Final Report for "ACJO" The

Automatic Can and Jar

Opener
Team: Stark Enterprisers
Section: 06
Instructors: Christine Allard, Uwe Kruger

Prepared by
Zoe Chan (2017/BME)
David Hecht (2016/ IME)
HJ Kim (2016/MECL)
Ben Mason (2017/BME)
Caroline Sullivan (2016/CSE)
Ethan Wolf (2016/IME)

Executive Summary
Everybody uses cans and everybody that uses cans uses jars; from Richard
Simmons to Barack Obama there might not be any kitchen containers quite as
ubiquitous as cans and jars. Take a step back and go to your pantry, all of those
cans are nothing more that paper weights without a can opener and everybody is
one hand injury away from never being able to open a jar unassisted again. Team
Stark Enterprisers recognizes this reality and as a result developed the ACJO.
There are many automatic openers like the ACJO, but the ACJO is unique in its class.
With a robust design, a high safety factor, ergonomic design, and a pleasant beige
color, the ACJO stands out as the Mercedes in a sea of old beaters. Design began
with two goals in mind: open cans, open jars. It couldnt be simpler, but with the
ACJO it absolutely can.
The system consists of three major subsystems: the can opener, the jar opener, and
the shell. The can opener includes of all the internal workings required to make a
can opener automatic: the batteries, the motor, the switch mechanism, the
gearings, and the blade. The jar opener is designed to integrate with the design of
the can opener, the grip mechanism, and the seal breaker. The shell combines the
two functions of opening cans and jars together in one small and portable device.
For the design process, the device was broken down into six different subsystems
that all played a key role in its operation. The shell, electrical, gearing, blade, and
jar opening subsystems were divided among team members, designed separately,
and brought together into a prototype for functional testing. This final prototype was
fully functional only on the can opener system. Separately, the jar opening
subsystem was also functional, but the design failed to be integrated onto the
resulting prototype. With repeated testing, the can opener's high performance
slowly deteriorated because of a melting of motor coils. With the high potential of
this design, more time and testing can quickly solve this problem by adding
resistors to the circuit for a more robust design, and the jar and can opener
integration can be further explored.

1 of 101

Table of Contents
FINAL REPORT FOR "ACJO" THE AUTOMATIC CAN AND JAR OPENER............0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................2
1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................4

2
2.1
2.2
2.3

PROJECT OBJECTIVES & SCOPE.........................................................5

MISSION STATEMENT............................................................................................ 5
CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................6
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS................................................................................... 7

ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES........................8

PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIETAL CONSIDERATIONS..............................16

SYSTEM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION............................17

5.1 MIND MAPPING.................................................................................................... 17
5.2 CONCEPT COMBINATIONS....................................................................................... 17
5.3 CONCEPT SKETCHES............................................................................................. 18
5.4 SELECTION MATRIX.............................................................................................. 20
5.5 PROPOSED SOLUTION........................................................................................... 22

SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN................................................25

6.1 SUBSYSTEM 1: POWER/ELECTRICAL.......................................................................26
6.2 SUBSYSTEM 2: GEARING..................................................................................... 37
6.2.1 Challenges................................................................................................ 41
6.2.2 Results...................................................................................................... 42
6.3 SUBSYSTEM 3: BLADE, BLADE HOUSING, AND ORIENTATION......................................43
Results............................................................................................................... 47
Improvement..................................................................................................... 48
6.4 SUBSYSTEM 4: JAR OPENER................................................................................. 49
Results............................................................................................................... 55
Future Alternatives............................................................................................ 55
6.5 SUBSYSTEM 5: SHELL......................................................................................... 57
6.6 SUBSYSTEM 6: ERGONOMICS...............................................................................61

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................................................64

7.1 RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 64
7.2 SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS..........................................................65

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................66
2 of 101

9
10

REFERENCES..................................................................................67
APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF TEAM PROJECT....................................70

11
APPENDIX B: CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS...................................................................................72
List of Customers and Stakeholders...................................................................73
12

APPENDIX C: GANTT CHART...........................................................74

13

APPENDIX D: EXPENSE REPORT.....................................................80

14
APPENDIX E: TEAM MEMBERS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS..............81
14.1 ZOE CHAN........................................................................................................ 81
14.2 DAVID HECHT................................................................................................... 81
14.3 HJ KIM............................................................................................................. 82
14.4 BEN MASON..................................................................................................... 82
14.5 CAROLINE SULLIVAN........................................................................................... 82
14.6 ETHAN WOLF.................................................................................................... 83
15

APPENDIX F: STATEMENT OF WORK................................................83

16

APPENDIX G: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - LESSONS LEARNED. . .84

17

APPENDIX H: USER MANUAL..........................................................87

18

APPENDIX I: TESTING RESULTS......................................................88

Revision History
Table 1 Revisions
Version
0.0
1.0

1.5

2.0

Date

12/1

12/1

12/2

Name

Ben, Caroline,
David, Ethan, HJ,
Zoe
Ben, Caroline,
David, Ethan, HJ,
Zoe

Ben, Caroline,
David, Ethan, HJ,
Zoe

Reason for
Changes
Initial document
Updating
subsystem
information
Inserting images
and tables for
customer
requirements,
technical
specifications
Update
introduction,
objectives,
benchmarking,
considerations,
concept
3 of 101

3.0

12/3

4.0

12/3

Ben, Caroline,
David, Ethan, HJ,
Zoe
Ben, Caroline,
David, Ethan, HJ,
Zoe

development and
solution sections
Work on appendix

Formatting and
inserting figures
and tables

Introduction

Oftentimes opening cans and jars can be a struggle and is the last thing someone in
a busy kitchen or on a leisurely picnic wants to deal with. While automatic can and
jar openers do exist, they often take up space the size of a coffee maker and need
an outlet to operate. Mechanical openers can be more easily transported but require
a considerable amount of mechanical force and wrist movement to operate
effectively. Any physical attributes or ailments that limit arm and hand strength,
size, and range of motion limits a person's ability to properly operate a mechanical
can opener or open a jar. The elderly and people with arthritis or small hands
especially have trouble in these areas. Even if these people have an automatic
opener at home, it is a hassle to transport one to different places, and certain
locations may not have outlets.
Addressing this issue is the automatic can and jar opener, the "ACJO". While
automatic can openers and automatic jar openers exist, there are few products on
the market that are a combination of both, let alone ones that are portable. The
ACJO is battery powered and housed within a robust 3D printed shell allowing for
easy transportation and cleaning. Additionally, the device is able to open a can
automatically after being secured in place, allowing for the consumer to do
something else while it operates. With this design, very little mechanical force is
needed by the consumer to open cans or jars, and rotational wrist movement is
minimized. By using the ACJO, consumers can expect to spend less time trying to
wrench open a can or jar, be reassured that whatever can or jar they want open will
open every time, and that grip strength and wrist range of motion is not necessary
to accomplish these tasks.
This technical report starts by discussing the team objectives and scope for the
project, research on similar already existing products, and concept selection and
4 of 101

development. Then, each subsystem is explored in depth, followed by the data and
testing of the completed prototype. Finally, a reflection on the projects
accomplishments and shortcomings will be discussed in the results and conclusion.

5 of 101

Project Objectives & Scope

The teams objectives throughout the semester range from creating a prototype to
improving teamwork and communication skills. The following is a list of objectives:

Design a can and jar opener to open cans and jars of multiple sizes
Create a design that fully meets customer requirements for people with

Arthritis and small hands

Earn an A grade on the complete project
Utilize the design process to create the final project
Improve existing designs of can and jar openers
Use effective teamwork to accomplish design process
Improve communication between team members

The scope of the teams project is to create a working prototype that satisfies all
customer requirements. Mass production, marketing, and sale are out of the scope
of this project because of time and budget constraints.

2.1

Mission Statement

Table 2.1 Mission Statement

Benefits:

A portable device that is small enough for users

with gripping problems or arthritis can easily open

Goals:

food containers.
To produce a battery-powered automatic can/jar
opener using low budget and quality design that is
visually appealing and benefit user's grip. Most
importantly, the final product must satisfy the

Primary Market:

requirements of the customer requirements.

Users with small hands, gripping problem, and

Assumptions:

arthritis
Consumer knows how to make the most basic can

Stakeholders:

& jar opening devices work

Development team, IED instructors, potential
investors

6 of 101

2.2

Customer Requirements

The target customers for the ACJO are people who have low hand strength and fine
motor control difficulty. Some people who fit this category are seniors, especially
those with arthritis, and people with small hands who have trouble getting a
sufficient grip on a large jar to open it. Secondary customers are people who work in
professional kitchens and adults who cook at home. A complete list of customers
and stakeholders can be found at the end of Appendix B.
When identifying issues with current automatic can and jar openers, surveys were
found to be inappropriate because the college population is not the correct
demographic of target consumers. Instead, customer requirements were developed
based on online reviews of existing products (further explanation is given in section
3 of this document) and interviews with family and people with motor disabilities.
Three of the people interviewed were adult women, one with arthritis, one with ALS,
and another with small hands. Table B.1 of Appendix B is a table of translated needs
shared in these interviews, along with any other needs team members thought of as
stakeholders in the project.
The most common concerns that came up when discussing the can opener were
that it would not open the can in the first complete rotation, that they could not
pierce the can completely, that the constant wrist rotation tires their hand out, that
their hands get cut on the metal of the lid or can, and that the blade repeatedly
dislodges from the can before the lid is off. For jars, consumers expressed that their
hands were too small to successfully grip a large jar and open the lid and that jaropening mechanisms did not fit large jars or work reliably.
Some customer needs that consumers did not consider but were later added by
team members are the ACJO being reasonably-priced, built with a safe material that
will not contaminate the food being opened, and having a low noise level.
These customer needs were grouped into general requirements and ranked from 1
to 5, 5 being essential, and 1 being unnecessary. Technical specifications for each
specific need were then determined and ranked. A table of the ranked specifications
can be found in Appendix B, Table B.2.

7 of 101

Table 2.2.1, as seen below, contains a summarized version of the most important
customer needs. A more detailed and complete table of customer requirements can
be found in Appendix B, Table B.1.

Table 2.2.1 Ranked Customer Requirements Summary

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

2.3

Customer Requirements
Reliable
Safe
Adjustable
Easy to Use
Unobtrusive
Inexpensive

Rank
5
5
5
5
4
4

Technical Specifications

After determining customer requirements, each one was then translated into one or
more target specifications. Table 2.3.1 shows a prioritized list of the most important
target specifications translated from customer requirements, and a full table is in
Appendix B, Table B.2.
A high priority customer need is the minimization of grip force. The low range of a
normal grip force for an elderly woman is around 80N (Top End Sports, 2014), so the
consumer must be able to operate the ACJO using much less than that. Another
requirement is the ability to open cans and jars of different sizes. Common
diameters of jars and cans range from 3" to 3.5", so the ACJO must be able to open
any can or jar in that size range.
By comparing prices of pre-existing can opener and jar opener models (more
information can be found in section 3 of this report), $20 was determined to be a
reasonable price for a consumer to pay that is still competitive with other models.
Though the customer need of "unobtrusive" is subjective, a blender is one of the
louder kitchen appliances, ranging from 60-90 decibels (American Speech Language
Hearing Association, 2014). Having the opener operate more quietly than a blender
is a reasonable threshold for a kitchen appliance.
One customer requirement not undertaken by the team is having a long-lasting
product, as it is out of the scope of this projects time constraints to test.

