am i missing something or did oneway do a lousy job planning the sizes of
their jaws.
#2 jaws will grab a tennon from 1 3/4"-3 1/4".
#3 jaws will grab a tennon from 3 7/8"-5 1/4".
so anything larger than 3 1/4" but smaller than 3 7/8" is not covered.
now they have the new #4 jaws.
#4 jaws will grab a tennon from 4 1/4"-5 3/4".
so most of the range of the #4s is allready covered by the #3s!?!
seems like they should have made the the #3 jaws a little smaller and the #4s
a little bigger. as it is why would i lay down $270.00 for #4 jaws that will
only go 1/2" larger than my #3s??!!

"neill" wrote in message
...
am i missing something or did oneway do a lousy job planning the sizes of
their jaws.
#2 jaws will grab a tennon from 1 3/4"-3 1/4".
#3 jaws will grab a tennon from 3 7/8"-5 1/4".
so anything larger than 3 1/4" but smaller than 3 7/8" is not covered.
now they have the new #4 jaws.
#4 jaws will grab a tennon from 4 1/4"-5 3/4".
so most of the range of the #4s is allready covered by the #3s!?!
seems like they should have made the the #3 jaws a little smaller and the
#4s
a little bigger. as it is why would i lay down $270.00 for #4 jaws that
will
only go 1/2" larger than my #3s??!!


What's the beef? You have a set of go/no-go gages at hand to help size the
tenons. Plywood will do.

If it won't fit, don't make it that size.

Hi Neill!

I do believe Oneway listens to their fans. If you pop over to the Oneway forums, they have a poll going on now about whether or not there are enough accessories for their jaws. Make your voice heard!

http://www.oneway.ca/forum/index.php

William

I agree that it is usually possible to work around the limitations of a
chuck. However, there may be times when it is not practical to change the
size of the object you want to hold. A "rational" system ought to provide
slight overlaps in the size ranges, not big overlaps, and certainly not
gaps. My vote goes with Neil

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...
I agree that it is usually possible to work around the limitations of a
chuck. However, there may be times when it is not practical to change the
size of the object you want to hold. A "rational" system ought to provide
slight overlaps in the size ranges, not big overlaps, and certainly not
gaps. My vote goes with Neil



Is there an optimum size for each jaw set, Leo?

Most agree there is.

So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

"George" wrote: Is there an optimum size for each jaw set, Leo? Most agree
there is. So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of
jaws?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The only "optimum" I know is that for jaws with a quarter-circle shape, they
should ideally grip a spigot that they fit, ie, same radius. One-way
overcomes that restriction by creating a wavy shaped jaw, so that at all
radii, there are two contacts for each jaw, for a total of eight around the
circle. This, combined with their ribbed design results in excellent
holding power, regardless of how much the jaws have to be opened or closed
to fit the spigot.

With the sophistication of that design, it is surprising to me that they
have sets of jaws with gaps in the coverage.

George, if you can explain to me what you mean by an "optimum" size, I will
be grateful.

I'm with Neill. Are we are the only two turners who have ever had to put
a blank back on centers to adjust a tenon? Or, as Leo said, needed to
seat a fixed tenon in the jaw gap?

Tenons are usually easily adjusted for jaw gaps, dents on soft iron tool
rests are easily smoothed and spindle movements are easily measured on
ungraduated tailstock rams, but we shouldn't have to. I think " keeping
costs down" is a weak excuse. At the price of turning equipment today,
we shouldn't need to buy corrective add ons or take corrective actions?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

The max size number is sort of irrelevant as the farther you get from
the minimum size number you get the less and less wood is in contact
with the jaw. When you grip on such a small area the wood is crushed
under the jaws also the wood is unlikely to compress evenly and is
not going to running true.

Walt

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:02:46 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:


"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...
I agree that it is usually possible to work around the limitations of a
chuck. However, there may be times when it is not practical to change the
size of the object you want to hold. A "rational" system ought to provide
slight overlaps in the size ranges, not big overlaps, and certainly not
gaps. My vote goes with Neil



Is there an optimum size for each jaw set, Leo?

Most agree there is.

So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote: Is there an optimum size for each jaw set, Leo? Most
agree
there is. So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number
of
jaws?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The only "optimum" I know is that for jaws with a quarter-circle shape,
they
should ideally grip a spigot that they fit, ie, same radius. One-way
overcomes that restriction by creating a wavy shaped jaw, so that at all
radii, there are two contacts for each jaw, for a total of eight around
the
circle. This, combined with their ribbed design results in excellent
holding power, regardless of how much the jaws have to be opened or closed
to fit the spigot.

With the sophistication of that design, it is surprising to me that they
have sets of jaws with gaps in the coverage.

George, if you can explain to me what you mean by an "optimum" size, I
will
be grateful.



Optimum size is that which puts the greatest amount of metal against wood
without distorting the latter. The quarter-circle types have an optimum size
of circularity plus or minus perhaps 5%. I call this the optimum situation,
because any deformation makes realignment after a dismount more difficult.
The status quo ante just no longer exists. 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. It makes circularity a
cinch, because the wedge centers as it draws the piece back into the chuck,
where the shoulder or recess now resists angular forces. Optimum size is
slightly less critical here, because it is easier to ensure registry against
its shoulders or interior recess. It does not have to grip nor distort that
which it holds.

If you really want to improve a ridged external hold, you would do well to
consider asymmetrical ridges, with the flat toward the piece, and the wedge
toward the chuck. That way they would automatically push against the fibers
engaged, snugging the chuck against a shoulder as mini wedges or dovetails.
You still would want to have minimum disturbance in the fiber structure,
therefore an optimum size would exist, but at least you would not have a
situation where symmetrical ridges are as likely to push away from
shouldering as toward.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 3:28:10 -0700, George wrote
(in message ):

What's the beef? You have a set of go/no-go gages at hand to help size the
tenons. Plywood will do.


yea yea... ...i know i know, go/no-go gages, hrumpff! wouldn't it be
better if the chucking system where designed without any no-go gaps to worry
about?



If it won't fit, don't make it that size.


well yea... obviously. but wouldn't it be better if i *could* make it that
size if i wanted to?

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 6:27:16 -0700, billh wrote
(in message ) :

Not really much of a problem at all. I use a go-nogo gauge and if you do get
it wrong just cut the tenon down to fit the smaller jaw. A set of #4 jaws
is about $65Cdn or ~$50.US not $270 and if you don't like them don't buy
them.

in fact i don't like them and i am not going to buy them. as i said earlier
why would i for only 1/2" larger capacity than my #3 jaws? shame too because
there have been times when i wanted a larger tenon. the $207 i mentioned is
about what i would have to spend for a stronghold chuck-body only, insert,
and jaws. doesn't everyone have a dedicated chuck for each jaw set? changing
chuck jaws is so tortuous. i know im supposed to suffer for my art but lets
not be ridiculous.

Personally, I like to keep the jaws operating near their minimum size
so there is less metal flying around the bottom of the workpiece.
Billh

to each his own. im not at all squeamish about opening the jaws up as far as
they will go if that is what i feel that particular size workpiece calls for.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 9:25:48 -0700, Leo Lichtman wrote
(in message ):

I agree that it is usually possible to work around the limitations of a
chuck. However, there may be times when it is not practical to change the
size of the object you want to hold. A "rational" system ought to provide
slight overlaps in the size ranges, not big overlaps, and certainly not
gaps. My vote goes with Neil



very well put Leo. concise and to the point.

Hi Neill!

I do believe Oneway listens to their fans. If you pop over to theOneway
forums, they have a poll going on now about whether or not thereare enough
accessories for their jaws. Make your voice heard!

http://www.oneway.ca/forum/index.php

William-- wrz0170

thanks for the heads up on that poll. i took your advice and posted my beef
over there as well.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:02:46 -0700, George wrote
(in message ):


Is there an optimum size for each jaw set, Leo?

Most agree there is.

So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?


i don't concern myself with the optimum size for the jaws. i try to find the
optimum size for the workpiece. do you only use your jaws at the optimum
size? that would be very limiting indeed!

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:34:27 -0700, Arch wrote
(in message ):

I'm with Neill. Are we are the only two turners who have ever had to put
a blank back on centers to adjust a tenon? Or, as Leo said, needed to
seat a fixed tenon in the jaw gap?

Tenons are usually easily adjusted for jaw gaps, dents on soft iron tool
rests are easily smoothed and spindle movements are easily measured on
ungraduated tailstock rams, but we shouldn't have to. I think " keeping
costs down" is a weak excuse. At the price of turning equipment today,
we shouldn't need to buy corrective add ons or take corrective actions?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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


here here!

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:58:24 -0700, Walt & Jenne Ahlgrim wrote
(in message ):

The max size number is sort of irrelevant as the farther you get from
the minimum size number you get the less and less wood is in contact
with the jaw. When you grip on such a small area the wood is crushed
under the jaws also the wood is unlikely to compress evenly and is
not going to running true.

