Rick,
A simple question for you. Have you read Dr. Dave's resources he linked to earlier on this topic?
Colin
Do we have a physics expert in the house.
- Thread starter ceebee
- Start date
A simple question for you. Have you read Dr. Dave's resources he linked to earlier on this topic?
Colin
Rick,
Please read the cited page and supporting resources carefully. They explain everything in great detail. It doesn't seem like you have really done your "homework" on this topic. You keep mentioning Meucci's tests, but without data or an article or a video clearly documenting what he did, it is all hearsay and conjecture (or just marketing claims). Again, do you have anything concrete we could look at and discuss objectively?
The Meucci videos I saw years ago, which I think are no longer available, made clear the many mistakes he was making in his experiments.
Here are are the bullets from the squirt testing resource page:
1.) Tip size, shape, hardness, and weight should be the same for all shafts tests; otherwise results will be affected (for more info, see tip hardness effects, tip size and shape effects).
2.) The cue should be perfectly level during the tests; otherwise, swerve will be a factor, and it will vary with cue elevation and shot speed, which varies with cue weight and tip efficiency. Swerve also varies with cloth conditions, which can change over time with dirtiness, temperature, and humidity.
3.) The cue ball squirt angle should be measured directly. Measurements should not be made based on the motion of an object ball that the cue ball hits. The use of an object ball introduces the variable of throw, which can vary with ball surface conditions at the point of contact and with ball speed, which can vary with cue weight and tip efficiency.
4.) The tip should be consistently on the horizontal centerline of the cue ball; if not tip contact height effects will come into play.
5.) Robot testing should be done by an independent "laboratory," not a cue manufacturer, because the manufacturer might not be impartial if the tests involve the manufacturer's cues or shafts.
Meucci pretty much violated every one of these Laws of Robotic (or Human) Squirt Testing. Do you have access to some new data, articles, and videos I haven't seen yet? If so, please provide links or let us know where to find the info that you seem to be privy to.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Did you look at the chart?
I'm not so much defending you but PJ also attacked me in another thread and when I called him on it, he flat lied about it then followed it up with a humor post.
I fought for the freedom of speech in the military and now it seems I have to do it here as well.
I thought I sensed some hostility recently.
I did go where I thought Dave suggested & it was about table conditions. So... I'm not sure what 2nd. bullet to which he was referring. I've asked for a clarification.
The chart to which I was referring was Dr. Dave's & NOT Mr. Meucci's.
SilverCue has read some of Dr. Dave's material & even has some of his material.
It would seem that you have made at least 2 errors in a very short time.
I have told Dave on several occasion's that I very much respect & appreciate his efforts & contributions.
That does not mean that he is infallible & that sometimes wording can be & mean everything in the proper transfer of complete & accurate information. Something with even a slight error of language can be a cause of miscommunication of the 'facts'.
You have a Goodey.
I'm not so much defending you but PJ also attacked me in another thread and when I called him on it, he flat lied about it then followed it up with a humor post.
I fought for the freedom of speech in the military and now it seems I have to do it here as well.
Do you know how many players this guy has helped with his "knowledge" and his thousands of "informative" posts ???
Every time someone posts something about the game, he responds in a few minutes with a negative post full of arrogance. It is really disgusting. I know he has been doing this for years. And I am 100% sure that he doesn't play the game.
I'm not so much defending you but PJ also attacked me in another thread and when I called him on it, he flat lied about it then followed it up with a humor post.
I fought for the freedom of speech in the military and now it seems I have to do it here as well.
Well then as they say In Australia, Good on Ya.
BUT there is no Universal Freedom of Speech here except as allowed by Management.
This is a privately owned site. That is part of what I was trying to point out to you.
Many former good posters have left for various reasons.
No Panos,
You're wrong, it's me that doesn't play the game & never have in 50 years.
Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Dave,
I typed out a bit of a long response but I realized that it would be futile & I might even get the red rep from you again & then possibly another ban.
I understand what you say regardless of what you & some others think about my intelligence level. My IQ has been tested several times & I am at the level right under Genius. That means nothing. My education was interrupted & life took me in another direction.
Your mind is 'closed' as you think all of the info is in. I don't.
Let me rephrase that. You have an open mind but you seem to think that all of the info is in & the book can be written. I don't.
It's not so much what is said but how it is said.
You are not like some others. I have no beef with you what so ever. In fact I would love to have a sit down with you over a couple of beers & have an unpretentious talk outside of this fish bowl.
I have told you before that I certainly appreciate your efforts & investment & what you have given to the potential learning of The Game & I do.
All that said... do you know of any tests with exactly 'like' shafts where the ONLY composition change or make up of the shaft is the elasticity flex of the ferrule, maybe of two sets, one set being a stiff conical taper & the other set being a long parallel taper?
Or, do you know of any tests where the same shaft has been put on different butts of exactly the same weight & weight distribution with only the composition & manufacture build up being different?
Best Regards,
Rick
Last edited:
Rick,
Did you not see the blue text in the 2nd item in my previous post (see above)? It is not just table conditions. If the butt is changed and if the butt has a different weight, that will result in a different CB speed. And if the cue is elevated, a faster (slower) CB speed will result in less (more) swerve, which also depends on ball/cloth conditions. And if the CB is hitting an OB as part of the test, both the change in CB swerve and the resulting changes in throw (due to differences in CB speed, cut angle, and CB-OB-contact point properties) will create misleading "squirt measurements." Therefore, if Meucci saw a difference in "squirt results" when the butt was changed, it was probably due to some or all of these effects.
However, since Meucci violated pretty much every Law of Squirt Testing, all of his results should be taken with caution and suspicion.
I hope that makes more sense,
Dave
PS: Again, do you have access to Meucci data, articles, and/or videos the rest of us have not seen yet? If so, please provide links or let us know where to find the info that you seem to be privy to.
Last edited:
Rick, it's G'day, not Goodey.
I'm simply a pragmatic person when it comes to aspects that deserve serious discussion, and enjoy being a joker or reprobate otherwise. Don't read too much into it.
I've known Dave for many years and he's not one to close the book on new ideas. It's just that good new ideas come along more rarely with time. I tried to butt heads with him and Bob Jewett and others early on in my journey to physics knowledge but got pummeled into submission... well, I actually spent more time reading what they had done/collected, and testing things myself. And I learned that they had very good evidence for most of their opinions and were humble and open minded in the areas where new ideas and variables could be explained.
They are not book-closed kind of people, in fact, they are the opposite. Very open minded to any argument or evidence that is well considered and supported with reason or evidence.
Colin
Last edited:
I'm not so much defending you but PJ also attacked me in another thread and when I called him on it, he flat lied about it then followed it up with a humor post.
I fought for the freedom of speech in the military and now it seems I have to do it here as well.
He never attacked you, and he didn't lie about anything. You are reading things into it that aren't even there, and then when the person himself says the same thing, you call him a liar. Either you are just trolling here, or you need to get a little thicker skin.
Dave,
It looks like we were cross posting.
Yes, & I understand ALL of that.
Please see my post just before yours.
I don't know what Meucci material you have seen, but I doubt that I have seen anything that you have not.
I may just have seen it with a different eye as I can feel the difference in some of the different build ups of different butts. A solid piece of wood with a stainless joint is not the same as a full splice cue with a stainless joint nor is a stainless joint & a wood to wood.
I later then got to hit with two of his Power Piston cues. One with a Red Dot shaft & my OB Classic Pro on it & then a Custom Pro model with the Ultimate Weapon shaft.
The power pistons have a very unique feel. The custom had a G10 screw.
Regards,
Rick
Back in the day, for awhile, they actually went to Muecci.
I love Meucci's new "Pro" shaft. However Bob claims it is the lowest deflection shaft on the market. It isn't. It is quite obvious after spending some time with one on several occasions that the deflection is not in the same ballpark as the Predator Z, 314. or OB shafts. The hit and playability is superb though. I might buy one. But my point is that I don't think Bob totally understands what deflection is. (And by deflection throughout I mean squirt).
I consistently find that some companies claim low deflection, or worse, that theirs has less than specific competitors, when in reality this isn't the case.
What I think would be interesting is some high speed video of various top players shooting shots with lots of english, to see if there is anything *they* do with their stroke or bodies to influence cue ball squirt.
KMRUNOUT
You would have thought that because you are assuming shaft stiffness makes a difference in cueball squirt. It certainly seems like it doesn't. This information would certainly support that conclusion.
KMRUNOUT
In science, there is a whole body of knowledge specifically about what "significance" is, how it is determined and measured. It isn't really as much of an opinion based idea as you make it out to be. The idea is that if 98% of squirt can be attributed to end mass, and 1% can be attributed to shaft stiffness (the other 1% is attributed to "openmindedness")...then based on this you could make radical differences to shaft stiffness without making a "significant" difference in squirt.
Food for thought...
KMRUNOUT
RBC
Deceased
Rick
I think what Dave is saying in that portion is that by keeping the cue level, and by ensuring that the tip contacts the ball on the horizontal center of the cue ball, it mitigates all those variables. If those 2 things are constant, then cue weight, cloth condition, ball cleanliness etc, are all nullified.
I've known Dave and some of the others for quite some time. I've had some really good brainstorming sessions (sometimes drinking sessions) with at least one from this thread, Fred. I can assure you that what drives them is the thirst for knowing what is right. Dave has spent countless hours and dollars trying to disprove his own findings. It's just what he does. When you find him taking a stand like this it's not because he's closed minded and won't look any further than what many see as obvious. It's because he has tried and tried to prove himself wrong and hasn't been able to. Even with that, he's still not convinced that there can't be something else out there that he hasn't thought about and tested which is why he continuously asks you for more information. He want's to know if there's something he doesn't know. When someone comes along and says that there may be other factors that he's not thought about, he's very interested to hear about them. But when after his questions go unanswered, he has to assume that there may not be other factors and that it's more about posing the question than answering it.
I don't think you'll find a more open and fact seeking group.
Royce
I'm not so much defending you but PJ also attacked me in another thread and when I called him on it, he flat lied about it then followed it up with a humor post.
I fought for the freedom of speech in the military and now it seems I have to do it here as well.
I find it odd that anyone would characterize PJ's observations as an "attack" on English. I would consider them polite observation.
KMRUNOUT