You get a bonus - 1 coin for daily activity. Now you have 1 coin

1. ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNIQUE TECHNIQUE TECHNIQUE

Lecture



Since the creation of the first primitive stone tools, the inventive idea has never calmed down. The eminent inventors of the ancient world had an idea of ​​the methods of technical creativity and taught their methods to their students. One of the first known attempts to comprehend the method of invention was made by the famous inventor of antiquity, Archimedes. His treatises "Efodikon" and "Stomachion" are of great methodological value. The last treatise describes how to create new technical objects from standard elements. His toy of 14 ivory plates of various configurations is known; With the help of the transposition of individual elements it was possible to create a set of figures - a helmet, a dagger, a column, a ship, etc.

Other scholars of antiquity thought about the art of solving creative problems, among which the author of the treatise “Art to solve problems” should be measured out Papp of Alexandria.

Lucretius Kar explained the emergence and development of things by combining parts and attaching new elements. In the book "On the Nature of Things," he wrote: "Suppose, for example, that the original bodies will have three or several more parts to conclude the smallest ones. If you then rearrange these parts of the given body, you will discover, having exhausted all combinations of them, that for this body are possible; if you still want to get others, you will have to add other parts. "

Despite the periods of stagnation, the methodology of scientific and technical creativity developed. The sixth book of the Arab scholar Abu Mohammed al-Razi "Kitab ar-raha" sets out the methodology of creative experimentation. The medieval Spanish scholar, Raymond Llull, for solving creative problems, proposed various logical schemes and invented logical machines. In his writings R. Llull outlined the method of solving problems, principles, techniques, operations, materials used, indicated by letters, signs, and their combinations.

In the Middle Ages, various pseudoscience, alchemy, astrology, black and white magic, kabbalistics, symbolic geometry, geomancy, pyromancy, palmistry, hydromancy, necromancy, nigromancy were engaged in the search for secrets of creativity. Each of these "sciences", as a rule, was divided into separate "arts", and the latter had a number of "secrets", or methods. Methods of finding solutions to problems, or "the secrets of art" kept in strict confidence.

Alchemists were wrong in the very formulation of such tasks as the creation of a perpetual motion machine, a panacea, the elixir of life, artificial gold, the “stone of wisdom”. However, they made a considerable contribution to the development of technical creativity techniques, especially in the field of chemistry. They own part of the authorship of a series of inventions and discoveries. In some cases, inventions were a by-product of searches based on a false concept. However, this process was to a certain extent creative, since it required at least the ability to see new things. Thus, in 1674, the alchemist Brand, in an attempt to obtain a liquid from a human hair, opened phosphorus to turn silver into gold.

In most cases, alchemists adhered to a specific method of finding a solution to a problem or they themselves created methodological techniques. T. Paracelsus, for example, believed that new substances can be created using the strategy of transforming natural substances by applying the following methods: a) calcination, roasting, calcining, cementation, reverberation, b) sublimation, c) dissolution, d) decomposition, e) distillations, e) coagulation and h) changes in shape, color, stability These methods were widely used by alchemists-inventors. For example, Roger Bacon reported that by fusing he was able to create a new substance - the "red elixir", which is an alloy of sulfur with cinnabar.

Important in the Middle Ages were the works of inventors and scientists who denied the techniques of alchemy. First of all, the great inventor Leonardo da Vinci should be noted. Analysis of the scientific and technical creativity of Leonardo da Vinci shows that he successfully applied specific methods of invention in the practice of solving technical problems. Leonardo da Vinci attached particular importance to the modeling method. He built models of aircraft, hydraulic structures, boats, whirlpools. Using the method of analogy with wildlife, he designed aircraft in the likeness of birds and bats and expounded the theoretical foundations of the method in his treatise On Flying and Movement in the Air. On the basis of an analogy with other technical devices, he improved the trip meter described by Vitruvius. By analogy with the spiral screw of Archimedes Leonardo da Vinci invented the helicopter. Using the method of duplicating technical elements, he created a two-spinning spinning wheel, by multiplying the elements - a series of organ cannons. Applying the feedback method, Leonardo da Vinci invented a spit for frying meat, the rotation speed of which depended on the intensity of the flame.

