Is it possible to throw an object ball? Nope

...
Hitting it HARD will make it spin FAST, like your tires in a peel-out, but it won't cause any throw because it will be in contact with the object ball for an exponentially shorter time. ...
This is not quite true. If you hit the cue ball at twice the speed the contact time between the cue ball and object ball does decrease but only by 15% or so. While contact time might seem important to the action and reaction, it actually is unimportant according to the physics of how balls collide.
 
I say the answer is yes. I've seen fustrated players pick up and throw the object ball after they have missed.:grin: ha ha ha
 
The easiest way to understand why throw doesn't occur when hit with anything harder than a soft or medium soft hit is TORQUE::

Know why it's difficult to go from zero to sixty miles per hour in just a few seconds without SOME kind of peel out?

The lack of TORQUE. Your tires need to first grab the road. Your tires have tread on them so that they don't slide around on the pavement. Same goes for the asphalt. It's textured so that friction helps your car from swerving around and hitting old people in the crosswalk. When you take off slowly, your tires have a chance to GRAB onto the pavement and PULL themselves forward.

When you hit the cue ball slower, you are giving it more TORQUE. The ball may be spinning slow, but it has plenty of energy for it to GRAB the object ball and THROW it. It is in contact with the object ball LONGER.

Hitting it HARD will make it spin FAST, like your tires in a peel-out, but it won't cause any throw because it will be in contact with the object ball for an exponentially shorter time.

Therefore, applying throw to an object ball requires such a precise amount of spin, power, and hit the exact point needed. This is why it is so hard to prove that throw exists. Simply because you can't get throw on a particular shot doesn't mean throw is nonexistent. It means you're hitting it wrong.

I agree with your final conlcussion.
 
This is not quite true. If you hit the cue ball at twice the speed the contact time between the cue ball and object ball does decrease but only by 15% or so. While contact time might seem important to the action and reaction, it actually is unimportant according to the physics of how balls collide.

Why have you not repied to my example. You asked me to give you an example. I do, & then you seem to ignore it & do not respond. I guess I'm too 'confused & ingnorant'.
 
Why have you not repied to my example. You asked me to give you an example. I do, & then you seem to ignore it & do not respond. I guess I'm too 'confused & ingnorant'.
I asked for an experiment to test your theory of throw. Either you didn't suggest an experiment or I missed it. What experiment do you propose?

To recap: The current physics theory of throw says that the angle that the object ball goes off-line from the line of centers at the instant of contact depends on the direction of relative motion of the surface of the cue ball to the object ball, the speed of that motion and the force of the contact.

The coefficient of sliding friction for pool balls has been observed to decrease with increasing force between the balls. (This is contrary to the simple rule that the coefficient of friction does not depend on speed.)

I think there has been no observation that contradicts the above theory. Do you have an experiment that shows otherwise?
 
If you were the CB what difference would you feel between a straight-on shot thrown with sidespin vs. an equivalent cut?

pj
chgo
ENGLISH!
Now I'm asked to explain how a CB 'feels'.
OK, if that's too complicated for you...

How do you expect the CB to react differently to the two shots?

pj
chgo
 
Why have you not repied to my example. You asked me to give you an example. I do, & then you seem to ignore it & do not respond. I guess I'm too 'confused & ingnorant'.

I think for the most part many people are starting to ignore you. I'm not saying that to be mean but you have a tendency to be set in your way as far as your knowledge of the game.

You have a brain for the game but you are lacking the ability to adapt your thinking to grasp new concepts and you look at situations from a limited perspective.

I'm not saying you aren't knowledgable about the game and I'm not saying you aren't a good player. In fact I know nothing about you as a player.

What I am saying is that you are unwilling to adapt and add in new variables to an issue when you encounter them.

I don't pretend to know about the physics of balls colliding as it isn't something I have studied but I can understand why spin does little to alter the course of an object ball.

Because they are round objects they are only making contact at one point. We also know that pool balls don't have any 'give' upon contact.

Depending on the force of the contact the contact time will change. If a ball is in contact with the object ball for longer (ie, a softer shot) there will be more opportunity for the spin to translate to the object ball.

I do agree that the softer the shot the more spin is transferred because the more contact time there is but I also think the spin translated is negligble at any speed because pool balls don't 'give' upon contact.

There are other factors that would play a part in this however such as if the balls were dirty or pitted from extended use.

If the balls are dirty or pitted I imagine there is more surface area upon which the spin can transfer.



The thing that you are having difficulty with is that pure mathematics do not always translate to the real world. There are too many factors involved and more often than not some unknown variable in the real world will change the way something behaves.

Don't take this as proof that your theories are correct however. You have to look deeper into the problem and figure out what variable is changing the outcome.

Also, work on your combativeness. It is putting off quite a few people and there are other, better, more diplomatic ways of debating and communicating your thoughts. I can tell you are angry and acting out of defense but take a step back before you do and think of a better way to phrase things sometimes.



As to your example about cutting a ball with spin- I believe that the direction a cueball is travelling as it relates to the point of contact will alter the course of the object ball. I do not think that cutting the ball with spin will alter the path of the object ball any more than cutting the same ball without any spin.
 
Last edited:
This is not quite true. If you hit the cue ball at twice the speed the contact time between the cue ball and object ball does decrease but only by 15% or so. While contact time might seem important to the action and reaction, it actually is unimportant according to the physics of how balls collide.

15% not important. What world are you playing in? What scientist would say 15% is not important. You're 'nit picking' his point like others on this site who think they know it all & this is how the 'arguments' start. If you hit the shot TOO hard with TOO much momentum, & TOO much speed, the ball is into the cusion before the' lesser' force of the side spin 'throw' can take ENOUGH of an affect to pocket the ball. Is that 15% or more not important? If you hit the shot with less than an 'OVER POWERING' hit, there is enough time (a 4th. dimention) ON the cloth for the spin of the CB to take affect & move the ball to the pocket. It' a 'balancing' act & not difficut to do at all.

PS Do you claim that your 90 degree shot on You Tube was ACTUALLY 90 degrees? Are you SURE that it ws not more like in the high 80's, like say 87or 88, a NEAR 90 dgree shot. If you do, how was the angle measured? form center ball to center ball or form left edgeof OB to right edge of CB?
 
OK, if that's too complicated for you...

How do you expect the CB to react differently to the two shots?

pj
chgo

They do not react totally different. the result is essentially the same from being contacted by a 'clancing' blow.Tthe clancing blow stems for two(2) different actions of the CB, from two(2) different hits by the tip on the CB

I'm trying to depart, but y'all keep pulling back.
 
Last edited:
In what world do you repeatedly state that you are leaving...and continue to post dribble, arguing with people who are stated experts in the field. You said you were leaving...please do so, and continue to "teach" the newbies in your local area. They won't be able to pick apart your strange ideas, and won't challenge you.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

15% not important. What world are you playing in? What scientist would say 15% is not important. You're 'nit picking' his point like others on this site who think they know it all & this is how the 'arguments' start. If you hit the shot TOO hard with TOO much momentum, & TOO much speed, the ball is into the cusion before the' lesser' force of the side spin 'throw' can take ENOUGH of an affect to pocket the ball. Is that 15% or more not important? If you hit the shot with less than an 'OVER POWERING' hit, there is enough time (a 4th. dimention) ON the cloth for the spin of the CB to take affect & move the ball to the pocket. It' a 'balancing' act & not difficut to do at all.

PS Do you claim that your 90 degree shot on You Tube was ACTUALLY 90 degrees? Are you SURE that it ws not more like in the high 80's, like say 87or 88, a NEAR 90 dgree shot. If you do, how was the angle measured? form center ball to center ball or form left edgeof OB to right edge of CB?
 
...
PS Do you claim that your 90 degree shot on You Tube was ACTUALLY 90 degrees? Are you SURE that it ws not more like in the high 80's, like say 87or 88, a NEAR 90 dgree shot. If you do, how was the angle measured? form center ball to center ball or form left edgeof OB to right edge of CB?

No, it was clearly not 90 degrees. The object ball was on the foot spot. The cue ball was centered in the jaws of the corner pocket and about 6 inches from the shelf (on a line from the center of the pocket to the foot spot). If you work through the geometry, you will discover that in fact the cut was more like 93 degrees. That's calculated from the assumed straight line path of the cue ball relative to the assumed straight line path of the object ball. If you account for swerve on the cue ball to the left (away from the object ball) the angle was a little larger.

I would have said that a cut over 90 degrees was impossible before I saw it for myself.

As for 15% being important or not, that depends on the specific situation. In the case of time of contact between pool balls, it is not important. The post I was responding to claimed that the contact time varied "exponentially" with speed which most people would expect to mean by orders of magnitude. In fact the dependence is sub-linear.
 
Me too Bob! Even after watching you make that cut, it STILL 'seems' impossible! LOL Great shot though. I think it must have something to do with no ferrule on your Balabushka! LOL Best I've ever gotten was 2" up the rail from the corner pocket...and I thought that was amazing! :grin: Missed seeing you in Chicago last week. Were you there this year?

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I would have said that a cut over 90 degrees was impossible before I saw it for myself.
 
I asked for an experiment to test your theory of throw. Either you didn't suggest an experiment or I missed it. What experiment do you propose?

To recap: The current physics theory of throw says that the angle that the object ball goes off-line from the line of centers at the instant of contact depends on the direction of relative motion of the surface of the cue ball to the object ball, the speed of that motion and the force of the contact.

The coefficient of sliding friction for pool balls has been observed to decrease with increasing force between the balls. (This is contrary to the simple rule that the coefficient of friction does not depend on speed.)

I think there has been no observation that contradicts the above theory. Do you have an experiment that shows otherwise?

So now U agree w/ Skyscapper. The answer to your questiion is, no I do not know of any experiment that has been done. I explained what I have seen with my own eyes & I have been taught physics. As with so many disputes this one is not going to come to an a mutual agreement. But, I will say this before I depart AZ, I knew small caroms when I 13 years old. It not take me 40 years to learn them. I will continue to shoot certain shots with momentum 'throw' & I will continue to shoot shots with spin 'throw'. I know that spin can 'throw' a ball & make the shot when there is almost no other way to do so, or at least not to get the positon wanted for the next shot.

Sorry for the contentious nature of the 'discussion'. If you & I could get togeether with a table we could probably work it out . But written words carry no tone of voice, inflection, or interaction.

Good Luck in all of your endeavors.
 
In what world do you repeatedly state that you are leaving...and continue to post dribble, arguing with people who are stated experts in the field. You said you were leaving...please do so, and continue to "teach" the newbies in your local area. They won't be able to pick apart your strange ideas, and won't challenge you.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I knew it but I didn't say it. You may have just persuaded me to stay.
 
Good explanation. Here's the definition from my online glossary:
throw: object ball motion away from the impact line (line of centers) due to relative sideways sliding motion between the cue ball and object ball caused by sidespin or a cut angle.​

A more visual explanation can be found in the first two diagrams of the following article:
"Throw - Part I: introduction" (Billiards Digest, August, 2006)​

Demonstrations of many throw effects can be found here:

And for those who are much more interested in this topic, a lot more info can be found here:

Regards,
Dave

or sidespin? or sidespin?
 
In what world do you repeatedly state that you are leaving...and continue to post dribble, arguing with people who are stated experts in the field. You said you were leaving...please do so, and continue to "teach" the newbies in your local area. They won't be able to pick apart your strange ideas, and won't challenge you.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Since you brought up the world challenge, what about my challenge to you on the break shot issue to which you never responded?

Don't worry, you can stay, I'm leaving. But everyone should go on you tube & watch you shoot a 9 ball game.
 
Back
Top