joint pin question
- Thread starter luke
- Start date
Dave,
So making fun of the way I talk and my usage of language is not insulting when you, Eric or anyone else participates in such action. Excuse me if I jab back now and then. The truth of the matter is it somehow bothers you and I don't know why? I am who I am. What you call twenty dollar words I see as normal. We are not all the same. There are 4 types of people in this world. Visionaries, leaders, workers and weasels. Through our words and deeds shall we all be judged and therefore categorized. We don't have the privilege to make those judgements about ourselves.
I make statements based on facts and my observations and they are dismissed even when I explain the repeatability and conditions that exist concerning the exceptional roll characteristics both on a flat surface and when rolled on a table observing the joint elevation during the roll.
I post videos showing the perpendicular face angle and show exceptional straightness during cutting of the taper and afterwards on the wood lathe. When I say typical, I mean just that. I can do no more and when I state that this is typical I don't know why I should be grilled or baited by one you professes that he ships bad shafts. I see this as absurd and beyond words. At some point it become totally ridiculous. What do you think Dave? Is it ok to tell an OP that a loose pin and shaft with a 1/32 wobble is good to go.
That is not raising the bar of expectation, it is dumbing down those who come here with a question.
Sorry I disagree.
My shafts move slightly between taper passes like everyone else's. Sorry I disagree with those who tell me my threads are not parallel and the face is off after equalization of the taper. They got some more thinking to do with their theories is something that must be considered. Sorry.
If you look at my videos you can see that the barrel of the pin and the center driver are both true and on centerline.
So you and others can state that I don't get it, mock the way I talk. People that would suggest that I would stage a false video are not keeping their eye on the ball. Aristotle suggests that there is virtue in logic. Not if one does not agree and has a presumed result, Rick is therefore a cheat tring to BS for no good reason. OK
Someone Is on the right side of reality here and excuse me if I contend it is me. I don't say that without basis Dave. I have impericial evidence. I guess if people don't agree they have not walked in my shoes. Or Ray Schuler's either.
Sorry if I offended anyone but this stuff is very important to me and I will defend a position that I know is correct.
To those who disagree, watch the videos I posted. If you think I am somehow bearing false witness or am a scammer, I will pray for your salvation through grace.
Rick
Here is something to ponder for those who seek enlightenment:
The Nature of Truth
Another of Aristotle's logical works, On Interpretation, considers the use of predicates in combination with subjects to form propositions or assertions, each of which is either true or false. We usually determine the truth of a proposition by reference to our experience of the reality it conveys, but Aristotle recognized that special difficulties arise in certain circumstances.
Although we grant (and can often even discover) the truth or falsity of propositions about past and present events, propositions about the future seem problematic. If a proposition about tomorrow is true (or false) today, then the future event it describes will happen (or not happen) necessarily; but if such a proposition is neither true nor false, then there is no future at all. Aristotle's solution was to maintain that the disjunction is necessarily true today even though neither of its disjuncts is. Thus, it is necessary that either tomorrow's event will occur or it will not, but it is neither necessary that it will occur nor necessary that it will not occur. (On Interpretation 9)
Aristotle's treatment of this specific problem, like his more general attempt to sort out the nature of the relationship between necessity and contingency in On Interpretation 12-13, is complicated by the assumption that the structure of logic models the nature of reality. He must try to explain not just the way we speak, but the way the world therefore must be.
So making fun of the way I talk and my usage of language is not insulting when you, Eric or anyone else participates in such action. Excuse me if I jab back now and then. The truth of the matter is it somehow bothers you and I don't know why? I am who I am. What you call twenty dollar words I see as normal. We are not all the same. There are 4 types of people in this world. Visionaries, leaders, workers and weasels. Through our words and deeds shall we all be judged and therefore categorized. We don't have the privilege to make those judgements about ourselves.
I make statements based on facts and my observations and they are dismissed even when I explain the repeatability and conditions that exist concerning the exceptional roll characteristics both on a flat surface and when rolled on a table observing the joint elevation during the roll.
