Hi All, I am on the downslope of disillusionment regarding the truth of US- Government-funded research. I could pick any from a broad array of such insitutions and tell you of utterly-perplexing interactions I have had with them, but I decided to focus on DARPA, since, as we know, they were the original financial supporters of the Internet, it is claimed, and I do research with Internet protocols. I am beginning to think, no matter how truthful the claim of support is, it was probably more luck than anything. Bob Kahn et al probably squeeze out a solution by the Grace of God, and others beyond him had to fight massive intransigence and political battles to help IPv4 survive. I say this after experiences over the last 5.5 months interacting with them and other US agencies. They claim to want breakthrough technology that is "high-impact", "revolutionary", "moderate-to-high risk". And they spend enormous amounts of money supposedly funding such research each year. They issue solicitations on the the SBIR/STTR programs. They have Broad Agency Announcements. They accept unsolicitied proposals. They employ Ph.d's whose bio's indicate deep experience in their respective areas of governance. And they have those cool demos on the Military Channel. Looking at all this, you would think that, if they had been searching for the solution to X for 15 years, and someone came to them and offered tangile proof of S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, they would be enthralled. NOT!!!! It is a bit hard to explain the experience, in mere words, so I have created this fictitious dialogue which is similar to the kind I have had. Researcher: "Hello?" DARPA: "Hi, yes, I am here." Researcher: "Hi, I was told to contact you regarding research I have been doing for 15 years. I am aware of your SBIR/STTR, BAA's, etc...but I am contacting you directly to preempt problems that might occur if I follow those paths." DARPA: "Ok, I am listening." Researcher: "I noticed that much of your research involves getting away from steam engines. For example, you have 7 outstanding solicitations on alternative to steam alone, not to mention 11 others on reducing rust ." DARPA: "Yes, that's true." Researcher: "What if I told you that I had a machine that not only solved that rust problem you have with the steam, etc., but also validated your current push toward petrol-based fuel, in an engine that actually runs. I call it an internal combustion engine." DARPA: "Uh...not sure what you mean. This is a research organization, you do realize?" Researcher: "Yes, I know. I do research in engines, the same kind you do and write about each year. Now I know that you have spent $ 225US million in this area already, and...uh...you do not yet have what it is you want. I would like to have the opportunity to give you those things, plus a few extra, like something I call a fuel injector. Then there are oxygen sensors, overhead-cam, etc." DARPA: "Overhead what? You realize..we are are under a a federal mandate to do fundamental research only?" Researcher: "Yes." DARPA: "We do research in advanced engine systems." Researcher: "Yes." DARPA: "And my group does research, in particular, in non-steam engines that should provide advanced capabilities in the next 15-20 years for the warfighter..." Researcher: "Yes, I know." DARPA: "So how can I help you?" Researcher: "Well, I would like to demonstrate to you solutions to some of the problems you have." DARPA: "Have you seen our web site? Why don't you go and read our solicitations...they are located at WWW-DOT..." Researcher: "Yes, yes, I have read them, all of them, several times each." (Researcher pauses for a moment, goes to web page of Program Manager he is talking to, reads his bio, discovers that PM did Ph.D on governors in steam engine. Presumes that if research can speak intelligently about governors for 2-3 minutes, that will break the current impasse and mental disconnect) Researcher: "I was just reading your bio. I see you did your Ph.D. on governors. Was that challenging?" DARPA:: "Yes, quite challenging." Researcher: "You must have had problems achieving correct control loop with the analog components you had." (dialogue continues, Researcher eventually convinces PM of merit of electronic control of feedback, etc, and that Researcher is at least experienced with fundamentals of feedback.) Researcher: "So you can see that, if you had not only that, but other fixes, including a fuel that can actually be extracted from petrol which I call 'gasoline', that could be of some benefit to your research efforts." DARPA: "Look, it's obivous that you have a lot of interest in this area, but I am not sure you have reached the right organization. We do fundamental research here. Maybe you could sell your product to a steam engine company. We actually have a few of them on contract now. We also have SBIR, STTR, and unsolicited proposals. Have you tried SBIR?" Researcher: "Well, not yet. I noticed that your SBIR solicitations focus on a relatively small problem, like an improved ventilator, or wood pulverizers, etc. There does not seem to be anything for an entire engine. My worry is that..if I were to write about an entire engine, there might be a bit of conceptual disconnect with the PM managing the solicitation...as the program managers are expecting proposals for narrowly focused problems.." DARPA: "Well, I don't know what to tell you. These are the programs we have available. If you had something that addressed and immediate need of ours, then perhaps there would be something I could do, but nothing you have said so far has convinced me of that." Researcher: "Allow me to approach this from a different angle, if you will. I am reading here, this article in Big Bad Important Defense Industry Magazine. There is a Navy Admiral claiming that the greatest advance in military technology would be a not-yet-explored type of engine, perhaps running on fuel that 'derives from oil', and that $5.6US billion is being allocated over next 10 years to DARPA to pursue this technology. So I guess I am saying that, I can help you achieve that, if you will allow me a chance." DARPA: (impatiently) "What is it exactly that you want?" Researcher: "I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to you, the vision in that article realized, in a rough form, rough because I do not have the luxury to get all the components perfect, but certainly enough to move forward to a more thorough review. It actually runs..burns fuel..I even have something called a catalytic converter for reducing emissions. I would like whoever is interested in seeing it done, whether that be you, or one of your colleagues, to allow me 15 minutes to show you, via over the Internet." (of course, Internet would not be ready yet..but you get the idea). DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" So this has been my experience, more or less, with the US Federal governement regarding funded research. :)) Yours might be different. Contradictions and concurrences welcome. Note of course, that what I offered DARPA was not so advanced as I imply using the analogy above, but certainly enough to warrant a look, IMO. -Le Chaud Lapin-
OT: The Truth About DARPA
Started by ●June 28, 2009
Reply by ●June 28, 20092009-06-28
> DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" > > So this has been my experience, more or less, with the US Federal > governement regarding funded research. :)) > > Yours might be different. Contradictions and concurrences welcome. > > Note of course, that what I offered DARPA was not so advanced as I > imply using the analogy above, but certainly enough to warrant a look, > IMO. > > -Le Chaud Lapin-I can sympathize with you. I have friend that always worked to solve a problem and found that many organizations are set up to get funding, spend all the money while doing just enough -Research- to get the second tier funding. Then repeat. Ya, "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" Mike
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
>Hi All, > >I am on the downslope of disillusionment regarding the truth of US- >Government-funded research. I could pick any from a broad array of >such insitutions and tell you of utterly-perplexing interactions I >have had with them, but I decided to focus on DARPA, since, as we >know, they were the original financial supporters of the Internet, it >is claimed, and I do research with Internet protocols. > >I am beginning to think, no matter how truthful the claim of support >is, it was probably more luck than anything. Bob Kahn et al probably >squeeze out a solution by the Grace of God, and others beyond him had >to fight massive intransigence and political battles to help IPv4 >survive. I say this after experiences over the last 5.5 months >interacting with them and other US agencies. They claim to want >breakthrough technology that is "high-impact", "revolutionary", >"moderate-to-high risk". And they spend enormous amounts of money >supposedly funding such research each year. They issue solicitations >on the the SBIR/STTR programs. They have Broad Agency Announcements. >They accept unsolicitied proposals. They employ Ph.d's whose bio's >indicate deep experience in their respective areas of governance. And >they have those cool demos on the Military Channel. > >Looking at all this, you would think that, if they had been searching >for the solution to X for 15 years, and someone came to them and >offered tangile proof of S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, they would be >enthralled. > >NOT!!!! > >It is a bit hard to explain the experience, in mere words, so I have >created this fictitious dialogue which is similar to the kind I have >had. > >Researcher: "Hello?" > >DARPA: "Hi, yes, I am here." > >Researcher: "Hi, I was told to contact you regarding research I have >been doing for 15 years. I am aware of your SBIR/STTR, BAA's, >etc...but I am contacting you directly to preempt problems that might >occur if I follow those paths." > >DARPA: "Ok, I am listening." > >Researcher: "I noticed that much of your research involves getting >away from steam engines. For example, you have 7 outstanding >solicitations on alternative to steam alone, not to mention 11 others >on reducing rust ." > >DARPA: "Yes, that's true." > >Researcher: "What if I told you that I had a machine that not only >solved that rust problem you have with the steam, etc., but also >validated your current push toward petrol-based fuel, in an engine >that actually runs. I call it an internal combustion engine." > >DARPA: "Uh...not sure what you mean. This is a research organization, >you do realize?" > >Researcher: "Yes, I know. I do research in engines, the same kind you >do and write about each year. Now I know that you have spent $ 225US >million in this area already, and...uh...you do not yet have what it >is you want. I would like to have the opportunity to give you those >things, plus a few extra, like something I call a fuel injector. Then >there are oxygen sensors, overhead-cam, etc." > >DARPA: "Overhead what? You realize..we are are under a a federal >mandate to do fundamental research only?" > >Researcher: "Yes." > >DARPA: "We do research in advanced engine systems." > >Researcher: "Yes." > >DARPA: "And my group does research, in particular, in non-steam >engines that should provide advanced capabilities in the next 15-20 >years for the warfighter..." > >Researcher: "Yes, I know." > >DARPA: "So how can I help you?" > >Researcher: "Well, I would like to demonstrate to you solutions to >some of the problems you have." > >DARPA: "Have you seen our web site? Why don't you go and read our >solicitations...they are located at WWW-DOT..." > >Researcher: "Yes, yes, I have read them, all of them, several times >each." > >(Researcher pauses for a moment, goes to web page of Program Manager >he is talking to, reads his bio, discovers that PM did Ph.D on >governors in steam engine. Presumes that if research can speak >intelligently about governors for 2-3 minutes, that will break the >current impasse and mental disconnect) > >Researcher: "I was just reading your bio. I see you did your Ph.D. on >governors. Was that challenging?" > >DARPA:: "Yes, quite challenging." > >Researcher: "You must have had problems achieving correct control loop >with the analog components you had." > >(dialogue continues, Researcher eventually convinces PM of merit of >electronic control of feedback, etc, and that Researcher is at least >experienced with fundamentals of feedback.) > >Researcher: "So you can see that, if you had not only that, but other >fixes, including a fuel that can actually be extracted from petrol >which I call 'gasoline', that could be of some benefit to your >research efforts." > >DARPA: "Look, it's obivous that you have a lot of interest in this >area, but I am not sure you have reached the right organization. We do >fundamental research here. Maybe you could sell your product to a >steam engine company. We actually have a few of them on contract now. >We also have SBIR, STTR, and unsolicited proposals. Have you tried >SBIR?" > >Researcher: "Well, not yet. I noticed that your SBIR solicitations >focus on a relatively small problem, like an improved ventilator, or >wood pulverizers, etc. There does not seem to be anything for an >entire engine. My worry is that..if I were to write about an entire >engine, there might be a bit of conceptual disconnect with the PM >managing the solicitation...as the program managers are expecting >proposals for narrowly focused problems.." > >DARPA: "Well, I don't know what to tell you. These are the programs >we have available. If you had something that addressed and immediate >need of ours, then perhaps there would be something I could do, but >nothing you have said so far has convinced me of that." > >Researcher: "Allow me to approach this from a different angle, if you >will. I am reading here, this article in Big Bad Important Defense >Industry Magazine. There is a Navy Admiral claiming that the greatest >advance in military technology would be a not-yet-explored type of >engine, perhaps running on fuel that 'derives from oil', and that >$5.6US billion is being allocated over next 10 years to DARPA to >pursue this technology. So I guess I am saying that, I can help you >achieve that, if you will allow me a chance." > >DARPA: (impatiently) "What is it exactly that you want?" > >Researcher: "I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to you, the >vision in that article realized, in a rough form, rough because I do >not have the luxury to get all the components perfect, but certainly >enough to move forward to a more thorough review. It actually >runs..burns fuel..I even have something called a catalytic converter >for reducing emissions. I would like whoever is interested in seeing >it done, whether that be you, or one of your colleagues, to allow me >15 minutes to show you, via over the Internet." (of course, Internet >would not be ready yet..but you get the idea). > >DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" > >So this has been my experience, more or less, with the US Federal >governement regarding funded research. :)) > >Yours might be different. Contradictions and concurrences welcome. > >Note of course, that what I offered DARPA was not so advanced as I >imply using the analogy above, but certainly enough to warrant a look, >IMO.What exactly did you expect? These people are looking for projects, not answers. Answers are dangerous things for people in pure research. They short circuit the research process, and eliminate career opportunities. I've seen people in defence research make an entire PhD program out of a simple equipment fault. That might seem crazy, but I've seen a PhD candidate put months into an obscure mathematical analysis of strange radar trials data, which was actually the result of a dead bit on a bus. Steve
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
On 28 Jun, 23:47, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:> DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" > > So this has been my experience, more or less, with the US Federal > governement regarding funded research. :)) > > Yours might be different. �Contradictions and concurrences welcome. > > Note of course, that what I offered DARPA was not so advanced as I > imply using the analogy above, but certainly enough to warrant a look, > IMO.Haven't worked with that particular institution, but my experiences are much the same. Now, it's important to realize that 'research' means that one does *not* know what one is doing. If you do, it's not research. Just trace back to some of the greatest researchers in hitory: - Newton did not know what the outcome of his investigations would be, that anecdotal day he got hit by an apple. - Einstein did not know what the outcome of his inquiries would be, that day he walked along the canals, watchig waves coming off barges. Unfortunately, there are only so many Newtons and Einsteins, who push the envelope on behalf of mankind, in this world. And there are only so many places the envelope can be pushed at any given time. So if we relax the expectation just a *tiny* bit; that one should not push *Mankind's* envelope, but rather the *personal* envelope, then 'research' is a far less daunting task. But again, if you have already skilled people onboard, research is still not easy: Individual researchers need to keep up with state-of-the-art. Expensive. Takes time. However, having stepped down from Mankind level of ambitions, it's an obvious corollary that if one hires people who have no skills at all, then 'research' is fast, easy, and can be done within schedules and inside budgets: 'Researchers' only have to read standard textbooks. And write mediocre papers in obscure journals. In the end: The goal of the research institutions is to find and hire the people who knows the least about what they are supposed to be doing. That's true 'research'. Oh well. Rune
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:47:59 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:> Hi All, > > I am on the downslope of disillusionment regarding the truth of US- > Government-funded research. I could pick any from a broad array of such > insitutions and tell you of utterly-perplexing interactions I have had > with them, but I decided to focus on DARPA, since, as we know, they were > the original financial supporters of the Internet, it is claimed, and I > do research with Internet protocols. >-- snip -->> -Le Chaud Lapin-Because any government program is, perforce, run by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats (a) never get fired for saying "no", and (b) often get fired for saying "yes". The advantage (and I think it's there, and I think it's worth it) to government-sponsored research isn't what they say it is, but it is none the less manifold: it provides a pool of frustrated talent ready to jump ship to productive private projects, it provides a pool of mediocre researchers to teach university classes, it occasionally actually results in some real advance that would never happen ever with funding from the steam-engine companies, it indirectly funds companies like The Math Works and efforts like open-source development, and more. But as you so admirably point out, it doesn't meet it's _stated_ goal. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
Tim Wescott wrote:> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:47:59 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I am on the downslope of disillusionment regarding the truth of US- >> Government-funded research. I could pick any from a broad array of such >> insitutions and tell you of utterly-perplexing interactions I have had >> with them, but I decided to focus on DARPA, since, as we know, they were >> the original financial supporters of the Internet, it is claimed, and I >> do research with Internet protocols. >> > -- snip --> >> -Le Chaud Lapin- > > Because any government program is, perforce, run by bureaucrats, and > bureaucrats (a) never get fired for saying "no", and (b) often get fired > for saying "yes". > > The advantage (and I think it's there, and I think it's worth it) to > government-sponsored research isn't what they say it is, but it is none > the less manifold: it provides a pool of frustrated talent ready to jump > ship to productive private projects, it provides a pool of mediocre > researchers to teach university classes, it occasionally actually results > in some real advance that would never happen ever with funding from the > steam-engine companies, it indirectly funds companies like The Math Works > and efforts like open-source development, and more. > > But as you so admirably point out, it doesn't meet it's _stated_ goal. >DARPA is actually a pretty good outfit. I've worked on DARPA projects at various times over the years, and the following have always been true: (1) The program managers are good technical people who Get It. (2) The goals are insanely ambitious, but some reasonable fraction of them actually get met. I've never had an engineering manager who was able to get the same level of commitment out of his people that DARPA gets from its grantees. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
On Jun 29, 4:02�am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 28 Jun, 23:47, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" > > In the end: The goal of the research institutions is to > find and hire the people who knows the least about what > they are supposed to be doing. That's true 'research'.Nice analysis! It reminds me of the type of projects where program managers get frustrated because someone is hoping to do research in a fundamental field of science, and the Senators are angry because the scientist cannot pend down the exact instant and exact cost, +/- $50,000, of the cost of the research. Manage those monkeys! -Le Chaud Lapin-
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:> Hi All, > > I am on the downslope of disillusionment regarding the truth of US- > Government-funded research. I could pick any from a broad array of > such insitutions and tell you of utterly-perplexing interactions I > have had with them, but I decided to focus on DARPA, since, as we > know, they were the original financial supporters of the Internet, it > is claimed, and I do research with Internet protocols. > > I am beginning to think, no matter how truthful the claim of support > is, it was probably more luck than anything. Bob Kahn et al probably > squeeze out a solution by the Grace of God, and others beyond him had > to fight massive intransigence and political battles to help IPv4 > survive. I say this after experiences over the last 5.5 months > interacting with them and other US agencies. They claim to want > breakthrough technology that is "high-impact", "revolutionary", > "moderate-to-high risk". And they spend enormous amounts of money > supposedly funding such research each year. They issue solicitations > on the the SBIR/STTR programs. They have Broad Agency Announcements. > They accept unsolicitied proposals. They employ Ph.d's whose bio's > indicate deep experience in their respective areas of governance. And > they have those cool demos on the Military Channel. > > Looking at all this, you would think that, if they had been searching > for the solution to X for 15 years, and someone came to them and > offered tangile proof of S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, they would be > enthralled. > > NOT!!!! > > It is a bit hard to explain the experience, in mere words, so I have > created this fictitious dialogue which is similar to the kind I have > had. > > Researcher: "Hello?" > > DARPA: "Hi, yes, I am here." > > Researcher: "Hi, I was told to contact you regarding research I have > been doing for 15 years. I am aware of your SBIR/STTR, BAA's, > etc...but I am contacting you directly to preempt problems that might > occur if I follow those paths." > > DARPA: "Ok, I am listening." > > Researcher: "I noticed that much of your research involves getting > away from steam engines. For example, you have 7 outstanding > solicitations on alternative to steam alone, not to mention 11 others > on reducing rust ." > > DARPA: "Yes, that's true." > > Researcher: "What if I told you that I had a machine that not only > solved that rust problem you have with the steam, etc., but also > validated your current push toward petrol-based fuel, in an engine > that actually runs. I call it an internal combustion engine." > > DARPA: "Uh...not sure what you mean. This is a research organization, > you do realize?" > > Researcher: "Yes, I know. I do research in engines, the same kind you > do and write about each year. Now I know that you have spent $ 225US > million in this area already, and...uh...you do not yet have what it > is you want. I would like to have the opportunity to give you those > things, plus a few extra, like something I call a fuel injector. Then > there are oxygen sensors, overhead-cam, etc." > > DARPA: "Overhead what? You realize..we are are under a a federal > mandate to do fundamental research only?" > > Researcher: "Yes." > > DARPA: "We do research in advanced engine systems." > > Researcher: "Yes." > > DARPA: "And my group does research, in particular, in non-steam > engines that should provide advanced capabilities in the next 15-20 > years for the warfighter..." > > Researcher: "Yes, I know." > > DARPA: "So how can I help you?" > > Researcher: "Well, I would like to demonstrate to you solutions to > some of the problems you have." > > DARPA: "Have you seen our web site? Why don't you go and read our > solicitations...they are located at WWW-DOT..." > > Researcher: "Yes, yes, I have read them, all of them, several times > each." > > (Researcher pauses for a moment, goes to web page of Program Manager > he is talking to, reads his bio, discovers that PM did Ph.D on > governors in steam engine. Presumes that if research can speak > intelligently about governors for 2-3 minutes, that will break the > current impasse and mental disconnect) > > Researcher: "I was just reading your bio. I see you did your Ph.D. on > governors. Was that challenging?" > > DARPA:: "Yes, quite challenging." > > Researcher: "You must have had problems achieving correct control loop > with the analog components you had." > > (dialogue continues, Researcher eventually convinces PM of merit of > electronic control of feedback, etc, and that Researcher is at least > experienced with fundamentals of feedback.) > > Researcher: "So you can see that, if you had not only that, but other > fixes, including a fuel that can actually be extracted from petrol > which I call 'gasoline', that could be of some benefit to your > research efforts." > > DARPA: "Look, it's obivous that you have a lot of interest in this > area, but I am not sure you have reached the right organization. We do > fundamental research here. Maybe you could sell your product to a > steam engine company. We actually have a few of them on contract now. > We also have SBIR, STTR, and unsolicited proposals. Have you tried > SBIR?" > > Researcher: "Well, not yet. I noticed that your SBIR solicitations > focus on a relatively small problem, like an improved ventilator, or > wood pulverizers, etc. There does not seem to be anything for an > entire engine. My worry is that..if I were to write about an entire > engine, there might be a bit of conceptual disconnect with the PM > managing the solicitation...as the program managers are expecting > proposals for narrowly focused problems.." > > DARPA: "Well, I don't know what to tell you. These are the programs > we have available. If you had something that addressed and immediate > need of ours, then perhaps there would be something I could do, but > nothing you have said so far has convinced me of that." > > Researcher: "Allow me to approach this from a different angle, if you > will. I am reading here, this article in Big Bad Important Defense > Industry Magazine. There is a Navy Admiral claiming that the greatest > advance in military technology would be a not-yet-explored type of > engine, perhaps running on fuel that 'derives from oil', and that > $5.6US billion is being allocated over next 10 years to DARPA to > pursue this technology. So I guess I am saying that, I can help you > achieve that, if you will allow me a chance." > > DARPA: (impatiently) "What is it exactly that you want?" > > Researcher: "I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to you, the > vision in that article realized, in a rough form, rough because I do > not have the luxury to get all the components perfect, but certainly > enough to move forward to a more thorough review. It actually > runs..burns fuel..I even have something called a catalytic converter > for reducing emissions. I would like whoever is interested in seeing > it done, whether that be you, or one of your colleagues, to allow me > 15 minutes to show you, via over the Internet." (of course, Internet > would not be ready yet..but you get the idea). > > DARPA: "We *DON'T DO DEMOS! We do research!!!!" > > So this has been my experience, more or less, with the US Federal > governement regarding funded research. :)) > > Yours might be different. Contradictions and concurrences welcome. > > Note of course, that what I offered DARPA was not so advanced as I > imply using the analogy above, but certainly enough to warrant a look, > IMO.You prayed in the wrong pew. If you have a credible idea for research and experiment, talk to DARPA. If you have a solution, seek venture capital. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
On Jun 29, 12:31�pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:47:59 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: > > But as you so admirably point out, it doesn't meet it's _stated_ goal. > > DARPA is actually a pretty good outfit. �I've worked on DARPA projects > at various times over the years, and the following have always been true: > > (1) The program managers are good technical people who Get It. > (2) The goals are insanely ambitious, but some reasonable fraction of > them actually get met.Well, I have to disagree here, not so much with #1, but definitely #2. The fraction in my field is horrifically small. I work in computer networking. After an embarrassingly long time thinking in this space, I know where all the pieces of the puzzle are, if not exactly how they should all be shaped. DARPA has already spent $11US billion of a $37US billion program trying to solve problems in this area: http://jpeojtrs.mil/, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06955.pdf ...most of which are solvable by a team of less than 10 people, IMO. They are over budget $2.3 billion. Yes, they get it. They get the problem. But that does not mean they get the solution. In my experience, if you call up a DARPA PM, who has been trying to find a way to purify water for past 25 years, and declare to him that you have a machine called a distiller, that is far beyond the cloth-sieve method, and will get rid of ~all~ the sediment, as well as other impurities, he will ~not~ jump for joy and say, "Oh my God, we've spent $250 million already trying to do this....your claims sound a bit outrageous, but it's ovbious from our conversation that have deep insight into this space....do you have a demo we can see...?" Instead, he will say something like... "Well...it's June, and I already have several contractors working on the water purification problem, and distillers is not a part of the solution, and if you can show us how your new technology can make the holes of the purifying cloth significantly smaller, reducing the average particle side of the sediment that permeates the cloth, I might have something for you. Also, if your stuff is really that good, I would strongly suggest a prime contractor, who will take your work, see how it fits into our existing programs, and feed it back to us. They have to sign N.D.A's, so you don't have to worry about the big, massive, $15 billion-dollar-company eating you alive and stealing your distiller, even though it is a problem everyone in the purified water space has been seeking and wanting for more than a decade. Otherwise, I have nothing to offer you."> I've never had an engineering manager who was able to get the same level > of commitment out of his people that DARPA gets from its grantees.Depends on the predisposition of the engineers. I think one should make a distinction between people who are prone to think versus those who are prone to do. Thinkers think. Doers do. More or less. So, for example, at my last Fortune 500 employer, there was not one person in my entire group of 60 who was prone to think, the kind of thinking where you would be put in a room with a stack of blank paper and pens and told to come out with the answer or else. Most people seem to abhor that situation. They are uncomfortable with the idea that there is no crank to turn, no buttons to push, that the path to the solution is entirely unspecified and indefinite, that the solution, *if* it is found, will essentially have been synthesized out of thin air. So it's no surprise that they must be motivated to be creative. By contrast, there are other people who would grab the pen and paper with great satisfaction, and ask to be left alone an extra hour per workday, so as to do a good job and generate a good solution. Ironically, the uncertainty and risk of failure that causes such most discomfort in the first group is a major part of what provides satisfaction for the 2nd group. So big difference in these two types. The problem with DARPA is that they have managed to institutionalize creativity. They profess to support the second kind of person, but in reality, they give all the money to the first kind, and because it is so rare to encounter the first kind, they have no mechanism, no office, no procedure, to accommodate them. It is also an unfortunate fact of human nature that, when the solution is finally found, s/he who found it is well-regarded, so the first kind group, through nature process, endeavor to create an environment where it appears that the soulution is not coming from the second group, but from the first group, or at the very least, that the second group could not have possibly been successful without the first group. The victim is the thing itself...the solution. It is delayed, sometimes by decades, because the problem solver must struggle through a minefield of all that is destestable of human nature. The reason it appears that what I am writing is wrong (because, after all, we do have missiles and lasers), has to do with the sheer amount of money available. If, in a group of 1000 "researchers", there are 17 of the second kind and 983 of the first kind, and DARPA spends $1US billion on the problem, that would mean that 17 of those would still get their $1US million each, more than sufficient to produce the result if left unfettered [which is not the case, but...]. Then, DARPA gets the result, the academy sees the result, the industry sees the result, the public sees the result, Congress sees the result, and everyone presumes the program must be effective, because it produces results. Somewhere, buried in all this, is some poor bastard of a scientist, who is 100% certain that the spacecraft will explode if the O-rings are not fixed, but the other 983 tag-alongs refute him, until it actually explodes, at which point the whole process repeats itself. If there is any doubt that this is how it is, I suggest the following experiment, which I just did 1 hour ago with a different US Gov organization: Find a problem that DARPA has been trying to solve for 10+ years and has spent at least $100US million trying to solve. Call the PM of the program and claim that you have most of the solution worked out. Watch what happens. The PM will not have a technical conversation with you about the problems in the slightest. Instead, he will say something like, "We have large contractors working on that. I will put you int touch with a couple of them so you get in bed with one of them. It is the only reasonable way you will get any money from us in a relatively short period of time." (within a few months). -Le Chaud Lapin-
Reply by ●June 29, 20092009-06-29
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:> On Jun 29, 12:31 pm, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:47:59 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: >>> But as you so admirably point out, it doesn't meet it's _stated_ goal. >> DARPA is actually a pretty good outfit. I've worked on DARPA projects >> at various times over the years, and the following have always been true: >> >> (1) The program managers are good technical people who Get It. >> (2) The goals are insanely ambitious, but some reasonable fraction of >> them actually get met. > > Well, I have to disagree here, not so much with #1, but definitely #2. > The fraction in my field is horrifically small. > > I work in computer networking. After an embarrassingly long time > thinking in this space, I know where all the pieces of the puzzle are, > if not exactly how they should all be shaped. DARPA has already spent > $11US billion of a $37US billion program trying to solve problems in > this area: > > http://jpeojtrs.mil/, > http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06955.pdf > > ...most of which are solvable by a team of less than 10 people, IMO. > They are over budget $2.3 billion. > > Yes, they get it. They get the problem. But that does not mean they > get the solution. In my experience, if you call up a DARPA PM, who has > been trying to find a way to purify water for past 25 years, and > declare to him that you have a machine called a distiller, that is far > beyond the cloth-sieve method, and will get rid of ~all~ the sediment, > as well as other impurities, he will ~not~ jump for joy and say, "Oh > my God, we've spent $250 million already trying to do