On Target Tips: low deflection and hybrid tips.
- Thread starter Jaden
- Start date
Thanks JB. Nice to see familiar friends are still active here. I got inspired by the Mosconi Cup to start browsing here again. I guess it's apt to send a big g'day to all old acquaintances.
Thanks JB. Nice to see familiar friends are still active here. I got inspired by the Mosconi Cup to start browsing here again. I guess it's apt to send a big g'day to all old acquaintances.
Good to see you back!
The whole discussion reminds me the one about stroke types, follow through etc.
Once again it depends on how we approach the matter, if a differnet technique or material does bring a different result then it is indeed something to be considered.
There is also the question of testing methods.
There is no doubt that ultimate tests are performed by robots, regardless of results there is now way to assure that two shots can be 100% identical in every parameter when a human perfoms those shots.
Petros
Once again it depends on how we approach the matter, if a differnet technique or material does bring a different result then it is indeed something to be considered.
There is also the question of testing methods.
There is no doubt that ultimate tests are performed by robots, regardless of results there is now way to assure that two shots can be 100% identical in every parameter when a human perfoms those shots.
Petros
Well… there's always a doubt. The issue with using "robots" is that if the user/tester doesn't understand where a robot can falsely influence the test, then the result can get very misleading. Period.
The Meucci "robot" has an issue that may never get changed. Copiers of that system will potentially have the same issue. And even Iron Willy had a robot issue that the Jacksonville Experimenteers had to … iron out (har har ) .
Freddie
No argue here, tough to reach 100% "accuracy", I guess discussing the tests with instructors or players helps overcoming difficulties.
Petros
I don't think a tip of any design can "overcome" the amount of squirt (cue ball deflection) created by a shaft (conventional or LD). Now, what is clear from the testing video is that some tips add more squirt than others. In the tests, the amount of squirt increased with the hardness of the tip. This makes sense because a harder tip is denser and heavier, create more "endmass." For more info, see the cue tip hardness effects resource page.
I agree that swerve can corrupt squirt-testing results significantly. The best and most convenient way to deal with this is to keep the cue as level as possible, use fast speed, and test on very slick cloth. All of these things help minimize swerve. If the cue elevation and/or shot speed are varied, any cue or tip can be demonstrated to have any amount of net cue ball deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve).
If designing a robotic tester, the test bed and cue support structure should be designed to have the cue be perfectly level at impact with the CB. Then the squirt measurements would not depend on speed, distance, or cloth conditions, because there is absolutely no swerve with a perfectly level cue, regardless of how much sidespin is used.
For more advice concerning cue and tip testing, see the robot squirt testing resource page.
Regards,
Dave
Colin,
It's great to see you back on the forum. I hope you stay around for a while. When I think of posters who have contributed the most interesting and useful insight over the years, your name is definitely near the top of the list.
BTW, even though Jaden's tip doesn't seem to reduce squirt (based on the testing results in the video I posted), I agree with you that his design is innovative and represents good out-of-box thinking.
Catch you later,
Dave
Freddie,
I agree 100%. Test results from experiments done very carefully with humans can be much better than test results from misleading robotic testing.
FYI to those interested, I have a list of things that have and can go wrong with robotic cue testing at the bottom of the robotic cue testing resource page.
Regards,
Dave
All this is very interesting, I get the feeling we agree when it seems we don't.
Since a totally level robotic cue movement eliminates swerve it is what we need for this kind of testing, no human hand can approach the accuracy of robotic movement.
An experienced instructor/player with knowledge of the game can estimate all parameters that can mislead conclusions of robotic testing, so I don't see any problem combining all kinds of testing.
There is no logical reason to "refuse" robotic testing if available and no testing method that requires accurate repetition of movement can be 100% complete without it.
Petros
Since a totally level robotic cue movement eliminates swerve it is what we need for this kind of testing, no human hand can approach the accuracy of robotic movement.
An experienced instructor/player with knowledge of the game can estimate all parameters that can mislead conclusions of robotic testing, so I don't see any problem combining all kinds of testing.