8 of 101

Table 2.3.1 Prioritized Technical Specifications

Customer

Ran

Needs
Reliable
Safe

Adjustable
Easy to Use
Unobtrusive
Inexpensive

Target Specification Metric

Target

Units

k
5
5
5

Opens cans/jars
No strips of metal in food
Fingers do not get caught or cut in

Value
99
Pass
Pass

Percent
Binary
Binary

5
5

device
Materials are non-toxic
Opens cans/jars of differing

Pass
2.75-3.5

Binary
Inches

5
4
4
4
4

diameter
Grip force to operate
Autonomous after being turned on
Storable
Hand-held/Portable weight
Cost

< 50
Pass
< 18x12x6
<5
<$20

N
Binary
Inches
lbs
Dollars

Assessment of Relevant Existing Technologies

People have created several other can openers and jar openers in the past, some of
which were very successful. These ideas gave insight into potential problems that
customers needed solved and insight into how some problems might be solved for
the can and the jar opening aspects of the project. These products were studied and
their advantages and disadvantages were compiled below.
Figure 3.1 Competitive Benchmarking Product Images

Table 3.1 Competitive Benchmarking - One Touch/Smart Touch

One Touch/Smart Touch

[Can Opener]
9 of 101

Advantages
Automatic, one-touch of a

button operation
Eliminates twisting, pulling
& struggling

opens round can of all sizes

Disadvantages
Thick in size
low battery life with AA batteries
Blades can't be replaced when

many customers have found the

in USA, CMI standard

Able to open jars

broken
Promises no sharp edge, but

lids to be sharp
For large cans you have to restart

mechanically as well (Smart

the system because the blade

Touch)

can't cut large circumference with

just 1 cycle

Sometimes gets stuck on the can

based on user reviews on
Amazon: OneTouch has a rating of
2.5

Table 3.2 Competitive Benchmarking - Hamilton Beach Touch

Hamilton Beach Touch

[Can Opener]

Advantages
No sharp lid edges
opens pop top and regular

Disadvantages
10" x 5" x 4" --- Too big
Not Portable
Some users with arthritic hands

cans
easy-touch opening lever
ergonomic design

safe and easy to use

had success using this device

takes counter space

$26.99, much more expensive

than standard can openers

Easily broken when dropped

Table 3.3 Competitive Benchmarking - AMCO Swing-A-Way

AMCO Swing-A-Way

[Can Opener]

Advantages

Disadvantages
10 of 101

$13.99
Success rate of opening cans

is very high
Small and portable
Lasts a long time
Durable metal
Soft rubber grip

The product requires a long grip

Required a lot of force from the
user to not only grip the two
handle bars, but also to cut
through the lid using the crank

on the device
Users with small hands and
arthritis will struggle

Leaves sharp and rough edges

on the lid

Difficult to clean

Table 3.4 Competitive Benchmarking - Belliclamp

Belliclamp

[Jar Opener]

Advantages
Holds items firmly in place

Disadvantages
Users with weak belly/stomach

using users own body weight

Suitable for one handed use

Grips jars and bottles up to

4.75" in diameter

find using this device difficult

13" x 7.5" x 3.5" - Too big
Not portable at all
Takes a lot of counter space
Jars cannot be locked in the
device if not enough force
exerted using the belly of the
user

Difficult to clean

$13 for a difficult-to-use, big

design

Table 3.5 Competitive Benchmarking - Trudeau Silicone Twist

Trudeau Silicone Twist

[Jar Opener]

Advantages
Opens jars with less effort
Adjustable to most sizes of

Disadvantages
Black plastic grip lock sometimes
simply won't go down to tighten
11 of 101

bottle jars
Easy to clean
$3.99
Small grip

the lens enough

Works more for lens that have 60
mm or smaller

Requires a lot of force by the

user to successfully open the jar

Table 3.6 Competitive Benchmarking - OXO Good Grips

OXO Good Grips

[Jar Opener]

Advantages
Sharp, stainless steel teeth

Disadvantages
Poor ratings online, including

grip firmly
Dishwasher safe
$7.99

Amazon because it does not

accommodate for different sizes

while it claims to do so
If the user does not lift the jar
upright as soon as the lid starts
to move, any liquid in the jar will
start leaking out

The main benchmarking ideas for the can opener were the common countertop can
opener like the Hamilton Beach, handheld automated can openers like the One
Touch Can Opener, and the normal hand-crank can openers like the AMCO Swing-AWay.
Initial plans were to build a countertop can opener that would cut the can in the air,
spinning it around and catching the cut out lid with a magnet, however upon further
inspection this idea proved to be too intricate and the customer base already
saturated. Furthermore, in most kitchens countertop space is a limited commodity,
and a large countertop can opener takes up that space. Keeping this in mind, the
design shifted to a smaller handheld model. From here, there were many completely
automated can openers that would work with the press of a button. These were
small enough to meet the new handheld size requirement but had some major
issues with consistently opening cans, occasionally going around the rim without
opening the can. To improve consistency, the design incorporated some aspects of a
traditional can opener, such as having an upper and lower gear that pinches the
12 of 101

side of the can, forcing the round blade through the metal. The customer would
pierce the lid of the can by positioning the rim between the blades and then
squeezing the two lever arms together (Black & Decker Lids-Off Opener and Open-It
All Center, 2014 )(One Touch, 2014).
Jar openers operate differently from can openers. First, the jar and lid must be
gripped separately, and then one must be rotated with power in one direction until
loose. There are many different mechanical devices that assist in doing this by
turning the grip power into torque, though many of them only grip either the jar or
lid and not both. One is the wedge design. This design fits multiple size jars, but has
a reputation for slipping. The Belliclamp jar and bottle opener grips the bottom of
the jar8, but still requires a strong gripping motion on the lid. A thin slab of rubber
material has also been marketed for assisting in opening jars, but this is not much
different than using a shirt or towel and requires almost as much force. A more
effective jar opener is the silicone twist jar opener, which is simply a band of rubber
bent in a loop that be adjusted to fit different size jars. One last mechanical jar
opener is the Mighty Lever Jar Opener, which works much like the twist jar opener,
but with a plastic handle and a powerful clamp to hold the flexible stainless steel
band around a jar lid. Only the twist jar opener and the Mighty Lever Jar Opener
have enough mechanical reduction to fit the customer base. They both allow for
customers with reduced gripping strength or smaller hands to easily open nearly
any jar (Belliclamp Jar & Bottle Opener, 2013)(Mighty Lever Jar Opener, 2013)(OXO
Good Grips Jar Opener, 2014)(Mighty Lever Jar Opener, 2013)(Trudeau Silicone Twist
Jar Opener, 2011).
There are two notable electrical jar-opening models on the market. One is the Black
& Decker Lids Off Jar Opener. This model is rather bulky, encompassing the whole
jar, and is plugged in to an electric socket. This option is similar to the countertop
can openers in that it takes up valuable counter space and has a fairly intricate
construction. Another is the portable Hamilton Beach Open Ease Automatic Jar
Opener. It sits on the top of the jar and grips the lid and jar with leg-like
appendages. Similar to the portable One Touch can opener, this hands free option is
reported to have difficulty orienting itself, and gripping to the container(Black &
Decker Lids Off Jar Opener, 2014)(One Touch, 2014)(Hamilton Beach Portable Jar
Opener, 2014).
13 of 101

All combination can and jar openers on the market have a similar design to the
Black & Decker Lids-Off Jar Opener and Open-It-All Center, which is basically a
combination of the Black & Decker electric jar opener and the Hamilton Beach
stand-up can opener, taking up as much counter space as either. It is as large as the
jar opener and must still be connected to a power socket.
Table 4 Patent Research for Related Technologies
Patent Number
Title /
Relation to this project
United States
4622749 A

Description
Electric Can

Information regarding scope of design

Opener

needed for automatic can opener and

Side Opening Can

hand held use

Information regarding necessary

5946811 A

Opener with a

equipment to open a can from the side

United States

Double Grip
Automatic Jar

Information regarding scope of design

20080229885 A1

Opener

needed to include automatic jar opening

United States

The relevant patents explored provided invaluable information regarding the

internal design necessary for the automatic functions proposed by the group. The
electric can opener patent provided a general design and shape for the ACJO. The
diagrams included in the patent also provided basic gear diagrams and layouts for
internal mechanisms. The design was able to incorporate a number of the ideas
presented in order to speed up its development and to bridge the gap between top
mounted and hand held automatic can opener. The side opening can opener with
the double grip provided the necessary mechanical diagrams to understand the
design requirements of side opening of cans and the orientation of components.
While it was a mechanical side opener, the only difference in application is that the
turning mechanism would be instead powered by a motor. The internals behind the
clenching function of the opener ended up being very similar to that of the
clenching in the cutting head utilized in our final design (Chang, 1997)(Inagaki
1985).
The automatic jar opener, unlike the other two patents, proved to be a reality check
in regards to the ambition of our design. Our initial proposal desired automatic can

14 of 101

and jar opening capabilities, however after reviewing the diagrams associated with
this patent it was clear that other many other customer requirements would be
unable to be satisfied if it was included. Comparing the internal design of the
aforementioned electric can opener made it very obvious that the design of both
parts could not be as easily combined as desired. In fact, there are actually very few
similarities between the two, likely because of the drastically different forces
required to facilitate opening. This allowed our design team to proceed with the
design process and eliminate the impracticality of including both (Mah, Sanders,
2007).
Figure 3.2 Electric Can Opener

Figure 3.3 Side Opening Can Opener with a Double Grip

15 of 101

Figure 3.4 Side Opening Can Opener with a Double Grip head Construction

Figure 3.5 Automatic Jar Opener

16 of 101

Professional and Societal Considerations

The ACJO automatic can and jar opener works to be an easy-to-use device that can
be operated by anyone that would normally have difficulty opening cans and jars.
Its ergonomic design and automation for opening cans makes it an accessible
product that can could be operated by someone with small hands, arthritis or even
only one hand. Our team realized the lack of a comparable product designed for
that target customer group on the market and focused on optimizing some of the
best ideas utilized in similar products and combining them into one neat package.
Considering our target customers, safety was our number one priority especially
since our design includes a sharp metal blade capable of cutting through the
outside of a can. We needed to ensure that if our customer lost their grip, slipped or
otherwise the opener would not injure them. By eliminating the need for human
input aside from turning the device on and off we significantly reduced this
possibility. When turned on, the blade of the device doesn't spin to facilitate
opening, a nearby gear does as the stationary blade moves into place. The slow
movement of the device's blade coupled with the movement of the gear pushes
17 of 101

things away unless they're about as thin as the edge of a can. This makes it very
difficult for customers to even purposely cut or pinch themselves with the device.
The ACJO also lifts the lid off the top of the can after cutting eliminating the
possibility that the customer could be injured during that step the can opening
process either. The blade cuts the cans to have a smooth edge injury once the lid is
off is further mitigated.
The biggest design concern in terms of safety was actually determined to be related
to how the device removes jar lids. Since this function of the device requires
mechanical customer input the chance for misuse and injury is higher. Loss of grip,
slippage of the device, and improper use could all result in the customer impacting
their hands off the device, jar or tabletop and all increase the chance of the jar
failing resulting in broken glass. However, the goal of this mechanical function was
to reduce mechanical input necessary to open a jar meaning that all impacts that
could occur from misuse would occur at much lower speeds and normal, but broken
glass is broken glass. The design's handle is coated with a plastic gripping material
to reduce the risk of loss of grip.
The robust electrical system in the ACJO has little possibility for dangerous failure.
The batteries do not provide enough power to electrocute someone to any kind of
harmful level. The switch hooked up to the electrical system can also quickly be
thrown into forward or reverse or off in the event that something does get pinched
by the blade or hooked around something it shouldn't be (customer's hair/clothing).
There is no real possibility of the device producing enough heat to cause burns or a
fire.

System Concept Development and Selection

5.1 Mind Mapping

After gathering information about competitors through benchmarking, the team
organized a brainstorming meeting in order to determine which qualities of can
opener/jar opener should be examined and to clarify our possibilities in designs.
Shown below in Figure 5.1, ideas generated were categorized into a hierarchal mind
18 of 101

map. Organizing ideas this way allowed the team to decide easier on which design
elements to pursue.
Figure 5.1 Automatic Can & Jar Opener Mind Map

5.2 Concept Combinations

By exploring different options in the mind map, multiple sub-problems were
recognized and respective solutions proposed with respectable functions. Table 5.1
organizes some sub design problems with their corresponding solutions and role in
the overall system.

19 of 101

Table 5.1 Concept Combinations

5.3 Concept Sketches

Using the information and concepts collected through the benchmarking and
concept combination processes, initial sketches of the product were created to
visually simulate the physical positioning of components in two different possible
solution designs. Two sketches of possible design solutions are shown below in
Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3.

20 of 101

Figure 5.2 Initial Sketch 1

Figure 5.3 Initial Sketch 2

At a first glance, the two sketches looks very similar. However, it is important to
note that the first design will use pre-made, working gear system and uses batteries
while the second design uses weak and risky custom-made gear system and a plug21 of 101

in design. By analyzing two conceptual designs by sketching, the team was able to
decide which elements to vote for in the selection matrix.

5.4 Selection Matrix

A selection matrix was generated to analyze the seven most viable combinations of
the most crucial components. On the left and 1st column, Table 5.2 lists all the
categories that the items will be evaluated on. On the top of the table in the first
row after the title lists all the design elements that will be evaluated. In total there
are 14 design components to evaluate, but there are 7 pairs that have 2 options
each. For example the first two components are two different way of getting DC
Motor, the next two components are the type of gears the team could use, and so
on.
Table 5.2 Concept Selection Matrix For Can Opener Base

22 of 101

Table 5.3 Concept Selection Matrix For Jar Opener

Selection criteria were chosen and assigned weight values determined with respect
to project requirements and customer needs. Feasibility, performance, weight, and
reliability are some key elements that customers use to evaluate a product. If a
product does not meet the standards of what customers expects it is not desirable
and has little selling incentives. Each component was rated on a scale of negative
one to positive one, with negative one representing below average performance and
plus one representing above average performance. A score of zero would indicate
the team's neutrality on the component.
After all components or concepts were evaluated, total score was calculated and the
team decided to choose an IED DC motor, pre-made gears for strength and
efficiency, circuitry instead of Arduino for weight, battery over plug-in to provide
portability for the user, manual blade pinch mechanism to save space, 3D printed
shell for rapid prototyping and a soft, round handle to satisfy customers with smaller
23 of 101

hands and weak gripping ability. Shown in Table 5.3, the team decided to use rubber
twist because of its creativeness and flexibility of the material. Belliclamp would not
be feasible in a portable device and the OXO style would still allow the device to be
portable but would be hard to implement on the shell.

