I often hear things like:
1. You can't do that.
2. You shouldn't do that.
3. That won't work.
4. If it did work, you should not do it.
5. How do we change our system so we can do that too?
I also hear:
1. We have never done it that way before.
2. Nobody does it that way.
3. Why would you change something from the way it is always been done?
etc., etc., etc.
When I hear "that is not the way we have always done it", I immediately think "no doubt there is a much better way of doing this", and very often I prove that.
There are many aspects of design.
Some of it has to do with UL listings, and how things are tested, and what may happen if you modify a device to operate outside of its design range.
It is never about breaking the laws of physics, but rather about finding unique arrangements for components and systems.
One story was in Scientific American I think, about an amplifier.
They build two components of an amplifier, and mounted them back-to-back.
There was an unplanned and unintentional induced feedback from one component to another, which produced a highly desirable effect in the amp.
Others tried to copy the design, and were baffled when their designs did not work the same, because the components were not mounted back-to-back.
Another example is the story about the famous Russian rocket engine that outperformed any other rocket engine in the world.
The method that the Russians used for this engine was dismissed by NASA, and when NASA finally got ahold of one of these engines after the Soviet Union broke up, they discovered that they were 20 years behind the Russians in rocket engine technology.