No Deflection

Black-Balled said:
Ok...now we are getting somewhere. Based on your observations, what are the longest and slowest extremes of tip/ ball contact?
Click to expand...

I would observe how long the tip is on the CB, how long the CB is on the OB, by how wide the path is of the cueball after contact on a center follow shot with a slight angle. If the tip is on the CB a long time then the CB "sticks" on the OB longer. Since the CB is on the OB longer it will widen out significantly and the OB will be turned inward. To widen the angle by staying on the CB long you have to over cut the OB which is opposite of what you would think to widen the angle. The less time on the ball, the less the OB drags and the less you need to over cut the OB, the less the CB will widen on the shot. The extreme long time on the ball seems to widen almost a diamond. The short time on the ball seems to almost push through the ball and won't widen out.

If you perform the notion of staying on the CB an extreme long time a few things will also happen. The CB gains a significant amount of speed quickly and gets to the OB fast, in what feels like an early part of your follow thru, still complete your follow thru, but that is where the hit will be felt if you are on it a long time. You will have to be ready because the CB leaves faster than you are ready for at first. The less time you are on the ball the later the hit feeling will be, and the CB will leave slower than expected when you get to an extreme short time on the ball. The shortest time will feel like it hits the cueball at the end of your follow thru.
 
garczar said:
So ALL the major LD shaft makers are full of s^&t and this nimrod nodefl. is right???? Seriously??? When you are proven to be 10000000000000% wrong, its time to stfu and crawl back into your mama's basement.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were wrong. I have a different approach to use a standard shaft.
 
I understand the definition of longer and shorter and thank you for the detailed explanation. I am also aware of your contention that manipulation of contact time changes the outcome of a given shot.

Now, please...the range of shortest/ longest contact possibilities is?
nodeflection said:
I would observe how long the tip is on the CB, how long the CB is on the OB, by how wide the path is of the cueball after contact on a center follow shot with a slight angle. If the tip is on the CB a long time then the CB "sticks" on the OB longer. Since the CB is on the OB longer it will widen out significantly and the OB will be turned inward. To widen the angle by staying on the CB long you have to over cut the OB which is opposite of what you would think to widen the angle. The less time on the ball, the less the OB drags and the less you need to over cut the OB, the less the CB will widen on the shot. The extreme long time on the ball seems to widen almost a diamond. The short time on the ball seems to almost push through the ball and won't widen out.

If you perform the notion of staying on the CB an extreme long time a few things will also happen. The CB gains a significant amount of speed quickly and gets to the OB fast, in what feels like an early part of your follow thru, still complete your follow thru, but that is where the hit will be felt if you are on it a long time. You will have to be ready because the CB leaves faster than you are ready for at first. The less time you are on the ball the later the hit feeling will be, and the CB will leave slower than expected when you get to an extreme short time on the ball. The shortest time will feel like it hits the cueball at the end of your follow thru.
Click to expand...
 
nodeflection said:
Lets PAUSE the thread and look at this detail.

A. Clearly there is a range of tip contact time that is very small.
B. If a player hits a ball with a .00293847 second contact time. Will the next shot also be measured at .00293847 and the rest indefinitely?
C. It must be measured every time at .00293847 seconds if time on the ball cannot be altered.
Click to expand...
Before you edit it again...
 
If wishes were fishes...

Ignoring the lack of available tip-to-cue ball contact time, how do we get the tip to pull the cue ball back on a straight path from a deflected path? Glue instead of chalk?

We cannot completely avoid deflection as is being claimed by OP. Best we can do is to reduce it or compensate for it.

If the OP is serious, I agree that skill can be developed to make balls despite deflection. This is not the same as eliminating a deflected pathway. Pocketing success can be misunderstood, but cannot be used to change the facts that the tip cannot pull a cue ball back on line.

Fred
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190905-212831.jpg
    Screenshot_20190905-212831.jpg
    204.2 KB · Views: 207
nodeflection said:
Lets PAUSE the thread and look at this detail.

A. Clearly there is a range of tip contact time that is very small.
B. If a player hits a ball with a .00293847 second contact time. Will the next shot also be measured at .00293847 and the rest indefinitely?
C. It must be measured every time at .00293847 seconds if time on the ball cannot be altered.
Click to expand...

Is that you, Steve?
 
Cornerman said:
Is that you, Steve?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you don't mean, ''Kenneth, what is the frequency?'':wink:

Only people of a certain age are likely to get the reference. The rest of you are free to feel left behind while in front.

Steve, Steve, ... Does this refer to someone in Chicago who thought the universe of a particular cue maker? I'm getting an image of a small sheep for some reason....

CropperCapture[376].jpg

Or maybe it's just an attack of synesthesia. I'm hungry all of a sudden. Where's the mint jelly?
 
a tad formal there, bob...what's the frequency, Kenneth?

I was on a cross country drive with a then girlfriend when that song came out. Coast to cost, that song played,along with Sheryl crow's Everyday is a Winding Road.

I hope to never hear either again.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Are you sure you don't mean, ''Kenneth, what is the frequency?'':wink:

Only people of a certain age are likely to get the reference. The rest of you are free to feel left behind while in front.

Steve, Steve, ... Does this refer to someone in Chicago who thought the universe of a particular cue maker? I'm getting an image of a small sheep for some reason....

View attachment 529103

Or maybe it's just an attack of synesthesia. I'm hungry all of a sudden. Where's the mint jelly?
Click to expand...


Bob dude i love the lamb!
 
nodeflection said:
Explain this concept?
Click to expand...

Facts = Things that were shown to be correct
Not Facts = words without proof, especially those that counter all other known information

For the 40th time I'm sure in this post, show us a video of how all this is done and how you became a superhuman to be able to adjust your hit on the cueball that is well under any human reaction time. By the time your nerves tell your brain you hit the cueball, the cueball is already moving. Then you need reaction time for your brain to process the information, then send the signals back to your muscles to do something.

What you are probably doing is causing the cuebeall to curve back in line after it deflects with an off center and elevated hit. You are not actually making the shaft have no deflection, you are compensating for that deflection and are just confused about what you are actually doing. I see it all the time, people do something in 10 steps, but the result they want was achieved in step 3, they are just repeating other steps because at some point they did all that and it worked. But their knowledge of the topic was not enough to know the rest of the stuff was useless.

You masse the ball enough so it hits the target and think you invented some new method of cheating physics. That is the only thing you can possibly be doing that can exists in this universe under our physical laws. It is impossible to make a solid object react the way you say you are doing it without a system that can react faster than the interactions between those objects. Period. Video and tests, video and tests. Or this post is nothing but wasted space done by someone that likes to hear themselves talk.

Now if you said "I have a great way to compensate my aiming and shooting for deflection" that is a sane statement. Saying "I can make my cue not deflect the cueball" is something else.
 
Last edited:
hang-the-9 said:
Facts = Things that were shown to be correct
Not Facts = words without proof, especially those that counter all other known information

For the 40th time I'm sure in this post, show us a video of how all this is done and how you became a superhuman to be able to adjust your hit on the cueball that is well under any human reaction time. By the time your nerves tell your brain you hit the cueball, the cueball is already moving. Then you need reaction time for your brain to process the information, then send the signals back to your muscles to do something.

What you are probably doing is causing the cuebeall to curve back in line after it deflects with an off center and elevated hit. You are not actually making the shaft have no deflection, you are compensating for that deflection and are just confused about what you are actually doing. I see it all the time, people do something in 10 steps, but the result they want was achieved in step 3, they are just repeating other steps because at some point they did all that and it worked. But their knowledge of the topic was not enough to know the rest of the stuff was useless.

You masse the ball enough so it hits the target and think you invented some new method of cheating physics. That is the only thing you can possibly be doing that can exists in this universe under our physical laws. It is impossible to make a solid object react the way you say you are doing it without a system that can react faster than the interactions between those objects. Period. Video and tests, video and tests. Or this post is nothing but wasted space done by someone that likes to hear themselves talk.

Now if you said "I have a great way to compensate my aiming and shooting for deflection" that is a sane statement. Saying "I can make my cue not deflect the cueball" is something else.
Click to expand...
Delusional and stubborn. This wingnut is completely off-the-air.
 
You've been thinking this way for so long it's too big to fail, in your own mind.

That's a beautiful house of cards. I hope the wind doesn't blow.



Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top