PDA

View Full Version : Question for Mr. Layani.



Cueless Joey
06-24-2002, 02:40 PM
If I may ask, what is the difference between your joint and Lambros' concaved joint?
Thank you.

Thierry Layani
06-24-2002, 06:07 PM
I've heard of this joint but I've never seen it so it's hard for me to say. He doesn't give much details on his website about the stucture of the 'Ultra joint' apart from being superior. But the way he's describing it, it seems indeed to possess the same mechanical advantages than our joint. If there was at least a picture of his joint I'd be able to tell you a bit more. For now I can't. Sorry!
Thierry Layani
www.layanicues.com (http://www.layanicues.com)

Cueless Joey
06-25-2002, 01:28 AM
This site has very good pics of a Labros Ultra-joint.
Go to Gallery, Lambros.
http://www.proficientbilliards.com/

Thierry Layani
06-25-2002, 06:32 AM
I was talking about his website but yes on this link we can see his joint. But I'm not sure it's the ultra joint. If it is than I don't understand because it looks to me as having exactly the same configuration as a 'normal', threaded joint. The idea of a conical, tapered or concav-convex joint is to increase the surface of contact between the shaft and the butt and to eliminate the tension and compression that a normal flat face joint will experience. I don't see how the joint on this picture could do such a thing since the surface of contact seems to be the flat face and nothing else. I'd really need some more info on this joint. One thing for sure is that it must be different from our joint in some way, because M. Lambros was able to patent his joint a year after ours which means it must not serve the same purpose with the same sort of configuration.
Thierry Layani
www.layanicues.com (http://www.layanicues.com)

Rich R.
06-25-2002, 06:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Cueless Joey:</font><hr> This site has very good pics of a Labros Ultra-joint.
Go to Gallery, Lambros.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.proficientbilliards.com/>http://www.proficientbilliards.com/</a> <hr></blockquote>
Joey, I don't believe the Lambros cue shown at that site has the "ultra joint". The "ultra joint" looks a lot different. I only wish I could explain the differnce.
Rich R.

Cueless Joey
06-25-2002, 10:35 AM
My bad Rich. I have a Lambros and the joint looks the same as that one in that site. The shaft's joint does have the concaved and the wood sticking out. The collar on the cue has the "female" concave. I thought this was the ultra-joint.

Rich R.
06-25-2002, 12:06 PM
It is hard to tell from the picture Joey, but I think I see a part on the shaft that goes into the collar on the butt, but it does not appear to be concave as in the ultra joint.
In the ultra joint, the parts that go together are actually rounded a little and not straight, as it appears to be in the picture. It is very hard to tell from the picture. I hope I am not wrong.
Rich R.

Cueless Joey
06-25-2002, 12:15 PM
Mine is rounded. I do not use the cue however b/c it squirts way too much. I have no idea why it squirts too much except maybe the shaft is not very good or the ferrule is too hard. I have inquied about their laminated shaft. It costs 200 dollars and I asked about the waiting period. Heck, I didn't get a response on that. So, it's another collectible cue in storage. I stole the cue though. Paid 275 for it. It is rock solid like a Samsara but I can't play a lick with it.

TonyM
06-26-2002, 05:48 AM
When did you patent your joint Thierry? I've looked for it, but I haven't been able to find it.

If you look up Lambros' ultra joint you will see that it is indeed a conical joint. However, he uses a small cylindrical pilot (made of maple) that he loads in compression (the tip of the pilot engages the botoom of the hole before the conical sufaces engage). From the claims it seems that the pilot is his unique feature, not the conical sufaces above it.

Tony

TonyM
06-26-2002, 05:52 AM
No the ultra joint has a small pilot on the shaft side of the joint followed by a conical portion that mates to a conical portion on the butt side. The cue pictured is a flat faced joint with a pilot.

Tony

Fred Agnir
06-26-2002, 06:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TonyM:</font><hr> When did you patent your joint Thierry? I've looked for it, but I haven't been able to find it.

If you look up Lambros' ultra joint you will see that it is indeed a conical joint. However, he uses a small cylindrical pilot (made of maple) that he loads in compression (the tip of the pilot engages the botoom of the hole before the conical sufaces engage). From the claims it seems that the pilot is his unique feature, not the conical sufaces above it.

Tony <hr></blockquote>

Does it compress ... axially/longitudally? From afar, it looks like the Schuler concept, but I think Ray's aluminum pilot compresses ... radially .

If it indeed the maple pilot engages before the concave/convex surfaces engage, then how does that feel when you're screwing it together. How many times can you do that to maple before losing memory?

Fred

Rich R.
06-26-2002, 07:10 AM
I think you definitely have an ultra joint.
I have no idea why you are having trouble with the shaft. I know several players with Lambros cues and they all love them, however, I believe they all use his laminated shafts. They do tell me there is a short period of time to get used to the laminated shafts, similar to what some say about the Predator shafts.
You did steal your cue. I have heard rumors of used Lambros sneaky petes, which he does not make any longer, being sold for as much as $700 to $900. I can not verify those amounts and I have no idea who would pay that much. I do know, from a very good source, that Lambros cues sell for amaizing amounts in Japan. Dealers buy them here at full retail and go back to Japan and mark them up 100% or more.
Rich R.

Thierry Layani
06-26-2002, 07:47 AM
The patent is from 1996. What was actually patented was a self-locking conical joint, which I believe distingues our joint from the Lambros joint. From what I understand the Lambros joint doesn't seem to have a steep angle which is the most important characteristic of our joint. The idea behind our joint was to create something closer to the hit of a one piece cue. We came to the conclusion that from a strategic point of view we would have to create a connection in which the axial forces (in terms of action-reaction)are inferior to the radial forces. With a normal flat face joint, the forces are transmitted axially, which means the butt and the shaft will try to separate from each other simply because of the normal action-reaction (and this why there's a stud--but I guess you all understood that!). With a self-locking conical joint, the axial forces are broken up, thus the radial forces at the interfaces were so strong that you didn't even need a stud to hold the two pieces together ( but we modified that for other reasons). The forces transmitted in the sens of the axis were much inferior to the radial forces since the angle was very steep. Which means if the angle is superior to 45 degree or so (which seems to be the case of the lambros joint) then you still have some axial forces that try to separate the butt and the shaft. With the angle we have chosen the radial forces are more important. This is why we use a very short stud (since it does not experience any tensions). The other thing is the shoulder. For a conical joint, to be effective you absolutely need a gap, so the forces are not transmitted axially. If there is a shoulder (is it the case with the Lambros joint??) then the conical part is simply non effective.
Tony or Fred would be able to express this in a more simple and yet scientific language, which I lack (especially in english).
Thierry Layani
www.layanicues.com (http://www.layanicues.com)

Ken
06-26-2002, 09:40 AM
PN/5,514,039

TonyM
06-27-2002, 04:34 PM
It is indeed similar to the Schuler concept Fred (Lambro's joint), but with some important differences. First-off the joint aligns axially due to the interaction of the conical faces, not due to the radial compression of the pilot to the socket (which is what the Schuler joint does). Secondly the maple tenon compresses longitudinally, which then expands in diameter and then loads the side walls of the socket radially in compression.

Maple has excellent memory, and likely the ability to compress will outlast the cue itself, barring some sort of damage.


Tony

TonyM
06-27-2002, 04:49 PM
Essentially, Thierry's joint uses the conical faces as both the main source of axial alignment (how the shaft is centered relative to the butt) and the main source of transmission of the compressive forces (there is no "shoulder" or flat face to take the compression loads).

Lambro's cue uses a small wooden pilot to take some of the compression loads, and the conical surfaces are mainly for axial alignment (although they do take compression forces as well).

Also, Lamros' joint is comprised almost entirely of the parent wood of the shaft and butt, while Thierry's is comprised of phenolic/fiber (in the shaft side) and stainless steel (in the butt side).

In theory, using wood as the primary material for the joint offers superior sound transmission properties. The compression impulse that occurs during impact (with the ball) travels back and forth the length of the cue as a sound impulse. The speed of sound in the materials of the cue affect the way that this accoustic impulse is transmitted. The resistance to accoustic transmition is known as "Accoustic Impedance" (AI). All materials have an accoustic impedance.

The acoustic impedance, Z, of a material is defined as the product of density, p, and acoustic velocity, V, of that material.

Z = pV

Acoustic impedance is important in; 1) the determination of acoustic transmission and reflection at the boundary of two materials having different acoustic impedance

This is essentially what happens at a cue joint interface.

Thus for a minimum amount of reflection or absoption at a joint interface, the joint should be made from materials that are closely matched in AI. Stainless steel and Maple are not well matched.

However, there are also other types of energy losses that can occur at a joint interface. Thierry's joint helps minimise these other types of losses. So his joint is relatively efficient even though the Impedance is not matched. An all wood version of Thierry's joint would be ideal from an energy transmision aspect, but poor from a manufacturing standpoint (each joint would have to be hand fitted to each shaft).

Tony