You mean with full frontal nudity so we can see once and for all who's right? That's your obsession, not mine.
LOL. That sounds about right.
pj
chgo
$100 Spin Challenge
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
You mean with full frontal nudity so we can see once and for all who's right? That's your obsession, not mine.
LOL. That sounds about right.
pj
chgo
That diagram isn't what I was saying entirely....
Here it is. I drew it up and I will explain it here.
I'm only engaging as an exercise in futility. I do them all the time. Besides, it gets me thinking more indepthly about pool.
I'm going to use the concept of BHE to better help explain the diagram.
I also used an actual shot, although this is not necessary, it just aids in illustrating the concepts.
If you look at the line traveling straight through the Cueball going from bridge A, you'll notice that it is also going straight through the ghost ball, illustrated by a circle with broken lines.
The shaft in bridge A is representative of a standard shaft with a pivot point of approx. 10-12 inches.
This effectively creates a bridge to center of cueball aimline equivalent to the aimline without any english.
For a shaft with low deflection, in order to use a bridge of the same length, you would have to shift the bridge over because there is less squirt.
This is illustrated by bridge B in the diagram.
If you look at the effective aimline straight through the cueball, it differs from the true aimline by about half a tip. This is because of there being less squirt.
So if you strike the cueball with a low deflection shaft in the exact same place as with a standard shaft ( relative to the initial aimline) and get the same amount of spin, you are effectively half a tip closer to center, when referencing the actual aimline that you are on instead of the initial aimline.
You must account for bridge position when considering low deflection shaft technology because at greater bridge lengths, the deflection is closer to the same and eliminates any benefits that LD tech provides.
This is why that other illustration that Patrick provides doesn't count. It is true, but when referencing LD shaft tech, you MUST consider bridge location or the LD is no longer less than that of a standard shaft.
That is why effective aimline in this situation is contingent upon bridge location.
If you shoot both of these shots and get the same amount of spin, the low deflection shaft gives the same amount of spin closer to the true center of the cueball in relation to the shot.
Jaden.
P.s. the aimlines are mislabeled on accident, they should be the opposite. Aimline intersection points on cueball are correctly labeled
Here it is. I drew it up and I will explain it here.
I'm only engaging as an exercise in futility. I do them all the time. Besides, it gets me thinking more indepthly about pool.
I'm going to use the concept of BHE to better help explain the diagram.
I also used an actual shot, although this is not necessary, it just aids in illustrating the concepts.
If you look at the line traveling straight through the Cueball going from bridge A, you'll notice that it is also going straight through the ghost ball, illustrated by a circle with broken lines.
The shaft in bridge A is representative of a standard shaft with a pivot point of approx. 10-12 inches.
This effectively creates a bridge to center of cueball aimline equivalent to the aimline without any english.
For a shaft with low deflection, in order to use a bridge of the same length, you would have to shift the bridge over because there is less squirt.
This is illustrated by bridge B in the diagram.
If you look at the effective aimline straight through the cueball, it differs from the true aimline by about half a tip. This is because of there being less squirt.
So if you strike the cueball with a low deflection shaft in the exact same place as with a standard shaft ( relative to the initial aimline) and get the same amount of spin, you are effectively half a tip closer to center, when referencing the actual aimline that you are on instead of the initial aimline.
You must account for bridge position when considering low deflection shaft technology because at greater bridge lengths, the deflection is closer to the same and eliminates any benefits that LD tech provides.
This is why that other illustration that Patrick provides doesn't count. It is true, but when referencing LD shaft tech, you MUST consider bridge location or the LD is no longer less than that of a standard shaft.
That is why effective aimline in this situation is contingent upon bridge location.
If you shoot both of these shots and get the same amount of spin, the low deflection shaft gives the same amount of spin closer to the true center of the cueball in relation to the shot.
Jaden.
P.s. the aimlines are mislabeled on accident, they should be the opposite. Aimline intersection points on cueball are correctly labeled
Attachments
Last edited:
MikePage, Colin, JAL:
There's been some discussion of the "squirt force" acting against cue ball spin. Doesn't this "net force direction" explanation contradict that theory?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
There's been some discussion of the "squirt force" acting against cue ball spin. Doesn't this "net force direction" explanation contradict that theory?
pj
chgo
Jaden said:
The same "initial aim line" passes through the pivot points of both cues. It's just a coincidence that it also happens to pass through the bridge position of one of them. The bridge positions have nothing to do with it.
pj
chgo
It's not a coincidence,......
It is not a coincidence, that is the whole point of using BHE, because there is a balance point on cues that the bridge length creates an equilibrium that allows for those to coincide regardless of the amount of spin you put on the ball.
