Patents alone aren't enough. The "human touch" behind Orbitron, German Power, and Gelhorn.

There have been times when something generated so much heat that it was too hot to touch the container, and thick smoke billowed out. There have also been several small explosions.

Normally, you would stop there.

But the moment after a failure, another idea comes to mind.

What if we change the way we think about the formulation? What if changing the conditions produces a different result? What is this failure trying to teach us?

Of course, we do not simply repeat the same dangers. We isolate the cause, review the safety conditions, and then move on.

Even so, we try again.

If it does not work, we think again.

Research and development is about exploring possibilities.

We fail, consider the cause, change the conditions, and test again. From this accumulation of efforts, we retain only "reproducible results," not mere coincidences.

ORBITRON was born from this kind of process.

What is in the product is not just information about success

When you look at a finished product, you can only see the final answer that remained.

But in reality, we have repeatedly tried and discarded ideas: "This material is not right," "This combination is not right," "If we increase it, it changes," "Let's try reducing it," "Let's change the order," "That is also different."

The technology behind ORBITRON contains a vast amount of information not only about what we use, but also about what we do not use.

What did not work? What did we discard? Which technologies did we decide not to adopt?

This accumulation of failures also has value.

It is somewhat similar to AI "distillation"

This story is somewhat similar to the concept of "knowledge distillation" in AI.

In knowledge distillation, there is a concept of transferring knowledge from the output of a large, powerful model to a smaller model, using the former as a teacher. A representative paper on this was published in 2015 by Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean, titled Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network.

In terms of ORBITRON, this would mean looking at a finished product and working backward to create something similar by reasoning, "If this produces this result, then this must be important." The idea is similar.

However, ORBITRON does not disclose what we have tested, what we have discarded, in what order we process things, or how we judge whether something is good or bad.

The information that can be observed from a finished product is also limited.

That is why, even if you can make something similar, it is difficult to bring it to the same level.

Sometimes things do not start with theory alone

There is another, more difficult-to-explain starting point for the development of ORBITRON.

Sometimes, you suddenly think, "What if I try this? It might be interesting."

It is not because it was written in a paper, nor because it was derived from a theoretical formula. While looking at materials, you suddenly realize, "What if I combine this with that?"

Then you search for it. If it is not available in Japan, you search as far as overseas. If you obtain it, you test it. If it does not work, you discard it.

Not all of them work. In fact, there are more that we did not use.

But among them, something comes along that makes you think, "This is somehow different."

From there, you work closely with the factory manager, saying, "Then let's try changing this," or "Let's try doing it a little differently."

That is how it becomes a product.

In the experience of working at this for many years, something suddenly connects at a certain moment. I believe that is also part of the technology.

GERHON and German Power are difficult to reproduce from raw materials alone

This story is also true for GERHON and German Power.

These are unique even at the raw material stage. The supplier does not provide the raw materials to anyone other than designated locations.

Moreover, the raw material supplier itself cannot make the same final product.

This is because the technology for making the raw materials and the technology for making the final product are different.

Raw materials. Recipe. Manufacturing process.

Unless all three are available, you cannot make the same thing.

Furthermore, this information is not gathered in one place or made public.

That is why it is difficult to copy.

Technologies that are difficult to copy also have weaknesses

This is a strength, but it is also a weakness.

If something happens to the manufacturer, the product may become impossible to make.

Even if only the raw materials remain, you cannot make it. Even if you only have the equipment, you cannot make it. Even if only the old patents remain, you cannot make it.

If the judgment held by people is also lost, the product itself may disappear.

This is not unique to ORBITRON. Nippon Steel also considers the "smooth transfer of technology and skills" a critical issue in steel manufacturing and maintenance, and is promoting skill transfer through skill maps and on-the-job training. Furthermore, in the operation of heavy machinery at steelworks, it is conducting demonstrations to visualize skilled operations and utilize them for skill transfer.

Nippon Steel "Utilization and Development of Human Resources"
Nippon Steel "Digitizing Heavy Machinery Operations at Steelworks with AI"

Even if you have equipment, raw materials, or blueprints, you may not be able to consistently make the same thing with those alone.

I believe that ORBITRON, GERHON, and German Power are fundamentally the same.

Technology is not preserved by patents alone

Technology is not just patents.

It is not blueprints. It is not raw materials. It is not equipment. It is not just a successful recipe.

What was tested? What was discarded? Where did it fail? How is it made? Who makes the final judgment, and how?

Technology includes all of that.

That is why I do not believe that "it is protected because there is a patent."

What is truly valuable are the current materials, recipe, manufacturing process, raw material procurement routes, failed trials and errors, years of accumulated judgment, and the people who can reproduce it.

In fact, I have repeatedly heard from people who purchased various similar reactor-related products that "in the end, I came back to ORBITRON."

Of course, ORBITRON is not an inexpensive product. I understand the decision to first try something cheaper.

However, seeing people return after taking a detour, I feel that choosing ORBITRON from the start may sometimes avoid that detour in the end.

Hide to protect. Share to preserve

Those who make products face another challenge.

How to preserve this technology.

If you only consider preventing copying, it is better not to release any information.

But if you do not pass it on to anyone, it will end the moment there is no one left who can make it.

Hide to protect.

Share to preserve.

This is a contradiction.

That is why we must think about how to protect technology, evolve it, and pass it on to the next generation.

A product does not remain with blueprints alone. It does not remain with patents alone.

In the end, it will not remain unless it is passed from person to person.

Having made ORBITRON for many years, I feel this most strongly now.