What's the best way of telling a poster he's wrong?

A bit like Clarkson who did publish instructions on how to tighten an autolock chuck up in that you don't leave a gap but let the cutter do the tightening ??

But every tool maker I know leaves a gap or the tool offsets go to hell in a hand basket when it self tightens ??

Must be right as Clarkson says it is but rather a moot point as industry has moved on to ER's

Personally I think Jacobs should have stuck to making cream crackers, all mine were sold on or scrapped years ago and have been on keyless for ages, usually good imports.

Deleted

Edited By not done it yet on 25/01/2017 06:00:14

They can't be doing too bad, I had a friend who moved back to Barbados after living in England, thing she missed most about it was Jacobs cream crackers. (Don't know if that's a good or bad thing!)

Anyway I must've picked up a rum keyless chuck as it nearly always slips the drill (so I stopped using them hence forth).

I do have a much older one that I haven't used that uses a ratchet clamping mechanism, perhaps that's what the bad one was missing.

In a light reference to another thread, perhaps I should make sure I tighten it, with my hand correspondingly over each jaw to make sure I achieve even clamping pressure!

Michael W

Edited By Michael-w on 25/01/2017 06:57:13

I don't see any need at all to tell a poster he is wrong. Simply state what you consider to be the correct answer and move on.

I'm always mostly sometimes in mind of the ancient Taoist saying: If you win an internet argument you are still a loser.

Sometimes it might be worth talking to the poster in private instead of trying to score points by blasting them online. Maybe the poster does have a genuine reason for their ideas and a 1 on 1 chat could be most revealing and could even result in the fact that you were actually wrong in the first place!

Saves a lot of public egg-on-the-face moments and could even result in a new friend.

Bottom Left is the Icon Message member ,so how many people actually use it?

Unless (as has already been pointed out) safety is compromised and it is vital to get the correct procedure out immediately then consider the 'softly softly catchee monkee' approach as it often works.

* Danny M *

Edited By Danny M2Z on 25/01/2017 08:55:51

But how do you tell a poster he's wrong telling the previous poster that he's wrong?

Edited By Brian Oldford on 25/01/2017 10:24:07

Isn't just a case of "reader beware"? This forum is just part of the internet and not everything you may find on the internet will be factually correct. You learn to make your own judgements on correctness and quality and, like life, who's advice you trust and who's you don't.

I did my ME apprenticeship using these forums and appreciated every bit of advice I was given. At the time some of it may have been a bit suspect. I wasn't to know, but it was generally good enough to give me a clue, make a decision, apply a bit of common sense and work out how I may achieve a result with the equipment I had available.

So when it comes to the forum if something does seem right it probably isn’t, just let it go. Somebody may well offer an alternative solution as input to your decision processes.

I must add, when it comes to being in print I would hope to not see errors that are clearly wrong, particularly when there are photos that confirm such. It happens

Pete

Edited By Doubletop on 25/01/2017 10:24:41 (no idea why "decision" is in bold.....)

Edited By Doubletop on 25/01/2017 10:25:39

Roderick - No need for apologies; this was probably a classic example of what prompted the OP's query. My version of 'snoek' was derived from what was being published AT THE TIME!! As a young lad, what was published was accepted as 'the gospel' and no arguments. Thankfully, nowadays people are less submissive although a worryingly large number buy newspapers - and BELIEVE the contents!! ... but that's a whole different bag of worms

rgds

Bill

I would like to resectfully point out that the commonly used container for worms, is a can and not a bag

Phil

Edited By Phil P on 25/01/2017 12:59:23

One of the first things we were taught at university (studying biochemistry) was just because something is written and explained in a text book doesn't mean that it is factually correct. Now this came as a complete shock to me as we were taught at school to research and reply. It is in a book, backed up mostly by supporting data and as such surely must be correct - alas no. This in effect makes telling people they are wrong, in my opinion, quite difficult at times. All one can do is relate to personal experience or reference your source. Many years ago on this very forum I recommended to a chap asking about regulators to pop to screwfix and buy a ball valve and install that as they are cheap and very reliable. A boffin from the petrochemical industry who clearly knew his stuff utterly shot my suggestion down stating that it was not designed for this application and would never work. I have been using them in boilers for years with complete reliability and success but he wouldn't have any of it. I think the moral here is to not tell someone they are wrong unless you actually know they are wrong. By doing this, even if it offends them you are ultimately doing them a favor, that is assuming they take the blindest bit of notice!

How do you find out the correctness of something? "do the dammed experiment"

regards Martin

Oh dear! A perfectly reasonable opening post and we drift on to debates about rotten fish and tightening chucks.

Now that has made my mind up about not contributing in future.

Can We quietly tell You,You are wrong about not contributing in the future.

Well Arthur Jacob's patent doesn't say use multiple holes

"The first key that is shown is formed of an indented spindle 15, having a handle 16 and a gear 17. Then the end 18 of this key is inserted into a socket 14, the teeth of the gear will mesh with the rack-teeth on the edge of the sleeve, and when the key thus placed is turned the meshing of the teeth imparts a rotary movement to the sleeve and nut and causes the desired opening or closing of the tool-holding jaws. 7"

(Scanning errors corrected with no change to meaning).

Hi Neil

Well Arthur Jacob's patent doesn't say use multiple holes

"The first key that is shown is formed of an indented spindle 15, having a handle 16 and a gear 17. Then the end 18 of this key is inserted into a socket 14, the teeth of the gear will mesh with the rack-teeth on the edge of the sleeve, and when the key thus placed is turned the meshing of the teeth imparts a rotary movement to the sleeve and nut and causes the desired opening or closing of the tool-holding jaws. 7"

Yes this is correct for opening and closing jaws but say nowt about tightening on a drill shank could have omitted the other two holes for clarity and saved on machining costs why have three when one would suffice.

Eric

Balance and convenience?

If it was for security of tightening two would probably be adequate and four would be belt and braces. Three always suggests balance to me.

Rumour has it that ball raced Jacobs chucks definitely don't need multiple hole tightening, but they still have three holes?

It's an interesting issue and I should leave it to the correct thread.

Neil

Since Neil seems rather coy about disclosing references:

**LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=709014A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=19020916&DB=&locale=

and

**LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=911012A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=19090126&DB=&locale=

and

**LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=1123541A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=&date=19150105&DB=&locale=

may be of interest.

MichaelG.

My theory for three holes is this

Lots of drills have a turned down shank to half inch. If the jacobs chuck had one hole & a workshop was using lots of these drills the teeth of the chuck could become strained & I have seen chucks with snapped teeth. With 3 holes the law of averages suggests that over time the teeth get used fairly evenly.

Which has nothing to do with why one would need to use the 3 holes each time one tightened the chuck but would extend wear on the teeth themselves

I'm saying nothing as i have opinions on anything and everything, nobody seems to agree with me ( even in the wide world outside this forum ) so I read the forum and learn and adopt and adapt what I read and quietly get on with my life.

P.S. I have read all this thread, some good stuff in it and some dubious stuff (my opinion) and probably some of it downright wrong so I leave it up to yourselves to decide whats what and keep it to yourselves, unless I have got something wrong.

+ 1 Sam Longley 1 . Wait for the flak......