From the idea of alternative 3D printing to the theory of inventive problems
In this article we will discuss one idea that happened to visit me, which seemed very interesting and promising. In addition to this, an attempt to analyze the way and circumstances of the emergence of this idea led to very valuable practical conclusions concerning 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 face it in reality are often inadequately high. In many ways, this is a consequence of unscrupulous popularizers, journalists, who, in pursuit of ratings, tend to make a splash out of everything.
So, one of my friends, knowing that I have some experience with 3d printers, decided to share with me my enthusiasm for this technology and its fantastic prospects. Naturally, he himself didn’t come across it, but he saw a program on TV saying that a new era was coming, mass production was dying, tomorrow it wouldn’t be necessary to drag anything from China, instead we would print everything personalized and customized at home ... I have heard this “mantra” many times already, but since I regularly dealt with 3D printers, it has not caused me anything but skepticism. And arguments like the fact that the technology is still very young, in the future everything will be much faster and cheaper, I was absolutely not convinced. 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 have any idea of the energy and hardware time needed to grow a piece that is stamped in a second in layers? .. ”With these words I stopped…
')
Here I will have to tell a little about the nature of my activity: for about 10 years I have been developing mechanical puzzles and using them 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, while simply building a logical reason why the solution cannot be achieved.
And as long as a person thinks within the framework of this argument, a solution is really impossible. It is achieved when a person discovers that this whole argument describes only the framework of the stereotype, and the action leading to the decision goes beyond that. In other words, no matter how obvious that there is no way out, it can be found and can be extremely simple and beautiful.
So, having caught myself in a categorical skeptic 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 consequence of which is the length, laboriousness and high cost of the process. Based on my life experience, I thought layering is an integral part of 3D printing. Is it really inherent? Already after I had studied a considerable amount of information in search of an answer to this question. The most complete lists of technologies I met on Russian and English Wikipedia , as well as on Geektimes , but I did not manage to find any traces of layerless printing. Does this mean that the creation of such a method is in principle impossible? Should we perceive layering as a dogma of 3D printing? Or maybe there are other indisputable arguments proving that under any circumstances there is no alternative to the layered version?
In fact, I would like to raise the question much wider: is there a validated verifiable skepticism, that is, such logical constructions based on which it can be infallibly asserted that any creative task has no solution exactly? What can be the basis of confidence that our argument describes reality and not stereotype? How can you 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 ridiculous skepticism of outstanding experts. For example, Kelvin, I think, not unreasonably, argued that aircraft are heavier than air impossible, Edison considered alternating current to be 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 proof that the idea of solving a problem must necessarily exist. Although what can be said about the ideas that exist in potency? Perhaps only the fact that there is always room for them to search. Thus, there are no insolvent ideas and projects - there are underdeveloped ideas.
So, if we have no reason to “believe” skepticism, even if it is supported by authority and iron arguments, then we can easily conclude that from a creative point of view, the role of skepticism is extremely destructive. This follows from the fact that skepticism creates in the consciousness of false illusory barriers that limit our creative potential, presenting the possible unattainable. This is the opinion that I held for a long time.
In fact, as the case described shows, if skepticism is subjected to appropriate analysis, then something very valuable can be extracted from it, to contribute to the theory of inventive problem setting. In fact, any existing problem is a chance for the inventor, but this is not an inventive task, but something like “go there, not knowing where ...” But thanks to skepticism, we can eliminate those areas “where you shouldn’t go.” Thus skepticism is the reverse side 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 it is most often perceived as pure complete negation, which does not imply any further action. And this is aggravated by our cultural peculiarities: as soon as you share an idea, for some reason, almost everyone considers it his duty to criticize it and show you that it has no future, instead of trying to see something valuable in it, even if it has flaws.
Now let's go back to our inventive task. An analysis of my skepticism suggests that the solution is probably in the field of layerless 3D printing technology. My solutions to 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 on ready-made solutions - they are unlikely to withstand serious criticism. Perhaps they should not have been 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 peek at my decision, but on the contrary, try to find your own answer. Who knows, maybe you will be the author of breakthrough technology in this industry.
