pic: Floating Zip Tie Chain Tensioner

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I wouldn't regard your comment as being a "downer". It takes nothing away from the designer, who came up with the idea independently and creatively, to say that other bright and talented people have come up with similar designs. In many ways it is a compliment to the effectiveness of the design.

From a patenting point of view it is also extremely helpful to know exactly what the "prior art" is so that you can describe precisely how a design differs from the prior art and what benefits your design offers. Perhaps this design is simpler to produce, is more reliable, uses less expensive materials, or is easier to adjust. If you don't know about prior art, and sufficiently differentiate your product from what has come before, you may spent a whole lot of time and money getting a patent only to discover that you can't enforce it due to the prior art... so knowing that there are similar designs out there in the public domain is useful for the inventor.

It is extremely difficult to come up with a revolutionary mechanical design. After centuries of designing developments tend to be evolutionary rather than completely new. Often those incremental improvements are quite profitable and quite worth patenting, even though they may only improve performance in some small way. I can see how this design offers some incremental improvements over what I've seen before... and the suggestion to use a hose clamp is possibly another incremental improvement.

Given that the discussion of patents, in the absence of a business plan, is purely academic, knowing that there have been similar desgins in no way marginalizes the "great idea" factor for the designer. So rather than viewing your comments as a downer, I'd view them as evidence that this design is on the right track!

Jason

I would just like to say thanks to everyone and I am currently talking to AndyMark right now. Hopefully I can get this thing in the market.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

So by copyrighting a drawing, you prevent someone from redistributing facsimilies of the drawing, but are not protected against someone reading it and implementing the object depicted.

Or, for that matter, someone re-drawing the drawing and distributing that.

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

What if I just sell it to Andy Mark??

I know you're in discussions, so I won't comment specifically on that.

One option is to simply give them the idea for free (or some minor consideration, like a 20% discount on your next order). But, that depends on whether they 'want' something like that, or think it will sell. They have some small risk in the cost of manufacturing and inventory, but the risk is small only because the cost is low.

Another alternative is to ask AndyMark to market the product, and you simply supply it. They have little upfront expenses, aside from a web page on their site. You have a small expense, making several samples and a small stock for them to hold on to for orders. And you can make a few dollars for the team, or for yourself.

Just beware that if a LOT of teams want these, you may need to buy materials and make hundreds or even thousands* of them in just a few days - during build season. Getting a whole team to help - who gets the money? - might ease this worry.

I'm not meaning to suggest that AndyMark will do this, I'm just using their name as an example.

*We can only hope!

Don

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Or, for that matter, someone re-drawing the drawing and distributing that.

So long as it was not an exact replica of the drawing, then there would be no copyright protection. For instance the drawing could be re-drawn to a different scale, show dimensions in different locations, be in first angle rather than third angle projection, have some parts with slightly different dimensions, be a SolidWorks file rather than an Inventor file.... I would even go so far as to say that if the original drawing was drawn exactly to an established standard, then someone could re-draw it to that established standard and have a perfect duplicate without infringing copyright because no creative content went into either drawing. (The creatvity being in the design, not the drawing.) They may even be able to copy the drawing outright, just as they would a table of data, or a bare (non-artistic) chart or graph.

Oh, heck... here's someone who's written it up better and more authoritatively than I http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm

That is the value of a patent... it truly protects the idea of the design, which is the fundamental part of the invention rather than just an expression of the idea.

Jason

P.S. Good luck with manufacturing and marketing your design. It looks like a design that is extremely well-suited to mass production and once you get your jigs worked out you should be able to churn them out by the hundreds fairly quickly.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

P.S. Good luck with manufacturing and marketing your design. It looks like a design that is extremely well-suited to mass production and once you get your jigs worked out you should be able to churn them out by the hundreds fairly quickly.

I think it'd be best for him to step back and view this from an economical perspective.

Think about how many of these you need to make, how quickly each one needs to be made, and how much you need to sell them for to break even.

Then think about how many you think you can possibly sell.

If you do the math, I don't think it's a viable investment to try to mass produce these, or even make them on a fairly large scale.

To actually make money you need to be injection molding, not milling these. Injection molding is orders of magnitude more expensive than even the most generous estimate of demand for these.

Given demand, and cost of contracting these out to a machine shop, or time involved in making them yourself, I don't think you can come out on top. Especially given that anyone with a manual mill or even drill press with x+y table can make one of these in about 15 minutes.

Keep in mind that if you choose to make them or have someone else machine them, you have to be able to meet the criteria of a vendor, as well as be capable to potentially ship one to every team in FIRST, if they ordered one, within x time period (I think 5-7 days? can't recall).

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Cory

I think it'd be best for him to step back and view this from an economical perspective.

Think about how many of these you need to make, how quickly each one needs to be made, and how much you need to sell them for to break even.

Then think about how many you think you can possibly sell.

If you do the math, I don't think it's a viable investment to try to mass produce these, or even make them on a fairly large scale.

To actually make money you need to be injection molding, not milling these. Injection molding is orders of magnitude more expensive than even the most generous estimate of demand for these.

Given demand, and cost of contracting these out to a machine shop, or time involved in making them yourself, I don't think you can come out on top. Especially given that anyone with a manual mill or even drill press with x+y table can make one of these in about 15 minutes.

Keep in mind that if you choose to make them or have someone else machine them, you have to be able to meet the criteria of a vendor, as well as be capable to potentially ship one to every team in FIRST, if they ordered one, within x time period (I think 5-7 days? can't recall).

That is why I am talking to Andy Mark, but Cory. Do you think these will sell if they are priced just right???

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Cory

I think it'd be best for him to step back and view this from an economical perspective.

....

