Certified Sheetmakers. Product: Magnetic window cleaner

1.

Certified Sheetmakers
Product: Magnetic window cleaner
Members of a team:
Saidjon Khaydar-Zade, U2110172
Aziz Latipov, U2110185
Khabibulokh Khallokov, U2110164
Nikita Khegay, U2110174
Asadulla Kudratullayev, U2110184
Section: 004

2.

Our mission
• Ease the cleaning process
• Save customers’ time
• Make the windows cleaning less risky job

3.

Quick reminder!!!

4.

5.

Just imagine how difficult it will be to clean all these windows

6.

7.

Some problems people are facing while cleaning windows

8.

Situation from life

9.

Customer Research

10.

Some photos from interaction with customers

11.

Customer complaints and observations:
• Windows are high and some additional device like ladder required to clean them
neatly
• Bars on the windows make it difficult to complete the process of cleaning
• The overall experience of cleaning is not pleasant due to the constant contact with
water
• The most popular tool for cleaning – ordinary rags – falling into disrepair quickly
• Rags used for cleaning windows most often leave stains on windows despite the
quality
• The experience is dangerous due to the risk of falling out of the window
• It requires a lot of effort and extra strength for cleaning the window

12.

Customer complaints and observations:
• It is time consuming and requires extra energy
• Discomfort while cleaning the outer side of the window
• Almost impossible to clean hard-to-reach places on the window using rag-like
cleaning tool
• The cleaning device often falls out of the window and is mostly lost
• Dirty water flows from a cleaning device during cleaning
• Difficult to clean windows for those who are allergic to dust

13.

Customer Needs
No.
Needs
Imp.
1
The device
can clean hard-to-reach places of the window (C1)
5
2
The device
can be used without dipping it into the water (C2)
2
3
The device
lasts a long time (C3)
4
4
The device
cleans windows not leaving strains (C4)
5
5
The device
is safe to use (C5)
3
6
The device
requires minimum effort for the usage (C6)
4
7
The device
performs its task fast (C7)
3
8
The device
is protected from falling out of the window (C8)
1
9
The device
can be maintained easily (C9)
3
10
The device
is lightweight (C10)
2
11
The device
cleans wide variety of windows (C11)
4
12
The device
is affordable for users (C12)
5
13
The device
survives in crashes (C13)
3
14
The device
removes all the dirt on windows (C14)
2
15
The device
does not leave scratches after cleaning (C15)
5

14.

Competitors benchmarking on customer needs
Need
No.
Imp.
Magnetic
window
Cleaner
(MYVIT)
(Robotic)
Windows
cleaner
(CHOVERY)
Toalla
microfibra
(FLARESTAR)
Mighty
Window
Washer
(Ettore)
Performance
Windowbrus Tool W1466
h (No brand) 8" Squeegee
W/20"
1
can clean hard-to-reach places of the window (C1)
5
.
..
…..
….
…
…..
2
can be used without dipping it into the water (C2)
2
..
….
..
.
..
….
3
lasts a long time (C3)
4
….
…..
…..
.
…..
…
4
cleans windows not leaving strains (C4)
5
.
.
..
…
…
..
5
is safe to use (C5)
3
…..
..
…
…..
.
….
6
requires minimum effort for the usage (C6)
4
…
…
….
.
..
…..
7
performs its task fast (C7)
3
..
…..
…
..
….
…
8
is protected from falling out of the window (C8)
1
…
..
..
…..
…..
..
9
can be maintained easily (C9)
3
….
….
…..
.
…
.
10
is lightweight (C10)
2
…..
..
…
…..
.
…..
11
cleans wide variety of windows (C11)
4
.
…
.
.
…..
…
12
is affordable for users (C12)
5
…
..
….
…..
…..
..
13
survives in crashes (C13)
3
.
….
.
..
….
.
14
removes all the dirt on windows (C14)
2
..
.
…
…..
…
..
15
does not leave scratches after cleaning (C15)
5
….
….
..
…
..
…..

15.