Walt



for me the max size number is not at all irrelevant. i understand what you
are saying and in thoery it is true... well at least it is a true part of the
story. personally, for the way i work, the whole story is more complicated
than that. i turn many different sizes and shapes. mostly bowls and hollow
forms. i use every bit of my chuck's capacity. i figure scroll chucks open
and close as far as they do for a reason. when i am turning a large bowl i
feel better making the tenon as large as my chuck will hold.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:23:51 -0700, George wrote
(in message ):

Optimum size is that which puts the greatest amount of metal against wood
without distorting the latter. The quarter-circle types have an optimum size
of circularity plus or minus perhaps 5%. I call this the optimum situation,
because any deformation makes realignment after a dismount more difficult.
The status quo ante just no longer exists. The weakness of the Oneway
design is that it has to "grip" by distorting or destroying the integrity of
the portion gripped.

i have not found the ribbed oneway jaws to be as distructive as you make them
sound. a screw may distort or "destroy" more wood fibers than a nail does but
the screw still holds better. im not saying the way you do things is wrong.
if dovetail jaws work better for the work you do and the way you do it than
thats what you should use.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:23:51 -0700, George wrote
(in message ):


If you really want to improve a ridged external hold, you would do well to
consider asymmetrical ridges, with the flat toward the piece, and the wedge
toward the chuck. That way they would automatically push against the fibers
engaged, snugging the chuck against a shoulder as mini wedges or dovetails.

actually thats a really good idea. does anyone make such an animal?

"George" george@least writes:

So are you advocating less than optimum, or an infinite number of jaws?

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

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:23:51 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

Optimum size is that which puts the greatest amount of metal against wood
without distorting the latter. The quarter-circle types have an optimum size
of circularity plus or minus perhaps 5%. I call this the optimum situation,
because any deformation makes realignment after a dismount more difficult.
The status quo ante just no longer exists. 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. It makes circularity a
cinch, because the wedge centers as it draws the piece back into the chuck,
where the shoulder or recess now resists angular forces. Optimum size is
slightly less critical here, because it is easier to ensure registry against
its shoulders or interior recess. It does not have to grip nor distort that
which it holds.

If you really want to improve a ridged external hold, you would do well to
consider asymmetrical ridges, with the flat toward the piece, and the wedge
toward the chuck. That way they would automatically push against the fibers
engaged, snugging the chuck against a shoulder as mini wedges or dovetails.
You still would want to have minimum disturbance in the fiber structure,
therefore an optimum size would exist, but at least you would not have a
situation where symmetrical ridges are as likely to push away from
shouldering as toward.

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..



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:34:24 -0700, neill wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 6:27:16 -0700, billh wrote
(in message ) :

Not really much of a problem at all. I use a go-nogo gauge and if you do get
it wrong just cut the tenon down to fit the smaller jaw. A set of #4 jaws
is about $65Cdn or ~$50.US not $270 and if you don't like them don't buy
them.

in fact i don't like them and i am not going to buy them. as i said earlier
why would i for only 1/2" larger capacity than my #3 jaws? shame too because
there have been times when i wanted a larger tenon. the $207 i mentioned is
about what i would have to spend for a stronghold chuck-body only, insert,
and jaws. doesn't everyone have a dedicated chuck for each jaw set? changing
chuck jaws is so tortuous. i know im supposed to suffer for my art but lets
not be ridiculous.

Personally, I like to keep the jaws operating near their minimum size
so there is less metal flying around the bottom of the workpiece.
Billh

to each his own. im not at all squeamish about opening the jaws up as far as
they will go if that is what i feel that particular size workpiece calls for.

I use the Oneway Talon, and have the jaws that it came with (#2?) and the spigot
jaws..
I don't change jaws often, but when I do, it only takes a few minutes with a
drill driver and hex bit..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"mac davis" wrote: (clip) I don't change jaws often, but when I do, it only
takes a few minutes with a drill driver and hex bit..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since you brought that up, I use a rechargeable screwdriver and a magnetic
parts dish from Harbor Freight. Stick the dish to the ways just below the
chuck, and use it to hold all the jaws and screws. You can work a lot
faster if everything is right there, and if any dropped part goes to the
magnet instead of the sawdust on the floor.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 8:35:07 -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?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 8:40:14 -0700, mac davis wrote
(in message ):


I use the Oneway Talon, and have the jaws that it came with (#2?) and the
spigot
jaws..
I don't change jaws often, but when I do, it only takes a few minutes with a
drill driver and hex bit..


if you dont mind changing jaws thats fine for you. i cant stand it.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 9:31:10 -0700, Leo Lichtman wrote
(in message ):

Since you brought that up, I use a rechargeable screwdriver and a magnetic
parts dish from Harbor Freight. Stick the dish to the ways just below the
chuck, and use it to hold all the jaws and screws. You can work a lot
faster if everything is right there, and if any dropped part goes to the
magnet instead of the sawdust on the floor.

using the magnetic parts dish is a good tip. i dont change chuck jaws but
there are other times when that will come in handy.

