Amazing Shot!! Explain this!!!
- Thread starter mullyman
- Start date
genius
Ira - your video is sufficient proof that you are a genius, according to some :thumbup:
Ira - your video is sufficient proof that you are a genius, according to some :thumbup:
Very nice shot, Sir!
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
WTF??
The ..Internet use policy restricts access to this web page. If you believe that this block is in error please call the IT Help Desk at extension 2.4.
Reason:
The Websense category "Adult Content" is filtered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL:
http://www.shooterspool.net/
Get off witchya bad self!
The gimmick is that you used a pool cue ball, unless I'm seeing something wrong.
Or at least that's my guess.
Related to "impossible shots" there is a video on YouTube of someone cutting an object ball 93 degrees and with a level stroke. No masse or jump. A few years ago I would have said the shot is impossible. I wonder if the simulator above can simulate that shot.
As for the gimmick in the original video, it could be that he used a Korean red ball, which is larger than the carom standard of 61.5mm. Beyond that, it would be interesting to have Aramith make an iron-centered set of balls. Balls with mercury or off-center lead fillings are pretty standard.
Last edited:
Maybe the internet filter at your workplace (where "work" is taken in the wide sense) is not happy with sites that discuss shafts and butts and balls and stroking. Or maybe they don't want you to be happy with the site.:groucho:
Don't worry. Your friend did not lie to you. Those balls are indeed regulation balls 'out of the box'. Just not out of the same box....
We have all tried to really juiced up the cue ball before only to have it sort of spin out in place. The english being used includes so much side spin along with some draw that the cue ball sort of draws and masses around the yellow ball before contacting the rail?
really?? :shocked:
well, at this moment, shooterspool.net only redirects you here http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shooters-Pool/254277547961451 but I think I will need to do something about that hehe
Good question - and this is the point: Physics tells us that lowering the coefficient of friction does not create the bounce-back effect - only a lighter ball can do this.
Bob: as usual, was right all along about the physics.
Hector: Alas, no genius required.
Frigopie: Thanks for running the simulation on your amazing software.
Fox: If you notice my original take, the chosen perspective makes it harder to discern if a small cue ball was used.
Mullyman: time to call out your friend.
Don't forget to thank him for the fun challenge.Now, here's the shot taken again at a less deceiving angle. With the reveal.
Here's another fun impossible 3-cushion shot. And the reveal.
Once again, note that no polish was needed on the small Aramith pool cue ball and the shots are still easily makable.
-Ira
Last edited:
In this case, shafts, butts, balls and stroking were the keywords to a good physics lesson.
Check it out from home - or hack a tunnel for your private internet traffic from work
As with others in this thread, you clearly do not understand the physics behind pool at all.
I'm pretty sure the physics simulator will be able to demonstrate the action with the perfect amount of outside English - especially with dirty balls. Frigopie, what do you say?
-Ira
I realize that adding 'dirty balls' to this thread is not helping the cause of our friend Blackballed.
And to think, I almost did some work a moment ago!
today is half a day for lots of people
Still here! only 75 posts today...I was slacking
Like a good street-magic video...
In the end, of course it's not a great shot - but a beautiful illusion.
I think the entire presentation is like a good street-magic video: aside from tricky props (pool ball), the truth was further hidden from detection through the carefully chosen camera vantage point. Throw in few suggestive truth claims by the OP ("no trick balls involved. Those are Aramith pros." and the misdirection was complete - but pile on the notion, by a top player, that the shot just MIGHT be possible "under the right conditions", and this is when some of our billiard intuitions flew straight out of the door: "It MUST be true, lest my eyes deceive me!"
Prior to the shot, when the cue ball is furthest away from the camera, our eyes expect it to be minimized due to the distance perspective. When the small pool ball rolls closer to the camera, it appears to grow (pixel-wise) even bigger than the carom object ball, also, as expected. The entire camera shot plays on our ability to discern the appropriate distortions in perspective foreshortening.
For example, this snapshot of the small pool ball next to the large carom ball is extremely believable, even to myself, after the fact:
Note that the size discrepancy of the balls is plainly obvious from almost every other camera angle as it is in real life.
The genius of the presentation is the extremely convincing combination of gimmick and optical illusion - which, without scientific knowledge, would have had all of us fooled as well.
-Ira
In the end, of course it's not a great shot - but a beautiful illusion.
I think the entire presentation is like a good street-magic video: aside from tricky props (pool ball), the truth was further hidden from detection through the carefully chosen camera vantage point. Throw in few suggestive truth claims by the OP ("no trick balls involved. Those are Aramith pros." and the misdirection was complete - but pile on the notion, by a top player, that the shot just MIGHT be possible "under the right conditions", and this is when some of our billiard intuitions flew straight out of the door: "It MUST be true, lest my eyes deceive me!"
Prior to the shot, when the cue ball is furthest away from the camera, our eyes expect it to be minimized due to the distance perspective. When the small pool ball rolls closer to the camera, it appears to grow (pixel-wise) even bigger than the carom object ball, also, as expected. The entire camera shot plays on our ability to discern the appropriate distortions in perspective foreshortening.
For example, this snapshot of the small pool ball next to the large carom ball is extremely believable, even to myself, after the fact:
Note that the size discrepancy of the balls is plainly obvious from almost every other camera angle as it is in real life.
The genius of the presentation is the extremely convincing combination of gimmick and optical illusion - which, without scientific knowledge, would have had all of us fooled as well.
-Ira
I have achieved a 93.2 degrees shot, but the original cut angle was so high that the object ball only moved about 20cm with a 20mph shot (if I remember well), with really dirty balls. I can make 90-91.5 degrees shots easily, but not as shown in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0uReP3Id20 1:39
I think in that video, the original cut angle is not even close to 90 degrees (without throw) because the object ball moves too fast in relation to the cue ball speed. Maybe it was near 90 with throw, but I think that shot cannot be done unless the cue ball have chalk on it.
I have pocketed the same shot, but shooting a little faster (I think it was 14 mph).
It is a very difficult shot, because the line between the throw angle in one direction or another is very thin. If angular velocity is too high respect to linear velocity, there is little friction. If angular velocity is only a little higher than linear, the original cut angle is increased greatly because of high cf friction, but if linear is only a little higher than angular, the original cut angle is decreased greatly. Obviously, when angular velocity is equal to linear velocity (realtive velocity = 0), there isn't throw angle.
Of course, I am talking about the simulator, I have tested some shots today in a real table and it was impossible for me