My apologies to Dr. Dave
- Thread starter (((Satori)))
- Start date
Dave - Hopefully you are still reading this thread. I watched your video with interest, and had a question. After researching different cleaners on AZ some time back, I settled on using a product called Novus 1 plastic cleaner.
https://www.novuspolish.com/
I also have the Aramith cleaner but I stopped using it as it tended to leave dry smudge marks on the balls, even with my Bludworth ball machine (although admittedly it's been a long time since I've used Aramith with the machine). Have you ever tested Novus 1? I suppose I could do the test myself and report back since I have everything I would need to do it.
Thanks.
The eyes are merely receptors of light. & work very much like a camera. In fact we actually 'see' everything upside down & the brain reverses the image. Experiments have been done where the test subjects wore special goggles that turned everything upside down & over a period of time the brain reversed the process. When the goggles were removed the test individuals saw everything upside down & over time the brain again reversed the process so that they again saw things as before.
So.., it's the how the brain works that we know relatively little about & by WE I mean the medical & scientific communities. That said, great strides have been made in that endeavor.
I know & understand much more than you think I do. I've been schooled in trig., advance math, calculus, & physics.
But thank you for proving one of my points. You 'attack' me & my opinion but offer no rational logical explanation to support the claim that CTE is 100% totally objective.
It's like Satori said, some of us are fairly sure that you do know the reasons why it can not be totally objective & if so, we are disappointed that you won't say so. Our question then becomes why you won't say so or do you really not know the reasons why it can't be a totally objective method.
All I, & others would like is for someone, anyone, to explain how & why it is a totally objective method, or... perhaps Stan to admit that is not.
If it is, it should be relatively easily to explain. I'm not saying that Stan is capable of doing so because I do not know his educational background just a I do not know yours. But surely there is someone with the where with all to explain it, that is, IF it is a totally objective method.
I'm not saying that anyone is intentionally making false claims or anything like that, but people do make mistakes.
You've made some mistakes & were man enough to admit them & apologize. So have I & many others.
Now I know Stan would not be able to admit to something that he does not think or feel, just as you would not be able to do.
If you think that there is only the few of us here on AZB that do not think that CTE is totally objective, I would 'argue' that anyone that does think that it is should have already purchased the DVDs & should be putting CTE into full fledged operation as a 100% totally objective 'system' would be a God send to playing better pool.
However, even you have said that you do not use CTE exclusively. Why not?
I'm not looking to argue with you & certainly do want to go back & forth defending myself against your personal allegations.
Those of us that do not see CTE as a totally objective 'system' merely want a rational explanation as to the how & why it is, IF it is indeed such. No one up to now has been able to give such an explanation OR at least they have not done so if they are able to do so.
Stan has not done so & I can understand why he may not be able to do so.
That said until a rational explanation is given CTE is in the realm of a belief 'system'. Believe in it & it can work for you. Don't believe & you will see the holes when you employ it totally objectively.
It's not the eyes & how they see that is the problem nor is it how robots 'see' but it is the understanding of how the human brain...or mind works that is lacking & especially the subconscious mind.
Again it is like Satorie suggested to Bieber/Jon, some of us should study up on how the subconscious mind works & we should take note that it is more often called the subconscious 'mind' & not more often called the subconscious brain.
Anyway, my & others' take on CTE will remain until our opinions are changed by a rational explanation when & IF one can be offered.
Happy Thanksgiving to ALL & please remember from where everything that you are thankful for has come. So, please Thank God for ALL that he has given & done for us.
Best Wishes to Stan, Neil, Spidey/Dave & everyone that thinks &/or believes that CTE is 100% a totally objective 'system' or method.
Rick
Last edited:
I really don't know why I am bothering even replying to you. But, let's get one thing clear. I did not attack you. YOU attacked CTE, Stan, and myself. And, for no reason, other than to start what is now happening. That is the definition of trolling. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And, I will no longer be a part of your , or Colins attacks and trolling in this thread. All you want to do is nitpick, instead of taking what you can and actually learning something.
Actually, Grady was rumored to have said something nearly like that. Something like, "Some days you have to cut them thinner."
For those interested, a complete summary of all factors related to throw can be found here (in items 16-37 in the numbered list beneath the videos and illustrations):
squirt, swerve, and throw effects
FYI, I agree with your list, except for the last item in blue. Cloth properties have no direct effect on throw; although, a "sticky" cloth will tend to wear off more backspin on draw shots resulting in less speed (due to drag) and less spin at the OB (which can result in more throw). FYI, all cloth-related effects are summarized and described here:
cloth condition effects
cloth humidity effects
Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
Best regards,
Dave
I have not tested Novus, but I have heard good things about it from several people recently.
That would be great. Please do so. I recommend the procedure in the following video:
NV D.16 - Pool ball cut-induced throw and cling/skid/kick experiment
Please report back on what you find.
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Dave
Some of the TAR and AccuStats matches I have, the subject came up by the players and/or commentators. For example, in one cases they talked about the fact that the players had specifically asked for the balls not to be cleaned between sets because of the change in throw. Case in point the race to 100 between Shane and Alex (the one Alex came back from behind). The subject came up on more than one occasion.
Thanks Dave.
As I said earlier you really are the man!
You too Mr. Jewett.
Again, I appreciate the knowledge you both have brought to all of us.
Hope everyone has a happy thanksgiving.
That's great and all, but a rumor is just that. A rumor.
Novus 1 Test Results
OK, Dave. I had some time today so I did your experiment in order to test the throw with Novus 1 plastic cleaner. I found some interesting and unexpected results. I did not perform the test at various speeds. I shot hard enough for the object ball to rebound from the head rail, where I made the measurement, back to the foot string. The ball started on the foot spot with another ball frozen to it per your procedure. I was careful to shoot repeatedly until I was sure I had a reproducible result. The speed of the shot affected the outcome quite a lot, so I discarded any test where the ball did not rest near the foot string where it started. I have a set of new Centennials, with a newly set up GC5 with Simonis 860. In other words, good, new table conditions.
Test 1: Normally I spray the balls with Novus and polish them in a Bludworth machine. Then each day I will respin them but I will not spray them with Novus for several days. They seem to be clean and slick enough without being overly slick. The result with clean, but not recently sprayed balls is 4.5 inches.
Test 2: In this test I sprayed the balls with Novus 1 and spun them for about 3 minutes. I got surprising results, described below, but the final throw was 2.375". I did a second trial later on with two different balls and got 2.5". Quite repeatable.
Test 3: I cleaned the balls with soapy water to remove the Novus. The result was still 4.5". Maybe the Novus doesn't come off so easily?
Test 4: After cleaning the balls with soapy water, I hand polished the balls with Aramith cleaner. I got a throw of 5.5". How does this compare to your results for the same speed?
So here's the surprising result. In Test 2 where the balls were freshly sprayed, the throw was only 1"! sometimes even less. The first time this happened I just kept doing the test to get a repeatable result. I found that after 10 and 20 tries, the ball began throwing more and more. The final throw was as reported at 2.5". I took two different balls and the same thing happened. I started at 1" throw, and then over time it would extend to 2.5", sometimes going back to 1". Same thing on a third pair of freshly Novus polished balls. It seems like the Novus is rubbing off very quickly. Too much applied? Have you seen results like this with anything like Turtle Wax?
So it seems to me that Novus makes the balls a little slicker than Aramith, but not as slick as Turtle Wax. I am concerned that the throw with Novus was so much smaller than the throw with Aramith. Novus is not a billiard product. Should the 5.5" throw with Aramith be considered "normal" since they make the balls, and anything else is incorrect?
I was most surprised with how slick the Novus balls were and how quickly the throw "settled in" at 2.5". I have a test shot when I am warming up. I put a ball about 6 diamonds from the corner pocket and 1/4" away from the side rail. Then I shoot about a 45 degree shot just to see how I'm hitting them. I found awhile back that when the balls were freshly sprayed and polished I made the ball, but when it has been a few days since spraying, I often hit it fat until I adjusted a little. This experiment puts a number on what I eventually realized about the throw differences.
OK Dr. Dave... what's the prognosis?
OK, Dave. I had some time today so I did your experiment in order to test the throw with Novus 1 plastic cleaner. I found some interesting and unexpected results. I did not perform the test at various speeds. I shot hard enough for the object ball to rebound from the head rail, where I made the measurement, back to the foot string. The ball started on the foot spot with another ball frozen to it per your procedure. I was careful to shoot repeatedly until I was sure I had a reproducible result. The speed of the shot affected the outcome quite a lot, so I discarded any test where the ball did not rest near the foot string where it started. I have a set of new Centennials, with a newly set up GC5 with Simonis 860. In other words, good, new table conditions.
Test 1: Normally I spray the balls with Novus and polish them in a Bludworth machine. Then each day I will respin them but I will not spray them with Novus for several days. They seem to be clean and slick enough without being overly slick. The result with clean, but not recently sprayed balls is 4.5 inches.
Test 2: In this test I sprayed the balls with Novus 1 and spun them for about 3 minutes. I got surprising results, described below, but the final throw was 2.375". I did a second trial later on with two different balls and got 2.5". Quite repeatable.
Test 3: I cleaned the balls with soapy water to remove the Novus. The result was still 4.5". Maybe the Novus doesn't come off so easily?
