1 Publications and patents of aeronautical innovators up to 1909 by Peter B. Meyer, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Findings and views are those of the author, not the BLS) OUI conference, Brighton July 2013 .

2 A pre-history of the airplane 1860s Clubs and journals incorporate fixed-wing designs It’s a niche activity – maybe hopeless, useless, dangerous 1890s Glider flights, survey books Powered glider flights (esp. Wrights) Big exhibitions; new industry Publications and patents of aeronautical innovators up to 1909 The first airplanes were designed along the lines of kites, gliders, and experiments before then. The key experimenters and theorists studying “aerial navigation” then communicated largely in writing. Data on over 2000 patents and 13,000 aeronautics-related publications up to 1909 tells us about the period of innovation leading to the first airplanes. I find that this literature grew over decades at a similar pace across France, Germany, Britain, and U.S. Publications and patents boom at the end of the period as the industry starts. I struggle with the question of whether this interchange makes up an information “commons” along the lines of the literature associated with Elinor Ostrom and find mostly yes, but without the sharp definitions and rules associated with “commons”. There was free revealing and ideas moved fluidly though much was missed or forgotten. Experimenters had “open practices”/ open source innovation  Networking  Shared findings, designs – public goods Intellectual property principle unimportant T hese practices led to technological success & new industry I gather/count publications, clubs, patents, firms, letters, individuals, citations

Exploring “aerial navigation” Flapping wings Fixed wings Soaring birds Kites & gliders Hargrave 1891Frost 1902 Cayley Le Bris 1868 Mouillard 1881 Maxim’s motorized aeroplane 1894

Exploring aerial navigation (2) Tail Stacked wings Penaud 1872 Stringfellow 1868Hargrave 1893 Phillips 1904 Langley 1901 Cayley

Exploring aerial navigation (3) pix removed temp Curved (“cambered”) wings Balloons and dirigibles... And more technologies: engines, parachutes, propellers,... Diverse creative exploratory “production” took effort Lilienthal, 1889 Phillips 1884, 1891 Santos-Dumont, 1901 Wind tunnels Wright wing models, 1902

6 Getting in the air: Otto Lilienthal pic removed temp Lilienthal experimented on wing shapes and lift Published book: Birdflight as the basis for aviation 1890s: Flew inspirational hang gliders in public – tried to control in air Crashed in 1896; disciple Percy Pilcher crashed in 1899

7 Octave Chanute Retiring engineer focuses on “aerial navigation” issue. His 1894 book Progress in Flying Machines surveyed experiments, devices, theories Communicated and visited many experimenters Encouraged openness, e.g.: “I propose to let you avail of whatever novelty and value there may be in my own models or ideas. I should expect in return a like frank access to your results” (Chanute to Langley, 1895, quoted by Short, p208) Wrights to Chanute Chanute to Wrights Letters and telegrams between Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers

8 Motivations of early experimenters Would like to fly Curiosity, interest in the problem (an “intrinsic” motive) Prestige, recognition Hope to make better world/country (altruistic) They didn’t refer to manufacturing or expected profits.

Ballooning is central – aeronautics joins that infrastructure From 1860s, societies in Paris, London, Berlin include “aerial navigation” Exhibitions & conferences: 1868, 1885, 1893, 1904, many after exhibitors in 1868 Crystal Palace, organized by Aero Society of GB Relevant clubs and societies Aeronautics-related clubs and societies

Data on publications 1910 Bibliography by Brockett of Smithsonian Institution Much cleanup necessary 13,000 entries Data on  Title, author, year, language, journal Many refer to  Ballooning  Navigation  Scientific measurement  Clubs, societies, events  Kites, gliders, motors

Aeronautical periodicals before 1909 Journalwhenwhere entries in Brockett (1910) L'Aérophile1893-Paris1383 Zeitschrift für Luftschiffahrt1882-Berlin; Vienna1101 Illustrierte Aëronautische Mitteilungen Strasbourg; Berlin 1053 L'Aéronaute Paris822 Wiener Luftschiffer Zeitung Vienna604 Bollettino della Societa Aeronautica Italiana1904-Rome534 Aeronautics London425 Aëronautical Journal1897-London415 Scientific American1871-New York371 La Conquête de l'Air1904-Brussels343 Aeronautical World Ohio315 Compte Rendus de l’Académie Sciences1836-Paris191 Bulletin of the Aerial Experiment Association 1908-Nova Scotia157 La Revue de l’Aviation1906-Paris147 American Magazine of Aeronautics1907-New York102 L'Aeronauta Milan95 Revue de l’Aeronautique ; Paris87 Flight (Aero Club of UK)1909-London81 American Aeronaut St. Louis; NYC81 Aeronautical Annual Boston68 Ballooning and Aeronautics1907-London64

Source: Brockett bibliography (1910) Dip at end is because only first half of 1909 is included; another volume goes further

from Mouillard’s L’empire de l’air, 1881 The next five from L’Aerophile,

Wilbur Wright’s first letter to Chanute in 1900 says “the apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to [your] "double-deck" machine [of] ” “... I make no secret of my plans.... I believe no financial profit will accrue to the inventor of the first flying machine, and that only those who are willing to give as well as to receive suggestions can hope to link their names with the honor of its discovery. The problem is too great for one man alone and unaided to solve in secret.” 14 Open technology practice: imitation Chanute-Herring glider, 1896 Wright brothers 1900 kite, glider  Pratt truss    

15 Imitation (2) Voisin-Farman winning prize, 1908 Farman, Ferber, 1902, copies Wright design based on report from Chanute  Santos-Dumont 1906, 1st airplane flight in Europe Gibbs-Smith’s Rebirth of European Aviation ; a globalization story

16 Parallels to grass-roots open source projects (open technology practices) Innovators are autonomous (not hierarchy, not cult)  Choosing what to make, starting small, with various goals  Learning from hands-on experience; empirical (no curriculum)  Sharing info across distances, pooling knowledge Role for authors, evangelists, organizers  Create / manage communities  Support specialization and standards  Encourage “public goods”  Emergent progress, as opportunities permit Products evolve iteratively (not by plan) and variants appear

New phase: Transition to industry Wilbur and Orville Wright made bicycles They were “open” in aviation field  Visitors, publications, speeches, imitation They have technological successes in (1) control system for gliders, (2) wing and propeller design They pull back from “open” involvement  File for patent, granted 1906  They plan to enforce their patent and manufacture airplanes

Transition and paradigm shift Octave Chanute: Preferred open technology Wright brothers: It’s an industry now Wrights enforce their 1906 patent in U.S. In Europe, patent is interpreted more narrowly; they license more I am modeling this (unavoidable?) conflict Pix of these gents temporarily removed so I can squeeze down the file for transfter through wiki

Startup industry and patents In Publications & patents increase Big public exhibitions  100,000s people see  Profitable exhibitions  Huge prizes  “Legitimate” to start firm (Hannan, Carroll et al 1995)

20

Startup industry 1908: Flow of new firms starts Sample of early investors, founders, and designers suggest less than 20% overlap with earlier experimenters

22 Annual US patents grow by avg of 4.7% per year, in TN data Annual US aero patents grow by avg of 6.3% per year, in TN data Growth rates in annual aero patents in my eclectic data, : France 4.2%, Britain 2.9%, Germany 4.9%, US 4.7%. count if year>=1855 & year< count if year>=1905 & year<=

Future: “career” information Early experimenter location (origin) Pages referring to, Chanute (1894) Publications listed in Brockett (1910) MaximBritain (US)3325+ LilienthalGermany3150+ PénaudFrance2212 Mouillard Algeria, Egypt (Fr) 216 HargraveAustralia (Br)1925+ MoyBritain1910 Le BrisFrance170 LangleyUS1640+ WenhamBritain1510+ PhillipsBritain143 ChanuteUS (France)*50+ Experimenters were diverse and international Can compare “contributions” by publications, patents, citations (e.g. by Chanute 1894) and by frequency of references in historical books  Can identify influential contributors in early period statistically

Conclusions Leading experimenters followed open source practices  They publish, and moderate/edit publications  share information ; meet ; write letters  and copy technology  No firms do this “research” (technological uncertainty)  motivation mostly intrinsic or altruistic (to fly! change world! Attempt challenge)  Communication  imitation, progress  1890s standard glider  The new industry starts from this information  Entrepreneurial people and era was very different  Experts of 1899 did not become industrialists ten years later  Info on individuals will give stats on that

End of presentation

How can we make use of this story? (1) Watch new fields, knowing what "prehistories of invention" look like In the air: quadrocopters, personal flight biotech, nanotech hacker spaces, maker faires are open source behaviors visible? suggests opportunity for improvement can identify innovative persons? ask experimenters what constrains them from progress help with open-source copying of institutions, legal documents, taxes, informational infrastructure (2) Apply open-source practices in government What would help us innovate in governance? wikis to read, share & copy efficiently in govt (Intellipedia, Diplopedia, Statipedia, Eurostat's, OECD, Canada's, Britain's) search engines for our own pooled content source code control systems to share & co-develop tools in public/nonprofit sector try those that we might recommend ; empower our staff with permission to use outside platforms open data (for use in government) link to WikiData? share source code examples across government model good practices enable copying of them thus create new Chanutes (and Einsteins!)

Modeling open source innovation (2) Model of “tinkerer” agent: i nterested in a particular project Has worthwhile experimental opportunities (cost 1, utility payoff p each period)  Psychic or socially constructed “progress”  tinkerer produces artifacts information flows between them (fraction f of own progress) Payoff to doing project + receiving Payoff to specializing, standardizing, modularizing Relatedly, payoff to creating a common platform / kit Models inventors, nonprofit actors, fanatics, researchers

Subjects of those articles Term in English Entries (of 13600) Balloon (aerostat, dirigible, Zeppelin, voyage, ascent) 2100 Navigation (control, steerable) 623 Kites, gliders (gliding, soaring) 550 Wing 180 Bird (animal, fish, insect) 270 Scientific/measurement (research, theory, meteorology, atmosphere, experiment, duration, altitude, temperature, weight) 475 Military /warfare (army) 400 Motor (engine, propulsion, propellers) 380 Clubs/societies 600

Early experimenters rarely entered industry In preliminary samples, only: 4% of company people had early patents 12% had aero publications before % were referred to in publication titles before 1910 In future: can compare Entrepreneurs, designers, and investors of early industry

30 Wright brothers as open-sourcers First letter to Chanute, May 13, 1900: “Assuming then that Lilienthal was correct...” [Wilbur explains what he will do differently.] “.... my object is to learn to what extent similar plans have been tested and found to be failures, and also to obtain such suggestions as your great knowledge and experience might enable you to give me. I make no secret of my plans for the reason that I believe no financial profit will accrue to the inventor of the first flying machine, and that only those who are willing to give as well as to receive suggestions can hope to link their names with the honor of its discovery. The problem is too great for one man alone and unaided to solve in secret.” “the apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to the "double-deck" machine with which the experiments of yourself and Mr. Herring were conducted in ” Chanute’s reply May 17, 1900: “I believe like yourself that no financial profit is to be expected from such investigations for a long while to come.” Wrights’ 1900 glider

31 Wright methods and inventions Wind tunnel with smooth air flow Tested many wings systematically Propeller invention: shaped like wings, with lift going forward This produces ~40% more pulling power. This design idea lasts to the present. They are skilled, precision-minded toolsmiths, in a workshop every day. They flew craft as kites and gliders both, many times No landing gear, no engine. Their piloting invention had to be learned, like on bicycle

Wrights exit open-source “network” : Wrights read everything they can, experiment with kites and gliders, visit, correspond, attend conferences, speak, publish. Late 1902: they become more secretive, apparently because of wing design success 1903: They filed for a patent on their control mechanism for the wings. Granted Then they started companies. Their secrecy and tight hold on patent rights lead to permanent conflicts with Chanute, Curtiss, and others. Wrights’ first powered, controlled fixed-wing flight Dec, 1903

Conclusions so far Overhang of technological uncertainty is extreme  No firms do this “research” (hopeless, useless, dangerous) Independent tinkerers share information  Networking & writing  imitation & progress  Clubs, publications, visits, letters  Lead to standard information platform in mid 1890s  They copy previous work relevant to open source software and other cases  Their motivation is mostly intrinsic or altruistic To fly! To change the world so others can fly; or, the challenge Entrepreneurial people and era was very different  The experts of 1899 did not become industrialists ten years later

This big “case” (airplane as invention and new industry) relates to what innovation is (open source innovation vs others) measurement of innovation stories of startup industry where new inventions and industries come from (personal computer industry; open source software industry; biotech; light bulb; photography; steam engines, atom bomb) It is useful to organize and classify data about this case scientifically (apart from my telling stories about it) data=publications, patents, letters, clubs, club members, companies, company founders,.... lists and counts of things Plan: keep naïve, keep it interesting and keep counting Some themes of this work

Economics has useful micro models of agents: Investors, employees, firms, R&D, households, consumers, governments, bureaucrats, principal-agent relationships, managers, employees, families, etc. But these characters didn ’ t bring us the airplane. We could use a model of self-motivated non-profit “ tinkerers ” (scientists) who: Offer information to public Sometimes avoid intellectual property institutions (patents, copyrights, …) Standardize technology, modularize, specialize Evangelize the field and technology Did bring us the airplane and thus an industry Relevant models/phrasings: user innovation, distributed innovation, collective invention, peer production, open source innovation If goal is to change the world, open-source behavior can be “rational” (Meyer 2007) Microeconomics issue/opportunity

Was it an information commons? Yes Designs were copied Publications copied Tinkerers in contact  Standards did arise  Rivalry was secondary No No sharp boundary ( of common resource) Usual commons issues are minor congestion, free riding, conflict, overuse, pollution (Hess and Ostrom intro, 2006) No global formal rules Many clubs or journals had rules No strong collective action; little governance, sanctions, monitoring. “Soft law” / context Note relevance of: uncertainty; opportunism; support

37 Communication institutions referred to in histories page references distinct instances Clubs, society, or association21937 Journals, periodicals, newspapers, or magazines,13139 Company7535 Exhibition, prize, trophy, award, contest, medal, or meet6718 book (fact or fiction)4721 university or school4619 lab, museum, institute, observatory, zoo, or fund4616 military institution457 conference142 These rough counts come from 12 combined historical book indexes about the invention of the airplane, and exclude references to events after These institutions serve technical communication. There was much free revealing of tech.

Bibliography of Aeronautics Brockett/Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian expanded director Langley’s collection Bibliography has over 13,400 items, listed on 940 pages. It was scanned, digitized and made public online Archive.org ; also credits to Cornell Univ library, U of Michigan library, and Carnegie-Mellon (posner.cmu.edu) with many scanning/OCR errors. I’m fixing those and making a database. For most publications we have authors, date, language of the title, location of publication. Work continues Chanute’s 1894 book and this 1910 book are my major sources here.

39 Did experimenters copy earlier designs? This is key to the “open source process” idea. Yes, they copied. A tail on an aircraft was sometimes called the “Penaud tail” for Alphonse Penaud’s models of the early 1870s. A tail can help with stability and control. Long thin fixed wings were found to give more lift than square or round wings. These are imitated, e.g. from Wenham’s 1871 wind tunnel experiments Stacked wings draw from particular designs: Wenham, 1866 ; Stringfellow, 1868 ; and box kite experiments of Hargrave, 1890s. That leads to the biplane structure. Hargrave box kite, 1890s Penaud model, circa 1872 Cayley, 1799 – got much right but not wing shape

40 (1) R&D: investments which expect financial payback on average (2) Race to be first (space race; genome project) (3) Collective invention (Allen, 1983)  but those are (a) firms, (b) not paying costs to experiment (4) To earn income or wealth indirectly  Start company, or license patented invention  signal to employers; get hired as engineer (Lerner and Tirole, 2002) These do not apply well to airplane invention  We need a model of “tinkerers” (5) Network: a population of agents with i nterest in a problem (a 0 ), worthwhile opportunities (p), information flows between them (f)  experimentation and socially constructed “progress” No pool of information, or incentive structure, or technical measure of improvement. Alternative models of invention

New firms: preliminary findings Few of the founders, investors, designers in the firms were experts/experimenters of the 1890s.  Maybe this is how open-source technologies are usually commercialized – by a new or different group  Change from technological uncertainty to feasible/investable tech  Are the authors of technical works different? Don’t know yet. Many founders had experience in manufacturing  Unlike the Wrights New firms spin off rapidly from earliest firms  Klepper (2009): corporate-genealogies in Detroit and Silicon Valley show very high local rates of spinoff; that’s how these places became central to cars and semiconductors

42 Role for author / moderator / evangelist Chanute corresponded with, visited, introduced experimenters, and published book In model: A tinkerer’s best opportunity for progress may be editing, writing, speeches, evangelism  a uthors/evangelists are another kind of specialist tinkerer Octave Chanute, 1894: “The writer’s object in preparing these articles was threefold: 1. To satisfy himself whether... men might reasonably hope eventually to fly To save... effort on the part of experimenters trying again devices which have already failed. 3. To... render it less chimerical... to experiment with a flying machine....” Analogously: Lilienthal’s public demonstrations; Felsenstein at Homebrew; open source programmers Stallman, Torvalds, etc.

Issues of interest What institutions support the activities that leads to the invention/industry? (taking its importance as known) Do the experimenters show “open source” behavior? What does the transition to industry look like? Methods question: How can we use a bibliography and historical narratives written after the fact to tell a unified quantitative story of innovation? I am developing databases of bibliographies of aeronautical publications and clubs patents from the 1860s to 1910 startup firms and their key people (founders, investors, designers) combined indexes from historical books about the airplane’s invention

44 Imitation: Wright brothers copy Chanute’s design, 1900 Wilbur and Orville Wright ran a bicycle shop. They read up on gliders and experiment with kites and gliders. Motivation:“I am an enthusiast... I wish to... help on the future worker who will attain final success." -- Wilbur Wright, 1899, in letter to Smithsonian Wilbur writes Chanute, 1900: “I make no secret of my plans [because] I believe no financial profit will accrue to the inventor of the first flying machine, and that only those who are willing to give as well as to receive suggestions can hope to link their names with the honor of its discovery. The problem is too great for one man alone and unaided to solve in secret... The apparatus I intend to employ... is very similar to [yours].” Chanute reports on Wrights’ design to others and it is copied in 1902 – before they are famous! (Details Gibbs-Smith 1966)

Modeling open source innovation Like user innovation (von Hippel) & collective invention (R Allen)  But no central organization; few rules  Copying actual designs Not like R&D; nor “race” to the finish; nor mainly signaling to employers Can be modeled micro-economically: Suppose tinkerers are  Instrinsically or altruistically self-motivated  Trying to make “progress” on a technical project  Not competing with others too much  benefits exceeds costs to experiment, share, specialize, standardize, modularity, platforms (micro model Meyer 2007 “Network of tinkerers”)

Gathering global data to 1910 Publications – 13,600 from Brockett’s 1910 Bibliography of Aeronautics Citations by Chanute’s 1894 Progress in Flying Machines (190)  and by Historical accounts (indexes of books) Clubs and societies to 1910 (hundreds) Patents (>2000) Firms ( >600 up to 1916) Letters between experimenters (>400) Individuals – from the above, thousands Much was written because progress was slow and dispersed