..........
Can you transfer side spin to an OB?
- Thread starter softshot
- Start date
The visual evidence of sidespin you're looking for is not really a good criterion. You're expecting to see something like spin about a vertical axis, but cloth friction and the spin it induces obscures that. The actual physical points on the surface of a ball do not remain fixed at their initial latitude and longitude positions as the topspin develops and the spin axis changes direction (tilts to the left). For example, the points which were on the "equator" relative to the initial sidespin do not stay on the new equator being defined by the new spin orientation. Most migrate off of it. The amount of migration depends on the magnitude of the initial spin versus the amount of torque applied by the cloth, as well as the initial position of each point. What you get is a wobble and that can be used to measure the amount of sidespin present. Or, a much easier way, since the math is complicated, is to view high speed videos.
It's not clear what you mean by "straight line through the contact point." If you mean in the direction the cueball is traveling, you're partially right. That is, because of friction the force does not point exactly at the center of the object ball. If it did, you would get no spin. This off-center directed force is torque and torque induces spin.
I don't know if you're quibbling over the word "transfer"; you can drop it if you like. That's more of a philosophical issue. Since the induced spin is opposite to the cueball's, I would agree that "transfer" is not the best description.
Nevertheless, it does come away with a spin that is, in magnitude, almost 36% of the cueball's spin in many cases. In the process, the cueball's spin is reduced by 36%. This is an important consideration when figuring draw distance and the best way to shoot stun-run-through and stun-back shots, for instance. Losing 36% of its spin means that the cueball will travel only about 41% (.64 squared) of the distance it would have traveled if it lost no spin at all. That's one major reason why you don't observe a linear relationship of draw distance with tip offset as you "get way out there on the cueball." The spin loss is greatly reduced at large offsets.
Jim
Last edited:
LOL...hehehehe...and pfft!
I can't believe this post...The world has already been proven spherical...I'm sorry that you still think it's flat...
Better turn your ship around before you fall off the end of the Earth!!
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I can't believe this post...The world has already been proven spherical...I'm sorry that you still think it's flat...
Better turn your ship around before you fall off the end of the Earth!!
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It seems the original poster may have seen the light, or dropped off the edge of the earth? But Jason seems to have a more persistent belief in the impossibility of spin on the CB producing spin in the OB. But aren't we all familiar with fixed beliefs that are resistant to change no matter what evidence is produced? Now I'm not saying.....
Stubborn resistance is aided by the inability to recognize good evidence vs. bad evidence. This leaves one free to cherrypick the "evidence" that seems to fit foregone conclusions without worrying about nagging details like whether or not the evidence is real.
The test shots suggested in this thread are good examples: hardly any of them really demonstrate the presence or absence of transferred spin, and Jason (plus 99/100 other readers here) simply can't tell which do and which don't.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I think the biggest "argument" on this thread is about the definition of terms
..
I have been shooting the shot in my video for 2 straight days now and this is what I have learned..
there is a minute "twist" of the OB on contact.. that slight twist tilts (as you state) at impact near enough to 90 degrees and becomes a touch of follow on the OB which explains the OB's ability to achieve natural roll immediately. when there is no spin on the CB the OB slides a bit before rolling..
when you add the push offline from the collision I call that combined effect Throw.
to meet my definition of transferred spin the OB would have to retain some side spin for a significant distance after impact. and I see no evidence to support this.
Last edited:
For me, the most persuasive video shows an OB retaining enough spin to come off a rail at the angle needed to pocket the ball. It is the second shot in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1
I have read this whole thread and am still waiting to see comments on this shot from you or Jason. The shot in the video seems irrefutable to me, but maybe you see it differently?
I think the reason more posters have not contributed posts supporting the possibility of CB spin producing OB spin is that pretty much all the seasoned players are well aware of the effect and can't imagine spending even a few minutes in a "debate" on the issue.
The thread has called out the most technically competent people on AZ such as Dr. Dave, JAL, pj, Scott Lee, and mikepage. It should have not escaped the notice of the OP and Jason that 100% of these bright and knowledgeable AZers have stated clearly and with many examples and videos that spin on the CB produces enough spin on the OB to significantly effect it's rebound angle off a rail.
When you continue to see this kind of stubborn refusal to accept arguments and evidence, I believe there is something else going on other than a simple debate over the physics of pool shots.
Last edited:
with all due respect.
I have executed this shot several hundred times in the past two days literally. with every reasonable combination of speed and spin
I have sound fundamentals and an accurate stroke.
if it was possible I would have had to stumble upon it sooner or later.
It didn't happen... because it can't happen..
Object balls can acquire side spin and they acquire this spin from cushions
NOT from the cue ball.
I appreciate your respectful reply. I guess I didn't realize that you had tried to duplicate this shot and failed to do so. Given that you tried the shot several hundred times, I can understand that you might conclude that "the shot doesn't go." So you think the video was faked? And that Dr. Dave, and JAL, and so many others are just delusional? If you think the video was faked, you might ask yourself why would anyone be motivated to fake it.
I am afraid we are at an impasse here. If we were in a pool room, I am sure I could show you that the video did NOT have to be faked, as could virtually ANY bank pool player. I think I am going to have to respectfully withdraw from the "debate" at this point. Cheers!
Are you stating that you tried the second shot in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1 ) for two days and could not make it??
IMO it clearly shows spin transfer and no CIT.
The spacial relationship to the rail and the shadow on the table does not change enough to MAKE the ball. The OB clearly shows a different path AFTER hitting the rail. CIT would not produce this.
I'm not saying the bank shot is impossible. I'm not accusing anyone of faking anything.
I'm saying you are not seeing what you think you are seeing.
I believe I have a very solid grasp of these effects.
it doesen't matter "Who" says I am wrong..
I KNOW what I know.
straight line between two balls before collision during collision OB is thrown offline and proceeds to hit the rail at an angle allowing it to come back to the pocket ..
That's what I see
There is no way that you can watch that shot and see the cueball coming off the cushion at anything near the same angle in.
No way. I mean no way possible. Its crystal clear.
Pause the video with the OB half way or three quarter way to the rail and track the angle. The angle off the end rail is dramatically different than the angle in.
I see that you are saying it is throw offline. OK but shouldnt the angle off the endrail be similiar in the least to the angle in??
What causes the angle off the end rail to be so different?
you can change angle off of a rail with follow and draw.. no side spin involved.
If you look back a few posts I attempt to explain how the minor transfer of spin at contact becomes a touch of follow almost instantly..
to acheive equal in equal out you need a sliding ball..
Last edited:
Just to throw another log on, in support of this weenie roast: it is entirely possible that the table you are playing on is not set up properly. My experience is that if the rails are just a touch higher than regulation, it is very difficult to get spin on an OB to take off the rail. At the other extreme, there is equipment out there on which you can twist balls like pretzels.
Having said all that: on a properly setup pool table, with anything approaching decent balls, you will be able to transfer enough spin to the OB to dramatically change its path off a rail.
Lou Figueroa
Wouldnt top be natural running english? You cant produce overspin correct?
I know draw takes an effect but I have never noticed enough top on any ball to produce a different result. Speed matters alot.
Just watching the video I linked its surprising to me that you think anything other than Sidespin caused the reaction. I think you are so sure that you are correct that you are not looking at the data and information from some very knowledgable people (not me).
I am trying to see the spin before contact with the rail..
because as we both know rails can impart spin on balls all by themselves the amount is based on the angle..
I want to see side spin before rail contact to prove that it was applied by the cueball..
Dr Dave said a "small amount" of transfer.
Wow, Mankato, I used to load out of ther from Archer Daniel Midland.
Too bad I wasn't running thru there anymore.
I did this last night. I won't try and let on I'm an experienced player as I come from a small city and most of what I do know has been self taught with alot of trial and error.
The Q ball was exactly on the 20 diamond. For a straight on hit for a cross bank, the OB was aimed directly at the 8th position. I know I could have reverse cut ( if I can call it that) the OB into the #10 diamond but instead, I applied a small amount of right to the Q ball and hit it straight into the 8th position.
I'd like to think that a small amount of left spin was imparted on the OB, all I know is that the bank worked. Dr. Dave has never steered me wrong in any of his vids that I've studied in the past while.
Wow, Mankato, I used to load out of ther from Archer Daniel Midland.
Too bad I wasn't running thru there anymore.
I did this last night. I won't try and let on I'm an experienced player as I come from a small city and most of what I do know has been self taught with alot of trial and error.
The Q ball was exactly on the 20 diamond. For a straight on hit for a cross bank, the OB was aimed directly at the 8th position. I know I could have reverse cut ( if I can call it that) the OB into the #10 diamond but instead, I applied a small amount of right to the Q ball and hit it straight into the 8th position.
I'd like to think that a small amount of left spin was imparted on the OB, all I know is that the bank worked. Dr. Dave has never steered me wrong in any of his vids that I've studied in the past while.
Last edited:
no top is top.
Running english is outside english
side spin with the correct orientation to the rail
with inside or reverse english being side spin on the opposite side of the ball.