There is no logical reason to "refuse" robotic testing if available and no testing method that requires accurate repetition of movement can be 100% complete without it.
Petros
What we agree on is that if a robotic machine were designed and built very well, and if testing procedures were such that all important factors are taken into consideration, then the robotic machine results would be much more accurate and consistent than any human testing results could be. The problem with all robotic testing machines designed, built, and used for testing in the past is that they haven't met this ideal description as well as one would hope. For examples of some of the issues that have put previous testing results into question, see the bullets on the robot test results and advice resource page.
Regards,
Dave
So if robotic machines are not made up to the desired standards yet (agreed) where does that leave any human mediated effort?..
Since we can olny agree that we do not have the definite conditions for testing in some cases we should agree that our answers up to date about these cases can not be definite yet, otherwise we fall into an obvious contradiction..
Human touch may "mask" any result conclusions by unconscious effort, so we need to be patient about the ideal conditions coming into testing, that could be a reality in the future with proper funding.
Thanks for the replies.
Petros
Since we can olny agree that we do not have the definite conditions for testing in some cases we should agree that our answers up to date about these cases can not be definite yet, otherwise we fall into an obvious contradiction..
Human touch may "mask" any result conclusions by unconscious effort, so we need to be patient about the ideal conditions coming into testing, that could be a reality in the future with proper funding.
Thanks for the replies.
Petros
Until we can fund, design, and build high-quality machines and carefully design testing procedures that take all important effects into consideration, the best we can do is careful human experiments with multiple human subjects and multiple trials (throwing out bad data according to a careful procedure) and use averages to get meaningful results.
Also, when doing squirt (cue ball deflection) testing, we need to make sure the cue is as level as possible, use fast speed to minimize swerve effects, and use a slick cloth to further minimize swerve effects. I personally think the procedure outlined and demonstrated in my recent tip squirt-testing video is fairly reliable, and I would expect other people to get similar results if they performed the experiments with the same care. Also, providing clear video of the testing helps provide proof that everything was done properly and carefully (or not).
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
In my recent tip squirt-testing experiments, the largest difference in squirt (cue ball deflection) seen among the wide range of tips tested was 2 3/8" for a hard and heavy phenolic tip compared to 2 1/8" for the softest and lightest leather tip. That difference is about 12%. That difference would certainly be noticeable to a top player playing on tight equipment, but I agree that the tip doesn't make much difference in general (especially when comparing typical tips on typical playing cues).
Regards,
Dave
As I state further down in that post, "Human touch may "mask" any result conclusions by unconscious effort".
Under the use of current equipment it's impossible to detect those minor unconscious adjustments that possibly occur while stroking or the exact complete pathway of the motions taking place.
So it's quite risky to call any procedure other than the desired one "fairly reliable" and "expect" similar results through an average of different strokes that all differ from each other. Some times experiments bring out surprising results, so until we perform them the way we wish to perform them it's safe not to rule out any posssibilities into drawing final conclusions.
However since pool is played by humans and not machines it all comes down once again to how we approach the subject:
Since any scientifically "minor" changes play significant role in a player's "feeling" (which yet has to be analyzed scientifically 100% under today's limits) then we can suggest that anything (almost everything indeed) that affects a player's stroke is important.
In this case, since a tip's hardness affects CB speed surely this leads to unconscious adjustments, affecting all elements of stroke and shot elements related to it, the player will simply tend to stroke differently although it seems otherwise.
Thanks again for the replies.
Best,
Petros
This is an interesting thread to me since I have argued with Dr. Dave in the past about the values of previously-conducted squirt tests - both robotic, and manual. I had maintained that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated as long as the tip struck the cue ball above the horizontal axis, and is struck with as level a cue as possible.
So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt. (Remember, I have been thinking that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated with this type of hit.) So, I tested it over and over, and found that the exact speed of stroke, and maybe a few other unseen and/or undetected variables, gave varying results in the amount of squirt produced.
