QUESTION FOR DUCKIE

[Patrick Johnson]

He's right about it not being an edge by definition. Edges makes corners, technically three make a corner. So a ball/sphere cannot have edges or it wouldn't be a ball/sphere. But really, for teaching purposes, I'm ok with calling the outer most side of the ball the edge.

I enjoy y'alls banter on aiming. Thanks.

It's a visual edge used for visual alignments. The distinction is irrelevant and dumb.

pj
chgo

 

[8cree]

It's a visual edge used for visual alignments. The distinction is irrelevant and dumb.

pj
chgo

You could have just stopped with your first sentence. Your second sentence is the one that is actually irrelevant and dumb, and like previously pointed out, unnecessary... But carry on, I read between the edges here just fine

 

[mohrt]

He's right about it not being an edge by definition. Edges makes corners, technically three make a corner. So a ball/sphere cannot have edges or it wouldn't be a ball/sphere. But really, for teaching purposes, I'm ok with calling the outer most side of the ball the edge.

I enjoy y'alls banter on aiming. Thanks.

The edge is a perceptual concept, not a literal one. Perceptions is what we use to play pool. All shots are perceptual constructs, not 2D angles and lines on paper.

 

[duckie]

Took some people shooting for the first in their life. There were open sights pistols, rifles with scopes and pistols with no sights because of being small pistols.

The pistols with no sights were the hardest to use to hit what was being aimed at.

After a little explanation on how to align the target, the front sight and rear sight in order to hit the target, the new shooters did well. At first, one shooter was not hitting paper at all. I asked them if they had the top of the front sight level with the top of the rear sight and that the front sight was in the middle of the rear sight notch. Got a OIC reply anf they started hitting the target where they wanted.

There is not any form of aiming method used in pool that you can do what I did above.

With the scoped rifles, they were hitting the target far better than with the pistols open sights.

With the the no sight pistols, couldnt hit shit.

Care to take a chance on why their shooting performance varied based on what type sight system was used?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You could have just stopped with your first sentence. Your second sentence is the one that is actually irrelevant and dumb, and like previously pointed out, unnecessary... But carry on, I read between the edges here just fine

I was referring to Duckie's insistence, not your comment - sorry for the confusion.

pj
chgo

 

[8cree]

I was referring to Duckie's insistence, not your comment - sorry for the confusion.

pj
chgo

Oh ok. You quoted me so that confused me too.

 

[bbb]

Took some people shooting for the first in their life. There were open sights pistols, rifles with scopes and pistols with no sights because of being small pistols.

The pistols with no sights were the hardest to use to hit what was being aimed at.

After a little explanation on how to align the target, the front sight and rear sight in order to hit the target, the new shooters did well. At first, one shooter was not hitting paper at all. I asked them if they had the top of the front sight level with the top of the rear sight and that the front sight was in the middle of the rear sight notch. Got a OIC reply anf they started hitting the target where they wanted.

There is not any form of aiming method used in pool that you can do what I did above.

With the scoped rifles, they were hitting the target far better than with the pistols open sights.

With the the no sight pistols, couldnt hit shit.

Care to take a chance on why their shooting performance varied based on what type sight system was used?

my guesses
best with scopes because they were using one eye and aiming at a point
like the edge of the ball or a fractional mark
second best with open sights because they could use the 2 back sights to line up the front sight
sort of like SL/AL/parrallax NISL
least best no sights like aiming at a ghost ball
am i right???

sorry duckie i couldnt help myself
no disrespect intended

 

[BC21]

What is that the red arrow is pointing to? When you stand behind the cueball and look at the object ball, is there an outer most EDGE you can see and line up the CB CENTER and/or EDGE to? How can this be? How can you reference something that does not exist? The mind is blown.

View attachment 591797

Also, each of those spheres have a well-defined circle that's easy to see. Remove the color variants, make the balls solid colors with no lighting/shading variants, and like magic those balls would be perceived as plain old 2D circles.

 

[Imac007]

Also, each of those spheres have a well-defined circle that's easy to see. Remove the color variants, make the balls solid colors with no lighting/shading, and like magic those balls would be plain old 2D circles.

Most words describing 3 D circular objects tend to be 2 dimensional.
A circular perimeter is usually called a circumference of a circular object, in this case an orb.
Its equator extends to the outermost boundary which is referenced as a target for a half ball shot.

 

[BC21]

Most words describing 3 D circular objects tend to be 2 dimensional.
A circular perimeter is usually called a circumference of a circular object, in this case an orb.
Its equator extends to the outermost boundary which is referenced as a target for a half ball shot.

Yes, because we can't see the 3rd dimension, the unseen portions of the ball. But we know it exists because we see the lighting and color variations on the surface of the balls, which lets the brain know there is another dimension (maybe), and so we are able to perceive a 3rd dimension without really seeing it. I say "maybe" because the brain can be fooled into perceiving a 3rd dimension when there really is none. A 3D painting or drawing proves this. Without the proper lighting/shading, the brain has a hard time interpreting depth, but the basic 2D images that our eyes capture are always there. There are countless 3D illusion images that easily trick the brain into perceiving depth, even though the image is on a flat piece of paper or canvas and there is no depth. There are countless illusion images that utilize 3D perspective with no lighting or shading variances, and the brain has a hard time determining if there is any depth to what we are looking at.

When looking at a ball, a sphere, the circumference of the circular shape we see, from any angle of perspective, is quite easy to perceive as just a simple circle. For fractional aiming purposes, the fact that the ball is actually a sphere and not a circle means nothing. The fractional portions reference the width/diameter of the ball as we see it, which is circular, not spherical. We know a 1/2 ball aim is 1.125" from a center ball aim, not 1.5" (the actual length of the outer portion of the ball, starting at a point closest to us (center ball) and going to the farthest left or right boundary of the sphere's equator, what we can see of it anyway).

For contact point aiming of course the equator of the ball is used, so the fact that the ball is a sphere is important. But it's much easier, for me anyway, to look at a ball and estimate fractional portions based on it's 2.25" diameter, instead of estimating a certain point somewhere on the fat equator where the points get jammed together as they get closer to the outer left or right view of the equator.

Ok, there's my overthinking for the day. Lol

 

[Imac007]

Ok, there's my overthinking for the day. Lol

Should be a safe place to do it.

Without adding spin effects the cut angles start from 0 and move through roughly 90°.
The visible part of the equator when viewed through center ball takes is to what is call half ball.
That is the 2 dimensional description.
The 3 dimensional reality is that it only takes us to 30 of those degrees or ⅓ of the possible.
The 2 dimensional description of a quarter ball adds about 19° to the total.
At this point the line from cue ball center along an equatorial line extends a quarter ball outside the extreme perimeter.
Adding an eighth of a ball farther outside, the actual cut angle is 60°, for the 1/8 cut.
The last ⅛ ball to edge to edge, has the last 30° of angles.

Wrapping my head around using a fraction in 2 dimensions to get to a 3 dimensional angle is an overthink for me.
i estimate the contact point from the cue ball.
Holding that point visually I make the 3 dimensional shift to the ob to pocket line.
I compare my estimate to the actual center of the ob on the pocket line.
If need be I bookmark any difference and hold that new point visually as I return to the cue ball.
There is only one point on the cue ball that can contact that point in a 3D world.
If needed a parallel line through the cue ball referenced to the ob to pocket line locates that point.
Joining those two points with a cue line and executing a parallel shift to cb center is the same as the ghost ball line.
All 3 D reasoning.

Welcome to overthink central

 

[duckie]

Heres one that’ll make your head spin. The current method to determine a cut angle is wrong, plus there no way to know what is the actual cut angle.

What some guess is a 30 degree cut angle is actually a 270 degree cut, at least in MY pool world.

Plus the measurement of angles is this.....degree.minute.seconds. Your guessing a cut is 30 degrees just might be 28 degrees , 40 minutes, 12 seconds.

So basically trying to guess what the cut angle is a waste time.

What is only needed to know about cut angles is how it effects the transfer of energy from CB to OB....... the greater the angle, the less energy is transferred to the OB.

Let yall figure out why a guessed cut angle of 30 degrees is really a guessed cut angle of 270 degrees.

 

[BC21]

Heres one that’ll make your head spin. The current method to determine a cut angle is wrong, plus there no way to know what is the actual cut angle.

What some guess is a 30 degree cut angle is actually a 270 degree cut, at least in MY pool world.

Plus the measurement of angles is this.....degree.minute.seconds. Your guessing a cut is 30 degrees just might be 28 degrees , 40 minutes, 12 seconds.

So basically trying to guess what the cut angle is a waste time.

What is only needed to know about cut angles is how it effects the transfer of energy from CB to OB....... the greater the angle, the less energy is transferred to the OB.

Let yall figure out why a guessed cut angle of 30 degrees is really a guessed cut angle of 270 degrees.

Is it because you might be a couple of fries short of a HappyMeal?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Let yall figure out why a guessed cut angle of 30 degrees is really a guessed cut angle of 270 degrees.

Isn't that a question for your therapist?

pj
chgo

 

[Imac007]

a cut is 30 degrees just might be 28 degrees , 40 minutes, 12 seconds.

Apologies for the rounding error.

 

[duckie]

I previously stated it is hard to know where someone is coming from if you dont know where they been.

In the middle 70’s, I worked a year as a land surveyor. The projects ranged from plot dimension verification to putting in whole sub divisions from scratch.

That experience has carried over into how I see pool geometry.
In land surveying, you are going from a certain point in a certain direction on a line to a certain point and then make a turn to go in another direction on a line to a certain point.

When you are attempting a pool shot, the movement of the CB carries with it a certain amount of energy and is on a line to the point on the table that makes the OB go on a line to the point you want.

When the CB gets to that point and contacts the OB, some the energy in the CB is transferred to the OB, basically, that energy makes a turn that is now going on a line to the point you want the OB to go.

The OB, when contact by the CB, then moves on the line towards the point where you want it to go.

A cut angle is the angle between the CB line to the point on table that makes the OB go to the point you want and the OB line to that point.

It is not the angle between where the CB would be located on the table for a straight in shot and where the CB is actually located on the table.

Remember this is my pool world not yours.

 

[bbb]

duckie
please excuse my poor diagram
i will try to explain it
B is a line from center cue ball to center ghost ball
i think angle B is whats used to describe "cut angle"
line A is center cue ball to contact point
line 3 is contact point to contact point line
is angle A or the angle using line 3 what you are calling the "true"cut angle
i apologize in advance if i am completely off base and not close to what you are trying to say

 

[duckie]

The angle between the two lines that intersect at point B is what I consider the cut angle of a shot.....this is just I my concept, my way of looking at the geometry of a pool shot based on my life experiences.......not something I read about.

I think thats what brother some......I ignore or rather challenge some of the current conventions about playing pool.

FWIW, those two lines I call direction of travel lines, one being the CB direction of travel, the other the OB direction of travel.

The CB direction of travel starts at the CB contact patch, the area of the CB that contacts the table.

However the OB direction of travel line starts at Point B in your drawing, not at the OB contact patch.

It gets better....using Point B in drawing, when that is moved around the OB keeping the same distance, the OB contact patch is the Pivot point for changes in the OB direction of travel line.

Now there is a end point for both lines.......those are the points where you want to balls to end up. Again using Point B in your drawing, which is also the start point for the OB direction of travel line, will alway be the same distance from the OB contact patch, but its end point is not always the same distance from the OB contact patch.

The amount of change of the OB direction of travel line end point is effected by the distance between the OB contact patch and the OB direction of travel line end point.

If Point B in your drawing is moved a small amount, how much in the OB direction of travel line end point moves depends on that distance between the OB contact patch and the OB direction of travel end point. The greater the distance the more the end point will move.

Why do I use contact patch and lines on the table........from riding and racing motorcycles.

 

[duckie]

Oh, what the hell..........if you are looking at the OB, you are looking at the wrong place.

You need to be looking at Point B in your drawing.

 

[bbb]

once again
thanks for the reply