The best video of a Carbon Fiber shafts deflection testing with a robot arm

Wouldn’t such testing yield better real-world results if it were performed by professional pool players, on a real table, rails left installed, swerve not eliminated? I mean, for any given shot, we would want to account for where the CB actually lands, right? Isn’t that, rather than the theoretical perfect robot hit, the comparison we really seek?

(Such testing should be done with, say, 10 shots per shaft, discarding outlier shots, and using averages to compare the shafts. Also, ideally, would be done with three top pros shooting.)
 
dquarasr said:
Wouldn’t such testing yield better real-world results if it were performed by professional pool players, on a real table, rails left installed, swerve not eliminated? I mean, for any given shot, we would want to account for where the CB actually lands, right? Isn’t that, rather than the theoretical perfect robot hit, the comparison we really seek?

(Such testing should be done with, say, 10 shots per shaft, discarding outlier shots, and using averages to compare the shafts. Also, ideally, would be done with three top pros shooting.)
Click to expand...
The idea is to measure with actual numbers what the stick does to the ball. On top of that a player adds his own preferred elevation, amount of side spin, speed, etc. etc. etc. I think it is much better to give the characteristics of the cue independent of the shooter.
 
More thinking outside of the box, have we ever tried to measure the dynamic end mass of a cue, directly?

  1. Mount cue vertically with clamp, tip facing towards floor. Each cue clamped in the same spot.
  2. Attach a small vibrational motor assembly to the tip, offset mass is radial. The assembly has a mirror glued to it. Power the assembly with very thin 30awg wire as to not affect the results.
  3. Use a laser reflected off of the mirror and a photodiode, to measure deflection during vibration at a range of speeds. An oscilloscope will show a sine wave, with peaks closer to zero representing more deflection.
The results will hopefully give a relative measurement of some value proportional to effective end mass.

This eliminates the most variables I can think of.
 
dquarasr said:
Wouldn’t such testing yield better real-world results if it were performed by professional pool players, on a real table, rails left installed, swerve not eliminated? I mean, for any given shot, we would want to account for where the CB actually lands, right? Isn’t that, rather than the theoretical perfect robot hit, the comparison we really seek?

(Such testing should be done with, say, 10 shots per shaft, discarding outlier shots, and using averages to compare the shafts. Also, ideally, would be done with three top pros shooting.)
Click to expand...
In the pursuit of understanding through analysis you want to eliminate as many variables as possible to test the fundamental hypothesis, namely the exit angle in reference to the stroke line. Then it follows that added variables which better model the real world will have a predictable result considering we already understand the behavior of the variable.

Border collies are the best dogs.
 
nataddrho said:
More thinking outside of the box, have we ever tried to measure the dynamic end mass of a cue, directly?
  1. Mount cue vertically with clamp, tip facing towards floor. Each cue clamped in the same spot.
  2. Attach a small vibrational motor assembly to the tip, offset mass is radial. The assembly has a mirror glued to it. Power the assembly with very thin 30awg wire as to not affect the results.
  3. Use a laser reflected off of the mirror and a photodiode, to measure deflection during vibration at a range of speeds. An oscilloscope will show a sine wave, with peaks closer to zero representing more deflection.
The results will hopefully give a relative measurement of some value proportional to effective end mass.

This eliminates the most variables I can think of.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think, but the resulting vibration would depend on both mass and stiffness and would not be isolated to just the end of the shaft.
 
Its a great test for what players do. Its not a thorough stress test for the equipment.

Would deflection against a ball held in a fixed position help measure the shaft plasticity?

What type of material is preferred for a shaft more elastic or more rigid?

An alternative to shaft deflection could be cue tip shape. If the cue tip was perfectly flat would deflection still happen? Or shaped for specific shots?

The deflection could be the reacting force for shaft to ball at a very small level.

Shaft recoil is that the same as shaft deflection?

There is too much terminology to settle on.
 
Mirza said:
This is the best video of a Carbon Fiber shafts deflection testing that I've seen to date, it uses a robot arm with a consistent strength and placing of tip on the CB, as well as precise measuring of the speed of the CB and the deflection.

New J. Flowers SMO shaft is apparently better than Revo, Ignite and Cynergy shafts?

SMO stands for Strickland-Morris-Orcollo who supposedly colaborated with J. Flowers on the making of this shaft.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...
It would have been even more interesting to see a few other of the Carbon Fiber shafts test as well . . . Pechaeur, Jacoby, and WHYTE CF for example . . .
 
Does anyone know who actually did the video and if they had a financial interest in the outcome? Things like this can be easily biased.

1. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you bias the best a little
1. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you do 1000 shots with each one and cherry pick them so you're not lying
3. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you test 10 cues and only show those that have less deflection than the one you want to promote

Etc, etc.
 
someusername said:
Does anyone know who actually did the video and if they had a financial interest in the outcome? Things like this can be easily biased.

1. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you bias the best a little
1. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you do 1000 shots with each one and cherry pick them so you're not lying
3. You want cue A to have the least deflection, you test 10 cues and only show those that have less deflection than the one you want to promote

Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
deflect. testing is not rocket science. i seriously doubt tests done by various outfits had nefarious bias. too easy to test and refute/verify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top