Idealizing Harmful Functions

Acknowledgements

This book is the work of a collaborative group.

Contributors
Larry Ball (Primary Author)
David Troness
Kartik Ariyur
Jason Huang
Steve Hickman
Petr Krupansky
Larry Miller

Editors
Erika Ball
Larry Ball
David Troness
Paul Dwyer
Robert Lang

Illustrators
Larry Ball
David Troness

Other Authors, Theoreticians, Practitioners Whose Writings or Teachings have Impacted This Work
Genrich Altshuller
Ellen Domb
Roni Horowitz
John Terninko
Alla Zusman
Boris Zlotin
Lev Shulyak
Yuri Salamatov
Victor Fey
Eugene Rivin
Darrell Mann
Sergei Ikovenko
Simon Litvin
Peter Ulan
Lane Desborough
Clayton Christensen
Renee Mauborgne
Kim Chan

Where the Material Comes From

Much of the material for this book was inspired by the thought leaders referenced. The original intent was to codify the insights of these thought leaders, but the process of codification ultimately led to the synthesis of other experimental methods. This was due to the necessity of recognizing patterns of similarity among tools. Once this was achieved, the various tools were categorized alongside key decisions. Decisions create and require information that flows to the subsequent decisions. Patterns and gaps became evident during this formative process. Experimental methods were introduced to fill these gaps. The effectiveness of these experimental methods hinges on their ability to assist the problem solver in identifying product or process characteristics that will satisfy the market.

Introduction to Idealizing Harmful Functions

Prerequisite Knowledge
If you have not read the TRIZ Power Tools Working With Functions, please do so before reading this book.

Introduction
Who would think that you could idealize something that is actually harmful? It seems illogical. We may find ourselves contemplating the “ideal pain,” “ideal wear,” or “ideal product failure.” While this may sound absurd, we will see that there are perspectives from which we can rethink harm.

How we address harmful functions depends on what the tool or product does within the system. If the element is unnecessary in the system at all (such as waste products), then it should be removed.

Objects that cause harm but also provide supporting functions can often be eliminated, as other objects in the system or super-system can take over their functions. If an object performs the primary function, it is generally more challenging to remove this element.

When faced with a situation where the object must remain, we will attempt to leverage it by rendering the harmful function useful.

One set of tools allows us to contemplate individual functions and ask: What do we ideally want our system to achieve? What are the ideal objects that our system should serve? The answers to these inquiries can transform the nature of all that follows. During this reasoning phase, we allow ourselves to question the very elements we initially believed our system would serve and how it would accomplish that. At this juncture, we often take many things for granted regarding the job that the market is attempting to fulfill. Although we may be considering adding functions to the system, we do not yet know if these functions are truly necessary. For example, the functions we contemplate may not be required if the system product or modification itself is not needed. We might discover ways to satisfy the super-system (job) without executing these functions. In essence, we are reevaluating the original design decisions that resulted in the product or process being created in the first place.

According to our TRIZ Philosophy, the concept of a Hierarchy of Decisions has been introduced. One component of this hierarchy repeats consistently: the idealization of functions. Whether we are creating a system, revising a system, or addressing a problem within the system, we can use these methodologies to concentrate on one function at a time. When we create a system, we incorporate one function at a time. When we revise the system, we pinpoint burdensome functions that must be altered. In each case, we focus on a function that we would like to make as ideal as possible.

Functions indicate changes that occur over time or results. If we use a function to describe the final state of an object’s attributes, we are defining a “result.” If we describe an ideal result, we are articulating an idealized function.

The following steps are employed to idealize or neutralize a harmful function:

Step 1: Identify an ideal tool. In this instance, the ideal tool does not exist unless necessary.

Step 2: Identify an ideal modification. Since we begin with a harmful function, we want the modification to be beneficial rather than detrimental. This involves more than merely reducing the harm.

Step 3: Identify the ideal product. The ideal product cannot be harmed because it does not exist.

It is noteworthy that many of the Solution Standards and other TRIZ tools have already been articulated in functional language. Suggestions for how we might discover a more ideal functional part arise from restructuring and reinterpreting the components of the Solution Standards that deal with eliminating, redefining, or replacing system parts (object resources). Idealizing Functions bridges the Ideal Final Result, Function Analysis, and the Solution Standards. Hence, there is a readily available supply of approaches to describe the final state.

The Ideal Tool (Doesn't Exist)

Explanation of the Ideal Measurement

The Ideal Harmful Tool Should Not Exist

Elimination is one of the most commonly taught methods for addressing harmful functions. If we succeed in eliminating an object, the system becomes simpler, bringing us closer to the ideal final result. Several reasons may explain why a tool does not exist. For example, it may not be necessary because it is viewed as waste within the system. The tool might serve an auxiliary function and, as such, could be eliminated. By resolving an issue within the system, the auxiliary function may no longer be needed.

Method: Harmful Tool Not Necessary

Method

Step 1: Why does the harmful tool exist? What is the beneficial function of the harmful tool, and why is that function necessary? What does it prevent? What does it fix? What does it compensate for? Does it counteract something? Follow this reasoning back through the causal relationships.

Consider using the eBook Discovering Why Targeted Objects are Required.

Step 2: Resolve the problem that made the tool necessary in the first place. With the problem resolved, the function and all of its supporting functions are no longer required. These elements can then be removed from the system.

Explanation

The harmful tool may exist in the system but perform no useful function. We want to understand the reason it is there and eliminate that reason. It is also very common for a tool to cause both harmful and useful functions. Understand why this harmful/useful tool is required in the first place. If a Causal Analysis Diagram is being used, it is easier to follow the chain of reasoning back to the problems that the function helps to resolve. Practically, this is done using a causal analysis diagram by considering the existence of a tool or product of a function as an object attribute that causes the problem. (Seeing the function in the cause-effect diagram reminds us that the existence of the elements of the function are object attributes that should be considered.) When we consider the non-existence of elements in the system (in the side-by-side box), we begin an alternative problem path which leads us to understand why an element was originally required in the system. It is possible to remove the need for the troublesome element and often for other elements by resolving a problem elsewhere in the system. This is done by tracing back the alternative problem path.

The non-existence of a function element is shown with a new function that has no tool. The tool was required to perform a function that is no longer performed because the tool is missing. One solution to the alternative problem path is to find a new way to perform the function of the missing object. This often leads to the consideration of how the function might be performed by existing elements, thus simplifying the system.

A slight change to an object in the system (often the object that we are serving) removes the requirement for the main function and hence the objects that deliver the function. In other words, if something did its job better, then our system wouldn’t be needed.

Example—Water Rinse

The residue from a water rinse makes subsequent metal plating less predictable. Sometimes, the plating falls off during heat treatment.

Step 1: Why does the harmful tool exist? What is the useful function of the harmful tool and why is the function required? What does it prevent? What does it fix? What does it compensate for? Does it counter something? Follow this reasoning back through the causal relationships.

Consider using the eBook Discovering Why Targeted Objects are Required.

The water rinse is required to remove soap that is used to wash oil from the part. The oil is on the part to cool and lubricate it during machining. It is also useful to reduce corrosion of the part following machining and during storage.

If the machined part is cooled during machining with something other than oil, or machined with a process that does not require lubricant; and if the part does not need storage following machining, the lubricant, soap, and rinse are not required prior to plating. The system is greatly simplified.

Example—Acid Container

This is a more detailed example of determining why the acid must exist. Here we determine why it is required or if there is a way that it is not required.

Consider using the eBook Discovering Why Targeted Objects are Required.

The acid serves a primary useful function within the system of corroding the coupons. The acid does not prevent, fix, compensate for, or counter anything. If we could have identified a remedial or preventive function it performed, we might have been able to eliminate it.

Step 2: Resolve the issue that made the tool necessary in the first place. Once the problem is resolved, the primary function and all its supporting functions are no longer needed. These elements can then be removed from the system.

