Bending the Object Ball

Neil said:
You know, John, the more I think about that shot, the more it seems like a lot of spin was transferred to the ob. I faintly remember the ob acting a little "weird", then turned just enough to go right in the hole.

I've always been able to do some pretty cool stuff with my stroke, but there is no way I can duplicate that shot. Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to do it with a stroke that I don't yet have. ??? Now, whether or not the few that might be able to do it can catch it on video, well, that's a whole 'nuther story! Your bet might be pretty safe. However, since you are offering TWO cases, will you settle for one of the "cheapies" if I can get it to work on both sides of the wei table???:grin:
Click to expand...

I know spin can be transferred to the object ball. I think that if it happened in a particular situation then one of two possibilities exist,

A. it was an anomaly that could have only happened at that moment due to circumstances being just right at that moment.

B. it is something that is repeatable and as such can be duplicated through example under other conditions.

I think that it should be possible to set up a shot which clearly shows the object ball going in one initial direction and then changing course into another direction which is not a result of table roll.

I think we all have had shots like yours where the ball appeared to be blocked and we tried to play it safe and it went anyway. I have.

One shot that I do frequently is to try and make the object ball "cling' to the rail when it's blocked. I try to shoot it at a shallow enough angle and give it just a bit of spin so that it will sort of cling to the rail on the way down and allow it to go in from an angle that seems a bit to much to make it.
 
The problem with the shot diagrammed in the original post is that's impossible to tell how much you have managed to bend the ball, if at all. It is very hard for most people so see how much of the pocket, if any, is blocked in such a situation. Of course it is easy for good players, but not from across the room. Here is a much, much better position to test your bending technique.

CropperCapture[2].png
 
Neil said:
I just tried that a bunch of times. I can get it to bend a LITTLE, but not enough to make it.
Click to expand...
I tested my bend by freezing another ball to the cushion near the far pocket. I managed one time to hit about a quarter-inch of that ball. Or maybe a little less. The required bend to make the ball is only about two degrees.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The problem with the shot diagrammed in the original post is that's impossible to tell how much you have managed to bend the ball, if at all. It is very hard for most people so see how much of the pocket, if any, is blocked in such a situation. Of course it is easy for good players, but not from across the room. Here is a much, much better position to test your bending technique.

View attachment 169443
Click to expand...
I like this test. This sets the two balls in the same spot everytime.
I knew I could count on you Bob. You told me the secret of maximum throw a few years back and it is still in the vault. :grin:
thanks,
JoeyA
 
JB Cases said:
I will give a free case to the first person who can provide a video of the object ball curving AROUND another ball.

I don't believe it can be done EVEN with an airborn hit on the object ball. I think that whoever claims that they saw Efren do it is mistaken about what they saw. Effy comes with some awesome shots but making an object ball masse' is not one of them.

I will give TWO free cases if anyone posts a video of themselves making Joey's diagrammed shot WITHOUT making the object ball jump over the blocking ball.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say the same things but I don't have anything to give :grin:
 
I am no dr dave and there are plenty of people that know more about the principles of pool but I call total BS on curving a OB. Banking, yes. Cutting, hell no. If it went by cutting it, it was because of rolloff of the table. I have hit a lot of shots with extreme english, and I just dont see it happening. JMHO.
 
JoeyA said:

CueTable Help



This is a shot that a person called pro-player once claimed that Efren Reyes made. Let's assume that the one ball doesn't pass the two ball and you want to make the one ball in the lower left hand corner pocket. (We can assume that the other pockets are blocked as well).

Let's also assume that this is on old Simonis cloth not super-smooth new Simonis cloth.

Let's also assume that this is using clean balls.

Let's further assume that it is on a regular 9 foot Diamond pool table.


From the angle of where the cue ball is, can the one ball be BENT (curved) around the two ball and pocketed in the lower left corner pocket? If so, how?

Thanks,
JoeyA
Click to expand...


You can't bend an OB. I believe Bob Jewett has a long standing challenge and has a setup for anyone willing to try.

