"Kevin" wrote in message
om...
As for the smooth jaws versus the serrated jaws, we consider the
smooth jaws as poor, again they were made at the insistance of
customers. We feel that chucking marks and methods should be
completely removed. If you think that smooth jaws leave no marks you
are incorrect. Wood is compressible and when you compress it, you mark
it. If all you ever work is very very hard exoctics maybe the marks
are so small that you cannot see the marks, but I have never seen a
foot where I could not see the chucking mark. As an amateur craftsman
you owe it to yourself to do the very best job you can.

What if you don't compress the wood, Kevin?

If no one see's 'em are they really there?

On Sun, 1 May 2005 13:38:34 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .

never heard of this beginner vs experienced thing before. where did you
hear
that?

here's a good reference:
http://www.oneway.on.ca/chucks/accessories/no2_jaws.htm


All the talk about "grip" makes me wonder. Why have they never thought
about the contact area on the nose of the jaws?

Of course there are woodworkers who don't realize that the shoulders of the
tenon are what keep the joint from racking, too.

most of us lost our grip years ago, George.. lol


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sun, 1 May 2005 12:37:25 -0700, neill wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2005 8:36:15 -0700, mac davis wrote
(in message ):

George.. I'd also rather use an internal hold than an external, but
regarding
Oneway's jaw ridges, they are considered "beginning or less experienced"
jaw
sets, and the "experienced" jaw sets don't have the ridges..


never heard of this beginner vs experienced thing before. where did you
hear
that?

here's a good reference:
http://www.oneway.on.ca/chucks/accessories/no2_jaws.htm

a good reference, yes. but none of the info on that page is new to me. i
still wonder where your statement about beginner vs experienced came from.

I couldn't find it either, Neill.. (sorry about misspelling your name before, my
brother's name is Neil)
I think that in a senior moment, I was thinking jaw ridges but remembered info
from the manual regarding the 2 ways to mount the jaws... the "less experienced"
way limits the jaw opening, thereby limiting the amount of protruding jaw to run
your hand into.. damhikt


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Hi All

"George" wrote: /snip/ The weakness of the Oneway
design is that it has to "grip" by distorting or destroying the integrity of
the portion gripped.

Thus my preference for non-destructive mounting using dovetails to shoulder
either in recess or against an external shoulder./snip/


So I went and turned a large 20"+ wet Sycamore Bowl to have a look at
the distortion and destroying that my Stronghold chuck jaws would bring
to bear on the portion gripped, as it turned out, there was no evidence
or any indication of any destruction nor other weakening of the portion
gripped to my observation, but maybe I'm wrong ??

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded
some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and
destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination


http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

On Mon, 2 May 2005 8:26:06 -0700, mac davis wrote
(in message ):
I couldn't find it either, Neill.. (sorry about misspelling your name
before, my
brother's name is Neil)


no prob mac. a lot of people drop the second L.

On Mon, 2 May 2005 5:49:29 -0700, Kevin wrote
(in message ) :

Once we had the jaw sizes made and were selling them it was very
difficult to change them as people sometimes want single jaw
replacements so it is necessary to keep the jaw sizes the same. As for
making new size jaws the screw holes work out quite awkwardly.
Decreasing the size of the number 3 jaws to make a worthwhile size
number 2-1/2 jaws puts the screw holes right in what would be the
chucking diameter. This would not be so bad for chucking on a tenon
but would not be so great for going into a recess as that is right
where the pressure point is.

interesting. i had not considered the conflict with the screw holes.


The number 4 jaws were not designed by us but that size was
arrived at by one of our larger dealers that wanted that exact size.
As far as we are concerned they are kind of silly, that extra little
bit of size will not do you much good.

why did they insist on that exact size? why did you allow someone else to
design something that you put your name on if you think they are silly?

if you *had* made the #4s a little larger i for one would have purchased a
set allong with a stronghold chuck body to put them on.

On Mon, 2 May 2005 23:58:06 -0700, Leo Van Der Loo wrote
(in message ):

So I went and turned a large 20"+ wet Sycamore Bowl to have a look at
the distortion and destroying that my Stronghold chuck jaws would bring
to bear on the portion gripped, as it turned out, there was no evidence
or any indication of any destruction nor other weakening of the portion
gripped to my observation, but maybe I'm wrong ??

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded
some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and
destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination


http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo


nice work Leo. i enjoy your website. i think the "destruction" that most
people are crying about comes from the ribbed inside of the oneway jaws when
they grip in compression mode.

