
Stanford Ovshinsky: the greatest scientist you've never heard of? - ColinWright
http://ovshinskyday.weebly.com/
======
Brakenshire
IIRC, an Ovshinsky NiMH battery patent is what's behind the idea in "Who
Killed the Electric Car?", that various companies bought up a key technology
of Electric Cars to run them into the ground. Although I'm not clear on
whether the story is true. At least, by the time the patent had expired, it
seemed to have lost its pre-eminence, as there didn't seem to be any
particular explosion in NiMH technology afterwards.

~~~
SamuelKillin
I'm pretty sure they even take a walk around his factory with him in the movie

------
fnazeeri
Met and worked with him (briefly) in the 90's. Nice guy. No focus. Lost a lot
of other people's money. Probably should have been a professor instead of a
businessman.

~~~
rgbrenner
What do you base that on? He founded ECD in 1960, was the CEO for 46 years,
built it into a 300m+/year revenue company. Left it in 2006.. it went bankrupt
in 2012.

The bonds that led to the bankruptcy were issued in 2008 by his replacement/

The trustee recently filed suit against 3 chineese companies saying ECD went
bankrupt because of their price fixing.

Are you saying that because it went bankrupt 6 years after he left, that he
was a bad businessman?

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732382910...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323829104578622011650335422)

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230344200457912...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303442004579122261141953326.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Conversion_Devices](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Conversion_Devices)

------
ryanatkn
This interview with Ovshinsky has some interesting stuff. [1] He talks about
his motivations being socially driven, his vision of how humanity can use
science and technology to make our world better, how a car company reduced his
201 mile range electric car (which happened to be his very first prototype) to
a 125 mile one at retail, and how it might be a bad idea to go into business
with an oil company if their long term strategy is counter to yours. Neat guy.

[1]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4KuCVlF14](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4KuCVlF14)

------
ChuckMcM
This stuff annoys me, _" Ovshinsky’s achievements are all the more remarkable
because he had no formal qualifications beyond a high school diploma."_

It annoys me because the guy clearly had the equivalent of a Phd in materials
science, he just didn't happen to get it at an accredited institution.

The annoyance comes from the people who read this and say "Gee, even somebody
that never went to college can do this." rather than "Gee, you can learn
anything even without attending a college if you have the drive." I got
similarly annoyed when someone with a PhD makes an assumption that because
someone doesn't have a PhD they must not be able to get a PhD, but knowledge
isn't like that.

Rather than pitch this guy as someone with no formal education, we should hold
him up as someone who chose to educate himself deeply in the subjects he was
passionate about. To seek out knowledge and to hone his ability to separate
truth from fiction, insight from platitude.

~~~
kyro
The problem you're talking about, which I agree exists, has more to do with
readers than with the author because I really didn't read any of that in the
article. The author just seems to offer admiration for the guy's drive and
resourcefulness, and doesn't at all advocate not attaining formal
qualifications.

What I wanna know is how this guy put together an effective and cohesive
curriculum instead of the scattered and unfocused one I tend to fall into when
trying to self- educate.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
Once you have a specific goal in mind, it suggests the kinds of questions you
should be asking the library oracle, and you let that guide what you study.

In other words, if you have an actual problem, and you really need to solve
it, that is the motivating and focusing force.

At least, I am guessing that's how he did it. I could be totally wrong.

------
jrjr
Mr. Ovshinsky spent a lot of time prying money out of corporations, without
meaningful results. His greatest accomplishment was the ability to convince
investors. He's no Kennedy, or Tesla.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
I would consider convincing corporations to "waste" their money for no
profitable result, is a great achievement. More corporate money should be
spent on the betterment of invention and human welfare without an expectation
of profits.