Then I tested a Predator 314. This time, I was again surprised. The 314 still produced squirt (just as dr. Dave has reported it will), but it was not significantly less than the graphite cue. As near as I could tell, it was only about 1/8th of an inch over a distance of 70-inches. But again, results varied with speed and those other unseen and/or undetected variables.
My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go. And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot. Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong.
Roger
So, in my quest to prove my own theory on this matter, I built a fixture that would allow me to hit the cue ball at a consistent height above the horizontal center line (1/2 tip), and at a consistent butt elevation (clearing the rail by 1/2-inch). A few minutes ago, I finished my first round of tests. I started out by testing a one-piece graphite cue because I figured it would be the stiffest, and highest end mass cue I could find. To my surprise, it delivered a highly noticeable amount of squirt. (Remember, I have been thinking that squirt could be almost entirely eliminated with this type of hit.) So, I tested it over and over, and found that the exact speed of stroke, and maybe a few other unseen and/or undetected variables, gave varying results in the amount of squirt produced.
Then I tested a Predator 314. This time, I was again surprised. The 314 still produced squirt (just as dr. Dave has reported it will), but it was not significantly less than the graphite cue. As near as I could tell, it was only about 1/8th of an inch over a distance of 70-inches. But again, results varied with speed and those other unseen and/or undetected variables.
My point here is twofold. For starters, when I earlier thought I was eliminating squirt with a "proper" hit, I really must have been subconsciously "steering' the cue ball to make it go where I wanted it to go. And second, I believe that everything that has been said about the inaccuracies of both manual and robotic testing, are true. One set of tests by either method does not conclusively prove a whole lot. Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong.
Roger
Last edited:
Roger,
You are correct that an above-center hit will result in less "net or effective cue ball deflection," especially at slower speeds. This is because swerve happens sooner with follow vs. draw shots, and the downward force on the CB created by the above center hit causes some of the swerve to happen almost immediately off the tip. I and others call this effect "immediate swerve." For more info, see the squirt tip contact height resource page for more info.
When doing squirt tests to characterize a cue or tip, the CB should be struck on the horizontal center line to minimize the effects of "immediate swerve."
A graphite cue can be very light on the end; although it can also be very stiff. The lightness factor reduces the actual "endmass," but the stiffness factor actually increases the "effective endmass." For more info, see the squirt endmass and stiffness resource page.
... or your cue elevation, shot speed, and cloth conditions were just right for the amount of swerve to cancel the amount of squirt for the particular shots you were testing.
Good point. Tests must be done very carefully using good statistical methods.
To me, that is a powerful and useful conclusion. The testing may have helped you improve your understanding of squirt and swerve effects. To me, that is of value.Even my own testing has not really proven anything to me, other than the fact that my previous theory was wrong.
Roger, the next time you do tests, consider following the procedure recommended in my recent video, which helps you measure the effects of squirt only, while minimizing the effects of swerve.
Best regards,
Dave
While I appreciate Dr Dave's efforts...
While I appreciate Dr Dave's efforts, unfortunately, we are coming at this problem from two completely different perspectives.
His goal is to test and isolate for the physics principle best described as squirt, or two massive object colliding not on the center plane and the resulting change in direction from the incoming object due to the off center hit.
My Goal: to help pool players more easily adjust for off center aiming difficulties due to effective squirt with a more inexpensive method than has been available in the past.
I have built what I call, a linear rail mechanical stroke simulator that allows for testing at three different speeds.
I will be releasing an official video with the results of tests done using this stroke simulator.
It would NOT fit the ideal goal that Dr Dave has for determining physical squirt alone. That is not my goal.
My goal again is to make aiming easier and cheaper for the average player on the average shot.
I have to say that I was more than surprised when Dave told me his results since I had confirmed with other third parties that it does indeed reduce effective squirt, but then when talking to one of those third parties I was informed that on a high squirt cue that I had put the tip on for the testing when struck HARD, it still had high squirt tendencies.
Then Dave's results made more sense.
My stroke simulator allows for a soft, medium and hard stroke. It consists of a linear rail ball bearing system that is weighted and held to the bed of the table. The cue mounts onto the rail and has lines to the side and center that can be lined up with a chalk line drawn on the table.
