THE JAR CAROUSEL

FINAL REPORT
ME 340 SECTION 4
TEAM I

April 29, 2011

DAN AGLIONE
MATT STEINDORF
QI ZHANG
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This design report focuses on the design of a kitchen product that automatically
opens and closes jars of various sizes. The jar opener is powered by a rechargeable battery
pack, requiring no human power to operate. This product lends assistance to those who
struggle with jar usage due to physical limitations, while illustrating a durable, cost
efficient product that can fit any home. Of course, safety and ease of use are of utmost
importance.

The report outlines the details of a comprehensive design process used to

incorporate features deemed desirable by potential users. An extensive customer need
assessment was completed, as well as product benchmarking to accurately access the
product’s market. With these needs, complimentary design specifications were yielded,
providing the basis for many concept variants. A final concept was selected after
methodically utilizing weighted criteria. This design contains a cone infused under a
rotating carousel that supplies torque to lids of varying diameters. The bottom of the jar is
held in place via a diamond clamp system that pivots around four pins to allow for
adjustability. Two electric motors supply power to both the cone and clamp by means of
two gearing systems. Engaging the top and bottom mechanisms is done by using two
switches that can spin each motor in both directions. When assembled, all of the
components work together to deliver a fast and easy approach to jar opening.

The final product, called the Jar Carousel, will cost approximately $26 to
manufacture and assemble. With current market estimates, the product is anticipated to
sell 100,000 units annually for a duration of 4 years. If sold at a unit price of $50, the
product will yield a profit of $1.3 million over its lifetime. The Jar Carousel can become
both a wise investment and a companion of consumer countertops.

Team I Final Report i|P a g e

4/29/2011
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………......……………………….. …i
1. Introduction
Problem Statement……………………………………………….……………………………..…. ..1
Background……………………………………………………………… ………………………...…...1
1.1 Task Description……………………………………………………………………….….…….2
Project Planning………………………………………..…………………….................. .…….2
2. Customer Needs Assessment
Gathering Customer Input………………………………………………………...…… ..….2
Weighing Customer Needs…………………………………………………………….....….3
Developing Design Specifications…………………………...………………….…. .…3-4
3. Concept Generation
External Search………………………………………………………………………….……... ..4
Problem Decomposition……………………………………………………………….….. ...5
Ideation Methods…………………………………………………………………….……....….5
Description of Design Concepts……………………………………..……...…..…… .......6
4. Concept Selection
Concept Screening……………………………………………………………..…….....……6-7
Concept Scoring………………………………………………………...…........ ..................7-8
5. System Level Design…………………………………………………………...…...………………...8-10
6 Detailed Design
Proposal Modifications………………………………………………………….…..... ……11
Component Selection…………………………………………………..................……11-12
Material Selection……………………………………………………….....................…12-13
CAD Models and Drawings ………………………………………………………..….13-15
Fabrication Process……………………………………………………………….…..…15-16
Bill of Materials……………………………………………………….…………..….….……..17
Economic Analysis……………………………………………………………..……...…18-19
Performance Calculations……………………………………………………..…..….19-20
Testing Procedure…………………………………………………………………….….20-21
7. Alpha Prototype…………………………………………………………………………………...… .21-24
8. Beta Prototype……………………………………………………………………….…….…………..24-25
9. Test Results and Discussion ………………………………………………….….………………26-27
10. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………….……… ..….….27-28
11. References……………………………………………………………………………….…………..…… .…28
Appendix A - Project Management……………………………………………………………….…....…28-29
Appendix B - Customer Data………………………………………………………………………… ….....……30
Appendix C - CAD Models and Detailed Drawings……………………………………….…... ...…31-35
Appendix D - Calculations………………………………………………………………………………...….36-40
Appendix E - Prototype Fabrication……………………………………………………….……… ….…41-43
Appendix F - Concept Sketches…………………………………………………………………………….44-49

Team I Final Report ii | P a g e

4/29/2011
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

Often times, separating a lid from a jar can be an extremely frustrating task. Jar
opening should be a simple and trivial process, but needs for tremendous effort and a
perfect gripping technique can hinder its simplicity. These struggles may be caused by
vacuum sealing, dirty threads, or slippery lid design. In a market where can openers, bottle
openers, and pull-back tabs exist, a technology is desperately needed to assist in the jar
opening process as well.

Senior citizens, users with physical conditions, or amputees struggle most of all.
Currently, this population is forced to implement all sorts of methods to remove lids. Some
use towels to avoid severe gripping pains. Others try schemes like banging the lid or
soaking the jar with hot water. Worst of all, a large number of people cannot open tough
jars independently and are forced to wait for assistance.

A jar opening product would be the perfect answer to these problems. This device
would be able to automatically open and close the lids of jars without requiring human
power whatsoever. Users would be able to rid their lives of all opening antics and use any
jar, worry free. Because jar technology will not be changing in the near future, a jar
opening tool is the only viable solution.

1.2 Background
The volume of food storage has greatly escalated over the past 50 years. Great
strides have been taken to preserve items fresher and for longer periods of time. Today,
jars continue to be a staple in household food storage. Although they are versatile and
elementary in nature, a basic twist can be surprisingly troublesome.

For a large portion of the population, certain physical limitations create difficulties
with jar usage. Arthritis, for example, is a prevalent condition that damages the joints in
the body. In common types such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, hand capabilities
can be severely reduced. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an
estimated 22% of Americans report having doctor diagnosed arthritis. Approximately 29
million adults suffer from either osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis [1].

Senior citizens as well as amputees can also struggle with jar opening. The design of
a jar requires equal and opposites torque on both the jar and lid. For those without two
functioning hands, applying this torque is challenging. Other times, jars may need more
force than the user can provide. Especially with gunked up threads and slippery lids, the
ability to supply the required action can be a prohibiting nightmare.

Team I Final Report 1|P a g e

4/29/2011
1.3 Task Description
The task of this project is to develop a product that can automatically open and close
jars of various sizes. The final concept utilizes a rechargeable battery from a cordless drill
to provide 100% of the power. No assembly will be needed by the customer. The design
addresses the concerns of users in an elegant, safe, and ergonomic package.

1.4 Project Planning

This report documents an elaborate design process that will be carefully followed to
develop a viable solution to the task description. To begin the research, customer needs
are assessed to fully understand what ideas need to be incorporated into the design. This
involves customer feedback regarding benchmark items. Secondly, the needs are
translated into appropriate product specifications. The next step involves concept
generation based on the specifications. A concept generation table is used to create many
concept permutations. The most promising designs then undergo comparison in screening
and scoring matrices with appropriate criteria weights. The results of the scoring
accurately indicate the best design.

The final design will undergo significant analysis to assess its economic and
technical viability. Prototypes will be fabricated to help test the mechanisms as well as
stimulate iterations and refinement. At the completion of the design process, the product
will be ready to manufacture for the awaiting market.

A proposed timetable of the project schedule can be seen in Appendix A, Figure 2.1.

2. CUSTOMER NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Gathering Customer Input

Customer inputs were collected through customer reviews of Black Decker Lids Off
Jar Opener and One Touch Jar Opener, which are the existing benchmark products on
market [2, 3]. These benchmark items provided feedback from actual users. These
reviews are of utmost importance because the needs come straight from the product
market. Customer statements were then translated into interpreted needs as criteria in
designing the jar opener. Along with the customer inputs, the team also added basic criteria
such as safety and efficiency. This table can be viewed in Appendix B, Table 2.1on page 29.

Team I Final Report 2|P a g e

4/29/2011
 2.2 Weighing Customer Needs
The weighing of criteria is an essential step in developing a concept. This gives a
quantitative representation of how each criterion relates to one another. Not all criteria
are equally important, thus they should not have the same impact during the scoring
process.

