AUTOMATED JAR OPENER

PROPOSAL
ME 340 SECTION 4
TEAM I

MATT STEINDORF
DAN AGLIONE
QI ZHANG

Team I Proposal 1|Page

2/25/2011
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This proposal focuses on the design of a kitchen product that

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

This report outlines the details of a comprehensive design process

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

Team I Proposal 2|Page

2/25/2011
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………….
....………………2
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem
Statement…………………………………………………………………...4
1.2 Background………………………………………………………………………
……...4
1.3 Task Description…………………………………………………………….
……..….5
1.4 Project Planning………………………………………..…………………….
…….….5
2. Customer Needs Assessment
2.1 Gathering Customer
Input……………………………………………………..….5
2.2 Weighing Customer Needs………………………………………………….
…….6
2.3 Developing Design Specifications…………………………...
…………………6
3. Concept Generation
3.1 External
Search……………………………………………………………………..…6
3.2 Problem
Decomposition……………………………………………………….…..7
3.3 Ideation Methods…………………………………………………………….
……….7
3.4 Description of Design Concepts……………………………………..
……….....8
4. Concept Selection

Team I Proposal 3|Page

2/25/2011
 4.1 Concept
Screening……………………………………………………………………8
4.2 Concept Scoring…………………………………………………………...
……..……9
5. System Level Design……………………………………………………………...….
……9-11
6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………
………..12
7. References………………………………………………………………………………
……..…12
Appendix A
Project
Management…………………………………………………………………...…….13
Appendix B
Tables, Figures,
Matrices………………………………………………………………14-16
Appendix C
Concept Sketches…………………………………………………………………....
……17-22

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

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

Senior citizens, users with physical conditions, or amputees struggle

most of all. Currently, this population is forced to implement all sorts of
methods to remove lids. Some use towels to avoid severe gripping pains.
Others try schemes like banging the lid or soaking the jar with hot water.

Team I Proposal 4|Page

2/25/2011
Worst of all, a large number of people merely cannot open tough jars
independently and are forced to wait for assistance.

A jar opening product would be the perfect answer to these problems.

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

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

For a large portion of the population, certain physical limitations create

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

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

1.3 Task Description

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

1.4 Project Planning

Team I Proposal 5|Page
2/25/2011
 This report documents an elaborate design process that will be
carefully followed to develop a viable solution to the task description. To
begin the research, customer needs are assessed to fully understand what
ideas need to be incorporated into the design. This involves customer
feedback regarding benchmark items. Secondly, the needs are translated
into appropriate product specifications. The next step involves concept
generation based on the specifications. A concept generation table is used
to create many concept permutations. The most promising designs then
undergo comparison in screening and scoring matrices with appropriate
criteria weights. The results of the scoring accurately indicate the best
design.

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

A proposed timetable of the project schedule can be seen in Appendix

A, Figure 2.1.

2. CUSTOMER NEEDS ASSESSMENT

2.1 Gathering Customer Input

Customer inputs were collected through customer reviews of Black
Decker Lids Off Jar Opener and One Touch Jar Opener, which are the existing
benchmark products on market [2, 3]. These benchmark items provided
feedback from actual users. These reviews are of utmost importance
because the needs come straight from the product market. Customer
statements were then translated into interpreted needs as criteria in
designing the jar opener. Along with the customer inputs, the team also
added basic criteria such as safety and efficiency. This table can be viewed
in Appendix B, Table 2.114.

2.2 Weighing Customer Needs

The weighing of criteria is an essential step in developing a concept.
This gives a quantitative representation of how each criterion relates to one

Team I Proposal 6|Page

2/25/2011
 another. Not all criteria are equally important, thus they should not have the
same impact during the scoring process.

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

an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Pairwise Comparison Chart was
developed (seen in Appendix B, Figure 2.2). Here, the relative importance of
the twelve criteria were compared to one another, using a rating system
from 1-5. A score of 1 indicated that the two requirements shared equal
importance. A higher number specified more of an importance in relation to
the other criterion. This process was completed until all comparisons were
covered. The summation of the scores then provided a total which signifies
the weighted value of the criteria. These values translated into the weights
found in the scoring matrix for final concept selection [4].

2.3 Developing Design Specifications

It is extremely important to design a product that meets customer
needs. This is done by adapting customer feedback into engineering
specifications that will be used in the product design. A tool to accomplish
this is quality function deployment (QFD) [4]. This matrix lists customer
needs on the y axis and engineering specifications on the x axis. Inside the
matrix are X marks where a particular need corresponds to a design feature.
Many needs can be addressed by one specification and vice versa. The QFD
can be found in the Appendix B, Figure 2.1.

3. CONCEPT GENERATION

3.1 External Search

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

Team I Proposal 7|Page

2/25/2011
3.2 Problem Decomposition
The product must be able to fulfill the customer needs and, by doing
so, will be the only product in the market to open jars with lid diameters up
to 3.5 inches and also be able to close them as well.

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

Input Output
Energy Jar
Opened
Automate /Closed

Signal d Jar Signal

(?) Opener

Setup No Mess

Figure 3.1: Overall Black Box of Design

3.3 Ideation Methods

Concepts were generated using brainstorming, benchmarking, and a
combination table process [4]. Initially, each team member researched
related items and sketches some original ideas. It was established that a
successful jar product would have a few fundamental principles. These
principles included how the bottom of the jar would be held, how the lid
would twist off, any mechanical processes involved, and finally which parts
were moving. The combination table lists characteristics for each of the four
categories. These characteristics are shown below in Table 3.2.

Team I Proposal 8|Page

2/25/2011
 Table 3.2: Design Concept Classifications for Concept Combination

Lid Container Mechanical Which part of

Fastening Fastening Process Used Jar is Powered
Mechanism Mechanism

Scissoring Cone Central Axis Top Jar

Wedge Rotation

Clamps Scissoring Wedge Tangential Bottom Jar

Rotation

Strap/Band Rounded Clamps Linear Opposition Top Structure of

Product

Tire Pressure Tire Pressure on Jar Bottom Structure

on Lid Walls of Product

Handcuff Style Diamond Wedge Both Top and

Clamps Bottom Powered

3.4 Description of Design Concepts

Several concepts were created by selecting different elements from
each column of the concept combination table [4]. These concepts are
detailed in Appendix C, Figures 3.4-3.9. Each concept utilized a different
permutation of the four columns in new and creative ways. By choosing
these from a list, it was more difficult to have a bias while generating
concepts.

4. CONCEPT SELECTION

4.1 Concept Screening

A concept screening matrix was used to determine the most viable
concepts out of the six that were chosen from the combination table [4]. The
Strap Bottom/Cone Top, Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top, and the Belt Driven
Top/Strap Bottom designs were identified as these three designs. The

Team I Proposal 9|Page

2/25/2011
criteria used to judge each concept came from the customer needs
assessment. The customer needs were analyzed based on translating
reviews into interpreted needs and desired specifications. This analysis can
be found in Appendix B, Table 2.2. The Concept Screening Matrix can be
found in Figure 3.2 on page 16.

4.2 Concept Scoring

The Strap Bottom/Cone Top, Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top, and the
Belt Driven Top/Strap Bottom designs were again ranked using the concept
scoring matrix. For this matrix, the relative weights for the customer needs
were calculated using the results from the Analytical Hierarchy Process found
in Appendix B, Figure 2.3. The scoring results can be found in Figure 3.3 18.
It was determined that Adjustable Diamond/Cone Top performed the best in
the concept screening matrix and was selected for the system level design.
This selection seemed both logical and appropriate since it best fulfilled the
larger weighted criteria.

5. SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN

The final design encompasses the adjustable diamond bottom/cone top

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

After the base of the jar is secure, there will be a toggle switch where
the user can select either to open or close the jar lid. This action will rotate
the blue section of the jar opener around a center axis beneath the gray
base plate, causing the cone to rotate as well. The weight of the top mount
will provide the necessary contact pressure to the lid. After the required
number of revolutions, the lid has either been removed or securely fastened
to the jar. The user lifts up the gold cone section and removes the jar and
lid. This system will allow the user to easily operate the entire process with

Team I Proposal 10 | P a g e
2/25/2011
as little effort as possible. As long as the user is able to lift up the jar and
place it in the center, they are able to perform the necessary motions to use
this system.

The system will be constructed out of 6061 Aluminum Alloy, or

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

Figure 5.1: Jar Opener Isometric

Team I Proposal 11 | P a g e
2/25/2011
Figure 5.2: Diamond Wedge Position 1 Figure 5.3: Diamond
Wedge Position 2

Figure 5.4:
Rack and
Pinion

Team I Proposal 12 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 Figure 5.5: Section Cut

6. CONCLUSION

Senior citizens, people who suffer from arthritis and amputee are in
need of a solution to resolve their simple daily problem from the lack of
energy for opening jars. Such a simple task may seem easy for a healthy
person, but could be a very frustrating task for those who are not as lucky.
With the invention of an automatic jar opener that could open and close a jar
by one click could help solve this problem for many. Senior citizens and
people with physical constrains are the primary consumers for this product.
For this good cause, the team has come up with the final concept selection
for the jar opener design to use a cone top and a diamond wedge bottom.
This selection was based on the result of the concept scoring matrix Figure
3.3 in Appendix B. This invention could potentially help out the ones who
need the most help and care in their lives, and make their lives more
accessible, which is a universal goal for all invention.

7. REFERENCES

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

Team I Proposal 13 | P a g e
2/25/2011
[2] "Amazon.com: One Touch Jar Opener: Kitchen & Dining." Amazon.com:
Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs &
More. Web. 24 Feb. 2011. <http://www.amazon.com/onetouch-
jaropener-One-Touch-Opener/dp/B001E23RLM/ref=sr_1_3?
ie=UTF8&qid=1298591804&sr=8-3>.

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

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

APPENDIX A – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Team Roles
Matt Steindorf – Concept Generation, CAD Operator, Concept
Selection

Dan Aglione – Executive Summary, Introduction, Concept Selection

Qi Zhang – Customer Needs Assessment, Conclusion, References

Team I Proposal 14 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 Figure 2.1: Project Schedule Gantt Chart

APPENDIX B – TABLES, FIGURES, MATRICES

Table 2.1: Translated Customer Needs

Prompt CUSTOMER REVIEW INTERPRETED NEED SPECIFICATIONS

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

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

CHEAP MATERIALS
INEXPENSIVE. AFFORDABLE. COUNT
Dislike -
IT DOES NOT FIT ALL THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO FIT ADJUSTABLE
Black and SIZE JARS. VARIETY OF JAR SIZES. MECHANISM
Decker
IT DOES NOT FIT ALL THE JAR OPENER NEEDS TO FIT ADJUSTABLE
SIZE LIDS. VARIETY OF JAR HEIGHTS. MECHANISM
IT IS SLOW AND IT
Dislikes - THE JAR OPENER SHOULD OPEN HIGH POWER EFFICIENT
BREAKS AFTER A FEW
One Touch USAGES.
JARS FASTER THAN BY HAND. MOTORS GEARING
IT TAKES UP TOO MUCH THE JAR OPENER SHOULD EFFICIENT MOTOR EFFICIENT

Team I Proposal 15 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 POWER. REQUIRE LESS POWER. BATTERY
THE BUTTON ON THE ILLUMINATED BUTTONS
PROVIDE
JAR OPENER WAS TOO THE JAR OPENER SHOULD HAVE PUSH CLEARLY
ESSENTIAL USER
BIG THAT I ACCIDENTLY AN ON AND OFF SWITCH. BUTTON/TOGGLE SHIELDED FROM
CONTROLS
PRESS IT. SWITCHES ACCIDENTAL USE
THE JAR OPENER
SAFE MOTOR
STARTLED ME WHEN IT SMOOTH OPENING ACTION SMOOTH DRIVE SHIELDED USER
CONTROL
OPENED THE JAR
Suggested ROBUST ADEQUATE
IT NEEDS TO HAVE A THE JAR OPENER MUST BE
improvem MATERIALS HARDWARE
LONGER LIFE SPAM. STURDY.
ents SELECTION SELECTION
IT NEEDS TO FIT ALL
THE JAR OPENER MUST FIT A
DIMENSIONS OF ANY
VARIETY OF JARS.
JARS.
Clean Appearance/Color Scheme

Adequate Hardware Selection

Telescoping/Compactable

Robust Material Selection

Adjustable Mechanism
Inexpensive Materials

On and Off Switches

Accessible Buttons
Injection Molding

Small Part Count

Specification

Efficient Battery
Efficient Motor
Gearing Ratios
Clear Labeling
Filleted Edges

Shielded Lid

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

Figure 2.1: Quality Function Decomposition

Team I Proposal 16 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 AestheticsErgonomicsEase of Storage
AffordableOne Size Fits All
DurabilityEnergy Efficient
Long LifetimeEase of Operation
Q uietSafetyProjected Torque
Total W eight
Aesthetics 1 0.2 0.33 0.2 0.25 0.33 3 0.5 0.2 2 0.25 0.33 8.59 0.0379
Ergonomics 5 1 2 3 2 4 5 4 1 5 2 3 37 0.1633
Ease of Sto rage 3 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 2 1 0.2 2 0.33 0.5 12.53 0.0553
Affordable 5 0.33 1 1 2 3 4 2 0.33 2 1 1 22.66 0.1000
One Size Fits All 4 0.5 2 0.5 1 2 2 1 0.25 2 1 0.5 16.75 0.0739
Durability 3 0.25 2 0.33 0.5 1 3 2 0.33 4 0.5 1 17.91 0.0791
Energy Efficient 0.33 0.2 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.33 1 0.33 0.2 1 0.25 0.33 5.22 0.0230
Long Lifetime 2 0.25 1 0.5 1 0.5 3 1 0.25 2 0.33 0.33 12.16 0.0537
Ease of Operation 5 1 5 3 4 3 5 4 1 5 3 3 42 0.1854
Quiet 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 0.5 0.2 1 0.25 0.33 5.73 0.0253
Safety 4 0.5 3 1 1 2 4 3 0.33 4 1 2 25.83 0.1140
Projected Torque 3 0.33 2 1 2 1 3 3 0.33 3 0.5 1 20.16 0.0890
Total 226.54 1.0000

Scale of Relative Importance

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

Figure 2.2: AHP Diagram

Team I Proposal 17 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 Adjustable Belt
Scissor Diamond Driven Top
Scissor Strap Bottom/ Bottom/Straight Scissors bottom, bottom/ Cone strap
Bottom/Tires Top Cone top Clamp top handcuffs top top bottom
aesthetics 1 1 0 0 1 1
ergonomics -1 -1 0 0 -1 -1
easy for storage 0 -1 0 0 1 1
affordable -1 0 0 1 -1 -1
one size fit all 1 0 0 0 0 1
durability 0 1 0 0 1 -1
energy efficient -1 0 0 0 0 -1
long lifetime 0 0 0 0 0 0
easy to operate 1 1 0 0 1 1
quiet 0 0 0 0 0 0
safety 0 1 0 0 1 1
projected torque 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sum + 4 4 0 1 5 6
Sum 0 5 6 12 11 5 2
Sum - 3 2 0 0 2 4
Net Totals: 1 2 0 1 3 2
Rank 4 2 6 4 1 2
Continue? No Yes No No Yes Yes

Figure 3.2: Concept Screening Matrix

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

Figure 3.3: Concept Scoring Matrix

Team I Proposal 18 | P a g e
2/25/2011
 APPENDIX C – CONCEPT SKETCHES

Figure 3.4: Scissor Bottom/Tires Top

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

Team I Proposal 19 | P a g e
2/25/2011
Figure 3.5: Strap Bottom/ Cone Top

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

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

The top support is an aluminum bar that has a cone-shaped cutout in

the center. This cutout is coated with a rubber-like material with a high
coefficient of friction. Holding up the top bar are two support cylinders, each
fastened to an outer ring on the base plate. This outer ring is spun via a
center axis rotation which is incorporated into a gear box housed in the base
plate. Once the jar is properly secured, a button initiates the gears,
consequently rotating the outer ring. The sheer weight of the cone assembly

Team I Proposal 20 | P a g e
2/25/2011
provides enough contact pressure to the lid, unscrewing it from the jar
threads. Again, when the gear rotations are reversed, the cone turns the lid
back onto the jar.

Figure 3.6: Scissor Bottom/Straight Clamp Top

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

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

Team I Proposal 21 | P a g e
2/25/2011
would restrain the size of jars that the opener can open, which could be a
challenge.

Figure 3.7: Scissors Bottom/ Handcuffs Top

Handcuffs top and scissor bottom is a design that has a handcuffs-like

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

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

Team I Proposal 22 | P a g e
2/25/2011
contacts on the jar which would lock the jar tight.

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

Team I Proposal 23 | P a g e
2/25/2011
Figure 3.8: Adjustable Diamond Bottom/ Cone Top

This concept follows the same opening principle as the strap/cone

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

Team I Proposal 24 | P a g e
2/25/2011
Figure 3.9: Belt Driven Top/ Strap Bottom

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

Team I Proposal 25 | P a g e
2/25/2011