JAW IS ROOT CAUSE FOR MANY CATASTROPHES

[Paul Stafford]

I wonder why some enterprising lawyer hasn’t filed a class action suit against the various lathe chuck jaw manufacturers on behalf of all the turners that have been injured or suffered damage? I suppose most of the turners simply accept the inferior gripping of the jaws for what it is and when a work piece flies out of the jaws they assume it was unavoidable or perhaps their fault.
When you compare existing jaws to the design of US 8733764 B1 Patent it is obvious that the manufacturers are negligent in not using this design to radically increase their jaw gripping area and safety throughout the range of the chuck to protect their customers. I for one can’t wait to see this design in common usage for obvious reasons.

[dabbler]

Seriously ???

Ok, I’ll bite...
Maybe because there are too many chuck manufacturers.
Maybe because timber is not a uniformly perfect material.
Maybe because turners possess a range of skill, ability and knowledge.
and
Maybe because the design is covered by someone’s patent, manufacturers don’t use it.

And Welcome to the forum.

[Big Shed]

Yes welcome to the forum.

Do I detect a "hidden agenda" here?

Could you give some examples of the "MANY CATASTROPHIES" of which you speak?

[ubute]

Hi Paul,

Considering the Inventor/Original Assignee of US 8733764 B1 Patent is one Paul Eugene Stafford, I don't blame you for not being able to "wait to see this design in common usage for obvious reasons", unless it's just a coincidence :wink:

[Treecycle]

Can't see why you would be asking why chuck manufacturers haven't been using these jaws when they were only patented recently and chucks have been around for years. As stated in your patent blurb, jaw design has been advancing over the years, and now you have another new one. Maybe in the future they will be standard, but using litigation as a tool to advance your cause is not the way to go I don't think.

[Big Shed]

Hmm, I thought I detected a "slight" ulterior" motive here:~.

Always better to be upfront about one's motives I find, shades of Sawstop here me thinks.

Not impressed.

First post and you are trying to flog your wares surreptitiously.:~:no:

[chuck1]

level of skill, not concentrating on task and blunt tools can also be a contributing factor! It's really hard to pin point blame on one thing!

[elderly]

I see this guy has put the same post up on the Woodworkers Institute forum, he must be doing the rounds.
Cheers Frank

[dabbler]

And not even trying to hide behind a screen name made it pretty obvious.

And you guys are too rough. I wanted the OP to come out to play and post a reply.

[Colin62]

I am in favour of improving the design of things, especially where it improves safety, and I have no problem with someone patenting their design and profiting from their work. But the tone of the original post is a bit too adversarial for my liking. I fully agree with treecycle that this approach isn't the best way to go marketing your product.

[Mobyturns]

G'day Paul,

Good to see a wood turner trying to improve safety for all wood turners through invention and offering work holding choices. I can see merit in your invention however the additional cost of manufacturing the serrated jaw sets and the additional components i.e. the base plate & pivoted sub jaws may meet manufacturer & buyer resistance.

I have a concern with the design of the sub jaws having the central fixing hole Fig 5 - seems that the sub jaw may have a potential weak spot and could fail through that hole as there will be a fair amount of stress placed upon the sub jaws in contraction mode. Perhaps its just coming to grips with the idea of a pivoting jaw set and how it will conform to the work piece.

Good luck with your invention.

For those interested have a look at Patent US8733764 - Multiple pivoted lathe chuck jaw assembly - Google Patents (http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8733764)

[tea lady]

Any jaw design still relies on the correct making of the tennon to grip onto. And correct allignment with the grain so you don't force the wood to split.

[smiife]

G'day Paul,

Good to see a wood turner trying to improve safety

Good luck with your invention.

For those interested have a look at Patent US8733764 - Multiple pivoted lathe chuck jaw assembly - Google Patents (http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8733764)

Hi guys,,,
Has anyone actually read all that,, I don, t have a spare
3hrs at the moment:U
Seems a strange way to promote your product to me!:no:

[nalmo]

I imagine most failures in using jaws could be avoided by following guidelines for use - size of spigot to match jaws (full circle contact), appropriate size spigot for weight of piece, correct speed for size of piece, not over-tightening in expansion mode etc. Any time I've had a failure, it's because I was trying to do something the jaws weren't designed to do.

[jefferson]

I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford a lot of chucks. All Vicmarcs. VM100s, 120s and a solitary VM150. I have varying dovetail jaws from say 35mm to 200mm. 10 chucks just with dovetail jaws. I reckon I am safe when I turn on a properly turned spigot. I also have a dedicated 10 degree 12mm skew chisel designed specifically for doing the angled spigot. (Jim Carroll DEFINITELY sold me on that one, thanks Jim).

