A Twin-Screw Vise Revolution

[David Keller NC]

Guys (and gals, if there are any on this board):

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Video+New+Quickrelease+Twinscrew+Vise+Technology.a spx

In case the link doesn't work or is dis-allowed, this is a story on Chris Schwarz's Woodworking Magazine blog about a mechanical engineer's take on a quick-release, wide-opening, twin-screw vise that is designed to work with no visible threads on the guidebars and no lubrication (so grease marks on your work).

I've seen "new" vise technology come and go, but if the guy executes well on the manufacturing, this is one cool invention.

[Thomas love]

Guys (and gals, if there are any on this board):

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Video+New+Quickrelease+Twinscrew+Vise+Technology.a spx

In case the link doesn't work or is dis-allowed, this is a story on Chris Schwarz's Woodworking Magazine blog about a mechanical engineer's take on a quick-release, wide-opening, twin-screw vise that is designed to work with no visible threads on the guidebars and no lubrication (so grease marks on your work).

I've seen "new" vise technology come and go, but if the guy executes well on the manufacturing, this is one cool invention.



Thanks for link David, very interesting.

[Abi Parris]

David: For the record, there's at least one (gal) here, so thanks for the inclusion and the link!:D

[Jim Koepke]

There are actually quite a few women, ladies, gals or whatever who read these pages, more power to them and their mallets. :cool:

I did not see the part about no lubrication. I will have to read the article again.

From looking at it, this appears to be an application or modification of directional clutches. I used to work on machines that used them so that shafts would turn one way, but not the other.

For my own use, a quick release vice is a non-issue. Maybe if there was a lot of changing between 1 inch and 14 inches my mind would change. So far that challenge has not entered my work or style of work.

jim

[Rick Markham]

That's pretty nifty, slick design for sure!

As far as greasing the vice screws, am I the only one that uses a liquid wax lubricant designed for bike chains? (I won't mention the brand) it's a liquid that dries rapidly and doesn't attract dust and debris, doesn't stain the wood, keeps everything slick as dog snot, and has served me very well.

[Paul Incognito]

That's pretty nifty, slick design for sure!

As far as greasing the vice screws, am I the only one that uses a liquid wax lubricant designed for bike chains? (I won't mention the brand) it's a liquid that dries rapidly and doesn't attract dust and debris, doesn't stain the wood, keeps everything slick as dog snot, and has served me very well.
I'll mention the name for the non-cyclists. Go to any bike shop and pick up a bottle of White Lightning. Not cheap, but it does work.
And for moving parts that won't see contact with wood, there are lots of other lubricants there that work great.
PI

[Michael Short]

David,

That is a cool vise. Thanks for posting the link.

[harry strasil]

I use spray silicone

[glenn bradley]

Cool application of that type of mechanism. I wish him luck and would like to see another reasonably priced twin screw available on the market.

[Jon van der Linden]

Cool application of that type of mechanism. I wish him luck and would like to see another reasonably priced twin screw available on the market.

From what I read he's aiming at $350, which is $65 more than the LN twin screw.

It would be easy cheap and quick to slap one together just buy some acme threaded rod, washers, nuts, etc. - no need to machine a tail on the end for the handle unless you want something particular. It will work and work well. Making one where the two handles work together is a bit more complicated, but also limiting if you ever work with tapers.

What I'm really curious about with the vise shown in the video is how tight can it go and does it ever slip? One dropped and dented workpiece will eliminate all time savings I could possibly have in a year or more.

I'm sure we'll hear more interesting things once it's being tested in the wild.

[David Keller NC]

One pretty neat feature with this vise is the lack of any threads, metal or otherwise, that's in the clamping workspace.

On my vise(s), I do use wax as a lubricant, though I use beeswax rather than a commercial product. Nevertheless, wood chips and dust do find their way into the screw threads, and taking the vise apart and cleaning those out so they don't trash the nuts is a major pain in the rear.

[Jon van der Linden]

David, do you only use metal threaded vises? I've never had the chance to compare "chip load" on wood VS metal threads, which might be interesting. Then again I've never had a problem with dirty threads, part of that may be because I mostly use an Emmert clone and the threads are enclosed on 3 sides. Of course that also keeps the work itself grease free.

[David Keller NC]

Yes, my vises to date are all metal thread rods. I intend to build a wooden-screw vise in the near future, but I think I'm going the route of building a thread box and tap, which will definitely take a while.

[Derby Matthews]

All good points. Where does the line form?

[george wilson]

I do not see how the vise works. Can anyone help? How does it tighten without a screw?

[Will Blick]

George, it has threads, they are just not "exposed"...look further down on the same link provided in OP...

[Will Blick]

I am curious how well this performs vs. the LV twin screw vise.... any thoughts? Anyone ever see it work in person?

My biggest concern also would be the QR.... seems to perform well in the video.... but often these are problematic over time....

[george wilson]

I guess I'm being dense.I still don't see any threads,or understand how the vise works.

[Tim Put]

There are no threads.

It is tricky to tell, but I think I see how it works.
There's a one way clutch (like a ratchet but cooler and slicker), the vise "screws" spin freely in one direction, in the other direction they turn that wobbly collar to pull the "screw" inwards, and simultaneously they spin that pinion gear which drives a wedge shaped rack locking it in place.

[George Neill]

As far as I can make out, there are no threads. I assume the two pinions (connected by the rack) have integral cams that force the clutches to tension the pair of long guide bars and lock them. I suspect the actual movement necessary is slight and therefore, anyone used to tightening a normal vice to extremes would soon damage this new type of vice.

Longevity would be my main concern. I can't see how the clutches and guide bars will resist rapid wear and if you're used to working with regular sized stock (1in, 2in, etc.) then the wear will predominate at these openings.

It is clever, but wheels are not readily reinvented.

[Derby Matthews]

That I couldn't keep a clutch in. Sold it to a guy who owned a full service station / repair station and a fully stocked parts store next door. In Hinesburg, VT. A year or two later he had it out front with a for sale sign on it. My girlfriend (unknown to him) stopped in and asked him why he was selling the cool-looking Jeep Sedan. "Can't keep a clutch in it" was the reply.

Question 1):

How many lb. of pressure / #'s of hard tightenings before these tandem clutches fail?

2): how difficult / expensive is it to replace them?

3): (Assuming #'s 1 and 2 answered) Do you take Paypal? :cool:

[harry strasil]

Personally, I think the cogged bar is tapered and the friction clutch just moves it to act like a wedge, I don't think its got much actual tightening travel because of the limited amount of wedge action.
Why are we trying to second guess the man, if you buy one you know your gonna take it apart to see how it works. The Curiousity killed the cat routine. Especially if you can't get it to work after you reassemble it.
Just give the man his DUE, he is smart or like most inventors had a lucky accident.

[George Neill]

The clutches would, by necessity, be very hard, so it is the guide bars that would be the service items and I'm tipping they wouldn't be cheap. Depending on the design of the vice and the length of the guide bars, it may be possible to switch the bars end to end to extend their life.

[george wilson]

I had wondered if the angled washers would produce a "screw effect" and sort of bite into the smooth steel bar enough to make it cut a shallow spiral.

I was doubtful,though,because I didn't see how much tightening force the bars would accept before letting go. I'm assuming that those washers are sharp edged,and hardened to be able to work.

Harry,I'm not ever going to buy one of these vises since my last workbench has already been made. At 69,I'm not wanting to make any more,nor do I have room on my bench for a wide vise,or room in my over crowded shop for another bench. Besides,I could make one if I wanted it,provided I understood how it worked.

