Question to Mr. Yuri Salamatov

TRIZ course is based only on engineering, it is a classical course. But our trainee were teachers, staff manager, product sale manager, sport trainer, biologist etc. All world and our society consists of systems, these systems cooperate, develop, counteract. Most thoroughly developed the laws of technical systems evolution. These laws are universal, their sense (maintenance)can be applied to any systems. Certainly, any field of knowledge has the features and own terminology but having a small training easily it is possible to learn how to transfer a principals and rules which are suitable for the technical problem solving on the problems from any area of human being. It would be good to adapt TRIZ for nontechnical areas. And this process goes already. But, unfortunately, frequently it is accompanied by a TRIZ "mutation" (distortion, simplification).
The best way is to obtain classical TRIZ knowledge and itself to adapt it to the own area. Such adaptation will begin already during the training (second half of lessons). Search and the formulation of a real problem from the trainee's area will begin (under the personal Dr.Salamatov supervision. It will be a theme of the final work. Final work should be carried out at a level of the invention i.e. to have a world priority and novelty. Whether it is a full adaptation TRIZ to your area?

Dear Dr. Salamatov:
I am a student of Southwest Jiaotong University, which is located in Sichuan, China. Now I am reading your book titled "TRIZ: The right solution at the right time"(Second Edition, 2005), and I am very interested in it. However, there are some questions in it which I colud not answer to myself:
One of them is: what is the specific solution to Problem 10, i.e. how can we "
providing a normal hardening process at no extra pressure"?

S: This is only an example of the typical problem (30 years ago). I do not know the solution. I am fully with confident that it is solved and the technical contradiction is resolved. It is necessary to view the chapter (metal hardening by laser beam in nitrogen atmosfere) in patent data base of Russia or USPTO.

Another one is why do you think "In fact, technical contradiction may not emerge when we are synthesizing a technical system (completion of S-Field model), for nothing prevents the inventor from introducing the missing elements into the system. This is the only case when inventive problems are solved without technical contradictions. As for the rest of cases of technical system synthesis (when conditions of the problem contain restrictions), technical contradiction will always be there." in the beginning of Chapter 3?

S: It is absolutely always this way!

Is there any "inventive" situation where no technical contradiction have been eliminated?

S: Of course and there are many such problems. These problems are on the front of the science and engineering. Somebody (an inventor) planning to create new (innovative) technical system, formulating which functions should be (how TS correlate with human-society needs), trying to find physical-chemical-geometrical effect in science (for the contradiction resolving) and… does not finding it. There is no such effect! And this is very important assertion. This is social order for science to find out such effect, carry out research and formulate science problem.



And the last questions, which is related to the second question, is:
"The fourth level (mor§е than 103 – 104 attempts): macro inventions. It’s a synthesis of a new technical system. As it doesn’t contain any technical contradictions, one may think that their elimination didn’t come into making these inventions. In fact there was a technical contradiction, but it existed in the father technical system. In the fourth level problems the contradictions are eliminated using methods belonging to another field of science (e.g., a problem in mechanics is solved using the principles of chemistry). Quite often a newly found principle helps to solve a lot of other second and third-level problems (for example, the use of magnetic fluid)."in 4.2 of Chapter 4. Could you please take an example of "a technical contradiction……existed in the father technical system"? Thanks a lot!

Let’s consider an example. At tests of the engine of internal combustion (EIC) periodically it is necessary to measure deterioration of its details, therefore in 50th years of 20 century a standard on definition of metal particles in oil was accepted. For this purpose they take the test of the oil and define the contents of metal particles in them by chemical method. The analysis takes approximately 1 hour. At EIC creation for the racing car engines working on extremely modes this way appeared unacceptable. For this time EIC "will run" 200-250 km. It is too much to define the critical moment of the destruction beginning of EIC details precisely. How to be? TC: for definition of the moment of the destruction beginning of EIC details it is necessary to carry out the analysis of oil on presence of metal particles, but it cannot be made at the moment of the destruction beginning (1-10 seconds), since the analysis takes 1 hour. I.e. the analysis of the metal content should be continuous, and existing method has the period 1 hour. TC resolution: a phosphor (luminophor) adds in oil and fine particles of metal extinguish a luminescence of the phosphor. It continuously allows supervising the metal content in oil.

Altshuller's matrix is the outdated TRIZ tool of inventive problem solving. It is not necessary to develop it. Such article you can write, it is not prohibetted.