IET 330

assignment 3
Taylor Puckett

1. For my small appliance I chose to dissect a Black & Decker can opener
Black and Decker can opener assembly

Black and Decker can opener disassembled

Product Decomposition Diagram

This can opener itself seems to operate in a simple way. The enclosure holds
the gears that turn the can, as well as the motor which turns the gears. The
motor is supplied electricity by an electric cord that has a power switch
where a power button is pressed down to complete the circuit and thus
provide the motor with electricity. The can lid cutter lever is pressed down to
both a.) cut the can lid and b.) press the power button. The screws and
washers hold everything snug in place.

2.
Concept Evaluation Using Weighted Rating Method (Pahl & Beitz Method)

Alternative Concepts / Embodiments

gears
Weight (%)

Criteria

rating

v-belts

wt. Rating rating

chain

linkages

wt. Rating

rating

wt. Rating

rating

wt. Rating

cost

20

0.60

0.80

0.80

0.80

weight

15

0.30

0.60

0.45

0.60

size

15

0.45

0.30

0.45

0.45

reliability

0.36

0.27

0.36

0.36

efficiency

0.32

0.24

0.32

0.24

force

0.32

0.24

0.32

0.32

integral braking

10

0.40

0.30

0.40

0.30

customer appeal

15

0.30

0.15

0.60

0.45

100

na

3.05

na

2.90

na

3.70

na

3.52

Unsatisfactory

Just tolerable

Adequate

Good

Very Good

a) Rank the alternatives based on their weighted rating?

1. Chain - 3.70
2. Linkages - 3.52
3. Gears - 3.05
4. V-Belts - 2.90

b) Is there an obvious winner?

- Yes, The chain is the winner
c) Why?
- because it's total weighted rating is higher than the other alternatives.

3. Lets go back to your Lab 2. Based on your concept design, go online and do
some research. Find some similar products. Compare with your concept design.
Discuss what advantages and disadvantages of each (evaluate). Please post the
pictures and the links of resource.
- In Lab 2 my concept design was a handle with interchangeable heads that
included a shovel, hoe, and rake heads. The only product that I was able to find that
was similar was an offroad recovery/camping tool kit made by Rugged Ridge. You
can view the product here - http://www.ruggedridge.com/all-terrain-recovery-toolkit-15105-01.html .
Though my design would be targeted more toward contractors who would like a
durable and even repairable (smaller replaceable parts such as the heads) tool that
takes up less space than their Original designs, than for offroading or camping. The
design feature of how these heads connect to the handle is a main point for both
designs. With my design the heads screw into the handle and ha a, while with
Rugged Ridges product the heads slide into the handle and are locked in place by a
spring loaded snapping button.

- My threaded design compared to the rugged ridge spring loaded design

Advantages include: Tighter fit so less movement of heads, less breakable
parts/sub-assemblies.
Disadvantages include: Slower to put together for use,