I got lucky years ago,and found a huge slab of beechwood in a country lumberyard. It was 6" thick,over 30" wide,and about 9' long. I let it dry in my shop at work for several years until it settled down. My bench top is 4" thick all the way across. The legs are fully 4" x6",double mortised to the cross bars at top and bottom. I had to plane the cup out of the 6" thick slab. It had a piece of barbed wire in it,which is why it was never made into smaller lumber. I drilled the wire out,and plugged the hole tightly with a boat shaped plug.

The rectangular dog holes were made with a Monarch mortiser through the solid wood top. They are 3/4" x 1 1/2". I added large beech wood drawers underneath,and "out rigger" shelves at each end underneath the top beyond where the legs ended,to hold sandpaper or other small things.

I made all the hardware for my tail vise,including the steel screw,nut,and decorative handle. It slides on a vertical steel track that is about 1/4" x 3" x 18". ALL MEASUREMENTS HERE are approximate as I don't feel like going to measure the bench. I'm sick with a bad cold and some fever.

While I used to love to make work benches,the ones I like to make are too much for my back trouble these days.

However,the vise in discussion is an interesting mechanism,and I am curious as to how it would work. Until I know better,I'd be afraid that the steel bars would get spiral scratches on them,and might wear out,but that is just conjecture on my part. The inventor is very clever to come up with the idea.

[George Neill]

George, If you imagine two Irwin type bar clamps (with round bars instead of oval bars) mounted in tandem. The Irwin clutches are tightened by squeezing the triggers. No spiral threads are cut in the bars.

With this new vice, as I understand it, the clutches are tightened by rotating the vice handles/guide bars/pinions which put pressure on the clutches.

[george wilson]

I'm not sure how squeezing the triggers intermittently equates to a constant rotary motion.I'm being really dumb over this!!! I mean,you release the pressure of the "clutch" when you release the trigger,then take another bite by squeezing the trigger again.

[harry strasil]

It would be easy to work if there were full length keyways in the guide rod/operating rods. Not clear enough to see if there are and the actual mechanism is never shown working, just the outside portion.

[Will Blick]

> I still don't see any threads,or understand how the vise works.


I was referring to the threads on the rack n pinion.... was not sure if you saw that picture below the video....

I think the clamping methodology is mix of R & P with 2 cams... here is the procedure, as I see it....


1) The shaft floats freely through its bearings with no pressure, hence the QR action after clamp handle is loosened....


2) when you tighten handle clockwise the long shaft turns the cammed pinion gear.... due to its cammed shape, it engages into the rack. The threads in the gear and rack are angled, so when the gear turns the rack, it forces two key actions:


a) the cammed gear exerts pressure on the shaft, nearly siezing it in its bearings (quite easy to sieze a shaft).


b) the angled gear / rack threads force the gear/shaft towards the rear shaft bearing. The rack force overcomes the siezed shaft in the bearing. The entire assembly moves back just an inch, which is all that is required to create several hundred pounds of of clamping pressure. You can see in the pix below, the visible shaft between the shaft bearings represents the QR state, or floating position, .... when the clamp is fully tightened, the cammed pinion with shaft will move back and cover that area. The shaft will now be exposed behind the front bearing... this would represent the "clamped state"...


http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/content/binary/Model.jpg



3) So the clamp will only tighten maybe an inch max, thats what's so clever...you only engage the inch worth of clamping pressure where you need it along the entire shaft. Very similar to a 24" parallel clamp, where the threads are only a few inches long, but we all know how that gets positioned, well that is the same conceptual premise the inventor worked from here..



This is quite clever.... the main benefit, as I see it.... its not a pure clutch... its not really a conventional quick release system either which has gears that will grind out.... instead, when the you loosen the handle, its a full free floating system...when you tighten, you simply engage gears that were not previously engaged....at most, the shaft bearings might wear over time, which hopefully will be a quick change out.... if so, it's the best of all worlds....

assuming I got it right

:-)

[george wilson]

I am sick right now,and can't follow all the abbreviations,Will. I see that the machined washer is held in a tilted position by a little,long bolt that keeps it tilted. I can't see that the pinion gear is cammed,either.

P.S.,I figured out your abbreviations. I've got a fever,and not doing too well. Do you mean that the TEETH and rack are angled? The teeth in the gear look straight to me.

Harry,I am wondering if there IS a key way which the inventor doesn't want us to see. THAT would make the 2 pinion gears rotate together and power them to make the rack slide sideways,to keep the jaws parallel.

[George Neill]

2) when you tighten handle clockwise the long shaft turns the cammed pinion gear.... due to its cammed shape, it engages into the rack. The threads in the gear and rack are angled, so when the gear turns the rack, it forces two key actions:


a) the cammed gear exerts pressure on the shaft, nearly siezing it in its bearings (quite easy to sieze a shaft).


b) the angled gear / rack threads force the gear/shaft towards the rear shaft bearing.
Would a single cam profile inside the pinion be sufficient to grab the guide bar or would that not be a bit of a hit and miss situation? I envisaged the pinions containing one or two sprag clutches.

I don't see any angular (helical) cut to the pinion or rack teeth, but I don't believe it would be necessary anyway.

[george wilson]

I can't see how the pinion gear could move sideways much,as there is that little bolt holding the washer at an angle. It would have to break to allow the gear to go sideways that much.

I agree that the shaft doesn't have to move MUCH to tighten. That was shown in the video,too. He only tightened the shaft after sliding it into place.

I am real sure that the angled washer has something to do with tightening the shaft.

[George Neill]

I am sick right now,and can't follow all the abbreviations,Will. I see that the machined washer is held in a tilted position by a little,long bolt that keeps it tilted. I can't see that the pinion gear is cammed,either.
That nut and thread are simply an adjuster to hold the clutch from prematurely locking the guide bar and preventing the bar from being freely withdrawn.

[george wilson]

WHAT nut and WHAT thread? There is a pinion gear,a washer,a spring,and a smooth shaft,and NO threads. I'm glad we are finally taking this thing apart!!

[George Neill]

WHAT nut and WHAT thread? There is a pinion gear,a washer,a spring,and a smooth shaft,and NO threads. I'm glad we are finally taking this thing apart!!

If you examine the picture closely, you'll see the "little, long bolt" you referred to is in fact a short length of all-thread and a lock nut. It is an adjuster for, but not directly attached to the clutch plate.

[george wilson]

I'll have to take your word for the all thread. I just can't make it out in the picture. I do have cataracts and need eye surgery.

[Will Blick]

The only abbreviation was QR = Quick Release...or free floating....

R & P = Rack and Pinion ?

Of course it would be hard to see the actual cam shape in this pix... its probably only cammed the slightest bit ....


> I see that the machined washer is held in a tilted position by a little,long bolt that keeps it tilted


Agreed....and my guess is, that large washer acts as a stop. This prevents too much upward pressure from being exerted on the shaft. The goal is to sieze the shaft enough to stop it from slipping, but not so much pressure that the rack can't move it when the handle is turned. Its a balancing act between the two presures.... and that is the challenge the inventor faces. Lots of things are great in pinciple :-) IMO, this is viable, just some cleverly designed pieces, the prper bearing material, and lots of testing.


But regardless of these fine details, its the same end result, when you tighten the clamp, upward pressure is applied on shaft, siezing it in the two white bearings, while at the same time the angled teeth in the rack is forcing the shaft backwards in the bearings about an inch max...

When I say "sieze" the shaft, I mean, you can not pull the shaft in/out, with the handle, the pressure is too great...but turning the handle via the leveraged length handles, can twist the shaft in the bearings, which allows the greater pulling force of the rack to actually move the siezed shaft to its maxed clamp position.

