PDA

View Full Version : On Target Tips: low deflection and hybrid tips.


Jaden
09-11-2013, 07:36 AM
Ok, the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Some of you out there already know and have had the opportunity to shoot with my low deflection tip. YES, you heard that correctly, it is a tip that makes any shaft low deflection.

The official launch will be in ~1 to 2 months.

My original intent was not to create a low deflection tip although I had suspected that the potential for the tip to reduce squirt was there.

I had spoken about it with Royce and like most people, he believed that a reduction in end mass was the only thing that could reduce cueball squirt.

I had accepted that and it took me a minute after testing the first prototype to even realize what had happened.

As many of you probably know from my past posts, I was a huge adherent to BHE. So much so in fact that I had begun to mark (with a sharpie) the pivot points on my non-LD shafts and cues.

It was one of those shafts that I had put my tip onto and during initial test trials, I kept missing shots while using BHE.

Then it dawned on me that I had suspected that reduced squirt could be a consequence of the design and I switched to not adjusting my aim for squirt and I started making everything.

That's where it all began.

Initially, I had two purposes in mind when I designed my tips. To eliminate mushrooming and to increase energy transfer on center ball hits.

I'll be offering two types of tips, a low deflection tip and a hybrid tip. Actually, both tips will be low deflection but one will be a true hybrid with a harder denser material in the center of the tip to promote better energy transfer where miscues are impossible and one will be more traditional with the encapsulation that allows it to reduce squirt.

I'm in the process of setting up the production facility and the website, so they are not quite ready to launch but they will be soon.

As some of you know, I travel a lot in my main career as a fiber optic network field engineer and that has given me the opportunity to show some AZers and pool players the prototypes of the tips and allow them to hit some balls with them.

The feedback from those that have hit with them has been entirely positive.

I'm willing to answer questions, but I do ask that we keep it cordial. I'm not looking to get into a bunch of arguments although I do understand that any time that results fly in the face of believed paradigms, there is resistance. That's why I've decided to send Dr. Dave a free tip for peer review. I'll be sending him one here in the next week or so, but Dave has said that it may be a while before he has a chance to doing any tests and that's no problem.

I'm confident enough in the results I have found that I'm sure that he will come to the same conclusion on the results even if we don't end up agreeing on the underlying mechanisms involved.

Jaden

iusedtoberich
09-11-2013, 08:39 AM
I've been waiting for someone to come out with a low deflection tip. After all, its the closest mass to the CB, closer than the ferrule and first few inches of the shaft wood.

Can you show a cross section of the tips? It sounds from your description that there might be a solid material inside of the tip, but a cross sectional view would certainly help in the understanding.

How does a "cut to size and shape" tip compare in mass to other tips?

Thanks.

Jaden
09-11-2013, 08:58 AM
I've been waiting for someone to come out with a low deflection tip. After all, its the closest mass to the CB, closer than the ferrule and first few inches of the shaft wood.

Can you show a cross section of the tips? It sounds from your description that there might be a solid material inside of the tip, but a cross sectional view would certainly help in the understanding.

How does a "cut to size and shape" tip compare in mass to other tips?

Thanks.

While discussing the materials I used with Don Owens, we both agreed that this tip SHOULD actually have a higher specific gravity that a conventional tip. Although I haven't actually tested its' specific gravity.

This is what I believe is happening and it flies in the face of the accepted paradigm as to the cause of squirt.

When contacting the ball off center, the tip and to a lesser degree the shaft actually bend toward the center of the cueball during contact.

You can see this in high speed photography at the point of contact. Conventional tips bend significantly.

When the tip ceases contact, the shaft then flexes away from the cue ball due to the stresses that bent it in the opposite direction.

Without further testing in combination with high speed photography and comparative analysis between my tips and conventional tips I can't verify this, but I believe that the tip and shaft is bending the exact amount that the cueball deviates from the original aim line.

I believe that THIS is the mechanism that is the main causative factor in squirt.

That's why when I first designed the tip, I thought that squirt might be reduced, because the design prevents or at least minimizes sideways deformation of the tip during an off center contact.

Basically it is an encapsulation of the layered leather in a harder material. The harder material on the outside edges of the tip force the compression of the leather to be straight back toward the shaft.

The reason that pure solid phenolic tips don't do the same thing I believe is because the tip has little to no give at all, so it forces the shaft to bend in the direction toward center ball and it still points in an off direction compared to the original aimline when contact ceases.

My tips are completely shape-able with standard tip shapers, they will wear down just like other tips, but unlike other tips, performance doesn't suffer when the tip is left taller off of the ferule.

I'll include a solid 3d representation of the tip along with a wireframe of it to give you a better idea of what it looks like.

Jaden

Ron Swanson
09-11-2013, 12:12 PM
An LD tip that you cannot miscue with? You'll make a fortune.

Cool name, too. Good luck with it.

Jaden
09-11-2013, 12:20 PM
An LD tip that you cannot miscue with? You'll make a fortune.

Cool name, too. Good luck with it.

No, the hybrid tip, which I haven't shown an illustration of yet has a different material in the center of the tip that is harder. Center ball hits can't miscue with any type of tip so what's in the center doesn't have to be a softer material that will grip the cueball better. This promotes better energy transfer on the center ball hits just like the harder tips that are used for break cues... but with your playing cue's tip and it still allows better grip on the shots with side spin.

Some will like it, some won't.

Jaden

x3dnd3x
09-11-2013, 12:28 PM
Interesting cue tip.

What would the cost be like for such cue tips? Estimated around the pricing of a Kamui/Moori?

mel_smOg
09-11-2013, 12:32 PM
I want to try it already!!

Jaden
09-11-2013, 12:39 PM
Interesting cue tip.

What would the cost be like for such cue tips? Estimated around the pricing of a Kamui/Moori?

Yeah the end price should be comparable to a kamui black.

Jaden

DallasHopps
09-11-2013, 12:44 PM
Yeah the end price should be comparable to a kamui black.

Jaden

Will you accept a voucher?:D

Matt
09-11-2013, 01:33 PM
I hope that you succeed in creating a quality product at a reasonable price. I believe that this approach to reducing squirt has potential.

Also, I don't think that what you're doing runs counter to the current approach of reducing the effective endmass of the cue. If I understand what's going on correctly, it seems like squirt is a cumulative effect including bunching of the tip, bending of the cue and the effective endmass as factors. That would mean putting this tip on a "low deflection" (lower endmass) shaft should result in even less squirt. Have you tried this out at all and quantified the effect?

Jaden
09-11-2013, 02:41 PM
I hope that you succeed in creating a quality product at a reasonable price. I believe that this approach to reducing squirt has potential.

Also, I don't think that what you're doing runs counter to the current approach of reducing the effective endmass of the cue. If I understand what's going on correctly, it seems like squirt is a cumulative effect including bunching of the tip, bending of the cue and the effective endmass as factors. That would mean putting this tip on a "low deflection" (lower endmass) shaft should result in even less squirt. Have you tried this out at all and quantified the effect?

That is the one thing that I have not done yet. That will be my next test. The ld shaft on my current playing cue is too thin I think but I'll put it on one of my cues that has an ld shaft as well.

I also have a Mezz wd700 that I can try it on.

Jaden

One thing I have noticed is that with really flexible shaft there is more squirt on longer shots. Something to chew on

Chip Roberson
09-11-2013, 02:57 PM
I would like to be a ginea pig on this product ,,if that's OK--wouldn't mind trying one on my Szamboti and compare it to the SS Kamiua thats on the shafts now--

Lonestar_jim
09-11-2013, 03:32 PM
Yes I volunteer to try it on my Szamboti too.:frown: :rolleyes::frown::rolleyes:

Maybe I should get a Szamboti first. :smile:

measureman
09-11-2013, 05:26 PM
Next will be low deflection chalk. Just wait and see.
Pretty soon the cue ball will deflect in the wrong direction.

ENGLISH!
09-11-2013, 05:42 PM
No, the hybrid tip, which I haven't shown an illustration of yet has a different material in the center of the tip that is harder. Center ball hits can't miscue with any type of tip so what's in the center doesn't have to be a softer material that will grip the cueball better. This promotes better energy transfer on the center ball hits just like the harder tips that are used for break cues... but with your playing cue's tip and it still allows better grip on the shots with side spin.

Some will like it, some won't.

Jaden

Jaden,

I'm not sure I fully understand how the low squirt tip thing might actually work but I think your out of the box thinking , so to speak, for center & offset hits can be a good thing.

I hope you have patents for all of this.

The best of luck with them.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Jaden
09-11-2013, 07:05 PM
Jaden,

I'm not sure I fully understand how the low squirt tip thing might actually work but I think your out of the box thinking , so to speak, for center & offset hits can be a good thing.

I hope you have patents for all of this.

The best of luck with them.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Thank you. I do have patents. I was really excited when I got my confirmation letters from the us patent office. I had sent a teaser pm to Dr Dave before I had the patents not being able to really say much.

Jaden

The Renfro
09-11-2013, 09:56 PM
Will be interesting to see how this progresses... I know from tons of testing that the hardest part of a tip is it's shoulder which is the main reason tips misscue if they are not properly burnished.....

Have you engineered or checked the COR measurements? I have access to lab equipment to do so if it's not available to you....

Chris

Jaden
09-12-2013, 12:51 AM
Will be interesting to see how this progresses... I know from tons of testing that the hardest part of a tip is it's shoulder which is the main reason tips misscue if they are not properly burnished.....

Have you engineered or checked the COR measurements? I have access to lab equipment to do so if it's not available to you....

Chris

Many people use more side spin than they need. One benefit of this tip is that if you go too far from center it will make a ping sound similar to the phenolic break tips. It still holds chalk and works on farther outside english shots, it just makes the ping sound, so if you'd like to train yourself to use less english as a rule, then this tip will help you do so by letting you know. Also if you're swooping because of stroke flaws, this lets you know it as well. What I mean by that is that if you're aiming close to center and you hear the ping, you know you have stroke flaws that you need to work out.

Jaden

The Renfro
09-12-2013, 01:05 AM
Many people use more side spin than they need. One benefit of this tip is that if you go too far from center it will make a ping sound similar to the phenolic break tips. It still holds chalk and works on farther outside english shots, it just makes the ping sound, so if you'd like to train yourself to use less english as a rule, then this tip will help you do so by letting you know. Also if you're swooping because of stroke flaws, this lets you know it as well. What I mean by that is that if you're aiming close to center and you hear the ping, you know you have stroke flaws that you need to work out.

Jaden

This is your gig so don't think I am horning in at all... I already have stated if someone makes a tip I can get behind I'll quit making em... If your center section has enough grab then just maybe... just maybe... the shoulder won't matter.... Royce challenged me to make a no chalk tip and I have proto-types sitting here.... Depending on what you are doing for your center section I may be able to help depending on you base material and processing....

Chris

x3dnd3x
10-10-2013, 08:38 PM
Wondering how's this project coming along. :)

JB Cases
10-10-2013, 08:45 PM
Before I read the rest of the thread could you please reduce the size of your images so I don't have to side scroll for every sentence?

infest
10-10-2013, 08:49 PM
Before I read the rest of the thread could you please reduce the size of your images so I don't have to side scroll for every sentence?

What? You don't have a 36 inch smart phone like everyone else? get with the times. :p

iusedtoberich
10-10-2013, 08:54 PM
Thank you. I do have patents. I was really excited when I got my confirmation letters from the us patent office. I had sent a teaser pm to Dr Dave before I had the patents not being able to really say much.

Jaden

You do know that a patent costs about $25k to acquire and then maintain over their life, correct? That is just in USPTO fees, that does not count if you hire an outside firm to help you. If you think you can make that up, and much more in your sales, by all means, go for a patent. If not, its a waste of money, imo.

WildWing
10-10-2013, 09:11 PM
I'll be interested to see results of this. From using tips all the way from 1960's French Champions to the modern layered tips, I can tell that the tip certainly influences the amount of spin, or english that can be applied. In some ways, this seems to be a further progression from that. Love this kind of development.

LAMas
10-10-2013, 10:16 PM
"While discussing the materials I used with Don Owens, we both agreed that this tip SHOULD actually have a higher specific gravity".

JADEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relative Density (Specific Gravity)

Relative density of a substance is the ratio of the substance to the density of water at 4oC, i.e.

Substance Relative density

Acetylene 0.0017
Air, dry 0.0013
Alcohol 0.82
Aluminum 2.72
Brass 8.48
Cadmium 8.57
Chromium 7.03
Copper 8.79
Carbon dioxide 0.00198
Carbon monoxide 0.00126
Cast iron 7.20
Hydrogen 0.00009
Lead 11.35
Mercury 13.59
Nickel 8.73
Nitrogen 0.00125
Nylon 1.12
Oxygen 0.00143
Paraffin 0.80
Petrol 0.72
PVC 1.36
Rubber 0.96
Steel 7.82
Tin 7.28
Zinc 7.12
Water (4oC) 1.00
Water, sea 1.02

Lead and Mercury have high specific gravity values, but would be too soft?

Can your tip also replace the ferrule for lower mass/deflection?

Good fortune and be well.

infest
10-10-2013, 10:45 PM
"While discussing the materials I used with Don Owens, we both agreed that this tip SHOULD actually have a higher specific gravity".

JADEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relative Density (Specific Gravity)

Relative density of a substance is the ratio of the substance to the density of water at 4oC, i.e.

Substance Relative density

Acetylene 0.0017
Air, dry 0.0013
Alcohol 0.82
Aluminum 2.72
Brass 8.48
Cadmium 8.57
Chromium 7.03
Copper 8.79
Carbon dioxide 0.00198
Carbon monoxide 0.00126
Cast iron 7.20
Hydrogen 0.00009
Lead 11.35
Mercury 13.59
Nickel 8.73
Nitrogen 0.00125
Nylon 1.12
Oxygen 0.00143
Paraffin 0.80
Petrol 0.72
PVC 1.36
Rubber 0.96
Steel 7.82
Tin 7.28
Zinc 7.12
Water (4oC) 1.00
Water, sea 1.02

Lead and Mercury have high specific gravity values, but would be too soft?

Can your tip also replace the ferrule for lower mass/deflection?

Good fortune and be well.

Explain it like I'm a 5 year old please.

JB Cases
10-10-2013, 11:03 PM
I have often said that the tip is a huge factor in how a cue "plays". How can all of it not be a factor, chalk, tip, cue, balls, cloth....???

Moisture?

LAMas
10-10-2013, 11:37 PM
Explain it like I'm a 5 year old please.

Most tips are made from leather like Elk Master which is soft and porous (air) or like LePro which is harder (less air). Le Pro has the higher specific density.

I presume that was the context.

JB Cases
10-11-2013, 12:11 AM
Most tips are made from leather like Elk Master which is soft and porous (air) or like LePro which is harder (less air). Le Pro has the higher specific density.

I presume that was the context.

Just because something is soft does not make it porous. I am not sure either what is meant by specific gravity, the actual term used.

And after reading this I am still not sure what this has to do with cue tips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity

The idea of a tip being comprised of two different densities across the diameter is interesting though. I too have often watched the video of tips compressing, thinking that it seems like an awful lot of movement happening, and wondered if the tip could not be reengineered not to do that and whether that would be a good thing or not.

I have shown people that you can play with a phenolic tip. That would obviously be the extreme end where the tip compresses very little if at all. So between that and ultra mushy what's the best?

Maybe Jaden's experiment will be as revolutionary as he thinks it will be.

fk39673
10-11-2013, 12:34 AM
Any timetable on when the tips going to be available?

fk39673
10-11-2013, 12:54 AM
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/miscue

(in billiards) a shot in which the player fails to strike the ball properly with the cue.

After a miscue, it is noticeable that there is a portion on the outer edge of the tip that is bald of chalk. Which means there was not enough chalk left of the tip for CHALK to do its job properly. Isn't it so that the job of Chalk is to crack and compress into smaller particles during contact so it actually prolongs the contact time between cue stick and cue ball? The bald portion on the tip indicates that the chalk (whatever amount that was on the tip) did not crack and compress because there was not enough chalk to do so (crack and compress) and so the chalk was wiped off by the contact.

My question would be how will a LD tip prevent/eliminate miscue if there is not enough chalk on the tip?

fk39673
10-11-2013, 01:07 AM
Also correct me if I am wrong, The longer a tip compresses the longer it is in contact with the cue ball which contributes to a "better stroke" ?

Cornerman
10-11-2013, 04:54 AM
I had spoken about it with Royce and like most people, he believed that a reduction in end mass was the only thing that could reduce cueball squirt.

I had accepted that and it took me a minute after testing the first prototype to even realize what had happened.

As many of you probably know from my past posts, I was a huge adherent to BHE. So much so in fact that I had begun to mark (with a sharpie) the pivot points on my non-LD shafts and cues.



Jadeni hope it works. However, I think I've had enough discussions on this board and with Royce to describe many times that it's the "effective end mass" and not just tip end mass. There's always been a time contact time element to be able to calculate (back calculate) an effective end mass. The issue was always that the known range of materials and their effectiveness to hit the cueball with spin and not miscue or be totally ineffective was limited to leather tips as we know them.

If you've discovered a material that satisfies all hit requirements and reduces squirt, then I applaud you vigorously. If it falls outside the understanding of squirt, I'd also be interested. My gut feel is that it actually falls in the same understanding of squirt.

Cornerman
10-11-2013, 04:54 AM
Also correct me if I am wrong, The longer a tip compresses the longer it is in contact with the cue ball which contributes to a "better stroke" ?

Wrong. Though it's a common myth like so many feel good posts.

Cornerman
10-11-2013, 05:01 AM
Just looked at your design and it fits in the same model of understanding of squirt. And if the shot feels good, it's a winner.

Maybe you answered this but what's the expectation of variation of squirt as the tip wears down or breaks in?

nrhoades
10-11-2013, 05:10 AM
I like it.

naji
10-11-2013, 05:27 AM
Ok, the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Some of you out there already know and have had the opportunity to shoot with my low deflection tip. YES, you heard that correctly, it is a tip that makes any shaft low deflection.

The official launch will be in ~1 to 2 months.

My original intent was not to create a low deflection tip although I had suspected that the potential for the tip to reduce squirt was there.

I had spoken about it with Royce and like most people, he believed that a reduction in end mass was the only thing that could reduce cueball squirt.

I had accepted that and it took me a minute after testing the first prototype to even realize what had happened.

As many of you probably know from my past posts, I was a huge adherent to BHE. So much so in fact that I had begun to mark (with a sharpie) the pivot points on my non-LD shafts and cues.

It was one of those shafts that I had put my tip onto and during initial test trials, I kept missing shots while using BHE.

Then it dawned on me that I had suspected that reduced squirt could be a consequence of the design and I switched to not adjusting my aim for squirt and I started making everything.

That's where it all began.

Initially, I had two purposes in mind when I designed my tips. To eliminate mushrooming and to increase energy transfer on center ball hits.

I'll be offering two types of tips, a low deflection tip and a hybrid tip. Actually, both tips will be low deflection but one will be a true hybrid with a harder denser material in the center of the tip to promote better energy transfer where miscues are impossible and one will be more traditional with the encapsulation that allows it to reduce squirt.

I'm in the process of setting up the production facility and the website, so they are not quite ready to launch but they will be soon.

As some of you know, I travel a lot in my main career as a fiber optic network field engineer and that has given me the opportunity to show some AZers and pool players the prototypes of the tips and allow them to hit some balls with them.

The feedback from those that have hit with them has been entirely positive.

I'm willing to answer questions, but I do ask that we keep it cordial. I'm not looking to get into a bunch of arguments although I do understand that any time that results fly in the face of believed paradigms, there is resistance. That's why I've decided to send Dr. Dave a free tip for peer review. I'll be sending him one here in the next week or so, but Dave has said that it may be a while before he has a chance to doing any tests and that's no problem.

I'm confident enough in the results I have found that I'm sure that he will come to the same conclusion on the results even if we don't end up agreeing on the underlying mechanisms involved.

Jaden

Can you send me one?

dr_dave
10-11-2013, 06:14 AM
... it's the "effective end mass" and not just tip end mass. There's always been a time contact time element to be able to calculate (back calculate) an effective end mass.Good point Fred. FYI, here's a excerpt from my endmass and stiffness resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass) providing more info on this topic:

--------------------------------------------------
See Diagram 4 in "Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2008/feb08.pdf). People who think extra stiffness is required to produce more squirt are incorrect. Added endmass alone (without added stiffness) produces significant increases in squirt. This supports the theory in TP A.31 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-31.pdf). The squirt of a shaft can be lowered by reducing the weight of the last 5-8 inches. This can be done by reducing the shaft's diameter, drilling out the core of the end of the shaft, using a lighter and/or harder tip, and/or using a lighter (or no) ferrule.

Endmass is also related to shaft stiffness. Firstly, a stiffer shaft will typically be thicker and heavier at the end, resulting in more weight at the end. Secondly, with a stiffer shaft, transverse elastic waves will travel faster and farther down the shaft (from the tip) during the brief contact time between the tip and ball. The farther the wave travels, the larger the effective "endmass" will be, because more mass is being involved during contact with the ball. This effect can be clear with carbon-fiber shafts, where you would expect the end of the shaft to be much lighter (which tends to reduce "endmass"); however, because the end of the shaft can also be very stiff (which tends to increase effective "endmass"), the amount of squirt can be comparable to a wood shaft that might be little heavier at the end.

Tip hardness also has an effect on effective "endmass" because a harder tip will have a slightly shorter contact time. Because the transverse elastic wave won't travel down the shaft as far during contact with a harder tip, the effective "endmass" and squirt can be less.
--------------------------------------------------

I look forward to trying out Jaden's new tip to see if and how much it reduces squirt, and to try to better understand why.

Regards,
Dave

iusedtoberich
10-11-2013, 07:04 AM
Explain it like I'm a 5 year old please.

It basically means how heavy a given material is. The higher the number, the heavier the material. This number assumes all the materials you are comparing are the same size and shape, so it's an apples to apples comparison.

CreeDo
10-11-2013, 08:35 AM
Dave, can you tell me if this is right? I'm trying to come up with an "explain it like I'm 5 version".
But I may not have a handle on it.

------

Say some ball hits the cue ball on the cue ball's left side.
That ball will deflect off to the left afterwards. The cue ball will go somewhere to the right.

When a cue's tip hits the left side of whitey, it's not really different.
The tip wants to go left. The object ball wants to go right.

But because the cue tip is firmly attached to this long, thin stick, the tip can't really go anywhere.
It can go a little to the left because the stick is flexible.
The stick bends a little to the left, then it quickly straightens back out.
The cue ball isn't attached to anything though, so it will go to the right. That is to say, it will deflect.

So, how much will it deflect?

Well, at the moment the tip hits the ball, there's a sort of shockwave that happens incredibly fast.
The shockwave travels backwards towards the butt of the cue, then rebounds back towards the tip.
Then the force of this shockwave pushes the ball away from the tip.

The stiffer a stick is, the longer this shockwave will travel before it rebounds.
A longer shockwave will push the cue ball away with more force than a short shockwave.
The harder the push, the more 'sideways' the cue ball will go. Meaning it will deflect more.

So you want to shorten this shockwave by making the shaft less stiff, more flexible.
If it's too flexible, like an actual wet noodle, it's too much work to push the cue ball around the table.
So it needs to be stiff enough to play pool, but flexible enough to reduce the length of that shockwave.

One way to do that is to make it thinner and lighter. Another way is to hollow out the shaft.
From experiments, the last 8ish inches of the shaft are what's important. Changing anything past that
won't really help much. So that's why you can't really have a low-deflection butt.

------

So with all that said (if it's correct)... can the tip have much "impact" (haha!) on deflection?
You can't play with the lightness of the tip much, it barely weighs anything anyway.
But can you reduce deflection by playing with the tip's flexibility?
Would a super soft mushy tip "give" more, allowing for less deflection?
If so, how far can you go before the tip is so mushy it's not useful to move the cue ball anymore?

Cuemaster98
10-11-2013, 09:00 AM
This idea have already been done before with Samsara Break Tip I think. They have the center cored on the phenolic with leather hide in the center as it's illegal to break in some league with phenolic tip. I've created a few myself using phenolic ferrule rod and cutting my Molavia as insert on the phenolic and it actually breaks very good. You can play with it as well but they one I've made was only good for breaking on my CM360 shafts.

It's like having a ferrule and tip combo in one...so it theory the end mass is reduced so there less deflection naturally. I personally think deflection quality is equivalent to the the quality of the shaft wood...other factor plays a part but the biggest in the quality of the wood grain and density..etc. What's difference here would be the material that will be used.

BR,
Duc.

LAMas
10-11-2013, 09:04 AM
This idea have already been done before with Samsara Break Tip I think. They have the center cored on the phenolic with leather hide in the center as it's illegal to break in some league with phenolic tip. I've created a few myself using phenolic ferrule rod and cutting my Molavia as insert on the phenolic and it actually breaks very good. You can play with it as well but they one I've made was only good for breaking on my CM360 shafts.

It's like having a ferrule and tip combo in one...so it theory the end mass is reduced so there less deflection naturally. I personally think deflection quality is equivalent to the the quality of the shaft wood...other factor plays a part but the biggest in the quality of the wood grain and density..etc. What's difference here would be the material that will be used.

BR,
Duc.

Does the phenolic hold chalk like a soft leather tip? Chalk up every shot?

Jaden
10-11-2013, 09:12 AM
Just because something is soft does not make it porous. I am not sure either what is meant by specific gravity, the actual term used.

And after reading this I am still not sure what this has to do with cue tips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity

The idea of a tip being comprised of two different densities across the diameter is interesting though. I too have often watched the video of tips compressing, thinking that it seems like an awful lot of movement happening, and wondered if the tip could not be reengineered not to do that and whether that would be a good thing or not.

I have shown people that you can play with a phenolic tip. That would obviously be the extreme end where the tip compresses very little if at all. So between that and ultra mushy what's the best?

Maybe Jaden's experiment will be as revolutionary as he thinks it will be.

The reference to specific gravity was in relation to end mass. The typical belief has been that to substantially reduce squirt you have to reduce endmass. In this case the materials that I have used have actually increased end mass but has reduced effective end mass.

Phenolic tips do not deform sideways, but because they don't deform at all, it increases effective end mass by forcing the shaft to deform more as a result on contact.

The shaft only travels towards the side of the ball that you are applying side spin on AFTER contact ceases. The cueball does not PUSH it off to that side, It is actually bending toward the center mass of the cueball during contact and it is the release of the stresses built up during that contact that causes it to deflect in the opposite direction when contact ceases.

My tips allow the tip to compress and absorb some of those stresses so that the shaft isn't forced to compress more, but the encapsulation prevents sideways deformation of the tip so the cueball can still travel straighter.

I've been away from my shop for work and haven't been able to progress as quickly as I had hoped, but I am still on track to launch within a month, so I haven't deviated too far from the original estimated one to two months.

I have determined that the squirt reduction is contingent upon remaining within the leather on contact, so it requires players to stay within one to one and a half tips of center.

For those of you wanting to try it out, it won't be long now.

Jaden

dr_dave
10-11-2013, 09:22 AM
Dave, can you tell me if this is right? I'm trying to come up with an "explain it like I'm 5 version".
But I may not have a handle on it.

------

Say some ball hits the cue ball on the cue ball's left side.
That ball will deflect off to the left afterwards. The cue ball will go somewhere to the right.

When a cue's tip hits the left side of whitey, it's not really different.
The tip wants to go left. The object ball wants to go right.

But because the cue tip is firmly attached to this long, thin stick, the tip can't really go anywhere.
It can go a little to the left because the stick is flexible.
The stick bends a little to the left, then it quickly straightens back out.
The cue ball isn't attached to anything though, so it will go to the right. That is to say, it will deflect.

So, how much will it deflect?

Well, at the moment the tip hits the ball, there's a sort of shockwave that happens incredibly fast.
The shockwave travels backwards towards the butt of the cue, then rebounds back towards the tip.
Then the force of this shockwave pushes the ball away from the tip.

The stiffer a stick is, the longer this shockwave will travel before it rebounds.
A longer shockwave will push the cue ball away with more force than a short shockwave.
The harder the push, the more 'sideways' the cue ball will go. Meaning it will deflect more.

So you want to shorten this shockwave by making the shaft less stiff, more flexible.
If it's too flexible, like an actual wet noodle, it's too much work to push the cue ball around the table.
So it needs to be stiff enough to play pool, but flexible enough to reduce the length of that shockwave.

One way to do that is to make it thinner and lighter. Another way is to hollow out the shaft.
From experiments, the last 8ish inches of the shaft are what's important. Changing anything past that
won't really help much. So that's why you can't really have a low-deflection butt.

------

So with all that said (if it's correct)... can the tip have much "impact" (haha!) on deflection?
You can't play with the lightness of the tip much, it barely weighs anything anyway.
But can you reduce deflection by playing with the tip's flexibility?
Would a super soft mushy tip "give" more, allowing for less deflection?
If so, how far can you go before the tip is so mushy it's not useful to move the cue ball anymore?Check out the following article: "Squirt - Part I: introduction" (BD, August, 2007) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/aug07.pdf). It explains and illustrates what causes squirt in a very easy-to-understand way, with drawings and images from high-speed photography.

The main effect is: while the cue tip is in contact with the CB during an off-center hit, the CB starts to turn. This pushes the cue tip sideways and the cue tip pushes back. The amount of push depends on the effective mass ("endmass") being deflected in the cue. The "effective mass" depends on how far the tip deflection is "felt" down the length of the shaft as a sideways "wave" travels down the shaft toward the butt. Because the tip is in contact with the CB for such a short a time, the wave does not travel very far (only about 5-10 inches). The distance it travels varies with shaft stiffness some. It travels faster (and longer) in a stiffer shaft involving more "effective mass" in the sideways deflection, which causes more squirt (CB deflection).

I hope that helps,
Dave

Cuemaster98
10-11-2013, 09:58 AM
Not sure what you're asking. You can insert any tip hardness or any tips you want so it will chalk like any other with exception to the other thin diameter of phenolic. With my CM360 Tips...you don't have to chalk very often. Suck, the guy who made them for me is out of commission.

BR,
Duc.
Does the phenolic hold chalk like a soft leather tip? Chalk up every shot?

Rain-Man
10-11-2013, 10:36 AM
I like the idea. I'm on board for trying it out as well.. If you'd like, I'll make you a deal; I can send you a new Predator 314-2 Shaft to try it out on and do your testing with, and when your done send it back with your new tip still on it...?

Rain-Man

Jaden
10-11-2013, 03:46 PM
You do know that a patent costs about $25k to acquire and then maintain over their life, correct? That is just in USPTO fees, that does not count if you hire an outside firm to help you. If you think you can make that up, and much more in your sales, by all means, go for a patent. If not, its a waste of money, imo.

A patent can range in price from $65 to multiple thousands, but actually obtaining a patent to protect and start selling for a single person entity or micro entity is just $65...

That gives you a provisional patent with the rights to sell your invention for one year. Within that year you have to file for the standard utility patent.

It is patent attorney fees that can cause patents to be exceedingly expensive.

Jaden

iusedtoberich
10-11-2013, 04:14 PM
A patent can range in price from $65 to multiple thousands, but actually obtaining a patent to protect and start selling for a single person entity or micro entity is just $65...

That gives you a provisional patent with the rights to sell your invention for one year. Within that year you have to file for the standard utility patent.

It is patent attorney fees that can cause patents to be exceedingly expensive.

Jaden

I'm quite certain. I have a half dozen issued patents in my name myself. What I didn't know was that there is a discount for small businesses. My patents were all paid for by the corporation I work for, so we paid full price, and I was not aware of the discount.

The 25k full price is legit. That is not lawyer fees, that is patent office fees. Go to their website and you will see a schedule of prices. Or do a google search for how much patent's cost. Now, I did say this was "over the life of the patent". Many patents just die, without people paying the maintenance fees. (In fact, some of the Predator 314 patents did not have the maintenance fee paid). The maintenance fees alone (at full corporation price) are over 10K.

If you go through with it, that is only a decision you can make. And, you are quite correct, filing a provisional application costs almost nothing, and gives you priority if the product is successful and you wish to then spend the big bucks at that point to file the utility application.

Anyway, enough about the patents. I'd like to hear what testing method you are using to determine that these tips are indeed "low deflection".

Neil
10-11-2013, 04:54 PM
Check out the following article: "Squirt - Part I: introduction" (BD, August, 2007) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/aug07.pdf). It explains and illustrates what causes squirt in a very easy-to-understand way, with drawings and images from high-speed photography.

The main effect is: while the cue tip is in contact with the CB during an off-center hit, the CB starts to turn. This pushes the cue tip sideways and the cue tip pushes back. The amount of push depends on the effective mass ("endmass") being deflected in the cue. The "effective mass" depends on how far the tip deflection is "felt" down the length of the shaft as a sideways "wave" travels down the shaft toward the butt. Because the tip is in contact with the CB for such a short a time, the wave does not travel very far (only about 5-10 inches). The distance it travels varies with shaft stiffness some. It travels faster (and longer) in a stiffer shaft involving more "effective mass" in the sideways deflection, which causes more squirt (CB deflection).

I hope that helps,
Dave

Dave, just a thought on what you stated....it might have merit, might be "stupid". I don't know. What if there was a small section of rubber or some shock absorbing material right below the ferrule....would that make it have less squirt?

naji
10-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Dave, just a thought on what you stated....it might have merit, might be "stupid". I don't know. What if there was a small section of rubber or some shock absorbing material right below the ferrule....would that make it have less squirt?

Neil this spring loaded tip i saw a while back, i do not think it helps squirt who knows..



http://www.google.com/patents/US5411441

nobcitypool
10-11-2013, 05:39 PM
Dave, just a thought on what you stated....it might have merit, might be "stupid". I don't know. What if there was a small section of rubber or some shock absorbing material right below the ferrule....would that make it have less squirt?

You could strike the CB with a rubber band or wet noodle and you would get zero deflection. Unfortunately, the CB wouldn't move either. An exaggeration to be sure, however, I think that is an analogy of how a rubber cushion would work. The negative affects would outweigh the gains in decreasing deflection. The rubber cushion would also act as a dash pot/dampener, in effect, decreasing feel to an undesirable level.

x3dnd3x
10-11-2013, 06:19 PM
Okay. This is good news. Although it might be hard but if you could offer a sampler pack pricing like Chris(The Renfro), that would be great! :D

The reference to specific gravity was in relation to end mass. The typical belief has been that to substantially reduce squirt you have to reduce endmass. In this case the materials that I have used have actually increased end mass but has reduced effective end mass.

Phenolic tips do not deform sideways, but because they don't deform at all, it increases effective end mass by forcing the shaft to deform more as a result on contact.

The shaft only travels towards the side of the ball that you are applying side spin on AFTER contact ceases. The cueball does not PUSH it off to that side, It is actually bending toward the center mass of the cueball during contact and it is the release of the stresses built up during that contact that causes it to deflect in the opposite direction when contact ceases.

My tips allow the tip to compress and absorb some of those stresses so that the shaft isn't forced to compress more, but the encapsulation prevents sideways deformation of the tip so the cueball can still travel straighter.

I've been away from my shop for work and haven't been able to progress as quickly as I had hoped, but I am still on track to launch within a month, so I haven't deviated too far from the original estimated one to two months.

I have determined that the squirt reduction is contingent upon remaining within the leather on contact, so it requires players to stay within one to one and a half tips of center.

For those of you wanting to try it out, it won't be long now.

Jaden

Neil
10-11-2013, 06:45 PM
You could strike the CB with a rubber band or wet noodle and you would get zero deflection. Unfortunately, the CB wouldn't move either. An exaggeration to be sure, however, I think that is an analogy of how a rubber cushion would work. The negative affects would outweigh the gains in decreasing deflection. The rubber cushion would also act as a dash pot/dampener, in effect, decreasing feel to an undesirable level.

I know it would be impractical in use, but was wondering if it would actually reduce squirt.

Tramp Steamer
10-11-2013, 09:06 PM
Put one of those tips on a Predator shaft and you've got something. :)

The Renfro
10-11-2013, 10:45 PM
I don't think miscues are caused by a lack of chalk. I think they are caused, usually, by a combination of too much tip offset to the periphery of the ball and a fault in the stroke which causes the tip to slide across the CB face in a prolonged manner producing an actual friction burn mark on the tip. Even a well-chalked tip will "burn" when this happens. It's difficult to realize we're doing this because the reason it happens in the first place is that we aren't concentrating adequately on the stroke. Therefore, we don't observe the cause correctly.

I would say for the most part you are correct that it is the offset and a stroke flaw that are usually misscue culprits but the offset issue can be reduced by using a chalk with more bite or engineering bite into the tip.... In some instances the chalk or lack thereof just won't give the tip enough grip to carry the cueball along the stroke path.... A hard center and soft sides will definitely mean that friction will be at a premium but it can be acquired......

What I am interested in is what the tip will feel like with the softer sides... The feel from a tip has a whole lot to do with the hardened shoulder from burnishing at least for shots with a tip offset... I had a tip installer who used to burnish and then shape and you would have not believed the difference in feel on a tip vs shaping and then burnishing......

Chris

dr_dave
10-12-2013, 07:04 AM
Dave, just a thought on what you stated....it might have merit, might be "stupid". I don't know. What if there was a small section of rubber or some shock absorbing material right below the ferrule....would that make it have less squirt?Honestly, I don't know what effect this would have on squirt; although, I do know that the cue would probably not be very useful in actual play.

It is possible the rubber could actually in crease the amount of squirt because it could cause the tip contact time on the CB to be longer, which would increase squirt. For example, if you were to use a rubber tip, where the contact time would be much longer than with a leather tip, the amount of squirt would be ridiculous (see the rubber-super-ball-tip report (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/billiards.htm#super%20tip) and my cue-tip hardness resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness) for more info).

Catch you later,
Dave

Jaden
10-12-2013, 07:45 PM
After doing some additional testing, I have tweaked the design. The results from the testing that led to the design tweak have also allowed me to offer an additional product.

It will be an under tip that will allow people to get the benefits of low deflection/squirt (Dave we really need to make a concerted effort to change the term to low squirt and eliminate the term low deflection) without giving up the tip they currently use.

This won't be possible with my hybrid tip, but the under tip will allow you to use any normal tip while still getting the low squirt properties from my design.

The under tip would be glued on first like a normal tip and then another tip would be glued onto the under tip as though it was the end of the ferule. The tip should be turned fairly low, but most people like to do that anyways so that shouldn't be an issue.

I will also still provide full tip units for ease of use/install.

Jaden

P.S. Dave, a tip of the new design will be coming to you directly for testing. I would've sent a tip to you earlier but wanted to make sure I had production level quality before I did.

infest
10-12-2013, 08:11 PM
The under tip would be glued on first like a normal tip and then another tip would be glued onto the under tip as though it was the end of the ferule.

Why not combine the two instead of having a 2 part install process?

Jaden
10-12-2013, 08:16 PM
Why not combine the two instead of having a 2 part install process?

I will be offering both. I will offer a single item that is both combined and a single item for those that wish to stay with their existing tip...

It's just an additional item to cater to those who like their current tip and don't want to switch.

The under tip won't wear out as quickly and therefore won't have to be replaced is often. That is the main reason that I will offer the second option.

Jaden

infest
10-12-2013, 08:41 PM
I will be offering both. I will offer a single item that is both combined and a single item for those that wish to stay with their existing tip...

It's just an additional item to cater to those who like their current tip and don't want to switch.

The under tip won't wear out as quickly and therefore won't have to be replaced is often. That is the main reason that I will offer the second option.

Jaden

What exactly would cause the under tip to "wear out"?

Jaden
10-12-2013, 09:06 PM
What exactly would cause the under tip to "wear out"?

Nothing on it's face, but eventually the leather portion of the under tip will become compressed and might lose some efficacy or change the feel of the hit.

You could same the same for any tip. You could just leave a kamui black hard the same without ever shaping it or changing it, but eventually it plays different.

It will be less dramatic a change with the under tip and just replacing the top portion will work, but I recommend changing it every six months to a year. Potentially more often depending on how much you play. I will likely change the whole thing on mine every couple of months because of how often I play (30-60 hours a week).

Jaden

Jaden
10-13-2013, 08:24 AM
Those must have been hard questions.

The revised design should have no question of legality. It will be legal for all play.

Also the revised design makes it so that there will only need to be two sizes and they will accommodate all sizes of shafts.

Jaden

jburkm002
10-13-2013, 08:38 AM
So should we be playing with a stiff or flexible shaft? Soft or hard tip? Skinny or fat shaft? Short or long ferrule? Light or heavy cue? What type of joint? I get everyone is going to try and sell their low deflection equipment. Not sure I have ever seen any tests on anything except what Meucci put out. That BLACK DOT shaft what the opposite of everything we see now(flexible shaft with a long ferrule). Think Jacoby has a flexible LD shaft now. It's all so confusing.

JoeyA
10-13-2013, 09:09 AM
Jaden,
If you have created a low deflection tip, you should patent the construction process.

Please let me know when the tips go on sale. I would like to try one.

JoeyA

Jaden
10-13-2013, 10:19 AM
Jaden,
If you have created a low deflection tip, you should patent the construction process.

Please let me know when the tips go on sale. I would like to try one.

JoeyA

Yeah Joey, I already have provisional patents for the ideas. I will be finalizing the utility patents toward the beginning of next year.

Jaden.

dr_dave
10-13-2013, 12:05 PM
Dave, a tip of the new design will be coming to you directly for testing. I would've sent a tip to you earlier but wanted to make sure I had production level quality before I did.Thanks for letting me know. I look forward to trying it out to see how much it can reduce squirt. I'll mount it on a high-deflection shaft to see how much a difference it can make.

Catch you later,
Dave

whammo57
10-13-2013, 12:14 PM
hahahaha


low deflection tip.............. you're funny


LOL


Kim

Pathetic Shark
10-13-2013, 02:07 PM
If these work, the custom cue market is going to be worth investing in again.

jburkm002
10-13-2013, 02:16 PM
Dr Dave have you ever described your cue in detail? You should know what would be the best equipment. I know some people don't like LD shafts but that doesn't mean it isn't better for their game. So if a new player was starting out in pool what would you suggest to be the best equipment? Serious questions here. I know everyone had their personal preference. Dr. Dave understands the science / physics of the game. I do not. Only what I read and from opinions.

JoeyA
10-13-2013, 06:38 PM
Yeah Joey, I already have provisional patents for the ideas. I will be finalizing the utility patents toward the beginning of next year.

Jaden.

My bad. I wrote as soon as I read your first post.
GOOD LUCK!

JoeyA

dr_dave
10-14-2013, 05:53 AM
Dr Dave have you ever described your cue in detail?Don't consider this an endorsement, but I play with a Predator Z-2 shaft and a Morri medium-hardness tip. I prefer an LD shaft for the advantages listed here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages). I generally prefer a harder tip for the advantages listed here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness).

You should know what would be the best equipment. I know some people don't like LD shafts but that doesn't mean it isn't better for their game. So if a new player was starting out in pool what would you suggest to be the best equipment?The "best equipment" will depend on the individual. For example, concerning an LD shaft, there are also disadvantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#disadvantages) for some people. Also, some people might hate the sound and "feel" (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#feel) of a hard tip.

Honestly, I don't think the cue and tip matter that much as long as the tip holds chalk and the player has had time to get used to the equipment. However, for a person who uses sidespin in their game and doesn't have a good feel for how to adjust for squirt and swerve with various types of shots, an LD shaft is probably a better choice in general, assuming the advantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages) outweigh the disadvantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#disadvantages) for that individual.

Regards,
Dave

ceebee
10-14-2013, 07:28 AM
Well.... this is exciting news. I'm ready to give these a try... I'm like the guy that wants a Chevrolet, he doesn't care how they make Chevy's , he just wants to drive one.

Please holler when they are ready for purchase... CB

minohc
10-14-2013, 08:42 AM
I can't wait try your products on Cog!!!
:thumbup:

Jaden
10-14-2013, 08:53 AM
Well.... this is exciting news. I'm ready to give these a try... I'm like the guy that wants a Chevrolet, he doesn't care how they make Chevy's , he just wants to drive one.

Please holler when they are ready for purchase... CB

I don't know what part of Oklahoma you're from, but if you know Huck, he is likely to be one of the first if not the first installer who has some.

Jaden

CreeDo
10-15-2013, 12:29 PM
The main effect is: while the cue tip is in contact with the CB during an off-center hit, the CB starts to turn. This pushes the cue tip sideways and the cue tip pushes back.

So let me be super clear... it's the rotational force of the cue ball that pushes the tip away
from it, and then tip's "rebound" back to its original position is what shoves the cue ball away and deflects it?

I thought simply having the tip hit the CB at an angle would cause it to bounce away from the cue ball.
So the tip veering away and then re-centering was due to the the stick's forward movement, not rotiational forces.
That doesn't affect it?

Put it another way, if the tip hit the spot on the cue ball and could only bend 1 way (away from the cue ball)
and didn't return to its original position... would you get no deflection?
Doesn't an off-center hit push the cue ball sideways no matter what?
I.e. if the stick is pointing at the head spot but contacts off-center, then even with our theoretical "wet noodle"
wouldn't the cue ball not shoot towards the head spot? Because the tip "cut" the cue ball slightly?

dr_dave
10-15-2013, 01:25 PM
Check out the following article: "Squirt - Part I: introduction" (BD, August, 2007) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/aug07.pdf). It explains and illustrates what causes squirt in a very easy-to-understand way, with drawings and images from high-speed photography.

The main effect is: while the cue tip is in contact with the CB during an off-center hit, the CB starts to turn. This pushes the cue tip sideways and the cue tip pushes back. The amount of push depends on the effective mass ("endmass") being deflected in the cue. The "effective mass" depends on how far the tip deflection is "felt" down the length of the shaft as a sideways "wave" travels down the shaft toward the butt. Because the tip is in contact with the CB for such a short a time, the wave does not travel very far (only about 5-10 inches). The distance it travels varies with shaft stiffness some. It travels faster (and longer) in a stiffer shaft involving more "effective mass" in the sideways deflection, which causes more squirt (CB deflection).So let me be super clear... it's the rotational force of the cue ball that pushes the tip away from itYes.

and then tip's "rebound" back to its original position is what shoves the cue ball away and deflects it?Absolutely not. The cue tip continues to move sideways (away from the CB) long after the CB is gone.

If you or others haven't checked out the squirt-intro article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/aug07.pdf) yet, give it a look. It describes and illustrates the effect fairly well.

When the CB starts to turn while the tip is still in contact with the CB, the end of the shaft is given a sideways speed. It takes force to do this since the end of the shaft has mass. For every action (sideways force pushing on the tip), there is an equal and opposite reaction (sideways force pushing back on the CB, causing it to squirt). The cue tip continues to move sideways and eventually springs back and vibrates back and forth, but the CB is long gone by then. For more info and videos, see the cue vibration resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#vibration).

I thought simply having the tip hit the CB at an angle would cause it to bounce away from the cue ball.
...
That doesn't affect it?... only if the tip slips during contact (in which case, you get a miscue).

Put it another way, if the tip hit the spot on the cue ball and could only bend 1 way (away from the cue ball) and didn't return to its original position... would you get no deflection?No. If the tip moves sideways, and the shaft end has mass, there will be squirt (CB deflection).

Doesn't an off-center hit push the cue ball sideways no matter what?No.

I.e. if the stick is pointing at the head spot but contacts off-center, then even with our theoretical "wet noodle" wouldn't the cue ball not shoot towards the head spot? Because the tip "cut" the cue ball slightly?If the tip does not slip, and if the shaft theoretically had no "endmass" (but was still strong and stiff enough to hit the CB), then there would be absolutely no squirt (i.e., the CB would head in a line parallel to the cue direction at impact.)

I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, let me know.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-15-2013, 02:53 PM
FYI, here's the diagram (images from a 2000 frame/sec high-speed video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-76a.htm)) and explanation from my squirt intro article (BD, August, 2007) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/aug07.pdf):

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/images/squirt_physics.jpg

Still “a” is just before contact. Stills “b” through “e” represent a little less than 0.001 second (one thousandth of a second) during which the tip is in contact with the ball. In still “f” the tip hasn’t fully recovered from the compression yet as the CB is separating. Still “g” is after separation. The line and arc appearing in each still mark the initial cue stick and CB positions. Notice how much the cue tip deflects away (down in the diagram) from its original line of action. Also notice how much the cue tip deforms (e.g., see still “d”).

The black arrows in still “c” in the diagram illustrate the effect that causes squirt. While the tip is in contact with the ball, the ball starts rotating. This rotation (counterclockwise in the diagram) pushes the cup tip down a little during contact. Because the end of the shaft has mass, it takes force to move the end of the shaft down as the ball rotates. Isaac Newton said: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction;” therefore, if the tip is being pushed down by the ball, the tip will push back with an equal and opposite force on the ball. This force is what causes squirt.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-15-2013, 03:31 PM
For those curious, here are two example super-slow-motion videos showing how the tip deforms and how the shaft flexes during tip contact:

HSV A.76a - close-up of tip during off-center hit (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-76a.htm)
video from DBKcues in Russia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=rFHjKt9R1Lo)

I know that when one looks at these videos, it is tempting to think that squirt (CB deflection) is caused completely by tip compression and shaft flex. However, IMO, it is best to ignore these effects when trying to understand the basics of squirt (see my previous posts for explanations of the most important effect). Tip compression and shaft flex are really just side effects of the off-center-hit forces required to keep the tip from slipping on the CB.

Now, the more the tip compresses and flexes sideways, the longer the tip will tend to stay in contact with the CB. This would certainly result in more squirt (CB deflection) because the effective "endmass" is larger with a longer contact time (per my previous posts). Also, the more the tip flexes sideways, the more the endmass of the shaft moves sideways, which would also tend to create more squirt. These effects might help explain why Jaden's new tip design might help reduce squirt. But if these were the only effects at play, a solid phenolic tip (or really hard leather tip) should reduce squirt just as well, if not better (assuming all tips in the comparison have equal weight). I look forward to doing some testing to help answer these questions more definitely.

Shaft flex can also have an effect because it might cause some of the "endmass" to move faster than it would otherwise. This could contribute to more squirt, but I wouldn't expect this effect to be very significant.

Again, the main effect causing squirt is as described in my recent posts. The most effective way to reduce squirt (CB deflection) is to reduce the effective "endmass" (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass) of the shaft. Keeping the tip contact time (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#contact) as short as possible (e.g., by using a harder tip) can also help.

Regards,
Dave

SouthernDraw
10-15-2013, 08:15 PM
First, patent or no patent once word hits China, they will get one and copy it. Then, sell it highly discounted to a few supply co's or on ebay that will take a low price and not ask questions. Unfortunately.

My questions are these...
Does it machine easily (cut cleanly & easily)?
Does it require sealing (sounds like no)?
Will an 'average joe' be able to replace a tip w/out a lathe? Does require a special cutting tool (razor blade, high speed steel, etc.)?
Does CA reliably hold the tips on?

Thanks ahead of time for your reply.

iusedtoberich
10-15-2013, 08:22 PM
I'd like to see the results of any testing you have done. My impression is you have already marketed this tip as a home run squirt reduction tip. You have a distributor set up, provisional patent filed, utility patent application in the works, a catchy name for the tip, and everyone in this thread jumping to get a sample.

What testing have you done to support that the tip actually reduces squirt?

Jaden
10-15-2013, 09:25 PM
First, patent or no patent once word hits China, they will get one and copy it. Then, sell it highly discounted to a few supply co's or on ebay that will take a low price and not ask questions. Unfortunately.

My questions are these...
Does it machine easily (cut cleanly & easily)? YES
Does it require sealing (sounds like no)? NO
Will an 'average joe' be able to replace a tip w/out a lathe? Does require a special cutting tool (razor blade, high speed steel, etc.)?The new design is a one size fits all so it requires trimming but trims easily, best on a lathe but potentially doable with hand tools
Does CA reliably hold the tips on? Yes, gel works best but all CA works

Thanks ahead of time for your reply.
.
No problem. I am getting excited about releasing it.

Jaden

Jaden
10-15-2013, 09:44 PM
I'd like to see the results of any testing you have done. My impression is you have already marketed this tip as a home run squirt reduction tip. You have a distributor set up, provisional patent filed, utility patent application in the works, a catchy name for the tip, and everyone in this thread jumping to get a sample.

What testing have you done to support that the tip actually reduces squirt?

The first that I suspected that squirt would be reduced was in the design phase, although that wasn't the original intention.

The shaft that I put the first prototype on was a standard deflection shaft that I used with BHE. I had developed an LD shaft that I had for this same cue as well so I have used both BHE with a standard shaft and various LD shafts so I know the difference.

I had the pivot point marked by a ring drawn on the shaft with a sharpie.

When I first put on the prototype I tried to use BHE at the marked pivot point and I missed several shots in a row.

That was the first testing. Once I remembered that I had suspected that squirt might be reduced I switched to using parallel english instead of BHE and I started making everything. Even the long shots by not adjusting for squirt at all.

This was all done at billiards direct on the table that Brandon Gramse uses for his instruction videos. He has a white chaulk line drawn on the table for demonstrating squirt by shooting with parallel english while aiming from center dot to center dot.

The initial prototype actually showed negative squirt due to swerve affecting the final point that the cb hit on the foot rail.

The final production tip (almost at production level) varies in effective squirt reduction based on whether it is a soft, medium or hard tip.

I may even include a super hard. I have already developed a plain super hard tip for jump/break cues due to finding a really good material for it during the development of this tip.

Jaden

Mirza
10-16-2013, 01:04 AM
Which tip hardness reduces squirt the most? Hard?

The first that I suspected that squirt would be reduced was in the design phase, although that wasn't the original intention.

The shaft that I put the first prototype on was a standard deflection shaft that I used with BHE. I had developed an LD shaft that I had for this same cue as well so I have used both BHE with a standard shaft and various LD shafts so I know the difference.

I had the pivot point marked by a ring drawn on the shaft with a sharpie.

When I first put on the prototype I tried to use BHE at the marked pivot point and I missed several shots in a row.

That was the first testing. Once I remembered that I had suspected that squirt might be reduced I switched to using parallel english instead of BHE and I started making everything. Even the long shots by not adjusting for squirt at all.

This was all done at billiards direct on the table that Brandon Gramse uses for his instruction videos. He has a white chaulk line drawn on the table for demonstrating squirt by shooting with parallel english while aiming from center dot to center dot.

The initial prototype actually showed negative squirt due to swerve affecting the final point that the cb hit on the foot rail.

The final production tip (almost at production level) varies in effective squirt reduction based on whether it is a soft, medium or hard tip.

I may even include a super hard. I have already developed a plain super hard tip for jump/break cues due to finding a really good material for it during the development of this tip.

Jaden

Ratta
10-16-2013, 04:47 AM
Well,

from my expirience i would say, that *soft tips* SHOULD deflect a bit lesser- but the difference between tips (regarding on softness/hardness) shouldn t make that big difference. I m more than curious about this *kind of tip* :-)
And i would be glad to be able to test these types of tips.

have a smooth stroke.

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 06:10 AM
Which tip hardness reduces squirt the most? Hard?A harder tip should produce less squirt (AKA cue ball deflection). For more info, see cue tip hardness effects (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness) and what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause).

Regards,
Dave

jburkm002
10-16-2013, 06:33 AM
Ok so squirt is created more by the deformation of the tip. So if I am playing right english. It actually compresses the tip and pushes the tip towards the left. So the harder the tip the less compression and contact time with the CB. However due to the hardness of the tip, you may be more likely to miscue. So if one could measure the compression of the tip and create a hard outside layer to the tip. It would help the tip from deforming and a softer tip could be used. Just not sure if that would now make a soft tip a harder tip. Kinda like a super soft tip with a phenolic outside shell. Then the tip could more or less only compress but not deform left and right.

Petros Andrikop
10-16-2013, 07:09 AM
I'm happy the role of tip-CB contact time and the slight variations of it is considered important... :)

CreeDo
10-16-2013, 07:42 AM
Dave, thank you so much for clearing it up. I think I definitely get what you're saying.
My imagination has a hard time with it though.

So, if an object is moving in a certain direction, collides with something stationary,
and there's 0 friction between them... OR if the moving object is 'infinitely flexible' (our wet noodle)...
then the stationary object moves in the same direction? Even if it's round and was struck off-center?

So if pool balls had no friction, and one ball hits another ball, they'd both just start trucking
in the same direction?

askalf
10-16-2013, 08:23 AM
delete ....

askalf
10-16-2013, 08:28 AM
delete ....

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 09:10 AM
Ok so squirt is created more by the deformation of the tip.Not true. Squirt (cue ball deflection) is created more by the effective endmass of the shaft. For more info (including illustrations and demonstrations), see:

what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause)
and
shaft endmass and stiffness effects (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass)

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 09:15 AM
I'm happy the role of tip-CB contact time and the slight variations of it is considered important... :)It's only important when it comes to the detailed physics of squirt, not when it comes to what a player can actually do during that incredibly short amount of tip-contact time (see effects of light vs. tight grip (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/grip.html#tight) and stroke acceleration (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#acceleration) and tip contact time (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#contact)). ;)

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 09:31 AM
Dave, thank you so much for clearing it up. I think I definitely get what you're saying. My imagination has a hard time with it though.You're welcome. I aim to squerve. ;)

So, if an object is moving in a certain direction, collides with something stationary, and there's 0 friction between them ... OR if the moving object is 'infinitely flexible' (our wet noodle ) ... then the stationary object moves in the same direction? Even if it's round and was struck off-center? So if pool balls had no friction, and one ball hits another ball, they'd both just start trucking in the same direction?Sorry, but that's not correct.

If there were absolutely no friction between the tip and the CB with an off-center hit, the only force between the tip and the CB would be perpendicular to the surfaces (in the "normal" direction). In this case, the CB would head in a direction perpendicular to the CB surface at the tip contact point (... sort of like what happens with a miscue). For example, think of the CB hitting an OB with a cut angle. The balls have very little friction between them. In this case, the OB does not head in the initial CB direction. Instead (neglecting throw, which is caused by the small amount of friction between the balls), the OB heads in the "line of centers" direction, which is perpendicular to the point of contact between the balls. The same would happen with a tip hitting a CB with very little or no friction.

Now, when a well-chalked tip hits a CB off center, the tip grabs the ball with enough friction to prevent any slip between the tip and CB (unless there is a miscue). In this case, because all of the cue momentum is heading forward, the CB also heads forward (neglecting squirt for now). This is possible because the tip grabs the CB enough (without slip) to make this happen.

Again, the physics of squirt is described, illustrated, and demonstrated here: what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause).

I hope things continue to make more sense. If not, continue to let me know.

Catch you later,
Dave

Petros Andrikop
10-16-2013, 09:59 AM
It's only important when it comes to the detailed physics of squirt, not when it comes to what a player can actually do during that incredibly short amount of tip-contact time (see effects of light vs. tight grip (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/grip.html#tight) and stroke acceleration (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#acceleration) and tip contact time (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#contact)). ;)

Regards,
Dave

In any case a player's stroking results are indeed affected by that factor and the slight variations of it, so does her/his approach to her/his overall technique. That is why there are preferences between materials, including tips.. :)

Pathetic Shark
10-16-2013, 10:17 AM
A harder tip should produce less squirt (AKA cue ball deflection).

Even phenolic break tips?

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 11:13 AM
A harder tip should produce less squirt (AKA cue ball deflection). For more info, see cue tip hardness effects (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness) and what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause).Even phenolic break tips?... not if they are heavier than the tips to which they are being compared. A heavier tip will definitely create more squirt.

Regardless, most people would not find a phenolic tip suitable for general play.

Regards,
Dave

CreeDo
10-16-2013, 01:52 PM
Now, when a well-chalked tip hits a CB off center, the tip grabs the ball with enough friction to prevent any slip between the tip and CB (unless there is a miscue). In this case, because all of the cue momentum is heading forward, the CB also heads forward (neglecting squirt for now). This is possible because the tip grabs the CB enough (without slip) to make this happen.

OK, I think that's where my hangup was...

My original (incorrect) thought process was something like
1. "if a ball hits the cue ball off-center, it cuts the cue ball"
2. "the tip is sort of like a small ball hitting the cue ball off-center"
3. "therefore deflection is just the tip 'cutting' the cue ball."

But you're saying normally there's a lot of friction between the tip and the cue ball,
and this friction prevents the tip from cutting the cue ball?
Instead the cue ball goes in the same direction as the stick (or it would, if it weren't for deflection).

So, is it pretty much EXACTLY the same direction?
Or does the tip actually cut the cue ball a little despite that friction?
Is any part of the deflected path NOT related to rotational force causing that equal & opposite push mentioned earlier?
For example if I wipe the cue tip clean of chalk, and use some slippery tip,
should I expect the cue ball to seemingly deflect more, because it's being "cut" and there's not enough
friction to send it along the stick's shot line?

dr_dave
10-16-2013, 03:32 PM
OK, I think that's where my hangup was...

My original (incorrect) thought process was something like
1. "if a ball hits the cue ball off-center, it cuts the cue ball"
2. "the tip is sort of like a small ball hitting the cue ball off-center"
3. "therefore deflection is just the tip 'cutting' the cue ball."

But you're saying normally there's a lot of friction between the tip and the cue ball,
and this friction prevents the tip from cutting the cue ball?Exactly!

Instead the cue ball goes in the same direction as the stick (or it would, if it weren't for deflection).Bingo.

So, is it pretty much EXACTLY the same direction?Yep.

Or does the tip actually cut the cue ball a little despite that friction?No, unless the tip slips, resulting in a miscue.

Is any part of the deflected path NOT related to rotational force causing that equal & opposite push mentioned earlier?Not really; although, tip compression/flex and shaft flex might have some effects as explained in the answer to the 2nd question on the what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause) page.

For example if I wipe the cue tip clean of chalk, and use some slippery tip, should I expect the cue ball to seemingly deflect moreYes ... a lot more.

because it's being "cut" and there's not enough
friction to send it along the stick's shot line?By "George" I think you've got it! :thumbup:

Catch you later,
Dave

askalf
10-16-2013, 06:53 PM
delete ....

askalf
10-18-2013, 07:10 AM
delete ....

askalf
10-23-2013, 06:24 AM
A harder tip should produce less squirt (AKA cue ball deflection).

If you use a hard or very hard tip, the squirt does not depend on the properties of tip. Squirt is determined only by the properties cue. http://www.billiard-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=153612&highlight=#153612

x3dnd3x
10-25-2013, 03:20 PM
So any latest updates on this project? :confused:

dr_dave
11-03-2013, 03:00 PM
I finally got around to testing the prototype tip Jaden sent me, along with a wide range of other tips of different hardnesses and heights. Check out the following video that documents the experiment and results:

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm)

Here's an executive summary of the results:

Tip type, size, and hardness appear to have very little effect on CB deflection (squirt).

Here is a summary of the data from the video:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/images/cue_tip_testing_results.jpg

I was a little surprised by the results, because I did expect to see a much larger difference in squirt over the wide range of tip types, hardnesses, and heights we tested.

Jaden’s tip (the "experimental 2-material composite") is cool and innovative, and it certainly has a different look, sound, and feel, but the amount of squirt was not less than with the other tips in my set of tests. Honestly, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. There are both advantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages) and disadvantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#disadvantages) to having a shaft (and/or tip) that produces less CB deflection (squirt).

Hopefully, Jaden and others and do similar tests on different shafts, and with additional prototype and production versions of the tip. It's not that difficult to do the tests. A camera helps with taking measurements, but contact paper on a board against the end cushion would work just as well.

Enjoy,
Dave

The Renfro
11-03-2013, 03:31 PM
I finally got around to testing the prototype tip Jaden sent me, along with a wide range of other tips of different hardnesses and heights. Check out the following video that documents the experiment and results:

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm)

Here's an executive summary of the results:

Tip type, size, and hardness appear to have very little effect on CB deflection (squirt).

Here is a summary of the data from the video:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/images/cue_tip_testing_results.jpg

I was a little surprised by the results, because I did expect to see a much larger difference in squirt over the wide range of tip types, hardnesses, and heights we tested.

Jaden’s tip (the "experimental 2-material composite") is cool and innovative, and it certainly has a different look, sound, and feel, but the amount of squirt was not less than with the other tips in my set of tests. Honestly, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. There are both advantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages) and disadvantages (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#disadvantages) to having a shaft (and/or tip) that produces less CB deflection (squirt).

Hopefully, Jaden and others and do similar tests on different shafts, and with additional prototype and production versions of the tip. It's not that difficult to do the tests. A camera helps with taking measurements, but contact paper on a board against the end cushion would work just as well.

Enjoy,
Dave

Very cool Dave... Is there a complete writeup of the test on your website? I'd love to test my Ki-Techs the same way... To date I have been working on CoR measurements, External and Core Hardness... I might make additional changes once I have another benchmark to make adjustments from......

Chris

Switched browsers and the video loads... when I went to the link it just sat there like it was under construction.... The video is much appreciated and I will have to get to work asap..... Which means in the next cpl of weeks... LOL

dr_dave
11-03-2013, 03:44 PM
Very cool Dave...Thanks. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it to see how little effect tip selection has on cue ball deflection (squirt).

Is there a complete writeup of the test on your website?Sorry, I don't, but the video has all of the info you need. I do plan to write an article for BD on this topic in the future, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it.

I'd love to test my Ki-Techs the same way...I'm glad to hear it. I was hoping the video would be helpful for others wanting to do similar tests.

The video is much appreciated and I will have to get to work asapYou're welcome ... and thanks again.

Regards,
Dave

Jaden
11-03-2013, 06:51 PM
First off, I'd like to thank Dave for his efforts.

After hearing of his results, I had to say I was rather perplexed to say the least.

It forced me to go back and do some additional comprehensive testing of my own.

I did find a shaft that I hadn't tested before that got similar results to what Dave had found.

It was a McDermott with REALLY high deflection and a long ferule. Dave had mentioned that the shaft he did his testing on had a long ferule as well.

It is unknown at this time, what it is about certain shafts that would cause squirt to be virtually unaffected by tip differences.

Dave had stated that he was surprised with the results himself.

Based on this new information, I went back and did a video analysis of several cues with and without my tips and compared them to a ld shaft (Mezz Ikon 8 with a WD700 shaft)

What I found was that both a viking that I tested with a prototype Hybrid tip with the LD design and my Putnam custom with one of my LD prototypes on it had virtually identical results to the WD700 with a moori.

The video I made shows all of this. I also after I had concluded the testing of the five different cues went back and tested my Putnam playing cue again and then went straight over to a lathe of mine and switched out the tip with a le pro medium. In between gluing the le pro on, I came over and showed the shaft sans tip to the camera to show that it had not been modified in any way.

Then after gluing the le pro onto the shaft, I tested the cue again. The results are all on the video which is processing as I type this and will be posted as soon as it finishes processing and uploading to youtube.

I had wanted (and will when time allows) to do a voice over on the video, but I thought that I should get it posted as soon as possible.

In the video at each of the times the ball contacted the rail, I took out the individual frame at the time of contact and illustrated it with a alternating black and white striped placard placed on the end of the table.

Each of the frames in the video is the actual frame from that moment in time.

Here are a few of the stills illustrating the results. The video still has about one and a half hours of processing time and then the amount of time it will take to upload it to youtube. The raw footage from the camera was over 5GBs and it is in 1080p.

DeadStick
11-03-2013, 08:47 PM
Here are a few of the stills illustrating the results. The video still has about one and a half hours of processing time and then the amount of time it will take to upload it to youtube. The raw footage from the camera was over 5GBs and it is in 1080p.

Those stills are pretty fuzzy for 1080p, hard to tell what's going on. The angle at which the camera is pointing is also complicating the interpretation.

Once your video is live, you can do freeze frames and annotations of it and share them back here with http://clippeo.com.

Jaden
11-03-2013, 08:55 PM
Those stills are pretty fuzzy for 1080p, hard to tell what's going on. The angle at which the camera is pointing is also complicating the interpretation.

Once your video is live, you can do freeze frames and annotations of it and share them back here with http://clippeo.com.

They're currently uploading to youtube.

They're fuzzy because the camera is setup at the far end of the table. I did it this way purposely so that the view would be able to clearly show the stroke of the shaft and the path of the ball.

The zoom ins with annotation is just to give a close up comparison, it is obvious from the video where they are going. I may upload one of the straight video as well without the pause frame zoom ins. Then anyone who is interested can pause and go frame by frame to see the results.

Jaden

conetip
11-03-2013, 10:24 PM
With my tip system, you can put many different tips onto tip holders and use the very same cue shaft for every tip test.That way a back to back tip comparison can be made all on the same day and conditions.
Neil

The Renfro
11-03-2013, 10:28 PM
With my tip system, you can put many different tips onto tip holders and use the very same cue shaft for every tip test.That way a back to back tip comparison can be made all on the same day and conditions.
Neil

How much weight are you adding to the end of the cue?? I see metal... lots and lots which to me means way more endmass????

Jaden
11-03-2013, 10:34 PM
Ok here's my video. It will be updated with an overdub explaining what to look for and what the findings were, but here's a little bit to go with it as it is.

I set it up with a phenolic rod on the table next to where the shot is taking place aiming straight across the table.

What this does is give a frame of reference for the shaft to show that it is traveling parallel to the shot line. I first shoot 3 or so shots with no spin (except when shooting the cuetec) then I shoot 3 or so shots with side spin.

You can watch the shadow of the cue during and after the stroke to see that it is traveling parallel to the phenolic rod on the table for all shots. This is important as any stroke flaws can throw off the results.

I use a striped ball with the stripe in line with the shot to ensure I'm hitting the same amount of spin on all shots. I aim through the part of the stripe in between the number circle and the outside edge of the stripe for all spin shots.

I used the angle I did so that when I switch the tip on my playing cues shaft, you can see me do it.

The video is 41 minutes long so I can understand people not wanting to sit through the whole thing.

If you skip forward to 18:30. That's where I start the second test with my playing cue and where I cut off the tip and replace it with a lepro and redo the test again. If you want to skip over me cutting off and replacing the tip, I start testing with the lepro at
34:30.

I also shoot again with the Mezz to show the difference considering that my playing cues shaft had almost identical results to the Mezz when it had my LD tip on it.

I've also since replaced the lepro with one of my tips again and it plays like it did again. :)

For some reason the video only uploaded as 360P. I'll have to check my settings for flv conversion in adobe premiere. The stills are accurate representations though as I cut the ball in half and then have parallel (to the incident angles) lines going to the same place on the paper for all of the illustrations.

Jaden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fjmJ2vqUE&feature=youtu.be

Jaden
11-03-2013, 10:49 PM
The 74 rich, was between 1.5" to 1.75" off of the non english contact point. It has a fairly thin shaft at below 12mm and is old growth hard wood, so this can be somewhat expected as it is below that of the other high deflecting shafts.

The Mezz WD700 was between 1.25" to 1.5" as was my playing cue (Putnam) with the On Target Tips LD tip and the Viking with the On Target Tips Hybrid tip.

The Cuetec with one of the early first design prototypes was at about 2" to 2.5" as was the McDermott; however, the McDermott had no discernible difference from using a regular tip but the Cuetec with a regular tip was deflecting 3.25" to 4" so there WAS improvement with the cuetec.

Once I switched the tip on the Putnam to the LePro, it varied from 2" to 2.75" which is a substantial change from having the LD tip on there at 1.25" to 1.5".

This was all on a custom 9 foot table from the break spot to the rail up table.

Jaden

conetip
11-03-2013, 11:27 PM
How much weight are you adding to the end of the cue?? I see metal... lots and lots which to me means way more endmass????

If you are using a conventional 1 inch capped ferrule, the total weight is the same.

The Renfro
11-03-2013, 11:42 PM
If you are using a conventional 1 inch capped ferrule, the total weight is the same.

Interesting.... Had missed the previous posts on the system.... Would make tip replacement a snap on the go......

Mirza
11-04-2013, 12:30 AM
What happens when you put your LD tip on an LD shaft?

Does it decrease the squirt even more?

The 74 rich, was between 1.5" to 1.75" off of the non english contact point. It has a fairly thin shaft at below 12mm and is old growth hard wood, so this can be somewhat expected as it is below that of the other high deflecting shafts.

The Mezz WD700 was between 1.25" to 1.5" as was my playing cue (Putnam) with the On Target Tips LD tip and the Viking with the On Target Tips Hybrid tip.

The Cuetec with one of the early first design prototypes was at about 2" to 2.5" as was the McDermott; however, the McDermott had no discernible difference from using a regular tip but the Cuetec with a regular tip was deflecting 3.25" to 4" so there WAS improvement with the cuetec.

Once I switched the tip on the Putnam to the LePro, it varied from 2" to 2.75" which is a substantial change from having the LD tip on there at 1.25" to 1.5".

This was all on a custom 9 foot table from the break spot to the rail up table.

Jaden

Jaden
11-04-2013, 01:17 AM
What happens when you put your LD tip on an LD shaft?

Does it decrease the squirt even more?

I had made an assumption before based on the few shafts that I had initially tested that all shafts would have reduced squirt and that has proven to not be the case. So I don't want to jump the gun again.

The only LD shaft I have tested my tip on is the one that I had developed, and yes, it was decreased even more. I will be doing additional testing on some other LD shafts as time permits. I have been inundated with getting the production, my suppliers and all of my ducks in a row, so additional testing has been difficult.

I had to put together this video after hearing of Dave's results which had confounded me. So it has delayed me a little bit further even, but I will get to some additional testing, all of which I will video tape and post and will link to on my website as well as time permits.

So many people have been interested in my tips that I have been trying to get production going to be able to officially launch while ensuring that I can meet demand and keep quality control high.

Anyone who has started a business I'm sure can relate.

Jaden

The Renfro
11-04-2013, 01:54 AM
I had made an assumption before based on the few shafts that I had initially tested that all shafts would have reduced squirt and that has proven to not be the case. So I don't want to jump the gun again.

The only LD shaft I have tested my tip on is the one that I had developed, and yes, it was decreased even more. I will be doing additional testing on some other LD shafts as time permits. I have been inundated with getting the production, my suppliers and all of my ducks in a row, so additional testing has been difficult.

I had to put together this video after hearing of Dave's results which had confounded me. So it has delayed me a little bit further even, but I will get to some additional testing, all of which I will video tape and post and will link to on my website as well as time permits.

So many people have been interested in my tips that I have been trying to get production going to be able to officially launch while ensuring that I can meet demand and keep quality control high.

Anyone who has started a business I'm sure can relate.

Jaden

Product and process refinement along with market testing usually means you have to slow your roll a little...

Being first to market has benefits and shortfalls depending on how the market perceives you...

I know you don't want to hear this but if your video was done as a response or to refute Dr. Dave's video I think you will have to redo it with better lighting, a better camera, on better equipment and with the same exact setup as Dr. Dave used. Hole reinforcers and all.. from your camera angle it appears that you are angleing the cue (back hand english) based on the guide stick running down the table which would lower deflection..I am not sure if you are or not because of the camera angle...

Good luck,

Chris

dr_dave
11-04-2013, 06:54 AM
I know you don't want to hear this but if your video was done as a response or to refute Dr. Dave's video I think you will have to redo it with better lighting, a better camera, on better equipment and with the same exact setup as Dr. Dave used. Hole reinforcers and all.. from your camera angle it appears that you are angleing the cue (back hand english) based on the guide stick running down the table which would lower deflection..I am not sure if you are or not because of the camera angle... Jaden,

I'd also recommend that you use a little more speed to take swerve out of the equation as much as possible. Also, it seems like your cue might not be as level as it could be in the video (but it is hard to tell). Having it more level, if possible, will also minimize swerve effects. The problem with having swerve when doing squirt testing is that the amount of swerve can vary with each shot. And even if you use the exact same stroke with each tip, the amount of net CB deflection (AKA "squerve" or the combined effects of squirt and swerve) will be different because of speed differences from one tip to the next. A harder and more efficient tip will create more speed, less swerve, and less net CB deflection with the same stroke. If you use a faster speed and near-level cue, the amount of swerve will be less of a factor. Then you will be measuring closer to pure squirt.

Good luck with your testing. I look forward to seeing more results from you and others.

Again, for future testing, consider using the procedure, recommendations, and camera angle demonstrated in this video:

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm)

Here's the rail ruler template (http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbilliards.colostate.edu%2F resources%2Frail_ruler.pdf&session_token=vVJl0bHKa0LosduvnqRxi5S5WM98MTM4MzY1 OTgwOEAxMzgzNTczNDA4).

Catch you later,
Dave

Pathetic Shark
11-04-2013, 07:18 AM
Based on this new information, I went back and did a video analysis of several cues with and without my tips and compared them to a ld shaft (Mezz Ikon 8 with a WD700 shaft)


What cue is that? It's not a Predator Ikon 8 with a WD700 - did Mezz make one too?

Also, it appears your table is not level around the rack area - could that be dumping the CB off line a little?

Jaden
11-04-2013, 08:20 AM
What cue is that? It's not a Predator Ikon 8 with a WD700 - did Mezz make one too?

Also, it appears your table is not level around the rack area - could that be dumping the CB off line a little?

no it is a mezz I forgot the model type. It was a model my friend had and he had previously played with an ikon 8, that's where the confusion came about.

As to dave's comment on the level stroke, I did also notice that; however, I paid close attention as to which shots that the shaft appeared to dip and you can first see that it was well after contact and secondly that almost all of the shots with the apparent dip afterwards were also shots for the shafts that squirted more, so swerve would've minimized the effect of squirt rather than accentuated it.

I will definitely continue to do more tests. I have plans to build and a design for a mechanical arm. to eliminate the individual factor as well.



Jaden

Jaden
11-04-2013, 08:30 AM
Product and process refinement along with market testing usually means you have to slow your roll a little...

Being first to market has benefits and shortfalls depending on how the market perceives you...

I know you don't want to hear this but if your video was done as a response or to refute Dr. Dave's video I think you will have to redo it with better lighting, a better camera, on better equipment and with the same exact setup as Dr. Dave used. Hole reinforcers and all.. from your camera angle it appears that you are angleing the cue (back hand english) based on the guide stick running down the table which would lower deflection..I am not sure if you are or not because of the camera angle...

Good luck,

Chris


It is quite obvious from the shadow of the shaft that there is NO BHE being used.

Believe me, I understand where you're coming from.

It wasn't specifically to refute Dave's testing. It was more for my own edification.

I will be happy to duplicate Dave's testing procedure and camera angle.

The camera is plenty good enough. I had started this prior to seeing Dave's results so I didn't know that I was comparing it to anything lol...

I wanted to ensure that the angle provided was able to show the stroke, the hit and the lathe so that there was no question that I was changing the tip and not the shaft and that there were no modifications made to the shaft.

Jaden

The Renfro
11-04-2013, 08:48 AM
It is quite obvious from the shadow of the shaft that there is NO BHE being used.

Believe me, I understand where you're coming from.

It wasn't specifically to refute Dave's testing. It was more for my own edification.

I will be happy to duplicate Dave's testing procedure and camera angle.

The camera is plenty good enough. I had started this prior to seeing Dave's results so I didn't know that I was comparing it to anything lol...

I wanted to ensure that the angle provided was able to show the stroke, the hit and the lathe so that there was no question that I was changing the tip and not the shaft and that there were no modifications made to the shaft.

Jaden

No worries Jaden was not trying to bust your balls was just trying to offer constructive criticism...

Knowing your video footage was done prior to your seeing Dave's buys you a bunch of leeway on the camera's vantage point...

Anything new is a hard sell in this industry... Future Tips were the first synthetic tips on the market that I am aware of and they ended up closing shop in spite of having a great product.. That was going on 25 years ago and market perceptions have changed greatly.. They even had a tip that required no chalk.. You just have to maintain the perspiration and avoid the exasperation of being a start up.....

Chris

minohc
11-04-2013, 09:03 AM
From what I could see, Jaden seems to me a clear and honest person and, also to support him in this adventure I have already asked by email to be among the first to be able to buy some of his tips for making "my personal tests".
It is completely right that there is a scientific method to test his invention, but I think the last word will give the on the market and give the 'impression that people will get, each on its shaft..
Mino

Jaden
11-04-2013, 09:30 AM
From what I could see, Jaden seems to me a clear and honest person and, also to support him in this adventure I have already asked by email to be among the first to be able to buy some of his tips for making "my personal tests".
It is completely right that there is a scientific method to test his invention, but I think the last word will give the on the market and give the 'impression that people will get, each on its shaft..
Mino

You will be one of the first to get one. I don't want to send out any more of the prototypes, so unfortunately, you'll have to wait for me to get the production process and quality control completed.

Here is a youtube of my putnam playing cue with an undertip and the same lepro on top of that that I had replaced in the other video, in comparison to the Mezz wd700 using Dave's method.

I don't have the same printout as him but for reference, the printout that I placed has alternating half inch stripes.

http://youtu.be/Jncm27C71lQ

Jaden

If anything, the Mezz actually had more squirt than my standard shaft using the under tip with the lepro.

Jaden
11-04-2013, 11:41 AM
I have one thing to add about that last video. I was aiming the shaft at the edge of the paper not the ball. So if you're going by the number of half inch segments the balls hit at you'd need to remove one for it to be accurate.

That's the one thing I don't like about that testing method. There's no way to know accurately where the cure is pointing. A mechanical arm eliminate that problem though.

Jaden

dr_dave
11-04-2013, 12:53 PM
I have one thing to add about that last video. I was aiming the shaft at the edge of the paper not the ball. So if you're going by the number of half inch segments the balls hit at you'd need to remove one for it to be accurate.

That's the one thing I don't like about that testing method. There's no way to know accurately where the cure is pointing.I didn't show all of the details in my edited video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm), but we were very careful to orient the CB as perfectly as possible before each shot by having each of the 2 other people look from 2 different directions. The shooter also glanced down and back at the donuts (especially the one on the rail) to make sure the cue was aimed along the same line for each shot. The non-shooters also helped verify the cue alignment. This was all done before the final strokes shown in the video. The donuts, Elephant Practice Ball (or any CB with markings), and non-shooting observers can be very helpful.

A mechanical arm eliminate that problem though. Agreed, assuming it is well designed and built, and assuming it holds the cue as level as possible (e.g., with the near rail removed) to eliminate swerve effects which can vary with shot speed (which can vary with the type of tip).

Regards,
Dave

Jaden
11-04-2013, 12:57 PM
I didn't show all of the details in my edited video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm), but we were very careful to orient the CB as perfectly as possible before each shot by having each of the 2 other people look from 2 different directions. The shooter also glanced down and back at the donuts (especially the one on the rail) to make sure the cue was aimed along the same line for each shot. The non-shooters also helped vefify the cue alignment. This was all done before the final strokes shown in the video. The donuts, Elephant Practice Ball (or any CB with markings), and non-shooting observers can be very helpful.

Agreed, assuming it is well designed and built, and assuming it holds the cue as level as possible (e.g., with the near rail removed) to eliminate swerve effects which can vary with shot speed (which can vary with the type of tip).

Regards,
Dave

I think for my next tests I'll have two cameras running simultaneously with both the angle from the second video and the angle from the first or maybe a direct over head view, using the phenolic rod again to give the parallel line comparison.

Then I'll edit the videos to be side by side and in sync.

I'll also be showing it with different tips in future tests as well.

Jaden

x3dnd3x
11-05-2013, 08:01 AM
So after testing, the low deflection tip doesn't really show to be that low deflection after all? I don't understand the graph.

dr_dave
11-05-2013, 08:24 AM
So after testing, the low deflection tip doesn't really show to be that low deflection after all? I don't understand the graph.Are you asking Jaden concerning his video, or me and mine (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm)? By "graph," do you mean the table of data?

Dave

x3dnd3x
11-05-2013, 08:25 AM
Are you asking Jaden concerning his video, or me and mine (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm)? By "graph," do you mean the table of data?

Dave

Yes you Dr Dave. I was refering to your graph. Sorry, I'm just a high school student.

dr_dave
11-05-2013, 08:30 AM
Yes you Dr Dave. I was refering to your graph. Sorry, I'm just a high school student.Watch the video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) again. It might help to watch it more than once.

The LD shaft had much less deflection than the shaft on which multiple tips were tested. However, the tip type, hardness, and height didn't make much difference in the results for the shaft on which I did the tests.

To answer your question directly, the "low-squirt tip" did not produce less squirt (cue ball deflection) than the others in my tests.

Regards,
Dave

mel_smOg
11-05-2013, 08:47 AM
so can I just buy the tip and try it?

Jaden
11-05-2013, 08:53 AM
so can I just buy the tip and try it?

You most certainly can. I know I've said this several times, but I will be officially launching in about 7-12 days. I'm currently waiting on a materials shipment and then I will officially launch.

I will be advertising here on AZ so as soon as you see my banner ad, I will be officially launched. :smile:

I was extremely surprised by Dave's results as every shaft that I had tested it on prior to sending him one had shown a marked decrease by atleast 50%. As I showed in my video, I did later find a McDermott that had marginal results.

If I hadn't been confident in the results, I would've never sent him one. The interesting thing is that he saw little difference in any tip hardness or tip height. There has to be something about certain shafts that prevent it from being affected. I will have to do additional research to find out why and what conditions leads to some shafts not being affected.

Jaden

x3dnd3x
11-05-2013, 09:01 AM
You most certainly can. I know I've said this several times, but I will be officially launching in about 7-12 days. I'm currently waiting on a materials shipment and then I will officially launch.

I will be advertising here on AZ so as soon as you see my banner ad, I will be officially launched. :smile:

I was extremely surprised by Dave's results as every shaft that I had tested it on prior to sending him one had shown a marked decrease by atleast 50%. As I showed in my video, I did later find a McDermott that had marginal results.

If I hadn't been confident in the results, I would've never sent him one. The interesting thing is that he saw little difference in any tip hardness or tip height. There has to be something about certain shafts that prevent it from being affected. I will have to do additional research to find out why and what conditions leads to some shafts not being affected.

Jaden

Will there be like sampler packs version like what Chris did?

Jaden
11-05-2013, 09:19 AM
Will there be like sampler packs version like what Chris did?

Although I wasn't originally intending to, I am thinking that I will.

I'll initially offer some sampler packs with one or two of each of the tip offerings at a reduced rate.

My J-B/Super Hard tip I offer is also really exciting as it is super hard but doesn't slip as easy as a phenolic when playing with it and using side spin.

I stumbled across the material I used while testing various materials in the development of my other tips.

Jaden

DeadStick
11-05-2013, 01:26 PM
Watch the video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) again. It might help to watch it more than once.

The LD shaft had much less deflection than the shaft on which multiple tips were tested. However, the tip type, hardness, and height didn't make much difference in the results for the shaft on which I did the tests.

To answer your question directly, the "low-squirt tip" did not produce less squirt (cue ball deflection) than the others in my tests.


Dave, thank you so much for that video. It's one of your best, imo. Hope folks realize how much work goes into producing something of that quality and scientific rigor.

I made 20 clips of it with Clippeo, which is a way to deep-link, loop, and share YouTube videos... hope it's useful to someone who may not have the patience to sit through the full 12:40 video:

http://clippeo.com/watch/Trc/653887-653887
http://i.imgur.com/xnzJEbD.png
(http://clippeo.com/watch/Trc/653887-653887)

Dave, I see you're embedding YouTube videos on your site. PM me if you're interested in embedding them with Clippeo additionally/instead, to give you and your website viewers the same sort of tools. We're working on an embed feature now.

-Ron

dr_dave
11-05-2013, 02:14 PM
Dave, thank you so much for that video. It's one of your best, imo. Hope folks realize how much work goes into producing something of that quality and scientific rigor.

I made 20 clips of it with Clippeo, which is a way to deep-link, loop, and share YouTube videos... hope it's useful to someone who may not have the patience to sit through the full 12:40 video:

http://clippeo.com/watch/Trc/653887-653887
http://i.imgur.com/xnzJEbD.png
(http://clippeo.com/watch/Trc/653887-653887)

Dave, I see you're embedding YouTube videos on your site. PM me if you're interested in embedding them with Clippeo additionally/instead, to give you and your website viewers the same sort of tools. We're working on an embed feature now.That Clippeo seems like a cool tool. That linked-table-of-video-contents feature is nice.

Thanks for posting this for my video. That's helpful. I'll check out Clippeo more when I can find some time.

Regards,
Dave

The Renfro
11-05-2013, 05:17 PM
Watch the video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) again. It might help to watch it more than once.

The LD shaft had much less deflection than the shaft on which multiple tips were tested. However, the tip type, hardness, and height didn't make much difference in the results for the shaft on which I did the tests.

To answer your question directly, the "low-squirt tip" did not produce less squirt (cue ball deflection) than the others in my tests.

Regards,
Dave

It looks like a tip may not be able to overcome the amount of deflection created by a conventional shaft that has high end mass... However if you did have a "zero" deflection shaft then the only deflection would be coming from the tip itself.... If that was the case then what would be a significance difference required before one tip was better????

The next observation I had was that Jaden's low speed testing introduced swerve...

Would it be practical to create a shorter test bed where there was little chance of swerve to establish for sure that squirt doesn't change at different speeds and only swerve is introduced if there is adequate distance and surface friction for the ball to spin back to the original target...

I am wondering this because as synthetics and hybrids enter the arena the old model of squirt being the same for all speeds may not hold up but the swerve aspect is a hurdle to get past to test properly.....

At 6ft 2degrees of squirt shows up on your video as 2.5".... If we only went a foot at 2 degrees we'd have maybe a .42" offset hit on the paper and I am not sure that the differences in the tip would not be masked with stroke variables since the offset differences would be very hard to see as they would be 10ths or 100ths instead of 1/8ths.....

I am wondering if the 6ft model would not be the best solution for visual measurement but perhaps the surface of the table could be covered with paper or poly so that swerve would not be a variable that needs to even be considered...... Would craft paper/or maybe wax paper be slick enough to eliminate swerve or would you likely need something with even less friction??

Chris

Colin Colenso
12-08-2013, 03:56 AM
Jaden, this is genius, mega impressed and can't wait to try some of your tips. It's bleeding obvious that tip materials / design could play a significant role. The days of homogeneity and layering may soon be over thanks to your work.... huge pat on back!
Colin

JB Cases
12-08-2013, 04:17 AM
jaden, this is genius, mega impressed and can't wait to try some of your tips. It's bleeding obvious that tip materials / design could play a significant role. The days of homogeneity and layering may soon be over thanks to your work.... Huge pat on back!
Colin

welcome back!!

demon627
12-08-2013, 04:25 AM
When are these going to be ready

Colin Colenso
12-08-2013, 04:36 AM
welcome back!!
Thanks JB. Nice to see familiar friends are still active here. I got inspired by the Mosconi Cup to start browsing here again. I guess it's apt to send a big g'day to all old acquaintances. :)

renard
12-08-2013, 07:35 AM
Thanks JB. Nice to see familiar friends are still active here. I got inspired by the Mosconi Cup to start browsing here again. I guess it's apt to send a big g'day to all old acquaintances. :)

Good to see you back!

Petros Andrikop
12-08-2013, 08:57 AM
The whole discussion reminds me the one about stroke types, follow through etc.
Once again it depends on how we approach the matter, if a differnet technique or material does bring a different result then it is indeed something to be considered.
There is also the question of testing methods.
There is no doubt that ultimate tests are performed by robots, regardless of results there is now way to assure that two shots can be 100% identical in every parameter when a human perfoms those shots.
Petros

Cornerman
12-08-2013, 10:00 AM
There is no doubt that ultimate tests are performed by robots,

Petros

Well… there's always a doubt. The issue with using "robots" is that if the user/tester doesn't understand where a robot can falsely influence the test, then the result can get very misleading. Period.

The Meucci "robot" has an issue that may never get changed. Copiers of that system will potentially have the same issue. And even Iron Willy had a robot issue that the Jacksonville Experimenteers had to … iron out (har har ) .


Freddie

Petros Andrikop
12-08-2013, 10:08 AM
Well… there's always a doubt. The issue with using "robots" is that if the user/tester doesn't understand where a robot can falsely influence the test, then the result can get very misleading. Period.

The Meucci "robot" has an issue that may never get changed. Copiers of that system will potentially have the same issue. And even Iron Willy had a robot issue that the Jacksonville Experimenteers had to … iron out (har har ) .


Freddie

No argue here, tough to reach 100% "accuracy", I guess discussing the tests with instructors or players helps overcoming difficulties.
Petros

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 07:38 AM
Watch the video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) again. It might help to watch it more than once.

The LD shaft had much less deflection than the shaft on which multiple tips were tested. However, the tip type, hardness, and height didn't make much difference in the results for the shaft on which I did the tests.

To answer your question directly, the "low-squirt tip" did not produce less squirt (cue ball deflection) than the others in my testsIt looks like a tip may not be able to overcome the amount of deflection created by a conventional shaft that has high end mass...I don't think a tip of any design can "overcome" the amount of squirt (cue ball deflection) created by a shaft (conventional or LD). Now, what is clear from the testing video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) is that some tips add more squirt than others. In the tests, the amount of squirt increased with the hardness of the tip. This makes sense because a harder tip is denser and heavier, create more "endmass (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass)." For more info, see the cue tip hardness effects resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness).

The next observation I had was that Jaden's low speed testing introduced swerve...

Would it be practical to create a shorter test bed where there was little chance of swerve to establish for sure that squirt doesn't change at different speeds and only swerve is introduced if there is adequate distance and surface friction for the ball to spin back to the original target.
...
Would craft paper/or maybe wax paper be slick enough to eliminate swerve or would you likely need something with even less friction??I agree that swerve can corrupt squirt-testing results significantly. The best and most convenient way to deal with this is to keep the cue as level as possible, use fast speed, and test on very slick cloth. All of these things help minimize swerve. If the cue elevation and/or shot speed are varied, any cue or tip can be demonstrated to have any amount of net cue ball deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve).

If designing a robotic tester, the test bed and cue support structure should be designed to have the cue be perfectly level at impact with the CB. Then the squirt measurements would not depend on speed, distance, or cloth conditions, because there is absolutely no swerve with a perfectly level cue, regardless of how much sidespin is used.

For more advice concerning cue and tip testing, see the robot squirt testing resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#robot).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 07:45 AM
Jaden, this is genius, mega impressed and can't wait to try some of your tips. It's bleeding obvious that tip materials / design could play a significant role. The days of homogeneity and layering may soon be over thanks to your work.... huge pat on back!
ColinColin,

It's great to see you back on the forum. I hope you stay around for a while. When I think of posters who have contributed the most interesting and useful insight over the years, your name is definitely near the top of the list.

BTW, even though Jaden's tip doesn't seem to reduce squirt (based on the testing results in the video I posted), I agree with you that his design is innovative and represents good out-of-box thinking.

Catch you later,
Dave

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 07:50 AM
There is no doubt that ultimate tests are performed by robotsWell… there's always a doubt. The issue with using "robots" is that if the user/tester doesn't understand where a robot can falsely influence the test, then the result can get very misleading. Period.

The Meucci "robot" has an issue that may never get changed. Copiers of that system will potentially have the same issue. And even Iron Willy had a robot issue that the Jacksonville Experimenteers had to … iron out (har har ).Freddie,

I agree 100%. Test results from experiments done very carefully with humans can be much better than test results from misleading robotic testing.

FYI to those interested, I have a list of things that have and can go wrong with robotic cue testing at the bottom of the robotic cue testing resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#robot).

Regards,
Dave

Petros Andrikop
12-09-2013, 08:38 AM
All this is very interesting, I get the feeling we agree when it seems we don't.
Since a totally level robotic cue movement eliminates swerve it is what we need for this kind of testing, no human hand can approach the accuracy of robotic movement.
An experienced instructor/player with knowledge of the game can estimate all parameters that can mislead conclusions of robotic testing, so I don't see any problem combining all kinds of testing.
There is no logical reason to "refuse" robotic testing if available and no testing method that requires accurate repetition of movement can be 100% complete without it.
Petros

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 10:33 AM
All this is very interesting, I get the feeling we agree when it seems we don't.
Since a totally level robotic cue movement eliminates swerve it is what we need for this kind of testing, no human hand can approach the accuracy of robotic movement.
An experienced instructor/player with knowledge of the game can estimate all parameters that can mislead conclusions of robotic testing, so I don't see any problem combining all kinds of testing.
There is no logical reason to "refuse" robotic testing if available and no testing method that requires accurate repetition of movement can be 100% complete without it.
PetrosWhat we agree on is that if a robotic machine were designed and built very well, and if testing procedures were such that all important factors are taken into consideration, then the robotic machine results would be much more accurate and consistent than any human testing results could be. The problem with all robotic testing machines designed, built, and used for testing in the past is that they haven't met this ideal description as well as one would hope. For examples of some of the issues that have put previous testing results into question, see the bullets on the robot test results and advice (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#robot) resource page.

Regards,
Dave

Petros Andrikop
12-09-2013, 10:58 AM
So if robotic machines are not made up to the desired standards yet (agreed) where does that leave any human mediated effort?..
Since we can olny agree that we do not have the definite conditions for testing in some cases we should agree that our answers up to date about these cases can not be definite yet, otherwise we fall into an obvious contradiction..
Human touch may "mask" any result conclusions by unconscious effort, so we need to be patient about the ideal conditions coming into testing, that could be a reality in the future with proper funding.
Thanks for the replies.
Petros

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 12:09 PM
So if robotic machines are not made up to the desired standards yet (agreed) where does that leave any human mediated effort?Until we can fund, design, and build high-quality machines and carefully design testing procedures that take all important effects into consideration, the best we can do is careful human experiments with multiple human subjects and multiple trials (throwing out bad data according to a careful procedure) and use averages to get meaningful results.

Also, when doing squirt (cue ball deflection) testing, we need to make sure the cue is as level as possible, use fast speed to minimize swerve effects, and use a slick cloth to further minimize swerve effects. I personally think the procedure outlined and demonstrated in my recent tip squirt-testing video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) is fairly reliable, and I would expect other people to get similar results if they performed the experiments with the same care. Also, providing clear video of the testing helps provide proof that everything was done properly and carefully (or not).

Regards,
Dave

whammo57
12-09-2013, 12:18 PM
I wish you good luck in your endeaver.....

However........... the difference in the mass of the tip, no matter what it is made of..... is insignificant.....

Kim

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 12:26 PM
the difference in the mass of the tip, no matter what it is made of..... is insignificant...In my recent tip squirt-testing experiments (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm), the largest difference in squirt (cue ball deflection) seen among the wide range of tips tested was 2 3/8" for a hard and heavy phenolic tip compared to 2 1/8" for the softest and lightest leather tip. That difference is about 12%. That difference would certainly be noticeable to a top player playing on tight equipment, but I agree that the tip doesn't make much difference in general (especially when comparing typical tips on typical playing cues).

Regards,
Dave

Petros Andrikop
12-09-2013, 01:45 PM
Until we can fund, design, and build high-quality machines and carefully design testing procedures that take all important effects into consideration, the best we can do is careful human experiments with multiple human subjects and multiple trials (throwing out bad data according to a careful procedure) and use averages to get meaningful results.

Also, when doing squirt (cue ball deflection) testing, we need to make sure the cue is as level as possible, use fast speed to minimize swerve effects, and use a slick cloth to further minimize swerve effects. I personally think the procedure outlined and demonstrated in my recent tip squirt-testing video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) is fairly reliable, and I would expect other people to get similar results if they performed the experiments with the same care. Also, providing clear video of the testing helps provide proof that everything was done properly and carefully (or not).

Regards,
Dave

As I state further down in that post, "Human touch may "mask" any result conclusions by unconscious effort".

Under the use of current equipment it's impossible to detect those minor unconscious adjustments that possibly occur while stroking or the exact complete pathway of the motions taking place.

So it's quite risky to call any procedure other than the desired one "fairly reliable" and "expect" similar results through an average of different strokes that all differ from each other. Some times experiments bring out surprising results, so until we perform them the way we wish to perform them it's safe not to rule out any posssibilities into drawing final conclusions.

However since pool is played by humans and not machines it all comes down once again to how we approach the subject:
Since any scientifically "minor" changes play significant role in a player's "feeling" (which yet has to be analyzed scientifically 100% under today's limits) then we can suggest that anything (almost everything indeed) that affects a player's stroke is important.
In this case, since a tip's hardness affects CB speed surely this leads to unconscious adjustments, affecting all elements of stroke and shot elements related to it, the player will simply tend to stroke differently although it seems otherwise.
Thanks again for the replies.
Best,
Petros

Roger Long
12-09-2013, 03:12 PM
This is an interesting thread to me since I have argued with Dr. Dave in the past about the values of previously-conducted squirt tests - both robotic, and manual. I had maintained that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated as long as the tip struck the cue ball above the horizontal axis, and is struck with as level a cue as possible.

So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt. (Remember, I have been thinking that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated with this type of hit.) So, I tested it over and over, and found that the exact speed of stroke, and maybe a few other unseen and/or undetected variables, gave varying results in the amount of squirt produced.

Then I tested a Predator 314. This time, I was again surprised. The 314 still produced squirt (just as dr. Dave has reported it will), but it was not significantly less than the graphite cue. As near as I could tell, it was only about 1/8th of an inch over a distance of 70-inches. But again, results varied with speed and those other unseen and/or undetected variables.

My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go. And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot. Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong. :o

Roger

dr_dave
12-09-2013, 04:16 PM
This is an interesting thread to me since I have argued with Dr. Dave in the past about the values of previously-conducted squirt tests - both robotic, and manual. I had maintained that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated as long as the tip struck the cue ball above the horizontal axis, and is struck with as level a cue as possible.Roger,

You are correct that an above-center hit will result in less "net or effective cue ball deflection," especially at slower speeds. This is because swerve happens sooner with follow vs. draw shots, and the downward force on the CB created by the above center hit causes some of the swerve to happen almost immediately off the tip. I and others call this effect "immediate swerve." For more info, see the squirt tip contact height resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#tip_height) for more info.

When doing squirt tests to characterize a cue or tip, the CB should be struck on the horizontal center line to minimize the effects of "immediate swerve."

So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt.A graphite cue can be very light on the end; although it can also be very stiff. The lightness factor reduces the actual "endmass," but the stiffness factor actually increases the "effective endmass." For more info, see the squirt endmass and stiffness resource page (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#endmass).

My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go.... or your cue elevation, shot speed, and cloth conditions were just right for the amount of swerve to cancel the amount of squirt for the particular shots you were testing.

And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot.Good point. Tests must be done very carefully using good statistical methods.

Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong. :o To me, that is a powerful and useful conclusion. The testing may have helped you improve your understanding of squirt and swerve effects. To me, that is of value.

Roger, the next time you do tests, consider following the procedure recommended in my recent video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm), which helps you measure the effects of squirt only, while minimizing the effects of swerve.

Best regards,
Dave

Jaden
12-09-2013, 07:45 PM
While I appreciate Dr Dave's efforts, unfortunately, we are coming at this problem from two completely different perspectives.

His goal is to test and isolate for the physics principle best described as squirt, or two massive object colliding not on the center plane and the resulting change in direction from the incoming object due to the off center hit.

My Goal: to help pool players more easily adjust for off center aiming difficulties due to effective squirt with a more inexpensive method than has been available in the past.

I have built what I call, a linear rail mechanical stroke simulator that allows for testing at three different speeds.

I will be releasing an official video with the results of tests done using this stroke simulator.

It would NOT fit the ideal goal that Dr Dave has for determining physical squirt alone. That is not my goal.

My goal again is to make aiming easier and cheaper for the average player on the average shot.

I have to say that I was more than surprised when Dave told me his results since I had confirmed with other third parties that it does indeed reduce effective squirt, but then when talking to one of those third parties I was informed that on a high squirt cue that I had put the tip on for the testing when struck HARD, it still had high squirt tendencies.

Then Dave's results made more sense.

My stroke simulator allows for a soft, medium and hard stroke. It consists of a linear rail ball bearing system that is weighted and held to the bed of the table. The cue mounts onto the rail and has lines to the side and center that can be lined up with a chalk line drawn on the table.

It does not hold the cue perfectly parallel to the plane of the table. In testing that I have conducted, I determined that almost NO shots for the average player allow for a perfectly level cue, so I created the stroke simulator to use the average angle of stroke for the average shot. Also, the vast majority of shots are not shot super hard, so only having super hard shots to try and measure squirt alone also doesn't give an accurate account for the average player on the average shot.

That's why I designed it to simulate strokes at three different hardnesses, soft, medium and hard.

I currently have a production run completed and can start sending out tips. I'm still finishing up the official test video, and putting together the new photos for the website and promotional materials. I am still probably a couple of weeks away from being ready to completely launch, but I can start sending out tips. I have medium and hard of the LD tip available and my jump break/Super hard and the pill for those who want to keep their existing tips.

I will be offering sample packs of any two tips for $20 or a sample pack of all four available for $35.

I am in Tennessee this week for work and will be at high pockets several times. Rob Saez is the new house pro there and he liked the j/b tip so I am bringing him some and I'll be letting him try out the LD tip to see how he likes it. Me and him got a chance to play some american rotation and we are supposed to have a rematch (he got me 50-36 last time when we were both dead tired).

Jaden

Colin Colenso
12-09-2013, 11:44 PM
Colin,

It's great to see you back on the forum. I hope you stay around for a while. When I think of posters who have contributed the most interesting and useful insight over the years, your name is definitely near the top of the list.

BTW, even though Jaden's tip doesn't seem to reduce squirt (based on the testing results in the video I posted), I agree with you that his design is innovative and represents good out-of-box thinking.

Catch you later,
Dave
Thanks Dave,
I watched your video and it did make me wonder about the potential of reducing squirt with strength / hardness / reduced sideway compression type methods. I guess that's still to be proven. I can see potential in lower mass materials in the tip core to reduce tip end mass.

It's great to see Jaden doing some exciting experimentation with materials!

Cheers,
Colin :smile:

Colin Colenso
12-10-2013, 12:08 AM
This is an interesting thread to me since I have argued with Dr. Dave in the past about the values of previously-conducted squirt tests - both robotic, and manual. I had maintained that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated as long as the tip struck the cue ball above the horizontal axis, and is struck with as level a cue as possible.

So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt. (Remember, I have been thinking that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated with this type of hit.) So, I tested it over and over, and found that the exact speed of stroke, and maybe a few other unseen and/or undetected variables, gave varying results in the amount of squirt produced.

Then I tested a Predator 314. This time, I was again surprised. The 314 still produced squirt (just as dr. Dave has reported it will), but it was not significantly less than the graphite cue. As near as I could tell, it was only about 1/8th of an inch over a distance of 70-inches. But again, results varied with speed and those other unseen and/or undetected variables.

My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go. And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot. Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong. :o

Roger
Hi Roger,
I've done a lot of squirt testing as I've developed and exclusively use back hand english. What you are saying about negating squirt is true, but the variables involved in its execution are much harder to control than the system I use.

The biggest issues are speed of shot and degree of english. If you're 1mm off on where the cue strikes the object ball, it will change the line of shot considerably, and if you go from a slow to a fast shot, there will be variation as well.

This doesn't even take into account that playing position often requires side spin with stun and draw.

If you try some shots at various speeds and greater and lesser degrees of side spin (offset from center), I think you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.

From my experience, BHE works best with low deflection cues, though on some soft long shots, the bridge length becomes awkwardly long to accommodate the effective pivot point.

Yours is an interesting approach though. I'll consider it and see if I can find some practical applications for it in game play. I generally avoid hitting very far above center unless it is a power shot, due to the early swerve effect. On slowere shots, I can hit at the center line and natural roll gathers over a foot or so.

askalf
12-10-2013, 08:46 AM
I don't think a tip of any design can "overcome" the amount of squirt (cue ball deflection) created by a shaft (conventional or LD).

http://i7.pixs.ru/storage/9/2/9/Squirtgif_8106461_10041929.gif

If designing a robotic tester, the test bed and cue support structure should be designed to have the cue be perfectly level at impact with the CB. Then the squirt measurements would not depend on speed, distance, or cloth conditions, because there is absolutely no swerve with a perfectly level cue, regardless of how much sidespin is used.
http://dbkcues.ru/articles-2/cue-testing-unit/?lang=en

Petros Andrikop
12-10-2013, 09:31 AM
http://i7.pixs.ru/storage/9/2/9/Squirtgif_8106461_10041929.gif


http://dbkcues.ru/articles-2/cue-testing-unit/?lang=en

Really impressive work!!

dr_dave
12-10-2013, 10:58 AM
While I appreciate Dr Dave's efforts, unfortunately, we are coming at this problem from two completely different perspectives.

His goal is to test and isolate for the physics principle best described as squirt, or two massive object colliding not on the center plane and the resulting change in direction from the incoming object due to the off center hit.Sorry, but your description of my "perspective" is not very accurate. My goal is to help people better understand the effects of squirt and swerve (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#English_effects) so they can better understand how to make aiming adjustments during play for a wide range of typical shot speeds, shot distances, sidespin amounts, cue elevations, and playing conditions (regardless of what equipment they might be using).

My Goal: to help pool players more easily adjust for off center aiming difficulties due to effective squirt with a more inexpensive method than has been available in the past.There are several free ways to adjust aiming to deal with "effective cue ball deflection" (the combined effects of squirt and swerve). One approach is to use back-hand english (BHE) and front-hand english (FHE) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/English.html#BHE) when appropriate. These techniques can work with any equipment with proper choices for bridge length and/or cue elevation (for given shot speeds and distances).

Having said this, I still think people will be interested in trying out your two-material tips. Even though my careful experiments showed no reduction in squirt for the tip you sent me, I still think your tip is a cool idea, and I'm sure people will be interested in trying them out. Some people might like the different feel it can provide with different shots.

I sincerely wish you luck and success with your marketing and sales.

Best regards,
Dave

dr_dave
12-10-2013, 11:10 AM
Colin,

It's great to see you back on the forum. I hope you stay around for a while. When I think of posters who have contributed the most interesting and useful insight over the years, your name is definitely near the top of the list.

BTW, even though Jaden's tip doesn't seem to reduce squirt (based on the testing results in the video I posted), I agree with you that his design is innovative and represents good out-of-box thinking.

Catch you later,
DaveThanks Dave,
I watched your video and it did make me wonder about the potential of reducing squirt with strength / hardness / reduced sideway compression type methods. I guess that's still to be proven.

I can see potential in lower mass materials in the tip core to reduce tip end mass.I expected to see bigger differences in squirt in the wide range of tip hardnesses, height, and types I tested in the video (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm) based on the info at the bottom of the what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause) resource page, but the data didn't show much difference. However, if an effective tip material could be found that is really hard and really light, maybe the tip could make a bigger difference.


It's great to see Jaden doing some exciting experimentation with materials!I agree 100%. It often baffles me that after 200 years or so since the leather tip was invented, we still haven't found a tip material that does a better job.

Best regards,
Dave

Jaden
12-10-2013, 12:33 PM
Sorry, but your description of my "perspective" is not very accurate. My goal is to help people better understand the effects of squirt and swerve (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#English_effects) so they can better understand how to make aiming adjustments during play for a wide range of typical shot speeds, shot distances, sidespin amounts, cue elevations, and playing conditions (regardless of what equipment they might be using).

There are several free ways to adjust aiming to deal with "effective cue ball deflection" (the combined effects of squirt and swerve). One approach is to use back-hand english (BHE) and front-hand english (FHE) (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/English.html#BHE) when appropriate. These techniques can work with any equipment with proper choices for bridge length and/or cue elevation (for given shot speeds and distances).

Having said this, I still think people will be interested in trying out your two-material tips. Even though my careful experiments showed no reduction in squirt for the tip you sent me, I still think your tip is a cool idea, and I'm sure people will be interested in trying them out. Some people might like the different feel it can provide with different shots.

I sincerely wish you luck and success with your marketing and sales.

Best regards,
Dave
I'm sorry Dave that may not be your intention but when you only test for one speed of hit that is your result. Your use of only a super hard stroke effectively isolated squirt in an attempt to better minimize swerve; however, the vast majority of shots by people are medium speed shots, not super hard. That gives people a false sense of how much of a difference their tips affect their shots on the majority of the shots they shoot. There's a reason that most better players like their tips cut really short and its not all in their head.

I would suggest you go back at some point and do tests with hard stroke medium strokes and soft strokes to see the difference.

Your attempt to isolate squirt I think takes away from your results.

I'm guilty of that too as my initial tests were all a medium stroke because I knew that swerve is maximized on soft strokes and that hard strokes are also affected due to increased force.

Jaden

dr_dave
12-10-2013, 02:31 PM
I'm sorry Dave that may not be your intention but when you only test for one speed of hit that is your result. Your use of only a super hard stroke effectively isolated squirt in an attempt to better minimize swerve; however, the vast majority of shots by people are medium speed shots, not super hard. That gives people a false sense of how much of a difference their tips affect their shots on the majority of the shots they shoot. There's a reason that most better players like their tips cut really short and its not all in their head.

I would suggest you go back at some point and do tests with hard stroke medium strokes and soft strokes to see the difference.

Your attempt to isolate squirt I think takes away from your results.Jaden,

IMO, if testing a shaft or tip for how much squirt (cue ball deflection) it produces so it can be compared to other shafts or tips, one should be measuring squirt only. Ideally, this would be done with a robot that has the cue perfectly level, with a consistent hit on the horizontal axis of the CB. In that case, there would be absolutely no swerve, and the resulting squirt measurements and comparisons would be very accurate and consistent. The results would not depend on CB speed (which can vary with the type and hardness of tip, even for a fixed cue speed), the exact cue elevation, or the cloth conditions (which can vary with cleanliness, temperature, and humidity, all of which can change during a set of tests).

If you or others claim to have a low-squirt shaft or a low-squirt tip, the only true test is to directly measure the amount of squirt without possible corruption of data and results by swerve which can vary with cue elevation, cue speed, tip hardness/efficiency, and ball and cloth conditions.

I agree with you that when playing, the cue will always be elevated some and swerve will be a factor, and the player will need to be able to adjust for swerve effects which vary with shot speed, shot distance, cue elevation, and conditions. However, if your goal is to measure how much squirt reduction a shaft or tip provides, the tests should measure squirt directly. I would always doubt results from any cue or tip tests where swerve is a potential factor because any slight changes in cue elevation, CB speed, and/or cloth conditions can significantly affect the results. That's why it is best to try to eliminate or minimize swerve when doing squirt testing. There are too many variables involved with swerve.

Now, if people want to see how "effective cue ball deflection" (AKA squerve, or the combined effects of squirt and swerve) vary with speed, then I would agree that varying the shot speed (but keeping the cue elevation constant) during the tests would be a good idea. But then you would be measuring how swerve varies with shot speed. You wouldn't be measuring or comparing the amount of squirt the shaft or tip produces. Also, you would get different results on different cloths, under different conditions, at different cue elevations.

In the testing procedure I recommend in the video I posted (http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVD-15.htm), swerve is minimized by keeping the cue as level as possible, using a horizontal-axis hit on the CB, and by using fast speed. Without having a robot with a perfectly level cue, this is the only way to reliably measure shaft/tip squirt independent of all of the swerve effects that can potentially produce misleading results. If our CB speeds varied a little, it wasn't a big deal because the swerve doesn't change much with small changes in speed at such fast speeds. However, if much slower speeds were used instead, and if the speed varied even a small amount (maybe because a harder tip resulted in more CB speed even for a repeatable and consistent stroke), then the swerve could vary quite a bit from one shot to the next (especially if the cue elevation were also changing slightly) and the results could be misleading.

Regards,
Dave

Cornerman
12-10-2013, 02:45 PM
I'm sorry Dave that may not be your intention but when you only test for one speed of hit that is your result.
Ah! Now I figured out what might be going on.

I think the basis of the soft-core concept as far as decreasing squirt is concerned is to retard the ability of the transverse wave down the shaft. That is to say that part of the contact time, the outer edge of the tip and resultant lateral wave initiation has to fight through the soft core just to really start the propagation down the shaft. Less propagation length means less shaft mass involved.

It is very possible that the act of shooting hard closes that initial "fight through" time in a significantly shorter period of time compared to a medium stroke that unfortunately on firm shots, the normal amount of transverse wave propagation occurs.

I think Dr. Dave needs to at least test at medium speeds as a comparison. By the same token, I think Jaden needs to test at higher speeds to see if he also sees the spike in squirt.

The issue with the floating ferrule concept (which also works to retard the initiation of the transverse wave propagation) is that once the float gap is closed (presumably on very firm shots), then the full tenon and shaft are in play.

Freddie

dr_dave
12-10-2013, 03:13 PM
Ah! Now I figured out what might be going on.

I think the basis of the soft-core concept as far as decreasing squirt is concerned is to retard the ability of the transverse wave down the shaft. That is to say that part of the contact time, the outer edge of the tip and resultant lateral wave initiation has to fight through the soft core just to really start the propagation down the shaft. Less propagation length means less shaft mass involved.

It is very possible that the act of shooting hard closes that initial "fight through" time in a significantly shorter period of time compared to a medium stroke that unfortunately on firm shots, the normal amount of transverse wave propagation occurs.Before I did the tests, I also had a bunch of ideas for how Jaden's tip design might help reduce squirt (for more info, see the bottom of the what causes squirt (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/squirt.html#cause) resource page); but until we see conclusive and reliable experiment data proving reduced squirt, independent of swerve effects, it is all conjecture.

I think Dr. Dave needs to at least test at medium speeds as a comparison.If I had the time and desire, and if I hadn't already imposed on my cue technician, I would do this, but I would not be very confident in the results due to everything mentioned in my previous posts. Although, if somebody builds or has a cue-testing machine that can produce several repeatable speeds, and do so with a level cue, I would love to the see the results.

Catch you later,
Dave

The Renfro
12-10-2013, 03:22 PM
Interesting conversation going on.... If you wanted to test at low or medium speeds why not take the bed cover off?? Elevation and speed won't have a thing to do with creating swerve since without friction there should be none....

Low and medium speeds just mean that swerve is a factor and at just the right speed and elevation won't all tips be net zero? Granted the speed and elevations would be different and the elevation and speed are likely dependent variables..... more speed meaning more elevation to get to net zero....

Matter of fact at super slow speed and lots of elevation you could say the tip was not zero deflection but negative deflection if you are talking about the net movement based on your aim, but that would mean redefining deflection to include deflection and swerve and since they are 2 separate phenomenons it's mixing apples and oranges...

I know from my soft version that it has a higher spin to speed ratio than my hard or medium... It spins the ball more at all speeds... I would hazard a guess that at slow to medium speeds it would have more swerve because of that fact and would show a lower net cue ball movement as well.... The same may be true with the Kamui Super Softs and we are also on track as to why Kamui tried to market their chalk as low deflection. more spin....

Chris

Rackemep
01-22-2014, 05:02 PM
subscribing so I can find this later...