Air-lock joint patent

[ADR147]

i prefered the honest answer!

[stan-mullin]

i prefered the honest answer!

lol.............

[Snoochy]

Interesting stuff. Good to see new ideas to challenge established practice.

I can't see how this new joint can be more secure than a traditional threaded joint with only 3 points of contact between parts of the cue. I doubt you'd get anywhere near exceeding the tolerances of ether during normal play, but expect threaded would hold up to longer sessions without needing to adjust the joint.

Obviously the new join would save time, but during a 3 hr session, how long do you spend joining parts of a cue?!

Given the choice between speed and reliability/security I know which one i'd choose.

That said I'd like to see results of serious testing and looking forward to reading the opinions of impartial experts once you manage to distribute a few samples, keep up the good work!

[stegorjus]

...but during a 3 hr session, how long do you spend joining parts of a cue?!

It can be quite a bit, allowing for attaching and removing extensions. But I think it's more about flow. Anything that makes one shot flow seamlessly into another is appealing.

[stan-mullin]

Interesting stuff. Good to see new ideas to challenge established practice.

I can't see how this new joint can be more secure than a traditional threaded joint with only 3 points of contact between parts of the cue. I doubt you'd get anywhere near exceeding the tolerances of ether during normal play, but expect threaded would hold up to longer sessions without needing to adjust the joint.

Obviously the new join would save time, but during a 3 hr session, how long do you spend joining parts of a cue?!

Given the choice between speed and reliability/security I know which one i'd choose.

That said I'd like to see results of serious testing and looking forward to reading the opinions of impartial experts once you manage to distribute a few samples, keep up the good work!

Snoocy
Thanks for your comments. As I have said in earlier repies, the same joint is used in other industries to provide a locking connection that replaces tradional threaded joints that are liable to work loose.
This is the most important feature, however due to the speed it can be changed it also works as a very quick release system. Since I've had the prototype cues made I have played aproximately 100 hours of snooker, without having to check the joint, the use of the mini butt and extensions is very quick allowing me to concentrate on my next shot, which has helped my game, and I am sure it will help others.
The first production run is now ready to be sent all over the world, and any interested cue makers can have some to make there own cues and do their own tests. At the same time my customers will be making their first cues, and any players will be able to buy a cue with the new joint shortly.

[JP1]

If the joint was patented in China, then anyone who uses or manufactures this joint in China without the inventor's consent is in violation. But in order for the inventor to pursue this claim in another country, he will need to have his design patented in the patent office in that country as well. I know that some countries would allow a patent protected when it is registered in another country due to some treaty signed between these countries, but I do not believe China and the Uk have such an agreement.
Now, if the joint is being used in the UK, but is manufactured in China, and the inventor can prove that fact(it could be very difficult to prove the origin of manufacturing sometimes, and the factory can always move to another place), he may be able to apply an injunction to the manufacturing of the joint in China and the export of the joint from China, may be even the traders of the joint in other countries. But this can be quite tricky to enforce.
In reality, it is almost impossible to pursue such a claim in a place like China, because making illegal copies and infringement of copyright is such a common practise over there.
You can always check to see if a design is patented in the UK or any country by looking up the patent number.
According to the laws in Canada and the US, if an item is patented, the patent number should be listed clearly on the item(or the box containing the item...etc) so other people can take note and will not therefore infringe its patent either intentionally or unintentionally. When an item has applied for a patent, then "patent pending" should be printed on the item to notify the public until the patent is granted. When it is impossible to print such numbers or wordings on the item, then a reasonable effort needs to be made to make this information avaliable to whoever may be using or buying this item. Usually, the patent information will be printed on the container or on a tag or so on. Without making it clear to the public that an item has been patented, the inventor will find it very difficult to pursue any claim should an infringement occur. In order to protect their rights, almost everyone who has a patent on a product will let the public know that, by making the patent number clearly visible. Is this the case in the UK, I dont know, but I would imagine so.
I have never seen the airlock joint before it is installed in a cue, so I do not know if there is any notice that it was patented shown anywhere on the joint or the box such as a number engraved or something like that. Somehow, I doubt it.
I agree with Mike that even if this joint was indeed patented, the matrix thread can be changed to void the patent, while the joint can still serve the same function--so the idea of patenting such a joint is quite silly in my opinion.
With regard to a joint not being able to be patented, actually cue joints have been patented in the US--the Uniloc company has patented its uniloc and radial pin joint as far as I know. I believe a French Canadian cue maker has patented a conical joint as well.