You can see in the video, you must push the clamp, smack-up against the workpiece before turning the handle, if you have a 1/2" of air space, you would probably not clamp hard enough to hold the work piece... not a big deal IMO...you would get used to making contact to the workpiece in the QR mode ....

[George Neill]

Agreed....and my guess is, that large washer acts as a stop. This prevents too much upward pressure from being exerted on the shaft. The goal is to sieze the shaft enough to stop it from slipping, but not so much pressure that the rack can't move it when the handle is turned. Its a balancing act between the two presures.... and that is the challenge the inventor faces. Lots of things are great in pinciple :-) IMO, this is viable, just some cleverly designed pieces, the prper bearing material, and lots of testing.
The "large washer" as I see it IS the clutch, much like the clutch in a bar clamp or multiple clutch plates in a pipe clamp.



But regardless of these fine details, its the same end result, when you tighten the clamp, upward pressure is applied on shaft, siezing it in the two white bearings, while at the same time the angled teeth in the rack is forcing the shaft backwards in the bearings about an inch max...
The "white bearings" are simple guides and probably made from something slippery like acetal, PTFE or polyethylene. They would not be used as part of the locking mechanism.

[george wilson]

I agree,George. The angled washer is the trick,I think.

[George Clark]

My guess is that the locking is done with a sprag clutch of some sort. How it tightens remains a mystery for me.

What is a Sprag Clutch? A sprag is a one way metal roller clutch. Picture going to an event such as a concert, fair, basketball or football game, where you pass through a turngate, when you give the usher your ticket, notice that the turngate does not go backwards? This is a sprag at work

Commonly used in automatic transmissions and other power trains.

[george wilson]

I have noticed that the rack gear is not centered on the pinion gear. I'm wondering if somehow the pinion gear moves on center with the rack as the shaft is tightened.

[Will Blick]

I tried posting this several times, but the web site must be too busy...so I may behind....



The only abbreviation was QR = Quick Release...or free floating....

R & P = Rack and Pinion ?

Of course it would be hard to see the actual cam shape in this pix... its probably only cammed the slightest bit ....


> I see that the machined washer is held in a tilted position by a little,long bolt that keeps it tilted


Agreed....and my guess is, that large washer acts as a stop. This prevents too much upward pressure from being exerted on the shaft. The goal is to sieze the shaft enough to stop it from slipping, but not so much pressure that the rack can't move it when the handle is turned. Its a balancing act between the two presures.... and that is the challenge the inventor faces. Lots of things are great in pinciple :-) IMO, this is viable, just some cleverly designed pieces, the prper bearing material, and lots of testing.


But regardless of these fine details, its the same end result, when you tighten the clamp, upward pressure is applied on shaft, siezing it in the two white bearings, while at the same time the angled teeth in the rack is forcing the shaft backwards in the bearings about an inch max...

When I say "sieze" the shaft, I mean, you can not pull the shaft in/out, with the handle, the pressure is too great...but turning the handle via the leveraged length handles, can twist the shaft in the bearings, which allows the greater pulling force of the rack to actually move the siezed shaft to its maxed clamp position.

You can see in the video, you must push the clamp, smack-up against the workpiece before turning the handle, if you have a 1/2" of air space, you would probably not clamp hard enough to hold the work piece... not a big deal IMO...you would get used to making contact to the workpiece in the QR mode ....

[Will Blick]

> The "white bearings" are simple guides and probably made from something slippery like acetal, PTFE or polyethylene. They would not be used as part of the locking mechanism.


Of course, we are all speculating here....but if the bearings do not provide resistance (via pressure) I can not see any other means to prevent the clamp from staying tight.

At first I thought the it was the gear mesh alone between the cammed pinion and the rack.... but what would keep the shaft from slipping through the pinion gear?

[Will Blick]

One other thought at this...

(kinda fun reverse engineering from a minimal picture)....

The shaft hole in the pinion gear is cammed. The shaft has a slight cam as well. When you turn the crank, it locks the shaft to the cammed pinion hole. As the cammed pinion turns, it travels backwards as a result of the gear meshing (explained above)....

Seems more practical....

[George Neill]

At first I thought the it was the gear mesh alone between the cammed pinion and the rack.... but what would keep the shaft from slipping through the pinion gear?
The clutch!


...but if the bearings do not provide resistance (via pressure) I can not see any other means to prevent the clamp from staying tight.
The front bearings/cast housing would provide linear location once the clutch is locked onto the guide bar.


One other thought at this...

(kinda fun reverse engineering from a minimal picture)....

The shaft hole in the pinion gear is cammed. The shaft has a slight cam as well. When you turn the crank, it locks the shaft to the cammed pinion hole. As the cammed pinion turns, it travels backwards as a result of the gear meshing (explained above)....

Seems more practical....
... I'm afraid I don't see the practicality at all, it's totally unnecessary and cammed guide rods would be prohibitively costly to manufacture - if even possible at those lengths.

[george wilson]

I'm still waiting for that flash of comprehension to dawn on me. Hasn't happened yet!!

[Mark Koury]

Neat machine!
I’ll have to buy one.

How it works - my take.
In order to turn the small gear the shaft has to have a keyway (doubt this - old approach) or is machined slightly oval. Since the rotation used to tighten is less than 180 degrees (see movie) this would make sense. Once the small gear with a mating oval center is engaged by the oval shaft and begins to turn, the wedge-shaped rack moves and wedges against the oblique metal disk so that it becomes a clutch and clamps against the shaft to lock it. The screw seen at the top of this disk (on the picture) is to vary the amount of tilt and thus the clamping pressure of the disk on the shaft.
Mark
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=155605&stc=1&d=1278944715

[george wilson]

Oval would be very complex to make. I wonder if somehow when the shaft is tightened,it causes the sharp edged washer to tilt MORE,jamming the shaft against the washer.

That off center gear rack looks like it could move sideways a bit and run into the bottom edge of the washer,jamming the shaft in the tilted hole in the washer. HOW the rack moves sideways,I don't know. The pinion gear's teeth do not seem cut on an angle that would cause it to move the rack.

[Mark Koury]

George,

Follow the energy. First the shaft has to transmit rotational energy to the small gear.

It has to be an oval shaft or a hidden keyway. One other possibility, which I doubt, is a one-way tight fitting roller bearing assembly in the small gear. This would seem expensive to make and subject to wear.

In this day-and-age I think an oval shaft would be easy to make with a CNC machine. The small gear moves the rack. The rack is a flat wedge (see the other original picture). As the wedge moves side-ways it pushes on the lower edge of the disk forcing it to clamp on the shaft. The screw at the top of the picture is to vary the amount of tilt and thus the clamping force.

Interesting Problem!

Mark

[Will Blick]

Great contributions....

Mark, yes, I fully agree the shaft is probably keyed, I should have mentioned that in my first post, its the easiest way to engage the pinion gear while still allowing it to float (in/out) when the two gears are not meshed. Rounded shaft too costly and complex.... of course it makes sense this is not exposed in the pix - to avoid giving too much away....

>As the wedge moves side-ways it pushes on the lower edge of the disk forcing it to clamp on the shaft.


Agreed, this is very similar to what I expressed....except with the disc tilting method, the disc takes on both roles, t actually bites the shaft (holding force) and the rack is wedged as we all suggest.... so the rack pushes the disck backwards with a half turn of handle.... total movement probably even smaller than I first suggested, maybe only a 1/2".


