Chris, I don't think spin/speed ratio would change by choice of chalk as long as there were no slip occur during contact. Given the same impact speed vector and contact point, I am still trying to build a physic model in which the other factors such as tip and shaft have some contributions to the spin/speed ratio. But I think the chalk is not one of those hidden factors.
I may need some finite element simulations to quantify the theory first.
Years ago Pat Johnson had outlined a test to prove that the type of cue doesn't matter when it comes to generating spin. This was back when Predator was marketing their cues with a 'gives 25% more spin' claim. Pat had a test where you had to shoot a certain shot and mark where the cue ball ended up. The idea was that no matter what cue you used you could absolutely NOT get the ball to end up in the same spot with any other offset. You could hit the ball with a different offset and more or less speed but IF you hit the ball with the same offset and speed then no more spin was produced regardless of the cue.
I tested this and found it to be true for level cues.
But when it comes to masse' shots if I used a carom cue then I could get way more spin than if I used a pool cue.
When I lived in Germany I had a billiard supply shop. Our pool table was surrounded by four walls of pool cues. I had a twin set of cues from an italian maker, I forget the name, not Longoni. One of the cues was set up for pool with a metal screw in the butt and a pool "pro" taper to 13mm at the tip and the other was set up for carom at 57" and with a wood screw in the shaft and a conical taper down to 11.5mm at the tip.
Back then I would mess around a lot on our table at night, trying cues and trying shots. One time I was messing with the trick shot where you freeze two balls at one end and hang another ball on the same rail at the other end. The idea is to make the frozen ball and the cue ball doubles the rail all the way down to make the other ball. Another variation is to make the frozen ball and masse' around an interfering ball to make the other ball. Anyway, I was messing with the italian cues and trying this shot and with the pool cue I could barely make the cue ball double the rail much less get down table.
With the carom cue I could easily double the rail several times and often make the object ball. So after discovering this I tried it out on various masse' shots and found that the carom cue made it easier for any kind of masse'.
--------------------------------------------------
why does this matter?
Well, to me it matters because I do think that cues have performance differences. But where do those differences come from? The internal structure, the balance, the taper, type of wood, ferrule, endmass, tip, chalk? Humidity, muscle tension while holding different weights.
We all know it's easier to jump with a dedicated jump cue, we know it's easier to masse' with a dedicated masse' cue. I think that people seem to have this idea though that all pool cues, and anything resembling a pool cue such as a snooker cue or a carom cue, all have the same performance within a very tight range.
I think we all accept that deflection is tunable at this point. I think we accept the concept of radial consistency as valid and available. But we don't much about anything else really on how all the other variables affect performance. We have seen a lot of marketing points, seen very little testing that everyone agrees is fair.
---------------------------
What i get out of all this and Dr. Dave's videos is - pool is tough - not only do cues all perform differently but other factor influence results a lot, chalk, ball condition, tip hardness, cloth conditions, humidity, stroke tics, etc... tons of tiny variables with infinite combinations that can throw the shot off just a hair in the wrong direction.
These are all things that professional class players get attuned to and which amateurs either don't really develop a feeling for OR they simply dismiss as superstition.