I post videos showing the perpendicular face angle and show exceptional straightness during cutting of the taper and afterwards on the wood lathe. When I say typical, I mean just that. I can do no more and when I state that this is typical I don't know why I should be grilled or baited by one you professes that he ships bad shafts. I see this as absurd and beyond words. At some point it become totally ridiculous. What do you think Dave? Is it ok to tell an OP that a loose pin and shaft with a 1/32 wobble is good to go.
That is not raising the bar of expectation, it is dumbing down those who come here with a question.
Sorry I disagree.
My shafts move slightly between taper passes like everyone else's. Sorry I disagree with those who tell me my threads are not parallel and the face is off after equalization of the taper. They got some more thinking to do with their theories is something that must be considered. Sorry.
If you look at my videos you can see that the barrel of the pin and the center driver are both true and on centerline.
So you and others can state that I don't get it, mock the way I talk. People that would suggest that I would stage a false video are not keeping their eye on the ball. Aristotle suggests that there is virtue in logic. Not if one does not agree and has a presumed result, Rick is therefore a cheat tring to BS for no good reason. OK
Someone Is on the right side of reality here and excuse me if I contend it is me. I don't say that without basis Dave. I have impericial evidence. I guess if people don't agree they have not walked in my shoes. Or Ray Schuler's either.
Sorry if I offended anyone but this stuff is very important to me and I will defend a position that I know is correct.
To those who disagree, watch the videos I posted. If you think I am somehow bearing false witness or am a scammer, I will pray for your salvation through grace.
Rick
Here is something to ponder for those who seek enlightenment:
The Nature of Truth
Another of Aristotle's logical works, On Interpretation, considers the use of predicates in combination with subjects to form propositions or assertions, each of which is either true or false. We usually determine the truth of a proposition by reference to our experience of the reality it conveys, but Aristotle recognized that special difficulties arise in certain circumstances.
Although we grant (and can often even discover) the truth or falsity of propositions about past and present events, propositions about the future seem problematic. If a proposition about tomorrow is true (or false) today, then the future event it describes will happen (or not happen) necessarily; but if such a proposition is neither true nor false, then there is no future at all. Aristotle's solution was to maintain that the disjunction is necessarily true today even though neither of its disjuncts is. Thus, it is necessary that either tomorrow's event will occur or it will not, but it is neither necessary that it will occur nor necessary that it will not occur. (On Interpretation 9)
Aristotle's treatment of this specific problem, like his more general attempt to sort out the nature of the relationship between necessity and contingency in On Interpretation 12-13, is complicated by the assumption that the structure of logic models the nature of reality. He must try to explain not just the way we speak, but the way the world therefore must be.
Last edited:
RBC
Deceased
Rick
Here's a quick run down of the issues here.
1. You post your method of how you build your shafts. That method raised questions from myself and many others because we've been down that road and tried similar things. We also found other methods that worked better and easier for us, so we asked you specific questions in order to determine if you're doing something different from what we did, or if you just may not have experienced the issues that we did back when we tried it that way.
2. You have purposefully avoided answering those questions. Usually with an attempt to redirect back onto the person asking them.
3. Based on your avoidance of simple answers, the questions become more direct and narrowed in focus. This is a simple communication practice used to help guide you back to answering the questions already asked instead of redirecting the subject off course.
4. More avoidance of answering the questions, which leads us to believe that either you know the answers would incriminate your process, or you just don't want to share some secret that you have come up with that makes this method work when it has failed for others.
5. We address both of these possible avoidance reasons with continuing with the same questions. Regardless of the reason you avoid them, the questions are the only way to resolution and both sides coming together.
6. Instead of answering the questions, you very clearly state that because Eric, a very seasoned and accomplished cue maker with a proven track record, does not use your method that he cannot send out cues that are straight. In essence, you are claiming that you are the only cue maker who can deliver straight cues.
Rick, I'm sorry, but simple logic escapes you. And I'm not talking about your methods of cue building.
I think it's probably far past the time when I should have just walked away from this thread. So, maybe I'm a little late on that, but there's no time like the present. Good luck in your cue building endeavors. I wish you much success.
Royce
Here's a quick run down of the issues here.
1. You post your method of how you build your shafts. That method raised questions from myself and many others because we've been down that road and tried similar things. We also found other methods that worked better and easier for us, so we asked you specific questions in order to determine if you're doing something different from what we did, or if you just may not have experienced the issues that we did back when we tried it that way.
2. You have purposefully avoided answering those questions. Usually with an attempt to redirect back onto the person asking them.
3. Based on your avoidance of simple answers, the questions become more direct and narrowed in focus. This is a simple communication practice used to help guide you back to answering the questions already asked instead of redirecting the subject off course.
4. More avoidance of answering the questions, which leads us to believe that either you know the answers would incriminate your process, or you just don't want to share some secret that you have come up with that makes this method work when it has failed for others.
5. We address both of these possible avoidance reasons with continuing with the same questions. Regardless of the reason you avoid them, the questions are the only way to resolution and both sides coming together.
6. Instead of answering the questions, you very clearly state that because Eric, a very seasoned and accomplished cue maker with a proven track record, does not use your method that he cannot send out cues that are straight. In essence, you are claiming that you are the only cue maker who can deliver straight cues.
Rick, I'm sorry, but simple logic escapes you. And I'm not talking about your methods of cue building.
I think it's probably far past the time when I should have just walked away from this thread. So, maybe I'm a little late on that, but there's no time like the present. Good luck in your cue building endeavors. I wish you much success.
Royce
Royce,
I asked you a simple question without a response in the last post. Did you forget to answer it or forget i asked the question?
If my recall is working it had something to do with shipping cues with a 1/32" wobble and a loose thread pin interface. Right?
Also I stated that I have built about 400 shafts and you seem to respond that I am somehow are not as qualified as you because your house produces more that that in one month or whatever. Pretty impressive numbers I would agree.
Quality vs. quantification seems to be the point you confused in your assertion. Judgment also requires sampling with an eye on sensitivity and specificity as criteria. QA and QC is something I am familiar with and had training and retraining on an annual basis for over 27 years.
I have not attempted to dodged one single question in this discussion and have tried my best to be totally transparent. If I failed then let me know the direct questions I missed. Fair enough?
You have been singular in your assumptions and assertions and come off as if you somehow are holier than tho. This just my perception though. You certainly are an expert but you don't know everything.
People who engage in logical discussion can open there minds by purging pre conceived notions. Then they question observations and do not look for motives when they seek out what is true or not.
I myself do not agree the logic of your ferrule engineering but I do see how the marketing seems to work for you. If something is working for you concerning a business plan and marketing system, you continue on that path. I get that. And for everyone like me there are a percentage of people that would never play with anything but an OB.
That and 1.50 is just enough to buy a cup if coffee these days.
So are you going to answer a direct question?
I stand by awaiting any direct questions you may hurl this way.
Rick
PS: This one is out of bounds and you have really misrepresented my position. Please show me how this is true, I don't believe this for one minute. Where did I ever say anything like that or implied it. Not.
Last edited:
Rick, there's a reason people want my cues and not yours. It's the cue that says it all. I could polish a cue with dog sh!t and people would still want the cue. You know why? As you have quoted my posts, it's certainly not because I pretend to be some awesome super duper machinist engineer cue maker god, like you do. I don't have to bullsh!t people into thinking I have higher standards than other cue makers, or that my techniques are superior to any other. I'm more than comfortable telling the world that I'm not perfect, nor are my cues ever perfect. NEVER does a perfect cue leave my shop. People want them because they're good cues. Turns out folks want quality in their hands, not in their ears. Seriously, you may as well be b!tching that the sky is blue or the ocean is deep. I wouldn't expect you to understand. If you did, you'd be selling cues like I do.
Eric,
I am happy for you. And you are surly entitled to your opinion. BSing people is what you do best I would agree.
I am not a machinist by any stretch. I just use machines to build cues.
From what I gather, you and I have been building cue for about the same amount of time. The only difference is that I did not take my product to a branding level for 8 years due to a dedication to beta testing. Again quality is what I like to keep my eye on. If that is BS, then I am the king.
Merrily, Merrily, Merrily, Merrily life is but a dream.
Rick
RBC
Deceased
Rick
I copied this from my previous post.
I think it's probably far past the time when I should have just walked away from this thread. So, maybe I'm a little late on that, but there's no time like the present. Good luck in your cue building endeavors. I wish you much success.
Royce
Okay, so lets get back to the tech stuff, there has been one thing I would like to hear the answer too. Here is your statement from page 3.
"The precision face that was put on at About .910 never gets faced again because the device guarantees the 90 degree face angle to the centerline of the threads and x axis of the of the shaft."
If you never face it again, what do you do about the finish that gets on the facing while applying finish? From the pictures, it doesn't show anything that would stop the finish from getting on the facing. Even using a delrin collar will leave a lip where they meet or allow the finish to seep between them. I have tried many ways to apply finish without getting a lip or seepage, but haven't been able to have it come out right without having to remove traces of finish on the face of the joint. If you just sand it, then you would risk the facing not being true anymore.
Dave
"The precision face that was put on at About .910 never gets faced again because the device guarantees the 90 degree face angle to the centerline of the threads and x axis of the of the shaft."
If you never face it again, what do you do about the finish that gets on the facing while applying finish? From the pictures, it doesn't show anything that would stop the finish from getting on the facing. Even using a delrin collar will leave a lip where they meet or allow the finish to seep between them. I have tried many ways to apply finish without getting a lip or seepage, but haven't been able to have it come out right without having to remove traces of finish on the face of the joint. If you just sand it, then you would risk the facing not being true anymore.
Dave
dead issue
Last edited:
Hi Dave,
That is an excellent question. I am happy to share my tool set up with you.
Take a piece of hard wood put a precision face on it and install a pin. After it cures turn off the threads so it fits within the shaft.
Place a piece of sand paper 220 and punch a hole in it.
Place the unit over the face and lightly twist it a few times and it cleans up finish over spray pronto.
Just bore a hole on the other side so your pin fits in the for cleaning up the butt face the same way
This should be the ticket for you.
Rick
Last edited:
Hi Dave,
That is an excellent question. I am happy to share my tool set up with you.
Take a piece of hard wood put a precision face on it and install a pin. After it cures turn off the threads so it fits within the shaft.
Place a piece of sand paper 220 and punch a hole in it.
Place the unit over the face and lightly twist it a few times and it cleans up finish over spray pronto.
Just bore a hole on the other side so your pin fits in the for cleaning up the butt face the same way
This should be the ticket for you.
Rick
I will, respectfully ask, Doesn't that possibly compromise the facing? As this tool can cant to a side, even slightly, say .001" which may cause a variance in the facing which over 29" may accumulate to more than one would think. A joint pin with the threads removed, in a stepped minor hole as you have described, may have a bit of play as there isn't any thing 'holding' the joint tight as you spin the tool, plus if the hole was done to the exact construction details mentioned earlier, I.E. stepped minor, there will be the ability for movement at the joint end, and removing the threads and sanding/polishing the pin a bit (to reduce any rough edges) will reduce it to a smidge below the minor of the hole....especially right at the joint due to the stepped minor will be wider at the joint facing than the bottom of the hole. Considering when applying finish it may have an uneven build-up on the facing edge, as you spray, or brush on as I do, the amount on the joint facing may vary around the actual dia. of it. I'm not knocking your tool, just surprised as I was really hoping your answer was more inline with your other ISO9000 type procedures. Facing of a shaft and butt are THE most important 'finishing' items IMO as that will really dictate how the final roll will go. After all the careful precision work leading up to this, I personally use a lathe to re-face the joint on both sides, and it eliminates any slop at this stage of it, IMO.
Dave
Dave,
No it does not compromise the face.
I guess I will have to make another video.
Dave, I know how to do it with a lathe. I just prefer this way.
I just sprayed a cue and will remove the pin device and clean the face with the tool this afternoon. Then I will roll the cue for the first time. I have enough confidence in my system that I will take a video of it rolling the cue on a flat surface and on the rail.
I know you don't like anything that I have mentioned concerning a type of method but all I am concerned with is 100 % repeatability with no surprises. Maybe you can find a way to disagree with that notion too.
Dave, you have made a statement about facing be the most important step or something like that which I must respectfully disagree with. I see each and every step in the process of building a cue as the most important each a everytime.
It's all good.
Rick
Rick
Last edited:
I face cues and shafts before spraying .
No need to re-face .
The tool that does it after spraying costs maybe 10 cents.
No need to re-face .
The tool that does it after spraying costs maybe 10 cents.
Razor blade works for me, just a gentle clean up. The secret is to have a nice hard facing on both joint sides prior to finishing IMO.
J
Hi Dave,
I took 2 videos today with my phone demonstrating the results of my method concerning concentricity. I showed you a pic and description of my face clean up simple tool. This was this cue's first roll test and I had just cleaned up any over spray with the tool.
Rolling a cue on the rail is the ultimate test of a cues concentric quality when joined. IMO. Rolling the cue on the flat surface is a method to check a cue's geometry but not as revealing to all concentric errors. A cue with a roll exerts leverage pressure on the shaft and on some geometries you can have a shaft with a roll that the ferrule does not bob up on the end. That's why I check on the rail, on the table and the shaft and butt not joined on the table.
A joined cue that is totally concentric is dictated by the attributes that are all independent factors and concentric harmony will prevail if all attributes are correct. Attributes that are slightly in error can work to balance out a problem and ones that are conflicting can amplify the total testing of the cue's concentricity. A very tricky business.
The attributes that effect concentricity are:
Flatness of the faces and also cleanliness of the faces
Perpendicularity of the faces to the inner threads of the joint and x centerline of the entire cue when joined
TRO of the pin and butt joint
Concentricity of the taper contour to the X centerline and parallelity of the threads to the centerline.
The two videos shown below is the outcome I observe with repeatability. This cue was sprayed the other day and has not been wet sanded or buffed yet. I had just removed the pin devices that were installed at .910 prior to the tapering to final using the concentricity device system.
Before these roll tests, I used the face tool with 220 to clean up any slight overspray that may have been present during the clear coat application.
A few here have implied that my concentricity device pin and method is somehow flawed and I am somehow missing something or are incompetent. Forgive me for my disagreement with all the conjecture pointed towards me but i take solace in my results and hope I have opened a mind or two. I truly get this type of quality of concentricity viewing my joined cues on a consistent and repeatable basis and openly invite anyone who wishes to visit my shop the next time your near the Windy City. I wonder how many of people who chastised my described method can pass the roll on the rail smell test on every cue that leaves their shop. Every Cue! That would be an interesting statistic to chart me thinks. LOL
That said, I also applaud anyone else who gets the same results using any other method. As I said before this cue making thing should always about raising the bar of expectation. If you expect cues to pass the rail roll test, there is some midnite oil to burn.
To those who build cues or buy cues, check your cues on the rail or see what's in your case concerning concentricity.
Also, Thanks Dave for the respectful questioning attitude and my response to you is given in the spirit of mutual peer respect.
Good Cue Making,
Rick
Click on pics below to view video. (May not work on all cell phones)
Here is Mike's new ebony plain jane cue being rolled on the rail. As you can see the joint remains consistent concerning up and down movement when observed on an elevation view. If any of the attributes I mentioned are off this is where they will rear their ugly head. LOL ( my friend, Illinois cue maker Vern Kiplinger seen here rolling the cue for me )
I inspect all cues i view to this standard and it is surprising how many cues ( large percentage ) I see at shows and pool halls that do not pass this test and bob up and down at the joint showing an imbalance of the cue's total overall harmony concerning the individual attributes. Many of these cues will pass a lesser standard of just rolling them on the table without the ferrule bobbing but can also still have a taper roll.
Here is the same cue rolling on the table:
Hi Dave,
I took 2 videos today with my phone demonstrating the results of my method concerning concentricity. I showed you a pic and description of my face clean up simple tool. This was this cue's first roll test and I had just cleaned up any over spray with the tool.
Rolling a cue on the rail is the ultimate test of a cues concentric quality when joined. IMO. Rolling the cue on the flat surface is a method to check a cue's geometry but not as revealing to all concentric errors. A cue with a roll exerts leverage pressure on the shaft and on some geometries you can have a shaft with a roll that the ferrule does not bob up on the end. That's why I check on the rail, on the table and the shaft and butt not joined on the table.
A joined cue that is totally concentric is dictated by the attributes that are all independent factors and concentric harmony will prevail if all attributes are correct. Attributes that are slightly in error can work to balance out a problem and ones that are conflicting can amplify the total testing of the cue's concentricity. A very tricky business.
The attributes that effect concentricity are:
Flatness of the faces and also cleanliness of the faces
Perpendicularity of the faces to the inner threads of the joint and x centerline of the entire cue when joined
TRO of the pin and butt joint
Concentricity of the taper contour to the X centerline and parallelity of the threads to the centerline.
The two videos shown below is the outcome I observe with repeatability. This cue was sprayed the other day and has not been wet sanded or buffed yet. I had just removed the pin devices that were installed at .910 prior to the tapering to final using the concentricity device system.
Before these roll tests, I used the face tool with 220 to clean up any slight overspray that may have been present during the clear coat application.
A few here have implied that my concentricity device pin and method is somehow flawed and I am somehow missing something or are incompetent. Forgive me for my disagreement with all the conjecture pointed towards me but i take solace in my results and hope I have opened a mind or two. I truly get this type of quality of concentricity viewing my joined cues on a consistent and repeatable basis and openly invite anyone who wishes to visit my shop the next time your near the Windy City. I wonder how many of people who chastised my described method can pass the roll on the rail smell test on every cue that leaves their shop. Every Cue! That would be an interesting statistic to chart me thinks. LOL
That said, I also applaud anyone else who gets the same results using any other method. As I said before this cue making thing should always about raising the bar of expectation. If you expect cues to pass the rail roll test, there is some midnite oil to burn.
To those who build cues or buy cues, check your cues on the rail or see what's in your case concerning concentricity.
Also, Thanks Dave for the respectful questioning attitude and my response to you is given in the spirit of mutual peer respect.
Good Cue Making,
Rick
Click on pics below to view video. (May not work on all cell phones)
Here is Mike's new ebony plain jane cue being rolled on the rail. As you can see the joint remains consistent concerning up and down movement when observed on an elevation view. If any of the attributes I mentioned are off this is where they will rear their ugly head. LOL ( my friend, Illinois cue maker Vern Kiplinger seen here rolling the cue for me )
I inspect all cues i view to this standard and it is surprising how many cues ( large percentage ) I see at shows and pool halls that do not pass this test and bob up and down at the joint showing an imbalance of the cue's total overall harmony concerning the individual attributes. Many of these cues will pass a lesser standard of just rolling them on the table without the ferrule bobbing but can also still have a taper roll.
Here is the same cue rolling on the table:
Last edited:
Rick,
When I read that you were going to make a video showing a rail test, I thought this is what you were going to do.
Shaft straightness rail test.
This is a more telling test of how straight everything is from (including) the joint to the tip. The question at hand is what is the tip end of the shaft doing when unconstrained (not bending against a rail or table under the cue's own weight) and attached to the butt of the cue. By rolling the cue on the rail BELOW the joint of the cue, what is happening at the tip end takes into account both the accuracy of the joint and how straight the shaft is.
I trust the cue in your videos would score high on this test as well, I just thought it was worth mentioning. I suspect culling shaft blanks hard early, your dedication to standards, and your shaft turning schedule and methods are what helps you overcome the flaw with cutting threads and facing prior to final size.
When I read that you were going to make a video showing a rail test, I thought this is what you were going to do.
Shaft straightness rail test.
This is a more telling test of how straight everything is from (including) the joint to the tip. The question at hand is what is the tip end of the shaft doing when unconstrained (not bending against a rail or table under the cue's own weight) and attached to the butt of the cue. By rolling the cue on the rail BELOW the joint of the cue, what is happening at the tip end takes into account both the accuracy of the joint and how straight the shaft is.
I trust the cue in your videos would score high on this test as well, I just thought it was worth mentioning. I suspect culling shaft blanks hard early, your dedication to standards, and your shaft turning schedule and methods are what helps you overcome the flaw with cutting threads and facing prior to final size.
.
Great video DZ!
Last edited: