My Touch of Inside Experience

[BC21]

Saying the CB "feels" one force is a shorthand way of saying it "reacts as if there's" one force.

On a side note, you say there are two forces as I do, but your second force is a force through the CB's center (like when two balls collide) whereas mine is squirt. I don't believe the force through the CB's center is significant unless there's little to no friction between the objects (as in ball/ball contact). But conversely, with tip/ball contact there's little to no slippage between the objects - I think this virtually eliminates that "carom" force.

pj
chgo

The force from cue tip contact point through ccb is always there because the cue stick always has mass.
Regardless of the friction (or lack of friction) between the ball and the tip, a force is exerted from point of contact through the ball's center of mass. It's the normal force. The chalked cue tip ensures a friction force counters this normal directional force. Naturally if there were little to no friction at the contact point, the resulting cb path would go very near the same direction as the normal force, like when two balls collide. But with a chalked leather tip, having very little to no slippage, the force exerted from the mass of the cue moving along the stroke line is prevalent.

If the cue shaft has no tip and absolutely no flexibility, the full weight of the cue stick will force the cb out of the way and onto a path somewhere between this normal force (contact point to ccb) and the stroke path of the cue stick, depending on the weight of the stick. If this non-flexible cue stick weighed 6oz, the cb path would follow the path of this normal force, as if struck by another ball.

Fortunately we play pool with flexible shafts and leather tips. And we don't have to consider too much of this force business, as long as we understand what the cb does when struck with our specific cue. So if players use a touch of inside and make it work, so be it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The force from cue tip contact point through ccb is always there because the cue stick always has mass.

It sounds like you're describing the force I call squirt, in which case I agree.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

It sounds like you're describing the force I call squirt, in which case I agree.

pj
chgo

I suppose so. If you miscue (no friction or very little friction between tip and ball) the cb has near maximum squirt, following the normal force from contact point through ccb. If the shaft end is heavy and non-flexible you also get extreme squirt, even with a good chalked up tip. It's all a result of clashing masses and directional forces, all culminating to produce that final cb path.

 

[bioactive]

Right - and why I said, "Obviously (I hope) the "no squirt" cue is theoretical."

I'm also saying the CB "acts as if" you're hitting it with a no-squirt cue pointed straight ahead, regardless of the cue's orientation.

pj
chgo

I looked back and realized I made a mistake in my drawing by saying the torque line defines deflection. What you are saying makes sense that the squirt depends only on the contact point of the tip on the cue ball. Let's set that aside and I would like to hear your thoughts on whether the torque line as described here would define the amount of spin, ignoring squirt.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I looked back and realized I made a mistake in my drawing by saying the torque line defines deflection. What you are saying makes sense that the squirt depends only on the contact point of the tip on the cue ball. Let's set that aside and I would like to hear your thoughts on whether the torque line as described here would define the amount of spin, ignoring squirt.

I think what you call the "torque line" is the red dimension line in this pic. It's the same length as the "effective tip offset", and yes, it does determine the amount of spin (and squirt). The pic illustrates that the angle of the stick/stroke is irrelevant to the measurement, as long as it produces the same CB direction.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

"The pic illustrates that the angle of the stick/stroke is irrelevant to the measurement, as long as it produces the same CB direction."

Irrelevant to the measurement of what/which?

If I slap a globe, striking it at New York City on an angle, the globe spins on its stand. If I punch instead through the same spot at New York City, using the same speed/force, the globe falls over on its stand onto the floor.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If I slap a globe, striking it at New York City on an angle, the globe spins on its stand. If I punch instead through the same spot at New York City, using the same speed/force, the globe falls over on its stand onto the floor.

This argument (usually described as spinning a basketball on your fingertip) has been debunked multiple times here.

If your argument applied to pool, then higher squirt cues would produce more spin than lower squirt cues because they hit the CB at a greater angle for the same shot. But you can't produce more spin with a higher squirt cue - here's how to prove it to yourself (posted several times before):

- use a striped ball as your "cue ball" with the stripe vertical and facing you

- hit multiple shots with both cues, aiming the CB straight into (perpendicular to) the rail

- try to hit the ball right on the edge of the vertical stripe (about at the miscue limit), and check your chalk mark after each shot to be sure you did

- only count the shots that (1) have the chalk mark right on the edge of the stripe, (2) hit the exact rail target you've established for the test (putting a couple of blocker balls on either side of the target work well for this), and (3) go about the same distance

Where do the shots that count hit the rail nearest you after rebounding from the "target" rail - 2 diamonds over? 1 1/2 diamonds? 3 diamonds? This tells you how much spin was produced.

I've tested lots of cues/shafts this way and have never found a significant amount of difference in the spin any of them produce.

pj
chgo

P.S. What's the pool equivalent of "the globe falls over on its stand onto the floor"? If there isn't one, then your example obviously doesn't apply to pool even without doing the test.

 

[Imac007]

Perspective bias

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

The diagram posted by bioactive is about cueing angle, torque angle and throw. The bias is related to side relative to the ghost ball line. The diagrams of the various "divergent" side illustrations show a force originating from the same reference moving in the same direction. In the case of parallel english the cue travels directionally like the second track on a railroad. With BHE the bridge channels the force roughly in the same direction, cue travel originates from a point on the line but diverges at the pivot. With FHE the grip hand originates on the line driving the cue forwards from a pivot point originating on the reference ghost ball line.

The difference in the bioactive cue line relationship is that the aim dynamic may use the same reference line but only as a cognitive comparative reference NOT a physical force direction. The relative force is always parallel to that cue but running through the cue ball center. The force bioactive is applying is straight down the cue, just adjacent to the parallel force direction line that would run through the center, NOT the ghost ball line.

The fact that divergent english always has the same force direction biased this discussion. This convergent english converges with the ghost ball line at a point beyond the cue ball. In the diagram bioactive shows it converging and crossing that gb line between the two balls. The cue line used only depicts its relative position to the gb line but does not originate on that gb force line. This represents a different application and perspective about shooting with side, not previously documented.

TOI also starts from the gb reference and his squirt dynamic applies relative to the gb. bioactive will still have squirt but relative to a different force line. Using the gb line as a comparative physics question reference shows a bias towards divergent side and that line and is not the reality here.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

The diagram posted by bbb is about cueing angle, torque angle and throw. The bias is related to side relative to the ghost ball line. The diagrams of the various "divergent" side illustrations show a force originating from the same reference moving in the same direction. In the case of parallel english the cue travels directionally like the second track on a railroad. With BHE the bridge channels the force roughly in the same direction, cue travel originates from a point on the line but diverges at the pivot. With FHE the grip hand originates on the line driving the cue forwards from a pivot point originating on the reference ghost ball line.

The difference in the bbb cue line relationship is that the aim dynamic may use the same reference line but only as a cognitive comparative reference NOT a physical force direction. The relative force is always parallel to that cue but running through the cue ball center. The force bbb is applying is straight down the cue, just adjacent to the parallel force direction line that would run through the center, NOT the ghost ball line.

The fact that divergent english always has the same force direction biased this discussion. This convergent english converges with the ghost ball line at a point beyond the cue ball. In the diagram bbb shows it converging and crossing that gb line between the two balls. The cue line used only depicts its relative position to the gb line but does not originate on that force line. This represents a different application and perspective about shooting with side, not previously documented.

TOI also starts from the gb reference and his squirt dynamic applies relative to the gb. bbb will still have squirt but relative to a different force line. Using the gb line as a comparative physics question reference shows a bias towards divergent side and that line and is not the reality here.

If you want intelligible answers, you'll have to make your posts intelligible.

pj
chgo

 

[lfigueroa]

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

The diagram posted by bioactive is about cueing angle, torque angle and throw. The bias is related to side relative to the ghost ball line. The diagrams of the various "divergent" side illustrations show a force originating from the same reference moving in the same direction. In the case of parallel english the cue travels directionally like the second track on a railroad. With BHE the bridge channels the force roughly in the same direction, cue travel originates from a point on the line but diverges at the pivot. With FHE the grip hand originates on the line driving the cue forwards from a pivot point originating on the reference ghost ball line.

The difference in the bioactive cue line relationship is that the aim dynamic may use the same reference line but only as a cognitive comparative reference NOT a physical force direction. The relative force is always parallel to that cue but running through the cue ball center. The force bioactive is applying is straight down the cue, just adjacent to the parallel force direction line that would run through the center, NOT the ghost ball line.

The fact that divergent english always has the same force direction biased this discussion. This convergent english converges with the ghost ball line at a point beyond the cue ball. In the diagram bioactive shows it converging and crossing that gb line between the two balls. The cue line used only depicts its relative position to the gb line but does not originate on that gb force line. This represents a different application and perspective about shooting with side, not previously documented.

TOI also starts from the gb reference and his squirt dynamic applies relative to the gb. bioactive will still have squirt but relative to a different force line. Using the gb line as a comparative physics question reference shows a bias towards divergent side and that line and is not the reality here.

lol, CJ, is that you?

Lou Figueroa

 

[BC21]

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

The diagram posted by bioactive is about cueing angle, torque angle and throw. The bias is related to side relative to the ghost ball line. The diagrams of the various "divergent" side illustrations show a force originating from the same reference moving in the same direction. In the case of parallel english the cue travels directionally like the second track on a railroad. With BHE the bridge channels the force roughly in the same direction, cue travel originates from a point on the line but diverges at the pivot. With FHE the grip hand originates on the line driving the cue forwards from a pivot point originating on the reference ghost ball line.

The difference in the bioactive cue line relationship is that the aim dynamic may use the same reference line but only as a cognitive comparative reference NOT a physical force direction. The relative force is always parallel to that cue but running through the cue ball center. The force bioactive is applying is straight down the cue, just adjacent to the parallel force direction line that would run through the center, NOT the ghost ball line.

The fact that divergent english always has the same force direction biased this discussion. This convergent english converges with the ghost ball line at a point beyond the cue ball. In the diagram bioactive shows it converging and crossing that gb line between the two balls. The cue line used only depicts its relative position to the gb line but does not originate on that gb force line. This represents a different application and perspective about shooting with side, not previously documented.

TOI also starts from the gb reference and his squirt dynamic applies relative to the gb. bioactive will still have squirt but relative to a different force line. Using the gb line as a comparative physics question reference shows a bias towards divergent side and that line and is not the reality here.

After reading this several times, and sort of getting it in places and losing it in others, I believe you would be the perfect candidate to accept Stan Shuffett's $5000 challenge to explain CTE in his "Truth Series" videos. Lol

And I love the Pynchon quote by the way.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

This argument (usually described as spinning a basketball on your fingertip) has been debunked multiple times here.

If your argument applied to pool, then higher squirt cues would produce more spin than lower squirt cues because they hit the CB at a greater angle for the same shot. But you can't produce more spin with a higher squirt cue - here's how to prove it to yourself (posted several times before):


I've tested lots of cues/shafts this way and have never found a significant amount of difference in the spin any of them produce.

pj
chgo

P.S. What's the pool equivalent of "the globe falls over on its stand onto the floor"? If there isn't one, then your example obviously doesn't apply to pool even without doing the test.

My question remains, "Irrelevant to the measurement of what/which?" asking you to explain one of the points of your diagram, I'm sorry, I don't get your illustrated point.

The pool equivalent of the globe falls over is less rotational spin. I'm not questioning squirt's effects on an english stroke. I'm questioning stroking at different angles of approach through the same cb point--your illustration.

If we take your diagram further to the player's right, one cue will strike producing several tips of english, but another cue angle shown would be struck outside the miscue limit, because the center ball aim point has been changed...

PS. The globe still falls over on the floor, or spins, variously, which requires no pool table to test, and if the globe was on the pool table, it will spin more or less and travel in a slightly different path depending on whether you strike New York with a glancing blow or punch through it...

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think what you call the "torque line" is the red dimension line in this pic. It's the same length as the "effective tip offset", and yes, it does determine the amount of spin (and squirt). The pic illustrates that the angle of the stick/stroke is irrelevant to the measurement, as long as it produces the same CB direction.

pj
chgo

"The pic illustrates that the angle of the stick/stroke is irrelevant to the measurement, as long as it produces the same CB direction."

Irrelevant to the measurement of what/which?

My question remains, "Irrelevant to the measurement of what/which?"

As I say in my post (in blue above), the stick's angle is irrelevant to the measurement of the "effective tip offset" (also called the "torque line" in this thread) - which determines the amount of spin and squirt. Of course, we're talking about (and the diagram illustrates) shafts with different amounts of squirt, all angled the right amount to compensate for it.

I'm questioning stroking at different angles of approach through the same cb point--your illustration.

Which only happens with different shafts (because of their different amounts of squirt).

If we take your diagram further to the player's right, one cue will strike producing several tips of english, but another cue angle shown would be struck outside the miscue limit, because the center ball aim point has been changed...

No, the "effective CB center" is always on the line of the CB's direction of travel (and the miscue limit is always measured from it) - because squirt "turns" the stick's force in that direction (of course, since that's what makes the CB travel in that direction). In effect, all cues, regardless of the squirt they produce, act on the CB like the theoretical "no squirt" cue in the diagram, as if they're pointed parallel with the CB's direction of travel and produce no squirt.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

As I say in my post (in blue above), the stick's angle is irrelevant to the measurement of the "effective tip offset" (also called the "torque line" in this thread) - which determines the amount of spin and squirt. Of course, we're talking about (and the diagram illustrates) shafts with different amounts of squirt, all angled the right amount to compensate for it.


Which only happens with different shafts (because of their different amounts of squirt).


No, the "effective CB center" is always on the line of the CB's direction of travel (and the miscue limit is always measured from it) - because squirt "turns" the stick's force in that direction (of course, since that's what makes the CB travel in that direction). In effect, all cues, regardless of the squirt they produce, act on the CB like the theoretical "no squirt" cue in the diagram, as if they're pointed parallel with the CB's direction of travel and produce no squirt.

pj
chgo

Ah--now that I understand your perspective, I agree with your assessment. Thank you.