If this is correct, the challenge is keeping that disc tight enough to the shaft, so over time, the tilt consistently bites the shaft without slippage. Very similar to a round bar clamps...... some have movable back jaws using this same premise. While in my experience they do slip over time (as both the disc and pipe wear), in this case, the clamp is not used for long term glue ups, like 24 hr expoxy holds....so even if it wears, a slight re-crank will keep the piece tight.... so good enough.... here is pix of tilted disc that bites a shaft....

http://images.rockler.com/rockler/images/30921-01-200.jpg

[george wilson]

I think we are on the right track:the rack is pushed over to pinch the washer on the shaft.I still haven't been convinced how the rack is pushed sideways. Keep thinking,guys!!:)

I agree,there must be a keyway.

P.S.: Is this the blindingly brilliant solution I have been waiting for?:) :) :) IF the EDGE of the plate that the rack gear is sitting on is tapered,as the rack moves sideways,it would indeed press on and tilt the washer and bite the shaft. As the shaft is turned to tighten the vise,the shaft and the washer would be forced sideways . THE WASHER ITSELF WOULD MOVE SIDEWAYS A BIT ALSO,TIGHTENING THE VISE AGAINST THE WORK. The TOP edge of the washer's hole(which cannot rotate due to the little long bolt that is capturing it,could be rounded a bit,while the BOTTOM edge of the washer remains sharp. The shaft can slide past the ramp formed by the lower edge of the washer's hole IN THE DIRECTION OF TIGHTENING. However,the shaft would be bitten by the much steeper angle of the hole's edge if it tried to go BACK. There isn't much motion needed,as suggested. Just a little bit,since the vise jaw is brought into contact with the workpiece before tightening,as is a black plastic Irwin type clamp,previously mentioned by a member(of which I must have over 50) before the trigger is squeezed,but not used in the same way as the clamp. There is a small hole in the edge of the cast iron frame right where it would align with the side of the rack's plate. Wonder what it is for? A set screw to bear against?

The weak spot: Those white plastic collars(bearings) could wear after some use and screw up the whole operation,especially if the round shaft gets little nicks in it from the washers gripping it. I wonder how long they would last? I think reasonably close tolerances would be needed for this design to work.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong,study what I've written carefully,write your rebuttal on a $20.00 bill,and send it to me ASAP!!!

PS,I edited this several times,so I hope it makes sense,as I don't feel like writing it all over again.

[Mark Koury]

George,

The rack is engaged by the small gear and moved sideways. The issue is how does the shaft move the small gear?

I mentioned a roller bearing assembly before. Strange, but I ran into what I was thinking about, today on eBay. Does anyone recall the roller drive socket handles that were made 20 or so years ago? I found one for sale today and checked on the patent (no. 4408504). If you search for that you will find this diagram that I uploaded. This is a one way rotational device that would work in this situation allowing the shaft to slide in and out. If you recall the problem with these is that you have to remove the drive center and insert it on the opposite side to apply torque the opposite direction. The roller clutch only works one way. That, however, is perfect for this situation. Cost and reliability - - who knows?

Mark


http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=155635&stc=1&d=1278959553

[george wilson]

Mark,re-read my heavily re-edited explanation. I'm sure my idea is correct. The small gear does not need to be moved,except to rotate. That could be done via a key way we can't see in the picture.Nothing fancy. The whole trick is the tapered rack's edge. The gear's rotation moves the tapered rack against the washer.

Having a one way clutch mechanism in the gear accomplishes absolutely nothing. Think about it.

[Mike Brady]

George is very close to being right on this issue. I don't believe the shaft has a keyway at all. We have seen the shaft from above and below in the videos and stills. The oval shaft theory works, as does this mysterious clutch mentioned above in the ratchet wrench post.

That set screw looks like it prevents the tilting washer clutch from over rotating and thus damaging itself or the shaft. It obviously is an adjustment to limit the travel of the clutch.

One hitch: Wouldn't a 1981 patent still be in force?

[george wilson]

It would be very easy for the inventor to hide the keyway in each photograph. Something has to turn the shaft and gear,and an oval shaft,and an oval hole in the gear would be the most expensive way to do it.

However the gear is made to turn,I'm more interested in how the vise tightens,and I do think I figured it out. It was a nice bit of engineering.

P.S. I have re-read all the posts,and Will mentioned "wedge" a few times,but he was not specific about what was a wedge. He seemed to think the gear teeth were angled. I think he was nibbling around the edges of the secret.

Mike,you explain to me how a clutch mechanism in the gear would accomplish anything.

[Mark Koury]

George,

I agree! But, that’s really what I’ve been saying all along. The small gear doesn’t “move” except to rotate. Now, what makes it rotate? You say a keyway. That’s surely possible but the other explanations are more elegant. The gear slides the flat wedge shaped rack that then bears on the bottom (in the picture) of the disk and forces it to tilt and clamp on the shaft - locking it. The screw at the top limits the tilt of the disk and thus the force against the shaft. The shaft doesn’t interact with the disk except to be clamped by it as the disk is forced to tilt against the shaft. Thus, when the shaft is turned to the left - the rack moves, releasing the wedge against the disk. The disk is no longer tilted and the shaft can then slide in and out. The same clutch mechanism as noted before that is seen on a pipe clamp. The only thing fancy here is: what moves the small gear?

Mark

[Mike Brady]

You said it yourself: "Something has to turn the shaft and gear". The shaft also has to slide in and out in the quick release action. I think the key and keyway are too prone to jamming to be reliable. I think that a splined shaft would work but clearly there are no splines present.

I wasn't too impressed with the robustness of the vice at the chop. I couldn't tell if there is a garter arrangement of any type. I also would find to two spinning handles to be a pain. I suppose one could be eliminated.

Another potential problem is that if you don't close that vise evenly on your workpiece, the "timing" of the tensioning action could be off and your workpiece could be loose on one side or the other. I don't think that the "screws can be tensioned separately, can they?

I will be particularly interested in the Chris Schwarz evaluation. I just finished installing a Lie-Nielsen twin screw on my new bench. I'm not worried about that one failing in any regard.

[George Neill]

It has to be an oval shaft or a hidden keyway. One other possibility, which I doubt, is a one-way tight fitting roller bearing assembly in the small gear. This would seem expensive to make and subject to wear.
As I mentioned a few posts back, they are called sprag clutches (http://www.gmnbt.com/freewheel_technology.htm) and would cost a few dollars for this size. They are used in everything from motorcycle starter motors to heavy lifting cranes.

[George Neill]

Another potential problem is that if you don't close that vise evenly on your workpiece, the "timing" of the tensioning action could be off and your workpiece could be loose on one side or the other. I don't think that the "screws can be tensioned separately, can they?
Funny, I was just looking at the photo of the unit again and I am now in agreement that it is the rack bar that provides the wedging movement that activates the clutch disc and no cams on the back faces of the pinions. If the rack bar moves the clutches, then it can't go out of timing.

A clue to the wedging action of the rack is visible in the photo: If you look at the cast housing, on the far side of the rack there is a wider gap between the rack and housing. Surely that is to allow for the width of the tapered bar which is also on the correct side for the necessary action to move the clutch.

George, the plastic bearings would be one of the longer lasting items of the whole design.

[Mark Koury]

Looks like a sprag clutch has essentially an oval shaft.

I admit I don’t know how the socket handle that I noted works. I suspect that it too has an oval center drive portion and similar to your sprag clutch has one way roller bearings. Seems to me that a less complex solution would be simply an oval hole that the oval shaft goes into. Since this is not a motor or a transmission the constant torque doesn’t have to be managed, so a simple oval hole in the small gear should work.

[George Neill]

I think I'm now ready to make one of these vices (once I get a foundry to cast and mill the housings! ;)).

The guide bars slide freely within sprag bearings in the pinions, but when the guide bars are rotated clockwise, they activate the sprags which rotate the pinions. The pinions move the rack latterly and the tapered section of the raqck bar acts against the clutch discs, which grab the guide bars, locking them within the cast housings.

The threaded adjusters and lock nuts keep the clutch discs on the cusp of grabbing the guide bars so that very little movement of the clutches is required to lock it all up.

When the guide bars are rotated anti-clockwise, the wedging force is reversed and the springs on the guide bars return the clutch discs to the neutral position allowing the vice chop to be moved at will.

I believe the expenses of the whole set-up (in order of cost) would be the machined castings, the rack bar, the hardened guide bars, the clutch discs, the pinions, the sprag clutches, the plastic bearings, the threaded adjusters and the springs.

[George Neill]

Looks like a sprag clutch has essentially an oval shaft.

I admit I don’t know how the socket handle that I noted works. I suspect that it too has an oval center drive portion and similar to your sprag clutch has one way roller bearings. Seems to me that a less complex solution would be simply an oval hole that the oval shaft goes into. Since this is not a motor or a transmission the constant torque doesn’t have to be managed, so a simple oval hole in the small gear should work.

There are many different applications for sprag clutches. I know the miniature sprag clutch on my Kawasaki starter motor slides onto the starter motor's round shaft and the one in my friend's electric wheelchair is also perfectly circular.

[Mark Koury]

Only one problem: The more I think about it a one-way roller clutch can tighten but will not be able to loosen the wedged rack. So we are back to an oval shaft in an oval hole that can transmit rotational energy 2 ways - - or a keyway on the shaft.

[George Neill]

Only one problem: The more I think about it a one-way roller clutch can tighten but will not be able to loosen the wedged rack. So we are back to an oval shaft in an oval hole that can transmit rotational energy 2 ways - - or a keyway on the shaft.
An oval shaft in an oval hole wouldn't provide any more contra-rotation than a sprag clutch.

But contra-rotation isn't necessary. The physical jolt of un-doing the vice would be enough for the pressure to be removed from the train and the springs would then back off the clutches sufficiently for them to free the guide bars again.

[Mark Koury]

An oval shaft in an oval hole wouldn't provide any more contra-rotation than a sprag clutch.

Seems to me that oval in oval has equal torque in either direction — But, a roller clutch is no doubt one way.

[George Neill]

An oval shaft in an oval hole wouldn't provide any more contra-rotation than a sprag clutch.

Seems to me that oval in oval has equal torque in either direction —

Quite right, I was thinking of cams.

[Will Blick]

> The issue is how does the shaft move the small gear?


Well all have OCD disorder :-)


We all agree, the handle turns the pinion gear.... whether its a keyway, oval, sprag, etc. IMO, that is not relevant, and its not the brilliance of the design. There is many ways to make this portion functional.


We all agree the rack is angled, when the pinion gear moves the rack, the angled side of the rack pushes one side of the disc. (tighten function) When the disc is angled, it first bites the bar, then proceeds to push it further back. This is is the breakthrough IMO... its what separates this bench vise concept from all others...


I guess it's nick name should be "on-demand Quick Release vise"...as no matter what length the shaft, the system is always a 1/2 clockwise turn from fully tightened.


Now, more small stuff...

I would vote against the oval shaft, cause this makes the disc arbor hole harder to make and to remain free flowin after some abuse....hence why I think I keyway makes the most sense to turn the pinion gear.

The pinion gear must be cammed, or would be always fully engaged in the rack... I don't see away to escape camming it. No big deal...its all CNC'd anyway.

Anyway, what is the possible pitfalls? Its the disc on the shaft...to keep the vise trouble free, the contact point inside the disc must constantly bite and push the shaft, while at the same time, not damage it....cause the shaft must ALWAYS move freely through the two white bearings.

This leads me to beleive the contact point of the disc to the shaf is also key'd. Now, any roughness created by the constant bite n pull will be located internal in the shaft, i.e. not on its circumfrence.....and therefore NEVER will subject the white bearings to abuse. Quite clever.


My guess is, we are not seeing everything in the picture..... but if I was to design one after this thread, that would seem like the most sensible approach for a maint. free vise.

[George Neill]

The shafts must be cylindrical and not ovoid, otherwise the clutch discs (stack of three per side) would require internal holes to match the cross section of the shafts. The problem with that would be the threaded adjusters would not operate consistently. The clutch discs can't be keyed to the shafts either for the same reason.

If you watch the video as the drawer is tightened in the vice, as the left hand shaft is rotated, its profile doesn't appear to change, nor is there any sign of a keyway.

[Mark Koury]

The pinion gear must be cammed, or would be always fully engaged in the rack.

I believe it IS always fully engaged. The small gear doesn’t move, except to rotate. The rack only slides side to side. So full engagement should be the normal condition.

The idea of a keyway to engage the disk is interesting. That would prevent gouges in the surface of the shaft that would eventually destroy the white bearings. However, this would require the keyway to end up always at the bottom (as seen in the picture) because the screw that produces the counter leverage to the disk is always at the top and doesn’t move.

In other words if the shaft, when it is fully tightened, happened to end up with the keyway (that the disk rode in) at say 9 o’clock instead of 6 o’clock (where the leverage against the screw would be maxima) there would be loss of force.

I think you have hit upon the Achilles heel of this design. There will be gouges in the shaft (unless it is major league hardened steel) that will cause wear to the bearings over time. If the shaft is hardened I wonder how well a single clutch plate would work - wouldn’t it slip?

[George Neill]

I wonder how well a single clutch plate would work - wouldn’t it slip?
The clutch plates are in stacks of three.

[Mark Koury]

The clutch plates are in stacks of three.


Gee, looks like one in the picture.

[George Neill]

Have a look...

[Mark Koury]

OK - I agree.
Stack of three.

[Michael Peet]

This has been a very interesting thread, watching you guys reverse-engineer this thing. It looks like a cool concept.

Mike

[george wilson]

Some of you are over complicating this vise.Some are not comprehending how i said it works,and need to re-read my post.

The shaft,first of all,has the surface of an ordinary piece of cold rolled steel,which I work with all the time. It is not a machined surface,nor is it available in an oval shape,a very important consideration for his first prototypes. You'd have to order many tons of it to get it rolled oval,and it does have a rolled surface. Cold rolled steel is pretty accurate,+- .001",so it is good to go right out of the package.

Mark,the keyway has nothing to do with engaging the washers(there do seem to be 3).The keyway is only to engage the pinion gear.

UNLESS the keyway is made TOO SNUG a fit on the key,there would be no increased problem of jamming. As a machinist,I can tell you that.

Will,the gear always DOES stay engaged in the rack. Why would it not need to be? There is no cam,plain and simple.

If there are 3 washers,I have changed my mind about the function of the long,thin screw(LTS). Now I think it just bears against the top edge of the washer stack,preventing it from leaning over against the gear. There is a strong spring to keep the stack in tension sideways. At rest,I think the washers rest against theLTS,on their top edge,and against the tapered rack at their bottom edge. There may be a flat spot at the end of the tapered rack to keep the washers square when at rest,so the shaft will slide freely. When the tapered rack moves sideways as the vise is tightened,the spring forces the washers to stay against the LTS,while they lean sideways to pinch the shaft.

I also have re-thought this: multiple clutch clamps do not mar their rods,so perhaps there is enough of a grip from the 3 washers that the shaft is held well enough,and without being damaged.

