Hohmann loses to Ko because of the Cyclop balls
- Thread starter 9Ballr
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, sure, a table issue on a cueball known to have issues rolling off line on a table known to have no issues.....and all the other balls roll just fine.....lol
Plus the Decaine clip where the Cyclop cue ball was in a completely different spot but was rolling about the same speed.
You sound like you're defending a product that you make.
Cyclop is just another Chinese made knockoff, sold at prices cheaper than the real deal.
"Made in China by a Taiwanese company using US technology..." Priceless :thumbup:
Nope.
Just a couple of boxes of CBs that were bad two years ago and were replaced overnight.
Cyclop balls play great.
Lou Figueroa
If both sources are reputable, that can only lead to the conclusion that one side has made a factual error. Considering Aramith has 100% correct information about their balls on hand and Cyclop doesn't, the only possible scenario is that Cyclop made a mistake in their testing. Therefore, if you are at all interested in the truth, rather than just not admitting you are wrong, your only option is to apologize and admit you are wrong. Unless, that is, you want to claim Aramith is lying. If you want to go that route. by all means call them out, but I hope you have some more evidence besides being on the wrong side of a debate and refusing to concede.
That is assuming the filler Cyclop is putting into their balls (85% phenolic resin, 15% other stuff) is softer than phenolic resin. Actually, because the clear coat on cyclop balls seems to be clear and extra thick, I would guess that the part of the balls that actually matters in keeping the balls clean may actually not be made of phenolic resin, but something harder and without color (phenolic resin is opaque yellow or beige, I don't think you can dye something to be clear). Of course, that is just conjecture.
I believe it was a sponsorship deal.
This poll was done awhile back. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=385868
Presuming Cyclop really made that claim.
We need a written and signed statement from an official Cyclop rep.
I'd like to see their rep make a claim Aramith balls are only 57% resin.
Aramith must be made of cheap bowling ball material.
Last edited:
That would be contingent on them actually making better balls. That does not seem to be the case so far.
That would be a nice thing to have, but aramith doesn't seem to get many complaints, so it isn't a big deal.
No. They are not adding money out of the good of their hearts, they are adding money because they want market share. At best, this is neutral because they are completely expecting to get back every dollar they spend and then some.
Unfortunately, they are not providing more choice to pool players. In tournaments sponsored by Cyclop, I doubt it would go over well if you told them you were choosing to play with Aramiths instead.
Presuming Cyclop really made that claim.
We need a written and signed statement from an official Cyclop rep.
I'd like to see their rep make a claim Aramith balls are only 57% resin.
Aramith must be made of cheap bowling ball material.
Honestly, I think the claim Cyclop made is that their "competitors" use 57% phenolic resin, which everyone, including Lou, took to mean Aramith, but really could mean Walmart Mizerak brand balls. Of course, if that was the case, Lou really loses his last leg to stand on as in essence nobody except him is claiming that Aramith balls have 57% phenolic resin. Furthermore, if phenolic resin content is the basis by which we are determining ball quality, as Lou has also been pushing, this would force him to admit that Aramiths are indeed the better ball.
relevant link
Thanks.
I think Lou should throw in the towel.
This like Frazier vs Foreman in Jamaica now.
" Down goes Fraziaaah!"
I don't think Lou will get hired as the Cyclop spokesperson now.
So, Cyclop is made to the same recipe as the BRUNSWICK CENTENNIAL.
Was the Centennial 57% resin too ?
Oh, it wun't .
Cyclop is around 85% resin.
But, it's harder according to Lou.
Ok, so it's not made to the same recipe as the Centennial?
Which is which?
Lord!
conclusions based on faulty physics
Respectfully, I believe that you are incorrect. I'm only pointing this out because you stated something like it was a law of physics. The physics of rolling spheres with non-uniform density is very complicated.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all of the balls are perfect spheres in so far as the shape of their surface goes. Let us also assume that they do NOT have uniform density. That means that certain parts of the ball may be a bit heavier or lighter than other parts even though the shape is a sphere.
I made the below terrible image to better explain my point. Assume that it represents a cross section of two balls on a table that are rolling away from you straight into your computer screen. Assume natural roll and no sidespin. Assume that the red areas are denser, heavier areas in the balls.
The ball on the left will roll straight and come to a stop with very slight jerks in its speed as it slows to a stop. The very slight jerks will be caused by the off center heavier area as it cycles back and forth over where the ball touches the cloth in a decaying sinusoidal pattern.
The ball on the right however will not roll straight in general. It will veer to the right due to the torque of the heavier portion of the ball. Additionally, that heavier portion will not stay on the extreme right of the ball as it rolls either.
Varying density can absolutely make a slowly rolling sphere very slightly "speed up". This is because of the conversion of the potential energy that will exist if the densest portion of the ball is not directly over the point that the ball touches the cloth. That potential energy will be mostly unleashed while rolling. It would likely be a slight effect but it is certainly possibly on a perfectly flat surface using perfectly round balls.
Or, just look at a crazy 8-ball for proof. The principle is pretty much the same.
You may continue your arguments now, lol. Exiting physics mode.
Respectfully, I believe that you are incorrect. I'm only pointing this out because you stated something like it was a law of physics. The physics of rolling spheres with non-uniform density is very complicated.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all of the balls are perfect spheres in so far as the shape of their surface goes. Let us also assume that they do NOT have uniform density. That means that certain parts of the ball may be a bit heavier or lighter than other parts even though the shape is a sphere.
I made the below terrible image to better explain my point. Assume that it represents a cross section of two balls on a table that are rolling away from you straight into your computer screen. Assume natural roll and no sidespin. Assume that the red areas are denser, heavier areas in the balls.
The ball on the left will roll straight and come to a stop with very slight jerks in its speed as it slows to a stop. The very slight jerks will be caused by the off center heavier area as it cycles back and forth over where the ball touches the cloth in a decaying sinusoidal pattern.
The ball on the right however will not roll straight in general. It will veer to the right due to the torque of the heavier portion of the ball. Additionally, that heavier portion will not stay on the extreme right of the ball as it rolls either.
Varying density can absolutely make a slowly rolling sphere very slightly "speed up". This is because of the conversion of the potential energy that will exist if the densest portion of the ball is not directly over the point that the ball touches the cloth. That potential energy will be mostly unleashed while rolling. It would likely be a slight effect but it is certainly possibly on a perfectly flat surface using perfectly round balls.
Or, just look at a crazy 8-ball for proof. The principle is pretty much the same.
You may continue your arguments now, lol. Exiting physics mode.
Attachments
I've been reading this thread here and there with some amusement, and something occurred to me. Let's say Cyclop is 85% "resin" and other brands are 57%. If both balls are identical in size and weight, then that means the density of the "non resin" component must be identical to the density of the resin component.
The manufacturers of the balls don't seem to be keen on telling us exactly what the balls are made of, but if you believe google, modern balls are made of the phenol formaldehyde "PF" form of phenolic resin. The resin is a polymer that is most probably cross linked, making it hard and durable. This also makes the ball one extremely long/large molecule.
So what exactly do they mean by this or that % phenolic resin? Is there a certain fraction of low polymerized material trapped in the ball, and not considered part of the % resin? That would seem to invite variability from ball to ball, but I guess we'll never know unless an industry insider decides to enlighten us.
In any case, with a product that is essentially one large molecule, the term "% resin" isn't particularly informative.
Respectfully, I believe that you are incorrect. I'm only pointing this out because you stated something like it was a law of physics. The physics of rolling spheres with non-uniform density is very complicated.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all of the balls are perfect spheres in so far as the shape of their surface goes. Let us also assume that they do NOT have uniform density. That means that certain parts of the ball may be a bit heavier or lighter than other parts even though the shape is a sphere.
I made the below terrible image to better explain my point. Assume that it represents a cross section of two balls on a table that are rolling away from you straight into your computer screen. Assume natural roll and no sidespin. Assume that the red areas are denser, heavier areas in the balls.
The ball on the left will roll straight and come to a stop with very slight jerks in its speed as it slows to a stop. The very slight jerks will be caused by the off center heavier area as it cycles back and forth over where the ball touches the cloth in a decaying sinusoidal pattern.
The ball on the right however will not roll straight in general. It will veer to the right due to the torque of the heavier portion of the ball. Additionally, that heavier portion will not stay on the extreme right of the ball as it rolls either.
Varying density can absolutely make a slowly rolling sphere very slightly "speed up". This is because of the conversion of the potential energy that will exist if the densest portion of the ball is not directly over the point that the ball touches the cloth. That potential energy will be mostly unleashed while rolling. It would likely be a slight effect but it is certainly possibly on a perfectly flat surface using perfectly round balls.
Or, just look at a crazy 8-ball for proof. The principle is pretty much the same.
You may continue your arguments now, lol. Exiting physics mode.
Very good information.
Most people spout out physics and complex mathematics as if they know something about it.
Some try to go at it thinking logic is the answer....having no idea about the physics behind it.....oh well....
Respectfully, I believe that you are incorrect. I'm only pointing this out because you stated something like it was a law of physics. The physics of rolling spheres with non-uniform density is very complicated.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all of the balls are perfect spheres in so far as the shape of their surface goes. Let us also assume that they do NOT have uniform density. That means that certain parts of the ball may be a bit heavier or lighter than other parts even though the shape is a sphere.
I made the below terrible image to better explain my point. Assume that it represents a cross section of two balls on a table that are rolling away from you straight into your computer screen. Assume natural roll and no sidespin. Assume that the red areas are denser, heavier areas in the balls.
The ball on the left will roll straight and come to a stop with very slight jerks in its speed as it slows to a stop. The very slight jerks will be caused by the off center heavier area as it cycles back and forth over where the ball touches the cloth in a decaying sinusoidal pattern.
The ball on the right however will not roll straight in general. It will veer to the right due to the torque of the heavier portion of the ball. Additionally, that heavier portion will not stay on the extreme right of the ball as it rolls either.
Varying density can absolutely make a slowly rolling sphere very slightly "speed up". This is because of the conversion of the potential energy that will exist if the densest portion of the ball is not directly over the point that the ball touches the cloth. That potential energy will be mostly unleashed while rolling. It would likely be a slight effect but it is certainly possibly on a perfectly flat surface using perfectly round balls.
Or, just look at a crazy 8-ball for proof. The principle is pretty much the same.
You may continue your arguments now, lol. Exiting physics mode.
While what you are saying is true it certainly isnt all of the physics behind it. While yes a ball can pick up speed over a very short distance its average speed over a longer distance will not increase. When the more dense section of the ball is on the side of the ball in the direction of rolling it may increase speed, but when that section is on the other end it will cause the ball to decrease speed. In a scenario where we neglect all friction and resistance and assume a perfectly round ball and completely level surface where a ball is travelling with an average velocity of lets call it X then that average velocity will not increase. It will stay the same. The velocity at any given point may be higher but overall it will not increase. Now if we add in frictional effects we can see that on a level surface the ball cannot increase its average velocity, it will only decrease.
I'm Rick Harrison, and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss. Everything in here has a story and a price. One thing I've learned after 21 years - you never know WHAT is gonna come through that door.
I'm assuming you're talking about me, saying I don't like the Cyclop balls & that I shouldn't state my opinion about it. Yeah I don't ruin that gravy train. I'm not trying to bad mouth anyone, just stating my opinion & most other pros I've talked to. If anything I'm trying to help make the game better. We're playing in bars 85 percent of the time, using junk equipment we don't want to use, playing for no money, and about a million other things I could go on and on for a week.
As in most cases here on AZB, those who complain the most have the least invested, if any investment at all.
Well, using your logic, Cyclop then has 100% correct information about their balls on hand and Aramith doesn't.
Lou Figueroa
- Status