Spin applied during contact

[Player]

There was a thread talking about this that disappeared. I was amazed at how many people didn't think this was possible.
Think about ping pong. With a flat paddle the ball is always hit in the center. Contact time is probably less than pool.
How could any spin possibly be imparted?

 

[ENGLISH!]

There was a thread talking about this that disappeared. I was amazed at how many people didn't think this was possible.
Think about ping pong. With a flat paddle the ball is always hit in the center. Contact time is probably less than pool.
How could any spin possibly be imparted?

Good Luck with the thread.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Keyser Soze proved it years ago.

 

[Banks]

There was a thread talking about this that disappeared. I was amazed at how many people didn't think this was possible.
Think about ping pong. With a flat paddle the ball is always hit in the center. Contact time is probably less than pool.
How could any spin possibly be imparted?

Uhh, unless it's trash, paddles have a rubber surface. Add to that the angle of impact.

I just assume anybody arguing these points is joking around.

That includes trying to do something fancy *between* initial contact with the cb and the release of the cb from the tip. A continuation of an action, sure.

Then again, these fit perfectly with winning the lottery to save pool and other thread gems.

 

[The Renfro]

Uhh, unless it's trash, paddles have a rubber surface. Add to that the angle of impact.

I just assume anybody arguing these points is joking around.

That includes trying to do something fancy *between* initial contact with the cb and the release of the cb from the tip. A continuation of an action, sure.

Then again, these fit perfectly with winning the lottery to save pool and other thread gems.

You do realize that period while short covers several MM of travel depending on the tip and the speed that you hit it???

Thinking you can/cannot do anything in that space has not been proven or disproved...

Until cameras are better and cheaper and there is enough money in pool to warrant real "in depth" testing any thoughts either way are opinion and conjecture.. Same thing with much of the "truths" about tips and shafts... Just because the water is still on the surface doesn't mean there are not currents at work underneath...

I know many of you think I am knocking the establishment but I am only pointing out a truth... For how many years were you told contact time was 1ms? It was close to a decade before the Russian vids showed up proving that it was tip dependent based on force and likely could extend to 4ms...

Not all of the science is settled because there is no money for testing.. Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page are working on no budget and as such not all tests will be adequate in depth or scope..

They do everything they can for the sport and I respect them for what they contribute but that does not keep me from voicing my opinion in the face of what I think is inadequate study and testing on some topics.... Especially when the discussions and observations from myself, players and cuemakers are in direct opposition...

We make our tips with certain COR and hardness readings because differences in those ratios make a tip feel, play and spin the cueball differently... How do I know those numbers/ratios matter? More hours of testing than you can imagine....

On tips and chalk I would bet I have as many hours in testing and research as anyone in the industry... That means that while I was not testing to publish I was testing to establish what mattered and what did not... If the interactions were as simple as many tests I have seen that were done to publish make out, my job would be a hella lot easier. It's not and it's getting harder as I continue to work on actual synthetic replacements for playing tips....

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Contact time is probably less than pool.

It is my assumption that this assumption kills your argument. Ping pong balls are much much softer and more flexible than a pool ball. I believe the rubber on modern high end paddles is also softer than the typical leather cue tip. I would wager that the contact time is quite a bit more than in pool. Although I really have no idea.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Scaramouche]

There was a thread talking about this that disappeared. I was amazed at how many people didn't think this was possible.
Think about ping pong. With a flat paddle the ball is always hit in the center. Contact time is probably less than pool.
How could any spin possibly be imparted?

Unwarranted assumption = illogical conclusion

 

[Player]

I tried a little experiment last night that any of you can do. Take a 2x4 about a foot long, stand it on edge, and holding both ends hit the ball down the table.

This insures a center ball hit and a 2x4 is as hard as about any tip.

When I hit it straight it went straight. When I used a swiping motion to the left it put left spin on the ball. When I used a swiping motion to the right it put right spin on the ball.
You can see it on the ball and especially the way it comes off the far rail.

Maybe not very scientific but tells me what I wanted to know.

 

[RichSchultz]

You do realize that period while short covers several MM of travel depending on the tip and the speed that you hit it???

Thinking you can/cannot do anything in that space has not been proven or disproved...

Until cameras are better and cheaper and there is enough money in pool to warrant real "in depth" testing any thoughts either way are opinion and conjecture.. Same thing with much of the "truths" about tips and shafts... Just because the water is still on the surface doesn't mean there are not currents at work underneath...

I know many of you think I am knocking the establishment but I am only pointing out a truth... For how many years were you told contact time was 1ms? It was close to a decade before the Russian vids showed up proving that it was tip dependent based on force and likely could extend to 4ms...

Not all of the science is settled because there is no money for testing.. Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page are working on no budget and as such not all tests will be adequate in depth or scope..

They do everything they can for the sport and I respect them for what they contribute but that does not keep me from voicing my opinion in the face of what I think is inadequate study and testing on some topics.... Especially when the discussions and observations from myself, players and cuemakers are in direct opposition...

We make our tips with certain COR and hardness readings because differences in those ratios make a tip feel, play and spin the cueball differently... How do I know those numbers/ratios matter? More hours of testing than you can imagine....

On tips and chalk I would bet I have as many hours in testing and research as anyone in the industry... That means that while I was not testing to publish I was testing to establish what mattered and what did not... If the interactions were as simple as many tests I have seen that were done to publish make out, my job would be a hella lot easier. It's not and it's getting harder as I continue to work on actual synthetic replacements for playing tips....

Synthetic tips? Cool!! How about ironing a piece of a flannel shirt? Seems it would hold chalk well!

 

[SARDiver]

I can't recall if it was in a Capelle or Byrne book, but I believe I read that only about 2% of the rotational force is imparted from the cue ball at contact with the OB. That sounds about right, given the inelasticity of the balls. They're together for a very short period of time, but unless they're frictionless, some rotational energy would have to be imparted, based on the laws of motion.

 

[M.G.]

I am close to rage on this one.

First, rephrase your posting. Which spin? Tip to CB? CB to OB?
Then in what world do you live in? "Better cameras"?

Watch this one, it was been filmed at MY carom club and this was like >15 years ago. They even did thermal imaging of the balls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avFjRgzTL-w

Physics in sports (yes, they do that):
http://www.mnf.uni-greifswald.de/fileadmin/physik/PhysikSport7.pdf

Rather un-interesting, cheap cameras do 300FPS.
Crash test standard is 1000FPS, and again, that's cheap stuff.
Right now we can do 20 million (!) FPS.
If you need to film <1 second you can do 500 million FPS [1]
If you need only 1 dimension you can do 600 billion FPS [2]

Cheers,
M

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochgeschwindigkeitskamera#Elektronische_Verfahren
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streak-Kamera

 

[Drop The Rock]

Goddamn it lol. The point and btw your 2x4 experiment proves it. Is what you did before contact that imparts spin, the same goes or ping pong. The deleted thread referenced literally using straight cuing for say center ball and applying english in between the contact and release from the tip (.001 to .002 seconds).

The points that everyone else tried to make are that A) Its more than likely physically impossible for a human being to alter the path of a body in motion in .001 to .002 seconds let alone during, not before and not after contact with the cue ball. B) That there isn't a magical stroking technique that can achieve this and C) That both .001 and .002 are such insignificant amounts of time to the human body and brain that the difference between the two is insignificant.

During which amount of contact time can more energy be imparted on the cue ball? .001 or .002 seconds? Nobody spoil this. Rick?

 

[bdorman]

My in-depth analysis has shown that spin on the CB is imparted by God. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't...and rarely in the way I wanted.

Anyone who disagrees with me is an infidel!

 

[ENGLISH!]

You do realize that period while short covers several MM of travel depending on the tip and the speed that you hit it???

Thinking you can/cannot do anything in that space has not been proven or disproved...

Until cameras are better and cheaper and there is enough money in pool to warrant real "in depth" testing any thoughts either way are opinion and conjecture.. Same thing with much of the "truths" about tips and shafts... Just because the water is still on the surface doesn't mean there are not currents at work underneath...

I know many of you think I am knocking the establishment but I am only pointing out a truth... For how many years were you told contact time was 1ms? It was close to a decade before the Russian vids showed up proving that it was tip dependent based on force and likely could extend to 4ms...

Not all of the science is settled because there is no money for testing.. Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page are working on no budget and as such not all tests will be adequate in depth or scope..

They do everything they can for the sport and I respect them for what they contribute but that does not keep me from voicing my opinion in the face of what I think is inadequate study and testing on some topics.... Especially when the discussions and observations from myself, players and cuemakers are in direct opposition...

We make our tips with certain COR and hardness readings because differences in those ratios make a tip feel, play and spin the cueball differently... How do I know those numbers/ratios matter? More hours of testing than you can imagine....

On tips and chalk I would bet I have as many hours in testing and research as anyone in the industry... That means that while I was not testing to publish I was testing to establish what mattered and what did not... If the interactions were as simple as many tests I have seen that were done to publish make out, my job would be a hella lot easier. It's not and it's getting harder as I continue to work on actual synthetic replacements for playing tips....

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

 

[ENGLISH!]

I tried a little experiment last night that any of you can do. Take a 2x4 about a foot long, stand it on edge, and holding both ends hit the ball down the table.

This insures a center ball hit and a 2x4 is as hard as about any tip.

When I hit it straight it went straight. When I used a swiping motion to the left it put left spin on the ball. When I used a swiping motion to the right it put right spin on the ball.
You can see it on the ball and especially the way it comes off the far rail.

Maybe not very scientific but tells me what I wanted to know.

I and others have talked about the swipe stroke. Those that do not even know what it is or how to execute it say that it does nothing that a regular stroke can't do.

I guess that is why the greats of the past that could do 'magic' with the ball would never use it over their more regular methods.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Drop The Rock]

I and others have talked about the swipe stroke. Those that do not even know what it is or how to execute it say that it does nothing that a regular stroke can't do.

I guess that is why the greats of the past that could do 'magic' with the ball would never use it over their more regular methods.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

Can you please provide SOME evidence or at least a theory? It does exactly what a regular stroke does, just in a different way. Also answer my question while your at it :wink:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I and others have talked about the swipe stroke. Those that do not even know what it is or how to execute it say that it does nothing that a regular stroke can't do.

What can it do that a regular stroke can't do? Should be easy to demonstrate.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

I can't recall if it was in a Capelle or Byrne book, but I believe I read that only about 2% of the rotational force is imparted from the cue ball at contact with the OB. That sounds about right, given the inelasticity of the balls. They're together for a very short period of time, but unless they're frictionless, some rotational energy would have to be imparted, based on the laws of motion.

There was a time when some were saying that NO spin at ALL could be transferred to an object ball.

That is what Renfro/Chris, I & others are saying. What is 'commonly known' now will be shown wrong WHEN the sufficient & extensive study is done.

To ignore the growth of knowledge & understanding is basically ignorance.

Please note that ignore is the 1st. part of the word ignorance.

That is what a closed mind is. It is a mind that will not allow anything new or different that is not already in that mind to be allowed in, not even for consideration.

The response is absolutely not.

A closed mind will never grow in knowledge or understanding. Only an open mind can do that.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[Neil]

I tried a little experiment last night that any of you can do. Take a 2x4 about a foot long, stand it on edge, and holding both ends hit the ball down the table.

This insures a center ball hit and a 2x4 is as hard as about any tip.

When I hit it straight it went straight. When I used a swiping motion to the left it put left spin on the ball. When I used a swiping motion to the right it put right spin on the ball.
You can see it on the ball and especially the way it comes off the far rail.

Maybe not very scientific but tells me what I wanted to know.

So, do you normally strike the cb with the side of your cue as you did with the 2x4 in your experiment? If not, your experiment is irrelevant.

Second, in your experiment, when you hit the cb head on, you hit center ball of the cb. Of course there was no spin. When you hit on an angle, you did not hit the cb at center ball, but on the side of the cb. Of course doing that imparts spin to the cb. Same as it does when your tip hits off center on the cb. Sorry, but your tests proved nothing other than hitting off center of the cb imparts spin to it. That fact is already well known.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Goddamn it lol. The point and btw your 2x4 experiment proves it. Is what you did before contact that imparts spin, the same goes or ping pong. The deleted thread referenced literally using straight cuing for say center ball and applying english in between the contact and release from the tip (.001 to .002 seconds).

The points that everyone else tried to make are that A) Its more than likely physically impossible for a human being to alter the path of a body in motion in .001 to .002 seconds let alone during, not before and not after contact with the cue ball. B) That there isn't a magical stroking technique that can achieve this and C) That both .001 and .002 are such insignificant amounts of time to the human body and brain that the difference between the two is insignificant.

During which amount of contact time can more energy be imparted on the cue ball? .001 or .002 seconds? Nobody spoil this. Rick?

I think you are misstating the premise entirely. No one ever said what you're saying here.

Obviously, one could NOT make a conscious decision after contact starts & get it executed before contact ends.

It may be what you 'read' into it, but that was not what Renfro/Chris said.

You're confusing the 'bio-mechanics' with what Renfor/ Chris was talking about.