Woodworking Talk banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
Paul Stafford said:
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.
Very strange first post. I take it you own this patent. Good luck as you are going to need it. I have no problem with the design or holding power of my chucks.
Tom
 

·
Administrator
David
Joined
·
5,617 Posts
Here's the US Patent info - http://www.google.com/patents/US8733764. Very interesting, more moving parts (not bad, just an observation), if you can sell it to a major manufacturer then you may be set for life.

Good luck, welcome aboard. What else ya' got up your sleeve? :icon_smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,733 Posts
Very strange first post. I take it you own this patent. Good luck as you are going to need it. I have no problem with the design or holding power of my chucks.
Tom
right you are

"Inventors Paul Eugene Stafford"

For whatever truth there is in the content of the message (I dont know, I dont even own a lathe), I tend to become skeptical with a deceptive post such as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
Sounds like someone else that wants to blame every and anyone else for their own mistakes!!!!!!!!! If you look at the root cause of a piece of wood flying out of the jaws, you will probably find that the operator had a bad catch, the wood had a hair line crack, or the wood was NOT properly mounted in the jaws. You need to have a proper tenon cut,and the jaws need to be closer to there minimum diameter for the best gripping force. I am not saying ALL of these accidents are caused by operator error, but I would bet that 80-90 percent are.

That's why there are so many "ambulance chasing" lawyers and so many worthless law suits, nobody wants to be responsible for their own mistakes!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,114 Posts
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.
If your post would have been about you designing a new chuck and why you probably would have gotten a good reception.

However, you come on here with this bitching BS post and you get a poor response.

It is all in the approach.

George
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
In response to TomC comment on 7/9

I have no problem with the design or holding power of my chucks.

Your point is well taken. I look upon the poor jaw gripping area of existing jaws within the entire range of a chuck not as a problem but rather an opportunity for design improvement. We turners have all been living with this shortcoming ever since they came upon the scene and accepted it as is. Sort of like my old pick-up truck. I love it. It has sentimental value. It’s easy for me to ignore the lack of airbags and wear and tear on the drive train. It gets the job done. However, some day soon I’ll get the urge to replace Lulu with a more reliable vehicle leaving her shortcomings behind.

I’ve found that the concept of the unique radii of each of the gripping surfaces is extremely difficult to comprehend. Just seeing it on paper is not as comprehensible as having the units in your hand.

If you wish to see more comparison details that clearly show the advantages you can download an interesting 7 page Word document White Paper evaluation (mostly pictures) from the following link.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...kemps-imac's conflicted copy 2014-07-11).docx
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top