Bottle Opener, Post 4

Modified Design:

We modified the shape of the bottle opener in the hope of increasing its functionality. There are significant differences between this first iteration and the original prototype.

The original features a long handle and a pointed component which overreached the center of the bottle cap. The side facing this protrusion was too thick to hook under the cap and had to be sanded down. This prototype did not feel sturdy enough.

This first iteration attempted to correct problems encountered in the original design. We began by moving the pointed piece a further distance from the opposing face in order to better locate it at the center of the bottle cap. We moved the handle from the side with the pointed component to the side facing the peak, and shortened it. We decreased the length of the widest dimension of the hole, and widened the material surrounding it. We also changed the method of opening the bottle. With this design and change in the handle position, one places the point on the center of the bottle cap, and the opposing face catches underneath the cap. One places their thumbs upon the supports around the "mouth" and pushes forward and downward.

We made these changes because we felt that the original was not sturdy enough to consistently complete the task. We reassessed the tradeoffs we made in computing the deflection for the original model. We had a longer length of the handle so less force would have to be applied. For this iteration, Young's modulus remained the same, as did our choice in thickness. Therefore, the denominator remained constant. However, we changed both force and length with these modifications. We decreased length by a great amount, and subsequently increased the force required due to the loss of torque. However, we hypothesized that because length in the numerator is cubed, the better tradeoff would be to decrease length and increase force applied. Therefore, we decreased the numerator while the denominator held constant, resulting in a smaller degree of deflection. When we tested this model out, it indeed felt sturdier and much less flexible. This time, it worked during trials consistently.