In order to effectively weigh each criterion as it relates to the product, an Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) Pairwise Comparison Chart was developed (See Table 2.1 below).
Here, the relative importance of the twelve criteria were compared to one another, using a
rating system from 1-5. A score of 1 indicated that the two requirements shared equal
importance. A higher number specified more of an importance in relation to the other
criterion. This process was completed until all comparisons were covered. The summation
of the scores then provided a total which signified the weighted value of the criteria. These
values translated into the weights found in the scoring matrix for final concept selection
[4].

Table 2.1: AHP Diagram

Aesthetics Ergonomics Ease of Storage Affordable One Size Fits All Durability Energy Efficient Long Lifetime Ease of Operation Quiet Safety Projected Torque Total Weight
Aesthetics 1 0.2 0.33 0.2 0.25 0.33 3 0.5 0.2 2 0.25 0.33 8.59 0.0379
Ergonomics 5 1 2 3 2 4 5 4 1 5 2 3 37 0.1633
Ease of Storage 3 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 2 1 0.2 2 0.33 0.5 12.53 0.0553
Affordable 5 0.33 1 1 2 3 4 2 0.33 2 1 1 22.66 0.1000
One Size Fits All 4 0.5 2 0.5 1 2 2 1 0.25 2 1 0.5 16.75 0.0739
Durability 3 0.25 2 0.33 0.5 1 3 2 0.33 4 0.5 1 17.91 0.0791
Energy Efficient 0.33 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.33 1 0.33 0.2 1 0.25 0.33 5.22 0.0230
Long Lifetime 2 0.25 1 0.5 1 0.5 3 1 0.25 2 0.33 0.33 12.16 0.0537
Ease of Operation 5 1 5 3 4 3 5 4 1 5 3 3 42 0.1854
Quiet 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 0.5 0.2 1 0.25 0.33 5.73 0.0253
Safety 4 0.5 3 1 1 2 4 3 0.33 4 1 2 25.83 0.1140
Projected Torque 3 0.33 2 1 2 1 3 3 0.33 3 0.5 1 20.16 0.0890
Total 226.54 1.0000

Scale of Relative Importance

1=equal 2=moderately important 3=strong importance 4=very strong 5=extreme importance

2.3 Developing Design Specifications

It is extremely important to design a product that meets customer needs. This is
done by adapting customer feedback into engineering specifications that will be used in the
product design. A tool to accomplish this is quality function deployment (QFD) [4]. This
matrix lists customer needs on the y axis and engineering specifications on the x axis.

Team I Final Report 3|P a g e

4/29/2011
Inside the matrix are X marks where a particular need corresponds to a design feature.
Many needs can be addressed by one specification and vice versa.

Clean Appearance/Color Scheme

Adequate Hardware Selection

Telescoping/Compactable

Robust Material Selection

Adjustable Mechanism
Inexpensive Materials

On and Off Switches

Accessible Buttons
Injection Molding

Small Part Count

Specification

Efficient Battery
Efficient Motor
Gearing Ratios
Clear Labeling
Filleted Edges

Shielded Lid
Customer Need
Aesthetically Pleasing X X X X
Ergonomic X X X X
Compact Storage Space X
Affordable X X X
Fits various jar heights X
Fits various jar widths X
Speedy Operating Time X X X
Require less human power X X X X
Supplies Enough Force X X X
Safe Opening Action X X
Sturdy Design X X

Figure 2.2: Quality Function Decomposition

3. CONCEPT GENERATION

3.1 External Search

While investigating possible solutions to open and close jars, several products were
found that are already have some of the desired functionality. Two of the most prominent
products found were the Black & Decker Lids-Off Jar Opener and the One Touch Jar Opener
[2, 3]. These two products both open jars under their own power, but fail to close any jars.
The mechanisms that drive both of these products only support torqueing the lids off in a
counterclockwise motion and could not mechanically grip the jar when running in reverse.

Team I Final Report 4|P a g e

4/29/2011
3.2 Problem Decomposition
The product must be able to fulfill the customer needs and, by doing so, will be the
only product in the market to open jars with lid diameters up to 3.5 inches and also be able
to close them as well.

The jar opener is decomposed into a black box to simplify the jar opening/closing
process [4]. Energy from the battery source, signal from the operator using the buttons,
and setting up the jar placement are all that are required as inputs. After the product
performs its task, out comes an opened or closed jar without any mess or hassle.

Input Output
Energy Jar Opened
/Closed
Gears
Electric Motors
Signal Signal (?)
Switches

Setup No Mess

Figure 3.1: Overall Black Box of Design

3.3 Ideation Methods

Concepts were generated using brainstorming, benchmarking, and a combination
table process [4]. Initially, each team member researched related items and sketched some
original ideas. It was established that a successful jar product would have a few
fundamental principles. These principles included how the bottom of the jar would be
held, how the lid would twist off, any mechanical processes involved, and finally which
parts were moving. The combination table lists characteristics for each of the four
categories. These characteristics are shown in Table 3.1 on page 6.

Team I Final Report 5|P a g e

4/29/2011
Table 3.1: Design Concept Classifications for Concept Combination

Lid Fastening Container Fastening Mechanical Process Which part of Jar

Mechanism Mechanism Used is Powered

Scissoring Cone Central Axis Rotation Top Jar

Wedge

Clamps Scissoring Wedge Tangential Rotation Bottom Jar

Strap/Band Rounded Clamps Linear Opposition Top Structure of

Product

Tire Pressure on Tire Pressure on Jar Bottom Structure of

Lid Walls Product

Handcuff Style Diamond Wedge Both Top and

Clamps Bottom Powered

3.4 Description of Design Concepts

Several concepts were created by selecting different elements from each column of
the concept combination table [4]. These concepts are detailed in Appendix F, Figures 3.2-
3.7. Each concept utilized a different permutation of the four columns in new and creative
ways. By choosing these from a list, it was more difficult to have a bias while generating
concepts.

4. CONCEPT SELECTION

4.1 Concept Screening

A concept screening matrix was used to determine the most viable concepts out of
the six that were chosen from the combination table. The Strap Bottom/Cone Top,
Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top, and the Belt Driven Top/Strap Bottom designs were
identified as these three designs. The criteria used to judge each concept came from the
customer needs assessment. The customer needs were analyzed based on translating
reviews into interpreted needs and desired specifications. This analysis can be found in
Appendix B, Table 2.1. The Concept Screening Matrix can be found in Table 4.1 on the
following page.

Team I Final Report 6|P a g e

4/29/2011
 Table 4.1: Concept Screening Matrix

Adjustable Belt
Scissor Diamond Driven Top
Scissor Strap Bottom/ Bottom/Straight Scissors bottom, bottom/ Cone strap
Bottom/Tires Top Cone top Clamp top handcuffs top top bottom
aesthetics 1 1 0 0 1 1
ergonomics -1 -1 0 0 -1 -1
easy for storage 0 -1 0 0 1 1
affordable -1 0 0 1 -1 -1
one size fit all 1 0 0 0 0 1
durability 0 1 0 0 1 -1
energy efficient -1 0 0 0 0 -1
long lifetime 0 0 0 0 0 0
easy to operate 1 1 0 0 1 1
quiet 0 0 0 0 0 0
safety 0 1 0 0 1 1
projected torque 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sum + 4 4 0 1 5 6
Sum 0 5 6 12 11 5 2
Sum - 3 2 0 0 2 4
Net Totals: 1 2 0 1 3 2
Rank 4 2 6 4 1 2
Continue? No Yes No No Yes Yes

4.2 Concept Scoring

The Strap Bottom/Cone Top, Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top, and the Belt Driven
Top/Strap Bottom designs were again ranked using the concept scoring matrix. For this
matrix, the relative weights for the customer needs were calculated using the results from
the Analytical Hierarchy Process found on page 3, Table 2.1. The scoring results can be
found in Table 4.2 on page 31. It was determined that Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top
performed the best in the concept screening matrix and was selected for the system level
design. This selection seemed both logical and appropriate since it best fulfilled the larger
weighted criteria.

Team I Final Report 7|P a g e

4/29/2011
 Table 4.2: Concept Scoring Matrix

Adjustable Belt
Relative Strap Diamond Driven
Weight Bottom/ bottom/ Top strap
from AHP Cone top Cone top bottom
Selection Weighted Weighted Weighte
Criteria Rating Score Rating Score Rating d Score
aesthetics 0.0379 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 3 0.1137
ergonomics 0.1633 2 0.0758 3 0.1137 1 0.0379
ease of storage 0.0553 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 3 0.1137
affordable 0.1 3 0.1137 2 0.0758 2 0.0758
one size fit all 0.0739 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 4 0.1516
durability 0.0791 3 0.1137 4 0.1516 2 0.0758
energy efficient 0.023 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 2 0.0758
long lifetime 0.0537 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 3 0.1137
ease of operate 0.1854 2 0.0758 4 0.1516 4 0.1516
quiet 0.0253 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 3 0.1137
safety 0.114 3 0.1137 4 0.1516 2 0.0758
projected torque 0.089 3 0.1137 3 0.1137 4 0.1516
Totals: 1.2886 1.4402 1.2507
Continue? No Develop No

5. SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN

The final design encompasses the adjustable diamond bottom/cone top iterations.
This concept utilizes three separate actions to open the jar. First the user has to activate the
gold section (cone) and raise it out of the way. The user then inserts the jar into the center
of the base, in between the four walls of the diamond clamp. The four walls are held
together by pins which are mounted in gliding paths on the base plate of the device. The
user then lowers the cone and secures the jar by activating the rack and pinion on the base.
The rack and pinion assembly either pulls or pushes one of the diamond pins toward or
away from the jar center. A pushing motion enlarges the area inside the diamond, whereas
a pulling action squeezes the rigid diamond walls together.

After the base of the jar is secure, there is a toggle switch where the user can select
either to open or close the jar lid. This action rotates the blue section of the jar opener
around a center axis beneath the gray base plate, causing the cone to rotate as well. The
weight of the top mount provides the necessary contact pressure to the lid. After the

Team I Final Report 8|P a g e

4/29/2011
required number of revolutions, the lid has either been removed or securely fastened to the
jar. The user lifts up the gold cone section and removes the jar and lid. This system allows
the user to easily operate the entire process with as little effort as possible. As long as the
user is able to lift up the jar and place it in the center, they are able to perform the
necessary motions to use this system.

The system will be constructed from injection molded plastic, allowing for an
adequate strength to cost ratio. The materials for the design prototype will be primarily
stock materials, with the needed gears and motors being supplied 'as is'.

Preliminary CAD sketches of the design are shown below (Fig 5.1-5.5).

Figure 5.1: Jar Opener Isometric

Figure 5.2: Diamond Wedge Position 1 Figure 5.3: Diamond Wedge Position 2

Team I Final Report 9|P a g e

4/29/2011
 Figure 5.4: Rack and Pinion

Figure 5.5: Section Cut

Team I Final Report 10 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 6. DETAILED DESIGN

6.1 Proposal Modifications

The Jar Carousel detailed design has undergone some revisions since the system-
level design stage. These changes are the result of performance calculations, alpha
prototype fabrication, and testing procedures.

The first major change was made with the cone top support. It now rotates via a
drive gear positioned on the perimeter of a large carousel gear. The system- level design
initially proposed a center of axis rotation. However, this method was not feasible because
the diamond clamp assembly could not be supported if rotating spokes were moving
underneath. The motor and threaded rod system needed to be directly below the clamps in
the same position as a potential center of axis rod. The drive gear approach allows the
clamp to operate without any interference.

Secondly, an additional support rod was added to the carousel assembly whereas it
originally only contained two support rods. This revision was implemented to enhance the
structural integrity of the cone rotation. Three supports also allow the cone top to rotate
and rest on the rods when loading and unloading a jar, a feature necessary for one-hand
use.

Finally, the diamond clamp assembly used to fix the bottom of the jar was modified.
Initially, an electric motor would translate the drive pin using a rack and pinion system.
The new design calls for a threaded rod and tapped block assembly to transform rotational
motion to linear displacement. A rack and pinion cannot maintain its position without
being powered. As soon as the motor is turned off, the drive pin would be free to move,
sacrificing the clamps’ contact pressure on the jar. The threaded rod and block system will
lock in place with or without the motor being used. This is an essential quality to have
since the user should not have to press the clamp switch for the entire duration of the jar
opening process.

6.2 Component Selection

The Jar Carousel consists of an array of components that all work together to deliver
a durable and effective product. The foundation of the product is comprised of the base
and side housings. Inside this foundation consists of two electric motors, a worm, three
spur gears, and a threaded rod with drive pin coupling. The spur gears have 10 or 20 teeth
to deliver the appropriate torque and speed ratios (See 6.8 Performance Calculations). A
3/8-24 threaded rod was used to yield a favorable angular to linear speed ratio due to its
pitch measurement. The drive pin passes through the housing and moves to the diamond
clamp system above.

Team I Final Report 11 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 The diamond clamp system contains four clamps and pins that act as hinges to
secure the bottom of the jar. The pins follow linear tracks cut into the housing to permit
smooth motion. Around the diamond clamp is a large carousel gear rotating on a turntable.
The carousel gear is spun with a drive gear that links to the gear assembly inside the
housing. Three support rods are press fitted into the carousel gear. These serve to guide a
cone top piece up and down to accommodate various jar heights. A cone shaped cutout is
present under the top piece and lined with rubber to apply torque to the jar lid. The cone
design accommodates various jar diameters.

Figure 6.1: Diamond Clamp/Turntable

Figure 6.2: Gears/Rods/Cone Top

The Jar Carousel is powered by an 18 V rechargeable battery pack. This is

conveniently mounted to the side of the housing to allow for easy attachment. Two toggle
switches are positioned on the front side of the housing. One switch is wired to the
carousel gear motor, while the other is wired to the threaded rod motor. Both switches
have three positions: up, neutral, down. Clicking the switches upwards will rotate the
electric motors in a clockwise fashion. Pressing down on the switches rotates the motors in
the opposite direction. This design makes it possible for the carousel to open and close the
jar lid, and the clamp to tighten and loosen its contact pressure on the jar bottom.

6.3 Material Selection

ABS
There were several factors to consider in material selection of components. ABS
was chosen as the material for the housing, support rods, cone top piece, diamond clamps,
pins, and threaded rod assembly. ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) is a cost effective
acetyl plastic that is a popular choice for its toughness and impact resistance [5]. Making
several components out of the same material will minimize costs and the material can be
purchased from a single supplier. Molds can be made to form the ABS plastic into the

Team I Final Report 12 | P a g e

4/29/2011
specific components. This means a single company can tailor the design of the molds to
match the characteristics of ABS plastic in the injection molding process.

Rubber
The diamond clamp and cone top deliver torque to the jar in the form of static
frictional forces. ABS cannot transfer large frictional contact forces to the jar because its
coefficient of friction with the jar is quite low. The jar would spin even when clamped in
position. To accommodate this, rubber was chosen to line the inner clamp walls and the
inside of the cone top. Rubber has the necessary coefficient of friction properties with the
jar to ensure the torque is transferred without slippage.

Delrin
All of the gears in the product will be made from Delrin (scientifically called
polyoxymethylene (POM)). This material was developed by DuPont and is characterized by
its high strength, hardness, and rigidity [6]. Its tremendous stiffness and low friction
coefficients make Delrin a great material for gears where both properties are important.
Out of the plastics, Delrin is the best choice to deliver durability and strength. Metal gears
are not used because of the unnecessary weight burden, especially for the large carousel
gear. That gear alone would add a few pounds to the jar opener, but would not provide any
significant advantage over Delrin.

6.4 CAD Models and Drawings

SolidWorks was extensively used to model the Jar Carousel. The model contains
every component that will be used for mass production. The component interfaces,
tolerances, and dimensions are accurately included.

Below are some pictures and dimensions of the Jar Carousel assembly to display
basic product characteristics and functionality. Additional detailed pictures of
subassemblies and components can be found in Appendix C on pages 31-32.

Figure 6.3: Jar Carousel

Team I Final Report 13 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 Figure 6.4: Jar Carousel Assembly Drawing

These transparent views show the inside workings of the product. The threaded
rod assembly is positioned directly in the center of the housing since the diamond clamps
are centered above. The worm connects with a shaft near the edge to engage the drive gear
at the perimeter of the carousel gear. The switches are placed on the front panel of the
housing for convenient accessibly by the user.

Figure 6.5: Transparent Housing Figure 6.6: Inside Housing, Front View

Team I Final Report 14 | P a g e

4/29/2011
The movement of the top cone piece is illustrated with the following screenshots.

Figure 6.7: Cone Vertical Displacement Figure 6.8: Cone Top Rotation

The cone top piece moves up and down on the support rods to fit any height of jar
up to 8 inches. The rotation of the cone top about the capped support rod allows the piece
to rest on the support rods while loading and unloading a jar. This satisfies one handed
usability.

Dimensioned Drawings

Detailed working drawings illustrating primary dimensions of the assembly and

unique components can be found in Appendix C on pages 33-35.

6.5 Fabrication Process

Production Time and Cost

The mass produced Jar Carousel would take approximately 3 minutes and 55
seconds to assemble. Each unit would cost roughly $0.94 to assemble. These estimates
were determined using the Boothroyd & Dewhurst DFA rules and coding system. The
results for each operation can be found in Table 6.1 on the next page.

Team I Final Report 15 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 Table 6.1: Boothroyd & Dewhurst Assembly Analysis
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

operation cost, cents

operation time
insertion code

insertion time
handling code

handling time
Name of Part

# of times
Part ID #
Housing Base 1 1 30 1.95 00 1.5 3.45 1.4
Housing Side Walls 2 1 30 1.95 00 1.5 3.45 1.4
18V Battery 3 1 30 1.95 30 2 3.95 1.6
Turntable 4 1 10 1.5 38 6 7.5 3.0
Carousel Gear 5 1 00 1.13 38 6 7.13 2.9
Top Drive Gear 6 1 01 1.43 32 5 6.43 2.6
Drive Shaft Sleeve 7 1 01 1.43 40 4.5 5.93 2.4
Drive Shaft 8 1 10 1.5 00 1.5 3 1.2
Custom Mold Top Cone 9 1 30 1.95 00 1.5 3.45 1.4
Support Rod 10 1 15 2.25 00 1.5 3.75 1.5
Capped Support Rod 11 1 10 1.5 00 1.5 3 1.2
Jameco 18V DC Motor 12 1 35 2.73 30 2 4.73 1.9
Small Spur Gear 13 1 25 2.57 30 2 4.57 1.8
Screw 8-32-3/4 in 14 11 10 1.5 38 6 82.5 33.0
Aluminum Clamp Wall 15 4 30 1.95 00 1.5 13.8 5.5
Clamp Pin 16 4 10 1.5 30 2 14 5.6
Washer 17 4 23 2.36 00 1.5 15.44 6.18
Pin Cap 18 4 10 1.5 38 6 30 12.0
Switch 19 2 30 1.95 41 7.5 18.9 7.6
TM CM
234.98 94.02

Note: These estimates would change significantly if an alternative assembly process was
used (i.e. robots) which could potentially further reduce costs.

Production Methods

This design would be assembled using a top down method, as all of the parts would
attach into the base and side housings. The inner components (motors and gearing) would
fasten directly to the base housing. Once secured, the side housing would then be screwed
into the base, concealing the inside mechanisms. The use of molded plastic parts enabled
the design to be serviced and assembled easily and without complicated hardware. The
design also uses one set of standard hardware, further simplifying the assembly and
serviceability of the product.

Team I Final Report 16 | P a g e

4/29/2011
6.6 Bill of Materials
A complete Bill of Materials was created to estimate the unit cost of the Jar Carousel.
A list of components, specifications, and costs can be found below in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Bill of Materials

Component Company/Specs Part # Unit Cost QTY Total Cost
Housing Base Injection Molded - $1.19 1 $1.19
Housing Side Walls Injection Molded - $1.39 1 $1.39
18V Battery Ace Trading 18V Replacement Battery - $1.65 1 $1.65
Turntable McMaster-Carr 1797K21 $3.15 1 $3.15
Carousel Gear Injection Mold Delrin Plastic - $2.75 1 $2.75
Top Drive Gear Boston 20 Pitch Spur - $0.25 1 $0.25
Drive Shaft Sleeve McMaster-Carr 6389K115 $0.15 1 $0.15
Drive Shaft McMaster-Carr 1263K194 $0.95 1 $0.95
Custom Mold Top Cone Injected Molded - $1.65 1 $1.65
Support Rod McMaster-Carr 8" 8587K45 $1.05 2 $2.10
Capped Support Rod McMaster-Carr 9" 8587K45 $1.19 1 $1.19
DC Motor Jameco 18V - $0.99 2 $1.98
Small Spur Gear Injection Mold Delrin Plastic - $0.39 1 $0.39
8-32-3/4 McMaster-Carr 90128A197 $0.08 11 $0.88
ABS Clamp Wall Injection Molded - $0.35 4 $1.40
Clamp Pin Injection Molded - $0.03 4 $0.12
Washer McMaster-Carr 96371A201 $0.45 4 $1.80
Switch Radio Shack 275-711 $1.19 2 $2.38
Total: $25.37

An injection molding cost estimator was used to complete the BOM [7].

Based on this analysis, the unit cost of the product is $25.37. The Bill of Materials
assumes pricing for a volume of 100K units. Due to economies of scale principles,
producing 100,000 units significantly drops the costs of individual components. Assuming
a 60% price reduction for purchased items and a 65% price reduction for machined parts,
the Jar Carousel can be mass produced for a very reasonable $25.37.

Team I Final Report 17 | P a g e

4/29/2011
6.7 Economic Analysis
In order for the Jar Carousel to be a viable market product, it must be economically
feasible to mass produce it. According to market estimates, the product will have an annual
sales volume of 100,000 units per year over a 4 year lifetime. A Net Present Value (NPV)
analysis was conducted over the lifetime based on the following input values:

 Development Cost
 Ramp-up Cost
 Marketing and Support Costs
 Production Cost
 Sales Revenue

If the Net Present Value is deemed to be positive, then the product investment will yield
higher returns than if the money were simply invested at the current interest rate of 10%.
If the value turns out to be negative, then the risk associated with the product will not be
tolerable, since investing at the current interest rate would yield higher returns.

The NPV is calculated by this equation:

Equ. 1 [4]

Production costs were either estimated (such as development and marketing costs)
or calculated (material and manufacturing costs). A detailed summary of these costs can be
seen on the next page in Table 6.3.

Using the previously stated assumptions (annual sales volume of 100,000 units for 4
years, with an interest rate of 10%), the predicted net present value is $1,342,900. The
development costs for the first four quarters of the first year are approximated to be $200,000
whereas the ramp-up costs are predicted to be $100,000 from the last quarter of the first year to
the first quarter of the second year. Starting from the second quarter of the second year, the
product will be mass produced, with 25,000 units every quarter. During the four years, the
marketing and support costs are estimated to be $100,000. Labor per unit cost and material cost
are approximately $0.94 and $25.37 respectively. Therefore, the total unit production cost will
be $26.31.

The unit price for the Jar Carousel is set at $50, which is slightly less than double the
production cost per unit. Assuming every product is sold, the sales revenue will be $1.25 million
per quarter, totaling $13.75 million over the product’s lifetime. After subtracting all of the
development, ramp-up, and production fees, the company will receive over $1.3 million in
profit.

Team I Final Report 18 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 Table 6.3: Net Present Value

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

$ (in thousands of dollars) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Development costs -200 -200 -200 -200

Ramp-up costs -100 -100
Marketing & Support Costs -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100
Production Costs 0 0 0 0 0 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75 -657.75
Production Volume 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000
Unit Production Cost -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263 -0.0263
Sales Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250
Sales Volume 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000
Unit Price 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Period Cash Flow -200 -200 -200 -300 -100 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25 492.25
PV Year 1, r=10% -200 -181.82 -165.29 -225.39 -68.301 305.649 277.862 252.602 229.638 208.762 189.784 172.531 156.846 142.587 129.625 117.841

Project NPV 1342.9

Project Net Present Value = $1,342,900

6.8 Performance Calculations

Performance calculations were carried out to analyze three processes implemented
in the Jar Carousel. These processes are discussed in the following categories:

1) Carousel Torque and Angular Speed

The carousel torque and angular speed section showed how the electric motor delivers a
recommended 40 in-lb of torque to the rotating carousel gear. This was done via a two-
stage gear reduction. Calculations derived the electric motor specifications needed for such
a gear design. See Appendix D for complete calculations.

It was concluded that a 1600 RPM electric motor could deliver 40in-lb of torque to the
carousel gear while having it rotate safely at 10 RPM.

2) Diamond Clamp Linear Translation

The diamond clamp assembly transforms rotation from an electric motor to linear
displacement of a drive pin. The two speeds are related by a one stage gear reduction, then
to a threaded rod which acts similar to a worm. See Appendix D for complete calculations.

To receive a desired 1 inch per 2 seconds translational speed of the drive pin, a motor
rotating at 1440 RPM is needed.

Team I Final Report 19 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 3) Cone Top Piece Downward Force

In order for the torque of the carousel gear to be transferred to the lid of the jar, a strong
frictional force must be present between the jar lid and the rubber lining of the cone. This
frictional force is proportional to the coefficient of friction between the rubber and lid
material, as well as the contact force between the cone and lid. This contact force is then
related to the downward force that the user exerts on the cone top piece. These
calculations showed how much downward force is necessary by the user to successfully
transfer the torque to the jar lid. See Appendix D for complete calculations.

A user only needs to exert a downward force of 11.8 lbs to successfully add enough
frictional pressure between the cone and lid to prevent slippage from occurring.

6.9 Testing Procedure

From the established design requirements, the Jar Carousel needs to be able to
produce an adequate gripping force as well as 40 in-lbs of torque to open and close jars.
This closing force is produced by a worm gear and spur gear combination made in two
stages. In the first stage, the DC motor drives a worm gear with a specified speed and
torque. These values are modified to eventually produce at least 40 in-lbs of torque and a
slow enough operating speed to ensure safety and usability.

Testing the drive gears:

The gearing, as noted in the calculations section, is driven firstly by a worm to spur
combination. For every rotation of the motor, the spur gear moves one tooth, creating a
large gear reduction (torque increased and speed decreased). To test how well this motion
is reproduced under loading, it is proposed to use a dynamometer to measure speed
readings at certain torques. This experiment would be performed to rate the speed and
power of the system at certain loads. Ideally the motor would move at a slower speed while
under load, and then the speed would either stall at the appropriate tightness while closing
or speed up when the lid was removed. This would allow the user to know when the jar
was opened or closed without needing to manipulate the machine.

Testing the clamping system:

The second portion of the jar opener ideally would move quickly to either open or
close the clamping system while not crushing the jar. This system would have to be tested
by clamping various materials and jar sizes to ensure that the jaw force was strong enough
to hold the jar and not too strong where it would crush or break the jar. A testing
procedure for this section would require using different spur-spur ratios to manipulate the
speed/strength ratio as well as varying the pitch of the threaded rod. In the end, analyzing
this experiment would be more observational than analytical. The speed of the jaws would

Team I Final Report 20 | P a g e

4/29/2011
have to be visually appealing, to show that the system has strength and power, but is still
suitable for a household appliance.

Frictional Analysis:

In the calculations that were produced for this analysis, an approximated friction
coefficient of 0.8 was used. In actuality, the coefficient would vary with different material
lids. Some lids are metal, other are plastic, etc. The contour of the lids would also affect the
contact patch between the lid and cone. A full contact along the circumference of the lid
may not always be achieved. The Jar Carousel would need to be operated using actual jars
for these approximations to be validated.

Aesthetic Testing:

All motors and gears produce noise while engaged. For the jar opener to be an
accepted household product, it would have to remain very quiet. The expected levels
would have to be investigated using lead user surveys, but it can be estimated that the
noise levels would have to be comparable to automatic can openers. The system would
need to be tested with different gear materials and gear types (spur vs. helical) to see
which system produced the lowest noise. During the alpha prototype fabrication, a large
amount of noise was produced in the gearbox for the clamping system. Because of the high
speed and low torque of the motor, many gears were required to get the correct speed and
power. This led to much more noise than anticipated. Testing for this section would most
likely need to reduce the number of gears, which would reduce the volume levels.
Similarly, implementing helical gears instead of spur gears in the design should also reduce
noise levels.

7. ALPHA PROTOTYPE

In order to test the feasibility of the detailed design features, an alpha prototype was
constructed. This prototype utilized stock materials that were easy to work with. The bulk
of the housing and cone supports were made from plywood as opposed to plastic from
injection molds. Tiny plastic gears, in combination with self-machined wood gears,
replaced the proposed Delrin gears. Also, standard hardware was implemented for
simplicity.

As previously stated, the carousel gear and drive gear were fabricated from 0.75”
plywood because of their demanding sizes. A layout sketch was created using the gear
feature in SolidWorks, which was then printed on multiple sheets of paper to allow a 1:1
scale. The pages were aligned, taped, and attached to the top of the plywood. Using a band
saw, each individual tooth was precisely cut using the layout sketch as a guide. For the
carousel gear, 120 teeth were carved into the plywood. The drive gear contained 20 teeth.

Team I Final Report 21 | P a g e

4/29/2011
Although this was a very time consuming process, the fabrication method worked well
since the gears meshed appropriately.

Figure 7.1: Carousel and Drive Figure 7.2: Close up of Wood Gears
Gear Mesh

A huge obstacle encountered during construction of the alpha prototype was the use
of plastic worm gears. Due to the rotating speeds and meshing with spur gears, the worm
gears were not durable enough for sustained operation. Often times the worm would stall
by fusing with its corresponding spur gear. It was also noticed that the spur was chewing
away material from the worm, causing a tapered shape. The damaged worm gears can be
seen below in Figures 7.3 and 7.4.

Figure 7.3: Tapered Worm Defect Figure 7.4: Chewed Up Worm

Figure 7.5: Undamaged Worm

Team I Final Report 22 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 Below are pictures of the alpha prototype in its completed state. Additional pictures
can be found in Appendix E on pages 41-42.

Figure 7.6: Alpha Prototype Figure 7.7: Cone Top Piece Down

Figure 7.8: Threaded Rod Assembly

Team I Final Report 23 | P a g e

4/29/2011
Figure 7.9: Chuck and Worm
Figure 7.10: Diamond Clamp
Top View

Although materials differed from the professional specifications, the alpha

prototype did a successful job in pointing out design flaws, illustrating functionality, and
offering insight for future improvements.

8. BETA PROTOTYPE

Construction of the beta prototype incorporated changes from the alpha prototype
to allow better performance and durability.

The primary difference between both stages was the removal of the worm gears. As
mentioned before, the worm gears were not suitable for sustained operation conditions.
To combat this issue, the drill chuck and motor was instead connected directly to the drive
gear shaft. This increased the rotational speed of the carousel gear in the process, yet
provided considerably more robustness. Because the chuck had to be positioned in a
vertical orientation, it was moved outside of the housing. A simple plywood holder and
dowel rod assembly held the chuck in place. See Figure 8.1 on the following page.

Team I Final Report 24 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 Figure 8.1: Chuck Holder

The other modification found on the beta prototype was the installation of both
switches. The wires was soldered inside the housing and connected to the switch prongs.
As seen in Figure 8.2, one switch controlled the diamond clamp, while the other controlled
the carousel gear. The wiring was done in such a way that the motor changed spin
directions with the different switch positions.

Figure 8.2: Electric Switches

Additional beta prototype pictures can be seen in Appendix E on page 42.

Team I Final Report 25 | P a g e

4/29/2011
Construction Costs
To build the alpha and beta prototypes, many materials needed to be purchased.
These included plywood for the housing and gears, aluminum for the diamond clamp,
switches, and miscellaneous hardware. The base for the diamond clamp was cut using a
water jet from the learning factory.

The total costs of building both the alpha and beta prototypes was about $150. The
MNE Department paid for the turntable and water jet expenses. The aluminum used for
the diamond clamp and diamond base was purchased; however, stock aluminum from the
Learning Factory could have been used instead free of charge.

A construction Bill of Materials can be found in Appendix E on page 43.

9. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Beta Testing

After completing the beta prototype, its performance was tested by attempting to
open and close jars of various sizes and materials. Two jars (one plastic and one glass)
were successfully opened and closed upon completion of testing. Many design calculations
were confirmed as a result while other issues came to light for the first time.
In accordance with the performance calculations, the carousel gear supplied
sufficient torque to the lid of the jar. The diamond clamp system also applied adequate
pressure to the jar bottoms. However, slight jar slippage was noticeable at this contact
point. The slippage did not cause opening failures, but hindered the timeliness of the
process.
The largest issue that arose during testing was the lack of contact force exerted on
the jar lids by the cone top support. It was calculated that roughly 12 lbs of downward
force was needed from the cone to produce enough torque through static frictional forces.
Originally, this downward force was intended to come from the user’s hand, yet due to the
location of the power switches, the current design was not compatible for one-handed
operation. Two hands were needed to engage the motors and simultaneously keep
constant pressure on the jar lids.

Overall, the testing matched well with expectations dictated from performance
calculations. The redesign of the gearing minimized mesh complications and both motors
supplied enough power to move the assemblies.

Team I Final Report 26 | P a g e

4/29/2011
Future Improvements

To improve the design for one-handed operation, two intuitive solutions seem
prevalent. First, the switches can be moved to the top cone support so that the user can
both supply power and press down on the support. This, however, creates a safety concern
since the top is spinning and the user is vulnerable for injury. A better solution would be to
redesign the top support to have it apply 12 lbs of force without needing a user to do so.
This could be done by adding weight, utilizing springs, or enabling a vice-like system.
Finally, selecting a rubber lining with a higher coefficient of friction against plastic and
glass should rectify any slippage issues.

Project Takeaways

This jar opener project was extremely helpful to upcoming engineers in so many
ways. It taught essential lessons in time management, teamwork, design, fabrication, and
testing procedures. A primary lesson learned by Team I was that nothing works the first
time. No matter how many flaws and complications are anticipated beforehand, more
issues certainly came about down the road. It was important to remain focused and
systematic throughout the entire process so these unpredicted troubles could be dealt with
in a smooth, professional manner.

The team also learned through hands-on experience that machining is enormously
time consuming. Wood working and especially metal working took patience. Especially
with a crowded shop environment, it was imperative to commit more time than anticipated
to any construction process.

Finally, the team gained much needed experience in formulating design reports.
This was the first course that a Proposal, Design Report, and Final Report were required.
These items are certainly fundamental in industry. Engineering is only as good as the
documentation of ideas. Quality technical writing cannot be emphasized enough, and the
team undoubtedly became better writers throughout the semester.

Although the Jar Carousel project required tremendous efforts from the team, it was
an enjoyable product to develop and exceedingly educational throughout the process.

10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Senior citizens, people who suffer from arthritis, and amputees are in need of a
solution to resolve their simple daily problem from the lack of energy for opening jars.
Such a trivial task may seem easy for a healthy person, but could be very frustrating for

Team I Final Report 27 | P a g e

4/29/2011
those who are not as lucky. The invention of an automatic jar opener that could open and
close jars by one switch could help solve this problem for so many.

For this good cause, the team has come up with the final concept for the jar opener,
called the Jar Carousel. This product will satisfy the customer needs and deliver an
effective, elegant product. Through prototype testing procedures, performance
calculations were verified and improvements are ready to be instilled into the design. The
product’s durability, functionality, and price will compete with current products on the
market. The Jar Carousel, if sold for a reasonable $50, is predicted to make a profit of $1.3
million over its anticipated 4 year lifetime. It will certainly serve as a great investment
while also helping out the ones who need the most care by making their lives a little easier,
which is the universal goal of all invention.

11. REFERENCES

[1] "CDC - Arthritis - Data and Statistics - Arthritis Related Statistics." Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.
<http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/arthritis_related_stats.htm>.

[2] "Amazon.com: One Touch Jar Opener: Kitchen & Dining." Amazon.com: Online Shopping
for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & More. Web. 24 Feb. 2011.
<http://www.amazon.com/onetouch-jaropener-One-Touch-
Opener/dp/B001E23RLM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298591804&sr=8-3>.

[3] "Amazon.com: Black & Decker Lids-Off Jar Opener: Kitchen & Dining." Amazon.com:
Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & More. Web. 24
Feb. 2011. <http://www.amazon.com/Black-26-Decker-Lids-2dOff-
Opener/dp/B0012LG2HQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top>.

[4] Ulrich, Karl T., and Steven D. Eppinger. Product Design and Development. 4th ed. Boston ;
Montre%u0301al: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print.

[5] "Plastic Properties of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) ." Dynalab Corp. N.p., n.d.
Web. 9 Apr. 2011. <http://www.dynalabcorp.com/technical_info_abs.asp>.

[6] "DuPont Delrin acetal resin." DuPont. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2011.
<http://www2.dupont.com/Plastics/en_US/Products/Delrin/Delrin.html>.

[7] Kazmer, David O. "Java Injection Molding Cost Estimator." University of Massachusetts
Lowell. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.
<http://kazmer.uml.edu/Software/JavaCost/index.htm>.

Team I Final Report 28 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 APPENDIX A – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Team Roles
Dan Aglione – Executive Summary, Introduction, Material/Component
Selection, Detailed Models and Drawings , Results and Discussion

Matt Steindorf – Concept Generation , Concept Selection , Chief Prototype

Fabricator, Bill of Materials, Testing Procedure, Scheduling

Qi Zhang – Customer Needs Assessment, Economic Analysis, Performance

Calculations, Conclusion, References

Figure 2.1: Project Schedule Gantt Chart

Team I Final Report 29 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 APPENDIX B –CUSTOMER DATA

Table 2.1: Translated Customer Needs

Prompt CUSTOMER REVIEW INTERPRETED NEED SPECIFICATIONS

CLEAN
Likes - Black IT IS A GOOD KITCHEN THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO BE INJECTION MOLD
ROUNDED EDGES APPEARANCE/
and Decker DECORATION. AESTHETIC. MATERIALS
COLOR SCHEME
IT IS EASY TO USE AND THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO BE CLEAR USAGE
EASY TO MAINTAIN
STURDY. ERGONOMIC. LABELS
IT FITS ALMOST ANY JAR
Likes - One THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO SMALL
SIZE AND IT NOT HARD COMPACTIBLE
Touch FOR STORAGE.
FOR STORAGE.

IT IS EASY TO USE AND THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO BE SMALL PART

CHEAP MATERIALS
INEXPENSIVE. AFFORDABLE. COUNT
Dislike -
IT DOES NOT FIT ALL SIZE THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO FIT ADJUSTABLE
Black and
JARS. VARIETY OF JAR SIZES. MECHANISM
Decker
IT DOES NOT FIT ALL SIZE THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO FIT ADJUSTABLE
LIDS. VARIETY OF JAR HEIGHTS. MECHANISM
Dislikes - IT IS SLOW AND IT BREAKS THE JAR OPENER SHOULD OPEN HIGH POWER EFFICIENT
One Touch AFTER A FEW USAGES. JARS FASTER THAN BY HAND. MOTORS GEARING
IT TAKES UP TOO MUCH THE JAR OPENER SHOULD REQUIRE
EFFICIENT MOTOR EFFICIENT BATTERY
POWER. LESS POWER.
THE BUTTON ON THE JAR ILLUMINATED BUTTONS
OPENER WAS TOO BIG THE JAR OPENER SHOULD HAVE AN PROVIDE ESSENTIAL PUSH CLEARLY
THAT I ACCIDENTLY PRESS ON AND OFF SWITCH. USER CONTROLS BUTTON/TOGGLE SHIELDED FROM
IT. SWITCHES ACCIDENTAL USE
THE JAR OPENER
SAFE MOTOR
STARTLED ME WHEN IT SMOOTH OPENING ACTION SMOOTH DRIVE SHIELDED USER
CONTROL
OPENED THE JAR
Suggested ADEQUATE
IT NEEDS TO HAVE A ROBUST MATERIALS
improvemen LONGER LIFE SPAM.
THE JAR OPENER MUST BE STURDY.
SELECTION
HARDWARE
ts SELECTION
IT NEEDS TO FIT ALL
THE JAR OPENER MUST FIT A
DIMENSIONS OF ANY
VARIETY OF JARS.
JARS.

Team I Final Report 30 | P a g e

4/29/2011
 APPENDIX C – CAD MODEL AND DETAILED DRAWINGS

Figure 6.10: Diamond Clamp

Figure 6.9: Assembly Front View

Figure 6.11: Worm and Spur Contact Figure 6.12: Threaded Rod Assembly

Team I Proposal 31 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 6.13: Transparent Right View Figure 6.14: Cone Cutout in Top Piece

Figure 6:15: Assembly Exploded View Figure 6.16: Housing Exploded View

Team I Proposal 32 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 Figure 6.17: Base Housing Drawing

Figure 6.18: Outer Clamp Drawing

Team I Proposal 33 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 Figure 6.19: Inner Clamp Drawing

Figure 6.20: Carousel Gear Drawing

Team I Proposal 34 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 Figure 6.21: Threaded Rod Motion Drawing

Figure 6.22: Cone Top Piece Drawing

Team I Proposal 35 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 APPENDIX D – CALCULATIONS

Information unknown:

 rotational speed for motor 1 (RPM)

 rotational speed of motor 2 (RPM)

Information known:

Table 6.4: Gearing Specs

Gears Characteristics of Gear Number Radius

of Teeth (in)

Worm Gear that is connected to motor 1 (pitch = 20) - -

Gear 1 The biggest gear that rotates the top cone (carousel gear) 120 6.0

Gear 2 The gear that drives the Gear 1 (drive gear) 15 0.75

Gear 3 The smaller gear that is at bottom of shaft connecting to Gear 2 20 0.50
and is driven by worm that connects to motor1

Gear 4 Gear that drives the rod controlling diamond clamp 20 0.50

Gear 5 Smaller gear that is connected to Gear 4 and motor2 10 0.25

Stipulations:

(Desired Carousel Torque)

(Desired Rotational Speed)

(Desired Translational Speed)

Interpretations & Techniques:

 The Gear 1 that connects to the top should rotate 10 times per minute.
 Since worm is connected to Gear 3, which is connected to Gear 2, rotational speed for Gear 2
needs to be calculated first before rotational for Gear 3.
 When worm rotates 20 times, Gear 3 rotates once.
 It takes 24 revolutions of thread to make diamond move 1 in. Therefore, the rotational
speed needs to be 12RPM for Gear 4.

Team I Proposal 36 | P a g e
4/29/2011
  Since Gear 4 is connected to Gear 5, the rotational speed of Gear 5 can be found. Gear 5 is
connected directly to motor2; therefore, the speed of motor2 is the same as the angular
speed of Gear 5.
 Torque of motor 2 is not a significant factor.

Relevant Equations:

1 rev/min * (2 pi radian / 1 revolution) * (1 min/60s) = rad/sec

1) Carousel Torque and Angular Speed

Gear Reduction Stage 1 Ratio

Gear 1: Gear 2

Gear Reduction Stage 2 Ratio

Gear 3: Gear 2

(same shaft)

Team I Proposal 37 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 1: 1

Gear Reduction Stage 3 Ratio

Gear 3: Worm

1: 20

Rotational Speed Gear 2

Rotational Speed Gear 3

Rotational Speed Worm Gear

= 20 * (80RPM)

Motor 1 speed = 1600 RPM

2) Diamond Clamp Linear Translation

Rotational Speed of Threaded Rod

24 rev (rod) = 1in translation (diamond)

Team I Proposal 38 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 Gear Reduction Ratio

Gear 4: Gear 5

Rotational Speed Gear 5

Motor 2 speed = 1440 RPM

3) Cone Top Piece Downward Force

Assumptions: Maximum torque of 40 in-lb is needed to open a lid.

Minimum lid diameter is 2 inches.
Coefficient of friction between rubber and lid is approximately 0.8.
Cone top piece weights 2 lbs.

The first calculation shows how much frictional force is needed to exert 40 in-lb of torque on a 2 in
diameter lid.

This represents the frictional force needed to effectively grip the lid. Next, the contact force can be
determined.

Team I Proposal 39 | P a g e
4/29/2011
This contact force is related to the downward force of the cone piece. This force is comprised of
both the weight of the cone piece, and also the pushing force from the user. From the cone
geometry, the angle of the cone relative to the horizontal is approximately 49o.

Now since the cone grips the jar lid along its entire circumference, the downward force acts as a
distributed load. The length of the force is simply the lid’s circumference length.

This is a reasonable amount of force to expect from the user and will effectively transfer enough
frictional force to the lid from the rubber insert.