5.5 Proposed Solution

Figure 5.4 below shows the final interior components that this automatic device will
have. First, the user will have to switch on the device by pressing the upper part of
the switch from its neutral position. 2nd, the current from the batteries will power
the DC motor. 3rd, torque from the batteries will translate to the gear system. In the
4th step, the gear will rotate a circular blade system that is directly related to a gear
as well. Lastly, the user has the option to turn off the device by putting the switch at
its neutral position. Otherwise, the user can turn on the blade in reverse direction to
allow easier release after making the incision on the circumference of a lid.
Figure 5.4 Interior System

24 of 101

The team proposed to design an automatic can and jar opener using the
components chosen from the Selection Matrix. The design focused on minimizing
the size of the device as much as possible with the resources the team had. A
simple circuitry and 3D printed shell will allow mass production of the device easily
done. Illustrations of the projected design is shown below in Figure 5.5 and 5.6 from
different angles.
Figure 5.5 SolidWorks Model of the Proposed Solution

25 of 101

Figure 5.6 SolidWorks model of the Proposed Solution from a bottom

angle

26 of 101

In Figure 5.6, the shell is shown with two separate covers opened to show the
interior parts of the device in Figure 5.5.

27 of 101

Subsystem Analysis and Design

As shown below in Figure 6.1, the subsystem diagram shows the different sections
that contribute to the overall design of the product. The subsystems are:
power/electrical, gearing, blade orientation, jar opener, shell, and ergonomics. Each
is assigned to team members responsible for designing and constructing their
respective subsystem.

Figure 6.1 Subsystem Diagram

28 of 101

Figure 6.2 Hierarchical Subsystem Diagram

The above Figure 6.2 - Hierarchical Subsystem Diagram, shows a more complex
breakdown into subsystems. The figure is based on the interdependencies of each
subsystem. The internal workings of the gears are dependent on mathematical
calculations and electrical circuitry to operate the blade for the can opener to be
functional. The jar opener is dependent on two methods to open jar lids. The first, to
mechanically open jar lids, and the second, to initiate the opening of the lids by
breaking the sealants that are typical of new jars. Both these methods are
dependent on how the shell would be designed so as to fit altogether with the can
opener as well. The ergonomic design and integration design are vital in making the
product work, as a can and jar opener.

29 of 101

6.1

Subsystem 1: Power/Electrical

6.1.1 Objective
The power/electrical subsystem consists of the motor, the power supply, and motor
control. Because it was decided that the jar opener was to be completely
mechanical, power is only needed for the can opener. To open a can, the blade must
first pinch and puncture the lip of the can, and then a small gear must be turned to
propel the blade around the can, severing the lid from the body. Once finished, the
blade and gear pinch must be released to let go of the lid. The electrical subsystem
must provide enough power to accomplish this.
6.1.2 Measurements
To determine how much power is needed, the torque of a mechanical can opener
was measured by attaching a long metal bar to its handle and attaching a force
meter to the end. By pulling the force meter tangentially around as the can is
opened, the torque could be measured by multiplying the length of the rod to the
center of the handle by the force in Newtons used to rotate the arm. To make sure
gravity did not affect the force, the can was tilted sideways and the arm rotated
parallel to the floor when taking measurements. The following figure illustrates the
resulting measurement.
Figure 6.1.1 Force Measurement

The lever arm was 21 from rotational center to where the force meter was
attached. The force meters available have much room for human error. From
multiple measurements ranging between 1.5N and 2N, the average force is 1.7N to
30 of 101

rotate the blade. Torque is the cross product of the radius vector and force vector.
The following equation is a general one for torque:

=r F=r F sin()

By pulling the force meter tangentially to the moment arm, the equation can be
simplified to radius multiplied by force:

=r F sin ( 90 )=r F

Because the radius was measured in inches, and torque is measured in Newtonmeters, it must be converted to meters. Applying the values in Figure 6.1.1 results
in the following:

1=2.54cm

21 2.54 = 53.34cm

53.34 cm=0. 5334 m

=0.5334 m 1.7 N =0.90678 Nm

To insure robustness, the torque is increased 15%, which amounts to a final torque
of 1.044Nm necessary to open the can.
6.1.3 Motor
The motor must be well under 18"x12"x6", or 45x30x15cm in size and 5lbs, or
2.27kg, in weight to fit in the ACJO and make the device portable to specifications.
The most appropriate to accomplish the can opening task under that size and
weight range is a 3V DC motor. The higher voltage the motor, the more battery
power needed, which adds weight and used space quickly. Though a 6V motor is
more powerful, it weighs 43g rather than 17g of the 3V motor, is 7mm in length
longer and 10mm wider, and requires twice as many batteries (MCM Electronics,
2014)(Electronics123.com, Inc., 2014). Table 6.1.1 compares the two motors. In
terms of total size and weight, the 3V motor was the most efficient choice. The
team also had access to two 3V DC motors from the Smart Touch models the team
had purchased to explore can and jar opening methods.

31 of 101

Figure 6.1.2 3V DC Hobby Motor (MCM Electronics, 2014)

Table 6.1.1 Motor Comparison
Specifications
3V Motor
6V Motor
Weight (g)
17
43
Length (mm)
25
32
Diameter (mm)
15x7.7
24
Power Output (W)
1.2
5.94
Speed (rpm)
12000
12530
(MCM Electronics, 2014)(Electronics123.com, Inc., 2014)
Run on three volts, a 3V DC hobby motor optimally outputs 1.2W of power with a
current of 1.1A, and speed of 12000rpms (MCM Electronics, 2014). The following
equation is used to calculate the torque of the shaft at optimal power:

torque (Nm)=

power (W)
speed (rad/s)

The conversion of speed from rpms to radians per second:

12000 rpms
=200 Hz
2
200 Hz 2 =400 rad/s

Finally, a 3V motor produces the following torque:

1.2 W
=0.000955 Nm
400 rad / s
32 of 101

By adding a gearing system with the correct gear ratio, this torque can be
converted to a much larger one. With a torque of 0.000955Nm from the motor, and
a desired torque of 1.044Nm, the minimum gear ratio necessary to operate the can
opening mechanism is the following:

.000955 Nm
=1090.13
1.044 Nm

6.1.4 Power Supply

The ACJO is run on battery power because it is portable. Battery options that are
easily accessible in stores include 9V, C, AA, and AAA batteries. The 9V battery is
inefficient in terms of size and battery life. Because the batteries are powering a 3V
motor, the voltage of the 9V would need to be stepped down to 3V, taking up extra
space and complicating the circuit design, and the capacity rating ranges from
500mAh to 50mAh. Running on 1.1A, the 9V battery would last 30 minutes
maximum and around 3 minutes minimum, as the following equations illustrate:

0.5 Ah
0.05 Ah
60 min=27.3 min
60 min=2.7 min
1.1 A
1.1 A

On the other hand, C, AA, and AAA batteries all output 1.5V per cell, so two cells are
connected in series to get 1.5V + 1.5V = 3V. Because two cells are needed, the C
battery with a 1 diameter per cell is too large an option. AA and AAA batteries have
a life span of around 1000mAh, which amounts to approximately 55 minutes of run
time. If each can is opened in under 30 seconds, AA or AAA batteries will last for
over 109 cans. This is plenty for a general at-home-use customer, and would still be
convenient in a more professional kitchen setting. Table 6.1.2 lists the above
mentioned voltage per cell and current capacity of each battery type for a clearer
comparison.
Table 6.1.2 Battery Comparison
Battery
AA

Voltage per Cell

1.5V

Current Capacity
1000mAH
33 of 101

AAA
C
9V

1.5V
1.5V
9V

< 1000mAH
2000-2500mAh
Varies, 50-500mAh

What differentiates AA and AAA batteries the most, however, is their amperage
output. AA batteries have a 10A output, while for AAA it is only about 4A (SilverFox,
2008). Though the motor runs optimally on 1.1A of current, when turned on, there is
an initial jump in the amperage needed to start the motor. This cannot realistically
be measured, so to determine which battery to use, two AA and then two AA
batteries were tested separately on the Smart Touch, which uses the same 3V DC
motor used in the ACJO. To fit the AAA batteries in the AA battery case, foil was
added at both ends of each battery cell. Comparing the results, the blade turned
slower initially when using the AAAs than the AAs, so to insure robustness, the
AAs were chosen for the ACJO, as the small size difference ranked lower in priority
than power to pierce the can. Graphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 show the effect of different
amperages on AAA and AA batteries and their maximum amperage outputs.

Graph 6.1.1 AAA Tested at Various Rates (SilverFox, 2008)

34 of 101

Graph 6.1.2 AA Tested at Various Rates (SilverFox, 2008)

6.1.5 Motor Control

In order to control the forward, backward, and off states of the motor, a switch
mechanism must be included. One way to accomplish this is illustrated by the

35 of 101

Smart Touch, which uses a safety switch and a large button seen in Figure 6.1.3.
When the safety is on, the button does not work. When it is off, pressing the button
once will turn on the can opener to rotate the blade closed, punch the can lid, and
cut around the can. Pressing the large button a second time reverses the blade to
un-pinch the can lid and turns off when the blade is in the completely open position.
According to reviews (Elite Mama, 2014), people were having issues operating the
Smart Touch. The problem many people encountered was when they went to turn
off the can opener and instead of hitting the button, turned on the safety switch.
Turning on the safety switch stops the blade motion, but it does not open the blade,
so the cans lid would remain pinched in the Smart Touchs grip.
Figure 6.1.3 Smart Touch Button (Elite Mama, 2014)

In order to determine when the blade has fully opened and subsequently when to
turn off the motor, the Smart Touch switch also has internal mechanical aspects to
it. Because of project time constraints and a 3D printer being the physical build
method, it was determined that small, high-accuracy mechanical parts were not a
viable option.
Rather than having the motor turn off on its own, a different way to implement the
control mechanism is to have the user set the state of the motor. Two switches is
one option, one switch turning the system on and off and the other controlling the
forward and backward state of the motor. This implementation has four total states.
Instead of a switch, a button latch works the same way and can be used instead.

36 of 101

Another four-state method is to have two momentary switches, one that runs
forward when held down, and the other running backwards. This requires the user to
keep their finger or hand over the button and having both buttons pressed down at
the same time could result in safety hazards.
If only one switch is used, it must be a DPDT on/off/on switch. This particular double
pull double throw switch can control two separate circuits, and has an off state. One
direction runs the motor forward, one runs it in reverse, and the other turns it off.
Figure 6.1.4 is an illustration of this type of switch:
Figure 6.1.4 DPDT Mechanism (Tube-Town GmbH, 2014)

The DPDT switch was chosen for the ACJO because it is both simplistic for its three
states and requires only one part to operate. Fewer state changes make the user
experience clearer and more straight-forward than the other options.
Different styles of switches include the toggle switch, rocker switch, and slide
switch. Figure 6.1.5, 6.1.6, and 6.1.7 are physical examples of these.

37 of 101

Figure 6.1.5 Toggle Switch (All Electronics Corporation, n.d.)

Figure 6.1.6 Rocker Switch (Robot-Cart, 2011)

38 of 101

Figure 6.1.7 Slide Switch (Bakatronics, n.d.)

Toggle switches are inconvenient for the ACJO because of the height of the
mechanism. The switch can easily be bumped and cause the motor to accidentally
turn on, which is a safety hazard. The rocker and slide switches also have this
problem, though less extremely so. Side ridges in the shell of the ACJO can remedy
this for the latter two switches.
The amperage tolerance for the switch mechanism must be 125% of the maximum
amperage used to ensure maximum current flow and a robust design. The
maximum current output of the AA batteries is 10A, so the switch is required to
have a 12.5A tolerance or greater. Slide switches with this tolerance are rare and
unavailable for during this project, so a 15A on/off/on DPDT rocker switch was
selected and ordered. The face size of the switch is 1.25"x1" to make the symbols
easier to see for the elderly and others with sight issues, and the switch movement
easier for fingers of all sizes. Figure 6.1.8 is a picture of the switch ordered.

39 of 101

Figure 6.1.8 On/Off/On DPDT Rocker Switch (Amazon, 2014)

The following circuit diagram is the final circuit design of the ACJO, connecting the
battery, motor, and rocker switch:
Schematic 6.1.1 Circuit Diagram

+
3
V

+
-

MOTOR

DPDT
ON/OFF/ON
SWITCH

40 of 101

In conclusion, a 3V DC hobby motor run with two AA batteries attached in series

powers the can opening mechanism with a 1090 or greater gear system ratio.

6.2

Subsystem 2: Gearing

The gearing subsystem is responsible for the transfer of power from the motor to
the cutting blade as well as the conversion of the speed generated by the motor to
an appropriate amount of torque. Since the gears are being applied in a lightweight
hand held device, the size and weight of the gears was a critical consideration.
Additionally, strength is always an important consideration when selecting gears as
gear wear and failure can easily stop the entire device from working. The series of
gears, otherwise known as a transmission, needed to be capable of converting the
1.2 Watts of the electric motor to 1.044Nm. This translates to a gear ratio of around
1090 meaning the motor will be spinning 1090 times faster than the cutting blade
when the blade is making a cut in the can. This will give the blade the necessary
torque to penetrate and cut through aluminum cans.
To optimize the size to weight to strength ratio plastic and metal were debated
between as the material to choose. There are many factors besides size, weight and
strength that had to be considered to make this choice however. This includes the
environment the gears would be working in, gear types, lubricant requirements,
noise levels and corrosion resistance. The design demands that the ACJO is safe to
use in a likely wet kitchen environment, doesnt leak anything into the can being
opened and isnt quite as a loud as a blender. Spur gears were the only possible
choice as a gear type as they require the least precision relatively speaking, they
can spin in either direction as dictated by the motor and they are the easiest to
make and mount. Metal gears require a sealed gearbox filled with gear oil that could
leak into food, operate a quite a loud volume especially in the rudimentary form of
already noisy spur gears, can corrode rather quickly especially if water was to be
trapped in the device and are heavy compared to other materials. Despite its
undeniably higher strength as a material and its proven applications everywhere,
metal was determined to not be a good material choice where the parts could
interact with food and water and its higher strength isnt a deciding factor as were
not exerting a force large enough for that to be a relevant factor.

41 of 101

Plastic was chosen for the gears as plastics dont require sealed gearboxes to
operate, dont corrode from exposure to water, operate more quietly than metal
gears, are sometimes self-lubricating, are lightweight and are considerably easier to
create and manipulate than metals. Plastics are plenty strong enough for our
application, are accurate enough for the size of our application and the effects of
thermal expansion are negligible as the system wont constantly be running. The
most practical plastic to obtain for the design was ABS and thanks to 3D printing
could be easily made into gears. The more brittle nature of ABS and the need for a
lubricant to be included separately were serious drawbacks and for spur gears
where there is high stress at the teeth the brittleness could be catastrophic. Nylon
was the ideal material for use however because of its greater strength, lesser
brittleness, self-lubrication and hydrophobic nature but require hand cutting or
purchasing. During the benchmarking of the ACJO, two Smart Touch openers were
parted out that contained 6 two-tier nylon gears each. They appeared below with
corresponding tooth counts.
Figure 6.2.1 Two-tier Spur Gear 1A: OD 25 Teeth; ID 8 Teeth

Figure 6.2.2 Two-tier Spur Gear 1B: OD 28 Teeth; ID 8 Teeth

Figure 6.2.3 Spur Gear 2A: OD 16 Teeth

42 of 101

Figure 6.2.4 Two-tier Spur Gear 1C: OD 34 Teeth; ID 9 Teeth

Figure 6.2.5 Two-tier Bevel/Spur Gear 3A: OD (Bevel) 40 Teeth; ID (Spur)

10 Teeth

Figure 6.2.6 Two-tier Spur Gear 1D: OD 18 Teeth; ID (not visible) 8 Teeth

Not Pictured:
Spur Gear 2B: OD (not visible attached to blade) 24 Teeth
Bevel Gear 4A: OD (motor) 8 Teeth
To transfer power from the motor to the first gear at 90 degrees, a straight bevel
gear system was used. This was the only application of gears other than spur gears
in the transmission. The two tiered t-shape of the gears allowed for a greater
increase in the gear ratio in a smaller space than horizontal gears of increasing size.
The larger diameter part of each gear is spun by the smaller part of the preceding
gear to ensure that every single meeting of gears results in a higher gear ratio. The
gears themselves are mounted on three metal poles to ensure the rigidity of the
transmission and to reduce the chance for gear slippage. The Nylons oily exterior
coats objects in contact with it which effectively rust proofs the poles so they dont
rust out. The forces acting upon the gears are great enough to cause the gears to
43 of 101

move up and down on their mounts as well as flex the plastic around them so
adequate pressure and restraints were needed to keep everything in place. A lid
was secured on the gear system in addition to the lid of the outer shell to ensure
this. The second internal lid served to create a gearbox like what would be used
with metal gears but it open to the inside of the device. The gears and related
components appeared as they do below in the design.

Figure 6.2.7 Left Hand View

Figure 6.2.8 Top View

Figure 6.2.9 Right Hand View

44 of 101

There are a number of advantages associated with our open plastic gear box. The
plastic itself is resistant to possible corrosion by water. Even the metal poles
included are protected by the oil on the outside of the nylon gears. The metal poles
are also rigid enough that slippage can only occur vertically which is mitigated by
the lid. Additionally, the plastic gear box has the surface features necessary to
mount the motor in such a way that gear slippage is near impossible in that part of
the transmission either. The nylon gears are perhaps the systems greatest
advantage due to their unique set of properties. Basic properties like their negligible
weight, relatively high rigidity, relatively high strength and corrosion resistance
make nylon a good gear choice, but its oily surface makes it ideal. The oily surface
of the nylon gears acts as a protective lubricant that coats surfaces the gears
contact as well as acting as a hydrophobic coating that prevents things like water
from creating slippages. There is no risk of the oils getting into food during use as
multiple soap and hot water washes had no effect on removing them. The only way
the oil on gears can get onto things is by contact which isnt a concern with the two
layers of shell for the gears and their internal location. The oil itself is non-toxic, has
no smell and is much more viscous than most oils meaning it wont seep into other
parts of the design (unless in contact). The nylon gear transmission reached a gear
ratio of 1115. The calculations are as below.
Figure 6.2.10 Calculations
40(3A OD)/8(4A OD) = 5
*28(1B OD)/10(3A ID) = 2.8
*34(1C OD)/8(1B ID) = 4.25
45 of 101

*25(1A OD)/9(1C ID) = 2.78

*16(2A OD)/8(1B ID) = 2
*18(1D OD)/16(2A OD) = 1.125
*24(2B OD)/8(1D ID) = 3
= 1115.59 (the gear ratio)

6.2.1 Challenges
Despite all the thought put into material selection, material choice ended up being
the biggest challenge for the gear system. The nylon gears and metal mounting
poles worked exactly as they should have, it was the plastic gearbox shell that
actually caused the most problems. The plastic utilized for this purpose worked
perfectly well at first, but began to degrade after a number of trials. The stresses
exerted on the strip of plastic where the gear box met the cutting blade caused
plastic deformation that reduced the rigidity of the plastic. At first the effect was
negligible but over time the stress concentrations cause the plastic to flex to the
point where slippage between the gears would occur fairly often if considerable
force wasnt applied. This required the use of zip ties to securely hold the two gears
in contact.
The gears themselves were also the cause of a number of difficulties. Until it was
established how they would be mounted on the poles, they did not mesh correctly
and seemed to not work. This made it clear that the gears needed to be placed at
very specific distances apart in the proper orientation (small diameter turns large
diameter as mentioned above) for them to work at all. The gears were also sensitive
to not enough or too much pressure. Not enough pressure caused the gears to slip
up and down while too much pressure caused the gears to lock up and not be able
to turn at all. A careful balance had to be reached as to circumvent either problem.
There was no easy fix to this problem without replacing the plastic gearbox shell
entirely; Adding more material was impossible without blocking the ability for one or
more gears to spin.

46 of 101

6.2.2 Results
The gear system performed as designed and was able to transfer the energy from
the motor to the blade to allow for opening of the can. It achieved a gear ratio of
1115 which allowed it to convert the low torque of the 1.2 Watt motor to 1.044Nm.
See the results of the blade operation for information regarding the performance of
the device during cutting.

47 of 101

6.3

Subsystem 3: Blade, Blade Housing, and Orientation

The blade subsystem encompasses the blade itself, its orientation in conjunction
with the can, and the mechanisms that connect the blade to the gear system and
allow it to turn. The function of this subsystem is to successfully cooperate with the
gear subsystems and allow the device to pierce and cut through a standard can.
Technical specifications were created in order to properly ensure the function of the
entire machine, and many hinged upon the function of this subsystem. These
included being able to pierce and open a standard tin food can, being able to cut
through approximately 2000 cans before replacement, being able to cut through a
can in less than fifteen seconds, a lack of any metal strips being placed in the can,
cost effectiveness, and being able to easily remove and clean the blade.
In order to ensure that the blade and its housing would function as intended, I
conducted significant amounts of research on the existing models available. The
majority of can opener blades are constructed of stainless steel, a material that is
both strong and cheap. Tin cans are actually only plated in tin on the inside and
outside because tin is fairly rare and therefore expensive. However, since tin does
not rust it serves as an excellent means to hold food without contaminating it with
metal, and is thus a necessary ingredient in the average can. The metal between
the tin plating is usually iron or aluminum as these are both much cheaper than
pure tin. It was important that whatever blade was chosen could pierce this iron
inside with ease.
So although tin is a relatively easy metal to cut through, having a shear modulus of
18 gigapascal (Gpa), iron is much stronger in this regard due to it having a shear
modulus of between 63 and 66 GPa. Stainless steel has a shear modulus of about
77.2 GPa, higher than that of either material. It is mindful to note that having a
shear modulus higher than that of another material does not guarantee that it will
pierce and cut through it or vice versa, the sharpness of the can blade has a much
larger impact on this fact (Modulus, web).
The cost of the materials also played a big role in the decision of blade material.
After conducting thorough research, we found that iron and regular steel cost
relatively half as much as stainless steel per square foot, but that all were very

48 of 101

cheap with iron being $5.72 per square foot, regular steel coming in at $5.42 and
stainless steel being $11.38. This being said, we needed considerably less than a
square foot for our blade, and so all three options were feasible for our prototype
(Metals Depot, web).
Another factor that was considered when researching the material to make our
blade out of was its durability. Stainless steel is impervious to rust and has a high
Youngs modulus as well, 180 GPa. It is slightly less than that of iron, which is at 210
GPa, however irons successability to rust makes it completely unable for us to use
due to the health concerns that poses. Because iron was the only other material
that was both cheap and also strong enough to cut through the can with ease, the
default choice was stainless steel. It is strong, cheap, extremely durable and safe
(Modulus, web).
The next criterion that was investigated was the size of the blade itself. A larger
blade would result in more durability and more uses before dulling, but would also
be more cost effective. It was extremely difficult to approximate how many times
the blade would be able to cut through a can without it dulling, however stainless
steel is an extremely durable material that is frequently used on the external faces
of buildings and we were confident that a smaller blade would still be as effective as
a larger one. The other contributing factor was the necessity to save space and
weight on the device. Our goal was for the can opener to be back heavy so that it
would be easier to hold over the can, which we will get into more in our other
subsections, so it was necessary to keep the size of the blade low for these reasons.
Stainless steel has a density of .8 grams per cubic centimeter, which is considered
fairly heavy, so it was important that this be considered when determining the size
of the blade (AK Steel, web).
In the end, it was decided that we would utilize the blade in one of the can openers
we had dismantled during our research because it was simply too difficult for us to
mold or craft our own blade from stainless steel. This blade can be seen in Figure
6.3.1. It was also known that the dimensions of this blade would be suitable for this
particular usage, and that it would not be too heavy or bulky, and that it would be
able to pierce and cut a can effectively.

49 of 101

Figure 6.3.1- Finished blade housing

Next, the issue of the orientation and attachment of the blade was discussed. At
first, it was discussed that the blade should cut through the top of the can and the
device would be held parallel to the side of the can, as in a typical handheld rotary
50 of 101

can opener. After further discussion and research it was determined that it was
possible to have the blade be parallel to the top of the can and to grip to and cut
through the outer edge of the can. This was ideal because it allowed for a simpler
holding of the device, and it also made a cleaner, less jagged cut. Another added
advantage was that there was then no way that the lid could fall back into the can
because it would have the same diameter as the can itself.
When it came to attaching the blade, many different options were explored. The
first of these was a simple set of gears linked to the blade. It would have functioned
in accordance with the gear subsystem and attempted to further increase the gear
ratio we had already established. After conducting research however, it was noted
that the blade itself does not spin for all commercial can openers, both automatic
and hand rotated. Instead a gear spins and causes the can to rotate and the blade
itself just stays stationary and cuts via resistance to motion. With that, options that
involved a small external metal gear spinning were explored instead.
Another consideration came from benchmarking other designs. The blade that was
taken from a previous device was attached to a gear box with an intricate device to
allow clamping and piercing of the can. This consisted of the blade being affixed to
a pivot that would rotate it not purely on the center of its axis, but on a point a few
millimeters away so that the blade itself swung around 180 degrees. The top ridge
of the can would be placed between the blade and a small metal gear, and when
the blade rotated it would reach a point where the can would be clamped in
between and therefore pierce the can in that way. Then the gear itself would spin
and the blade would remain stationary. The huge benefit of this method was that
the motor itself supplied the power for piercing the can, and the user would require
only the push of a button to fully open the can. Another thing to note is that the
blade itself is not spinning, which is true for all commercial can openers, both
automatic and hand rotated. A gear spins and causes the can to rotate and the
blade itself just stays stationary and cuts via resistance to motion.
It was decided that we would use the entire contraption from the other model due
to these advantages and the fact that it would have been extremely difficult to find
another method of replicating this clamping motion. It was also convenient because
it already had a working gear system that could affix to our gear subsystem.
51 of 101

The next problem that was approached was how to affix the blade housing to the
shell. We preliminarily developed a CAD model that would serve to fit precisely
around the exterior of the blade housing and allow an easier attachment to the
shell, as seen in Figure 6.3.2.