A significant contribution to the method of invention was the works of Francis Bacon. The English scientist "believed that the true purpose of science was to serve technical inventions, and regretted that the sciences that prevailed in his time did not at all contribute to the search for practical methods of creating inventions. He considered the method of the mind. Because of his ignorance of the methodology In his opinion, such an invention as printing was not found for a long time. F. Bacon offered induction as a method for solving creative problems.

The French philosopher R. Descartes, who rejected the scholastic method of R. Lull, proposed his rationalistic method, of which he considered induction and deduction to be the main methods. He compared the method with the guiding thread of Ariadne, used by those who want to penetrate the maze. In the book "Discourse on the method" R. Descartes proposed methods of "mental actions". In his opinion, “it’s not enough to have a good mind,” the main thing is “to apply it well”.

In the 17th century, B. Spinoza, in his Treatise on the Improvement of the Mind, called methods intellectual tools. The correct methods, in his opinion, should provide the optimal choice of ideas, contain the rules of knowledge of the unknown and determine the order of cutting off useless opportunities.

Y. Leypold in his work “Theater of Machines” showed that machines can be created by splitting technical objects into their component parts and combining these components.

G. V. Leibniz believed that in thinking "it is best to get accustomed to act methodically and to develop a way of thinking in which their connection is determined by reason, not by chance (that is, by invisible and random impressions)." According to Leibniz, there is nothing more essential than the ability to find a source of inventions - this is more important than the creation of the invention itself. He suggested that it is possible to create a special universal language, such as a systematic creative solution program, including the number of inventive tasks. As a young man, G. V. Leibniz developed his own method of invention (ars inveniendi) and a method of combining (ars combinatoria). He was of the opinion that the method of invention, together with the art of proof, belongs to the field of logic.

The follower of Leibniz Wolf considered the fundamentals of the methodology of invention (Erfindungskunst), its goals, objectives, areas of application, rules and methods. In his opinion, those who have knowledge of the methodology of invention, work in the field of science and technology more successfully. The method of invention X. Wolf understood not as unchanging, permanent, but as a continuously developing knowledge. What once demanded a "divine mind" for finding a solution, at another time, as it masters basic knowledge, can become a "childish game." X. Wolf believed that mastering the methodology of invention is not only in mastering a number of rules. The one who has deeply mastered the technique of inventiveness is able to create new methods on his own, allowing him to solve an inventive problem at a higher level than the old known methods allow. In order to find a new one, it is necessary to master both the technique of invention, and basic knowledge. The solution of the problem can be approached in two ways - through experience and through logical thinking or through both. Of great importance in the invention of X. Wolf attached to finding hidden, previously unnoticed analogies between objects. Failures in finding solutions to the inventive problem X. Wolf explained mainly by methodological errors or errors related to the plan.

One of the fundamental works on the technique of technical creativity is the book of the Czech thinker B. Bolzano "Naukovedenie", the fourth part of which is called "The Art of Invention". On 282 pages, the author outlined the method of invention, consisting of heuristic rules and methods. The term "art of invention" B. Bolzano means! Heuristics - the science of creative thinking. He considered the first general rule to be the definition of a target and the cutting off of unproductive areas of exploration. Next, the main issue of the problem is clarified, known knowledge is analyzed and conclusions from this knowledge are determined. Then test assumptions and hypotheses are put forward, attempts are made to solve the problem by different methods, own and other people's judgments and decisions are critically checked, the most valuable judgments are selected, judgments, decisions and situations are evaluated. The book Bolzano also contains special rules for solving creative problems. B. Bolzano counted among the special rules of invention in finding purposeful tasks, identifying ideas that appeared in the subconscious, evaluating their reality, scope, analogs, as well as logical operations and thinking techniques. He considered various types of reasoning, the most common mistakes and types of intellectual tasks.

In the XVIII century, D. G. Steinbart considered the issues of creating inventions in his writings on practical logic. He believed that each invention is created on the basis of the known, existing by comparing known data, objects, ideas by methods of their separation, unification, combination. The main sources of inventions D. G. Steinbart considered identifying the hidden properties of objects, identifying the causes of changes and the functioning of things, finding the usefulness of objects and phenomena, finding analogies.