I will also point out that IF the shaft were oval,its LONG axis(of the oval) would always have to end up vertical,or the washers would not grip it.

The main benefit I've gotten out of all the posts since my "discovery" post,is that there are 3 washers. I'm going back to the first or second page after I write this,and look at the better picture there. I didn't notice 3 washers there,though my eyes aren't what they used to be with these cataracts.

EDIT: now I went back at the better lit picture on page 2. I really cannot see that there are 3 washers in that photo. I wonder if the upside down photo from under the bench is a lighting aberration. It doesn't really matter,1 or 3,I really think my assessment of how the vice works is correct. It is a very clever bit of engineering,too. If there are 3 washers,the LTS could not be tapped into them,and would have to just be a stop,and now I think that it would in any case just be a stop with the spring pushing the washer(s) against it.

Here's MORE proof that the ends of the rack are tapered larger. Look at the above picture a few posts up. Look at how much wider the rack's base is closest to the camera. And,that's way too much to be simple perspective.

[Mark Koury]

I still vote for a slightly oval shaft - mated to the same oval hole in the gear. The disks would have a larger round hole that would allow the shaft to rotate in the disks. A slight oval shaft (though still oval enough to grip the mating hole in the gear) would not effect the grip from the disks - no matter what position the shaft was in.

[george wilson]

Mark,do you ever look for steel? are you familiar with existing shapes you can get across the counter? Do you know what a cold rolled surface looks like?

As a machinist,I do these things,and I can promise you that oval is not available,and that the surface of those shafts look like typical cold rolled steel.

This is not meant to put you down,just to point out the facts that I know after also being a machinist as well as wood worker for many years.

[George Neill]

I have to agree with George about the steel shafts. The only way the shafts could be reasonably and affordably manufactured in a section other than round is if they were ground on a centreless grinder. However, as George says, the surface of these steel bars exhibit the surface marks typical of cold rolled steel.

I don't agree with George's assessment of the adjusters being used to prevent the clutch stack from fouling the pinions. If that were the case, a simple boss in the casting would suffice and be infinitely cheaper to produce. As I mentioned previously, I believe the adjuster is exactly that, a device to fine tune the clutch stack so it's as close as possible to grabbing the shaft. That way it minimises the amount of rotation of the bars required to engage the mechanism.

I'm pretty sure there will be a paragraph in the instructions about setting this adjustment for optimal performance.

I should own up to being in the engineering business myself.

[george wilson]

I don't quite see your point,George,but I think you may be right.

The part of my solution that I VALUE the most,in this little mechanical detective work,is my idea that the racks are tapered,and pinch the washer(s) thus. Other details could be different.

P.S. I do see your point now,and do think you are correct.

[Mark Koury]

So, what’s left to move the small gear?
A mythical hidden (not seen in any pictures) key way?
I guess the thing moves by telekinesis.

But, I still think it’s a neat machine. Durability - - Who knows?

[George Neill]

Well the pinions might contain twin opposing sprag clutches rather than two in series. I have never tried that, but if there's sufficient lag in the take up between the sprags (they could be custom manufactured to opperate so), that could provide positive rotation in both directions.

[george wilson]

Mark,you have mentioned that an oval shaft would be more "elegant". I made most of my living making elegant things that cost a lot of money.

The only elegant thing about this vise is the idea behind it. The casting is not elegant,the shafts would still not be elegant even if oval.The plain wooden knobs and handles are not elegant.

They can't afford to be for $350.00. The casting won't be real cheap these days,and neither will the rack be cheap to just cast,or the gear. You must buy thousands of a part to start getting them reasonable. Patterns have to be made,and aluminum match plates at least must be made,even if the sand flasks are hand stuffed. The parts that must be machined won't be cheap either,when the total has to be profitable to sell,materials and all,for $350.00.

A few years ago,I made a complete set of patterns for 18th.C. cast iron cookware for Williamsburg. They were cast for the kitchens in an Amish foundry. Even with the limited number of kettles,Dutch ovens,lids,etc,that we wanted,they took my patterns and made match plates of cast aluminum so they could stuff the flasks more quickly.

That's why we don't see fancy castings or pinstripes.

I often do machining jobs for others.Just did one last week. I know the time that is involved in this type of work.

There is no need for your sarcasm about the "mythical" keyway or telekinesis. If it was better for the inventor to not let us see the details more than he wanted to,it is perfectly reasonable for him to protect his invention,which may not yet be patented for all we know.

If you had more knowledge about making oval shafting and oval holes,it would help you to grasp the savings in manufacturing costs that the inventor must take advantage of in order to sell this vise for $350.00. It isn't a Holtey plane.

If you are man enough to put your money where your mouth is,I'll bet you $20.00 that when someone here buys one,it doesn't have oval shafts,keyway or not. Otherwise,keep your sarcasm out of it,because,frankly,I know a lot more about this work than you seem to. I know this because your ideas about oval shafting are very expensive,and roller bearing assemblies are totally off the wall. I can't see for the World how you think that has any way of working in this situation. Are you another teenager? With your avatar,it looks likely. And,even with the different ideas on how the vice works,we have had a civil discourse thus far,as it should be.

DO YOU AGREE TO THIS BET?

[George Neill]

... your ideas about oval shafting is very expensive, and roller bearing assemblies are totally off the wall.
I don't see where the roller bearings are. :confused:

[George Neill]

An even cheaper drive solution to my twin sprag clutches suggestion could be a similar, freewheel type set-up involving just two (per unit) steel balls in a single, tangentially drilled hole in the pinion, each ball sitting either side of the shaft and possibly even lightly spring loaded. This would only add a few dollars to the cost of each pinion which itself, wouldn't cost more than $25-30 for this size (I buy standard off the shelf pinions regularly from several local gear stockists).

Older members might remember freewheel hubs on bicycles which braked (locked) the rear wheel when the pedals' direction was reversed.

[george wilson]

Too expensive,George,though you have persuaded me in other posts. What's wrong with just a keyway and key? It isn't expensive to mess with too much. I'm out for the night.

[George Neill]

The freewheel set-up would cost a fraction of milling a keyway in the shaft and pinion and would avoid the problems we all know would arise from the clutch plates acting on the keyway area of the shafts.

Freewheel couplings are used in electric drills (at least the few that I have torn down) for the Foreward-Reverse function, and you can bet your $20 that they would cost less than the first inch of milled keyway!

[Will Blick]

Hey, this was civil, for once, lets keep it that way.... George W, I think the sarcasm was more from frustration and confusion vs. directed at you being wrong about something...... thats how I read it... not trying to be argumentative with you (we have done that b4) just giving you a 3rd parties assesment reading through the thread.... although its best to avoid that type of verbiage as you never know how it can be perceived.

I agree with George W about the shaft, this is ww produt we are dealing wth...., cost is an issue, shaft stock is readily available off the shelf at tolerances which are more than sufficient for a product like this.... also, an oval bearing becomes a custom made product, more cost. My guess is, this product might have an initial inventory of a few hundred, so you must keep that in mind with the parts being manufactured....

