Squirt. End Mass and Cue Flexibility.

greyghost

greyghost

Coast to Coast
Silver Member
LAMas said:
ENGLISH et al,

After more than 14,000 hits and over 500 posts, who benefitted from this thread?

Those that have followed it from the beginning or those that jumped on it with a desire to get a consensus or resolution and quit?

I hope that Dr. Dave believes that all here have benefitted from Jal's challenging contributions and Cornerman's practical observations. I also know that Dr. Dave has more AZ students who have increased their knowledge over and above just feel.

In my engineering work, we are encouraged to think outside of the box which puts trust in intuition and not just paradigms. We all observe and have intuitions even though we may not have the pedigree of those that many seek for easy answers. Science and empirical studies start with an intuition that begs for proof that most don't have the capacity to provide.

This AZ forum provides a peer review for those intuitions that anyone can proffer by posting. One may get "stoned" for their thoughts as you know, but one has to be honest with what they observe and believe and even seek proof or quit.

This thread is an extension of an age old question to debunk the paradigm that the transverse force is an insignificant contributor to the effective end mass of the shaft that effects squirt.

What causes squirt is a complex combination of force vectors and resonance imparted to the CB for which no complete equation or algorithm has been presented to be embraced or debunked - who has the interest and resources?

With that said, one day we may have a perfect cue with the perfect end mass and flexibility to eliminate squirt - if that floats your boat.:smile:

Be well
Click to expand...


something like that isn't really that far off i wouldn't think. I figure with nano tech and the piezoelectric fabrics....i wouldn't deem it far fetched that Lucasi will be selling programmable shafts in the future.

Now something like that could possibly "perform" better than wood, like those sniper rifles with the aim correct and bullets that adjust lol....but i dont think fit, feel, finish, touch...all the qualities we look for, are never going to be one upped by us making some new product...it would have to be HGPI rock maple grown into a shaft blank in less than 30 days.
 
L

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
greyghost said:
something like that isn't really that far off i wouldn't think. I figure with nano tech and the piezoelectric fabrics....i wouldn't deem it far fetched that Lucasi will be selling programmable shafts in the future.

Now something like that could possibly "perform" better than wood, like those sniper rifles with the aim correct and bullets that adjust lol....but i dont think fit, feel, finish, touch...all the qualities we look for, are never going to be one upped by us making some new product...it would have to be HGPI rock maple grown into a shaft blank in less than 30 days.
Click to expand...

Along the lines of advanced technology contributing to a more perfect shaft. 3D printing or stereo lithography plastics with wood like qualities or better is possible.

Like expanded Teflon or Styrofoam with a lattice structure with many voids is possible. Drilling the front of the maple shaft to create a void to reduce the mass can be improved if that void can be filled with a lattice of structural material to prevent the shaft from splitting or shattering.

3D printing can grow a reinforced plastic/polymer shaft with a solid outer cylinder and a light porous structural core, today, without using relatively heavy adhesives like epoxy to bond a carbon fiber fabric to the hollow core to prevent splitting.

All one needs is a software like 3D AutoCad or Solid Works to export a file to the 3D printer. Like hollow graphite and fiberglass shafts available now, the wall thickness can be reduced to reduce the mass and incorporate an integral foam like core to add structure to prevent shattering without heavier adhesives.

Since these configurations only need to be around the front 8", it is held, many iterations can be grown to achieve the best LD shaft with empirical evidence - If you have the interest and funding to experiment.

Be well
 
L

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Best Answer: Inertia, Mass, and Weight what are differences?

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. It is represented numerically by an object's mass.
The statement above is a general definition of inertia.

Method to determine the mass of the block.


I can place a Cue Ball on the pan on the left side of a balance. I place known metal cylinders of known mass on the pan on the right until the needle is pointing at the 0.

Initially, the CB is at rest. As I place the metal cylinders on the pan on the right, the CB moves upward. When the needle is pointing at 0, the mass of the CB equals the mass of the metal cylinders.

I am really measuring the resistance of the CB to a change from a state of rest to a state of motion. The total mass of the metal cylinders equals 6 ounces. The number, 6, and the unit, ounces, are describing the resistance of the CB to a change from a state of rest.

So, 6 ounces is a way of measuring the amount of inertia of the wood block.

Edited for relevance.:smile:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101021150204AAs9BkU

So a 6 ounce CB has an equivalent 6 ounces of inertia and resists being moved from its state of rest on the table.

If a shaft of X diameter hits a 6 ounce CB off center, does that diameter make a difference in the bending or deflection of the front of the shaft?

Can this be similar to a cantilever? The cue is held by the bridge hand and the grip hand with the front of the cue shaft extended like a cantilevered diving board.

What happens to the front of the shaft when the tip hits the CB and causes it to move before it starts to roll? what distance would it move/bend to the side (transverse movement)?

The solid shaft diameter makes a difference.

.041"
.5.PNG

.101"
.4.PNG

.319"
.3.PNG

Is all of the CB mass in play or less?

Our intuition thought so?

Be well
 
Last edited:
The Renfro

The Renfro

Outsville.com
Silver Member
LAMas said:
ENGLISH et al,

After more than 14,000 hits and over 500 posts, who benefitted from this thread?

Those that have followed it from the beginning or those that jumped on it with a desire to get a consensus or resolution and quit?

I hope that Dr. Dave believes that all here have benefitted from Jal's challenging contributions and Cornerman's practical observations. I also know that Dr. Dave has more AZ students who have increased their knowledge over and above just feel.

In my engineering work, we are encouraged to think outside of the box which puts trust in intuition and not just paradigms. We all observe and have intuitions even though we may not have the pedigree of those that many seek for easy answers. Science and empirical studies start with an intuition that begs for proof that most don't have the capacity to provide.

This AZ forum provides a peer review for those intuitions that anyone can proffer by posting. One may get "stoned" for their thoughts as you know, but one has to be honest with what they observe and believe and even seek proof or quit.

This thread is an extension of an age old question to debunk the paradigm that the transverse force is an insignificant contributor to the effective end mass of the shaft that effects squirt.

What causes squirt is a complex combination of force vectors and resonance imparted to the CB for which no complete equation or algorithm has been presented to be embraced or debunked - who has the interest and resources?

With that said, one day we may have a perfect cue with the perfect end mass and flexibility to eliminate squirt - if that floats your boat.:smile:

Be well
Click to expand...

Thanks you to you LAMas, JAL... Freddy and anyone else who raised a voice up from outside what was "proven science"... My tip work and testing while not showing the needed data led to intuitions that were brushed off regardless of the fact I was working with several cuemakers that are legendary, very intelligent and had came to similar observations over years of work....

Until the sport has money or technology gets cheap we will always be making assumptions and doing primitive tests that are not capable of dealing with all of the variable because they discard some variables as of no consequence....

I think you should reopen the discussion of the swoop stroke now that we know that the movement of the shaft matters. The swoop will load the shaft because of the force vector moving across the ball instead of down the line. What happens If you load something with a kick point???

Of course that will lead to actual discussion on the spring rate of different tips and the effect they could have by changing contact periods...

Synergy......
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
The Renfro said:
Thanks you to you LAMas, JAL... Freddy and anyone else who raised a voice up from outside what was "proven science"...
Click to expand...
What new info was uncovered? We still know that shaft stiffness contributes to end mass - and that effect is overwhelmed by the intrinsic amount of end mass itself. What's new?

What new info has contradicted the results of Dave's tests showing little or no squirt impact from different tips?

What I've seen is the usual speculative meandering from the fringe with no supporting tests/facts.

pj
chgo
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
LAMas said:
I am really measuring the resistance of the CB to a change from a state of rest to a state of motion. The total mass of the metal cylinders equals 6 ounces. The number, 6, and the unit, ounces, are describing the resistance of the CB to a change from a state of rest.
Click to expand...

No, you really aren't. You are comparing the force caused by the mass in a gravitational field. You are welcome to bring a balance scale into a null gravity environment, and see how well it works.

Thank you kindly.

p.s. I couldn't make any sense of the rest of your post.
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Patrick Johnson said:
We still know that shaft stiffness contributes to end mass - and that effect is overwhelmed by the intrinsic amount of end mass itself.
Click to expand...
Anyone who still doubts this should carefully review all of the supporting evidence here:

squirt endmass and stiffness effects resource page.

Patrick Johnson said:
What new info has contradicted the results of Dave's tests showing little or no squirt impact from different tips?
Click to expand...
For those interested, here's the test that anyone can easily try out on their own with any equipment and any shot speeds (if they still have doubts):

NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)

Patrick Johnson said:
What I've seen is the usual speculative meandering from the fringe with no supporting tests/facts.
Click to expand...
That is what's so awesome and scary about the Internet. Everybody has a voice, but it is sometime difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
No,

He was comparing the effect of the gravitational pull of the largest mass, the earth, that was providing the overwhelming & overriding pull on the two objects of mass to show that one mass can not be move by a cantilever mechanism until the mass force is equal on the other end.
 
ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
I do not think that anyone that was involved in this thread has said or was saying that the end mass or better said the "effective" end mass is not the major determining factor.

What has been suggested is that there are factors that can & do "effect" the delivery & the 'effectiveness' of that end mass or its reduction.

In other words, other things can have an effect as 'things' usually do when there are differences in 'things'.

All things & all matters are NOT equal.

Flip a switch & add flex to a shaft with no other change & there will be a change.

That is over isolation to try to make a point.

While contact time is extremely short in time there is very much that is going on during that very short time & hence there is very much that can be changed by a variety of means.
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
ENGLISH! said:
While contact time is extremely short in time there is very much that is going on during that very short time & hence there is very much that can be changed by a variety of means.
Click to expand...
"A variety of means"? Name (and explain) a couple. Or is this just more attention-seeking hot air?

pj
chgo
 
Tony_in_MD

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?
Silver Member
I learned that a shaft with no mass, would yield no squirt.

:p

Patrick Johnson said:
What new info was uncovered? We still know that shaft stiffness contributes to end mass - and that effect is overwhelmed by the intrinsic amount of end mass itself. What's new?

What new info has contradicted the results of Dave's tests showing little or no squirt impact from different tips?

What I've seen is the usual speculative meandering from the fringe with no supporting tests/facts.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Patrick Johnson said:
Still no content, but at least it didn't take you 25 paragraphs of passive/aggressive nonsense to show it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Because I am not inclined to play your covert passive/aggressive BS games.

Everything that happens during contact time can be effected. The end mass of shafts was reduce & it had an effect is just one example.

Science is the ongoing study or by definition it is not science.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
Who's covering shaft and tip aerodynamics?
Surely we can't assume that it doesn't matter.
Or can we..
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
Mr. Bond said:
Who's covering shaft and tip aerodynamics?
Surely we can't assume that it doesn't matter.
Or can we..
Click to expand...

We can. Aerodynamics are going to be about 1/10,000 of the effect of the cue ball, just by considering density.

Thank you kindly.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
And who is calculating the role that temperature plays?
We can't just assume, without proof, that it's of " no consequence".
 
L

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Renfro said:
Thanks you to you LAMas, JAL... Freddy and anyone else who raised a voice up from outside what was "proven science"... My tip work and testing while not showing the needed data led to intuitions that were brushed off regardless of the fact I was working with several cuemakers that are legendary, very intelligent and had came to similar observations over years of work....

Until the sport has money or technology gets cheap we will always be making assumptions and doing primitive tests that are not capable of dealing with all of the variable because they discard some variables as of no consequence....

I think you should reopen the discussion of the swoop stroke now that we know that the movement of the shaft matters. The swoop will load the shaft because of the force vector moving across the ball instead of down the line. What happens If you load something with a kick point???

Of course that will lead to actual discussion on the spring rate of different tips and the effect they could have by changing contact periods...

Synergy......
Click to expand...

Thanks and kudos for you.

Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

More for those still interested.

BALL IN MOTION
Once the ball has an initial linear and angular velocities, it begins to move across the table. After it leaves the tip of the cue, the only force acting on the cue ball is the force of friction from the felt. The purpose of this stage of the simulation is to continually update those velocity vectors according to this frictional force.

There are a couple important concepts that must be realized at this stage in the simulation. The first is that the ball is not always rolling. Immediately after it is struck, it slides along the felt for some period of time. How far it slides depends on its initial velocity and spin. The second is that the force of friction is not being applied through the ball’s center of mass. It is actually being applied along the ball’s perimeter, and so it becomes necessary to calculate the ball’s perimeter speed.

Google
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
LAMas said:
Thanks and kudos for you.

Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts.

More for those still interested.

BALL IN MOTION
Once the ball has an initial linear and angular velocities, it begins to move across the table. After it leaves the tip of the cue, the only force acting on the cue ball is the force of friction from the felt. The purpose of this stage of the simulation is to continually update those velocity vectors according to this frictional force.

There are a couple important concepts that must be realized at this stage in the simulation. The first is that the ball is not always rolling. Immediately after it is struck, it slides along the felt for some period of time. How far it slides depends on its initial velocity and spin. The second is that the force of friction is not being applied through the ball’s center of mass. It is actually being applied along the ball’s perimeter, and so it becomes necessary to calculate the ball’s perimeter speed.

Google
Click to expand...

It is kind of like bowling. The ball slides, spins, and then turns over (depending upon how the cue ball is struck and the force applied)

It depends upon a bowler's release, hand position, follow through etc. it could be part of or all or a combination of all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top