Does sidespin on the break matter/help?

Here is your chance pj

Patrick Johnson said:
As I said, this lame insult is your transparent excuse for bailing out of the conversation every time you can't explain some questionable claim. I'd be happy to talk politely with you about it, but you just can't seem to be civil long enough for that.

If you can't stand being asked to explain your claims, maybe you shouldn't make them where people are likely to want to ask you about them - you know, like in a discussion forum.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


OK pj, here is your chance to prove you are interested in discussing things rationally instead of just trying to score points in a contest only you are engaged in. Here are the points you either ignored or ignored after I further explained them. If you want to discuss anything with me respond to the questions in red after each section.

Hu

English on a cue ball takes effect on the cue ball after hitting the rack, not just after hitting a rail! The reason is simple. The mass of the rack is far greater than the mass of the cue ball, so it has more effect on the primary forward force of the cue ball. This can allow the secondary force on the cue ball, the spin, to have much more effect after forward motion is checked by impact with the rack.

1. Agree?
2. Disagree?
3. Can't comprehend what I am saying.
Explain your answer
(my response to why rotation around a vertical axis curves the path of a cue ball)
In a word, friction.

1. Agree?
2. Disagree?
3. Can't comprehend what I am saying.
Explain your answer
Not caring to split hairs I ignore the false statements like side has no effect on the travel of a cue ball before it hits a rail. However when people take this as literally true then this can lead them to false assumptions.

1. Agree?
2. Disagree?
3. Can't comprehend what I am saying.
Explain your answer

Unless the basic mechanical laws of the world don't apply to pool it has to. It is true enough that it has little effect. However if it had no effect swerve would not exist regardless of how much or how little the cue is elevated. Think about it. The angle of the cue increases or decreases the bite between the cue ball and cloth but if there were no bite at all then increasing it wouldn't matter. 0x10000000000000 is still zero.

1. Agree?
2. Disagree?
3. Can't comprehend what I am saying.
Explain your answer

In one place you say that sidespin doesn't cause an effect in another place you say it is a component of what causes the effect. Which is it? We can easily magnify the effect by using different surfaces. Try a basketball on your living room carpet. Strike it with just enough force to go across the living room with a lot of side and a dead level cue or reasonable substitute. Does the basketball go straight or curve?

1. What will the basketball do?
2. Can't comprehend what I am saying.
Explain your answer
 
ShootingArts said:
OK pj, here is your chance to prove you are interested in discussing things rationally instead of just trying to score points in a contest only you are engaged in. Here are the points you either ignored or ignored after I further explained them. If you want to discuss anything with me respond to the questions in red after each section.

Hu
Click to expand...

Hu, you can't dictate how I'll respond to you. I'll respond politely in the way that seems best to me.

English on a cue ball takes effect on the cue ball after hitting the rack, not just after hitting a rail! The reason is simple. The mass of the rack is far greater than the mass of the cue ball, so it has more effect on the primary forward force of the cue ball.[[
Click to expand...

More effect than what?

This can allow the secondary force on the cue ball, the spin, to have much more effect after forward motion is checked by impact with the rack.
Click to expand...

In other words, sidespin can make the cue ball curve if it's going slow enough? I don't think sidespin has any appreciable effect on the cue ball's path while it's rolling freely on the table, no matter what the speed.

(my response to why rotation around a vertical axis curves the path of a cue ball)
In a word, friction.
Click to expand...

Friction can only curve the cue ball if it applies a force across its rolling path. Sidespin on a rolling ball doesn't do that.

A rolling ball with sidespin rotates around a tilted axis like a barrel that you've tilted so you can roll it on its edge. If the table surface was wet with ink it would draw a line around the rolling ball like a line of latitude on the tilted earth. This line of latitude would roll across the table surface like the bottom edge of a tilted barrel, just as if the barrel was contained within the ball.

All the points on that line of latitude are moving (partly) crossways to the direction of the ball's travel, except two points: the highest point and the lowest point. For the moment that each point on the line of latitude is at the highest or the lowest point they are moving only parallel with the ball's direction of travel. The lowest point is the point where the ball touches the table surface, and since at that point there is no no crosswise movement, there is no crosswise friction and the ball does not curve.

You might want to make the argument that the ball doesn't roll on a perfectly flat surface, but in a tiny indentation created by its weight compressing the cloth on the table (or that it pushes a tiny wrinkle ahead of itself that has the same effect), and so for a tiny moment just before each point on the tilted latitude reaches dead bottom it's actually creating a little crosswise friction on the side of this tiny indentation/wrinkle. That's probably true, and the ball probably does curve a tiny amount because of it, but such a tiny amount that we can't even see it even at the slowest speed, so it doesn't matter at all.

Not caring to split hairs I ignore the false statements like side has no effect on the travel of a cue ball before it hits a rail. However when people take this as literally true then this can lead them to false assumptions.
Click to expand...

I have the same concern, but in the opposite direction. When people are misled to believe that sidespin does change the cue ball's rolling direction, then I try to correct that misperception. And here we are.

Unless the basic mechanical laws of the world don't apply to pool it has to. It is true enough that it has little effect. However if it had no effect swerve would not exist regardless of how much or how little the cue is elevated.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is true either, and you'll have to explain it in the same kind of detail that I used above in order to make your case.

Think about it. The angle of the cue increases or decreases the bite between the cue ball and cloth but if there were no bite at all then increasing it wouldn't matter. 0x10000000000000 is still zero.
Click to expand...

There's no "bite" if the cue is level. There is "bite" if the cue isn't level.

In one place you say that sidespin doesn't cause an effect in another place you say it is a component of what causes the effect. Which is it?
Click to expand...

It's a "component" of the total spin, but it's not the component that causes the ball to curve. I'd have to launch into another long explanation to make this clear, so maybe it should be saved for another post.

We can easily magnify the effect by using different surfaces. Try a basketball on your living room carpet. Strike it with just enough force to go across the living room with a lot of side and a dead level cue or reasonable substitute. Does the basketball go straight or curve?
Click to expand...

What's magnified in this example is the tiny "indentation" that I described above. With a basketball on a carpet the indentation might be big enough to make a visible change in the basketball's path (I don't know). But that wouldn't change the fact that the tiny indentation under a rolling cue ball makes no practical difference in its path.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Pool is played through cognition and sense perception. Success in the game depends on the operation of complex neural and molecular feedback loops which operate independently of the physics governing the balls, which do nothing at all until struck by the player. This means that neurobiology (and supporting biomolecular events) is the transcendent operator in pool.

Little to no work has been done specifically to illuminate the neruo- and molecular biology of pool; it is a classic scientific black box. Therefore, it is fundamentally unknown why the balls do what they do when a player shoots. The data and exactitude required for a truly scientific understanding of the game are unavailable. The physics associated with the equipment are entirely epiphenomenal and, as such, are of highly questionable value to the pure and high science of pool.

As an example of how complex the science of pool really is (and how much knowledge in this area can help all players), the diagram below represents a partial skeleton of just the gross neural events (pathways) governing something like locating the foot spot in order to place a ball on it. I hope this is helpful to everyone's game. And if it debunks a myth or two running loose and free out there, all the better.

Fig-7-Lynch-JC-PBR-2006_small.jpg
 
Last edited:
TxSkin said:
Pool is played through cognition and sense perception. Success in the game depends on the operation of complex neural and molecular feedback loops which operate independently of the physics governing the balls, which do nothing at all until struck by the player. This means that neurobiology (and supporting biomolecular events) is the transcendent operator in pool.

Little to no work has been done specifically to illuminate the neruo- and molecular biology of pool; it is a classic scientific black box. Therefore, it is fundamentally unknown why the balls do what they do when a player shoots. The data and exactitude required for a truly scientific understanding of the game are unavailable. The physics associated with the equipment are entirely epiphenomenal and, as such, are of highly questionable value to the pure and high science of pool.

As an example of how complex the science of pool really is (and how much knowledge in this area can help all players), the diagram below represents a partial skeleton of just the gross neural events (pathways) governing something like locating the foot spot in order to place a ball on it. I hope this is helpful to everyone's game. And if it debunks a myth or two running loose and free out there, all the better.

Fig-7-Lynch-JC-PBR-2006_small.jpg
Click to expand...



Could you expound on the vestibular nuclei process?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootingArts
OK pj, here is your chance to prove you are interested in discussing things rationally instead of just trying to score points in a contest only you are engaged in. Here are the points you either ignored or ignored after I further explained them. If you want to discuss anything with me respond to the questions in red after each section.

Hu


Hu, you can't dictate how I'll respond to you. I'll respond politely in the way that seems best to me.

That would be quite different, for you to respond or be polite.

Quote:
English on a cue ball takes effect on the cue ball after hitting the rack, not just after hitting a rail! The reason is simple. The mass of the rack is far greater than the mass of the cue ball, so it has more effect on the primary forward force of the cue ball.[[

More effect than what?

Read the original post before you chopped it up. You are being obtuse for your own amusement. I am pointing it out for mine. If you truly can't understand the original paragraph you are the only one with the issue.

Quote:
This can allow the secondary force on the cue ball, the spin, to have much more effect after forward motion is checked by impact with the rack.

In other words, sidespin can make the cue ball curve if it's going slow enough? I don't think sidespin has any appreciable effect on the cue ball's path while it's rolling freely on the table, no matter what the speed.

Speed isn't the issue, time is. It takes more time for the cue ball to travel the same distance rolling slowly so there is a greater number of revolutions around the vertical axis per inch of travel. The ratio of spin to forward travel is greater.

Quote:
(my response to why rotation around a vertical axis curves the path of a cue ball)
In a word, friction.

Friction can only curve the cue ball if it applies a force across its rolling path. Sidespin on a rolling ball doesn't do that.

How can it not? Have you repealed the law of gravity or decided that there is no friction between a cue ball and a table?


A rolling ball with sidespin rotates around a tilted axis like a barrel that you've tilted so you can roll it on its edge. If the table surface was wet with ink it would draw a line around the rolling ball like a line of latitude on the tilted earth. This line of latitude would roll across the table surface like the bottom edge of a tilted barrel, just as if the barrel was contained within the ball.

so you are saying a ball and a cylinder roll in the same manner? Obviously I have rolled a hell of a lot more barrels than you have!

All the points on that line of latitude are moving (partly) crossways to the direction of the ball's travel, except two points: the highest point and the lowest point. For the moment that each point on the line of latitude is at the highest or the lowest point they are moving only parallel with the ball's direction of travel. The lowest point is the point where the ball touches the table surface, and since at that point there is no no crosswise movement, there is no crosswise friction and the ball does not curve.

Your love of theory over fact is showing again. Actually the cue ball hit with sidespin skids quite a bit both in the direction of travel and in the direction of spin. Also there is much more than a point touching the table. All of these things create friction. A demonstration of friction between the cue ball and cloth is an oft used shot often called a draw shot. You can test this for yourself. Please refer to Dr. Dave's articles for details. Without friction between the cue ball and cloth a draw shot would not work. Spin can easily be proven by hitting any marked ball to the side of center. Friction is proven by a draw shot. Spin plus friction equals a curve in the real world because there is slippage rather than your theoretical line.

You might want to make the argument that the ball doesn't roll on a perfectly flat surface, but in a tiny indentation created by its weight compressing the cloth on the table (or that it pushes a tiny wrinkle ahead of itself that has the same effect), and so for a tiny moment just before each point on the tilted latitude reaches dead bottom it's actually creating a little crosswise friction on the side of this tiny indentation/wrinkle. That's probably true, and the ball probably does curve a tiny amount because of it, but such a tiny amount that we can't even see it even at the slowest speed, so it doesn't matter at all.

Why should I make an argument when you are agreeing that the cue ball curves slightly which you have contested since my first post saying that it did? You may not understand why but now you acknowledge it does. That is a start!

Quote:
Not caring to split hairs I ignore the false statements like side has no effect on the travel of a cue ball before it hits a rail. However when people take this as literally true then this can lead them to false assumptions.

I have the same concern, but in the opposite direction. When people are misled to believe that sidespin does change the cue ball's rolling direction, then I try to correct that misperception. And here we are.

Yes, you try to argue theory against empirical evidence. As always when the evidence proves otherwise the theory is flawed.

Quote:
Unless the basic mechanical laws of the world don't apply to pool it has to. It is true enough that it has little effect. However if it had no effect swerve would not exist regardless of how much or how little the cue is elevated.

I don't believe this is true either, and you'll have to explain it in the same kind of detail that I used above in order to make your case.

Sorry, mechanical law doesn't change on a pool table. Friction, gravity, inertia, all of these things still exist. I suggest you visit a reference library if you doubt this.

Quote:
Think about it. The angle of the cue increases or decreases the bite between the cue ball and cloth but if there were no bite at all then increasing it wouldn't matter. 0x10000000000000 is still zero.

There's no "bite" if the cue is level. There is "bite" if the cue isn't level.

So you deny friction and gravity? See above.


Quote:
In one place you say that sidespin doesn't cause an effect in another place you say it is a component of what causes the effect. Which is it?

It's a "component" of the total spin, but it's not the component that causes the ball to curve. I'd have to launch into another long explanation to make this clear, so maybe it should be saved for another post.

It would take quite a long explanation to explain that it has no effect, it is a component in what causes the ball to curve, and it is not the component that makes the ball curve. Matter of fact, I'd say that making anyone but yourself understand these claims is impossible.

Quote:
We can easily magnify the effect by using different surfaces. Try a basketball on your living room carpet. Strike it with just enough force to go across the living room with a lot of side and a dead level cue or reasonable substitute. Does the basketball go straight or curve?

What's magnified in this example is the tiny "indentation" that I described above. With a basketball on a carpet the indentation might be big enough to make a visible change in the basketball's path (I don't know). But that wouldn't change the fact that the tiny indentation under a rolling cue ball makes no practical difference in its path.

How can the cue ball or basketball create an indention or a ripple in front of it without friction or gravity? Your arguments aren't cohesive. Physical laws are constants, they don't come and go.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

pj,

You simply can't accept parts of physics and mechanical law and ignore other parts and hope to come to accurate conclusions. You are either going to have to open your eyes and mind or keep stumbling around with the same tired and wrong ideas you persist with.

I know I am not going to be able to help you in a public forum because your pride allows no room for thought. You will have to help yourself, something else you show no inclination to do.

As long as you persist in the idea that natural law is suspended on a pool table I am not going to waste time trying to open your eyes. Read a book on everyday physics. Read a book on mechanical properties and actions. Then maybe we can communicate.

Hu
 
Man watching you two go at it is like seeing cats humping. Part of me wants to turn away, part of me wants to laugh, and part of me is aroused?! No, wait, that's overcooking the simile.

Anyway, I did a ton of breaks tonight with 8 ball and decided putting the head ball in the side sucks. It's easy to get the ball to hit low enough with draw, but it's a very particular amount of draw that is very difficult to do consistently. It's nowhere near maximum. I can't hit that exact amount of draw every time. Worse yet, another ball races towards the side cheek-to-cheek with the head ball and often runs interference and blocks it. I think it might be the 2nd ball. It doesn't always go in the side either.

I have had better luck with the second ball, just breaking an inch or two off of center. But weirdly, though I can get that 2nd ball going to the side pretty nicely and it's always really close, when the shot fails it fails completely and the 2nd ball does straight sideways, and the other 2nd ball on the opposide site of the rack is the one that (almost) goes in.

I called the 2nd ball, broke, made it, and ran out... I felt like Corey for a second there.
 
the break shot is tough

CreeDo,

Sorry about the thread derailment, I usually ignore pj's replies to me to avoid that. Hard to stop once I goaded a moderately reasonable reply out of him.

The break shot is probably the toughest shot on the table. That is why if I didn't hit it on the vertical line I only used low left. I found it worked and every different hit on the cue ball took a long time to get a handle on. When I add it up I have hit racks tens of thousands of times with low left over the years. That is the real answer to why I know it opens the balls up better for me than without side spin, assuming all or most balls are touching. Enough repetitions with and without spin and you get a feel for what the norm is. Just draw doesn't give me the same spread as draw with that bit of side.

I taught beginners to hit the cue ball hard and centered with just a touch of high or low and sooner or later always heard, "but you don't hit the cue ball hard." The answer was yes I did but a lot of the force was burnt up in spin so the cue ball speed wasn't extremely fast.

The two most important shots in pool, the lag and the break, are often the least practiced. I resist the temptation to just throw or spread balls out on the table when practicing and break every time I put the balls on the table. I'm lazy about practicing the lag but we usually flip coins around here.

Hu


CreeDo said:
Man watching you two go at it is like seeing cats humping. Part of me wants to turn away, part of me wants to laugh, and part of me is aroused?! No, wait, that's overcooking the simile.

Anyway, I did a ton of breaks tonight with 8 ball and decided putting the head ball in the side sucks. It's easy to get the ball to hit low enough with draw, but it's a very particular amount of draw that is very difficult to do consistently. It's nowhere near maximum. I can't hit that exact amount of draw every time. Worse yet, another ball races towards the side cheek-to-cheek with the head ball and often runs interference and blocks it. I think it might be the 2nd ball. It doesn't always go in the side either.

I have had better luck with the second ball, just breaking an inch or two off of center. But weirdly, though I can get that 2nd ball going to the side pretty nicely and it's always really close, when the shot fails it fails completely and the 2nd ball does straight sideways, and the other 2nd ball on the opposide site of the rack is the one that (almost) goes in.

I called the 2nd ball, broke, made it, and ran out... I felt like Corey for a second there.
Click to expand...
 
Tennesseejoe said:
Could you expound on the vestibular nuclei process?
Click to expand...


Right you are, friend. You could expound upon the processes as they relate to pool were they known. The same is true for all of the other boxes in the diagram. And, in fact, the diagram itself is a box in a larger process, which in turn is a "box" as well, and so on so that the entirety of the situation when it comes to the true science of pool is very much like a Matryoshka doll.

And the problem is further complicated by the facts that while the existence of some boxes is known from experiments on the lower life forms such as the lamprey and rodent, and observations on certain normal and pathological states of humans, we do not know for certain what their roles are in the playing of pool, nor whether we have idenitified all of the boxes involved. Finally, none of this presently tells us how deeply below inter- and intracellular neural communications we must appeal in order to have a true and complete science of pool.

For example, which, if any (or all) of the metabolic process at the link below are relevant to our pursuit?

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf

And so, friend, as you see there is a library of data to collect, know, and interpret if we wish to have a full and real science of pool and there is literaly shelf-upon-shelf of it if we wish to scientifically understand how even a simple 6-inch straight in shot is made.

How can we and how can we not bring all of this information in service to bear upon the player who can make such a shot repeatedly without error, but who yet may be doing it under some scientific misconception that annoys us? That, in a nutshell, is our high purpose and noble task. We must remain focused lest we lose the point of playing the game.
 
Last edited:
so you are saying a ball and a cylinder roll in the same manner?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am, politely and in great detail. And despite professing your love for polite dialogue the only response you can muster is "does not!".

I am not going to waste time trying to open your eyes.
Click to expand...

You ask for polite commentary and then respond, as usual, with insults and avoidance. Fortunately, I think other readers are capable of understanding what I say.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
ShootingArts - no worries about the derailment. I genuinely get entertained by the fighting. It's verbal UFC. I guess I would call you lay 'n' pray with a good defensive standup game. Patrick is more stalking and jabby and waiting for the opening, counting on having the judges on his side.

I think you are about due to silence the critics with the ultimate technique: YOUTUBE CLIP.

Record me a few breaks using your favorite spin, maybe 5 or so, and let me see success on at least 4 of 'em, with multiple balls going in. Bonus points if one certain ball goes in the same pocket every time.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to see how it's done. It may only work for you or on certain tables or whatever. It may not even prove anything (I won't know if it's the sidespin or if the ball is just squirting to hit a more favorable spot on the head ball). But if I could watch such a video I might learn something and improve my own break, which is pretty much the biggest thing on my pool to-do list right now.
 
A z f f

CreeDo said:
ShootingArts - no worries about the derailment. I genuinely get entertained by the fighting. It's verbal UFC. I guess I would call you lay 'n' pray with a good defensive standup game. Patrick is more stalking and jabby and waiting for the opening, counting on having the judges on his side.

I think you are about due to silence the critics with the ultimate technique: YOUTUBE CLIP.

Record me a few breaks using your favorite spin, maybe 5 or so, and let me see success on at least 4 of 'em, with multiple balls going in. Bonus points if one certain ball goes in the same pocket every time.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to see how it's done. It may only work for you or on certain tables or whatever. It may not even prove anything (I won't know if it's the sidespin or if the ball is just squirting to hit a more favorable spot on the head ball). But if I could watch such a video I might learn something and improve my own break, which is pretty much the biggest thing on my pool to-do list right now.
Click to expand...

Maybe,
We should have an AZ FLAME FEST forum. (Louisiana is known for his festivals.)

YOu would have to be at least 18 years of age to enter and you could flame all you wanted as long as you did not use curse words. (Calling people names would be allowed as long as they weren't curse words). LOL

It would probably be the most popular forum. :p

JoeyA
 
Joey, I like the idea, but why the hangup on cussing? Let it be a full-force roasting. Nothing says "motherf*er" quite like "motherf*er" :)

I know, it's a bit low class and even boring to just see people load up every swear in the book without any wit or originality, but just a *sprinkling* of properly placed swears can really make the flame.
 
i have a radar gun and sidespin drastically reduces the mph........the avg break speed for me was around 22-25mph and the worse the sidespin the less the mph....alot of sidespin will put me in the 17-19mph range................just wanted to let everyone know how bad sidespin can hurt your power. thats why a slower controlled break gets better results...alot of times its not really that much slower than if u tried to crush them

cya
 
Interesting point chaz... do you think it's slower because you're striking further away from the center of the cue ball's mass? Or is it possible you're hitting it a little 'scared' because at full force it's gonna be hard to aim and deal with the squirt?
 
I think I can see some truth in what both of you are saying in regards to friction and spin.

Perhaps I'm just feeble-minded, but wouldn't the action on the leading edge of a spinning ball be negated by the action on the trailing edge?

I'm talking about the interaction of the ball and the cloth, and because I haven't thoroughly wrapped my head around it, I'm assuming the ball is sliding with sidespin.

So anyway, I feel like the interaction between ball and cloth due to friction is definitely there, but self-negates, at least when the ball is sliding. No?
 
it only slides in one direction

Jesse the skid on front, back, and both sides actually all works together because it is all either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which side you hit the cue ball on. It doesn't counter act itself. A boat with two engines normally has one running in reverse rotation to balance out the effect of one propeller's rotation. Those with a single prop use a little adjustable tab that does the same thing. However the basic theory is the same with a single prop or spinning cue ball. The effect all the way around is the same. Opposite sides don't cancel each other out.

Hu



Jesse said:
I think I can see some truth in what both of you are saying in regards to friction and spin.

Perhaps I'm just feeble-minded, but wouldn't the action on the leading edge of a spinning ball be negated by the action on the trailing edge?

I'm talking about the interaction of the ball and the cloth, and because I haven't thoroughly wrapped my head around it, I'm assuming the ball is sliding with sidespin.

So anyway, I feel like the interaction between ball and cloth due to friction is definitely there, but self-negates, at least when the ball is sliding. No?
Click to expand...
 
selective ain'tcha?

pj,

You are back being very selective what you respond to. One liners and ignoring 90% of the post. One moderately intelligent response every ten years seems to max your capacities out. Now it is back to SSDD

There is a reason I don't waste time with you. You inability to read and think and your rewriting of what I say proves who has problems. I communicate just fine with dozens of people, agree with them or not. You, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree communication is impossible.

Hu


Patrick Johnson said:
Yes, I am, politely and in great detail. And despite professing your love for polite dialogue the only response you can muster is "does not!".



You ask for polite commentary and then respond, as usual, with insults and avoidance. Fortunately, I think other readers are capable of understanding what I say.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top