U-SIT And Think News Letter · air ink paper on off evaporation at air-ink interface solidification...

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_11: 4 April 2004 1/4

U-SIT And Think News Letter - 11

1. USIT – How to Invent: the USIT textbook.

Unified Structured Inventive Thinking is a problem-solving methodology forcreating unconventional perspectives of a problem, and discoveringinnovative solution concepts, when conventional methodology has waned.

Updates and Commentary

1 USIT – How to Invent

2 USIT – an Overview

3 Mini Lecture

4 Classroom Commentary

5 Problem-Solving Tricks

and Related Miscellany

6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:• Mini-Lecture_10 completed the analysis phase, which introduces the

solution phase through the QC-graph tools. In this lecture we consider uniqueness as a problem-solving technique.

• The next newsletter will be devoted to discussion of feedback issues that probably touch on common questions.

2. USIT – an Overview

3. Mini USIT Lecture – 11

UNIQUENESS – A Problem-solving Technique Continuation of the publisher’s problem – “Ink on newsprint is messy. Fix it!”

Recap: Mini-Lecture_10 completed the construction of QC-graphs that characterize trends in attributes supporting an unwanted effect. We now turn to USIT solution techniques. Recall that two solution techniques derive from the QC graphs. ML_11: Uniqueness as a solution technique Uniqueness suggests examining a problem to determine what sets it apart from otherwise similar problem situations. Until you have gained the experience of solving a few problems using uniqueness, it may pose a bit of a hurdle – a common occurrence in my teaching experience. My recommendation is to start with a one-dimensional spatial plot and a one-dimensional temporal plot of functions and effects in the problem. Use these to identify where and when things happen. Once uniqueness has been characterized as functions and effects, by boxes located in space and time, we look for new arrangements of the boxes and consider solution concepts they may suggest. We can multiply boxes, divide boxes and separate the parts, mix parts, change positions of boxes using separation, superposition, and reversal. Our publisher’s problem emerges during offset printing of newspaper. The printing process can be simplified as a sequence of steps like the following1: • An image on a rotating metal plate is first coated with water that adheres where there is no

image and is then coated with ink that adheres where there is an image; • The rotating plate then transfers the ink image to another roller (called a “blanket”) that

rotates in contact with high speed paper and transfers the ink image to the paper;


Figure 1. Two interfaces, air-to-ink (broken purple line) and ink-to-paper (broken red line), bound a volume of ink, where ink “drying” occurs by evaporation, solidifying, and bonding. “Solidification” refers to all processes occurring in the bulk of the ink that are relevant to “drying”. These three processes occur at different locations.

air ink paper on

off

evaporation at air-ink interface

solidification in ink volume

bonding at ink-paper interface

space

on

off

time

air acting as a “sink”

ink drying (possibility of being smeared)

paper: moving continuously stacked in use

apply ink to roller

rotate ink

roller

x’fer ink to paper

x’fer paper

cut, fold, store

trans-port to user

use paper

Comparison of Figs. (1) and (2) shows a uniqueness of this system: namely, that the three processes, evaporation, solidification, and bonding, occur at different places but at the same time. To eliminate complaints of ink smearing we need to bring ink to a dry state by the time it is first handled. The first five process steps, indicated by boxes in the bottom row of Fig. (2), are automated steps done by equipment (without human contact). The last two, transporting to user and using paper are opportunities for unwanted smearing (until it has dried adequately). Division of the “x’fer ink to paper” box in Fig. (2) brings to mind ink divided into jets and jets divided into droplets and droplets divided or shaped for effective drying (dividing to an extreme): [12] use ink jets that eject small droplets at high velocity. The impact of droplet with paper will instantly spread out the droplet into a thin broad region giving the resulting ink splats large surface-to-volume ratios for accelerated evaporation. Use [13] micro-jets of ink heated to near their boiling point to increase their vapor pressure and evaporation rate. Evaporation of the liquid phase of a splat will quickly cool the splat through energy lost as heat of vaporization. Hot droplets bring to mind [14] to use melted wax as the liquid phase of ink instead of water. This allows solidification

Figure 2. Temporal plot of functions and effects: Up to the point of being cut, paper is in continuous transfer (x’fer) through rollers. Air acting as a “sink” refers to the collection of evaporating molecules in the air that contacts ink.

• The paper continues on to other stages for cutting, folding, stacking, and storing. • The paper is next transferred to the user. • The user receives the paper with ink still capable of being smeared unless it has dried.


of the wax without the need of evaporating any component of ink. If using micro-droplets of wax, the droplet temperature could be in excess of the ignition temperature of paper with no danger of burning the paper. Most of the excess energy will be lost quickly in conductive heat transfer from the thin splat through its exposed surface into the surrounding air. With the “transfer of ink to paper-box” divided into sequential high-speed drops of hot water-base ink, the space between sequential drops should be evacuated of evaporating molecules as quickly as possible. [15] Maintain a less than atmospheric pressure of air between ink jets and paper. This can be done with jet nozzles close to paper and each nozzle encircled by an (open-ended) annular vacuum chamber – a nozzle inside of an evacuation tube. In the case of a super-heated wax-based ink [16] the ambient air could be pressurized above atmospheric pressure to increase its density, and cooled, for improved heat transfer. This can be done [17] with pressurized air sprayed through an annular ring around the jet nozzle onto the ink splats as they are formed. [18] Water-based ink, in a squeegee-type of ink application, could be replaced with super-heated wax-based ink. Perhaps the most obvious solution concept is evident in the “x’fer paper” box (Fig. 2) following the application of ink. The length in time of this box [19] can be increased to whatever length is necessary to produce adequate ink drying. This can be done by spatially lengthening the free run of paper before cutting and folding. A back-and-forth staircase-type path for the paper could be used to minimize the effective footprint of this extended drying section. Although we teach never to interrupt the creative process of generating solution concepts with attempts to filter the concepts, it seems almost necessary, in this lecture format (invisible readers with whom I can’t converse), to comment on anticipated concerns. I see two possible concerns:

1. “Sprayed-droplet technology could never keep up with the high-speed paper transfer technology of offset printing!” May it could, and maybe it couldn’t. I consider this an engineering scale-up issue to be addressed as another problem – a process guaranteed to produce more ideas. (It should be no surprise that solution concepts create problems.)

2. “Nozzle technology is not within the closed world of the given problem!” That is true, it is not. Remember that we are using a structured methodology to jog the creative capabilities of our unstructured minds. Ideas will lie within and without the closed world.

Exercise: For your own amusement and amazement, try applying the other techniques under uniqueness (multiplication, separation, mixing, superposition, and reversal) to the rectangles shown in Figs. (1) and (2) to see if the method sparks new ideas in your mind. (1) The application of ink following the application of water to the metal plate (see first bulleted item in the above list) works because the plate is sensitized to form weak bonds preferentially with these two types of molecules. Some areas of the plate are hydrophilic while others are hydrophobic. This implies that ink is not in the form of a water-based colloidal suspension, as assumed in earlier discussions. Since water is a polar molecule such distinction could be made easily by making ink an oil-based (hydrophobic) colloidal suspension, since oils are non-polar. I recently came to this understanding of the offset-printing process after visiting www.howstuffworks.com to see how offset printing is done. As usual, the more I get into analyzing a problem the more I learn about it. I don’t intend to go back and correct any earlier comments in view of this new information. I will, however, try to use this new information in future comments. (Some previous references to water may be replaceable with “liquid”.)


5. Problem-Solving Tricks and Related Miscellany

7. Q&A

8. Other Interests

Several readers have inquired concerning availability of back issues of the newsletter. Please send your request by email and indicate the issue numbers you are interested in (NL_XX).

Please send your feedback and suggestions to [email protected]

To be creative, U-SIT and think.

6. Feedback

I apologize for the two-month hiatus in newsletter publication. It was unavoidable. I’m gratified to receive confirmation of your continued interest. Some chronological excerpts follow: William: “I’m interested”. Matt: “Definitely interested. Glad to hear you're feeling better!” Carlos: “Of course we are!” John: “I'm interested in your newsletter, but don't send the virus (internet or S.

African).” Marty: “Yes of course I am still interested in the USIT Newsletter and Mini

Lectures. I have missed them.” Cal: “Of course I'd like to continue with the newsletter. They are always interesting

and stimulating.” Yasuhiko: “I'm always interested in the USIT Newsletter especially the Mini Lectures” Motoi: “I read your USIT Newsletter and the Mini Lectures, which are translated in

Japanese by Professor Nakagawa’ Jayant: “ I am extremely interested in the newsletter. Please keep it up.” … These and many more arrived and continue to arrive. Thanks for your encouragement.



1. USIT – How to Invent: the USIT textbook. *See 8. Other Interests ⇓





3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:• Mini-Lecture_11 discussed Uniqueness as a problem-solving

technique with its demonstration in the smeared-ink problem. In this lecture I digress from the smeared-ink problem to discuss some overview issues.

• NL_13 will be a week or so late because of another vacation. ☺


3. Mini USIT Lecture - 12 This edition of the News Letter is devoted to a Q&A discussion with my friend Professor Toru Nakagawa who is translating the mini-lectures into Japanese. I am grateful to him for raising these questions and for his permission to publish the questions and answers here. If you desire further discussion on these or any other points in the mini-lectures, please write.

Dear Ed, On January 29, we have uploaded the Japanese translation of your Newsletter No. 3 and No. 4, though no announcement is shown in the English pages.

Thanks, Toru, for the update, and for your continued interest in USIT. I realize that translating these newsletters is a major commitment on your part. I’m sure your readers appreciate your efforts. ______ (1) I am interested in the Card Puzzle and have added the following at the end of our Japanese version: Some extension by Toru Nakagawa (Jan. 27, 2004) Reading the explanation above, we understand that the number of cards in n + 3n is not essential in the problem. Thus we can generalize the initial problem in the following way: "Given a deck of a certain number (say M) of cards, and taught that a certain number (say n) of them are faced up and the others are faced down. Then, you should divide the deck into two groups of cards, where the two groups have an equivalent number of face-up cards. -- Do this in the blind or in the dark room." We have a solution to this problem: "From the whole deck of M cards, take n cards out in any manner and make them into a separate group, and just turn over the separate group as a whole." The reason that this works is: Assume that the number of face-up cards in the separate group is x, then we find that n-x face-up cards are left in the original group. Since we have turned the


whole separate group afterwards, in the separate group we now have x face-down cards and n-x face-up cards. The extension here shows that the "simplification" of a problem can be obtained not only by "reducing/minimizing" the problem but also by eliminating extraneous concrete conditions (such as 13 cards and three times of 13 cards) (after reaching some insights or partial solutions). This latter case can better be expressed with the term "to make things clear". Even though generalization and abstraction make things look somewhat more difficult, once we have overcome it, we understand the essence of the problem easy and simple. (Just a comment stimulated with Ed's interesting explanation.) Yes, to your comments. I, and others, have used the same algebraic derivation for around-the-table discussions of the puzzle. I chose to leave it out in the newsletter because my experience is that this level of understanding comes only after having already solved the problem intuitively, or having seen the solution. As always, mathematics makes a nice, concise, logical presentation – after the fact. (As another example, see the simple tabular solution format at the end of this newsletter.) But, in my opinion, it is not the way we initially attack a problem. I solved it intuitively the first time using scaling (by minimizing repeated objects – a practice I frequently use on puzzles). Being scalable implies that specific size is unimportant and leads to mathematical generalization. There is more to the reason for my choice: it is that in the mini-lectures I’m trying to describe and illustrate the use of a structured, problem-solving methodology, while, at the same time, trying to portray the mental process involved (mine in particular – being the only one I can examine). I view USIT as a method of sparking mental cues to recall and not as a rigorous algorithm. There is an overbearing problem in trying to teach structured problem solving. It is that the theory is neat and logical but the mind is not. During the process of following prescribed structure our minds skip around jumping at each new idea that comes to mind. I believe this spontaneity should not be hindered. Solutions arise from beginning to the end of a problem-solving session. The same is true of how we analyze a problem following a prescribed structure – analysis is attacked with satisfying results and we move on. However, we soon find ourselves redoing the analysis with new insights. All parts of problem definition, analysis, and solution become a jumble of iteration, and more iteration, with constant improvements following new insights. I have exposed my own iterative attempts to improve the “messy ink” problem both in the definition and the analysis stage. More iteration will surely come during problem solving.

Out of these experiences, I choose to use USIT as a useful but not binding structure and encourage my mind to find every opportunity to be creative. In other words, I think students tend to make USIT and other structured systems too restrictive in the belief that obedience to method is a necessary condition. This leads to the unfortunate condition of looking to the method as an algorithm for producing answers rather than using the method as an aid to jogging one’s mental abilities for recall. Hence, you will find in the mini-lectures that I talk about three distinct phases of problem solving while seemingly jumping back and forth between them (without proper respect).

I started USIT without distinguishing the three phases (definition, analysis, and solution) as major title headings in the methodology, even though this is practiced in the literature. I soon learned that students need and look for meaningful outline titles to simplify their mental organization of what they are learning. So, I changed. Yet, students are still looking for magic to happen by following a


recipe. (2) I would like to ask you a question. Could you please reply to it sometime later after finishing your story, because I do not want to disturb you.

This is no disturbance. Other readers may be raising the same questions in their minds. If such issues can be clarified, as the mini-lectures progress, perhaps all readers benefit. Your insightful questions are very important to me, so much so that I would like to devote an issue of the newsletter to them – with your permission, of course. Your description of the "Plausible Root Causes Analysis Tool" is very interesting. But I am wondering if you are already stepping into the Problem Analysis stage especially when you are listing up a large number of Attributes. You say "Root Causes" are one of the essential requirements of the "Well Defined Problem", and they are necessary for making a focus of problem solving. Is it natural to list up so many attributes at the stage of the Problem Definition? Yes. Plausible root causes is an analytical tool for identifying plausibly causal attributes. If one has difficulty identifying causal attributes needed to validate the root causes to be included in a problem statement, this tool is helpful. If you employ the tool you will also find yourself doing some identification of attribute trends to validate you assumptions. This is further analysis that will be addressed more thoroughly using the QC-graphs. My experience shows that using the plausible root causes tool here helps in problem definition. It further shows that if you do use it here you seem to learn even more when you apply it thoroughly for QC-graphs. Furthermore, I always find some solution concepts when using this tool in problem definition. Your description about the "FILTERS" is also very interesting and clear. There you explain how to "select a problem" and then "how to define a problem". In this context of the "Messy Newsprint Problem", what is the "problem selection" stage and how is it done? And what is the "Problem Definition Stage" and how is it done? And then there is the "Problem Analysis Stage". I feel the boss of the publisher selected the problem intuitively and just ordered the problem solver (team) to solve it. Then the team is working to "well define" the problem. When the team came to the idea that "Ink's Capability of smearing" is the essential problem, I think they have reached the "Plausible Root Causes" of this problem. More detailed consideration with your "Plausible Root Cause Analysis Tools" should probably be done in the "Problem Analysis Stage" just as an optional step of the QC graphs (or as an optional initial step in the Closed World Method). (Or we may say that the four effects in the figure are the "Plausible Root Causes".) First let me mention that this problem was my invention. I wanted to begin the mini-lectures using a parallel problem for demonstrating ideas in the lecture (and for suggesting exercises). I also wanted to pose what, from my own experience in industry, is a realistic situation a problem-solver may be presented. Mangers usually confront their technologists with a challenging problem that they have carefully worded. From management’s perspective the challenge should clearly define the problem, the limitations of timing, the resources the technologist can expect to use, a list of contacts for further information, and a due date for results. Management’s and a technologist’s perspective of a well-defined problem usually are quite different. Although well intended, management’s perspective tends to be a mix of facts, anecdotes, and hyperbole designed to generate enthusiasm. Thus, I chose, “The ink on our newsprint is messy. Fix it!” This


statement provided a realistic setting for leading the reader-technologist into the issues of problem definition. It is also from an area in which I have little experience. This enables me to make new discoveries with each mini-lecture, including need to improve previous deductions, and to look forward to writing the next mini-lecture. I might add that if a well-defined problem has been constructed with a “single” unwanted effect, and then it is discovered that the effect can be broken down further, the original was not a well-defined problem (a la USIT) and needs another iteration on definition. “What is the "problem selection" stage and how is it done?” Problem selection is a process of establishing the best issue for addressing problem-solving resources. After assembling relevant information, the formal problem selection stage begins when the team, or individual problem solver, sit(s) down and writes a problem statement as it was first presented. Then follows the process of unraveling the information in search of a single, fundamental problem to address. Process:

1) write a problem statement; the first one can be rather elaborate, but will be reduced later; 2) draw a sketch; 3) unravel the problem statement in to as many unwanted effects as possible; 4) rank them and select the most important one; 5) try unraveling this one; 6) quit when a single, unwanted effect has been found that cannot be further unraveled.

What is the "Problem Definition Stage" and how is it done?

Problem definition means to formulate a well-defined problem. Process: 1) having found the problem to address, adjust the sketch; 2) minimize the number of objects to just those needed to contain the selected, single unwanted

effect; 3) identify root causes.

As I tried to describe earlier, the three phases (definition, analysis, and solution) are only distinct in the formal presentation of the methodology. In practice of the methodology they are sequential but not distinct. Much iteration between them takes place to constantly update and clarify one’s thinking. The process of updating is one of changing the wording of the problem and altering the associated sketch to record each improvement in understanding. A team, or individual, should keep the verbal and graphic renditions of the problem statement and sketch in front of them during the entire process of problem solving. ----- Best wishes, Toru Nakagawa

… And my good wishes for you, Toru. I know I have not answered your questions completely. But don’t give up. Give me your reaction to the above comments and I’ll reconsider mine. The above are simply my reactions as I thought through your questions. And thanks again for the queries. Perhaps some readers will comment also – that would be most welcome. Thanks again for your insightful questions. Ed



7. Q&A

8. Other Interests 1. Several readers have inquired concerning availability of back issues of the newsletter. Please

send your request by email and indicate the issue numbers you are interested in (NL_XX). 2. Chuck Cronan has solved a problem that has haunted me. Some payments for the USIT textbook

arrive with too much money. Why? Chuck reports as follows: “I don't know if you discovered the reason yet, but I know why. The book is advertised at two prices depending upon which web site the ad is viewed. http://www.u-sit.net/OrdrngInfo.html $44.50 http://ic.net/~ntelleck/OrdrngInfo.html $84.50 and Ellen Domb's review - http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1999/02/e/ $82 + shipping All three of these are still active. Since Domb references the ic.net page, that's the one that needs correction.” Thanks Chuck. The first url is correct (price = $44.50). The ic.net url is an abandoned address.



6. Feedback

Simple tabular format for illustrating a solution sequence to the deck of cards problem.

Given … Stack #1 Stack #2 1 n face-up cards in N total 2 n cards are removed from N to form a second

stack of up and down cards N - n n

3 Thus, the number of up-cards in each stack is n - u u 4 Inverting #2 yields d = n - u








3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:• Mini-Lecture_11 discussed Uniqueness as a problem-solving

technique with its demonstration in the smeared-ink problem. In this lecture I introduce the remaining solution techniques.

• No more trips for a month.


3. Mini USIT Lecture - 13

Problem Solving Techniques In the previous mini-lectures I discussed the first two phases of problem solving a la USIT. They are problem definition and problem analysis. The third and last phase is problem solving or applying problem solving tools and techniques. You, of course, are aware that I already have discussed well over a dozen solution concepts. Add those to your ideas plus the ideas generated by the other mini-lecture readers and we should have an impressive start on generating solution concepts. You may wonder why this last phase is referred to as problem solving when we already have been finding solution concepts. We also have been doing problem definition – at least the improving of our understanding of the problem – while supposedly doing problem analysis. And we were doing analysis while doing problem definition. Now, as you will see, we will probably find occasion to do both improved definition and analysis while we are trying to generate solution concepts. This, in my opinion, simply reflects on how our brains work (at least how my does). They jump around seemingly out of control while we keep directing them toward the intended path of logic we want them to follow – namely, the USIT flow chart. In each step along the way we find interaction between problem understanding, analysis, and solution that gives us opportunity to improve the whole picture we are generating. I see this as a natural process of our minds and therefore prefer to encourage it rather than squelch it. That is, the mixing of the three phases as one progresses in problem solving, seems to me to produce a better product in the end. But, then why have three phases of problem solving? The reason is that it gives logical order to the overall process, keeping us on track, focused, and aware of where we are and what we have remaining to do to accomplish a thorough job. But the


boundaries between the phases are not intended to be barriers or to impede the searching processes of our minds. Uniqueness has just been discussed as a problem-solving tool (NL_11). Yet uniqueness begins with analytical tools (spatial and temporal plots of function activity) before searching solution concepts. I think that uniqueness works logically as a transition between focused problem analysis and the application of solution techniques. Next we will look at dimensionality, pluralization, distribution, transduction, and generification as techniques for generating solution concepts. The specific point of attack each makes on a problem distinguishes them. Dimensionality focuses on attributes. Pluralization focuses on objects. Distribution focuses on function location. Transduction links attributes and functions into chains. Generification focuses on none of these initially but examines known (including just found) solution concepts to discover why and how they work, i.e., their fundamental phenomenology. The order in which the solution techniques are applied is immaterial. If you have a faint idea of a solution concept coming into your mind’s view pursue it. It may help you to pick a solution technique to use based on what aspect of your faint concept is most obvious (object, attribute, function, or A-F-A connectivity). If you have no ideas to start with use your favorite technique first or follow the order given in the flow chart. Since objects, attributes, and functions are interconnected in problem definition and analysis they are interconnected in problem solution. A consequence of this is that solution concepts found using a particular solution technique are not unique. The same ideas may come to mind using other techniques. Also different individual problem solvers may discover the same solution concept from different perspectives. An informative exercise is to analyze a particular solution concept and find out what other techniques might have led to the same concept. Pluralization Pluralization is object oriented and has two approaches to follow: multiply objects and divide objects. Pluralization puts you immediately into the thinking mode: “What could I do if I had more or less of an object that I could use differently?” This means more copies of the object (multiplication) or more copies of its parts (division). Multiplication provides copies of objects with which to distribute their functions in space or to create new points of contact where new functions can be supported. To use an object or part differently often involves turning on and off attributes in them and functions they support. Division allows also eliminating objects or parts. Having more or less, of an object, attribute, or function, should be taken to extremes of infinity and zero. Zero implies object or part removal. Multiplication applied to the messy ink problem. The messy ink problem, from our object minimization perspective, presents three objects to multiply: air, ink, and paper. We have seen examples of more air used in forced-air drying. Less air was used in localized vacuuming. What might we do with more ink? As I started to follow this line of thinking it occurred to me to take an attribute of ink to an extreme. (I don’t know why it came to mind here.) Wetness of ink is a causative of smearing. It enables the


property of viscosity. Hence, it occurred to me to [20] take wetness to the extreme of zero wetness, i.e., completely dry ink. That brought to mind to print on paper the initial characters of text or photographs in a thin layer of sticky material and then blow or dust dry powdered ink onto the sticky surface. Applying an excess of powder would enable complete saturation of “sticky” bonds leaving only a dry surface of printed ink. Excess dry ink powder could be blown or shaken off.1 Thinking of thin layers of applied liquid caused me to wonder what the surface of paper looks like on a micro scale. Surely it is rough. And the more micro the scale of inspection, I would expect, the more rough the surface. Then I began to review in my mind the mechanisms of drying of liquid beginning with surface evaporation. Thinking of a micro-scale brought an image of molecules of water slowly diffusing to the surface of a microscopic droplet of ink and evaporating. One obvious attribute of liquid droplets that supports their evaporation is surface-to-volume ratio. The higher this ratio the more surface there is for evaporation and the less volume through which to diffuse to reach the surface. This led to the idea of multiplying the number of surface micro-asperities to provide localized points for supporting micro-droplets of ink. [21] In the inking process apply micro droplets of ink on a micro-roughened paper surface spaced to produce a range of grayness (or color density) from solid black to faint gray. Then roll the inked paper under pressure to smear the ink into the interstices of the asperities while flattening the microstructure of paper and ink into desired smoothness. The resulting local surface-to-volume ratio of the ink will aid its drying by evaporation. Rational for pluralization Dr. Roni Horiwitz, et al, developed in SIT the idea of associating multiplication with innovation in a “closed world”. 2 Although the closed-world concept allows only a limited number of objects, multiplication permits even an infinite number of their copies. The rational for this is that, at least in an industrial setting, the objects in a problem situation are probably readily available in large quantities – perhaps, even at no cost. Using such readily available objects can be innovative. Whereas introducing new (different) objects into the closed is not innovative. Nomenclature for solution techniques Words like dimensionality, pluralization, distribution, transduction, generification, uniqueness, and others used here, are sometimes bothersome to students new to USIT. They were selected to be useful and simple metaphors for the processes they represent. You are free to select your own. However, I invite you to wait until the end of these lectures before deciding. By then you may appreciate the roles they play. ___ 1 On reviewing this draft I wondered if this solution concept might already have been discussed. So I went back through the mini-lectures and found an interesting comment: [2] p2/2, NL_06. This strikes me as an example of recall of past experience induced by seeding. The seed, in this case, might have been a ramification of the idea of lots of ink or some how associated with the wetness/dryness contradiction. 2 A brief history is given in the USIT textbook, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”.