Hi Pool Junkie,

Mike Wooldridge makes a valuable point, your debate as to the merits or otherwise of a patented item does not take into consideration the various types of patents that are available, just log onto your friendly patent office if you havethe time and patience to see for yourself, you also seem to be upset that the Chinese would be able produce something we in the west have not had before, you would not be a trifle racist would you?

Anyway you could have done what I now did for you just look up Lou Peis website and read for yourself, it is possible that Lou Pei has registered the vacuum joint to have his name as the inventor as it were, not every patent is like a Bosch carburettor, and an inverted thread is not subject to a licence fee, I hope this explains the matter for you, the following is a direct paste from Lou Pei's website, their english is not the Queens english but you can easily deduce the meaning of it;
The brand LP is still the protraiture of a man who studies producing skill intensively with great concentration.He is the founder of HengXuan billiard manufacture factory:Mr. Luo Pei.

"""He has an abundant accumulated experience in billiard product area. He invents exclusive patent which produce a tie-in of cue in vaccum. And it is he to creative new craftwork of amender in combine cue. It can make the strength to distribute more uniform and transfer more
quickly. And he has reached the ambit of high degree of professional proficiency in the area of icebana craftwork in cue. Each professional billiard player whose cue is produced according to the actual circustmance extend high recommendation on his skill. """""

End of quote;

[JP1]

Just a few points, the new joint depends upon friction/preassure on three points to lock the two cue halfs into place, I cant see how this design also allows you to lock the cue halfs together as you do with a conventional thread ? after a while this joint would require you to place the butt on the floor while pressing the top half hard up against it to getthe halfs as close and hard up as possible, and then turn to lock it into place, in time the joint will loosen up so what is stopping it from showing a gap between the two halfs??
The idea of a joint is for ease of transportation of a cue, no other reason, IMO a one piece cue is still superior to any jointed cue, having said that if we must have a joint, the endeavour has to be to create such a connection which closest resembles the one piece cue.
I fully agree with Trevor that it certainly wont make anyone a better player, from personal experience the vacuum inverted thread joints are as good as I have seen.

[stan-mullin]

Just a few points, the new joint depends upon friction/preassure on three points to lock the two cue halfs into place, I cant see how this design also allows you to lock the cue halfs together as you do with a conventional thread ? after a while this joint would require you to place the butt on the floor while pressing the top half hard up against it to getthe halfs as close and hard up as possible, and then turn to lock it into place, in time the joint will loosen up so what is stopping it from showing a gap between the two halfs??
The idea of a joint is for ease of transportation of a cue, no other reason, IMO a one piece cue is still superior to any jointed cue, having said that if we must have a joint, the endeavour has to be to create such a connection which closest resembles the one piece cue.
I fully agree with Trevor that it certainly wont make anyone a better player, from personal experience the vacuum inverted thread joints are as good as I have seen.

JP1
The cues made with the new joint require no effort other than gravity to join together. The three locking points run the full length of both the male and female section, small turn and it is locked, the only way you could leave a gap is if you meant to!
It is a very well engineered part used in lots of critical applications, e mail me your address and I will post one to you.

[ADR147]

well i have received these today - they look good - heavy but good, i will let you know how i get on after i have bashed them about for a day or two!

[JP1]

email me your contact address;

[stan-mullin]

well i have received these today - they look good - heavy but good, i will let you know how i get on after i have bashed them about for a day or two!

Hi Andrew

Glad you have received them, I have been away for 3 weeks, sorry for not replying sooner. The weight of the joint is exactly the same as the threaded joints they replace, so they do not alter the total weight of the cue.
I have a cue here for you to test, I will send it to you for your comments.

Stan

[BITTER]

Hi Stan

How's the sales of the joint going ?

Which cue makers have bought them so far

Paul

[stan-mullin]

Thanks Bump??????????????

Explain please Huoliuhi

[jb134]

Just read all this, can't wait to get my joints now.

[kissingthepink]

Hi Andrew

Glad you have received them, I have been away for 3 weeks, sorry for not replying sooner. The weight of the joint is exactly the same as the threaded joints they replace, so they do not alter the total weight of the cue.
I have a cue here for you to test, I will send it to you for your comments.

Stan

Hi Stan

I have one of your joints so I can make myself a joint protector for my cue. I asked for one back a while back but it never came.

ta

Si