Based on this last round of input, and considering the need to control costs...I am convinced the system is narly identical to the rear of this bar clamp.... If you have one of these Rockler clamps, a bit of experimenting (like I just did) will confirm all my hyptothesis below.... I will post the pix again again...


http://images.rockler.com/rockler/images/30921-01-200.jpg


Just to be clear, forget the front front of the clamp, erase it from your mind... the 3 clutch rings (another new name for these discs :-) work very similar on this clamp, as the one we are reverse engineering, except in reverse. Here, the default position is spring loaded locked (of course it's only a one-way lock and that is the KEY issue). When you push the the top of the clutch rings towards the acme threads, its free floating. This woud represent the default position for the new vise we are discussing.


as the rack pushes the clutch rings, they first cock n bite, as seen in the efault position in the pix above. As the rack continues to push the clutch rings, the biting is complete, now the shaft is pushed away, clamping the work piece. In the above pix, this would be analgous to me pushing the rear blue component forward, towards the acme threads, and YES, it works with EASE, which is how it clamps.... like a ratchet.


Now, during the tightening process, the shaft is rotating inside the clutch rings. And guess what, when the above blue component is locked, I can freely spin the shaft with no resistance. Viola.....

When you loosen the hand crank, the rack releases the clutch rings to their spring loaded default position, which is free floating in either direction. (again, the opposite vs. the above pix)

After experimenting with this clamp in the shop, I think this clutch ring concept was the basis of the invention. I noticed my shaft (bar) is still in good shape, and it was very low cost, which is evidence the shaft will not be destroyed to the point of causing bearing damage.

So where is the hole in this ?


How exactly the shaft turns the pinion is not very signficant, this can be accomplished many ways, no sense tackling that issue. Keyway still makes the most sense to me.

OK, so now, no cammed pinion, no keyway for the disc clutchs.... very simple, very low cost and should be quite effective.

Where is the fly in the ointment now?

[George Neill]

No offence, but you have explained the blatently obvious. What isn't readily apparent is the method in which the pinion is rotated. That alone is the key to the new vice.

[Will Blick]

Don't worry George, no offense taken.....

> What isn't readily apparent is the method in which the pinion is rotated. That alone is the key to the new vice.


I could not disagree more.... how the shaft turns the pinion gear is NOT what makes this invention novel and unique. As mentioned, there is several ways this can be accomplished.... IMO, you are missing the novelty of the invention...

[george wilson]

George,I say the real key to the vise is actually how the 3 rings grasp the shaft. Rotating the pinion is a very simple matter. The genius is in using tapered rack edge to cause the rings to tilt more and more until they grasp the shaft. It is indeed a re-use of the old multiple clutch bar clamp,re cycled into a new application,and very cleverly,too.

Will, there was no reason for the guy to start being smart alec. He is sounding like that 15 year old who told someone else to "not waste my precious time" in a post a few months ago. He has 63 posts,is obviously a newbie here,and doesn't know who he is dealing with. Seems like many newbies pull some stunt like that.

[george wilson]

Will,I think you and I are on the same path here,though George has changed my mind on a point or 2.

[Will Blick]

George W, fully agreed..... the novelty of this invention, and probably the significant "claim" he will get in his patent, (i.e. the claim that will have teeth) involves the method of engaging and disengaging the clutch rings. The angled rack represents the "novel" component of the invention..... rack and pinions are as old as the hills....

How the shaft turns the pinion gear is a complete non-issue.....

Of course, whether a patent will be issued, or what claims will be granted is based on previous patents and prior art. The key to success willl be in the cost effective manufacturing of the product, as well as long term reliability. Then of course the obvious..... marketing, marketing, marketing.....

I will also add...this is a perfect product to license to a company like Lee Valley / Veritas ...they can add design expertise, provide more comprehensive testing, manufacture it in-house, and send it through their existing Veritas distribution channels, which would be a very efficient way to get to market, at least in N. America, not sure if Veritas distrubtion exceeds N. America. Lots of inventors think its best to become a manufacturer..... but often they don't realize the tremendous burden, risk, customer support, warranty issues, capital cost of equipment, etc. etc...

[george wilson]

I have had good ideas in my life,but due to the issues of production,low enough costs,and marketing,I have never bothered to try to put an invention on the market. Too easy for a patent to get stolen,anyway,if not in the USA,by the Chinese.

I have,instead,made my way by getting into a position where I could make very expensive one offs for collectors or musicians,or tools,etc. for the museum,and get benefits while doing it!

[David Weaver]

I have had good ideas in my life,but due to the issues of production,low enough costs,and marketing,I have never bothered to try to put an invention on the market. Too easy for a patent to get stolen,anyway,if not in the USA,by the Chinese.

I have,instead,made my way by getting into a position where I could make very expensive one offs for collectors or musicians,or tools,etc. for the museum,and get benefits while doing it!

All it takes is for someone to go to a (large) woodworking show and walk your literature over to Quiangsheng or whoever has a bench there with folks sitting at a bench there basically quoting what they'd be able to make something for.

I have clients who have been literally run out of business at trade shows by such booths. their customers are at the shows, they take one of their items or their literature, walk around for a while, stop at a booth that's there for meet and greet with western customers, and bang - copywrighted and patented lit and products are being sold to the vendors in short order, and the vendor calls and says "i don't need your stuff any longer".

[george wilson]

My work partner Jon,marketed a multi purpose 18th.C. repro gun tool for years. He got them made in India,paid a GOOD price for their work,which was good(they WILL do good work IF you will pay for it properly). They changed the size of the thread on the worm(for extracting lead balls),and marketed it to everyone else. Now,Track of The Wolf,and every other repro seller out there sells Jon's gun tool. He got disgusted,and quit selling it himself.

They thought,in India,that just changing the thread was grounds for calling it their own. I think the thread went from 10/32 to 12/32,or something silly like that.

[Will Blick]

George W, I hear ya loud n clear....I too have had many inventions through the years, but only a few times pursued them.....

Patents are often simple to infringe, with minimal or no problems from the inventor. A few reasons for this.... the first is funds... an average patent infringement case cost $450k in legal bills. Now granted, lots of those were big time patents, hence the high average....for a product like this, you can still easily drop $100k taking an infringement case all the way to court...and this assumes you know who to sue, whether they respond, or they dissappear and re appear under other names. That $100k is often more than the initial investment in the product, and often much more than the inventor will ever make.

The other big problem with patents for a devise like this vise is prior art. Any similar mechanism in the public domain at any time, even if it was never manufactured will void the patented claims. The patent office does not investigate prior art that is not patented...... and there is not much that has not been thought of, disclosed or once in-use.

This is why today, it comes down to well engineered products, which can be built cost effectively, and sold through existing distribution channels to reduce marketing cost. The biggest detterent is to remove the profit incentive for knock-offs, hence why i suggested Veritas for a product like this. But to be realistic, I am not sure this product would be high volume enough to even entice knock off artist.

But for some people, they enjoy the experience, often retired, they have the time and energy to constantly tinker and perfect their baby, so YMMV....

[David Keller NC]

I will also add...this is a perfect product to license to a company like Lee Valley / Veritas ...they can add design expertise, provide more comprehensive testing, manufacture it in-house, and send it through their existing Veritas distribution channels, which would be a very efficient way to get to market, at least in N. America, not sure if Veritas distrubtion exceeds N. America. Lots of inventors think its best to become a manufacturer..... but often they don't realize the tremendous burden, risk, customer support, warranty issues, capital cost of equipment, etc. etc...

You know, I thought of this before I first posted this thread - Lee Valley as well as Lie-Nielsen have several deals with inventive woodworkers that take the work out of manufacturing, marketing and distribution. Kind of wonder whether Rob Lee has already contacted the gentleman.

I'll give you guys credit - I'm away from the forum for about 36 hours, and WHAM! this thread goes from 8 posts to 7 pages. And for the most part, it was all substance that I enjoyed sitting down and reading. I'm an engineer as well, though in biological/chemical systems, but it's still interesting to read mechanical engineering comments.

Most of the "many page" posts are arguments. This one isn't - it'll be interesting to see who's right once the vise comes out or better photos are published.

[George Neill]

George,I say the real key to the vise is actually how the 3 rings grasp the shaft. ... It is indeed a re-use of the old multiple clutch bar clamp,re cycled into a new application,and very cleverly,too.
If this vice is reusing "the old multiple clutch bar clamp" it's hardly the key or novel.


Will, there was no reason for the guy to start being smart alec. He is sounding like that 15 year old who told someone else to "not waste my precious time" in a post a few months ago. He has 63 posts,is obviously a newbie here,and doesn't know who he is dealing with.
I'm "the guy"? Your attitude is demeaning and offensive. I wasn't being in the least bit "smart alec", I stated no offence to Will, but he only offered the obvious use of the multiple clutch discs as the key and, as you said yourself above, it's nothing new at all. Just because you don't side with me, doesn't give you the right to throw your long-term-member weight around and cast aspersions on me - or anyone else. You don't know me, but I now believe I'm a lot closer to understanding who you are. This was such a friendly and entertaining thread, so can we please keep it on track?

Surely the key/novelty is the component or area that nobody has been able to confirm as yet. Everything else is old hat including the trigger for the clutch discs.

Has anyone given any thought as to which side of the rack the taper is on and why? I believe it is significant.

[Will Blick]

> I stated no offence to Will, but he only offered the obvious use of the multiple clutch discs as the key


WRONG! Below is what I stated as the "key" to the invention...


> The angled rack represents the "novel" component of the invention.....


Obviosuly, we can agree to disagree on this issue. Not sure why you keep harping on "how does the shaft turn the pinion gear".... as if that is some huge breakthough in mechanical design..... as others and myself have stated repeatedly, there is numerous ways to accomplish this...


Also, when you mentioned I stated the "blatenly obvious".... you must remember, these threads are confusing, there is different terminology used by everyone, the prose is not always the best and often people don't read what others have written (just like the error I just corrected from you). So, after physically experimenting with the clutch vise in the pix I offered, it confirmed a few issues that were not so clear, such as how well the shaft would spin inside the disc clutches when they had bitten down on the shaft. Also, how freely would the clutch move in the opposite direction when engaged....and what was the condition of my shaft after hundreds of uses.

I feel sharing information like this was valuable to validate the operation of the new vise..... so IMO, not everything I wrote was blatenly obvious to everyone, including myself.

[george wilson]

George,you must not have read the last few pages of posts. I certainly wasn't referring to you as being smart alec. What have you said that would make me say that?

It was Mark,with the crazy blue avatar. Post # 79. Yes,I am being demeaning to him because he demeaned me. Go read his last post directed at me. He is convinced that the shafts MUST be oval,and was ridiculing me for saying there was a keyway to rotate the gear(which is the least costly and most practical means to do it by any measure). I just think the inventor has tried to keep us from seeing too much,to protect himself,which is reasonable.

As far as I have seen,your posts have been helpful,and as I have stated more than once,you have changed my mind about a few things in unravelling how the vise works.

As far as I'm concerned,the vise is understood. The last thing is to wait for a member to buy one and confirm to us how it works.

What I said was that the use of the multiple clutch discs,as everyone must know,is nothing new. What IS new is the clever way that the inventor has made the necessary changes to the concept to make it work in this vise. And I do think he was very clever.

I vote for the tapered side of the rack to be on the side opposite the washers. There is seen a hole in the casting. There is a reason for this hole,and I think it is for a set screw that can adjust how much or how little the clutch plates are moved and tightened on the shafts. Plus,it would present a parallel surface to the washer clutches so they aren't twisted on the shafts.

Do go back and re read the last few pages. You'll feel better,believe me.

[George Neill]

I'm not quite sure what just happened here, but OK, let's all get on and see if we can't sort this vice out before someone actually gets to see one.

I also believe the rack bar taper is opposite the clutch stack so the clutches don't twist. I wondered about the extra meat on the front of the casting, but I'm not convinced it houses another adjuster, though there does appear to be a small apperature - or is that just my imagination?

[george wilson]

George,did you go back and read the posts previous,like post #79.and get caught up? I don't know what got you upset. Next time please look before you get angry,because nothing was directed at you. Your posts have only been helpful to me,and have influenced my vise analysis at least 2 times.

[george wilson]

Re "The small apperature: I JUST BROUGHT THAT UP. Are you reading the posts??????? Please take a minute and do so. You got yourself all upset by not reading the posts. Now,you still seem to not be reading them. We can't communicate properly unless we all read the posts,so please do so in order that we have a coherent discussion. This is a PLEASE,not a rant.

[Mike Brady]

If I could step away from the discussion of the design of this vise for a moment and speculate on it's use. In watching the video of the inventor demonstrating the vise, I noticed that he is deliberate about getting the vise chop seated against the board so that there is even contact before he tensions the vise. This goes back to my post about the timing of a twin screw vise. Since there is no way to separately tension the two mechanisms, I would speculate that the user is going to have to learn to set this "free floating" vise with one hand while supporting the work piece with the other. On a long vise like this one that could be tricky. I think it could possibly take a couple of tries to get even tension on a wider panel being set in the vise. Remember, this vise requires three separate actions to hold the workpiece: Open the vise, insert the workpiece, set the vise evenly along its entire length, and lastly tension the vise; all the while positioning the workpiece with the "off" hand. A screw vise avoids much of this two (or three) handed operation.

[george wilson]

You are quite correct. He doesn't get the vise jaw parallel on the smallest piece of wood that he clamps. When the gripping mechanisms are released,there is NO mechanism connecting the long jaw. I wouldn't have a problem eyeballing the jaws parallel,but for some it could be a bother.

I will say,though,that I saw a brand new Ulmia bench that cost el mucho with a double screw,self regulating jaw that was supposed to stay parallel. When I clamped a scraper blade at one side,there was still enough play in the screws to not hold the scraper all the way across. I wonder if the LV,or ANY of them are that 100% accurate,with no play at all???

[Mike Brady]

George W., I have the new Lie-Nielsen twin screw vise. Its stays parallel...absolutely; but getting it there is trick because once you drill your four mounting holes for the parts that comprise the nuts for the vise screws, there is no adjustment possible without partial disassembly of everything and much trial and error. I spent one long nervous night of that. The problem could be largely solved with elongated holes in the mounting blocks, but they were drilled on-size. I really like the vise. It is a pleasure having that kind of holding versatility and power. The metal screws are slow, however. Separate wood screws just weren't for me. By the way, the L-N vise is $65 less than the one we have been discussing here.

[george wilson]

I made a 2 spindle carving duplicator that I sold to Williamsburg before I retired, Too large for my space (King size bed size,I get too enthusiastic sometimes!!! Making a smaller,but nicer one). It had a heavy duty chain drive which I made out of surplus machine parts. I made sure that the idler was quite tight. There was NO play in it either. However,my chain was very heavy duty,and mounted on a thick steel plate.

[Wes Grass]

Re the Lie-Nielsen twin screw vise, and Mike's comment about getting it aligned perfectly ...

It looks to me that because they have the cast flange under the thrust bearing on the handle side, but only the small flange of the bronze bushing on the other, that repeated tightening of this could lead to the bushing settling into the jaw thereby throwing it out of parallel over time. A flange for each screw would have been better, I think. Or at the least, having the holes in the nuts slotted would have allowed occasional adjustment.

[Mike Brady]

Both good comments regarding the L-N vise, Wes. I would like to have seen your suggestions implemented.