Pros and Cons of the ER collet system

[Raymond AndersonParticipant @raymondanderson34407]

Neil, Rego Fix has already confirmed what they were originally designed for. Or maybe they dont know what theie invention was for but they just invented it for the hell of it . We dont know what its for but we will invent it anyway. Somehow I just cant see them doing that
cheers

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

I think this post has gone far enough now we are at the playing cat and mouse stage.

I know I'm a moderator but i don't have the powers to close a thread or I would do so.

Everyone has had their say and basically nothing has been achieved by the whole thread

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 23/09/2016 11:14:38:

Well that's that, then.

I can only offer my thanks to those who actually tried to contribute some intelligent thought to the subject.

May I suggest that the thread should now be closed, so that future 'researchers' have only eleven pages to wade through.

MichaelG.

.

John,

As you will see ^^^ I suggested closing the thread several pages ago.

MichaelG.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Damn. I was just about to sharpen up the handbags again.

[Mark CParticipant @markc]

John, there has been plenty achieved, all you have to do is find it among the chaff!

Mark

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I will lock this thread, but as an Admin I will take advantage of the opportunity to have the final word.

I fnally got the German number of Weber's patent off an American patent that quoted it. That let me find it on espace.net which let me find teh GB version, which I have now read.

Here's the true story.

Weber's patent is not about parallel collapse, extra grip, ability to handle axial or radial loads or improved concentricity. No. The thing he was interested in was that if collets have a half-angle of less than 10 degrees they tend to jam in the chuck and contemporary 'sprung annulus' nuts could fail to extract oillets with an exrtraction groove if they collapsed too far.

His concern was to come up with a collet nut to work with such collets that was simpler and didn't fail so easily.

So in a way his patent was about 'extended range' or more accurately extending the range of existing collets.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the patent about the form of the collet except that it is in the form of two truncated cones with a retaining groove machined where the two cones meet.

So the 'ER System' as we know it today is the application of the Weber nut to a pre-existing form of collet, indeed it could be applied to most forms of collapsible collet. It is an extraction system and the form of the collet itself is incidental; to the design but it created a wide-range system with broad applicability.

If we what to know what the original ER collet was meant to hold, we really need to know what the original purpose was. This seems to be the (a) patent that uses a collet cut from both ends to provide grip without drawing in the work and a larger range without suffering damage if over-tightened. it could also be used nested, with a smaller collet in a larger one! It was intended for holding work or tools.

We are all guilty of assuming the ER collet system was designed from the ground up; it wasn't it was the application of a new way of extracting collets to a well-understood approach to making collets that, no doubt, had plenty of years of work and toolholding behind them.

Neil

[Author]

Posts