It's a simple question, champ:
... explain how the CTE line can "come from different edges".
No pool table needed.
pj
chgo
CTE/ProOne Robotics
- Thread starter jwpretd
- Start date
... explain how the CTE line can "come from different edges".
No pool table needed.
pj
chgo
i never said that, it didnt come from me and i didnt read his post! so are you ready to discuss this whole cte/pro1 with just me and i will answer any question you ask?
He shot the Air Barrel at you. Remember how RonV offered to put up 10k if he wanted to bet? Crickets!
He shot the Air Barrel at you. Remember how RonV offered to put up 10k if he wanted to bet? Crickets!
Yeah--- PJ can't remember. He always said I make it up. In case everyone wants to read the ORIGINAL air barrel (LONG before there was a hair dildo), they can read:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=113341&highlight=ronv&page=9
PJ SAYS:
There's only one definition of pivot point, and that's the point on your stick that doesn't move when you pivot, and that can only be at the bridge. It doesn't matter how you move the rest of the stick, whether you hold it at the butt or at the tip or somewhere in between, or whether you move your hip or dance a jig or sing karaoke while doing it.
SPIDEY SAID:
Ok. Wanna bet something?
PJ REPLIES:
There's no question. The pivot is at the bridge.
If you agree that's the bet I'll take any amount up to $5,000, which I'll post with anybody we can mutually agree on. We can also bet something else if money's not your cup of tea, or money plus something else.
Of course, if you continue to read the thread--- I called PJ on this bet and said "let's meet" --- which, if I recall, was a $3k call, his cue plus a banishment (permanent). The base on the bridge never moves as one can change "the effective pivot point" by moving the tip along the shot circle.
You can learn more about "effective pivot points" here:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html
So, I think PJ shouldn't be cocking off about bets until I get my $3k. Sometime after this thread, PJ "MIA'd" for a while because someone prob clued him in.
Right and this was thrown into the mix as well...
Originally Posted by RonV
PJ, All bets are off with Dave i`am taking all of the action up to $10.000...
Now again I`ll say it put your money where your mouth is or give up the battle...You have lost all the battles and you lost the war if you don`t take the BET...
RonV
Chill, brother. You or your system are not being attacked or ctiticized.
pj
chgo
Whatever debt you're imagining happened in your dreams. I suggest collecting there.
pj <- not the first Spideydream to appear here
chgo
LOL. The "shot circle" again. I think that tells us all we need to know about what reality and that "bet" have in common.
Last edited:
You can grow much better (near-perfect and large, with very high yields) protein crystals in micro-gravity conditions, so the data is better than you can get with ground-grown crystals, but it's not a real convenient way to grow them, and it's very, very expensive. People are now trying to use magnetic fields to control the local effective gravity to get the same effects - more convenient and only very expensive.
My original response was wrong. Thanks to Patrick Johnson for pointing it out. It said:
<sigh>That should have read:
No, but the new cut angle is shallow enough that the cue ball edge to the secondary alignment point on the object ball would change, "forcing" you to stand in a different place to "see" things correctly. At least I think that's the case - I don't have time to look at it on the table.
Two things are worth always keeping in mind: (1) The system is purely visual, and (2) you can't draw it properly in 2D.
I believe I've thought of a simple experiment that will let people for themselves see what happens, but I won't have time to test it until tonight or tomorrow.
Last edited:
i was not trying to say it came from a different edge.i was trying to show that the cte line perspective changes as your vision changes.
draw a line on a table and place a ball near it....rotate your vision around it and the line looks like its coming from a different part of the ball.
its called 3d
not going to bother with you anymore.i know what works for me.these cte threads were more productive when you werent around
Hold the phone. Yes???
If the balls don't move there is no "new CTE line". This is one of those "reality" things that CTE users tend to lose touch with.
pj
chgo
You mean you liked it better when it didn't matter if you made sense or not.
I can see how you'd feel that way.
pj
chgo
Thanks for catching that, Patrick. I fixed the original, and added a bit at the same time. It now reads
To win in ones eyes only surely makes you a LOSER. Any bets?
..........
jwpretd,
I have diagrammed in crude PowerPoint a way to validate how the smaller appearing OB can be diagrammed as the distance between the CB and OB increases.
I trust that you will get the jist of the diagram.
When the CB and OB are close (OB and GB on the left), they appear to be almost the same size, but when they are separated, the OB appears to be smaller (OB and GB on the right). I have drawn the smaller OB as percieved in perspective (at the CB focal plane) inside of the 2D (viewed from above) OB and GB that are the same size as the CB.
I hold that the CTE line is a convenient start to get your initial stance in the ball park. The secondary aim from the edge of the CB to the points on the OB is the important visual that moves the eye/s, head and body to the new stance to effect the appropriate cut angle...that is stored in one's memory derived from practice at the table.
I have shown in the top example the left edge of the CB being sighted to the left edge of the OB.
In the second from the top to the left quarter "A" of the OB
In the third, to the center of the OB "B"
In the fourth, to the right quarter "C"
In the last, to the right edge of the OB.
I have adopted mikjary's use of the left eye to align the left edge of the CB to the secondary aim points and the right eye for the right edge of the CB...right or wrong, it works for me.
I still don't see where abiding to the original CTE line is important once the secondary aim line and body shift is effected.
The cut angles shown by the arrows are very similar. I may show an even smaller OB at agreater separation in ACAD for this isn't possible to do in PowerPoint.
Just sayin
:thumbup:g.
Last edited:
LAMas -- if you haven't seen it yet, you'll be interested in the following post, which shows some possible pre-pivot stick alignments, with perspective effects: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2921762&postcount=154
In your diagrams, it looks like the stick (pre-pivot) is always aligned parallel to the secondary alignment line. That would seem to render the CTEL completely unnecessary, so I doubt that what you have is what Stan intended.
In your diagrams, it looks like the stick (pre-pivot) is always aligned parallel to the secondary alignment line. That would seem to render the CTEL completely unnecessary, so I doubt that what you have is what Stan intended.
Thanks,
I didn't see JAL's pics and they look good and are very telling.
I posted before that there can be different visuals including eye dominance that can come into play resulting in different cut angles for each. If one presists and the cut angles for the fractional points on the OB are repeatable for him, then time at the table will fill in the rest.
I did the diagrams with the idea that the cue is positioned under my chin with my left eye looking at the edge of the CB to the secondary points on the OB. I presumed that my body moved to the secondary stance with my shoulder and stroking arm poised to bring my cue up under my chin, "at the ready" with the 1/2 tip offset pre-pivot.
I posted before that my eyes are 2.25 inches apart so the cue is 1.125 inches to the right of my left eye and under my chin. It may be that my cue is parallel to the secondary aim line. I didn't buy the DVD and have gleened my understanding of it from these and earlier threads.
As I said, the CTEL is just a starting point for me and I tried tilting my head to keep it in "focus" while looking at the secondary aim line, but that felt very unnatural for me. I concluded that I will just settle on the secondary aim line using my left eye for cuts to the left and my right eye for cuts to the right with my cue stroking under my chin.
:thumbup:
I would love to see a robot programed to prove ALL shots on the table using Pro CTE 1. I believe if it could be done and you put the robot on another table (like from a Diamond to Brunswick with same size pocket openings) that it would have to be re programed all over again to get the same results. Johnnyt