Impact Tool Second Spring Movement Restrictor

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The existing impact rotating tools with a second spring experiencing free movement generate abnormal noise due to its unrestricted movement, which affects the operational efficiency and noise levels.

Innovation Solution

Incorporating a movement restrictor to limit the free movement of the second spring, which is achieved by using a third spring to urge the second spring backward and restrict its movement relative to the spindle, thereby reducing noise and improving operational stability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Device complexity

If a second spring with smaller strand diameter and shorter overall length is used, then the device complexity is reduced, but abnormal noise is generated due to free movement

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedevice complexityVSAvoidabnormal noise
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

A movement restrictor is introduced as an intermediary component between the second spring and the hammer case. This restrictor limits the free movement of the second spring, preventing abnormal noise generation while maintaining the simplified spring configuration. The restrictor acts as a mediator that constrains the spring's motion without requiring a complete redesign of the spring system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If the second spring is allowed to move freely, then the ease of operation is improved, but operational stability deteriorates due to unwanted vibrations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of operationVSAvoidoperational stability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The movement restrictor serves as a mediator that selectively constrains the second spring's movement. It allows the spring to perform its necessary function of urging the hammer backward while preventing excessive free movement that causes vibrations and instability. This maintains ease of operation while improving operational stability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Object-generated harmful factors

If a movement restrictor is added to restrict the second spring, then abnormal noise is reduced, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveabnormal noiseVSAvoiddevice complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-generated harmful factorsVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The movement restrictor is designed as a separate, extractable component that can be independently added to the existing spring mechanism. This modular approach allows the noise reduction function to be implemented without completely redesigning the spring system, thereby minimizing the increase in overall device complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

4Stability of the object's composition

If the second spring is restricted in movement, then operational stability is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational stabilityVSAvoidease of operation
Core Design Contradiction:
Stability of the object's compositionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The movement restrictor is designed as a clever intermediary mechanism that maintains operational simplicity while ensuring stability. It allows the second spring to function naturally in its intended range of motion while automatically preventing excessive movement that would compromise stability, thus preserving ease of operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The solution effectively restricts the free movement of the second spring, reducing abnormal noise and enhancing the operational efficiency of the impact tool by minimizing unwanted vibrations and noise generation.

Implementation Method 1

a first spring constantly urging the hammer forward

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic force: Elasticity

Implementation Method 2

a second spring configured to urge, forward, the hammer moving backward from a reference position

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic force: Elasticity

Implementation Method 3

using a third spring to urge the second spring backward and restrict its movement relative to the spindle

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic force: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentUS11420308B2Impact tool
Publication Date: 2022.08.23 MAKITA CORP
  • US11420308B2 patent drawing
  • US11420308B2 patent drawing
  • US11420308B2 patent drawing

AI summary

An impact tool includes a second spring with restricted free movement. The impact tool includes a motor, a spindle rotatable with a rotational force generated by the motor, a hammer supported by the spindle in a manner movable in a front-rear direction and in a rotation direction, an anvil to be struck by the hammer in the rotation direction, a first spring constantly urging the hammer forward, a second spring that urges, forward, the hammer moving backward from a reference position, a hammer case accommodating the hammer, the first spring, and the second spring, and a movement restrictor that restricts movement of the second spring in an internal space of the hammer case.