sorry for the late reply. was too sleepy to post late last night. anyway, my set is wrapped with plastic. I do have the Premiums though so I don't know if they are any different than the typical Premier wrapping.

Well now that i used a different browser it works for me haha. Thanks

cuetechasaurus said:

I needed a new cue ball for my table and purchased a set of two of them on Amazon. One is a measles cue ball and the other is one of those training cue balls that is similar to the old Jim Rempe training ball.

Both of these cue balls behave like they are permanently waxed, it’s very weird. I thought maybe the seller had waxed them for some strange reason so I cleaned both multiple times but they still react very strangely, similar to cue ball behavior from that ‘waxgate’ controversy. I was over drawing everything with little effort. When I switched back to my older cue ball I wasn’t having that issue.

Click to expand...

I find the training ball that I have is very tricky for my opponent to handle. they hate it whenever we use it and felt it was throwing off some different spin. I did fine with it.

dr_dave said:

FYI, I just posted a new video that shows how to test a table to determine if kicks and banks go short or long compared to typical pool tables. I also tests new 7’ and 9’ Blue Label Diamond brand tables with new cloth to see how they perform, and he shows how to make aiming adjustments when a table is banking short. Check it out:

Login to view embedded media ​

Contents:

• 0:00 - Intro
• 0:53 - Background
• 2:31 - 7’ Diamond Kicks
• 4:01 - 9’ Diamond Kicks
• 4:45 - 7’ Diamond Banks
• 6:28 - 9’ Diamond Banks
• 7:31 - Conclusions

Supporting Resources:

• how to test a table for kicking and banking: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/bank-kick/testing/
• kick and bank system test shots: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/resource_files/kick_and_bank_test_shots.pdf
• two-to-1 rolling CB kick shot aiming system: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/bank-kick/two-to-one/
• twice-plus-tenths sliding bank aiming system: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/bank-kick/twice-plus-tenths/
• Diamond tables banking short: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/bank-kick/diamond/
• 9’ table diamond ruler: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/resource_files/diamond_ruler.pdf
• 7’ “bar box” diamond ruler: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/resource_files/diamond_ruler_bar-box.pdf

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

Click to expand...

Well, "there is always one...", and today is my day to be the one. So, here goes:

Consider a perfect cushion: angle in = angle out. Because of the 3 11/16 inch setback of sights, the aim geometry of sighting through the diamonds differs from that which would result from aiming using the cushion nose or rail groove. Using the sights, I estimate the angle of incidence for the 7 foot table to be 11.8 degrees for the 20-10 kick, and 22.7 degrees for the 40-20 kick. For the 9-foot table, the incident angles would be 12.29 and 23.54 degrees respectively.

Using this, the impact points on the banking rail for the 7-foot table would be short by about 0.77 inches (20-10), 1.54 inches (40-20). For the 9-foot table: short by 0.8 inches (20-10) and 1.61(40-20). This is all attributable to the geometry of aiming through the diamonds, and correction would be required for any "perfect" table. These would be slightly larger for rail-groove impact.

The golf tee "correction" in your experiment sure looks close to the predicted 0.77 inches for a "perfect" table.

Assuming rail "pushback" is negligible, and given that the CB is rolling pretty slowly this is probably reasonable, is there any evidence that Diamond tables require any correction beyond that required by the (flawed) through the sights aiming?

cuetechasaurus said:

I needed a new cue ball for my table and purchased a set of two of them on Amazon

Click to expand...

Is this the set? It so, they're inexpensive:

They are probably just smoother than your old balls because they are brand new. And/or they could be lighter because they are cheap knock-offs.

jasonlaus said:

Cause extra eyes on an event is stupid I guess. Why isnt pool more popular - famous person might play - thats stupid who wants new fans

Click to expand...

Duh?

Hard Knock Cues said:

Well this explains the conversation on the dynospheres and how my numbers were so different.

I'll have to study it a little further, but can I be the only one using the difference from heaviest to lightest method as a gauge to measure quality?

Click to expand...

IMO, the important part is the consistency amongst the entire set and the cue ball weight in relation to the object balls. My Dynaspheres Bronze and Rhodium sets (all phenolic) are the tightest of all the sets I own including Aramith Tournaments. Cyclops Skittles and Hyperion are right there as well which makes sense being as Cyclops evolved into Dynaspheres. I believe the Dynashperes set you are referencing is one the their Dynaphex resin sets. I don't have any experience with those.

straightline said:

That's like saying Stradivarious killed fiddlin'.

It didn't.

Click to expand...

Really poor analogy.

It's like saying a Szamboti killed pool, which no one is saying.

Lou Figueroa
just sayin'