The problems of scientific and technical creativity are widely covered in the works of G. Helmholtz. According to his testimony, guesses about solving creative problems come as a result of a comprehensive consideration of it, which allows you to mentally review all its depths and nodes. Without long preliminary work it is mostly impossible.

The English naturalist and materialist of the 18th century, D. Priestley, believed that creative discoveries were sought, how a hunter was looking for prey in the forest, and that chance played a significant role. He recommended a method of carrying out unexpected similar experiments, considering that the most courageous and most original experimenters are those who, giving freedom to their imagination, allow a combination of the most distant from each other ideas. And although many of these ideas will later prove to be fantastic, some can lead to great and major discoveries.

The French psychologist T. Ribot considered imagination to be the main source of inventions. He fundamentally denied the possibility of creating a technique of invention, but pointed out the great importance of methods of unification, separation and analogy, widely used by modern inventors. He wrote that man invents only because he is able to make new combinations of ideas. T. Ribot attached great importance to analogies. His works were used to create a number of practical methods of invention. For example, the method of invention, widely known in the USA, the so-called "synectics", proposed in our time by V. Gordon and improved by his followers, recommends using the empathnas method (according to Ribot — impersonation, animation of a technical object), the method of symbolic analogy, the use of metaphors (according to Ribo - mystic imagination), the method of transfer (according to Ribot - metamorphosis, transfer based on private similarity), methods of unification, dismemberment, etc.

I. Kant attached great importance in technical creativity to imitation. "Imitation is something completely different from monkey-making. Imitation is not so far away from genius as it is commonly thought. There is no spiritual progress, no invention without a person not imitating the previously known new attitude. So Newton, imitating the fall of an apple , and Kepler, who imitated harmonious relations, deserved the name of sky-makers.Imitating examples also serves as a guideline for geniuses, but not only that in these examples there is a literal and false, not their letter, but their spirit ... There was neither one great invention which could not be considered as a corresponding relation to previous discoveries. "

Well-known chemist V. Ostwald was an ardent supporter of the creation of methods of scientific and technical creativity. According to V. Ostwald, the method of invention can be learned. He expressed the hope that the art of invention will increasingly become common property and eventually become just as necessary and common accessory to the everyday life of the spiritual life, such as food, reading and writing. It is possible to invent, following certain principles. The work of T. A. Edison, in his opinion, is an illustration of this thesis. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century there were great changes in the nature of creativity. If earlier they sent the creative finds, as a hunter for mining, into the forest or in the field, who does not know that he will find and find anything at all, now, according to Ostwald, the hunt is being replaced by a well-designed raid and you need to be an inept hunter to miss the hunted game.

The French mathematician A. Poincare contributed to the development of the methodology of creativity. Creativity, in his opinion, is to create new useful combinations. He argued that fruitless combinations did not even occur to the inventor, that in this respect the inventor can be compared with the second-stage examiner, who asks only candidates admitted to the exams after the first test.

F. Yeats was of the opinion that the successful development of an inventive idea depends on a number of factors. First of all, it is important to identify the possibilities of practical use of the idea, its novelty, and the interest of a sufficient number of people in using the idea. It is advisable to get acquainted with the results of similar completed works and make a decision on the continuation or termination of creative searches in the light of the data obtained. The development of the invention, of course, depends on the ownership of the basics of design, the optimal use of materials, the ability to reduce the idea to the simplest version, taking into account the requirements for reliability and durability of the object. Important factors are also susceptibility and a fairly wide range of innovators of technology, tireless experimentation and attitude to the creation of each separate part of the object as. to the independent inventive problem.

The basics of the methodology of invention in our time trying to comprehend many well-known foreign patent specialists. In the USA, K. D. Tusk puts forward some practical methods for solving inventive problems: the method of consciously using accidents, the method of using collateral search results, and the method of identifying social need.

Another American patent researcher, G. A. Tulmin, considers traditional logical methods to be the main methods of invention: resizing, transformation, changing proportions, changing the degree of impact, transposing parts of an object, duplicating, integrating, isolating, changing the way operations are performed and automating the actions of an object.

A.F. Osborne developed a method of group generation of new ideas called brainstorming. In this method, along with elements of traditional methods of invention (substitution, transfer, association, separation, inversion, etc.) "other techniques that stimulate the imagination are used: a system of tight deadlines, a discussion of problems in a free environment without criticism, the creation of a competition environment, nomination of comic sentences.