To actually make money you need to be injection molding, not milling these. Injection molding is orders of magnitude more expensive than even the most generous estimate of demand for these.

Given demand, and cost of contracting these out to a machine shop, or time involved in making them yourself, I don't think you can come out on top. Especially given that anyone with a manual mill or even drill press with x+y table can make one of these in about 15 minutes.

Keep in mind that if you choose to make them or have someone else machine them, you have to be able to meet the criteria of a vendor, as well as be capable to potentially ship one to every team in FIRST, if they ordered one, within x time period (I think 5-7 days? can't recall).

I'll agree with the importance of researching the market as part of a business plan. I would have a hard time seeing how someone could get rich manufacturing these tensioners, however I have no problem believing that they could be manufacutured profitably. Potentially the greatest profit to be had from marketing and manufacturing them is the experience of developing a business plan, refining the production techniques, setting up a business and running it. Even if the business runs at a small loss having that on a resume and that exeperience as part of a professional tool set will be worth thousands of dollars....

But I strongly disagree with the need to have them injection molded in order to turn a profit. The elegance of this particular design is that, as I have mentioned, it can be mass produced in a woodwork shop. The table saw is great for cutting long straight lines and long deep grooves. If you look at the jigs used for creating finger joints that might give you an idea how to make repeated, evenly spaced cuts. Do the cuts on one side of a sheet of HDPE, flip it over, turn it 90 degrees and do the cuts in the opposite direction, then slice it and cut to length to turn out the final product.

This will require a bit of R&D... talking to someone with some fine woodworking experience would be a big help. I would also suggest prototyping the production process using a less expensive material, such as MDF, until the jigs are worked out and acceptable tolerances are achieved.

For an investment of probably less than $200, plus hours and hours of work, it is quite possible to have hundreds of these produced and ready to go very quickly.

I don't think anyone is going to become a millionaire off of this, but the beauty of it is that done properly any financial losses... even if sales are terrible... will be offset by the educational value of going through the entrepreneurial process.

Go for it!

Jason

[UndergroundVoid]

Umm, so let me get this straight if you used this as a chain tension device than how long would it last due to the chain grinding against it. Also chain has that special pattern to it with that wouldn't it get locked up on the edges of this device? might want some sort of bearingS to prevent friction but that is just me.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by UndergroundVoid

Umm, so let me get this straight if you used this as a chain tension device than how long would it last due to the chain grinding against it. Also chain has that special pattern to it with that wouldn't it get locked up on the edges of this device? might want some sort of bearingS to prevent friction but that is just me.

Its obviously not as efficient as something that rotates, but the plastic used is relatively low friction. I also imagine that the side walls do not hit the side of the chain unless the chain is moving side to side somewhat.

[UndergroundVoid]

I would have to see some test data before i make any real judgment on things since the world is full surprises.

[R.C.]

Go to mcmaster.com and type in 5973K1. My idea is based off of this but has a different way of tightening it and is superior in price and quality. Here is my final design of it:



We have been using Mcmaster Carr tensioners and chain does not get locked into the tensioner. UHMW is a very good plastic for this application and the side walls are usually never hit due to the smaller side walls. It is fit for both #25 and #35 chain.

[Joe G.]

what is the purpose of the holes on the front and back?

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by rocketperson44

what is the purpose of the holes on the front and back?

Say that you want to tension the chain on an arm robot. The chain is going vertically, so you add springs to each side of holes and the tensioner now just hangs: suspended by springs and it still tensions the chain. Also you can attach zip ties or springs to limit how far it floats or if you just want it to stay stationary. Example shown below:


Look at the white tensioner on the lift mechanism, it is suspended by springs and zip ties. The sprockets lifting the arm were of different sizes (a 60 tooth and a 15 tooth), so the tensioner had a tendency of diving down to the smaller sprocket.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

Here is my final design of it:

I can see why you would want two different sized grooves for the chain to accommodate both #25 and #35 chain, but do you need the different sized grooves for the zip ties, too?

I ask only because it would seem to save a few manufacturing steps to put only a single groove in for each zip tie.

In a similar vein, would it, perhaps, be easier to drill the holes ALL the way through the tensioner? That way you would only need to do two drilling operations rather than four.

You may have a different production path in mind than I envision (as I've mentioned, I see this being an ideal shape to cut on a table saw). For instance with a CNC router, putting in extra grooves would require little in the way of additional manufacturing time. But if you are going to be kicking these out by the hundred using some manual production method, you probably want to include optimizing the production path as part of your design process.

Just a few thoughts that occurred to me without having "seen inside your head" to know why you made these design choices... perhaps I have overlooked something perfectly obvious to you. If so, my apologies.

Jason

[NickE]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I can see why you would want two different sized grooves for the chain to accommodate both #25 and #35 chain, but do you need the different sized grooves for the zip ties, too?

I ask only because it would seem to save a few manufacturing steps to put only a single groove in for each zip tie.

In a similar vein, would it, perhaps, be easier to drill the holes ALL the way through the tensioner? That way you would only need to do two drilling operations rather than four.

I agree that the 2 grooves for zipties seems unneccesary, and that the holes could go all the way through.

Another thing to consider:
If you were to make 2 different models for two different sizes of chain, it would simplify your design immensely.
I doubt many teams will be switching their tensioners between different sizes of chain very often.
Just because there is demand for more than one chain size, doesn't mean you need to incorporate all sizes into one product

Honestly, I liked your original design better. I think the most recent one you posted looks too complicated and time-consuming to machine.

[R.C.]

Guys, the reason for one tensioner is that we used the #25 Tensioner for both 25 and 35 chain and it worked perfectly. There will be no machining, i am probably going to have a mold for this made. I will probably end up changing the final design after all the comments and after more test runs of this tensioner.

Thanks Cd