this....your > claims sound a bit outrageous, but it's ovbious from our conversation > that have deep insight into this space....do you have a demo we can > see...?" > > Instead, he will say something like... > > "Well...it's June, and I already have several contractors working on > the water purification problem, and distillers is not a part of the > solution, and if you can show us how your new technology can make the > holes of the purifying cloth significantly smaller, reducing the > average particle side of the sediment that permeates the cloth, I > might have something for you. Also, if your stuff is really that good, > I would strongly suggest a prime contractor, who will take your work, > see how it fits into our existing programs, and feed it back to us. > They have to sign N.D.A's, so you don't have to worry about the big, > massive, $15 billion-dollar-company eating you alive and stealing your > distiller, even though it is a problem everyone in the purified water > space has been seeking and wanting for more than a decade. Otherwise, > I have nothing to offer you." > >> I've never had an engineering manager who was able to get the same level >> of commitment out of his people that DARPA gets from its grantees. > > Depends on the predisposition of the engineers. > > I think one should make a distinction between people who are prone to > think versus those who are prone to do. Thinkers think. Doers do. More > or less. So, for example, at my last Fortune 500 employer, there was > not one person in my entire group of 60 who was prone to think, the > kind of thinking where you would be put in a room with a stack of > blank paper and pens and told to come out with the answer or else. > Most people seem to abhor that situation. They are uncomfortable with > the idea that there is no crank to turn, no buttons to push, that the > path to the solution is entirely unspecified and indefinite, that the > solution, *if* it is found, will essentially have been synthesized out > of thin air. So it's no surprise that they must be motivated to be > creative. > > By contrast, there are other people who would grab the pen and paper > with great satisfaction, and ask to be left alone an extra hour per > workday, so as to do a good job and generate a good solution. > Ironically, the uncertainty and risk of failure that causes such most > discomfort in the first group is a major part of what provides > satisfaction for the 2nd group. > > So big difference in these two types. > > The problem with DARPA is that they have managed to institutionalize > creativity. They profess to support the second kind of person, but in > reality, they give all the money to the first kind, and because it is > so rare to encounter the first kind, they have no mechanism, no > office, no procedure, to accommodate them. It is also an unfortunate > fact of human nature that, when the solution is finally found, s/he > who found it is well-regarded, so the first kind group, through nature > process, endeavor to create an environment where it appears that the > soulution is not coming from the second group, but from the first > group, or at the very least, that the second group could not have > possibly been successful without the first group. The victim is the > thing itself...the solution. It is delayed, sometimes by decades, > because the problem solver must struggle through a minefield of all > that is destestable of human nature. > > The reason it appears that what I am writing is wrong (because, after > all, we do have missiles and lasers), has to do with the sheer amount > of money available. > > If, in a group of 1000 "researchers", there are 17 of the second kind > and 983 of the first kind, and DARPA spends $1US billion on the > problem, that would mean that 17 of those would still get their $1US > million each, more than sufficient to produce the result if left > unfettered [which is not the case, but...]. Then, DARPA gets the > result, the academy sees the result, the industry sees the result, the > public sees the result, Congress sees the result, and everyone > presumes the program must be effective, because it produces results. > Somewhere, buried in all this, is some poor bastard of a scientist, > who is 100% certain that the spacecraft will explode if the O-rings > are not fixed, but the other 983 tag-alongs refute him, until it > actually explodes, at which point the whole process repeats itself. > > If there is any doubt that this is how it is, I suggest the following > experiment, which I just did 1 hour ago with a different US Gov > organization: > > Find a problem that DARPA has been trying to solve for 10+ years and > has spent at least $100US million trying to solve. Call the PM of the > program and claim that you have most of the solution worked out. > Watch what happens. > > The PM will not have a technical conversation with you about the > problems in the slightest. Instead, he will say something like, "We > have large contractors working on that. I will put you int touch with > a couple of them so you get in bed with one of them. It is the only > reasonable way you will get any money from us in a relatively short > period of time." (within a few months).Look: if you have a good idea, ask DARPA to help you instantiate it. If you have a good method, develop it commercially. DARPA doesn't do demos, startup venture capitalists do. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