~~~
pdonis
It looks like Ovishinsky's corporation did make a profit, at least while he
was running it. So I don't think your implied dichotomy--you can make a
profit, or you can improve human welfare, but not both--holds water.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
I implied no such dichotomy. If there were such a dichotomy though, it would
be no great shame to "waste" money regardless.

~~~
pdonis
But profit is what tells you that what you are doing is valuable, i.e., that
it is _not_ a waste (no scare-quotes) of money, or more importantly, of the
time and effort of the people involved. So the fact that Ovishinsky's company
made a profit while he was running it is not an accident: it is a consequence
of the fact that his inventions were valuable, so that spending his time and
effort, and that of his employees, on them was worth doing.

Your definition of "waste" appears to be something that you think is worth
doing, but which does not make a profit. But if it is worth doing, why is it
not making a profit? And if it is not worth doing, why put "waste" in quotes?
People's time and effort would be better spent on something else.

Finally, if you want to spend your own time and effort (and money) on
something that others might consider to be not worth doing, that's your
choice. But when you talk about convincing others to "waste" money, you are no
longer just committing your own time and effort (and money); you are
committing theirs. The track record of this method of organizing human
activity when not constrained by the need to make a profit (in order for the
activity to stay in business) is not good.

~~~
TheZenPsycho
>But profit is what tells you that what you are doing is valuable

wow. are you a fan of "Atlas Shrugged" by any chance? I will give you just one
obvious counter example (though I could rattle off a huge list), which, if you
are not sociopathic, should immediately make you see your mistake:

The Red Cross

Profit is a very poor metric for value to humanity. In fact it is a
horrifyingly inhumane metric, and I would hope you feel shame for writing such
rubbish publically.

But if that doesn't do it for you, I could also point out that you have just
insulted everyone here who happens to work on open source software, by telling
them their work has no value, and is a waste without scare quotes.

That's not to mention the day traders and bankers who make huge amounts of
profits and contribute nothing of value to society.

~~~
pdonis
_are you a fan of "Atlas Shrugged" by any chance_

Not really.

 _The Red Cross_

Perhaps we are using a different definition of "profit". AFAIK the Red Cross
is funded by voluntary contributions; in other words, people pay the Red Cross
to do what it does, indicating that people find what it does worth doing. That
meets my definition of "profit", but apparently not yours. So we may be
talking somewhat at cross purposes.

Btw, the fact that the Red Cross and other similar organizations call
themselves "nonprofits" is a subterfuge, so they can collect money, pay
salaries to people, make purchases, have administrative expenses, and
generally do all the same things that ordinary "for profit" businesses do,
without ringing alarm bells with people who don't understand that the
resources they use to do what they do have to come from somewhere; they don't
just magically appear. In other words, they are forced to call themselves a
"nonprofit" because most people have a faulty definition of what "profit"
means.

In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling
the service of helping people. If they made a profit, so much the better: more
money to reinvest in helping people better. As it is, they have to hide what
would normally be "profit" in various expenses that amount to the same thing,
reinvesting profits in helping people better--but it's less efficient because
of the subterfuge.

 _Profit is a very poor metric for value to humanity. In fact it is a
horrifyingly inhumane metric, and I would hope you feel shame for writing such
rubbish publically._

No, what is inhumane is to pretend that people can be helped and human welfare
improved for free, magically, without any cost and without any expenditure of
people's time and effort, as well as other resources--for example, to force
organizations like the Red Cross to pretend to be "nonprofits" and waste
resources on subterfuge that could otherwise be used to directly help people.
I would hope you feel shame for writing such rubbish in public.

Profit forces us to face the reality that creating value takes time and
effort, and forces us to make hard choices about which things _will_ get done,
out of all the things that _could_ be done with the time and effort and
resources at hand. There are other ways of making those choices, but on a
large scale they all have worse track records than profit does.

 _you have just insulted everyone here who happens to work on open source
software, by telling them their work has no value, and is a waste without
scare quotes._

I have said no such thing. I write open source software myself; some of it is
visible on the web (see the links at
[http://blog.peterdonis.com](http://blog.peterdonis.com)). But I write it
because it is valuable to _me_ ; I don't need to be paid by anyone else
because I already see the value. But the flip side of that is, I have no idea
how valuable it is to anyone else.

For example, suppose there were some feature that could be added to one of my
Python libraries that would be very valuable to someone else. So that someone
else sends me an email saying, basically, can you add this feature? But they
don't offer me any money; they just say the feature would be really valuable.
How do I know how much of my time and effort that feature is worth? If I have
no other information, the feature will get done when I have the spare time and
interest (which may be never). But if the feature really _is_ that valuable to
them, they have one obvious way of getting my attention: offer me money. Now I
have an easy way of judging whether the feature is worth my time and effort: I
judge the money offered against the opportunity cost, i.e., what else I could
do with that time and effort, and how much would it be worth to me? (Note that
"how much would it be worth" doesn't necessarily mean in money; it might mean
giving up time with my family and friends, and I might not be willing to do
that for the money offered.)

For another example, look at a large open source project like OpenOffice. I
filed a bug _years_ ago asking if a "normal view" option could be added to the
OpenOffice word processor, similar to the feature in MS Word (basically, you
see the fonts and paragraphing as they will be in the finished document, but
you don't see all the extra "page view" cruft that is in the default view in
OO). Lots of people voiced support for adding the feature, and the OO project
team agrees it's a good feature, yet it's never been added. Why not? Because
they have no way of knowing whether that feature is worth more than all the
other things the OO team has to do with their time and effort--which basically
means they assume it _isn 't_ worth more, and the feature never gets done.

Most open source software falls into this category: what there is may be very
good (I use OO quite a bit, and do _not_ use MS Word except when forced to at
work), but it tends to lack features that for-profit software has. The
exceptions are mostly cases where there are for-profit entities backing the
project up--the Linux kernel, for example--or where the open source project is
an enabler for profits made through other means, like Android for Google.
Again, that is by no means an insult to open source developers; as I said, I'm
one of them. It's a recognition of reality: we all put our time and effort
where we can see value. We can all see when things are valuable to us (btw,
this includes things like the Red Cross--many people see value in helping
other people, and the Red Cross is an expression of that); but we are not good
at seeing how valuable things are to others, particularly when the others are
widely distributed and diffuse. Profit helps to fill that gap.

~~~
dragonwriter
> AFAIK the Red Cross is funded by voluntary contributions; in other words,
> people pay the Red Cross to do what it does, indicating that people find
> what it does worth doing. That meets my definition of "profit", but
> apparently not yours.

First, donations are revenue, not profit; profit is revenue _minus_ expenses.
It is somewhat amusing that a post which makes this error complains about
others having a "faulty definition of what 'profit' means."

Second, the term "nonprofit" is the less-formal term for a certain class of
tax-exempt entity because part of the requirement for that tax-exempt status
is that "part of the net earnings [...] inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual", that is, that the organization does not _return_
profits to anyone. [1]

> In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling
> the service of helping people. If they made a profit, so much the better:
> more money to reinvest in helping people better. As it is, they have to hide
> what would normally be "profit" in various expenses that amount to the same
> thing, reinvesting profits in helping people better--but it's less efficient
> because of the subterfuge.

Except that this is not the case, because there is no requirement for the Red
Cross not to have excess revenue above its expenses, it just can't have
shareholders or other individuals to whom that excess is distributed.

[1] 26 USC § 501(c)(3); similar language appears in other paragraphs of §
501(c) defining other categories of tax-exempt non-profits, though § 501(c)(3)
is the most important, and the one relevant to the Red Cross;
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501)

~~~
pdonis
_donations are revenue, not profit; profit is revenue minus expenses_

Yes, I know that. See my response to ZenPsycho.

 _there is no requirement for the Red Cross not to have excess revenue above
its expenses_

This is a valid point (and thank you for linking to the actual law governing
this). However, I don't think it makes much difference to the point I was
making. For one thing, it amounts to admitting that the Red Cross can make a
profit, and that therefore profit and helping people can go together, which
was my original point in this subthread. Also see below.

 _it just can 't have shareholders or other individuals to whom that excess is
distributed_

First of all, that's not the only limitation. They also have to limit their
activities to those that qualify for tax-exempt status. The law seems to have
quite a bit of language intended to make it difficult to evade that
requirement. So there is still an assumption that certain kinds of activities
are "more worthwhile", independently of the question whether they make a
profit.

Second, if there is an excess, what happens to the excess? Some of it probably
gets put aside as a buffer for times when receipts are down. But other than
that, what else does the Red Cross do with it?

Based on their recent financials, this is purely a hypothetical question,
since they are operating at a loss, from what I can see:

[http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1...](http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m16040150_2012_fiscal_year_auditedFinancialStatementDocs.pdf)

But let's suppose they had a surplus. Where does it go? They are limited in
the uses they can put it to and still keep their nonprofit status. A regular
for-profit corporation is not. So the Red Cross still has to cope with an
added burden that it should not have to cope with (and would not have to in a
sane world), and that added burden detracts from their ability to help people.

~~~
dragonwriter
> First of all, that's not the only limitation.

That's the limitation that's relevant to the name "non-profits"; there are
several classes of tax-exempt non-profits, and that's the shared feature that
makes them "non-profits" \-- not that they don't have excess revenue over
current expenses, but that they don't return profits to shareholders.

> So there is still an assumption that certain kinds of activities are "more
> worthwhile"

Well, yes, there are public resources being expended by way of a tax subsidy
-- 501(c)(3)'s are not merely _exempt_ from income taxes, but donations to
them are _tax deductible_.

> Second, if there is an excess, what happens to the excess? Some of it
> probably gets put aside as a buffer for times when receipts are down. But
> other than that, what else does the Red Cross do with it?

 _All_ of it is put aside for future use.

> So the Red Cross still has to cope with an added burden that it should not
> have to cope with (and would not have to in a sane world), and that added
> burden detracts from their ability to help people.

Nothing stops you from forming a regular corporation and trying to do better
than the Red Cross at what the Red Cross is intended to do. I suspect you'll
find that the "burden" that you are talking about is far less than the benefit
you would get from 501(c)(3) status. If that wasn't the case, no one would be
starting 501(c)(3)'s.

~~~
pdonis
_That 's the limitation that's relevant to the name "non-profits"; there are
several classes of tax-exempt non-profits, and that's the shared feature that
makes them "non-profits" \-- not that they don't have excess revenue over
current expenses, but that they don't return profits to shareholders._

But all of those different categories of tax-exempt entities have restrictions
on the activities they can engage in and still retain their status, correct?
So the limitation on activities _is_ a relevant limitation for this
discussion.

 _All of it is put aside for future use._

Doesn't that seem inefficient? Surely there are more profitable ways of using
at least some of that excess than just putting it aside for a rainy day.

 _Nothing stops you from forming a regular corporation and trying to do better
than the Red Cross at what the Red Cross is intended to do. I suspect you 'll
find that the "burden" that you are talking about is far less than the benefit
you would get from 501(c)(3) status. If that wasn't the case, no one would be
starting 501(c)(3)'s._

Of course; that's obvious. If we as a society choose to play favorites,
obviously that skews the playing field. But skewing the playing field doesn't
make the existing Red Cross more efficient; it just transfers the tax burden
to the hypothetical corporate competitor. That's not an argument for making
the Red Cross a nonprofit: it's an argument for doing away with the skewed
playing field.

In other words, the relevant comparison is not between the existing Red Cross
and a hypothetical corporate competitor in today's world; it's between the
existing Red Cross and a hypothetical corporate competitor in a sane world
where society does _not_ play favorites by giving special benefits to certain
types of activities. In _that_ world, a corporate Red Cross that didn't have
to restrict its activities to meet some arbitrary social requirement might do
better at helping people than the existing Red Cross does.

~~~
dragonwriter
> a sane world where society does not play favorites by giving special
> benefits to certain types of activities

I'm trying to reconcile the concept of a sane world with the concept of _not_
having organized society "play favorites" and reward activities which are
perceived to have social benefits.

The Tragedy of the Commons is not efficient.

~~~
pdonis
_I 'm trying to reconcile the concept of a sane world with the concept of not
having organized society "play favorites" and reward activities which are
perceived to have social benefits._

You can reward activities that are perceived to have social benefits without
playing favorites. People could still donate to the Red Cross if the donations
were not tax deductible, and the Red Cross could still operate if there were
no such thing as a tax-exempt organization.

Also, when you say "perceived to have social benefits", _whose_ perception,
exactly, are we talking about? If you argue (I'm not saying you specifically
are, but many do) that we need to give special benefits to the Red Cross
because otherwise they wouldn't get enough donations, you are basically saying
that other people's perceptions of what activities have social benefits differ
from yours, but since yours is obviously better, you are justified in skewing
people's perceptions of social benefit by giving them tax breaks for donating
to the Red Cross.

Even if we leave aside the question of what justifies skewing other people's
perceptions, in a sane world, you wouldn't have to do it anyway. People's
perceptions of the social benefits of various activities would be sane, i.e.,
reasonably accurate, so you wouldn't have to trick them into paying for things
they otherwise would not pay for--more precisely, doing so would be a net loss
to society.

(I'm not sure it isn't a net loss to society even in our actual world, because
I think most organizations that take advantage of tax-exempt status are not
doing things which are as obviously beneficial to society as the Red Cross.
But that's a different discussion.)

------
jdmitch
_He saw science ending poverty by ensuring everyone had access to the
resources necessary for life._

This is an interesting statement, given that it doesn't sound like any of his
inventions seem to be particularly focused on ending poverty in any direct
way.

~~~
davedx
Hi jdmitch,

I read a lot of negative comments on Hacker News lately, including those
posted as 'feedback' for things people have made and dared to post here, but
also on articles where people are trying to spread some optimism and light
amongst the typically depressing headlines we read every day.

So after reading this article, I of course clicked through to the comments
hoping for some positive responses. Why? I don't know really, just because,
you know, it might be nice to acknowledge the achievements of a man who
dedicated his life to science, engineering and the betterment of society in
general. It might be pleasant to, just once, instead of nitpicking,
belittling, or demeaning the original poster or subject of the article, say
something positive.

I briefly considered finding some evidence to demonstrate how much of a
positive effect solar panels are having in developing countries (I'm fairly
sure this is true). But then I decided not to, and just post something a bit
more in the spirit of your original comment, a bit more thoughtless and petty.

If we were in a real life conversation, and someone brought up this genuinely
interesting, game changing, benevolent gentlemen, and you responded in such a
way, I think I would tell you that if you can't say something nice in such a
situation, I suggest you don't say anything at all.

~~~
mentat
davedx,

You comment is still basically unresponsive. Are we supposed to uncritically
read everything we find on the web? Being critical is not the same as being
negative, even if it's a feel good article.

~~~
oblique63
You're right that thinking critically != negativity, but nobody ever said
anything about thinking critically. What davedx was talking about is more akin
to the rampant immature cynicism, contemptment, and 1up-manship around here.
Similar to what you seem to be trying to do here by undermining his entire
point with some sort of 'gotcha' angle interpretation. I personally didn't
read the original parent comment as being too cynical (by HN standards), but
it is indicative of the community around here.

@davedx: Thanks. More people should speak up about this sort of nonsense,
cause it's really getting old...

------
ivanhoe
I'd say he was more of The Tesla of our age, than The Edison (as The Economist
titled it's article
[http://www.economist.com/node/8312367](http://www.economist.com/node/8312367))

------
officemonkey
I don't know about that. I bet if you asked random 100 people who "Charles
Steinmetz" was you would get similar dumb looks.

And Steinmetz blows this guy out of the water.

------
democracy
He was a great man, indeed, and his life principles of paying more focus to
creative side and not immediate profits deserve great respect.

~~~
dimkar
Totally agree with you: when it comes to innovation, money gaining should not
be the only goal, money is a means, and Ovshinsky proved it. Very positive and
meaningful article.

------
arjn
I just dropped by to say that Stanford Ovshinksy is not unknown ... just
relatively lesser known. I knew about him as far back as 1997 thanks to a
documentary about him and his work. I recall one of the catch-phrases he used
to describe his work with amorphous crystals - "Tyranny of the crystal".

------
shn
I wonder why somebody promotes this person out of the blue and becomes an HN
material? Yes it is an anniversary but why not do it while he was vertical
last year or the previous year. I gather from the comments that his
achievements are controversial as well. That is why I asked this question.

~~~
kbart
Maybe to remind the engineers here that "making tons of money" is not the only
approach in life? I find this article interesting, related and thoughtful. One
of these rare counterexamples to the popular culture.

------
kzisme
It makes me happy to know someone interesting came from good old Akron, Ohio.

------
leephillips
No doubt he was a brilliant inventor. But designing gadgets is not science,
and if that's all he did he wasn't a "scientist".

~~~
Brakenshire
Seems like an odd thing to say. He was an applied materials scientist, you
don't have to work on fundamental theories to be a scientist.

------
mortdeus
But the Kardashians are just so much more interesting. Have you seen the buns
on that Kim girl?