Competitors benchmarking on design metrics
Metric
No.
Need
Nos.
1
1,2
Size of the product
2
2,11
Total mass
3
4
Time until the first repairment
4
7,15
5
Metric
Units
(Robotic)
Magnetic window
Toalla microfibra
Windows cleaner
Cleaner (MYVIT)
(FLARESTAR)
(CHOVER)
Mighty Window
Washer (Ettore)
Windowbrush (No
brand)
Performance Tool
W1466 8"
Squeegee W/20"
Handle (WIOGW)
mm/mm/mm
(l/w/h)
160/135/40
300/150/120
50/40/20
44,45/533,4/190,5
140/25/80
50,8/195,8/642,6
g
400
2500
85
226,796
130
272,155
month
6
3
3
3
5
6
Applied force to clean F= m(kg)*1(m/s^2)
N
0,4
2,5
0,085
0,23
0,13
0,27
5,16
Stiffness of cleaning component
N\m
200
250
150
200
180
100
6
13
Unit manufacturing cost
US $
20
95
2,5
5
3
7,71
7
7,1
Minimum required amount of water
ml
500
200
400
400
600
500
8
8
Area cleaned per min (on average)
m^2
1
0.5
1,5
0,5
1,5
2
9
4,9
Fall prevention component
Binary
1
1
0
0
0
0
10
5
Size of cleaning material
mm/mm/mm
35/40/55
30/20/35
50/40/20
20/45/190,5
35/40/65
32/89/80
11
14
No. of components
List
4
8
1
3
2
5
12
4,14
Ultimate strength
MPa
85
70
-
70
60
110
13
12
Versatility in tems of windows
List
3
2
3
2
3
3
14
5,15
Amount of required detergent per m^2
ml
70
80
50
90
30
50
15
5,15
Density of cleaning material
kg/m^3
800
900
1500
800
900
1200
16
8,1
Preparation time before usage
sec
60
120
60
100
80
110
17
8
Usability of the tool
Num.
5
7
3
4
3
5
18
16
Non-scratch window cleaning material
Binary
1
1
1
0
0
1
19
6
Safety of Usage
Subj.
3
4
2
3
4
4

16.

Design Requirements
Metric
No.
Need
Nos.
Metric
Units
Marginal
Value
Product's expected value
Ideal
Value
mm/mm/mm
300/195,8/642,6
175/125/155
50/40/20
g
2500
860
50
month
>3
>6
>6
1
1,2
Size of the product
2
2,11
Total mass
3
4
Time until the first repairment
4
7,15
Applied force to clean F= m(kg)*1(m/s^2)
N
>2,5
0,4
>0,13
5
5,16
Stiffness of cleaning component
N\m
>100
200
>250
6
13
Unit manufacturing cost
US $
>95
19
>2,5
7
7,1
Minimum required amount of water
ml
>600
400
>200
8
8
Area cleaned per min (on average)
m^2
>0,5
1
2
9
4,9
Fall prevention component
Binary
0
1
1
10
5
Size of cleaning material
mm/mm/mm
30/20/35
32/20/80
32/89/80
11
14
No. of components
List
8
4
>1
12
4,14
Ultimate strength
MPa
60
95
110
13
12
Versatility in tems of windows
List
>2
3
3
14
5,15
Amount of required detergent per m^2
ml
90
50
30
15
5,15
Density of cleaning material
g/m^3
>800
1400
1500
16
8,1
Preparation time before usage
sec
120
60-70
>60
17
8
Usability of the tool
Num.
7
5
>3
18
16
Non-scratch window cleaning material
Binary
0
1
1
19
6
Safety of Usage
Subj.
>2
4
4
note: ideal and marginal values might differ from reality

17.

0
↓
↑
↓
0
↓
↓
↑
0
↑
0
↑
↑
↓
↑
↓
↓
0
↑
Time until the first repairment
Applied force to clean
Stiffness of cleaning component
Unit manufacturing cost
Minimum required amount of
water
Area cleaned per min (on average)
Fall prevention component
Size of cleaning material
No. of components
Ultimate strength
Versatility in tems of windows
Amount of required detergent per
m^2
Density of cleaning material
Preparation time before usage
Usability of the tool
Non-scratch window cleaning
material
Safety of Usage
Desired level of improvement ↑,0,↓
Total mass
QFD Analysis
9
4
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
Size of the product
Functional requirements →
1 can clean hard-to-reach places of the window (C1)
5
9
2 can be used without dipping it into the water (C2)
2
3 lasts a long time (C3)
4
4 cleans windows not leaving strains (C4)
5
5 is safe to use (C5)
3
6 requires minimum effort for the usage (C6)
4
4
4
7 performs its task fast (C7)
3
4
1
8 is protected from falling out of the window (C8)
1
1
9 can be maintained easily (C9)
3
1
Customer Needs ↓
4
1
9
9
1
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
1
4
9
4
4
1
4
4
9
4
9
4
9
1
4
9
1
4
4
4
9
4
9
9
9
1
4
4
4
9
9
4
9
4
4
9
1
1
9
4
1
9

18.

↓
↑
↓
0
↓
↓
↑
0
↑
0
↑
↑
↓
↑
↓
↓
0
Applied force to clean
Stiffness of cleaning component
Unit manufacturing cost
Minimum required amount of
water
Area cleaned per min (on average)
Fall prevention component
Size of cleaning material
No. of components
Ultimate strength
Versatility in tems of windows
Amount of required detergent per
m^2
Density of cleaning material
Preparation time before usage
Usability of the tool
Non-scratch window cleaning
material
1
1
4
1
4
4
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
Size of the product
Total mass
Functional requirements →
10 is lightweight (C10)
2
4
9
11 cleans wide variety of windows (C11)
4
12 is affordable for users (C12)
5
1
13 survives in crashes (C13)
3
1
14 removes all the dirt on windows (C14)
2
9
15 does not leave scratches after cleaning (C15)
5
4
Customer Needs ↓
Absolute Importance
4
4
9
89
4
4
53
9
1
9
4
4
4
Top List:
4
1
4
9
9
9
9
9
74
4
9
9
67 129 152 107 72
83 107 118 35
9
36 123 156 59 158 96
Lowest Importance:
1. Usability of the tool-158
4. Applied force to clean-129
1. Ultimate strength-35
4. Preparation time before usage-59
2. Density of cleaning material-156
5. Amount of required detergent per m^2-123
2.Versatility in tems of windows-36
5. Time until the first repairment-67
3. Stiffness of cleaning component-152
3. Total mass-53
↑
Safety of Usage
0
Time until the first repairment
Desired level of improvement ↑,0,↓
72

19.

Concept generation
and selection stage
• Form Factor
• Cleaning component’s
form and location
• Fixation of cleaning
component
• Type of handle

20.

Form Factor Analysis (part 1)

21.

What customers want from our
product?
• It is time consuming and requires extra energy
• Discomfort while cleaning the outer side of the window
• Almost impossible to clean hard-to-reach places on the window using
rag-like cleaning tool
• Rags used for cleaning windows most often leave stains on windows
despite the quality
• The experience is dangerous due to the risk of falling out of the
window
• It requires a lot of effort and extra strength for cleaning the window

22.

Form Factor Analysis (part 1)
Magnetic window cleaner

23.

Form Factor Analysis (part 2)
Work with this form!

24.

25.

Cleaning component’s form and location
Worst possible idea used

26.

Cleaning component’s form and location
concept scoring matrix
Double Brush
One brush (moderate)
Triple brush (different
One brush (enormous)
materials)
Triple brush (one
material)
One brush with hole
reference
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Area of cleaning material
20%
0
0
0
0
+
0,2
+
0,2
0
0
+
0,2
Remained space for other
components
15%
0
0
+
0,15
-
-0,15
-
-0,15
+
0,15
+
0,15
Ease of changing
15%
0
0
+
0,15
-
-0,15
0
0
-
0,15
-
-0,15
Price
30%
0
0
+
0,3
-
-0,3
0
0
-
-0,3
-
-0,3
Design
20%
0
0
-
-0,2
+
0,2
-
-0,2
+
0,2
+
0,2
Total Score
0
0,4
-0,2
-0,15
0,2
0,1
Rank
4
1
6
5
2
3
Continue?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Instructions: “+”=1, “-”=-1, “0”=0

27.

Window scraper’s form and location
SCAMPER partially used

28.

Window scraper’s form and location
concept scoring matrix
Type A
Curved scraper
V-shaped scraper
U-shaped scraper
reference
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Fits to cleaning part
15%
0
0
+
0,15
+
0,15
+
0,15
Size
20%
0
0
+
0,2
+
0,2
-
-0,2
Ease of manufacture
20%
0
0
0
0
-
-0,2
-
-0,2
Removes strains
25%
0
0
+
0,25
0
0
+
0,25
Design
10%
0
0
-
-0,1
+
0,1
-
-0,1
Remained space
10%
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-0,1
Total Score
0
0,5
0,25
-0,2
Rank
3
1
2
4
Continue?
No
Yes
No
No

29.

30.

Fixation of cleaning
component
Brainstorming, worst possible idea
and partially SCAMPER used

31.

32.

Fixation of cleaning component
Direction of
improvement
concept screening matrix
Decision Matrix
Concepts
Criteria
Weight
Velcro
Buckles
Bumpers
Score/5
Total
Score/5
Total
Score/5
Total
↑
Easiness to replace
3
4
12
5
15
5
15
↓
Thickness
4
4
16
5
20
3
12
↓
Cost
5
5
25
4
20
3
15
↑
Durability
4
5
20
2
8
5
20
↓
Difficulty of implementing (mfg)
4
3
12
3
12
4
16
↑
Pleasure during replacement
3
5
15
3
9
5
15
Total/115:
100
84
93

33.

Type of handle
Mainly brainstorming and a bit of SCAMPER used

34.

Type of handle
concept scoring matrix
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
Type F
reference
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Ease of handling
15%
0
0
+
0,15
0
0
+
0,15
-
-0,15
+
0,15
Ease of use
15%
0
0
+
0,15
+
0,15
0
0
-
-0,15
+
0,15
Deformation force
10%
0
0
-
-0,1
0
0
-
-0,1
+
0,1
-
-0,1
Durability
20%
0
0
0
0
-
-0,2
-
-0,2
+
0,2
0
0
Compactness
10%
0
0
+
0,1
0
0
+
0,1
+
0,1
-
-0,1
Reach any part of the window
20%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0,2
Ease of manufacture
10%
0
0
0
0
-
-0,1
+
0,1
0
0
-
-0,1
Total Score
0
0,3
-0,15
-0,05
0,1
0,3
Rank
4
1
6
5
3
1
Continue?
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes

35.

Magnets related work

36.

Magnets market analysis
Product name
Price /$ per 100
Weight /g
Size /cm
Holding power /kg Coercive Force (Hc) /Oersteds Curie Temp /ºC Remanence (Br) /Gauss
Hook magnet #1
NA
240
5.1 x 5.1 x 5.6
120
NA
NA
NA
Strong hook magnet #2
NA
2360
9.4 x 9.4 x 3.5
771
NA
NA
NA
Strong hook magnet #3
NA
2500
10.7 x 3.5
485
NA
NA
NA
Block magnet #1
1.610
NA
3.81 x 0.77 x 0.77
8
11,301
310
12,301
Bar magnet #1
3.610
NA
2.64 x 1.57 x 0.33
4~5
12,401
310
12,901
Block magnet #2
13.330
NA
2.54 x 2.54 x 1.27
22 ~ 23
12,501
310
13,051
Block magnet #3
12.690
NA
2.54 x 2.54 x 1.27
20 ~ 21
11,301
310
12,301
Block magnet #4
7.960
NA
2.54 x 2.54 x 0.64
11 ~ 12
12,501
310
13,051
Block magnet #5
7.220
NA
2.54 x 2.54 x 0.64
9 ~ 10
11,301
310
12,301
Bar magnet #2
3.850
NA
2.54 x 1.57 x 0.40
5~6
12,501
310
13,051
Block magnet #6
5.760
NA
2.54 x 0.95 x 0.95
10
12,501
310
13,051
Bar magnet #3
1.650
NA
2.00 x 0.50 x 0.50
3~4
12,501
310
13,501
Magnets
Material
Remanence (Tesla)
Coercivity (MA/m)
Curie temperature(°C)
Density(g/cm^3)
Electrical resistivity(Ω·cm)
Neodymium
Neodymium, Iron, Boron
1.500 /100%
2.790 /100%
310 /44%
7.300 /100%
140 × 10^-6 /33.3%
Alnico
Aluminium, Nickel, Cobalt
1.200 /80%
0.08 /2.86%
700 /100%
7.300 /100%
60 × 10^-6 /100%
Samarium–cobalt
Samarium, Cobalt
1.160 /77.3%
2.790 /100%
700 /100%
8.200 /88%
70 × 10^-6 /91.6%
Weight of property /5
0
5
3
1
2
2
Flexular strength (N/mm^2)
Compressive strength (N/mm^2)Tensile strength (N/mm^2)
Scores /2200
400 /100%
1100 /100%
90 /45%
1845.6 /100%
270 /67.5%
400 /36.4%
200 /100%
1520.2 /82.37%
180 /45%
1000 /90.9%
40 /20%
1614.6 /87.48%
3
3
3
/100%

