BSEN 2210 – Team 7

Andrew Sauer, Courtland Vice, Ethan Woods, Justin Shanks, Madison Shelley

Lab Report – Fidget Spinner Lab

1. INTRODUCTION

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

Prior to any brainstorming, design constraints and requirements were discussed to

create a schedule of work to complete the project. Taking cues from previous fidget spinner
designs on the market, the team created preliminary blueprints of the product. Testing of
the preliminary design yielded data that allowed for design revisions to improve upon
performance in the areas of spin duration and rotational velocity.
Materials:
 MakerBot Replicator+ 3-Dimensional Printing Systems are plastic extruding
machines that layer incremental portions of plastic to create three dimensional
objects. Parts are printed onto rafts that support the plastic material while the
printing process happens.
 Fusion 360 is an Autodesk product used in the design process of the fidget spinner.
Two dimensional sketches are turned into three dimensional objects through the
use of actions such as extrusion to then later be modified with other design aspects.
 Pine car circular weights (Pine Car Derby Round Weights, 1-Ounce, 3-Pack ) were
sourced to set inside weight pockets located by the outer edge of the spinner.
 M3 screws with a shank length of 5mm were acquired to fasten Component 1 and
Component 2 of the spinner body.
 Hacksaw to cut individual weights off of the Pine Car Derby weights.
 Vice grip to secure the Pine Car Derby weights while sawing.
 Phillips head screwdriver to screw in M3 screws that attached Components 1 and 2.
 Pocket knife to remove the printed spinner parts from the raft.
 608 bearing for the spinner body to spin around.

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.

Final Design Spinner Assembly Procedure

1. Component 1, Component 2, and two Press-Fit Caps were printed alongside each
other using a MakerBot Replicator+ 3D printer.
2. Upon completion of the printing, the raft containing the printed components from
STEP 1 were removed from the 3D printer.
3. The two Press-Fit Caps were easily removed from the raft while Components 1 and
2 were removed from the raft by wedging a pocket knife between the components
(one component at a time) and the raft and working the knife in a circular fashion
such that it detached the components from the raft.
 4. One 1 oz section of the Pine Car Derby weights was viced to a table such that six of
the twelve delineated sections extended off of the table edge.
5. Using a hacksaw, four of the delineated sections were cut, one at a time, from the
twelve section, 1 oz piece.
6. STEPS 4 and 5 were repeated two additional times to yield a total of twelve
individual weights (each weight was approximately 9 mm in diameter and had a
maximum 6mm thickness as noted in Appendix C, D-1).
7. Component 1 was laid back up on a flat surface and each of the twelve weights
produced by STEP 6 was slotted, one per hole, into the body of Component 1 (refer
to Appendix B, Image 2 and Appendix C, D-1).
8. Component 2 was placed, face up, onto Component 1 from STEP 7 such that the
threaded holes for the screws aligned (refer to Appendix B, Image 3 and Appendix, C
D-2).
9. The assembly from STEP 8 was flipped over such that Component 1 was face
up. The M3 screws were then screwed into the threaded holes extending from
Component 1 into Component 2 using a Phillips head screwdriver (refer to
Appendix B, Image 4 and Appendix C, D-1).
10. The 608 bearing was then inserted into the empty center hole of the assembly from
STEP 9 with the outside faces of the bearing being equidistant from the exposed
faces of Components 1 and 2 (refer to Appendix B, Image 5 and notes on Appendix C,
D-1 and D-2).
11. The two Press-Fit Caps were then taken and the bottom of each cap was completely
inserted into the hole in the 608 bearing, one cap being inserted into each side of the
hole (refer to notes on Appendix C, D-3). This completed the spinner assembly.

Testing and Data Collection

1. Printed fidget spinner components were assembled by slotting weights into created
pockets and mating the two parts together. A 608 bearing was placed in the center
to rotate around.
2. Recording spin duration with a stopwatch, multiple runs were made to collect a
body of data to analyze for design improvements.
3. After design revision, iterations of the spinner were tested using the same methods
and compared to previous data in order to determine the optimal design.

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

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

Spin Number Length of Spin (seconds)

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

Spin Number Length of Spin (seconds)

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

Spin Number Length of Spin (minutes:seconds)

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

APPENDIX A - Initial Designs and Concepts

The above two images show three initial concept drawings for potential fidget spinners
along with reasoning for some of the designs and potential component attachment
methods.
Initial concept design of the spinner produced by the team.

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.

APPENDIX B - Assembly Images

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.

APPENDIX C - Final Design Drawings

D-1: Diagram of Component 1.
D-2: Diagram of Component 2
D-3: Diagram of Press-Fit Cap