Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Andrew Sauer, Courtland Vice, Ethan Woods, Justin Shanks, Madison Shelley
Four months after the fidget spinners debuted at the North American International
Toy Fair, the small toy invented in the 90’s became a 500 million dollar business. It was
considered to be the most popular toy of 2017. The toy was invented as a way to promote
peace and calm the user and is now used as a way to calm children who suffer from anxiety,
ADHD, and autism (Libassi). The toy is typically seen in the form of three weighted prongs
around a ball bearing, with the ball bearing reducing friction in a linear direction between
two internal surfaces of the bearing. The outer surface of the bearing supports a radial-axis
load of the fidget spinner body that rotates around the series of balls wedged against the
inner surface of the bearing. When a force is applied to the fidget spinner body that creates
a moment about the ball bearing, the fidget spinner body spins around the ball bearing.
This creates a moment of inertia which is determined by the distribution of mass about the
axis of rotation (Allain). Upon further research, the team found that the longest spinning
spinners appeared to increase the moment of inertia of the body about the ball bearing, and
therefore the team decided to design a spinner based on that principle (Flanigan). This
principle translated into the team’s goal. The team’s goal was to create the longest
spinning fidget spinner by distributing the added weight equally around the spinner at the
largest radius possible while still being able to be spun in a person’s hand in an effort to
increase the spinner’s moment of inertia. By increasing this moment of inertia, the team
hoped to increase the angular momentum of the spinning spinner, thereby achieving the
longest spin time possible. The team used Fusion 360, which is a 3D design software, to
design the spinner body. The spinner’s dimensions were centered around the ball bearing
and extended out in a 42 mm radius to fit in the average human hand. After the first print of
the design, modifications were made in Fusion 360 to increase finger traction, increase
stability, and decrease air resistance. The team hypothesized that the fidget spinner with
the most evenly distributed mass furthest from the axis of rotation would result in a spin
time longer than that of a three-prong spinner that one could buy from stores.
2. METHODS
Design Procedure:
1. Members separated into working groups in charge of different design aspects of the
initial fidget spinner. Two members worked on implementation of paper designs
into functioning Fusion Archive files, while three members were in charge of testing
and design review. Constraints were given by the ordering body which were
discussed and added to the design process.
2. Using Fusion 360, blueprints were drafted in a computer lab for initial versions of
the fidget spinner with rough design aspects present for testing (Appendix A). Width
and depth tolerances were met, but press caps and aesthetic modifications are not
present.
3. Approaching the project from a manufacturing perspective, spinner design was
separated into components for streamlined production. Component 1 and
Component 2 were made to mate around a 608 Bearing (Appendix C, D-1 and D-2).
4. Shown in Component 2, redesign of the initial product added a smaller pocket
opening on the exterior of the spinner (Appendix B), while interior pocket width
was kept to the same dimensions as version one of the spinner.
5. Press fit caps were produced last to slot into the opening made by the 608 bearing.
After a trial with the initial design, featuring a standard 608 bearing, wobbling and
overall sturdiness became a concern as the spinner wobbled while spinning and the
individual components did not fit tightly together. The second design included screw slots
to secure the two components to each other as well as tighter weight pockets, both of
which were not featured in the first design. The improved design led to less wobbling,
longer spin times, and a more secure fidget spinner. The biggest change in the results came
when a new 608 bearing, via a store-bought fidget spinner, was implemented into the
second design. The trials performed in Tables 1-3 all used the same ball bearing in order to
provide accurately portray the effects of the different spinner bodies.