7. Q&A

8. Other Interests 1. Several readers have inquired concerning availability of back issues of the newsletter. Please

send your request by email and indicate the issue numbers you are interested in (NL_XX). 2. Chuck Cronan has solved a problem that has haunted me. Some payments for the USIT textbook

arrive with too much money. Why? Chuck reports as follows: “I don't know if you discovered the reason yet, but I know why. The book is advertised at two prices depending upon which web site the ad is viewed. http://www.u-sit.net/OrdrngInfo.html $44.50 http://ic.net/~ntelleck/OrdrngInfo.html $84.50 and Ellen Domb's review - http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/1999/02/e/ $82 + shipping All three of these are still active. Since Domb references the ic.net page, that's the one that needs correction.” Thanks Chuck. The first url is correct (price = $44.50). The ic.net url is an abandoned address.



6. Feedback








3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:• Mini-Lecture_13 demonstrated the use of Pluralization-

multiplication as a solution technique. In this lecture the other half of pluralization is discussed – division.

• Any volunteer manuscript reviewers? See (8) below.


3. Mini USIT Lecture - 13

Problem Solving Techniques Pluralization In NL_13 the mini-lecture introduced the problem-solving technique called pluralization. One tool, multiplication was discussed. In this lecture I will address the other tool, division. Pluralization is directed at objects in the problem situation. It encourages making copies of them by multiplication or division. The copies can be moved to new locations and can have new attributes activated (or deactivated) in order to support new functions. Numbers of copies are to be taken to extremes including zero, meaning to remove an object. Division applied to the messy ink problem. We have three objects with which to work in our closed world, ink, paper, and air. The first idea that came to my mind was to consider division of paper. It could be divided into columns, rows, chopped into pieces, or pulverized to fine powder. Division into columns and rows struck me as seeing the paper only as a two-dimensional object. So I wondered about its thickness. Could it be divided into layers? Why not? [22] Manufacture two-ply laminated paper in which the to-be-inked layer has lower density than the backing layer. This could increase the absorbency (attribute) of the to-be-inked layer, which could hasten drying. [23] Create an absorbent layer by spraying a powder of pulverized paper onto a backing layer.


[24] Treat the to-be-inked layer of paper with additives that improve its surface tension with respect to the ink: e.g., use a hydrophilic additive for water-based inks. These bonds remove molecules from the liquid phase to the interface. [25] Combine [24] and [12] (NL_02) to increase surface-to-volume ratio of splat-drops and enable more bonding of hydrophilic molecules. I seem to be grasping randomly for division concepts and their applications at the same time. It might help first to list just concepts of division and then consider their applications. This led me to the following summary in which the phases of our three objects are noted as distinguishing characteristics.

Division of gas (air): no division, cells, streams, layers, molecules. Division of liquid (ink): no division, cells, streams, jets, droplets in a gas, globules in a liquid, inclusions in a solid, molecules. Division of solid (paper): no division, strips, laminate, powder, fibers, particles, molecules.

Solid is treated as being initially in the form of a thin sheet, in its division above. This list of division concepts can now be compared with the lists of attributes identified in the QC-graphs (NL_10). Such comparison may reveal opportunities to activate some of those attributes. Thinking of ink viscosity (NL_10) suggests altering the physical structure of ink at the molecular level. A source is needed for molecules to be activated for this purpose. Molecular division of gas brings to my mind the idea of a getter, as used to lower the pressure in a vacuum chamber. An example is a titanium getter pump in which titanium is sublimed onto chamber walls from a hot filament. There it can combine with gaseous molecules on the walls of the chamber. This lowers the vacuum pressure. So why not use gas-phase molecules at the surface of liquid to react with specific molecules of the liquid forming insoluble molecules that would increase the viscosity of the liquid and, in effect, “dry” the liquid? [26] Incorporate a soluble additive in ink and a reactive one in air that will react with it to produce an insoluble molecule, thus reducing the ability of ink to smear. Treated air could be directed onto the paper as it separates from the inking roller. Division of liquid into globules, a getter, and gas-liquid reactive additives, brought to mind a pseudo-colloid concept, one different from concept [11] in NL_09. A colloid is a dispersion of micro-size particles of chemical in a continuous gas, liquid, or solid phase of another chemical. I’m thinking of micro-size gas bubbles in a liquid. [27] As ink is applied to a roller (NL_11), inject a reactive gas into the ink (aerate it) having an affinity for the water (or other component that gives the ink its liquidity). Such small gas bubbles would begin reacting instantly at their gas-liquid interfaces. This would be appropriate for the high speed of newspaper printers. It would allow enough time to flow the ink from the roller to the paper while accelerating the drying process.




Multiplication and division can produce similar results. Multiplication and division are often questioned in USIT classes regarding their sometimes-redundant results. That is, both methods can lead to the same solution concepts – so why have both? One answer is for redundancy. This redundancy gives our brains a second chance, so to speak, to visit similar territory from different perspectives. For example, two bodies are in contact. One is hard and has a sharp point at the point of contact. The other is elastic but strained too near its yield point at the same contact. Fix this unwanted effect. Root cause is stress at the point of contact, i.e., force per unit area. Reducing force or increasing area would be desirable. This can be accomplished by multiplying the number of points for suspending the given load or dividing the load among many less-stressed areas. On seeing one of these concepts, the other may go un-noticed until someone else sees the effect the other way, or another way. One person might see the sharp object divided lengthwise and the parts spatially separated to spread the load. Splaying the sharp object(s) into a blunt shape is an obvious option. Splaying the end of the sharp object into multiple finger-like projections from a common shaft is another option. Another person might see the strained object divided and laminated to stiffen it at the point of contact. Of course, the first person and another person, alluded to here, may be the same person at different times and in different moods.


7. Q&A

8. Other Interests

Volunteer manuscript reviewers?

I have a ca. 19,000 words manuscript nearing reviewable, draft-stage. I would like to find a

couple of people experienced in structured-type problem solving who would volunteer to

give it a critical review. Its subject is a theoretical derivation of heuristics for solving

technical problems. It uses an axiomatic basis from which to deduce a set of self-consistent

abstract tools – heuristics for solving problems. Examples of physical-world problems are

used to illustrate the analysis and application of newly derived heuristics. However, the

heuristics are abstract and couched in graphic metaphors. The manuscript is targeted for

problem solvers familiar with, or deeply interested in, the use and understanding of

structured problem solving.

If interested, please respond to [email protected]

6. Feedback

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_15: 3 May 2004 1/3


1. USIT – How to Invent: the USIT textbook. $44.50





3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture_14 completed a brief discussion of the problem-solving technique pluralization. Dimensionality is discussed in this lecture.

