Why CTE is silly

[JoeyA]

Then Hal Houle should be the one getting the money from the DVD because by all accounts I've read on this thread, it's HIS "system".

Maniac

LOL. I know Hal well enough that Hal wouldn't want a dime from anyone and he SURELY wouldn't take a penny from Stan or Landon.

I guess if I went with your logic, if I wrote and published a book on all of my pool lessons (good and bad), and share this information with the world in book form and sold the book, I should look up all of the people who have helped me with my game and if I have some sales on the book, I should send them all a check. :grin::grin:


Hal Houle (last name "rhymes with pool") deserves a GREAT DEAL of credit and I think he will and does get his accolades from the people who know, like and respect him, not just for his ideas about CTE and other aiming systems but for the man who he is and was.

Hal has to be close to 90 years old and I'm honored to have known him even if it was just through lots of late night phone calls, when often, we talked very little about CTE.

I don't have any problem with the people who believe that CTE is "silly" or that it doesn't work or that it doesn't work the way they think it works.

I do have a problem with the attempt at humiliation of fellow posters in this forum. I do have a problem with the mean-spiritness of those who would attempt to ridicule a man who is old enough to be their grandfather or great-grandfather. I do have a problem with people making fun of another person's religious beliefs.

I've seen a change in the tone of some of the posts by GMT even if he still believes CTE is "silly". El Kabong has restrained his instrument of censure and that is a good thing too. It's not often that a single thread can generate this number of posts. Kudos to GMT for starting such a interesting thread. Except for a few exceptions and outbursts the thread has allowed members of both sides of the camp to share some civil perspectives.

Opposing views can be the seasoning for life and may even teach us some new things but they don't have to poison the very air we breathe.

It is up to each man to work out his own salvation.

In the meantime, I am off to hit some balls using CTE/ PRO ONE, CJ WILEY's aiming system, ghost ball, stick to ball, light aiming system, shadow system, contact point to contact point, put it in the hole and any other "dam" system I can think of. :grin:

 

[iusedtoberich]

Assuming for argument's sake this was true, there were several shot examples in this thread of the exact same CB to OB distance, but of differing cut angles. The argument that CTE users are using the relative size of CB and OB from the shooter's perspective falls apart. It has yet to be answered (unless I missed it) how that is accounted for in CTE.

....
If I'm correct, then it goes toward explaining why CTE works for some that use it for they are adjusting to the size of th OB appearing smaller when separated from the CB at distances.
.....

 

[pool101]

You have small Balls??

That is not true.

I bought a cylindirical laser pointer and have rolled it while it was pointed at the edge of the OB down table, 7 feet or so, to it's center and the distance that it rolled was less that 1/2 the diameter of a CB or less than 1.125".

You clearly haven't done this.

 

[BRKNRUN]

Lou, I'm here telling you to can it.

You went too far with the comments toward Stan.

Knock the crap off.


The same applies to several people in this thread.
Don't push it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7InogPN7vk8&feature=player_embedded

 

[LAMas]

You have small Balls??

They just look smaller from a distance.:smile:

 

[BRKNRUN]

Nothing important about CTE ever gets answered.

How do you make shots to other places than the corner pocket?

How (keeping both balls in the exact same spots) do you send the OB in two different directions?

How (if you can't determine a straight in shot) can you determing a half ball hit?

If you can't align straight away from center CB to 1/4 OB or center CB to center OB...How can you make an "air pivot" to determin the contact point (somewhere in between) and then be able to set up to that alingment?

How on earth does CTE compensate for CIT?

Why (once I have made my parallell shift from center to edge) would I need to look back up at the OB....should'nt I just be able to pivot to center and shoot center CB?

How do I determin what center CB actually is when I execute this pivot?
Is it base center from "initial center alignment" or is it the "new center" viewed from the paralell shift? (because remember....just as the "edge" changes as your perspective changes...so does the center)

Any chance of getting these questions (as they apply to CTE) answered????

 

[Jal]

...What I am sayin is that if you put a sheet of glass in front of the cue or in this case, the cylindrical laser pointer and draw on the glass the smaller diameter of the OB down table, say 7 feet away. You will draw a circle of about 3/8 of an inch in diameter for that is what your eye/s will see from behind the CB at the plane of the glass - like you were shooting a shot.

Now if you put the laser pointer aimed at the edge of the 3/8" circle, in front of the glass, and roll it to the center, it will have traversed 3/16".

Lamas,

Although summarily dismissed as your "aparallel" interpreter a while back, my wounds have healed (sort of ), and I'm willing to continue, if you are?

I think what you're saying is that lines that appear parallel in the focal plane (screen, retina) when viewed from other than square on, are actually divergent:





This is perfectly true. And, if I understand, you want to exploit this to reduce the pivot distance from the tip by reducing the offset (lateral shift). Ideally, you want a fixed pivot location.

I've done most of the math on this, but frankly, it's hard to get motivated to do the additional work of presentation. For one, I think it's difficult to actually do an accurate parallel focal plane shift. You're dealing with small distances, and I believe our perceptual (interpretive) machinery tends to put up obstacles. Second, as you've noted, there's the problem of accumulation of errors as you go through each step. Third, the pivot location(s) may be unduly sensitive to head position. (I may be wrong about that.) Finally, I think it's likely that as the graphs unfold, we'll see a non-intuitive set of curves, viz a viz, pivot position versus cut angle and pivot position versus CB-OB separation. This is true for CTE, as we know it.

If I can put it in gear, I'll do this for the CTCP method, which is linked to shot geometry. Nothing, however, will put CTE on a geometrically sound basis.

If I'm off base, or you won't trust anything I put forth, please let me know so I don't spend more time on it (though I do have a certain amount of curiosity myself). If you have a specific interest other than what I've indicated, please also let me know.

Jim

 

[LAMas]

JAL,
Hi.

I don't want you to read all of the posts to find this diagram that I posted early in this thread.

I did redo my diagram for a contant bridge location by reverse engineering my CTCP since we last conversed.

The results for various cut angles by varying the parallel/offset/shift is diagramed.

Again the tall diagram to the left is how the shift is decreased when the distance between the CB and OB is increased and the OB appears to become smaller at the focal plane.

Thanks in advance if you persist with me.:smile:



One caviat is that the 15 and 44 degree cut are not perfectly back to the center pehaps due to the curvatur of the OB,

 

[duckie]

Oh my, we are getting creative with the graphics.

One thing,,,,,,,,,CTE goes out the window also when ya got to curve the CB around a ball to make a ball.

Masse shots.......

 

[duckie]

I just realized what CTE is_ a handicapp aiming system for the visually impaired.

 

[Neil]

Oh my, we are getting creative with the graphics.

One thing,,,,,,,,,CTE goes out the window also when ya got to curve the CB around a ball to make a ball.

Masse shots.......

Uhhhh..... So does ghost ball and your handy dandy little arrow. Who EVER said that you should use CTE for a masse shot??

 

[Jal]

...Again the tall diagram to the left is how the shift is decreased when the distance between the CB and OB is increased and the OB appears to become smaller at the focal plane....

...One caviat is that the 15 and 44 degree cut are not perfectly back to the center pehaps due to the curvatur of the OB,

Thanks for the diagrams (and not making me search for them!). After viewing, I think we're on the same plane, so to speak.

I was surprised at the constant pivot distance you obtained, though I believe I've seen them in previous diagrams. My results (should I obtain some) won't be as tidy since there's a continuous reduction in apparent (focal plane) OB diameter with distance from the center of the eye lens. Cue elevation and the relative orientation of the optic axis to the cue's long axis are also factors in the lateral quasi-parallel shift. But maybe the differences won't be all that drastic?

Jim

 

[Dead Crab]

LaMas,

I don't think I'm confounded, but I honestly don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. What I do know is that if you do a true parallel shift from the edge of an OB to the center of the OB, the shifted line will be 1 1/8" away from the original line, regardless of how far away the OB is.

I have a laser, and I just did your experiment (I think). Every time I did a parallel shift from the OB edge to the OB center, the laser move sideways 1 1/8", for every OB distance I tried. Now, as others have pointed out, the original and shifted lines might not look parallel, due to perspective effects, but this effect does not change with OB distance.

Sorry I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Regards,
Dave

And neither do many other people. I don't know if this link will work, but on page 309 of the document, there is an explanation of "size constancy", which needs to be considered. Distant objects appear smaller due to the effects of the lens of the eye and the curved surface of the retina. However, our brains get in the way, and will "size" the distant object for us. Link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6M...m=3&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[LAMas]

Thanks for the diagrams (and not making me search for them!). After viewing, I think we're on the same plane, so to speak.

I was surprised at the constant pivot distance you obtained, though I believe I've seen them in previous diagrams. My results (should I obtain some) won't be as tidy since there's a continuous reduction in apparent (focal plane) OB diameter with distance from the center of the eye lens. Cue elevation and the relative orientation of the optic axis to the cue's long axis are also factors in the lateral quasi-parallel shift. But maybe the differences won't be all that drastic?

Jim

Jim,
We/you can tabulate on an Excell spread sheet, the CTE offset/parallel shift for a given bridge distance behind the CB for every one degree angle for the novice to look up as well as the new smaller distance of the shift when the OB is separated from the CB. If you do...a noble persuit....but who would use it?

We create look up tables in field programmable gate arrays (FPGA) or ASICs for the processors to digest to get our/my missiles on target to get the bad guys and to prevent collateral damage.

As I said, this is an academic persuit for few here will benefit from what we proffer.

Thanks for your interest and time....wasted.:wink:

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou, I'm here telling you to can it.

You went too far with the comments toward Stan.

Knock the crap off.


The same applies to several people in this thread.
Don't push it.

Just for the record: I've explained myself and my conscience is clear as far as Stan is concerned.

But, you are the mod, so I will try and follow your directive to "knock the crap off."

Lou Figueroa

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Assuming for argument's sake this was true, there were several shot examples in this thread of the exact same CB to OB distance, but of differing cut angles. The argument that CTE users are using the relative size of CB and OB from the shooter's perspective falls apart. It has yet to be answered (unless I missed it) how that is accounted for in CTE.

I guess people just ignore what they can't answer.

Typical.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...Distant objects appear smaller due to the effects of the lens of the eye and the curved surface of the retina.

Just to pick a nit, I think this effect is simpler than your description makes it sound. Distant objects appear smaller simply because they occupy less space in our field of vision.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

I dont know how and why cte works, but it works great! I use it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave,

Did the OB down table look progressively smaller?

Did you draw the smaller appearing OB on a pane of glass in front of where the CB would be (focal plane)? Don't use the CB as a reference for this experiment....just the laser pointer.

Is your laser pointer truely cylindrical and did you roll it on the table so that is axis was parallel to the original CTEL - with regards to the smaller diameter?

I'm sorry that I thought that you were confounded with what I proffered then..

Thanks for your time...wasted.:smile:

When you're aiming a shot you can't roll a cylinder across the table; you have to estimate whether or not your shift is truly parallel. On top of that you have to visualize the distant OB projected at its apparent smaller size on a nearer vertical plane, which is contrary to your instincts (as Dead Crab says, our minds instinctively "resize" distant objects for us). And both of these have to be done precisely in order for your method to work (assuming it does work geometrically - I'm taking your word for that so far).

This doesn't measure up for me as a possible way that CTE could be considered "exact". It seems to me like another tortured rationalization for the increasingly obvious fact that CTE is a "front end" system that is not "exact" but merely allows its users to more effectively access their own aiming instincts.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Lou:
you are the mod, so I will try and follow your directive to "knock the crap off."

Good luck with that. I think you also have to successfully guess which posters are "special" in the mind of the Go... er... mod and therefore are supposed to be given "special respect".

pj
chgo