A typical representative of the so-called heuristic direction abroad is an American scientist D. Poya, who understands heuristics as the "art of invention" (ars inveniendi). However, he is of the opinion that the development of trouble-free rules applicable to all possible tasks is an impossible task. Эвристика может стремиться изучить типичные приемы и процессы - умственные операции, ходы, шаги, полезные при решении задач. Такие приемы могут подсказываться определенными стереотипными советами и вопросами,, которые новаторы задают сами себе, а хорошие учителя - своим ученикам. Совокупность таких советов и вопросов, в достаточной мере обобщенных, является искусством применения этой методики в конкретных условиях.

Оригинальные взгляды на методику технического творчества высказывает Д. С. Пирсон. Помимо традиционного для американских методологов и подробного списка контрольных вопросов, при решении творческих инженерных задач он обращает особое внимание на преодоление барьеров, тормозящих творческое мышление, в числе которых он называет барьеры восприятия, барьеры культуры, барьеры среды и эмоциональные барьеры. Д. Пирсон вывел так называемое уравнение творчества и привел конкретные примеры того, как с помощью этого уравнения решаются различные творческие инженерные задачи.

Зарубежным специалистам принадлежит ряд разработок конкретных методик решения изобретательских задач, которые претендуют на универсальность применения. Наиболее известны из них следующие:

  • морфологический подход к решению творческих задач Ф. Цвики (методы морфологического ящика, систематического перекрытия поля поисков, сличения совершенного с дефектным, отрицания и конструирования, экстремальных показателей и генерализации);
  • систематический подход И. Мюллера, основанный на эвристическом алгоритме решения изобретательских задач;
  • методика "мозговой атаки" А. Ф. Осборна (и ее разновидности);
  • методика синектики В. Дж. Гордона, усовершенствованная Дж. М. Принсом и другими;
  • методика Д. С. Пирсона, основанная на его уравнении творчества;
  • методика фокальных объектов Ч. С. Вайтинга;
  • методика инженерного проектирования систем (Дж. Р. Диксон, Г. X. Гуд и Э. Макол);
  • методика комплексного решения технических проблем С. Вита;
  • методика творческого инженерного конструирования Г. Р. Буля.

В последнее время значительно расширились исследования в области методики технического творчества и практического применения их результатов в Чехословакии. Наиболее интересными исследованиями чехословацких специалистов в этой области являются труды М. Виммера, К. Бачковского и С. Вита. Методическое направление, представленное упомянутыми специалистами, преследует главным образом разработку системы рационального использования операций формальной логики: анализа, синтеза, индукции, дедукции и т. д.

Так, М. Виммер не считает создание изобретения самоцелью, а предлагает попытаться сперва решить техническую задачу простыми средствами - применением известного объекта или способа для других целей, приспособлением к новым условиям. Кроме того, он рекомендует решать технические задачи методом изменения и трансформации известного решения (путем соединения, агрегатирования, мультипликации элементов, разъединения, замены частей или материалов их эквивалентами, кинематического реверсирования) и методом решения изобретательских задач на основе нового принципа.

Основными методами технического творчества К. Бачковский считает: применение известного решения для других целей, перенос процесса или устройства в другую область, агрегатирование, комбинирование, приспособление известного решения к новым условиям путем изменения вида, формы, материала, конструктивных элементов, функций и т. д.

С. Вит предлагает методику комплексного решения технических проблем. Процесс решения автор разделяет на следующие этапы: постановка проблемы, поиск метода решения, поиск средств для достижения цели и выбор оптимального решения.

Методика изобретательства изучается и в Польской Народной Республике. Ряд проблем технического творчества обсуждают в своих трудах польские ученые Я. Лахович, С. Бляховский, 3. Петрасинский, Т. Новацкий и А. Матейко. Интерес представляют работы Е. Талейко, в которых он рассматривает объективные возможности обучения техническому творчеству, приводит результаты исследования мотивов технического творчества, обсуждает алгоритмы и эвристики творчества и личность изобретателя. Е. Талейко рассматривает целый комплекс вопросов: творчество и его виды, типологию творческого мышления, методы изобретательства, личность творца, влияние возраста и внешних факторов на творческую личность и результаты его труда, социальные вопросы творчества. Он доказывает возможность культивирования творческих способностей, воспитания интересов и применения эвристических методов творчества.