2. USIT – an Overview FREE


Problem Solving Techniques – Dimensionality The solution technique pluralization, involving multiplication and division, was discussed in thelast two mini-lectures. This lecture will take a look at the technique dimensionality. These twotechniques are being discussed in reverse order from that shown in the USIT flowchart. This is byintention to stress that the order of using solution techniques is your choice. Dimensionality While pluralization focused on objects dimensionality focuses on attributes. Attributes becometools for finding solution concepts by the simple process of activating and deactivating them(turning them on and off) to see what new functions may become accessible. The attributes ofinterest are those active and inactive attributes that characterize the objects in our closed world.Note that, if an object has only one attribute active and you deactivate it the object no longer exists,so remove it. The table (p.2) shows active attributes we have thought of. These are potential consideration for deactivation. What attributes have we not thought of? These might be activated. It is a useful exercise, at this point, to make a quick listing of those non-activated attributes we canthink of. The idea is simply to list attributes you associate with a particular object. It doesn’t matterwhether the attribute has any relevance. Later we wrestle with relevance in the process of searchinguseful functions supported by newly activated attributes. This exercise (mentally wrestling withrelevance) can spark new ideas. My first ideas are listed in the second table (p.3).


Attributes discussed so far are listed in the following table:

Recognized Active Attributes Paper Ink Air

1 smoothness surface tension humidity 2 density vapor pressure temperature 3 transfer speed diffusion rate flow rate 4 package pressure degree of solvation 5 absorption friability 6 bond: hygroscopicity 7 • physical strength viscosity 8 • surface tension wettability 9 • chemical activity contact 10 affinity for water bond: 11 permeability • wettability 12 hydrophobic • surface tension 13 • chemical affinity 14 • physical strength 15 vapor pressure 16 temperature (low) 17 “smear ability” 18 saturation 19 wetness: 20 • too wet 21 • drying rate 22 • vapor pressure 23 • temperature 24 • solvation

When I wrote tear strength for paper (p.3) I was thinking of tearing out the crossword puzzle fromthe daily newspaper. Thinking of the process, I wondered how cellulose fibers are bonded to eachother. Since paper is made from a cellulose fiber and water slurry, the surface of cellulose fibersmust have an affinity for water and the adsorbed water must play a role in bonding. [28] If theoutermost region of paper had slightly less than required water content, the applied ink could beinvolved by supplying some of its excess water, to make up the need, in local bonding of ink topaper and fiber to fiber. This would tie up some of the water and remove it from consideration forfuture smearing. This idea differs from paper density issues discussed in the last newsletter. Viscosity brought to mind liquid shear rate, which triggered recall of a recent email conversationwith Dr. Craig Stephan regarding thixotropic fluids – one of several non-Newtonian fluids. A non-Newtonian fluid brought to mind dilatant and rheopectic behaviors. Dilatant fluids have viscositiesthat increase with shear rate. [29] Compose ink as a dilatant fluid to deter its smearing except forslowly applied “smearing” type shear. A rheopectic fluid viscosity increases with both duration andrate of shear. [30] Compose ink as a fluid having rheopectic properties to deter smearing. Ink color, as needed to contrast with the background paper’s color, is an active attribute. Ifdeactivated, contrast would still be needed. But how could it be generated if ink had no color? Anobvious solution (from the days of thermal printers) is to have the contrasting color preinstalled asa latent, thermal-sensitive attribute of paper. Then local application of heat can bring out shaped,


Inactive Attributes Paper Ink Air

1 electrical conductivity electrical conductivity electrical conductivity 2 thermal conductivity thermal conductivity thermal conductivity 3 hardness non-Newtonian flow specific heat 4 texture specific heat 5 tear strength color (contrast with paper) 6 cellulose content 7 fiber structure 8 specific heat 9

contrasting characters. With the object liquid ink eliminated, there is none to smear. This use ofthermal properties suggests an analog using electrical properties. If the ink were a colloid of inkparticles in a non-wetting liquid, the liquid could be brought into contact with paper without stickingto the paper. The particles of ink suspended in the colloid could be made to move to the paper-liquidinterface in the presence of an applied electric filed. The field would also assist their transfer fromthe liquid to the paper. The particles need to be charged or have a dipole moment. [31] Apply anelectric field across colloidal ink passing between a roller having a latent image and a rollersupporting the paper. Construct the latent image as an image of charges on a dielectric. [32] Vapor pressure could be used advantageously for depositing dry ink from a colloidalsuspension. Apply a thin layer of non-wetting colloidal suspension to the paper and “write” desiredcharacters onto the paper using a laser beam. The localized laser energy will evaporate the solventonly over the area to be printed. Remaining liquid could be drained away. A pre-applied electricfield across the layer of colloid would diffuse the ink particles to the paper-colloid interface.


7. Q&A

8. Other Interests

Your solution concepts ... please.

Now that we are well into solution concepts, it would be interesting to consider yours also as we go along. This is an invitation to you to send me your solution concepts to be shared with the other readers of this newsletter. In particular, please send your concepts that you derived using the techniques discussed so far. The more different our backgrounds, the more difference we can expect to find in our solution concepts. These differences should be of interest to all. These lectures are designed to demonstrate the tools and philosophy underlying USIT. They are not intended to be comprehensive, meaning; there is plenty of room remaining out there in “solution space” for your exploration. What have you found?

6. Feedback

Please send your feedback, suggestions, and NL_XX back -issue requests to [email protected]









3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture_15 completed a brief discussion of dimensionality as a problem-solving technique. In this lecture we consideration the distribution of functions among closed-world objects.



Distribution as a Solution Technique Continuation of the publisher’s problem: “Ink on newsprint is messy. Fix it!” Distribution of functions, as a technique for generating solution concepts, is the topic of this mini-lecture. We actually began preparations for this exercise when we constructed the closed-world diagram. There we identified the single, most important function of each subordinate object in our problem’s closed world. In our continuing quest for unusual perspectives of a problem situation we now turn to distribution. Here the idea is to move the supportive functions to other objects of the closed world and see what ideas come to mind. All permutations of functions among the closed-world objects are available for scrutiny. This exercise makes evident an advantage of having a minimal set of closed-world objects and having selected a single supportive function for each subordinate object. Consider the daunting task of examining all permutations of all possible functions of a set of objects without having reduced both the number of objects and the number of their functions. The three objects of the smeared-ink problem, ink, paper, and air, produced this simple CW-diagram:

to localize

ink

air paper


To use distribution for creating solution concepts we move the supportive functions to all of the other objects, one at a time. Then, in the case of the messy ink problem, we ask the questions: “How can air localize ink? And, how can ink localize ink?” Mentally wrestling with these concepts can be productive in surprising ways. How can air localize ink? If we simply think about this specific question and search intuitive answers we will see, one after another, complications and messes made by air blowing ink to unwanted locations. This is an excellent place to employ generification of object names. In so doing we will have immediate focus on what matters; namely, localization attributes of two fluids, one a liquid the other a gas. And we can begin to understand the phenomenology of localization. However, we will start by understanding, in generic terms, the function as displayed in the CW-diagram above. How can a solid localize a liquid? Examination of the attributes of the objects that support localization can be looked upon from two perspectives: specifically from that of 1) the pairs of attributes of ink and paper that support localization of ink, and generically from that of 2) the pairs of attributes of a solid and a liquid that support the localization of the liquid. Pairs of attributes that assist the localization of a liquid on a solid are listed in Table (1). (*) The desired configuration of localized liquid is a thin, patterned coating of liquid on a solid (a generic model for newsprint).

Liquid’s Attributes

Solid's Attributes

Phenomenology

1 viscosity inertia Viscosity supports application of liquid in a thin layer while solid’s inertia reacts the normal component of fluid flow but allows lateral flow – one degree of localization.

2 dipole dipole Dipole-dipole interaction is the basis of weak van der Waal’s force of electrostatic attraction between two molecules – one degree of localization from bonding at the liquid-to-solid interface.

3 surface tension surface tension Patterned hydrophilic regions, for example, on a solid can attract water molecules in a liquid forming a pattern of liquid on the solid – two degrees lateral localization. Surface tension also affects thickness of the patterned liquid as surface tension minimizes the surface free energy of the localized liquid.

4 surface tension porosity Porosity of solid that is accessible to liquid localizes that liquid, which penetrates the porosity – three degrees of localization (see 5).

5 viscosity porosity Viscosity must be low enough for surface tension to wick liquid into solid’s porosity (see 4).