"Leo Van Der Loo" wrote in message
...

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded
some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and
destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination


http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html

Kevin can find it....

Bruce Barnett wrote:
So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

Well, perhaps they should have a set called "2 1/2".....


I would certainly like to see a 1.5" set for my Nova.

In my experience it is the smaller sizes that cause more conflicts. If
you expand the one inch jaws to their maximum size, they will hold diddly.

--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/

"Derek Andrews" wrote in message
...
Bruce Barnett wrote:
So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

Well, perhaps they should have a set called "2 1/2".....


I would certainly like to see a 1.5" set for my Nova.

In my experience it is the smaller sizes that cause more conflicts. If
you expand the one inch jaws to their maximum size, they will hold diddly.


Okay, the question that immediately came to mind with the opening of this
thread, and NOT directed against anyone in particular, just using yours
because it's available.

http://au.store.yahoo.com/cws-store/longnosejawset.html

Why must there be overlap, or forty sizes? Can't we, as turners, chose the
size of our recesses or tenons within the capability of the equipment we
own? If I want to, I can hold a 12" bowl - done it a few times - with a 25
recess - not at maximum size, but at maximum hold dimension - but after the
first couple, it became apparent that it looked a bit tippy and dumb, so I
left some more wood around recesses on the others. Once I got to a design
that wanted 2 1/2 for a base, I used the 50. If I were fond of flipping and
re-cutting, I could make any size I wanted second time around.

Why "they oughtta" instead of "I can?"

"Derek Andrews" wrote in message
I would certainly like to see a 1.5" set for my Nova.

In my experience it is the smaller sizes that cause more conflicts. If
you expand the one inch jaws to their maximum size, they will hold diddly.

George wrote:
Okay, the question that immediately came to mind with the opening of this
thread, and NOT directed against anyone in particular, just using yours
because it's available.

http://au.store.yahoo.com/cws-store/longnosejawset.html

Why must there be overlap, or forty sizes? Can't we, as turners, chose the
size of our recesses or tenons within the capability of the equipment we
own? If I want to, I can hold a 12" bowl - done it a few times - with a 25
recess - not at maximum size, but at maximum hold dimension - but after the
first couple, it became apparent that it looked a bit tippy and dumb, so I
left some more wood around recesses on the others. Once I got to a design
that wanted 2 1/2 for a base, I used the 50. If I were fond of flipping and
re-cutting, I could make any size I wanted second time around.

Why "they oughtta" instead of "I can?"


I regularly use 1" jaws for 8" bowls, but not sure I would want to get
much bigger, depending on depth, wood type and condition.

The point I am making is that I would be very happy to buy 1.5" jaws if
they made them. There are plenty of bowl sizes for which I would prefer
to use them, and if we can get away from bowls for moment, there are
many things I have made where the limitations of jaw sizes constrain my
design options, or make the turning trickier than I would like. I can
make do with what I have, but I would very much prefer 1.5" jaws.


--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/

On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:58:06 -0400, Leo Van Der Loo
wrote:


So I went and turned a large 20"+ wet Sycamore Bowl to have a look at
the distortion and destroying that my Stronghold chuck jaws would bring
to bear on the portion gripped, as it turned out, there was no evidence
or any indication of any destruction nor other weakening of the portion
gripped to my observation, but maybe I'm wrong ??

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded
some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and
destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination


http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

great pictures, Leo!
Very impressive gouge you're using... did you make it yourself?




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Tue, 3 May 2005 1:27:34 -0700, neill wrote:

On Mon, 2 May 2005 5:49:29 -0700, Kevin wrote
(in message ) :

Once we had the jaw sizes made and were selling them it was very
difficult to change them as people sometimes want single jaw
replacements so it is necessary to keep the jaw sizes the same. As for
making new size jaws the screw holes work out quite awkwardly.
Decreasing the size of the number 3 jaws to make a worthwhile size
number 2-1/2 jaws puts the screw holes right in what would be the
chucking diameter. This would not be so bad for chucking on a tenon
but would not be so great for going into a recess as that is right
where the pressure point is.

interesting. i had not considered the conflict with the screw holes.


The number 4 jaws were not designed by us but that size was
arrived at by one of our larger dealers that wanted that exact size.
As far as we are concerned they are kind of silly, that extra little
bit of size will not do you much good.

why did they insist on that exact size? why did you allow someone else to
design something that you put your name on if you think they are silly?

if you *had* made the #4s a little larger i for one would have purchased a
set allong with a stronghold chuck body to put them on.

Neill.. my guess is it was a business decision.. if enough people wanted to buy
plastic coated or some other weird jaws, it would be silly NOT to make them..



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"neill" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 May 2005 23:58:06 -0700, Leo Van Der Loo wrote
(in message ):

So I went and turned a large 20"+ wet Sycamore Bowl to have a look at
the distortion and destroying that my Stronghold chuck jaws would bring
to bear on the portion gripped, as it turned out, there was no evidence
or any indication of any destruction nor other weakening of the portion
gripped to my observation, but maybe I'm wrong ??

To those that like to see any of the distortion caused, I have loaded
some pictures, so you can decide for yourself if the distortion and
destruction is really unacceptable, or just a figment of the imagination


http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo


nice work Leo. i enjoy your website. i think the "destruction" that most
people are crying about comes from the ribbed inside of the oneway jaws
when
they grip in compression mode.


And it would appear Neill that it is those same people that can't seem
to figure out how to make a decent/decorative foot on the bottom of a bowl
after gripping with the Oneway jaws. Sigh.............. It bears repeating
something that Kevin from Oneway has already stated in this
thread..............

Quote:
We feel that chucking marks and methods should be
completely removed. As an amateur craftsman
you owe it to yourself to do the very best job you can.
End quote.



--

Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
www.island.net/~morr

"M.J." wrote in message
...
And it would appear Neill that it is those same people that can't seem
to figure out how to make a decent/decorative foot on the bottom of a bowl
after gripping with the Oneway jaws. Sigh.............. It bears
repeating
something that Kevin from Oneway has already stated in this
thread..............

Quote:
We feel that chucking marks and methods should be
completely removed. As an amateur craftsman
you owe it to yourself to do the very best job you can.
End quote.

Did you look at the series? He made a recess to hold, and shows no trace.
That's what at least two of us now have been trying to say. Kevin said
wasn't possible.

In your rush to offend, you really have come off as quite the fool.

To me, the markings left by my Stronghold chuck are not acceptable. If you
click on Leo's picture "There is no indication of any destruction caused by
the Stronghold chuck !!!" at
http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html , you will see the
marks left by the chuck jaws. It is up to the individual to decide whether
these are acceptable or not. I prefer to have a radiused recess.

Derek

On Tue, 3 May 2005 4:06:23 -0700, George wrote
(in message ):


"Derek Andrews" wrote in message
...
Bruce Barnett wrote:
So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

Well, perhaps they should have a set called "2 1/2".....


I would certainly like to see a 1.5" set for my Nova.

In my experience it is the smaller sizes that cause more conflicts. If
you expand the one inch jaws to their maximum size, they will hold diddly.


Okay, the question that immediately came to mind with the opening of this
thread, and NOT directed against anyone in particular, just using yours
because it's available.

http://au.store.yahoo.com/cws-store/longnosejawset.html

Why must there be overlap, or forty sizes? Can't we, as turners, chose the
size of our recesses or tenons within the capability of the equipment we
own? If I want to, I can hold a 12" bowl - done it a few times - with a 25
recess - not at maximum size, but at maximum hold dimension - but after the
first couple, it became apparent that it looked a bit tippy and dumb, so I
left some more wood around recesses on the others. Once I got to a design
that wanted 2 1/2 for a base, I used the 50. If I were fond of flipping and
re-cutting, I could make any size I wanted second time around.

Why "they oughtta" instead of "I can?"



George,

on the one hand i respect and appreciate the creative, problem solving,
can-do attitude that you are promoting.

on the other hand (and please correct me if i am wrong about the intent of
your words) i get a bad taste in my mouth from the dogmatic, missionary, tone
in some of your comments. its like you are trying to win converts to your way
of working. as if your way is the one true way and everyone else is turning
in sin.

i would never fault you for discussing ways of working around the limitations
of your equipment. please tell me why the limitations, design flaws, etc. of
my equipment are not a valid topic of discussion. imagine if people had never
discussed ways of making lathes and turning tools better. your lathe would be
made of wood instead of cast iron, you would not have electronic variable
speed, you would not have a four jaw scroll chuck that was made for
woodturning, etc. etc.

we don't need the thought police telling us to just shut up and make do with
things the way they are. lets keep the dialogue open and free because that is
what has allowed the evolution of the modern tools we now enjoy. may they
continue to evolve and improve.

Hi Neill

and thank you

My personal opinion on the so called "destruction" is just a overblown
ballyhoo, anyway I do use tenons as well as recesses, the problem with a
tenon if used on a deeper bowl or other deep turning in a side grain
held way, is the possibility of breaking the tenon off of the blank, and
If You don't get hurt the turning probably will.

So if one is to use a tenon without the tailstock support, the type of
wood used has to be taken into consideration, some wood splits easy and
some does not, and some wood is just to soft to be held that way.
Also the way the tools are used makes a big difference, and don't talk
about catches.

One other thing to consider is that the jaws do less damage to a turning
than it flying out of a chuck and bouncing around the shop.

One more thing, did you have a look at the way I finish my bowl etc.
bottoms ? if not, have a look, if you want, no chuck marks on them.

http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum23.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

neill wrote:

nice work Leo. i enjoy your website. i think the "destruction" that most
people are crying about comes from the ribbed inside of the oneway jaws when
they grip in compression mode.

Neill I totally agree

I have come a long way, in more than one way, and because of al kinds of
ideas and input of turners from around the globe I have found more and
better ways (in my opinion) to make round wood, and do enjoy helping
others to overcome some of the same problems we all have run into.
We sometimes come over like "my way or the hiway" but I think that this
is also because the written word is oh so easily misunderstood.

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

neill wrote:


George,

on the one hand i respect and appreciate the creative, problem solving,
can-do attitude that you are promoting.

on the other hand (and please correct me if i am wrong about the intent of
your words) i get a bad taste in my mouth from the dogmatic, missionary, tone
in some of your comments. its like you are trying to win converts to your way
of working. as if your way is the one true way and everyone else is turning
in sin.

i would never fault you for discussing ways of working around the limitations
of your equipment. please tell me why the limitations, design flaws, etc. of
my equipment are not a valid topic of discussion. imagine if people had never
discussed ways of making lathes and turning tools better. your lathe would be
made of wood instead of cast iron, you would not have electronic variable
speed, you would not have a four jaw scroll chuck that was made for
woodturning, etc. etc.

we don't need the thought police telling us to just shut up and make do with
things the way they are. lets keep the dialogue open and free because that is
what has allowed the evolution of the modern tools we now enjoy. may they
continue to evolve and improve.

Hi Derek

I feel similar about the finishing of the total, that includes top as
well as the bottom, IMO.
At one time, (long time ago) (longer than thatG) I didn't know how to
get around the screw holes left by the screws used with the face plate,
(this was before bowl gouges and woodchucks etc., and used felt disk
glued to the bottom, that was my way of finishing then.
It is so much nicer now to be able to make the bottom just as nice
(sometimes nicer) as the rest of the turning and I have a few pictures
in one album on my site that shows how I have done the bottom finish on
those turnings.
Have a look if interested

http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum23.html

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

Derek Hartzell wrote:

To me, the markings left by my Stronghold chuck are not acceptable. If you
click on Leo's picture "There is no indication of any destruction caused by
the Stronghold chuck !!!" at
http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html , you will see the
marks left by the chuck jaws. It is up to the individual to decide whether
these are acceptable or not. I prefer to have a radiused recess.

Derek

"neill" wrote in message
...
Why "they oughtta" instead of "I can?"



George,

on the one hand i respect and appreciate the creative, problem solving,
can-do attitude that you are promoting.

on the other hand (and please correct me if i am wrong about the intent of
your words) i get a bad taste in my mouth from the dogmatic, missionary,
tone
in some of your comments. its like you are trying to win converts to your
way
of working. as if your way is the one true way and everyone else is
turning
in sin.

i would never fault you for discussing ways of working around the
limitations
of your equipment. please tell me why the limitations, design flaws, etc.
of
my equipment are not a valid topic of discussion. imagine if people had
never
discussed ways of making lathes and turning tools better. your lathe would
be
made of wood instead of cast iron, you would not have electronic variable
speed, you would not have a four jaw scroll chuck that was made for
woodturning, etc. etc.

we don't need the thought police telling us to just shut up and make do
with
things the way they are. lets keep the dialogue open and free because that
is
what has allowed the evolution of the modern tools we now enjoy. may they
continue to evolve and improve.

--
Couldn't agree more Neill!!!! Lately I've been feeling so damn guilty
because the odd shaving flies up and hits my facesheild instead of just
limply falling to the floor. Come to think of it .... Now I feel guilty
for using a facesheild..........


Regards,
M.J. (Mike) Orr
www.island.net/~morr

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:14:22 -0700, "Derek Hartzell"
wrote:

To me, the markings left by my Stronghold chuck are not acceptable. If you
click on Leo's picture "There is no indication of any destruction caused by
the Stronghold chuck !!!" at
http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum26.html , you will see the
marks left by the chuck jaws. It is up to the individual to decide whether
these are acceptable or not. I prefer to have a radiused recess.

Derek

I think that the key difference here are the words "damage" and "marks",
Derek...
As you see from http://homepage.mac.com/l.vanderloo/PhotoAlbum23.html
Leo, like most of us, finishes the bottoms after the bowl is dry..

Now, if you want to see "damage", I learned this weekend that the dovetailed
recess should be deeper on a green bowl than on a dryer piece... I was shaping
the inside of the bowl and got a very minor catch, and one side of the recess
blew out..
It didn't come off the chuck, but it wouldn't true back up either.. not sure
what's worse.. *g*




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
Now, if you want to see "damage", I learned this weekend that the
dovetailed
recess should be deeper on a green bowl than on a dryer piece... I was
shaping
the inside of the bowl and got a very minor catch, and one side of the
recess
blew out..

Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.

Just remember to clean up after the glue hardens, so you aren't trying to
grip some dust now consolidated into a lump. As a matter of fact, make sure
you keep all those recesses clean, especially a prefinished. You're not
smashing things, you're just trying to hold them.

"Leo Van Der Loo" wrote in message
...


I have come a long way, in more than one way, and because of al kinds of
ideas and input of turners from around the globe I have found more and
better ways (in my opinion) to make round wood, and do enjoy helping
others to overcome some of the same problems we all have run into.
We sometimes come over like "my way or the hiway" but I think that this
is also because the written word is oh so easily misunderstood.

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

You went back and read the thread?

Hope so.

I chose to interpret your "challenge" based on the substance it contained,
not the spirit in which it was presented, because this is about woodturning,
not about people, and your pictures substantiated something I have said for
years here - you don't need to bully the wood to hold it for turning.
Don't even, in my opinion, have to bully it to remove wood while it's
turning. Some of the assembled think that's dogma, not just a way to save
the turner and turning from beating each other up. Sounds like a closed
mind with an attitude - what they accuse me of having. Look at my technique
posts. They're first person singular - just the way I do things, and why I
like to do them that way.

Science, on the other hand, is not a matter of opinion. As it applies here,
the strength of wood in any aspect is measured as countering a force/unit
area. If you have the maximum jaw area in contact with the wood, the force
required to resist your wood is better divided. Period, end of sentence,
true every place and instance. Thus, if you care to, you can omit one step
from the decoration of the bottom by making a clean hold. For Derek, Kevin
and others, one last time -
http://groups.msn.com/NovaOwners/geo...to&PhotoID=234
Mentally brush away the sawdust on the bottom. I have also held for final
hollow with an external dovetail consisting of little more than a bead, and
with internal little more than a skew-cut groove. The only way I could get
away with it was to plan for optimum size - circularity - of the jaws I own.
If I can do it, anyone can, but no one has to.

Oh yes. I prefer small section bases with extra weight in thickness of the
base for counterbalance over "feet." I think the former makes it look like
the piece sprung up. The latter makes it look like it dropped down, and
spread out from the impact.

On Wed, 4 May 2005 07:39:52 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .
Now, if you want to see "damage", I learned this weekend that the
dovetailed
recess should be deeper on a green bowl than on a dryer piece... I was
shaping
the inside of the bowl and got a very minor catch, and one side of the
recess
blew out..

Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.

Just remember to clean up after the glue hardens, so you aren't trying to
grip some dust now consolidated into a lump. As a matter of fact, make sure
you keep all those recesses clean, especially a prefinished. You're not
smashing things, you're just trying to hold them.

I think the problem in my case was that I should have removed more stock BEFORE
I cut the recess.. I was going to reverse chuck it later and work that way, and
my initial recess wasn't really catching all wood, but also some of the bark and
"sub bark" area..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

George wrote:
snip...
Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.
snip...
I remember seeing no less a turner than Richard Raffin who was here for
a one day seminar. He did a little warm-up in preparation for the day
and got a NASTY catch almost right out of the box.

I think that they don't go away, they just keep getting farther and
farther apart g.

Bill

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:37:16 -0700, Bill Rubenstein wrote
(in message ):

George wrote:
snip...
Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or
waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.
snip...
I remember seeing no less a turner than Richard Raffin who was here for
a one day seminar. He did a little warm-up in preparation for the day
and got a NASTY catch almost right out of the box.

I think that they don't go away, they just keep getting farther and
farther apart g.

Bill

Raffan does that on purpose. it helps the newbies relate. its all theatrics.

neill wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:37:16 -0700, Bill Rubenstein wrote
(in message ):


George wrote:

snip...
Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or
waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.

snip...
I remember seeing no less a turner than Richard Raffin who was here for
a one day seminar. He did a little warm-up in preparation for the day
and got a NASTY catch almost right out of the box.

I think that they don't go away, they just keep getting farther and
farther apart g.

Bill


Raffan does that on purpose. it helps the newbies relate. its all theatrics.


RIGHT! I need to remember that for when it happens to me.

Bill

You went back and read the thread?

Hope so.

I chose to interpret your "challenge" based on the substance it contained,
not the spirit in which it was presented, because this is about woodturning,
not about people, and your pictures substantiated something I have said for
years here - you don't need to bully the wood to hold it for turning.
Don't even, in my opinion, have to bully it to remove wood while it's
turning. Some of the assembled think that's dogma, not just a way to save
the turner and turning from beating each other up.

not me George. dont misdirect what ive said. sharing your techniques is not
dogma. i never said that. its when you come off like your way is the only
way, the only correct way, the only true way, and everyone who does any
different is wrong. thats dogma. when you suggest that i shouldnt even be
talking about jaw sizes thats dogma.

my mind is not closed. i agree with you on a lot of your technique stuff. i
know the value of learning to make a nice peel cut - but the peel cut is only
one of the cuts in my bag of tricks. when im roughing out a large bowl there
is no way every single cut is gonna be a gentle peeling cut. that would take
all day. sometimes i like taking big hogging cuts. i LIKE it. im enjoying it.
im having fun. i like to push my limits on how much wood i can remove in one
pass and letting the shavings fly! is that wrong? when i get close to the
final shape thats when its time to pull out the finesse cuts. then the game
changes to "how clean a surface can i leave?"

Ok, now is my chance to expose to the world a little game I've been
inventing in my spare time. It isn't fully developed -- as you'll see
in a moment.

It is called (preliminary) -- team turning. A team is made up of one
lathe with a standard sized bowl blank, one catcher with a 35 gallon
trash container and one turner.

The winning team is the one which fills the trash container the
quickest. It is not allowed, though, for anyone to handle the shavings
-- they have to go into the container on the fly.

Big, hogging cuts may remove more material quickly but a continuous
stream of shavings could fill the bucket more quickly.

Also, maybe there should be a line around the lathe and the bucket
cannot go within the line.

Any comments?

Bill

neill wrote:
You went back and read the thread?

Hope so.

I chose to interpret your "challenge" based on the substance it contained,
not the spirit in which it was presented, because this is about woodturning,
not about people, and your pictures substantiated something I have said for
years here - you don't need to bully the wood to hold it for turning.
Don't even, in my opinion, have to bully it to remove wood while it's
turning. Some of the assembled think that's dogma, not just a way to save
the turner and turning from beating each other up.


not me George. dont misdirect what ive said. sharing your techniques is not
dogma. i never said that. its when you come off like your way is the only
way, the only correct way, the only true way, and everyone who does any
different is wrong. thats dogma. when you suggest that i shouldnt even be
talking about jaw sizes thats dogma.

my mind is not closed. i agree with you on a lot of your technique stuff. i
know the value of learning to make a nice peel cut - but the peel cut is only
one of the cuts in my bag of tricks. when im roughing out a large bowl there
is no way every single cut is gonna be a gentle peeling cut. that would take
all day. sometimes i like taking big hogging cuts. i LIKE it. im enjoying it.
im having fun. i like to push my limits on how much wood i can remove in one
pass and letting the shavings fly! is that wrong? when i get close to the
final shape thats when its time to pull out the finesse cuts. then the game
changes to "how clean a surface can i leave?"

HEAR HERE HEAR HERE a new international game of speed skill and ability,
and not necessarily in that order !!!!!

OK Bill who is going to do the timing, we need to know % of wetness of
the wood of course and species of wood, do we get extra marks for bulls
eye shots as opposed to rim shots ??, what about bucket size, imperial
gallons US gallons or metric size, we need to have a level playing field
here now OK. I request that we get double marks for the catcher that
works with one hand behind his back in the dark, come to think of it, we
should get these rules and regulations drawn up in a real professional
way don't you think ???????
Waiting for your reply with tong firmly planted in cheek.

HAVE FUN AND TAKE CARE
Leo Van Der Loo

Bill Rubenstein wrote:
Ok, now is my chance to expose to the world a little game I've been
inventing in my spare time. It isn't fully developed -- as you'll see
in a moment.

It is called (preliminary) -- team turning. A team is made up of one
lathe with a standard sized bowl blank, one catcher with a 35 gallon
trash container and one turner.

The winning team is the one which fills the trash container the
quickest. It is not allowed, though, for anyone to handle the shavings
-- they have to go into the container on the fly.

Big, hogging cuts may remove more material quickly but a continuous
stream of shavings could fill the bucket more quickly.

Also, maybe there should be a line around the lathe and the bucket
cannot go within the line.

Any comments?

Bill

neill wrote:

You went back and read the thread?

Hope so.

I chose to interpret your "challenge" based on the substance it
contained,
not the spirit in which it was presented, because this is about
woodturning,
not about people, and your pictures substantiated something I have
said for
years here - you don't need to bully the wood to hold it for turning.
Don't even, in my opinion, have to bully it to remove wood while it's
turning. Some of the assembled think that's dogma, not just a way to
save
the turner and turning from beating each other up.



not me George. dont misdirect what ive said. sharing your techniques
is not dogma. i never said that. its when you come off like your way
is the only way, the only correct way, the only true way, and everyone
who does any different is wrong. thats dogma. when you suggest that i
shouldnt even be talking about jaw sizes thats dogma.

my mind is not closed. i agree with you on a lot of your technique
stuff. i know the value of learning to make a nice peel cut - but the
peel cut is only one of the cuts in my bag of tricks. when im roughing
out a large bowl there is no way every single cut is gonna be a gentle
peeling cut. that would take all day. sometimes i like taking big
hogging cuts. i LIKE it. im enjoying it. im having fun. i like to push
my limits on how much wood i can remove in one pass and letting the
shavings fly! is that wrong? when i get close to the final shape thats
when its time to pull out the finesse cuts. then the game changes to
"how clean a surface can i leave?"

"Bill Rubenstein" wrote: (clip) The winning team is the one which fills the
trash container the quickest. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill, I'm going to try to get the woodturning clubs in the Bay Area to
introduce this idea at the next picnic.
Maybe use Jet Minilathes and five gallon pails. You could add excitement
and charm to the contest by having children of the turner and catcher, on
hands and knee, with whisk brooms, throwing in the shavings that miss.

"Bill Rubenstein" wrote in message
news
Ok, now is my chance to expose to the world a little game I've been
inventing in my spare time. It isn't fully developed -- as you'll see
in a moment.

It is called (preliminary) -- team turning. A team is made up of one
lathe with a standard sized bowl blank, one catcher with a 35 gallon
trash container and one turner.

The winning team is the one which fills the trash container the
quickest. It is not allowed, though, for anyone to handle the shavings
-- they have to go into the container on the fly.

Big, hogging cuts may remove more material quickly but a continuous
stream of shavings could fill the bucket more quickly.

Also, maybe there should be a line around the lathe and the bucket
cannot go within the line.

Any comments?


Do it all the time, though it's a mixed blessing. Might be better for my
waistline to fling them around.

Do we get to choose our own gouge?

"Leo Van Der Loo" wrote in message
...


HEAR HERE HEAR HERE a new international game of speed skill and ability,
and not necessarily in that order !!!!!

OK Bill who is going to do the timing, we need to know % of wetness of
the wood of course and species of wood, do we get extra marks for bulls
eye shots as opposed to rim shots ??, what about bucket size, imperial
gallons US gallons or metric size, we need to have a level playing field
here now OK. I request that we get double marks for the catcher that
works with one hand behind his back in the dark, come to think of it, we
should get these rules and regulations drawn up in a real professional
way don't you think ???????
Waiting for your reply with tong firmly planted in cheek.

Why should the moisture content matter? Gravity works fine for wet and
dry.

Leo and all:

I had a feeling that this 'sport' which is only in its formative stage
could be developed if exposed to the creativity of a chat-group of turners.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Bill Rubenstein" wrote: (clip) The winning team is the one which fills the
trash container the quickest. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill, I'm going to try to get the woodturning clubs in the Bay Area to
introduce this idea at the next picnic.
Maybe use Jet Minilathes and five gallon pails. You could add excitement
and charm to the contest by having children of the turner and catcher, on
hands and knee, with whisk brooms, throwing in the shavings that miss.

"neill" wrote in message
...

You went back and read the thread?

Hope so.

I chose to interpret your "challenge" based on the substance it
contained,
not the spirit in which it was presented, because this is about
woodturning,
not about people, and your pictures substantiated something I have said
for
years here - you don't need to bully the wood to hold it for turning.
Don't even, in my opinion, have to bully it to remove wood while it's
turning. Some of the assembled think that's dogma, not just a way to
save
the turner and turning from beating each other up.

not me George. dont misdirect what ive said. sharing your techniques is
not
dogma. i never said that. its when you come off like your way is the only
way, the only correct way, the only true way, and everyone who does any
different is wrong. thats dogma. when you suggest that i shouldnt even be
talking about jaw sizes thats dogma.

my mind is not closed. i agree with you on a lot of your technique stuff.
i
know the value of learning to make a nice peel cut - but the peel cut is
only
one of the cuts in my bag of tricks. when im roughing out a large bowl
there
is no way every single cut is gonna be a gentle peeling cut. that would
take
all day. sometimes i like taking big hogging cuts. i LIKE it. im enjoying
it.
im having fun. i like to push my limits on how much wood i can remove in
one
pass and letting the shavings fly! is that wrong? when i get close to the
final shape thats when its time to pull out the finesse cuts. then the
game
changes to "how clean a surface can i leave?"


I should not be writing this, because you have obviously not read the
messages to this point as written, but through some sort of personal filter
that fails to connect accusations, challenges and ad hominems to the persons
who have written them and the order of who was pontificating and who
replying.

So, as before, I will continue to consider this place to be about turning,
not people. Where there are things which pertain to all places and people,
I will continue to make them as simple declarations of fact - third person.
Those things I do, favor, or want will continue in first person singular so
as to be properly identified to those who understand the difference by
grammar.

Bill, be careful what games you wish for. Any group that can argue for
days about chuck jaws probably shouldn't be involved in competitions
involving machinery and sharp tools.

In addition to the mayhem, have you considered steroid use, plugged
gouge handles, corporate sponsors, ad patches on clothes, salary caps,
pro vs am, interminable regional playoffs, rowdy spectators, player's
unions, government oversight,TV contracts; just for starters.

In the grand tradition of rcw, I try to be cheerful, supportive and
optimistic.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

On Wed, 4 May 2005 17:04:17 -0700, neill wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:37:16 -0700, Bill Rubenstein wrote
(in message ):

George wrote:
snip...
Not really. The depth is limited to the wedge. On sapwood, or
waterlogged,
or even green, you can run some water-thin CA into the edges of the recess
to help in case of a catch - which, as you learn to peel, will become a
thing of the past.
snip...
I remember seeing no less a turner than Richard Raffin who was here for
a one day seminar. He did a little warm-up in preparation for the day
and got a NASTY catch almost right out of the box.

I think that they don't go away, they just keep getting farther and
farther apart g.

Bill

Raffan does that on purpose. it helps the newbies relate. its all theatrics.

right... sort of a "I meant to do that".. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Thu, 5 May 2005 07:38:16 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


"Bill Rubenstein" wrote in message
news
Ok, now is my chance to expose to the world a little game I've been
inventing in my spare time. It isn't fully developed -- as you'll see
in a moment.

It is called (preliminary) -- team turning. A team is made up of one
lathe with a standard sized bowl blank, one catcher with a 35 gallon
trash container and one turner.

The winning team is the one which fills the trash container the
quickest. It is not allowed, though, for anyone to handle the shavings
-- they have to go into the container on the fly.

Big, hogging cuts may remove more material quickly but a continuous
stream of shavings could fill the bucket more quickly.

Also, maybe there should be a line around the lathe and the bucket
cannot go within the line.

Any comments?


Do it all the time, though it's a mixed blessing. Might be better for my
waistline to fling them around.

Do we get to choose our own gouge?

might need rules and specs on allowed equipment...
otherwise, it's like playing tennis and choosing what size ball you use..lol


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Thu, 5 May 2005 09:07:37 -0400, (Arch) wrote:

Bill, be careful what games you wish for. Any group that can argue for
days about chuck jaws probably shouldn't be involved in competitions
involving machinery and sharp tools.

In addition to the mayhem, have you considered steroid use, plugged
gouge handles, corporate sponsors, ad patches on clothes, salary caps,
pro vs am, interminable regional playoffs, rowdy spectators, player's
unions, government oversight,TV contracts; just for starters.

In the grand tradition of rcw, I try to be cheerful, supportive and
optimistic.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

tv rights could be right up there with dart tournaments.. yawn


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing