Set it, and forget it mofo..... :thumbup:
Is it just me or do Ron and bob meucci favor one another lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you Aim Off to compensate for sidespin
- Thread starter precisepotting
- Start date
Is it just me or do Ron and bob meucci favor one another lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't true all the time.
Whether to aim off to the right or to the left of the object ball fractionally if you are going to do a right side spin would depend on a few factors. I will not go into that here. Too lengthy and too technical.
I started this thread to know if you compensate for the sqwerve as you go down or you go down on the shot then compensate for the sqwerve.
Last edited:
Please don't answer like that. You've got people interested. We've only dissected "cueball deflection" for twenty (20) years. And 20 years ago, the majority of us were highly technical.
What WW said is correct. You're he newby at this. Go ahead and give your opinion on when this doesn't happen. Else, why would anyone continue to read what you've got to offer.
A small correction to that. The problem of squirt or "cueball deflection" was first described on-line in March, 1993, so far as I can tell. That would put us at somewhat over 24 years of on-line technical discussion about it.
We arrived more or less at our current understanding of the technical reasons behind squirt with Ron Shepard's paper about it in 2001. (Summary of the paper)
Here is a summary of the state of affairs as I saw it that I wrote in December 1998. "Rosabelle" refers to an earlier description by cuemaker Thomas Wayne. J&S refers to Bob Jewett and Ron Shepard.
*************
Nobody asked, but here is the way it appears to someone who was not around
during the Rosabelle administration.
Well before February 1997, J&S were well aware that the sideways momentum
of the cueball (the squirt) and the sideways momentum of the front of the
stick had to be equal and opposite. The amount of momentum in either
direction was the sideways force added up over the contact period. The
nature of the sideways force--i.e., what caused it--was unclear, and J,S,
and others focused on trying to understand the origin of this force, with
the belief that once they fully understood the nature of the force, they
would know how shafts could be designed to minimize it. I believe J&S
knew that irrespective of the origin of the sideways force, increasing the
mass at the end of the stick would increase the added up force and
therefore increase squirt. In this sense, they knew the role of endmass.
They also knew, IMO, that decreasing the mass at the end of the stick
would decrease squirt. Where it gets fuzzy is that I don't think they
fully appreciated the degree to which that is true. In other words I
think they surmised that other physical factors responsible for this
sideways force would compete with mass as important design variables for
reducing squirt.
Then came Rosabelle Believe and TW's contention that end mass was the
key--even overwhelming--design feature that determined the amount of
squirt.
Then came an important philosophical difference. To Thomas, if a cuemaker
knows what to do to make shafts with desired properties, the problem is
solved. To J&S, the problem is not solved until there is an understanding
of the cause of the sideways force and its magnitude over the contact
time.
***********
Thomas Wayne's "Rosabelle, believe!" post
Here is Thomas's post:
From: Thomas Wayne <twc@***.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:10:44 GMT
Subject: "Rosabelle, believe!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
Lines: 119
Deflection/Squirt and the Predator shaft phenomenon explained:
First a bit of history…
My first experiments with loaded shafts came about for the same reasons
as many other cuemakers: the search for better performance. Yes, that’s
right, the brass weighted ferrule (I tried steel) is OLD news. Many
before me, and many after me have played with it, all obtaining the same
results. I won’t bore you with the physics involved (though believe me,
I could), but the massive sideways cueball movement caused by a weighted
ferrule proves conclusively that greater tip mass produces less shaft
DEFLECTION (correct use of term; see B. Stroud definitions) and
correspondingly greater cueball deflection, which we lovingly call
"SQUIRT". This discovery prompted the question: What happens if we
REDUCE the mass at the tip of the shaft (I have coined the descriptive
phrase "negative loaded ferrule")? The answer to this helped me solve
another problem (actually two problems) I was having with Ivory
ferrules.
