I know weight is a matter of preference, but I got a question
- Thread starter asbani
- Start date
The same way a cue's speed does - by determining the amount of energy delivered by the moving cue.
Kinetic energy = mass/2 x velocity^2.
Mass (= weight in constant gravity) and speed are the only two factors in the equation.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
So what I gather from page 2 of TP_B.8, an infinitely light cue has m_r = infinity, which gives zero spin (omega=0), and an infinitely heavy cue gives m_r=0...and so maximum spin (omega=omega_max).
huh. interestin. do i gots that right, Doc ?
Yo, Patrick...weight is never equal to mass amigo. I had a feeling u was a pretender.
Love,
Lou
Where gravity is constant, weight and mass express the same value (in different terms) - so they're equal in their relevance to the kinetic energy equation. But mass is independent of variable gravity, so it's the preferred term.
We're both pretenders among actual scientists like Dave.
pj
chgo
lol...I know you don't give up, Paddy..
what if gravity is constantly equal to 2 ?? are weight and mass the same "value"
Give up, Patrick.
Best wishes,
Lou
One of Dave's=notes, think it's page 6 states:
A few following notes indicate that the lighter the cue, the better the separation, and that a cue near 22oz is not going to avoid a double hit at typical speed/offset.
So for spin, lighter cue is more efficient, and separates cleanly at offsets that heavier cues cannot.
For breaking, heavier with most inelastic tip is better, up to the maximum speed you could produce with any weight cue.
Let's 'weight' & see if i got that right. :grin:
smt
You can calculate weight from gravitational force and mass (W=mg), so if the gravitational force doesn't change, its weight indicates its mass (W/g=m).
I'm close to giving up on explaining this to you.
pj
chgo
so, the weight INDICATES mass....the weight is not EQUAL TO the mass...amirite?
I win. you lose. haha
Right. Grams aren't "equal" to ounces either.
Congratulations. You win the trophy for Most Pedantic.
pj
chgo
The answer is not simple. I think the short answer is: It really doesn't matter very much.
FYI, I just created the following resource page to try to provide a longer answer:
Check it out.
I will continue to improve this page as I answer any remaining questions in this thread.
Regards,
Dave
Not bamboo, but I'd like to try it. However, some sort of at home printing is the future here with this particular application.
I've printed out a crappy but light cue with my 3D printer :-/. Using PLA the entire stick was right under 9 ounces at 60 inches, but it was in 15inch segments (so 3 joints). However, after banging around remote control plane forums/sites I know now that if I had a FFF/FDM* printer with a Z axis of 30 inches, I could print a 70 inch cue (no extension) at under 8 ounces (with extension 8 even'ish). I already print fully functional extensions at under 3 ounces (for 15 inch extensions), so I know that if I was to print a shaft, it would take serious trial and error at the tip end (the butt is much easier due to the inherit tensile strength you get by having to design such a wide diameter... if that makes sense).
* FFF/FDM uses filament. There are other types of printers that do not which could probably print them lighter (I'm almost positive they could), however choices of material types are much lower. While FFF/FDM printing will probably be a little heavier, with FFF/FDM style printing you still have options as you can still heavily manipulate thermal expansion. 3D printing is an additive type of construction which has some advantages over subtraction methods like injection, so designing a shaft for 3D printing is easier than if it was designed for injection (which I think most people see).
Some popular filament types for FFF/FDM:
PLA (Carbon Fiber, Aesthetics)
ABS
PETG (PET, PETT)
TPE, TPU, TPC (Flexible)
Nylon
HIPS
PC (Polycarbonate)
HDPE
PEEK
So you have choices (and there is of course more types).
I've spent a lot of time going back and forth between functional objects (a pool cue is one), and as of right now I prefer to lean towards a PLA, ASA or TPE when possible, which is basically always. PLA and ASA for pool cues is probably the lightest way to create everything but the tip, _HOWEVER_, you can use TPE for the tip... and I'm going to start trying that!!!
Last edited:
Mass is feature of volume:weight. In the science terms indistinguishable, but physically discernible.
Well done, Doc..thanks for the effort. The OP asked a great physics question... It's going to take me a minute to digest this page that you put up. Appreciate ya!
Lou
Based on all of the info and links on the draw shot cue weight effects resource page, here is a better answer than I offered earlier:
If the tip contact point is very close to the miscue limit and the OB is not very far from the CB, the lighter cue could do slightly better (everything else being equal, including cue speed).
But if the OB is not very close to the CB, the heavier cue would definitely result in more draw (everything else being equal, including cue speed).
But assuming the cue speeds are the same with each cue might not be a realistic assumption, especially for a power draw shot, where muscle physiology differences come into play, per the info on the optimal cue weight resource page.
Regards,
Dave
Thanks for the answer, although not satisfied, it boggles my mind why there are all these variables within this simple question.
i.e. If CB is close to OB then xx, if CB is away from OB then yy, if tip is hard then XX, if tip is soft then yy, if power draw shot then Z.
I mean for the love of god why isn't the answer simple, I said all variables are the same.
So Dr Dave, with power draw shots the likes of which Larry Naval used to do, which cue should outperform the other? please just a straight answer
Also, I have been experimenting myself with the same exact cue and shaft, one is 17oz, the other is 19oz, and I feel that the 19oz is giving me more spin into shots, draw shots included, even my friend told me that I am drawing further than I want every single time using the 19oz as opposed to the 17oz.
So without using Math and based on real experience, I feel that 19oz is drawing the cueball much further than the 17oz from just two days of play, but I leave the math and physics to you guys.
You probably have slow-twitch muscle fibers (e.g., like a typical white guy that can't jump high or sprint fast), so that would make sense that you do better with the heavier cue.Thanks for the answer, although not satisfied, it boggles my mind why there are all these variables within this simple question.
i.e. If CB is close to OB then xx, if CB is away from OB then yy, if tip is hard then XX, if tip is soft then yy, if power draw shot then Z.
I mean for the love of god why isn't the answer simple, I said all variables are the same.
So Dr Dave, with power draw shots the likes of which Larry Naval used to do, which cue should outperform the other? please just a straight answer
Also, I have been experimenting myself with the same exact cue and shaft, one is 17oz, the other is 19oz, and I feel that the 19oz is giving me more spin into shots, draw shots included, even my friend told me that I am drawing further than I want every single time using the 19oz as opposed to the 17oz.
So without using Math and based on real experience, I feel that 19oz is drawing the cueball much further than the 17oz from just two days of play, but I leave the math and physics to you guys.
Again, the answer depends on the person and the particular shot. Not all answers are simple.
Regards,
Dave