On Target Tips: low deflection and hybrid tips.
- Thread starter Jaden
- Start date
You do know that a patent costs about $25k to acquire and then maintain over their life, correct? That is just in USPTO fees, that does not count if you hire an outside firm to help you. If you think you can make that up, and much more in your sales, by all means, go for a patent. If not, its a waste of money, imo.
I'll be interested to see results of this. From using tips all the way from 1960's French Champions to the modern layered tips, I can tell that the tip certainly influences the amount of spin, or english that can be applied. In some ways, this seems to be a further progression from that. Love this kind of development.
"While discussing the materials I used with Don Owens, we both agreed that this tip SHOULD actually have a higher specific gravity".
JADEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Density (Specific Gravity)
Relative density of a substance is the ratio of the substance to the density of water at 4oC, i.e.
Substance Relative density
Acetylene 0.0017
Air, dry 0.0013
Alcohol 0.82
Aluminum 2.72
Brass 8.48
Cadmium 8.57
Chromium 7.03
Copper 8.79
Carbon dioxide 0.00198
Carbon monoxide 0.00126
Cast iron 7.20
Hydrogen 0.00009
Lead 11.35
Mercury 13.59
Nickel 8.73
Nitrogen 0.00125
Nylon 1.12
Oxygen 0.00143
Paraffin 0.80
Petrol 0.72
PVC 1.36
Rubber 0.96
Steel 7.82
Tin 7.28
Zinc 7.12
Water (4oC) 1.00
Water, sea 1.02
Lead and Mercury have high specific gravity values, but would be too soft?
Can your tip also replace the ferrule for lower mass/deflection?
Good fortune and be well.
JADEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative Density (Specific Gravity)
Relative density of a substance is the ratio of the substance to the density of water at 4oC, i.e.
Substance Relative density
Acetylene 0.0017
Air, dry 0.0013
Alcohol 0.82
Aluminum 2.72
Brass 8.48
Cadmium 8.57
Chromium 7.03
Copper 8.79
Carbon dioxide 0.00198
Carbon monoxide 0.00126
Cast iron 7.20
Hydrogen 0.00009
Lead 11.35
Mercury 13.59
Nickel 8.73
Nitrogen 0.00125
Nylon 1.12
Oxygen 0.00143
Paraffin 0.80
Petrol 0.72
PVC 1.36
Rubber 0.96
Steel 7.82
Tin 7.28
Zinc 7.12
Water (4oC) 1.00
Water, sea 1.02
Lead and Mercury have high specific gravity values, but would be too soft?
Can your tip also replace the ferrule for lower mass/deflection?
Good fortune and be well.
Explain it like I'm a 5 year old please.
Most tips are made from leather like Elk Master which is soft and porous (air) or like LePro which is harder (less air). Le Pro has the higher specific density.
I presume that was the context.
Just because something is soft does not make it porous. I am not sure either what is meant by specific gravity, the actual term used.
And after reading this I am still not sure what this has to do with cue tips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity
The idea of a tip being comprised of two different densities across the diameter is interesting though. I too have often watched the video of tips compressing, thinking that it seems like an awful lot of movement happening, and wondered if the tip could not be reengineered not to do that and whether that would be a good thing or not.
I have shown people that you can play with a phenolic tip. That would obviously be the extreme end where the tip compresses very little if at all. So between that and ultra mushy what's the best?
Maybe Jaden's experiment will be as revolutionary as he thinks it will be.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/miscue
(in billiards) a shot in which the player fails to strike the ball properly with the cue.
After a miscue, it is noticeable that there is a portion on the outer edge of the tip that is bald of chalk. Which means there was not enough chalk left of the tip for CHALK to do its job properly. Isn't it so that the job of Chalk is to crack and compress into smaller particles during contact so it actually prolongs the contact time between cue stick and cue ball? The bald portion on the tip indicates that the chalk (whatever amount that was on the tip) did not crack and compress because there was not enough chalk to do so (crack and compress) and so the chalk was wiped off by the contact.
My question would be how will a LD tip prevent/eliminate miscue if there is not enough chalk on the tip?
(in billiards) a shot in which the player fails to strike the ball properly with the cue.
After a miscue, it is noticeable that there is a portion on the outer edge of the tip that is bald of chalk. Which means there was not enough chalk left of the tip for CHALK to do its job properly. Isn't it so that the job of Chalk is to crack and compress into smaller particles during contact so it actually prolongs the contact time between cue stick and cue ball? The bald portion on the tip indicates that the chalk (whatever amount that was on the tip) did not crack and compress because there was not enough chalk to do so (crack and compress) and so the chalk was wiped off by the contact.
My question would be how will a LD tip prevent/eliminate miscue if there is not enough chalk on the tip?
i hope it works. However, I think I've had enough discussions on this board and with Royce to describe many times that it's the "effective end mass" and not just tip end mass. There's always been a time contact time element to be able to calculate (back calculate) an effective end mass. The issue was always that the known range of materials and their effectiveness to hit the cueball with spin and not miscue or be totally ineffective was limited to leather tips as we know them.
If you've discovered a material that satisfies all hit requirements and reduces squirt, then I applaud you vigorously. If it falls outside the understanding of squirt, I'd also be interested. My gut feel is that it actually falls in the same understanding of squirt.
Wrong. Though it's a common myth like so many feel good posts.
Can you send me one?
Good point Fred. FYI, here's a excerpt from my endmass and stiffness resource page providing more info on this topic:
--------------------------------------------------
See Diagram 4 in "Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008). People who think extra stiffness is required to produce more squirt are incorrect. Added endmass alone (without added stiffness) produces significant increases in squirt. This supports the theory in TP A.31. The squirt of a shaft can be lowered by reducing the weight of the last 5-8 inches. This can be done by reducing the shaft's diameter, drilling out the core of the end of the shaft, using a lighter and/or harder tip, and/or using a lighter (or no) ferrule.
Endmass is also related to shaft stiffness. Firstly, a stiffer shaft will typically be thicker and heavier at the end, resulting in more weight at the end. Secondly, with a stiffer shaft, transverse elastic waves will travel faster and farther down the shaft (from the tip) during the brief contact time between the tip and ball. The farther the wave travels, the larger the effective "endmass" will be, because more mass is being involved during contact with the ball. This effect can be clear with carbon-fiber shafts, where you would expect the end of the shaft to be much lighter (which tends to reduce "endmass"); however, because the end of the shaft can also be very stiff (which tends to increase effective "endmass"), the amount of squirt can be comparable to a wood shaft that might be little heavier at the end.
Tip hardness also has an effect on effective "endmass" because a harder tip will have a slightly shorter contact time. Because the transverse elastic wave won't travel down the shaft as far during contact with a harder tip, the effective "endmass" and squirt can be less.
--------------------------------------------------
I look forward to trying out Jaden's new tip to see if and how much it reduces squirt, and to try to better understand why.
Regards,
Dave
It basically means how heavy a given material is. The higher the number, the heavier the material. This number assumes all the materials you are comparing are the same size and shape, so it's an apples to apples comparison.
Dave, can you tell me if this is right? I'm trying to come up with an "explain it like I'm 5 version".
But I may not have a handle on it.
------
Say some ball hits the cue ball on the cue ball's left side.
That ball will deflect off to the left afterwards. The cue ball will go somewhere to the right.
When a cue's tip hits the left side of whitey, it's not really different.
The tip wants to go left. The object ball wants to go right.
But because the cue tip is firmly attached to this long, thin stick, the tip can't really go anywhere.
It can go a little to the left because the stick is flexible.
The stick bends a little to the left, then it quickly straightens back out.
The cue ball isn't attached to anything though, so it will go to the right. That is to say, it will deflect.
So, how much will it deflect?
Well, at the moment the tip hits the ball, there's a sort of shockwave that happens incredibly fast.
The shockwave travels backwards towards the butt of the cue, then rebounds back towards the tip.
Then the force of this shockwave pushes the ball away from the tip.
The stiffer a stick is, the longer this shockwave will travel before it rebounds.
A longer shockwave will push the cue ball away with more force than a short shockwave.
The harder the push, the more 'sideways' the cue ball will go. Meaning it will deflect more.
So you want to shorten this shockwave by making the shaft less stiff, more flexible.
If it's too flexible, like an actual wet noodle, it's too much work to push the cue ball around the table.
So it needs to be stiff enough to play pool, but flexible enough to reduce the length of that shockwave.
One way to do that is to make it thinner and lighter. Another way is to hollow out the shaft.
From experiments, the last 8ish inches of the shaft are what's important. Changing anything past that
won't really help much. So that's why you can't really have a low-deflection butt.
------
So with all that said (if it's correct)... can the tip have much "impact" (haha!) on deflection?
You can't play with the lightness of the tip much, it barely weighs anything anyway.
But can you reduce deflection by playing with the tip's flexibility?
Would a super soft mushy tip "give" more, allowing for less deflection?
If so, how far can you go before the tip is so mushy it's not useful to move the cue ball anymore?
But I may not have a handle on it.
------
Say some ball hits the cue ball on the cue ball's left side.
That ball will deflect off to the left afterwards. The cue ball will go somewhere to the right.
When a cue's tip hits the left side of whitey, it's not really different.
The tip wants to go left. The object ball wants to go right.
But because the cue tip is firmly attached to this long, thin stick, the tip can't really go anywhere.
It can go a little to the left because the stick is flexible.
The stick bends a little to the left, then it quickly straightens back out.
The cue ball isn't attached to anything though, so it will go to the right. That is to say, it will deflect.
So, how much will it deflect?
Well, at the moment the tip hits the ball, there's a sort of shockwave that happens incredibly fast.
The shockwave travels backwards towards the butt of the cue, then rebounds back towards the tip.
Then the force of this shockwave pushes the ball away from the tip.
The stiffer a stick is, the longer this shockwave will travel before it rebounds.
A longer shockwave will push the cue ball away with more force than a short shockwave.
The harder the push, the more 'sideways' the cue ball will go. Meaning it will deflect more.
So you want to shorten this shockwave by making the shaft less stiff, more flexible.
If it's too flexible, like an actual wet noodle, it's too much work to push the cue ball around the table.
So it needs to be stiff enough to play pool, but flexible enough to reduce the length of that shockwave.
One way to do that is to make it thinner and lighter. Another way is to hollow out the shaft.
From experiments, the last 8ish inches of the shaft are what's important. Changing anything past that
won't really help much. So that's why you can't really have a low-deflection butt.
------
So with all that said (if it's correct)... can the tip have much "impact" (haha!) on deflection?
You can't play with the lightness of the tip much, it barely weighs anything anyway.
But can you reduce deflection by playing with the tip's flexibility?
Would a super soft mushy tip "give" more, allowing for less deflection?
If so, how far can you go before the tip is so mushy it's not useful to move the cue ball anymore?