Break cue weight

[dr_dave]

A better baseball analogy would be bat weight. A lighter bat can be swung faster, but a heavier bat has more mass. Some players can generate more bat momentum and ball speed (and distance) with a heavier bat (e.g., Babe Ruth), and some do better with a much lighter bat (e.g., Barry Bonds).

BTW, an excellent webpage dealing with baseball bat weight effects can be found here:

http://www.kettering.edu/physics/drussell/bats-new/batw8.html​

I enjoyed that!

I'm glad you enjoyed the link, but why do you insist on repeating links in posts so close together on the same page? This is very annoying! :angry:

... just kidding.:thumbup:

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

When I respond to previous posts that have links, it looks like I am adding the link again, but I am not. The link is part of the quote. I like quoting the message to which I am responding to provide context, but I can see how the re-appearance of the link (in the quote of the previous post) might annoy some people. I'll try to be more sensitive to this. Thank you for explaining your concern. Now I better understand where you are coming from.

Regards,
Dave

Dave, I'm not talking about quoting posts where the links "appear again" in the quoted text itself. I'm talking about two distinct posts, where in the response text (not the quoted text), you supply a link to the same page or resource as had appeared in a previous post by you.

For example, in a thread's post #5, you may say something like "I explain the effects of collision-induced throw in my CIT resource page at ...<insert URL here>." Then, some more posts will appear, and something might catch your eye in post #7 as a question, so in post #8, you'll write something like, "That's a good question, and the answer for that can be found on my CIT resource page at ...<insert URL here>" The same URL you listed in post #5!

You've even gone as far as linking individual words in some of your posts to the very same resource that you previously provided the URL for. Heck, just recently -- in the "Drill to stop elbow drop" thread -- you linked to the same video in the span of only two consecutive posts in response to me!

My personal suggestion? If you're worried about the lazy-lards who don't read (or at least skim) the entire contents of a thread, instead of spoon-feeding them (making the problem worse), force them to use their eye muscles to pull their eyeballs "up" to read previous posts. For example, you could say, in post #8, "that's a good question concerning collision-induced throw; please see post #5 in this thread immediately above for a good resource that answers this question and more!"

I'm glad you enjoyed the link, but why do insist on repeating links in posts so close together on the same page? This is very annoying! :angry:

... just kidding.:thumbup:

Regards,
Dave

Nice try, but that's "a swing and a miss." Wasn't what I was talking about, as explained above. But I felt the wind from that whiff way over here in NY. Sah-winngg batter-batter-batter!

-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

Nice try, but that's "a swing and a miss." Wasn't what I was talking about, as explained above. But I felt the wind from that whiff way over here in NY. Sah-winngg batter-batter-batter!

Maybe I'm using the wrong bat weight. :grin:

Regards,
Dave