Spin Number Length of Spin (seconds)
1 45.3
2 52.1
3 49.6
4 48.6
5 53.2
Average 49.8
Table 1: Results from Initial Spinner Design with Provided 608 Bearing
1 51.8
2 52.2
3 54.7
4 53.5
5 58.3
Average 54.1
Table 2: Results from Final Spinner Design with Provided 608 Bearing
1 48.4
2 42.2
3 46.4
4 44.1
5 42.6
Average 44.8
Table 3: Results from Three-Prong (Store-Bought) Spinner with Provided 608
Bearing
1 2:13
2 2:14
3 2:14
4 2:13
5 2:09
Average 2:13
Table 4: Results from Final Spinner Design with Store-Bought 608 Bearing
4. CONCLUSIONS
The results proved the hypothesis that a spinner with mass evenly distributed in as
large a radius as possibly from the center of the spinner while maintaining functionality
would outperform a typical three-prong, store-bought spinner with respect to spin time
correct. The hypothesis is supported by data from Tables 1-3. Table 3 shows that the
three-prong spinner was outperformed by the team’s initial and final designs, as
evidenced by the average times recorded for the initial and final designs in Tables 1 and
2 respectively. The initial design (Table 1) showed an increase in average spin time of
5.0 seconds when compared to the three-prong spinner’s average time in Table 3, and
the final design (Table 2) showed a 9.3 seconds increase in average spin time when
compared to the average in Table 3, all while using the same bearing for all
trials. Additionally, the data collected validates the design changes made between the
initial and final spinner designs. A comparison of the average spin times of the initial
and final designs, shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively, shows that creating tighter
pockets for the weights to increase stability along with securing spinner body
components using screws increased the average spin time by 4.3 seconds while using
the same ball bearing. The biggest contributing factor in spin time turned out to be the
quality of the ball bearing. The store-bought 608 ball bearing was taken from the three-
prong, store-bought spinner and used as an upgrade in place of the bearing initially
provided for the team. After this upgrade, the spin time of the final design increased by
an average of 1:19 (minutes:seconds), as can be seen in a comparison of the average
spin times of the final design with the provided bearing and the final design with the
store-bought bearing, shown Tables 2 and 4 respectively. This showed that friction
within the ball bearing was a very significant factor in determining spin time as well.
Summarily, the hypothesis was proven correct. Evenly distributing mass at a large
radius from the center of the spinner resulted in increased spin time. The results
suggest the increased moment of inertia, and therefore increased angular momentum,
had a large a role in increasing spin time, and they also suggest that the friction within
the 608 bearing is a significant factor with respect spin time. To further test the
hypothesis, a smaller number of weights could be placed into the slots of the final
design spinner (such as six slots filled with one weight each instead of filling all 12
slots) while still being distributed symmetrically throughout the body. This would
decrease the moment of inertia of the spinner. Comparing the average spin time result
of this spinner with a lower moment of inertia with the average spin time of the final
design would help validate whether it is the increased moment of inertia that truly
caused an increase in spin time between the three-prong, store-bought spinner and the
final design. If the spinner with the smaller moment of inertia spun for less time than
the one with the larger moment of inertia then that would indicate that a larger
moment of inertia in the spinner body corresponds with increased spin time.
5. REFERENCES
Allain, Rhett. “Let's Explore the Physics of Rotational Motion With a Fidget Spinner.” Wired,
Conde Nast, 17 Aug. 2017, www.wired.com/2017/05/physics-of-a-fidget-spinner/.
Flanigan, Tara. “This Deluxe Fidget Spinner Is Setting Records for the Longest Spin.”
Mashable, Mashable, 9 Aug. 2017, mashable.com/2017/08/09/fidget-spinner-longest-
running/#6u6tQJi6wOqa.
Libassi, Matthew. “The $500,000,000 Trend Spinning the Toy Industry Upside Down.”
Fox Business, Fox Business, 13 May 2017, www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-
500000000-trend-spinning-the-toy-industry-upside-down.
6. APPENDICES
This shows the initial design of the spinner. This design provided deeper holes for the
slotted weights (resulting in excessive weight shifting), had a smaller lip holding the slotted
weights in the pockets, and had a peg attachment system (as can be seen by the four small
holes in the right component that extend into the back of the left component) in which a
small peg was to be inserted into each of the four small holes in the right component such
that they extended into the back of the left component. This design was wobbly and did not
adequately secure the two body components. Each of the components is 4 mm thick.
Image 1: Component 1 (top) and Component 2 (bottom) along with the twelve round
weights cut from the Pine Car weights, the four 5mm long M3 screws, and the 608
bearing.
Image 2: The back of Component 1 with the twelve weights fitted one each into each
slot.
Image 3: Component 2 placed face up onto the back of Component 1 such that the
threaded holes from each component match up with each other.
Image 4: Shows assembly from Image 3 flipped over with Component 1 facing front
up. One M3 screw is screwed into each threaded hole.
Image 5: 608 bearing inserted into fidget spinner assembly.