Option number 1 . Mix some settable plastic mass with particles, the behavior of which 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 is unlikely that it will be possible to calculate the field configuration in advance even for obtaining a simple form like a cube. However, this can be solved by a significant number of field sources and the introduction of feedback — a 3D scan, which would allow real-time comparison of the actual mass geometry with the virtual model and iteratively make corrections. When the compliance reaches the established tolerances, the curing process starts. At the same time, the values of the parameters that allow to obtain a model can be saved and later used in the mass 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 set of square rods. When loading a model, rods from all six sides are pushed to different lengths and leave a void in the form of a future part. Next, in the cavity formed, for example, plastic is poured, it is cured, the walls are moved apart, the part is ready. In essence, this is a digitally generated injection molding form 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 at the expense of square rods.
Something the process of creating a form like pin wall.
Of course, there are limitations in this concept, for example, you cannot print a jug with a narrow neck in one go, only parts. But after all, the most popular technology nowadays FDM has serious limitations on the printing of “trailing” elements, which are not 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 that the proposed options are not ready-made solutions, I think that the formulation of an inventive problem is much more valuable, for which you can use, for example, TRIZ.
Summarizing all the above, I would like to note the importance of the development of the field of knowledge associated with the formulation of inventive problems. The formalization of the creative process, the creation of technology from it, is in some sense an analogue of the search for the philosopher's stone, which will allow the transmutation of trivial conclusions into gold bars of ingenious masterpieces of technology and art. The discovery of the algorithm of creativity, not a simulation of creativity, namely the root of absolute creativity, can mean unlimited technological and cultural growth. Is it possible? - the question is open, but I foresee a wave of skepticism, which it would be nice to handle ...
In fact, on this path, humanity already has some successes in the field of solving inventive problems (TRIZ), but so far there is no algorithm for generating such tasks. And only the awareness of this gap is the first step to fill it.
As for the layerless 3D printing, it would be interesting to independently develop this idea, however, the abundance of other ideas and projects, as well as the lack of qualifications in the field of robotics, force me to abandon it. Since I am not a patent troll, I give an idea to the world, and I will be glad if it benefits anyone.
If there is an interest in my main activity (puzzle creation), then I’m ready to write several articles about mechanical puzzles and the international community of puzzle players.
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 face it in reality are often inadequately high. In many ways, this is a consequence of unscrupulous popularizers, journalists, who, in pursuit of ratings, tend to make a splash out of everything.
So, one of my friends, knowing that I have some experience with 3d printers, decided to share with me my enthusiasm for this technology and its fantastic prospects. Naturally, he himself didn’t come across it, but he saw a program on TV saying that a new era was coming, mass production was dying, tomorrow it wouldn’t be necessary to drag anything from China, instead we would print everything personalized and customized at home ... I have heard this “mantra” many times already, but since I regularly dealt with 3D printers, it has not caused me anything but skepticism. And arguments like the fact that the technology is still very young, in the future everything will be much faster and cheaper, I was absolutely not convinced. 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 have any idea of the energy and hardware time needed to grow a piece that is stamped in a second in layers? .. ”With these words I stopped…
')
Here I will have to tell a little about the nature of my activity: for about 10 years I have been developing mechanical puzzles and using them 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, while simply building a logical reason why the solution cannot be achieved.
And as long as a person thinks within the framework of this argument, a solution is really impossible. It is achieved when a person discovers that this whole argument describes only the framework of the stereotype, and the action leading to the decision goes beyond that. In other words, no matter how obvious that there is no way out, it can be found and can be extremely simple and beautiful.
So, having caught myself in a categorical skeptic 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 consequence of which is the length, laboriousness and high cost of the process. Based on my life experience, I thought layering is an integral part of 3D printing. Is it really inherent? Already after I had studied a considerable amount of information in search of an answer to this question. The most complete lists of technologies I met on Russian and English Wikipedia , as well as on Geektimes , but I did not manage to find any traces of layerless printing. Does this mean that the creation of such a method is in principle impossible? Should we perceive layering as a dogma of 3D printing? Or maybe there are other indisputable arguments proving that under any circumstances there is no alternative to the layered version?
In fact, I would like to raise the question much wider: is there a validated verifiable skepticism, that is, such logical constructions based on which it can be infallibly asserted that any creative task has no solution exactly? What can be the basis of confidence that our argument describes reality and not stereotype? How can you 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 ridiculous skepticism of outstanding experts. For example, Kelvin, I think, not unreasonably, argued that aircraft are heavier than air impossible, Edison considered alternating current to be 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 proof that the idea of solving a problem must necessarily exist. Although what can be said about the ideas that exist in potency? Perhaps only the fact that there is always room for them to search. Thus, there are no insolvent ideas and projects - there are underdeveloped ideas.
So, if we have no reason to “believe” skepticism, even if it is supported by authority and iron arguments, then we can easily conclude that from a creative point of view, the role of skepticism is extremely destructive. This follows from the fact that skepticism creates in the consciousness of false illusory barriers that limit our creative potential, presenting the possible unattainable. This is the opinion that I held for a long time.
In fact, as the case described shows, if skepticism is subjected to appropriate analysis, then something very valuable can be extracted from it, to contribute to the theory of inventive problem setting. In fact, any existing problem is a chance for the inventor, but this is not an inventive task, but something like “go there, not knowing where ...” But thanks to skepticism, we can eliminate those areas “where you shouldn’t go.” Thus skepticism is the reverse side 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 it is most often perceived as pure complete negation, which does not imply any further action. And this is aggravated by our cultural peculiarities: as soon as you share an idea, for some reason, almost everyone considers it his duty to criticize it and show you that it has no future, instead of trying to see something valuable in it, even if it has flaws.
Now let's go back to our inventive task. An analysis of my skepticism suggests that the solution is probably in the field of layerless 3D printing technology. My solutions to 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 on ready-made solutions - they are unlikely to withstand serious criticism. Perhaps they should not have been 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 peek at my decision, but on the contrary, try to find your own answer. Who knows, maybe you will be the author of breakthrough technology in this industry.
Options
Option number 1 . Mix some settable plastic mass with particles, the behavior of which 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 is unlikely that it will be possible to calculate the field configuration in advance even for obtaining a simple form like a cube. However, this can be solved by a significant number of field sources and the introduction of feedback — a 3D scan, which would allow real-time comparison of the actual mass geometry with the virtual model and iteratively make corrections. When the compliance reaches the established tolerances, the curing process starts. At the same time, the values of the parameters that allow to obtain a model can be saved and later used in the mass 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 set of square rods. When loading a model, rods from all six sides are pushed to different lengths and leave a void in the form of a future part. Next, in the cavity formed, for example, plastic is poured, it is cured, the walls are moved apart, the part is ready. In essence, this is a digitally generated injection molding form 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 at the expense of square rods.
Something the process of creating a form like pin wall.
Of course, there are limitations in this concept, for example, you cannot print a jug with a narrow neck in one go, only parts. But after all, the most popular technology nowadays FDM has serious limitations on the printing of “trailing” elements, which are not 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 that the proposed options are not ready-made solutions, I think that the formulation of an inventive problem is much more valuable, for which you can use, for example, TRIZ.
Summarizing all the above, I would like to note the importance of the development of the field of knowledge associated with the formulation of inventive problems. The formalization of the creative process, the creation of technology from it, is in some sense an analogue of the search for the philosopher's stone, which will allow the transmutation of trivial conclusions into gold bars of ingenious masterpieces of technology and art. The discovery of the algorithm of creativity, not a simulation of creativity, namely the root of absolute creativity, can mean unlimited technological and cultural growth. Is it possible? - the question is open, but I foresee a wave of skepticism, which it would be nice to handle ...
In fact, on this path, humanity already has some successes in the field of solving inventive problems (TRIZ), but so far there is no algorithm for generating such tasks. And only the awareness of this gap is the first step to fill it.
As for the layerless 3D printing, it would be interesting to independently develop this idea, however, the abundance of other ideas and projects, as well as the lack of qualifications in the field of robotics, force me to abandon it. Since I am not a patent troll, I give an idea to the world, and I will be glad if it benefits anyone.
If there is an interest in my main activity (puzzle creation), then I’m ready to write several articles about mechanical puzzles and the international community of puzzle players.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/376165/
All Articles