1908). They had dozens of other crashes and accidents. (By the way,
the two Charlies were never to blame as far as I know.) If they had
staked their success on a single demonstration they would have
failed. On the other hand, it took only two successful demonstrations
to make them the most famous people on earth in 1908.
If the device is so expensive or complex and borders this close to working
or not working then the public demo in my mind is only to get new money to
hold off the old providers (VC's) and get new cash to keep everyone quiet
for a bit longer.
I disagree. Marginally functional technology can be successfully
demonstrated, but you have take the right approach and say the right
things, to keep the stakes low in the event of a failure. Edison, the
Wrights and many others screwed up demonstrations. Edison's early
incandescent lights exploded and set fire to his parlor during a
demonstration to investors. His wife, who was used to such things,
put out the fire while redirecting their attention to tea and snacks.
Unless I have my history wrong, old Henry Ford did not present a lot highly
complex auto before he sold a working one. Think is was simple at the start
and grew in complexity.
Actually, Ford is a counter-example. He started by building a racing
car, which was a complicated and finicky thing, and he won an
important race. Auto racing was in its infancy back then, so no
record lasted for long, but he leveraged his short-lived fame to get
investors to put money into his plans for a simpler passenger vehicle.
I suppose if he had lost that race, he might have won the next one.
But it was still a daring, all-or-nothing venture. There were not
many races back then, and the drivers were often killed or wounded.
- Jed
