Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to top

Top

Richard Kaplan’s reply to the previous note Subject: Reply to Reply to Comments on Lettieri/Yoneyama Article

| On 25, Apr 2006

—–Original Message—–
From: Richard D. Kaplan [mailto:rdk205@Lehigh.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:45 PM
To: editor@triz-journal.com
Cc: rdk205@lehigh.edu

Subject: Reply to Reply to Comments on Lettieri/Yoneyama Article First, I want to thank Mr. Lettieri and Mr. Yoneyama for receiving my comments in the way they were meant, i.e. to share ideas and information in order to provide additional insight. They certainly did that with their response of providing additional creative solutions to the circuit and lamp/switch problems. I particularly liked their olfactory idea.

As to the field question in Substance-Field (Su-F) modeling, certain TRIZ concepts were never strictly defined (at least in the English translations I have read). Therefore, the reader must make the best interpretation he/she can. My interpretation is that the presence of a recognized field that has relevance in the problem must be considered in the Su-F model. However, I leave the decision to those who are more expert in the area than I am.
Richard Kaplan