The acid is essential for performing the primary useful function of the testing system, which is to assess the corrosive properties of various types of liquid acids. Since this is a requirement of the testing, we must have the acid. This creates a contradiction: the acid must exist to corrode the coupons, yet it must not exist to avoid corroding the pan.

Example—Pile Driving

Step 1: Why does the harmful tool exist? What useful function does the harmful tool serve, and why is that function necessary? What does it prevent? What does it fix? What does it compensate for? Does it counter something? Trace this reasoning back through the causal relationships.

Consider utilizing the eBook Discovering Why Targeted Objects are Required.

The primary function of the soil is to support the pile against both vertical and lateral loads. The soil prevents water from eroding the lower soil that supports the pile. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability of the structure against lateral forces from water and seismic activities. Additionally, it provides essential support to the structure during an earthquake. If the impacts of an earthquake could be mitigated through other means, then the pile would not need to be driven as deeply. For example, if the soil were to remain stationary under the pile during an earthquake, there would be no requirement for depth. Essentially, the soil must provide a robust and stable foundation upon which the piles rest.

Step 2: Address the issue that necessitated the tool in the first place. Once the issue is resolved, the function and all its supporting systems become redundant. These components can then be removed from the arrangement.

A significant portion of the pile is unnecessary if a large support structure is embedded in the ground. Various methods may be employed to create this structure. For instance, if the pile is driven certain distance and concrete is then pumped through it to create a larger underground structure that supports the pile both vertically and laterally. However, it is important to note that if pumping concrete takes more time than driving piles does, then the situation has only deteriorated, as the operator will now need to invest in additional equipment. To enhance the viability of this solution, more time will be required to rectify the previous deficiencies.

Method: Eliminate Harmful Tool

Method

Step 1: Eliminate the tool and identify another element in the system that can perform the function of the tool. It may be necessary to use Idealizing Useful Functions to find a suitable alternative. If removal proves difficult, consider the following.

—Eliminate the source of the tool.

—Eliminate the movement or path of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool by creating another path of least resistance.

—Absorb the Tool: Use porous materials ^[1]—Fabrics—Batting—Gel.

Explanation

It is very common for a tool to cause both harmful and useful functions. Eliminating the tool will remove the harm, but there may now be a necessity to transfer the performance of the useful function to something else. It is likely that the tool can be eliminated if it performs auxiliary functions or is not required at all in the system. Note that it may be necessary to use some of the components of Idealizing Useful Functions to identify potential tools that can perform the useful function of the tool that was removed.

Example—Christmas Tree Fires

Many homes are burned each year during Christmas due to electrical fires caused by bulbs. The bulbs perform both a harmful function and a useful function.

Step 1: Eliminate the tool and identify something else in the system that can perform the function of the tool. It may be necessary to use Idealizing Useful Functions to identify a suitable alternative. If removal is difficult, then consider the following.

—Eliminate the source of the tool.

—Eliminate the movement or path of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool by creating another path of least resistance.

—Absorb the Tool: Use porous materials—fabrics—batting—gel.

The bulb has been removed. Now we consider what will serve the function of the bulb. The ornaments could replace the bulbs and emit small points of light. We can use small luminescent stickers on the ornaments that glow when illuminated with a black light.

Example—Acid Container

Without regard for the useful function of the acid, we will remove it from the system.

—Eliminate the source of the tool.

—Eliminate the movement or path of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool by creating an alternate path of least resistance.

—Absorb the tool: Use porous materials—fabrics—batting—gel.

The acid is simply removed from the system. Something other than the acid must perform the act of corrosion. Since the acid is required in the system and no substitution is allowed, we once again encounter the contradiction: the acid must and must not exist in the system.

Example—Pile Driving

The soil serves the essential function of supporting the pile against vertical and lateral disturbance forces. If we remove the soil, then something else must fulfill this essential role.

Step 1: Eliminate the tool and identify an alternative element in the system that can perform the function of the tool. It may be useful to utilize Idealizing Useful Functions to pinpoint a suitable alternative. If it proves challenging to remove, consider the following.

—Eliminate the source of the tool.

—Eliminate the movement or path of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool.

—Redirect the movement of the tool by creating an alternative path of least resistance.

—Absorb the tool: Use porous materials—fabrics—batting—gel.

With the soil removed, we seek alternatives to provide support for the piles. Anything that replaces the soil will require time and additional equipment. No solution has been identified.

The Ideal Modification (Make it Useful)

Explanation of the Ideal Modification for Harmful Functions

The Ideal Harmful Modification is Beneficial
Our next effort to idealize harmful functions is to transform them into beneficial functions. This is truly making lemonade out of lemons, which is typically not the first thought that comes to mind. It is often easier to envision reducing harm to zero. If one considers this on a sliding scale, the harmful function holds significant magnitude.

The sliding scale reduces the harm until it reaches zero. What if we continue to lessen the harm? The only way to achieve this is to make the function increasingly beneficial for the same product! An algorithm is provided for making this seemingly impossible transition, from harmful to beneficial, achievable.

The typical approach to reducing harm involves identifying object attributes such as size, position, duration, and color, and then adjusting the levels of these attributes. Here, we take an entirely different approach.

We aim to do something truly valuable with what was once harmful. This opens up the possibility of eliminating certain elements, especially if the new beneficial function can be performed by another component within the system.

Method: Reframe as a Useful Variant

Method

Step 1: Consider the harmful function of the product in a useful context related to the given product. If it is challenging to identify a specific situation, look for unrelated scenarios where the harmful action is intentionally performed. Alternatively, if the harmful action could be adjusted, could we not find a beneficial variant?

Step 2: Identify the controls that govern this now-useful function. Adjust the controls to enhance this now-useful function.

Step 3: Can this newly useful function take over for another element in the system that acts upon the given product, thereby simplifying the system?

Explanation

This approach is an unconventional yet powerful method to transform challenges into opportunities^[5]. What we are attempting to do is reframe a harmful action so that it becomes advantageous. The now-useful function may be able to replace other elements within the system. Often, the system can be streamlined by encouraging elements to perform multiple functions^[6].

This method resembles a person attempting to justify their wrongdoing in a manner that makes it seem like a commendable act. “I wasn’t robbing the store; I was assisting the store owner in testing the store’s security.” Nearly every harmful action has a constructive variant or context.

For instance, if one part is wearing another part, we can ask ourselves, “Where are the contexts in which we want wear to occur?” We aim to enable this in situations where we are polishing or grinding intentionally. Going back to the criminal analogy, he might say, “I wasn’t wearing the surface; I was just trying to polish it!” By reframing the harmful variation as a beneficial one, we can enhance this function and make it genuinely useful.

If we struggle to conceive a useful variant, some methods can help shift our perspective. For instance, nearly any harmful function can be turned useful if it can be made adjustable^[7]. Adjustable friction, for example, becomes traction control. Adjustable wear transforms into forming. When a function can be made adjustable, it may sometimes yield a useful variant if sufficiently amplified^[8]. Additionally, we can detach ourselves from the situation and seek out contexts unrelated to the problem where the harmful function is viewed as useful. Adapting to this method of thinking requires some practice or experience, but the shift in perspective can be very rewarding.

Using this approach, several techniques can aid us in recognizing a useful variant within a harmful function. For instance, the anti-function can often be performed as a beneficial function.

Example—Syrup is Melting Chocolate

To enhance production in a chocolate factory, the syrup that was typically pumped into the chocolate was heated. This reduced its viscosity, allowing larger volumes to flow through the existing pipes. Unfortunately, the heated syrup now distorts the chocolates.

Step 1: Cast the harmful function onto the product within a useful context related to the specific product. If it is challenging to pinpoint a situation, consider contexts unrelated to the problem where the harmful action is performed intentionally. Alternatively, if the harmful action were adjustable, might we not identify a useful variant?

In our case, we can say that the syrup forms or cooks the chocolate. Adjustable distortion is also taking shape.

Step 2: Identify the knobs that control this now-useful function. Adjust the knobs to enhance this now-useful function.

Some of the knobs are the temperature and gradient of the syrup, as well as the flavor of the syrup.

Step 3: Can this new useful function replace another element in the system that acts upon the given product, thus simplifying the system?

We will consider allowing the syrup to partially form the chocolate, instead of relying on other elements in the system.

Example—Cancer Repair

Cancer is typically regarded as a dangerous element within the body. What harm does it cause? Cancer leads to various detrimental effects, including the replacement or invasion of healthy tissue.

Step 1: Frame the harmful function of the product in a useful context related to the product. If it is challenging to pinpoint a situation, look for instances that are unrelated to the problem, where the harmful action is executed intentionally. Alternatively, if the harmful action were adjustable, could we identify a beneficial variant?

In our case, we can assert that cancer repairs the tissue.

Step 2: Identify the controls that influence this newly beneficial function. Adjust these controls to enhance this now-useful function.

The controls that would render this useful are those that activate and deactivate cancer. This will likely require further research, therefore this innovation will need to be postponed.

Step 3: Can this new function, which is beneficial, take over for another element in the system that acts upon the given product, thereby simplifying the overall system?

We will consider allowing cancer cells to repair a severely damaged organ.

Example—Acid Container

Using this approach, we aim to transform the corrosion of the container into an action that is advantageous. If possible, it would be ideal to make it beneficial to the container.

Step 1: Cast the harmful function on the product in a beneficial context related to the given product. If it is challenging to identify a situation, then look for scenarios unrelated to the problem, where the harmful action is carried out intentionally. Or, if the harmful action were adjustable, could we not identify a beneficial variant?

The harmful action of “corrodes” is reframed to “forms.” So instead of the acid corroding the pan, it forms the pan. In this case, we observe that corrosion is typically very non-uniform and thus, the formation of the pan is also very non-uniform. If we now consider this to be a useful function, then we want to enhance this function so that the pan material is removed uniformly.

An intriguing thought arises: this is similar to electro-polishing of metallic surfaces, which must be executed very precisely. Perhaps if we can understand how electro-polishing is conducted, then we may discover a potential solution. A web search helps to elucidate this process. One way to achieve a uniform surface is to consistently remove the most protruding parts of an object. To do this, it is preferable that recesses corrode more slowly than protruding surfaces.

This is achieved through a process known as anodic leveling, where the acid electrolyte needs to be highly viscous. The increased viscosity of the electrolyte affects the mass transport of reaction products from the surface, effectively limiting the movement of reaction products from lower areas of the surface, thereby causing protrusions to be removed more quickly. Additionally, stronger electric fields are generated at the corners of the objects, which enhances the mobility of the reacting ions. This suggests that it is necessary to increase the viscosity of the acids. Since the acids must be viscous and the acid corroding the coupons must retain its inherent viscosity, this presents a potential contradiction. The acid needs to be both viscous and non-viscous. One possible solution to overcome this contradiction is to cool or freeze the pan, creating non-uniform viscosity. This also reduces the corrosion rate of the pan.

Step 2: Identify the controls that govern this now-useful function. Adjust the controls to enhance this now-useful function.

The primary controls are the voltage of the electro-polishing and the viscosity of the acid. The voltage is likely the easiest to adjust. It can be modified to either protect the pan or to clean it.

Step 3: Can this new useful function replace another element in the system that acts on the given product, thus simplifying the system?

One useful function performed on the pan is its cleaning. It is possible that the cleaning process done by humans could be effectively replaced by this electro-polishing method.

Example—Pile Driving

We would like to reconsider the pushing action of the soil in a new context. Our goal is not merely to mitigate the effect of the soil pressing against the pile but to transform it into a beneficial force.

Step 1: Reframe the harmful function concerning the product into a useful context. If identifying a situation is challenging, consider unrelated scenarios where the harmful action is conducted intentionally. Alternatively, if the harmful action were adjustable, could we identify a useful variation?

The detrimental outcome of pushing the pile can be reframed as the beneficial functions of positioning the pile or pulling the pile. The latter function of pulling the pile is likely the most desirable. Now, the harmful action of pushing the pile is transformed into the constructive action of pulling the pile.

The soil must be made to perform a significantly unnatural action. Currently, the pile is drawn down by gravity. In this scenario, it is insufficient for the soil merely to move aside, allowing gravity to exert its influence. We must devise a method for the soil itself to pull the pile into it.

Note that we are no longer focused on methods to idealize a harmful function. Instead, we have transitioned to idealizing a beneficial function. For our discussion, we will overlook the ideal product and modification and inquire into which physical phenomena can produce the pulling action.

Given that soil comprises numerous distinct structures, we can visualize the concept of miniature little people. The soil particles can be imagined as intelligent beings that collaboratively reason and act to perform the function of pulling the pile into the earth. Imagine each little person next to the pile holding on and pushing down while those at the tip attempt to move away from it. The particles surrounding the tip must pull together and upwards. As they ascend, the little people above must also rise. The scenario resembles a conveyor belt where the soil near the pile descends while the soil farther away moves upward and is discharged at the surface. It may be feasible to achieve this with soil vibration or shock waves, though it seems this action must be conveyed somehow around the tip. Perhaps the pile’s resonance could be utilized to enable this. Existing technology can fluidize the soil around a pile through vibration. We are examining whether the vibrating soil could additionally exert a pulling force on the pile. Experimentation with this vibration would be necessary to ascertain its capacity to draw the pile into the soil as described.

Step 2: Identify the controls that regulate this now-useful function. Adjust the controls to enhance this now-useful function.

The controls governing this action are the soil’s vibration patterns. The soil must vibrate toward the pile as it descends and away from the pile as it ascends.

Step 3: Can this new useful function replace another element in the system, thereby simplifying the system?

If we can compel the soil to perform this action, we might not require a pile driver.

Method: Reframe as Own Anti-Function

Method

Step 1: Identify the anti-function. Is this considered a useful function within the system?

Step 2: After identifying the anti-function, we enhance this function. Utilize any of the methods from the Table of Knobs to boost this now-useful function. We may need to consider modifications to other elements in the system. Ultimately, the system must become simpler; otherwise, the solution is not effective.

Explanation

We are going to attempt to reverse the harmful function^[9] and perform a beneficial anti-function. In this initial attempt, we will allow for the possibility of employing any method from the Table of Knobs (object attributes). It should be noted that by doing this, we enhance the functionality of our existing elements^[10] and transform harm into good^[11]. The effect of this may be similar to some of the other methods.

Example—Self-Sharpening Tools

The action of cutting and shaping tools causes them to become dull. Drills, saws, and shears need to be periodically sharpened. This sharpening process takes time and is often neglected, especially when the tools are used only occasionally. In this scenario, the harmful function is the material being cut that wears down the cutting tool.

Step 1: Identify the anti-function. Would this be considered a useful function in the system?

The anti-function of using the cutting tool is to sharpen it.

Step 2: Now that we have identified the anti-function, we need to enhance this useful function. Utilize any of the methods from the Table of Knobs to strengthen this function. We may need to consider modifications to other elements in the system. In particular, it may be necessary to slightly adjust the product to make this work. Ultimately, the system must be simplified; otherwise, the solution is not effective.

At this point, we would be exploring various ways to sharpen the cut of the article tool. This may seem unusual and perhaps impossible. However, the ability of worn surfaces to sharpen tools is observed in nature, where animal claws and teeth actually become sharper with use. This phenomenon occurs because the outer layers of the claws and teeth are made from softer materials than the inner layers. The innermost layers are the hardest. The action of wearing away the outer layers exposes the harder inner layers, making the claws exceptionally sharp. Self-sharpening tools utilize this same principle to maintain the sharpness of drills and saw blades during use.

Example—Acid Container

We aim to find a way to reverse the effects of the acid.

Step 1: Identify the anti-function. Would this be regarded as a useful function within the system?

Now the acid must build up on the pan. Instead of corroding the pan away, we want to accumulate layers of material.

Step 2: After identifying the anti-function, we enhance this function. Utilize any methods from the Table of Knobs to amplify this now-useful function. We may also need to consider modifications to other elements within the system. Ultimately, the system must become simpler, or the solution will not be effective.

This process can be likened to plating, which may occur if we reverse the polarity of the voltage on the pan and introduce a sacrificial material that is corroded away and deposited onto the pan.

Example—Pile Driving

In this example, the opposite action of pushing the pile is pulling it. We have already discussed this scenario when we examined a useful variant of the pushing function.

Method: Make Useful on Another Product

Method

Step 1: Identify a beneficial variant of the harmful action.

Step 2: Identify a second object in the environment that could benefit from the useful variant due to a harmful action being directed at it.

Explanation

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. In this method, we will explore ways to make a harmful function serve a useful purpose on another element within the system. Generally, we examine the environment to determine if the harmful function can be beneficial to another product in the system. It is important to note that by doing this, we can gain additional functionality from our existing elements ^[12] and transform harm into benefit ^[13]. The effect of this approach may resemble some others methods.

Example—Pipe Damage from Acid

Waste acid is transported through pipes within a plant. Even though the pipes are constructed from non-corrosive materials, they are still corroded by the acid and will eventually need replacement. Replacing the waste pipes incurs significant costs.

Step 1: Identify a beneficial variant of the harmful action

The beneficial aspect of being corroded is that the acid cleans the pipes.

Step 2: Identify a second object in the environment that could benefit from the useful variant due to the harmful action it experiences.

Nearby are waste pipes that carry materials which deposit inside the pipe. These pipes require the cleaning action. Alternately switching the waste products between the two pipes allows the deposits to protect the pipes while the acid erodes the deposits. It is noteworthy that we could have viewed the pipes with the deposits as a method of coating the pipes for protection. We could have then considered what required this protection (keeping in mind that protection can be a complex function).

Method: Reverse the Fields or Action

Method

Step 1: Identify the fields that cause harmful actions.

Step 2: What constitutes the opposite of the fields?

Step 3: What is the action performed in relation to this? Change that instead.

Step 4: Enhance the anti-function to ensure it is completely effective.

Explanation

One of the simplest ways to reverse or create the anti-function is to directly reverse the direction of the action of the fields^[14]. The function may change when the fields are reversed. This is particularly useful when the physical phenomenon that produces the harmful action is primarily carried out by a few fields and objects.

Example—Foundry Explosions

Consider a situation where water escapes from cooling pipes into the refractory bricks of a smelter. The water explodes upon contact with the bricks. One of the harmful functions is that the pressurized water forces itself out of the pipe.

Step 1: Identify the fields that cause the harmful action.

The field in question is the pressure of the water in the pipe.

Step 2: What represents the reverse of the fields?

Reversing the fields means that the water in the pipe is under vacuum. The pump draws the water instead of pushing it.

Step 3: What is the action performed relative to? Change that instead.

It pushes relative to the position of the hole in the pipe. This indicates that the pipe should move instead of the water, which does not offer a useful solution.

Step 4: Enhance the anti-function to make it completely effective.

Here, we reverse the pressure field and create a vacuum in the line. This is achieved by having the pump pull the water through the line instead of pushing it.

Example—Acid Container

Step 1: Identify the fields that cause the harmful action.

The field that causes the harmful action is the potential created between the pan and other metals in the system.

Step 2: What constitutes the reverse of the fields?

An interesting thought occurred at this point, prompting further investigation. It turns out that the driving fields for corrosion can be reversed, thus stopping the corrosion. By applying a sufficiently high potential to the pan, we can completely halt the corrosion. Consult the following link.

http://www.efunda.com/materials/corrosion/stopping_corrosion.cfm

Step 3: What is the action performed relative to? Change that instead.

The action of corrosion occurs because the molecules of the pan move away from the pan. The reverse would involve moving the pan relative to the molecules. This does not yield a practical solution.

Step 4: Boost the anti-function to make it completely useful.

Applying a relative voltage or using a sacrificial material will enhance the function.

Example—Pile Driving

If possible, we would like to reverse the pressure and friction fields on the pile to make it easier to drive.

Step 1: Identify the fields that cause the harmful action.

The fields that create the harmful action are the pressure field at the tip of the pile and the friction fields along the pile, including at the tip. The pressure fields increase as the tip is driven deeper.

Step 2: What constitutes the reverse of the fields?

The reverse of the field would be the creation of a tension field at the tip of the pile rather than a compression field. The soil would pull the pile forward. Very high tension fields can develop in materials when they are heated and subsequently cooled. The soil itself places itself under tension. No useful solution has been found.

Step 3: What is the action performed relative to? Change that instead.

We try to solve this another way by reversing the action. The action of pushing back is that the soil and pile compress in relation to the direction of the driven pile. The reverse of this action would be for the soil to enter tension when the pile is driven. No useful solution has been identified.

Step 4: Boost the anti-function to make it completely useful.

Not applicable.

Method: Boost an Existing Weak Variant

Method

Step 1: Is the useful variant of the harmful function already performed alongside the harmful function, but so subtly that it goes unnoticed?

Step 2: Is the anti-function executed with the harmful function but not in balance? Increase the anti-function.

Step 3: Is the harmful function useful in any part of the product or in other elements, even slightly? Enhance this function.

Explanation

Sometimes, an object will perform both a harmful function and a useful variant simultaneously^[15]. The useful function may occur at such a minimal level that it goes unrecognized. Enhancing the useful variant effectively diminishes the harmful function.

Example—Telescope Dust Cover

A telescope utilizes a transparent dust cover. Minor irregularities in the cover distort the incoming light. These distortions could be leveraged to correct the effects of a spherical (non-parabolic) mirror, which would be less expensive to produce.

Step 1: Is the useful variant of the harmful function already performed alongside the harmful function, but so subtly that it goes unnoticed?

Some of the distortions actually assist in focusing the light. Can this be utilized if enhanced? It is feasible to design the dust cover to minimize distortion. In fact, when working with the reflecting mirror, the light can be focused more effectively. An additional refinement is to identify how the reflecting mirror can be modified to improve the situation. A spherical mirror is significantly easier to manufacture. The effect of the dust cover may enable the spherical mirror to focus the light similarly to a parabolic mirror, as seen in a meniscus telescope. (It should be noted that a meniscus telescope usually focuses the light off a reflecting piece on the cover and back through a hole in the spherical mirror.)

Step 2: Is the anti-function being performed alongside the harmful function but not in equilibrium? Boost the anti-function.

No anti-function has been detected.

Step 3: Is the harmful function useful in any part of the product or in other elements at the very least? Boost this function.

No useful positions have been observed.

Example—Blinding Car Lights

Consider the blinding light seen from oncoming traffic with their high beams on.

Step 1: Is the useful variant of the harmful function already performed together with the harmful function, but so slightly as to go unnoticed?

The useful variant that occurs simultaneously with blinding is to alert the driver that a car is approaching. This can be especially helpful if something is wrong with the driver of the oncoming car or the vehicle itself.

Step 2: Is the anti-function being performed alongside the harmful function but not in equilibrium? Enhance the anti-function.

This does not apply in this case.

Step 3: Is the harmful function at least somewhat useful in certain contexts of the product or other elements? Enhance this function.

It has already been established that alerting the driver is beneficial. If there is something wrong with the oncoming vehicle or its driver, the lights can warn the occupants of the approaching car that there may be an issue, prompting them to take evasive action. For instance, if the driver is impaired, it could be crucial to be aware of this. The lights might change color or subtly alter direction to notify the oncoming driver of the potential danger.

Example—Acid Container

Is it possible that a weak but beneficial variant of corrosion on the pan is occurring?

Step 1: Is the beneficial variant of the harmful function already being performed alongside the harmful function, but so subtly as to go unnoticed?

The advantageous variant of “corroding” is “forming.” The helpful action of forming the pan is taking place as long as the material is removed uniformly. Since we have already considered this, we will not address it further here.

Step 2: Is the anti-function being performed with the harmful function but not in equilibrium? Enhance the anti-function.

This presents an intriguing possibility. At a microscopic level, molecules of the pan are being stripped away by the acid while molecules of the metal are being pushed back to the surface. This is true for all chemical reactions. The reason corrosion occurs is that more material is being removed from the surface than is being replaced. In this case, the objective would be to replace more material than is being taken away. This can be achieved by reversing the voltage, as mentioned in the approach of reversing the fields.

Step 3: Is the harmful function advantageous in any part of the product or in other elements to the slightest degree? Amplify this function.

No solution is found.

Example—Pile Driving

Is it possible that a beneficial variant of pushing is occurring simultaneously with the harmful variant?

Step 1: Is the beneficial variant of the harmful function already being conducted alongside the harmful function, but to such a small degree that it goes unnoticed?

In this case, we are asking if pulling is occurring anywhere on the pile? No locations are found.

Step 2: Is the anti-function performed alongside the harmful function but not in equilibrium? Enhance the anti-function.

We are inquiring if pulling and pushing are happening simultaneously, perhaps at a molecular level. No solution is found.

Step 3: Is the harmful function useful anywhere on the product or on other elements to the slightest degree? Strengthen this function.

Is the action of pushing useful anywhere on the pile? A specific instance is found.

Method: Aesthetic Incorporation

Method

Step 1: Can the flaw, caused by the harmful modification, be directly incorporated aesthetically?

Step 2: Multiply the flaw. Create different patterns with the multiplied flaw. Which pattern looks the best or serves a useful function?

Step 3: Can this aesthetic incorporation perform a useful function?

Explanation

Many forms of art require the artist to incorporate flaws that inadvertently occur during the creation of the work. A small, accidental mark on an India Ink drawing can become the beginning of a bush, etc. In effect, we are enhancing the harmful function until it ceases to be harmful^[1].

Example—Cutting Plastic Tubing

A plastic tube is cut. In the process, the tube is deformed where the blade begins to cut.

Step 1: Can the flaw, caused by the harmful modification, be directly incorporated aesthetically?

No viable solution is evident.

Step 2: Multiply the flaw. Create various patterns with the multiplied flaw. Which pattern looks the best or serves a useful function?

If the pattern is repeated, it results in a rolled cut.

Step 3: Can this aesthetic incorporation serve a useful function?

The bevel can help guide elements that may be attached to the ends of the tube.

Example—Acid Container

If the detrimental effect of corrosion only altered aesthetics, we might consider using this approach.

Step 1: Can the flaw caused by the harmful modification be directly incorporated aesthetically?

This does not apply, as aesthetics are not significant.

Step 2: Multiply the flaw. Create different patterns using the multiplied flaw. Which pattern appears best or serves a useful function?

This is not applicable in this case.

Step 3: Can this aesthetic incorporation serve a useful function?

This is not relevant in this case.

Example—Pile Driving

If pushing back on the pile altered its aesthetics, we might consider this approach.

Step 1: Can the flaw caused by the harmful modification be directly incorporated aesthetically?

As we do not prioritize the aesthetics of pushing the pile, this approach is not viable here.

Step 2: Multiply the flaw. Create different patterns using the multiplied flaw. Which pattern appears best or serves a useful function?

This is not applicable in this case.

Step 3: Can this aesthetic incorporation serve a useful function?

This is not pertinent in this case.

Method: Perform Accurately

Method

Step 1: Is the anti-function or a beneficial variant of the harmful function achieved by making the modification accurately?

Step 2: Consider Open-Loop Control. Make the tool or product adjustable if it is not already. Consider implementing continuous adjustment. Add an actuator to the tool or product. Incorporate a controller that modifies the level of actuation based on operating conditions that do not feedback the main parameter being controlled.

Step 3: Use of Closed Loop Control: Does the modification need to be even more precise? Add a sensor to monitor the main parameter that is being controlled. Compare this to a reference level that the parameter aims to maintain. The entire system is illustrated in the figure below. If necessary, increase the number of parameters monitored. Consider increasing the order of the variable sensed (first derivative, second derivative…).

Step 4: Use of Passive Control: Identify a physical phenomenon that senses the parameter being controlled and automatically prompts the system to adjust the parameter. Determine the critical point around which the system will regulate the main parameter to the desired level, then shift this critical point to the desired control level.

Explanation

Sometimes a useful function becomes detrimental when it exceeds its beneficial limits. In such cases, it may regain its utility simply by being kept within those limits.

Line of Evolution

The line of evolution for adjustability^[17] is illustrated below. Once the feedback point^[18] is reached, the added advantages of enhanced feedback provide diminishing returns, and the system typically transitions to a new physical phenomenon or passive control.

Open Loop Control: Open loop control utilizes an actuator to modify the main machine that regulates the parameter. A simple controller adjusts the actuator based on environmental conditions or time. This approach avoids feedback from the main parameter being controlled, as sensing elements can be quite costly.

Closed Loop Control: Closed loop control^[19] advances beyond open loop control by incorporating a device to sense the primary parameter being controlled. The sensor may detect the derivative of the parameter and then integrate it, or it may sense the integral of the controlled parameter and subsequently take the derivative. The control system then compares the level of the parameter being controlled to a reference level and calculates an “error.” This error is utilized by a controller to send a signal to the actuator that drives the main “plant.” The control laws can range from simple to complex, depending on the required accuracy.

Passive Control: The highest form of control is passive control^[20] ^[21]. Ideally, the system should operate and control using a single physical phenomenon. The element that senses and governs operates around a critical point where small changes in input result in significant changes in output, or large changes in environmental conditions lead to minimal changes in the controlled parameter.

Example—Hot Air Temperature in a Room

If the temperature of a room becomes excessively hot, it can have harmful effects on the occupants.

Step 1: Is the opposite function or a useful variant of the harmful function achieved by making the modification accurately?

Bringing the temperature within acceptable limits returns the normally beneficial function of warming to being useful once more.

Step 2: Consider Open-Loop Control. Make the tool or product adjustable if it is not already. Consider making the control continuously adjustable. Add an actuator to the tool or product. Include a controller that changes the level of actuation based on operating conditions, rather than merely feeding back the main parameter being controlled.

An open-loop control system activates a heating or cooling mechanism at regular time intervals. In this case, the “actuator” is a cooler that can be turned on and off. The controller turns the cooler on in the morning and off at night.

Step 3: Use of Closed Loop Control: Does the modification need to be even more precise? Add a sensor to detect the main parameter being controlled. Compare this to a reference level for the parameter. The overall system resembles the figure below. If necessary, increase the number of parameters being sensed. Consider increasing the order of the variable sensed (first derivative, second derivative…).

In most homes, the cooling and heating needs to be quite accurate. A temperature sensor is added. The room temperature is fed back and compared to a reference temperature.

Step 4: Use of Passive Control

Identify a physical phenomenon that senses the parameter being controlled and automatically prompts the system to adjust that parameter. Determine the critical point around which the system will regulate the primary parameter to the desired level, then adjust the critical point to the target control point.

Many substances undergo phase transitions at specific temperatures. These phase change materials can have significant capacities to store and release energy. Such materials have been incorporated into building elements that have critical points aligning with temperatures comfortable for human occupancy.

Example—Corrosion-Resistant Container

If the action of corrosion poses a risk because it exceeds acceptable limits, we could render it useful by managing it within those limits.

Step 1: Is the anti-function or a beneficial variant of the harmful function achieved by implementing the modification accurately?

This approach does not seem to apply because there is no evidence of corrosion on the pan that is beneficial.

Step 2: Consider Open-Loop Control. Make the tool or product adjustable if it is not already. Consider making the control continuously adjustable. Add an actuator to the tool or product. Incorporate a controller that alters the level of actuation based on operating conditions, rather than simply feeding back the main parameter being controlled.

This is not relevant.

Step 3: Use of Closed Loop Control: Does the modification need to be even more precise? Add a sensor to monitor the main parameter being controlled. Compare this with a reference level that serves as the target for the controlled parameter. The entire system is illustrated in the figure below. If necessary, increase the number of parameters being monitored. Consider enhancing the order of the variable being sensed (first derivative, second derivative…).

This approach does not appear to be applicable.

Example—Pile Driving

If the action of pushing on the pile was detrimental because it exceeded the limits, we could make it beneficial by ensuring it remains within bounds.

Step 1: Is the anti-function or a beneficial variant of the harmful function achieved by performing the modification very precisely?

This approach does not seem to apply to this problem because there is no range of pushing back on the pile that is advantageous.

Step 2: Consider Open-Loop Control. Make the tool or product adjustable if it is not already. Consider making the control continuously adjustable. Add an actuator to the tool or product. Add a controller that changes the level of actuation based on operating conditions other than feeding back the primary parameter that is being controlled.

This does not apply.

Step 3: Use of Closed Loop Control: Does the modification need to be even more precise? Add a sensor to detect the main parameter that is being controlled. Compare this to a reference level of the parameter being controlled. The entire system resembles the figure below. If necessary, increase the number of parameters sensed. Consider augmenting the order of the variable sensed (first derivative, second derivative…).

This does not apply.

Method: Harmonize Harmful Stages

Method

Step 1: Break harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Dividing the functions into increasingly finer stages can create more possibilities.

Step 2: Rearrange stages so that unproductive or harmful ones become productive. Look for opportunities where two harmful actions can be combined to yield useful results. Add steps that transform harmful effects into beneficial ones.

Step 3: Consider the alternative route of storing the effects of harmful functions for later use. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

Explanation

This method derives from considerations of harmonizing functions,^[22] whether they are beneficial or harmful. Occasionally, a harmful function can become beneficial^[23] when performed in a different sequence or at another time. It may be essential for a completely different purpose; thus, it is important to expand our thinking in terms of time.

A harmful function can transform into a beneficial one by breaking it down and performing its various parts at times when they are useful. Functions act as shorthand for processes that can always be split into stages. A harmful action or stage can be stored and then utilized when it becomes advantageous. At times, a harmful action can be combined with other harmful actions to create a beneficial action^[24]. If it is not immediately apparent that this new action is beneficial, it may be possible to identify a useful variant of the combined action and enhance that beneficial variant.

Example—Combustion of Cooking Oils

In developing countries like Haiti, deforestation occurs due to the local practice of burning plant materials such as wood. Local individuals scour the area for any burnable wood. Consequently, satellite imagery reveals a clear boundary between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, with half of the island being deforested. One approach to address this issue is to burn non-edible vegetable oils. Certain plants produce substantial amounts of these oils. The challenge arises because the oils must be heated to a high temperature to generate combustion gases. Unfortunately, the temperature required to form these combustion gases is the same temperature that initiates coking. Coking is the chemical reaction that occurs between lighter components, resulting in larger and larger molecules that settle out of the oil as gels and solids. In this situation, these solids may accumulate from the vapors as soot in the transmission pipes. These soot and coking deposits not only need to be removed from the cooking stoves, but they also effectively increase the cost of the oil since they represent oil that is never burned. How can the cleaning and oil loss be prevented?

Vaporizing oil fundamentally differs from vaporizing lighter molecular species like gasoline. In the case of oil, a chemical change must occur through the breaking of molecular bonds. The lighter hydrocarbon species can be vaporized and then transported as vapor and burned. For gasoline, a liquid is transformed into a gas by sufficiently energizing it to become vapor. No chemical change is necessary. Once vaporized, it can be easily transported and burned. The temperature required to vaporize gasoline is not high enough to break chemical bonds. In the case of oil, it is essential to break chemical bonds to create hydrocarbon species that are vaporizable. The issue is that while some molecules are chemically disassociated into lighter vapor molecules, others combine into larger, more solid molecules.

Step 1: Divide harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Breaking the functions into progressively finer stages may create additional possibilities.

The green boxes represent steps that are either useful or, at the very least, not harmful in themselves. Yellow boxes indicate precursors to harmful functions but are not yet harmful.

What we observe is that the energizing of molecules is a double-edged sword. It breaks bonds and forms new ones. In general, we would prefer this process to go in one direction, resulting in smaller and smaller hydrocarbon chains. However, breaking hydrocarbons into smaller molecules is effective only up to a point. Problems arise when single carbon atoms remain attached to the walls of tubes. If the precursors were not allowed to progress, then harmful functions could not occur.

Step 2: Move stages around so that unproductive or harmful stages become productive. Look for opportunities where two harmful actions can be combined to yield useful results. Add steps that transform harmful effects into beneficial effects.

The harmful stage of joining hydrocarbons into longer chains might be useful to combine species during the vapor transfer process, ensuring that carbon does not accumulate on the walls of the tubes. Let’s see what this looks like.

First, we notice that the disassociation and joining of molecules occur just fine as long as this is performed in a manner that leads to equilibrium, where the molecules are of a lighter species that can be vaporized. If the molecules become too small, they should be driven back to the larger equilibrium species. If the molecule is too large, they should be disassociated into smaller species. We know the potential for this exists because disassociation and joining occur simultaneously.

Up to this point, we have utilized this process to drive our thinking and expectations. It all seems reasonable on the surface, but now we must look deeper. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that we start with one species of molecule that we would like to disassociate into lighter molecules that are released as gas. We can characterize this species by its molecular weight. We note that each species will tend to disassociate into lighter species and combine with other molecules to form heavier species. Suppose we heat this single species for 10 minutes and then observe the results.

Upon measuring the new molecular weights, we find that our single species has now transformed into other species that possess both higher and lower molecular weights. Each of the new species has its own tendency to disassociate or combine with the resulting molecules, thereby spreading the distribution to very light and very heavy species over an extended period.

Remember that our hope was to find a way for the combination of molecules to work alongside the disassociation of molecules to reach equilibrium. In the thought experiment, combination and disassociation occur simultaneously; however, they lead to broader species rather than achieving equilibrium.

At this point, we do not know how to achieve the ideal. Mostly, what we have accomplished is to create new insights and a new ideal that we would like to strive towards. In the further steps of our systematic innovation process, we would now be looking at making the chemistry useful rather than harmful. We would be attempting to understand the parameters that we could manipulate or even new objects that we might introduce that would allow this to happen.

Step 3: Consider the alternative route of storing the effects of harmful functions for later use. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

The main harmful effect of the joining of hydrocarbons is coke. The primary harmful effect of dissociation is carbon depositing on the walls of the tubes. How might we store the coke or carbon on the tubes for later use? In both cases, it may be possible to burn the solid hydrocarbons later if they were in a suitable form. For instance, what if the coke or carbon could be formed into small, burnable “sticks”? It is interesting to note that chimney fires are caused by this same problem. Unburned hydrocarbons and carbon deposit in the chimney flue and then ignite at a later date, creating very hot fires. If this could be harnessed as a useful function, then chimney fires could become beneficial.

As a final note to this example, we started by illustrating the idea of harmonizing harmful functions. Had we begun this at the outset, we might be on a completely different path. For instance, we might be considering why vaporization is required in the first place. If heating is accomplished very rapidly, little speciation will occur.

Example—Cohabitation

Many studies have shown that couples who cohabitate experience decreasing satisfaction with their relationship over time. Additionally, some studies indicate increased rates of violence compared to dating and marriage.

There are complex, useful, and harmful mental and physical interactions within both the man and the woman, as well as harmful and useful sexual interactions between them. The beneficial interactions are perceived as less than satisfactory as long as the relationship is not fulfilling for all involved (including potential offspring). Truthfully, this diagram does not enlighten us very much due to the complexity of thoughts and interactions between the parties. The intricate internal functions follow from the social/sexual interactions, which we will concentrate on.

Step 1: Break harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Decomposing functions into increasingly detailed stages may create more opportunities.

We gain additional insight from the process diagram below. The sequence of social and sexual relationships often indicates that sexual relations precede attempts to establish compatibility, exclusivity, commitment, and practical considerations for living together as a family. When sexual relationships occur early, the couple tends to postpone compatibility, exclusivity, and commitment until later. Early sexual activity hinders subsequent steps. Even if marriage eventually occurs, couples who cohabitate report lower satisfaction than married couples who wait until marriage.

Step 2: Move stages around so that unproductive or harmful stages become productive. Look for opportunities where two harmful actions can be combined for useful results. Add steps that transform the harmful effects into beneficial ones.

Reintroducing the beneficial functions that were once held in high regard allows the act of sex to strengthen relationships instead of hindering full compatibility, exclusivity, and commitment from developing.

Step 3: Consider the alternative approach of storing the impacts of harmful actions for use at a later time. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

“Storing up” low satisfaction for later use could be viewed as “learning” something from a negative relationship that can later inform a positive one. Of course, this relies on the affected party being aware of the detrimental effects of cohabitation and what caused them.

Example—Flood Waters

Flood waters wreak havoc on manmade structures and croplands. These same areas are often affected by drought. Let’s examine the damaging effects of the flood waters.

In this case, the river water typically serves the useful function of nourishing crops. The riverbanks guide the river water. When the river carries excess water and overflows its banks, it only partially guides the water. Consequently, the river separates the crops from atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen. The river water also carries silt, which is deposited on the crops and blocks the atmospheric gases. Eventually, the gases cannot nourish the crops, leading to their demise. Additionally, the water washes away the soil that supports the crops, causing them to be uprooted. It’s important to note that all of this starts due to the detrimental action of the stream water flowing into the river water. We will focus on this harmful function.

Step 1: Break harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Dividing the functions into finer and finer stages may create more possibilities.

Step 2: Move stages around so that unproductive or harmful stages become productive. Look for opportunities to combine two harmful actions with useful results. Add steps that transform harmful effects into beneficial effects.

Rearranging the stages does not appear to resolve the problem.

Step 3: Consider the alternative route of storing the effects of harmful functions for later use. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

We can capture the meltwater that covers the fields. We can do this by storing the water for when it is needed.

Example—Acid Container

In this case, we face one main harmful function: the corrosion of the pan caused by the acid.

In preparing to examine this harmful function, the author questioned why the chemical explanation for corrosion had not yet been provided in this book. What was discovered was that the causal analysis stopped short of addressing the chemistry. We will attempt to remedy this situation by delving into the chemistry and explaining what is happening. We will then translate this into stages of a corrosion process.

It should be noted that the author, like many readers, is neither a chemist nor an expert in corrosion. As is often the case, those who seek to solve challenging problems must venture beyond their chosen field and study how things work.

Let’s consider the case of zinc corrosion in hydrochloric acid. This explanation can be extended to encompass the material of the pan or the metal coupons under test.

Zn + 2H⁺ + Cl^— –> Zn⁺⁺ + Cl^— + H₂

Since Cl^— appears on both sides of the equation, we can simplify it:

Zn + 2H⁺ –> Zn⁺⁺ + H₂

Note that an electron balance is maintained on both sides of the equation, so there is no requirement for current flow, as there is in other types of corrosion. The electrons are transferred from the zinc to the hydrogen, and the hydrogen is released as gas. This manifests as gas bubbles on the surface of the zinc.

The chemistry does not clearly indicate the sequence of events. Let’s hypothesize what occurs. As a hydrogen ion approaches the surface of the metal, the positive charge of the ion attracts the loosely held valence electrons in the zinc. The zinc atoms are pulled free from the main body of the metal by the strong attraction of the hydrogen ions (and the polar water molecules). Each zinc atom exchanges two valence electrons with two hydrogen ions. This results in a net neutral charge on the liquid and the metal, causing the zinc ions to enter solution as zinc chloride. The neutral hydrogen atoms then form hydrogen molecules and escape from the solution as gas.

Step 1: Break harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Breaking the functions into finer stages may create more possibilities.

For the purpose of illustration, let’s assume the pan is made from zinc. The zinc pan contains the acid and the coupons. In this case, we want the acid to react with the coupons rather than the pan. We allow the tested coupons to release metal into the solution while the zinc repels the ions due to their negative charge. The acid remains neutral overall as the coupon ions replace the hydrogen ions.

Step 3: Consider the alternative method of storing the effects of harmful functions for later use. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

In step 2, we redirected the harmful function from the pan to the coupons, instead of merely storing the effect. If we were to store the harmful effect, we would be retaining the corrosive impact of the acid. The ions would need to be stored in some manner to be released at a later time. As long as they could be unleashed on the coupons, this could prove beneficial. The acid, in effect, already stores the ions in a concentrated form.

Example—Pile Driving

Let’s revisit the function diagram for the pile driver.

We are considering the detrimental effects of the ground pushing against the pile. Naturally, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The pile also exerts force on the ground to penetrate it. The pile effectively displaces the soil, and the soil pushes back.

Step 1: Break harmful functions into stages using a process map or storyboard. Decomposing the functions into smaller stages may create more options.

An equal and opposite reaction acts on the pile. The pile needs to move past the soil, but for the soil to move, a required force or stress must be exerted. If the pile does not generate this force, then something else must. For the soil to accomplish the task of displacing itself, a tensile force would need to pull the soil away from the pile.

Step 2: Move stages around so that unproductive or harmful stages become productive. Look for opportunities to combine two harmful actions for beneficial results. Add steps that transform the harmful effects into useful effects.

The critical point where everything goes wrong is when the soil becomes compacted. There are various types of stress that can potentially move the soil, including shear and tensile stress. However, the fact that the pile creates compressive stress requires the soil to push back on the pile. Suppose a shear stress (instead of compressive stress) is induced in the soil, but not by the pile. The shear forces act along the face of the pile, causing the soil to move upward and along the surface of the pile. If these forces were created by the pile, the resulting action would drive the pile downward rather than upward. This resembles the motion of a tractor tread that pulls the soil up and away from the pile while simultaneously driving the pile deeper into the soil.

Step 3: Consider the alternative approach of storing the effects of harmful functions for later use. Remember that energy can be temporarily stored in oscillations.

This seems to imply storing the compressive stress on the face of the pile for future use. This relates to some form of stored energy. It appears that if the compressive stress is stored in such a manner that it could be suddenly released with a tremendous amount of energy, then the soil might move more readily.

Another perspective is to store the energy in cyclic form. Since the pile functions as a dynamic spring-mass-damper system, there exists the possibility of storing energy within the spring and the mass of the pile. If the resonant frequency of the pile is reached, then very high forces can be generated.

The Ideal Product (Doesn't Exist)

Explanation of the Ideal Product for Harmful Functions

The Ideal Product Does Not Exist, So It Cannot Be Harmed.
A harmful function exists because the output of the function is negatively affected in some way. If the output does not exist, then it cannot be harmed. There are several reasons why the output may not need to exist.

Method: Product Not Required

Method

Step 1: If the function is an auxiliary function, then the product may not be necessary in the system. Determine why the function is needed. This may require a causal analysis. What problem does the product address?

Step 2: Resolve the issue that necessitated the product so that the product is no longer required.

Explanation

If the product is an unessential part of the super-system or serves a supporting function within the system, it may not be necessary. We must understand the reasons for the product’s presence in the system. What problem does it help to resolve? If a Causal Analysis Diagram is employed, it is possible to trace the chain of reasoning back to the issues that the function aids in addressing. Practically, this can be illustrated on a Causal Analysis Diagram by viewing the existence of a tool or product of a function as an object attribute that contributes to the problem. (Viewing the function in the cause-effect diagram highlights that the existence of the elements of the function are object attributes worth considering.) When we contemplate the absence of elements in the system (in the accompanying box), we initiate an alternative problem pathway that leads us to comprehend why an element was initially necessary in the system. It is often possible to eliminate the need for the troublesome element and frequently other elements by resolving an issue elsewhere within the system.

Example—Acid Bath

In the initial chapters of the book, we addressed the challenge of acid corroding a container intended to hold metal blocks and the acid used to test the metal blocks for their corrosion resistance.

Step 1: If the function is auxiliary, the product might not be essential to the system. Identify why the function is necessary. This might require conducting a causal analysis. What issue does the product resolve?

A causal analysis was performed, revealing that the container was necessary to position the acid against the cubes. This function was essential so that a sufficient volume of acid would contact the cube surface under heated conditions. A considerable amount of corrosion was required for the analysis. The observation technique necessitated a substantial amount of metal and its corresponding corrosion to assess its ability to withstand corrosion. This was crucial because the weighing of the cubes was conducted on a low-resolution weight scale.

Step 2: Resolve the issue that necessitates the product so that it is no longer needed.

Weight scales with higher resolution are readily available, and an alternative procedure can be employed that requires significantly smaller amounts of acid and cube materials. The materials can be more finely divided, reducing the time needed at elevated temperatures. Corrosion occurs in minutes instead of hours, and nearly any low-cost container is suitable for holding the acid and sample materials.

Example—Pile Driving

In this example, we aim to determine why the pile is necessary and then eliminate that reason.

Step 1: If the function is auxiliary, then the product may not be essential in the system. Identify why the function is required. This may require a causal analysis. What problem does the product resolve?

The pile serves a primary function within the system. It controls the positioning of the structure it supports and is necessary for aesthetic reasons, as it allows for a view of the water beneath the structure.

Step 2: Address the issue that made the product necessary so that it is no longer required.

The piles become unnecessary if the structure is constructed on something that is at least as interesting as the piles themselves and has structural integrity. Examples include placing large boulders and building the structure on top of the rocks. In our case, this scenario is not favorable for business, as we generate revenue by installing piles into the ground.

Method: Eliminate the Product

Method

Step 1: Eliminate the product and look for something else in the system that can perform the useful function that the product performed.

Explanation

This approach is very direct. Remove the product and find something else in the system which can perform its useful function. This often leads to the consideration of how the function might be performed by existing elements, thus simplifying the system.

Example—Acid Container

In the initial chapters of the book, we examined the issue of acid corroding a container that was used to hold blocks of metal and the acid utilized to test the metal blocks for their resistance to corrosion.

Step 1: Eliminate the product and search for an alternative in the system that can fulfill the useful function that the product served.

The useful function of the container was to hold the acid against the cubes. This will now be performed by the cube itself, which is designed to contain the acid, rendering the container unnecessary.

Example—Pile Driving

Once again, we are looking for opportunities to eliminate the product.

Step 1: Remove the product and seek an alternative in the system that can fulfill the useful function previously performed by the product.

In this case, we simply remove the pile and assume that we will find something else to replace it. We have already discussed the potential of using rocks if the pile is removed.

Method: Non-Existant Waste Product

Method

Step 1: The product disappears on its own by being combined with another substance that enables it to dissipate.

Step 2: Consider ways in which the product never existed.

—It is no longer manufactured

—Eliminate the source of the product

—Eliminate the pathway of the product

—Absorb the product into another substance. Absorbent materials may include porous materials^[1], fabrics, batting, or gel.

Step 3: The waste product remains or becomes useful and is eliminated because of its usefulness.

Explanation

Harmful actions can occur on products that are not necessary in a system. They may be harmful, expired, or waste products. If the product has outlived its usefulness, is waste, or was never needed, consider eliminating it. This is a specific instance of the previous method of simply removing the product and finding something else in the system that can take over the useful function of the product.

Example—Acid Container

This principle does not apply because the acid is not a waste product.

Example—Pile Driving

This approach does not apply because the pile is not a waste product.

Example—Disposal of Waste Oil

At industrial sites, waste liquid products are often spilled, polluting groundwater. This spillage is caused by corrosion of the vessels, clumsy handling, etc.

Step 1: The product disappears on its own by being combined with something else that allows it to dissipate.

The resulting liquid is waste, awaiting recycling.

Step 2: Think about ways in which the product never existed.

—It is no longer produced

—Eliminate the source of the product

—Eliminate the pathway of the product

—Absorb the product into another substance. Absorbent materials may include porous materials, fabrics, batting, or gel.

Step 3: The waste product either remains or becomes useful and is disposed of due to its usefulness.

In this scenario, the waste oil is immediately burned as a source of energy.

References

[1] Inventive Principle #31—Porous Material: Make an object porous, or use supplementary porous elements (inserts, covers, etc.). If an object is already porous, fill it in advance with some substance. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 289.

[5] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[6] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: An object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be removed. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 287.

[7] Inventive Principle #15—Dynamicity: The characteristics of an object or the outside environment must be altered to provide optimal performance at each stage of an operation. If an object is immobile, make it mobile. Make it interchangeable. Divide an object into elements capable of changing their position relative to each other. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[8] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[9] Inventive Principle #13—Do It in Reverse: Instead of the direct action dictated by a problem, implement an opposite action (i.e., cooling instead of heating). Make the movable part of an object, or the outside environment, stationary and the stationary part movable. Turn an object upside down. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 287.

[10] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: An object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be removed. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 287.

[11] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[12] Inventive Principle #6—Universality: An object can perform several different functions; therefore, other elements can be removed. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 287.

[13] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[14] Inventive Principle #13—Do It in Reverse: Instead of the direct action dictated by a problem, implement an opposite action (i.e., cooling instead of heating). Make the movable part of an object, or the outside environment, stationary and the stationary part movable. Turn an object upside down. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 287.

[15] The idea for this comes from the telescope example shown with this method. The inventor notices a distortion of the glass and then realizes that the distortion can be used to correct the effect of spherical (not parabolic) mirrors. The Innovation Algorithm by G.S. Altshuller, Technical Innovation Center. First Edition 1999. Page 32

[16] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[17] Inventive Principle #15—Dynamicity: The characteristics of an object or the outside environment must be altered to provide optimal performance at each stage of an operation. If an object is immobile, make it mobile. Make it interchangeable. Divide an object into elements capable of changing their position relative to each other. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[18] Inventive Principle #23—Feedback: Introduce feedback. If feedback already exists, change it. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[19] Inventive Principle #23—Feedback: Introduce feedback. If feedback already exists, change it. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[20] Inventive Principle #25—Self-service: An object must service itself and carry out supplementary and repair operations. Make use of waste material and energy. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[21] The use of critical points is an extension of Standard 1-2-5. There are many physical phenomena that exhibit critical points. Operation around these critical points allows for large forces to be created which, in turn, can be used for actuation. STANDARD 1-2-5. If it is necessary to decompose an SFM with a magnetic field, the problem can be solved by using physical effects that are capable of “switching off” the ferromagnetic properties of substances, e.g. by demagnetizing during an impact or by heating above the Curie point. Notes: The magnetic field may appear at the right moment if a system of magnets compensating for the effect of each other’s field is used. When one of the magnets is demagnetized, a magnetic field arises in the system. Example: During welding, it is difficult to insert ferromagnetic powder in the welding zone: an electromagnetic field from the welding current makes the particles move away from the welding zone. It is proposed to heat the powders above the Curie point to make them non-magnetic.

[22] Creativity as an Exact Science—the Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems, G.S. Altshuller, Gordon and Breach, page 226.

[23] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[24] Inventive Principle #22—Convert Harm Into Benefit: Utilize harmful factors – especially environmental ones – to obtain a positive effect. Remove one harmful factor by combining it with another harmful factor. Increase the degree of harmful action to such an extent that it ceases to be harmful. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 288.

[25] Inventive Principle #31—Porous Material: Make an object porous, or use supplementary porous elements (inserts, covers, etc.). If an object is already porous, fill it in advance with some substance. Genrich Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm page 289.

Subscribe to receive updates on new eBooks and exclusive content.

*By subscribing you agree to our Terms & Conditions