New lock design for comment, free to good home

Jim March

Jim March

Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Oct 7, 1998
Messages
3,021
c title. It's meant for use with *big* folders; it really needs a thicker-than-average blade to work, for starters, something in the 3/16ths range or more.

linerbar.gif


Jim March

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited 26 January 1999).]
 
Hmmm...
Interesting. I've printed it out, and I will file it on the "things to do on a rainy day" pile.

Andy.
 
Kewl. Remember, "think big"! This rig oughta work better as you scale it up; the key advantage is that the piece of metal pinning the blade is hefty enough it can't be bent by human muscle power. And it still "feels like" a linerlock. One major difference, there's no worrying about "centering the liner on the middle of the blade", it's gonna take the WHOLE WIDTH.

Eight inch 1/4" stock folder, anyone?

Think BEEFY!

Jim March
 
I looked over it several times.. and I still don't get it. (My brain is officially on vacation.
smile.gif
)

Could you explain it more in detail for me?
 
OK, it's still basically a linerlock in usage and where it locks up on the blade material. But instead of using a spring-plate that's flexible, you use a rectangular block of metal the same thickness and material as the blade, on it's own pivot pin. It's driven up behind the blade lockup point by a seperate coil spring; it's that coil spring that your thumb compresses to unlock it.

The reason you can't "scale up" the original linerlock into an 8" by 1/4" blade is that you'll have the main locking metal still bendable by human muscle. AlMar did a 5.5" linerlock and trust me, you can force it, the lock really is so weak I trust it as a slashing weapon only - no stabs.

With the linerblock, the metal keeping the blade open is an order of magnatude stronger because it does NOT also have to be a spring.

To understand the drawing, hold any linerlock knife open with point to your left, edge towards you. Now visualize the blade and upper grip half gone, as these are identical in both linerlock and linerblock. Instead of a liner piece of foldable metal there's a monolithic block that folds into the grip scale, driven up behind the blade's lockpoint by a coil spring. The grip scales also need to be at least the same thickness as the blade and linerbar, and of either top-grade aluminum, maybe Ti, or even a decent stainless.

The pivot pin at the base of the linerbar is the tricky part, it's gonna hafta border on Godzilla-metal - and be as fat as possible. A small grade-8 hex-head bolt with the threads turned down where it goes through the linerbar might be a start.

Jim March

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited 27 November 1998).]
 
Okay, yeah, I got the gist of it. Basically, the idea is to get as much metal into the gap between the two handles as possible while still keep the entire operation one-handed. Heck, I can see most of an entire liner being used for this maybe.

I've thought about it myself, building a better locking mechanism I mean. Again, the best proposal I can come with right now is the reverse lockback; a beefed-up lockback, except with no point for pushing. The lifting/locking end of the lever has a disc that you can lift instead. Hmm.. maybe when I have some spare time, I'll sketch one up.
 
The sweetest version of that, or at least of what I think you mean, can be seen in some of Pat Crawfords lockbacks. No pivot pin, the locking bar is part of the entire frame, with a "disk" for the fingers to get ahold of to unlock it. Check them out and see if this isn't what you are refering to. I don't have an URL, but that shouldn't be too hard to find. Try the "links" section from the front page. Sorry, but I am not sure just what the series of folder is that use this system. Didn't mean to shoot down your new idea, but when I saw these, I couldn't help but think that they were the "ultimate" in simplicity!
 
You design got me to thinkin', Jim, and I believe that I may have taken your desigh to its logical conclusion. I am not too much of an artist, so don't ask me to draw it, but picture this....instead of a fairly short bar with a coil spring, using a much longer bar that is moved by a leaf spring, um, sorta like a lockback mechanism, but on the side of a knife. it would alow for deep finger grooves, and wouldn't be disengaged by an errant index finger. The release could be sunken into the handle material on the butt end of the knife.
It would still call for a fairly large knife, I would estimate more than 5", but wouldn't collapse like a linr, nor could it slip out of its socket like a lockback...hmmmmm...what's the number to the patent office?....Oh well...

------------------
Off in search of Knirvana....yek



[This message has been edited by Yekim (edited 30 November 1998).]
 
UPDATE: MICROTECH IS *USING* THE LINERBAR!!!

The new Kestral's lock:
kes123.jpg


More pics of the knife are at:
http://www.kasallmicrotech.com/mt_kestral_hawk.html

Now, I first published the linerbar idea on Nov. 9th, 98. The MT photos are of a pre-production knife. Did they copy me, or is it coincidence?!

Either way it's one HELL of an ego boost
biggrin.gif


Jim March
 
Jim,

Well done! Im a bit envious frankly as I too came up with an idea about 6 months ago that Rick and his staff tried to digest. Problem is that I'm not much of a draftsman and my words apparently didn't convey the idea well enough so we all dropped it. The reason I say this is that regardless of who was first, two things: great minds think alike and second, most manufacturers are always on the look out for a better mousetrap.

By the way, my concept involved a pin that slipped through the blade at lockup to further insure against inadvertant closure. The difficulty was explaining the activation mechanism which was an extrapolation from the trigger linkage found in a Browning Hi-Power semi-auto pistol. This extrapolation involved linking across the plain of the blade and hence the difficulty in description. Suffice it to say that pivot points and linkages were going to be very critical to effective insertion and extraction of the locking pin.

Well done!

------------------
-=[Bob]=-

Keep yer powder dry and cutters hair poppin' sharp!


 
I surely think that things like these SHOULD become known for sure: who did what, when, who contributed, how *did* the actual idea come about and surface later.

But then again, it's not so clear, whether your idea started, pushed forward, or completed the actualization. Do you, Jim, see here the economical connections (with respect to which you were, in effect [think-think-think], cautious in another thread, "C-Warrior", just a while ago)? You'll receive what's convenient for "them", I'd guess, though you've really accomplished something real in the lock design.

Not to depress you, but to remind of the "selective causality" - and honor - in our (only) world.

Markku

PS. And hope the SC does not hit you!

 
The lock design on the new kestral is the same idea/principal as the Dragon Slayer, then Nemesis that is at least 3 years old, it's just a little wider.

 
CJ: I'd never seen either but you just confirmed what Microtech said.

Microtech responded to my EMail with the following:
------------
From: Microtech <microtech@giol.net>
To: jmarch@ricochet.net <jmarch@ricochet.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 3:52 PM
Subject: BAR LOCK

Dear Jim,

In reference to the e-mail you sent us on January 26,1999, the Kestrel's blade locking mechanism was originated from the Excalibur made for a customer and sent out in mid February 1997. This is our history of the MICROBAR TM, Tony Marfione designed the locking mechanism for the new out the front opener, Excalibur soon to become the custom model Dragon Slayer, to provide positive optimal locking on the blade for rugged usage on this model, as well as other models he had in mind. Then the Dragon Slayer was produced for the 1997 Blade Show in May, which at that time Tony began working on incorporating the bar lock in the folders and the production model of the Dragon Slayer called the Nemesis III. Now that brings us back to the Kestrel, this is the first folder to inherit the third generation bar lock called the MICROBAR TM.

I hope that we answered your questions about the MICROBAR TM. We have never seen your proposed lock design published anywhere before. Today was the first time Tony and I saw your layout and design which is, I believe, very different than any locking mechanism's that we use here at Micro Technology, including the MICROBAR TM.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact us by phone or e-mail.

Thank You,

Wayne Viscusi
-----------------

So it looks like there's no relationship. Drat. Oh well...it's still kinda cool, but unfortunately it means nobody ELSE can use this lockwork unless by license from MT. And so far, Microtech has shown zero interest in producing a megafolder, which I'm still convinced this lock is proper for, regardless of name!

Jim March
 
Hi Bob,knowing the P-35,I think that your idea would work.Isn`t it amaxing what removing the mag. safety alone does for the trigger pull?

------------------

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top