this thing looks like it would be pretty cool for those of us using wood lathes and onway chucks...
http://www.bealltool.com/products/turning/chuckpuck.php
The Chuck Puck
Ben, you're mean!bscofield wrote:I know I'm not the only person thinking this, just the only one who will post it...
I don't get it.
I get it, but don't see how it would be that useful for me. I just change to the #1 jaws to hold square stock. Since I'd have to add the two #2 jaws I don't use to the chuck anyway, it would be just as easy to change to the #1 for any turning with square stock.
I think Beal Tool mean that it would be primarily useful in a 3-jaw chuck. They just happened to show it in a 4-jaw. Mind you, since it's non-marring, I guess it could be useful in a 4-jaw as well.
It's obviously only useful for 3/4" or 1" square stock.
It looks like one of those gizmos you buy, use once or twice, then they end up gathering dust on the back of your lathe accessories shelf. I think I have a couple of items like that. Hard to tell what's covered in all that dust back there.
It's obviously only useful for 3/4" or 1" square stock.
It looks like one of those gizmos you buy, use once or twice, then they end up gathering dust on the back of your lathe accessories shelf. I think I have a couple of items like that. Hard to tell what's covered in all that dust back there.
Regards,
Frank.
------------------
Grouch Happens!
People usually get the gods they deserve - Terry Pratchett
Frank.
------------------
Grouch Happens!
People usually get the gods they deserve - Terry Pratchett
If you are using #2 profile or tower jaws you would simply insert this into your jaws and hold a pen blank in there without having to change jaws or put the blank between centers. It basically makes your oneway 4 jaw chuck (which is designed to hold round stock) able to hold small diameter square stock without changing jaws. It would make it easier to do stem inlays without having a metal lathe. I figured it would be a cool little jig for those using only the jet lathe to make pipes.
It's intended for pen makers but I would see it being useful for anyone using pen blanks to make pipes or tampers.
It's intended for pen makers but I would see it being useful for anyone using pen blanks to make pipes or tampers.
John
www.crosbypipes.com
www.crosbypipes.com
I'm with Ben. If you have a 4-jaw scroll chuck like the Oneway, you can hold square stock, just tighten the chuck on it. If the jaws won't close far enough, you can put wooden pads on the jaws, stick with carpet tape. Putting a 4-sided "chuck puck" in a 3-jaw would, I think, yield very erratic results.
Jack
Jack
- KurtHuhn
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5326
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: United States/Rhode Island
I actually went one step further and bought a second Oneway body so that all I have to do is swap the chucks. Screwing and unscrewing jaws onto a single chuck is a major PITA.
The thing that concerns me a little about the chuck puck (keeping in mind I've never seen the thing in person) is that pen blanks are rarely delivered as 3/4" or 1". I've gone through a *lot* of these things for pens, tampers, etc, and I don't think I've ever actually seen on that's even square. I'd be afraid that they would rattle around in the chuck puck, especially if unsupported by a tailstock. At least using #1 spigot jaws, you can get two sides really gripping the piece. But maybe the chuck puck is flexible enough to crank down onto the piece - I don't know. I'd have to actually use on in order to make any real judgment.
The thing that concerns me a little about the chuck puck (keeping in mind I've never seen the thing in person) is that pen blanks are rarely delivered as 3/4" or 1". I've gone through a *lot* of these things for pens, tampers, etc, and I don't think I've ever actually seen on that's even square. I'd be afraid that they would rattle around in the chuck puck, especially if unsupported by a tailstock. At least using #1 spigot jaws, you can get two sides really gripping the piece. But maybe the chuck puck is flexible enough to crank down onto the piece - I don't know. I'd have to actually use on in order to make any real judgment.
Hey.... that was meant to be a slam on myself for not getting it, not on John for posting :pbvartist wrote: Ben, you're mean!
John's follow-up posting makes sense tho. I have a very narrow mind. When he posted it, I put it in MY context which is a 2-tower-jaw setup. That didn't make sense... but when the idea is narrowing the capacity of a larger 4 jaw setup (and making it easier to hold square stock), that make sense...