Discussion of article "On resolution of physical contradictions by uniting rather than separating"

From: Pentti Soderlin <pentti.soderlin@netlife.fi>
Date: 2006/12/09 Sat AM 04:36:17 EST
To: karasik@sympatico.ca

Yevgeni,

thanks for the new point of view and an interesting suggestion.

My first impression is however that the example is not perhaps the best one. In my opinion the case is simply a Level One problem and hence the solutions are obvious. If we however play the game with the said example we could also solve the problem with the Matrix. The bridge needs the pillar because otherwise due to strength we need surplus material. Hence the contradiction: strength/amount of substance. The proposed solutions: prior action; spheroidality; phase transition. With some imagination we get e.g. a pontoon bridge and the ones you suggested.

I am not also sure whether your statement of the PhC is a good one, mainly because it already contains the solution. If we think some actual case it might be: "The bridge should have a pillar in the middle to take the load and save material, but due to the river bottom (bad foundation conditions etc.) there should not be a pillar". The separation in time wouldn't work, but the separation either in place or structure does. The separation in place: we provide the flat surface for driving (light design), and the structural design for total load by the pillar or pillars and cables at the end(s) of the bridge. The separation in structure: the flat surface again for driving, and the structural strength by an arch or pillars and cables.

Also a TC like: strength/complexity of device gives periodic action;segmentation;transformation properties. The segmentation (of functions in the design) leads to same kind of thoughts as above.

Best seasonal wishes.

Pentti Söderlin,
Helsinki, Finland


From: <karasik@sympatico.ca>
To: Pentti Soderlin <pentti.soderlin@netlife.fi>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:18:32 -0500

Dear Pentti,

which problem are you talking about ? I am talking about the following one: "the bridge has to be flat in order to not affect traffic, and has to be arch in order to not have pillars in the middle". But you are talking about another problem: "bridge has to have pillars and has to not have them".

It is because any PROBLEM SITUATION (DIFFICULTY) can be translated into many different problems.

With respect to my problem it is irrelevant whether it is of first level or not. The problem contains a contradiction and one has to resolve it. So, it is resolved as described in the article. Your problem (contradiction) cannot be resolved by separation in space or in structure, contrary to your beliefs.

Separation in space means that bridge has pillars in place X and does not have pillars in place Y (or in all other places). Is it what we have in the solution ?

Separation in structure (i.e. between parts and the whole) means that parts of bridge have pillars but bridge on the whole does not have them. Is it what we have in the solution ?

You probably understand by separation in structure employing some structure. It is no wonder for a person who learned TRIZ by reading TRIZ-journal. But it has nothing to do with TRIZ.

Sincerely,

Yevgeny