Having said that, given the part in your assumptions where you say this is on a Diamond table I would describe one possible scenario: anyone who has watched enough Accu-Stats matches, especially 1pocket, has seen that on Diamond tables, sometimes, an OB will come down the long rail at a slight angle, touch the rail and sort of cling and continue to travel up the rail almost as if by magnetism or some other hidden force, effectively making it curve. It's not exactly like the ball is catching the rail gutter in the cloth, it's just some weird thing where the balls just stays close to the rail. Udder than that I got nothin' for you, head back to camp :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
You can't bend an OB. I believe Bob Jewett has a long standing challenge and has a setup for anyone willing to try.

Having said that, given the part in your assumptions where you say this is on a Diamond table I would describe one possible scenario: anyone who has watched enough Accu-Stats matches, especially 1pocket, has seen that on Diamond tables, sometimes, an OB will come down the long rail at a slight angle, touch the rail and sort of cling and continue to travel up the rail almost as if by magnetism or some other hidden force, effectively making it curve. It's not exactly like the ball is catching the rail gutter in the cloth, it's just some weird thing where the balls just stays close to the rail. Udder than that I got nothin' for you, head back to camp :-)

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Are you at the Derby? How about a report? Who'd you whip up on? Who'd you witness getting whipped up on?
 
lfigueroa said:
You can't bend an OB. I believe Bob Jewett has a long standing challenge and has a setup for anyone willing to try.

Having said that, given the part in your assumptions where you say this is on a Diamond table I would describe one possible scenario: anyone who has watched enough Accu-Stats matches, especially 1pocket, has seen that on Diamond tables, sometimes, an OB will come down the long rail at a slight angle, touch the rail and sort of cling and continue to travel up the rail almost as if by magnetism or some other hidden force, effectively making it curve. It's not exactly like the ball is catching the rail gutter in the cloth, it's just some weird thing where the balls just stays close to the rail. Udder than that I got nothin' for you, head back to camp :-)

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

So now you're believing in the occult? Hidden force? pffft. :wink:
 
JoeyA said:
I like this test. This sets the two balls in the same spot everytime.
I knew I could count on you Bob. You told me the secret of maximum throw a few years back and it is still in the vault. :grin:
thanks,
JoeyA
Click to expand...

Not only is this a consistent setup of the OB's Bob says put the CB anywhere you want.

In the original setup there were a couple of folks that advised low left English. The left may help turn the OB but I doubt low has any effect at that angle and if it did it would transfer top spin to the OB reducing the masse effect.

In Bob's scenario if bending is possible this setup will prove or disprove the theory.

I'd first go with a tad high max right but better have more ability than me for the speed and gearing must be perfect for any chance at all.
 
JoeyA said:
Are you at the Derby? How about a report? Who'd you whip up on? Who'd you witness getting whipped up on?
Click to expand...


I was there, but now I is home. I got foreclosed on by two members of Banks of America: Shannon Murphy (1-3) and Louie de Marco (1-3). A report... maybe tomorrow morning after an espresso or two.

Lou Figueroa
 
Jal said:
In principle, you can get the OB to curve just be using draw or follow at any non-zero cut angle. But calculations indicate that, at most, the change in direction is miniscule (in fact, very hard to measure and probably overridden by random buffeting by the cloth's weave pattern).
Click to expand...

That's true, Jal (as usual). What I find interesting is how most players' intuitions about which way the transferred follow or draw would make the OB curve tend to be the opposite of what would actually happen. (This was true about me, too, many years ago before I considered the physics.)

In the diagrammed shot, for example, you'd have to shoot with follow on the CB to get the OB to curve towards the pocket, but everyone wants to shoot it with draw! The only way draw could do it is via the downward force masse effect from a jump shot, as you suggest.

Robert
 
JoeyA said:
I will try it just as you suggest over and over and over. Hopefully I will be able to place the object ball and the cue ball in the same position each time so that my efforts will be based upon the same layout.

I know that when these difficult shots are set up, people have a tendency to move the object balls minutely, somtimes by either accident, or subconsciously or on purpose to improve their chances of making the shot. Small inconsistencies in ball placement can exaggerate or alter the results. I doubt I will attempt to use reinforcement stickers as that would probably just add another problem to the shot.

I would like to determine how much bend I can apply to the object ball on such a shot.

Thanks,
JoeyA
Click to expand...

IMHO - the 'secret' is in the stroke. As has been mentioned by others,
pretend you are playing Bank pool and shooting one of those
cross the ball banks that won't go, but you can English it in. We used to
call it 'dragging' the cue ball, or 'killing' the CB. A few decades later, I
would learn I was stunning the CB. You want it to be sliding, not rolling
at time of contact.

Dale
 
Robert Raiford said:
That's true, Jal (as usual). What I find interesting is how most players' intuitions about which way the transferred follow or draw would make the OB curve tend to be the opposite of what would actually happen. (This was true about me, too, many years ago before I considered the physics.)

In the diagrammed shot, for example, you'd have to shoot with follow on the CB to get the OB to curve towards the pocket, but everyone wants to shoot it with draw! The only way draw could do it is via the downward force masse effect from a jump shot, as you suggest.

Robert
Click to expand...
I'm glad you looked at the effect too and came up with the same conclusions, Robert. As far as I'm aware of, Cushioncrawler on the Cue Chalk Board forum, first noted the phenomenon (only he could ferret out these things), which he called "Masse Veer," and like you, I didn't believe it. But after some further cogitation and very messy construction, I was converted. Although it would make shot making considerably more of an adventure, I'm almost sorry the effect isn't much larger, neat as it is. It would be interesting to see how well the math is reflective of reality, if only it could be measured easily.

For what it's worth, I agree that using follow instead of draw for that shot would be, in principle, the way to go, and bucks our intuition. It's a shame, though, that it doesn't do more for you (next to nothing according to the math). :(

You're probably aware of it, but Dr. Dave has a derivation (very elegant by comparison, naturally) here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-24.pdf

Jim
 
Advanced Principles of Pool

JB Cases said:
I will give a free case to the first person who can provide a video of the object ball curving AROUND another ball.

I don't believe it can be done EVEN with an airborn hit on the object ball. I think that whoever claims that they saw Efren do it is mistaken about what they saw. Effy comes with some awesome shots but making an object ball masse' is not one of them.

I will give TWO free cases if anyone posts a video of themselves making Joey's diagrammed shot WITHOUT making the object ball jump over the blocking ball.
Click to expand...

Here you go JB Cases.
Grady Matthews- Advanced Principles of Pool tape He calls it "The Passing Shot" Chapter4 at the 18 min part of the tape.He does it on the short rail which is even harder than the long rail shot that JoeyA has setup. JB I am to old do know how to do that YouTube stuff from video tape and I am not sure if Grady would like that but it is clearly demonstrated here when he was a much younger man. I hope that gets me one of your fantastic cases (4 butts 8 shafts) PM me.

Thank you
 
JoeyA said:
I like this test. This sets the two balls in the same spot everytime.
I knew I could count on you Bob. You told me the secret of maximum throw a few years back and it is still in the vault. :grin:
thanks,
JoeyA
Click to expand...
Joey, it appears that some of the naysayers and haters such as John Barton are trying to rain on our parade. Why can't they just leave us alone and let us enjoy our illusions about OB curve. (:) :) :))

But seriously, I'd like to suggest a variation on Bob's test. Instead, freeze the 1-ball to the 2-ball such that they're jutting out perpendicular to the cushion (as accurately as possible, perhaps using a carpenter's square or whatever). This, I believe, would eliminate any question of the 1-ball jumping over the 2-ball while on a pre-established non-parallel path. Though experimentation is called for, I'll also suggest placing the cueball directly behind the 1-ball, on a line parallel to the cushion, then jump the cueball onto it using sidespin to "throw" the 1-ball into the 2-ball. Unless someone comes up with a convincing argument or demonstration, I believe the 2-ball will effectively prevent all but a fraction of a degree of that throw from occurring, and any significant deviation from a path parallel to the cushion will be due to a masse spin component on the 1-ball.

If nothing happens, it has to be attributed to poor execution or having one's eyes in the wrong place. (just kidding again) On the face of it, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to get the 1-ball to in fact hit the long cushion before the pocket. But, I haven't tried it, and of course, the proof is in the pudding.

Just a thought.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Jal said:
As far as I'm aware of, Cushioncrawler on the Cue Chalk Board forum, first noted the phenomenon...
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst Cushioncrawler's bubble, but he's almost 200 years too late ;) As with many billiard physics ideas we tend to think of as modern results, Coriolis got there first and had already described and diagrammed the effect in his 1835 book.

Like later scientists, Coriolis pointed out that the curve is too small to observe. I agree it could be fun if it weren't, though, although regular ball pocketing would indeed be tougher.

Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top