Coos Cues
Coos Cues
Juma is a bit heavier than tomahawk but is a couple of grains in a ferule really going to matter? Really?
Low deflection ferrule material for Carbon shafts.
- Thread starter CaptainBly
- Start date
- Status
Old school of break test. Use robogrip to squeeze the ferrule tube. If it breaks, most likely going to need capping.
The black pad assures the tip is glued to solitude surface.
I like to cut a small ring and put it in a vise. How it breaks will tell you a lot about how durable the material will be.
dzcues is using maple as his 1.00000
not sure hydex is using that as their reference point
?????
Grams per cubic centimeter is density. DZ info is based on density. I believe bbb is confusing density with specific gravity. Specific gravity is based on a reference material (water, as I recall) to which other materials are compared. Either measurement system will show what we're looking for here - best low deflection material based on weight/volume considerations. There may be other characteristics, physical and subjective, which might influence some people (how it hits, for example, or chalk resistance). Personally I think the feel/hit of different ferule material is insignificant compared to that of different tips, and I'm not anal about the looks of my ferule.
my point was hyprdex uses grams per cubic centimeters
i dont know that maple is 1 gram per cubic centimeter.....does anyone know?
just that dz used maple as 1 to be a reference to the other materials
I HIGHLY doubt that Tomahawk "shattered" bud. The/A true phenolic would be more prone to doing that. Almost nothing that ribbons when you cut it, is going to "shatter." I had a circular saw yank a piece of Tomahawk out of my hand. When that piece of rod hit the metal back guard of my saw, it broke the metal guard. The only visible damage to the Tomahawk rod, was the point where the saw tooth grabbed ahold of the rod. So you will have to forgive me if I am just a bit more than skeptical with regards to your claim.
Best regards
j2
Elforyn super Tusk, Hydex 202, Isoplast, regular Elforyn, Tomahawk and Juma all work fine. I see some makers using a ferrule plug that goes a whopping 1" down in the shaft, that's gonna add a lot of mass regardless of what material is used, so how the ferrule plug is made is equally important. Mine have a piece .300" long, bored out to 5/16" glued into the shaft, the ferrule part itself is .175"
I just reported the results of an informal test. The tubular pieces I smacked with the hammer were approximately joint sized with similar id and length. I smacked the three pieces pretty hard on the anvil portion of a six inch vice. I hit Barranger's first and the hammer rebounded like a shot. I expected it to be tough because of its cloth content and general hardness, but was surprised at the hammer's sharp rebound. I hit Tomahawk second and like I said previously, it just shattered, nothing more to say. I hit the ABS last, expecting it to shatter like Tomahawk because it also lacked a cloth matrix. However the hammer rebounded from ABS sharply, similar to Barangers phenolic. I hit the ABS a couple more times because I was surprised it didn't shatter, and the hammer just repeatedly bounced off. I've got no reason to misrepresent the results of this informal test. I like Tomahawk and ordered it several times over the course of about a year. For a period last year the black butt sized rod wasn't available and I was told it might remain so. As a result I decided to try ABS and discovered it's surprising toughness. At that time I had a couple feet of Tomahawk on order. That order somehow got (mis)shipped and ended up being routed through Guam and Hawaii as I recall. It arrived about a month later. It was during that wait period that I tested ABS. If you look into ABS, it is renouned for its toughness. I'm going to guess that toughness results in part because of flexibility. I'm going to further guess that Tomahawk is more rigid than ABS, and that's why it shattered, instead of flexing and rebounding the hammer. Sorry for the length reply, but it's in response to being "HIGHLY" doubted. Finally, when I reported the results of my informal test I encouraged others to do their own tests and not rely on my findings - you can do that.
Do one of each, exactly the same. Then play with them,
HOPEFULLY,
you know how to play pool.
Have a couple of your friends play with them too.
Then you'll know what's right for you.
j2pac, I sense I've made you uncomfortable, let me try to help things. I have more of the Barranger rod, and the McMaster ABS rod that I used in my informal test. I'd like to send you samples of each so you can conduct the same test I did, using the same materials. I assume you already have Tomahawk. When you do this test, why not film it and post it here. PM an address, and I'll promptly send you the above samples. I think this process will be more beneficial to the forum than inferring I misrepresented things.
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
In my opinion water should always be used as the baseline of density in these types of conversations to avoid confusion like this. Not that Bob's chart is in anyway confusing to me but some don't have math minds. Most cue builders do have math minds though since it's so integral to the art.
Why don't you conduct the test, and post it here for all of to see?
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
I think dz using Maple as a baseline is very smart. Maple is the material being removed, making it the reference means that a person can easily see the percentage increase.
j2pak your words "I HIGHLY doubt that Tomahawk "shattered" bud. . . . you will have to forgive me if I am just a bit more than skeptical with regards to your claim." speak loudly. Based on your doubt of my sincerity, I encouraged you to conduct the same test, and offered to supply you with the same materials I used to allow that. I believe you'd get the same results I did. I also believe if I do the test again you'll likely dismiss it again, implying I struck the materials with different force, or something to that effect. It's just an informal test and I represented it as no more that. Perhaps it's best no one conducts this test again, and we let this matter rest.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
'Tests' like yours prove nothing. Breaking material a larger issue than hittin' sumfin wid a hammer. Were the pieces the same size? Same geometry? Held the same way? Did you inspect the material with a microscope before and after to ensure there were no previous damages or inclusions?
A huge issue that people rarely consider is that even the surface finish can have an effect on something breaking.
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
I also doubt it. Tomahawk is a relatively pliable material that you would probably have to freeze with nitrogen to shatter.
- Status