6 viscosity compressibility Pressure between liquid and solid, during application of viscous liquid, may compress the solid producing a permanent impression thereby providing “containment walls” to restrict lateral flow of liquid – two-degrees of localization.


8 surface tension surface tension High liquid surface tension would support formation of small droplets resting on the solid – two degrees of localization.

9 dispersion inertia Dispersion of small droplets on solid would minimize the area they could cover while spreading during application of pressure – two degrees of localization.

As you read the identified pairs of attributes, and discover your own, it likely occurs that solution concepts come to mind. Here are my ideas: From Table (1.3), [33] increase the density of color particles in ink to minimize the thickness of ink needed, which speeds drying and lessens the chance of smearing at a later time. From Table (1.4), [34] locally swell the surface region of paper prior to applying ink. From Table (1.5), [35] use low viscosity ink to wick ink into the paper’s pores and to minimize the applied thickness of ink. From Table (1.7), [36] apply sharp impulses between ink and paper during inking (ink and paper are sandwiched between rollers during inking). And compose ink as a dilatant liquid. From [36], [37] install a post-inking pair of rollers to apply sharp impulses after ink has partially dried. One idea is to take spreading to an extreme and use it as an advantage. From Table (1.8 and 1.9), [38] Apply viscous ink in small droplets separated sufficiently for the pressure-spreading of ink to fill the droplet-to-droplet spaces thus reducing the amount of excess ink and shortening the drying time. Solution concepts [34 – 37] are based on paper localizing ink. Concept [38] has ink localizing ink by being spread into contact with neighboring droplets. Optimization of this effect for minimal ink thickness is affected by applied pressure and ink viscosity. This idea occurred while considering solid localizing liquid. Now lets look at gas localization of liquid. How can a gas localize a liquid? Again, we try to identify pairs of attributes that could support localization of liquid. Two that come to mind are shown in Table (2).

Liquid’s Attributes

Gas’s Attributes

Phenomenology

1 composition composition Gas could react with liquid to increase liquid’s surface tension – two degrees of localization.

2 vapor pressure temperature Pre-heated gas could increase the evaporation rate of liquid, reducing its tendency to spread on later application of shear forces.

[39] Apply a gas having a reactive component to react with liquid and increase its surface tension to “hold liquid in place”.





7. Q&A

8. Other Interests Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to Ntelleck, LLC, P.O. Box 193, Grosse Ile, MI 48138 USA

6. Feedback

Note the different emphasis on attributes being used in the above tables. Earlier analyses offunctions and their supporting attributes were directed toward unwanted effects. Here we searchattribute pairs for beneficial functions by examining the CW-diagram. Recall that the CW-diagramassumed the system worked properly. The generic exercise enables us to unfold fundamentalphenomenology that then stirs our imagination for new insights. You may question the credibility of the phenomena suggested in the tables – I do! These ideas are sudden impressions of the moment and are recorded for the sole reason of their plausibility (to me). My theory is that we, as professional technologists, can trust our intuitions – to a degree. Therefore, we gain speed of analysis and discovery of solution concepts by rapidly recording our intuitive ideas. We apply the sole restriction of allowing no whimsical ideas; ideas must plausible to their originators. Every solution must be subjected to credibility tests after completing the USIT program. Credibility tests may require literature searches, discussions with experts, mathematical modeling, and laboratory investigations. In team applications of USIT there is a built-in advantage (or disadvantage) of immediate scrutiny of every proposed solution concept by the other team members (even though we try to throttle filtering of concepts during USIT). The depth of analysis achieved in deducing phenomenology is a personal matter. Push your memory to its limits to dredge useful ideas, but don’t worry about not knowing the names of phenomena (you can research them latter). It seems to me that knowing that a large, black, white-headed bird can flip over on its back momentarily while in flight to show its menacing talons to ospreys diving on it, while protecting their rookeries, is more useful than knowing its name to be a bald eagle. [That stunt, by the way, strikes me as a closed-world solution to an unwanted effect – smart eagle.] --- (*) Attribute pairs are listed in the order in which they came to mind.








3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture_16 completed a brief discussion of distribution as a problem-solving technique. In this lecture we consideration the fomation of attribute-function-attribute links to discover new solution concepts.



Transduction as a Solution Technique Continuation of the publisher’s problem: “Ink on newsprint is messy. Fix it!” Transduction and transducer are words derived from transduce, meaning to transform energy from one form to another. Its analog in USIT is the transformation (or coupling) of one attribute to another attribute via a function, A-F-A. Transduction, as used here, is not a literal physical, chemical, or biological annihilation of one attribute and the creation of another. Rather, transduction is a perspective that can cue one’s mind for new ideas.

Object-1

Object-2

Attribute-1

Attribute-2Function Attribute-3 Object-3

Recall (see textbook) that two attributes, one each from two contacting objects, interact to support a function, which modifies or maintains a third attribute from one of the original objects or a third one. As you can see in the figure, the model of this interaction has two A-F-A links, A1-F-A3 and A2-F-A3. It just occurred to me that I have never sketched a graphic metaphor for the concept of smearing. It has been captured only in words as viscosity and flow. Let’s consider a simple sketch and see if any new perspectives arise. Let a rectangle represent a segment of a cross section of ink and a trapezoid represent the smeared state of the rectangle of ink.


ink ink smearing

But this sketch does not capture our publisher’s problem. The publisher’s concern is that readers complain of ink stains on their hands and clothes. Hence, the sketch needs to capture the continuance of smearing to the point of break up and detachment of the sheared ink particles (liquid or solid). Detached ink is shown as squares to represent relaxation of the detaching shear.

ink ink smearing detachingink

This sketch is more relevant to the problem. It seems evident now that smearing of ink without detachment of ink particles is not the problem. The detached particles are the problem. This observation leads to the idea of holding particles of ink together to prevent their detachment. My image of ink, up to this point, has been that of a continuous liquid phase containing dispersed particles of pigment. The liquid’s viscosity gradually increases on drying, but not sufficiently for unwanted smearing to occur. Now it comes to mind (from “detached particles”) to think of small cells of liquid phase ink that slide on one another during shear and separate during detachment. In fact, the cells could contain solid phase ink as long as they were small and lubricous (slippery) to permit their “flowing” onto paper. In this case, the phase within the cells would not have to change if the lubricous nature of their interfaces could be changed into cell-cell bonding. That would prevent their detachment. Our goal, for this concept, is to change the attribute slipperiness to the attribute stickiness. This is the kind of analysis that leads to transduction. Our current unwanted effect is illustrated below.

ink

paper

viscosity

bond strengthto flow detachment ink

Viscosity of ink, needed for its flow, interacts with bonding to paper, that leads to eventual detachment of ink particles when shear is continued. But bond strength to paper is needed to localize ink for creating patterns of ink. Can slipperiness be transduced to a useful attribute, one that prevents detachment?

ink

paper

viscosity

bond strength to flow (attribute?) ink attachment

cell – cell bond

strength


The needed attribute is some kind of ink-cell – to – ink-cell bond strength, whatever that means. The missing attribute will replace detachment (lack of localization) or inadequate ink-cell – to – ink-cell bond strength. A new A-F-A link is illustrated above. Cell-to-cell bond strength raises two questions; what is a cell, and what is cell-to-cell bond strength? This is a new perspective of our problem. If ink is thought of as a continuous solid phase, fracture lines could form cells when shear produces detachment. Thus, cell-to-cell bond strength might be some way of locking fracture cells. [S40] Compose solid ink to have low fracture strength in shear mode to encourage formation of rough, boundaries of fracture cells. These might allow enough key-and-lock type bonding to discourage detachment of ink. If cells are thought of as pre-detachment structures, they might be physical cells or some kind of network or lattice structure. Individual pills of ink come to mind here. [S41] Compose ink as tiny pills of liquid sealed in thin plastic coatings having sticky surfaces. Liquid contents of a plastic coating support flow, while sticky surfaces support cell-to-cell bonding. [S42] Compose ink as in [S41] but coat pill surfaces so as to have less stickiness initially but to increase in a few moments after exposure to air. This will allow easier flowing of ink followed by curing for stronger bond formation. [S43] Compose ink as two components that polymerize on mixing. Use only enough polymers to allow linking into a flexible network that holds the ink in cells of the network. We are nearing the end of this mini-lecture series reviewing USIT. The remaining tool to be described is generification as a solution technique. Do you have ideas for discussion topics or questions on USIT that could be entertained?


7. Q&A

6. Feedback

8. Other Interests Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to Ntelleck, LLC, P.O. Box 193, Grosse Ile, MI 48138 USA










3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture_17 completed a brief discussion of generification as a problem-solving technique. In this lecture we consideration concepts sparked by concepts.



Generification as a Solution Technique Continuation of the publisher’s problem: “Ink on newsprint is messy. Fix it!” Generification A concept of USIT introduced early in these lectures is that of listing, at the start, all known solutions to a problem, and those thought of up to and through the listing exercise. This exercise is intended to call attention to what is now known (known at the beginning of a USIT exercise), thus freeing problem solvers to search new concepts. It has several pedagogical values. One is that students are less likely to waste time trying to force a known outcome when they could be discovering new concepts – a major issue of efficiency. It is intended also to produce surprise and delight that makes effectiveness of the methodology the more convincing. For the experienced, it sets the stage for finding new solution concepts by generification of known concepts. The theory behind generification is that most known, and suddenly generated (during the exercise) solution concepts have arisen from intuitive-type brainstorming. This does not fault those concepts. Rather it implies that such solutions are like picking the low-hanging fruit. This implies that a lot of not so easily reached fruit is remaining to be picked. It’s somewhat like the process of dredging mine tailings in river bottoms down stream of abandoned mines to glean valuable material. But it also includes generification of solution concepts found during a USIT exercise. The reason for this is like a check on thoroughness in case some solution opportunity has been overlooked. Generification is the process of analyzing a known solution, from any source, to find out why and how it works. Then improving upon it. This includes the solution ideas generated during prior stages of the same USIT analysis. For that reason, it is the last solution technique to be applied.


Application of generification We now have a list of 43 solution concepts including 10 known prior to applying USIT to the messy ink problem. Any and all of these are opportunities for generification. A simple start is to read through your final list of solution concepts and rethink the fundamental attributes that supported each solution concept. In this process, see if new intuitive solutions come to mind. One’s intuition should be the more effective after a USIT exercise than before because so many effects and attributes have been identified. In doing this exercise, you will find yourself extending your critical analyses. I’ll illustrate the process by starting with solution concept [1] from NL_06. Solution concept [1], heating the paper as it passes through the printing process, caused me to wonder where all of the heat was going? I don’t know the thickness of newsprint or the thickness of the printed ink, but I suspected that paper is much thicker than the overlaid ink. I picked up a page of today’s newspaper and slowly slid it between my lightly grasped thumb and forefinger. I easily could feel the thickness of the paper but could not detect any thickness change when passing over large font pint in titles. Hence, newsprint paper is much thicker than ink. It seems likely that energy may be wasted in heating the paper. To reduce the likelihood of ink smearing, one needs only to heat the much thinner ink to drive out excess moisture from ink. This suggests [44] doping paper surface with an infrared reflecting component and ink with an infrared absorbing component. This will create a preference for energy absorption in the ink during radiation heating. Then pass the freshly inked paper under heat lamps in the process line. On considering the basics of this solution it comes to mind that long wavelength infrared radiation is rather penetrating as compared with shorter wavelength radiation, but long wavelength radiation is more efficient for heating. The radiation that penetrates below the wet ink into dry paper is wasted. This brings to mind to [45] irradiate paper with a tangential beam of infrared radiation as the paper passes around the circumference of a roller. This will minimize deep absorption and lengthen the region of surface absorption, thus improving drying rate. Effectiveness will depend on radius of curvature of the roller. [46] Use a small diameter roller and a thin beam to enable efficient absorption of tangential radiation. Thickness of the applied ink contains the diffusion paths of desorbing water molecules during drying of ink. Thinner ink could shorten drying time if drying time is a nonlinear function of thickness. This suggests [47] applying thin ink in two passes with infrared heating after each application. Today’s high precision registration used in newspaper printing of color photographs suggests that multiple applications of thin ink with precision registration are realistic capabilities. The use of generification illustrates another reason for not allowing filtering of solution concepts during USIT. Good ideas are produced here also. This statement assumes, of course, that ideas have been retained for generification and not pre-filtered. These solution concepts, [44] through [45], arose from generification of [1]. That leaves you [1] through [47] for your attempts at generification. Have fun.


Wherewhere

Where next? Generification is the last USIT tool to be discussed in this overview of USIT. I will have additional comments and observations to make in the next newsletter (or two). There will be a missing week while I take time for a brief vacation. Following that, I should have a new monograph ready that discusses the theory of a new approach to analyzing problems and applying new solution techniques. Technologists using forms of structured problem solving should find this theoretical development interesting and immediately applicable. Those familiar with USIT will immediately recognize the strong influence of USIT in this new approach. You are invited to suggest future topics or specific questions for these mini-lectures.

5. Problem-Solving Tricks and Related Miscellany For some numerical fun, visit http://digicc.com/fido/. Follow the instructions and then click on the character in the lower right-hand corner. I had an interesting time developing a theoretical analysis of how this trick works.

7. Q&A

6. Feedback

8. Other Interests Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to

Ntelleck, LLC, P.O. Box 193, Grosse Ile, MI 48138 USA



Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_19: 21 June 2004 1/4







3 Mini Lecture




6 Feedback

7 Q&A

8 Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• Mini-Lecture_18 completed the demonstration of USIT applied to the problem of messy ink on newsprint. In this lecture we consider confusion raised by the use of causes and effects.



Causes = Effects? Early in teaching USIT to industrial technologists it became clear that finding root causes in problems brought to class often was a difficult task. This was the case even though the students had been trained in understanding the importance of knowing root causes and in methods for identifying them. From this teaching experience I developed the plausible root causes method. (See “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – An Overview”, available at www.u-sit.net.) Now I find that students still have difficulty with the exercise. It seems that part of the problem relates to student’s inexperience in structured problem solving and to their lack of careful application, or awareness, of the definitions of cause, root cause, and effect. Juan Carlos Nishiyama and Carlos Eduardo Requena of Argentina recently pointed out to me that students easily confuse causes, root causes and effects. I am grateful to them for this insight and am making it the topic of this newsletter.

Discriminating Causes, Root Causes and Effects The plausible root causes diagram deals with all three concepts: causes, root causes and effects. The diagram shown here is a modification of that published earlier in that it has been simplified to the case of a single object, which is not shown. When, in a specific branch, a root cause is reached the branch is terminated and the terminal box does not have an associated effect. Instead, it has a list of attributes (also not shown in this figure).


(root) cause --------

(attributes)


(attributes)


(attributes)

cause -------- effect




Unwanted effect

An unwanted effect is placed at the top of the plausible root causes diagram. In the next lower row causes of the effect are listed in separate boxes. Each of these causes is then treated as an effect for the next lower row of causes. Each column of boxes terminates on a plausible root cause. However, this is may be difficult, that is, finding the termini of the columns. It is a two-step process: in the first step one is analyzing each effect for plausible causes. When no further analysis of causes of effects is evident each cause at the lowest level of each branch of the diagram is taken to be a plausible root cause. In the second step, each plausible root cause is then analyzed in terms of causal attributes. And this is where confusion sets in, three terms have been introduced for almost the same concept; they are, cause, plausible root cause, and causal attribute. The confusion can be put to rest by reviewing several important definitions. Firstly, effects come in two varieties, “wanted effects” and “unwanted effects”. Wanted effects are given the special name of “functions”. Recall that a function, as well as an effect, modifies or maintains an attribute. Thus, both words, function and effect, carry the connotation of an action; either to modify or to maintain. The role of causal attribute becomes evident on examining the graphic definition of object-object contact shown in the following diagram.

object

object

attribute

attributefunction attribute (object)


Wherewhere

This diagram defines a major concept of USIT, namely, the concept of object-object contact to support a function. Two objects make contact through one attribute from each object interacting to support a function that modifies or maintains another attribute in one of the contacting objects or in a third object. The word function can be replaced in the diagram with effect, unwanted effect, cause, or root cause. The same object-attribute-function relationship exists for each. The word cause is used in analyzing an unwanted effect. Analysis of an unwanted effect refers to breaking it down into other underlying effects, which we call causes. The initial concern is to determine if the unwanted effect is a single unwanted effect – a major issue in problem definition for USIT application. Hence, by analyzing a particular unwanted effect in terms of its causes, other, convoluted effects may become apparent. If the initial unwanted effect is a singular effect the first level of causes, in the plausible root causes diagram, immediately become a list of attributes. With these similar terms in mind, I’ll redraw the defining diagram as follows:

function effect

unwanted effectcause

root cause

object

object

attribute

attribute

The purpose of this drawing is to emphasize that function, effect, unwanted effect, cause, and root cause are terms having equivalent relationships and that all of them have associated attributes. The associated attributes are referred to as causal attributes when referring to causes of unwanted effects and as supportive attributes when referring to functions. Listing the causal attributes to be associated with each root cause completes a plausible root causes diagram. Suppose, for example, that dulling of a pencil point is an unwanted effect. Are there underlying causes of the pencil point becoming dull? The answers to this question should draw us closer to the fundamentals of the problem. Since dulling of a pencil point occurs when the pencil is used for writing, we have two objects to consider as being in contact, paper and pencil lead. Each is a source of basic effects. The paper can be seen as abrading the pencil lead. The pencil lead can be seen as fracturing during contact with paper. Both of these are causes of pencil lead dulling. One can stop at this level and define these as root causes. The next step would be to look for causal attributes of each object that support abrading by paper and fracturing of pencil lead. Other analysts may try to take abrading and fracturing to lower levels of cause and effect. Such efforts can lead to microscopic and molecular effects with their attendant causes. In summary, discriminating the words cause, root cause, and effect is as follows: An effect maintains or modifies an attribute. Its USIT model consists of a pair of interacting attributes, one each from two objects in contact. Thus the cause of an effect can be described in three different ways: in terms of another effect (or function), in terms of two interacting attributes, or in terms of two contacting objects. The plausible root causes tool of USIT was developed to address this confusion. When searching root cause of an effect a plausible root causes tree can be constructed. The effect is placed at the top of the tree. Causes of this effect are listed in the next lower level, using any of the three possible expressions. Each cause is then treated as an effect and its causes are entered in the next lower level. Through iteration of this process the problem solver strives to discover causal attributes for which no further analysis is obvious. These lowest levels of causes are



7. Q&A

6. Feedback

Questions you would like to have discussed are welcome.

8. Other Interests Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to




termed root causes. In this process the mind first considers actions and then gradually transitions to physical properties: transitions, such as effects causes attributes, aid our mental modeling of phenomena fundamental causes physical properties. Solution concepts can arise at any level, but are especially effective when couched in terms of physical properties.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8





USIT – How to Invent

USIT – an Overview

Mini Lecture

Classroom Commentary

Problem-Solving Tricks


Feedback

Q&A

Other Interests

Dear Readers:

• This and the next mini-lecture (or so) will be devoted to material prepared for an abbreviated USIT training module. I hope it resonates with your interests. Note that the heuristics discussed are not unique to USIT.



USIT – an Alternative Method for Solving Engineering-Design Problems This July in Sicily, I had the pleasure of teaching a USIT module in the NATO sponsored Summer School on “Radiation Effects in Solids”. The attendees consisted of invited lecturers, scientists, professors, graduate students, and post-doctoral students from NATO and NATO related countries. These notes contain materials prepared for that audience of professional technologists. The topic of the module was “USIT – an Alternative Method for Solving Engineering-Design Problems”. Introduction Engineering design refers to the formalized conceptualization of artifacts (man-made things). USIT is a structured methodology for addressing problem definition, analysis, and solution in the pre-engineering stages of engineering design. In this stage no engineering specifications are required; thus, focus is placed on defining a conceptual problem and finding multiple solution concepts with speed and innovation. Engineering follows the application of filters to select a particular concept for development – a post USIT issue. Pre-Engineering Note that pre-engineering implies pre-filtering. Hence, during the exercise of USIT no filtering is allowed. This is especially significant in problem solving team settings. It is a long recognized constraint for effective search of conceptual solutions. A consequence of pre-filtering is that USIT is not an optimization process. USIT stresses ideal solution concepts. Optimization, on the other hand, requires judicious tradeoffs between ideal

Editor: Ed Sickafus, PhD President, Ntelleck, LLC NL_20: 9 August 2004 1/3

solution concepts and capabilities (defined by filters). Current filters such as timing, cost, resources, manufacturability, business strategies, and others, guide these tradeoffs. Such filterschange frequently according to economics, business plans, competition, and many other issues. Ideal solution concepts become a part of a corporation’s intellectual property and are availablfuture refere

e for nce. This is relevant when filters may have changed allowing reconsideration of viable

oncepts.

c Relevance of USIT to Radiation Effects in Solids USIT is a problem-solving methodology. The topic radiation effects in solids covers the currentstate of knowledge gleaned from solving a myriad of technical problems. The relevance of the former to the latter rests on the way USIT redefines a real-world problem. Definition of a problemrequires translating its real-world objects to generic names that convey their principle functions. Interaction of these generic objects is characterized in terms of their supporting attributes. Thus the USIT methodology is a general methodology that is applicable wherever a real-world problem an be characterized according to USIT principles.

an a methodology. So I’ll begin with a simple problem and work into the

ethodology slowly.

c Some results Students in an introductory problem-solving class are usually antsier to see a problem solved thdelve into the theory ofm Bar hopping My grandfather gave to me the earliest word-problem I can remember solving. “A man is confronted with four bars on the corners of an intersection of two streets. He pays $1 to enter the first bar, spends half the money in his pocket, and $1 to leave. He crosses the street to the next bar,pays $1 to enter, spends half the money remaining in his pocket, and $1 to exit. He does the samething at the remaining two bars, whereupon he discovers that he has no more money. How much money did he ha

ve to start with?” (You might want to pause and solve this problem before reading y comments.)

of

simplification. (Several heuristics have been italicized erein to bring them to your attention.)

m Heuristics One thing that may help this introduction is to point out that problem-solving methodologies, all them, consist of selected heuristics. Heuristics are the tools and tricks we use to solve problems. The first heuristic to be discussed here ish Simplification as a problem-solving heuristic The first heuristic for defining, analyzing, and solving a problem is simplification. It is one of tmost important heuristics for problem definition. It especially refers to useless “fluff”, or non-informative color, and to repetition, among others. A number of heuristics are incl

he

uded under simplification. One is to “eliminate fluff”. Another is to “eliminate redundancy”.

e

Fluff in the barhopping problem, for example, is “… on the corners of an intersection of two streets”; and “He crosses the street to the next bar …”. The locations of the bars, their relativpositioning, and the path followed to reach them are all useless bits of information. They are


Wherewhere h

simply fluff, so eliminate them. In fact, the existence of bars is irrelevant. The problem consistsfour similar objects whose only attribute is a number that is modified during the process of the

of

problem. Furthermore, the four objects can be reduced to a pattern that is repeated four times. ence, not even the objects are relevant.

int

results of the barhopping problem can be expanded to N bars, where N is any integer greater an zero.

To Be Continued in the next USIT Newsletter …

H Elimination of redundancy calls attention to repeated objects, patterns, and other features. The poof this heuristic is to reduce redundancy to one instance and solve the problem for that instance. Then expand the result to repetitions of the instance. In our example, eliminate redundancy would lead us to solve the problem for one bar then consider multiple bars. A benefit of this heuristic is that thet


6. Feedback

Questions you would like to have discussed are welcome.

7. Q&A

8.

•

•

Other Interests

I hope you saw the article titled “Causes = Effects?” that was published in this months’ TRIZ Journal (www.triz-journal.com). It is a slightly modified version of Mini USIT Lecture – 19.

Regarding inquiries about ordering the book, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent”, details may be found at the Ntelleck website: www.u-sit.net. The cost of the book is US$44.50 plus shipping and handling. See the website for S/H charges. Send a check made out to Ntelleck, LLC for the proper amount, drawn on a US bank, to





U-SIT And Think News Letter · air ink paper on off evaporation at air-ink interface solidification...

Documents

Transcript of U-SIT And Think News Letter · air ink paper on off evaporation at air-ink interface solidification...