That IS bhe.....
Jaden.
Patrick Johnson said:
It is not a coincidence, that is the whole point of using BHE, because there is a balance point on cues that the bridge length creates an equilibrium that allows for those to coincide regardless of the amount of spin you put on the ball.
That IS bhe.....
Jaden.
I couldn't stand it.....
When someone, patrick or anyone for that matter, states that the bridge just happened on that illustration to fall in the same aimline as the initial or non-english aimline, I have to correct that misrepresentation.
I video taped an illustration of proper execution of BHE. Note, to reduce swerve, when also applying draw or follow along with side spin, you want to elevate or lower your bridge hand and keep as parallel a cue line as possible in reference to the slate.
In the video. I first try to rely on marking the table and having you see the aimline, but then so that there is no mistake that I am using the same aimline for all three shots, I put a cue on the table parallel to the initial aimline.
I do the first shot with no english, then I use two tips of outside english and then two tips of inside english, (ignore my initial statement that I'll use three tips, I only use two.
If you watch, I line up each shot exactly the same and then I pivot out or in for the side spin. Watch what happens to the CB after contact on all three shots. There is no follow or draw on any of the shots.
Only dead center, two tips of right and two tips of left.
Jaden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3W3RumDXmk
When someone, patrick or anyone for that matter, states that the bridge just happened on that illustration to fall in the same aimline as the initial or non-english aimline, I have to correct that misrepresentation.
I video taped an illustration of proper execution of BHE. Note, to reduce swerve, when also applying draw or follow along with side spin, you want to elevate or lower your bridge hand and keep as parallel a cue line as possible in reference to the slate.
In the video. I first try to rely on marking the table and having you see the aimline, but then so that there is no mistake that I am using the same aimline for all three shots, I put a cue on the table parallel to the initial aimline.
I do the first shot with no english, then I use two tips of outside english and then two tips of inside english, (ignore my initial statement that I'll use three tips, I only use two.
If you watch, I line up each shot exactly the same and then I pivot out or in for the side spin. Watch what happens to the CB after contact on all three shots. There is no follow or draw on any of the shots.
Only dead center, two tips of right and two tips of left.
Jaden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3W3RumDXmk
But BHE is not the point of this conversation. This conversation is about how the different aims used with different shafts might affect squirt. The different aims are defined by the pivot points of the different cues, not by BHE. In fact, your second cue isn't using BHE at all; it's pivoting on its pivot point, which is behind the bridge (and on the same "initial aim line" as the first cue).
pj
chgo
Jaden said:
Jaden, you misunderstood my statement; BHE itself is incidental (not directly relevant) to this conversation. For instance, the bridge for your second cue is not at its pivot point and so that cue was not aimed using BHE. It's the angle of the cues (always defined by their pivot points, but not always by their bridge positions) that's relevant.
That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with this.
pj
chgo
Rich93 said:
You could also ask where's Bob Jewett or Mike Page (or several other very knowledgable RSB posters who have been mostly invisible here). They obviously stay out of here because there's too much "noise" here - when they do post here their excellent observations are lost like whispers in a hurricane.
Not to compare myself with them, but I only do it because I dislike misinformation more than I dislike mud wrestling.
pj
chgo
Patrick,Patrick Johnson said:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the basic concept of your challenge was that hitting the same distance off center with two different cues would not produce differing spin - speed ratios.
Hence, by bringing up the increases squirt reduces CB spin argument, which I've seen no argument that can refute it, ought to be dealt with in the discussion.
One might claim that it doesn't produce significant differences in spin speed ratios, but one should at least consider whether the effect is real in this debate and how that relates to your original challenge.
Colin
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think so Patrick, but it may depend on how we are determining tip offset. Perhaps we could say a high squirt cue has a lower effective offset, if we measure the offset in relation to the CB's eventual travel line somehow.
But if we said that, wouldn't we then have to say that lower squirt cues can achieve non-miscue shots at a higher tip offset?
I would prefer to think of tip offset as it relates to the initial direction of the cue. This is not actually that easy to do, unless we used a standard for bridge length and the bridge's position relative to the CB.
Colin
Colin Colenso said:
That's right, with the caveat that I'm not interested in inconsequential nitpicking.
Maybe you missed the last few posts before this.
Me, for instance.
It has finally been forced to the forefront in this thread, with exactly the results I expected: more noise and distraction resulting in less relevant information getting through. Of course, you could say that about just about every thread here.
pj
chgo
P.S. I asked a question about the theory that squirt might reduce spin (in post #183). Have you given it any thought?
