Thread: JAW IS ROOT CAUSE FOR MANY CATASTROPHES

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

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

Hi guys,,,
Has anyone actually read all that,, I don, t have a spare
3hrs at the moment
Seems a strange way to promote your product to me!

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.

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.