37.

Interview with IUT’s physics professor Rustam Tashkhodjaev:

38.

39.

Magnet requirements:
• Type of magnet: Permanent
• Maximum pressure on window: 2,000 psi = 13789,5 pascal
• Minimum force to hold: 8.175 N
• Magnetic field: 1.2 T
• Magnetic force: 5.4 kg
• Size: 24 mm x 11 mm x 5.5 mm
• Weight: NA
• Shape: Rectangular
• Amount: 4-5
• Price: $1.24

40.

Worst possible idea used
Placement of magnets

41.

Placement of magnets
concept screening matrix
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
Type F
Type G
Type H
reference
Selection Criteria
Weight
Manufacturing price
10%
0
-
+
0
+
-
-
-
Total Power
15%
0
+
-
+
-
+
0
+
Force Exerted to move
20%
0
0
+
0
-
-
+
0
Throughness of placing
25%
0
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
Number of magnets
20%
0
0
-
0
+
+
+
-
Proportion of device's area and magnets
10%
0
+
-
+
0
0
-
0
Sum +’s
0
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Sum 0’s
6
2
0
3
1
1
1
2
Sum −’s
0
1
4
0
3
2
3
2
Net Score
0
2
-2
3
-1
1
-1
0
Rank
4
2
8
1
6
3
6
4
Continue?
Combine
Revice
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Combine
Rating

42.

SCAMPER used

43.

Placement of magnets
Type F
Type AH
Type D
Type B+
concept scoring matrix
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Manufacturing price
10%
2
0,2
3
0,3
3
0,3
3
0,3
Total Power
15%
3
0,45
4
0,6
3
0,45
3
0,45
Force Exerted to move
20%
2
0,4
3
0,6
3
0,6
4
0,8
Throughness of placing
25%
5
1,25
4
1
2
0,5
3
0,75
Number of magnets
20%
3
0,6
4
0,8
4
0,8
3
0,6
Proportion of device's area and magnets
10%
4
0,4
3
0,3
3
0,3
4
0,4
Total Score
3,3
3,6
2,95
3,3
Rank
2
1
4
2
Continue?
Revice
Revice
No
Revice

44.

TRIZ resolutions

45.

The item has to clean windows fast, but it should not lose points in its
reliability
Productivity as an improving feature, reliability as the worsening feature
1. Segmentation- make two parts of the product that will be connected by magnets
10. Prior action- no solution
35. Parameter Changes- the eclectic device that will automatically clean all windows
38. Strong Oxidants- no solution
Final decision: Use magnets

46.

Product should be compact but reach the upper side of windows for
cleaning
Ease of operation as the improving feature, and loss of time as the worsening feature
4. Asymmetry- make one long fixed handle
10. Prior action- mechanism for fixing the long handle instead of small one
28. Mechanics Substitution- make long handle that can be shortened
34. Discarding and Recovering- Implement two handles. Small one and elongated
one. They are going to be changeable by mechanism
Final decision: Product will have two handles. Combination of 10 and 34

47.

