Where could I apply for a grant for a paper in DSP?

[ghettosynth]

So far the ideas you recently presented here have not impressed me or anyone else.

Nor have they appeared 'novel-ish.' (Barely even sentence-ish, in fact. boomtish)

Btw, novelty might be slightly relative thing. Because in such broad area one cannot always be sure, whether something has been discovered or not.

In the internet age at least seeking information is much easier. There are many examples from the past when scientists were working on the same innovations without knowing about each other, purely because of circumstances.

Sure, and TBH, novelty is somewhat overrated and/or overstated in academic contexts. That is, the degree of novelty required is often quite low if all you want to do is publish a paper. Further, novelty required is also a function of who else is publishing at the same time (for conferences) and the quality of the conference/journal. Another factor that can't be ignored is bias towards existing institutions.

However, points made by whyterabbit and mystran should not be ignored here. If you can't talk generally about your ideas in such a way that it piques the interest of others, you probably aren't ready to write a paper.

BTW: It's not impossible to write a paper without having an association to a lab or an academic institution, however, you will have a much easier time of it if you can find a collaborator on the "inside."

All that said, trying to get someone else to pay, and I'm making an assumption here, an unknown and unaffiliated researcher to write a paper is the pinnacle of either hubris or ignorance, or both.

[mystran]

Just to give you a concrete example (and this is a legit example, not some bogus fictional story), I "recently" had an idea that in theory should be able to avoid aliasing (sort of) in more or less arbitrary non-linear processes and it can be shown mathematically that it's supposed to work, even though obviously there is a trade-off involved. It's not entirely novel either (few things are), but I'm not aware of it being very wide-spread practice in the industry. I haven't written a proof-of-concept (so whether it's viable or not remains to be seen), but I have worked out most of the details as far as math goes... and to be honest I could probably be a whole lot more specific without really giving anything away, but I just want to demonstrate how even relatively little information makes you a whole lot more curious, doesn't it?

Cool- is it similar to the DAFX paper from last year? I'm just wondering in case you came up with the same idea simultaneously.

I had to look that up (haven't really gone through last year's DAFX yet), I assume you mean "Reducing the Aliasing of Nonlinear Waveshaping Using Continuous-Time Convolution" which is interesting idea that probably a lot of people have thought about, but most probably got just about as far as I did when I last thought about it (which is to say, absolutely nowhere).

Anyway, what I was talking about above is kinda completely orthogonal and honestly not even that clever... but we won't talk about it more because I don't have a proof-of-concept, there's no reason to believe that it would actually work in the first place... like .. I get these random ideas a lot and like 90% of them just fail... which is kinda the point I was trying to make in the first place.

[Numanoid]

Hm, building blocks that snap together takes explaining? Hook and loop fastener? Anyway, the point being that I could have made a very long list of things that are terribly obvious upon demonstration, but are game-changers.

How about taking out a patent of the "invention", before presenting it to potentional other investors?

Stuff like lego or velcro can't even be reverse engineered, once patented can they?

[Kraku]

@Mystran:

I'm not very familiar with antialiased distortion algorithms, but does your idea have anything to do with using very short BLITs (or BLAMPs whatever they are called, same thing in my opinion)?

[mystran]

@Mystran:

I'm not very familiar with antialiased distortion algorithms, but does your idea have anything to do with using very short BLITs (or BLAMPs whatever they are called, same thing in my opinion)?

No.

[earlevel]

Hm, building blocks that snap together takes explaining? Hook and loop fastener? Anyway, the point being that I could have made a very long list of things that are terribly obvious upon demonstration, but are game-changers.

How about taking out a patent of the "invention", before presenting it to potentional other investors?

Stuff like lego or velcro can't even be reverse engineered, once patented can they?

Patents are expensive and take time—my comments were to the OP, and patents weren't an appropriate scenario.

There are also provisional patents. I don't have much experience here, but I think the basics idea is one-year protection (good enough to shop the idea), lower cost (I think per page fee)...I assume less rigor, but you can't be sloppy and make make the protection worthless. To restate: I know basically nothing about them, just bringing up the idea.

I do have patent experience, as a software and electronics expert on several patent cases involving some of the biggest companies in the world, though. So to answer your question, no they can't be reverse engineered or embodied as something effectively the same.

[JCJR]

But the reason for needing a grant is that the paper would be revealing IP. So of course one won't want to publish such paper without compensation. But the paper could be useful to others.

How do I make sure that the company doesn't steal the idea when I present it to them?

Everybody needs money. Tis a fine line, but for continuing credibility it is desirable to avoid being perceived as a crackpot.

For decades or centuries, since invention became a popularly perceived "fast track" to wealth and fame-- Inventors with fantastic claims (crackpots) commonly have a paranoia about money and theft of the invention. Some individuals may be common con-men rather than crackpots. Though it seems a common personality trait of crackpot inventors who may honestly think they have something valuable.

The most blatant examples are guys who tout a secret process for antigravity, 200 mile per gallon carburetors, free energy, etc. They persist for years trying to get a big payment somehow before releasing the world-changing invention. They go to their graves keeping secret the fabulous invention, because no one will pay them enough for the idea, one way or the other. They are willing to allow untold human suffering which the invention might prevent, rather than release design details for less than the specified price.

Of course, in addition to megalomanic and paranoid tendencies, the majority of such persons are wrong about the invention. Perhaps all crackpots have had worthless inventions or perhaps a few really were valuable inventions. Possibly one of the thousands of 200 mile per gallon carburetors actually worked somehow but the design was taken to the grave because the inventor never got paid.

The issue for that rare fella who might actually have an actual fabulous device rather than a fabulous delusion-- If such inventor shows obvious symptoms of crackpot-ism, nobody will listen to him and he will never get paid! A self-fulfilling prophesy!

That is why it is desirable to avoid looking like a crackpot.

A similar category of personalities which businesses try to avoid-- The fella with a trivial obvious invention, who happens to believe his invention is world-class genius. They share some crackpot personality characteristics but expensive nuisance lawsuits are the biggest risk. If they manage to patent the trivial idea they can hound practical people who actually use the idea and never considered the idea novel or patentable.

If a fella looks enough like a crackpot then a potential client business might refuse to look at his idea even with a nondisclosure agreement. If the crackpot's idea is already under development at the client business, or even if the technique has already been used for years-- If the business takes an NDA and reads the crackpot's idea then it could cause much legal suffering. Cheaper to avoid looking at the idea. The potential legal expense is greater than the potential reward.

That is why it is desirable to avoid looking like a crackpot.