Figure 6.3.2- CAD model of blade housing attachment mechanism

The idea behind this design was that the two extruded pieces in the top of the figure
would go into holes on the outside of the gear box that were created while removing
pieces from it. Being longer on one side than the other, the housing would then lock
into place. The purpose of this would be to easily attach to the rest of the shell via
adhesive and make the device be water tight and more aesthetically pleasing.

52 of 101

This model did not end up being used due to the time constraint involved in 3D
printing, and instead we simply used rubber bands and adhesive to secure the
housing to the rest of the shell. The drawback with this was that the device was not
waterproof and thus cleaning it would have been more difficult than was originally
intended.

Results
The blade functioned exactly as intended. It cut cans quickly and efficiently and was
extremely durable. There were no issues with the housing or the gear box, both of
which performed consistently within the guidelines and specifications they were
assigned. The attachment between the shell and housing was not as impressive, as
it violated our water proof specification and also at times came apart and needed
fixing.

Improvement
With more time and better resources, our own blade and gear system could have
been manufactured. One major problem was that to create a metal blade would
have been extremely difficult and timely without the proper equipment. It would
also be difficult to ensure that it would be safe enough for use by children or the
elderly. Another big issue was that the gears that were needed would have been so
small and finely tuned that any small measure of error would result in the entire
system not being able to function as intended. If we had the same precise tools that
big manufacturing companies have at our disposal, we could have designed a better
system with perhaps an even better gear ratio or other such improvements.
There also could have been attempts to statistically optimize the diameter and
thickness of the blade, such that it would be as much of a balance of weight, cost,
and durability as possible. The issue with this was the time constraint and the fact
that it was eventually decided upon using a preexisting blade. Another possible area
to go further into would have been the housing attachment. Time did not permit
proper construction of a means to attach this subsystem to the shell, and instead
more easily come by but less effective measures were taken.
53 of 101

54 of 101

6.4

Subsystem 4: Jar Opener

The jar opener is the second main function of the Automatic Can and Jar Opener. In
order for the product to be fully purposed for people with difficulties and disabilities
in opening can and jars, the jar opener portion of this product must be integrated to
combine with the can opener seamlessly, and limit the amount of torque and force
required to open jars.
A Strategic Promotion of Ageing Research Capacity study, "Making Jam Jars Easier to
Open: the inclusive engineering approach", was done to measure the ability of
people to open jars. 1142 people, aged 8 to 95, were chosen for the study to open
jars for measuring torque strength and grip strength. Half of the women over 75 had
problems opening jars and men aged between 30 and 60 have an average torque
strength that rises with increasing diameter of jar lids, but for men over 60, the
average torque strength was found to decline. Based on these measurements, the
study stated for future reference, that the appropriate design standard for jar lids
should require a maximum of 1 Nm to open any jar lid (SPARC).
As shown below in Figure 6.4.1, the average torque strength required to open
a range of lid diameters for each age group was found. For males, aged 30 to 60,
the average torque strength increased with the diameter of the lids. However, for
males above the age of 60, the average torque strength increased with lid diameter
and suddenly declined starting around lids with diameters that are in the mid-70
mm range. For females aged 30-60, average torque strength did not increase as
much as with the males. In females above 60, the average torque strength
continued decreasing with the size of the lids.

55 of 101

Figure 6.4.1

Figure 6.4.2
Figure 6.4.2 shows two graphs of torque
strength vs. age for a 55 mm diameter jar
and an 85 mm diameter jar. The amount of
torque required for a 55 mm diameter jar is
much smaller than the torque required for
an 85 mm jar. The red linear line on both
graphs signify the average torque strength
required to open jars; for a 55 mm diameter
jar, around 2.25 Nm of torque is required,
but for an 85 mm diameter jar, a 5.5 Nm of torque is required.
This study shows that for the jar opener portion of the product to be fully functional,
it must be able to provide the largest amount of torque strength possible. With a
56 of 101

high maximum of torque strength, the jar opener would have the ability to open
larger and tougher jars.
There are multiple existing products that function to ease the opening of jars. Some
benchmarking ideas (more details in section 3) are the Belliclamp Jar Opener, the
OXO Jar Opener, and the Trudeau Twist Jar Opener. Based on the objectives for this
product, the jar opener must be small, easy to use, and adjustable. The Belliclamp
Jar Opener was found to be too big and did not fit the requirements of being
portable, due to it being a tabletop device. In the earlier stages of the design
process, the OXO Jar Opener was considered a practical product to base the ACJO off
of (refer to Figure 6.4.3). The Trudeau Twist Jar Opener was deemed the most
effective in achieving the objectives of the product, and in opening different sized
jars.
Using the Trudeau Twist Jar Opener as a guideline for our jar opener mechanism and
appearance, several models were designed based on where the jar opener would go
on the product and how well it would work considering the placement of the can
opener as well.
One of the earlier concepts was based off a mechanical can opener, shown in Figure
6.4.3. The jar opener would operate on the back plate of the can opener. It is
designed to be small, with the ability to automatically open can and reduce the
amount of torque strength required to open jars. This concept was the chosen
design in the beginnings of the development process of the ACJO. As every other
component in the subsystems progressed, this concept deemed unpractical. The
circuitry within the automatic can opener would cause the product to be unbalanced
in the weight in the front, and having the jar opener at the back plate of the can
opener could result in detrimental effects of the can opener malfunctioning.

57 of 101

Figure 6.4.3
Throughout the design process, different concepts and sketches were made. Figure
6.4.4 shows the finalized design that would seamlessly integrate the jar opening
mechanism on a can opener body. The rubber belt wraps around the bottom half of
the ACJO shell, gripped on by sliders on a grooved band to allow the rubber belt to
retract and adjust to any sized jar. Working on the shell subsystem to design the
bottom half of the shell specifically so as to fit the roundness of the jar, a seal
breaker would be screwed into the shell. The protruding upper half of the shell was
specifically sketched so that the seal breaker would have some leverage when
pushed against the upper shell. This design was deemed most practical; the grip
belt wraps around the body of the ACJO, providing minimal interference to other
portions of the product, and is able to efficiently minimize mechanical strength
required by the consumer.
58 of 101

Figure 6.4.4
Figure 6.4.5 shows a more detailed version and a close up of the jar opening
mechanism. The side view of the design provides a sketch of how the slide and
band are placed on the shell securely, and the top view displays how much space it
would take and whether the jar opener interfered with the can opener mechanism.
Dimensions of the groove were taken for the jar opening section of the shell; the
slider would be 1/8 inches in depth, 5 inches in length, 7/16 inches in width and the
band would be 7/8 inches thick and 1/2 inches wide.

59 of 101

Figure 6.4.5
Figure 6.4.6 shows the seal breaker, taken from the SmartTouch, which would be
screwed onto the shell of the ACJO. The seal breaker is crucial in the jar opening
function, as it reduces a huge amount of strength required to release the vacuum
created by the jar.

60 of 101

Figure 6.4.6

Results
The jar opener portion relied heavily on the shape of the shell build for the product.
Due to lack of time, details needed to implement the metal slider as a part of the
external shell were not present. Therefore, in the end, the ACJO resulted in not
integrating the jar opener function at all.

Future Alternatives
As shown below in Figure 6.4.6 and 6.4.7, CAD models were built to provide better
alternatives to the jar opening design. The final design that resulted in failure of
implementation, has a metal slider connected to a rubber belt loop that wraps
around the outer half of the ACJO body. The CAD models suggest a different
placement of the belt loop; it was found that the belt loop would be able to fit in the
inner side of the shell, without interfering with the internal workings of the
automatic can opener

Figure 6.4.6

61 of 101

Figure 6.4.7

62 of 101

6.5

Subsystem 5: Shell

Figure 6.5.1
The shell should not only be strong enough to endure the user's gripping force, but
also justifiably designed to house all other physical subcomponents of ACJO. Most
importantly, the shell must be designed so that the motor and gearing can easily be
accessed if the user needs to fix anything that is inside. Additionally, the part of the
shell that covers the batteries was also manufactured separately so that the user
can easily replace the batteries. Enough room was given between the 2X AAA
Batteries Casing so that even with extended usage of the device, the user cannot
feel the heat exerted from the batteries. The spacing between the top surface of the
batteries and the bottom surface of the battery shell case is about 0.75 inches with
0.15 inches of shell thickness in between.

63 of 101

The material used for the shell is called ABS-M30 (another known name is Ivory),
and it was the perfect material to use for 3D printing the shell to meet both
mechanical and thermal property requirements. According to FORTUS 3D Production
Systems, ABS-M30 is up to 25-70% stronger than standard ABS and is an ideal
material for conceptual modeling, functional prototyping, manufacturing tools, and
end-use-parts. ABS-M30 has greater tensile, impact, and flexural strength than
standard ABS. While 3D printing, layer bonding is significantly stronger than that of
standard ABS, for a more durable part. This results in more realistic functional tests
and higher quality parts for end use. With 3D printers, manufactured parts are
stronger, smoother, and made with better feature detail. Shown below are the data
tables for mechanical and thermal properties of ABS-M30:

Table 6.5.1
In 2004, University of Wisconsin conducted an extended investigation of analysis on
human grips on various sizes of cylindrical handles. Participants of the experiment
64 of 101

were instructed to grip dynamometer handles using maximum force for 5 seconds.
Dynamometer handles show the forces exerted by the participant's grip force in X
and Y directions as shown below.

Figure 6.5.2
The X-Y components are calculated to generate the overall force. Data were
collected over 5 days and for a single session, each hand was tested twice so that
both axes could be measured during the same session. Average force magnitude
was 198.1 N (S.D. = 68.7), 232.8 N (S.D. = 82.8 ), 204.4 N (S.D. = 79.3), 170.3 N
(S.D. = 72.9) and 129.1 N (S.D. = 60) for handle diameters of 2.54, 5.08, 6.35, and
7.62 cm, respectively.

Graph 6.5.1

65 of 101

According to the data and the graphs shown, as the handle diameter of the
cylinders widened, average maximum force decreased. Also, dominant hand
exerted a little bit more force than non-dominant hand and males exerted
noticeably more force than females. However, statistics are even lower for arthritis
patients. In a study shown by Department of Rehabilitation Medicine in University of
Goteborg in Sweden, "healthy women had on average 54% of men's grip force. The
ratio between average force over 10 seconds and peak force was 73% for RA
women, 69% for FM women, 83% for healthy women and 85% for healthy men".
This ratio was determined while using healthy men and women as control variables.
These results were obtained using 200 subjects. With total surface area for gripping
on the ACJO being 11.4 in2 the stress equation acquires 17.3 Pa if we use 190.1 N as
our gripping force. When comparing this number to the data table for mechanical
properties above, the thickness and the strength of material of ivory is more than
enough to endure a human grip with a factor of safety of 1.57 using 300 N (J/m) as
the allowable maximum force from our mechanical properties table.

With testing, the gripping area was easily strong enough and was able to withstand
10 seconds of maximum force of gripping from several trials after the shell was
manufactured via 3D Printing. With fine design simulation on SolidWorks and
calculating projection of the factor of safety before
3D printing was used instead of outgoing methods to produce more elegant pieces
that is easy to grip. To shrink the ACJO volume as much as possible with our
resources we needed to use a 3D printer to manufacture pieces to the dimensions
we needed. Traditional prototype manufacturing requires tooling and machining by
people and very expensive equipment. By taking this method, the team could have
taken multiple weeks to build. Furthermore, machining and tooling would have left
rough edges after making cuts and bending some parts would have been very
66 of 101

difficult. This process also takes multiple prototypes and must be redesigned
numerous times. The shell is an integral part that houses everything so in order to
test the entire system, the shell needed to be finalized as soon as possible after the
interior electronic parts and circuitry were finished. This gave a very small
timeframe to design and manufacture the shell. Thus, performing design work and
testing if the electronic subsystems fit into the shell was easily doable by simple
assembly matching simulation on SolidWorks. After all the dimensions of the shell
were met with the required volumetric space needed, the shell pieces were 3D
printed. The overall time of fabricating the shell was 3 hours and was only needed
to be printed once because it was perfectly accommodating for all the interior
electronic parts. No one was held up a long time and other team members were
able to receive feedbacks about their subsystem quicker.

6.6

Subsystem 6: Ergonomics

The Ergonomics Subsystem is responsible for making the product fit comfortably in
as much of our target audiences hands as possible. Conforming to our audiences
hands includes determining the optimum handle length and diameter, the weight
distribution throughout the product, and handle shape (rounded versus
rectangular). Since this product is intended for consumers with small hands, weak
grip strength, or a disease similar to arthritis in hand strength degradation, a one
size fits all approach may not be the best design strategy. If a smaller handle size
appeals to both those with small hands and those with small hands and arthritis to
the detriment of those who have larger than average arthritic hands, then the
former would have a larger potential consumer base.
The end result of the concept generation process was a handheld device that
housed a gearbox, motor, batteries, the switch, and parts of the jar opener. The
device would have a main body segment and a handle segment. Figure 6.6.1 helps
to determine proper product weight by providing the average grip strengths of both
men and women from the age of 45 to 85 (Georgia Tech Research Institute, 2007).
From this point, incorporating the other data from Figure 6.6.2 helps to show that
although there is roughly an equal number of men to women in the products target
age group, women have much weaker starting grip strengths and are afflicted by
arthritis more frequently (CDC, 2010).
67 of 101

Figure 6.6.1

Figure 6.6.2
Based on this data, in order to have as large a consumer base as possible,
the devices handle should cater more towards a females hand. To reflect this in the
handles parameters the upper and lower bounds had to shift. So to include more of
the female population, data on hand size from down to a 5 th percentile hand became
the devices lower bound. To shift away from a portion of the male population,
68 of 101

handle size was determined only with regard to the 80 th percentile male hand and
smaller.
Weight distribution also fell under ergonomics. While it might seem like
common knowledge that handheld tools and devices should be balanced with a
center of gravity towards the middle of the item, often times engineers will get
caught up in the sheer functionality of the device and not its ease of use. So to
make the device easier to hold, the batteries and motor were placed to the rear,
within the handle. This offset the weight of the gearbox, blade, and button.
Similarly, the shape of the handle was a design feature that could have been easily
overlooked. A completely rounded handle would have been the best choice from an
ergonomic standpoint; however from a fabrication angle a squared end would be
easiest. Studies have shown that the strongest hand holds are found with a
cylindrical handle between 1 and 3 inches in diameter (JG1, C, TJ, & JA, 2009)
(Mastalerz, Nowak, Palczewska, & Kalka, 2008) . The fabrication techniques and
their inherent time constraints demanded a measure of compromise in the handles
design. So to compromise between ease of fabrication and an ideal ergonomic grip,
the handle featured the ideal diameter of 1.5 inches but only a partly cylindrical
handle. The handle was adapted to be cylindrical on the top half where it would rest
against the consumers hand, but squared off along the bottom where the fingers
would hook around.
A potential major to the final product in the Ergonomics subsystem would be a
rubber coating that would be applied around the grip and in key areas such as the
switch and the jar opener. This coating would function in two ways. It would ensure
a stronger grasp for the consumer by increasing the friction coefficient. In addition,
application to the seal breaking portion (jar opener) area would ensure that the lid
of the jar would not slip while it is pried off.

69 of 101

Results and Discussion

7.1

Results

To test the capabilities of the automatic can opening mechanism the device was put
to the test over the course of its life by opening (or attempting to open) 35 cans.
The device needed to have the capability to open cans autonomously and smoothly
with less input that a traditional can opener. Each trial was ranked on a scale of 0-5
measuring the device's success during the cutting process compared to the baseline
of a smooth, unassisted cut (5). A (4) on the scale suggests that the device cut
almost as smoothly as a (5) but may have had minor issues cutting continuously
and may or may not have had very minor operator input. Achieving a (3) on the
scale means that the device was able to open the can, but definitely had some
issues cutting continuously and operator input was required for its success. A score
of (2) means that the device was effectively limping along with considerable
operator input. A score of (2) also suggests that the device's usage is more difficult
than that of a conventional can opener. Ranking a trial as a (1) or (0) means that
the trial entirely failed with a (1) meaning that the device's ability to clench on a
can was still maintained.
The results reflect upon the different stages of its assembly and include notes
regarding each trial and group hypothesis about why things may or may not be
working. A key data trend to note is the device's rise to effective operation and then
rapid drop off in effectiveness. Issues with components are likely the cause of this
phenomena and notes were made regarding when components needed
replacement. Failure during testing can be attributed to the gradual degradation of
the parts over the life of the device or from premature testing when the device
wasnt fully prepared to open a can (not fully assembled, not all necessary parts).
Considering a score of a (3) as a threshold for where the device is easier to operate
than a traditional can opener, the device succeeded 24 times. This is a success rate
of 68.57% which falls short of our customer requirements. However, the averaged
score awarded for trials was 3.02 which is above the threshold for the device being
considered easier to operate than a traditional opener.

70 of 101

Future modifications would be based mostly around improving the robustness of the
device. The design was capable of opening cans but as evidenced by parts needing
to be replaced after less than 25 uses, they were perhaps not the right parts for the
job. The parts where additional robustness would be desired are the switch
mechanism and motor. The switch failed first from exposure to plastic shavings
entering the internal switch mechanism, rendering the device un-usable and
needing to be fully disassembled for repair. A better-sealed switch would ensure this
could not happen again. The motor, while not dead yet, was repeatedly strained
from reversing the direction of the motor frequently in a short amount of time. This
caused the voltage to jump and over time melted the motor coils, greatly
decreasing its ability to function. Adding resistors to the circuit would prevent the
voltage from exceeding the desired threshold and fix this problem. Making the
device easier to do maintenance on would also be an important improvement to
consider as our design had to be broken down into raw parts more than a few times
for repairs. A better way to attach the battery and body covers would be ideal. The
design itself is usable but could gain serious longevity with the application of more
durable internal parts. Please see Appendix I for more information.

7.2

Significant Technical Accomplishments

One of the most critical points in the design process was creating the product
platform and layout. Not being able to visualize the ideas being proposed was a
severe hindrance to any forward progress that the team tried to make. To meet this
challenge, the design team utilized several of the skills that they acquired from
other courses. These grew to include machining and fabrication techniques from
Engineering Processes, soldering and circuitry, CAD and computer design from
computer science classes, and 3-D modeling and printing from research and design
labs. These combined helped to map, plan, and construct the product from
unartistic sketches to a palpable device.
Not only did the owners of these individual skills get to practice their skills in a real
life application, everyone else on the team got to learn a little bit about what each
was and how they were applied. For example, HJ was the only one who knew
anything about 3-D printing, but by the end everyone knew what it took to 3-D print
something and the inherent flaws of this type of fabrication process.

71 of 101

The design team also learned about the complication that arise when ordering
parts. An example of this is that when ever the team needed to order a Smart Touch
can opener they had to wait over two weeks for it to arrive. This meant that
members had to think ahead about how many they would need or what they would
do in case of an emergency, because more Smart Touches were not readily
available. This a problem found in most engineering, industrial, and research
environments and will most certainly be prevalent in any team member's future
career.
Another learning curve was determining the relationship between battery power
and motor power and selecting the appropriate battery and motor for the project
task. There are many variable to account for, such as battery voltage and amperage
output and motor speed. Allowing for error is essential to robust design.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ACJO could not feasibly achieve the desired results in the
condition it was ultimately presented in. The major issue that arose was the proper
functionality of the entire system. When the individual subsystems were evaluated,
they all performed as we intended; however, when these were combined into a
finished product, it did not consistently perform as we intended. The device did
manage to open cans in a timely and safe fashion for a while, but soon after it was
not operating at all, indicating that the robustness was not up to the intended
standards.
Overall our system needed significant improvements in order to function well
enough to be marketed to consumers. Future improvements that could have been
made included a better shell to blade interface so that it could be water tight, a
more efficient means of attaching the jar opening mechanisms to the device, more
secure internal wiring, and a more effective means of compressing the gears and
ensuring their function. In order to continue with this project, these important issues
would have to be resolved and if these proved too difficult, new solutions would
have to be discovered.
In order to achieve the final result, the Stark Enterprisers had to closely follow the
design process including defining a problem to solve, thoroughly researching
72 of 101

existing products and their advantages and disadvantages, designing specifications

to ensure the project was up to high standards, coming up with multiple solutions to
this issue, designing and testing the chosen solution, and ultimately reflecting on
the results.
Our team attempted to adhere to our Gantt chart as frequently as possible, while
being adaptive to any potential hurdles that became apparent. We also had to blend
our particular personalities and Meyers-Briggs types together in an attempt to
achieve as much success as possible as a team. In the end, the team successfully
worked together and achieved many of the goals that had been set forth, and
gained considerable knowledge of the engineering design process in real
application.

References
99deals. (2011). Trudeau Silicone Twist Jar Opener. Retrieved December,

2, 2014, from http://99deals.com.au/grocery-deal/2602.html

AKSteel. (2010). AK Steel. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from
http://www.aksteel.com/
All Electronics Corporation. Momentary Toggle Switch DPDT. Retrieved
December 3, 2014, from http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/mts79/dpdt-on-on-on-momentary-toggle-switch/1.html
Amazon. (2014). Black & Decker JW200 Lids Off Jar Opener. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from http://www.amazon.com/Black-Decker-JW200-OpenerWhite/dp/B00008GS9U
Amazon. (2014). Black & Decker Lids-Off Jar Opener and Open-It-All
Center. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from http://www.amazon.com/Black-DeckerLids-Off-Opener-Open-It-All/dp/B000BHIG80/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Amazon. (2014). One Touch. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from
http://www.amazon.com/As-Seen-on-TV-OB-603/dp/B005FSRF6E/ref=sr_1_1?
s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1417669878&sr=1-1&keywords=one+touch
73 of 101

Amazon. (2014). On/Off/On DPDT Slide Switch. Retrieved December 3, 2014,

from http://www.amazon.com/2pcs
Amazon. (2014). OXO Good Grips Jar Opener. Retrieved December, 2,
2014, from http://www.amazon.com/OXO-Good-Grips-Jaropener/dp/B002DWA6KM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1412796049&sr=82&keywords=jar+openers+for+arthritis
Amco Houseworks. (2014). Comfort Grip Can Opener-Black. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from http://amcohouseworks.com/swing-a-way/comfort-gripcan-opener-black.html
American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2014). Noise. Retrieved
December 3, 2014, from http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/
Bakatronics. Slide Switch. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
http://www.bakatronics.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=393
Bed Bath and Beyond. (2014). Hamilton Beach Portable Jar Opener. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/product/hamilton-beach-reg-open-easetrade-automatic-jar-opener/1040404424?categoryId=12092
CDC. (2010, October 20). NHIS Arthritis Surveillance. Retrieved 12 03, 2014,
from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/national_nhis.htm
Chang, Kun-Jen. Side Cutting Can Opener with a Double Grip. Alston
Development Co., Ltd., assignee. Patent US 5946811 A. 4 Nov. 1997. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from http://www.google.com/patents/US5946811
Complete Care Shop. (2013). Belliclamp Jar & Bottle Opener. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from http://www.completecareshop.co.uk/kitchen-aids/bottleand-jar-openers/belliclamp-jar-and-bottle-opener/
Complete Care Shop. (2013). Mighty Lever Jar Opener. Retrieved December,
2, 2014, from http://www.completecareshop.co.uk/kitchen-aids/bottle-and-jaropeners/mighty-lever-jar-opener/
74 of 101

Electronics123.com, Inc. (2014). 6V DC Motor. Retrieved December 2, 2014,

from http://www.electronics123.com/s.nl/it.A/id.2768/.f
Elite Mama. (2014). Smart Touch Review. Picture posted to
http://elitemamasblog.com/?p=56
Hamilton Beach Smooth Touch Can Opener. Retrieved December, 2, 2014,
from http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/category/kitchen/kitchen-toolsgadgets/can-jar-openers/12092/12092-4294966331-4294967076/1-96?
pagSortOpt=DEFAULT-0&view=grid
HowStuffWorks. (2010). How Gears Ratios Work. Retrieved December, 2,
2014, from http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gears.htm
HowStuffWorks. (2010). How Gears Work. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from
http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/gear.htm
Inagaki, Kunitoshi. Electric Can Opener. Kabushikikaisha Aichidenkikosakusho,
assignee. Patent US 4622749 A. 21 Mar. 1985. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from
http://www.google.com/patents/US4622749
Intech Corp. (2000, July). Intechpower - Plastic Gears. Retrieved December, 2,
2014, from http://www.intechpower.com/Portals/62516/docs/PTD%20Size
%20Wise.pdf
JG1, Y., C, W., TJ, A., & JA, A.-M. (2009, October). Hand-handhold coupling:
effect of handle shape, orientation, and friction on breakaway strength. Retrieved
December 03, 2014, from NCBI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20196295
Georgia Tech Research Institute. (2007). Ease of Use Information > Hand
Anthropometry. Retrieved 12 03, 2014, from Usability :
http://usability.gtri.gatech.edu/eou_info/hand_anthro.php
Mah, Pat Y., and Mark A. Sanders. Jar Opener. Mah Pat Y, Mark Andrew
Sanders, assignee. Patent US 20080229885 A1. 22 Mar. 2007. Retrieved December,
2, 2014, from http://www.google.com/patents/US20080229885

75 of 101

Mastalerz, A., Nowak, E., Palczewska, I., & Kalka, E. (2008). MAXIMAL GRIP
FORCE DURING HOLDING A CYLINDRICAL HANDLE. In Human Movement, vol. 10 (pp.
26-30). Warszawa, Poland.
MCM Electronics. (2014). Compact 12,000 RPM Hobby Motor 3V. Retrieved
December 3, 2014, from http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/MULTICOMPMM10-/28-12811
"Metals Depot - America's Metal Superstore!" Metals Depot Shopping Cart.
N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014. http://www.metalsdepot.com/catalog_cart_view.php?
msg=
"Modulus of Rigidity." Modulus of Rigidity. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/modulus-rigidity-d_946.html
Penton. (2000, March 1). Machine Design - Plastic Gear Design. Retrieved
December, 2, 2014, from http://machinedesign.com/mechanical-drives/plastic-geardesign-doing-it-right
Penton. (2000, July 1). Machine Design - Plastic Gears. Retrieved December,
2, 2014, from http://machinedesign.com/mechanical-drives/plastic-gears
Penton. (2000, July 1). Machine Design - Plastic Gears More Durable than
Ever. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from http://machinedesign.com/mechanicaldrives/plastic-gears-more-durable-ever-plastics-get-gear
Penton. (2000, August 1). Machine Design - Driving out Gearbox Noise.
Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from http://machinedesign.com/mechanicaldrives/driving-out-gearbox-noise
Robot-Cart. (2011). Rocker Switch. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
http://www.robot-cart.com/product_detail.aspx?Id=280
SilverFox. (Posted 3/11/2008). Battery Shootout. Retrieved December 3,
2014, from http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?79302-NiMhBattery-Shoot-Out

76 of 101

Target. (2014). Hamilton Beach Walk n Cut Can Opener. Retrieved

December, 2, 2014, from http://www.target.com/p/hamilton-beach-walk-n-cut-canopener/-/A-14148315?
ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=google_pla_df&LNM=14148315&CPNG=Appliances&
kpid=14148315&LID=3pgs&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=14148315&kpid=14148315
&gclid=CJKyssjZncECFVEQ7AodymQAJw
Top End Sports. (2014). Handgrip Strength Norms. Retrieved December 3,
2014, from http://www.topendsports.com/testing/norms/handgrip.htm
Tube-Town GmbH. (2014). Toggle Switch DPDT. Retrieved December 3, 2014,
from https://www.tube-town.net/ttstore/Switch/Toggle-Switch/Toggle-Switch-DPDT-3postion-ON-OFF-ON::4068.html?MODsid=uqd9a4k4vjg4u645utislb1uj0
V.Ryan. (2010). Plastics Research. Retrieved December, 2, 2014, from
http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/plastic1.htm
Yoxall, A., Rowson, J., & Janson, R. (2008, May). Making Jam Jars Easier to
Open: The inclusive engineering approach. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from
http://www.sparc.ac.uk/media/downloads/executivesummaries/exec_summary_yoxal
l.pdf

10 Appendix A: Selection of Team Project

When finding project ideas, the team focused on diversity. By brainstorming and
consulting with friends, acquaintances, and family, members came up with one or
two ideas in each of a variety of areas such as home appliances, environment,
medicine, and sports/physical health. The following Table A.1 lists many of the
team's project ideas.
Table A.1 Team Project Ideas
Home Appliance
Environment

Medicine

Sports/Physical

Power Cord Wrap

Parking Space

Dental Swiss Army

Health
Antimicrobial

Automatic Can and

Sensor
Harsh Weather

Knife
Doggy Wheelchair

Surfaces
Flexibility

Jar Opener

Shoes/Gloves/Mas

Measuring Device

k
77 of 101

Food Dish Stability

Grain Husk Wood

Depth Sensing

Alcohol Content

Frame
Light Sensitive

Secured Mailbox

Scalpel
Quick-set Cast

Testing Stick
Shirt with Cooling

Mirror
Portable Soft Serve

System
Phone case hood

Temporary Limb

System
Posture Improving

Machine
Home Alert

Numbing Device
Dissolving Contact

System for

Lenses

Device

Unlocked
Entrances
After compiling all ideas in a list, the team crossed out ideas that were immediately
apparent to be unfeasible within the constraints of group expertise, project timeline,
and money. Then, members voted on which project ideas they liked best. The final
three ideas were a doggy wheelchair, a can and jar opener, and a food dish stability
frame. Time was then allocated to researching these three in more depth. The
weighted concept selection matrix in Table A.2 was created to make a final decision.
Table A.2 Weighted Concept Selection Matrix

Selection
Criteria
Feasibility
Cost
Divisibility
Creativity
Documentat

Doggy

Can and Jar

Food Dish

Wheelchair

Opener

Stability
Frame
Rating Weight

Weight

Rating

Weight

Rating

Weight

50%
10%
30%
3%
5%

1
3
3
3
3

0.5
0.3
0.9
0.09
0.15

4
4
5
3
5

2
0.4
1.5
0.09
0.25

4
3
2
5
3

2
0.3
0.6
0.15
0.15

0.04

0.08

0.06
3.26

ion
Practicality
2%
Total Weighted Score
Continue?

2
1.98

4.32

No

Yes

No

78 of 101

11 Appendix B: Customer Requirements and Technical

Specifications
Table B.1 List of Interpreted Customer Needs
General Customer

Rank

Specific Need

Requirement
Reliable
Safe

5
5

Opens cans/jars reliably

No strips of metal in food
Fingers do not get caught or cut in

Adjustable

Easy to Use

device
Can open all different size cans/jars
Works with tabbed cans
Lid does not fall into can after cutting
Takes minimal grip force to operate
Dont have to repeatedly rotate wrist
to operate
Opens can/jar quickly
Operation is simple and easy to

Unobtrusive

Inexpensive
Cleanable
Long-lasting

4
3
2

understand
Dont have to hold after turning on
Is not too loud
Can be stored
Hand-held/Portable
Cost is inexpensive
Device is cleanable
Lasts a long time

Table B.2 Customer Requirements with Related Technical Specifications

Customer
Needs
Reliable
Safe

Rank Target Specification Metric

Target

Units

Value
99

Percen

Pass

t
Binary

Opens cans/jars
No strips of metal in food

79 of 101

Adjustable
Easy to Use

Unobtrusive

Inexpensive
Cleanable
Long-

Fingers do not get caught or cut in

Pass

Binary

5
5
1
5
4
3
3
4

device
Materials are non-toxic
Opens cans/jars of differing diameter
Works on tabbed cans
Grip force to operate
Autonomous after being turned on
Lid does not fall in can
Can/Jar is opened quickly
Storable

Pass
2.75-3.5
Pass
< 50
Pass
Pass
< 15
<

Binary
Inches
Binary
N
Binary
Binary
sec
Inches

4
2
4
2

Hand-held/Portable weight
Noise
Cost
Blade is removable or electrical

18x12x6
<5
< 60
< 20
Pass

lbs
dB
Dollars
Binary

system is sealed
Uses before replacement

> 1000

Uses

lasting

List of Customers and Stakeholders

Primary Customers:

Elderly people
Arthritic people
People with small hands

Secondary Customers:

Professional kitchens

People who cook at home

Stakeholders

Development team
IED instructors
Potential investors

12 Appendix C: Gantt Chart

Figure 12.1 Original Gantt Chart
80 of 101

Project Name
Milestone 1

Status
100%

Owner

Start
9/28/2014

End
10/8/2014

Tech Memo
Problem

100%

Zoe

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

Statement
Customer

100%

Caroline

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

Requirements
Concepts and

100%

HJ

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

Benchmarking
Proposed

100%

Ethan

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

Solutions
Project Plan
Materials
Resources/Refe

100%
100%
100%

Ben
David
Zoe

10/4/2014
10/4/2014
10/4/2014

10/7/2014
10/7/2014
10/7/2014

rences
Compile Memo

100%

David

10/7/2014

10/8/2014

Milestone 1

100%

9/28/2014

10/8/2014

Presentation
Identify

100%

Zoe

10/4/2014

10/8/2014

Problem
Customer

100%

Caroline

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

Requirements
Concept

100%

Caroline

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

100%

Ethan

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

100%

David

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

tion
Materials/Econ

100%

David

10/4/2014

10/7/2014

omics
Specifications
Testing Plan
Advancements
Conclusion
Compile Slides

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Caroline
Ben
Ethan
Zoe
David

10/4/2014
10/4/2014
10/4/2014
10/4/2014
10/7/2014

10/7/2014
10/7/2014
10/7/2014
10/7/2014
10/8/2014

Build

0%

10/9/2014

10/22/2014

Selection
Matrix
Original
Sketches/Expla
nations
Design
Sketch/Explana

81 of 101

Subsystem 1

0%

Ben

10/9/2014

10/19/2014

0%

Ethan

10/9/2014

10/19/2014

Mechanism
Subsystem 3

0%

HJ

10/9/2014

10/19/2014

Shell
Subsystem

0%

Caroline

10/9/2014

10/19/2014

0%

Zoe

10/20/2014

10/22/2014

Testing Phase 1
Test Subsystem

0%
0%

HJ

10/23/2014
10/23/2014

11/2/2014
11/2/2014

1
Test Subsystem

0%

Ethan

10/23/2014

11/2/2014

2
Test Subsystem

0%

David

10/23/2014

11/2/2014

3
Test Subsystem

0%

Caroline

10/23/2014

11/2/2014

Refinement
Mathematical

0%
0%

Ben

11/2/2014
11/2/2014

11/11/2014
11/8/2014

Analysis
Resolve

0%

Zoe

11/2/2014

11/8/2014

0%

David

11/8/2014

11/11/2014

Testing Phase 2
Test Subsystem

0%
0%

HJ

11/11/2014
11/11/2014

11/19/2014
11/16/2014

1
Test Subsystem

0%

Caroline

11/11/2014

11/16/2014

2
Test Subsystem

0%

David

11/11/2014

11/16/2014

Can Opening
Mechanism
Subsystem 2
Jar Opening

4Electrical
Components
Combine
Subsystems

Subsystem
Issues
Additional Time
for Refinement

3
82 of 101

Test Subsystem

0%

Ethan

11/11/2014

11/16/2014

4
Final

0%

Ben

11/16/2014

11/19/2014

11/20/2014

12/2/2014

Refinement
Final

0%

Presentation
Problem

0%

Ethan

11/20/2014

11/30/2014

Identification
Customer

0%

Caroline

11/20/2014

11/30/2014

Requirements
Test/Analysis
Refinement
Presentation

0%
0%
0%

Ben
Zoe
David

11/20/2014
11/20/2014
11/30/2014

11/30/2014
11/30/2014
12/2/2014

Compilation

Table 12.1 is the original Gantt chart created in the beginning of the development
process. Each subsystem was assumed to be complete by the 19 th of October and
testing was planned to start on the 23rd of October. Due to shipping delays and
schedule conflicts between members, the Gantt chart had to be updated, as shown
below in Table 12.2.

83 of 101

Figure 12.2a Updated Gantt Chart (September 28th October 8th, 2014)

From September 28th to October 8th, every task was done within the planned
deadlines set in the original Gantt chart. For the second portion of the project,
building of the subsystems were set to be done by October 22 nd. Due to shipment
delays of equipment and products for benchmarking, all the subsystems were set
back to November 5th. This led to a delay in the testing phases, as shown in Figures
12.2b and 12.2c. The final portion of this project was delayed as well, as additional
details were required for the writing of the final report and for the completion of the
project.

84 of 101

Figure 12.2b Updated Gantt Chart (October 9th November 12th, 2014)

85 of 101

Figure 12.2c Updated Gantt Chart (November 13th December 3rd, 2014)

86 of 101

87 of 101

13 Appendix D: Expense Report

Table 5 Project Expenses
Item
Viatek Stc01 Smart
Touch Can Opener
OXO Good Grips

Quantity
2

Unit Price
$24.99

Subtotal
$49.98

$21.99

$21.99

$4.99

$4.99

Shipping
N/A
N/A

Smooth Edge Can

Opener
Vktech AA Mobile

N/A

Battery Clips Holder

Trudeau Twist-Off Jar

$4.99

$4.99

Opener 3-pack
Exacto Precision Utility

$13.73

$13.73

Knife
Rocker Switch
ABS M30 3D Printing

1
1

$1.95
$0.40

$1.95
$0.40

N/A

Variable

$9.47

N/A

$2.07

$62.10

N/A

Material
Misc Hardware

N/A

(Includes Wires,
Fasteners)
Cans

30

(Average)
Total

$169.60

Expenditures made in the development of the ACJO reflect necessary benchmarking

expenses as well as the costs of the development of a prototype. With a budget of
$150 and spending of $169.60 the prototype was more expensive than desired. The
largest unforeseen cost was that of testing the device on many different sized cans
as larger cans can be potentially much more expensive than normal sized or small
88 of 101

cans. This cost would be hard to mitigate in future tests but theoretically empty
cans could be bought, sealed and then used in test to eliminate the added cost of
the food inside the cans opened. Additionally we would have been more careful with
our resources as damage caused to our first Smart Touch during benchmarking
necessitated we purchase another for an undamaged motor. Despite being over
budget additional funds put towards heavier duty electrical components would have
been a good investment as their gradual failure made the device inoperable when it
counted. The cost savings from 3D printing the shell and no shipping costs because
of Amazon Prime provided the budget with more wiggle room which was
unfortunately not enough to prevent the costs from exceeding the budget. However,
the cost of the individual pieces used in the design was very low and if the pieces
were purchased individually as opposed to already in another device, our overall
cost would have been very low. It is very possible that if mass produced, the device
could be produced for very little and be feasibly sold for the target of less than $20.