I may be old fashioned, but I think I am safe in what I am doing with my platters. Waste ply block if needed, otherwise a tenon to match the size of the spigot to the diameter of the platter. A 1/3 rd rule. Not always but mostly I am close to a circle with the jaws - good holding in compression mode. I definitely do not use expansion mode on the chucks as I believe it to be unsafe. It also looks ugly and has the tell-tale sign of fixing.

Not sure whether the original post method/chuck does it any better. Someone contradict me if I am wrong.

[Hermit]

I wonder why some enterprising lawyer hasn’t filed a class action suit against the various lathe chuck jaw manufacturers on behalf of all the turners that have been injured or suffered damage? I suppose most of the turners simply accept the inferior gripping of the jaws for what it is and when a work piece flies out of the jaws they assume it was unavoidable or perhaps their fault.
When you compare existing jaws to the design of US 8733764 B1 Patent it is obvious that the manufacturers are negligent in not using this design to radically increase their jaw gripping area and safety throughout the range of the chuck to protect their customers. I for one can’t wait to see this design in common usage for obvious reasons.

SPAM SPAM SPAM

Yeah, very obvious reasons.

Can't stand this 'hidden agenda' stuff.

[Master Splinter]

The words "Burn in hell, spammer" sum up my position.

[NCPaladin]

Sounds like an age old problem to me.... orbiting a project most call it today.
From Hand or Simple Turning published about 1870..... (Holtzapffel)
the work while under operation sometimes escapes or is thrown out of the chuck with more or less violence.

[Mobyturns]

Sounds like an age old problem to me.... orbiting a project most call it today.
From Hand or Simple Turning published about 1870..... (Holtzapffel)
the work while under operation sometimes escapes or is thrown out of the chuck with more or less violence.


I believe almost all "orbits" can be traced back to "operator error" through either lack of knowledge, oversights, miss-judgements, overconfidence, not paying sufficient attention to well known hazards or proven "safe" techniques etc. Sure we are all guilty of any of those mentioned. All tools be it a lathe, chuck or hand tool will only produce what the operator is capable of producing, and be as safe as the operator's awareness of inherent hazards, skill in identifying them, knowledge and skill in negating the hazards & in using the tool. "A poor tradesman blames his tools."

The timing & trajectory of the "orbit" is rather unplanned of course :rolleyes:.

Many turners laugh about orbits but in fact they are very dangerous occurrences to the turner and any bystanders and should never be taken lightly. The mass & speed of the "orbited" piece whether it is part of a chuck or the work piece dictates the damage caused but such "orbited objects" have caused horrific head & facial injuries to turners, even deaths. :oo:

"Orbiting" is a hazard that certainly has been known about for a very long time, since the invention of the first lathes then chucks. Holtzapffel in his "Turning & Mechanical Manipulation" series of books documents almost all of the techniques we still use today. One thing he hasn't described was the three jaw scroll chuck patent registered in 1862 by Austin F Cushman and later the four jaw scroll chuck which were invented well after Holtzapffel's time (d.1835).

So things do change and some times the benefit of a new invention may not be initially apparent.

Paul’s innovation offers a potential solution for turners who wish to further explore lost wood staved construction turnings – something that commercially available jaw sets do not currently offer, other than Cole Jaws & Longworth Chucks.

Sound technique and good maintenance is more the issue here - learning to use tools correctly and within the range of use they were designed for and keeping them in good serviceable condition. I think I would put much more faith in Paul's invention than many of the home made "Longworth Chucks" I have seen. I also see Paul's invention as a vastly improved "Cole Jaw" design with many possibilities through using various sub-jaw designs other than his initial design or the standard cole jaw buttons.

(ps I have no benefit what so ever in the success or other wise of this invention. I do like seeing innovation that improves safety for wood turners so I keep a very open mind and use critical judgement not emotion to appraise any new product or invention.)

[dabbler]

Shame it was not introduced to us as a new product or concept, instead of a call to arms.

[Master Splinter]

It's a bit like the Saw Stop guy and his attempts to get his safety device made into a mandatory fitting in new table saws.

The Saw Stop is a great idea, but the fact that the inventor has acted like a dick to try to force manufacturers to pay him a licence fee puts me off the idea of buying one of his saws.

If I ever do buy a table saw with a safety device like that, it'll be once his patent has run out or there are perform-alike patent-skirting clones on the market.

[Big Shed]

Interesting to see that Paul Stafford has not been back to visit this forum since placing the advert for his invention.:~

Just another self interested "hit and run" and "what's in it for me" new forum member.

[Hermit]

Interesting to see that Paul Stafford has not been back to visit this forum since placing the advert for his invention.:~

Just another self interested "hit and run" and "what's in it for me" new forum member.

Yep, and good riddance.

He might have a good idea, but after his method of introducing it, I personally wouldn't dignify it by even bothering to check out his patent.

As spam, I would have preferred to see this thread deleted as it should have been as soon as the facts came to light.

[Big Shed]

OK, I will now close this thread.

If Paul Stafford would like to reply to any of the above he can send me a PM and I will re-open it.