A TRIZ Analysis of the Amsterdam Bubble Barrier

For a TRIZ workflow, we proceed as before:

• First, using the method described in Open Source TRIZ, we identify knobs or parameters within the situation

• We see how turning these could lead to identifying a Statement / Cause for a Problem in the form of a Contradiction.

• Re-word the plain English Contradiction into TRIZ Parameters and look it up in the Contradiction Matrix. Obtain the Inventive Principles.

• Apply these Inventive Principles into your Problem and solve it.

  

Here below is a quick Ishikawa Diagram to help us identify the Parameters of this Problem:

Each of the above terms in the Ishikawa can be a knob for us. Turning the knobs/parameters in the Ishikawa Diagram, we try to improve a certain Parameter or we try to reduce its effect. In doing so we could construct several alternative Problem Descriptions. ( Of course not all Parameters may be accessible in a given situation )

• We want to deal with the (hopefully) smaller quantities of plastic closer to source, rather than the much larger quantities as we get nearer and into the high seas.

• Clearly we want the rivers to flow and give us our sense of beauty, serenity and movement, and poetry, but the same flow should not transport plastics downstream.

• We also want the plastic, if we can stop it from floating onward, to be “accessible” and be easily gathered from the stream.

• So a simple dam or weir-like structure, or a net could work, but would possibly ruin our sense of beauty. For example, we could consider stopping the flow of water in places with weirs, but then that could make the location ugly and be a hindrance to recreation and transportation. The presence of plastics in the water could also alter the colour of the water.

• Finally, we are interested in preserving dissolved oxygen in the water. We want to prevent other organic decaying material accumulating around the plastic and increasing the Biological Oxygen Demand Not to mention the smell.

So many problems !!

With all this discussion, we can state at least one of our Problems as an Administrative Contradiction(AC) in plain English:

AC: We wish to pull out plastics from the river without interrupting other human activities (economic / recreational / transportation )

Next, based on this Contradiction and the inspection of the Ishikawa Diagram above, we are now ready to define a TRIZ Ideal Final Result:

IFR:The River must flow. The Plastics must not.

Short and pithy.

We could do alternative Problem Definitions too, depending upon what our focus was. (Our focus here is the river). The way we would look at the Parameters in the Ishikawa Diagram would be different in each case. More on this in just a bit!

Let us take our AC and convert it into a Technical Contradiction(TC), keeping this IFR in mind. We will look at the 48 TRIZ Parameters in the TRIZ Contradiction Matrix and see which Parameter we want to improve, while not worsening another. Here is what we can obtain. We will analyze the Contradiction both ways²:

• TC 1: Increase Volume of Stationary Object(8) and not worsen Harmful effects acting on the system(40)

• TC 2: Improve Harmful effects acting on the system(40) and not worsen Volume of Stationary Object(8)

Here we choose these Parameters based on our IFR, which also reflects that we choose the make the river our focus. We want to increase the volume of the stationary plastic in the river, while not worsening the harmful effects acting on the river. Note how the IFR is included here, in using the word stationary for the object: the plastic must not flow, while the river must.

As stated in my previous articles, there is considerable flexibility and possibility for imaginative interpretations of the AC, using the language of TRIZ, the 48 Parameters in the Contradiction Matrix. Parameters chosen from the TRIZ Matrix can be thought of as metaphors for the knobs that lie within our AC; Going from the AC to the TC is an act of making metaphors. We could easily have chosen the Parameter Amount of Substance (10) i.e. the plastic on the river, as the “metaphoric thing” to improve but the current IFR speaks of the river. Or we could choose Aesthetics and Appearance (39) as our target, leading to different solutions perhaps, but in a focussed manner. TRIZ tends to focus our attention like no other method that I know of.

We could also formulate a Physical Contradiction(PC)³:

PC: The Plastic must be in the River and not in the River at the same time.

which is aimed at the river, as with the IFR. Again, if the IFR is formulated differently we could obtain a very different set of AC and PC.

