spin transfered... a myth?

[Banks]

Yes well, let me know when the next physicist pool tournament is. I'm sure that will be a hoot.


Seriously, what application in pool does this information REALLY have? Is this information going to change your shot selection? I mean, perhaps I'm not giving this a lot of thought but I can't think of a single instance where I would play a shot differently because of spin transferred to the object ball.

It's mostly used for banking, since shots normally go from hit to pocket(ideally). It can also be used to make the ball more pallatable to the pocket, so to say.

I'm sorry but now you have officially lost me. The moment that object ball hits a rail, that rail is imparting spin on it, not the cueball. Perhaps you're talking about throw.

Nope, a standard twist bank uses collision-induced spin from cutting towards the bank(and should be hit at a decent speed to avoid overspin). When you cut a bank, spin is imparted in the general direction of the cut. If you cut away from a bank, collision spin is created away from the angle and shortens it up. If you cut towards a bank, spin is created towards the angle and lengths the bank.

Please don't go off the deep end on this subject. The next time you're at a table, set up simply short banks and aim them directly into the rail(ie- diamond to diamond). Shoot them with medium/slow speed and start putting different english on the ball. You'll see the difference after only a little bit.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Yes well, let me know when the next physicist pool tournament is. I'm sure that will be a hoot.


Seriously, what application in pool does this information REALLY have? Is this information going to change your shot selection? I mean, perhaps I'm not giving this a lot of thought but I can't think of a single instance where I would play a shot differently because of spin transferred to the object ball.

For some people, learning the truth about a thing is interesting, regardless of the application of that truth. Perhaps it isn't for you, and that is fine. There have been many responses so far offering potential uses in game situations. I find it interesting from both an intellectual and practical point of view. It's just conversation.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I'm sorry but now you have officially lost me. The moment that object ball hits a rail, that rail is imparting spin on it, not the cueball. Perhaps you're talking about throw.

What sort of spin does the rail apply to an object ball that contacts the rail at a 90 degree angle?

KMRUNOUT

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

What sort of spin does the rail apply to an object ball that contacts the rail at a 90 degree angle?

KMRUNOUT

For starters, why would you bank at a 90 degree angle? Second, you'll have to show an example of where strictly transferred spin was the reason you were able to manipulate the angle and not throw.

 

[Banks]

For starters, why would you bank at a 90 degree angle? Second, you'll have to show an example of where strictly transferred spin was the reason you were able to manipulate the angle and not throw.

Because sometimes a straight-into-the-rail shot is all you're left.

If you choose not to believe or not to show yourself on the table, so be it.

 

[cleary]

The twist back bank is all the proof you need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBM6JLcmK4

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've only seen a very small effect on the second ball on combinations. It is much less than the usual amount of throw.

But plenty (as you know) to make or miss frozen combo shots. I've won and lost many one pocket games because of it.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Yeah and when you last drove your car you were driving, not engineering. When you last took a plane ride you were flying, not learning about lift and coefficient of drag and jet propulsion.

So, by your *esteemed* logic you want your car completely developed by Mario Andretti and your jet completely designed by Chuck Yeager.

I find it so short sighted and infantile when someone wants to raise a moronic debate just because he apparently feels intimidated by application of theory and knowledge.

I'll explain it to you again, Mr. Rosenstock: The effing question was whether spin transference was a myth. Basic physics has proven that it is not. This isn't a pissing match about who is better at pool, this is a clear cut question that can be concisely answered.

Ignorance is fine. Jackassery is okay. Ignorant combative jackassery has no cause.

dld

Look, I'm sure you can find a physicist that can help determine the moon's gravitational pull influences the flight of a baseball. That doesn't mean this information has any practical application in a baseball game. My comments were not intended to be "jackassery" but instead meant to illustrate a point. Getting the opinion of a physicist doesn't matter. It's a game. You're trying to shoot a ball in a hole from 5 feet away at a 30 degree angle at 15 mph and with a cueball rotation that will hopefull bring the cueball to an area of the table that will yield another shot. Who the hell cares if the object ball rotated on its axis a little?

Ask any physicist to rank all the ways an object ball's path can be influenced. I'd be curious to see where transferred spin ranks.

 

[ShootingArts]

Exactly the shot I was talking about

The twist back bank is all the proof you need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBM6JLcmK4

That is exactly the shot I was talking about to prove transferred spin. Some collision induced spin in those shots too but it is possible to make similar shots without collision induced spin when the cue ball and object ball happen to be possitioned inline. Congestion along the rail, one pocket, or if you are playing banks makes this a very handy shot to know.

Hu

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

The twist back bank is all the proof you need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBM6JLcmK4

Cleary, thanks for this. This shot may be the only practical application of this entire thread.

 

[Spider1]

The twist back bank is all the proof you need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBM6JLcmK4

Pretty much end of discussion right there.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...why would you bank at a 90 degree angle?

It's a frequent necessity in banks and one pocket. Sometimes you even have to hit the rail at an angle in the opposite direction from the pocket.

...you'll have to show an example of where strictly transferred spin was the reason you were able to manipulate the angle and not throw.

Simple. Set up a shot with blocking balls that make it impossible to hit the rail at anything but a right angle and watch transferred spin on the OB change the angle of rebound. Tests like this have been posted here many times.

Ask any physicist to rank all the ways an object ball's path can be influenced. I'd be curious to see where transferred spin ranks.

Better yet, ask any good banker. In banks transferred spin ranks pretty much at the top of those concerns.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This shot may be the only practical application of this entire thread.

Don't bank much?

By the way, as Bob said, transferred spin and throw (including collision-induced throw) work hand-in-hand - you don't get one without the other. You can think of each of them as a "side effect" of the other.

pj
chgo

 

[Banks]

Don't bank much?

By the way, as Bob said, transferred spin and throw (including collision-induced throw) work hand-in-hand - you don't get one without the other. You can think of each of them as a "side effect" of the other.

pj
chgo

I'm half tempted to start a thread asking if a cross-back(bank changing directions) is a myth, just to see how much longer this can drag out..

And welcome back, PJ.

 

[Nick B]

Tate,
I think you mean inside english...you want to help it at the pocket (not along the rail). If your runnning down the rail your perfect and don't need to "help" OB.

Nick

Jude,

I know you're a good player and you hear a lot of stuff. One of the common spin transfer tips I hear - from Billy Incardona on here and articles written in Billiards Digest - is how shots can be hit with "helping spin" that make the pocket play larger.

Logically I don't think enough spin can be transferred to help very much, but there is a pretty common notion that outside english helps the pocket accept cut shots along the rail because of the spin transfer.

In humid, sticky conditions, my experience is this does seem to be true, but I can't prove it.

Chris

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Look, I'm sure you can find a physicist that can help determine the moon's gravitational pull influences the flight of a baseball. That doesn't mean this information has any practical application in a baseball game. My comments were not intended to be "jackassery" but instead meant to illustrate a point. Getting the opinion of a physicist doesn't matter. It's a game. You're trying to shoot a ball in a hole from 5 feet away at a 30 degree angle at 15 mph and with a cueball rotation that will hopefull bring the cueball to an area of the table that will yield another shot. Who the hell cares if the object ball rotated on its axis a little?

Ask any physicist to rank all the ways an object ball's path can be influenced. I'd be curious to see where transferred spin ranks.

Man you are dense. The topic at hand is whether or not the spin on the cb can transfer spin to the ob. The answer to that is yes. The reason a physicist is involved is he has the formulas to show that it will, and at what varying angles and speed have for relation to the imparted spin.

And who cares what spin is on the ob? I dare you to play one game on an Olhausen table and tell me that the spin on the ob doesn't cause you to miss a shot here and there when the ball is literally hit dead center pocket. You're ignorant to the fact that you're wrong.

 

[JC]

i'm sorry but now you have officially lost me. The moment that object ball hits a rail, that rail is imparting spin on it, not the cueball. Perhaps you're talking about throw.

......................................

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Don't bank much?

By the way, as Bob said, transferred spin and throw (including collision-induced throw) work hand-in-hand - you don't get one without the other. You can think of each of them as a "side effect" of the other.

pj
chgo

I play 9ball so yeah, I don't bank much. As for your ranking of importance, even in bank shots, you might want to consider a few other things before you get down on your shot.

This "twist shot" that Cleary posted is still an incredibly small angle. Without doing the math and looking at a grainy video, how much spin actually was transferred between cueball and object ball? 3% at most? Had he not hit it at mach 4, that spin likely gets lost.

1hole is a forgiving game too. You wanna execute banks with improbable angles, by all means, go right ahead. Just make sure you're playing a game where close counts, like 1hole.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

For starters, why would you bank at a 90 degree angle? Second, you'll have to show an example of where strictly transferred spin was the reason you were able to manipulate the angle and not throw.

There are certain situations in which your only option is to hit the bank at a 90 degree angle. And I agree completely with your second statement. Watch the Dr. Dave video. I believe he illustrates both of these ideas well.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm half tempted to start a thread asking if a cross-back(bank changing directions) is a myth, just to see how much longer this can drag out..

And welcome back, PJ.

If you mean the bank angle starting out uptable from the first rail and coming back downtable from the second rail (like in twice-across banks to the side pocket), the changing-direction part of that is actually caused by spin imparted to the OB by the first rail, not by the CB.

pj
chgo