Because the winters in Alaska are so dry, Ivory ferrules tended to crack
uncontrollably. After much experimentation, I discovered that replacing
the standard maple tenon inside the ferrule with a softer wood allowed
the Ivory to shrink around the tenon -compressing it slightly- without
cracking the ferrule. This in turn led to another interesting
discovery. Ivory ferrules weigh approximately 25% more than phenolic
ferrules and, as I already knew, this causes them to exhibit more
squirt. Lo and behold, the softer tenon also weighs substantially less
than a maple tenon, and this factor eliminated the increase in squirt
caused by the heavier Ivory ferrule. The softer wood I use is Alaskan
Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as maple, but weighs almost
as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least tendency to warp of any
wood I have ever seen.
Fast forward to the early nineties. Alan Clawson approached me at a
tournament in Philadelphia to show me the new innovation he was involved
with: the Predator shaft/ferrule system. At that time, they wanted to
interest other cuemakers in buying laminated shafts from their company.
In the original illustrations he showed me, the ferrule tenon was drawn
as a SOLID phenolic rod. Of course, in production, the Predator ferrule
tenon is actually a thin walled HOLLOW phenolic tube extending about 2
to 3 inches into the shaft. To this day, I don’t know if the diagram I
was shown was a "smoke screen", or if they had intended to originally
use solid rod. Based on my understanding that it was to be solid, I
knew I wasn’t interested (phenolic weighs much more than maple), so I
passed. Incidentally, the idea of a laminated shaft is as old as the
hills; most of us have experimented with it at one time or another. In
fact, I have been told by a number of other long-time cuemakers that
George Balabushka experimented with laminated shafts in the sixties! As
an interesting bit of trivia, the Predator shaft is NOT patented (I
don’t believe it can be); the only patent of record for a laminated
shaft is co-held by Colorado cuemaker Dave Kikel. Nor have I been able
to find any recorded patent for the Predator ferrule system. Of course,
if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator, all he
has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the business
end of a shaft and use an additional ¾ inch or so for the ferrule tenon.
So, now you know just as much as I do about the Predator shaft (well,
maybe not quite as much), but we still haven’t answered two key
questions: 1) Why does the shaft with lower tip-mass (negative
loaded) squirt less? And 2) Should we really care so much about this
great spawn-of-Satan: SQUIRT?
Why lower tip mass reduces squirt if easy: the
equal-and-opposite-reaction principle factors in relative mass. Lets
ignore, for a moment, the major linear forces involved in driving the
cueball down the table, and just focus on the peripheral forces caused
by an off-center hit. And, for the purpose of illustration, lets liken
that action to one of hitting a round ball with a hammer- sort of like a
croquet mallet. If it’s a tennis ball and a sledge hammer, the ball is
gonna zoom with very little effect on the sledge. But if it’s a tack
hammer versus a bowling ball, well, I hope you get the picture. (Go
ahead and talk among yourselves a bit, if you need.) The lower mass
shaft tip is more easily moved aside- NOT flexed or bent, simply
shifted- by the cueball, resulting in what? Less squirt!
But is this result good? Do we really want less squirt, do we need less
squirt? ("…You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" Jack
Nicholson in *A Few Good Men*) Allow me to draw an analogy that relates
to my own profession… Every metal lathe in my shop has a dial attached
to the crank handles on the cross-slides. These dials are calibrated
with index marks that indicate each increment of travel occurring during
the use of the crank handle. So, by paying attention to these dials, I
can monitor and control the travel of the cross-slide (and therefore the
cutting tool) to an accuracy of ½ of one thousandth of an inch! If I
really wanted control, I could fit these cranks with dials twice as big,
with twice as many graduations. What I actually have done is equip
each lathe with electronic digital readouts which are accurate to 100
times the cross-slide dials. This gives me LOTS of fine-tune
adjustment. Now suppose instead I put little bitty dials with just a
few graduations on my cross-slides. Boy, I sure wouldn’t have much
range of control, now would I? Have you noticed how the Predator fans
have praised the small amount of english required to achieve dramatic
results? Wow! I just hope you always are applying the english exactly
the way you want it. After all, the cue doesn’t know whether you
executed the shot correctly, it just blindly performs as you direct it
to. I don’t think anyone would disagree that any cue that enhances and
amplifies good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify BAD
execution. If the car you drive is typical, it requires 2 ½ revolutions
of the steering wheel to turn the tightest radius possible for that
particular make/model. But certainly Detroit has the technology to
equip your car with a steering mechanism which could crank the front
wheels "lock-to-lock" with just a quarter turn of the steering wheel.
Would you like that? Huh, would ya? I didn’t think so.
Squirt exists. Every top player has learned to work with and around
it. If you believe that your game will be better with a "squirtless"
cue, buy a Predator. Or ask your favorite cuemaker to make you a
low-mass-tip (negative loaded) shaft. If he didn’t know how before (no
shame in that, very few do) he certainly will after he reads this
article. Just don’t blame me if your higher highs come with some lower
lows. My friend Bill, the mountain biker, loves to buy the latest in
titanium seat-post bolts- at $60 a pop- so he can shave 1/3 ounce off
his bike. My suggestion of passing up lunch to shave 1/3 ounce off his
ass seems to fall on deaf ears. As my water-skiing training partner,
Bob, loves to say (about new, ‘improved’ equipment): "Everybody wants to
BUY a better turn". My advice, as someone who really does know a little
something about pool cues and about physics, is: focus on improving
your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in pool the same way
you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).
TW
Here is Thomas's post:
From: Thomas Wayne <twc@***.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:10:44 GMT
Subject: "Rosabelle, believe!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
Lines: 119
Deflection/Squirt and the Predator shaft phenomenon explained:
First a bit of history…
My first experiments with loaded shafts came about for the same reasons
as many other cuemakers: the search for better performance. Yes, that’s
right, the brass weighted ferrule (I tried steel) is OLD news. Many
before me, and many after me have played with it, all obtaining the same
results. I won’t bore you with the physics involved (though believe me,
I could), but the massive sideways cueball movement caused by a weighted
ferrule proves conclusively that greater tip mass produces less shaft
DEFLECTION (correct use of term; see B. Stroud definitions) and
correspondingly greater cueball deflection, which we lovingly call
"SQUIRT". This discovery prompted the question: What happens if we
REDUCE the mass at the tip of the shaft (I have coined the descriptive
phrase "negative loaded ferrule")? The answer to this helped me solve
another problem (actually two problems) I was having with Ivory
ferrules.
Because the winters in Alaska are so dry, Ivory ferrules tended to crack
uncontrollably. After much experimentation, I discovered that replacing
the standard maple tenon inside the ferrule with a softer wood allowed
the Ivory to shrink around the tenon -compressing it slightly- without
cracking the ferrule. This in turn led to another interesting
discovery. Ivory ferrules weigh approximately 25% more than phenolic
ferrules and, as I already knew, this causes them to exhibit more
squirt. Lo and behold, the softer tenon also weighs substantially less
than a maple tenon, and this factor eliminated the increase in squirt
caused by the heavier Ivory ferrule. The softer wood I use is Alaskan
Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as maple, but weighs almost
as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least tendency to warp of any
wood I have ever seen.
Fast forward to the early nineties. Alan Clawson approached me at a
tournament in Philadelphia to show me the new innovation he was involved
with: the Predator shaft/ferrule system. At that time, they wanted to
interest other cuemakers in buying laminated shafts from their company.
In the original illustrations he showed me, the ferrule tenon was drawn
as a SOLID phenolic rod. Of course, in production, the Predator ferrule
tenon is actually a thin walled HOLLOW phenolic tube extending about 2
to 3 inches into the shaft. To this day, I don’t know if the diagram I
was shown was a "smoke screen", or if they had intended to originally
use solid rod. Based on my understanding that it was to be solid, I
knew I wasn’t interested (phenolic weighs much more than maple), so I
passed. Incidentally, the idea of a laminated shaft is as old as the
hills; most of us have experimented with it at one time or another. In
fact, I have been told by a number of other long-time cuemakers that
George Balabushka experimented with laminated shafts in the sixties! As
an interesting bit of trivia, the Predator shaft is NOT patented (I
don’t believe it can be); the only patent of record for a laminated
shaft is co-held by Colorado cuemaker Dave Kikel. Nor have I been able
to find any recorded patent for the Predator ferrule system. Of course,
if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator, all he
has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the business
end of a shaft and use an additional ¾ inch or so for the ferrule tenon.
