Monday, December 9, 2013
The Titan Arm
I read this article on BigThink, a website we saw in class. The inventors of this bionic arm, known as the Titan Arm, from the University of Pennsylvania, created a bionic, exoskeleton arm, which increases strength by up to 40%. This innovation won the team a $45,000 grant from The James Dyson Foundation. "The Dyson Award is an international competition that challenges teams of university students to "design something that solves a problem."" The designers were able to manufacture this prototype for less than $2,000, and hope to market if for less than $10,000. Similar exoskeleton arms can retail for over $100,000.
Currently, the intended use for this bionic arm are in rehabilitation situations. The designers also envision a use for disaster relief efforts in clearing debris.
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/this-affordable-robotic-arm-increases-strength-by-40-percent
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
OrbSys
I recently read an article on CNN discussing the future of water conservation in the world. Water conservation is something that I personally don't think about too often. Not to say I intentionally waste water just because it's always been there, but I don't think of water as finite. At some point, fresh water runs out if it isn't replaced quickly. I thought the article was interesting, especially after discussing Coke's plan to provide solar power lanterns and cell phone chargers in India.
Mehrdad Mahdjoubi thought if we can supply fresh water for astronauts, we should be able to supply it for people on earth. Mahdjoubi invented the OrbSys Shower; it recycles water and purifies it while you wash. The water goes through a loop, where after it goes through the drain, it is instantly purified to drinking standards. This process saves 90% in water usage, and 80% in energy costs. If people in industrialized countries began using this system, they could save at least $1,351 per year on energy bills.
According to the EPA, 1.2 trillion gallons of water are used every year for showering in the United States alone. And yet, across the world more than three times the population of the States lacks access to any clean water at all.
Unfortunately, there isn't much information on the company's website about the technology behind it. I'm not sure how something can be instantly purified to drinking standards and be an inexpensive item. My guess is there is UV light used purify the water, but that's just a guess. There also isn't any information regarding upkeep. I'm thinking that there would probably be some maintenance involved with keeping the components running effectively. While there haven't been many sites to implement these showers, it seems like a promising idea that could be useful to introduce to areas with poor access to clean water. At this time, that seems unlikely, as the system has a control panel and some electric component to it. If the instant purification component can be kept while not utilizing electricity, then it would be a very important piece of technology for the not-yet-industrialized nations.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/tech/innovation/futuristic-water-recycling-shower-orbsys/index.html
The company's website: http://orbital-systems.com/
Mehrdad Mahdjoubi thought if we can supply fresh water for astronauts, we should be able to supply it for people on earth. Mahdjoubi invented the OrbSys Shower; it recycles water and purifies it while you wash. The water goes through a loop, where after it goes through the drain, it is instantly purified to drinking standards. This process saves 90% in water usage, and 80% in energy costs. If people in industrialized countries began using this system, they could save at least $1,351 per year on energy bills.
According to the EPA, 1.2 trillion gallons of water are used every year for showering in the United States alone. And yet, across the world more than three times the population of the States lacks access to any clean water at all.
Unfortunately, there isn't much information on the company's website about the technology behind it. I'm not sure how something can be instantly purified to drinking standards and be an inexpensive item. My guess is there is UV light used purify the water, but that's just a guess. There also isn't any information regarding upkeep. I'm thinking that there would probably be some maintenance involved with keeping the components running effectively. While there haven't been many sites to implement these showers, it seems like a promising idea that could be useful to introduce to areas with poor access to clean water. At this time, that seems unlikely, as the system has a control panel and some electric component to it. If the instant purification component can be kept while not utilizing electricity, then it would be a very important piece of technology for the not-yet-industrialized nations.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/tech/innovation/futuristic-water-recycling-shower-orbsys/index.html
The company's website: http://orbital-systems.com/
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
The 3D printed car
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/urbee-2--the-3d-printed-car-that-will-drive-across-the-country-000601366.html
I came accross this article the other day, and I thought it was very interesting. Many of us have heard about 3D printing, but I personally didn't know much about it. I had seen a new story not that long ago where the reporter asked for the company to print a wrench, which the printer printed in about 10 minutes. Cody and Tyler Kor are looking to drive across country in a car made entirely of 3D printed parts. Even better, their going to do it on only 10 gallons of gas.
In short, objects are printed when a computer aided design is uploaded to the printer. Object are printed using a substance called PolyJet, a resin, one microscopic lair at a time. Stratasys, the company with the largest 3D printer in the world, has a printer nearly 9 feet long by 6 feet tall, which can print objects as large as 36x24.
The physics of the car is actually quite interesting; it has a lower drag coefficient than a Prius. The entire car consists of 50 pieces. The MSRP for this car, anywhere between $16,000 and $50,000. Obviously, it's a wide range, but because it's not manufactured for the masses yet, there's no way to tell.
Take a look at the concept design...
I came accross this article the other day, and I thought it was very interesting. Many of us have heard about 3D printing, but I personally didn't know much about it. I had seen a new story not that long ago where the reporter asked for the company to print a wrench, which the printer printed in about 10 minutes. Cody and Tyler Kor are looking to drive across country in a car made entirely of 3D printed parts. Even better, their going to do it on only 10 gallons of gas.
In short, objects are printed when a computer aided design is uploaded to the printer. Object are printed using a substance called PolyJet, a resin, one microscopic lair at a time. Stratasys, the company with the largest 3D printer in the world, has a printer nearly 9 feet long by 6 feet tall, which can print objects as large as 36x24.
The physics of the car is actually quite interesting; it has a lower drag coefficient than a Prius. The entire car consists of 50 pieces. The MSRP for this car, anywhere between $16,000 and $50,000. Obviously, it's a wide range, but because it's not manufactured for the masses yet, there's no way to tell.
Take a look at the concept design...
Thursday, October 24, 2013
The CNN 10: Thinkers
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/tech/cnn10-thinkers/?hpt=te_r1
This is the link to an interesting article on CNN.com regarding 10 people who work in the science/technology fields who are working on innovations that will shape the way we function in the future. Take a look at each of them, some of the things they are working on are very interesting.
While I found all of them interesting, I thought that Regina Dugan, Tony Fadell, Andrew NG (which is particularly relevent to our class -- the founder of Coursera), and Bre Pettis are particularly interesting.
I'll be making another post about this article shortly, but wanted to get it out there for people to see.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Segment Zero
Leo and I had a change to do a presentation on this topic during the last class, but I wanted to discuss it a bit more. I'm particularly interested economics, so I was interested in a topic that combines innovation and markets.
Typically, advances in technology outpace their demand. Meaning, companies develop a technology and market it before customers realize that they need it. How does this impact segment zero? Well, this is actually what creates it... As we said in our presentation, Segment Zero is a portion of the market that is frequently neglected by most players in the market. The reason this segment is neglected is that individuals do not want to pay or need the newest technology that is continuously being updated. Intel considered their 'segment zero' to be anyone not willing to spend at least $1,000 for their products (computers, we'll disregard their other products, as the case relates specifically to Microsoft).
With major players in the market keeping their focus on high-profit customers, a segment of the market was neglected. I consider myself to be a member of this segment. I'm not willing to spend at least $1,000 on a computer that has technology installed that I neither want nor need. A functional laptop costing less than $700 was fine for me. Because competition neglected this portion of the market, more competition has been created. Companies who saw a neglected customer-base entered the market specifically to service those customers' needs. This is where I draw the comparison between major competitors--Apple and Google.
Apple has been around since the beginning, and it has a reputation for making solid computers. What other reputation exists with Apples products? For me, the first thing I think of is price. After tax, you'd be hard pressed to purchase an Apple laptop for less than $1,000. Sure, you can probably do it, but are you sacrificing size and functionality just to buy the name? The second thing I think of is the typical Apple customer. While not trying to stereotype any given user of a computer, I think of Apple user's as individuals who are involved in arts--music, graphic design, etc. These people have heavy demands on processing power and memory. They also need constant up time. I don't think of a person who just wants a computer to check email and read the news. I certainly have nothing against Apple's computers, they just aren't for me; I can't make use of everything that they offer.
Google on the other hand just turned 15 years old. Google didn't start out building computers, but rather it has focused on the internet. A few years ago, with the advent of the smartphone, Google entered the operating system market. Android is Google's operating system. This was Google's "in" into the market. By creating an operating system, Google realized that this could easily translate the operating system to tablets, and eventually computers. Enter the Chromebook.
The Chromebook is a low cost alternative to laptops. Most will cost somewhere between $200-$500. By entering the low priced laptop market, Google has provided cost-conscious customers with an alternative to expensive computers. As major competition (HP, Apple, Dell) focused on higher priced, higher margin PCs, Google focused on providing a functional, inexpensive alternative to customers who did not need to have computers with faster processors and more memory. I admit that the Chromebook has a few drawbacks, but it works for those people who don't demand much of their PCs.
So, I know I briefly talked about this during the presentation, but wanted to give an extended explanation of how we all see Segment Zero in action.
Typically, advances in technology outpace their demand. Meaning, companies develop a technology and market it before customers realize that they need it. How does this impact segment zero? Well, this is actually what creates it... As we said in our presentation, Segment Zero is a portion of the market that is frequently neglected by most players in the market. The reason this segment is neglected is that individuals do not want to pay or need the newest technology that is continuously being updated. Intel considered their 'segment zero' to be anyone not willing to spend at least $1,000 for their products (computers, we'll disregard their other products, as the case relates specifically to Microsoft).
With major players in the market keeping their focus on high-profit customers, a segment of the market was neglected. I consider myself to be a member of this segment. I'm not willing to spend at least $1,000 on a computer that has technology installed that I neither want nor need. A functional laptop costing less than $700 was fine for me. Because competition neglected this portion of the market, more competition has been created. Companies who saw a neglected customer-base entered the market specifically to service those customers' needs. This is where I draw the comparison between major competitors--Apple and Google.
Apple has been around since the beginning, and it has a reputation for making solid computers. What other reputation exists with Apples products? For me, the first thing I think of is price. After tax, you'd be hard pressed to purchase an Apple laptop for less than $1,000. Sure, you can probably do it, but are you sacrificing size and functionality just to buy the name? The second thing I think of is the typical Apple customer. While not trying to stereotype any given user of a computer, I think of Apple user's as individuals who are involved in arts--music, graphic design, etc. These people have heavy demands on processing power and memory. They also need constant up time. I don't think of a person who just wants a computer to check email and read the news. I certainly have nothing against Apple's computers, they just aren't for me; I can't make use of everything that they offer.
Google on the other hand just turned 15 years old. Google didn't start out building computers, but rather it has focused on the internet. A few years ago, with the advent of the smartphone, Google entered the operating system market. Android is Google's operating system. This was Google's "in" into the market. By creating an operating system, Google realized that this could easily translate the operating system to tablets, and eventually computers. Enter the Chromebook.
The Chromebook is a low cost alternative to laptops. Most will cost somewhere between $200-$500. By entering the low priced laptop market, Google has provided cost-conscious customers with an alternative to expensive computers. As major competition (HP, Apple, Dell) focused on higher priced, higher margin PCs, Google focused on providing a functional, inexpensive alternative to customers who did not need to have computers with faster processors and more memory. I admit that the Chromebook has a few drawbacks, but it works for those people who don't demand much of their PCs.
So, I know I briefly talked about this during the presentation, but wanted to give an extended explanation of how we all see Segment Zero in action.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
So it's taken me a while longer to post about this topic than I would have liked, but I'm finally getting to it.
I previously posted a link to Business Innovation Factory, a 2 day conference in Rhode Island where great minds gather to present some of their works. I found this one (from 2012) particularly interesting, given the presentations on Dean Kamen and his medical devices:
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/iss/video/bif8-john-donoghue
John Donoghue is a Brown University Professor who specializes in neuroscience. In particular, his presentation is focused on reanimating the limbs of paralyzed individuals. The presentation is a little long (about 18 minutes) but is not too techy that you can't understand what he's talking about.
I thought this presentation was particularly relevant to the class discussion on sources of innovation, as well as the discussion board on CoINs. The northeast is a leader in academics and hospitals, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when this sort of technology is developed in a location where these two fields are prevalent.
Separate from the relevance to class, what he is working is really incredible science. I would like to hope that this sort of technology is available soon.
In a different presentation, Lara Lee, Chief Innovation Officer at Continuum, gives a great presentation on Fear. She discusses how fear is essential to growth, and how valuable failure is in the process of invention and innovation in the world of business. If anyone is hoping to go into an upper-management or decision making role, this presentation offers some unique perspectives. The link to the presentation is:
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/iss/video/bif8-lara-lee
I previously posted a link to Business Innovation Factory, a 2 day conference in Rhode Island where great minds gather to present some of their works. I found this one (from 2012) particularly interesting, given the presentations on Dean Kamen and his medical devices:
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/iss/video/bif8-john-donoghue
John Donoghue is a Brown University Professor who specializes in neuroscience. In particular, his presentation is focused on reanimating the limbs of paralyzed individuals. The presentation is a little long (about 18 minutes) but is not too techy that you can't understand what he's talking about.
I thought this presentation was particularly relevant to the class discussion on sources of innovation, as well as the discussion board on CoINs. The northeast is a leader in academics and hospitals, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when this sort of technology is developed in a location where these two fields are prevalent.
Separate from the relevance to class, what he is working is really incredible science. I would like to hope that this sort of technology is available soon.
In a different presentation, Lara Lee, Chief Innovation Officer at Continuum, gives a great presentation on Fear. She discusses how fear is essential to growth, and how valuable failure is in the process of invention and innovation in the world of business. If anyone is hoping to go into an upper-management or decision making role, this presentation offers some unique perspectives. The link to the presentation is:
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/iss/video/bif8-lara-lee
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Business Innovation Factory
Business Innovation Factory 9 conference September 18 and 19 in Providence. Interesting topic at the time we start looking at things like Collaborative Innovation Networks.
Wanted to post the link, will have a longer post shortly.
Thanks,
Adam
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/
Wanted to post the link, will have a longer post shortly.
Thanks,
Adam
http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
"If I Had Asked People What They Wanted, The Would Have Said Faster Horses"-Henry Ford
So while killing some time at the dentist, I came across this quote from Henry Ford, and thought it pertained quite well to some of the topics mentioned in chapter 2, as well as the discussion we had during the first class. What a great example of innovation and invention coming together, the automobile. Quoting directly from the text, "Innovation is more than the generation of creative ideas; it is the implementation of those ideas into some new device or process. Innovation requires combining a creative idea with resources and expertise that make it possible to embody the creative idea in a useful form."
Ford didn't invent the automobile, in fact, he was racing them well before he started Ford Motor Company. If he didn't actually invent the automobile, why then, is he the most frequently associated name with the foundation of the modern car? If you were to ask someone what the name of the first car was, how many would respond by saying "Model T"? His innovations in the industry allowed him to advance the previous versions of the automobile and make them available to the public, not just the wealthy. Ford certainly fits the description of 'The Inventor'; tinkering with steam engines as a young man, mastering the basics of an engine, etc. But Ford was more than an inventor, he changed an industry. How did he do this? He delivered something the customer didn't even know they needed--until they had it. Customers had the ability to travel long distances, it was liberating in a way. People didn't have to live near railways in order to get from one place to another. He made his product affordable, and he paid his workers enough to buy the product they made. As a result, his employees were able to buy the cars they built, and sales increased. By 1922, half of the autos on the road were Ford's Model T. Unfortunately for Ford, after time, consumers began to shy away from Ford's auto, and began moving towards larger, more comfortable and expensive competitors. Ford rested on his accomplishments, and didn't continue to innovate while he was ahead. By 1936, Ford was the third largest automobile manufacturer, behind Chevrolet and General Motors.
So, enough of the history lesson. How does this relate to chapter 2?
Could Ford's work be considered "science push" innovation, or should it be considered "demand pull"? I think the quote from Ford frames his thoughts on that question. Certainly, the automobile wasn't in high demand, but it wasn't really a 'science push' approach either. I would say that the concept of the automobile is a bit more of 'science push' approach, but it is really more of the modern-day approach on innovation. The chapter does a good job outlining the sources of innovation, but what's more interesting than the source of innovation is the reason for pursuing something different. Why change? If something worked fine before, why tinker? Perhaps the answer is simple, maybe it's all about money. If you can take something, improve it, make it your own, market and sell it, maybe you can revolutionize the industry. Maybe the answer is more noble. What do you think?
In my opinion, it takes vision and thoughtfulness to be a true innovator; you must have a vision for how your idea will contribute to it's market. Otherwise, it's just an invention.
http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/hf/default.asp
Ford didn't invent the automobile, in fact, he was racing them well before he started Ford Motor Company. If he didn't actually invent the automobile, why then, is he the most frequently associated name with the foundation of the modern car? If you were to ask someone what the name of the first car was, how many would respond by saying "Model T"? His innovations in the industry allowed him to advance the previous versions of the automobile and make them available to the public, not just the wealthy. Ford certainly fits the description of 'The Inventor'; tinkering with steam engines as a young man, mastering the basics of an engine, etc. But Ford was more than an inventor, he changed an industry. How did he do this? He delivered something the customer didn't even know they needed--until they had it. Customers had the ability to travel long distances, it was liberating in a way. People didn't have to live near railways in order to get from one place to another. He made his product affordable, and he paid his workers enough to buy the product they made. As a result, his employees were able to buy the cars they built, and sales increased. By 1922, half of the autos on the road were Ford's Model T. Unfortunately for Ford, after time, consumers began to shy away from Ford's auto, and began moving towards larger, more comfortable and expensive competitors. Ford rested on his accomplishments, and didn't continue to innovate while he was ahead. By 1936, Ford was the third largest automobile manufacturer, behind Chevrolet and General Motors.
So, enough of the history lesson. How does this relate to chapter 2?
Could Ford's work be considered "science push" innovation, or should it be considered "demand pull"? I think the quote from Ford frames his thoughts on that question. Certainly, the automobile wasn't in high demand, but it wasn't really a 'science push' approach either. I would say that the concept of the automobile is a bit more of 'science push' approach, but it is really more of the modern-day approach on innovation. The chapter does a good job outlining the sources of innovation, but what's more interesting than the source of innovation is the reason for pursuing something different. Why change? If something worked fine before, why tinker? Perhaps the answer is simple, maybe it's all about money. If you can take something, improve it, make it your own, market and sell it, maybe you can revolutionize the industry. Maybe the answer is more noble. What do you think?
In my opinion, it takes vision and thoughtfulness to be a true innovator; you must have a vision for how your idea will contribute to it's market. Otherwise, it's just an invention.
http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/hf/default.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)