Solving the Technical Contradiction

Let us take the both the TC-s into the Contradiction Matrix and arrive at the list of TRIZ Inventive Principles. Here is the Matrix solution for TC-1 in the figure below; The square for solutions to TC-1 has been circled in red.

Here is what the Matrix suggests:

For TC-1:

1. 39(Inert Atmosphere)

2. 24(Intermediary)

3. 19(Periodic Action)

4. 27(Cheap Short-Living Objects) (!!)

   and with TC-2:

5. 5(Merging)

6. 17(Another Dimension)

7. 39(Inert Atmosphere)

8. 19(Periodic Action)

This is neat list for us to try to use!! Let us apply some these Inventive Principles! Viewing these Inventive Principles as we Generalized Solutions we try to map these back into the Problem at hand:

• (39)Inert Atmosphere: Hmm…what can be inert in the River? What could “inert” mean here? The River should be inert…so must not flow! OK, so a place where it must be still, perhaps!!
• 24(Intermediary): OK, something between the River and the Plastic. But…we don’t want nets or dams or weirs…then what? Need to think!!
• 19(Periodic Action): What can be “periodic” in the River? Waves? But how do we make waves? Need to think some more!!
• 27(Cheap Short Living Objects): What can be cheap short and short living in the River water? Not fish, surely…wait, BUBBLES!!!

So breathlessly: we create bubbles in the water and use them as an Intermediary to create waves/barriers that nudge the Plastic where we want it it to be, for collection. And of course bubbles are both Inert and Atmosphere, literally! And they are Cheap and Short-Lived so we need to regenerate them Periodically! We can periodically sweep the river with a broom made of bubbles and not seriously disturb any other activity. Waah TRIZ, waah!

5(Merging) is quite easy to interpret now, in retrospect. 17(Another Dimension) is also evocative and powerful as a Solution: the River flows horizontally but the barrier we need to create is vertical. Yet another interpretation could be that the Bubbles dissolve in the River water (assuming another dimension, as it were) and give us the benefit of purifying the water too, as fountains do!!

So there you have it! It seems that Going Dutch even with bubbles, is a good idea !

Using TRIZ Separation Principles

As Hipple explains, there is frequently an underlying physical parameter, such as length, breadth, weight, or energy, or speed for example that lies at the root of our Technical Contradiction.

Our IFR states that we want the Plastics to not flow, and the River to flow at the same time. But the Plastics are in the River! This is a sort of a Physical Contradiction!

Can we make the River “less of a River” in places? Can we make separate zones in the River that flow and not flow, and allow us to harvest the plastic?Indeed,our Inventive Principles such as (39)Inert Atmosphere and 24(Intermediary) suggest such a “spatial” separation. So we are applying SEPARATION in SPACE here, to solve a Physical Contradiction related to “time”. TRIZ offers us a smaller and more easily “memorizable” set of metaphoric solutions in the form of Separation Principles. Here they are:

• Separation in Time
• Separation in Space
• Separation on Condition
• Separation between Parts and the Whole

Note that while these Separation Principles are just a handful to memorize, they are in my opinion, a little harder to apply straightway. But then practice would help us. Note that all the Inventive Principles in the Matrix can be, and have been, classified as to whether they hew to a particular kind of Separation Principle.

If there is any interesting situation that could be analyzed with TRIZ, please send me a DM! Thanks !

References

1. Meijer, J.J.L, Emmerik, T., Ent, R., Schmidt, C., Lebreton, L. (2021). More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803

2. Jack Hipple, The Ideal Result and How to Achieve It. Springer; 2012th edition (June 26, 2012)

3. Valery Souchkov, Defining Contradictions. http://www.xtriz.com/Training/TRIZ_DefineContradiction_Tutorial.pdf

4. Open Source TRIZ: Making Contradictions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cah0OhCH55k