It does not hold the cue perfectly parallel to the plane of the table. In testing that I have conducted, I determined that almost NO shots for the average player allow for a perfectly level cue, so I created the stroke simulator to use the average angle of stroke for the average shot. Also, the vast majority of shots are not shot super hard, so only having super hard shots to try and measure squirt alone also doesn't give an accurate account for the average player on the average shot.
That's why I designed it to simulate strokes at three different hardnesses, soft, medium and hard.
I currently have a production run completed and can start sending out tips. I'm still finishing up the official test video, and putting together the new photos for the website and promotional materials. I am still probably a couple of weeks away from being ready to completely launch, but I can start sending out tips. I have medium and hard of the LD tip available and my jump break/Super hard and the pill for those who want to keep their existing tips.
I will be offering sample packs of any two tips for $20 or a sample pack of all four available for $35.
I am in Tennessee this week for work and will be at high pockets several times. Rob Saez is the new house pro there and he liked the j/b tip so I am bringing him some and I'll be letting him try out the LD tip to see how he likes it. Me and him got a chance to play some american rotation and we are supposed to have a rematch (he got me 50-36 last time when we were both dead tired).
Jaden
While I appreciate Dr Dave's efforts, unfortunately, we are coming at this problem from two completely different perspectives.
His goal is to test and isolate for the physics principle best described as squirt, or two massive object colliding not on the center plane and the resulting change in direction from the incoming object due to the off center hit.
My Goal: to help pool players more easily adjust for off center aiming difficulties due to effective squirt with a more inexpensive method than has been available in the past.
I have built what I call, a linear rail mechanical stroke simulator that allows for testing at three different speeds.
I will be releasing an official video with the results of tests done using this stroke simulator.
It would NOT fit the ideal goal that Dr Dave has for determining physical squirt alone. That is not my goal.
My goal again is to make aiming easier and cheaper for the average player on the average shot.
I have to say that I was more than surprised when Dave told me his results since I had confirmed with other third parties that it does indeed reduce effective squirt, but then when talking to one of those third parties I was informed that on a high squirt cue that I had put the tip on for the testing when struck HARD, it still had high squirt tendencies.
Then Dave's results made more sense.
My stroke simulator allows for a soft, medium and hard stroke. It consists of a linear rail ball bearing system that is weighted and held to the bed of the table. The cue mounts onto the rail and has lines to the side and center that can be lined up with a chalk line drawn on the table.
It does not hold the cue perfectly parallel to the plane of the table. In testing that I have conducted, I determined that almost NO shots for the average player allow for a perfectly level cue, so I created the stroke simulator to use the average angle of stroke for the average shot. Also, the vast majority of shots are not shot super hard, so only having super hard shots to try and measure squirt alone also doesn't give an accurate account for the average player on the average shot.
That's why I designed it to simulate strokes at three different hardnesses, soft, medium and hard.
I currently have a production run completed and can start sending out tips. I'm still finishing up the official test video, and putting together the new photos for the website and promotional materials. I am still probably a couple of weeks away from being ready to completely launch, but I can start sending out tips. I have medium and hard of the LD tip available and my jump break/Super hard and the pill for those who want to keep their existing tips.
I will be offering sample packs of any two tips for $20 or a sample pack of all four available for $35.
I am in Tennessee this week for work and will be at high pockets several times. Rob Saez is the new house pro there and he liked the j/b tip so I am bringing him some and I'll be letting him try out the LD tip to see how he likes it. Me and him got a chance to play some american rotation and we are supposed to have a rematch (he got me 50-36 last time when we were both dead tired).
Jaden
Thanks Dave,
I watched your video and it did make me wonder about the potential of reducing squirt with strength / hardness / reduced sideway compression type methods. I guess that's still to be proven. I can see potential in lower mass materials in the tip core to reduce tip end mass.
It's great to see Jaden doing some exciting experimentation with materials!
Cheers,
Colin :smile: