On extension of the SuField notation

Y. B. Karasik

Thought Guiding Systems Inc.
Ottawa, Canada
e-mail: karasik@sympatico.ca

Almost twenty years ago I was working on the extension of the notation of SuField analysis to make it compatible with other techniques of TRIZ. Some of these extensions were published (e.g. [1]) but some were not. Amongst the not published extensions, there was the following one:

where S3 means the result of the action of S1 on S2.

The idea behind this extension was that action of S1 on S2 changes something in S2 (position, shape, structure, or something else.) The changed S2 (denoted as S3) can be considered as "a product" of the action of "the tool" S1 on "the raw material" S2.

Had this notation been published, it would have eliminated much of the confusion about what "tool" is and what "product" is in SuField formulas. For example, in a recent communication to me [2] Pentti Soderlin wrote: "Consider e.g. an electrical field with a solenoid as a tool and something magnetic as an object. Clearly the device poduces a force on the object. It is a technical system. I cant see a force as a product."

He is absolutely right: the force is not a product here. The product is the new state of the object: either a new position of the object, or a new speed of the object, or something else which was affected by the magnetic force. The initial state of the magnetic object before the solenoid was switched on can be considered as "the raw material"

The confusion stems from the fact that the classical TRIZ operates with the notions of "tool" and "product" but misses the notion of "raw material" that is converted into "product" by "a tool". This is because "the raw material" is very often the same object as "the product" but differs just in the position or something else which is very subtle.

Semyon Savransky recently communicated to me [3] that the triad "tool-material-product" as opposed to the classical TRIZ "tool-product" dichotomy is somehow used by Zinovy Royzen in his modification of TRIZ who nevertheless did not go far enough to change the SuField notation.

On the contrary, by changing the notation, we can not only eliminate the contradiction between the classical SuField analysis and "the tool-product" paradigm but also pave the way to writing down some new rules of SuFiled analysis.

R E F E R E N C E S:

1. Y. B. Karasik, "Analysis of dualitities and SuField analisys: how to jointly use them when solving the inventive problems", in the Proceedings of the USSR conference "Advance of the Scientific and Engineering Creativity of Employees", volume 3, pp. 41--42, Moscow, 1983.

2. Pentti Soderlin, private communication, May 2002.

3. S. Savransky, private communication, February 2002.