

Ask HN: Selling disruptive technology - gcv

I'm posting on behalf of an acquaintance, who approached me recently with several major ideas in the field of ceramics. He has publications and patents to back his claims, but he has trouble with investors. His website with more explanations is http://rokhv.com. Quick summary: he invented several new types of ceramics, and knows how to manufacture them. Uses: containers for nuclear waste disposal (cheaper and safer than Yucca Mountain); cheap and thin superconducting wire; incinerators which produce clean electricity.<p>Investors get excited, refer him to experts in the ceramics, who reply "no way." Except some of these experts work on competing ideas, or have other vested interests. This is the disruptive technology problem which PG wrote about: people either outright don't understand what you're doing, or they don't want to understand it.<p>I personally have no stake in this, but I'm always interested in pushing for clean energy sources. I wonder if crowd here has any suggestions.
======
alphaBetaGamma
This is very exiting: his new technology will truly revolutionize many
technological fields, and lead to huge savings for humanity (and make him one
of the riches guys on earth in the process).

Unfortunately... extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And patents
and publications in peer-reviews papers do _not_ constitute extraordinary
evidence.

Moreover, there is a bad bad smell form his claims and web site:

\- Nuclear waste disposal, cheap superconducting wire, new incinerators...
This technology solves too many problems, it seems too powerful. Does it cure
cancer too? Hey, no, he does not claim that; but he does claim (from his web
site) that this could reduce worldwide GHG emissions by 15%. That’s almost as
good.

\- From his web site: one plant for manufacturing radioactive resistant
packaging would bring owners $265MM/year. One plant manufacturing
15,000km/year of his new electric wire will cost $49MM. Some other plant would
cost $51MM.

WTF? It would take months or years of experienced people to make estimates
like these, and they would be much less precise. My guess is that these
numbers are totally random. Moreover, some of the quoted ROI are 500%. I would
guess that historically, industrial projects with projected ROI that high did
not work out as planed (to put it mildly)

\- He speaks about "room temperature" superconductivity without giving any
more details about what "room temperature" means.. Hum, he seems to be
skipping some important details there.

I could go on.

I hate being harsh, but my guess is that this guy is either lying or
delusional.

~~~
aerokhv
For the last 12 years here in New York, USA, I developed, tested, published in
professional journals, presented on the US professional meetings, US patented
and in-lab prototyped three separate cost-efficient thermo-chemical
technologies and advanced ceramic products. All technologies and products
relate to more efficient electricity generation or transmission and end-use;
all of them will provide significant Environment protection or cleaning and
are very profitable. Now I rather intent selling or licensing these
innovations than getting investments. I will appreciate any help and advice.
Thank you, Dr. Anatoly Rokhvarger, www.rokhv.com (sorry for unprofessional web
site); aerokhv@aol.com

------
frossie
I hate to be the bad guy, but:

 _Investors get excited, refer him to experts in the ceramics, who reply "no
way."_

How do you know they are not right?

Patents in and of themselves are not proof, as we all know.

~~~
huhtenberg
Also, it is worth keeping in mind that "nano technologies" is _the_ fad in
Russian Federation at the moment. It is something that is used to milk
government and private investors for grants, subsidies and any other form of
loosely packed cash. At some point Putin let it slip publicly that "nano
technologies" is where the future of Russia lies, and all hell broke loose.

Want to keep up with times? Make sure to wash your car in "Nano Carwash" (two
dudes with buckets). How about some "Nano chocolate" if you are hungry? Or
perhaps "Nano operating system" is your thing? Please have two.

I kid you not, it is this ridiculous. So anything coming out of Russia with
"nano" in it should be treated twice as suspiciously.

(edit) Tangetal to what I said above. The About page on the site says

    
    
      American Ceramic Society recognized Dr. Rokhvarger among
      100 greatest innovators of the 20th century for development 
      of "Conveyer Technology of Ceramic Tile Using Rollers Hearth Kiln"
    

This "Conveyer" invention being one of top 100 greatest inventions of 20th
century has from zero or one hits in Google depending on whether it is
misspelled or not. While I don't think the above statement is an outright lie,
but this looks a lot like an unsubstantiated cheek puffing, and it makes me
wonder if the actual subject matter is of the same quality.

------
klous
I would suggest looking into SBIR funding. Many of the large government
agencies will provide Phase 1 funding for preliminary research and if proven,
phase 2 funding for commercialization. DOE SBIR programs may be applicable.
<http://www.er.doe.gov/sbir/> Depending on where located, most states have
organizations who can provide assistance in writing SBIR proposals.
<http://www.sbir.gov/state/>

~~~
robg
The only worry is that the same "experts" could review his application. It's
worth a shot, to get a score and feedback, but it is a 12 to 18 month process.
Investors have to be an additional source of financing.

------
dtap
Not to seem doubtful, but the website does not inspire a lot of confidence. It
is terribly formatted and oddly has red text highlighting market sizes.

Also, the Business Development guy also designed the website with his separate
company. But that company's website (jkmarketingspecialists.com) was designed
by some company that is a green company directory?? I would definitely
encourage an effort of legitimacy. No one can fund that website.

You mention that he has been published in peer-reviewed journals, could you
put those links or articles on the website. I have never seen an academic
extract mention money or be formatted like this:

 _~ $265 MM/year pre-tax net income and liberates US Government budget from >
$15 billion/year expenses. The U.S. market for the RCC packages is about $10
billion/year._

The technology could be as awesome as you say but this lack of clarity could
be why the experts say no way. It usually isn't a conspiracy or a vested
interest conflict. A smart investor would be aware of these and would probably
only refer you to someone whose honest opinion he could get.

------
riffer
Try thinking more broadly about applications for the technology.

Find a situation where there is a guy who is looking for a solution to his
problem at least as hard as you're looking for a customer for the product.
Don't try to convince a bunch of people who don't seem to want to be
convinced, that is a really painful process that leaves you disillusioned and
makes you wonder if you should quit. Find one of the few guys who is going to
love you when he sees your stuff. And if your stuff works for him, he'll
probably help you expand.

Bottom line: spend more time thinking about applications and finding people,
and less time trying to convince them

------
gphil
You seem to be concerned about selling the tech to investors, but why not sell
it to customers instead? Is it so expensive to make that investment is needed
to make the product?

~~~
gcv
Making the product definitely requires investment. Manufacturing equipment,
salaries for a couple of people who will do the actual work, etc. It doesn't
need a huge sum, but it isn't bootstrappable.

------
robg
All of the uses, what's the best market? Can he build something that someone
in that market wants?

How can he show that their money won't fund a science experiment but will be
applied to making them more money? Traction in a market seems key.

------
rbanffy
> He has publications

In peer-reviewed journals? Has someone independently duplicated his results
(in effect is able to manufacture nuclear waste containers and cheap
superconducting wire using his methods)?

~~~
gcv
Yes, in peer-reviews journals. As for independent duplication, I gather that
it's been painful to convince anyone to even try.

~~~
rbanffy
That's tough... How much would it cost to a college lab to duplicate some of
his results?

------
sspencer
A lot of revolutionary technology is unbelievable until it happens. Maybe try
to organize a private demo?

