|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
COURSE FOR Caviar
Books and articles / And then came the inventor
This story happened recently. One engineer was working on metal lacquer lubricant. This is a regular lubricant to which a few percent of finely ground metal powder has been added. During operation, metal particles settle on the rubbing surfaces and protect them from wear. The smaller the gap between the surfaces, the smaller the metal particles in the lubricant should be. A technical contradiction arises: the smaller the metal particles, the better the lubricant, but the more difficult it is to prepare. If you act according to the theory of solving inventive problems, you must, first of all, imagine the ideal final result (IFR), that is, answer the question: what would you like to get in the most ideal case? IKR is a fantasy, a dream. IFR is unattainable. But he is paving the way to a solution. Remember when we compared the theory of solving inventive problems with a bridge? So, IKR is one of the main pillars of this bridge. What is the ideal end result for a lubrication problem? The answer is not difficult: it would be ideal to grind the metal particles to the limit, down to individual atoms. The theory of solving inventive problems gives, as you can see, a paradoxical hint: “Is it difficult to obtain small particles of metal? This means that we will obtain super-super-super-small particles - this is much easier.” Here the theory falls silent, for the next step chemistry is needed. Oil with large metal particles is a mechanical suspension. If you crush metal particles, you get a colloidal solution. Finally, if the metal is reduced to atoms or ions, a true solution is obtained. Now we can clarify the IFR: ideally it would be to have a solution of the metal in oil, that is, oil, and in it individual metal atoms. Unfortunately, such an IFR is unattainable. Alchemists also knew: like dissolves in like. Oil is an organic substance; organic substances dissolve well in it. But metals, alas, do not belong to organic substances. On the way to IFR, a physical contradiction arises: metal atoms must be dissolved in oil (we must strive for IFR!) and must not be dissolved (the laws of chemistry must not be violated!). Let's step back a little from IFR: let it be not atoms that are dissolved in the oil, but molecules containing the metal. We used the already familiar technique of “doing a little less than required”: it’s not possible to grind the substance down to atoms, okay, let the particles of the substance be a little larger - not atoms, but molecules. And the contradiction immediately disappears. There are no metal atoms in oil (there are molecules) - and there are metal atoms in oil (they are included in the molecules, “hidden” in them). One question remains to be resolved: which molecules to take? This is the only obvious possibility. The molecules must contain metal and must be organic. Therefore, you need to take an organometallic compound. It will readily dissolve in oil (organic matter readily dissolves in organic matter) and will contain metal atoms. To solve the problem, I had to use several simple concepts (IFR, physical contradiction, the technique of “doing a little less than required”) and one very simple rule from chemistry (like dissolves in like). True, the problem has not yet been fully resolved. Molecules of an organometallic substance contain metal atoms, but we need the metal atoms to be not in a compound, but separately... Here again we have to remember chemistry. In order for a metal atom to be released from a molecule, the molecule must be decomposed. How to do it? In chemistry lessons you did the following experiments: you heated a substance and at a certain temperature it decomposed. During operation, the oil heats up due to friction. If we take an organometallic substance that decomposes when the temperature increases, the problem will be completely solved. Now let's see how this problem was actually solved. The engineer first looked for a solution through trial and error. He tried a variety of methods for grinding metals, carried out experiments, tried to find a solution in the literature... Years passed, and then one day in a bookstore an engineer heard one of the customers ask the seller to give him a reference book on organometallic compounds. The engineer thought about it. Organometallic substances include metal - times; they are organic substances, which means they dissolve in oil - two... But this is exactly the combination that is required! The engineer bought the reference book, leafed through it and immediately found a suitable substance - cadmium salt of acetic acid. Stories about inventions often include such cases. They are typical when working by trial and error. A person searches for a solution at random and does not even realize that the problem can be approached scientifically: to formulate an IFR, to determine a physical contradiction. The task fails, and the person tries to use everything he sees or hears. It's good that someone asked the store for a reference book on organometallic substances. If not for this random clue, who knows how many more years the search would have continued... In the previous chapter, we formulated a technique: “If it is necessary to introduce an additive of another substance into some substance, but for some reason this cannot be done, you should use the existing substance as an additive, slightly changing it.” What does "changed a little" mean? Changes can be physical: heat, cool, take a substance in a different state of aggregation, etc. And chemical: take a substance not in its pure form, but in the form of a compound from which it can be separated, or, conversely, take a simple substance, but then, when it plays its role, convert it into a chemical compound. Let me give you another interesting example of using this technique. Aluminum oxide crystals are grown from a very pure melt. You cannot even melt aluminum oxide in a platinum crucible: platinum atoms may get into the melt. In essence, this is an inventive problem with a clear physical contradiction: there must be a vessel so that the melt does not spill, and there must be no vessel so that the melt does not become contaminated. We'll have to melt the aluminum oxide into... aluminum oxide. Let's take any vessel filled with aluminum oxide and heat the oxide so that only the central part melts. The result is a melt of aluminum oxide in a “crucible” of solid aluminum oxide. For heating, electromagnetic induction must be used: the energy source does not come into contact with the heated substance. Everything is fine, but solid aluminum oxide is a dielectric, it does not conduct electric current. This means that there is no electromagnetic induction. True, molten oxide is a conductor. But melting requires heating, and there will be no heating, since solid oxide is a dielectric... This often happens with tasks: when you overcome one contradiction, another arises, a third... Like in an obstacle race: you overcome one barrier, and behind it another barrier and another... So, there is a physical contradiction: pieces of metal must be added to aluminum oxide in order for electromagnetic induction to occur, and pieces of metal cannot be added because contamination of the oxide is unacceptable. The invention that made it possible to overcome this contradiction turned out to be surprisingly simple. Pieces of aluminum are introduced into the aluminum oxide before melting begins. Aluminum conducts electricity well, so under the influence of induction it quickly heats up itself and heats up the aluminum oxide - it begins to melt. Now aluminum is not needed, the molten oxide itself conducts current. And aluminum disappears: at high temperatures it simply burns, turning into aluminum oxide. And the oxide, naturally, does not pollute the oxides... Try to solve a simple problem. To get the answer, you only need to take two steps. First step: imagine your ideal solution. Act as if you are a magician. Things obey your orders... Second step: think about how to get the ideal solution without rebuilding and reworking - with the most minimal changes. Problem 33. THE BALLON POLITELY REPORTED... In many homes, gas burners run on liquefied gas. This gas is stored in metal cylinders. If there is little fuel left, the owner should think about replacing the cylinder as soon as possible. But how do you know when the liquid in the cylinder is almost used up? This problem was solved by employees of one design bureau. It was necessary to come up with a simple and convenient way to immediately notice that, say, one tenth of the liquid remained in the cylinder. - Measure gas pressure? - one engineer said thoughtfully. - No, nothing will work out. As long as there is at least a drop of liquid in the cylinder, the pressure does not change: the consumed gas is replenished due to evaporation. - What if you weigh the cylinder? - asked another engineer. - No, perhaps that won’t do either. It is inconvenient to continually disconnect a heavy cylinder, weigh it, and reattach it... And then an inventor appeared. “I know the perfect solution,” he said. - The cylinder itself must politely report that one tenth of the liquid remains. And he explained how to get the perfect solution. What do you suggest? Please note that you cannot attach glass tubes to the cylinder, it is dangerous.
Machine for thinning flowers in gardens
02.05.2024 Advanced Infrared Microscope
02.05.2024 Air trap for insects
01.05.2024
▪ Blood vessels are easier to print ▪ Rice Based Heat Resistant Film ▪ Livescribe 3 pen for digitizing handwritten notes
▪ section of the site Winged words, phraseological units. Selection of articles ▪ article Eliminate as a class. Popular expression ▪ Article Dental Assistant. Job description
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page