48.

The power of magnets should be adjustable, but the mechanism should
be easy to activate and use
Force (Intensity) as the improving feature, and device complexity as the worsening feature
10. Prior action- interact with magnets directly
18. Mechanical Vibration- make the adjustment automatic
26. Copying- make magnets strong for the thickest window, but make an illusion
of adjusting the distance
35. Parameter Changes- Rotatable button that adjust distance between magnets
Final decision: based on 35

49.

One side (inner) of magnetic cleaner
note: it is an approximate sketch of how our product will look like

50.

Product should have safety rope but it will distract from the process of
cleaning windows
Object-affected harmful factors as the improving feature and ease of operation as the
worsening feature
2. Separation, Segregation, Removal- rope as an additional accessory (attachable
and detachable)
25. Self-Service- rotate the cylindrical body for winding the wire into it
28. Mechanics Substitution- automatic tool for spinning the rope automatically
39. Invert environment or atmosphere- no solution
Final decision: based on 25

51.

Mechanism used:
Placement of magnets

52.

Another side (outer) of magnetic cleaner
note: it is an approximate sketch of how our product will look like

53.

Physical contradiction
Problem: magnets should be located near to each other, but in this case there will be
improper balance of magnetic force
Principle 2 used: separation in time
Solution: Use static magnets at corners, but adjustable at the middle

54.

SCAMPER used
Placement of magnets

55.

Type F+
Placement of magnets
Type AH+
concept scoring matrix
Type B++
reference
Selection Criteria
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Manufacturing price
10%
0
0
0
0
+
0,1
Total Power
15%
0
0
+
0,15
-
-0,15
Force Exerted to move
20%
0
0
-
-0,2
+
0,2
Throughness of placing
25%
0
0
+
0,25
0
0
Number of magnets
20%
0
0
+
0,2
0
0
Proportion of device's area and magnets
10%
0
0
+
0,1
0
0
Total Score
0
0,5
0,15
Rank
3
1
2
Continue?
No
Develop
No

56.

Final Design:
note: it is an approximate sketch of how our product will look like

57.

Product cutaway and dimensions
height = 150 mm
side parts length = 154.113 mm
bottom length = 157.897 mm
thickness = 32.5mm

58.

Fusion 360: high fidelity prototype

59.

Magnets adjustment principle

60.

Ordinary handle and mechanism

61.

Long handle operation

62.

Winding the safety rope

63.

Outline of challenges and weak parts
• Not equal work division
• Trust issues
• Lack of communication
• Problems with 3d model
• Not finishing tasks on time
• Difficulties in Product design process
Advice for our team in the past: be respectful to each other and patient during research

64.

References:
Competitors:
• Magnetic window Cleaner (MYVIT): https://is.gd/WWBX5z
• (Robotic) Windows cleaner (CHOVER): https://is.gd/aEiRvp
• Toalla microfibra (FLARESTAR): https://is.gd/xIN1Hd
• Window brush (No brand): https://is.gd/1tV22X
• Performance Tool W1466 8" Squeegee W/20" Handle (WIOGW): https://is.gd/ILbF7u
Photos:
• Problems with cleaning windows: https://is.gd/Y3ZIIg
• Double sided telescopic window cleaner: https://is.gd/IKPCZl
• Magnetic Glass Wipe(rectangular shape): https://is.gd/nNlgpJ
• Magnets Double Sided Cleaning (elongated rectangular shape): https://is.gd/dFzEhs

65.

References:
Magnets research:
• Neodymium magnet-https: https://is.gd/cnmDaT
• Everything about pull force: https://is.gd/gASvS3
• Other information about magnets: https://is.gd/9zoQzo
Other necessary information:
• Sketches done in Figma: https://is.gd/figmasketches
• Presentation slides of Dr.Sarvar Abdullaev for CED (from 1-9) publication year: 2022
Note: not all references are here, you may find more in supplementary materials