Has anyone made a hollow front, no-ferrule shaft?

And depending on the taper it would start to get a little light. Also you would end up with nearly the same problem Predator has with the thin tenon for the ferrule and be restricted in ferrule diameter.
Been making them with a through hole since the beginning and can go down to 10mm with no concerns about the tenon breaking.
 
vasilios said:
I understand what they did for the patent.it is still phony word play.they claimed a air space then filled it.if they send you a legal challenge,tell them you will meet them at the review board and bring a piece of hay straw for your defense.

Now to something important.you can do a complete through hole shaft.it will be very stiff.but if you flex it to much it will pop a sidewall.kind of like bending a drinking straw to much.try a through hole with 4 quarters first.radius a corner of each quarter so when you put them together you get a .1975 through hole.finish her out and try it.good luck!!

bill
Click to expand...

OB1 has a through hole.
I'm not really interested in making hollowed shafts.
 
Thank you all for the feedback. I want to try this on a shaft when I get my shop setup again.

Regarding the patent, I will agree to disagree with some of the interpretations. They did not "patent a hole", as in a stick of bamboo. They patented a very specific configuration of a pool shaft, that does include a hole, amongst other things.

Regarding the language that is not normal everyday language, all patents are written this way. Its not to deceive anyone, its so the language is as broad as possible so the patent is as far reaching as possible. For example, look at claim #7 in the screenshot I posted on my earlier post. They use very broad language to define what we here would refer to as a "pie shaped piece of wood".

Best to all.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Sorry to sound mean, but what do you think is more reasonable:
1. The US patent office granted a patent (which involves a several years process to research the validity of the claims) to two billiard individuals that they invented a tube?

or

2. You are not quite understanding the patent?
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the patent office issues patents with little research .... they let the courts figure it out as needed. Of course I am not a patent lawyer so take my comments with a grain/gram/pound/ton/tonne of salt.

Dave
 
DaveK said:
It is my understanding that the patent office issues patents with little research .... they let the courts figure it out as needed. Of course I am not a patent lawyer so take my comments with a grain/gram/pound/ton/tonne of salt.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm NOT even close to an expert, but I do have some first hand experience, that not many people will have unless they are in the business of design. I am a named inventor on about 10 issued utility patents (I lost track). Yes, they do research them. On several of the patents I'm listed as a named inventor, the patent office came back and said they can't allow claims a, b, c, on the patent, but will allow claims x, y, z. The company I worked for had a patent group that handled all the back and forth with the patent office, so I was not very privy to details of why things were denied. But for certain, they don't just allow patents to go through easily so that they can then be fought out in court.

It also costs a good bit of money to get a utility patent. I believe this money goes towards researching your patent by the patent office. (I could be wrong). It costs something like this:

200 to file a provisional application
1,000 to file the patent application
10,000 when the patent issues
7,000 for maintenance fees several years after the patent issues
7,000 again for a second set of maintenance fees a few more years later.

The total cost over the life of the patent is about 25,000.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I'd bet on my information being good enough for the purpose of this discussion here.

So when I hear people say "they can't patent a hole", "they can't patent mother nature", "they can't patent empty space", etc., I believe those people are coming from a position of never having been a part of a patent, and frankly do not understand the patent they are looking at, or how to read it. This is not intended to offend anyone. Its like a banger coming up to you and saying if you want the cue ball to go to the right after hitting the shot, you have to hit it with right english. Immediately by the comment you can tell if the person knows anything about playing the game or not. Well, the same is true of patents.
 
Most the shafts I've made are ferruless with a 1/4 inch - 5/16inch diameter void that is roughly 3 inches deep depending on the desired thickness of te shaft. I have experimented with using the carbon fiber pads or I've actually actually added a 1/4 inch internal ferrule to enforce the end. I really like these shafts and they put more spin on a cue ball than anything else I've tried. It also lowers the deflection fairly close to Predators and OB shafts. I don't make shafts or cues to sell, I just like building things and honestly bought a lathe because I couldn't find anyone to install a tip correctly without $:?)@;ing up my ferrule :)
 
iusedtoberich said:

CueTable Help

Has anyone made a shaft with the following configuration:

1. Hollow front (like Predator)
2. No ferrule

I believe Patrick Johnson mentioned he had one made like that. Has any cue maker done this on a regular basis? If so, how have the shafts held up over the years?

I don't think this is a patent issue, because predator's original patent is either expired or about to expire very soon, and, I don't recall their patent covering a non-ferrule shaft. (Although I'm not a patent attorny)

Anyway, I'm more interested in how the shafts have held if anyone has done this. Predator shafts have had more then their fair share of ferrule and shaft breakage problems. Would removing the ferrule from the shaft, and switching to a non-laminated shaft, make that problem better or worse?
Click to expand...



I have made a few no ferrule shafts for customers, I got the idea from turn of the century Brunswick Balk Colander cues. People seem to like the way shafts like this hit, and to date there has been no problem with the shaft splitting do to no ferrule.

The smallest diameter I have made like this to date has been 12mm, and I will go no smaller due to the stress at the tip location. All the shafts I have made like this had a Phenolic Pad between the tip and the end grain of the shaft. I decided to use Phenolic because of it's strength and because it bonds very well to all types of wood. One of the shafts I made without a ferrule was Purple Heart, the guy I made it for liked a stiff hitting shaft, and at that time I did not have any Ash shaft blanks that were ready for use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top