No Deflection

hang-the-9 said:

A is correct, but unless you are causing a foul, that difference is too short for a human to perceive.

Click to expand...

Good point. It is actually illegal to prolong contact between the cue tip and CB. It is called a push shot. For examples of how a push can be used to accomplish shots that should not be possible otherwise, see the push shot resource page.

Regards,
Dave

nodeflection said:

dr_dave said:

You might think it feels that way, but the tip is in contact with the CB such a small amount of time (for any shot hit with any type of stroke by any person), that it is not possible to make any practical uses of any such difference (even if they did exist).

If you swoop into the CB, you can effectively change the aim of the shot (as with a pre-stroke BHE pivot), and impart a little extra sideways CB motion, to compensate for CB deflection and send the CB straight. Again, this is clearly demonstrated and described in the videos and illustrations on the swoop/swipe stroke resource page. But this has nothing to do with the incredibly-brief tip contact time (or any possible minute changes in tip contact time).

I recommend you "do your homework" and go through my resource materials. That will probably enable much more fruitful conversation (or even end it entirely).

Click to expand...

I disagree, I can control how long my ball is on the tip.

Click to expand...

You can disagree with fact all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Again, please "do your homework." It would also help if you posted some videos that clearly demonstrate what you are describing, even if they are just regular (non slow-mo) videos filmed with a smartphone.

FYI, I'm done with this thread until there is new and useful information (not just unfounded or untested opinions) or meaningful and intelligent questions related to my posted resources.

Regards,
Dave

To tell de truth

pt109 said:

a prong can’t be wrong

logo gratis

Click to expand...

I should market this gadget and all three of us get rich off of it but the truth is there is a much easier way to solve the whole issue with squirt, swerve, deflection, and squerve.

When I hang up my cue stick for the last time I am going to reveal my stroke of genius, the mobius twist stroke. The right side is the left side also and vice versa, the top is the bottom and the bottom is the top. Because of this all forces that would normally cause unwanted movement of a cue ball are balanced out and negated. As should be obvious, by varying the offset of tip contact and force hitting the cue ball it is also possible to pass on any side or above an interfering ball while using only whichever spin you wish to transfer onto the object ball.

Be prepared for people to be amazed when the transferred spin is so great that the object ball can pass to either side or above interfering balls between itself and the pocket. The claims of the ball passing on both sides of interfering balls are believed to be exaggeration or optical illusion, not verified at this time. The only flaw with the mobius twist stroke is that it makes jump cues obsolete and break cues only a vanity. When spin alone raises balls off the table there is no need for a jump cue. The explosive power of a medium speed mobius twist break stroke has been compared to dynamite, nobody has dared a full power break shot for safety reasons.

I briefly considered the mobius twist cue stick but that would end the game as we know it. It would be loss of game if all balls didn't go in on the break or if you scratched. Bar tables would need pockets a quarter inch smaller than the balls to slow them down for safety reasons.

Hu

nodeflection said:

Do my homework. Is AzB a class I am paying you for?

If anyone agrees that Dr. Dave's links are the end all answers to pool confusion then that is fine go reread. I don't see why posting another link to the same resources keeps happening. It won't change what I think if you post it another 3 times.

Click to expand...

And you can post 300 more times about your assumptions.
They still will not become facts.

nodeflection said:

Good for your opinion. I don't mind at all what you think. What I assert has nothing to do with Dr. Dave and his work. His work is as relevant as it has been.

Click to expand...

Then quit arguing.

So, is there any point at all to what you assert.?
You show nothing, explain nothing, offer nothing except claims that fly in the face of researched information......
What -exactly- are you trying to do here?

two forces at play here

nodeflection said:

I really hope you don't think I am here trying to get money.

Click to expand...

Naah, I may owe you a beer someday, seriously I think I am looking at two forces that are right to a greater or lesser degree and wrong also. Much of what dave says is unproven. Abstract is a wonderful thing but often many variables are left out and what works on the computer doesn't work on the table. When the tests they are going by reveal results they don't want that portion of the test is ignored, it doesn't fit in with pool dogma, the holy word. Those that disagree with dogma can expect the Inquisition!

You have some points in theory however with no video or test equipment you have mislaid cause and effect I believe. I was a self-taught pool player in my early adventures in pool in my mid-teens. Somehow I got the idea that swoop or twisting the cue violently as it made contact with the cue ball would increase spin. This may be true, it would take a robot to prove it. The real reason I gave up on these things is that the timing has to be perfect and even then the results are unpredictable. Sometimes I was early and blew the shot, sometimes I was late and of course the extra motions did nothing. Once in awhile the action was perfectly timed and sometimes the cue ball jumped around like a wild child! After awhile this was the reason for dropping these habits, it was impossible for me to modulate the effects.

I once worked in R&D for a living. Confirmation bias is a huge problem, it happens to even the greatest in the world sometimes. They seem to get the results they expect and don't dig deeper. One of my jobs was setting up testing so I spent a lot of time configuring tests to be neutral and then avoiding interpreting results. I see some of that in all that like to try to dig into the "why" of things working in pool. Sometimes why doesn't matter though. One of the smartest men I ever knew had a roughly third grade education. When an agriculture student wanted a PhD, they were sent to the experimental farm and Red to learn how to farm. He believed in witchcraft, phases of the moon, many things we think are ridiculous. However, if he told you how to farm or how to handle livestock, get out a hammer and chisel, write it on a rock!

If you can teach people how to do the things you claim it won't matter in the least if you are wrong about why it works. My past experience leaves me dubious of this happening which is why I am sitting back and watching the fun.

Wish I could go play pool right now, gotta go play tractor and chainsaw!

Hu

nodeflection said:

A. The ball reactions and the sound.
B. You're reply is illogical.
C. If the ball deflects the timing is incorrect if you desire to have the CB go straight. If your timing is off and you wish the CB to deflect then you have done it right.

Click to expand...

Ok...now we are getting somewhere. Based on your observations, what are the longest and slowest extremes of tip/ ball contact?

gogg said:

So, is there any point at all to what you assert.?
You show nothing, explain nothing, offer nothing except claims that fly in the face of researched information......
What -exactly- are you trying to do here?

Click to expand...

Attention.

So ALL the major LD shaft makers are full of s^&t and this nimrod nodefl. is right???? Seriously??? When you are proven to be 10000000000000% wrong, its time to stfu and crawl back into your mama's basement.