Chalk Experiment Results, with Video
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I think that the spin generation tests were inconclusive. People have long known that chalk at the contact point changes the result. This was often used to gaffe the balls for proposition shots.
Perhaps Dave you could point out just what marketing claims you were setting out to test?
Kamui for example has said that you can go longer without chalking and that was bourne out with your test. They also said they reduce deflection - something that wasn't proven in your test.
I also question the abrasiveness claim you made that chalking wears down the tip. In order to wear dwn the tip chalking would need to be so abrasive as to remove leather and I contend that this is not what happens. Scuffing removes leather by sanding with force applied.
The advice to wipe off the cue ball every time possible is golden though and something I will definitely adopt as a habit after seeing the video. We don't think enough about the possibility of the chalk residue affecting the shots we take.
I guess John Schmidt was right all along to insist on the balls being cleaned between racks.
Perhaps Dave you could point out just what marketing claims you were setting out to test?
Kamui for example has said that you can go longer without chalking and that was bourne out with your test. They also said they reduce deflection - something that wasn't proven in your test.
I also question the abrasiveness claim you made that chalking wears down the tip. In order to wear dwn the tip chalking would need to be so abrasive as to remove leather and I contend that this is not what happens. Scuffing removes leather by sanding with force applied.
The advice to wipe off the cue ball every time possible is golden though and something I will definitely adopt as a habit after seeing the video. We don't think enough about the possibility of the chalk residue affecting the shots we take.
I guess John Schmidt was right all along to insist on the balls being cleaned between racks.
Last edited:
I'm 99.99999% positive that the words he used were, "A possible advantage of the other chalks is that they might help keep the tip slightly scuffed..."
Which is not the same as claiming that chalking wears down the tip. I have no issue with the statements that he made in the video.
And like you, I think that I will start wiping the cue ball off every chance I get.
I think that the spin generation tests were inconclusive. People have long known that chalk at the contact point changes the result. This was often used to gaffe the balls for proposition shots.
Perhaps Dave you could point out just what marketing claims you were setting out to test?
Kamui for example has said that you can go longer without chalking and that was born out with your test. They also said they reduce deflection - something that wasn't proven in your test.
I also question the abrasiveness claim you made that chalking wears down the tip. In order to wear dwn the tip chalking would need to be so abrasive as to remove leather and I contend that this is not what happens. Scuffing removes leather by sanding with force applied.
The advice to wipe off the cue ball every time possible is golden though and something I will definitely adopt as a habit after seeing the video. We don't think enough about the possibility of the chalk residue affecting the shots we take.
I guess John Schmidt was right all along to insist on the balls being cleaned between racks.
I saw my parents eyes lit up when they saw my first cue case, I knew they must've played pool or knew a thing or two but never got about to asking them.
It's until now that I finally realize what they truly meant when they told me to clean my balls thoroughly and formed that habit since I was a child...but ofcourse I was young and naive and took it out of context and assumed it was a matter personal hygiene. I could've gone pro...dam public education..
Dr. Dave - I'm not sure of the value of this video because the results completely show your human variation over the performance of the chalk.
1) Your throw test:
The throw factor for each chalk will be a constant, not a variable, given the same angle / stroke speed. You kept showing where the OB was hitting the rail, but a huge % of those results were based on how you chose to hit that particular shot. To have any real scientific value (i.e. to show true chalk performance), you must remove yourself from the experiment and find a way to deliver the cue exactly the same every time, similar to a robotic arm. Otherwise, you're adding huge amounts of human variation into something that should be demonstrating a constant on a per-brand basis.
2) # of Shots to Miscue:
Once again, this test really didn't show anything other than adding your stroke imperfections and stroke variations into a test that should be netting something very close to a constant, assuming the exact same stroke plane, stroke speed, amount of chalk applied and tip offset. For example, you were testing both sides of the ball which wasn't required for this test. You were miscuing faster on one side than the other, which has nothing to do with the chalk performance, that had to do with variation in your own setup and cue delivery. All you had to do was test on one side of the ball and at the equator in order to derive a performance factor, which once again should be a very close to a constant under a controlled experiment using a robotic arm.
3) Miscue limit:
Without a cue on a robotic pendulum or robotic arm, your stroke plays too large of a role in order to extrapolate a meaningful data, which also should equate to a constant.
Before you say, "Well, I didn't have a robotic arm and I did the best with what I had," that's fine--- and I'm sure you did --- but the value of the test is questionable since the input methods were completely non-scientific. If you look at the miscue videos, your stroke was on a different vector, different plane and different speed each and every time. Too much human bias. For example, if chalk A allowed for 2mm of additional offset, that might be HUGE for the player in the long run, however, your tip delivery isn't that precise on a repeatable basis to determine that resolution (neither is mine).
This post is merely meant to point out flaws that almost annihilate the conclusion. I clicked on the video because I was highly interested in this particular test, but when I saw how the tests were executed, I sighed a little in disappointment. I think Bob Meucci posted some videos years ago of a robotic arm w/ a cue tip that he used to test shaft deflection. That's the exact setup you would need to accomplish your goal of testing chalk performance.
I think this test can serve as data for a raw hypothesis, but certainly not meaningful conclusion.
For the record, you could have had Franciso Bustamante hit those shots for you and I would have posted the same thing, so please don't think I'm knocking your stroke or anything -- a human couldn't be allowed to strike the CB for these tests.
Dave
1) Your throw test:
The throw factor for each chalk will be a constant, not a variable, given the same angle / stroke speed. You kept showing where the OB was hitting the rail, but a huge % of those results were based on how you chose to hit that particular shot. To have any real scientific value (i.e. to show true chalk performance), you must remove yourself from the experiment and find a way to deliver the cue exactly the same every time, similar to a robotic arm. Otherwise, you're adding huge amounts of human variation into something that should be demonstrating a constant on a per-brand basis.
2) # of Shots to Miscue:
Once again, this test really didn't show anything other than adding your stroke imperfections and stroke variations into a test that should be netting something very close to a constant, assuming the exact same stroke plane, stroke speed, amount of chalk applied and tip offset. For example, you were testing both sides of the ball which wasn't required for this test. You were miscuing faster on one side than the other, which has nothing to do with the chalk performance, that had to do with variation in your own setup and cue delivery. All you had to do was test on one side of the ball and at the equator in order to derive a performance factor, which once again should be a very close to a constant under a controlled experiment using a robotic arm.
3) Miscue limit:
Without a cue on a robotic pendulum or robotic arm, your stroke plays too large of a role in order to extrapolate a meaningful data, which also should equate to a constant.
Before you say, "Well, I didn't have a robotic arm and I did the best with what I had," that's fine--- and I'm sure you did --- but the value of the test is questionable since the input methods were completely non-scientific. If you look at the miscue videos, your stroke was on a different vector, different plane and different speed each and every time. Too much human bias. For example, if chalk A allowed for 2mm of additional offset, that might be HUGE for the player in the long run, however, your tip delivery isn't that precise on a repeatable basis to determine that resolution (neither is mine).
This post is merely meant to point out flaws that almost annihilate the conclusion. I clicked on the video because I was highly interested in this particular test, but when I saw how the tests were executed, I sighed a little in disappointment. I think Bob Meucci posted some videos years ago of a robotic arm w/ a cue tip that he used to test shaft deflection. That's the exact setup you would need to accomplish your goal of testing chalk performance.
I think this test can serve as data for a raw hypothesis, but certainly not meaningful conclusion.
For the record, you could have had Franciso Bustamante hit those shots for you and I would have posted the same thing, so please don't think I'm knocking your stroke or anything -- a human couldn't be allowed to strike the CB for these tests.
Dave
Last edited:
He said that Kamui chalk might not wear down the tip as much because of the lower abrasiveness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=imkXZollUtc#t=1155
This is actually a claim that Kamui has made as well. I personally don't think that any other chalk wears the tip down. I have never been able to remove material or even scuff leather using pool chalk. I do understand that it's intended to be abrasive particles. But for material to be removed the abrasive used has to RESIST the force being applied and that's not how chalk works. Chalk is held together in a relatively loose bond that is designed to transfer FROM the cube onto the surface being rubbed against. That is counter to the idea that it should be removing material from the surface it's being applied to.
And analogy would be applying paint infused with sand to a skateboard. The paint doesn't remove any of the wood just because it's being brushed on. The dried paint however then becomes an abrasive surface which could then remove material from other surfaces.
The sand would remove material from both surfaces as it is removed from the board/paint.
None the less, I have seen no wear due to chalk within the lifespan of a tip.
"It might not wear the tip down as fast" was said to be a possible advantage to using Kamui.
I think it's a bunch of hooey, and I agree with JB. Aside from the fact that the man probably forgot more about leather than most tip makers ever knew, it just makes no sense to me.
The abrasives used in modern chalk formulations are very fine. I have done a little test of this by taking various chalks and rubbing a polished ball with a little powder transferred onto my finger. If anything, most chalk polishes the ball when this is done. If the abrasives were course enough to wear away a soft material like leather, they would destroy the high polish on a pool ball.
Another thing is that if the leather was wearing away, you would see the wear residue inside the hole in the chalk. All I have ever seen at the bottom of the hole is more chalk.
Not while it's being painted on. Not at any level detectable by a human at least.
This discussion goes back a long way. I was told by a friend to stop scuffing my tips and just use chalk and my tips would last forever and it's true. Once I stopped scuffing them they stopped getting thinner.
So the claim that chalk wears tips down is not accurate in my opinion.
I am still absorbing the information but that little part of me that knows better is screaming bullshit.....
Off speed loaded... you know if the tip slipped....
Deflection.. high speed... No way to know if the spin/speed ratio was different between chalks... testing at the high end for deflection is about the shaft mainly and minimally about the tip and nada about the chalk.....
As a whole this sample set did nothing but... Well it did nothing... could could have done just as well testing the different chalks based on a center ball hit on a straight in shot.......
I played 3 years phenolic... With bad chalk I never missed a ball due to chalk unless it was a bad miss cue and I had major slippage at contact.... Didn't change the deflection off my shaft on the semis but it showed up in my quality of english..... Nothing like hitting a ball perfect and wondering WHY whitey didn't dance for you.....
Did they use a hard or soft tip for testing? better yet a high cor vs low cor tip? I can send them a soft that won't need any chalk and won't missuce in normal miss cue limits during tests until tey pound it...
This not even close to over.. After 5 years of practical research and testing I know better..... and it will be worth more than a page on a website when we get to the meat of the meal.....
yeah I sell sheet... Tips and chalk and assundries... I don't and won't sell bs... And I will fight when someone calls BS with an empty or questionable quiver of arrows...
I know they at least have a quiver... but I am not sure its even meant for arrows...
Chris
Off speed loaded... you know if the tip slipped....
Deflection.. high speed... No way to know if the spin/speed ratio was different between chalks... testing at the high end for deflection is about the shaft mainly and minimally about the tip and nada about the chalk.....
As a whole this sample set did nothing but... Well it did nothing... could could have done just as well testing the different chalks based on a center ball hit on a straight in shot.......
I played 3 years phenolic... With bad chalk I never missed a ball due to chalk unless it was a bad miss cue and I had major slippage at contact.... Didn't change the deflection off my shaft on the semis but it showed up in my quality of english..... Nothing like hitting a ball perfect and wondering WHY whitey didn't dance for you.....
Did they use a hard or soft tip for testing? better yet a high cor vs low cor tip? I can send them a soft that won't need any chalk and won't missuce in normal miss cue limits during tests until tey pound it...
This not even close to over.. After 5 years of practical research and testing I know better..... and it will be worth more than a page on a website when we get to the meat of the meal.....
yeah I sell sheet... Tips and chalk and assundries... I don't and won't sell bs... And I will fight when someone calls BS with an empty or questionable quiver of arrows...
I know they at least have a quiver... but I am not sure its even meant for arrows...
Chris
Hell RJ, You & I already know Magic Chalk is some of the best chalk made, it just took you a little longer to get on the bus. :wink:
So your conclusion is......unless you stroke arm is robotic, it doesn't matter which chalk you use. No one person is accurate enough to see any substantial difference in the chalk. Is that a fair assessment?
One thing that can be proven for sure, Kamui chalk certainly isn't worth the money they want for it. No chalk will improve your game no matter how much it costs.
I am amazed that you can speak so officiously on something that you have so little knowledge or understanding of.
When I was playing the most I would wear out a tip in three months. I never scuffed or tapped my tip.
The majority of the wear would come when the chalk is doing its job. On contact with the cue ball.
Your theory that chalk is too soft to wear out a tip does not hold up.
Consider the barber stropping his razor on the leather strap.
I didn't see anything on deflection in his test. It was skid/cling he was testing for. Not sure where you got that one from.
.........................
Last edited:
Watch the video linked it has a deflection section...
Time stamp for it? Only thing close I seen was he was talking about throw, not deflection.
Last edited:
I think that the spin generation tests were inconclusive. People have long known that chalk at the contact point changes the result. This was often used to gaffe the balls for proposition shots.
Perhaps Dave you could point out just what marketing claims you were setting out to test?
Kamui for example has said that you can go longer without chalking and that was born out with your test. They also said they reduce deflection - something that wasn't proven in your test.
I also question the abrasiveness claim you made that chalking wears down the tip. In order to wear dwn the tip chalking would need to be so abrasive as to remove leather and I contend that this is not what happens. Scuffing removes leather by sanding with force applied.
The advice to wipe off the cue ball every time possible is golden though and something I will definitely adopt as a habit after seeing the video. We don't think enough about the possibility of the chalk residue affecting the shots we take.
I guess John Schmidt was right all along to insist on the balls being cleaned between racks.
I am awake for this....wow.... too many points but good chalk imbeds in the tip... doesn't wear it down......... bad chalk imbeds as well but you end up with glazing/burnishing of the top because it's all fillers and binders...
Last edited:
