$100 Spin Challenge

[Patrick Johnson]

I just noticed something about Patrick's diagram.

He put the two balls you have to hit between so close together, that if you hit the CB soft enuff to stop within an inch of the far rail, you WILL hit the right blocker ball on your way off the rail.

This might be true; I estimated the gap. So make it a half inch on each side rather than 1/4". It won't matter much to the test outcome.

Patrick...You sir, are an idiot.

LOL. I had to tell you to increase the gap.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

Don't you mean a lower limit?

In the context of "there is no difference in the spin produced by these cues", I think "upper limit" was right. In other words, what is the most difference in performance between cues that you would characterize as, practically speaking, no difference at all.

I think the difference must have a practical effect for playing pool. I'm open to suggestion about how to measure that. For instance, using my test (and in order to exceed the "standard deviation" for human-conducted tests), it could mean at least a half diamond difference in the average place the cue ball hits the near rail.

I think your test is a good one and a half-diamond difference sounds fine to me...this could be argued endlessly. In terms of spin/speed ratio, maybe something like 5% ? But however you want to define it, it should be made clear. Since it's your money, I guess you have dibs on that.

Jim

 

[Jal]

....Now, in regards to possible mechanisms of creating higher spin:speed ratios I've thought before about the possibility that when a low squirt cue pushes back less against the rotating CB, then the CB loses less of its spin compared to a high squirt cue. Is it not true that a higher squirt cue has consummed more of the rotational energy of the CB?

I think this is right on, Colin.

It would also be useful to know what amount of rotational CB energy is converted into the deflection of the cue. Jal? Anyone?

It's hard to put a number on it (I think) without knowing more about the shape of shaft as it bends. Also, some of the available energy is being put into the potential (spring) energy of the shaft.[/quote]

Jim

 

[BRKNRUN]

How about a cooked noodle shaft or one made of moonbeams?



This has been answered.

pj
chgo

I am not the one that made up the OP saying "ANY" shaft.....

Of course no one is going to actually play with a straw....or cooked noodle......(well maybe some gaff game)

The intent of my post was to produce "extremes" to show to a blind eye that there IS a difference.....

What was the answer to the heaver shaft (at same cue speed as the lighter shaft)?

IMO the robot test posted that shows different amounts of squirt show that there are indeed different effects happening to a CB struck in the exact same place the exact same way....That tells me that if that is happening then spin ratio would also be affected since the CB leaving at a different angle would product a different amount of spin.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In the context of "there is no difference in the spin produced by these cues", I think "upper limit" was right. In other words, what is the most difference in performance between cues that you would characterize as, practically speaking, no difference at all.

Oh, I see.

I think your test is a good one and a half-diamond difference sounds fine to me...this could be argued endlessly. In terms of spin/speed ratio, maybe something like 5% ?

How could any of us measure spin/speed ratio directly?

But however you want to define it, it should be made clear. Since it's your money, I guess you have dibs on that.

I'm interested in ideas, but I don't see much point in clarifying it until somebody who understands the difference between subjective and objective shows an interest in testing this. I suppose that's the Catch-22 - everybody who understands testing probably already knows the answer.

This thread might just have to stand as a mute monument to the baselessness of the idea.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What was the answer to the heaver shaft (at same cue speed as the lighter shaft)?

It just increases the force of the hit. You can do that by simply stroking faster with a lighter cue (as in lighter break cues).

...the CB leaving at a different angle would product a different amount of spin.

What makes you think so?

pj
chgo

 

[s0lidz]

If you don't think different shafts produce different results as far as spin goes, then why don't you just say so in a calm, respectful manner?

Issuing a challenge like this only makes you appear to be a more contemptuous person.

 

[BRKNRUN]

It just increases the force of the hit. You can do that by simply stroking faster with a lighter cue (as in lighter break cues).



What makes you think so?

pj
chgo

Oh....I missed this underlined part in the OP....hmmmm

I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft (that weighs exactly the same) produces more cue ball spin than another.


What makes me think so is this...The ball is obviously tracking at different angles from impact....That means that through shaft deflection or some other means the cue is going through the ball in a different direction (at the tip)

since you are hitting the exact same spot on the CB (verifed by set up and machine repetition) that means that the different angle will change the relationship of tip to verticle axis (scientists insert formula here)

Obviously if you hit center CB the "side" spin should be zero and max "forward" motion will be applied to the CB...as the relationship of off center hit to verticle axis gets further apart, more of the impact force will be directed to the "side" spin instead of the "forward" motion of the CB....(Scientists insert formulas here)

Even though the two shafts are striking the exact same spot on the CB...The "relationship" to verticle axis has changed (even if ever so slightly)

 

[JB Cases]

For instance, suppose I'm aiming a squirtless stick straight north and have a tip offset of 10 mm. The ball will move north and I'll have a certain spin-to-speed ratio.

Now if I take a squirty stick and aim it straight north with the same offset, I'll get a little less spin. But importantly, the ball won't travel north anymore. So this is not the right comparison. The right comparison, imo, is to hit the SAME spot on the cueball such that the ball travels north.

My thought here is that you would have the same spin/speed ratio BUT the cueball would simply take off at a different vector.

If by your example there is any difference in the amount of spin then that means that one shaft does produce more spin than the other one.

Using Meucci's robot or Predator's robot you could devise a test to do something similar to Pat Johnson's test that would take the human variable out of it.

Last time we had this conversation we were at the point where I postulated that perhaps the reason people find that they get noticeably more or less spin with different shafts is because the tip is actually hitting the ball at a different point than what they think due to the taper of the shaft. In other words they are looking at the same spot and trying to hit it but actually they are hitting the ball in a slightly different spot. This supposition applies to people who just pick up cues and hit balls without any real controls in place to measure where exactly they are hitting the ball, such as using a marked training ball or a ball like the Centennial with a well defined place to strike.

I still think that in the defined range of shafts that are suitable for playing billiards games that some will cause more rpms than others. How much more may be insignificant but I think that shafts exists which have more amplitude than others even at the same offset and striking speed.

How much the total construction plays a part is also something that is hard to measure. Given that there are SO MANY variations and combinations available I can only say that it would definitely be a feat if someone were to do a controlled experiment that resulted in the ability to measure how different combinations affected the cue ball's spin.

I can show you a video where two pool balls of differing resin mixtures bounce at different heights. The two pool balls are the same weight and size, yet the react to force differently. I was bouncing them off a steel plate. When I change the force to bouncing them off concrete they bounce to different heights. So I can only think that different shafts have to do different things. But I am not a scientist and I am sure I fail a high school physics test.

My physics professor ex-half girlfriend agreed with me that in theory the application of force from different sources should have different results.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I did the test

I just did Patricks test from post #73

Test equipment:

1. Scruggs butt with Predator 314-2 shaft and Sniper tip
2. Predator BK1 with unknown brand hard leather layered tip
3. Predator BK2 with original phenolic/proprietary tip
4. Dufferen house cue with unknown brand leather tip

All cues produced the exact same results. The cue ball landed exactly one ball's width away from the side pocket tittie.

I checked the chalk mark each time, and my speed was just as described to freeze on the rail.

The only thing I had to change was move the right boundary ball .5 inch away instead of .25 inches away, because it interfered with the shot.

I did not video tape it. If you don't believe me, do it yourself. It just takes a half hour.

I did suspect all the equipment would produce the same results.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I didn't read every thread here, but did read many of them..

I am leaning strongly to the side that spin applied by almost all shafts is the same. My reasons are not fact based, or math based, but rather observation based.

1. Pro players use every combination of tips, shafts, butts under the sun. I don't believe there is hardly any difference in the shots they can make and the position they can obtain.

2. If you take any pro player with their own personal cue and set up a stroke shot they will make it no problem. Then if you take another pro who uses a completely different cue, shaft, and tip, and set up the same shot, they too will make it with no problem (including the position)

3. I'm personally a low B player. I shoot with a predator shaft. I am so used to the predator shaft, that when I shoot with a regular shaft (once a year), it seems like the spin is different. But if I set up a shot and make it and get position with my predator shaft.... I can set up the exact same shot and have another low B player that shoots with a house cue make the same exact shot and position that I did. The point is we are both familiar with our cues, and can execute the exact same shots.

So you see, if there really was a difference, there would be many shots that could ONLY be executed with XYZ brand shaft and tip combo by same level players.

 

[Rich93]

I just did Patricks test from post #73

Test equipment:

1. Scruggs butt with Predator 314-2 shaft and Sniper tip
2. Predator BK1 with unknown brand hard leather layered tip
3. Predator BK2 with original phenolic/proprietary tip
4. Dufferen house cue with unknown brand leather tip

All cues produced the exact same results. The cue ball landed exactly one ball's width away from the side pocket tittie.

I checked the chalk mark each time, and my speed was just as described to freeze on the rail.

The only thing I had to change was move the right boundary ball .5 inch away instead of .25 inches away, because it interfered with the shot.

I did not video tape it. If you don't believe me, do it yourself. It just takes a half hour.

I did suspect all the equipment would produce the same results.

And why do you want to mess up this entertaining but perfectly aimless argument with facts?

Seriously, thank you.

 

[JB Cases]

Well for what it's worth I did the test as well several weeks ago and found that pretty much all the shafts I tested put the cue ball in about the same place. It's my observation that at slow speeds any difference in rpms is going to be very slight anyway.

So I don't really see how this test proves the argument one way or the other.

In the absence of a repeatable stroking machine that is guaranteed to be able to hit the ball in the same place at the same speed there is no way to say that this test is conclusive.

It is subjective - which is also what it is when a skilled player uses two different cues and concludes that one spins the ball more than the other.

I will bet real high that Semih Sayginer will struggle A LOT to perform his artistic shots if I give him a Kmart special.

According to those who say that every cue generates the same amount of spin Semih Sayginer ought to be able to EASILY perform the shots using any cue made.

Does anyone in this forum truly believe that Semih would not have trouble to perform the shots with some cues as opposed to others?

If anyone cares to bet then I have $1000 that I will bet that Mike Massey or Semih Sayginer cannot perform their power stroke and masse shots with the same degree of accuracy with the cue I provide. That cue will have a leather tip, it will be 58" long with a normal ferrule, an off the shelf cue that is easily purchased.

We will take the shots that these gentlemen perform from publicly available videos.

Maybe Fatboy can set it up in his new Pool Paradise with the permanent TAR hookup.

 

[Cuemaster98]

Just pointing out that "proof" is a moving target. Especially in light of point #2, and the following "not good enough for me" posts.

The best I can come up with is that proof does not mean logical proof, rather it means:
"concrete impirical evidence, performced under THE TEST, judged only by PJ, illustrating a difference in spin only under exact and identical conditions except for substituting shaft X for shaft Y, not including shafts that can contact the cue ball farther on the horizontal axis (i.e., smaller diameter shafts), not including or incorporating data provided by Meucci, not including examples/tests PJ does not agree with, and not including any results similar to tests PJ has 'performed'." [Note that PJ has performed tests, and accepts his data as accurate, and refutes other data based on his results, but his tests cannot meet the identical conditions requirement, therefore his reliance is misplaced.]

Just thought I'd illustrate the difficulty in engaging in reasonable dialogue with PJ. NOT that his original question has no merit, just that discussing these things with PJ is very difficult as he is unreceptive other points and will become combative when his position is threatened, when he disagrees with someone, or when he dislikes proof, a result, a theory, or a question.

The (un?)fortunate, and ironic side effect is that some beneficial discussion takes place in spite of PJs presence...

-td

LOL...this is funny...but true.

 

[Cuemaster98]

yes

no


The subtle differences due to differences in squirt are not what we're talking about here. Besides whether squirt matters depends on how you do the comparison.

For instance, suppose I'm aiming a squirtless stick straight north and have a tip offset of 10 mm. The ball will move north and I'll have a certain spin-to-speed ratio.

Now if I take a squirty stick and aim it straight north with the same offset, I'll get a little less spin. But importantly, the ball won't travel north anymore. So this is not the right comparison. The right comparison, imo, is to hit the SAME spot on the cueball such that the ball travels north.

So the squirty stick will be facing north north east, and from the point of view of the stick the offset might be 10.5 mm. But from the point of view of the ball traveling north the offset was 10 mm. These two sticks hitting the ball at the same spot and sending the cueball in the same direction will have the same spin, imo.

An interesting question is whether a squirty stick can hit further out on the cueball (from the stick's perspective) without miscuing. I suspect it can.

But again these are subtle differences that are more-or-less understood and are not what people are talking about when they make the --WHOA I can't get used to this tip; it spins the s&*t out of the ball superspin claims.

That's why this challenge is already won by many. It's again a general statement that doesn't scientifically consider variables that may affect outcome (very ironic isn't it....this challenge is suppose to be scientific LOL).

"I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another."

If it's not stated in the challenge...why should these variables be considered? As the general statement above suggest....prove that 2 different shafts will produce two difference spin on the object ball by the same person (that how I read the challenge).

So my test was give the person the 2 different shafts and with 1 of the shaft he will produce more spin...using my center ball spin test! Or any...see which can produce more RPM (distance). Two different shaft with different type of tip will produce difference result...(regardless of variables). (force x weight x tip )= Amount of Spin... any variable changes give you a different result as logic and deduction would suggest. (even if the force is constant and delivery of shaft is constant)

If PJ pick up 2 different shaft and hit the ball with either he'll find that one will spin the ball more/longer than the other...I would think if he had one of My Magic Premium Layered Molavia tip installed on one of those shaft...he would dare to say it plays so much better and accurate

Anyway, there's nothing in the challenge for the $100 that say you need to hit the ball in the same spot...da..da...da. of course PJ constantly add new limitation to cover his flaws as he ask people to provide proof...which they do and he adds more and more limitation that doesn't even apply to the challenge. Should just be clear and scientific from the start...IMO.

"Like hitting the ball at the same spot" which you can't do with or without a machine. You can even have each shaft in a tube directed at the cue ball and it wouldn't hit the same spot.

So in my mind....this is not a scientific challenge. This challenge is flawed in many ways and test devised is also flawed. How can you ask someone to pick up 2 different or "any shaft" implying is for playing pool only and have them hit the cue ball at the exact same spot and with the same force??? This is not scientific at all.....if you have a scientific challenge...do some analysis and present the challenge more appropriately than a general statement that really lead to arguement thread about what is and isn't true. This is supposely to enlighten us and further our understanding of pool physic...comn guys..you can do better than this.

I would think a more appropriate challenge would be to take two shaft with different variables (weight, type of tips, etc)....ensure that tips curvature are the same...ensure that force is calibrated to be the same....test to see first if both shaft will hit the same spot, etc. (this is really tough already)

Anyway, there's nothing scientific about this nor is there any value to anyone....as much as there is an honest interest to learn or further understanding...I've learned nothing.

Chinese have an old saying....the more you learn, they more you realize you haven't learned anything and that really there isn't anything to learn. LOL. In that spirit... I say just hit them balls and drive them dead into the pocket!!! The only person that know the different is you when it comes to cues...just try them out. Some cues just plays better than other (Not all cues are created equal)....just so I have some value in this posting....

PLEASE CHECK OUT MY PREMIUM LAYERED MOLAVIA TIPS!!!! These are the best tips in the World....wil improve you game...less miscue...and yes allow you to produce more spin as you navigate the tip to the extreme realm.

Thanks and Happy Holidays to all.

www.customcuesandtips.com





\

 

[Colin Colenso]

Read my entire post. As I stated, using the weighted front end shaft, you have to hit very very close to center to keep from having a miscue.

Ok, I did skim it a little too quickly.

Without doing the test and seeing how the tips compared it's hard for me to know how conclusive this test would be. But I can imagine a lead weighted ferrule would make some major changes to the squirt and hence might bring in considerable losses in terms of 'effective offset' (high squirt reduces the effective tip offset) and the 'rotational retardation' (a heavier end mass resists the CB's ability to spin).

Colin

 

[cookie man]

BHE produces the most spin.

 

[rayjay]

I haven't read all of this thread, so this may be redundant or off-topic or just stupid, but I've always thought that better stroke produced better (more?) spin and that a really good shaft in the hands of a really good stroker produced really good spin...

 

[Colin Colenso]

BHE and Spin

BHE produces the most spin.

Well, BHE is actually just an aiming method, not a different way of applying spin. So, for the same tip offset, relative to the CB line of travel, the spin:speed ratio is identical for aligning with BHE or parallel or FHE. Swooping may bring in some slight effects.

Regarding BHE, one can say that the exponent can often strike the CB further off center with relatively greater confidence in accuracy. Hence they begin playing shots with higher spin speed ratios than they previously did. This is purely a result of hitting with a larger tip offset.

Colin

 

[cookie man]

Well, BHE is actually just an aiming method, not a different way of applying spin. So, for the same tip offset, relative to the CB line of travel, the spin:speed ratio is identical for aligning with BHE or parallel or FHE. Swooping may bring in some slight effects.

Regarding BHE, one can say that the exponent can often strike the CB further off center with relatively greater confidence in accuracy. Hence they begin playing shots with higher spin speed ratios than they previously did. This is purely a result of hitting with a larger tip offset.

Colin

Purely from a playing standpoint it still creates more spin.