Team I Proposal 40 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 APPENDIX E –PROTOTYPE FABRICATION

Alpha Prototype

Figure 1: Inside Mechanisms Figure 7.12: Wood Housing

Figure 7.14: Cone Rubber Lining

Figure 7.13: Diamond Clamps

Team I Proposal 41 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 Figure 7.16: Water Jet Clamp Guides

Figure 7.15: Electric Switches

Beta Prototype

Figure 8.3: Beta Prototype

Figure 8.4: Inside of Beta Housing

Team I Proposal 42 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Table 7.2: Construction Bill of Materials
Material Description Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Plywood Plytanium 23/32 x 4 x 8 Sturd-I-Floor T&G Plywood $22.97 1 $22.97
Dowel Rod Madison Mill 1"Dia. x 36"L Oak Round Dowel $3.98 2 $7.96
Hardware Grip-Rite 218-Pack 1-1/4" Steel Bugle Head Wood Screw $7.89 1 $7.89
Baseplate Multipurpose Aluminum (alloy 6061), 1/4" Thick X 10" Width X 1' Length $15.97 1 $15.97
Clamp Material Steelworks Aluminum Flat 1/8 x 2 x 8' $22.42 1 $22.42
Hinges Gatehouse 3-1/2" Butt/Mortise Hinge $2.58 1 $2.58
Water Jet Learning Factory machine costs $10.47 1 $10.47
Turntable McMaster- Carr #18635A52 $31.59 1 $31.59
Small Motor MOTOR,DC,6-18V,9820RPM,0.7A $2.95 1 $2.95
Cone Plews Plastic Funnel $0.96 1 $0.96
Threaded Rod The Hillman Group Flange Bolt 8-32 x 4" $2.41 1 $2.41
Clamp Lining Chef Craft Solicone Pot Holder $4.59 1 $4.59
Cone Lining Progressive Flexible Jar Grip $1.12 1 $1.12
Pipe Straps AMERICAN VALVE 3/4" Galvanized 2-Hole Pipe Strap Ceiling Support $2.07 4 $8.28
Electric Switches RadioShack Black Flip Switch SPDT $2.99 2 $5.98
Zip Ties Gardner Bender 8" long $0.10 3 $0.30
Finish Nails The Hillman Group Finish Nails 6D $1.24 1 $1.24
Total: $149.68

Team I Proposal 43 | P a g e
4/29/2011
 APPENDIX F – CONCEPT SKETCHES

Figure 3.2: Scissor Bottom/Tires Top

This concept uses a system of tires to drive the lid off of the jar using friction. There
is a clamping system at the bottom which scissors shut around the diameter of the jar. This
system would be constructed out of aluminum and would have to contain steel springs to
provide tension on the lid from the tires. While this system could quickly remove the lids,
operation would be difficult for the consumer without the use of two hands. The tires
would have to be adjusted individually in order for the jar lid to fit properly. A
disadvantage of this system is that there are two independent control systems, and the user
would have to operate them in sequence.

Team I Proposal 44 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 3.3: Strap Bottom/ Cone Top

This concept invokes a rubber strap to secure the bottom of the jar while a cone is
used to apply torque to the lid. Both components operate one at a time, incorporating a
toggle switch to link the motor to the appropriate device.

The jar is first rested upon a stationary base plate. Concentric guiding circles are
printed on the base to assist in centering the jar. A curved support is then slid along the
base plate to make contact with the jar. The rubber strap is fed through this support and
wound around a rotating rod. With the touch of a button, the rod is spun in one direction,
reducing the length of the strap in the process. This tightens its contact with the jar. When
the rotation direction of the rod is reversed, the strap loosens its grip and the jar can be
removed with ease.

The top support is an aluminum bar that has a cone-shaped cutout in the center.
This cutout is coated with a rubber-like material with a high coefficient of friction. Holding
up the top bar are two support cylinders, each fastened to an outer ring on the base plate.
This outer ring is spun via a center axis rotation which is incorporated into a gear box
housed in the base plate. Once the jar is properly secured, a button initiates the gears,
consequently rotating the outer ring. The sheer weight of the cone assembly provides
enough contact pressure to the lid, unscrewing it from the jar threads. Again, when the
gear rotations are reversed, the cone turns the lid back onto the jar.

Team I Proposal 45 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 3.4: Scissor Bottom/Straight Clamp Top

Straight clamp top and scissor bottom is a design that the top of the jar opener has a
straight clamp that could move up and down depending on the height of jars, and the size
of the clamp could be changed when the jar opener is power on. It would be powered by
the motor, and once it reaches a certain torque, the motor will continue to spin without
decrease in size.

The scissor bottom idea was generated from the wedge jar opener design; however,
man power needs to be eliminated in this design. The scissor bottom is there to hold the jar
tight; it is a scissor design along with a bracket that prevents jar from moving around. It
gives three points of contacts on the jar which would lock the jar tight. The size of this
prototype would restrain the size of jars that the opener can open, which could be a
challenge.

Team I Proposal 46 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 3.5: Scissors Bottom/ Handcuffs Top

Handcuffs top and scissor bottom is a design that has a handcuffs-like design top
that looks like two U shaped pieces of metal that are flipped to form a circle in the middle.
There are teeth on each pieces and it is attached onto a shaft. When the shaft turns, the
pieces could tighten or loosen the circle, which is used to grab onto the lid of the jar. The
handcuffs top design could also move up and down depending on the height of jars, and the
size of the clamp could be changed when the jar opener is power on. It would be powered
by the motor, and once it reaches a certain torque, the motor will continue to spin without
decrease in size.

The scissor bottom idea was generated from the wedge jar opener design; however,
man power needs to be eliminated in this design. The scissor bottom is there to hold the jar
tight; it is a scissor design along with a bracket that prevents jar from moving around. It
gives three points of contacts on the jar which would lock the jar tight.

The potential problem with this design would be very similar to the benchmark
product, Black and Decker Lid Off Opener, because the size of the U shape metal would
determine the maximum diameter of the possible jars that would be opened.

Team I Proposal 47 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 3.6: Adjustable Diamond Bottom/ Cone Top

This concept follows the same opening principle as the strap/cone permutation, yet
investigates a different bottom mechanism. Instead of using a rubber strap to tighten the
jar in position, two adjustable wedges secure jar bases of various sizes. Each wedge has a
pin at its vertex, in addition to two pins that fix both wedges together end to end. This
creates a parallelogram of varying angles so any sized jar can be squeezed in the middle.
Another benefit of this diamond design is that no matter the size of the jar, it always be
centered on the base plate. This ensures that the cone top interfaces the lid properly. The
mechanism is adjusted by having one pin connected to a rack and pinion. When the pinion
spins one direction, the pin moves inward, enlarging the center area. Having the pinion
rotate in the opposite direction pulls the pin outward, thus closing the inside area.

Team I Proposal 48 | P a g e
4/29/2011
Figure 3.7: Belt Driven Top/ Strap Bottom

This system would operate by strapping the jar into a metal enclosure and locking it
in place with a worm screw powered by the electric motor. Once the jar is locked in place,
the operator would lay a belt around the lid. This belt would be connected to a drive shaft
which would be powered to open or close the jar. There are several advantages to having a
belt driven system, one being that you have a very high surface area connection with the
lid, making it potentially easier to open a stuck on lid. The strap also has a couple of
advantages one being that it is very strong and can conform to different sized jars easily.
The belt would have to be adjusted for different sized jars, and this is the main
disadvantage. Adjusting a belt using idler gears and motors would vastly increase the
complexity of the design.

Team I Proposal 49 | P a g e
4/29/2011