Test 4: After cleaning the balls with soapy water, I hand polished the balls with Aramith cleaner. I got a throw of 5.5". How does this compare to your results for the same speed?
So here's the surprising result. In Test 2 where the balls were freshly sprayed, the throw was only 1"! sometimes even less. The first time this happened I just kept doing the test to get a repeatable result. I found that after 10 and 20 tries, the ball began throwing more and more. The final throw was as reported at 2.5". I took two different balls and the same thing happened. I started at 1" throw, and then over time it would extend to 2.5", sometimes going back to 1". Same thing on a third pair of freshly Novus polished balls. It seems like the Novus is rubbing off very quickly. Too much applied? Have you seen results like this with anything like Turtle Wax?
So it seems to me that Novus makes the balls a little slicker than Aramith, but not as slick as Turtle Wax. I am concerned that the throw with Novus was so much smaller than the throw with Aramith. Novus is not a billiard product. Should the 5.5" throw with Aramith be considered "normal" since they make the balls, and anything else is incorrect?
I was most surprised with how slick the Novus balls were and how quickly the throw "settled in" at 2.5". I have a test shot when I am warming up. I put a ball about 6 diamonds from the corner pocket and 1/4" away from the side rail. Then I shoot about a 45 degree shot just to see how I'm hitting them. I found awhile back that when the balls were freshly sprayed and polished I made the ball, but when it has been a few days since spraying, I often hit it fat until I adjusted a little. This experiment puts a number on what I eventually realized about the throw differences.
OK Dr. Dave... what's the prognosis?
That reminds me of an old challenge for the snooker table, with 2 balls frozen to the rail and a 3rd froze at 45 degrees behind those balls.
The throw would cause the ball to miss the pocket until a dab of spit was applied surreptitiously at the contact point between the two balls frozen to the rail. The trickster could then smash the combination in, with almost no throw interference.
Neil,
You amaze me.
You're omniscient.
And... you think asking for a rational logical explanation is an 'attack' & is nitpicking.
May God Bless You.
Rick
Last edited:
Dan,
Thank you for doing the experiment and for posting your results.
BTW, the best way to directly compare your results to the data in my videos and articles is to convert your measurements to degrees of throw. That way, the table size or distance to the rail doesn't matter. To do this, you need to use an inverse tangent function (tan-1 on a calculator or ATAN in Google or Excel). The throw angle is calculated with:
throw angle = arctan (throw distance / distance to rail).
For example if the measured throw distance is 5 inches and the distance to the cushion is 6 feet, the throw angle can be calculated by typing the following into Google (converting from radians to degrees) with:
atan(5 in / 6 ft) * 180/pi
The answer is 3.97 degrees.
From what you describe, I think I would prefer the Aramith cleaner over Novus. The Novus seems to create a lot less throw than "normal" or "what is expected." This might sound like a good thing at first, but as the Novus wears off, the amount of throw changes significantly resulting in changes in conditions during play (and the changes might not occur consistently from one ball to the next).
Here's a pertinent quote from "Throw Follow-up: Part I: Cling" (BD, July, 2014):
You may be asking yourself: “Why not always use a wax to reduce throw as much as possible?” If there were no throw, shot making would be easier because you could aim every shot, regardless of angle, speed, and spin, to hit at the ideal ghost-ball position along the "line of centers." Low friction on the CB would also make draw shots easier since less backspin would be lost on the way to the OB. However, with a very-low-friction wax, certain throw and spin-transfer shots would no longer be possible (see the throw FAQ page on my website for examples). Also, conditions being so different than what people expect would require adjustments. Also, as the wax wears off with use, the conditions could change significantly. Also, if everybody did not use the same wax, and clean and wax the balls frequently, conditions could be very different from one place to another, from one day to the next, and from one ball to the next.
Last edited:
Thanks Dave. I thought that you used the foot spot as your starting point in this particular video. If you have a 9' table then the conversion to degrees isn't necessary, right?
Did you notice any of the same behavior with Turtle Wax that I saw with Novus? I think I am going to use the Aramith cleaner for awhile and see what happens. This was a real eye-opener and could be very useful for my game!
Did you notice any of the same behavior with Turtle Wax that I saw with Novus? I think I am going to use the Aramith cleaner for awhile and see what happens. This was a real eye-opener and could be very useful for my game!
My table is an 8 footer.
I didn't do tests over time or over a large number of shots, but I suspect the effect would be similar. Any polish or surface treatment that significantly reduces throw will eventually wear off potentially resulting in inconsistent and unexpected amounts of throw.
Catch you later,
Dave
Very true, Dr Dave and Bob both are two of the greatest assets we have in this game.
Many thanks to both of them