Air-lock joint patent

[mchpddl1]

Congratulations to the new innovative design of 1klik, I am so excited to hear these new developments, wish you all the best in the making.

[moglet]

spigot, axial taper, mechanism, radial lock? female socket, ooo-er!

wtf!!!

moglet, would you like a job? you clearly have a lot more understanding than i...

Just words mike, engineerspeak, but yes, though I do charge quite a lot

[ADR147]

well having enquired with almost all the worlds top cue makers both custom and volume, none has ever seen, heard of, or tested this joint................!! nothing personal stan but maybe you should have researched more in advance, i make no comment on the joint itself because i have not seen it but i personally could ask almost any cuemaker to try the joint out and at least you would know where you stand?

as it is i am suspicious purely because nobody i know has tried one and to be honest if you make a claim on international testing and yet not one person i know has tested it you are not really putting it out there!! trust me on this, that there is not much flies past my radar.

[poolqjunkie]

Some joints I mentioned is a conical joint by this guy, www.layanicues.com. It is self centering, very quick, very wear resistant, and also is not like a typical joint that operates solely on friction.
There is also the uniloc joint. It is very common nowadays in the US. One big benefits of this joint is that it faces very well, is self centered, and also very quick. It is better than the typical threaded joint because you can change shafts without having to reface the joint face for perfect alignment. This is a good idea for volume cue makers who can just turn shafts with a computer and then match the butt without having to face them again.
I am not sure about snooker cues, as it seems that no one really have more than one shaft. But say if I have two cues from the same cue maker, with the same length butt, are the two shafts interchangable. I somehow doubt it.
I think a quick yet fast working joint is a good idea in principle. However, I do not believe it can help the playability of the cue.
With a conventional joint, the threads are not fully touching each other, so there are movements before the pin is completely inserted into the socket. But once the faces are tight, does it still matter that there are gaps between the threads? Will such a joint cause more vibration to the player? I think the vibration is more related to tip size, taper, wood, and may be balance. Have you test the vibration of a cue with different joints?
There is certainly a benefit if you can make a very solid joint for the mini butt that is really quick. I am very interested in trying out your joint because I think there are more applications and benefits than what you stated in your web site, if it is as good a design as I imagine it to be.
Good luck with your idea.

[subzeer0]

looks nothing like the Riley joint of old....that was merely a standard thread male and female...the male sides machined flat paralel along the legth and the female side the thread was also machined away to allow the male to slip in and half twist or whatever it was.....i had a one on a Riley many years ago and liked it a lot....never seen one since

[stegorjus]

Hi Stan

I just thought I'd have my little say. I've no experience of cue making but I have developed a snooker related product. I noticed in an early post that you have worldwide rights for this design in the cue-sports industry, however you said you intended to concentrate initially on snooker. I imagine this is because you are UK based and it just makes things easier.

My point is that cue-sport in the USA is massive and for some reason people over there seem to be far more welcoming of new innovation, and like the entrepreneurial spirit. I don't think you've been given too much of a hard time on this thread but we Brits do seem to have an "It's OK but..." kind of attitude and then try to find the weaknesses in things.

When I developed my product, (see k-rest thread) I aimed solely at snooker because I thought pool players didn't have cue-extensions. I received a very mixed reception on this forum and I always seem to be up against the "It's OK but..." attitude. However, the thread was picked up by an American forum and the attitude was completely different. There seems to be a real interest in the new over there.

After a little research I realised the size of the potential market in the USA. I think if I had realised the potential earlier I would have aimed for the American market from the start. As it is, my shoestring budget won't stretch to doing an Expo over there, or indeed much else at the moment, so I concentrate on the real job for the time being.

Anyway. Good luck, and don't forget the USA

[stan-mullin]

New Joint

Thanks for all the comments.
I initially visited snooker companies just to get feedback on the original joint which was not designed to fit into a cue.
After a positive response I decided to go ahead on making prototypes so I could actually show people a cue with mini butt. Then after further visits to cuemakers I decided to do a small production run, making two different types to suit their own cues, which will be ready any day.
The pool and billiard industry in Europe and the USA have shown a great deal ofinterest and I will make a pool cue joint in the very near future.
The web site is not finished, and will I hope become a good base for people to start who are interested in the joint. However it does not matter what I claim on the site, or on forums like this, people will not be convinced until they try the joint, which anybody can do when the first production run is ready.
Stan

[trevs1]

looks nothing like the Riley joint of old....that was merely a standard thread male and female...the male sides machined flat paralel along the legth and the female side the thread was also machined away to allow the male to slip in and half twist or whatever it was.....i had a one on a Riley many years ago and liked it a lot....never seen one since

The joint I was referring to is totally different from the type you are speaking about, it has NO THREAD AT ALL.

The one with two flat faces is a common joint and is threaded.

[trevs1]

Thanks for all the comments.
I initially visited snooker companies just to get feedback on the original joint which was not designed to fit into a cue.
After a positive response I decided to go ahead on making prototypes so I could actually show people a cue with mini butt. Then after further visits to cuemakers I decided to do a small production run, making two different types to suit their own cues, which will be ready any day.
The pool and billiard industry in Europe and the USA have shown a great deal ofinterest and I will make a pool cue joint in the very near future.
The web site is not finished, and will I hope become a good base for people to start who are interested in the joint. However it does not matter what I claim on the site, or on forums like this, people will not be convinced until they try the joint, which anybody can do when the first production run is ready.
Stan

I wish you the best of luck and great success with your design Stan, so apologies if it came across to the contrary.

I have absolutely no problem with innovation, it's a good thing and will always be with us in some form, everywhere we look.

For me though, using a joint which others also use does kind of go some way to making the work of individual cue makers less individual, and to me anyway, that would be a shame. I know a joint is just a joint, and, that on its own, does not constitute individuality, but, I like the idea that my joints are made by a UK based company that I have dealt with on a personal level to produce them for me. That's just how I am, whether it's the best way to be or not is open to debate I guess.

The questions which still remain for me though are....

Is this joint SO MUCH easier to use than a normal quick release type joint for the like of mini-butts or other extensions? Will it be THAT MUCH faster and more stable? My answer to the above would have to be "no it won't". When we consider it, extension shots are nearly always a 'one shot scenario', so will it make any discernible difference?

Will this joint really revolutionise the playing characteristics of ANY cue?
Is the cue going to feel noticeably better and more solid for having this joint in place? Again, my answer would have to be, "no it won't"

When we consider how quality cues have felt up to now, aren't they fine?

Still, for anyone wanting to promote their 'new' product...
Offering information up to a forum filled with people who take a big interest in ANYTHING which sounds like it'll offer improvement to their performance, can only be good marketing, so on that note, I suppose it's no surprise to see it being discussed here.

[stan-mullin]

I wish you the best of luck and great success with your design Stan, so apologies if it came across to the contrary.

I have absolutely no problem with innovation, it's a good thing and will always be with us in some form, everywhere we look.

For me though, using a joint which others also use does kind of go some way to making the work of individual cue makers less individual, and to me anyway, that would be a shame. I know a joint is just a joint, and, that on its own, does not constitute individuality, but, I like the idea that my joints are made by a UK based company that I have dealt with on a personal level to produce them for me. That's just how I am, whether it's the best way to be or not is open to debate I guess.

The questions which still remain for me though are....

Is this joint SO MUCH easier to use than a normal quick release type joint for the like of mini-butts or other extensions? Will it be THAT MUCH faster and more stable? My answer to the above would have to be "no it won't". When we consider it, extension shots are nearly always a 'one shot scenario', so will it make any discernible difference?

Will this joint really revolutionise the playing characteristics of ANY cue?
Is the cue going to feel noticeably better and more solid for having this joint in place? Again, my answer would have to be, "no it won't"

When we consider how quality cues have felt up to now, aren't they fine?

Still, for anyone wanting to promote their 'new' product...
Offering information up to a forum filled with people who take a big interest in ANYTHING which sounds like it'll offer improvement to their performance, can only be good marketing, so on that note, I suppose it's no surprise to see it being discussed here.

trevs1

Your comments negative, positive or otherwise are very much appreciated. If you would like samples of the joint, or would be interested in making me a cue just let me know.
I am not only selling this joint, I am a genuine snooker fan, playing, watching, etc etc
Just to be taken seriously on a site such as this is great.
I have in the fixings and fasteners business for over 20 years, and a keen pool/snooker player for most of life and am enjoying finding out more about the industry, and I hope I can add something to these forums.

[MikeWooldridge]

what about the locking point, how much 'play' have you got if you need to face the join for any reason?

i mean , would it still work @ 1/4 turn, or is it fixed to only work at 1/12th of a turn?

how heavy is it anyway? wouldn't have thought by looking at pic that it was particularly heavy...

i guess you missed my questions above stan...

[stan-mullin]

i guess you missed my questions above stan...

Sorry Mike
By hand you can't turn it further than the the locking position which is aprox 30 degrees. If you reduced the face of the joint on either the male or female it would allow for adjustment.
The two types I have made are the same weight and have the same connecting threads as the joints they will replace. My idea for making the female section for the mini butt in plastic was more for for retro fit so the new joint had little or no effect on the weight or balance of the un-extended cue. I use this method in another application were the female is Nylon 66 and the male is cast Zinc, with no problems, not only is it very light but cost effective too.
Stan

[subzeer0]

thnx for putting me straight trev.......

[MikeWooldridge]

Sorry Mike
By hand you can't turn it further than the the locking position which is aprox 30 degrees. If you reduced the face of the joint on either the male or female it would allow for adjustment.
The two types I have made are the same weight and have the same connecting threads as the joints they will replace. My idea for making the female section for the mini butt in plastic was more for for retro fit so the new joint had little or no effect on the weight or balance of the un-extended cue. I use this method in another application were the female is Nylon 66 and the male is cast Zinc, with no problems, not only is it very light but cost effective too.
Stan

how much adjustment can be made before it stops working? or will the amount of 'turn to lock' just continue?

cue joins need to be surprisingly resilient. my trials with nylon simply did not work. the join itself still 'worked' of course, but in playing terms something was wrong....

[stan-mullin]

how much adjustment can be made before it stops working? or will the amount of 'turn to lock' just continue?

cue joins need to be surprisingly resilient. my trials with nylon simply did not work. the join itself still 'worked' of course, but in playing terms something was wrong....

As can be seen from the video on the web site it has three locking positions, so you can have a 33.3% adjustment without altering the face, although I never tried it I imagine reducing the face only gives fine adjustment.

Its only an idea about the weight issue, but if the brass version is popular, I can spend more time with other materials.