|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
CROWD OF LITTLE LITTLE PEOPLE...
Books and articles / And then came the inventor
The RVS operator is strong, but not the only tool for overcoming psychological inertia. "Carriers" of psychological inertia can be words, especially special terms. After all, terms exist in order to more accurately reflect what is already known. And the inventor must go beyond the known and thereby break the established ideas, "protected" by terms. Therefore, the task - even the most difficult! - must be rewritten in "simple words". In the classroom on the theory of inventive problem solving, there was such a case. The sailor proposed the problem of increasing the speed of the icebreaker moving through the ice. The problem was solved at the blackboard by an engineer who had nothing to do with the sea. And on the board appeared this entry: "The contraption must pass freely through the ice, as if it does not exist." I sat next to the sailor and heard how he was indignant: "Some kind of hooliganism ... Why is an icebreaker a contraption ?!" But the engineer did the right thing. After all, the word "icebreaker" imposes a certain path of solution: it is necessary to chop, destroy the ice ... And if you learn to pass through the ice without breaking it? So "thing" is a very appropriate term. Like "x" in math. By the way, the "thing" really turned out to be unlike an icebreaker. Imagine a ship's hull with the middle layer cut out - the layer that is at the level of the ice. Or, say, a ten-story building that does not have a seventh floor. The body of a large icebreaker just has a height of a ten-story building. If one floor is missing, the ice (its thickness is two to three meters) will freely pass through the missing floor. And the ship will be able to move without breaking the ice. It would be ideal not to connect the upper and lower parts of the case in any way. But the practical solution is only getting closer to the IFR. We have to deviate a little from the ideal - to connect both parts of the body with two strong, narrow and sharp blade stands. They will cut narrow gaps in the ice - it's much easier than breaking the ice the entire width of the icebreaker ... The problem was beautifully solved, but the sailor who proposed the problem was not satisfied. At that time, there were experiments on the destruction of ice with hydrocannons, there were many inventions on the topic "let's break the ice more", and here is a "thing" that passes through the ice, almost without destroying it. Unusual! .. Six years later, a patent for a semi-submersible vessel was published (here a new term arose!), Then other patents and copyright certificates appeared. The first "through the ice drifts" have already been laid at the shipyards. As you can see, for a correct assessment of the idea of invention, imagination and knowledge of the laws of development of technical systems are also needed ... The methods of overcoming psychological inertia used in TRIZ seem to be purely psychological. In fact, the essence of these techniques is that they indicate the direction in which technical systems naturally develop. Thirty years ago, the American researcher William Gordon proposed using a special technique, empathy, to solve inventive problems. The essence of this technique is that a person imagines himself to be the machine referred to in the problem, gets used to the image of this machine and tries to look for a solution, so to speak, playing for the machine. This is a purely psychological technique, the expectation that an unexpected look at the problem will allow you to see something new. We decided to test Gordon's idea, set up experiments. It turned out that empathy sometimes helps to find a solution, but much more often leads to a dead end. Having imagined himself as a machine, the inventor begins to avoid ideas related to its destruction, separation, grinding, melting, freezing... Such actions are unacceptable and forbidden for a living organism. And a person involuntarily transfers this ban to machines. But machines and their parts can be completely divided, crushed, etc.
Take, for example, the problem of a roller conveyor. In search of a solution, we had to mentally crush the rollers, grind them down to atoms. Particle grinding is one of the main trends in the development of the working bodies of machines. The smaller the particles, the easier they are to control and the more opportunities open up for the machine. Think of hovercraft: the wheels were “shredded”, replaced by gas molecules, and the car acquired the ability to move off-road, on water. In TRIZ, instead of empathy, they use... little people. The technique is very simple: you need to imagine that an object (a machine, a device, etc.) is an accumulation of many little, little people. In part, this is similar to empathy: you can look at the task "from the inside", through the eyes of one of the little men. But this is "empathy without empathy" - there are no inherent shortcomings of empathy. The ideas of division, crushing, grinding are easily perceived: a crowd of little men can be divided, rebuilt ... One day, as part of an experiment, a group of engineers were asked to apply empathy to an icebreaker problem. The engineers willingly offered different ideas on how to break the ice, but did not express a single idea on how to break the icebreaker itself ... Then they immediately gave the task to another group and proposed use MMF - simulation of little men. Several engineers immediately had the same idea: let the crowd of little men (that is, the hull of the ship) part and go around the obstacle (ice) on both sides. The group was new, and no one took the bold idea seriously. "We offer this, so to speak, in the order of delirium," one of the engineers said apologetically... MMF requires a strong imagination. We must imagine that the object consists of a team of little people. Not molecules or atoms, but living and thinking beings. What do they feel? How do they act? How should they act? How should the team act?.. A very convenient model for reflection! Unless, of course, there are skills to work with such a model. Problem 45 The liquid dispenser is made in the form of a rocking chair (Fig. 1). On the left side of the dispenser is a container for liquid. When the container is full, the dispenser tilts to the left and the liquid is poured out. In this case, the left side becomes lighter, the dispenser returns to its original position. Unfortunately, the dispenser works inaccurately: not all the liquid is poured out. As soon as part of the liquid pours out, the lightweight container goes up - it turns out "underfilling". Make the container bigger and put up with the fact that some of the liquid remains in it? But the rocking chair is capricious: "underfilling" depends on many reasons (liquid viscosity, friction in the dispenser supports, etc.). You need to eliminate the "underfilling" in some other way ...
We use the method of modeling by little men. On the swing - girls (liquid) and boys (counterweight on the right side of the dispenser). Here the "load" is accepted (Fig. 2), and the left part of the swing goes down (Fig. 3). But as soon as one or two girls have jumped, the left side of the swing goes up (Fig. 4)... How can I make sure that all the girls have time to safely get off the swing?
The answer is obvious: while the girls are getting off, the boys should move to the center of the swing (Fig. 5), and then return to their original position (Fig. 6).
Now let's move from the model to the real design. The weight on the right side of the dispenser should move easily back and forth. It is clear that it is best to make a weight in the form of a ball (Fig. 7).
Problem solved. We came up with an answer using the MMP method. But it is easy to see that in this case a physical contradiction was revealed and eliminated ("The moment of force acting on the right side of the dispenser must be small so that all the liquid drains, and the moment of force must be large so that the container is filled to the top with liquid"). Another thing can be noted: the dispenser, which had no moving parts, has now become "dynamic", that is, the technical system has entered the third stage of development. Therefore, everything is going as it should, a good solution has been found ... Problem 46. AGAINST PHYSICS?.. If you rotate a vessel with liquid, centrifugal force will force the liquid to press on the walls of the vessel. This is sometimes used in technology for processing products by pressure. Let us now assume that the product was placed not at the walls, but in the center of the vessel (Fig. 8). How to force a liquid in a rotating vessel - contrary to the laws of physics! - press not on the walls, but on the product? .. We apply the MMP method. Physical contradiction: according to the conditions of the problem, the "little men of the liquid" must press on the product (Fig. 9), and according to the laws of physics, they must press in the opposite direction (Fig. 10). We will act according to the usual logic for TRIZ: the incompatible is compatible. Let two opposite actions take place simultaneously (Fig. 11). Unfortunately, the little men only press on the walls; there is no pressure on the products. This means that the pressure on the walls must be "turned over" (Fig. 12). But how to do that? If we push one line of men against another, the pressure is simply neutralized (Fig. 13). As in tug-of-war competitions, when the strengths of the teams are equal... However, nothing prevents us from placing stronger (more massive) little men in the lower rank (Fig. 14). Here is the answer! Let there be two different liquids in the vessel, for example, mercury and oil (Fig. 15).
As the vessel rotates, the mercury pressure will overpower the oil pressure and cause the oil to press against the workpiece. A beautiful solution to a seemingly completely unsolvable problem...
Now try to independently apply the MMP method to solve problem 44 - about a separator for an oil pipeline. Imagine a separator: a group of "blue" men divides the stream of "red" men into two parts. How should the blues act when moving through the pipeline? What should be the group of "blues" in order to freely pass through the pumps? And how should the “blues” behave when the transportation is over and the “blues” together with the “reds” are in the same tank?
Machine for thinning flowers in gardens
02.05.2024 Advanced Infrared Microscope
02.05.2024 Air trap for insects
01.05.2024
▪ Tidal floods are associated with a special type of slow ocean wave. ▪ DC/DC Converter TPS6284x from Texas Instruments ▪ Hydrogel and sunlight can desalinate water ▪ Embroidery of electrons by ion
▪ section of the website Experiments in Physics. Selection of articles ▪ article Let's go! Popular expression ▪ article Why are some of Euler's discoveries named after other scientists? Detailed answer ▪ article Machinist for cutting and filling seams. Standard instruction on labor protection ▪ article Automatic lighting switch. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering
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