Серьезные исследования в области методики технического творчества появились в последнее время в Германской Демократической Республике. Среди них особый интерес представляют труды по системной эвристике И. Мюллера, разработавшего алгоритмическую методику | изобретательства, исследования по интеррогативной логике Ф. Лезера, а также публикации В. Гильде и К. Бруне.

Значительный вклад в развитие методики технического творчества внесли ученые нашей страны. Еще в царской России латышский ученый академик В. И. Вальден указывал, что техническое творчество должно стать существенной частью государственного хозяйства и не может носить случайного или чрезвычайного характера. Для коренного улучшения положения он предлагал конкретные мероприятия, утверждая, что "ближайшими задачами государства и общественных организаций являются: 1) пробуждение воли к творчеству, 2) обучение творчеству, 3) объединение творческих сил и 4) направление творческой работы в сторону наибольшего экономического эффекта".

Теорию технического творчества, называемую техно-эврилогией, пытался создать патентовед П. К. Энгельмейер. По его инициативе в 20-х годах в нашей стране был основан Эврилогический институт, в котором, правда, изучалось в основном литературное и художественное творчество.

Развитием исследований творчества активно интересовался академик В. М. Бехтерев, предложивший устроить "Пантеон мозга" - гигантский институт, в котором изучались бы особенности творчества великих людей, черты их психологии, анатомия и образ творческого мышления. Творчество, по мнению В. М. Бехтерева, является цепью сочетательных или высших рефлексов, сцепленных друг за другом для достижения определенной цели, а цель, в свою очередь, всегда дана либо в прошлом аналогичном опыте, либо в опыте других. Разложение сложного объекта как раздражителя, избирательное обобщение и планомерная комбинация являются главными приемами творчества. В. М. Бехтерев считал, что творчеству можно и нужно учить и к нему следует подготавливать.

Попытку создать всеобщую организационную науку - тектологию, сделал А. А. Богданов. Он придерживался мнения, что любую познавательную и практическую задачу можно поставить в универсальной обобщенной форме и решать всеобщим методом. Задачи техники, по его мнению, должны рассматриваться как организационные, решаемые путем применения ряда универсальных организационных принципов (формирующий принцип ингрессии, осуществляемый методом конъюгации, принцип цепной связи, осуществляемый методом посредствующих комплексов и методом дезынгрессии, регулирующий принцип широкого подбора, осуществляемый методами консервативного подбора, подвижного равновесия и прогрессивного подбора). Универсальный подход к решению любых задач оказался необоснованным, однако в трудах А. А. Богданова можно найти рациональное зерно, если рассматривать предложенные им принципы и методы как элементы тактики решения частных задач.

Большое значение для методологии изобретательства имеют исследования советского ученого С. М. Василейского, предлагающего психологически обоснованные методы решения изобретательских задач. Он писал: "Мы считаем, что если методы понимать в смысле схематических рецептов, то возлагать на них больших надежд не приходится; если же понимать их как конкретные выражения действительности мышления и притом в их живом взаимодействии и связи, а также с учетом прежнего творческого опыта, то их роль довольно значительна, как в деле осмысливания психологической сущности изобретательской работы, так и в смысле практического применения их (новаторами техники) в своей творческой деятельности". В основе методов технического изобретательства лежат те же важнейшие умственные операции, которые свойственны мышлению: анализ, синтез, аналогия и т. д. Однако, по мнению С. М. Василейского, в техническом изобретательстве они проявляются в усложненных, качественно своеобразных формах. В одних случаях с большей силой выражена тенденция к объединению, синтезу, интеграции, в других - к расчленению, анализу, дифференциации, в третьих упор делается на аналогию, в четвертых ценные результаты получаются на основе противопоставления, редукции, гиперболизации. Изобретательская задача указывает, что надо изобрести, а метод - как это изобрести, создать, сконструировать. Предрасполагающими психологическими тенденциями к применению эвристических методов является ассоциация, сжатие поля ассоциации, напряженное внимание, создание новых временных связей, неудовлетворенность качеством вещи и т. д.

Изучая методы С. М. Василейского, В. Н. Пушкин констатировал, что некоторые из них имеют общие черты с эвристическими методами Д. Пойа. В. Н. Пушкин, рассматривая проблемы эвристического программирования, приходит к выводу, что не все реальные задачи решаются по принципам поведенческой психологии "стимул - реакция", "проба - ошибка" и не согласуются с представлением о процессе решения задач как о прохождении I лабиринта. Для построения теории эвристической деятельности важное значение имеет понятие информационной мозговой модели деятельности, в соответствии с которой в мозгу человека возникает модель проблемной I ситуации, состоящая из элементов условий задач. В результате экспериментального анализа В. Н. Пушкин пришел к выводу, что процесс решения задачи вслед за анализом проблемной ситуации проходит этап организации элементов задачи в единое целое. На этой основе формируется план решения задачи.

They are considered by the KK Tikhomirov, which are fundamentally different. It was a number of functional mechanisms, including computer science, computer science, and computer science.

A series of studies by Ya. A. Ponomarev is devoted to the study of creative thinking through the experimental analysis of psychological mechanisms for solving creative problems. According to Ya. A. Ponomarev, when the inventor does not have enough knowledge for the necessary transformation of a problem situation in a logical way, intuition helps him. The birth of intuitive knowledge can help hint. The basis of the hypothesis explaining the mechanism of such a phenomenon, Ya. A. Ponomarev laid the fact of the heterogeneity of the result of an action in a situation of clue - the presence in nm of direct (conscious) and incidental (unconscious) products. Under certain conditions (when the task precedes the hint, and then follows it again), the possibility arises of recognizing this part of the result of the action, of turning the by-product into a direct one, the end is solved.

An attempt to investigate the mechanisms of the creative process was undertaken by I. M. Rozet. Based on the experiments, he came to the conclusion that creative imagination has a significant pattern - anaxiomatization - discarding minor details, certain elements, neglecting some of the conditions of the problem, depreciating some relationships. I.M. Rozet connects anaxiomatization with abstraction, detachment from the usual ideas, which is especially important in inventive creativity. In his opinion, in heuristic processes, along with anaxiomatization, there is a special psychological mechanism - hyperaxiomatization - an increased appreciation of the successful, from the point of view of the subject, find, which relatively devalues ​​other ways of performing the task. Hyperaxiomatization determines the application of the method of a reduced number of variants.

Yu. N. Kulyutkin believes that the actual subject matter of heuristics is the identification and development of meta-methods - the methods by which a person discovers new ways to solve problems, builds non-stereotype plans and programs that allow finding meaningful ways to solve problems. Real strategies for solving problems, according to Yu. N. Kulyutkin, are neither purely standardized nor purely heuristic. Certain structures of searches and solutions, described in the form of logical circuits and sequences of operations, arise, crystallize as the result of the work of a complex system. Such heuristics, such as temporary simplification of situations, analysis of the general situation on selected examples, consideration of "extreme cases", reformulation of requirements, solution from end to beginning, blocking components in the analyzed system, using analogies, are aimed at finding a specific solution, generating ideas. When the idea is built, the removed restrictions are restored again.

A. V. Brushlinsky studied the processes of thinking and solving problems. He argues that thinking transforms a problem situation into a human-conscious task. The emergence of the task means that we managed to at least preliminarily dismember the known and the unknown. The initial formulation of the problem to some extent determines the desired. The sought is always somehow connected with the known. The search for the search is carried out by. studying the relationships and relations between the known and the unknown, analyzing and discovering new, previously unnoticed links and relationships. An inventor who is intensely thinking over a task can be helped by a happy occasion. A clue may be an auxiliary, less difficult task.

Leningrad scientist V.I. Kovalev explores the dialectic of creative searches, the role of the guesswork of imagination and experience in technical creativity. He recommends the following methods of invention: labor, or practical, analytical, method of selection, guessing, or trial and error method (Edison method), methods of intuition, decomposition of processes in time or space (method of separation and combination of functions), turning harmful phenomena into useful , replacement of unchangeable hard links with flexible ones, circulation, use of new forces, new parts and materials, detection or imparting to the parts new properties and functions (method) of replacing some properties with others and combining.

Of interest is the set of methods of invention used by V. A. Shubin in teaching the techniques of technical creativity at the Leningrad National University of Technical Creativity. He divides all methods of invention into the following groups: methods of formal assumption, methods of a constructive-technological hint, methods of internal transformation of an object, methods of technological hints, methods of energy and circuit transformations.

V. A. Molyako investigated the role of analogies in design ideas. He subdivides the methods and techniques for solving design problems into three groups: a) comparisons by similarity and difference, b) transfer of components, parts, functional properties and principles of one structure to another, c) recombination of parts and parts, reconstruction of structures, etc. in order to achieve certain functional properties of a technical object.

V.G. Razumovsky proposes to teach young innovators in techniques of agglutination, increase or decrease, dismemberment, unification, substitution, analogy and reduction of the complex to the simple.

V. V. Ivanov developed a technique for solving inventive and rationalization tasks, including the following methods of technical creativity: turning a harmful phenomenon or process into useful ones, changing the number of operations, work items and functions, idealization, inversion, functional analogy, decomposing a function into elementary ones, combining functions , distribution of functions, bringing to unity of functions and structures, changing the state, form, position of a technical object in space, changing the external environment, transfer are known decisions in another area and the method of use of new scientific discoveries.

G.S. Altshuller considers the main methods of solving inventive problems to increase or decrease, changing the conditions of the object, separation, combination, compensation, “vice versa”, dynamization, etc. He proposed several options for solving the inventive problems, which he calls the invention algorithm. However, the fundamentals of the methodology proposed by him were seriously criticized in our country and abroad (3. Petrasinsky, V.I. Belozertsev, V.E. Tsaregorodtsev, L.Teplov, V.I. Orlov, etc.).

I. Ya. Konfederatov advances the following methods of engineering creativity: precedent, options, forecasting, first approximation, scale, end conditions, equivalence, empirical, graphic-analytical, formalization, localization of the bottleneck, normalization, comparison of significance, causality, (.technology, old trace , heuristic revolution, "medium", indirect signs, hypotheses, analogies and adequate design. In the development of technological machines I. Ya. Konfederatov sees three main directions that Temporarily characterize the methods of invention: a) turning a handgun into a machine without changing the name and function by changing the energy source (hand hammer - a mechanical hammer), b) turning a handgun into a working body of the machine (saw - sawmill frame, cutter - turning machine), c) replacing human fingers with machine parts (knitting and spinning machines) 'and freeing hands from strength work.

V.I. Belozertsev believes that the main ways to solve technical problems are as follows:

  • utilization of natural materials, their properties and natural processes;
  • use of synthetic construction materials and synthetic materials with a complex of properties:
  • an increase in the volume and role of technical means of communication, control, regulation and control in the engineering system;
  • differentiation of constructive forms;
  • specialization of functions and forms of technical objects;
  • technology integration;
  • intensification of technological processes;
  • simplification of the functions and forms of technical objects;
  • technologization;
  • expanding the use of machine-free machinery;
  • intensification of the transformation of nature with the ever increasing independence of technology from nature.

The technique of directed thinking in technical! creative work offered N.I. Sereda. The essence of this technique lies in the thesis about the absence of special operations to create inventions. Human thinking is always creative. To create inventions, it is necessary to master, first of all, the operations of thinking: analogy, analysis, synthesis, etc. The author of the methodology is of the opinion that recommendations and advice for inventors should be very general.

Under the leadership of V. V. Chavchanidze, a technique was developed for inducing psycho-heuristic activity carried out by conducting psycho-heuristic | an experiment in which the presenter, the subject, and the digital computer are involved. This interrogative method is promising for solving complex technical problems. For wide circles of invention, a simplified version of it using simple technical means and a questionnaire is of certain interest.

There are more than twenty thousand publications related to the issues of technical creativity. About thirty original methods and more than three hundred methods for solving inventive problems have been proposed. In this brochure, only a few developments are noted that can introduce the reader to the problems of the methodology of invention.


Comments


To leave a comment
If you have any suggestion, idea, thanks or comment, feel free to write. We really value feedback and are glad to hear your opinion.
To reply

Creative methods

Terms: Creative methods