Reducing Cue Ball Deflection

I had to stop reading after the fifth spelling error. I realize Kamui is based in Japan, and their English is far better than my Japanese, but come on. Run the text through a spell-checking program, or hire someone fluent in English to double-check the "our product is far superior to all others" manifesto.
 
JoeyA said:
http://www.kamuibrand.com/billiard-en/?page_id=16&paged=2

This is an interesting link although I don't know what to say about it.
Click to expand...
Joey, unlike jschelin99, I thought the English was pretty good and easy enough to understand. But the explanation for the cause of deflection/squirt, and thus the (partial) remedy offered, is wrong. The article attributes it to slippage of the tip on the ball's surface. If that were the case, the amount of squirt would be variable from shot to shot given the same offset. Rather, squirt is the inevitable consequence of the ball rotating while the cue is in contact with it. This forces the cue to move sideways and because of the reaction force on the ball, it (the ball) must move in the opposite direction (some).

Jim
 
I didn't mean to sound like a racist a-hole. I was just making a point that if they're gonna advertise and sell in a foreign market, maybe they should get the foreign language correct. Anyway...

Jal: Yes, you're 100% right. If the cue stick deflects to the left, the cue ball must go to the right. Newton said it a couple hundred years ago, and it still applies to pool today no matter what chalk you use.

DoubleD: "High-school drivel" Love it! Can't wait to see their "KAMUI chalk reduces deflection" page. I'm sure that's the page that will be backed up by science.

I like Kamui's tips just fine, but I'm not gonna hide the fact that I think a $30 piece of chalk is not only ridiculous, it's also a bit insulting. Anyone willing to pay that much for a cube of chalk should know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary. As per George Fels' article "Indians & Arrows" (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/showblogentry.php?id=187), I truly believe Kamui chalk is just a placebo. If you pay $30 for chalk, it must be good, right?

What chalk did Mosconi use when he ran 526 balls, thereby setting a record that has stood since 1954? What chalk did Lou Butera use when he ran 150 and out in 1973, earning him the nickname "Machine Gun Lou"?

I apologize to all the Kamui chalk fans out there. There's nothing you can say to change my mind. We're just gonna have to disagree.
 
Jal said:
Joey, unlike jschelin99, I thought the English was pretty good and easy enough to understand. But the explanation for the cause of deflection/squirt, and thus the (partial) remedy offered, is wrong. The article attributes it to slippage of the tip on the ball's surface. If that were the case, the amount of squirt would be variable from shot to shot given the same offset. Rather, squirt is the inevitable consequence of the ball rotating while the cue is in contact with it. This forces the cue to move sideways and because of the reaction force on the ball, it (the ball) must move in the opposite direction (some).

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, as always.

Just curious though: If their chalk actually grips the cue ball better, is it plausible that in some cases, the swerve might be increased on spin shots, when using that chalk, which might result in a smaller amount of "effective squirt"?
 
jschelin99...I'm sure Jim (Jal), a physicist, is happy to know you agree with him about deflection! LOL FTR, I agree with you about the chalk. It is better...but it's not 100x better (cost of a piece of Masters vs. Kamui chalk).

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

jschelin99 said:
Jal: Yes, you're 100% right. If the cue stick deflects to the left, the cue ball must go to the right. Newton said it a couple hundred years ago, and it still applies to pool today no matter what chalk you use. Or no chalk at all!

What chalk did Lou Butera use when he ran 150 and out in 1973 (in a little more than 21 minutes...THAT'S what earned him the nickname!) earning him the nickname "Machine Gun Lou"?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jschelin99 said:
Can't wait to see their "KAMUI chalk reduces deflection" page. I'm sure that's the page that will be backed up by science.
Click to expand...

I came across this page awhile ago and searched for the "proof" on deflection reduction in vain, so I remain skeptical. Still, I'm up for trying some.

Main thing I'm concerned about are some accounts that the stuff can increase the number and severity of skids because of its increased coefficient of friction and its tendency to get all over the balls. The $30 price tag doesn't bother me at all, but I don't take umbrage over such things. I'm more insulted by a $30 single malt in Manhattan that costs $10 closer to home.
 
There is no explanation on the page for the difference in the results of xC and xD. Do not believe there is any physics displayed on the page. Just two drawings and some text. I like the idea of better playing through technology but the secret is not revealed here.
 
I love Kamui chalk 1.21, im interested in the .98 now that they have explained the difference, problem is I dont know if I will like the oily and messiness of it, plus they explained that a finer compound has better friction with the more particles the more grip.... I think ill stay with 1.21.
 
yeah...

jschelin99 said:
I had to stop reading after the fifth spelling error. I realize Kamui is based in Japan, and their English is far better than my Japanese, but come on. Run the text through a spell-checking program, or hire someone fluent in English to double-check the "our product is far superior to all others" manifesto.
Click to expand...

don't forget that "All your bases are belong to us"....

Jaden
 
JoeyA said:
...If their chalk actually grips the cue ball better, is it plausible that in some cases, the swerve might be increased on spin shots, when using that chalk, which might result in a smaller amount of "effective squirt"?
Click to expand...
If it grips better, the miscue limit will increase and you should be able to get more maximum spin on the ball. Of course, that would only apply when your tip offset is right near the new miscue limit. With the added spin will come more swerve, as you say. It won't swerve any faster, but if the cueball is allowed to reach natural roll, total swerve (the angle between its initial and final direction at roll) would be greater.

There is a limit on how large a tip offset you can employ, regardless of whether or not a miscue (slip) takes place. And I believe the typical limit of one-half radius from center happens to be fairly close to it. The reason is that the farther out from center you hit, the less the cue slows down after the collision. At a certain point (offset) the cue and ball wouldn't even care to separate. But even before that, the "wagging" of the end of the cue after its initial deflection to the side would cause it to contact the cueball again. (You can see it come fairly close in some of Dr. Dave's high-speed films.) So even with a chalk that didn't slip no matter how far off-center you cued, you couldn't expect to increase maximum spin too much beyond what can already be had with standard chalk.

At more modest offsets should you expect to see more spin? Well, the premise of my first post was that, generally speaking, slippage doesn't take place. This has been debated in the past, but I think people like Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett would agree. (One or two of Dr. Dave's high-speed closeups do seem to show some initial slippage at first contact, but others don't. I very much doubt that this is the usual case.) Assuming essentially zero slippage then, you'll get the same spin and subsequent swerve regardless of the chalk.

If I seem to be wavering slightly on the slippage thing, it's one of those things where there is sort of a standard belief, maybe even consensus, which is probably correct, but might be worth looking into a little more. The main cause of squirt though, and likely the only cause, is the spin of the ball during impact, as per the earlier post.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Jal said:
If it grips better, the miscue limit will increase and you should be able to get more maximum spin on the ball. Of course, that would only apply when your tip offset is right near the new miscue limit. With the added spin will come more swerve, as you say. It won't swerve any faster, but if the cueball is allowed to reach natural roll, total swerve (the angle between its initial and final direction at roll) would be greater.

I believe there is a limit on how large a tip offset you can employ, regardless of whether or not a miscue (slip) takes place. And the typical limit of one-half radius from center happens to be fairly close to it. The reason is that the farther out from center you hit, the less the cue slows down after the collision. At a certain point (offset) the cue and ball wouldn't even care to separate. But even before that, the "wagging" of the end of the cue after its initial deflection to the side would cause it to contact the cueball again. (You can see it come fairly close in some of Dr. Dave's high-speed films.) So even with a chalk that didn't slip no matter how far off-center you cued, you couldn't expect to increase maximum spin too much beyond what can already be had with standard chalk.

At more modest offsets should you expect to see more spin? Well, the premise of my first post was that, generally speaking, slippage doesn't take place. This has been debated in the past, but I think people like Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett would agree. (One or two of Dr. Dave's high-speed closeups do seem to show some initial slippage at first contact, but others don't. I very much doubt that this is typical.) Assuming essentially zero slippage then, you'll get the same spin and subsequent swerve regardless of the chalk.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think it might take the tip a little time to "set up" on the cue ball and you might consider that slipping, but for the most part there is no real slip and the claim the OP refers to was, in my opinion, worthless marketing hype.

A similar phenomenon to slippage is seen in the high-speed color video from Austria in which a Moori is seen to seriously deform during contact. That kind of deformation is more difficult to analyze and I don't think anyone has. I suspect that tip deformation has the possibility of reducing squirt.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think it might take the tip a little time to "set up" on the cue ball and you might consider that slipping, but for the most part there is no real slip and the claim the OP refers to was, in my opinion, worthless marketing hype.

A similar phenomenon to slippage is seen in the high-speed color video from Austria in which a Moori is seen to seriously deform during contact. That kind of deformation is more difficult to analyze and I don't think anyone has. I suspect that tip deformation has the possibility of reducing squirt.
Click to expand...

I really think a good shaped tip does not itself cause the deflection, but hitting CB just a hair off center is The problem of which it is possible if tip is a little flat and the hit is not perpendicular to CB, or shaped in one side more than other (one side is higher than other by a hair) which will contact CB off center and cause CB deflection noticeable on very long shot with high speed. I think this can be corrected with proper bridge length, but if CB near the rail it takes very precise tip contact to shoot CB straight, this is where it helps to look at CB tip contact last.
 
All of this chalk-deflection stuff is a giant red herring. Chalk's job is not to reduce deflection. It's to reduce miscues.

If it DID reduce deflection, that means people who shot with any other brand for 20 years will have to relearn where to aim. Sort of like how a player has to learn to adjust after switching from a standard shaft to a low deflection shaft. Why would I want to buy an expensive chalk that forces me to change my aim, when I could just use cheap chalk and aim at the same place I have for years?

But the lower-deflection stuff marketing bullshit anyway so it's a moot point. The only reason I'd buy kamui is if it's the best at doing chalk's job: reducing miscues.

No amount of "photoshop marketing science" can prove kamui does that. The only way to prove it is with a test of how the chalk hold up under actual playing conditions. Have an impartial observer track every single miscue a professional player made over the course of a year, using Brand X exclusively, then spend another year tracking the number of miscues using Kamui exclusively. Even then, miscues happen so seldom at the pro level that I'm not completely sure 1 year is enough time to properly test it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top