14 Appendix E: Team Members and Their Contributions

14.1 Zoe Chan
Zoe Chan was responsible for the jar opening subsystem. She worked on testing
existing products for jar openers, along with Ethan Wolf, and researching torque
averages for opening jars. She played a big role in the design development of the
ACJO body, producing the final design that would integrate the can and jar opener.
Working closely with other team members subsystems, Zoe contributed towards
the location placements of the internal workings of the can opener.
In this report, Zoe was responsible for writing up sections on customer
specifications, , the subsystem diagrams and their descriptions, as well as her own
subsystem, updating Gantt charts for Appendix C, and formatting the document.

14.2 David Hecht

David Hecht was responsible for the gear subsystem. He worked with other team
members to ensure that the gear subsystem would be able to work in cooperation
with the blade, electrical and shell subsystems. This required the calculation of gear
ratios and the design of a layout of gears that would be able to achieve this.
Budgeting and primary acquisition of parts of parts was also handled by David.
89 of 101

David had the inspiration that resulted in the idea of an automatic can and jar
opener that became the ACJO. The responsibility for final assembly also fell to him
and he had to do final tests ensure that the gears were working in conjunction with
the other subsystems before sealing them in the device. He carried out the majority
of tests the device was put through and carried out debugging when components
began failing. In the report, David covered patents, societal considerations, budget
and the results of testing.

14.3 HJ Kim
HJ Kim was responsible for performing design on SolidWorks for the shell as well as
3D printing components for assembly. He was responsible for all illustrations on
SolidWorks in this report as well as virtually simulating how to fit the interior
electronic system, which was very useful instead of doing trial and error physically.
HJ's subsystem, the shell, was the component that was fabricated from scratch in
this project, giving ACJO a unique design and meeting customer requirements. HJ
worked diligently in working with all other team members in order to make the shell
design as compact and small as possible, housing all of subsystems that met
deadlines in the ACJO device. He also played role in helping test other subsystems
within the shell. He carried out testing of making sure all materials purchased were
not overpriced as well as oversized.
He also contributed heavily in the System Concept Development Selection part of
the report, which is section 5. Following the design process, he accomplished
creating the concept selection matrix, mind map diagram, and the concept
combination table in a timely manner. Additionally, HJ created the pros and cons
tables for benchmarking of existing products in section 3.

14.4 Ben Mason

Ben Mason was responsible for the blade subsystem. He was required to research
and develop a proper blade that could efficiently achieve the preconceived
specifications, and to allow it to work in accordance with the other subsystems. In
order to accomplish this, Ben worked hand in hand with many of the other group
members to ensure proper coherence for the final project.

90 of 101

Ben also contributed significantly to the memo, presentation, and final paper. He
wrote the user manual including creating the picture illustration of the device, and
also penned the conclusion, in addition to the documentation of his own subsystem.

14.5 Caroline Sullivan

Caroline Sullivan was responsible for the electrical/power subsystem. She worked
with other team members to measure the torque needed to open a can and used
that information to calculate motor and battery power necessary for the project and
how the motor control circuitry would be implemented. She then determined which
batteries, battery case, motor, and switch to use and buy. Once materials were
gathered, she soldered and assembled the electrical subsystem and assisted in the
assembly of the entire ACJO. She also scheduled weekly meeting times and kept in
constant communication with all team members to keep teammates updated about
deadlines and each members progress.
Caroline wrote and made the tables for the customer requirements and technical
specifications section of the Milestone I Technical Memo and assisted other team
members in benchmarking other products. She also presented the electrical/power
subsystem for Milestone II. In the Milestone III Technical Report, Caroline completed
the Introduction, Project Objectives, Customer Requirements, Technical
Specifications, Selection of Team Project, and Statement of Work sections, as well as
contributed to the Executive Summary, Results, and Conclusion sections. She also
assisted in the creation of the Milestone III Presentation.

14.6 Ethan Wolf

Ethan Wolf was responsible for the ergonomics of the product. He was also
assumed joint responsibility for the secondary jar opener, the silicone band. Ethan
provided constant input during the design process, from brainstorming through
concept selection, and into the assembly process. He worked closely with Zoe to
develop a system for the smooth implementation of the jar opening band. He took it
upon himself to order and maintain the parts for the jar opener. He proposed the
idea of a rubberizing spray that was widely accepted among the group, but didnt
make it into the final design due to issues with assembly. He also made instrumental
suggestion to HJ for the shape and dimensions of the products case. Ethan
contributed to the final report and presentation by filling in sections pertaining to
91 of 101

his subsystem and then checking to maintain continuity both before and after his
sections.

15 Appendix F: Statement of Work

Team
Zoe Chan, David Hecht, HJ Kim, Ben Mason, Caroline Sullivan, Ethan Wolf
Semester Objectives
1. Gather research and perform benchmarking of other can and jar opening
models
2. Design an automatic can and jar opener that fully meets specifications for
3.
4.
5.
6.

people with Arthritis and small hands

Build a functional prototype
Test prototype
Improve design and retest
Finalize prototype

Approach
Based on research and benchmarking, a feasible design will be determined. The
team will split into subsystems and design details. Because each subsystems
dependency on other subsystems, major testing will begin after constructing a
functional prototype. Through multiple testing and redesign phases, the prototype
will be refined and until all technical specifications are met.
Deliverables and Dates
1. Milestone One: System Concept Review (10/9)
2. Prototype Design (10/27)
3. Prototype Fabrication and Review (11/5)
4. Modifications and Testing (11/10)
5. Milestone Two: Project Demonstration (11/24)
6. Milestone Three: Team Presentation (12/4)
7. Milestone Three: Final Report (12/4)

92 of 101

16

Appendix G: Professional Development - Lessons

Learned
The number of skills that were learned from the completion of this massive project
are uncountable. They include many engineering aspects: ranging from the
electrical components of the motor and batteries, the mechanical challenges that
the gears presented, the material science involved in the blade construction, the
biomedical engineering faced in the ergonomics section, and more mechanical
issues that were overcome in the jar opening section. However, some of the most
significant challenges that had to be conquered came in respect to teamwork and
cooperation.
When working with a group as large as this one and when attempting to complete a
project of this magnitude, communication was essential at all times. Stark
Enterprisers ensured that good contact between members was being made
throughout the entire design process by relying heavily on a group chat to
correspond back and forth. This proved to be extremely useful because it sent
notifications directly to the phones of team members and alerted one another of
any changes to meetings or assignments or any other miscellaneous important
information. Documents were also established on online servers so that the team
could work on them at the same time and collaborate more easily. This proved to be
a successful way to encourage cooperation between team members and also
allowed for editing of one another's contributions, greatly increasing the quality of
the submissions.
There were also many rules and policies that proved ineffective in improving any
aspects of team work. One such was a policy in which a team member arriving late
to a meeting would bring food to the meeting to compensate for tardiness. This was
not strictly adhered to, and as such people were frequently late without excuse. The
ineffectiveness of this policy can largely be attributed to the silliness involved in it.
Another problem that was encountered was the meeting of deadlines. When the
team set due dates, they were often very realistic and as such team members
frequently had trouble having things done in time.

93 of 101

Ways in which Stark Enterprisers could have improved upon these guidelines would
have been to be stricter with absences and tardiness so as to further discourage the
behaviors. Although this action would have been much more unpopular, it could
have potentially resulted in the increased efficiency of the entire team. Another area
in which the team could have improved was in setting unrealistic deadlines and
then being very strict with them so that even when people are not on time with
their contributions they will still have them done in time for proper evaluation and
refinement.
It was important for the team to keep in mind as progress was made on the device
that each of the individual members brought a unique skill set, personality, and
varied Myer's Briggs types to the table. Within the Stark Enterprisers there were five
introverts and only one extrovert, so it was crucial that all of the introverts would
express their opinions and that the extrovert not take over to an extreme. There
was also only one person who identified with each of the sensing, feeling, and
perceiving criteria, so it was also key that their input is weighed just as heavily as
the rest of the intuitive, thinking, and judging team members. Figure 16.1 illustrates
the Myers Briggs types of all of the team members

Figure 16.1 Team MBTI

94 of 101

More other ideas that could have been implemented would have been setting a
clear leader to ensure team members were completing things on time and to
generally assist with the overall function of the group. Also it could have been
beneficial to have a form of conflict resolution in place so that if any minor disputes
over any range of topics could be easily handled in a responsible way. This system
could have been found via research online or in literature and could have been
implemented by the team captain.
Overall, the team learned an incredible amount about the professional development
side of the design process and that in order to overcome the obstacles it represents
requires patience, communication, determination, and leadership. Throughout the
construction of this project, the entire team gained considerable grasp of these
qualities.

95 of 101

17 Appendix H: User Manual

Proper Utilization
Step 1 Place firmly on top of can with inside edge of blade resting on outer edge of
can.
Step 2 Press switch forward and allow blade to grip can.
Step 3 Hold ACJO and allow can to rotate as the blade travels along the edge.
Step 4 When top of can is fully removed, press switch into reverse to allow blade
to release can top.
Step 5 Carefully dispose of top of can as cut edges may be sharp.

Maintenance/Troubleshooting

ACJO is not running

96 of 101

Replace batteries by carefully removing battery casing, taking out and

disposing of old batteries, putting in new batteries ensuring proper

orientation, and then try again

With parental supervision see if any wires are frayed or detached, and
if you have experience with electrical work, reattach or replace wires

as necessary
Ensure that proper pressure is being exerted on the shell, and if

necessary wrap rubber bands or duct tape around it to ensure this

If further issues are observed, contact Stark Enterprises Inc. Ltd. at 1-

800-382-5433
ACJO is not entering forward/reverse properly
o There is most likely a wiring issue, ensure that all wires are securely
fashioned and if necessary get a professional to reattach or replace
o

any faulty wires

If the problem persists contact Stark Enterprises Inc. Ltd. at 1-800-3825433

Safety

ACJO is not dishwasher safe, do not place in dishwasher or under water for

any period of time

Beware of sharp edges on blade
Be careful with the electrical components inside ACJO when changing

batteries
Do not turn ACJO on or in reverse while changing batteries
When replacing batteries, do not mix old and new batteries. Replace both
batteries each time

If sparks or smoke are observed coming from can or from ACJO itself,
immediately turn it off and refrain from use for at least thirty minutes

18 Appendix I: Testing Results

Tri
al

Da
te
of

Project State

Cut
Rati
ng

Additional Notes/Reasoning

97 of 101

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Tes
t
17Nov
17Nov
17Nov
18Nov
18Nov
20Nov
20Nov
20Nov
20Nov
20Nov
21Nov

12

21Nov

13

21Nov

14

21Nov

15

21Nov

16

21Nov

17

22Nov

18

22Nov

Only Internals

First test, was able to penetrate side of

can. Did not complete cut
Cut can 3/4 of the way, required
operator to steady and apply pressure
Cut can 3/4 of the way, required
operator to steady and apply pressure
Bottom of shell too thick, did not allow
for blade to clench onto can
Cut can fully (slowly), required operator
to steady to get started
Cut can fully, minor slowing at certain
points; No operator input
Cut can fully, minor slowing at certain
points; No operator input
Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Only Internals

Only Internals

Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Internals Temporarily
fastened to shell
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled - Shell
secured in place

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully, required

operator re-adjustment (after being
glued)
Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Cut can smoothly and fully as desired

Post sanding; struggled significantly to

cut can, switch acting unreliably, was

3
4
4

98 of 101

permanently
Fully Assembled secured in place
permanently
Fully Assembled removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled removable for
maintenance
Only Internals

19

22Nov

Shell

20

22Nov

Shell

21

22Nov

Shell

22

25Nov

Shell

23

25Nov

Shell

24

25Nov

25

25Nov

Only Internals

26

25Nov

Only Internals

27

25Nov

28

25Nov

29

25Nov

30

26Nov

31

26Nov

32

26Nov

33

26Nov

Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled
removable for

not able to fully open can

Unable to produce enough power to
penetrate (This is likely around when
the switch was failing)
Unable to produce enough power to
fully cut can even after re-solders and
new batteries
Unable to produce enough power to
fully cut can even after re-solders and
new batteries (Class Demo)
Only able to penetrate can after wires
are adjusted and held in a certain
position
Completely stopped working; Not able
to turn on
Replaced wires thought to be failing
and causing system to not work; still
unable to turn on
Replaced switch; systems turns on and
is able to cut can while being held
tightly by operator
Replaced batteries; system able to cut
more smoothly, still requires tight grip
from operator
Cut can fully (slowly), minor hiccups
(slowing of motor) during cut, requires
operator to steady
Cut can smoothly, required operator to
steady

- Shell

- Shell

- Shell

Cut can smoothly, required operator to

steady

- Shell

- Shell

- Shell

- Shell

Cut can fully (slowly), minor hiccups

(slowing of motor) during cut, requires
operator to steady
Failed to finish cut half way through
(This is likely around when the motor
was on its way out)
Cut can fully (slowly), minor hiccups
(slowing of motor) during cut, requires
operator to steady
Cut can smoothly, required operator to
steady
99 of 101

34

26Nov

35

26Nov

maintenance
Fully Assembled - Shell
removable for
maintenance
Fully Assembled - Shell
removable for
maintenance

Cut can fully (slowly), minor hiccups

(slowing of motor) during cut, requires
operator to steady
Cut can fully (slowly), minor hiccups
(slowing of motor) during cut, requires
operator to steady

100 of 101