$100 Spin Challenge
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Well I don't know about how to really prove one shaft generates more spin but I found the Meucci videos to be very compelling in terms of proving that different butt/shaft combinations produce different results when most of the variables are taken out.
http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/Meucci Black Dot - Power Piston - 2006.wmv
http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/
Advertisement or not it seems to me like Bob Meucci might be right after all in the way he builds a cue vs. how other people do it.
Hoewver I am certain that the way he conducted the test is subject to scrutiny. The fact that he did it and built a testing apparatus that looks to be quite consistent in the delivery speaks volumes.
Now, Bob claims that the Power Piston/Bulleye Shaft produces more spin but does not show that.
http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/Meucci Black Dot - Power Piston - 2006.wmv
http://www.billiard-deals.com/videos/
Advertisement or not it seems to me like Bob Meucci might be right after all in the way he builds a cue vs. how other people do it.
Hoewver I am certain that the way he conducted the test is subject to scrutiny. The fact that he did it and built a testing apparatus that looks to be quite consistent in the delivery speaks volumes.
Now, Bob claims that the Power Piston/Bulleye Shaft produces more spin but does not show that.
Well, I'm guessing that a half-inch osmium rod with a tip glued on will be really bad at spinning the ball because of the squirt, but maybe not. I also suspect that you can't spin the ball as well with a 16-mm masse shaft as with a 10-mm snooker shaft using a horizontal stroke. (I have both shafts for a single cue.) As has been pointed out, it's more or less impossible to "prove" anything, so I would say that the question/proposition is not well formed.Patrick Johnson said:
If I were testing such a hypothesis, and I did not have a robot tester available, I'd put it up as a contest: choosing from these 10 cues and any other cue a contestant brings, who can get the most severe angle straight off the cushion? Once that best angle is established, then offer a similar prize if anyone can come within 1 degree with all of the other cues.
Also complicating the question is the fact that both chalk and tip can make a difference, and it's hard to have the same tip on multiple shafts. Also, conditions on the table can change during the course of the test.
Bob Jewett said:
Do you mean because the relatively large squirt force would act counter to the spin? I could buy that, but it wouldn't be a test in the spirit of the challenge.
This is more within the realm of real life differences. How would you test it?
It's colloquially formed on purpose in order to make the definition of the challenge (and of spin) part of the process. I'd settle for "demonstrate convincingly a meaningful difference between two shafts that people play pool with".
Those are good points that those who claim "spin enhancement" probably don't think of. Thanks.
pj
chgo
BRKNRUN said:
How about a cooked noodle shaft or one made of moonbeams?
This has been answered.
pj
chgo
Bob Jewett said:
I would think that a frictionless surface would be needed. I also think that the tips should have the same hardness, measured with a Durometer, I am not sure if the ferrule matters as it is something that the shaft makers claim affects performance. So my thought would be that the ferrule can be different.
However for the purpose of the test perhaps it would be better to simply do different taper/constructions without a ferrule to see what effects that produces.
This is an awful lot to do for $100.
Pat, why don't you simply repost your spin test - the one you used to prove to yourself that no shaft produces more spin than any other and allow people to post videos using that test?
Please diagram it on the CueTable. Wei, if you are reading this and it has already been diagrammed (I could not find it) please post the link.
Patrick Johnson said:
Um, in fact they do. Almost all the tip makers claim that their product produces "more spin" or allude to it. But I think that you are twisting words here. There is a difference between enhancement and built-in performance. If I had an attachment (like a tip) that would make any shaft spin the ball more then that is an enhancement. However if the performance is different because of the construction of the shaft then that is simply a better performing shaft not an enhanced version of a previously underperforming one.
But again, what kind of low-cost, easy to do test do you propose that can be set up and done by anyone with access to a camera, a table and office supplies?
Just post it please.
The Test
Place a numbered Centennial ball (your "cue ball") on the foot or head spot with the number upright, centered and facing you, and with the little triangles at the equator (see the accompanying picture), aligned straight across the table (pointed at the second diamond on the side rail).
Shoot the "cue ball" directly at the second diamond on the far side rail (so it would bounce straight back at the spot if you hit it without side spin). Position two balls on either side of the diamond as "blockers" to ensure the cue ball hits the rail at the diamond (touching either blocker ball invalidates the shot). To get the spacing right, freeze a third ball between the two blockers, move the blockers apart to create a 1/4" gap on each side of the middle ball, then remove the middle ball.
Hit the ball right on the edge of the circle and on a triangle (on the equator) with just enough speed to bounce off the far side rail and barely reach the near side rail. Wipe the ball clean before each shot and check the chalkmark after each shot to see where you're actually hitting the ball. Be sure the tip is well groomed and well chalked for each test shot.
Mark where the ball stops at the near rail (put a coin or a piece of chalk there).
Only count shots that you hit just right. If any of the following things doesn't happen, don't count the shot:
- You don't hit the "cue ball" exactly on the edge of the circle at the triangle (equator).
- You don't hit the second diamond on the far side rail exactly.
- The ball stops more than an inch short or long of the near side rail.
You can't replicate these things exactly every time, so hit enough "good" shots so that you can use the average result - say ten "good" shots with each shaft you're testing. If your results for any one shaft aren't closely grouped, then they're not reliable results.
If you want to try more forceful shots, then choose a target distance somewhere after rebounding from the near side rail, say at the middle "long string" or at the far side rail again. Mark the target distance with a coin or piece of chalk and reject any shot that doesn't stop within an inch of it.
pj
chgo
Place a numbered Centennial ball (your "cue ball") on the foot or head spot with the number upright, centered and facing you, and with the little triangles at the equator (see the accompanying picture), aligned straight across the table (pointed at the second diamond on the side rail).
Shoot the "cue ball" directly at the second diamond on the far side rail (so it would bounce straight back at the spot if you hit it without side spin). Position two balls on either side of the diamond as "blockers" to ensure the cue ball hits the rail at the diamond (touching either blocker ball invalidates the shot). To get the spacing right, freeze a third ball between the two blockers, move the blockers apart to create a 1/4" gap on each side of the middle ball, then remove the middle ball.
Hit the ball right on the edge of the circle and on a triangle (on the equator) with just enough speed to bounce off the far side rail and barely reach the near side rail. Wipe the ball clean before each shot and check the chalkmark after each shot to see where you're actually hitting the ball. Be sure the tip is well groomed and well chalked for each test shot.
Mark where the ball stops at the near rail (put a coin or a piece of chalk there).
Only count shots that you hit just right. If any of the following things doesn't happen, don't count the shot:
- You don't hit the "cue ball" exactly on the edge of the circle at the triangle (equator).
- You don't hit the second diamond on the far side rail exactly.
- The ball stops more than an inch short or long of the near side rail.
You can't replicate these things exactly every time, so hit enough "good" shots so that you can use the average result - say ten "good" shots with each shaft you're testing. If your results for any one shaft aren't closely grouped, then they're not reliable results.
If you want to try more forceful shots, then choose a target distance somewhere after rebounding from the near side rail, say at the middle "long string" or at the far side rail again. Mark the target distance with a coin or piece of chalk and reject any shot that doesn't stop within an inch of it.
pj
chgo
Attachments
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't get it, how is still suppose to prove/disprove one shaft is spinning cue ball more than another? Human can't apply the exact force to a cue ball, since force needs to be constant to prove that one shaft spin more than another. This test is already flawed. I would think, common sense should be more than enough to prove this. For example, using the same force on the same shaft should have the same result (Not perfect but close enough). If another shaft with different variables have different result, it would imply spin is different. I would think spin is like RPM...the more or less produce by each difference shaft can be shown by distance of cue ball travel.
Or here another fun test to do:
Check out these spin videos....this should be the test for meucci shaft. Have bob machine shoot this shot with different shafts. It would be interest to see which shaft will spin the cue ball more given exact force applied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3IanL64fiM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhr-0AARuAY
Duc.
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
Wait wouldn't it just stand to logic that a shaft that has less deflection would automatically put more spin on the ball with an off-center hit?
If the ball is deflecting less, there is more energy imparted to the ball since it is travelling on a truer path in comparison to the initial striking angle i.e. less energy is being lost to tangential forces.
Therefore if it is an off center hit, there should be more spin imparted because more energy is transfered into the off center hit.
Jaden
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Why???
I thought the argument was whether a different shaft allows "more spin".
It is a proven fact that some shafts allow you to get further out on the edge of the cue ball, therefore allowing "more spin".
I don't think you are staying within the spirit of the argument at all, and are attempting to rig the results.
Russ
Neil said:
This right here sums it up. No fancy tests needed. If he doesn't pay up just based on smaller tips/shafts, then he never had any intention of paying and this is all just for his entertainment.
Russ