"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:23:51 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

Optimum size is that which puts the greatest amount of metal against wood
without distorting the latter. The quarter-circle types have an optimum
size
of circularity plus or minus perhaps 5%. I call this the optimum
situation,
because any deformation makes realignment after a dismount more difficult.
The status quo ante just no longer exists. 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. It makes circularity a
cinch, because the wedge centers as it draws the piece back into the
chuck,
where the shoulder or recess now resists angular forces. Optimum size is
slightly less critical here, because it is easier to ensure registry
against
its shoulders or interior recess. It does not have to grip nor distort
that
which it holds.

If you really want to improve a ridged external hold, you would do well to
consider asymmetrical ridges, with the flat toward the piece, and the
wedge
toward the chuck. That way they would automatically push against the
fibers
engaged, snugging the chuck against a shoulder as mini wedges or
dovetails.
You still would want to have minimum disturbance in the fiber structure,
therefore an optimum size would exist, but at least you would not have a
situation where symmetrical ridges are as likely to push away from
shouldering as toward.

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..



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

There sure are a lot of well-known and experienced turners, professional and
amateur, using what you call "beginner" jaws. That is just not true. The
Oneway profiled jaws are made to give optimum holding power period. In my
experience the marks they put on the tenon are relatively minor but present
nontheless. However, I think it is poor practice, unless you are trying to
turn out a 100 pieces a day, to leave any mount external or internal without
a final clean-up. This renders any marking meaningless.
Billh

Hi other Leo

Leo I do agree, with the thought that they dropped the ball with the
jaws not overlapping, First time that this happened (never happened
again right) I couldn't believe it, as it was, I had just turned a bowl
outboard, and it was to large for returning the spigot between centers,
inboard, so I pulled the pin out of the #4 jaw and was the able to hold
the oversize spigot, turn a recess and than cut the spigot to size.
Having to do all of that is a pain in the ass, and we should not have to
do that, the chuck itself is a very high quality chuck, and for holding
over the whole range of size it is able to grab, the jaws are superior
to any of the other makes of chucks, IMO.
So for lack of any better I will again buy a Oneway chuck next time.
Hope they (Oneway) will improve on that, before I need another one.

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

Leo Lichtman wrote:

I agree that it is usually possible to work around the limitations of a
chuck. However, there may be times when it is not practical to change the
size of the object you want to hold. A "rational" system ought to provide
slight overlaps in the size ranges, not big overlaps, and certainly not
gaps. My vote goes with Neil

"billh" wrote in message
. ..
However, I think it is poor practice, unless you are trying to
turn out a 100 pieces a day, to leave any mount external or internal
without
a final clean-up. This renders any marking meaningless.
Billh



If you create no marks with the holding device, you're already cleaned up.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"billh" wrote in message
. ..
However, I think it is poor practice, unless you are trying to
turn out a 100 pieces a day, to leave any mount external or internal
without
a final clean-up. This renders any marking meaningless.
Billh



If you create no marks with the holding device, you're already cleaned up.


I should have been more specific and this applies to external tenons which I
tend to use. IMO, the last thing I want the bottom of my bowl to look like
is a tenon. My final cleanup means removing all or part of the tenon and
blending the remainder if any into the bowl shape.
Billh

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:11:09 -0700, neill wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 8:40:14 -0700, mac davis wrote
(in message ):


I use the Oneway Talon, and have the jaws that it came with (#2?) and the
spigot
jaws..
I don't change jaws often, but when I do, it only takes a few minutes with a
drill driver and hex bit..


if you dont mind changing jaws thats fine for you. i cant stand it.

well, I find that I use the standard set most of the time..
probably in the last 50 or 60 things I've turned, i've needed the spigot jaws,
so that sure doesn't warrant another $175 chuck..

Hell, it's only a min. or 2 more to change jaws then it would be to change the
chucks.. lol

If time was more important than money, I guess I'd just go to a vacuum system..



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:08:46 -0700, neill wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 8:35:07 -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



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"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.

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.

billh wrote:
"George" george@least wrote in message
"billh" wrote in message
However, I think it is poor practice, unless you are trying to
turn out a 100 pieces a day, to leave any mount external or internal
without
a final clean-up. This renders any marking meaningless.
Billh
If you create no marks with the holding device, you're already cleaned up.


I should have been more specific and this applies to external tenons which I
tend to use. IMO, the last thing I want the bottom of my bowl to look like
is a tenon. My final cleanup means removing all or part of the tenon and
blending the remainder if any into the bowl shape.
Billh

I agree. On the bottom of my bowls I don't want any indication of how
they were mounted. Personally, I tend to view a recess where the jaws
held as "bush league". Others are welcome to disagree, but leaving a
tenon or rebate in the bottom, to me, detracts from the design element
and elegance of the piece. If one leaves the mechanism by which they
held the bowl visible, the holding device has 'left a mark' so to speak.

I may be only making treen, but I want it to be as nice of an example of
treen as I can make it, and that means taking the bottom onto
consideration to the same degree as the rest of the piece.

If one is happy leaving evidence of mounting, live it up. For me it
doesn't work...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska

mac davis wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:08:46 -0700, neill wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 8:35:07 -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

Um, sorry. I seem to be unable to find "beginner" or "experienced"
anywhere on that page. Just two flavors of jaw sets. Only thing I find
is "They are designed (and recommended) for light cutting applications."
Light cutting applications doesn't equate to beginner vs. experienced.

S'later...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"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.


Absolutely George. I'm sure they have given no consideration to the needs
of woodturners. By "george".... I will be sure to turn to you before my
next woodturning tool purchase and to hell with anything this upstart
company (Oneway) has to say. You have made it abundantly clear you have
nothing but disdain for them.......... My opinion??? Thought you'd never
ask...... !! I would be willing to bet a spalted chunk of dog manure they
have forgotten more about woodturning in the last ten minutes than you are
likely to learn in two lifetimes..... Course I also could be wrong......(no
grin) !
--

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

"Kevin Miller" wrote in message
...

I agree. On the bottom of my bowls I don't want any indication of how
they were mounted. Personally, I tend to view a recess where the jaws
held as "bush league".

Snip........


...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska
--


I'd say that just about covers it nicely Kevin.................!!!!


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

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



mac

Sorry as hell here mac but I fail to find the reference to "beginning or
less experienced". Must be my damn eyes. Help me out
here.........................
--

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

"M.J." wrote in message
...

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.


Absolutely George. I'm sure they have given no consideration to the needs
of woodturners. By "george".... I will be sure to turn to you before my
next woodturning tool purchase and to hell with anything this upstart
company (Oneway) has to say. You have made it abundantly clear you have
nothing but disdain for them.......... My opinion??? Thought you'd never
ask...... !! I would be willing to bet a spalted chunk of dog manure they
have forgotten more about woodturning in the last ten minutes than you are
likely to learn in two lifetimes..... Course I also could be
wrong......(no
grin) !
--

Never a word against Oneway from this quarter. I think you're putting your
opinion in while you think you're reading others'.

My objection is to distortion of the piece, so I guess your distortions
would fall into that same category. Thanks for lowering the level of
discourse.

There has been a couple of good points made in this discussion but
none of them has touched on the real reason we have a gap. An earlier
poster stated that when he made a tenon that was in the gap he removed
the safety pin and that he was then able to hold the piece. This is
the very crux of the matter. When we first made the Stronghold we had
overlap. The biggest problem we had with the chuck was that people
would open it up to the maximum so that only one partial tooth was
engaged between the scroll and the base jaw and then tighten down hard
and snap that tooth off the base jaw. When we devised the safety pin
we limited the range of the chuck so that not only would the base jaws
always stay engaged but that the partial tooth on the one base jaws
would never engage alone.
This was not a foreseen circumstance because it is common
knowlege in a machine shop that you should never work a scroll chuck
hard at its maximum capacity because it gets weaker as you work more
towards the outer range of the grip. Sometimes at Oneway we forgot
that what is common knowledge here is not so common in the wood shops
of the world.
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.
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.
To best use our chucks we feel that the base jaws should always
be used inside the body of the chuck. Obviously the chucks have more
range than that and when required go ahead and use it but the chuck
will work better and you will have less danger of collision with a
protruding jaw when the chucks are used toward the smaller part of the
range.
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.

regards
Kevin Clay
Oneway Manufacturing