So, now you know just as much as I do about the Predator shaft (well,
maybe not quite as much), but we still haven’t answered two key
questions: 1) Why does the shaft with lower tip-mass (negative
loaded) squirt less? And 2) Should we really care so much about this
great spawn-of-Satan: SQUIRT?
Why lower tip mass reduces squirt if easy: the
equal-and-opposite-reaction principle factors in relative mass. Lets
ignore, for a moment, the major linear forces involved in driving the
cueball down the table, and just focus on the peripheral forces caused
by an off-center hit. And, for the purpose of illustration, lets liken
that action to one of hitting a round ball with a hammer- sort of like a
croquet mallet. If it’s a tennis ball and a sledge hammer, the ball is
gonna zoom with very little effect on the sledge. But if it’s a tack
hammer versus a bowling ball, well, I hope you get the picture. (Go
ahead and talk among yourselves a bit, if you need.) The lower mass
shaft tip is more easily moved aside- NOT flexed or bent, simply
shifted- by the cueball, resulting in what? Less squirt!
But is this result good? Do we really want less squirt, do we need less
squirt? ("…You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" Jack
Nicholson in *A Few Good Men*) Allow me to draw an analogy that relates
to my own profession… Every metal lathe in my shop has a dial attached
to the crank handles on the cross-slides. These dials are calibrated
with index marks that indicate each increment of travel occurring during
the use of the crank handle. So, by paying attention to these dials, I
can monitor and control the travel of the cross-slide (and therefore the
cutting tool) to an accuracy of ½ of one thousandth of an inch! If I
really wanted control, I could fit these cranks with dials twice as big,
with twice as many graduations. What I actually have done is equip
each lathe with electronic digital readouts which are accurate to 100
times the cross-slide dials. This gives me LOTS of fine-tune
adjustment. Now suppose instead I put little bitty dials with just a
few graduations on my cross-slides. Boy, I sure wouldn’t have much
range of control, now would I? Have you noticed how the Predator fans
have praised the small amount of english required to achieve dramatic
results? Wow! I just hope you always are applying the english exactly
the way you want it. After all, the cue doesn’t know whether you
executed the shot correctly, it just blindly performs as you direct it
to. I don’t think anyone would disagree that any cue that enhances and
amplifies good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify BAD
execution. If the car you drive is typical, it requires 2 ½ revolutions
of the steering wheel to turn the tightest radius possible for that
particular make/model. But certainly Detroit has the technology to
equip your car with a steering mechanism which could crank the front
wheels "lock-to-lock" with just a quarter turn of the steering wheel.
Would you like that? Huh, would ya? I didn’t think so.
Squirt exists. Every top player has learned to work with and around
it. If you believe that your game will be better with a "squirtless"
cue, buy a Predator. Or ask your favorite cuemaker to make you a
low-mass-tip (negative loaded) shaft. If he didn’t know how before (no
shame in that, very few do) he certainly will after he reads this
article. Just don’t blame me if your higher highs come with some lower
lows. My friend Bill, the mountain biker, loves to buy the latest in
titanium seat-post bolts- at $60 a pop- so he can shave 1/3 ounce off
his bike. My suggestion of passing up lunch to shave 1/3 ounce off his
ass seems to fall on deaf ears. As my water-skiing training partner,
Bob, loves to say (about new, ‘improved’ equipment): "Everybody wants to
BUY a better turn". My advice, as someone who really does know a little
something about pool cues and about physics, is: focus on improving
your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in pool the same way
you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).
TW
My intention was not to let the thread stray hence I do not want to explain. Anyway, I will give a scenario that prove otherwise that you do not always aim in the opposite direction to compensate when you play sidespin:
Just a scenario:
If the cue ball and the object ball is about half a ball apart, and you want to impart a right sidespin. However, there are some balls in the way such that you are unable to put your bridge near the cue ball. Your bridge is quite a distance back. Now, do you compensate and aimed a little towards to the right of your intended point of contact or to the left? In this instance, you have to aim a little to the right and not to the left.
Mike Page gives an accurate cause of squirt which was what I concluded too.
Just a scenario:
If the cue ball and the object ball is about half a ball apart, and you want to impart a right sidespin. However, there are some balls in the way such that you are unable to put your bridge near the cue ball. Your bridge is quite a distance back. Now, do you compensate and aimed a little towards to the right of your intended point of contact or to the left? In this instance, you have to aim a little to the right and not to the left.
Mike Page gives an accurate cause of squirt which was what I concluded too.
I'd think that has to do more with CIT in that instance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
best-laid plans of mice and men...
Since the word "pivot" has appeared 32 times in this thread, and you're still reading,
I'll share a little video I founds from several years ago describing the aim&pivot, also known as backhand english idea. Apparently I did this and never shared it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T_-forEDWA
Last edited:
Swerve. And Squirt. And throw.
I call it Effective Squirt. I teach different starting points based on which dominates for that particular speed and distance combination. The range is the same roughly for all cues; the offset is different. Your method like many others attempts to have a logical way to answer both.
I'm 100% sure I told you this before. I know where you're going, and I said last year, great for independently discovering these nuances and coming up with your own method, but I guarantee it's simply not new.
When we've been dissecting this for over 20 years, it just isnt new.
For those interested, a complete summary of all of the squirt, swerve, and throw effects that have been dissected, analyzed, and tested for so many years can be found with supporting resources in the numbered list beneath the videos and illustrations here:
squirt, swerve, throw effects
Enjoy,
Dave
Last edited:
Some just don't understand the heights of many of our members "nerdiness" lol we can give any club or endeavor a good run imop lol.
No coincidence so many have an engineering type background as pool just begs for the attention of such
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess for the initial question. I do a starting aim point based on which is dominant for that shot (Squirt or Swerve) and I pivot at my Effective Aim&Pivot bridge length for Effective Squirt (Squirt and SIT) compensation
If I have to have a shorter or longer pivot length due to bridge constraints, I adjust my starting aim point accordingly, then pivot.
Some cues, I can just increase the pivot length for longer and/or slower shots because that Squirt/swerve blend (squerve) is different for that length or speed. Some cues, it's not a reasonable method.
I don't suggest this for anyone else.
If I have to have a shorter or longer pivot length due to bridge constraints, I adjust my starting aim point accordingly, then pivot.
Some cues, I can just increase the pivot length for longer and/or slower shots because that Squirt/swerve blend (squerve) is different for that length or speed. Some cues, it's not a reasonable method.
I don't suggest this for anyone else.
Last edited:
link doesn't work for me
\
Some extra stuff was in the original link likely because Mike had been editing it. Here is the guest-friendly link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T_-forEDWA
Jacked up
There are also differences in "normal squirt" when you're jacked up over a ball and when you choose to use Top Right or Left as in 11 or 2 o'clock cueing vs 9 o'clock or 3 o'clock. For these you get less squirt and more swerve making things a little harder to accurately predict but at fairly short distances you can about count that the amount will be approximately half of 9 or 3 o' clock cueing if you aren't jacked up. Jacked up is very unpredictable.
There are also differences in "normal squirt" when you're jacked up over a ball and when you choose to use Top Right or Left as in 11 or 2 o'clock cueing vs 9 o'clock or 3 o'clock. For these you get less squirt and more swerve making things a little harder to accurately predict but at fairly short distances you can about count that the amount will be approximately half of 9 or 3 o' clock cueing if you aren't jacked up. Jacked up is very unpredictable.
My apology to WildWing. I have read his statement wrongly. He is absolutely right when he says that if you play right english, the ball will deflect to the opposite direction (ie. left in this instance) - in a broad sense.
Hi Cornerman Freddie, I am not touting about anything. Do not read between the lines when there isn't. I am just curious as to when you compensate for the offset. Before you go down for the shot or after you go down for the shot. You aimed at a different point while standing upright or you go down for the original shot, shift your bridge sideways to make it aim at a different spot. Which method do most use? From what I read, most seemed to adjust their aiming point while standing upright.
Hi Cornerman Freddie, I am not touting about anything. Do not read between the lines when there isn't. I am just curious as to when you compensate for the offset. Before you go down for the shot or after you go down for the shot. You aimed at a different point while standing upright or you go down for the original shot, shift your bridge sideways to make it aim at a different spot. Which method do most use? From what I read, most seemed to adjust their aiming point while standing upright.
Take a taxi?