Rotary Transfer Device for Folding Boxes with Variable Speed Control

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing transfer devices for flat folding boxes face challenges in high output scenarios, where high-speed removal from hoppers leads to multiple boxes being pulled out, causing operational issues and requiring complex, costly designs with multiple drive motors and limited output due to space constraints.

Innovation Solution

The transfer device employs multiple retaining devices distributed around the circumference of rotarily driven support parts, with groups sharing common drives, allowing variable speed control and relative rotation to manage speed differences during the transfer process, reducing the need for individual drive motors and enhancing operational efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If the speed of removal of folding boxes from the hopper is increased to improve output, then productivity increases, but multiple folding boxes are pulled out causing operational failures

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoutput of transfer deviceVSAvoidreliable transfer of folding box

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The support part performs a rotary movement at a speed of rotation that varies during one revolution, being slower in the region of the receiving station and faster in other regions. This dynamic speed adjustment allows reliable box removal without pulling out multiple boxes, while maintaining high overall output.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The transfer device divides retaining devices into multiple groups arranged on different support parts (first support part and second support part), with each group handling specific tasks at different locations. This segmentation allows parallel operation and maintains high productivity while each group operates at optimized speeds.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If a planetary gear with correction movements is used to provide sufficient time for folding box reception, then reliability improves, but device complexity and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesufficient time for folding box receptionVSAvoidstructural complexity of planetary gear

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of using a complex planetary gear with correction movements, the invention uses a support part that rotates at a variable speed during its revolution. This dynamic speed control achieves the same effect of providing sufficient time for reliable box reception while maintaining a simpler, more cost-effective structure.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Adaptability or versatility

If each retaining device is assigned its own drive motor to enable variable speed movement, then adaptability improves, but device complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevariable speed control of retaining devicesVSAvoidnumber of drive motors

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Multiple retaining devices are grouped together on common support parts, with each support part having its own drive motor. This merging approach reduces the total number of motors while still enabling variable speed control of each group, achieving adaptability with reduced complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The retaining devices are segmented into groups assigned to different support parts, allowing independent speed control of each group. This segmentation provides the adaptability of individual control while reducing the overall number of drive motors compared to having one motor per retaining device.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

4Productivity

If more retaining devices are added to increase output, then productivity increases, but space constraints limit the number of retaining devices

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoutput of transfer deviceVSAvoidspace for retaining devices

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSArea of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The invention utilizes the third dimension by arranging support parts at different radial distances from the axis of rotation. The first support part has retaining devices at a first radial distance, while the second support part has retaining devices at a second radial distance. This vertical/dimensional arrangement allows more retaining devices to be accommodated within the same horizontal footprint, increasing output without exceeding space constraints.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentUS8919533B2Transfer device for the transfer of a folding box

Publication Date: 2014.12.30 IWK VERPACKUNGSTECHN

AI summary

A transfer device for transferring a flat folding box to a succeeding conveyor device with simultaneous erection has a rotarily driven support part which is pivotable about an axis of rotation, and at least one further rotarily driven support part which rotates coaxially to the support part about the axis of rotation. The folding boxes are received in a receiving station by the retaining device and are conveyed on a curved track to a transfer station and therefore transferred to a succeeding conveyor device. Here the support parts perform a rotary movement at a speed that varies during one revolution and with an opposing relative rotation. Each support part supports a plurality of retaining devices arranged equally distributed along the circumference, wherein the retaining devices of the support parts are preferably arranged alternately and consecutively in the circumferential direction.