[EDIT: Oops, saw your response after I posted this. Thanks.]
Jaden said:
I appreciate the video and all Jaden, and maybe I am not understanding 100% what your diagram was supposed to be demonstrating, but I think Patrick is right regarding the bridge falling on the aimline.
Now of course using BHE we are trying to achieve this, but we have to adjust bridge length or shot speed to do so. So if you don't get the bridge length right then the bridge will need to be slightly off the aimline.
Colin
Last edited:
No problem, I saw you'd got to the topic after I replied.Patrick Johnson said:
Colin
Colin Colenso said:
After more thought I think I agree with you. The "squirt force" can be "netted out" of the CB's final direction without losing its effect on rotation. However, I believe this is an insignificant effect, and that's borne out by my tests.
Yes, I think we would. But again I doubt that it's significant to playing pool.
However we prefer to think of it, it appears that its relationship to the cue ball path is what's significant to spin.
pj
chgo
I pretty much agree and think that the differences within normal playing conditions may be relatively insignificant, however, I think it does add some weight to the argument that low squirt cues can help a player get a bit more spin on a ball, as their effective offset would appear to be higher.Patrick Johnson said:
I put this little diagram together to help visualize the two ways we might look at real v effective tip offset (or whatever terms are appropriate).
Colin
Attachments
Thanks anyway...
I'd like to thank the few posters who made thoughtful contributions to this thread, but I have to admit that it's been pretty much like every other "technical" thread on AZB: a few people trying to discuss nutrition while everybody else is having a food fight. I'll leave it to you to figure out who's who.
I guess AZB is just like a pool hall (at least the ones I like to hang out in) - you feel like you need to be hosed off afterward.
pj
chgo
I'd like to thank the few posters who made thoughtful contributions to this thread, but I have to admit that it's been pretty much like every other "technical" thread on AZB: a few people trying to discuss nutrition while everybody else is having a food fight. I'll leave it to you to figure out who's who.
I guess AZB is just like a pool hall (at least the ones I like to hang out in) - you feel like you need to be hosed off afterward.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
It's not quite dead and buried yet and I for one don't think the process is without reward. It's helped me to clarify my thinking on these relations.Patrick Johnson said:
btw: Here is another diagram comparing the high squirt cue aligned with more angle to the identical CB point, such that the same CB travel line results. It may help some to better visualize what Patrick has suggested.
Colin
Attachments
Last edited:
I am sorry I missed this thread as it was unfolding. I finally saw it today, and I just got done reading through the whole thing. Wow!
First, here is a pertinent quote with resource links from my low-squirt cue FAQ page:
I think my bolded statement above (based on experimental and theoretical results) summarizes the point Patrick is trying to make. In comparing typical low-squirt cues to typical playing cues, the difference in spin-generating capability is negligible.
But Patrick, be more careful the next time you make a wager. The equipment can make a difference. It just so happens that the difference is extremely small.
Regards,
Dave
First, here is a pertinent quote with resource links from my low-squirt cue FAQ page:
Per my September '07 article, a common low-squirt cue has a squirt angle of about 1.8 degrees at close to maximum tip offset, as compared to 2.5 degrees for a typical regular-squirt cue. So a low-squirt cue offers only about 30% less squirt than a typical regular-squirt cue.
Per Diagram 3 in my December '07 article, if you calculate the effective offsets using the squirt angles above, the percentage change in effective tip offset is less than 0.1%!!! So I think it is safe to say this effect is negligible.
Now, when comparing cues and/or tips, it is important that the actual tip offset is the same for both. If the tip size and shape are different, and one uses "tips of English" as a measure, perceived tip offset can be very different than actual offset, resulting in significant differences in the amount of spin. See my January '08 and July '06 articles for more information (and illustrations).
Per Diagram 3 in my December '07 article, if you calculate the effective offsets using the squirt angles above, the percentage change in effective tip offset is less than 0.1%!!! So I think it is safe to say this effect is negligible.
Now, when comparing cues and/or tips, it is important that the actual tip offset is the same for both. If the tip size and shape are different, and one uses "tips of English" as a measure, perceived tip offset can be very different than actual offset, resulting in significant differences in the amount of spin. See my January '08 and July '06 articles for more information (and illustrations).
I think my bolded statement above (based on experimental and theoretical results) summarizes the point Patrick is trying to make. In comparing typical low-squirt cues to typical playing cues, the difference in spin-generating capability is negligible.
But Patrick, be more careful the next time you make a wager. The equipment can make a difference. It just so happens that the difference is extremely small.
Regards,
Dave
Colin Colenso said: