February 4, 2015 at 11:40From the idea of alternative 3D printing to the theory of formulation of inventive problems
This article will focus on one idea that accidentally visited me, which seemed very interesting and promising. In addition to this, an attempt to analyze the path and circumstances of the emergence of this idea led to very valuable practical conclusions regarding the theory of invention. For this reason, I decided to describe everything in the first person in chronological order.
3D printing technology has a lot of undeniable advantages, thanks to which it is becoming more and more popular. However, the expectations of people who did not actually encounter it are often inadequately overestimated. In many respects, this is a consequence of unscrupulous popularizers-journalists who, in the pursuit of ratings, strive to make a sensation out of everything.
So, one of my acquaintances, knowing that I have some experience communicating with 3d printers, decided to share with me their enthusiasm for this technology and its fantastic prospects. Naturally, he didn’t come across it himself, but he saw on TV a broadcast saying that a new era was approaching, mass production was dying, tomorrow there would be no need to drag anything from China, instead we would print everything personalized and custom at home ... I have heard this “mantra” many times, but since I began to deal with 3D printers regularly, it has not caused me anything but skepticism. And arguments like the technology is still very young, in the future everything will be much faster and cheaper, they did not convince me at all. And at that moment I began to voice my arguments: “Yes, never 3D printing at cost will not even come close to mass production! Do you even imagine the energy and hardware time needed to grow a piece that is stamped in a second in layers? .. ”With these words I stopped short ...
Here I will have to talk a little about the nature of my activity: for about 10 years I have been developing mechanical puzzles and their use in pedagogy. Among other things, mechanical puzzles have one curious property - the construction of a good mechanical puzzle is extremely simple, and the goal looks absolutely unattainable, and it’s enough to simply build a logically clear argument why the solution cannot be reached.
And while a person thinks within the framework of this argumentation, a solution is really impossible. But it is achieved when a person discovers that all this argumentation describes only the framework of the stereotype, and the action leading to the decision goes beyond this framework. In other words, no matter how obvious that there is no way out, it can be found and can turn out to be extremely simple and beautiful.
So, having caught myself on a categorical skeptical statement, I began to comprehend the boundaries of this stereotype - the trap into which my thinking fell. I was sure that 3D printing would not be able to compete with mass production due to layering, the result of which is the duration, laboriousness and high cost of the process. Based on my life experience, I thought layering was an integral part of 3D printing. Is it really inherent ?! Already after I studied a considerable amount of information in search of an answer to this question. The most complete lists of technologies I have met on Russian and English Wikipedia , as well as on Geektimesbut I couldn’t find any traces of layerless printing. Does this mean that the creation of such a method is in principle impossible? Should we take layering as the dogma of 3D printing? Or maybe there are other indisputable arguments proving that there can be no alternative to a layered option under any circumstances?
In fact, I would like to pose the question much more broadly: is there reliable verifiable skepticism, that is, such logical constructions on the basis of which it can be unmistakably asserted that any creative task definitely has no solution? What can be the basis for the belief that our argument describes reality and not a stereotype? How can one prove that under no circumstances can an idea be found that is a solution to a creative problem, a project or an inventive task?
The history of invention is full of examples of absurd skepticism of eminent experts. For example, Kelvin, I think, not without reason, argued that aircraft heavier than air are impossible, Edison considered alternating current an invention, not worthy of attention ... The list of such examples can be continued for a long time. On the other hand, in my opinion, there can be no evidence that the idea of solving a problem must certainly exist. Although what can be said about the ideas that exist in potency? Perhaps only that there is always room for their search. Thus, there are no untenable ideas and projects - there are underdeveloped ideas.
So, if we have no reason to “believe” skepticism, even if it is backed up by authority and iron arguments, then we can easily come to the conclusion that from a creative point of view the role of skepticism is extremely destructive. This follows from the fact that skepticism creates false illusory barriers in the mind that limit our creativity, presenting the possible unattainable. This is the opinion I held for a long time.
In fact, as the described case shows, if skepticism is subjected to the appropriate analysis, then something very valuable can be extracted from it, to contribute to the theory of formulation of inventive problems. In fact, any existing problem is a chance for the inventor, but this is not yet an inventive task, but something like “go there without knowing where ...” But thanks to skepticism, we can exclude those areas “where you should not go.” Thus, skepticism is the inside of a creative idea, it outlines its contours, just as a sculptor, when working with a stone, removes all unnecessary. But in order for skepticism to become productive, one must “learn to cook it,” since more often it is perceived as a pure, complete negation, which does not imply any further action. And this is compounded by our cultural characteristics:
Now let's get back to our inventive task. An analysis of my skeptical statement tells us that the solution is probably in the field of layered 3D printing technology. My options for solving this problem are hidden under the spoiler, but I want to focus your attention on the fact that you do not focus on them as ready-made solutions - they are unlikely to withstand serious criticism. Perhaps they should not be mentioned at all in this article, so as not to limit the freedom of creative imagination. As a puzzler, I would like to wish readers not to rush to peep at my solution, but rather try to find their answer. Who knows, maybe you will become the author of breakthrough technology in this industry.
Option number 1. Mix some curable plastic mass with particles whose behavior can be controlled by a magnetic field. Thus, changing the magnetic field, we could change the shape of the mass. This process is obviously not simple, and it’s unlikely that it will be possible to calculate the field configuration in advance even to obtain a simple form like a cube. However, this can be solved by a significant number of field sources and the introduction of feedback - 3D scanning, which would allow real-time comparison of the actual mass geometry with a virtual model and iteratively introduce corrections. When compliance reaches the specified tolerances, the curing process starts. At the same time, the values of the parameters that make it possible to obtain a model can be saved and subsequently used in serial production of similar products.
Option number 2 . The working chamber of the printer is as follows: the inner surface of the cube, each of the six faces of which is formed by the ends of a plurality of square rods. When loading the model, the rods from all six sides extend to different lengths and leave a void in the form of a future part. Further, for example, plastic is cured into the formed cavity, it cures, the walls slide apart, the part is ready. In essence, this is a digitally created injection mold in which the use of a loaded part profile can be reusable.
With this picture I tried to depict a schematic diagram of how the form is formed due to square rods.
In some ways, the process of creating a shape resembles a pin wall.
Of course, there are limitations in this concept, for example, you cannot print a jug with a narrow neck in one go, just in parts. But even the most popular FDM technology today has serious restrictions on the printing of “hanging” elements, which are far from always solved by support.
Those who want to get acquainted with other sketches of solutions to this problem, I invite you to watch a video where this idea is discussed in the inventors club: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0ziUQOYHk
I want to remind you that the proposed options are not ready-made solutions, much more valuable I see the very formulation of the inventive problem, for the solution of which you can use, for example, TRIZ.
Summarizing all of the above, I want to note the importance of developing a field of knowledge related to the formulation of inventive tasks. The formalization of the creative process, the creation of technology from it, is, in a sense, an analogue to the search for a philosopher's stone, which will allow the transmutation of trivial conclusions to gold bars of brilliant masterpieces of technology and art. The discovery of an algorithm of creativity, not a simulation of creativity, namely the root of absolute creativity, can mean unlimited technological and cultural growth. Is it possible? - an open question, but I foresee a wave of skepticism that would be nice to handle ...
In reality, mankind already has some successes in the field of solving inventive problems (TRIZ), but so far there is no algorithm for generating such problems. And just recognizing this gap is the first step to filling it.
As for the layered 3D printing, it would be interesting to independently engage in the development of this idea, however, the abundance of other ideas and projects, as well as the lack of qualifications in the field of robotics, make me abandon this. Since I am not a patent troll, I give the idea to the world, and I will be glad if it benefits anyone.
If there is interest in my main activity (creating puzzles), I’m ready to write several articles about mechanical puzzles and the international community of puzzles.
3D printing technology has a lot of undeniable advantages, thanks to which it is becoming more and more popular. However, the expectations of people who did not actually encounter it are often inadequately overestimated. In many respects, this is a consequence of unscrupulous popularizers-journalists who, in the pursuit of ratings, strive to make a sensation out of everything.
So, one of my acquaintances, knowing that I have some experience communicating with 3d printers, decided to share with me their enthusiasm for this technology and its fantastic prospects. Naturally, he didn’t come across it himself, but he saw on TV a broadcast saying that a new era was approaching, mass production was dying, tomorrow there would be no need to drag anything from China, instead we would print everything personalized and custom at home ... I have heard this “mantra” many times, but since I began to deal with 3D printers regularly, it has not caused me anything but skepticism. And arguments like the technology is still very young, in the future everything will be much faster and cheaper, they did not convince me at all. And at that moment I began to voice my arguments: “Yes, never 3D printing at cost will not even come close to mass production! Do you even imagine the energy and hardware time needed to grow a piece that is stamped in a second in layers? .. ”With these words I stopped short ...
Here I will have to talk a little about the nature of my activity: for about 10 years I have been developing mechanical puzzles and their use in pedagogy. Among other things, mechanical puzzles have one curious property - the construction of a good mechanical puzzle is extremely simple, and the goal looks absolutely unattainable, and it’s enough to simply build a logically clear argument why the solution cannot be reached.
And while a person thinks within the framework of this argumentation, a solution is really impossible. But it is achieved when a person discovers that all this argumentation describes only the framework of the stereotype, and the action leading to the decision goes beyond this framework. In other words, no matter how obvious that there is no way out, it can be found and can turn out to be extremely simple and beautiful.
So, having caught myself on a categorical skeptical statement, I began to comprehend the boundaries of this stereotype - the trap into which my thinking fell. I was sure that 3D printing would not be able to compete with mass production due to layering, the result of which is the duration, laboriousness and high cost of the process. Based on my life experience, I thought layering was an integral part of 3D printing. Is it really inherent ?! Already after I studied a considerable amount of information in search of an answer to this question. The most complete lists of technologies I have met on Russian and English Wikipedia , as well as on Geektimesbut I couldn’t find any traces of layerless printing. Does this mean that the creation of such a method is in principle impossible? Should we take layering as the dogma of 3D printing? Or maybe there are other indisputable arguments proving that there can be no alternative to a layered option under any circumstances?
In fact, I would like to pose the question much more broadly: is there reliable verifiable skepticism, that is, such logical constructions on the basis of which it can be unmistakably asserted that any creative task definitely has no solution? What can be the basis for the belief that our argument describes reality and not a stereotype? How can one prove that under no circumstances can an idea be found that is a solution to a creative problem, a project or an inventive task?
The history of invention is full of examples of absurd skepticism of eminent experts. For example, Kelvin, I think, not without reason, argued that aircraft heavier than air are impossible, Edison considered alternating current an invention, not worthy of attention ... The list of such examples can be continued for a long time. On the other hand, in my opinion, there can be no evidence that the idea of solving a problem must certainly exist. Although what can be said about the ideas that exist in potency? Perhaps only that there is always room for their search. Thus, there are no untenable ideas and projects - there are underdeveloped ideas.
So, if we have no reason to “believe” skepticism, even if it is backed up by authority and iron arguments, then we can easily come to the conclusion that from a creative point of view the role of skepticism is extremely destructive. This follows from the fact that skepticism creates false illusory barriers in the mind that limit our creativity, presenting the possible unattainable. This is the opinion I held for a long time.
In fact, as the described case shows, if skepticism is subjected to the appropriate analysis, then something very valuable can be extracted from it, to contribute to the theory of formulation of inventive problems. In fact, any existing problem is a chance for the inventor, but this is not yet an inventive task, but something like “go there without knowing where ...” But thanks to skepticism, we can exclude those areas “where you should not go.” Thus, skepticism is the inside of a creative idea, it outlines its contours, just as a sculptor, when working with a stone, removes all unnecessary. But in order for skepticism to become productive, one must “learn to cook it,” since more often it is perceived as a pure, complete negation, which does not imply any further action. And this is compounded by our cultural characteristics:
Now let's get back to our inventive task. An analysis of my skeptical statement tells us that the solution is probably in the field of layered 3D printing technology. My options for solving this problem are hidden under the spoiler, but I want to focus your attention on the fact that you do not focus on them as ready-made solutions - they are unlikely to withstand serious criticism. Perhaps they should not be mentioned at all in this article, so as not to limit the freedom of creative imagination. As a puzzler, I would like to wish readers not to rush to peep at my solution, but rather try to find their answer. Who knows, maybe you will become the author of breakthrough technology in this industry.
Options
Option number 1. Mix some curable plastic mass with particles whose behavior can be controlled by a magnetic field. Thus, changing the magnetic field, we could change the shape of the mass. This process is obviously not simple, and it’s unlikely that it will be possible to calculate the field configuration in advance even to obtain a simple form like a cube. However, this can be solved by a significant number of field sources and the introduction of feedback - 3D scanning, which would allow real-time comparison of the actual mass geometry with a virtual model and iteratively introduce corrections. When compliance reaches the specified tolerances, the curing process starts. At the same time, the values of the parameters that make it possible to obtain a model can be saved and subsequently used in serial production of similar products.
Option number 2 . The working chamber of the printer is as follows: the inner surface of the cube, each of the six faces of which is formed by the ends of a plurality of square rods. When loading the model, the rods from all six sides extend to different lengths and leave a void in the form of a future part. Further, for example, plastic is cured into the formed cavity, it cures, the walls slide apart, the part is ready. In essence, this is a digitally created injection mold in which the use of a loaded part profile can be reusable.
With this picture I tried to depict a schematic diagram of how the form is formed due to square rods.
In some ways, the process of creating a shape resembles a pin wall.
Of course, there are limitations in this concept, for example, you cannot print a jug with a narrow neck in one go, just in parts. But even the most popular FDM technology today has serious restrictions on the printing of “hanging” elements, which are far from always solved by support.
Those who want to get acquainted with other sketches of solutions to this problem, I invite you to watch a video where this idea is discussed in the inventors club: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0ziUQOYHk
I want to remind you that the proposed options are not ready-made solutions, much more valuable I see the very formulation of the inventive problem, for the solution of which you can use, for example, TRIZ.
Summarizing all of the above, I want to note the importance of developing a field of knowledge related to the formulation of inventive tasks. The formalization of the creative process, the creation of technology from it, is, in a sense, an analogue to the search for a philosopher's stone, which will allow the transmutation of trivial conclusions to gold bars of brilliant masterpieces of technology and art. The discovery of an algorithm of creativity, not a simulation of creativity, namely the root of absolute creativity, can mean unlimited technological and cultural growth. Is it possible? - an open question, but I foresee a wave of skepticism that would be nice to handle ...
In reality, mankind already has some successes in the field of solving inventive problems (TRIZ), but so far there is no algorithm for generating such problems. And just recognizing this gap is the first step to filling it.
As for the layered 3D printing, it would be interesting to independently engage in the development of this idea, however, the abundance of other ideas and projects, as well as the lack of qualifications in the field of robotics, make me abandon this. Since I am not a patent troll, I give the idea to the world, and I will be glad if it benefits anyone.
If there is interest in my main activity (creating puzzles), I’m ready to write several articles about mechanical puzzles and the international community of puzzles.